Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence . B Bleyl & Associates 1722 Broadmoor Suite 210 :,: '-16Project Engineering & Management Bryan, TX 77802 A January 31, 2008 i/m 01 Ci - 'b1 - OS' Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner I : n Planning& Development Services r City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 AC, College Station, TX 77842 Re: Kyle View Estates Master Development Plan COCS Case File#07-00500329 Dear Ms. Hartl, As you are aware, on December 17th of last year we submitted a Master Development Plan to your department for processing. On January 8th of this year we received staff review comments,which brought forth two issues of concern for me and my client. Master Plan Review Process First, we are confused by the comment that this plan will not be scheduled for Planning & Zoning Commission consideration until after this comment has been addressed. The most current versions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance I can find includes the following sections: 6-B.3.1 When the master development plan or master preliminary p a7 tis received with subdivider's application for approval and the fee, all copies received shall be dated, stamped, and signed, and one (1) copy returned to the subdivider and immediately distributed to other City departments concerned for their review. 6-B.3.2 A copy of the master development plan or master preliminary plat will be forwarded to the Commission with staff comments. 6-B.3.3 The applicant will be advised of the date set for Commission consideration. 6-B.3.4 Within thirty (30) days after the master development plan or master preliminary plat is formally filed with the City, the Commission shall approve or disapprove the plan/plat. Bryan Austin Conroe (979)-268-1125 (512)-328-7878 (936)-441-7833 (979)-260-3849 (512)-328-7884 Fax (9:36)-760-3833 Fax You will also find very similar wording in Section 3.3.I.1 of the UDO which directs that the submitted document along with staff findings be sent on to P&Z within 30 days. Nowhere within either the Subdivision Ordinance or the UDO can I find authority for Staff to withhold a master plan from being considered by P&Z, but instead it clearly indicates that Staff's comments should go with the master plan for the benefit of the Commissioners. I am well aware that other development processes, like rezoning, do include the authority and direction for the rejection of an application until Staff feels that the submittal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,but I find no such allowances in the case of Master Plans. I believe that you will agree that the document submitted on 12/17/07 fulfills the requirements of Section 6-B.1 regarding required content. It is therefore our belief that having met the stated conditions,that the master plan has indeed been formally filed and should be forwarded to the P&Z at the earliest possibility. Obviously if there is specific language that contradicts the ordinances above which I have missed, I would appreciate having it pointed out to me. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Because the water and electrical power services for this development will not be provided by CSU,the single applicable comment received from Staff was: "Please reflect the Thoroughfare Plan by showing the proposed right-of-way aligned with Barron Road,without ROW measurements." As we are all aware,the Thoroughfare Plan was developed and intended to be used as a general planning tool. While it is clearly meant to provide for the needs of the future, the plan is also very specific about varying from the grand design in order to protect neighborhood integrity. This purpose is appropriately reflected in the more precise development documents like the Subdivision Ordinance in order that the use of these documents be continued as intended. References made to `Comprehensive Plan Compliance' are always moderated by phases like: "Adequate streets shall be provided by the subdivider such that the arrangement, character, extent, width, and grade of each shall conform to the comprehensive plan of the city and shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned streets, to the topographical conditions, to the public safety and convenience, and to their appropriate relationship to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets." (Subdivision Ordinance Section 8-G.1, emphasis added) and; "The alignments of proposed thoroughfares...on the "College Station Thoroughfare Plan map"...are generalized locations that are subject to modifications to fit local conditions,budget constraints, and right of way availability that warrant further refinement as development occurs. Alignments within 1000 feet fo the alignment shown on the aforementioned maps will not require a thoroughfare plan amendment." (Unified Development Ordinance Section 1.6.C, emphasis added) Therefore in implementing the Thoroughfare Plan,the City has a long history of allowing Developers to locate new roadway alignments hundreds of feet away from where they are depicted on the Thoroughfare Plan in order to best meet their own business objectives while still providing the City with means to promote transportation improvements. Almost as often, existing developments have been held as constraints under which the scaled drawing location has yielded to precise, situation specific design,just as the Comprehensive Plan intended. At this time,the Kyle View property lies adjacent to and takes sole access from the existing County roadway, Capstone Drive. The existing intersection offset between Capstone and Barron along the Wellborn Road centerline is appx. 335 ft. This distance is well within the allowances commonly granted by the City when implementing the Thoroughfare Plan on undeveloped property. More importantly however, Capstone Drive is an existing road and utility corridor serving many homes and not a new thoroughfare. Capstones current location also is the benefit of a permitted railroad crossing. This is not a case of where to locate a new road across virgin territory. We are unclear as to the rationale behind requiring right of way to be dedicated for a roadway realignment, without regards to the immense cost to the public of not only building a new road, but in relocating all the existing utilities, railroad crossing and connections to other roads along this reach. The only similar case I am aware of where the City's Thoroughfare Plan was believed to require the relocation of an existing road was on Rock Prairie Road between SH6 and Stonebrook Drive. In that case,the City's Legal Department determined that forcing the property owner to dedicate the necessary right of way for the relocation of a road that already served the site was a `taking' and could not be pursued as a development exaction. For that reason,the City purchased the right of way and constructed the improvements entirely with public bond monies. As illustrated above,we clearly believe that the Kyle View Master Plan as submitted is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. We ask that you agree with and support this position through our review and approval process, or provide the specific language of the Comprehensive Plan that requires that the dedication of right of way is required not for a new road, but to relocate an existing one. Closing Combining these issues, we believe that the master plan should move forward as submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission with Staff's full support, or we should be provided the ordinance guidance Staff is relying upon to do otherwise. As always,my client and I remain at your service to respond to any questions, comment or concerns you may have regarding this project, either by phone, email or in person. Thank you again for your assistance and consideration. iely, ,e f/ I if B ett cCu y,P.E. Sr. Engineer/Branch Manager Cc: Paul Leventis; Brazos Trace LLC. Chris Peterson; Swearingen, Peterson&Ben LLC. Page 1 of 4 Crissy Hartl - RE: Kyleview From: "Brett" <bmccully@bleylengineering.corn> To: "'Crissy Hard' <Chartl@cstx.gov> Date: 3/18/2008 5:01 PM Subject: RE: Kyleview CC: "'Paul Leventis"' <paull@brazostrace.com> Good Afternoon Crissy, As Paul mentioned, we have two different process questions, so let me see if I can describe them effectively. Master Preliminary Plan Detail in non-SFR phases We have a master plan that is being taken forward to P&Z which includes several potential use types. According to direction from Bob, we also need to submit a preliminary plan for review before 3/28 (effective date of the property's annexation) in order to vest the land uses shown on the master plan. We are currently developing a master preliminary plan that covers all the single family residential phases so that part is OK, but I need to know what level of information might be required on the office/townhome and commercial phases to make sure these uses are vested properly. On one hand, I can include these phases in the master preliminary plan and have plenty of data to support the master plan. The downside of this is that the developer would have to pick between office and townhome uses right now to allow me to properly lay out the future lots. On the other hand, all of a master plan can be considered to be vested if only a portion of the MP area is taken further in the platting process, but that does not address the annexation and development agreement complications involved with this project. How can we make sure that the developer's land use rights are vested and yet avoid tying down the actual lot sizes and dimensions which would be required by inclusion in a master preliminary plat? Master Preliminary Plan Conditional Approval For various reasons, the layout of this project is not desired to meet the current requirement to provide for public access to adjacent unplatted properties. We understand that variance request(s)will be required, and that both the variance request and master preliminary plat can go to the same P&Z meeting as long as they are heard in that order. This means that P&Z would have to approve the variances to allow the master preliminary plan to move ahead without comment. However, if the variance(s) are denied, can the master preliminary plat still be approved with the added condition that the accesses are provided at identified locations as part of the final plat process? The developers are comfortable that their reasoning will support the variances, but obviously would not want to be forced to start over and take a slightly revised MPP through the process again if all other significant items are accepted and approved. Is P&Z allowed to conditionally approved a MPP to comply with design requirements if a variance is unsuccessful? Please let me know if I can help clarify these questions or situations in any way. file://C:\Documents and Settings\chartl.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47DFF57... 3/24/2008 Page 2 of 4 Thanks for your help! Brett From: Paul Leventis [mailto:paull@brazostrace.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:35 PM To: 'Crissy Hartl' Cc: 'Brett' Subject: RE: Kyleview Importance: High Crissy, Due to our time limits if you could schedule something for us on Monday 24, 2008 that would be great. I am going to have Brett in the meeting with us. You may be able to answer the questions, so I am having Brett e-mail you the two questions. If you want to wait until Bob comes back I understand, but in order to turn our Preliminary plat in by March 27, 2008 I would like to meet on Monday(so Brett has time to work on the preliminary plat). Also, it will help you and Bob to know what specific questions we have. Thanks for your help, Paul From: Crissy Hartl [mailto:Chartl@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:14 PM To: Paul Leventis Subject: RE: Kyleview Paul, Bob is out of town this week and will not be back in the office until next Monday, March 24th. Because Bob has been very involved with this project, I would prefer that he is present during any discussions about Kyleview Estates. I would be happy to schedule a meeting with you and Bob next week, as your and our schedules permit. Please let me know if and when you would like to meet next week. Thanks, Crissy >>> "Paul Leventis" <paull@brazostrace.com> 3/14/2008 1:22 PM >>> Bob, Yesterday you should have received the 13 copies of the masterplan that switched phase 2 and phase 5 and file://C:\Documents and Settings\chartl.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47DFF57... 3/24/2008 Page 3 of 4 nothing else. Brett is working on the preliminary plat for the R1 residential phases but I would like to meet and discuss the other phases. Brett had some questions on the commercial phases and I would like to get:some answers so I can give him direction. Can I meet with you and Crissy early next week so I can get back to Brett? I am open anytime next week. Let me know a time that works for you? Thanks It will only be me at the meeting. From: Bob Cowell [mailto:Bcowell@cstx.gov] Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 10:00 AM To: Paul Leventis Cc: Crissy Hartl Subject: Kyleview Paul, I wanted to follow up with you regarding our conversation yesterday about Kyleview Estates. As I indicated, we are in agreement that the current Master Plan is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO. We will therefore recommend approval of the Plan with relevant comments. This item will be scheduled for the April 3rd meeting of the P&Z Commission. I also indicated that we will recognize that the Master Plan will vest the land uses (to the extent required by Local Government Code) as identified on the Master Plan, once the property is annexed. As you are aware the property will be zoned A-0 upon annexation and thus these land use designations while vested will be non- conforming and subject to the relevant provisions of the UDO. I also indicated to you that since the property will be zoned A-0, unless a plat is filed prior to annexation the lots for the site will need to comply with the A-0 provisions of the UDO (i.e., minimum lot size of 5 acres). If a Preliminary Plat for the property meeting all UDO requirements is filed prior to the effective date of the annexation (March 29, 2008) we will accept the plat as vested (to the extent required by Local Government Code) upon annexation. I urge you to proceed once annexed, with a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the property to remove inconsistencies with the UDO and non-conforming issues with the development. Finally, as I mentioned the staff will likely proceed with an amendment to the Thoroughfare Plan to propose the re-alignment of Barron Road with Capstone to take advantage of the right of way already secured by the County and to avoid the relocation of the rail crossing. This will not have a direct impact on the Kyleview property. If you have any additional questions or have any further comments please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you Robert S. Cowell, Jr., AICP Director file://C:\Documents and Settings\chartl.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\47DFF57... 3/24/2008 Page 1 of 2 Jennifer Prochazka - Kyleview Estates WEINUMNIMONIM From: Jennifer Prochazka To: Brett McCully Date: 2/10/2010 5:03 PM Subject: Kyleview Estates CC: Bob Cowell; Molly Hitchcock Brett, This email is in response to questions about Kyleview Estates posed at a Pre-Application Conference on Wednesday, February 3, 2010. The developer of Kyleview Estates submitted a Master Plan to the City on December 17, 2007, designating phases 4 &5 as office/townhome use and commercial use, respectively. At the time the Master Plan was submitted, the development was located in the City's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The developer filed a Preliminary Plat application on March 27, 2008. Following the submittal of the Master Plan and Preliminary Plat, the development was annexed into the City on March 29, 2008 (however, annexation proceedings were initiated on January 10, 2008). The development, including phases 4 &5, was zoned A-O at the time of annexation. A Final Plat application was submitted to the City on June 6, 2008. The current property owner now indicates a desire to develop phases 4 & 5 as single-family residential rather than office/townhome and commercial as depicted on the Master Plan. During the Pre-Application Conference, you asked if the property owner must seek a rezoning in order to develop phases 4 &5 of Kyleview Estates as single-family residential. A rezoning to R-1 or PDD would be required in order to develop phases 4 &5 as single-family residential. As indicated in the Pre-Application Conference, this use is consistent with the designation of the property in the Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan is a 20-year planning document and must be used in that context. Because of the existing character of the area (primarily rural and at the edge of the City), it is staffs position that a rezoning to a high-density single-family would not be justified at this time. You also asked if the property owner must seek a rezoning in order to develop phases 4 &5 as office/townhome and commercial uses (as shown on the initial Master Plan and Preliminary Plat filed prior to annexation). As indicated during the platting process (via email to the owner of record at the time), we do recognize that the Master Plan vested the land uses (to the extent required by Local Government Code) as they were identified on the Master Plan. The property was zoned A-O Agricultural Open upon annexation and thus, although vested, the land uses are non-conforming and subject to the relevant provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. It was also conveyed that because the preliminary plat was submitted on March 27, 2008 prior to the date of annexation (March 29, 2008), the lot sizes and configuration would be vested to those shown on the Preliminary Plat, and the subsequent Final Plat would need to be in compliance with the approved Preliminary Plat. So, while the land uses are vested and a rezoning is not required in order to develop the land as such, a rezoning would need to be sought to realize the full potential of the uses by allowing lot sizes, densities, setbacks, etc. of the applicable districts. A-0 setbacks, density restrictions, and lot size restrictions are such that townhome development would be very difficult. Other uses not requiring replatting, such as the office and commercial identified on the Preliminary Plat, could proceed without rezoning or replatting, but would need to meet the dimensional standards of the applicable district(A-0), including all building setbacks. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks! Jennifer Prochazka, AICP Senior Planner Io•Hp .rt-tri QAttinrte\irtrnrh \f non] Rettinac\Temn\XParnwice\41172F6f)2__ 2/10/2010 Page 2 of 2 Planning &Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station,TX 77842 Office: 979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 Email: iprochazka@cstx.gov Website: www.cstx.gov City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University® 4:10. craft-intro\ir,rnphavlra\T nral Cettinac\Temn\XPornwice\4R77F6D9 7/10/7010 B Bleyl DL Associates 1722 Broadmoor. - Suite.2..10 Project Engineering & Management Bryan, TX 77802 November 29, 2007 , • David Coleman, P.E. Utilities.Division Manager - • City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue = College Station,Texas 77842 Re: ,Kyle View Estates 'Sanitary Sewer Service Request Annexation Request Mr. Coleman, ; • As you are aware,the proposed Kyle Viewproject lies on the south side of Capstone Drive and on the west side of the UPRC tracks and Weilbom Road. This development is currently located in the City's ETJ and is outside the City's current sanitary sewer CCN As you know, the.Council Resolution in.regard to utility service outside the City limits and/or CCN`does not permit service without an exception,which is therefore the intent of this request This letter should serve to formallyrequest an exception allowing the City of College Station to act asthe sanitary sewer service provider to the proposed Kyle View Estates Project. , This letter should also.serve to officially request that the City.of College Station,annexthe •property as soon as allowable and practical.. ; We ask that these requests'be processed as promptly as possible, and that you would let me know of any other information you may require. Anyquestions in regards to this request may be ,,directed to myself.at(979) 268-1125 or the Developer, Mr. Paul Leventis at(979)774.2900.;. Sincere Brett Mc?ully -:E. Sr. Engineer I Branch Manager. B.lyan Austin Conroe. (979)-268-1125 (512)-328-7878 (936)-441-7833 „(979)-260,3848:. (512)-3281q§4 Fax • ;(936)-760-3833 Fax