Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc November 2, 2000 Tel: 409 764 3500 Stephen Vaughn 5717 Chelsea Circle Bryan, TX 77802 Dear Mr. Vaughn: COLLEGE STAI~ION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 0~ ~ This letter is in response to your letter dated October 4, 2000 regarding concerns for the future development of the .86 acre tract you own just south of the Silk Stocking property on the SH 6 East Frontage Road. The problems associated with the development of this tract stem from it being an illegally subdivided piece of property. The properly is zoned A-O and is non-conforming because this zoning district requires a 5-acre minimum lot size. If the subdivision of the parent tract had been done through the city's platting process, this non-conformity would have been avoided and the issues regarding the collector street and access would have been addressed prior to your purchase of the property. Unfortunately, this did not occur. As you know, the City of College Station's Thoroughfare Plan shows a major collector street generally extending somewhere through your .86-acre tract and the abutting 2.236- acre parcel from the SH 6 East Frontage Road to a future north-south major collector. For the most part, the way the plan is implemented is through private development. If a landowner desires to develop his or her property and the Thoroughfare Plan shows a street through the property, then it is the developer's responsibility to dedicate the right-of--way and build the street upon final platting of the property. The recently approved Harley Subdivision plat for the two lots south of your tract were also illegally subdivided. In order for these parcels to be legally platted, the City required a master preliminary plat covering the entire parent tract from which the illegally subdivided parcels came. This is why your .86-acre and the 2.236-acre parcels were initially included in the master preliminary plat for the Harley Subdivision -they were both part of the original parent tract. Both were shown as "reserves" to reflect that they were not being preliminary and final platted with the two Harley tracts. Section 8-G.8 of the City's Subdivision Regulations requires that when property is platted that includes a street shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, than "such street shall be platted to maintain the continuity in the approximate location as shown, and of the type indicated." Typically, this would mean that right-of--way dedication be shown to reflect a thoroughfare on a preliminary plat. In the case of the Harley plat, the city was only requiring a note to address collector street since the portion through which the collector ran was shown as a reserve. The requirement to Home of Texas A&M University 09/07/00 16:29 8`979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS fool ~c~csxxc~~:~~x*:x~::~~k*~~xcs~:~~x~~~~~x~x* ~~* ACTIVITY REPORT ~~~c ~c~~~cxcsk~~cs~~x~k~~x~xc~xc~:k~c~c~c~c~*~~ TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX N0. 4046 CONNECTION TEL 97310096 CONNECTION ID START TIME 09/07 16:27 USAGE TIME 01'59 PAGES 2 RESULT OK 09/07/00 16:22 'b'979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS ~ ool ~~~k~~~~:~k:Y~:Xssksk~k~k~:~k~~k*xc~kA~~k~k~k~ sx~k~c ACTIVITY REPORT xc~c~c ~~c~c~~*:x*:xx:~c~*xc:~*~:~:x~:~~~~~~:* TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX N0. 4044 CONNECTION TEL 96948000 CONNECTION ID WEST WEBB et al START TIME 09/07 16:21 USAGE TIME O1'ZO PAGES 2 RESULT OK . r CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979) 764-3570 /Fax (979) 764-3496 MEMORANDUM September 7, 2000 TO: Mike Gentry, Webb, Allbritton, & Gentry, Via fax 694- 000 FROM: Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinator SUBJECT: HarleySubdivisron - FrtaJPlat Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by Wednesday, September 13, 12:00 p. m. to be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for September 21, 2000, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. Ten (10) copies of the revised final plat; and The Mylar original of the revised final plat with the owner's signature. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 764-3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Russell & Sharon Welch, 2112 E. William J. Bryan Pkwy., Bryan, TX, 77802 Bypass Land Partners, L.P., 1940 Northwestern Drive, El Paso, TX, 79912 Strong Surveying, 731-0096 Case file #00-159 Home of Texas A&M University ~::.. ~~~= Z ~ ~. ~ ~ i a ~~ ~" ~o .~ :~ a N I ~ ~~ ~~ 0 v O ~D W N 0 0 0 m C Cn N~ Z r ~~~ ~~ ~t D i i' 0 C1~ C "~ O '~ Z zn n V w ~~~ O ODD OVO ~ ~~OQ c C rn -~ m~~' ~c ~ Z ~ rn V ``\ W ~ O ~ Z p ~~ C ,. ~~~ ~~ s / / /~ %/ ~~ W ~ m A O ~ r N O N C'1 O c z J N "'~ m rn rn N w v Z W r D -~ n rn C ~ rn ~~D^ v V, C r ^ O c O T w ..., ~ ~ C7 m rn W 70 o y n ~~ ~. ~ v~ X ,` ,` ~j ~ `~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~ .~- N D n 7v m to 70 r rn -{ N C O "'fy O z T Z r -~ r D --- ~ ~ ..~A WN =~ D~ n0 ~~ mo m.~ v' y Oo ~a ~°wA rw~o z~~~ v4 ~ m~ ~o 0 0 .~~~ mom ~ ~o ~o~~ r+7 (~ 1 ~ ~ w ~ °~ ~ ~3 ~A ro D -+ ~w mo oa ~A m° ~~ Z~ a~ 1 D~ Z~ o i 0 Oa DW 2 N 20 1 Z w DMA m~ D ` O ': , .r: ,~~ ~ ~~ ~~/Ja~.~ October 4, 2000 Edwin Hard Development Services The City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 ~Y/. ~~ ~~ ~ .~~ L'(s'o ` Dear Mr. Hard.• I am writing over concern of the future development of Hwy 6 frontage; specifically the tracts starting at what is now the Blue Dolphin Club going south along the Hwy 6 frontage road past the 4.995 AC tract listed as Michael Darker called 4.995.4C 220'!.'60. As you know, I am the owner of the .86 acre tract just south of the Blue Dolphin tract. The city recently approved the platting of two tracts south of my tract for C.F. Jordan Company and Russ Welch Harley Davidson. During this process, at one time the city was requiring a note to b~uteon the plat saying that the City of College Station thoroughfare plan shows a collector street extending east-west generally through the reserve tracts north of lot 2. That would be my .86 acre tYRCt. As I mentioned in two separate meetings with you, I was totally opposed to the city approving the plat of the 2 tracts south of mine on the premise that they show or note a collector street on my tract. With only .86 acres a collector street like the one you described would totally wipe out any future prospects of doing anything with my tract. I was also concerned that since neither the developer of the two tracts mentioned nor the City of College Station owned the property that the collector street was to be on (ie: my .86 acre tract), I could not see where such a mandate could be iven. I feel that if the City of College Station plans to build such a street, either it should be moved to a location where the impact to the land owner would be less severe or the City should buy my tract. Secondly, I was then told that the city.dt.~Y-, ordin_nncP required that my tract and the 2.236 acre tract just to the north will be required to provide shared access or cross access such that both tracts are to be served by a single access point and that this too was required for plat approval of the two tracts just to the south of mine. I again expressed opposition in that I would not desire to share access and I am sure the owner of the 2.236 acre tract would not wish to either. ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ l ~ ~ r,:e. c4 (lam G,~,- ~~~--1 c.i,t~tr ~ ~s,,,) rr~..-~~~~-e /G ~ Gee ~~ i vim-.. G~-r i y advt. S o l , .~-n v'~'~. / uv~ ~-e- I personally attended the planning and zoning board meeting on September 21 `~` to express opposition to both issues as I was told up until that meeting that both the collector street and the shared access would be required to approve the plat of the two tracts just to the south. Upon arriving at the meeting literally minutes before it was scheduled to start, you informed me that after weeks of mandating the above issues be added as notes on this plat, that now in the last minute_both,.re~uremenls_wetT~waryed~t~.cLthst.the platting of the two tracts would be done without effecting the_reserv~ tract-(mine,) i_n_any way. Quite frankly, I don 't know wherv tract~tands-now. If in fact the City of College Station plans to build a collector street at some time in the future on my tract, obviously this tract becomes un-marketable. If that is the case, I believe the city shou'd buy ;ny tract now. If the collector street is going to be moved, I would like confirmation as to where it will be placed. Sincerely, ~~ ~ St e Vaughan Cc: Bill Payne-Payne, Watson, Kling, Miller & Malacek Karl Mooney, City if College Station Planning & Zoning Commission COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 November 2, 2000 Stephen Vaughn 5717 Chelsea Circle Bryan, TX 77802 Dear Mr. Vaughn: This letter is in response to your letter dated October 4, 2000 regarding concerns for the future development of the .86 acre tract you own just south of the Silk Stocking property on the SH 6 East Frontage Road. The problems associated with the development of this tract stem from it being an illegally subdivided piece of property. The property is zoned A-O and is non-conforming because this zoning district requires a 5-acre minimum lot size. If the subdivision of the parent tract had been done through the city's platting process, this non-conformity would have been avoided and the issues regarding the collector street and access would have been addressed prior to your purchase of the property. Unfortunately, this did not occur. As you know, the City of College Station's Thoroughfare Plan shows a major collector street generally extending somewhere through your .86-acre tract and the abutting 2.236- acre parcel from the SH 6 East Frontage Road to a future north-south major collector. For the most part, the way the plan is implemented is through private development. If a landowner desires to develop his or her property and the Thoroughfare Plan shows a street through the property, then it is the developer's responsibility to dedicate the right-of--way and build the street upon final platting of the property. The recently approved Harley Subdivision plat for the two lots south of your tract were also illegally subdivided. In order for these parcels to be legally platted, the City required a master preliminary plat covering the entire parent tract from which the illegally subdivided parcels came. This is why your .86-acre and the 2.236-acre parcels were initially included in the master preliminary plat for the Harley Subdivision -they were both part of the original parent tract. Both were shown as "reserves" to reflect that they were not being preliminary and final platted with the two Harley tracts. Section 8-G.8 of the City's Subdivision Regulations requires that when property is platted that includes a street shown on the Thoroughfare Plan, than "such street shall be platted to maintain the continuity in the approximate location as shown, and of the type indicated." Typically, this would mean that right-of--way dedication be shown to reflect a thoroughfare on a preliminary plat. In the case of the Harley plat, the city was only requiring a note to address collector street since the portion through which the collector ran was shown as a reserve. The requirement to Home of Texas A&M University Vaughn, Page 2. include streets shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as part of a plat is applied independent of property ownership. It is especially applicable in this case, since the circumstance of having a master preliminary plat involving properties not under common ownership was created as a result of an illegal subdivision. Upon consultation with our City Attorney's office, it was decided that the two reserve tracts to the north should not be included in the master preliminary plat for Harley since they did meet minimum lot size requirements for the A-O zoning district. Since they were no longer included on the preliminary plat for Harley, there was no longer a need for a note on the plat to address the collector street. I regret that this decision was made so late in the process and that I had to convey this information to you on the evening of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. You will need to work with the owner of the abutting silk stocking property to remedy your non- conforming status, to address the collector street, and to work out the issue of access. The City does not recognize the property division between the .86-acre and the 2.236-acre tracts since both were illegally subdivided. It views these parcels as one and will require that they be platted and rezoned together in order to rectify their non-conforming status. A single plat including both parcels will be required in order for either to develop or to obtain a building permit. The City will require that the major collector street be included as part of this plat and will weigh the impacts of this street over the total 3.096 acres. A rezoning request has to accompany any future platting for the two parcels since neither of the tracts meets the 5-acre minimum for the A-O zoning district. With respect to access, the City has a driveway ordinance which requires that driveways be spaced a minimum of 275 feet apart on the SH 6 Frontage Roads. Under the ordinance, a driveway could not be located on your property due to its small amount of frontage and the close proximity of the existing Silk Stocking driveway. When your property and the Silk Stocking property are platted, a shared or cross access easement will be required between the lots in order for them to utilize one driveway and comply with the ordinance. In closing, city staff would be happy to meet with you to discuss your situation in greater detail. Staff has met with the owners of the Silk Stocking property and they have been made aware that you all will need to work together to resolve the common problems associated with both of your properties. If you have any questions of if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, /' Edwin Hard, AICP Transportation Planner Cc: Karl Mooney, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Jane Kee, City Planner Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator LLEGE STATION CO P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM : Ed Hard, Transportation Planner ~~` DATE: September 13, 2000 RE: Access Concerns on Harley Subdivision The Commission expressed concern at its September 7`'' meeting for the multiple number of access points that could occur on the S.H. 6 Frontage Road with the above referenced 14.57-acre tract. The Commission questioned if the plat should include access easements such that future driveway locations could be shared between lots in order to reduce the overall number of driveways. In response, staff noted that all of the lots on the plat, with the exception of the reserve tracts to the north, had enough frontage to meet the driveway separation requirements of the driveway ordinance and therefore shared driveways between lots were not required. As for the two reserve tracts to the north, they would not be able to meet the driveway ordinance and will be required to share an access point. Staff did not make this a requirement on the preliminary plat because it could be handled at the final plat stage. In order to address this at the preliminary plat stage, a note has been added to the plat indicating that the two reserve tracts to the north will share a single access point. The driveway ordinance regulates the design and spacing of driveways based on the type or "class" of street from which they are taking access. The higher the street class (ie. major arterial vs. minor collector), the greater the spacing requirement. Under the driveway ordinance, the SH 6 Frontage Roads are considered to be "major arterials" and thus the ordinance's highest spacing requirement (275 feet) is and will be applied to the 2 lots and 3 reserve tracts on this preliminary plat. The two lots and three reserve tracts have a combined total 1,870 lineal feet of frontage along the Frontage Road. Using the minimum spacing requirement of 275 feet, six or possibly seven driveways (depending on driveway placment on each lot) could take access along this 1,870 feet of frontage once all five lots are developed. The driveway ordinance is not a part of the subdivision regulations. It is a separate ordinance geared primarily to be applied at the site plan stage. Driveways and access are addressed in the Home of Texas A&M University P&Z/Harley Plat, Page 2 platting stage when lots are being created that do not have enough frontage to meet the driveway ordinance. When this occurs, staff requires shared or cross access easements between lots to ensure that when the lot develops it can meet the driveway ordinance. The driveway ordinance gives the City Engineer or his designee the authority to require driveway spacings higher than the minimum standards called for in the ordinance when warranted by specific traffic conditions. Over the years, this discretion has been used primarily to require that driveways in the area of major signalized intersections be located well back from an intersection in order to avoid conflict with queue storage lanes. In the case of the Harley plat, using staff discretion to require that the future driveways along the frontage road in this area be spaced further than 275 feet apart would not be a consistent application of the ordinance. In closing, the driveway ordinance as adopted by Council does not give the Planning and Zoning Commission the discretionary authority to impose driveway spacings on this plat greater than the minimum 275 feet required by ordinance. Therefore, since the lots being created with this plat can meet the driveway ordinance, the number of potential future driveways should not be a grounds for denial of the plat. If the Commission feels strongly that the 275 feet minimum spacing distance for driveways on the Frontage Road is not enough, it may want to direct staff to revisit these and similar requirements in the ordinance and come back to the Commission with recommended changes. In any event, a discussion of the driveway ordinance would be a good topic on a future P&Z Workshop agenda. Vaughn, Page 2. include streets shown on the Thoroughfare Plan as part of a plat is applied independent of property ownership. It is especially applicable in this case, since the circumstance of having a master preliminary plat involving properties not under common ownership was created as a result of an illegal subdivision. Upon consultation with our City Attorney's office, it was decided that the two reserve tracts to the north should not be included in the master preliminary plat for Harley since they did meet minimum lot size requirements for the A-O zoning district. Since they were no longer included on the preliminary plat for Harley, there was no longer a need for a note on the plat to address the collector street. I regret that this decision was made so late in the process and that I had to convey this information to you on the evening of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. You will need to work with the owner of the abutting silk stocking property to remedy your non- conforming status, to address the collector street, and to work out the issue of access. The City does not recognize the property division between the .86-acre and the 2.236-acre tracts since both were illegally subdivided. It views these parcels as one and will require that they be platted and rezoned to__gether in order to rectify their non-conforming status. A single plat including both parcels will be required in order for either to develop or to obtain a building permit. The City will require that the major collector street be included as part of this plat and will weigh the impacts of this street over the total 3.096 acres. A rezoning request has to accompany any future platting for the two parcels since neither of the tracts meets the 5-acre minimum for the A-O zoning district. With respect to access, the City has a driveway ordinance which requires that driveways be spaced a minimum of 275 feet apart on the SH 6 Frontage Roads. Under the ordinance, a driveway could not be located on your property due to its small amount of frontage and the close proximity of the existing Silk Stocking driveway. When your property and the Silk Stocking property are platted, a shared or cross access easement will be required between the lots in order for them to utilize one driveway and comply with the ordinance. In closing, city staff would be happy to meet with you to discuss your situation in greater detail. Staff has met with the owners of the Silk Stocking property and they have been made aware that you all will need to work together to resolve the common problems associated with both of your properties. If you have any questions of if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Edwin Hard, AICP Transportation Planner Cc: Karl Mooney, Chairman, Planning and Zoning Commission Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services Jane Kee, City Planner Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator Naive Date Work Description Ti m e I~ UItiG.e ~ ~aS~Ut~ F I l G ~1~} r e ~ b.~ V~---- = ZC 0 ~v ~_ 1 Nn~ ~ ji ~ (A~ ~ W z ~A B ~ . wuv,M~ • '' CITY ~ CO~LE6E STATION OAR: NCRUCE~T~R RECEIPT *~~ DATE, 8/25/0® ACT DRAi~R: 1 RECEIPT: 0297498 DESCRIPTION QTY 2000 AMO<NVT ~ ~ 159 1 PLF~VNIN6 & 2~IIN f200,~ APL CK CK: 2397 TENDER DETAIL ~ 2397 f2~, ~ DATE: $/25/00 TII~: 8:57:58 TOTAL PERSONAL CHECK f~0 ~ Ah~LINT TENDERED , fem. ~ THANK YOU ~ _ Q ~- e ~_ G 1 n~ y/ r -.~ . ~. j ~ ~ o ~ ~ c ~ 3 ~" ~J p -~ ~ ~ ~-- s G 1 or -9