What demographic are you and your wife in?
Petition to protect College Hills neighborhood from rezoning
7,865 Views |
60 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by soso33
They rent asking to change the zoning are they? I thought it was just a subdivide?
Mid 30's. Why?
Just curious as to what demo was buying in that area given the growing number of rentals.
We were looking for good schools, big lots, close to center of town, and not cookie cutter.
Okay to clarify some of the information here:
1. The lots were owned by a homeowner who donated these lots to Texas A&M Foundation
2. The foundation has these two lots under contract, and it will be sold to said developer if and only if they can get a replat
3. There is a UDO for that neighbourhood, with setback minimum, and standard lots. Hence the need for the replat.
4. There are several other issues here, those lots are at the end of College Hills elementary on a very narrow street that essentially receives traffic from the area, creating a potential safety issue.
5. This area also has a tendency to have major drainage issues.
Other points:
1. For some to argue that better be by the University than somewhere else, is probably some of the worse logic. When weeks ago on this board people were complaining about Hotels and other developments with traffic near their precious neighbourhood. It always not a problem, until it is in your own neighbourhood.
2. There is not a supply problem with all the construction of new student housing apartments. It is pretty established that if anything we are headed to an oversupply of housing options.
3. This is both a Bryan and College Station issue, Of how to manage rentals in residential neighbourhoods.
4. The issue with most rentals in a residential neighbourhood, is that those who are renting, and those who own the rentals usually could care less about their neighbours, noise, mowing the grass, managing the lawn, and upkeeping their houses. It is pure finance, keep capital spending as low as possible, to maximise cashflow.
5. Some of the problems with Ag Shacks are not even trying to hide that they plan on breaking the 4 unrelated renters see examples: 1 2 3 , all of these are for rentals, the configuration and layout. No way the relator in this case, and developer don't know this. Not even trying to hide it. Right in plain sight. It is this kind of development in a neighbourhood with families, that causes allot of issue.
6. The issue lies in having sustainable growth and increasing value for all.
7. Why the city allows you to use 1/2 of your front lawn for a parking lot is beyond me, when you build rental homes that do not fit the character of a neighbourhood, the increase in value is really not there. As a person who lives in a neighbourhood with rentals, when you try to sell your home, it really puts off people to want to buy with the additional traffic, noise, and character. To say it helps values is probably too much of a blanket statement.
1. The lots were owned by a homeowner who donated these lots to Texas A&M Foundation
2. The foundation has these two lots under contract, and it will be sold to said developer if and only if they can get a replat
3. There is a UDO for that neighbourhood, with setback minimum, and standard lots. Hence the need for the replat.
4. There are several other issues here, those lots are at the end of College Hills elementary on a very narrow street that essentially receives traffic from the area, creating a potential safety issue.
5. This area also has a tendency to have major drainage issues.
Other points:
1. For some to argue that better be by the University than somewhere else, is probably some of the worse logic. When weeks ago on this board people were complaining about Hotels and other developments with traffic near their precious neighbourhood. It always not a problem, until it is in your own neighbourhood.
2. There is not a supply problem with all the construction of new student housing apartments. It is pretty established that if anything we are headed to an oversupply of housing options.
3. This is both a Bryan and College Station issue, Of how to manage rentals in residential neighbourhoods.
4. The issue with most rentals in a residential neighbourhood, is that those who are renting, and those who own the rentals usually could care less about their neighbours, noise, mowing the grass, managing the lawn, and upkeeping their houses. It is pure finance, keep capital spending as low as possible, to maximise cashflow.
5. Some of the problems with Ag Shacks are not even trying to hide that they plan on breaking the 4 unrelated renters see examples: 1 2 3 , all of these are for rentals, the configuration and layout. No way the relator in this case, and developer don't know this. Not even trying to hide it. Right in plain sight. It is this kind of development in a neighbourhood with families, that causes allot of issue.
6. The issue lies in having sustainable growth and increasing value for all.
7. Why the city allows you to use 1/2 of your front lawn for a parking lot is beyond me, when you build rental homes that do not fit the character of a neighbourhood, the increase in value is really not there. As a person who lives in a neighbourhood with rentals, when you try to sell your home, it really puts off people to want to buy with the additional traffic, noise, and character. To say it helps values is probably too much of a blanket statement.
Ah.
At least your 3 listing examples are in primarily student rental neighborhoods which Is better than them being in family residential. We lived on Peyton over 25 years ago and it was primarily students back then. They're still breaking the no more than 4 unrelateds rule, but they're where they should be.
You are not serious. Go look at other of these "Ag Shacks" and you will see this layout and design over and over. They can be found in plenty of so-called residential streets. Also, the argument of "they are where they should be.." is laughable. So if they are your next door neighbours they are not where they should be, but as long as it is somewhere else then great. The reason that neighbourhood became that way is because of lack of real meaningful planning and ordinances.
Also, since you agree with the statement on breaking the ordinance. What do you think should happen? Turn a blind eye, let the area continue to slide? Just interested in your clarification.
Also, since you agree with the statement on breaking the ordinance. What do you think should happen? Turn a blind eye, let the area continue to slide? Just interested in your clarification.
Connect Tarrow to Stallings (and make Tarrow 2-way north of University again).
/never will happen but should have been done 35+ years ago.
Is the home valued at over $600,000 built in the last four years one of the lots??? Or the soon-to-be happy neighbor to 50 students?
/never will happen but should have been done 35+ years ago.
Is the home valued at over $600,000 built in the last four years one of the lots??? Or the soon-to-be happy neighbor to 50 students?
Looks like a TAMU Foundation is the mailing address for one of the lots....
Don't know why you didn't appreciate my post, but...
What I said is that the neighborhood of the listing you cited are already rental neighborhoods and has been for decades and likely were meant to be that way. Nothing is going to change that. Further, I agree they break code if more than 4 unrelated people live there but someone allowed them to build them. The house itself doesn't break any rules and it is up to cocs to enforce the rule of no more than 4.
Finally, I said if these things are going to be built that it is best that they are in rental neighborhoods like your three are. I realize they are all over and I never implied anyone should turn a blind eye. I merely pointed out your examples weren't in residential areas and that's better than it could be.
What I said is that the neighborhood of the listing you cited are already rental neighborhoods and has been for decades and likely were meant to be that way. Nothing is going to change that. Further, I agree they break code if more than 4 unrelated people live there but someone allowed them to build them. The house itself doesn't break any rules and it is up to cocs to enforce the rule of no more than 4.
Finally, I said if these things are going to be built that it is best that they are in rental neighborhoods like your three are. I realize they are all over and I never implied anyone should turn a blind eye. I merely pointed out your examples weren't in residential areas and that's better than it could be.
Can anyone tell me how many code enforcement officers are on staff in college Station. As I recall the last time I was involved in a similar issue the answer was one full time and one part time. The complaints about college students in rental property have been discussed for as long as I can remember. It always comes down to the city not being able to enforce the code that is already in place.
I own rental property here and I take offense to item #4 if the previous statement. My rentals are better maintained than most of the owner occupied homes in the area.
I own rental property here and I take offense to item #4 if the previous statement. My rentals are better maintained than most of the owner occupied homes in the area.
Big Bubba, you mentioned that students have to live somewhere. Fair enough. How about:
The Rise
The Stack
The Barracks
Calloway House
The Woodlands at College Station
Woodstock Condominiums
Falcon Point Condos
Springs at University Dr (technically Bryan)
Aspen Heights
The Standard
2500 Central Park Student Townhomes
100 Park
University Heights
Holleman Crossing
Sterling Northgate
Z Islander
The Point on Redmond
Broadstone Ranch at Wolf Pen Creek
Northgate Proper
Pepper Tree Apartments
The Trails at Wolf Pen Creek
Northpoint Crossing
Park West
Or any number of AgShacks that have already been built?
I live in the College Hills area, specifically in Carter's Grove, where every third house is now a rental. The neighborhood near College Hills Elementary has been undergoing a revitalization over the past few years. People have been buying the older homes, renovating them and living in them. Drive down Gilchrist, then go down Ashburn and Marstellar, and all the other lovely streets near the area where the developers want to build high density housing. Every morning children walk to school down Gilchrist and Francis. The idea of introducing even more traffic to that are will significantly impact the integrity of the neighborhood is concerning to say the least.
And before someone again makes the ridiculous suggestion that we could all rent out our homes and move, why? We bought our house 20 years ago and it is completely paid off. The value of it is less than half of buying a house with similar square footage anywhere else in town. Why should I be forced to buy in another neighborhood, just because some developer wants to turn my entire neighborhood into student housing?
The Rise
The Stack
The Barracks
Calloway House
The Woodlands at College Station
Woodstock Condominiums
Falcon Point Condos
Springs at University Dr (technically Bryan)
Aspen Heights
The Standard
2500 Central Park Student Townhomes
100 Park
University Heights
Holleman Crossing
Sterling Northgate
Z Islander
The Point on Redmond
Broadstone Ranch at Wolf Pen Creek
Northgate Proper
Pepper Tree Apartments
The Trails at Wolf Pen Creek
Northpoint Crossing
Park West
Or any number of AgShacks that have already been built?
I live in the College Hills area, specifically in Carter's Grove, where every third house is now a rental. The neighborhood near College Hills Elementary has been undergoing a revitalization over the past few years. People have been buying the older homes, renovating them and living in them. Drive down Gilchrist, then go down Ashburn and Marstellar, and all the other lovely streets near the area where the developers want to build high density housing. Every morning children walk to school down Gilchrist and Francis. The idea of introducing even more traffic to that are will significantly impact the integrity of the neighborhood is concerning to say the least.
And before someone again makes the ridiculous suggestion that we could all rent out our homes and move, why? We bought our house 20 years ago and it is completely paid off. The value of it is less than half of buying a house with similar square footage anywhere else in town. Why should I be forced to buy in another neighborhood, just because some developer wants to turn my entire neighborhood into student housing?
Quote:
Springs at University Dr (technicallyBryan)
Z Islander in Bryan as well. Bryan has a lot of student apartments, rental houses and ag shacks with more to come. Doesn't mean I like them, just glad our neighborhood is not a good candidate for ag shack development.
...as is a portion of Sterling, but they weren't singled out like the complex I commented on.
Blame it on your neighbors for selling their properties for max dollar.TKDMom said:
, just because some developer wants to turn my entire neighborhood into student housing?
1210 Marstellar just hit the MLS. .42 acre corner lot. Prime candidate to be split in to 3 Agshack lots. If you hurry, you can go ask them not to sell to the highest and best offer.
...and don't forget approximately 17% of the student body lives on campus too.
You do realise there are ordinances about splitting lots when adjoining lots, and lots across the streets would be dissimilar in size? They would have to go through the process of replatting. Sorry, but your example doesn't fit your story line. Next.
You left out a lot. You are right, there are tons of apartments. There are also 60k+ students at A&M.TKDMom said:
Big Bubba, you mentioned that students have to live somewhere. Fair enough. How about:
The Rise
The Stack
The Barracks
Calloway House
The Woodlands at College Station
Woodstock Condominiums
Falcon Point Condos
Springs at University Dr (technically Bryan)
Aspen Heights
The Standard
2500 Central Park Student Townhomes
100 Park
University Heights
Holleman Crossing
Sterling Northgate
Z Islander
The Point on Redmond
Broadstone Ranch at Wolf Pen Creek
Northgate Proper
Pepper Tree Apartments
The Trails at Wolf Pen Creek
Northpoint Crossing
Park West
Or any number of AgShacks that have already been built?
The traffic argument is very weak. Compared to the traffic at some other elementary schools, the traffic at College Hills is minor. Go sit at the corner of Rock Prairie Elementary or Pebble Creek Elementary a few mornings and you will see what I mean.TKDMom said:
Every morning children walk to school down Gilchrist and Francis. The idea of introducing even more traffic to that are will significantly impact the integrity of the neighborhood is concerning to say the least.
Yes, that's a lot of students. But call and ask Woodlands about their occupancy. It's not as pretty as it once was in that sense.
Yes, I left out a lot of places, even near my own house where students are already living.
Rock Prairie elementary comes off much wider streets with a better traffic flow. I know, I used to drive through there every morning on the way to work. The point is that there are a lot of people living in the College Hills and surrounding neighborhoods whose kids walk to school. Increasing the traffic is going to make it dangerous for those kids. The house across the street from the proposed site is currently up for sale as well. If that lot goes to an AgShack developer, then the kids will literally have to go through student housing parking lots just to get to school.
Again, I would encourage anyone who hasn't been in this part of town in a while to drive through the neighborhoods over the weekend and see how nice some of the owner occupied houses are. People have been working hard to improve and preserve the integrity of the neighborhoods.
There are plenty of places for AgShacks to be built, places that don't already have established neighborhoods. They don't have to go in across the street from a school. The very fact that the sale of the property is contingent on a re-plat should tell you something. This is far from a done-deal.
Quote:
The traffic argument is very weak. Compared to the traffic at some other elementary schools, the traffic at College Hills is minor. Go sit at the corner of Rock Prairie Elementary or Pebble Creek Elementary a few mornings and you will see what I mean.
Rock Prairie elementary comes off much wider streets with a better traffic flow. I know, I used to drive through there every morning on the way to work. The point is that there are a lot of people living in the College Hills and surrounding neighborhoods whose kids walk to school. Increasing the traffic is going to make it dangerous for those kids. The house across the street from the proposed site is currently up for sale as well. If that lot goes to an AgShack developer, then the kids will literally have to go through student housing parking lots just to get to school.
Again, I would encourage anyone who hasn't been in this part of town in a while to drive through the neighborhoods over the weekend and see how nice some of the owner occupied houses are. People have been working hard to improve and preserve the integrity of the neighborhoods.
There are plenty of places for AgShacks to be built, places that don't already have established neighborhoods. They don't have to go in across the street from a school. The very fact that the sale of the property is contingent on a re-plat should tell you something. This is far from a done-deal.
Good points but
*couldn't
*couldn't
Slocum on a mobile said:
I grew up in that area and went to College Hills as a kid. There are a number of stealth dorms in the area already.
But, here is my big point:
The City has been all about money for YEARS. When the City wanted to Annex Wellborn I didn't see a bunch of College Hills folks leading the charge to help us out. It didn't affect you, and you couldn't care less. Some of the same folks complaining on this thread were saying : It's inevitable, progress, etc. HOW DOES IT FEEL NOW IT'S YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?
So now, this doesn't affect me. I. Couldn't. Care. Less. Buy up all the big lots on Gilchrist, Domink, wherever. Load as many loud, partying college kids as possible.
The city council and the mayor are elected by the townies, not the students. IIRC, a lot of them live in College Hills. The city staff and P&Z want one thing - moar revenue to fund more grandiose Fire Palaces, Senior Centers, moar staff, etc. Dense development and the tax base that brings helps fund that.
Edit: Grammar Nazis. Everywhere.
I might be reading in between the lines, but it sounds like you are taking delight in the potential misery of other people. Or to put it in the parlance of the times, it's like that song Shaq sang to Kobe.
We need 4 lanes to Navasota. That's obviously where the city and the get rich quick developers and investors who sold College Station's soul want families to live. Burn College Station to the ground and let Sharp's 100,000 degree mill students have it. The charm of the neighborhoods surrounding the University has been destroyed or is in the process of being destroyed, anyway.