HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousFILE NOTE
Shenandoah Phase II
Case #95-211
A question came up during the PRC review of the final plat regarding the requirement for a
temporary turnaround for Kernstown Lane. Since staff can require that garbage pickup be from
Windfree Drive, there is really no need for a temporary turnaround for sanitation or emergency
vehicles. I researched a similar case in the Elm Crest Subdivision with respect to Mint Avenue.
Staff did not require a temporary turnaround in that instance for the same reasons and because the
lots that have access to Mint also have access to Sunflower Trail.
Staff did not require a letter from the applicant or a revision to the application in the Elm Crest
case; instead, staff just determined that a temporary turnaround was not a requirement. The
Subdivision Regulations state that a temporary turnaround "may" per required so a formal
variance request is not necessary.
1
Nata ' Thomas
Planning Technician
March 20, 1995
CHECKLIST FOR FINAL PLATS
Requirements based on field survey and marked by monuments and markers:
1. Drawn on 24" x 36" sheet to scale of 100' per inch.
2. Name & address of subdivider, recorded owner, planner, engineer and surveyor.
^ 3. Name & address of all lenders on the property.
^ 4. Name & address of all easement holders.
^ 5. Proposed name of subdivision (not spelled or pronounced similarly to any other subdivision
in Brazos County, Texas).
6. Date of preparation, scale in feet and north arrow.
l~ 7. Application fee.
8. rd construction documents on 24" x 36" sheets.
l~1" 9. Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and the C.S.I.S.D.
[~ 10. Total area intended to be developed.
C~ 11. Subdivision boundary lines indicated by heavy lines.
^ 12. certificate of Ownership & Dedication;
i
E
d/
neer;
ng
or
Certificate of Surveyorship an
ertificate of City Engineer;
pproval of Commission;
Approval of Gty Council;
Certificate of the County Clerk.
(Owner(s)' signature(s) must be in place before taking plat to P&Z for consideration).
f l
t
b
N
13. s.
er o
o
um
^ a. number of lots by Zoning District.
^ b. average acreage of each residential lot by Zoning District.
14. Approximate area of street right-of--way.
^ 15. Proposed parkland dedication.
16. Requested oversize participation items, if any.
17. Location of the One Hundred Yr. Floodplain according to the most recent available date.
18. If more than 1 sheet, an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch.
^ 19. Parkland Dedication information.
I~ 20. Exact location, dimensions, name and legal description of all existing or recorded streets,
alleys, reservations, easements or other R.O.W. within the subdivision, intersecting or
contiguous with boundary or forming boundary with accurate dimensions, bearings or
deflection angles and radix, area, .center angle, degree of curvature, tangent distance and
length of all curves.
i~
®J.
21. Same information for proposed streets; alleys, etc. as preliminary plats.
22. Lot corner markers and survey monuments (by symbol) and tied to basic survey date.
23. Street, alley, and sidewalk plans, profiles and sections, with specifications and detail cost
estimates.
24. Sanitary sewer plat with 2 foot contours, plan and profile lines, showing depth and grades,
with cost estimates.
25. Water line plat showing fire hydrants, valves, etc. with specifications and a detailed cost
estimate.
26. Storm drainage system plat with 2 foot contours, street lines, inlets, storm sewer and
drainage channels, with profiles and sections, and showing drainage and runoff areas, and
runoff based on 5, 10, and 25 year rain intensity. Detail drainage structure design and
channel lining design if used, with specification and detail cost estimate.
27. Street lighting plan showing location of lights, design, and with specifications detail cost
estimate.
28
29.
30.
fpn~plnWa7plriU-95~
Submit a statement addressing any differences between the final plat and approved Master
Preliminary Plat & Plan.
Indicate any variances requested and reasons for same. °°~
Are there impact fees associated with this development?
` ;ff; .:;
~' R f.9 IYIOJ~~~ a aa® ~. . ~.~ ® . ®.®~. ... d.9 .. r r.
h
March 15, 1995
Mrs. Shirley Volk
Development Coordinator
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 7784.2
REz SHENANDOAH PHASE TWO
FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL
Dear .Shirley::
Attached. please find the following items for the above
referenced submittal:
1. Application Form -
2. Filing Fee in the amount of $200.00 (Ck #2565.)
3. Sixteen (16) folded blueline prints. of the Final Plat
4. Two (2) sets of construction drawings.
5. Drainage Report
b . Paid Tax Ceriaf irate
Please. notify me of the date for PRC for this submittal. I
will submit the signed. mylar after staff comments have been
obtained and any revisions completed.
It is my understanding from your deadlines schedule that this
final plat will be placed on the agenda of the Thursday, April 6,
1995 Planning and Zoning Commi lion meeting.
Should you have any questions concerning this submittal,
please adv e.
Very truly yo s,
'®
Michael . McClure., P.E., R.P.L.S.
MRM/mlm
attachments
1722 Broadmoor, Suite 210 Bryan, Texas. 77802 ®(409) 776-6700 • FAX (409) 776-6699
/; L, -/ ~(
n,-
~~-a ~ i
~u-a~~
Deb - prepare a draft letter to Mike McClure regarding Shenandoah Parkland
dedication.
copy Steve Beachy, Parks Director
Place the draft in my box for review. thanks.
It is my understanding from Steve Beachy that the Parks Board is interested in obtaining
land in the Shenandoah area as there is no parkland in this particular park zone. The
Homeowner's Association approached the Parks Board in an effort to give the existing
private park facility to the City. Their intention is to turn over maintenance as their
association has no funds to continue maintenance. This would be a gift to the City and
would not satisfy Mr. Froehling's parkland dedication requirements under the subdivision
regulations for the phases he is developing.
It is also my understanding that the Homeowner's Association has not yet voted and made
a decision as to whether to turn over the private park to the City and the City has not yet
decided whether this would be acceptable (as this was an old oil well location the City
would want to further investigate the acceptability of this area as a city park). Ultimately
the Council will decide this with the Parks Board recommending a course of action. If this
does not work out the Parks Board would then like to pursue the idea of a land dedication
incorporated with the detention area in Phase 5. If this works out this would satisfy Mr.
Froehling's parkland dedication. However, under this scenario there would be no money
to develop this park until some future bond election. Under the Homeowner's gift
scenario combined with monetary dedications from Mr. Froehling the City could begin to
develop a neighborhood park for Shenandoah.
As to the question of parkland for Phase 1. Parkland dedication will have to be met for all
phases 1-5. Phase 1 was originally platted into single family lots while in the ETJ. There
is no parkland dedication in the ETJ. After the area was annexed this phase was replatted
.into one large tract. With this current replat into single family lots again the parkland
dedication requirement kicks in as thereplat is occurring within the City Limits.
Because there are decisions to be made that are out of Mr. Foreling's hands at this point in
time I will authorize the filing of the plat for Phase 1 (assuming all else is in order) without
the parkland dedication. Prior to filing the plat for Phase 2, however, the City will expect
the parkland dedication to betaken care of, either in the form of a montary payment or
land dedication. This should be sufficient time for the Homeowner's Association and the
Parks Board to make theer decisions and recommendations.
I hope this helps the Froehlings in theor efforts to develop the remainder of theis
subdivision. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Jane R. Kee, AICP
City Planner
~7 CITY ®~` LaL.ECi~ TATI®~
LEGAL E RTMENT
~~ ,~ ~ POST OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE
~- 'i~ COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77642-9960
(409) 764-3507
MEMORANDUM
TO: .Veronica Morgan, Asst. City Engineer ~S
FROM: Pete Shively, Assistant City Attorney
RE: Shenandoah Phase II -deed restrictions
DATE: January 16, 1996
BACKGROUND
In 1983, Shenandoah Joint Venture developed the subdivision known as Shenandoah
Phase I. At that time a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions" was
filed on 159.382 acre tract "including Shenandoah Phase I". Recently, the developer has
platted Shenandoah Phase II directly adjacent to Phase I. This additional subdivision area
includes a designated drainage detention pond facility, which the developer has labeled a
"common area" to be owned and maintained by the existing homeowner's association, the
Southern Plantation Homeowner's Association. The developer, in an apparent effort to
avoid the additional legal fees usually commiserate with the preparation and filing of new
deed restrictions, has told City staff that the original deed restrictions filed in i 983 are
sufficient to empower him to dedicate this land to the existing homeowner's association
and thus impress the maintenance costs and responsibilities upon that association. City
staff is concerned, however, that the existing homeowner's association may at some point
balk at the idea of taking on the maintenance costs of this additional drainage detention
area. The staffs concern is that the area be maintained by some group and .that the City
not be left "holding the bag" while the developer and the homeowner's association resolve
the meaning and effectiveness of the 1983 deed restrictions as to this additional area.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Do the 1983 deed restrictions include the area now being platted as Shenandoah
Phase II?
ps/c/jan96/shenan. doc
01/16/96
Memo to Veronica Morgan
January 16, 1996
__. _ Page 2
2. If so, do the 1983 deed restrictions allow the developer to dedicate additional
common areas such as this detention pond to the existing homeowners' association
and require them to maintain it?
3, If not, do the 1983 deed restrictions allow the developer to add '°additional land" to
the original area and then require the existing the homeowners' association to take
title to and responsibility for a detention pond?
ANSWERS
1. Yes, the deed restrictions filed in 1983 do include the area that is now being
platted as Shenandoah Phase II. The legal description of the property covered by
those deed restrictions was attached as Exhibit A to the deed restrictions. That
legal description describes a large 159 acre tract and only excludes 3 small (1 and
2 acre) tracts from that description (I think that these three smaller tracts now make
up the Reserve Tracts A & B on the front of the plat of Shenandoah Phase I). The
159 acre tract does include land north of the platted area of Shenandoah Phase I to
Barron Road. This appears to be the area where Shenandoah Phase II is being
located.
2, This is unclear. The area now being platted as Shenandoah Phase II is included
within the deed restrictions, but this land is neither "Common Properties" nor
'°Additions to Existing Property" as those terms are both used in the deed
restrictions. Rather, the land appears to be a third category: namely, "property"
that is later platted and of which a portion is then denominated as "common
property." The developer could argue that there is no specific date limitation to the
definition of common property in the deed restrictions and that the term should
apply to any "common property'° regardless of when it is so designated. The
problem with this approach, however, is that in another section of the deed
restrictions it states: "....the Developer hereby covenants for itself, its successors
and assigns, that it shall convey any Common Properties to the Association not
later than December 31, 1986." Article IV, Section 2, page 5. If this term is
applied or added to the definition of Common Property, then land designated as
Common Property after December 21, 1986 cannot be "Common Property" as the
term is used in the deed restrictions. Conversely, if the foregoing term is not
applied or added to the definition but held to be binding upon the developer for all
Common Property, then the developer has breached this term of the deed
restrictions and may be liable to the homeowners' association for damages.
ps/c/jan96/shenan. doc
01 /16/96
Memo to Veronica Morgan
January 16, 1996
Page 3
On the other hand, if the detention pond area is not treated at all as common
property but rather as "additional property" under the deed restrictions, the
developer could simply make it subject to the same deed restrictions "by filing of
record a Supplementary Declaration of covenants and restrictions with respect to
the additional property." Article II, Section 2, page 3.
Thus it would appear that either the developer has breached his promise to convey
the common property to the homeowners association by December 21, 1986 or he
needs to file a Supplementary Declaration" for the "additional property.'°
Because of this ambiguity, and the potential problems that it may produce, I
suggest that you require the developer to execute a brief development agreement
that would include a "hold harmless" clause for the City. Such an agreement could
be simply a one page document that recites the parties, the date, the facts and the
ambiguity arising from them. Thereafter, it would be an agreement on the part of
the developer to indemnify the City in the event of any costs, claims, etc. arising
out of this issue and the City's promise in return would be waive assurance of
compliance with whatever ordinance or design standard is implicated by the
maintenance of the drainage pond--or to agree that with the hold harmless
agreement that the developer has met the requirements of the implicated design
standard. The "key" here, however, is to carefully identify what specific design
standard or city ordinance the developer is in danger of violating by not resolving
this ambiguity: e.g., Article XI, Section D,2,d,(2)c. of the City's "Drainage Policy
& Design Standards, which requires the "Final Drainage Report" to include a
discussion of the "maintenance access and aspects of the design.". In any event,
please let me know if you want any additional help in drafting such a development
.-agreement for this project.
< ~- ~ ~--
3, Because the detention pond area is covered by the old deed restrictions, this
question is moot, but if it were outside of the existing deed restrictions, the
developer could add them to the current deed restrictions but only by filing a
"Supplementary Declaration" document at the courthouse. See first paragraph on
this page for additional discussion of this issue.
ps/c/jan96/shenan. doc
01/16/96
~;x CITE Off' ~OL.LrG STATIOI`I
~~- ~rr~~ C~`s£'ss;~ fox 9950 I x.01 ~'exas F4weraue
_ .< ~otleg~ ~€:atgor, r~~as 7782-9360
~~03 76~ 300
May 22,199s
McClure Engineering
1722 Broadmoor, Ste 210
Bryan, TX 77802
Attn: Mike McClure
REm Shenandoah Parkland dedication
Dear Mike,
It is my understanding from Steve Beachy that the Parks Board is interested in obtaining
land in the Shenandoah area as there is no parkland in this particular park zone. The
Homeowner's Association approached the Parks Board in an effort to give the existing
private park facility to the City. Their intention is to turn over maintenance as their
association has no funds to continue maintenance. This would be a gift to the City and
would not satisfy Mr. Froehling's parkland dedication requirements under the subdivision
regulations for the phases he is developing.
It is also my understanding that the Homeowner's Association has not yet voted and made
a decision as to whether to turn over the private park to the City and the City has not yet
decided whether this would be acceptable (as this was an old oil well location the City
would want to further investigate the acceptability of this area as a city park). Ultimately
the Council will decide this with the Parks Board recommending a course of action. If this
does not work out the Parks Board would then like to pursue the idea of a land dedication
incorporated with the detention area in Phase 5. If this works out this would satisfy Mr.
Froehling's parkland dedication. However, under this scenario there would be no money
to develop this park until some future bond election. Under the Homeowner's gift
scenario combined with monetary dedications from Mr. Froehling, the City could begin to
develop a neighborhood park for Shenandoah.
As to the question of parkland for Phase 1. Parkland dedication will have to be met for all
Phases 1-5. Phase 1 was originally platted into single family lots while in the ETJ. There
is no parkland dedication in the ETJ. After the area was annexed this phase was replatted
into one large tract. With this current replat into single family lots again the parkland
dedication requirement kicks in as the replat is occurring within the City Limits.
Because there are decisions to be made that are out of Mr. Froehling's hands at this point
in time the City will authorize the filing of the plat for Phase 1 (assuming all else is in
order) without the parkland dedication. Prior to filing the plat for Phase 2, however, the
City will expect the parkland dedication to be taken care of, either in the form of a
monetary payment or land dedication. This should be sufficient time for the Homeowner's
Association and the Parks Board to make their decisions and recommendations.
I hope this helps the Froehlings in their efforts to develop the remainder of this
subdivision. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
_e / ~.
J ne R. Kee, AICP
ity Planner
cc: Jim Callaway, Asst. Director, Economic Development Svcs.
Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator
Steve Beachy, Parks Director
Advice
;: prdinar
\/il~itfirtg
EXPLANATION OF FACTS:
w~cJ?~o a -e~,.-~,e
inti o -n~'t,~-~
~ ~-
EXP AN TION OF IS E
~~
~ ~.~
~.~o ~R~,.~,,, Q,,,~,;.n~,yQ,b ~~-~~a-tics
,~~rnon~ ~ea~sv~~ ~b r'~%w~a.~'", il-, a.~d- ~ ~`~"~""~
4~aq ~1~~- b d~cwo~ed- ~... `~~.o~. ems-~a~.
QUESTIONS R CARDING THE ISSUES:
~o~.s ~. (age.(- ~ nod-c,~.c~(-~
~ ? ~~
1-~-~
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
~ ,~~~~~
(~ ~ K
~ (. Q
STAFF GOAL ON THIS REQUEST: ~
t
~ s
`Cu c~
_ - ~~ ~
js/c/forms/assist
l1/10/95
MEMORAND
DATE: November 14, 1995
TO: Legal
FROM: Veronica Morgan,. Assistant City Engineer
RE: RFLA recently sent regarding Shenandoah Phase II Detention Pond
Maintenance
Please attach the following informati
the above referenced RFLA.
~~ '~'
ti to the covenants/restrictions that wersent Nith
~.
~~ ~
~ ~ ~' ~' '~
~~M ~
~~ ~ ~ ~~
~..~;r
~~
~:
~- ~°
VM/dsc
~NOU 1~ '95 14:41 ED FROEHLING EUII_DER
409 7740565 T0: 409 764 3496 P01
Ed Frcehling, Builder
3887 High Lonesomc Road
Coilcgc Station, TX 77&45
O~ca (409)776-8266, Fax (449)774-0565
Facsimile Transmittal:
T®m U ~ r-~..Le ~. ~~~~~~ ~°~-
Frpffi: ~c~-~
l~ate:zl ~ ~ ~ ~~t S
Pages including cover: ~ _ (~ ~~ ~~ w . ~ ~S
NOV 13 '95 20:28 ED FROEHLING EUILDER 409 7740565
Ed Froehling, Builder
~' 3887 High Lonesome Road
Colloge Station,l'X 77845
Office (409}776-82bb, Fax (409}774-0Sb5
Facsimilo Transmittal:
F e
From: ~t~~
pg~. 1t 11'~s ~~ S
Pages includin cover:
Re: ~'^
T0: 409 764 3496 P®1
~~
~,a mom' " ~
NOU l,~n°95 20:28 ED FROEHLIN6 EUILDER
Dear Nrs. Morgan;
409 7740565 T0: 409 764 3496 P02
Concerning the filing; of the plat for ;~henandoa,h Phase II
and the m~intenenc:e of the detention pond:
'~Te wil.,l get vegetation su.fficientl.y :at;arted to prevent
erosion and do thQ fir:~r, mowing, then the maintenence will be
turned over to the homeowners association.
~s owner cif the 39 lots in Sheno,ndo~~h Phase II, I will be
paying ~8.5a on the 39 lots or x'331 .50 mon thly to the So!.ithern
P7.anta.tinn Homeowners Association far maintenance :intil the
lots are sold, n..fter the lots ar.e sold homenwners will pe.y
~y1>,OC) on the 3~ lots, ar ~5~35.00 monthl.,y to the homeowners
assoc ie.tion ,
I am treasurer of the homeowners association and Nancy or
I can be re~c:t~.ed gat 776-82F6 concerning the maintenance of the
detention pond,
Sincerely,
,,,
r , ~-,
~:
.~
'dward Fro~hling
NOU 10 '95 14:41 ED FROEHLING EUILDER 409 7740565 T0: 4~0/9~ 764 3496 G) ~~J P01
Ed Frcehling, Builder
388' High Lonesome Road
College Station, TX 77845
Office {409}77b-82bb, Fax {409}774-0Sb5
Facsinule Transmittal:
To: U sJt c~..Le ~ ~~~,~~`~ ~
From: ~c;~~-~
Date.~~~~~ti~5
Pages including cover: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~
Re: ~:~ V~~~. ~1- ~ h.~x~c,X. d~