HomeMy WebLinkAbout00071701'W,, The City of
College Station, Texas
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future
P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 (979) 764-3570
Memorandum
TO: File
FROM: Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner
DATE: December 12, 2001
RE: Townhomes at Canyon Creek - Transportation Issues
As the Townhomes at Canyon Creek has been rezoned to PDD-H, the transportation issues that were
addressed when the property was rezoned to multi-family residential remain the same. These are reviewed in
the attached meeting minutes.
As a matter of review, the best access configuration for the site is a full access driveway on Harvey Mitchell
Parkway. I have worked with Mitchell and Morgan to identify the best access location in order to maximize site
distance on Harvey Mitchell Parkway. I will review the site plan to verify this.
Home of Texas A&M University
The City of
College Station,, Texas
Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future
P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764-3570
TO: Jessica Jimmerson, Staff Planner
FROM: Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner
Memorandum
DATE: September 17, 2001
RE: Harvey Mitchell Condominium Driveway Access Meeting Minutes
Attendees:
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan
Johnny Sullivan, Crescendo Development
Kirk Barnes, TxDOT Bryan Traffic Engineer
Dale Picha, COCS Traffic Engineer
Ken Fogle, COCS Transportation Planner
Veronica presented the proposed site layout for the 84-unit condominium development. Mitchell & Morgan
reviewed several different driveway access locations. It was determined that the optimal location for the
driveway was between the drainage features adjacent to Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818). This location
maximizes sight distance along Harvey Mitchell Parkway and also works with the layout of the site.
The group discussed the possibility of using a right-in/right-out configuration, as well as deceleration lanes. The
group agreed that a right-in/right-out design would create more hazards than a full access driveway since many
drivers desiring to turn left out of the site would turn right and then proceed to make a U-turn on Harvey Mitchell
Parkway. Kirk mentioned that he did not believe a deceleration lane would be needed since there is a shoulder
where vehicles could merge over before turning into the site. This design would also be consistent with other
driveways along Harvey Mitchell Parkway (e.g. A&M Consolidated High School). In addition, the two-way left-
turn lane in the center of Harvey Mitchell Parkway would allow vehicles to turn left out of the site and accelerate
before merging in with traffic.
Dale asked Veronica what the grade would be on the driveway since there is a significant elevation difference
between the roadway and the site. Veronica said that the grade would need to be about seven percent. When
the driveway is designed, the grade will be greater near the site and then level out closer to Harvey Mitchell
Parkway.
Home of Texas A&M University
G(-zeo
l Z1q 1o l
~f : GUAM
SAS
December 4, 2001
a,
g~c
c O
=az
a►M_
C -0
p~66 c~
c
c V
i Cid
C m LLJ
M
CC
W CV M dS G.
Li
a
c~
v+ ~
Oa
~ c
oD 'Mm
; c
ra
v
O
47
CL
J
J
Z
Q
O
4~~
04
J
J
W
U
ui
a
V ~
ri
n
N C
l0
N O
U) ^ `N°
U) cr, N 0-4
v^
8 o+
V
K
1'♦A u
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, Texas 77840
Attn: Bridgette George
Re: TCC Subdivision Preliminary Plat Submittal
Dear Bridgette:
Attached please find 13 copies of a Preliminary Plat for the TCC Subdivision in College
Station. This subdivision is located on FM 2818 just south of the Luther Street and FM 2818
intersection. It is the property being developed as the Canyon Creek Townhomes. You will
note that there are 76 lots in this subdivision, however, only 70 of them are buildable lots for
townhomes and 1 is buildable for a pool area. The remaining 5 lots are reserved for greenspace,
greenway or detention areas.
We do have several questions regarding the presentation of the plat that we would like to
discuss with staff as they review the plat. Some of these are:
➢ Because of the PDD nature of the zoning, should we show the setback lines? I realize
that it is usually discouraged to show setbacks on a plat.
➢ Although we have shown a parking easement on the parking spaces located on each
individual lot, it may not be necessary and may even be confusing since each lot has
been allocated at least the required 2 parking spaces, some even have 3 or 4 spaces
(counting the 2 car garages).
➢ We have designated where the two detention ponds will be located and these lots will
be owned by the HOA, however, we may want to further place private drainage
easements on these lots for additional protection. There are certainly pros and cons to
this, but we believe either way is workable.
We have also included the application; check, checklist as well as a preliminary site plan so that
stpff may be able to see how the units will fit on these lots. We would appreciate any
4PPrtunity to discuss this plat with staff. As always, please call if you have any questions.
Veronica. J.B.: org ; P.
Managing P er 1~
Cc: file
Sullivan's
9 -30 t-^
CC"
c
Qco
c
U~c
c aS rn
Olt
L ~'~NaS
M~
C ~a v►c
w FE
W V Cd
ui
a ui
a
~ L
Irv
Oa v
c
td .a
M a
a riyy
n
v~ O
O
L
a
V
J
Z
N
~
O
H
~
~ OEM
N p
U)
O
W
N
Ch
_
n ,
in U
f
i
Kim Foutz
COCS
Economic & Community Development
P.O. Box 9960
1101 Texas Ave.
College Station, TX 77840
Dear Kim,
December 21, 2001
As per the City of College Station's request, enclosed are the revised preliminary
plats for the TCC Subdivision.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
Veronica J.B. Morgan P.E.
Cc: file
D
6
Transmit Log Record BitWare Client
Status Log Date Time To Company
OK 247 12/28/01 14:51:54 Veronica Morgan Mitchell & Morgan
OK 248.1 12/28/01 15:00:20 Todd Sullivan
Application
Microsoft Word - PZ05712.DOC
Microsoft Word - PZ05712.DOC
l~C
Page 1
- i'~r U, C)
0I
of ("D
From: Kris Lehde
To: Ric Ploeger; Steve Beachy
Date: 1/9/02 2:10PM
Subject: Board Meeting of 1/8/02
The following is a run-down from last night's board meeting:
Cutis, Item #6 will pertain to your area.
1. The Board was in consensus of having the Master Plan Subcommittee meet and bring their
recommendations back to the Board for approval. A Master Plan Subcommittee needs to be set up (John
N., Glen D., and Don Allison).
2. A focus group meeting with Board members Don A. and Bill D. needs to be set up with the local
development community (I have the names, addresses, and a-mails of who attended the last focus group
meeting) to discuss possible developer incentives.
3. Agendas will need to be posted for the following:
- Feb. 5th Special Meeting to discuss Future CIP Projects. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. with dinner.
- Feb. 12th Regular Meeting. The meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. with dinner.
- Feb. 19th Joint Meeting with Bryan PARD to discuss the Madeley Park Project. The meeting will start at
7:30 p.m. (location to be announced - probably Bryan Municipal Building). Pam is checking to see if the
Bryan PARD Secretary will be taking those minutes.
4. Ric, the Board had several recommendations for the future CIP list. I will have to type up the minutes to
get you all of the details. Although, some include playground covers, joint projects with the new high
school (i.e. tennis courts with lighting and shade covers), and moving the Luther Jones project under
Community Facilities. Also, the Board would like the future CIP project list with prices and the individual
CIP request forms with descriptions sent to them by snail mail in advance of the Special Meeting on Feb.
5th. We'll need to get this out soon.
5. The Board would like a status sent to them concerning the progress of the Interlocal Agreement that
was sent to Legal for the Jack and Dorothy Miller Jogging Tract. If we can't get a response to the Board
before the Feb. 12th Regular meeting, they would like for this to be an agenda item for that meeting.
6. Parks Maintenance Standards. The Board agreed that they looked good, but to help with the
consistency of the evaluation process of the Parks, it was suggested that the Parks Operations
Supervisors train how to grade or grade in a group (Paul, Gary, Scott).
7. The Board would like a section added to the Park Land Dedication Checklist called "Project Location"
that will give the Board an idea of where the dedication is located. Including a map of the dedication may
also be helpful.
8. The Skate Park subject is a dead issue.
The following motions were made:
1. Senior Facility Report was approved unanimously.
2. Cash dedication (in lieu of park land) was approved unanimously for the T.C.C. Subdivision (Zone 7)
Kris Lehde
Staff Assistant
College Station Parks & Recreation
(979) 764-3414
CC: Curtis Bingham; Pete Vanecek