HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/2011 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning Commission
(*400r~
C;rr Ct.~la i~:< 1. ST--0N MINUTES
Home A&Aft.(niversiry' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Workshop Meeting
January 6, 2011, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Jodi Warner,
and Bo Miles
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Scott Shafer, Hugh Stearns, and Doug Slack
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana McMillan
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Prochazka, Jason Schubert, Matt Robinson, Lauren Hovde,
Matthew Hilgemeier, Joe Guerra, Josh Norton, Erika Bridges, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock,
Lance Simms, Bob Cowell, Carla Robinson, Kerry Mullins, and Brittany Caldwell
1. Call the meeting to order.
Acting Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
2. Discussion of consent and regular agenda items.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission and Staff reg arding Regular
Agenda Items 6 and 8.
3. Discussion of Minor and Amending Plats approved by Staff.
• Amending Plat for Saddle Creek Subdivision Phases 3 and 5
• Amending Plat for Duck Haven Phase 3, Block 4, Lot 5R
• Amending Plat for the Indian Lakes Subdivision, Phase 8, Block 15, Lot 21 R
There was no discussion.
4. Discussion of Plats approved by no action taken.
• Final Plat for Letbetter Subdivision Phase 1
Director Cowell stated that this item was automatically approved because it fell beyond
the 30 day requirement before it could be heard by the Planning & Zoning Commission
due to a scheduling error.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the development and status of
items within the draft 2011 P&Z Plan of Work (see attached). (JS)
January 6, 2011 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 3
Senior Planner Schubert gave an update regarding the draft 2011 P&Z Plan of Work.
6. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the 2010 Existing Conditions
Report. (MKH)
Staff Planner Hilgemeier gave a presentation regarding the 2010 Existing Conditions
Report.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the Existing Conditions
Report.
7. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an update on the following items:
• A rezoning for Lot 2R, Block 2 of the Pooh's Park Subdivision, being 1.317 acres
located at 300 A Holleman Drive East, located on the south side of Holleman Drive,
east of Lassie Lane, from PDD Planned Development District to PDD Planned
Development District to modify the concept plan. The Planning & Zoning
Commission heard this item on 18 November and voted 5-1 to recommend approval
with conditions. The City Council heard this item on 9 December and voted 7-0 to
approve the rezoning as recommended by the Commission.
There was no discussion.
8. Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding the P&Z Calendar of Upcoming
Meetings.
• January 11, 2011 - Joint City Council Meeting with Planning & Zoning Commission
Council Chambers - 4:00 p.m.
• January 13, 2011 - City Council Meeting - Council Chambers - 7:00 p.m.
• January 20, 2011 - P&Z Meeting - Council Chambers - Workshop 6:00 p.m. and
Regular 7:00 p.m.
Director Bob Cowell reviewed the upcoming meeting dates for the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
9. Discussion, review and possible action regarding the following meetings: Design Review
Board, Council Transportation Committee, Joint Parks/Planning and Zoning
Subcommittee, Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee, Platting Requirements and
Standards Subcommittee, Neighborhood Plan Stakeholder Resource Team, Code
Coordination Subcommittee, and Mayor's Development Forum.
There was no discussion.
10. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member
may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
January 6, 2011 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 3
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation
shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
Acting Chairman Ashfield asked for a future agenda item regarding an update on the
Wolf Pen Creek water feature and the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee.
11. Adjourn.
Commissioner Warner motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hall
seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
Approved•
Scott afer, Ch ' an
Planning oning Commission
Attest:
Brittan , Cal ell, Admin. Support Specialist
Planning and Development Services
January 6, 2011 P&Z Workshop Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 3
(*hr""
CITY 01: C,t)1.IYGE S-f.-VTiC?\ MINUTES
Home of llxas.4&A4 Univer'ir'' PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
January 6, 2011, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Acting Chairman Mike Ashfield, Craig Hall, Jodi Warner,
and Bo Miles
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Scott Shafer, Hugh Stearns, and Doug Slack
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Jana McMillan
CITY STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Prochazka, Matt Robinson, Lauren Hove, Matthew
Hilgemeier, Joe Guerra, Erika Bridges, Josh Norton, Alan Gibbs, Molly Hitchcock, Lance
Simms, Bob Cowell, Carla Robinson, Kerry Mullins, and Brittany Caldwell
1. Call meeting to order.
Acting Chairman Ashfield called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Hear Citizens.
None
3. Consent Agenda.
3.1 Consideration, discussion, and possible action on Absence Requests from
meetings.
• Scott Shafer - January 6, 2011
• Doug Slack -January 6, 2011
• Hugh Stearns - January 6, 2011
3.2 Consideration, discussion, and possible action to approve meeting Minutes.
• December 13, 2010 - Special Workshop
• December 16, 2010 Workshop
• December 16, 2010 - Regular
3.3 Presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat of Callaway
Subdivision Phase 3, including 1 lot on 17.653 acres, located at 101 Luther Street
West, southeast of the intersection of Marion Pugh Drive and Luther Street West.
Case # 10-00500264 (JP)
January 6, 2011 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6
Acting Chairman Ashfield stated that he had contacted staff and requested that minor
changes be made to the December 16, 2010 Regular meeting minutes.
Commissioner Miles motioned to approve Consent Agenda Items 3.1 - 3.3 with the
condition that Mr. Ashfield's recommended changes are made to the December 16,
2010 Regular meeting minutes. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion
passed (4-0).
Regular AlIenda
4. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on items removed from the Consent
Agenda by Commission action.
No items were removed from the Consent Agenda.
5. Presentation, possible action, and discussion of Waiver requests to Section 8.2.A.10 of
the Unified Development Ordinance related to block length, and presentation, possible
action, and discussion of a Preliminary Plat of the Scott & White Healthcare Subdivision,
including 9 lots on 97.69 acres, located at 4005 State Highway 6 South, southeast of the
intersection of Rock Prairie Road and State Highway 6 South. Case # 10-00500260 (JP)
Senior Planner Prochazka presented the waivers regarding block length and
recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat if the requested waivers were approved.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the requested waivers
and plat.
Commissioner Miles motioned to approve the waiver requests. Commissioner Hall
seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
Commissioner Miles motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat. Commissioner Hall
seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
6. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion on a Final Plat of the
Randall's University Park Subdivision Lots 3R-2A Thru 3R-2E being a replat of the
Randall's University Park Subdivision, Lot 3R-2 consisting of 5 lots on 3.37 acres,
generally located near the intersection of Chimney Hill Drive and Arguello Drive. Case
#10-00500267 (MKH)
Staff Planner Hilgemeier presented the replat and recommended approval with the
condition that the following note be added to the plat regarding the 10-foot Pedestrian
Park Access Easement:
At present, the only access to the adjoining park, Billie Madeley Park, is from the City of
Bryan. Providing access via the Pedestrian Park Access Easement will allow the City of
College Station Parks and Recreation Department to construct a sidewalk from the street
January 6, 2011 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6
system in College Station to the park when funds become available. The property owner
is not required to construct any sidewalk to the park.
Rabon Metcalf, RME Consulting Engineers, stated that he was available to answer
questions.
Acting Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing.
Patrick Gendron, 205 Lampwick, College Station, Texas, stated that there was not a
power of attorney that accompanied the application that was signed by Rabon Metcalf,
who is not the owner.
Planning Administrator Hitchcock verified that there was a power of attorney, as well as
an application that was signed by the owner's representative, Barrera Marcelino Diaz.
Mr. Gendron said that he believed that the item should be tabled since that information
was not made available to the public in the packet.
First Assistant City Attorney Robinson stated that there is a legal issue when tabling a
plat because if it is not heard or approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission within
30 days of the date it is filed, it is deemed approved by operation of law.
Mr. Gendron then said that the notification that was mailed out to the homeowners in the
area did not include Subsection C of 212.015 Additional Requirements for Certain
Replats of the Local Government Code, which is required.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission and Staff regarding the
requirements of Subsection C being included in the notifications mailed to the
homeowners.
Acting Chairman Ashfield recessed the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Acting Chairman Ashfield reconvened the meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Director Cowell said that the technical merits of the notification may be deficient by not
including Subsection C, and the applicant has agreed to withdraw the item. He said that
Staff would renotify the homeowners and the item would be heard at the February 3,
2011 Planning & Zoning meeting. He stressed that if the plat meets the subdivision
elements of the Unified Development Ordinance, which he believes it will, then the plat
will have to be approved.
Mr. Metcalf stated that he had spoken to the owner of the property and the owner
asked that his item be withdrawn.
7. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding a Final Plat of the
Bald Prairie Subdivision, Lots 9R1-9R11, being a replat of Bald Prairie Subdivision, Lot
January 6, 2011 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6
9, consisting of II lots on 2.93 acres, located at 13881, 13889 and 13909 Renee Lane.
Case # 10-00500192 (JP)
Senior Planner Prochazka presented the replat and recommended approval as proposed,
including the discretionary item related to right-angle lots.
Acting Chairman Ashfield asked if the rear yards of the right-angle lots would abut,
rather than the side yard abutting a rear yard.
Rabon Metcalf, RME Consulting Engineers, stated that the rear yards of the right-angle
lots would abut, with the exception of Lot 9R9. He said that the side yard would abut a
rear yard due to easements.
Acting Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing.
No one spoke during the public hearing.
Acting Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing.
Acting Chairman Ashfield motioned to approve the replat and the discretionary
item. Commissioner Warner seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
8. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to
the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4 "Business Regulations," related to Mobile Food
Vendors. Case # 10-00500247 (LH)
Staff Planner Hovde presented the amendment regarding Mobile Food Vendors.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendment.
Acting Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing.
Chris Scotti, 770 Gettysburg Court, College Station, Texas, stated that he represents a
majority of the businesses in Northgate. He said that overall the ordinance fits well with
the pedestrian character of Northgate, but he is concerned about the fees being too high.
He also suggested that there be some relaxation of how long a mobile food vendor can
operate on private property. Due to roads being closed in Northgate during certain hours
of the night, it would be impossible for vendors to be off of certain properties within the
three-hour time limit.
Tai Lee, Chef Tai's Mobile Bistro, stated that he is concerned about the 300-foot buffer
zone being too restrictive, but said that competing companies do need a restrictive buffer
zone. He also said that you should be required to work out of a kitchen that is inspected
by the Health Department to operate a mobile food truck.
Don Plitt, Brazos County Health Department, stated that there are a large number of
illegal mobile food vendors in the area. He said that they are cutting corners and the
January 6, 2011 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6
public's health could be in jeopardy. He is concerned about more complaints coming in
to the Health Department if mobile food vendors are allowed to operate throughout the
year.
Acting Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Warner suggested that there be public outreach to inform citizens about
the requirements of mobile food vendors.
Acting Chairman Ashfield said that it seems plausible to have a separate section in the
Unified Development Ordinance that pertains to mobile food vendors in Northgate. He
also asked that the buffer concerns that Tai Lee discussed be considered.
Commissioner Hall stated that the Health Department needs a chance to participate with
the City in the creation of the ordinance. He said that he was concerned about
enforcement and being able to confirm that a mobile food vendor was in compliance. He
suggested that a letter from the property owner stating that the truck is allowed to operate
on the property be required to be posted on the truck and be visible to the public, as well
as a permit from the Health Department. He said that a sitting area should not be allowed
and the mobile food vendor needs to be responsible for cleaning the area before leaving.
He suggested that there be a requirement for trash cans.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendment.
Acting Chairman Ashfield asked that Items 8 and 9 be brought back to the
Commission with consideration of the concerns that were discussed.
9. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to
the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 11.2 "Defined Terms" related to Mobile
Food Vendors. Case # 10-00500247 (LH)
This item was presented with Item 8.
10. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to
the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4 "Business Regulations" related to Itinerant Vendors.
Case # 10-00500284 (LH)
This item will be heard at a future meeting.
11. Public hearing, presentation, possible action, and discussion regarding an amendment to
the Unified Development Ordinance, Sections 6.2 "Types of Uses", 6.3 "Specific Use
Standards", and 11.2 "Defined Terms" related to Micro-Industrial Uses. Case # 10-
00500248 (MR)
Senior Planner Robinson presented the amendment regarding Micro-Industrial Uses.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendment.
January 6, 2011 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6
Acting Chairman Ashfield opened the public hearing.
Rick Leopold, 8103 Bunker Hill Court, College Station, Texas, stated that he is interested
in starting a micro-winery and looking to locate in a retail space. He said that most
micro-wineries are located in retail spaces and he expects for the bulk of sales to be retail
sales.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding micro-wineries and
other micro-industrial uses.
Acting Chairman Ashfield closed the public hearing.
There was general discussion amongst the Commission regarding the amendment.
Commissioner Warner motioned to recommend approval of the amendment.
Commissioner Miles seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
12. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items - A Planning and Zoning Member
may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific
factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation
shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
Acting Chairman Ashfield asked that there be an agenda item at the next Planning and
Zoning meeting addressing whether Subsection C of 212.015 Additional Requirements
for Certain Replats of the Local Government Code, is required or not.
13. Adjourn.
Commissioner Warner motioned to adjourn the meeting. Acting Chairman Ashfield
seconded the motion, motion passed (4-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m.
Approv
Scott S irman
Planning and Zoning Commission
(Attest: 1~~ zw~
Britta C well, dmin. Support Specialist
Planning and Development Services
January 6, 2011 P&Z Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6
ation Form
Registr ess the Comnussion)
(For persons who wish to addr
Date of meeting f
Agenda Item No.:
-eo o
Name.
Address: zation:
for an organization, name Of °rgani
If speaking
p t))1'~
Speaker's official capacity:
ishes to speak:
Subject on which person w
D ab
as soon as you are
to the Po~um completed
remember to step up hand your name and y
Please the chairperson, State your
reco forgnized orm to the Presiding officer. If ouhav
inning our resenta the oCol.~ssion,
registration e
before beg~ preset pt to
your residence 'wish to p
written notes yo" E~-rgA COPY FOR PLANNING
PLEASE FURNISH AN
FILES.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Comnv sion)
Date of meeting
Agenda Item No-*7~
C
Name: I e-4
Address:
;
name-of organization'
If speaking for an organization S
o~~l.~a~C In>s ~
Speaker's official capacity:
Subject on which person wishes to speak: C(-
s- l Jn,~~~ p~
OU are
to the podium as Your
d
Please remember to step up complete
erson, hand y
recognized es °n as y
zed by the ch esi name and
re ding officer. State your
to the pr presentation. If you have
registration form ion,
your residence befu ewl g'n o peeto the FOR Commission,
PLEASE written notes FURNyISoH AN EX1RA COPY
FILES.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of meeting: 116 (it
Agenda Item No.:
Name: S 7 ~!F
IV a~2
t 6df1i Address
If speaking for an organization, name of organization:
CC'C4 r L
Speaker's official capacity: 0444 '
Subject on which person wishes to speak:
Please remember to step up to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chairperson, hand your completed
registration form to the presiding officer. State your name and
your residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to
AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
PLEASE FURNISH
FILES.
Registration Form
(For persons who wish to address the Commission)
Date of meeting:
Agenda Item No.:
Name: -P,- fb ( T I
r!4
/J; T l~
Address:
Tpeaking for an or anizt#n, name of or anization:
Spea er' fficial capacity
u}pje on which pe on wishes to speak:
Please remember to step up to the podium as soon as you are
recognized by the chairperson, hand your completed
registration form to the presiding officer. State your name and
your residence before beginning your presentation. If you have
written notes you wish to present to the Commission,
PLEASE FURNISH AN EXTRA COPY FOR PLANNING
FILES.
FLANAING & ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST GIS R
MEETING DATA' •~DA UOU
1VAME ADDRESS
2. e tit IAtl~ L a o ~7 f r a c i rz. ~~r M e (-f 1 L
of f s o Zoe ~ 5 ~ C,
An
4. .ti of ~
5. cs M
S.✓~
9. _ l (FLt f c ~I~
11. yn~ G{it~l ~a eO .401)111 C.
1 - J It ti L
-F s C~ CS
14.
15. 435
12Mai &~g ('4, r L
17. ►LL L00 e l Sl C`~3 ~c,i Ct. ~S
18. I~ye Lei 3n ~C~,• f Lt C S
19.
21. r1 1v fZi `
22
Le Ove AP~AiZ 0 5;
24. t IJ (n L-Lu N h 4 z L1 7 .n1 -l , 1
25. _ y1,~ ,
A 2 Lz
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
GUEST REGISTER
MEETING DATE 2~ l
NAME ADDRESS cA iln ,u/
T"< 7 c~S
O.L
J) ait(
7. L t~~2 tx_ 1. De
G
9. ~r~ , ~r tiu1 l V
12. l r /J'"'r~i-y2S~~ M &,S 779~~
d. le
14. LL LAj P\ qj 1 -7
W L bl~
16. U 4- L'( ,j
G1, ( Z Vl c VI e . ( ' r/~
17.
19.
20.
21.
22.
?3.
24.
25.
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Fwd: Oppose the replat
From: <j ohnwagner@verizon. net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>, <mhilgemeir@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/6/20114:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Oppose the replat
CC: <josepharmon@msn.com>
This is to confirm that John P. Wagner and Carol A. Wagner
of
203 Emberglow Circle
College Station, TX 77840
Phone 979-846-7077
oppose the replatting of Chimney Hill.
Jan 5, 2011 04:17:18 PM, josepharmon@msn.com wrote:
Please call and e-mail the Planning & Zoning Commission to register your opposition to the replat of
the property on Chimney Hill Drive.
,Just tell them you oppose the replat in the Chimney Hill area. It is Agenda Item # 6 on the January 6,
2011 P&Z Agenda.
If we get 100 people calling in to oppose the replat, that will make a tremendous difference because
city staff will keep tabs on the numbers and report such to the P&Z Commission.
Talk to Brittany Caldwell or Matthew Hilgemeier at 764-3570
E-mail both of them at bcaldwell@cstx.gov_ and m_h_ilgemeier@cstxgov
Give them your name and address when calling or e-mailing.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D25F 1 BXit... 1/6/2011
January 3, 2011
Commissioners Ashfield, Hall and Miles
Howdy Commissioners:
Unfortunately I will be out of town for the P and Z meeting this Thursday, as will a number of my
neighbors. Our main concern on the re-plat is compatibility with the rest of the neighborhood and
safety of our residents. Although the Chimney Hill area is small, we have 4 different HOAs. On
the north side of Chimney Hill Drive (where the re-plat is being considered) all of the homes (35+
in number) are single family homes on a single lot. The other residences in the neighborhood on
the South of Chimney Hill Drive are either town homes or zero lot line patio homes.
The common thread throughout the entire neighborhood is home size and building materials. All
residences require a minimum of 2200 square feet if the home is single story or 2400 square feet
if it is two-story. There are several homes that exceed 5000 square feet and many that exceed
4000 sq. feet. Exterior materials need to be a minimum of 50% brick or stone. All residences
must have a two-car attached garage. If the garage is facing the street, then there is an
additional 15 foot setback from the front of the home. No cars are allowed to park on the street
overnight in the deed restrictions of all 4 HOAs.
My husband and I built the first home in the neighborhood on Lot 7, 29 years ago and are close
to the subject property. Our neighbors are mostly like us, empty nesters. We have several
families with small children and some with pre-teens and teenagers. It is a wonderful and friendly
neighborhood where a large percentage of us walk in the streets daily and the kids play in the
streets as well. Many are retired.
If the re-plat will create homes that are in keeping with the neighborhood standards, we have no
objection. However, if the homes to be built do not meet those standards we are opposed.
Thank you for your service to the city and thanks for considering my comments above.
Nancy Berry
202 Lampwick Circle
College Station, TX 77840
Past President and current board member, Chimney Hill Improvement Association
r
Dr. John M. Nichols
445 Chimney Hill Drive
College Station
Texas 77840-5800
30 December 2010
The Mayor
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station
Texas
Dear Mayor Berry:
I normally do not become involved in local politics because of my prior work for local government
authorities for many years on drainage, planning and transportation matters. Since 1 moved with my
family to College Station in 20021 have only corresponded with the Mayor on a single occasion
about a development issue in Chimney Hill. The previous letter concerned the rezoning application
for a block of land at the end of Chimney Hill, which occurred I believe in the last two years.
I assume that my previous letter on this matter is available to you, so that i do not have to repeat all
of the calculations and observations about this matter. In my previous letter, I raised a number of
matters about the drainage for this land at the western end of Chimney Hill Drive, which is a part of
the general drainage system for the area immediately upstream of the proposed development of
land.
I have reviewed the current application information available and again raise the following concerns
about this property:
1. As a home owner I am situated about 60 metres from the land in question. In all the time
this applicant has tried to rezone the property, the applicant has never made any attempt to
contact either myself or I believe our home owners associations. Considering the severity of
the concerns I raised about the drainage in my last letter, and given the distinctive change in
nature of the proposed development from the current character of the area, one would
assume that good planning practice would be to sit down with the local population to listen
to their concerns. A second point is to address the planning issues in advance not in arrears.
2. The plan forwarded by Council shows a purported 100 year flood line.
3. A watercourse flows through this proposed development site, and in the strict legal sense
this unnamed watercourse is defined in accordance with the common law definition of a
watercourse, being bed, banks and water. This watercourse meets these criteria, as I have
never observed the watercourse dry. A watercourse is by definition in the 100 year flood
plain, as the 100 year flood plain concept was developed to overcome the limitations of the
common law. I would refer you to Howarth's book and Angel's book on this matter, which as
far as I understand from my time in courts on these types of matters are the definitive
tracts.
4. A significant portion of this land is below the legal definition for a 100 year flood plain and as
such should be excluded from development.
5. At some point, before 1 arrived in College Station, a detention basin was erected at the
immediate upstream end of the subject property. The detention basin has:
a. Dangerous side slopes, much steeper than is normally allowed for in this type of
design
b. A depth well past the drowning level for young children, which again is a problem if
one considers that we should be designing to accepted standards
c. An outlet that has a strong potential for white water scour and is not designed for
child safety. White water scour is a particularly nasty form of erosion that occurs in
large storm events at the downstream end of hydraulic structures, such as is
constructed in reinforced concrete at the western end of Chimney Hill.
d. This type of scour has the potential to undermine the wall, with serious
consequences for all downstream.
e. Excessive velocities and depths at the outlet, given its position next to a park area,
again well outside accepted standards
f. This is not the only location in College Station that has hydraulic structures that
present a clear and present danger to children, the elderly and the sick.
6. The drainage system needs to be designed for the lots before the land is subdivided so that
Council has obtained sufficient land for the works. The cost for an acceptable drainage
system will be significantly greater than the return on the land.
I have completed many of these cost studies, and would never have recommended that any of my
clients touch such a block of land.
In the end, it would appear that the land owner will learn the true cost of the drainage system and
will either not proceed or assume that council will ultimately bear the cost. I fail to see why the
citizens of College Station should accept a liability that will run to at least six figures. It would be
cheaper to purchase the lot and turn it into parkland - detention basin, serving the community.
I would suggest that the matter be deferred until these issues can be addressed. I also suggest that
the applicant meet with the local associations to try and understand their perspective.
Yours faithfully
John Ni hols, BE, MIE(Aust), Chartered Professional Engineer
r
Ilk
A
4pao
lit,
From: <dejesusalma@yahoo.com>
To: <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
CC: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/6/2011 4:25 PM
Subject: Chimney Hill
Dear Mr. Hilgemejer.
Please note that I am a resident at 205 Lampwick and I oppose the replat of the Chimney Hill property on
the January 6, 2011 agenda of the P&Z Commission (Regular Agenda Item # 6).
Alma DeJesus
979-739-8081
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Page I of I
Brittany Caldwell - Replat of Chimney Hill Subdivision
From: DAVID DAMIAN <damianmd@msn.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/6/20113:59 PM
Subject: Replat of Chimney Hill Subdivision
To whom it may concern
I am writing to voice my opposition to the replat of the chimney hill subdivision.
Sincerely
Anna Damian
204 lampwick Circle
College Station, TX 77840
file:HC:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D25E6FECit... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Chimney hill Subdivision
From: DAVID DAMIAN <damianmd@msn.com>
To: <bcaldwell@csbc.gov>
Date: 1/6/20114:01 PM
Subject: Chimney hill Subdivision
To whom it may concern
I am writing to voice my opposition to a replat of the Chimney Hill Subdivision.
Sincerely
David Damian
204 Lampwick Circle
College Station, TX 77840
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D25E749City... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell
From: "Phil Stephenson" <pttephenson@athletics.tamu.edu>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/6/2011 1:23 PM
CC: <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
I would like to register my opposition to the Replat in the Chimney Hill area.
I see no reason why student housing should be placed in a such a quiet residential area. Surely there must be a
place for these properties where current students already live.
Thank you
Phil Stephenson
Assistant Soccer Coach
Texas A&M University
M 979-574-6443
O 979-862-4917
file: //C: \Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D25C23CCit... 1/6/2011
Page Iof l
Brittany Caldwell - objection to replat
From: Nicole Zacharia <nzacharia@tamu.edu>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>, <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/6/2011 8:25 AM
Subject: objection to replat
I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed replat of the land behind the Albertson's in
Chimney Hill. I live at 417 Chimney Hill Dr. Allowing rental property to exist there would significantly
disrupt the character of the neighborhood. College Station already has an excess of student rental
property. There is no need to add more in what is a single family neighborhood, which can only result in
lowering property values in the area.
Sincerely,
Nicole Zacharia
Nicole Zacharia
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
Materials Science and Engineering Program
Texas A&M University, 3123 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-3123.
Ph: (979) 845-2204
Fax: (979) 845-3081
Email: nzacharia@ta_mu._edu
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D257C72City... 1/6/2011
Page lof l
Brittany Caldwell - Chimney Hill
From: "Patrick Gendron" <gendron@suddenlinkmail.com>
To: "'Brittany Caldwell"' <Bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 4:48 PM
Subject: Chimney Hill
CC: <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
Please note that I am a resident at 205 Lampwick and am opposed to the replat of the Chimney Hill property on
the January 6, 2011 agenda of the P&Z Commission (Regular Agenda Item # 6).
Patrick Gendron
775-9500
fi le://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D24AODOCit... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - development
From: Manuel Gonzalez <manuel@gonzalez.org>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/20114:36 PM
Subject: development
CC: <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
Dear the Britany:
I am Manuel Gonzalez from 205 Chimney Hill Cir, and I know about tomorrow meeting, but I am in
Acapulco Mexico at this moment. please note that I am opose to the development on the lot behind
Albertson's because they are homes without garage and too many people for the small space. we choose
to build in Chimney Hill and meet every request of surface build garage orientation etc.
and we are very happy that way and don't want any change on our way of quiet living or the value of our
property.
thonks for your attention
Manuel Gonzalez
College Station, TX
Manuel @Gonzalez. org
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D249DF4Cit... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Chimney Hill Home Owners
From: carmen moroney <moroneyca@hotmail.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/20114:11 PM
Subject: Chimney Hill Home Owners
To Whom this may concern:
We strongly oppose the Chimney Hill Replat Regular Agenda Item #6!!
Sincerely,
Carmen and John Moroney
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D24982DCit... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - We Oppose the Replat
From: "richard Hammerness" <rhammer@suddenlink.net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>, <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 3:43 PM
Subject: We Oppose the Replat
CC: "Jerome Rektorik" <jektorik@tamu.edu>, "'Joseph Armon"' <josepharmon@ms...
Dear Mathew Hilgemeier and Brittany Caldwell,
Further to my phone conversation with Mathew this afternoon, I want to emphasize that my wife and I both
oppose the proposed replat of the lot at the west end of Chimney Hill Drive.
Today, Chimney Hill is a premium residential neighborhood. We mow our lawns; beautify our entrance; maintain a
consistent, pleasing, residential appearance; restrict car parking on the street; and much more. A principal reason
our city is regarded as one of America's most admired cities is because College Station has retained a few "purely
residential" neighborhoods like Chimney Hill.
Not that there is anything wrong with student housing in its appropriate place, but student housing brings a very
different life style. And, as local experience proves, student housing tends to dominate and overwhelm a purely
residential lifestyle.
Speaking for ourselves and (without exception) every one of the other homeowners with whom we have
conferred, we urge the Commission to vote unanimously against this outrageous, commercial move that would
devalue our neighborhood.
Opposing this replat Chimney Hill will be a winner; and the City of College Station will be an even bigger winner.
We will appreciate your sharing this message with the Planning and Zoning Commission .
Sincerely,
Richard and June Hammerness
433 Chimney Hill Drive
College Station, TX 77840
Phone (979) 260-1407
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D249186City... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Opposing replat of Chimney Hill property
From: Robert Wattenbarger <bob.wattenbarger@gmai1.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 2:23 PM
Subject: Opposing replat of Chimney Hill property
MS. CALDWELL - I want to register my opposition to the replat of the Chimney Hill
property behind Albertson's. This is item #6 on the agenda for the Planning and
Zoning meeting tomorrow night.
We live right next to the property and have been here for 27 years. We feel like the
proposed plan with hurt the tranquility of our neighborhood. We have a concern about
safety issues and are sure the proposed plan will cause considerable increase in
neighborhood traffic.
We also believe it may cause flooding problems.
Thank you for your consideration.
Robert A. Wattenbarger
442 Chimney Hill Dr.
College Station, TX 77840
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D247ECBCit... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Chimnet Hill replat
From: William Hyman <w-hyman@tamu.edu>
To: "bcaldwell@cstx.gov" <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>, "mhilgemeier@cstx.gov" <mhilg...
Date: 1/5/2011 12:36 PM
Subject: Chimnet Hill replat
I oppose the replat of the Chimney Hill property because the plan is totally out of keeping with the integrity of the
neighborhood.
William A. Hyman
201 Lampwick Circle
College Station TX 77840
979-846-9606
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D2465B3City... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 2
Brittany Caldwell - The plat in the Chimney Hill subdivision
From: carol whiting <scarolwhiting@yahoo.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 12:27 PM
Subject: The plat in the Chimney Hill subdivision
CC: <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
To whom it may concern:
I have lived in the Chimney Hill subdivision for quite awhile, and have been a resident of College Station
for 40+ years, and I am emailing to let you know that I oppose the replating of the property on
Chimney Hill drive.
The neighborhood association and residents have continued to try to keep this neighborhool strictly
residential, not commercial.
Thanks!
Carol Whiting
207 Fireside Circle
College Station, TX 77840
"Leap,and the net will appear." Julie Cameron
fi le:HC:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D2463A9Cit... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Proposed Chimney Hill Replat Agenda Item #6 Planning & Zoning Meeting
January 6th
From: Deborah Anderson <debbieanderson541 @yahoo.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 11:41 AM
Subject: Proposed Chimney Hill Replat Agenda Item #6 Planning & Zoning Meeting January 6th
Brittany: I would like to voice my opposition to the above mentioned replat issue. Engineering reports
that have been given to the city in the past show many problems with this property, and because of the
possiblity that proposed HUD type housing is going to be put up on the property, I would highly object
to this type of housing in the Chimney Hill area. Thank you for your time. Deborah Anderson
file://C:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D2458ECCit... 1/6/2011
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - opposition to replatting in Chimney Hill area
From: <Rgamopjat1 @aol.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>, <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 10:43 AM
Subject: opposition to replatting in Chimney Hill area
Dear Ms. Caldwell and Mr. Hilgemeier:
I am writing to oppose the proposed replat of the Chimney Hill area. The item of concern is Agenda Item #6 on
the January 6, 2011 P&Z Agenda. The area to be considered for replat includes significant drainage and
flooding concerns as well as creation of health hazards for children and elderly people. My understanding is a
portion of the proposed replat is in a 100 year flood plane.
Kind Regards,
Rayford G. Anthony
200 Hearthstone Circle
CS, TX 77840
phone: 979-846-7836
fi Ie:HC:\Documents and Settings\bcaldwell\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D244B36City... 1/6/2011
From: Anne Nichols <anichols@tamu.edu>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 2:06 PM
Subject: chimney hill lot proposed replat
Ms. Caldwell,
I am writing regarding my concerns and objections to the replat of the
3.37 acres located at 510 Chimney Hill Drive behind the Albertsons on
University Dr.
My family lives at 445 Chimney Hill Drive in the zero-plot line "garden"
homes. Both my husband and I are Civil Engineers and have significant
concerns about the current traffic conditions and proposed conditions
when there will be multiple people living in each of the 5 proposed
units that may all have their own vehicles, much like the student that
we teach at Texas A&M University have. We are aware that there is no
available access from any adjacent streets, and are concerned that there
is only one access road for the 5 lots proposed. This access would be
located two houses down from us.
We have one small child, and are expecting another. At the present, we
have to take great care to walk two houses down to the mailbox because
of the rush hour traffic avoiding the light at University and East
Tarrow for access to 29th Street by cutting through the Albertsons lot
that race around the corner where the proposed entrance to the 5 lots
would be.
My husband has had extensive experience with planned developments and
has expressed his concerns directly through a letter. I believe he
emphasized the flooding, runoff, and drainage issues for these 5 lots
and the effect on our neighborhood.
When we bought our house, we were not entirely familiar with the
covenant of our home owners association, but after having lived at
several other Universities (Purdue, Bradly, University of Illinois),
am particularly grateful of the strict rental provisions which prohibit
a single family dwelling from occupation by more than 2 unrelated
people. When we moved in, the home at the end of the street (directly
across from the proposed replat) was occupied by 3 female students, two
of which were sisters. Most days there were 1 or more cars parked in
front on the street, while there were at least 2 cars parked in the rear
driveway. It appears as though the occupants had friends who were using
the home for a parking lot while attending classes. I have seen the
same overabundance of cars at several homes on Walton Dr. on the way to
my daughter's grade school in the morning. I would not like for this to
occur at the corner with Arguella Dr.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Anne Nichols
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Architecture
A413 Langford
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3137
(979) 845-6540
fax: (979) 862-1571
http://archone.tamu.edu/faculty/anichols
anichols@tamu.edu
From: Robert Coltrin <coltrin65@gmail.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 4:20 PM
Subject: Chimney Hill Replat
We are totally against the replat of land on Chimney Hill. It would
not only jeopardize the integrity of our neighborhood, but also
add traffic and noise. 20-30 extra cars in that corner would not
be good. Thank you for your concern.
Bob & Glenda Coltrin
439 Chimney Hill Dr.
4
From: Janis Boothe <jboothe@albionenv.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 3:02 PM
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item #6
Please register my comment on Agenda Item #6.
1 am opposed to the Chimney Hill Replat (Agenda Item #6) on the Planning and Zoning Committee's
Agenda for Thursday, January 6, 2011. 1 am opposed for many reasons Including increasing the
possibility of flooding and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. We bought a home in
this neighborhood specifically to get get away from student renal housing!
Thank you.
Janis Boothe
440 Chimney Hill Drive
College Station, TX 77840
From: Brenda Sims <rsims61@verizon.net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 2:02 PM
Subject: Opposition to plat
Randy & Brenda Sims
206 Hearthstone
College Station
77840
We are opposing the replat in Chimney Hill. It's item #6 on the agenda.
Thank you,
Brenda
k
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Re-Plat of vacant property on Chimney Hill
From: Jerome Rektorik <jektorik@tamu.edu>
To: "'bcaldwell@cstx.gov"' <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 11:36 AM
Subject: Re-Plat of vacant property on Chimney Hill
To the City of College Station:
I live at 437 Chimney Hill Drive in College Station. I strongly oppose the re-plat of the vacant 3.3 acres on
Chimney Hill Drive. The neighborhood is composed of single family homes and adding houses to be rented to
students is not in keeping with the integrity of the neighborhood.
I have no objection to having this developed into singe family homes, if the homes are build to the same
standards as the rest of the neighborhood.
Another concern I have is the safety of the neighborhood as it relates to drainage and flood control of the water
course that flows thru the property. Additional concrete on the property will elevate this concern without
proper additional drainage systems in place. Either the developer or the City will be responsible for this added
cost of building and maintaining said drainage system. Safety is a real issue and potential liability for the City.
I strongly urge the City to oppose this replat for the above reasons stated.
Jerome Rektorik
From: Eva Marie Lancaster <eml@stata.com>
To: <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>, <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 11:30 AM
Subject: chimney hill property
Good Day:
I oppose the replat of the property in the Chimney Hill subdivision. It
is #6 on you agenda for the January 6th meeting of the P&Z.
I have lived here for 17 years and am aware of the history of that
property. Also, I feel that the City should review and study that piece
of property more thoroughly.
Thank you for your time.
Regards,
Eva Marie Lancaster
204 Chimney Hill Circle
College Station, Texas 77840
k
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Chimney Hill replating
From: "Henry & Ruth Williams" <hlwrww@verizon.net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 11:28 AM
Subject: Chimney Hill replating
I live across the street at 449 Chimney HiLL Dr. I am opposed to the proposed change that would allow rental
property for student housing. The neighborhood has been developed for single family housing and the home
owners associations protect the owners from anything that might cause it to be less desirable.
My wife and I are not against students since we have had, and will have grandchildren living in College Station,
but it changes the neighborhood when appartments are next door. Therefore we encourage you to not approve
the changes.
Thank you for your service,
Henry and Ruth Williams
M
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - Property on Chimney Hill Driv e
From: <giovicerone@aol.com>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 11:19 AM
Subject: Property on Chimney Hill Driv e
CC: <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>, <josepharmon@msn.com>
January 5, 2011
Sirs:
This e-mail to inform you that we, owners of a property on Chimney Hill
( 207 Ember Glow), firmy reject ANY INITIATIVE to the replat of the
property on Chimney Hill Drive ( Agenda Item # 6 on the January 6, 2011
P&Z Agenda).
We have acquired our properties with a lot of hard work and sacrifices and
we cannot allow or even consider any proposal or projects made by greedy
individuals than might affect and reduce the value of our homes.
We anticipate your understanding on this very important issue.
Sincerely,
Giovanni and Houda Cerone
e-mail: GiovCerone(a)AOL.com
www.gotomrgs.com
fi1P•//( •~Tln~nmPnte nnrl CPttinRC\hralrl~a Pll\T non] CPttin(Yc\TPmn\XParnvvice\4T1745'IT)RCit 1 /Fi/7()1 1
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - concern on city vote
From: "Frank Muller" <fmuller@comcast.net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 11:14 AM
Subject: concern on city vote
I own 2 homes in college station
431 and 429 chimney hill
I hope you will only allow the developer to restrict the 5 homes to single families only and never to be student
rentals
And not ever to be used as student rental housing
The villas of chimney hills is a quiet established neighborhood that would be deeply hurt economically by
allowing the developer to skirt by rules to put in student housing in this well established neighborhood
Please do not let this happen
You will decrease tax revenues for the city and hurt all the owners of this wonderful area
Frank Muller
713-249-4979
R
r_i_.un.\r~ AT1IlAC'1er~r: , i~v,n,,
Page 1 of 1
Brittany Caldwell - replating
From: "Bill Armstrong" <Bill.Armstrong3@verizon.net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 11:07 AM
Subject: replating
I am opposed to the replating of the property just off Chimney Hill. As I understand it, there will be 5 homes
built, without garages. This will ensure student occupancy or a minimum of 20 students and at least that many
vehicles using Chimney Hill Drive. We really need integrity in our neighborhood. These plans would hurt our
integrity. I am not opposed to 5 homes in keeping with our neighborhood, but not this. Bill Armstrong 405
Chimney Hill Drive, College Station, TX 77840
nr-N^nc1nrir+:- i /I- i~ni i
From: Troy Holcombe <tjholcombe@verizon.net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>, <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>, Joe Armon <josepharmon@msn...
Date: 1/5/2011 10:46 AM
Subject: Replat of 3+ acres on Chimney Hill Drive
Sirs/ madames:
I wish to express my opposition to the replat, and redevelopment as
student housing, of the property located at the corner of Chimney Hill
Drive and Arguello Street. Redevelopment issues keep coming up related
to this property (again and again). Is it going to be possible for our
quiet residential neighborhood to even exist this close to the
University and the future convention center? How would you feel if this
were your neighborhood?
Sincerely,
Troy L. Holcombe
208 Emberglow Circle
College Station, TX 77840
From: Daniel Romo <romo@mail.chem.tamu.edu>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>, <mhilgemeier@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/2011 10:47 AM
Subject: Opposition to Replat of Chimney Hill Lot-Agenda Item#6 Jan. 6, 2011
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the replat in the Chimney Hill
subdivision that will be considered by the CS P&Z Commission this Thursday
Jan. 6, 2011. In addition to the serious drainage and city service issues
it will undoubtedly raise, the planned use of that land is diametrically
opposed to this very quiet and secluded subdivision in College Station. It
is indeed for this reason that my wife and I with 4 young sons decided to
move to this subdivision -6 years ago from Raintree which was being
inundated with rental properties and the typically accompanying increased
traffic and safety issues associated with mixed family renters. I hope the
P&Z Commission will carefully consider the implications of this replat and
instead find an alternative use of this property that is commensurate with
this well-established and quiet neighborhood in College Station.
Sincerely,
Daniel Romo
Daniel Romo
Professor, Dept. of Chemistry
Director, Natural Products LINCHPIN Laboratory (linchpin.tamu.edu)
Texas A&M University
phone: 979-845-9571; fax: 979-862-4880
Office Associate: Angie Wilson; 979-845-4459;romoasst@chem.tamu.edu
Group Website: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/rgroup/romo
Pagel of 3
Brittany Caldwell - Chimney Hill Replat protest
From: williampalmer <holychrome@verizon.net>
To: <bcaldwell@cstx.gov>
Date: 1/5/20117:37 PM
Subject: Chimney Hill Replat protest
I'm William Palmer and I live at 203 Fireside Circle.
I've recently heard about this attempted replat of the property behind the Albertsons Grocery store. I
wish to register my strong opposition to the proposal to turn this land at the end of our neighborhood
into low cost student housing.
This is a quiet neighborhood and many of us, including myself, have children who are routinely on
Chimney Hill street and placing what by any perspective are nothing more than crackerbox apartments
for students which will have at the very least 20 tenants living there.
The individuals who are proposing this development are the same people who have been attempting to
put up as many apartments as can be fit on the property and having them be accessed through the streets
that run through our neighborhood. The question of why this particular lot is simple to understand: the
developer wishes to charge higher rents because it's shoe horned into the back of our wonderful
neighborhood, which is such an excellent place to live due to our attention to the quality and appearance
of our homes. They believe that they will turn a sow's ear into a silk purse simply by it's proximity to
our homes.
The whole point of having zoning is to separate out different traffic patterns. I own retail, commercial
as well as industrial property in Byran and am well versed in the purpose of zoning. I am not allowed
to lease an industrial building for a retail use because the logic is that it's dangerous to have fully loaded
concrete trucks weighing 80,000 pounds mixing with customers which would be attracted in by a retail
store. Inversely I am prevented from leasing a retail location to an industrial use to keep tractor trailer
rigs out of retail parking lots.
It's my understanding that the residential zoning laws are there for exactly the same purpose. It doesn't
matter what you call the structure, it's what the final use will be that should rule on zoning. Whether
you call these proposed structures homes or apartments or the Houston astrodome, they're still
apartments according to the proposed use by the applicant.
I assure you that the city of Bryan it very strict in their application of the zoning laws when I attempt to
lease a building to a tenant. Were I to try this kind of smoke and mirrors trick I'd have p&z on on my
back in seconds. I routinely have customers approach me wanting to open a business in a building that
is not zoned for it and in 18 years I've yet to see an exception to the zoning rule. I always suggest that
they go and talk to the city to see if they can get permission knowing full well that they're going to be
denied (it prevents me from looking like the bad guy who's stopping them from opening up where they
want).
I have to think that there are people in the city government who are helping these individuals evade
both the letter of the zoning laws but more fundamentally, the spirit of them as well at the expense of
the quality of our lives and the safety of our children. The speculation is that the city is desperate to
generate more income and is ramrodding these projects through for the sake of increasing the tax base.
Page 2 of 3
However, consider this: were the city planners to allow our community to be covered with the blight
that these cheaply built structures represent what will our city look like in 10 years when the financial
crisis is over and the budget is no longer running short of funds then we'll have hundreds of these
cheaply constructed apartment buildings which will by that point in their life cycle will already be in
the process of decaying into complete eyesores. They will all be owned by absentee landlords who's
only concern is the maximum profit they can extract each month. They will become a code
enforcement nightmare for the city and we'll all spend the rest of our lives in this community having to
look at them. Many of these junk buildings will still be standing in 50 years.
An additional point on these proposed buildings is that the standard model for this type of development
is to place 4 bedrooms on the second floor, each with a bathroom, and on the ground floor a very small
common living space and equally small kitchen. I suggest that such architectural design is unsuitable
for a family to live with and they will forever be apartments.
It makes one wonder who's side our local government is on? Absentee investors who couldn't care less
what our city looks like and whose only interest is to make as much money as they can off the students
or the people who have chosen B/CS to live out their lives here.
One final point: in twenty years when these buildings are in such a poor state that no college student
would even consider living in them then who will be renting them??? The straight up brutal truth is that
the rent will become cheap enough that it can support a thriving criminal and drug element who will be
more than happy to live in College Station. There are no two ways around this inevitability. Don't we
have enough of that already?
What has already happened in College Hills, and Thomas Park as examples among other area's, will
spread like kudzu across our community and will still be here decaying until long after all of us are dead
and gone. Our children and grandchildren will be the inheritors of this deal with the devil the city is
willing to make in response to a financial crisis that is temporary and that we will recover from quite
well without these junk developments.
I know that I speak for everyone in Chimney Hill when I say that we are rock solid in our resolve to
stop this attack to our neighborhood and our quality of life whatever or however long it takes.
I understand that your just trying to do your job and are most likely being conversely pulled and
pressured to do what some may think is in the best interests of the city and I hate having to send you
this venom filled communication but my blood is up and emotions are running very high in the
neighborhood. Please understand that we feel that this crisis is at our front doors and threatening to
despoil what has for decades been one of the most picturesque and attractive little neighborhoods in
College Station. We really LOVE living here and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if I looked outside and
saw the proverbial mob with pitchforks and torches ready to march on city hall and declare
revolution! I've been party to 5 or 6 spontaneous gatherings in the middle of our street today talking
about this outrageous turn of events and what we're going to do about it. No doubt this is happening on
all the other streets.
Respectfully
William Palmer
203 Fireside Circle
979 260 2741
fila•//( \Tlnrnmantc and Cattincrc\hralrlcz all\T non] Cattinctc\Tame\XPnrnwica\dTl7d(`RF.(1(`ity 1 1F./7(11 1
Page 3 of 3
If I can get you a bottle of Turns or Asprin or something just let me know.
.,-A C7o++;, -,\1,--1,1.,,-11\T ---1 1
f r~
SOFA
f
IS-
-k
t~.
f'
Or
a
61..6;..
.f T
i
f Li
_ .i ~ Yt,~"
o
ii
IE=
fHllsr!II!9 ~
VIII ~,R,V:1
t 4 \ ■numnu ~ •
r.-
i
a:.
g s ~
OWN
f:
d
f kK .
~l l; •~y Eli'.
J.
4
~Y y - a
.mod e~c
14
r , s ii r, n > I -
ti,
4 R" sx ei - h y"•
-14
fy.. ~ v a ~ ~ a t 'bs- '
.~sr.
~ ~
4 ~ ~ f
d ~
~ F
f
V
t
i~
J -
w
_ . _...~a p_
•
_ _
~
i~'. X ~
~ ~ _
f<=
- r
J
u ~ $
e o '
t
f w 11`
,o-
• 1
I
I O 5 i
Mix )I~f
r.~ 1111111 ~
! r cn L ~ q. i ♦ , F 1 ~ ~ I I I I
t ~ ~ ~ :Illllll
;ar
~ _ :r
a
~~J,~ i
1 -
i
i'
~~i
~
J
_ i
.L w
C
x'.
'Y
~~7: I ~ 1
Y~"' h
_ 4n
'4 k
t . ~ ~ "i..::
- F"k~'
® ~
k,~
~
}
4
I
!r
I
ik i
Mon 61~kA
NEWS
IM
1
f
vi 6
p
:y .I.
r
YM`
T,.
bib
stela r
164
i ry
itt ~ ~ . l 1'1~^11; 11f 1111
111111111111111
11111111111111„
~ - 11111111111111
-j 11111111111111
_,rc._ I ; 11111111111111.
r iiiu llileill X1111
I JA
1 . F' Y11;;n!lu~
lluln11r1~
'~1Y-~►'-- 1u111nllli~
'11111111111
1 1111 11111 1111111111
III U1l H11111
;111111Illllllfl
1111111111111111
111111111111111
111111111111111111
' f IIIli1111i 11111111
111'11111111111
1 1111111 X11 ~ ~ 11111
1
1
1
h~
I Y~ 1 l I
Ak-A
d } ,
1 1i
rt}v \
~IIIIII
i
i
~4 1 I
saws.,
R
_ G
IF. '
WdL-
R
ar'1►' s~r~ir-
PRP
,
2 ~ +
w
s ~4 err
;.W
ys" -
Tv
"t
M
44