https://www.protectcollegehills.org

A developer is asking the College Station Planning and Zoning Commission for permission to replat two large lots at 700 and 704 Gilchrist. This is currently a 2.5 acre forested area with a house on each lot. The developer seeks to divide these 2 lots into 10 smaller ones, using one for drainage and nine for apparent high density housing units on a cul-de-sac that will feed into Gilchrist. Our Association believes this poses a real danger to the children attending College Hills Elementary School and violates the spirit of the Neighborhood Conservation Designation for our area outlined in the current city comprehensive plan. We are asking for your support in speaking out against this request by signing the petition, contacting city officials, and coming to the public hearing on this issue

I can't get the link to work on my phone. It seems to be timing out.

This is ridiculous. The city needs to protect the neighborhood and not allow this rezoning, but from what I have seen, they allow developers to do whatever the **** they want and don't give a crap about how it affects anybody else. When is the meeting, and who do we contact to complain about tbe plans to rezone the area?

The link came up again after that. Maybe it was slowed down by lots of people signing and adding comments at once.

The replatting request likely complies with the zoning. What is the current designation of the land and the minimum lot size for that designation?

The new construction once occupied may violate a "no more than two unrelated" restriction, if there is one.

With as many Ag shacks as have popped up relatively close to that area, I would be surprised if they have a limit of no more than 2 unrelated. I think that city-wide the regulation is no more than 4 unrelated, and the city still allows construction of places that are clearly meant for at least 5. I know they are supposed to do something if someone proves there are over the approved number living there, but how much enforcement is there and what are the consequences?

The enforcement of the residency limits is very difficult, you're right. I wouldn't bet in favor of the neighborhood, but I do wish them luck.

So what exactly are they building there?

I see both sides of this debate.

Those opposed
I get it. This is currently a residential neighborhood and you want to keep it that way. You don't want college kids living there and all the negatives that come with that (late parties, driving like fools, etc). You don't have to talk for 30 minutes to explain to me why you feel that way. I get it.

But on the other side
The homes on these two lots were built in the 50's. I imagine most of the neighborhood was between the 50's - 70's. In case you haven't noticed, a few things have changed since then.

1960 CSTX Population: ~11k
1960 TAMU enrollment: ~8k

2017 CSTX Population: ~100k
2017 TAMU enrollment: ~60k

So, exactly where should all these additional students live? Even with the addition of more dorms on campus and all the private dorms they are building on University, there is still more demand for student living. The students have to live somewhere.

I think the best solution is to keep the students living as close to campus as possible and this neighborhood is right across the street from the main entrance to campus. If students are not going to live in this area, then where are they going to live? Everybody complains when there is the slightest hint that students might start living next to them. But, we have to realize and accept that they must live somewhere.

So if City Council does so "No" to this project, I hope it is not because of an online petition, but because they have an answer to the question of "where will students live".

I'm torn about the College Hills area. I understand that it's "old money" College Station and that families still live there. But, as Big Bubba said, it's a perfect area for students and a LOT of those houses are old and run down.

Stupe said:

---

When someone buys zoned land, they know what the restrictions are when they purchase it.

---

And they also know the process to get that changed.

RNAggie said:

---

The other issue with these lots and their location is that it is directly across the street from College Hills Elementary. Tons of kiddos walking to school. Kids being dropped off. Gilcrest is already a nightmare when it comes to pickup and drop off as people park on the curb to pick up kids.

---

I don't believe they are going to view that has a concern. We have numerous elementary schools that are on much busier roads. Converting two lots into 9 is not going to make that big of a difference.

CS78 said:

---

turfman80 said:

---

I'm tired of the twin cities kicking residents to the curb for the sake of developers tax dollars.

---

The city had no problems shutting down development in the state streets. You should ask them why they cared more about "preserving" that neighborhood than they do yours.

---

You mean the state streets that have a neighborhood conservation overlay zoning on them today? This is exactly what I was describing above and what this neighborhood needs to do. The only problem is getting your neighbors to agree to restricting their use of their own property to these requirements. Here is the link to the one on the state streets: linky

turfman80 said:

---

Students have to live somewhere!?

---

Yes, they do. If not here, then where?

Quote:

---

Students don't give a damn about neighborhood integrity.

---

You are correct. I get it.

Quote:

---

It is obscene to disrupt the quality of life for permanent residents who have put a huge amount of money, sweat and equity into their homes. I'm tired of the twin cities kicking residents to the curb for the sake of developers tax dollars.

---

Honestly, most of the long time residents of College Hills will make a killing if they decide to sell their homes.

Let me rephrase my original comment.
For those of you opposed to this, I don't think you need to spend a lot of time trying to explain to city council why you don't want college students as neighbors. I think council has heard this a million times over. NOBODY in this town wants to live next to college students.

If I lived in this neighborhood and was fighting this, here is what I might say to council: "What do you see as the future of the College Hills neighborhood? Do you intend to treat this as a neighborhood of single family homes or do you plan to allow it to be turned into AgShacks? I think we can all agree that the developer is going to put AgShacks on these lots and there will be numerous college kids living in them. Is that the future of my neighborhood? I think council needs to postpone a vote on this replating for now. I would like council to allow further debate and discussion on exactly how all of College Hills will be treated in the future and to clearly incorporate that into the Comprehensive Plan and UDO. If you approve this request today, then I believe you will open the flood gates and it will be impossible to say 'No' to any future replating requests in our neighborhood. Thank you."

I think it would be reasonable to ask council to delay a decision and evaluate this neighborhood as a whole. Have some open workshops that allow residents the ability to ask more questions and give better feedback. Of course, a big part of this discussion will be evaluating "where will the students live?" so don't go to the meetings and just say "I don't want them in my neighborhood". Instead, be part of the solution that tries to evaluate where they will live. But also be prepared that the final outcome of these meetings might be to decide College Hills represents one of the best areas to encourage students to live due to its proximity to campus.

If I were to attend these meetings, the general opinion I would share with council is that we should continue to encourage development of student housing as close to campus as possible.

kraut said:

---

First, this is not a rezoning. It is a replat. From what I gather, they are replatting the two lots into more lots that comply with the city codes.

Second, what the neighborhood needs to realize is that if the developer is not asking for any waivers, the platting process is ministerial and not subjective if the plat complies with the current city codes. In other words, if the plat meets all the platting code requirements without waivers, the P&Z has to approve it. They have no choice.

Third, the neighborhood needs to start the process of creating a neighborhood overlay zoning that doesn't allow this, if they do not want this to happen in the future.

Personally, I'm torn between the two sides. I feel for the neighborhood because I would hate to see these two lots mowed down, but I also believe that a property owner has the right to do whatever they want to with their property, as long as they are following city code.

---

It is my understanding that the replat does nor comply with the UDO; the lot sizes and setbacks are both too small.

There are way more families than you think. You should see how crammed the schools are, especially the middle schools hence the opening of the new middle school next year. Also, the high schools have more enrollment than people think and there will be a need for a new one in the next 5-6 years.

Even with the whole "protecting neighborhood integrity" thing going on, a lot of homes in College Hills are rentals (some of which have been rentals for years, even back when Munson was where the most influential lived), and they have students in them anyway. There was a house on Walton where four people lived (including myself), with the auxiliary driveway into Lincoln that spilled gravel into the street. That house has been demolished for a two-story house with what appears to be four bedrooms, same as the previous house (3 bedroom with a fourth bedroom added on later).

Speaking as a former resident of College Hills, I think that it's better "neighborhood preservation" to add a cul-de-sac in an underutilized area than demolish single family homes for thin-sliced lots with three story townhomes (think Inner Loop Houston).

kraut said:

---

taxpreparer said:

---

kraut said:

---

First, this is not a rezoning. It is a replat. From what I gather, they are replatting the two lots into more lots that comply with the city codes.

Second, what the neighborhood needs to realize is that if the developer is not asking for any waivers, the platting process is ministerial and not subjective if the plat complies with the current city codes. In other words, if the plat meets all the platting code requirements without waivers, the P&Z has to approve it. They have no choice.

Third, the neighborhood needs to start the process of creating a neighborhood overlay zoning that doesn't allow this, if they do not want this to happen in the future.

Personally, I'm torn between the two sides. I feel for the neighborhood because I would hate to see these two lots mowed down, but I also believe that a property owner has the right to do whatever they want to with their property, as long as they are following city code.

---

It is my understanding that the replat does nor comply with the UDO; the lot sizes and setbacks are both too small.

---

According to the city's GIS, it is zoned GS, general suburban, which is 5000sf lot minimum. You may want to make sure all your info is correct.

If they aren't meeting setbacks, then that is something the P&Z can consider.

Again, not a rezoning.

---

I called the city a month ago and asked specifically if this could happen, as my wife and I were looking at buying in College Hills. It's happening in our neighborhood in Bryan and we wanted to make sure it couldn't happen before buying. I was told by a planner that replatting is allowed, but the smallest lot width was to the average of existing lots on the street. That said, she did tell me if they ask for a variance and are granted it, this rule no longer applies.

I'd be safe to say that this will set a precedent for the neighborhood. We were extremely concerned because the house we were looking at had a 2.5 acre lot and a 1.25 acre lot across two sides of the house.