HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceGATTISENGINEERING
ENGINEERS 4 CONSULTANTS
P.O. Box 13461 CoNege Stafim, Tee 77841 - P: 979.575.5022 F: 979.268.0150 M: 979.575.5022
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Ken Fogle, City of College Station
From: Joe I. Gattis, PE
CC:
Date; 7!2!2004
Re: Comprehensive Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Application, Lone Star Subdivision
Ken-
Attached is the Application and required two drawings. Let me know if you need anything else.
GATTISENGINEERING
ENGINEERS + CONSULTANTS
P.O. Box 13461 College Station, Texas 77841 • P: 979.575.5022 F: 979.268.0150 M: 979.575.5022
TRANSMITTAL SHEET
To: Ken Fogle, City of College Station
From: Joe I. Gattis, PE
CC:
Date: 7/29/2004
Re: Thoroughfare Amendment Plan — Lone Star Subdivision — (2 Copies)
Ken-
Let mE
Joe G
anything else. Thank you for your help.
Ken F ogle - Re: Appomattox Page 1
From:
Ken Fogle
To:
Griffin, Ron
Date:
7/27/2004 10:08:53 AM
Subject:
Re: Appomattox
Ron,
Thanks for meeting with us yesterday and for providing these comments. I understand your
disappointment as we share that same feeling. I would like to take this opportunity to update you on where
things are.
Following our meeting with you yesterday, we discussed the Appomattox Drive issue further. We decided
that our recommendation on this comprehensive plan amendment request would be for Appomattox Drive
to remain as it is shown on the thoroughfare plan. I understand your concerns about traffic cutting through
the neighborhood, but I disagree on the severity of the issue. As I said yesterday, I do not believe that the
planned retail site would generate a significant amount of cut - through traffic. I believe that the benefits
gained from the connectivity (secondary access and increased parkland opportunity) outweigh these
disadvantages.
When we communicated our recommendation to the comprehensive plan amendment applicant, they
withdrew their request. With this, this item has been pulled from the August 5th Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting and the August 9th City Council meeting agendas. At this point, they are looking at
possible layouts that include the Appomattox Drive extension. We will be working closely with them in this
process to layout this subdivision so that it compliments Windwood.
Prior to development, the developer will have to plat and rezone the property. The rezoning process will
include public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, so if
representatives from the neighborhood would like to make public comments, this will be the best
opportunity. These meeting dates will not be set until the developer requests the rezoning.
If you have any further questions or comments regarding this project, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Ken
-------------------
-------------------
Ken Fogle, P.E.
Transportation Planner
City of College Station
Phone: 979.764.3570
Fax: 979.764.3496
E -mail: kfogle(LDcstx.gov
Web: www.cstx.gov
>>> Ron Griffin < ron- griffina-tamu.edu 7/27/2004 7:46:49 AM >>>
Ken,
Upon leaving your noon meeting yesterday, a couple of us were disappointed that we were unable to leave
you with a definitive proposal. So, we'd like to put something clear on the table based on our
understanding of the desires of Windwood residents.
1. Windwood's internal discussions are progressively drawn to the option of a one -way, exit -only
connection between Appomattox (Apmtx) and Hwy 6 frontage using the existing Switch Station Road
K Fogle - Re: Appomat Page 2
(SSR) as the most acceptable alternative to leaving the roads as they are. We broached this idea at
today's mtg. and indicated it required a properly engineered, curved terminus at Hwy 6, so as to obstruct
any entry traffic at 6. Essentially, the City's gated access on SSR would be moved upstream, above
Apmtx, to allow continued City access to the switch station.
2. Our strong feelings are that any other measure involving an extended Apmtx or SSR connection would
invite Hwy 30 traffic seeking access to the Academy and future neighboring commercial areas and would
be opposed by the Windwood residents. Such through traffic would help themselves greatly, by
circumventing 4 current traffic signals, and would do significant harm to our opportunity to exit via Hwy 30
because of the cars turning left into Windwood from Veteran's athletic field, the movie theater /Sam's and
developments to the east.
3. The proposed residential developments at Horse Haven and Lone Star could be jointly laid out so that
they too have an opportunity to exit via the one -way SSR (using another properly designed, curved,
downstream- of -Apmtx access point). This would contribute a second point of egress, admittedly one -way,
for those communities. We envision a pretty, one lane road, lined with trees to combat the noise issue
involving Hwy 6 and to complement the park area.
4. Except for the option contained in 1 &3 above, we can't see a useful way to improve our access without
causing ourselves greater harms than those we experience currently. We definitely want the proposed
Apmtx extension removed from the books unless the developers can offer a residential plan consistent
with our own that does not invite through- traffic by nonresidents. We cannot imagine how such a plan
could be created at this point, given the current and proposed commercial development along the Hwy 6
frontage. Even a twisting, contorted road will be preferred by nonresidents over 4 busy traffic lights.
5. For the issue of Parks, our proposal makes an expanded Windwood park impractical, but the loss
strikes us as prudent. Only half of the present Windwood park land is well developed and rather than
expanding the amount of park land, the existing land could be improved. An alternative is to have park
land dedicated within the new subdivisions.
6. Regarding the connectivity of SSR to future commercial development on the frontage side of Lone
Star, we again must insist that there be no invitation for Windwood thru- traffic. That means that the
commercial property would have to have well engineered, exit -only access via SSR and that there be no
"jumpable" curbs or such for inventive drivers. Given the amount of highway frontage possessed by this
property, there should be ample available points of access if the one -way onto SSR is not acceptable to
Lone Star. In that case we would encourage the installation of a well landscaped strip serving as a nice
boundary between the commercial property and SSR, with no point of access whatsoever. You have
pointed out that the owners of the Lone Star property have some sort of right of way involving SSR. If that
is truly the case and no deals /condemnations can be had, then we are disappointed that the City cannot
make a positive contribution to Windwood and we revert to pt. 2 above. Perhaps the developers should
try to see that our idea above (pt. 3) adds value to their residential section.
Happy to discuss further,
Ron Griffin, 696 -8278, 845 -7049
Wilford Gardner, 693 -3399, 845 -7211
CC: Brown, Glenn; Comm., was access; ellison @txcyber.com; Fletcher, Trey; Kee, Jane;
Prochazka, Jennifer; Ruiz, Natalie; Smith, Mark; Thompson, Spencer