Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence OAKLAND RIDGE PARTNERS, LLC David Borsack Manager/Developer 108 Mile Drive College Station,Texas 77845 Telephone:(979)219-0405 Fax:(979)693-1919 E-Mail:david@davidborsack.com January 4, 2007 Ms. Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner City Of College Station Planning &Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 RE: CURRENT MASTER PLAN SUBMITTAL FOR GREAT OAKS SUBDIVISION, DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2006. Dear Ms. Hartl, After acquiring a current copy of the latest revised master plan for Great Oaks Subdivision it was discovered by Earl Havel and myself that yet again a collector street from Great Oaks Subdivision out to Jones-Butler Road has been omitted from same master plan. After failed negotiations between Mr. Arden and myself to establish a collector street from Great Oaks Subdivision through Oakland Ridge Subdivision out to Jones-Butler Road, it was my understanding that Mr. Arden would revert to a stated "optional location" south of Oakland Ridge Subdivision. Had I known that this was not the case, as is indicated by the most recent master plan, I would not have agreed to the current alignment as depicted on my current approved Preliminary Plan. It is obvious that with no collector street through to Jones-Butler Road from Great Oaks Subdivision at any location accessible to Great Oaks residents the anticipated increased traffic generated in the higher density Great Oaks Subdivision will traverse the most direct route to Jones-Butler Road, and that would be via the required "connection" along Turbinella Way through Oakland Ridge Subdivision. Turbinella Way was not designed to meet collector street standards and therefore a major traffic situation can be anticipated to occur. This unwanted additional traffic routed through Oakland Ridge Subdivision would certainly be objectionable to me as well as future residents of Oakland Ridge Subdivision. It is with the items presented above that I must voice my disapproval of the latest master plan as submitted by Mr. Arden and urge City Staff as well as the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to deny same plat or at least table same for review and consideration of a more traffic friendly lay-out. I trust this brief letter reflects to all those interested parties my dissatisfaction with Mr. Arden's current master plan and would hope that as I was required to work with Mr. Arden concerning the "connection" between Oakland Ridge Subdivision and Great Oaks Subdivision before my master plan could be approved that he would likewise be required to work with me regarding traffic flow directed through my subdivision. Respectfully Submitted, /t 'aGe--/lcar„dav-{ David Borsac Earl Havel, Agent OAKLAND RIDGE PARTNERS, LLC David Borsack Manager/Developer 108 Mile Drive College Station,Texas 77845 Telephone:(979)219-0405 Fax:(979)693-1919 E-Mail:david@davidborsack.com January 4, 2007 Ms. Crissy Hartl, Staff Planner City Of College Station Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 RE: CURRENT MASTER PLAN SUBMITTAL FOR GREAT OAKS SUBDIVISION, DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2006. Dear Ms. Hartl, After acquiring a current copy of the latest revised master plan for Great Oaks Subdivision it was discovered by Earl Havel and myself that yet again a collector street from Great Oaks Subdivision out to Jones-Butler Road has been omitted from same master plan. After failed negotiations between Mr. Arden and myself to establish a collector street from Great Oaks Subdivision through Oakland Ridge Subdivision out to Jones-Butler Road, it was my understanding that Mr. Arden would revert to a stated "optional location" south of Oakland Ridge Subdivision. Had I known that this was not the case, as is indicated by the most recent master plan, I would not have agreed to the current alignment as depicted on my current approved Preliminary Plan. It is obvious that with no collector street through to Jones-Butler Road from Great Oaks Subdivision at any location accessible to Great Oaks residents the anticipated increased traffic generated in the higher density Great Oaks Subdivision will traverse the most direct route to Jones-Butler Road, and that would be via the required "connection" along Turbinella Way through Oakland Ridge Subdivision. Turbinella Way was not designed to meet collector street standards and therefore a major traffic situation can be anticipated to occur. This unwanted additional traffic routed through Oakland Ridge Subdivision would certainly be objectionable to me as well as future residents of Oakland Ridge Subdivision. It is with the items presented above that I must voice my disapproval of the latest master plan as submitted by Mr. Arden and urge City Staff as well as the Planning and Zoning Commissioners to deny same plat or at least table same for review and consideration of a more traffic friendly lay-out. I trust this brief letter reflects to all those interested parties my dissatisfaction with Mr. Arden's current master plan and would hope that as I was required to work with Mr. Arden concerning the "connection" between Oakland Ridge Subdivision and Great Oaks Subdivision before my master plan could be approved that he would likewise be required to work with me regarding traffic flow directed through my subdivision. Respectfully Submitted, /ae--/ David Borsac Earl Havel, Agent OrffS Ortet-rteJe---' CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning& Zoning Commission FROM: Harvey Cargill,Jr., City Attorney DATE: December 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Great Oaks The applicant has met with Deputy City Manager Terry Childers. The message was that the applicant is going to sue the P&Z Commissioners,individually. The normal practice is to sue board members individually and officially. The City's indemnity policy provides for a defense of City Officers. As you recall, the Master Plan is being considered as part Ot the platting process; otherwise the requirement-would not extend into the ET J. The P&=Z Commission's role is to verify that the plat's technical requirements have been met. If the technical requirements have b.-.en met, then the plat is required to be approved. The standard-for_ approval or--denial is considered to be ministerial and is an objective review. I►� c.}4,-4-4- • In the case of zone changes, the P&Z recommends to the Council, and the standard for review by the P&Z and Council is the health, safety and welfare of the community. The standard for approval or denial is considered to be legislative and is a subjective review. At this point, depending upon the applicants' actions, we plan to discuss the issue at one of the January P&Z meetings. HC:j1s cc: Mayor&Council Members City Manager Glenn Brown Deputy City Manager Terry Childers Assistant City Manager Kathy Merrill VACting Planning Director,Lance Simms First Assistant City Attorney Carla Robinson Legal Department P.O.BOX 9960•1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION•TEXAS•77842 TEL.979.764.3507 • FAX.979.764-3481 www.cstx.gov • 0 Hon. Chairman and Members of the Panning&Zoning Commission Page 2 December 27, 2006 Enclosures: A. Section 212.010, Standards for Approval. B. Section 212.005,Approval Required C. April 16,2001,Memo re Standards for Review of Plats and Zone Changes D. E-mail from Steve Arden re Great Oaks Estates O:IHarvey1 EMOS12006112-27-06 Memo to P&Z Member.doc reaute city council to furnish:such information, In general 'r'this section, landowner's•elaints of depri • v.—on of procedural due proeess'were waived. Absent evidence that landowner ever request- Woodson Lumber Co.v. City of College Station ed city council to disclose information it:consid-G (App.;,1 Dist. 1988)752 S.W.2d 744. §'' 212.0:10. Standardi:for Approval (a) The municipal authority responsible for approving plats shall approve a plat if:. conforms to the general plan of the municipality and its,current and future streets, alleys, parks, playgrounds, and 2ubiic utility facilities; (2) it conforms to the general plan.: for the extension of the municipality and its roads, streets, and public highways within the municipality and in its extraterritorial jurisdiction, taking into account access to and extension of sewer and water mains and the instrumentalities of public utilities (3) a bond required under Section 2110106, if applicable, is filed with the municipality; and (4) it conforms to any rules adopted under Section 212.002 (b) However, the municipal authority responsible for approvfl3g plati;• may not approve a plat unless the plat and other documents have been prepared as required by Section 212.0'105, if applicable. • Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149,§ 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts1'989, 71st Leg.. ch. 624,§ 3.01,eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Revisor's Note (1) The source law references to "plan" and:"replat" are omitted from the revised law•,for the reasons stated,in Revisor's Note (1), to Section.212.006. (2) The source law reference to a:five-mile range'in regard to the general plan for the extension of a municipality is changed in the revised law to the area-of extraterritorial jurisdiction for the reasons stated in Revisor's Note (1) to section 212.004. Historical:and Statutory Notes • The 1989 amendment designated this section and to Section 12.004 Property Code,, apply as subsec.(a); substituted"if: (1)it conforms to only to a subdivision of a tract of land and to an the,general plan"for "if it conforms to: (1)the owner of.the tract if the tract is subdivided on general plan; in subd. (a)(2), inserted"it con- or after September 1, 1989." forms to'; renumbered subd-'(a)(3) as (4)4); inserted subd.(a)(3); in subd.(a)(4),.inserted"it . conforms to"; and added subsec.(li). Prior Laws: Section 4.02 of the 1989 amendatory act pro- Acts I927,40th Leg.,p.342,ch.231. vides: ActsJ987,70th Leg.,ch. 1102,§ 1. "The changes in law made by this Act to Vernons Ann.Civ.St.art.974a,§ 4. Chapters 212 and 232,Local Goveilninent Glide, Acts 1989,71st Leg.;ch. 1,§`4b(g)(1): Library References Zoning and Planning x372.2 to 372.'6,47LS ' Zoning and Planning€372.1. WESTLAW Topic Na:414: C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§ 19K- C.J.S.Zoning and-Land Planning§§.191,2243 Extraterritorial-jnrisdiction; extension of mu- Texts and Treatises nicipal subdivision,ordinance, see Ftroplcs, 36 Texas'Practice.§ 43.5,. 77 Texas Jur 3d, Zoning§ 73. Notes of Decisions Building permits 2 art. 970a(repealed; see, now, § 42.001 et seq.) Subdivisions 1 if theotlat,s conformed to the ci §subdivision ance: 119. 2. Bullding'pett'tiits • 1. Subdivisions City council's withholding of building permit A city could approve or disapprove subdivi- sought by church to improve its unplatted.prop. sion plats within'that eitY1 extraterritorial juris> erty, 'which had beenantiexeii tai eitji, for diction established under Vernon's Ann:Civ.St. church: purposes,,,on condition. that Irr%a of 610 MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY §212.005 Ch. 212 (b) In lieu of a plat contemplated by this subchapter, a municipality may require the filing of a development plat under Subchapter B if that subchapter applies to the municipality. Added by Acts 1989,71st Leg., ch. 1,§ 46(b), eff.Aug. 28, 1989. Historical and Statutory Notes Prior Laws: Acts 1989, 71st Leg.,ch. 1,§ 46(g)(1). Acts 1987,70th Leg.,ch. 1102,§ 1. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.Art.974a,§ 1B. Library References Zoning and Planning ca372.2 to 372.6,471.5. Texts and Treatises WESTLAW Topic No.414. C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§§ 191,224. 77 Texas Jur 3d,Zoning§ 71. § 212.0046. Exception to Plat Requirement: Certain Property Abutting Aircraft Runway An owner of a tract of land is not required to prepare a plat if the land: (1) is located wholly within a municipality with a population of 5,000 or less; (2) is divided into parts larger than 2% acres; and (3) abuts any part of an aircraft runway. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg.,ch. 1,§ 46(b),eff.Aug.28, 1989. Historical and Statutory Notes Prior Laws: Acts 1985,69th Leg.,ch.346,§ 1. Acts 1927,40th Le342,ch.231. Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.art.974a,§§ 1, IA,2. Leg.,p. Acts 1987; 70th Leg.,ch. 149,§ 1. Acts 1949,51st Leg.,p.321,ch. 154,§ 1(1). V.T.C.A. Local Government Code, Acts 1981,67th Leg.,p. 149,ch.67,§ 2. § 212.004(e). Library References Zoning and Planning C=372.2 to 372.6,471.5. Texts and Treatises WESTLAW Topic No.414. C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§§ 191,224.. 77 Texas Jur 3d,Zoning§ 71. § 212.005 Approval by Municipality Required The municipal authority responsible for approving plats must approve a plat or replat that is required to be prepared under this subchapter and that satisfies all applicable regulations. Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1,§ 46(b), eff.Aug. 28, 1989; Acts 1993,73rd Leg., ch. 1046, § 2, eff. Aug. 30, 1993. Revisors Note (1) The source law reference to a five-mile range in regard to the area subject to a municipality's responsibility to approve plats is omitted from the revised law for the reason stated in Revisor's Note(1)to Section 212.004. 603 • CThe of College Station, Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. Legal Department P.O.Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station,TX 77842 • (979)764-3507 • FAX:(979)764-3481 www.ci.college-station.tx.us MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL TO: Mayor Mcllhaney and Members of the City Council Chairman and Members of the Planning& Zoning Commission FROM: Harvey Cargill,Jr., City Attorney DATE: April 16, 2001 RE: Standards for Review of Plats and Zone Changes The purpose of and basis for adopting platting and zoning regulations is to promote the public health, safety, morals,and general welfare of the community. TEXAS LOCAL Gov'T CODE,Section 211.001 and Section 212.002. The standard for review of a plat is objective. The approval or disapproval of a plat is considered to be a ministerial act. Section 212.005 Approval by Municipality Required: "The municipal authority responsible for approving plats"must approve a plat or replat that is required to be prepared under this subchapter and that satisfies all applicable regulations." If the City Council or Planning and Zoning Commission want to require two or three subdivision entrances, specific lot sizes, or other such requirements, it must incorporate such provisions into the subdivision ordinances. If the plat complies with all the subdivision standards legally, it must he approved by P&Z. The standard for review of zoning ordinance amendment is subjective. The standard for review of zone changes allows for much more latitude. A zone change allows P&Z and the City Council to decide if the zoning ordinance change "promotes the health and safety of the community." The City has the power to amend the basic zoning ordinance if the public necessity demands it, but any amendment must bear a substantial relationship to the public health,safety,morals,or general welfare." jslo:Iharveylmemos120011standardsreviewpl rs dog Home of Texas A&M University Home of the of Bush Presidential Library and Museum Mayor Mcllhaney and Members of the City Council Chairman and Members of the Planning& Zoning Commission April 16, 2001 Page 2 Recently Roxanne attended a conference on Planning and Land Use. At the conference, Mr. Chuck Ellison was in attendance. The people presenting and appearing before P&Z and the Council are working to know the rules. The first speaker at the conference emphasized that time and time again P&7 members confuse the standards for review for plat and zone changes, get sued, and lose on platting issues. The general rule on zoning is the City wins, so long as the City (P&Z or Council) doesn't expose an improper motive in its meetings,and give the Court some excuse to set aside its decision. These distinctions for review are critical. Please call if you have any questions. HC:jls cc: Roxanne Nemcik Tom Biynier Glenn Brown Jim Callaway Connie Hooks jslo:l harveyl memosl20011standardsreviewplats.doc Harvey Cargill Fwd: Great Oaks Est?`-s 1 From: Glenn Brown To: Carla Robinson Date: 12/18/2006 8:53 am Subject: Fwd: Great Oaks Estates FYI Glenn Brown City Manager City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 979 764-3509 >>> "Steve Arden" <s.d.arden©cox.net> 12/17/06 3:37 PM >>> Glenn, Inability to move toward obtaining an approved Master Plan for Great Oaks Estates which is located within the western ETJ is raising legal questions with the owner, Lieven Van Riet. Even though City staff has helpfully reviewed, recommended and processed through the myriad of both City and County regulations for approval,success at the P&Z and Council level continues to be elusive. Failure last week for the Council to approve sanitary sewer service to the subdivision under the new policy for that type of extension is incomprehensible. Especially since Van Riet participated with the City and Tony Jones in"over size"cost for the extension west of Wellborn Rd. I realize this is awfully short notice but Dr Van Riet will be in town after lunch today, Monday 12/18,would it be possible to meet with you sometime early to mid-afternoon?Our understanding is that both the staff and applicant are moving in concert, but there is a lack of understanding on the part of Council and P&Z of the different City role in the ETJ. By continuing a concerted effort,success can be attained before this issue escalates. Thanks. Steve Arden 846-8788 ext 24 229-7275 cell