Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceASH & BROWNE EIYGIIYEER[NO, INC. Engineers and Consultants P.O. Boa 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979 - 846 -6914 877 - 245 -4839 Fax: 979-846-8914 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: Bridgette George Asst. Development Coordinator City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone: 979 - 764 -3570 Fax: 979 -764 -3496 DATE: April 18, 2003 RE: University Preserve Subdivision Replat ABET No.: 1042002 ATTACH. DESCRIPTION 1 Check for $900.00 for fees. 1 Final (Replat) Application with associated attachments. 3 Paid Tax Certificates 1 Copy of completed checklist 13 Replat for University Preserve Subdivision THESE ARE BEING SENT: • At your request • For your signature • For your approval • For X For your information ❑ Per our conversation • For further action as noted ❑ Per contract • For review and comment ❑ For your use • At request of ❑ Original will follow by mail REMARKS: If you have any questions, please call. Copy to: Signed. Dale Browne, Jr., P F:\Projects \1042 - Switzer Deason\002 - Replat of University Preserved Subdivision\Letters \COCS - GeorgeOl - TLetter.wpd Q;lIJ ,5+o3 ASH & BROWNE ENGINEERING, INC. Engineers and Conmumts P.O. Boa 10838, College Station, Texas 77842 979 - 846 -6914 877 - 245 -4839 Fax: 979 -846 -8914 April 30, 2003 Bridgette George Asst. Development Coordinator City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re.: University Preserve Subdivision COCS No. 03- 00500095 ABEI No. 1042002 Dear Ms. George: This letter is in response to staff review comments for the above referenced project. The numbered comments below correspond to the staff review comments. ENGINEERING (Spencer Thompson) 1. Response: Please refer to the attached revised final replat drawing that shows the unaltered, original plat. 2. Response: Please refer to the attached revised final replat drawing that shows the curve table data is applicable to the new plat. 3. Response: Please note that no easements have been moved /changed from the original plat. The north property line of Lots 11 R / Block 1 and 7R / Block 2 was moved from the original plat to the north line of the 20' P.U.E. 4. Response: Not applicable. ELECTRICAL (Ronnie Bolin) The developer was informed of these comments. Also, please find enclosed ten (10) copies of the revised final replat. IWOFFICEWrojects%1042 - Switzer Deasont002 - Replat of University Preserved SubdivisionU.etters\COCS - George02 - Letter.wpd Bridgette George April 30, 2003 Page 2 of 2 If you or any staff member has a question or needs any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ASH & B WN ENGI EERING, INC. L Al J. Dale Browne, Jr., P.E. , Attachments ' of .. DALE� J. BROWNE, JR. i A�...... ...... 81890 `o.. 9FG i ENG�`• s CC: Switzer Deason, Crux Financial Services, Inc. w/ attachment. F:\Projects \1042 - Switzer Deason \002 - Replat of University Preserved Subdivision \Letters \COOS - George02 - Letter.wpd Page 1 of 1 Susan Hazlett - Info Req in regard to 03 -95 IRINRRNRRRRRRR�RRIIRNINIR NNNRRRWRNINIRIIIRINIRRRIIWRIRRII RRINRIRNlNRI �NIlRINIpNNRI �IRIdINR gRNRNIIApIRRIRINW gRIIRIRNRXINRNIRNAIINRINIR111NANRRRRRRNIRNRNI! From: Spencer Thompson To: Bridgette George Date: 5/5/03 8:56 AM Subject: Info Req in regard to 03 -95 By Mr. Bob Jones -will pick up tomorrow PM. Traffic Study for University Preserve Application and variance letter Replat I've included a copy of the TS in the current folder. st file: //C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \GW) 00002.HTM 5/5/03 Spencer Thompson - Replat- Variance - Switzer Deason-- 5 -15 -03 Page 1 From: "philip springer" <philipdspringer @msn.com> To: < Sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 5/5/03 10:01 PM Subject: Replat- Variance - Switzer Deason-- 5 -15 -03 Please enter this message into Hearing package. I am an imediate neighbor to University Reserve- address 12036 Munson. I had no objection to Mr Deason's original Development, as Mr Deason came to our house to visit and explain and show Dee and me what he proposed to develop. He showed sketches and included was the proposed fence with brick columns. Mr Deason said that the fence would be finished on both sides, meaning that the fence would appear the same from both sides. Then, as the fence was built and the workmen pulled off the job, I called Mr Deason to ask about finishing the fence on "our" side. He replied that he was sorry but now he couldn't afford to do as he had indicated initially. I presume that this variance would result in additional financial gain for Mr Deason Wheras we once had a very pleasant pastoral view from our backyard, we now look at the backside of Mr Deasons fence. Obviously Mr Deason's word to us was worthless. I would ask that this Replat and Variance request be denied - as Mr Deason's gain will result in our continued loss Thank you Philip D Springer April 28, 2003 Dr. & Mrs. Rodney Bovey 3006 Norton Lane College Station, TX 77845 Dear Ms. Ruiz, We are writing in regard to the Replating Application of the University Preserve. We have lived in Bryan/College Station for over 40 years. Dr. Bovey is retired from USDA -ARS at Texas A &M We were so pleased to see that someone was developing the area off Munson into lots. This area has always been such a pretty and well- established and maintained district. We like it because it is close to the campus and so centrally located. There is no other area in College Station to equal the convenience and the stability. We were extremely disappointed to find out that the lots were over -sized for the type of homes that most people would be interested in building in that particular location. Since this is such an established neighborhood we believe that the people interested in this location are going to want smaller lots in order to build homes that are easier to maintain. We would be very interested in a smaller lot in this location. We would, however, not be interested in having a lot as large and as expensive as the lots are at this time. We appeal to you as a long time residents who are interested in the best development possible for this wonderful piece of property to reconsider the plat for University Preserve. Thank you, Rodney W. Bovey Nancy M. Bov j` / I c2 ?ex �r6o 71f V H/ W eK 7 7 2- O V 3 t ,��7 e-Fe�e, 1,ro 1f 7 CS c - 7;�e 11 rV 1 ��� SWITZER L. DEASON CRUX FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. - UNIVERSITY PRESERVE 2706 PINEHURST - BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 VOICE: 979.774.1 155 - FAx: 979.774.1 156 SWITZERDEASON @MSN.COM [ Letter Sent To All Recipients Of City's Notice Of The Public Hearing J May 1, 2003 Subject: Replat Request Submitted To City of College Station For University Preserve Subdivision You were notified recently by the City of College Station about a Public Hearing to be held concerning the subject request. The City Staff will be glad to answer questions; but as a courtesy, we have scheduled a meeting to answer questions in person. For this purpose, we have reserved the conference room at our attorney's office to meet on Monday, May 12, at 5:30 PM. Charles Ellison's office is located at the intersection of Southwest Parkway and Ashford Drive -- 2501 Ashford Drive, College Station (phone number: 696 - 9889). Many of the people interested in living in University Preserve have indicated a strong preference for lots smaller than the large estate -size lots originally platted — lots that require less maintenance (not necessarily smaller or less expensive homes). To make some smaller lots available for these folks, we want to add 12 additional lots to the subdivision; and to do this requires "partial variance" relief from the City's "Subdivision Regulations ". All lots in University Preserve will continue to have more than the 8,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area required for this area by the City's Subdivision Regulations. In fact, the average size of the lots in our replat request are 122% larger than the minimum 8,500 sq. ft. required by the original Moratorium Ordinance for the area, and 170% larger than the minimum lot area required by the R -1 Single - Family Zoning Ordinance. Like the near -by Grand Oaks gated subdivision on Lincoln Avenue, University Preserve will continue to be a subdivision that is completely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and the average size of the lots being replatted in University Preserve are twice the size of the lots in the Grand Oaks Subdivision. The "Traffic Impact Assessment" conducted by Joseph Blaschke for the City found that University Preserve will not create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public health and safety; and we believe the upscale homes to be built in University Preserve will enhance the character and integrity of the neighborhood, as well as increase the value of the surrounding homes. We look forward to seeing you on May 12` at Chuck Ellison's office, if you have any questions. Switzer Deason April 28, 2003 Dr. & Mrs. Rodney Bovey 3006 Norton Lane College Station, TX 77845 Dear Ms. Ruiz, We are writing in regard to the Replating Application of the University Preserve. We have lived in Bryan/College Station for over 40 years. Dr. Bovey is retired from USDA -ARS at Texas A &M We were so pleased to see that someone was developing the area off Munson into lots. This area has always been such a pretty and well- established and maintained district. We like it because it is close to the campus and so centrally located. There is no other area in College Station to equal the convenience and the stability. We were extremely disappointed to find out that the lots were over -sized for the type of homes that most people would be interested in building in that particular location. Since this is such an established neighborhood we believe that the people interested in this location are going to want smaller lots in order to build homes that are easier to maintain. We would be very interested in a smaller lot in this location. We would, however, not be interested in having a lot as large and as expensive as the lots are at this time. We appeal to you as a long time residents who are interested in the best development possible for this wonderful piece of property to reconsider the plat for University Preserve. Thank you, Rod ey W. Bovey Nancy M. Bovey W IO%-7 t (rl 7 C 's bp&), 5le- /Ap 70 cod i- �o7s (/,c w-r `ms �J `J�A,��2� A so,✓ Fr, Mm mlimomi" Lp-�l _ _ — - - __. S pence r Tho - Repla Varia - Swi tzer Deason- 5 -15 -03 Page 1 From: "philip springer" <philipdspringer @msn.com> To: < Sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 5/5/03 10:01 PM Subject: Replat- Variance - Switzer Deason--5-15-03 Please enter this message into Hearing package. I am an imediate neighbor to University Reserve- address 12036 Munson. I had no objection to Mr Deason's original Development, as Mr Deason came to our house to visit and explain and show Dee and me what he proposed to develop. He showed sketches and included was the proposed fence with brick columns. Mr Deason said that the fence would be finished on both sides, meaning that the fence would appear the same from both sides. Then, as the fence was built and the workmen pulled off the job, I called Mr Deason to ask about finishing the fence on "our" side. He replied that he was sorry but now he couldn't afford to do as he had indicated initially. I presume that this variance would result in additional financial gain for Mr Deason Wheras we once had a very pleasant pastoral view from our backyard, we now look at the backside of Mr Deasons fence. Obviously Mr Deason's word to us was worthless. I would ask that this Replat and Variance request be denied - as Mr Deason's gain will result in our continued loss Thank you Philip D Springer ,lat2? a Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat Page 1 From: "roybowman" <roybowman @cox- internet.com> To: "ahazen" < ahazen @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "dmaloney" < dmaloney @ci.college- station.tx.us >, " jmassey" < jmassey @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "John Happ" < jhapp @ci.college- station.tx.us >, " rsilvia" < rsilvia @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "Scott Mears" < smears @ci.college- station.tx.us >, " wgarner" < wgarner @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/29/03 8:32AM Subject: University Preserve re -plat Dear Mayor Silvia and City Council Members: My name is Roy Bowman and my wife, Janet, and I are the homeowners at 1205A Munson Avenue. This home is located on the corner of Munson Avenue and Lyceum Court. I have been made aware that Switzer Deason is asking for a variance in the required minimum lot width for the lots in his new gated subdivision. Up until now, Mr. Deason has done his best to accommodate the surrounding neighbors without sacrificing his project. He has adjusted the lighting at the entrance and has put it on a timer so that it is not shining all night, and he has allowed us access (through a gate into our back yard) off of Lyceum Court. As I have a strong belief in an individual's property rights, I have not attempted to interfere. However, Mr. Deason knew of the restrictions before he purchased this land and started his development. In his request for variance, he claims an undue hardship because of the lot sizes and refers to tax appraisal value of the surrounding homes. I believe the undue hardship has been caused by errors committed in his due diligence of researching his project. The largest of his lots are slightly larger than ours, which is smaller than the average Munson Avenue lot before this development was created. Property values were readily available to him before he began the development. In fact, he repeatedly told me that his development would increase our property value. That is ok by me, but as I told him since, we plan to be here a long time the effect will be to increase our taxes. He implies that the 113 feet minimum lot width required by calculating the average lot width that existed before his development should not apply because none of his lots have frontage on Munson Avenue. This is obviously faulty logic. Surely, he would not claim that the average lot width on his streets can be any width he desires since there was none prior to his building the streets I know that the city staff worked with Mr. Deason to develop a plat that would comply with city codes. I also seem to remember that Mr. Deason wanted the original plat to be similar to the newly proposed re -plat based on the requested "partial" variance. I am concerned about the increased traffic that is going to be generated when the lots in this subdivision have been purchased and developed. I am concerned that Mr. Deason is using "economic hardship" that he caused himself as an excuse for a variance. I am concerned that Mr. Deason wants to create lots that are significantly smaller than the average size lot on Munson Avenue. And, I am concerned that this might not be the end of it. If he is granted this variance, and still can not sell his lots, the next logical step is to ask for another variance and create more lots, even smaller, but all larger than the 5,000 square feet required by the R -1 Zoning Ordinance. To reiterate, I am asking that you deny this re -plat. While I believe in an ,oe Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat individual's property rights, I also believe that the individual is responsible to know the restrictions that exist on the property prior acquiring it and abide by those restrictions after acquiring it. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Roy Bowman (H) 693 -2705 (W) 696 -6776 Page 2 TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White My name is John Richards and I am the homeowner at 1210 Munson Ave.,directly across the street from the very well lighted entrance to the "University Preserve" Property. I have been in contact with Switzer Deason (applicant) periodically since the very beginning of the project and in our conversations, it has been obvious that he was fully aware of all existing city ordinances covering platting and replatting within older Residential Subdivisions (I.E. 18 -B). Knowing this, he firmly chose to fully comply with the Required lot width of I IY X 8,500 sq. ft. lot size minimum. Now, one year later, he is not happy with his results and wants to share his grief with the neighborhood. It is obvious that this is entirely a financial hardship which appears to be the result of poor marketing information, timing, or an inadequate Business Plan. I am certainly not naive enough to believe his statement that "section 18, B -2 places an "undue hardship" on citizens who want to buy a lot and build a home in that subdivision" As a current member of the ZBA, I am fully aware of our inability to approve a variance to any ordinance for financial reasons. If you have any questions of me, please call me at 696 -6095. nk yo for y tim J9h tc ards 1210 Munson Ave. College Station, Texas 77840 05 /12 /2UU3 V0: 4D MA V l`) bbL 4401 1APIL �cvvnni u. v C Please distribute this letter to members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. Thank you, I & �' Sarah Witham Bednarz 1101 Marsteller Ave College Station 693 -1068 Mobile: 979/229 -7247 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 1AMU uLuuKArni qL . J . — Sarah W. Bednarz 1101 Marsteller College Station, Texas 77840 May 10, 2003 Richard L. Floyd, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Floyd: I have received and reviewed the documents regarding the request for a replat and variance for University Preserve Subdivision (lots 1 -11, block 1 and lots 1 -13, block 2). I am writing to oppose this request. There are several reasons why this request should be denied. First, the proposed changes will lead to greater storn -water runoff. The act of dividing the property into more lots means that more of the surface will be covered with driveways, patios, sidewalks, and other impermeable surfaces, as each additional home will require these amenities. Even worse, the increase in runoff is likely to be more than proportional to the number of additional lots because, as the developer states in his request, smaller lot sizes do not necessarily mean that owners will choose to build smaller homes. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the surge of storm -water runoff will increase dramatically, especially after one of ourTrequent heavy rainfalls. Second, allowing the developer to narrow the lot widths will have a permanent impact on the neighborhood's character and its future development patterns. Allowing the lots of the University Preserve Subdivision to be narrowed does more than permit this particular developer to increase the density of the development. It will reduce the average lot width for the neighborhood so that the next development can be proposed at a higher density. It is easy to see how this process can lead to a downward spiral in minimum requirements and in long -term neighborhood viability. Third, adding homes to the development will increase traffic on a street (Munson) that is already carrying far more vehicles than it was designed to carry safely. This proposal would make a bad situation even worse. Somewhat callously, in my opinion, the developer seems to argue that the traffic is already so bad that the additional cars won't really matter. Shouldn't our goal be to improve the situation rather than to purposely allow it to worsen? Fourth, as far as I can tell from the developer's explanation, the only reason for the request is to make the development more financially viable or rewarding. Although I am sympathetic to a person's desire to make money, I do not think College Station can make land -use, zoning, or planning decisions based on what their impact might be on developers' profits. I hope that residents can rely on our elected and appointed representatives to do what is best for the long -term future of our city and its neighborhoods. Residents who take the time to become 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 TAMU GEOGRAPHY C. UUj acquainted with the city's codes expect that these rules and guidelines will be applied to new and old neighborhoods and developments alike. After all, they depend on the stability of their neighborhood to protect their largest investment, their home. I ask that you deny the request for a replat and variance for the University Preserve Subdivision (lots 1 -11, block 1 and lots 1 -13, block 2). I firmly believe that the requested change is not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the city of College Station. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Sarah W. Bednarz, President College Woodland Hills Neighborhood Association Xc: W. McMath, P. Trapani, C. Williams, S. Shafer, C. Hall, B. White TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members 5/6/03 Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to the request for re- platting the University Preserve Gated Community as proposed by Switzer Deason. The integrity of our neighborhood is vital to all residents in this area and the reduction of lot sizes from the original Plat will be detrimental to our neighborhood. City ordinance 18 -B clearly, and correctly, prohibits this request: Homeow �! ��t1g63 LI V v V-- -D � 0 P/ Name Address TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members 5 /6/03 Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to the request for re- platting the University Preserve Gated Community as proposed by Switzer Deason. The integrity of our neighborhood is vital to all residents in this area and the reduction of lot sizes from the original Plat will be detrimental to our neighborhood. City ordinance 18 -B clearly, and correctly, prohibits this request: Name N Addre Homeowner r � A , 4 re, TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members 5/6/03 Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to the request for re- platting the University Preserve Gated Community as proposed by Switzer Deason. The integrity of our neighborhood is vital to all residents in this area and the reduction of lot sizes from the original Plat will be detrimental to our neighborhood. City ordinance 18 -B clearly, and correctly, prohibits this request: c, . Address Homeowner M v fDI! O ? / � n , v 12,a -,A ct I L Es c Z�3 *R 7q� _1 G 3 C T'lu, / m. CO475O >aaaie Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat From: "roybowman" <roybowman @cox - internet.com> To: "ahazen" <ahazen @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "dmaloney" < dmaloney @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "jmassey" <jmassey @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "John Happ" <jhapp @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "rsilvia" <rsilvia @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "Scott Mears" < smears @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "wgarner" <wgarner @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/29/03 8:32AM Subject: University Preserve re -plat Dear Mayor Silvia and City Council Members: My name is Roy Bowman and my wife, Janet, and I are the homeowners at 1205A Munson Avenue. This home is located on the corner of Munson Avenue and Lyceum Court. I have been made aware that Switzer Deason is asking for a variance in the required minimum lot width for the lots in his new gated subdivision. Up until now, Mr. Deason has done his best to accommodate the surrounding neighbors without sacrificing his project. He has adjusted the lighting at the entrance and has put it on a timer so that it is not shining all night, and he has allowed us access (through a gate into our back yard) off of Lyceum Court. As I have a strong belief in an individual's property rights, I have not attempted to interfere. However, Mr. Deason knew of the restrictions before he purchased this land and started his development. In his request for variance, he claims an undue hardship because of the lot sizes and refers to tax appraisal value of the surrounding homes. I believe the undue hardship has been caused by errors committed in his due diligence of researching his project. The largest of his lots are slightly larger than ours, which is smaller than the average Munson Avenue lot before this development was created. Property values were readily available to him before he began the development. In fact, he repeatedly told me that his development would increase our property value. That is ok by me, but as I told him since, we plan to be here a long time the effect will be to increase our taxes. He implies that the 113 feet minimum lot width required by calculating the average lot width that existed before his development should not apply because none of his lots have frontage on Munson Avenue. This is obviously faulty logic. Surely, he would not claim that the average lot width on his streets can be any width he desires since there was none prior to his building the streets I know that the city staff worked with Mr. Deason to develop a plat that would comply with city codes. I also seem to remember that Mr. Deason wanted the original plat to be similar to the newly proposed re -plat based on the requested "partial" variance. I am concerned about the increased traffic that is going to be generated when the lots in this subdivision have been purchased and developed. I am concerned that Mr. Deason is using "economic hardship" that he caused himself as an excuse for a variance. I am concerned that Mr. Deason wants to create lots that are significantly smaller than the average size lot on Munson Avenue. And, I am concerned that this might not be the end of it. If he is granted this variance, and still can not sell his lots, the next logical step is to ask for another variance and create more lots, even smaller, but all larger than the 5,000 square feet required by the R -1 Zoning Ordinance. Page 1 To reiterate, I am asking that you deny this re -plat. While I believe in an .�e Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat Page 2 individual's property rights, I also believe that the individual is responsible to know the restrictions that exist on the property prior acquiring it and abide by those restrictions after acquiring it. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Roy Bowman (H) 693 -2705 (W) 696 -6776 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 TAMU GEOGRAPHY 19001 (+ b2- S'Da1a7 Please distribute this letter to members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. Thank you, Sarah Witham Bednarz 1101 Marsteller Ave College Station 693 -1068 Mobile: 979/229 -7247 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 TAMU GEOGRAPHY U002 Sarah W. Bednarz 1101 Marsteller College Station, Texas 77840 May 10, 2003 Richard L. Floyd, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Floyd: I have received and reviewed the documents regarding the request for a replat and variance for University Preserve Subdivision (lots 1 -11, block 1 and lots 1 -13, block 2). I am writing to oppose this request. There are several reasons why this request should be denied. First, the proposed changes will lead to greater storm -water runoff. The act of dividing the property into more lots means that more of the surface will be covered with driveways, patios, sidewalks, and other impermeable surfaces, as each additional home will require these amenities. Even worse, the increase in runoff is likely to be more than proportional to the number of additional lots because, as the developer states in his request, smaller lot sizes do not necessarily mean that owners will choose to build smaller homes. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the surge of storm -water runoff will increase dramatically, especially after one of our frequent heavy rainfalls. Second, allowing the developer to narrow the lot widths will have a permanent impact on the neighborhood's character and its future development patterns. Allowing the lots of the University Preserve Subdivision to be narrowed does more than permit this particular developer to increase the density of the development. It will reduce the average lot width for the neighborhood so that the next development can be proposed at a higher density. It is easy to see how this process can lead to a downward spiral in minimum requirements and in long -term neighborhood viability. Third, adding homes to the development will increase traffic on a street (Munson) that is already carrying far more vehicles than it was designed to carry safely. This proposal would make a bad situation even worse. Somewhat callously, in my opinion, the developer seems to argue that the traffic is already so bad that the additional cars won't really matter. Shouldn't our goal be to improve the situation rather than to purposely allow it to worsen? Fourth, as far as I can tell from the developer's explanation, the only reason for the request is to make the development more financially viable or rewarding. Although I am sympathetic to a person's desire to make money, I do not think College Station can make land -use, zoning, or planning decisions based on what their impact might be on developers' profits. I hope that residents can rely on our elected and appointed representatives to do what is best for the long -term future of our city and its neighborhoods. Residents who take the time to become 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 TAMU GEOGRAPHY 16003 acquainted with the city's codes expect that these rules and guidelines will be applied to new and old neighborhoods and developments alike. After all, they depend on the stability of their neighborhood to protect their largest investment, their home. I ask that you deny the request for a replat and variance for the University Preserve Subdivision (lots 1 -11, block 1 and lots 1 -13, block 2). 1 firmly believe that the requested change is not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the city of College Station. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Sarah W. Bednarz, President College Woodland Hills Neighborhood Association Xc: W. McMath, P. Trapani, C. Williams, S. Shafer, C. Hall, B. White TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White My name is John Richards and I am the homeowner at 1210 Munson Ave.,directly across the street from the very well lighted entrance to the "University Preserve" Property. I have been in contact with Switzer Deason (applicant) periodically since the very beginning of the project and in our conversations, it has been obvious that he was fully aware of all existing city ordinances covering platting and replatting within older Residential Subdivisions (I.E. 18 -13). Knowing this, he firmly chose to fully comply with the Required lot width of I IY X 8,500 sq. ft. lot size minimum. Now, one year later, he is not happy with his results and wants to share his grief with the neighborhood. It is obvious that this is entirely a financial hardship which appears to be the result of poor marketing information, timing, or an inadequate Business Plan. I am certainly not naive enough to believe his statement that "section 18, B -2 places an "undue hardship" on citizens who want to buy a lot and build a home in that subdivision" As a current member of the ZBA, I am fully aware of our inability to approve a variance to any ordinance for financial reasons. If you have any questions of me, please call me at 696 -6095. anWfo y r ime n n Richards 1210 Munson Ave. College Station, Texas 77840 � Susan Hazlett - Re: Mr. Richars & Univ. Preserve / I `j IV Page 1 From: Natalie Ruiz To: Susan Hazlett Date: 5/12/03 11:30AM Subject: Re: Mr. Richars & Univ. Preserve You can see if Spencer has time to visit with him this afternoon. (We're all booked in predev'I meetings for the afternoon.) Basically, we take the 200' dimension around the subject property. Signatures on the petition must be property owners and they must constitute 20% of that property within 200' of the replat. I'll have time to visit with him tomorrow morning, I just don't have time today. Natalie Thomas Ruiz, AICP Development Manager City of College Station Phone (979) 764 -3570 Fax (979) 764 -3496 nruiz @ci.college - station.tx.us www.ci.college-station.tx.us College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. >>> Susan Hazlett 05/12/03 10:57AM >>> He has been in every day since the beginning of Univ. Preserve. What he wants, again, is the clarification on the 20% of signatures needed to require a 3/4 majority vote. Is it land, homes, homeowners, area, etc. He will be back after lunch for the answer. Susan Hazlett < >< Staff Assistant Development Services City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 PHONE: (979) 764 -3570 E -Mail: shazlettCc — ci .college- station.tx.us FAX: (979) 764 -3496 "This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original mesage. Thank you. CC: Spencer Thompson SWITZER L. DEASON CRUX FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. — UNIVERSITY PRESERVE 2706 PINEHURST — BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 VOICE: 979.774.1 155 - FAX: 979.774.1 156 SWITZERDEASONCaMSN.COM [ Letter Sent To All Recipients Of Citv's Notice Of The Public Hearing May 1, 2003 Subject: Replat Request Submitted To City of College Station For University Preserve Subdivision You were notified recently by the City of College Station about a Public Hearing to be held concerning the subject request. The City Staff will be glad to answer questions; but as a courtesy, we have scheduled a meeting to answer questions in person. For this purpose, we have reserved the conference room at our attorney's office to meet on Monday, May 12, at 5:30 PM. Charles Ellison's office is located at the intersection of Southwest Parkway and Ashford Drive -- 2501 Ashford Drive, College Station (phone number: 696 - 9889). Many of the people interested in living in University Preserve have indicated a strong preference for lots smaller than the large estate -size lots originally platted — lots that require less maintenance (not necessarily smaller or less expensive homes). To make some smaller lots available for these folks, we want to add 12 additional lots to the subdivision; and to do this requires "partial variance" relief from the City's "Subdivision Regulations ". All lots in University Preserve will continue to have more than the 8,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area required for this area by the City's Subdivision Regulations. In fact, the average size of the lots in our replat request are 122% larger than the minimum 8,500 sq. ft. required by the original Moratorium Ordinance for the area, and 170% larger than the minimum lot area required by the R -1 Single - Family Zoning Ordinance. Like the near -by Grand Oaks gated subdivision on Lincoln Avenue, University Preserve will continue to be a subdivision that is completely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and the average size of the lots being replatted in University Preserve are twice the size of the lots in the Grand Oaks Subdivision. The "Traffic Impact Assessment" conducted by Joseph Blaschke for the City found that University Preserve will not create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public health and safety; and we believe the upscale homes to be built in University Preserve will enhance the character and integrity of the neighborhood, as well as increase the value of the surrounding homes. We look forward to seeing you on May 12` at Chuck Ellison's office, if you have any questions. Switzer Deason April 28, 2003 Dr. & Mrs. Rodney Bovey 3006 Norton Lane College Station, TX 77845 Dear Ms. Ruiz, We are writing in regard to the Replating Application of the University Preserve. We have lived in Bryan/College Station for over 40 years. Dr. Bovey is retired from USDA -ARS at Texas A &M We were so pleased to see that someone was developing the area off Munson into lots. This area has always been such a pretty and well - established and maintained district. We like it because it is close to the campus and so centrally located. There is no other area in College Station to equal the convenience and the stability. We were extremely disappointed to find out that the lots were over -sized for the type of homes that most people would be interested in building in that particular location. Since this is such an established neighborhood we believe that the people interested in this location are going to want smaller lots in order to build homes that are easier to maintain. We would be very interested in a smaller lot in this location. We would, however, not be interested in having a lot as large and as expensive as the lots are at this time. We appeal to you as a long time residents who are interested in the best development possible for this wonderful piece of property to reconsider the plat for University Preserve. Thank you, Rod ey W. Bovey Nancy M. Bovey L ERE Cd�� codl ivg Lid / S 's�yx-( I '� I- -�SR -tip C:�Il iia i 7, r y Ave 1_ - D __W "-� I Spencer Thompson - Replat- Variance - Switzer Deason-- 5 -15 -03 From: 11 philip springer" <philipdspringer @msn.com> To: < Sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 5/5/03 10:01 PM Subject: Replat- Variance - Switzer Deason-- 5 -15 -03 Please enter this message into Hearing package. Page 1 I am an imediate neighbor to University Reserve- address 1203B Munson. I had no objection to Mr Deason's original Development, as Mr Deason came to our house to visit and explain and show Dee and me what he proposed to develop. He showed sketches and included was the proposed fence with brick columns. Mr Deason said that the fence would be finished on both sides, meaning that the fence would appear the same from both sides. Then, as the fence was built and the workmen pulled off the job, I called Mr Deason to ask about finishing the fence on "our" side. He replied that he was sorry but now he couldn't afford to do as he had indicated initially. I presume that this variance would result in additional financial gain for Mr Deason Wheras we once had a very pleasant pastoral view from our backyard, we now look at the backside of Mr Deasons fence. Obviously Mr Deason's word to us was worthless. I would ask that this Replat and Variance request be denied - as Mr Deason's gain will result in our continued loss Thank you Philip D Springer 3 rawp ortation irteeri ��la� y� Joseph D. Blaschke, D. Eng., P.E., President 1008 Woodcreek Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 • 9791693 -5800 • fax: 9791693 -5870 • e -mail: tea I@tca.net April 23, 2002 The City of College Station ATTN: Mr. Kelly E. Templin, AICP Director of Development Services P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: Traffic Impact Assessment Redevelopment of Lots Along Munson Avenue Dear Mr. Templin: You have made me aware of the proposed redevelopment of existing lots along Munson Avenue in College Station near Francis Drive. It is my understanding that the proposed redevelopment would result in an additional 23 lots for single -unit residential development, and access to those lots would be from Munson Avenue. You have asked me to advise you in regards to how this proposed redevelopment would impact traffic flow conditions on Munson Avenue. This correspondence has been prepared to respond to your request. We are certainly aware of the recent history of Munson Avenue which included a period of time during which the street was closed to through traffic, and various traffic calming techi i were implemented. These modifications were in response to residents who were concerned about vehicular traffic using Munson as a "through" street. Because Munson Avenue fn', s Lincoln Avenue with Harvey Road, it will function always to some degree as a collector street and «ill accommodate some through traffic. Traffic volumes on Munson Avenue had reached volumes of close to 7,000 vehicles per day in 1990. This relatively high amount of vehicular traffic likely was due to several conditions, including construction on Texas Avenue and the presence of the Blinn College Campus on Harvey Road. Since that date, Texas Avenue is open and has six travel lanes, the Blinn Campus has moved to Bryan, and the various traffic calming techniques have proven successful. Current tratlic volumes, recently counted by Dale Picha, the city traffic engineer, are about 4,700 vehicles per day. This traffic volume is more consistent with a large neighborhood collector street. If the redevelopment is allowed to take place and all lots are developed and occupied, one would expect additional traffic to be generated. Current generation rates for single -unit residential Specializing in: Traffic Engineering Roadway Design Accident Analysis Kelly E. Ten- April 23, 200 Page 2 developments 10 vehicle trips per day. (A velucle trip is defined as a vehicle either leaving the developr; - .rriving at the development.) Hence, the additional 23 lots, when fully developed, w ;rate about 230 additional vehicle trips on Munson Avenue. Developments such as office s generate traffic volumes that have high- volume "peaks" during the morning- and evening -h ids. Such "peak" generations create more impact on the street system than developments residential homes) that spread its generated traffic throughout the day. Hence, the additional cle trips per day that would be expected from the redevelopment would be spread throug day and would have very little impact on Munson Avenue. The amount of additional trai would not be noticeable. From ngmeering perspective, the proposed redevelopment along Munson Avenue Will not gener lent additional traffic to either create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public safety. )n, no modifications to Munson Avenue would be necessary to accommodate the increased lume. Pleas( me if you have any questions. Res ectfully submitted, Joseph D. Blaschke, D.Eng., P.E. President JDB /sb xc: Dale L. I ,rf • � • ................ JOMEP D BiASC� M •.......... w� . 42204 • _ Q \ti Natalie F - University Preserve From: Chuck Ellison <chuck @ellisonlaw.com> To: "Roxanne Nemcik (E- mail)" < RNEMCIK @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/11/03 4:27PM Subject: University Preserve Roxanne I have reluctantly attached the HUD information we discussed as you requested. More importantly, I have attached the outline of Switzer's argument regarding the replat. As I told you, his reason for the meeting on Wednesday is to understand the City's position regarding the interpretation of the platting ordinance, not to threaten or pursue the HUD claim. I have discussed with him your concern about the deed restrictions and we will be prepared to discuss all issues related to the replat. It is his fervent hope that we will be able to fully and completely flush out the issues related to the replat and not have to discuss the HUD matter. Please call me if you have comments or questions. <<up definition of block.doc>> <<Expert Witness Opinion Crux Financial Services.doc>> Chuck Charles A. Ellison, P.C. P.O. Box 10103 College Station, TX 77845 -0103 (979) 696 -9889 (979) 693- 8819(fax) chuck @ellisonlaw.com Page 1 CC: "Switzer Deason (E- mail)" <switzerdeason @msn.com> Natalie Ruiz - up definition of block.doc Discussion Points COLLEGE STATION MORATORIUM ORDINANCE 1. Purpose of "Section 17. Moratorium On Certain Applications From the Original Ordinance Language: "WHEREAS, there are certain areas within the City of College Station that are served by aging infrastructure and facilities that are not designed to accommodate increases in the area density or handle additional development; WHEREAS, the existing codes and regulations related to subdivision, platting and replatting, do not adequately protect these areas from incompatible increases in density; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that development and redevelopment within older subdivisions does not exceed the capacity of existing infrastructure; now, wherefore ... As Expressed By Development Services Staff Members: " ... to protect the character and integrity of older neighborhoods in order for such areas to continue to be a desirable and enjoyable place for residents to live . . ." RESPONSE TO "NOT TO EXCEED EXISTING INFRASTRAUCTURE ": More than $800,000 was spent by University Preserve for new infrastructure and the City Council's concern about "exceeding the capacity of aging infrastructure" is a non issue for the new subdivision. The following infrastructure components were paid with private funds: new water lines, sewer lines, underground electrical service, street lights, fire hydrants, a storm sewer system serving all streets, over an acre of "controlled" detention area for assured control of all water drainage, etc. In addition, the "Traffic Impact Assessment" conducted by Joseph Blaschke for the City found that University Preserve would not create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public safety. REPONSE TO "PROTECTING AREAS FROM INCOMPATIBLE INCREASES IN DENSITY ": The Moratorium Ordinance is designed to guard against the neighborhood- eroding practice of people buying one or more lots fronting on a street in a block and subdividing the lots into smaller 50 ft. by 100 ft. lots permitted by the R -1 Zoning Ordinance. For example, the Moratorium Ordinance is designed to keep people from buying a lot with 150 ft. of street frontage in a block, and replat "three" 50 ft. wide lots to build smaller homes that threatened the integrity and character of the neighborhood. The lots replatted for University Preserve do not have frontage on an existing street and do not create "incompatible increases in density ". RESPONSE TO "PROTECTING THE CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS ": The 11.5 undeveloped acres replatted for University Preserve have no "street frontage" on any block in the Moratorium Area and were replatted to facilitate the construction of new, upscale R -1 single - family residences that substantially enhance the character and integrity of the surrounding older neighborhood of lower - priced often - deteriorating homes. II. Minimum Lot Size Defined By The Moratorium Ordinance (Section 18) of "Subdivision Regulations" Page 1 18 -B.2 ... lot ... must meet or exceed the average width of the lots along the street frontage, for all lots in the block and contain at least 8,500 square feet of space for each dwelling unit. Natalie Ruiz - up definition of block.doc III. Defining The Term "Block" For Determinine Minimum Lot Width Prescribed By The Moratorium Definition of "Block" from "A Glossary o Zoning, Development and Planning Terms" Used By Development Services To Identify The "Block" Used To Determine Minimum Lot Width " Block " — An area of land boarded by a street or by a combination of streets and public parks, cemeteries, railroad right -of -way, exterior boundaries of a subdivision, shorelines of waterways, (1) or corporate boundaries. An area of land entirely bounded by streets. -see (4)- The property abutting one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting streets (2) (crossing or terminating) or between the nearest such street and railroad right -of -way. Unsubdivided acreage, lake, river or live stream, or between any of the foregoing and any other physical barrier to the continuity of development, or corporate boundary line of the municipality. A block consists of two facing block fronts bounded on two sides by alleys or rear property lines (3) and on two sides by the centerline of platted streets, with no other intersecting streets intervening. Where blocks are unusually long or short, or of unusual shape, block length shall be determined (4) by address ranges. A unit of land bounded by streets or by a combination of streets and public land, railroad (5) rights -of -way, waterways, or any other barrier to the continuing of development. " Blockfron t "— A block front means the frontage of property along one side of a street bound on three (6) sides by the centerline of platted streets and on the fourth side by an alley or rear property lines. Definition of "Block" from the City of College Station "Zoning Ordinance" 84.1 Blocks generally shall be platted to provide two (2) tiers of lots with a utility easement or (7) alley between them, with proper regard for drainage channels, wooded areas and other topographical features lending themselves to attractive treatment. 84.2 Block length shall not exceed one thousand two hundred feet (1,200 ) in single-family (8) residential areas and shall not exceed eight hundred feet (800') in other areas. In blocks over eight hundred feet (800') in length, there may be required, near the center of the block, an access way as hereafter defined. An access way may be required at the end of a cul -de -sac to facilitate pedestrian traffic movement. RESPONSE TO STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: The lots in University Preserve are not replatted "lots along the street frontage " from other "lots in the block" — thus creating a problem for identifying "the block" to be used to calculate "the average width of the lots along the street frontage, for all lots in " ... " that block ". The "block" used by Staff for the minimum lot width calculation was a 3.4 million sq. ft. area boundared by Munson, Westover, Dominick and Holt, on which none of the lots replatted in University Preserve have street frontage — plus only 11 of these lots on the streets are located in the subdivision (Woodland Estates) from which University Preserve lots are replatted. None of the above definitions of "block" support the use of the 3.4 million sq. ft. used by Staff as "the block" for calculating "the average width of the lots along the street frontage " that resulted in a 113 ft. minimum lot width for University Preserve. To the contrary, the above definitions of "block" indicate that the two streets in University Preserve (Lyceum Court and Sanctuary Court) constitute "the block" referenced in the Moratorium Ordinance and the "only block" on which the replatted lots have "street frontage ". Page 2 2 Natalie Ruiz - up definition of block.doc For example, "block" is defined above as: (1) the "exterior boundaries of a subdivision " ( i.e. University Preserve); (2) "property abutting one side of a street and lying between the two nearest intersecting streets " (i.e. Lyceum and Sanctuary in University Preserve); (3) "two facing block fronts bounded on two sides by alleys or rear property lines and on two sides by the centerline of platted streets " ( i.e. the two block fronts in University Preserve); (4) "Where blocks are unusually long or short, or of unusual shape, block length shall be determined by address change" (on Munson, Westover, and Dominick, there are two "address changes" on each of the street spans defining "the 3.4 million square feet block" used to calculate University Preserve's minimum lot width — indicating that the span of the streets used was more than a "block "); (5) "A unit of land bounded by streets or ... any other barrier to the continuing of development" (i.e. the land in University Preserve Subdivision); (6) because the Moratorium language refers to "street frontage on a block", "Blockfront" is defined as "the frontage of property along one side of a street bound on three sides by the centerline of platted streets and on the fourth side by an alley or rear property lines " ( i.e. University Preserve Subdivision); (7) "Blocks generally provide two (2) tiers of lots with a utility easement or alley between them " (i.e. University Preserve); and (8) "Block length shall not exceed one thousand two hundred feet (1,200 ) in single-family residential areas" (i.e. University Preserve — not the 3.4 million square feet of undefined surrounding area used to calculate minimum lot width). IV. Proposed Application of Moratorium Requirements To University Preserve Subdivision The lots to be replatted for University Preserve (1) more than satisfy the original purpose of the Moratorium Ordinance (the lots "do not exceed the capacity of the aging infrastructure ", do not create "incompatible increases in density ", and the construction of upscale residences will significantly enhance the "character and integrity " of the area), and (2) the only "block" that meets the definition of the term "block" are the blocks in the University Preserve Subdivision. Accordingly, it is proposed that the lots to be replatted in University Preserve be required to satisfy the only provision of the Moratorium Ordinance that is applicable — that all lots "contain at least 8,500 square feet of space for each dwelling unit". V. Staff Interpretation Of The Moratorium Ordinance To Require A Minimum Lot Width of 113 ft. Requires Lot Buyers To Build Homes Three To Five Times The Value of Surrounding Homes The 1/1/03 tax appraisal value of the 74 homes surrounding University Preserve on Munson, Westover and Dominick is an average $98,301. The 18 homes on Munson between Francis and Dominick have an average appraisal value of $113,210, the 11 homes on Dominick have an average appraisal value of $102,096, and the 45 homes on Westover have an average appraisal value of $93,926. Land and development costs for the 22 marketable lots in University Preserve average $63,600; and lot prices start at $64,500, with an average price of $81,600. To comply with the 113 ft. minimum lot width mandated by the City, the resultant lot sizes range from 13,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. — 2.6 to 6 times larger than the 5,000 sq. ft. required by the City's R -1 Zoning Ordinance, and 1.5 to 3.5 times larger than the 8,500 sq. ft. required by the Moratorium Ordinance. Based on a 1998 survey conducted by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), 23.6 percent of the cost of a new home is the finished lot cost. Using this guideline, the total cost of a new home built on an $81,600 lot should approximate $350,000 — more than 3.5 times the average appraisal value of the 74 homes surrounding University Preserve. Correspondingly, the value of a new home built on a smaller 8,500 sq. ft. (plus) lot priced at $50,000 should approximate $212,000. Prospective lot buyers at University Preserve have expressed dissatisfaction that the City has mandated a 113 ft. minimum lot width that necessitates a $350,000+ home in a neighborhood with average home appraisal values of only $98,301. Prospective lot buyers at University Preserve may choose to build homes with values greater than $350,000 (as they have for homes in the Grand Oaks Subdivision that was replatted from the same Woodland Estates Subdivision), but they object to being forced by the City to do this — especially when this results from an application of a Moratorium Ordinance that is inconsistent with the original Page 3 Natalie Ruiz - up definition of block.doc " in purpose of the Ordinance. 4/9/03 Page 4 4 62-q5 0 � 9 ff 0 F � MAY 13 2003 IUD Memorandum May 8, 2003 TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Commission Members: Richard Floyd, Chairman Wallace McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig F..:;?I Ben FROM: Albert and Annette Casey, 1205 -B Munson Avenue, College Station. SUBJECT: Switzer Deacon's latest replat application for University Preserves At the March, 2002 meeting of the Commission , the assistant city attorney told the members their authority was limited to approving Mr. Deacon's application since it complied with relevant ordinances — "a done deal." I was embarrassed to find those of us voicing concerns were participating only in a therapy session. Please let this time be different. Mr. Deason claims financial hardship - -- -his marketing efforts have not worked. Should his commitments be honored that were made in accordance with the permission granted to him for the first replat? Should the universal rules for risk taking in business ventures be amended for this case? Are people seeking small lots limited in their search to the Munson neighborhood? Mr. Deason makes comparisons to the Grand Oaks development. The driveway (our driveway for 38 years) exiting onto Munson from University Preserves reveals a typical neighborhood scene. Exiting Grand Oaks one sees to the left the tail end of a long row of small student houses, and to the right, a hotel. Please obtain factual data concerning the impact of the proposed increase in population density on traffic and safety. John Richard's letter to the commission (6/24/02) contains such data as it applied to the first replat. I should remind you there has already been one fatal accident on our "residential street." For the above consideration,; we respectfully request that you deny Mr. Deason's applications. Thank you for your service to our city. e A" Albert and Annette Casey Page 1 of 1 Susan Hazlett - University Preserve Replat XNtlNIItlIIIpNIIIIIp�gNIp�NINNIIINNNYtlNWtlNNINNININWINNNINNINItlIN NNNNNNNIWNNINIINIRA�NI NNNNNNNIINN IINNNNNINN tl p NNINIINNNNIIMIAINNPoIINWINNI From: Spencer Thompson To: Kelly Templin Date: 5/12/03 4:05 PM Subject: University Preserve Replat CC: Brett McCully; Bridgette George; Nanette Manhart; Natalie Ruiz; Susan Hazlett Nanette has reviewed the petition information submitted for the three - fourths approval on a replat with a variance request. The petition is valid. A three- fourths majority is needed for plat approval. That comes out to 5.25 commissioners, if all are present. st Spencer G. Thompson, Jr. Development Services, Engineering City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Ph. 979.764.3570 Fx.979.764.3496 us file: //C: \WINDOWS \TEMP \GW 10000 LHTM 5/12/03 Spencer Thompson - Univ Preserve Replat/Varianc Reque _4 /,) -- P age 1 From: "Oran Mikeal" < oranm @mikealconstructiongroup.com> To: < nruiz @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 5/13/03 6:14PM Subject: University Preserve Replat/Variance Request Ms. Ruiz, I am responding to the notice sent to property owners adjacent to the University Preserve Subdivision. After reviewing the request and a copy of the proposed replat, I would request that the City of College Station Development Department encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the request based on the following reasons: 1. Mr. Deason originally sold the concept of replatting the rear 2 /3rd of lots owned by Mr. Pinnell, Mr. Boadu and Mr. Upham, by stating that they would become estate lots, not unlike the surrounding lots in the Woodland Estates Subdivision. He has marketed these lots as "the last estate lots in the Heart of Aggieland" and a "private gated community of estate homes ". Careful consideration was given last year as to how this new Subdivision would be platted to comply with governing ordinances regulating the platting of new subdivisions within existing older subdivisions. The minimum requirements were established and Mr. Deason accepted those and charged forward, content with the parameters he had been allowed to work under. 2. Mr. Deason now requests that the parameters he was given should be relaxed. Apparently the sale of lots has not met his expectations and the economics of this project were miscalculated. Those are the rules you play by as a developer. He asked for and was granted the existing plat, put in the roads and utilities, and has yet to list the property with a Realtor or with the Multiple Listing Service. The gates are continually locked and no one is allowed to casually drive through to view the available lots. It is not the responsibility of the Woodland Estates property owners to bail out Mr. Deason if his development is not as marketable as he had hoped. We should not have to compromise our properties to appease the developer. Nor is it the responsibility of the City of College Station to give a variance in order to make the property more marketable at the expense of the surrounding properties. If Mr. Deason hit the market wrong, his only alternative is to lower the cost of the lots, cut his losses, and move on. 3. Mr. Deason stated to the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as City staff that he was committed to making this development work and that he would be building his own residence in University Preserve. He has yet to break ground on his own residence. If Mr. Deason needs to jump start the sale of lots, perhaps he should follow through with his commitment to this project by starting his own residence. His reluctance to start tells the neighborhood that he is willing to sacrifice the integrity of the surrounding properties in order to relieve his economic strain. 4. The issue of drainage for this property was disputed by the surrounding properties and I can tell you personally that we were correct in our assumptions that he has added additional surface drainage onto our properties due to the miscalculations of his engineers and the acceptance of those calculations by the City staff. Recent winter rains produced run -off patterns we had not previously witnessed and caused water to rise to the point it almost entered existing homes. This is without adding impervious surfaces yet (i.e. home slabs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) which will increase the amount of run -off water. Adding additional homes by splitting lots in half will only further increase the impervious surface area and increase run -off onto surrounding lots, further compounding the pour drainage design the City allowed. I can assure you that the issue of MAY 14 2003 Spencer Thomp University Preserve Replat/Vari Request Page 2 drainage in regards to this development is not a closed matter. We have not had sufficient rains this spring to gauge the long -term effects of changing the topography behind our properties, but if the winter rains are any indication, we are facing an ongoing problem with drainage. understand from my neighbors that there is considerable indignation towards this request to replat and grant a variance to the University Preserve Subdivision. The surrounding property owners met the original division of property and replatting for University Preserve with opposition and reservations. Mr. Deason must be anticipating such opposition again as he invited us to his attorney's office to discuss any questions. It makes us wonder why an attorney is needed this early in the process. No one I spoke with in our neighborhood was willing to meet him on these terms and will not be intimidated into bending to his desires. Mr. Deason's problems are evident. He paid a premium to purchase land and spent considerable resources to bring this development to the point it is today. Obviously his lots are not selling, but that would indicate that his lots are either overpriced, the market for lots in this price range is fully absorbed or potential buyers are waiting to move into one of the golf course developments coming online later this year. Either way, it does not place the burden on the surrounding property owners to compromise our neighborhood integrity in order to alleviate his economic hardship. Nor should the City be asked to grant a variance to existing zoning requirements just to make his slice of pie more marketable. I would encourage you not to grant the requested replat and variance in consideration of the surrounding property owners. Thank you, Oran Mikeal President Mikeal Construction Group Bryan /College Station, Texas (979) 268 -6840 1011 Domink Drive College Station, Texas CC: < sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> May -14 -03 10:25am From - Ellison Law O� CHARLES A. ELLISON AMY L. CLOUGH' J. ALLAN GARRET 'also limnsod m wisconsm Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Development Services City of College Station Facsimile Number 764 -3496 RE: University Preserve Subdivision Dear Planning & Zoning Commissioners: May 14, 2003 I represent Crux Financial Services regarding its application to replat University Preserve Subdivision. A variance to Section 18 of Chapter 9 of the College Station Code of Ordinances (the "Moratorium Ordinance ") will be considered by the Commission on Thursday, May 15, 2003. Crux Financial Services engaged Dr. Gary Lacefield to evaluate the potential impact that the Moratorium Ordinance may have regarding issues covered under the Fair Housing Act, as amended. A copy of his executive summary has been provided to the College Station City Attorney. Dr. Lacefield concludes that the Moratorium Ordinance creates unjustifiable barriers to housing opportunities for protected classes in those areas of the City covered by the ordinance. The effect of the ordinance, which prevents the subdivision of land into smaller lots, reduces the availability of affordable housing for members of protected classes. The applicant is not aware of any qualitative or quantitative studies performed or commissioned by the City (as recommended by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development), which would have analyzed potential impediments to affordable housing that might have resulted by the Moratorium Ordinance. An Analysis of Impediments study is typically ordered to ensure that local governments are not creating barriers that ultimately reduce the availability of housing for protected classes in accordance with the Fair Housing Act. The Planning & Zoning Commission is urged to consider the disparate and direct discriminatory impact of this ordinance on protected classes and grant the requested variance. Ve truly yours, . 4?&.5L. Ch rtes A. Ellison 9796938819 T -705 P -01 /01 F -241 CHARLES A. ELLISON, P. C. A TTORNEYS AT LAW 2501 ASHFORD DRIVE SUITE 100 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 -4898 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 10103 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77542 -0103 TELEPHONE: (979) Ba6988fl FACSIMILE: (999) 693 881fl CAE: bg CC" Switzer Deason 03 -q5 JONES & CARTER, INC. .� Consulting Engineers 6335 Gulf4on, Suite 100 713/777 -5337 Houston, Texas 77081 -1169 Fax 713/777 -5976 May 15, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue Post Office Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Replat and Variance Request University Preserve Subdivision Dear Commissioners: Austin Office 805 Las Cimas Part way, Suite 230 Austin,'fexas 73746 -5493 512/441 -9493 Fax 512/445 -2286 Dallas Office 3030 LBJ Freeway, Suite 910 Dallas, texas 75234 -7747 972/488 -3880 Fax 972/488 -3882 MAY 15 2003 We reviewed the proposed Variance Request and Replat of the University Preserve on Munson Avenue on behalf of Millie Jones, resident of 1212 Munson Avenue. We concur with the conclusions of your staff that this replat does not meet your minimum subdivision regulations and request that you deny both the Variance and the Replat. In addition to the comments and conclusions made in your staff recommendation, we offer the following comments to reinforce the arguments for denial: Section 8 -G.5 Dead -end Streets and Section 8 -G.6 Cul -de -Sacs, of your Subdivision Regulations - Prohibit dead -end streets and limit the number of lots on cul -de -sacs to 24. Your staff advised us that University Preserve was considered to be two cul -de -sacs rather than one. Since this Variance Request would push the subdivision to 38 lots on a dead -end system, we think this issue would need to be revisited to ensure this plat would in fact meet the intention of the ordinance. If developers are allowed to branch off a single private street with a cul -de -sac that had multiple other cul -de -sac branches, you could easily have a 50- or 100 -lot subdivision on a dead -end street system. 2. Traffic considerations - During the initial platting process for University Preserve, we raised questions about the traffic impact the original subdivision would have on Munson Avenue. The replat would increase that impact by another 58 percent. Munson is a residential street under the definition of the College Station Development Guide and the Subdivision Regulations with its 27 -foot roadway cross section. By City of College Station ordinance, Munson should carry only 200 -1,000 cars per day. The traffic counts that we were provided by City staff show Munson is significantly overloaded with approximately 4,700 cars per day. The City engaged Mr. Joseph D. Blaschke, P.E., to evaluate the Munson Avenue traffic impact in April 2002. Mr. Blaschke failed to consider the City standards in his evaluation and evaluated Munson as ". . . a large neighborhood collector street." Under your ordinance and guidelines Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station Page 2 May 15, 2003 Mr. Blaschke's analysis would put Munson at the very top end of acceptable traffic loading for a Minor Collector (1,000 to 5,000 cars), not a Residential Street. The addition of the 14 lots in the proposed replat of University Preserve would add another 140 vehicle trips per day on Munson for a total of 370 cars per day from this one subdivision. Based on Mr. Blaschke's traffic counts and projections, this additional traffic impact would move Munson from traffic loading consistent with a Minor Collector to a traffic loading that matches Major Collector levels (5,000- 10,000 cars per day). This would be a totally unacceptable traffic impact by virtually any standard for a two -lane residential street. 3. Drainage - The existing University Preserve, with streets and drainage but without any houses, already causes drainage problems at the intersection of Munson and Gilchrist. The addition of the 14 projected houses, more driveways, and generally more impervious area that results from added density will further aggravate an unacceptable drainage impact. We ask that you deny the Variance Request and we request that you deny this replat and any form of the replat that would add additional traffic to Munson Drive. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, J. R. (Bob) Jones, P.E. JRJ /jys JYSURJ \MUNSON\PLANZONE051503 cc: Mr. Spencer Thompson Ms. Millie Jones ,'Natalie Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat Page 1 From: "roybowman" <roybowman @cox - internet.com> To: "ahazen" <ahazen @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "dmaloney" < dmaloney @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "jmassey" <jmassey @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "John Happ" < jhapp @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, " rsilvia" < rsilvia @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, "Scott Mears" < smears @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, "wgarner" <wgarner @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/29/03 8:32AM Subject: University Preserve re -plat Dear Mayor Silvia and City Council Members: My name is Roy Bowman and my wife, Janet, and I are the homeowners at 1205A Munson Avenue. This home is located on the corner of Munson Avenue and Lyceum Court. I have been made aware that Switzer Deason is asking for a variance in the required minimum lot width for the lots in his new gated subdivision. Up until now, Mr. Deason has done his best to accommodate the surrounding neighbors without sacrificing his project. He has adjusted the lighting at the entrance and has put it on a timer so that it is not shining all night, and he has allowed us access (through a gate into our back yard) off of Lyceum Court. As I have a strong belief in an individual's property rights, I have not attempted to interfere. However, Mr. Deason knew of the restrictions before he purchased this land and started his development. In his request for variance, he claims an undue hardship because of the lot sizes and refers to tax appraisal value of the surrounding homes. I believe the undue hardship has been caused by errors committed in his due diligence of researching his project. The largest of his lots are slightly larger than ours, which is smaller than the average Munson Avenue lot before this development was created. Property values were readily available to him before he began the development. In fact, he repeatedly told me that his development would increase our property value. That is ok by me, but as I told him since, we plan to be here a long time the effect will be to increase our taxes. He implies that the 113 feet minimum lot width required by calculating the average lot width that existed before his development should not apply because none of his lots have frontage on Munson Avenue. This is obviously faulty logic. Surely, he would not claim that the average lot width on his streets can be any width he desires since there was none prior to his building the streets I know that the city staff worked with Mr. Deason to develop a plat that would comply with city codes. I also seem to remember that Mr. Deason wanted the original plat to be similar to the newly proposed re -plat based on the requested "partial" variance. I am concerned about the increased traffic that is going to be generated when the lots in this subdivision have been purchased and developed. I am concerned that Mr. Deason is using "economic hardship" that he caused himself as an excuse for a variance. I am concerned that Mr. Deason wants to create lots that are significantly smaller than the average size lot on Munson Avenue. And, I am concerned that this might not be the end of it. If he is granted this variance, and still can not sell his lots, the next logical step is to ask for another variance and create more lots, even smaller, but all larger than the 5,000 square feet required by the R -1 Zoning Ordinance. To reiterate, I am asking that you deny this re -plat. While I believe in an .Natalie Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat individual's property rights, I also believe that the individual is responsible to know the restrictions that exist on the property prior acquiring it and abide by those restrictions after acquiring it. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Roy Bowman (H) 693 -2705 (W) 696 -6776 Page 2 a3--q TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members 5/6/03 Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to the request for re- platting the University Preserve Gated Community as proposed by Switzer Deason. The integrity of our neighborhood is vital to all residents in this area and the reduction of lot sizes from the original Plat will be detrimental to our neighborhood. City ordinance 18 -B clearly, and correctly, prohibits this request: Address Homeowner /al O Nu uSoN s /,i1 A LL ri .S- 0VI l 2-Z) r ao3 C � j 5D3 ✓l LA V, 50rl. 167v 03.."�uefe q 2 o5� M u4'/so � -' VVIQ— yes TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members 5/6/03 Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to the request for re- platting the University Preserve Gated Community as proposed by Switzer Deason. The integrity of our neighborhood is vital to all residents in this area and the reduction of lot sizes from the original Plat will be detrimental to our neighborhood. City ordinance 18 -B clearly, and correctly, prohibits this request: Homeowner N -)- o - A- M l �C ynsr -z-- c dp r /403 MIW L K, I ,a� 1 „n. 1 1, 11 Iv �, 05- 8 Name Address AW t2 ° S M(i�1S - TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members 5/6/03 Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White We, the undersigned, wish to express our opposition to the request for re- platting the University Preserve Gated Community as proposed by Switzer Deason. The integrity of our neighborhood is vital to all residents in this area and the reduction of lot sizes from the original Plat will be detrimental to our neighborhood. City ordinance 18 -B clearly, and correctly, prohibits this request: Address Homeowner 12 !r/.o ee Name SWITZER L. DEASON CRUX FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. - UNIVERSITY PRESERVE 2706 PINEHURST - BRYAN, TEXAS 77802 VOICE: 979.774.1 155 - FAx: 979.774.1 156 S WITZERDEASON@MSN.COM [ Letter Sent To All Recipients Of City's Notice Of The Public Hearing ] May 1, 2003 Subject: Replat Request Submitted To City of College Station For University Preserve Subdivision You were notified recently by the City of College Station about a Public Hearing to be held concerning the subject request. The City Staff will be glad to answer questions; but as a courtesy, we have scheduled a meeting to answer questions in person. For this purpose, we have reserved the conference room at our attorney's office to meet on Monday, May 12, at 5:30 PM. Charles Ellison's office is located at the intersection of Southwest Parkway and Ashford Drive -- 2501 Ashford Drive, College Station (phone number: 696 - 9889). Many of the people interested in living in University Preserve have indicated a strong preference for lots smaller than the large estate -size lots originally platted — lots that require less maintenance (not necessarily smaller or less expensive homes). To make some smaller lots available for these folks, we want to add 12 additional lots to the subdivision; and to do this requires "partial variance" relief from the City's "Subdivision Regulations ". All lots in University Preserve will continue to have more than the 8,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area required for this area by the City's Subdivision Regulations. In fact, the average size of the lots in our replat request are 122% larger than the minimum 8,500 sq. ft. required by the original Moratorium Ordinance for the area, and 170% larger than the minimum lot area required by the R -1 Single- Family Zoning Ordinance. Like the near -by Grand Oaks gated subdivision on Lincoln Avenue, University Preserve will continue to be a subdivision that is completely compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and the average size of the lots being replatted in University Preserve are twice the size of the lots in the Grand Oaks Subdivision. The "Traffic Impact Assessment" conducted by Joseph Blaschke for the City found that University Preserve will not create traffic congestion or cause a concern to public health and safety; and we believe the upscale homes to be built in University Preserve will enhance the character and integrity of the neighborhood, as well as increase the value of the surrounding homes. We look forward to seeing you on May 12 at Chuck Ellison's office, if you have any questions. Switzer Deason April 28, 2003 Dr. & Mrs. Rodney Bovey 3006 Norton Lane College Station, TX 77845 Dear Ms. Ruiz, We are writing in regard to the Replating Application of the University Preserve. We have lived in Bryan/College Station for over 40 years. Dr. Bovey is retired from USDA -ARS at Texas A &M We were so pleased to see that someone was developing the area off Munson into lots. This area has always been such a pretty and well - established and maintained district. We like it because it is close to the campus and so centrally located. There is no other area in College Station to equal the convenience and the stability. We were extremely disappointed to find out that the lots were over -sized for the type of homes that most people would be interested in building in that particular location. Since this is such an established neighborhood we believe that the people interested in this location are going to want smaller lots in order to build homes that are easier to maintain. We would be very interested in a smaller lot in this location. We would, however, not be interested in having a lot as large and as expensive as the lots are at this time. We appeal to you as a long time residents who are interested in the best development possible for this wonderful piece of property to reconsider the plat for University Preserve. Thank you, R od ey W Bo vey Nancy M. Bovey & OL-t� t��7 ER��,kn so 1�f �7 t /Ap/ 70 . , 77 eV,;� - op�� codl N9 Lid �S S kl- cp� �A�I � flee � �,An M2 � � � ,✓ 57 Spencer Thompson - Replat- Variance - Switzer Deason-- 5 -15 -03 Page 1 From: 11 philip springer" <philipdspringer @msn.com> To: <Sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 5/5/03 10:01 PM Subject: Replat- Variance - Switzer Deason-- 5 -15 -03 Please enter this message into Hearing package. I am an imediate neighbor to University Reserve - address 1203B Munson. I had no objection to Mr Deason's original Development, as Mr Deason came to our house to visit and explain and show Dee and me what he proposed to develop. He showed sketches and included was the proposed fence with brick columns. Mr Deason said that the fence would be finished on both sides, meaning that the fence would appear the same from both sides. Then, as the fence was built and the workmen pulled off the job, I called Mr Deason to ask about finishing the fence on "our" side. He replied that he was sorry but now he couldn't afford to do as he had indicated initially. I presume that this variance would result in additional financial gain for Mr Deason Wheras we once had a very pleasant pastoral view from our backyard, we now look at the backside of Mr Deasons fence. Obviously Mr Deason's word to us was worthless. I would ask that this Replat and Variance request be denied - as Mr Deason's gain will result in our continued loss Thank you Philip D Springer >ata1 a Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat From: "roybowman" <roybowman @cox - intemet.com> To: "ahazen" < ahazen @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, "dmaloney" < dmaloney @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, " jmassey" < jmassey @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, "John Happ" < jhapp @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, "rsilvia" <rsilvia @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "Scott Mears" < smears @ ci.college- station.tx.us >, " wgarner" < wgarner @ ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/29/03 8:32AM Subject: University Preserve re -plat Dear Mayor Silvia and City Council Members: My name is Roy Bowman and my wife, Janet, and I are the homeowners at 1205A Munson Avenue. This home is located on the corner of Munson Avenue and Lyceum Court. I have been made aware that Switzer Deason is asking for a variance in the required minimum lot width for the lots in his new gated subdivision. Up until now, Mr. Deason has done his best to accommodate the surrounding neighbors without sacrificing his project. He has adjusted the lighting at the entrance and has put it on a timer so that it is not shining all night, and he has allowed us access (through a gate into our back yard) off of Lyceum Court. As I have a strong belief in an individual's property rights, I have not attempted to interfere. However, Mr. Deason knew of the restrictions before he purchased this land and started his development. In his request for variance, he claims an undue hardship because of the lot sizes and refers to tax appraisal value of the surrounding homes. I believe the undue hardship has been caused by errors committed in his due diligence of researching his project. The largest of his lots are slightly larger than ours, which is smaller than the average Munson Avenue lot before this development was created. Property values were readily available to him before he began the development. In fact, he repeatedly told me that his development would increase our property value. That is ok by me, but as I told him since, we plan to be here a long time the effect will be to increase our taxes. He implies that the 113 feet minimum lot width required by calculating the average lot width that existed before his development should not apply because none of his lots have frontage on Munson Avenue. This is obviously faulty logic. Surely, he would not claim that the average lot width on his streets can be any width he desires since there was none prior to his building the streets I know that the city staff worked with Mr. Deason to develop a plat that would comply with city codes. 1 also seem to remember that Mr. Deason wanted the original plat to be similar to the newly proposed re -plat based on the requested "partial" variance. I am concerned about the increased traffic that is going to be generated when the lots in this subdivision have been purchased and developed. I am concerned that Mr. Deason is using "economic hardship" that he caused himself as an excuse for a variance. I am concerned that Mr. Deason wants to create lots that are significantly smaller than the average size lot on Munson Avenue. And, I am concerned that this might not be the end of it. If he is granted this variance, and still can not sell his lots, the next logical step is to ask for another variance and create more lots, even smaller, but all larger than the 5,000 square feet required by the R -1 Zoning Ordinance. Page 1 To reiterate, I am asking that you deny this re -plat. While I believe in an .ie Ruiz - University Preserve re -plat individual's property rights, I also believe that the individual is responsible to know the restrictions that exist on the property prior acquiring it and abide by those restrictions after acquiring it. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Roy Bowman (H) 693 -2705 (W) 696 -6776 Page 2 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 TAMU GEOGRAPHY R001 � d2- s'Da)'07 Please distribute this letter to members of the Planning and Zoning Commission as soon as possible. Thank you, Sarah Witham Bednarz 1101 Marsteller Ave College Station 693 -1068 Mobile: 979/229 -7247 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 TAMU GEOGRAPHY Sarah W. Bednarz 1101 Marsteller College Station, Texas 77840 May 10, 2003 Richard L. Floyd, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commission College Station, Texas fa 002 Dear Mr. Floyd: I have received and reviewed the documents regarding the request for a replat and variance for University Preserve Subdivision (lots 1 -11, block 1 and lots 1 -13, block 2). I am writing to oppose this request. There are several reasons why this request should be denied. First, the proposed changes will lead to greater storm -water runoff. The act of dividing the property into more lots means that more of the surface will be covered with driveways, patios, sidewalks, and other impermeable surfaces, as each additional home will require these amenities. Even worse, the increase in runoff is likely to be more than proportional to the number of additional lots because, as the developer states in his request, smaller lot sizes do not necessarily mean that owners will choose to build smaller homes. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that the surge of storm -water runoff will increase dramatically, especially after one of our frequent heavy rainfalls. Second, allowing the developer to narrow the lot widths will have a permanent impact on the neighborhood's character and its future development patterns. Allowing the lots of the University Preserve Subdivision to be narrowed does more than permit this particular developer to increase the density of the development. It will reduce the average lot width for the neighborhood so that the next development can be proposed at a higher density. It is easy to see how this process can lead to a downward spiral in minimum requirements and in long -term neighborhood viability. Third, adding homes to the development will increase traffic on a street (Munson) that is already carrying far more vehicles than it was designed to carry safely. This proposal would make a bad situation even worse. Somewhat callously, in my opinion, the developer seems to argue that the traffic is already so bad that the additional cars won't really matter. Shouldn't our goal be to improve the situation rather than to purposely allow it to worsen? Fourth, as far as I can tell from the developer's explanation, the only reason for the request is to make the development more financially viable or rewarding. Although I am sympathetic to a person's desire to make money, I do not think College Station can make land -use, zoning, or planning decisions based on what their impact might be on developers' profits. I hope that residents can rely on our elected and appointed representatives to do what is best for the long -term future of our city and its neighborhoods. Residents who take the time to become 05/12/2003 08:25 FAX 979 862 4487 TAMU GEOGRAPHY Z003 acquainted with the city's codes expect that these rules and guidelines will be applied to new and old neighborhoods and developments alike. After all, they depend on the stability of their neighborhood to protect their largest investment, their home. I ask that you deny the request for a replat and variance for the University Preserve Subdivision (lots 1 -11, block 1 and lots 1 -13, block 2). I firmly believe that the requested change is not in the best interest of the neighborhood or the city of College Station. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Sarah W. Bednarz, President College Woodland Hills Neighborhood Association Xc: W. McMath, P. Trapani, C. Williams, S. Shafer, C. Hall, B. White TO: College Station Planning and Zoning Members Richard L. Floyd Wallis McMath Phil Trapani Carolyn Williams Scott Shafer Craig Hall Ben White My name is John Richards and I am the homeowner at 1210 Munson Ave.,directly across the street from the very well lighted entrance to the "University Preserve" Property. I have been in contact with Switzer Deason (applicant) periodically since the very beginning of the project and in our conversations, it has been obvious that he was fully aware of all existing city ordinances covering platting and replatting within older Residential Subdivisions (I.E. 18 -13). Knowing this, he firmly chose to fully comply with the Required lot width of 11Y X 8,500 sq. ft. lot size minimum. Now, one year later, he is not happy with his results and wants to share his grief with the neighborhood. It is obvious that this is entirely a financial hardship which appears to be the result of poor marketing information, timing, or an inadequate Business Plan. I am certainly not naive enough to believe his statement that "section 18, B -2 places an "undue hardship" on citizens who want to buy a lot and build a home in that subdivision" As a current member of the ZBA, I am fully aware of our inability to approve a variance to any ordinance for financial reasons. If you have any questions of me, please call me at 696 -6095. P i yo fo chards 1210 Munson Ave. College Station, Texas 77840