Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0007221602/21/02 17:12 %Y979 846 8252 KLING ENGINEER 4 -4 COCS MORG ETAL uZ /ZU /02 13:38 U409 775 0453 BRAZOS CO RD&BEt �21ir e` .i BRAZOS COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT Richard F. Vance, P.E., County EnQlnger Alvin W. Jones, County Judge Commissioner Tony ]ones, Precinct 1 Cornrnissioeer William S. nomton. Precinct 2 February 18, 2002 Stewart M. Kling, P.E. Kling Engineering & Surveying 4101 Texas Avenue South, Suite A Bryan, Texas 77802 19 002 — 002 Commissioner C. 0. Jones, Precinct 3 Cururnissiwrtr Casey Cauley. Precinct 4 Re: Indian Lakes Subdivision - Master Development Plan Dear Stewart: Please allow this letter to serve as evidence of the County's review and approval of the master development plan of Indian Lakes Subdivision submitted by Smiling Mallard Development. The County's approval is subject to the depiction on the plat submitted by the developer of a private access easement from the Indian Lakes development to Arrington Road. Sincerely, Ray Crow, C.F.M. Director of Planning/Traffic Road & Bridge Dept. lndan t2kea AAWW R M cc: Richard F. Vance, P.E., County Eng. Charles Ellison, P.C., Attorney at Law 2617 Highway 21 west Rltyan, Texas 77903 ' Ofty (979)872- 2127/rax (979)775.0453 Susan Hazlett - Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Development Plan (MDP 02 -016) Page 1 FILE COPY From: Spencer Thompson To: cfwilliams@spa.ars.usda.gov; Jane Kee; jhapp @tamu.edu; Ken Fogle; khawthorne @bruchez.com; mcmath @fabtexas.com; Molly Hitchcock; Natalie Ruiz; rick- floyd @tamu.edu; rkaiser @tamu.edu; Sabine Kuenzel; Stewart Kling; Susan Hazlett; trapani717 @aol.com Date: 3/1/02 6:37PM Subject: Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Development Plan (MDP 02 -016) To All Concerned, I would like to clear up a matter concerning my Staff Report on Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Development Plan . In my Summary I state that: "The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit direct residential access to Arterial roadways ". To say "clearly prohibit" is not entirely accurate. The applicable Regulation concerning access is found in Chapter 9: SUBDIVISIONS, SECTION 12: RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, Section I: Streets, Part .9: Principal Streets on Master Plan. It reads: Where a subdivision embraces a major or minor arterial or collector street as shown on the City of College Station Thoroughfare and Transportation Improvement Plan, such street shall be platted to maintain continuity in the approximate location as shown, and of the type indicated. In certain cases the City may have constructed a street through the area to be subdivided, in which case the subdivider shall develop the necessary street intersections at his expense, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. The Planning & Zoning Commission may require that, where practical, residential lots adjacent to arterial streets or parkways be platted or restricted so as to prevent driveways opening into such streets. All principal streets, major and minor arterials and collectors (if they will be continuous beyond the rural residential subdivision) shall be constructed to urban standards as contained in Section 8 -G, Streets. All residential streets and those collectors, which are wholly contained within the rural residential subdivision and provide internal circulation for the rural residential subdivision(s) only, may be constructed to the standards contained within this section. Whereas Section 12 is intended for rural subdivisions in the city limits, Section 13 for ETJ subdivisions refers back to Section 12. The Applicant contacted me and was concerned with the severity of the aforementioned statement. In all honesty, the Regulations do not clearly prohibit such. I hope this misstatement has not induced any bias on your part concerning this matter. Staff has discussed this issue for some time and feels that residential access should be limited on Arterials such as in this case. Even if this roadway does not fully develop arterial traffic for 10 years, now is the time to set the limits. Staff feels that allowing each lot to have a driveway onto the Arterial will only create problems in the future. Mr. Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, may wish to speak at the Thursday night meeting concerning this issue. Applicants who attend Predevelopment Meetings, as in this case, are cautioned that the Commission looks at access issues intently. The Applicant was not told the Commission would not allow the access, only that the Commission has raised the issue on previous cases. It is my understanding that the Applicant wishes to discuss before the Commission the specifics of this case as to applicability of the "where practical' statement in the Ordinance. Regards, Spencer S MD SMILING MALL-4 RD DEVELOPMENT, LTD February 6, 2002 Mr. Spencer Thompson CITY OF COLLEGE STATION 1101 Texas Avenue South, P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: INDIAN LAKES (File #02 -16) Dear Mr. Thompson: This letter serves to follow -up on our conversation on February 4, 2002 regarding the "stop review" on Indian Lakes. It is my understanding that the City's review will continue, pursuant to our conversation, and we remain scheduled foethe February 28, 2002 P&Z hearing. Specifically addressing your concerns denoted as 1-4, we tender the following reply: 1. Cherokee Drive is a dedicated, platted and maintained county road. The plat is recorded in the real property records at the County Clerk's office. We are aware that P &Z would like multiple access to a subdivision, and we are providing secondary access even though the ordinance does not require it. 2. We specifically disagree that we have discussed that there will be no individual access to collectors and arterials as stated in the stop review correspondence. We have not discussed collectors, and we are unaware of any ordinance prohibiting access to a county collector. We have a few tracts fronting the only arterial street which is Cheyenne Trail. We will be requesting that the P &Z allow these access drives or alternatively, that these lots be able to share common access drives to this road. We discussed that the P &Z "may" allow access at their discretion. 3. The two small road sections which dead -end will have temporary turnarounds reflected on the plat; we can also reflect these on the Master Plan if you desire. 4. Chaco Canyon does not exceed 2000 feet past Osage Trail. We hope the phone call and this letter helps to address all of your concerns. Additionally, we have meetings scheduled with the County to address off -site roads and infrastructure. I anticipate the off -site issues may be on -going over the next several years as better thoroughfare plans are adopted in the area. We appreciate all the good work that the staff has assisted with to date, and we look forward to working with you through the culmination of the development. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us if we can clarify anything or be of any assistance. Kindest regards, Paul J. Clarke, CCIM Managing Partner PJC:dlh cc: Mr. Stewart Kling Mr. Charles Ellison (w /enc.) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 3608 E. 29''" STREET, SUITE 100 • BRYAN, TEXAS • 77802 PHONE: 979- 846 -4384 • FAX: 979- 846 -1461 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Name/Firm: Kling Engineering & Surveying (Address: 4101 Texas Ave. Suite A Bryan, TX 77802 Date: // a elo a Phone: 979 -846 -6212 Fax: 979 - 846 -8252 We are transmitting the following for Development Services to_ review and comment: (Check all that apply.): 4 Master Development Plan ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Final Plat ❑ FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR ❑ Site Plan ❑ Grading Plan ❑ Landscape Plan ❑ Irrigation Plan ❑ Building Construction Documents w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Development Permit App. w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Conditional Use Permit w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Rezoning Application w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Variance Request w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Other - Please specify w/ ❑ Redlines w/ ❑ Redlines w/ ❑ Redlines w/ ❑ Redlines INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: ❑ Waterline Construction Documents w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Sewerline Construction Documents w/❑ Redlines ❑ Drainage Construction Documents w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Street Construction Documents w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Easement application with metes & bounds decsription ❑ Drainage Letter or Report w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ Fire Flow Analysis w/ ❑ Redlines ❑ TxDOT Driveway Permit ❑ TxDOT Utility Permit ❑ Other - Please specify Special Instructions: 3 b Ir.�.e NSMITTAL LETTER 1 of 1 NSMrr.DOC 03/23/99 From: "Paul Clarke" <clarke @tca.net> To: "Spencer Thompson" < Sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 2/21/02 7:19PM Subject: RE: City Ordinances Chapter 3 Spencer, I am in receipt of your email, which is a portion of Chapter 3 of the City Ordinances. I am unclear, are you stating that this Section is applicable to Indian Lakes (IL)? The IL development should fall under Chapter 9, Section 13 -B and 12 -1.7. The many professionals involved in this large development are working under synchronized schedules. If you believe that there are additional outstanding issues with the Master Plan which were not addressed in your prior correspondence, we request that we meet on these as soon as possible. We need to stay on schedule and remain available to meet at any time to address any concerns. Please do not remove us from the submitted scheduled hearings without discussion in advance. We immediately responded to your request to acquire County approval of the Master Plan first, and were prepared to present the County's approval of the Master Plan by letter dated 2/18/02 received on 2/20/02 to the staff and P &Z Commission at the 2/21/02 hearing. We want to do everything within reason to have the City staffs support of all aspects of this exciting rural development. Please let us know of anything we need to visit about to acquire your support. Thank you for all your work on this project and for our City. Kindest regards, Paul Paul J. Clarke,CCIM Clarke & Wyndham, Inc. 3608 East 29th St., Suite 100 Bryan, Tx 77802 979 - 846 -4384 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Spencer Thompson [mai Ito: Sthompson @ci.college- station.tx.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:34 AM To: clarke @tca.net Subject: City Ordinances Chapter 3 C. STANDARDS OF STREET CONSTRUCTION (1) Residential Streets Residential or local streets are restricted to cul -de -sacs, loops, or short streets with the fol lowing additional restrictions: A cul -de -sac shall not be over six hundred feet (600') in length and shall ter minate in a turnaround of not less than a fifty foot (50') radius. A loop shall terminate in a collector street at both ends. Right -of -way width shall be not less than fifty feet (50'), and if utility easements are not provided at the back of lots, the width shall be increased as required by the City Engineer. Street width shall be not less than twenty- seven feet (27'). Parking may be permitted. Sidewalks are mandatory on one side of the street, with the exception of cul -de -sac streets. Cul -de -sacs will be required to have a sidewalk on one side, if needed to provide through pedestrian movement. (2) Collector Streets Collector streets are thoroughfares providing for two (2) to four (4) lanes of moving traf fic. It is to be distinctly understood that although parking may be permit ted on the side of such streets in their early life, that the City may and will prohibit parking on such streets when traffic conditions warrant such action Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. (3) Arterial Streets Arterial streets are major thoroughfares providing for four (4) to six (6) lanes of moving traffic. It is to be distinctly understood that although parking may be permitted on the side of such streets in their early life, that the city may and will prohibit parking on such streets when traffic condi tions warrant such action Sidewalks are required on both sides of the street. College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. CC: "Stewart Kling" <stewart@klingeng.com >, "Simon Kiefer' <slkiefer @hotmail.com >, "Charles A. ( "Chuck ") Ellison" <chuck @ellisonlaw.com> 02/21/02 17:12 %T979 846 8252 KLING ENGINEERIN ­4 COCS MORGAN ETAL 1900 FI DATE• FE S. 2 1 2 c� o Please deliver the following pages to: KLING ENGINEERING & SURVEYING 4101 Texas Ave., Suite A Bryan, TX 77802 *Phone: (979)846 -8212 *Fax: (979)846.8232 *Email: stowart@,klingeng.com FAX COVER SHEET NAME:_ J1YF-N�-E-12, QbL-L (�.-E 0 si�4 FAX NUMBER: FROM: S 1/---6 r-� L . � 1( i E 6P• We are transmitting Including this cover letterfrom ourfax number listed above. If any pages are missing or incomplete, please contact sender. Regarding: l U p u/ ,--1 1. V E-5 ( AP q- b vP, L Fo r AGC FOSS Tz> A-KPU QJ - r'p P21V pQap. Molly Hitchcock - Indian Lakes _ age From: Spencer Thompson To: Jane Kee; Molly Hitchcock; Natalie Ruiz; Sabine Kuenzel Date: 2/20/02 12:52PM Subject: Indian Lakes I spoke with Paul Clarke. He wants to go ahead with the MDP as submitted. He should be able to go to the March 7th P &Z. He felt he could make the argument for access to the Arterial. I spoke with Ray Crow. He told me that he will request Indian Lakes Drive to be a 100' ROW road. The Developer wants the County to assist in acquiring more ROW along Arrington (the WEST SIDE) and a wider pavement section. The Developer will pave the access easement. There is also the question of wider access to Cherokee. He will send a letter stating the County has approved the MDP. st 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 February 4, 2002 TO: Stewart Kling, Kling Engineering, Via fax 846 -8252 FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager SUBJECT: Indian Lakes Subdivision — Master Development Plan Staff reviewed the above - mentioned master development plan, but had to stop review due to an incomplete submittal. Please address the following staff review comments and submit the following information for further staff review and to be scheduled for a future Planning & Zoning Commission meeting: County documentation allowing access to Cherokee Drive. Two (2) revised master development plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call Molly Hitchcock or Spencer Thompson at 979 - 764 -3570. cc: Paul Clarke, Smiling Mallard Development, LTD, 846 -1461 File # 02 -16 Home of Texas A &M University Development Services Department (� Request for Public Information C OLLEGE • Date of Request: Name: Address Phone #: a� , .^:A�. �._ Fax #: INFORMATION REQUESTED (Please note: The cost of all 24 X 36 pages will be dependant on the City's cost for each page copied. Additional charges may be incurred for non - standard copies.) Please be as name /date specific as possible. ❑ SITE PLANS ❑ DRAINAGE REPORT 0 PLANNING CASE FILES ❑ BUILDING PLANS ❑ MINUTES H (Please be Specific.) In making this request, I understand that the City is under no obligation to create a document to satisfy my request or to comply with a standing request for information. I further understand that the information will be released only in accordance with the Public Information Act, Government Code, Chapter 552, which may require a determination as to confidentiality by the Texas Attorney General prior to a release. I further understand that the City of College Station has 10 working days from date of request in which to solicit such a determination. REQUESTOR'S SIGNATURE CITY USE ONLY Date Completed Employee No. of Original Pages Cost 03/08/02 15:28 %T979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS 19001 :Wx ACTIVITY REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX /RX NO. 1515 CONNECTION TEL 9P8464367 CONNECTION ID START TIME 03/08 15:26 USAGE TIME O1'35 PAGES 4 RESULT OK From: "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> To: "Spencer Thompson" < Sthompson @ ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/8/02 10:48AM Subject: Re: County Spencer, When Tony showed me his plan for routing the roads, I questioned him hard about whether he was talking about an arterial or just a collector coming from the IL entrance. I said that if the IL entrance road is the arterial then I will agree to give extra row, but I will not give extra row if the proposed road is just a collector and an arterial is still planned to be dead ended into the east boundary of my property. Tony said he was talking about an arterial and he even showed the 100' row on the drawing as would go with an arterial. I guess I should call Tony and reconfirm with him what we are talking about. In my mind, I made it very clear to him what my offer to the county was and I was confident he understood and agreed. I am also very confident that neither myself or Joe Bewley will give extra row just for a collector road leading into the IL development. An - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "Spencer Thompson" <Sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> To: <bsmith @elitesoft.com> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 10:09 AM Subject: Re: County I have been told that the County is working on an agreement to allow the collector to go through rather than the arterial. Your latest e-mail states you are not willing to grant additional ROW for less than an arterial. Could you please elaborate. st Spencer G. Thompson, Jr. Development Services, Engineering City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 Ph. 979.764.3570 Fx. 979.764.3496 >>> "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> 04/05/02 11:40AM >>> Spencer, I met with Tony Jones this past Monday. He told me that his plan was to meet individually with myself, Bewley, Windham, and Clarke, and then to schedule a meeting with us all together. I think he has met with us all individually now but he has not yet scheduled the meeting with all of us together. In case he hasn't contacted you with his results, I will tell you what he told me. Tony has definitely declared the dog leg portion of Arrington road to be a county road. He said there is no question about that. He said that the country would not allow paving of that portion of Arrington road unless sufficient row was obtained. Bewley and I control the row width on the dog leg portion of Arrington road and we are not inclined to offer extra width if the road does not become an arterial. Tony has also has drawn up an adjustment of Arrington road that puts the new arterial through the IL gate and intersects Arrington at my front gate. This requires row from both myself and Windham and we have both offered that. At the time of my meeting with Tony, Tony had not met with the developer and I told Tony that the developer hated the arterial IL entrance option as he felt it was too expensive. Tony said that was not a concern of his. He said the county really wants the arterial routed along the Windham -Smith property lines. Tony also said that he would not allow a water line being routed underneath the existing narrow dog leg portion of Arrington road. Bewley and I have not given permission for a water line easement along our property lines either. Unless the situation changes in some way, IL has no way to obtain a waterline to their property. don't know what the city's criteria is for approving a master plan in the ETJ, but you would think that proof of sufficient infrastructure, i.e. water and adequate entrance roads are necessary. Right now, I don't see IL as having either of those. Bill Smith www.elitesoft.com College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. From: "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> To: "Spencer Thompson" < sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/5/02 11:46AM Subject: County Spencer, I met with Tony Jones this past Monday. He told me that his plan was to meet individually with myself, Bewley, Windham, and Clarke, and then to schedule a meeting with us all together. I think he has met with us all individually now but he has not yet scheduled the meeting with all of us together. In case he hasn't contacted you with his results, I will tell you what he told me. Tony has definitely declared the dog leg portion of Arrington road to be a county road. He said there is no question about that. He said that the country would not allow paving of that portion of Arrington road unless sufficient row was obtained. Bewley and I control the row width on the dog leg portion of Arrington road and we are not inclined to offer extra width if the road does not become an arterial. Tony has also has drawn up an adjustment of Arrington road that puts the new arterial through the IL gate and intersects Arrington at my front gate. This requires row from both myself and Windham and we have both offered that. At the time of my meeting with Tony, Tony had not met with the developer and I told Tony that the developer hated the arterial IL entrance option as he felt it was too expensive. Tony said that was not a concern of his. He said the county really wants the arterial routed along the Windham -Smith property lines. Tony also said that he would not allow a water line being routed underneath the existing narrow dog leg portion of Arrington road. Bewley and I have not given permission for a water line easement along our property lines either. Unless the situation changes in some way, IL has no way to obtain a waterline to their property. I don't know what the city's criteria is for approving a master plan in the ETJ, but you would think that proof of sufficient infrastructure, i.e. water and adequate entrance roads are necessary. Right now, I don't see IL as having either of those. Bill Smith www.elitesoft.com From: "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> To: "Spencer Thompson" <sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 3/27/02 4:20PM Subject: IL Master Plan Status Spencer, My understanding was that the IL master plan was approved contingent on the developer working something out with myself on the routing of the planned east -west arterial to the north entrance of my property. Since this routing was not worked out to the mutual satisfaction of the developer or myself, is the IL master plan considered approved as was submitted at the last P &Z meeting? I was also wondering that now the city and county knows of roadway easements that exist along the boundary of my property, Windham's, and Woodlake, is there any chance the planned east -west arterial will be reconsidered for taking another route north of IL that still links up with my property at Arrington Road? I know the developer would love that alternative and I would prefer that option as opposed to having the arterial dead end into to my office /soccer complex. Bill Smith 846 -4056 www.elitesoft.com From: "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> To: "Spencer Thompson" <sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 3/22/02 3:53PM Subject: Fw: What's Going On? Spencer, Below is an exchange that you may find interesting. I had thought discussions on the 100' row IL entrance road was still underway as late as this Thursday afternoon (3- 21 -02). In fact, the email in italics from Paul Clarke at 2:09 of that day indicated that he was still trying to get me an overlay showing a slightly adjusted row compared to the initial 100' row Kling drew But when I spoke to Chuck Ellison at 4:OOpm that same day, I discovered that the developer had actually abandoned the idea days ago despite the very recent email indicating he was still thinking about it. So I just want you to know that I was still happy to look at adjustments but the developer must have decided that he needed such a huge routing change to save costs that he decided to the abandon the idea. Bill - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Bill Smith To: Chuck Ellison Cc: Paul Clarke Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 2:21 PM Subject: Re: What's Going On? Chuck, What are you are saying below does not reconcile with the email I received below at 2:09pm from Paul just a couple of hours before we talked. If the decision to abandon discussion of moving the arterial had already been made, as I now realize it had, why did Paul write the email below so soon before our discussion indicating that he was still trying to get an overlay done for my review concerning the 100' row proposal? Why didn't he just come out and say you guys had dropped consideration of that? Bill, agree that in theory the overlay didn't appear to be a major request. made the request and was told that the engineers were buried. I think that Ray Crow reporting to the engineer that the commissioner would not support a non 90* intersection along with them still playing catch up after Spring Break had something to do with it. The request is still in to get the overlay done for you they just have not promised me when they can deliver it. I'll work on speeding it up if I can. Paul Whatever the reason Paul was not upfront about this, I must tell you that it does not encourage cooperation. Bill - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "Chuck Ellison" <chuck @ellisonlaw.com> To: "'Bill Smith "' <bsmith @elitesoft.com> Cc: "Paul Clarke" <clarke @tca.net> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:52 PM Subject: RE: What's Going On? M. Paul asked me to respond to your e-mail. I feel you are inaccurately characterizing our conversation I asked for a Wellborn Water easement on your side of the private access easement in exchange for providing you water for your new office. You said you did not need the water and I said that we would work something else out. I told you that after we had completed the engineering necessary to make the proposed intersection comply with the required curvatures etc, we began to redesign the impacted initial phases of the development and realized that the loss of revenue and additional cost was too high. You would not share in the cost because you said there was not incentive to spend money to move the arterial when you have no intention of ever developing your property. You would not provide additional land for "squaring up" of the arterial and Arrington because that would interfere with your planned building. We were trying to accommodate you by moving the arterial and, try as we might, we just could not find a mutually agreeable solution. We have to move forward because of the time requirements. I advised the County and the City yesterday that we were abandoning the plan because we could not reach an agreement that was acceptable to both sides. We regret that it did not work out and appreciate your time and effort in attempting to move the arterial. Chuck - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Bill Smith [mailto:bsmith @elitesoft.com] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:32 AM To: Paul Clarke Cc: Chuck Ellison Subject: What's Going On? Paul, I spoke with Chuck Ellison on Thursday afternoon. He called to ask if I would give a water line easement on my property alongside the current IL entrance road. I said, "What about the 100' row proposal and the minor adjustment of 14' more width that is still being evaluated? You know that I am waiting to see an row overlay of the minor adjustment Paul proposed compared to the first 100' row drawn. In fact, I just received an email today from Paul where he said he would work on speeding up the engineers to create the overlay for my review." Chuck said, "There is no further consideration of trying to have a 100' row road to the entrance of IL. We are just going to go with what we have and we would like a water line to be placed on your property to the side of that road." Of course, this exchange completely contradicts my current understanding of the situation. Is this just a miscommunication between developer and attorney or has the situation really changed to what Chuck described to me? From: "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> To: "Stephen Cast' <sccast @aol.com >, "Chuck Ellison" <chuck @ellisonlaw.com >, "Paul Clarke" <clarke @tca.net >, "Tony Jones" <tjones @co.brazos.tx.us >, "Ray Crow" <rcrow@co. brazos.tx. us>, "Spencer Thompson" < sthompson @ci. col leg e- station.tx.us> Date: 3/22/02 12:12PM Subject: Arrington Road Info Guys, I spoke with Joe Bewley recently and learned some information about Arrington Road that will likely be helpful in determining the status of the portion of Arrington Road that heads east into the entrance of the new Indian Lakes (IL) development. I am referring to the dog leg portion that takes a 90 degree turn east at the end of the straight portion of Arrington Road. Joe says that the county has been involved since day one on Arrington Road even including the dog leg portion of Arrington leading right up to the pipe gate of the IL development. Joe says that the county put in place the fences on his property line to fence off Arrington Road, again even including for the dog leg portion. Joe says that Cooley was the commissioner at the time Arrington Road was taken over by the county and that Cooley can be contacted to confirm all this. This is not to mention of course that the dog leg portion of Arrignton has been open to public access all that time and does receive frequent and regular maintenance from the county. For whatever its worth, I think any investigation on the status of the dog leg portion of Arrington Road will confirm that it is indeed a county road. Bill Smith www.elitesoft.com From: "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> To: "Spencer Thompson" <shompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 3/19/02 3:59PM Subject: IL Entrance Road Status Spencer, I agreed to accept the widening of the existing Indian Lakes (IL) entrance road as Kling initially drew it. I believe you have a copy of that drawing. It just basically adds width southward to the existing entrance road so that it has a 100' ROW. The problem is that once Paul Clarke studied that option more, he didn't like the costs he would incur trying to reroute the pipeline and relocate some lots. Paul even had the gall to ask if I would help defray development costs if the entrance road was left in that position. Otherwise, he insists that the IL entrance road must be moved further south to the middle of my parking lot and that I should give up all the resulting land from that move completely for free. I told Paul that I am not interested in considering road alternatives where I just give away more land to make his development more profitable. Amazingly enough, that is what he actually wants me to do. So unless Paul accepts the widening of the existing IL entrance road as first drawn by Kling, then there is nothing worked out between the developer and myself concerning the entrance road to IL. Feel free to call me at 846 -4056 or send email if you have questions. Bill From: Spencer Thompson To: cfwilliams @spa.ars.usda.gov; Jane Kee; jhapp @tamu.edu; Ken Fogle; khawthorne @bruchez.com; mcmath @fabtexas.com; Molly Hitchcock; Natalie Ruiz; rick -floyd @tamu.edu; rkaiser @tamu.edu; Sabine Kuenzel; Stewart Kling; Susan Hazlett; trapani717 @aol.com Date: 3/1/02 6:37PM Subject: Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Development Plan (MDP 02 -016) To All Concerned, I would like to clear up a matter concerning my Staff Report on Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Development Plan . In my Summary I state that: "The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit direct residential access to Arterial roadways ". To say "clearly prohibit" is not entirely accurate. The applicable Regulation concerning access is found in Chapter 9: SUBDIVISIONS, SECTION 12: RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, Section I: Streets, Part .9: Principal Streets on Master Plan. It reads: Where a subdivision embraces a major or minor arterial or collector street as shown on the City of College Station Thoroughfare and Transportation Improvement Plan, such street shall be platted to maintain continuity in the approximate location as shown, and of the type indicated. In certain cases the City may have constructed a street through the area to be subdivided, in which case the subdivider shall develop the necessary street intersections at his expense, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. The Planning & Zoning Commission may require that, where practical, residential lots adjacent to arterial streets or parkways be platted or restricted so as to prevent driveways opening into such streets. All principal streets, major and minor arterials and collectors (if they will be continuous beyond the rural residential subdivision) shall be constructed to urban standards as contained in Section 8 -G, Streets. All residential streets and those collectors, which are wholly contained within the rural residential subdivision and provide internal circulation for the rural residential subdivision(s) only, may be constructed to the standards contained within this section. Whereas Section 12 is intended for rural subdivisions in the city limits, Section 13 for ETJ subdivisions refers back to Section 12. The Applicant contacted me and was concerned with the severity of the aforementioned statement. In all honesty, the Regulations do not clearly prohibit such. I hope this misstatement has not induced any bias on your part concerning this matter. Staff has discussed this issue for some time and feels that residential access should be limited on Arterials such as in this case. Even if this roadway does not fully develop arterial traffic for 10 years, now is the time to set the limits. Staff feels that allowing each lot to have a driveway onto the Arterial will only create problems in the future. Mr. Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, may wish to speak at the Thursday night meeting concerning this issue. Applicants who attend Predevelopment Meetings, as in this case, are cautioned that the Commission looks at access issues intently. The Applicant was not told the Commission would not allow the access, only that the Commission has raised the issue on previous cases. It is my understanding that the Applicant wishes to discuss before the Commission the specifics of this case as to applicability of the "where practical" statement in the Ordinance. Regards, Spencer From: Spencer Thompson To: cfwilliams @spa.ars.usda.gov; Jane Kee; jhapp @tamu.edu; Ken Fogle; khawthorne @bruchez.com; mcmath @fabtexas.com; Molly Hitchcock; Natalie Ruiz; rick- floyd @tamu.edu; rkaiser @tamu.edu; Sabine Kuenzel; Stewart Kling; Susan Hazlett; trapani717 @aol.com Date: 3/1/02 6:37PM Subject: Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Development Plan (MDP 02 -016) To All Concerned, I would like to clear up a matter concerning my Staff Report on Indian Lakes Subdivision Master Development Plan . In my Summary I state that: "The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit direct residential access to Arterial roadways ". To say "clearly prohibit' is not entirely accurate. The applicable Regulation concerning access is found in Chapter 9: SUBDIVISIONS, SECTION 12: RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, Section I: Streets, Part .9: Principal Streets on Master Plan. It reads: Where a subdivision embraces a major or minor arterial or collector street as shown on the City of College Station Thoroughfare and Transportation Improvement Plan, such street shall be platted to maintain continuity in the approximate location as shown, and of the type indicated. In certain cases the City may have constructed a street through the area to be subdivided, in which case the subdivider shall develop the necessary street intersections at his expense, in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. The Planning & Zoning Commission may require that, where practical, residential lots adjacent to arterial streets or parkways be platted or restricted so as to prevent driveways opening into such streets. All principal streets, major and minor arterials and collectors (if they will be continuous beyond the rural residential subdivision) shall be constructed to urban standards as contained in Section 8 -G, Streets. All residential streets and those collectors, which are wholly contained within the rural residential subdivision and provide internal circulation for the rural residential subdivision(s) only, may be constructed to the standards contained within this section. Whereas Section 12 is intended for rural subdivisions in the city limits, Section 13 for ETJ subdivisions refers back to Section 12. The Applicant contacted me and was concerned with the severity of the aforementioned statement. In all honesty, the Regulations do not clearly prohibit such. I hope this misstatement has not induced any bias on your part concerning this matter. Staff has discussed this issue for some time and feels that residential access should be limited on Arterials such as in this case. Even if this roadway does not fully develop arterial traffic for 10 years, now is the time to set the limits. Staff feels that allowing each lot to have a driveway onto the Arterial will only create problems in the future. Mr. Ken Fogle, Transportation Planner, may wish to speak at the Thursday night meeting concerning this issue. Applicants who attend Predevelopment Meetings, as in this case, are cautioned that the Commission looks at access issues intently. The Applicant was not told the Commission would not allow the access, only that the Commission has raised the issue on previous cases. It is my understanding that the Applicant wishes to discuss before the Commission the specifics of this case as to applicability of the "where practical' statement in the Ordinance. Regards, Spencer From: "Bill Smith" <bsmith @elitesoft.com> To: "Spencer Thompson" < Sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us> Date: 4/8/02 11:42AM Subject: Conversation with Tony Spencer, It was good I talked to Tony today because I don't think he realized that the developer was still trying to leave the arterial dead ended into my property. Tony saw a cul -de -sac there on the plans, but did not realize that the cul -de -sac represented a dead ended arterial. I went over all this in more detail with Tony and he finally understood and said he would call you. Maybe you have already spoken with him. Tony was glad I called. I don't think he originally understood what was going on with the city's thoroughfare plan. As I mentioned earlier, unless the arterial is planned through the IL entrance then IL will be left with a county road with insufficient ROW to be paved or to allow a water line to run underneath it. M MEMORANDUM February 28, 2002 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson, Dev Serv, Engineering Email: sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us SUBJECT: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN for INDIAN LAKES SUBDIVISION (MDP) Item: Discussion and possible action on a MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN for INDIAN LAKES SUBDIVISION (MDP), consisting of approximately 1,400 acres in the City's ETJ Area. (2- 500016) Applicant: Kling Engineering for Smiling Mallard Development, Ltd. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval with the following condition: • Residential lots along Cheyenne Trail shall not take direct access from the arterial roadway. This MDP can be approved "as is" with this understanding or can be amended and resubmitted for consideration. Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of a Master Development Plan for the Indian Lakes Subdivision. Master Development Plans, as described in the Subdivision Regulations, are to depict the following items: • proposed land uses, including but not limited to street rights -of -way; • proposed zoning changes • proposed drainage development • proposed public improvements, including but not limited to parks, schools, and other public facilities As the Commission may remember, the Indian Lakes Developers appeared before you to propose several locations for the Minor Arterial, Cheyenne Trail. This Minor arterial is to cross State Highway 6 at the Over Pass near the Speedway and travel in a southwesterly direction. Alignments for roadways on the Thoroughfare Plan are set when properties are planned and /or platted. The drawings presented to you showed the proposed lot layouts for the entire subdivision, being approximately 1,400 acres. This Master Development Plan shows a detailed street layout for the northwestern 545 acres with 4 large reserve tracts making up the remaining 855 acres. The reserve tracts reflect only the Collector road to which future local streets will feed. All of the road and lot layouts will come back before the Commission for Preliminary Plat approval. The unresolved issue concerning this Master Development Plan is allowing direct, residential access to a Minor Arterial. Whereas the Development Plan does not show lot layout, the Developer is not providing access to the property north of Cheyenne Trail, a Minor Arterial, other than Cheyenne Trail. It is assumed the Developer plans to have these lots take direct driveway access to Cheyenne. As depicted in a previous version of this plan, other lots to the west along Cheyenne Trail take direct access, as well. The Subdivision Regulations clearly prohibit direct residential access to Arterial roadways. The Developer is providing a Rural Collector, Indian Lakes Drive, as the principle roadway through the subdivision. Based upon calculations by the City's Transportation Planner, this road section is sufficient for the subdivision in its entirety. What appears to be a problem is that Indian Lakes Drive connects to Cherokee Drive and Arrington Road, both of which are in adequate for the traffic this subdivision will generate. Cherokee Drive is only a 19' gravel road with 60 -ft ROW at its connection point with Cherokee Drive. Arrington Road is not paved for approximately 1 quarter of a mile before it ends. A 60 -ft easement provides access from Arrington to this property. There have been discussions with the Developer concerning upgrading both these access points. Currently our Subdivision Regulations do not directly address negative impacts to surrounding substandard roadway infrastructure. Therefore, this Master Development Plan meets minimum City criteria. Such negative impacts will fall to local public entities to address. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: N/A (ETJ) Thoroughfare Plan: Arrington Road is a Major Collector and is technically off -site of this project. The TP depicts an unnamed Minor Arterial crossing this property. Parkland Dedication: N/A (ETJ) Open Space Dedication: Thirty -one acre Environmental Preserve dedicated for endangered species. This is not being dedicated to the city. Special Area Plans: N/A (ETJ) Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A (ETJ) Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Copy of Plan MEMORANDUM April 10, 2002 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson, Dev Serv, Engineering Email: sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us SUBJECT: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN for INDIAN LAKES SUBDIVISION (MDP) Item: Discussion and possible action on a MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN for INDIAN LAKES SUBDIVISION (MDP), consisting of approximately 1,400 acres in the City's ETJ Area. (2- 500016) Applicant: Kling Engineering for Smiling Mallard Development, Ltd. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Commission consider the two outstanding issues and come to a resolution: • Thoroughfare issue: Staffs position is that the arterial should be routed to the north. • Access issue: Staffs position is that Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 should take access form Sundance Drive or Cheyenne Trail. Item Summary: This item is to reconsider a Master Development Plan for the Indian Lakes Subdivision. On 3/11/02, the Commission approved the Master Development Plan for this property with the understanding that the arterial roadway would be rerouted to the north and there would not be any direct driveway access to the arterial. The Applicant submitted an alignment that was approved by Staff. The Applicant has since decided that the alignment is not to their liking and has proposed to go back with the original Plan. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Plat and was told that the Preliminary Plat did not comply with the approved MDP. Consequently, the MDP must go back to the Commission for review. It is Staffs opinion that the arterial should be routed to the north as proposed. Staff would like to make the following points: • The arterial can be aligned on Indian Lakes however they see fit, as long as it meets arterial criteria. One alignment proposed early on was a straight roadway along the north property line. The Developers opted not to do this. Now they are saying realignment is too costly. • The City is not requiring the Developer to construct the arterial pavement section. They are only required to construct what they need according to the estimated traffic generation by the proposed development. • If the arterial dead -ends into the Smith property, it is highly likely that it will not be continued in the future. If the arterial is routed to the north, it is highly likely that it will be continued in the future and serve its intended purpose. • Mr. Smith has stated that he is willing to grant additional ROW if the arterial is routed to the North. • The County has determined that the current road into Indian Lakes is County ROW, approximately 42' wide. This is insufficient for any county road or utility improvements. It is Staffs opinion that Lots 15 and 16, Block 5 should take access form Sundance Drive or Cheyenne Trail. Mesa Verde is, or will be, a minor arterial. Design speed on an arterial is 40 mph. Ideally, local streets intersect with collectors, collectors intersect with arterials, and arterials intersect with freeways. Numerous, local intersections, especially short stubs, will render the arterial ineffective. Access to these lots can be accomplished by extending one or more of the adjacent cul -de -sacs. This MDP must be approved as submitted in order to consider the Indian Lakes Preliminary Plat. Please see the previous Staff Report (attached) for additional information. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: N/A (ETJ) Thoroughfare Plan: Arrington Road is a Major Collector and is technically off -site of this project. The TP depicts an unnamed Minor Arterial crossing this property. Parkland Dedication: N/A (ETJ) Open Space Dedication: Thirty -one acre Environmental Preserve dedicated for endangered species. This is not a dedication to the city. Special Area Plans: N/A (ETJ) Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A (ETJ) Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Copy of MDP 4. Copy of Staff Report #1 Development Services Department MEMORANDUM To: File From: Kelly Templin - Date: 17 June 2003 RE: Access to properties south of Indian Lakes Subdivision Please be careful to require access from Indian Lakes Subdivision to all those properties south of and adjacent to Indian Lakes that, without such connectivity, may have acreage isolated by Peach Creek. The master development plan dated March 21, 2001 illustrates a number of access points to the south. Staff will have to evaluate each phase of Indian Lakes to insure adequate connectivity. Bridgette George - Re: 1300 acres off Arrington Page 1 Aj_�0C From: Jane Kee To: Bridgette George; Molly Hitchcock; Spencer Thompson Date: 4/4/01 1:41 PM Subject: Re: 1300 acres off Arrington Ed does not recall seeing anything to respond to regarding that minor arterial. He does recall getting a call from Paul Clarke and talking about it. Just as I thought he said there isn't a good way to use Deer Park as part of the alignment because of it's location is relation to where the overpass is at the Speedway. I think it may kind of be a moot point since they have an alternative design that we seem to feel comfortable with - at least for now without a lot of studying yet. The 90' arterial will only require the rural collector street pavement section for now. May be years before a widening would be necessary. Jane Kee, AICP City Planner City of College Station College Station, Tx. 77845 (979)764 -3570 FAX (979)764 -3496 College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. >>> Bridgette George 04/04/01 11:21AM >>> The following are items we were going to check on before next Wednesday's meeting: 1) Check w /Engineering on allowing a road on a dam. 2) Check w /Ed Hard and TxDOT regarding the location of the overpass extension near the Speedway and Deer Park. 3) Will the minor arterial w /90' ROW require 24' pavement or more? 4) Staff will review the conceptual thoroughfare location submitted at the meeting. Thank you! Bridgette George :o) Asst. Development Review Manager City of College Station (979) 764 -3570 (979) 764 -3496 (Fax) www.ci.college- station.tx.us Aar -18 -02 02 :54am From -Ellison Law 9796938819 T -107 P -01 /01 F-187 M BRAZOS COUNTY RO AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT fthard F Vance. RF., County E—n& $r AMU W. )ones, County Judge Comnoissionor Chants B. )onM, Precinct 3 [:ammiulonar Cerny Cauley, Preeinen 4 Com Msokma Tarny 1onai, Frneinat I Cammisianer William S. Thotumn, Precinct 2 April 18, 2002 TO' Kelly Templin A.I.C.P. Director of Development Services City of College Station FROM: Ray Crow, C.F.M_ A? Certified Floodplain Manager Director of Planning & Traffic Brazos County, Texas This is to advise that administration of the FEMA Floodplain in the unincorporated areas of Brazos County, Texas is conducted by the County Engineer's office. The administration of said FEMA Floodplain also includes the areas within the extra territorial jurisdiction of Cities of Bryan and College Station, and we intend to exercise jurisdiction in said FEMA designated floodplains. I have reviewed the master preliminary plat of the 9,397 acre subdivision named Indian Lakes, and find that, with the exception of the cul -d"ac lengths, it complies with the County's requirements for a preliminary plat. Please feel free to contact me at (979)822 -2927 should you have any questions. post - it' Fax Note 1 77. __7 71T. _ri. Phonc Fax 6 �� 3 ot 7671 Date q ! T. o'2. PaLges I i • _ Prom r j dw Phone # t, • 9 7,619 Highway 22 wag Bryaa, Texas 77803 Office (979X2 (979)77"453 04/18/02 11:42 $409 775 0453 BRAZOS CO RD &BR r ,1S � BRAZOS COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE DEPT. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Total number of pages 9 (including cover sheet) Date: C 12 4- 49 "6 2 5EF2V e2E5 Fax No: 7 6� J 2 q9(e From: "Coy e"4A; Brazos County Road and Bridge Department 2617 Highway 21 West Bryan, Texas 77803 Office # 979- 822 -2127 Fax # 979 - 775 -0453 Z 001 Comments: �_,' Li to ^ � \L�. • Y OF BRAZOSCOUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT Richard F. Vance, P.F., County F.noineer Alvin W. Jones, County Judge Commissioner Tony Jones. Precinct 1 Cummissioncr Wiiliam S. Thornton, Prccincr 2 April 18, 2002 TO: Kelly Templin A.I.C.P. Director of Development Services City of College Station FROM: Ray Crow, G.F.M. /Z 6 Certified Floodplain Manager Director of Planning & Traffic Brazos County, Texas Commissioner Charles B. Jones, Precinct 3 Commissioner Carey Cauloy, Precinct 4 This is to advise that administration of the FEMA Floodplain in the unincorporated areas of Brazos County, Texas is conducted by the County Engineer's office. The administration of said FEMA Floodplain also includes the areas within the extra territorial jurisdiction of Cities of Bryan and College Station, and we intend to exercise jurisdiction in said FEMA designated floodplains. i have reviewed the master preliminary plat of the 1,397 acre subdivision named Indian Lakes, and find that, with the exception of the cul -de -sac lengths, it complies with the County's requirements for a preliminary plat. Please feel free to contact me at (979)822 -2127 should you have any questions. 1911 u lahwav 71 wpct Brvan_ Texas 77803 Office (9'19)822 -2127 /Fax f979)775 -0453 J.E. STEVENS CO. It DATE: Apiil 8, 2002 To: Molly .lJitchcock FROM:Joe Johnson TOTAL, NUMBER OF PAGES: 1 Hearing: 308 Greens Prainie Road 04/18/02 11:51 V409 775 0453 BRAZOS CO RD &BR � 1 , 1 6� p � J \LrV BRAZOS COUWY ROAD & BRIDGE DEPT. .L' FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Total number of pages e (including cover sheet) Date: el — / t &2 To: 7 P0icl r1 F& D40 /> Sml.! ddu. �9 ,lZ� v� � o ��► F.u,7' S�� v << Fax No: From: iC/ L lZ Brazos County Road and Bridge Department 2617 Highway 21 West Bryan, Texas 77803 Office # 979-822-2127 Fax # 979- 775 -0453 Comments'... U001 7 -1 FREDEVELOPMENT MEETING The purpose of a predevelopment meeting io to meet the City Staff that will be involved with your development and identify general issues that need further analysis. Along with the discussion of these major issues, staff will talk about the development process, distribute necessary information and discuss what permits will be required for your particular development. This meeting is in no way a complete review of your project. Staff will perform a formal thorough review once the minimum requirements are Submitted for your particular development. Date of Meeting: Z y ,- P4 & G� City Staff present: 1 j Proposal: f�r,rst, / � O(-) q.F 1,i a a . —A MiSCellaneo saC 1 Utility IsSUes: Water Availability /Capacity: ( , � ) kC� Sanitary Sewer Availability /Capacity: - Impact fees: Electrical Fire Hydrant mlocellaneouo: La nd oca pi ng /5treetoca pe: 5idewal k5: Dumpoter Location: 5ign5: Screen i ng /Buffering: Variance Requeot5: shaA) bJ '1 /oa v � �, c� V e 3 0 f CL . 0 J jk)7 it wi / &m Qc/tm . , &� UW bA tel' )d Wokd I - 7ki -SY&P- oulya^ 141 1