HomeMy WebLinkAboutCollege Park HOA Letter and documents 4.2000 The College Park Homeowner's Association
c/o 600 Old Jersey, College Station, TX 77840
25 April 2000
Greetings...
You appear to own property in the College Park Area in the recently formally designated and
soon to be formally protected College Station Southside Historic Area. We think you will find
that has real meaning, per Texas law now, and .. for the future. One owner; one voice, exactly as it
should be, you are asked to join the College Park Homeowners Association to protect your
investment. Why? Because, no matter why you bought it, the best way to keep things focused .. is
through a strong homeowners association.
That's true because even though formal city protection is now fully expected and is being written
for the College Park Area, as such, the area has, at this point, significant deed restrictions against
all of it. Neither the formal protection, nor deed restrictions can do the whole job by themselves.
It takes BOTH to do it right. Everyone's thoughts and action are needed.
The deed restrictions, which have *NOTHING TO DO WITH STUDENTS *, as such, have been
solidly in place since 1923, amplified in later years, as needed. Even though so old, relevant parts
still protect this area from infill, occupancy and civil engineering systems overload, vehicle
contamination and commercial property use which the area cannot stand. However, this land is
valuable. The pressure is on, for pure profits, to forever change what was promised for the land
all these years, away from what most of us have invested in the College Park Area. Now, more
than ever, we *ALL* need to look at this.
Yes, a suit was recently filed against a developer and contractor over a project that isn't, as many
of us believe, appropriate for this neighborhood. However, even if you are opposed to this, you
still should join! Why? In the future, the best way to keep your opinion heard on what you
believe, will be to work to influence all the people to join your view of a proper balance of
property use, as a majority. Eventually, a majority of people qualified to vote, who *DO* vote,
will control the destiny of the area. Either way, your vote is needed. You need all the right
information before you decide. This neighborhood association is the correct place to get it.
Make no mistake about it. The results of the decisions in this case will likely control not only the
deed restrictions next door to you, but also for *ALL OF THE COLLEGE PARK AREA *. Further,
they will also likely influence, from a precedence standpoint, the future of all deed restrictions in
the city.
This case is thus terribly important. It is a landmark case. It is the first such actual case in the
entire history of the area. It's actually the very first infill problem of its type to have been so
aggravating to many of us that it came down to a court fight. Your vote will count in it.
•
The College Park Homeowners Association (continued)
Please don't think that just because your house may be larger, on a larger lot, what could be many
lots, or if you even own more than one location, you need not be alarmed over this. Even the
poorest neighbor in the area has the same rights as the most influential one, in this case. An
owner is an owner, one person, one voice, as we view it. That's as it should be.
History does count. History is what we make .. and, what we make of it. Large contributions to
preserve this Historic Area have already been made. You may not realize that hundreds of people
have worked thousands of hours at this. Thousands of dollars of private and City money have
been spent bringing this area toward a focus of more than just 'policy' protection.
Core work for over thirty years, focused in 1997, at City prompting, in a full report for protecting
this area from the Neighborhood Preservation Committee. That report was taken directly to the
public; many more people then refined it. City Staff then recommended all but one resolution of
it be accepted by Council. On July 23, 1998, the City Council accepted the City Staff position.
Specific guidelines, as official policy, for the College Station Southside Historic Area were
adopted. Finally, these and other protective measures to stop easily hidden projects, undesirable
to the majority of folks who have invested previously near them, *IS* being implemented,
officially.
The city position follows the recommendations in the HOK report for future development of
College Station, on which hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent. Recently, this College
Park Area, a larger area around it, and the entire East Gate area for all Single Family Residence
zoned property, were placed under a complete moratorium for all new construction in them.
This was to give the City of College Station time to complete the fully - planned formal ordinance
position that strongly supports much of what the original deed restrictions intended for these
areas. Current city leadership fully appears to understand that control is necessary, if these fragile
areas are to survive as treasures to College Station's future, and for all its citizens.
A sign -up sheet is attached for your use in joining. The costs of forming 'us' are already covered.
Any organization moves into the future, depending on what its members want. That's why, no
matter if you are for or against the current track the group has taken, you should join.
Legal Counsel for the group opposed to inappropriate infill has written a very good letter
outlining that case position. You are not at risk to simply voice your opinion and vote in what
should be a court - monitored election over this. Space for your signature is also there if you wish
to be added to the suit group, but again, you don't have to be a party to the suit to help make your
views known. It's your choice. Either way, please join us.
Russell Duke, Chairman
irm
MIKE LUTHER
DRAWER CA * COLLEGE STATION, TX. 77841
i
r
May 31, 2000
City of College Station In re: James Duncan
Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Consulting Services
Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Jim:
Um
!: Via James Duncan, as uptake for the projected Development Review Ordinances, I
wish to offer the following. Here are several things for the input stream.
How we arrived here is important too, but first what we should do, then why:
s
Irr
Enact at least *THREE* generic ordinances by mid - August of 2000:
L 1.) Enact an ordinance providing that no property owner may hold
more than *ONE* address and utility service connection at that
address in the City of College Station as an owner- occupied
Single - Family qualified residence. All other property held by
that owner shall be classified and registered as property held
for rental purposes under the occupancy code below. This
t: identifies rent property.
Provide in this ordinance that use of any non - owner - occupied
t: Single- Family Residence shall require a renewable time limited
Certificate of Occupancy after inspection by the City. The
allowable number of unrelated adults will be governed by an
amount of dwelling space required for each such adult.
2.) Enact an ordinance prohibiting all on- street parking on City
r pavement in the College Park Area of College Station between
the hours of 1:00 am and 8:00 am, or as applicable to whatever
other larger part of or other Historic Area is desired.
16 a.) Require that improved surface parking area for all
vehicles parked off - street must be provided during
these prohibited parking hours. Strictly enforce it.
c
3.) Enact an ordinance making the owner of a property jointly
liable for the second and subsequent fines for property -
related and code enforcement related violations that focus
on a given property parcel.
1
1
II
a.) Require that more than three like - violation offenses
I/ for the above will result in the refusal of issuance for
the needed Certificate of Occupancy at the next required
issuance period for one such period.
II b.) Expand the above, as necessary into the more troubled
areas of the City, to include that SIGN NOTICE of why
I a property is vacant under the above, for how long and
who the correct owner of the property is posted at the
site, for the period of restriction.
II The reason for this is that, to my reading, the most
successful cleanup of real blight areas in other cities
has involved PUBLIC NOTICE for really bad owners.
ill
I'm sorry that we in College Park have now, again, had to be the focus of
Y 9 � 9
all this. However, this is how important it is! Pat Cleer gives me the sad
information that the recent Eagle front page coverage of the 600 Welsh case
resulted in the cancellation of the contract for the sale of the prized
Naugle residence. It is so ironic that this should come full circle in the
history of College Park with this very home!
lb
I I! This home, the old Veezy home, less than 400 feet from the 600 Welsh affair,
happens to be the very first private -sale developer -home built in the renamed
priceless Historic College Park Area of the City of College Station. To
reach this sad point we have to date:
II
1.) Wasted twenty -plus years arguing about all this, the hurt
l property owners constantly telling the same story, or at least
similar tales of woe to City folk,
1! 2.) Spent over half a million dollars of professional planning and
study time about this, right back to what the Citizens do
really want and keep telling you over and over and over,
I
3.) Seen at least one responsible concerned citizen death over
II these general congestion and area development arguments.
4.) Thrown literally thousands of man -hours of citizen, City
II Staff and Council time at this problem.
11 To guarantee that this process *WILL* stay on track and *WILL* remain open
to the Citizens of the City of College Station, I believe one more major
step is necessary in re- organizing the Planning and Development department.
li I firmly believe a current view toward splitting the department into two
distinct entities is needed.
II
2
10
11
We absolutely *HAVE* to remove what focused out of the Planning and Zoning
II hearing and workshop I saw. You cannot have one department, especially one
person in that common department, wearing two hats; one for zoning and the
other for permit issuance.
1 I'
needs to split the issue of design off from
I agree that this City n permits.
t p t g p
We absolutely must force notice and accountability to the surface. We've
i b wasted well over a million dollars of everyone's money -time to date trying
to pretend this will go away and the Citizens will just roll over on it.
1 They won't.
II Draw and schedule only the above three basic steps for ordinances, to be
later built -upon as the process is refined. It's fine to move Council to a
broad view of creating policy, but it is absolutely necessary to provide for
II a far better reporting system to Council which tells them not necessarily
what City Staff wants them to know, but what they need to know. Help create
that automatic reporting channeling we so badly need to recover here in the
I: City of College Station. Guiding this City toward this should be an easy
job for a competent consultant to accomplish.
i i That said, Jim, you are a thoroughly competent professional at your job. If
you do nothing else for us .. follow through on what you once told me. You
do not intend for this general pattern of City development to ever happen
r again in this City. You *CAN* do this. You *CAN* return control and the
handling of permits that is sensitive to developers, property owners, and a
reasonable position on awareness of Deed Restrictions. It takes both Deed
b Restrictions and City efforts through zoning and coordination to make it all
work. We will be forever in this mess unless someone does it.
i lk Why not you, Jim? What better legacy could you leave in service here? Look
at what just I see as how we got here, then multiply me by hundreds of us:
1! A.) A copy of the Final Report done by the Neighborhood Preservation
Committee submitted to the City August 19, 1997.
li
B. The City sponsored a Public meeting in December of 1997, to
Y Po 9 ,
give everyone a look at that report seek input from them.
l b It was well attended and included many students wanting to
protect their parking ability, in response to a City Staff
11 suggestion. The City wanted to cure the street crush of vehicles
in a number of critical streets by total removal of parking on
one side of all Historic Area streets. Based on the input,
II including the students, that this would unfairly affect many
property owners, City Council later confined parking control
efforts to time - restricted parking during the day in a test area.
1
3
i
That has still not cured the growing crush of on- street parking,
particularly overnight parking, on critical unimprovable streets
and in other situations. Construction of new dwellings of any
kind in much of the area, conversion of remaining owner - occupied
single - family dwellings for more non - owner- occupied unrelated
adult use, raising occupancy loads, brings with it added parking
loads on- street, particularly in the over -night mode. That is the
real nexus of the development - neighborhood argument now going on.
There is simply no place, on- property, especially for any in -fill
development, for vehicles for tenants and visitors for such
dwellings. It is not purely student oriented, but rent - property
.- oriented. Many owners simply will not limit structure occupancy
to a vehicle load their frontage allows. That forces neighbors
to host unwanted vehicles, if, at all, they can be street - hosted
in any safe and non- offensive manner.
A. copy of the letter I wrote December 9, 1997, to a few people
who were critical of the report, showing where I strongly sided
*WITH* them is attached. The report should not have used the
words "students" as much as it did. As the Committee was really
trying to say, in general it is the non - owner - occupied rental
property which creates most problems. Further, many of the
rent- property owners do maintain good control; sadly those that
don't spoil the show for all the good ones.
C.) The meetings resulted in City Council action and a directive
from the July 23, 1998, council meeting to City Staff to
implement all but one item of the report. The directive failed
to get the needed regulation from Staff.
Succinctly said, at the same time Staff was charged with the
responsibility of implementing the goals of Council, they also
had total internal right to pass on a project of this ability
to irritate the Citizens, without the possibility of outside
review, as delegated by the Council itself!
It has been suggested one of the bad things about adopting and
pushing for even a limited Carver Governance Model for City
operations, is lack of adequate outside notice for developing
problems. This may be a perfect example of why an adequate
model for Staff feedback to Council may not yet be in place.
Per the viewpoint of many, City Staff failed timely to act
on the underlying issues. Perceived as without fair notice to
all of the affected neighbors, what has turned out to be a
very offensive development effort was started at 600 Welsh.
The planning was hidden from all the neighbors from roughly
March until September when the first work started!
Notice of protest was jointly written to the Developer, the
Contractor, as well as the City, on October 4, 1999, over
the issue. A copy of that letter is attached here.
4
D.) The Planning and Zoning Board of adjustment heard the matter.
The Board decided the issue was outside their purview. The
consistent theme that has been recently City- offered, is that
11 these things are Deed Restriction issues and do not concern the
City. That is not the way things have gone with City- Citizen
affairs like this until quite recently in this City.
City Council and Planning and Zoning held a joint meeting and
laid out further guidelines to halt further confrontations along
these lines.
Attached is a single -page comment I handed to the group to
reinforce the view that the concerned Citizens of these
11 Historic and frail areas will not give up this fight.
E.) Council then passed a Moratorium on New Permits and Construction
11 until Mid - August of 2000, in what was finally defined more
formally as Historic Areas in the City. It was done to provide
time for the City Staff to write the necessary ordinances, so
11 they could be on -line and effective in time for the arrival of
the year 2000 fall student in -rush for Texas A &M University.
I spoke in encouragement to City Council when this was done.
Almost the entire time needed to bring the required ordinances
to the table that will be required to achieve the agreed -upon
goals has now been expended without a firm time -table to do
what the City Council has directed must be done.
F.) Meanwhile, the issues are more sharply focused as a result of
the current lawsuit over the 600 Welsh case and the handling of
Deed Restrictions in the College Park Area. This is an ongoing
suit. This is not the forum under which to discuss the matter.
Rather, it is a point at which, time is of the essence in doing
anything productive in the days remaining under the moratorium.
I!
We should summarize what, for over twenty years now, has been
festering as problems in these areas and act. Again, we are
talking only about Single - Family- Residential areas.
1 1 The reason we absolutely must solve the on -going friction in
them between traditional owner - occupants, those which rent
space to others in their homes, and finally, non - owner - occupied
it dwelling owners which are actually running a pure business from
each home they so own, is simple!
Renting a portion of the property is a business, pure and simple.
A business is a business; it isn't just one's home and can't be
fairly administrated from either owner or city viewpoint, without
1/ knowing when a home isn't just a home, but is a business:
11
5
i
i II
1.) Most landlords of rental property here do care about their
tenants being good neighbors; some do not. Information shared
with me is that roughly 3000 party disturbance calls made
last year resulted in some 2000 citations. That's 8 a day!
1 A corresponding load of code violations for all types of
other problems from this core offense set of residences is
a statistically valid extension of the above.
2.) It is mandatory that a valid registration of some kind is
established in the City for which of the Single - Family
Residences are non- owner - occupied. That is required to be
able to immediately bring the *OWNER* of the property on -line
11 for notice of problems created by the tenants.
a.) The Citizen directive to do that is was in 1997
addressed in section B.(e), the part Staff rejected!
11
3.) The actions of rental residents must be made a joint liability
11 to the landlord. In order for anyone to gain control over
what ultimately is defined as 'wrong' for resident actions,
there has to be monetary or, for repeated offenses, asset loss
to the landlord. It is unfortunate that some profit -only
motivated property owners exist; they do.
11 4.) The ordinance changing the required minimal square footage in
the Single - Family Residential zone area to 8500 square feet
was a perfect short -term action to allow for a future cure
$ for vehicle congestion and need green space by temporarily
curing the symptom of the problem. Now we must go forward!
Current City Ordinances do not provide for off - street parking
for more than two vehicles in these neighborhoods. There
must be either ordinance change to adjust that for the real
load presented by pseudo Single - Family dwellings used as
I rental property, and /or, a minimal front- footage rule to
accommodate all cars expected from residents in such dwellings.
11 That does not 'cure' the claim of right by 'ancestry' of the
current property owners to continue to overload the City
streets and services, or to act in such a manner that easy
access is blocked for Emergency vehicles and other traffic.
11 There are only two fully equitable solutions for vehicle
control in these areas.
i a.) One was presented contemporaneously with the earlier
City Council action that did enact a test of simple
11 day- time - restricted parking in a test on two streets.
It envisioned registration of vehicles and tag allotment
based on a parcel's front footage that was available.
1
6
II
That was one way to effect park your vehicles in front
of your own property, pave the space on your own land to
care for them, or forget renting property for which that
isn't available.
b.) A second, simpler and far more elegant solution suggestion
has become much more circulated of late. It's equally
'" painful to all; we only pass laws for what social problems
we refuse to address on a personal basis that we cause.
Prohibit all overnight parking in the entire area on
City street pavement during the hours from either midnight
or so, to, say seven in the morning.
In the end, it has to be up to the property owner to pay for
-- the space and the surface improvement to park the vehicles, or
forget about renting a parcel to anyone that insists they
need a vehicle on site.
5.) Much ado has been made of limiting the occupation of any
Single - Family Residence to not more than three unrelated
adults. If it can be passed with reasonable likelihood that
it can be enforced and will be found to be legal, fine.
AI a.) Absent of that, once registry and required issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy has been emplaced, simply adjust
the available Single - Family Residence occupancy load to a
reasonable minimal value for each unrelated adult.
II Recent public data from property owners in the near rent - property dominated
resubdivided area has shown the near - majority now think it is totally up to
the City to solve these problems. Most people now favor that. We pass laws
II and regulations to gain control over what we as individuals cannot control.
They may not like what they get, but that's another story, the issue is out
of control.
II A careful simple three - ordinance portfolio for emplacement by the fall of
this year *WILL* solve the problems. Just do it, get it over.
L
li Sin "rtly y•0
Mike Luther
II HAL0227.wst
l
7
E
1
FINAL REPORT
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
II THE ORIGINAL CITY AREA
II THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
August 19, 1997
1 N A.) RESOLVED that the study area for recommendation as the area
boundaries in the report on neighborhood preservation shall
li be, generally:
Timber to Anna to Holleman, thence deviating off
Holleman southward to Nevada, the extension of Nevada
II to Wellborn Road, to exclude commercial property in
that area, with the actual street name boundaries to
be furnished by the City staff, thence north down
I Wellborn Road to George Bush and back eastward to
Timber..
il l and, the area shall be known as,
the Neighborhood Preservation Area of College Station.
11
B.) RESOLVED, with respect to this area, this total area of College
Station wishes to be left as we are, but with all the modern
conveniences. As evidence of the unanimous stern resolve of this
ii group, in these matters;
11 The standard for the area must not be allowed, for example,
to destroy the historic character of life as it was, and
is expected to remain, in this area.
II An absolutely firm recommendation in the report is the
position that the City staff shall request that the HOK
Plan for the future development of College Station MUST
11 have an amendment in it, prior to its approval and adoption
which will guarantee to the citizens of this area and
others like it, that the City will live up to its charge
from the Citizens to preserve the "Status Quo" in areas
II such as this.
In the light of what Mr. Simpson noted can and has been
11 done in other plans like this, to firmly bind the direction
of a City to the wishes of the Citizens, the Report stresses
that it is of paramount importance to assure that City staff
II members will, in fact, proceed as the Citizens have directed
them in legitimate efforts such as this and that it the
intent of this group that future Councils will have firm
orientation on what has passed before them.
I/
1
II
I
I/ .
I/
It is noted that precisely the same complaints as to the
problems that were of paramount importance to virtually
all of the working groups were exactly the same complaints
II from ten to twenty years ago and earlier. Precisely the
same charge from the Citizens had been given to the City
then, in 1991, and steadily forward to this time, as to
retaining this area's Neighborhood Preservation and quality
of life. To date, the exact same problems have not
satisfactorily been addressed.
II It is the absolute stand of the group working with this
area that this time, the problems WILL be solved. There
WILL be City Staff and Council answer to the same on -going
11 requests that have been made continuously for many years
without any satisfactory City action that have permitted a
starting decline in the area which must not be allowed to
continue into the future.
II In point, it is repeated; any future development for the
area must not be allowed, for example, to destroy the
historic character of life as it was, and is expected
II to remain, in this area, modern conveniences added.
ii a.) Evidence was cited of the total reversal of the
U. S. Postal service efforts to move mail service
from the historic structure mail box service to
street -faced box delivery service. The retention of
1! mail service to the box on the structure, will be
the position reported to the Body of the Whole.
I: Not that mail box location is the most important
item in the list, it simply illustrates that the
goal of life as it was, is expected to remain so,
II in this area. The area residents will move to
keep that in focus.
b.) As an absolute primary goal, this area must remain
II focused as a "Single Family House" specific area, of
the Low Density defined land use category. No further
encroachment of any other land use shall be encouraged
II by the Committee or recommended in the Report.
c.) The encouragement of the use of "Single Family Houses"
in this area for student rentals is to be discouraged
11 in the final Report.
d.) As a matter of control of the parking problems
11 that plague the area, we must gain some control of
the conversion of "homes" to rental property, as in
the Timm street area. It was the unanimous desire of
II the Committee that the earlier standard of no more
than three unrelated non - family parties should be
permitted to occupy any non -owner occupied home
in this area. If that cannot be re- established,
1/
2
II
certainly no more than four such parties should occupy
any "Single Family House" in the area.
e.) This area must not be allowed to progress toward
further use of the area for any form of non -owner
r occupied student housing in which the students
lack concern for the neighborhood. Matters can be,
in the belief of the Committee, only partially
resolved by education and orientation, in cooperation
with Texas A &M University orientation programs, for
example, as a portion of solving problems by education.
However, the Committee feels the issues cannot be
solved by education alone. In this final Report,
it recommends a formal reporting method of tracking
complaints for strict code enforcement in what is
felt to be a reasonable starting point to addressing
these problems. It advocates the creation of an
area - specific ordinance -based non owner- occupied single -
family residence, Certificate of Occupancy program
with a full formal inspection and control process
emplaced for only these type dwellings in this area.
There should be little other changes required in
the current laws as they exist in the city. The
only actual change in the current Zoning Ordinances
of the City, will have to be a simple change in the
number of improved off - street parking spaces that
will be required for non owner - occupied single - family
residences in this specific area.
The consensus is, that if the existing codes ARE
properly enforced, the issue of student lack of
concern for neighborhood values would be solved.
The Certificate of Occupancy program requested
is the first time an appropriate tool will be
emplaced in this city so that the job of solving
the problem can and will be done. It is pointed out
that this is a spill -over theme of a heavy common
central concern from other committees into this one.
The final Report, this time, provides the tools to
at long last, perhaps, solve the problem
f.) University spill -over of parking and congestion from
parked vehicles, as a general daily matter, into the
area on Timber and other streets that border the George
Bush area must be solved by removing them from the area.
The solution should focus on whatever means is needed to
11 do that job, be it ordinance or otherwise, and that
this should be the position in the Report.
g.) In order to preserve the desired character of this
neighborhood, through traffic in the neighborhood must
minimized.
1/
3
i
h.) It is in direct opposition to the major goal of
leaving the area "as is ", to permit any further widening
of the scope of North -South traffic through the area,
including any establishment of a North /South boulevard
through this area.
Point by point, as charged, the Committee speaks and reports:
1.) Student Housing (Nevada & Welsh).
RESOLVED, that no further changes in any property use from
single - family residence or up- coding of any property in the
Neighborhood Preservation Area of College Station should
be permitted and are the position taken in the report.
2.) Develop Themes.
RESOLVED, that the theme of the Neighborhood Preservation Area
addressed by the Committee shall not change from the present
mixture of single - family residential dwellings and zoning
in any way.
3.) Opportunities For Small Business Development.
RESOLVED, that the present language used by the City of College
Station to describe opportunities for small business
development at home is satisfactory.
4.) Land Use Restrictions.
RESOLVED, that no upcoding of structure category shall be permitted
in this area. Property shall not be re- platted in this area to
achieve a higher structural density than is currently of record.
5.) Zoning Changes.
RESOLVED, that it would be contrary to the Public Interest, cause
unnecessary hardship and substantial injustice would be done, if
the zoning were changed and up- zoning of property in this area
should occur.
6.) Housing Renovation.
IL RESOLVED, that the Committee recommend that a regulatory
authority be established in the City of College Station to
regulate non - owner- occupied rental property in the Neighborhood
1L Preservation Study area. Occupancy rate for unrelated adults in
any such single - family residence shall not exceed the number of
bedrooms and shall not exceed four such occupants in any
such dwelling. The number of improved parking spaces which
must be provided on the property shall equal the number of
unrelated adults permitted for any given single - family
residence used as rental property. The adoption of such an
1/
4
i
ordinance shall be requested in a timely fashion, so as to
bring the Neighborhood Preservation Area under its protection
as soon as it is practically possible to do so, preferably in
time for the fall semester.
7.) Restoration of the Neighborhood.
RESOLVED, that the Committee recommends;
a.) The City create a reinvestment positive climate in the
area through economic means which is restricted to
single - family owner- occupied homes. It is suggested
that the time period for this should not exceed beyond
the year 2040 and that abatement on a given individual's
property should not exceed 20 years.
b.) The City should tie the above point together with some
form of tax abatement and /or some kind of program of
low interest subsidized loans which will increase the
value of non - conformance property, as well, in order
to make the overall effects revenue positive for the
City as time goes forward in the area.
8.) Street Matters Required to Preserve the Neighborhood
RESOLVED, that the Committee recommends;
a.) The entire engineering design of the area, especially
as to North -South traffic flow did not, does not, and
cannot provide the required grade separation of lot to
street surface and drainage elevations necessary to
I/ provide any substantial increase in the standards of the
streets in this area without the wholesale destruction
of the neighborhoods in the entire area. The area
cannot support even the current traffic and parking
load generated into it now, much less additional traffic,
parked vehicles, sidewalks and retrofitted curbs, gutters
and storm sewerage in most places.
b.) University spill -over of parking and congestion from
parked vehicles, as a general daily matter, into the
area on Timber and other streets that border the George
Bush area must be solved by removing them from the area.
The solution should focus on whatever means is needed to
do that job, be it ordinance or otherwise, such as
time limited no- parking zones.
c.) In order to preserve the desired character of this
11 neighborhood, through traffic in the neighborhood must
minimized. A four -way stop sign now exists at Holleman
and Welsh. If the goal of through traffic minimization
in the area is to be met, this is a better solution than
a light - and cheaper, as well as possibly being the
safest type of intersection.
11
5
I/
1/ d.) It is in direct opposition to the major goal of
leaving the area "as is ", to permit any further widening
of the scope of North -South traffic through the area,
II including any establishment of a North /South boulevard
through this area.
e.) No street, landscape, or building change in the area
II should be permitted that would create a blind sight -
line at any intersection to be caused by foliage or
building obstructions. Sight -line distance must exist
II from any entry point into an intersection for a distance
that can be traveled by each conflicting vehicle at
the speed limit for the street ways, plus an average
II stopping distance at those speeds for them.
f.) In general, because of the basic engineering design
of the neighborhoods, adding sidewalks is an impossible
II goal when preserving these neighborhoods.
Retrofitting of sidewalks in the older neighborhoods
1 in the area should only be done in accordance with
a policy of providing for them only where they may
be added within the general guidelines of street
II development and tree protection alree0Teetated.
hb
9.) Neighborhood Lighting.
II RESOLVED, that the Committee recommends;
a.) The first and foremost parameter for recommendation on
II street lighting shall be the increase in safety that it
provides.
b.) The equipment to be specified should be the most color correct
II light that is economically feasible.
c.) Safety encompasses two aspects; that of the occupants of the
II area and that of all types of vehicle users in the streets.
d.) Optimizing street lighting for safety, as in the above,
II requires optimal light positions and glare reduction, both
to minimize hazard identification errors and street user
blinding, consistent with allowable cost.
II e.) The theme of the design of street lighting in the area
should be consistent throughout the area. Neighborhood
lighting shall be a combination of safety- oriented and
11 period lighting fixtures in which historical lighting
shall supplement the safety lighting.
II f.) To assure that this happens, the City should examine
the current street lighting policy to make sure that
it is applicable to this type of neighborhood
preservation.
11
6
II
1/
I/ g.) Lastly, the City should study what capital projects
are necessary to carry this out.
1 10.) Tree Management and Conservation
RESOLVED, that the Committee recommends;
a.) The value of trees, especially the older trees in the
area are deemed by the Committee to be near priceless,
perhaps not as to pure cost, but esthetically. The
area of the study of the Neighborhood Preservation
Committee cannot be preserved without caring for them.
b.) The alteration of any public right -of -way, street,
park or green space in this area which involves the
trees or area under their crowns, so as to protect
their root structures, should not proceed without a
parks department certification that any tree in excess
of 8 inches in diameter is not expected to be harmed
1 by the project with the exception of trees in the
Hackberry, Tallow families or other trash trees. The
City shall work with the private property owners in
the area to develop compatible guidelines in line with
the above policy.
11.) Green Spaces and Flora.
RESOLVED, that the Committee recommends;
a.) When the City acquires property for purposes
other than park land, a minimum of 10% of future
property in the area shall be dedicated to
green spaces and flora.
12.) Gateways.
RESOLVED, that the Committee recommends;
a.) Gateways should be encouraged at major entryways
or public areas such as medians.
13.) Liaison
RESOLVED, that the Committee recommends;
a.) The report should be offered to the larger group
11 as originally planned. The Chairman of this
committee should present the report to City
Council. The City should be asked to create a
timetable for action on the points in the report.
Within three months from that point, the City
would be expected to report back to the Committee
and the larger group.
11
7
i
II
I
11 b.) The Committee should remain standing to receive the
return report and act as needed. It should not be
dissolved.
II
II Submitted, by its Chairman,
//.//:///
li Mike Luther
il l For the committee:
Cheryl Anz Don Anz Bill Bingham
Mary Elizabeth Dresser Russell Duke Dorothy Duke
!I Carole Edwards Mike Luther Dennis Maloney
Norma Miller Dorcas Moore Helen Pugh
II
II
II
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
II
8
II
141 K E L U T H E R
DRAWER CA * COLLEGE STATION, TX. 77841
December 9, 1997
Brad Lancaster
703 Thomas
College Station, TX 77840
1 William B. Lancaster
303 Dexter
College Station, TX 77840
Douglas J. Pederson
' 1004 S. Coulter
Bryan, TX 77803
Gentlemen:
Thank you very much for taking your time and the interest to make your views
known on what the Neighborhood Preservation Committee reported out. As
Chair for that committee, in keeping with my stand that the most important
comments are those that are presented in writing, your letters will be
forwarded to the City of College Station as part of the work. Further, they
will be attached to the file I hold on the Committee work. In order of your
comments, and their commonness through all three letters, I'll address them.
1
I can understand your reservations on trying to limit the number of
unrelated adults in any such single family residence not to exceed the
number of bedrooms. Looking back over the minutes and tapes of the
meetings, from which the minutes were taken as accurately as possible, I
think, there was little committee discussion of this. The committee, when
considering this whole topic, seemed to me bound and determined to keep this
as a "single family residence ", area. The theme of trying to discourage the
establishment of more rental units in this specific area of College Station,
was clear. They clearly wished to discourage up- zoning, looking back at it.
If the tapes are examined, it is my belief that you will find I attempted to
try to get the Committee, as Chair, to consider how the mechanics of
enforcement might be considered. I was concerned, as Bill Lancaster is in
his letter, with how to fairly determine occupancy; my cultural background
causes me concern with this. I offered suggestions, as did others, however,
the focus of the section took only the form of a request for some legal way
of defining a position from which the City could do the necessary job of
enforcing whatever code position finally comes to bear against this area. I
note that a preliminary conference with the City legal staff and also Bill
Kling as a representative from the Oakwood group, indicates the City feels
it can write an enforceable ordinance. In that only a specific small area
1
i
I/
of the City was to be the focus of any proposed ordinance covering the
I/ special problems it seems to face in the area of study of the Committee,
there seemed to be a general initial view from the City legal staff, that
the ordinance could be fairly drafted and applied to cover the specific
problems that were unusual here, without trying to apply it City -wide, where
the restrictions were neither necessary, nor even desirable.
I! As Chair, I wouldn't have attempted to have blocked or controlled any
discussion along the line suggested; that is what a proper committee
investigation should do. Would you all have been there, and were you all
participants at the time, I think the issues on the, one unrelated adult
per bedroom matter ", would have elicited a lively discussion on the issue.
I think, based upon the makeup of the committee and the position in the
records from each participant who was there, this viewpoint you all share
would have failed, but, I stress, that is pure conjecture.
' At the October 25th meeting, your firm position on the issue of the number
of unrelated persons per single family residence was very well stated, in
full clarity to the members of the Committee who were there. The members
you would have faced in open committee discussion were not all present on
11 October 25th. Those who were there, did not speak in favor of your view.
It is my remembrance of the conversations at the October 25th meeting, that
they were, in fact, silent about your comments. I recall they chose not to
speak, however, I did not transcribe that meeting (As I did all the formal
committee meetings, being only a presenter at the October 25th meeting). I
might also note that the Chair, at least in the case of this Committee, does
not and did not vote, specifically on this issue. I think, properly, the
Chair does not vote, technically, unless necessary to break a tie, it being
common procedure to assume that the Chair is on the side of the majority
from a pure technical standpoint.
The issue wasn't even close on the records I have of the Committee meetings,
relative to the people that were there. This issue focuses, as I see it, on
precisely what the committee addressed. Keeping the area preserved as a
neighborhood, can best be directed, per the majority of the Committee, by
whatever it takes to keep the area, "single family residences." As such,
individual houses, are not miniature student apartments; that being
precisely what the committee wanted to discourage. As additional comment,
I note Bill Lancaster's correct note that, "Status Quo ", cannot be preserved
without taking into account that rent houses WERE in the area by original
definition! He is correct that such residences were there, however, I think
if one does the full historical research into the issue, a more important
focal point on this will emerge.
I am not old enough to know everything about this neighborhood from personal
experience, but my personal recall is that there was a difference between
the targeted occupants of the original rental structures and the current
pattern of occupancy! As far as I can recall, the original concept for even
the original rent properties, was strictly "single family residences ", if
the unit wasn't built as a clearly separated structure for more than one
family, per my memory.
11
2
I was born when my family lived in the first Vezy "rent" house that was
built pre -1930 when my parents rented the house at 603 Guernsey, from Mr.
Vezy, as "single family residents ", which is now owned by Kent and Shirley
Roberts, Vezy built that house, as Bill notes, specifically for a "rent"
house. Subsequent to that, we moved to yet another of his "rent" houses as
a "single family residents ", at 402 Dexter. I can speak from personal
experience, that as late as the last of the '50's and early '60's, the
following of even the tiniest houses in the are were, indeed, still "single
family residences ", in the full sense of the phrase. The home at 601 Bell,
the Huggett home, was such; the home at the 602 Hereford, the site, I was
told, of the first A &M faculty -staff suicide in College Station, was.
Single family residences were just that even down to the tiny Floyd home at
505 Angus next to Laverty's historic homesite, which age -wise, I think also
qualifies as an historic residence. In contrast, I note that the small
yellow brick apartment building at 301 Ayrshire, also age - qualifiable as an
historic structure, was occupied by two distinct "families" for even as far
as the mid 1950's, as "single family residents." The Valedictorian for the
11 Class ahead of me at Consolidated High School in 1956, Marcia Smith, lived
there with her family, in one very small floor of it, as I recall.
I think this is the best answer I can offer of the work of the Committee,
for all three of you over this question. Even if all three of you had been
at the meetings, it is my perception from looking at the records, you would
not have swayed the vote enough to have prevailed on this one - per - bedroom
issue - for this specific area of College Station. The focus on "single
family residence ", to me, as Chair, seems clear.
I/
I think you all would have EASILY prevailed on removing the word "Student"
from this work. The tapes, per even my recall without even going back and
listening to them, will reveal that the focus was on spill -over traffic and
so on from Texas A &M University, in general. The focus on "Students" came
from, as I think the tapes will show, primarily Mrs. Miller's frequent use
of the word. It is my belief that if we review the tapes, we will find that
the focus on "Students ", is a result of the color she introduced in the
particular sequence in which the discussion turned at this point. I view
the use of the word "Students ", as inappropriate, looking at it in
retrospect. In view of your letters, it is unfortunate that it survived in
the final report. That it did, is, I view it, an error on my part as Chair
for not catching that during the workup of the report. I ask your pardon.
Relative to the actual committee work, I'll note Justice Learned Hand's
11 famous comment, You cannot unbake an apple." That being the case, the best
course of action now, from a pure mechanical political concept, is to
present your view as part of what I'll jokingly call, The loyal
opposition ", and attach it to the proceedings. I'll attach the written
ballot reply from committee member Mrs. Helen Pugh whom was so kind to
return it as to the request for other action.
t
3
In doing that we will have presented all in the fairest possible light.
it
Sincer ly yours
0
Mike Luther
HAL0186.wst
1
11
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
Mrs. H. A. Luther
614 Welsh Ave.
College Station, TX 77840
Bobby Mirza
612 Welsh Ave.
College Station, TX 77840
Helen Pugh
601 Fairview
College Station, TX 77840
October 4, 1999
1
City of College Station In re: Construction project either side
11 Tom Brymer, Acting City Manager of 600 Welsh Ave. and;
The Zoning Board of Adjustment 614 Welsh Ave.; 612 Welsh Ave.;
The Historic Preservation Committee 601 Fairview;
Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
Mr. Nelson Nagle
lw 510 Dennis Drive
Round Rock, TX 78664
Stylecraft Builders, Inc.
Randy French, President
4112 State Highway 6 South
College Station, TX 77840
1
' Gentlemen:
This is a formal request for full near -term abandonment of the current
construction of two additional single family dwellings on either side of 600
Welsh Ave. We believe the city erred in issuance of construction permits
11 for this work in many ways. This letter specifically addresses just one of
them which is very important to us. It also addresses a staff management
viewpoint which we think some staff personnel are using which is very bad
for all of the city; it produces these problems and citizen -staff flare ups.
We tried to fix this problem verbally, as cheaply and as fast as we became
aware of it. However, there was no notice to us at all, so we could begin
working with this issue in the some six months it took the developer, the
contractor and city staff to orchestrate this project! Our to -be -filed
written request was deemed to be meaningless. Thus, it is now necessary to
present our problem for board level decision. In considering this, it
should be apparent that Council and board level action must *AGAIN* be
taken, to prevent future similar flare ups. Some of city staff are still
1
1
not listening to either the majority of the citizens, nor to Council, as we
think this complaint illustrates. The guidelines are clear, as we see it.
As the last verbal interface at this, Jeff Tondre saw a less strongly worded
draft of this request. He was asked for guidance for the final document, so
as to minimize the time and expense needed to bring the best case forward to
the city, both as to the complaint and any proposed solution. He verbally
acknowledged that there is a problem with this construction and our plight.
He noted he could not advise us on how best to write the formal letter,
which he said should be written, until he checked with the city legal
department. His answer, on checking with the city legal staff, was the city
has no legal obligation to consider our position, at all, relative to this
construction for protection of our property! We disagree with that.
Additionally, it has come to our attention that there is a feeling that
absent of a 'specific ordinance' which addresses the general policy toward
additional development and construction in historic neighborhoods, such as
this, city staff has no obligation to consider anything on how construction
will impact a neighborhood such as this! They are free to do as they please
in exercising their own view of these things. They may act as they want and
need not consider the thousands of hours of citizen -city previous work.
They are not bound by any directive of Council here.
We believe this perception in error.
We believe staff has failed to take into account existing city ordinances,
together with specific policy applicability to our property. You may affirm
this with inspection on the ground and reasonable engineering study, current
law noted and a simple review of the July 23, 1998, City Council meeting
minutes. It's all there for anyone whom wants to do a little study.
We think you may determine, if you review the City Council's minutes, in
action on general policy as applicable to Neighborhood Preservation, that
the all but item six of the Neighborhood Preservation Council, was ACCEPTED,
in its entirety, as general policy and guidelines for the future development
in the area of study for the Southside area and other older neighborhoods
like this. There now ARE general staff guidelines which have been formally
11
ACCEPTED as a matter of policy to protect property owners like us. They are
a directive which has been ACCEPTED for city staff. Thus staff has failed
to act on the generally adopted directive on policy towards us, even under a
most widely interpreted perspective of a modified Carver's Governance model
for staff performance, as we see it. Something is badly wrong here.
First, we address the technical problem and current ordinance protection
that is afforded to us which has been violated. There is no ability, at
all, for the immediate downstream property to handle any additional water
runoff, let alone construction waste water. There is no way to provide for
it, given the current civil engineering foundation for this neighborhood,
nor any near -term future engineering solution for it.
2
This neighborhood was designed, for drainage purposes among others, with
alleyways at the rear of many of the houses. As designed, a formal alleyway
here and both Welsh and Fairview street were lower than the property level
of all of the houses in this block. The street AND the alley were both the
required drain ways for water runoff, in protection to the property. The
formal alley, in theory, designated for this property, behind it, is common
to all houses in the block which back it on both Fairview and Welsh Ave. By
ordinance, at the time this property was frozen into the current engineering
template, this alley must continue to provide several utility service
requirements. Per our recall, these include that it must remain no less
than 20 feet in width, and is to be paved. The original improved paving for
this alley was in a non -hard surfaced, improved gravel -like material,
similar to the original street paving on Welsh. It originally had not only
the required paving needed, but was the garbage pickup route for the houses.
The original wood garbage can rack is still there at 614 Welsh Ave!
This alleyway also contains sewer service for the houses in question in this
block, most of which are still connected to it. The original sanitary
' service in the neighborhood was in septic tanks. The sewer supplementing
them was constructed in this alley years ago as many of the houses were
built. This alley also contains water and gas service for many of the
houses. It, further, contains the full 6900 volt primary electrical
distribution service for all of the houses in the block. That service,
alone, has to be protected for access for full truck and lift operations on
the ground by the city, even if there were no issue on the drainage for us.
1
This alley, by ordinance, must not be fenced or obstructed by any property
owner, and as a drainage way, no property owner is permitted to interfere
with the drainage it must continue to afford. Further, in that it is longer
than 100 feet in length, it must, by ordinance, remain open at both ends of
the alley! That means, full city access, irrespective of what may or may
' not have appropriately been done with the other end of the block, the
extension of Fidelity street, legally has to be maintained at the subject
property end on the 600 Welsh project. None of this was addressed in the
11 action taken together by the developer, the contractor, nor the city. As an
inspection on the ground, together with applicable ordinance requirements
will easily determine, none of this can be satisfied under the present
1 construction plans. There is no easy adequate engineering solution for new
construction here, as is common to many of these older neighborhoods.
Specifically, the current property flooding conditions immediately down
stream from these locations are already well known to City engineering. The
issue is so severe for the corner area around the intersections of Welsh and
Park Place, that there is no ability for that segment of the City to handle
*ANY* additional water flow from major construction upstream, of *ANY* kind,
which will add to the run -off.
The property on which construction is to be done is already, now, slightly
below street grade level for Welsh. Not a full block down stream toward
1
3
1
Park Place, the land property level decreases to what is already now nearly
nine inches below current street grade level. The civil engineering
foundation upon which this neighborhood was based, coupled with the fifty
succeeding years in which what little drainage protection there once was,
has long since been neglected and /or abandoned by the City - to the expense
of the individual property owners down stream of this development. As a
matter of fact, the entire recent street overlay work that proceeded, under
protest, on Welsh, has only added to the problem.
The proper street level is clearly evident from the original drive way
levels still in existence. The abandonment is photographically provable.
11 The intended original below -grade full curb, gutter and sewer plans had to
be abandoned more than forty years ago; the 'storm sewer' preparation, even
then, overflowed into the property! It took removal of the original 'pre -
storm drain' facilities, coupled with private property owner paving and
driveway maintenance, to even keep adequate access to their property on
Welsh. This situation has remained for at least forty years now. It grows
steadily worse with each additional square foot of ground either paved, or
built -over, upstream. Any further major construction upstream of this area,
like this, will even more seriously endanger the property of those below it.
There is no realistic frontal civil engineering solution for Welsh, which
9 9
will now provide drainage for this development. Significantly, the major
trees below it, cannot be preserved, if any major Welsh Street work is done
to alleviate the problem. The entire rear drainage for this property in the
alley way behind the property, which was the actual allowable exit for all
this runoff water below the development property, must be re- addressed by
the City as well. It is now over -level in respect to the downstream
properties as well. The City having realistically lost any ability to cure
this over forty years running, cannot technically, therefore, permit further
construction like this, without liability for the consequences, unless a
demonstrable and satisfactory engineering solution for the problem is on
hand, contemporaneous with the new construction, as we see it.
Until all of you can settle this issue alone, such that no additional runoff
of any kind from this major construction will reach those of us below the
property, to add to our current woes, please withdraw forward work on this
project. It's either that or consider the possibility that the only action
we might take to gain relief, would be in the form of injunctive relief,
11 pending litigation over the issue. That's expensive for all concerned,
perhaps significantly so for you, should you lose the case.
In summation, this neighborhood is a classic, historic, fragile area of the
City. The guidelines for City future property development in this
O particular historic neighborhood are well established. They have been
developed formally over many hundreds hours of public work toward guidelines
for further development of neighborhoods, while preserving these fragile
areas of the City. The basic policy of caution and concern for this,
already has College Station City Council past approval. The focus of this
near complete inability to solve this problem, in and around this particular
downstream intersection and area has, on dozens of occasions, been the
1
4
1
subject of City- citizen conference, with no real solution, as well. The
houses of concern are headed toward historic registry.
All of this would have been easily discovered had city staff simply followed
the already issued guidelines set forth in the Neighborhood Preservation
Committees' report to Council and the formal adoption of that report as
guidelines for future property development in this Historic Neighborhood.
There is a sign demarking this property as being in this neighborhood
directly in front of the development.
We believe, for these permits for such new major construction, to have even
been issued, for such construction, without addressing this problem, as well
as other neighborhood issues, in advance, including an impact notice to the
public, would be far beyond what any reasonable and prudent person would
have done. Further, we don't believe that any knowledgeable and capable
City staff person, given their presence at Council meetings, could have
issued or permitted the issuance of any building permit for this work,
absent of protection arrangements for the downstream citizens. We believe
any reasonably aware such person had to have known, or should have known,
that the protection of downstream residents was necessary. Gee, even the
current rules force the erection of temporary plastic barriers to protect
the neighbors on a temporary basis! There is *NO* form of temporary
protection for construction runoff that can be made in *ANY* form for the
1 downstream residents of this project!
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. H. A. Luther by Michael Luther, PA
614 Welsh Ave.
1
' Bobby Mirza
612 Welsh Ave.
1
Helen Pugh
601 Fairview
Attachments:
Minutes transcription July 23, 1998, Council Meeting.
Neighborhood Preservation Committee report submission to Council.
Alley Ordinance continuing duties December 1997.
Copies of water load photographs on downstream properties.
1
5
1
1 il
Attachment to letter of October 4, 1999 to various parites. Partial
I/ transcription of City of College Council meeting minutes for July 23, 1998:
II Hickson:
"I would like to move that we accept 1, 2, 3 and 5 of staff
recommendations.." He is interrupted, "Could you go the two hour deal
II instead of one hour ?" He continued, "Yeah, eh, .. two hour parking.
Mmm, .. my prob .., I don't necessarily agree right now that we need an on-
street parking system. I'd like to see how these things work, before we
II really consider moving in that direction, to see what the impact... To me
these are some things that will definitely help in that area. I agree with
Jerry at this time that going to an on- street parking, parking permit
with .. is maybe a little bit premature."
I Marriot:
II "I second that."
Mcilhaney:
II "OK, we have a motion to approve staff recommendation 1, 2 and 3 which is
removing the on- street parking on George Bush; establishing a two -hour
parking, uh, .. eight through five on, uh, .. Fairview and George Bush to
Kerry; install no parking from here to corner signs on Fairview and then to
accept the staff's proposed actions for recommendations for on, uh, .. the
Committee's report, items one through five and seven through thirteen.
II Motion by Councilman Hickson; second by Councilman Marriott. Further
discussion by the Council ?" She paused, then continued, "Seeing none, I'll
call for the vote. Those in favor say 'Aye'." Voices heard. "Those
opposed, say 'No'." There is no sound. Whereupon she continues, "Motion
carries unanimously."
II Look *CAREFULLY* at item number four of the Committee's recommendations.
Note that this project is *NOT* a reconstruction of an old house for student
use. It is *NEW* construction. Accepted Committee Item number four says:
1 4.) Land Use Restrictions
RESOLVED, that no upcoding of structure category shall be
II permitted in this area. Property shall not be re- platted in
this area to achieve a higher structural density than
is currently of record.
II
So noted, staff has violated both the wishes of the people of College
II Station whom employ them, and the directive of the City Council, when
approval of this project was given. Moreover, if you listen carefully to
the Council meeting tapes, staff was expected to get back to the City
Council to implement these acceptances; to our knowledge, they have never
II done so. In order to prevent future flareups like this, we think failure to
accept the will of the people relative to issues like this must cease.
II
6
II
1
' College Station has invested a large effort and substantial funds over the
years, planning growth through a combination of zoning and neighborhood
development. These are the primary reasons College Station, today, is the
wonderful place it is to live, work and to raise children. This is not to
' take away from the major attractions; specialty relationships the city and its
citizens enjoy, it's just how a stable community is nurtured into focus. It
takes, and has taken, years, decades, to build all this.
Our neighborhoods have grown from engineering and planning, balancing safety
with economics, the city working through long -term guarantees to the citizens,
in exchange for their support. The people of this wonderful city have made
decisions to support College Station in this form of development. They've
invested their lives, those of their children and families' fortunes in
II zoning, the neighborhood concept and the promise of stability that is the
guarantee reasonably protected neighborhoods provide. Accordingly .
A.) The primary focus of development of this city is to provide
for continuing neighborhood integrity. Without it, the city
cannot really serve the citizens. This is not a city for
the benefit of a few. It is a city for all.
B.) A standard, once set for an area, should not be overturned.
In an established neighborhood, we should not overlay it with
a footprint of some other, later devised encroachment use for
non - neighborhood transients without leaving the neighborhood:
1.) Intact, in general, as it was planned, promised to be.
2.) Unchanged as to basic zoning guaranteed to those whom
chose to invest in the original area, with up- coding of
the structures in it strongly discouraged.
3.) Free from major traffic routing changes in any area
away from original design, especially as to the
increase of through traffic to the neighborhoods.
II Changes made, must be made only AFTER providing for
street service level changes. We must both protect
the neighborhood and offer new travelers, one and all,
safety at the new levels of traffic necessary - before
pattern changes; not as an afterthought.
the p ht. g 9
' 4.) Unchanged by any process which is not a sound engineering
decision, couched in value- added, for both the current
residents, and those who might benefit from the changes.
Because neighborhoods do mature over time, we should do our best to preserve
the history and heritage in them. We must recognize that, in some cases, old
' age comes with a frailty which must be cared for. History comes at a price.
It is both what you make, and make of it! Sometimes, the frailty of old age
demands a price to show respect - we must not abandon our older areas.
� , ,`/// y4eg/K
1