Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc 01 n CHARLES A. ELLISON, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2501 ASHFORD DRIVE SUITE 100 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 -4698 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. BOX 10103 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 -0103 CHARLES A. ELLISON TELEPHONE: (979) 696 -9889 AMY L. CLOUGH* FACSIMILE: (979) 693 -8819 J. ALLAN GARRETT *also licensed in Wisconsin June 12, 2003 BY HAND DELIVERY Natalie Ruiz Developer Manager City of College Station 1101 South Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 Re: Castlegate Variance Request For Access To Corner Residential Tracts Dear Natalie: Enclosed herewith please find the Variance Request from Castlegate for access to corner residential tracts along with my firm check in the amount of $150.00. If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, 8t/ Charles A. Ellison CAE:bg Enclosures cc: Wallace Phillips w/o enclosures Joe Schultz w/o enclosures Jeff Milburn w/o enclosures Section & Phase Lot # Block # Address 1 -2 15 1 4401 Edinburgh Place 2 -1 39 2 2100 Rockcliffe Loop 2 -2 17 1 4300 Berwick Place 2 -2 30 1 2146 Rockcliffe Loop 2 -2 32 1 2150 Rockcliffe Loop 2 -2 42 1 2154 Rockcliffe Loop 2 -2 8 2 4301 Tarset Court 2 -2 12 2 4300 Tarset Court 3 -1 16 2 4300 Clipstone Court 3 -2 13 1 4300 Whitwick Place 3 -2 21 1 2209 Rockingham Loop 8 30 1 4312 Velencia Court 9 1 3 2419 Norham Drive 10 50 2 4218 Drogo Court 10 68 2 4217 Drogo Court 10 69 2 4212 Arundel Court 10 10 3 2401 Norham Drive 10 1 4 2315 Norham Drive 10 8 4 2301 Norham Drive ST LEEATE 5031:0 15i oN, %elloN 1 P44-06e 2 LOT IS . be,ocg- l 4401 ED ■15t4tAg RPM ScocL.E • 1" — ' j 5' P.U.E v . „ , . .1 t s0 o X5 6; p `� " �(P / ----a k �, �" QQ 5' P.U.E. ',;� 5' P.U.E 7 7 L 4 Ni `s .� O �ro, E. N z' \ (5) s �Q : ; W \ \ :: '� � i t z �5"i t R . 1 , a , eS \ 1 Y �t f 5 / 1 W l / 1 we (-Y I , C/ , 1 J ,/ - 10' P.U.E rte. ; _ a t ,, r i ,, i ` " /, /k, f . d 60' ROW - 24' B -B PAVEMENT WIDTH -\----*-- ---,00 ,„ z 't f 5' P.U.E. ' ' / 15 P. U. E. . ' , F I I .3 ' • . . '. .....1 '' 1 .:•.... 44 . •••• -•,. ... -r„ .„,,,„---- . ••• •••. • 6 a a. . ...._ ...,-- •• w .... :-...,..,..i ••••,,, - ....... ....:,....,,,,„.... '7 . . . .1• ,•-••• : :- . 1 • 4 . : • . -•••••,--- --,• - ...; •-• . • MP. .' ,;.. ----- '• ' • •••• ' ..1 . g. • • ' ' . . .• , • - r E S.::: Fr. ., ..,, .... . • 1....- Z .:. .. Z . : 2 . .%:..T • r.i.. .--:- • - iiisl i :4 • . - ' . .•• , - . ..,•- - i 7 . -1 •!:••;•,t et,: r: • • •.: I; • .. - -.7:. 1 -.::•• -:: - • . :.s. • . • •-• • — -• .. • - II* •-•-• '-'' :-!-.-• :7 • iict -4•11 '-': :" .: *"'rt' ' ' * • - • • • . ..' '..".. :: *. : • t .... .: ... 4 1.0. • . . ; I • .;,.. , 4.. .. , . . * • A ' 4r4 11111111111 ill " . ‘ ; • .4611 ? . _ _•••• 1 .... an t liP"1 01 . • ":- ' :.. : : . 77.. -: :• . • ma I ii81.3111111118111 11811 . -■ Ir'11!.. ; 4 g -; apt . li 02,..e )4 cf..3 IM -.. . .0 • MO • a s milieu:mum s •ut -,:".. H. ..: : ,. . , .,,,_ -Alio - . _,, . ...eh 7-z4,.. . ... i v 2 ............= ....=...., . , , • , • Al . $ • ... • '''''' - ' .. ' ' _.. __ ....... . "t"-• '''' aill. .." - • P • . . • . -......•' . . • .. . ..-1 ',. - • ...1: r. • -._, 0-21 - • -- .- , --"- - - ----r . "."1.""lei°11. ania...—__ - - . _ A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF ., . . _„...„,..;... / ,. ,,,... :, , , , r- lip ,, 411railk -._ --- _ . ::- . .: • ' l ' , ' ' . - A ,' ,-,--_-•• ,•:-.. -,„...... __..s..._••• ___,. — ... ; .... . - -- . ..• . r - ...;.... • ' - 1 ' • 1 -- - SVP ' i . 4 . ' ' i ' ...." ------5-- ' _ _41■::-.: —_:.-. - --- r- __----- i IGHwAys AND STREETS ..., 2001 ........ :,...... 1 , .... ....,. .„.,. FOURTH EDITION AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY fa!, AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS Local Roads and Streets (Rural Roads) approaching, and stop if necessary. For further information on railroad - highway grade crossings, see Chapter 9. The roadway width at all railroad crossings should be the same as the width of the approach roadway. Crossings that are located on bicycle routes that are not perpendicular to the railroad may need additional paved shoulder for bicycles to maneuver over the crossing. For further information, see the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1). Traffic Control Devices Signs, pavement and other markings, and, where appropriate, traffic signal controls are essential elements for all local roads and streets. Refer to the MUTCD (4) for details of the devices to be used and, for some conditions, warrants for their use. Bicycle Facilities The local roadway may be sufficient to accommodate bicycle traffic. Where special facilities for bicycles are desired, they should be in accordance with the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (1). Erosion Control All slopes and drainage areas should be designed with proper regard for the desired natural ground cover and growth regeneration on areas opened during construction. Various acceptable methods of erosion control, including seeding and mulching of slopes, sodding, or other protection of swales and other erodible areas, should be included in the local road design. Consideration should also be given to maintenance requirements and overall economics. In roadside design, the preservation of natural ground covers and desirable growth of shrubs and trees should be considered, provided that such growth does not constitute an obstruction in f; the recovery area. LOCAL URBAN STREETS General Design Considerations A local urban street is a public roadway for vehicular travel including public transit and refers to and includes the entire area within the right -of -way. The street also serves pedestrian and bicycle traffic and usually accommodates public utility facilities within the right -of -way. The development or improvement of streets should be based on a functional street classification that 393 AASHTD— Geometric Design of Highways and Streets is part of a comprehensive community development plan. The design criteria should be appropriate for the ultimately planned development. Most urban functional classifications include three classes of streets: arterials, collectors, and local access routes, which are discussed in Chapter 1. Geometric design guidance for collector streets is provided in Chapter 6 and is provided for arterial streets in Chapter 7. It is not practical to present separate design criteria for Local streets for each design feature discussed below. However, where there are substantial differences from the criteria used in design of other functional classes, specific design guidance is given below. The design features of local urban streets are governed by practical limitations to a greater extent than those of similar roads in rural areas. The two major design controls are (1) the type and extent of urban development with its limitations on rights -of -way, and (2) zoning or regulatory restrictions. Some streets serve primarily to provide access to adjacent residential development areas. In such cases, the overriding consideration is to foster a safe and pleasant environment whereas the convenience of the motorist is secondary. Other local streets not only provide access to adjacent development but also serve limited through traffic. Traffic service features may be an important concern on such streets. On streets serving industrial or commercial areas, the vehicle dimensions, traffic volumes, and vehicle loads differ greatly from those on residential streets, and different dimensional and structural design values are appropriate. Here, safety and traffic service are usually the major design controls. Where a particular design feature varies depending on the area served, such as residential, commercial, or industrial, different design guidelines are presented for each condition. The designer should be apprised of local ordinances and resolutions that affect certain design features. Design Traffic Volume Traffic volume is not usually a major factor in determining the geometric criteria to be used in designing residential streets. Traditionally, such streets are designed with a standard two -lane cross section, but a four -lane cross section may be appropriate in certain urban areas, as governed by traffic volume, administrative policy, or other community considerations. For streets serving industrial or commercial areas, however, traffic volume is a major factor. The ADT projected to some future design year should be the design basis. It usually is difficult and costly to modify the geometric design of an existing street unless provision is made at the time of initial construction. Design traffic volumes in such areas should be that estimated for at least 10 years, and preferably 20 years, from the date of construction completion. Design Speed Design speed is not a major factor for local streets. For consistency in design elements, design speeds ranging from 30 to 50 km/h [20 to 30 mph] may be used, depending on available 394 AASHTO— Geometric Design of Highways and Streets In residential areas, sidewalks should be provided on at least one side of all local streets and are desirable on both sides of the street. The sidewalks should be located as far as practical from the traveled way and usually close to the right -of -way lines. The minimum sidewalk width should be 1.2 m [4 ft]; sidewalk widths of 2.4 m [8 ft] or greater may be needed in commercial areas. If roadside appurtenances are situated on the sidewalk adjacent to the curb, additional width may be needed to secure the clear width. Greater sidewalk widths should be considered for higher volume sidewalks and where the sidewalk is against the curb or wall. Further guidance on designing sidewalks can be found in the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (5). Sidewalk Curb Ramps Sidewalk curb ramps should be provided at crosswalks to accommodate persons with disabilities. Such ramps may be the same width as the approach sidewalks; the suggested minimum width should be 1.0 m [3 ft] exclusive of sideslopes. Further discussion of this topic appears in Chapter 4. Further guidance on designing sidewalk - driveway interfaces can be found in the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (5). Driveways A driveway is an access constructed within a public right -of -way, connecting a public roadway with adjacent property and intended to provide vehicular access into that property in a manner that will not cause the blocking of any sidewalk, border area, or street roadway. Some of the principles of intersection design apply directly to driveways. In particular, driveways should have well- defined locations. Large graded or paved areas adjacent to the traveled way, which allow drivers to enter or leave the street randomly, should be discouraged. Sight distance is an important design control for driveways. Driveway locations where sight distance is not sufficient should be avoided. Vertical obstructions to essential sight distances should be controlled by regulations. Driveways should be regulated as to width of entrance, spacing, and placement with respect to property lines and intersecting streets, angle of entry, vertical alignment, and number of entrances to a single property to provide for traffic safety and maximum use of curb space for parking where permitted. Driveways should be situated as far away from intersections as practical, particularly if the driveway is located near an arterial street. Driveway returns should not be less than 1 m [3 ft] in radius. Flared driveways are preferred because they are distinct from intersection delineations, can properly handle turning movements, and can minimize problems for persons with disabilities. Further guidance on the design of sidewalk- driveway interfaces can be found in the AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (5). 402 . • �JuI -01 -03 11:19am From - Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.07/07 F -823 PROPORTION QF SERVICE Mobility Arterials --- N Collectors ufiatAagete \'\,. Locals 1 Exhibit 1 -5. Relationship of Functionally Classified Systems in Serving Traffic Mobility and Land Access '""' LLJ • . U U UL J:J. -.. J i ; :_:.,-. E _‘,'—":":";:..., f:A,I.s.. ] • Z -` L. ,ntl.,i): - L ] R .,, ' .4 ..-- - -...L j 1=5\ Vilit on= ,. • ‘ [ YY• - • L ._ ..._ E LEGEND Arterial Street sziwzr. Collector Street .k Commercial Areo RPM Public Area = Local Street Exhibit 1 -4. Schematic Illustration of a Portion of a Suburban Street Network Jul —01 -03 11:18am From — Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.03/07 F -823 Mr. Charles A. Ellison June 18, 2003 Page 2 sentence could be replaced with the word '`street" The key words are "...management of the interference with through traffic." In addition, the Green Book states that access management is "...a way to anticipate and prevent congestion and to improve traffic flow." It is very obvious that the intent of access management is to minimize interference to traffic flow, and specifically, to minimize interference to "through" traffic flow. AASH'IO classifies roadways into three categories, arterials, collectors, and locals. As shown in Figure 2, and included as Exhibit 1-5 in the 2001 AASHTO Green Book, the functional classification of these three types of roadways is based on two operational features, mobility and access. Arterials are the highest classified type of roadway and the primary function of arterials is mobility, or moving traffic. At the bottom end of the roadway classification system are locals, which have the primary function of providing access. Collectors are those roadways between arterials and locals which provide both mobility and access. Basically, arterials are the freeways and major city streets that are designed to move large volumes of traffic with little or no access to adjacent properties. Collector streets connect arterials to local streets and they provide access to both small and large commercial establishments. Local streets are defined as any roadway not classified as an arterial or a collector. Ideally, local streets should not intersect with arterials, or such intersections should be restricted to right -in, right -out operation. Local streets should intersect only with collector streets or with other local streets. In a residential development bordered by arterial streets, as shown in Figure 2, and included as Exhibit 1-4 in the 2001 AASHTO Green Book, collector streets enter into the subdivision to provide circulation within the subdivision and access to Local streets. Ideally, collector streets (typically called major collectors or minor collectors) should not provide direct access to residential Tots. Local streets extend throughout the subdivision intersecting collector streets and other local streets. These local streets may be straight or curved, "looped," or cul- de- sac'd. Access to residential lots are provided by these local streets. AASHTO recognizes the desire to control access for both traffic flow efficiency and safety. When access locations are minimized along arterials, traffic flow efficiency is maximized and accident rates are minimized. Hence, access to properties should be maximized along local streets, and provided along collector streets where there will be minimal interference with "through" traffic. Driveway access locations should be spaced at maximum intervals and as far from intersections as possible along collector streets. This process provides minimal interference with the "through" traffic on collector streets. Driveway spacings along local streets require less control because there is little or no "through" traffic. Hence, AASHTO does not address access control issues on local streets, The AASHTO Green Book states that "Direct property access should be denied or limited along higher class roadways, whenever reasonable access can be provided to a lower class roadway." Hence, AASHTO does suggest providing access from the "lesser" street when reasonable, which is consistent with the city of College Station ordinances. Jul -01-03 11:18am From - Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.04/07 F -823 Mr. Charles A. Ellison June 18, 2003 Page 3 However, AASHTO does not classify local streets into various Levels or categories. Hence, it is obvious that AASHTO would recommend providing access from a collector street at an intersection of an arterial with a collector, and access from a local street at an intersection of a collector and a local. But AASHTO does not provide any suggestion or guidance concerning classifying local streets into major and minor (or greater and lesser) categories. Because local streets are short in length, accommodate low traffic volumes, and operate at low travel speeds, there is no need to establish major and minor Local street classifications. All local streets, regardless of alignment and length, have the same amount of importance. Other publications, like the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Transportation and Land Development, provide additional classifications of streets. Such publications classify arterials into freeways, major arterials, and minor arterials, collectors into major and minor collectors, and locals into local (2 Ways Out), local loops, cul -de -sacs, and alleys. However, such publications do not establish any type of priority for access permits at intersections of two local streets. Basically, these publications state what AASHTO suggests, that corner lots be required to take access from the lesser street. Specifically, that would mean "...to the local instead of the collector or to the minor collector instead of the major collector" as indicated in the Transportation and Land Development publication. Hence, there is no indication in the AASHTO Green Book (or in other publications that address access control issues) that there is a purpose or reason for restricting access at a comer lot at an intersection of two local streets to only one of the streets. Because all local streets have a minimal amount of through traffic (if any) and operate at low speeds, access control is not an important design feature because the purpose of access control is to minimize interference of through tra �c. However, there is one design feature relative to access control that should be incorporated along local streets. As stated in the Transportation and Land Development publication, "Access should be at the greatest possible distances from the intersection in order to achieve the maximum possible corner clearance." When residential driveways are located away from intersections, movements into and out of the driveways will have less effect on intersectional operations. In summary, driveway access locations at corner lots adjacent to intersections of local streets should not be restricted to only one of the two local streets. This does not mean access should be provided to both streets. The fact that one of the two local streets may be longer than the other or would likely accommodate more traffic is not really important. Both streets carry only a small amount of traffic and operate at low speeds so access from either street results in about the same result. In other words, there simply is no recognizable advantage to restricting access from one local street and requiring access to be provided from the other. However, wherever access is provided at the corner lot, it should be encouraged to be located as far from the intersection as possible. Jul-01-03 11:18am From — Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.05/07 F -823 Mr. Charles A. Ellison June 18, 2003 Page 4 In regards to the specific lots identified in Figure 1 that have been identified for requested variances, none should have access to a collector street. The only collector streets shown are Victoria Avenue and Castlegate Drive. Obviously, only four of those shaded lots are adjacent to a collector street, specifically, Victoria Avenue. It is my understanding that the requested variance for these lots does not include a request for access from Victoria Avenue. However, there is also the desire to locate access as far as possible from intersections. Obviously, the intersection of a collector street with a local street is more important (and "busier ") than intersections of two local streets. Hence, Norha m Dr ive instead advisable stead o Cambb access for the four shaded lots adjacent to Court or Colchester Court. Victoria Avenue is no reason to to Nora Dr in restrict access at the other 15 lots. I hope this discussion has addressed your questions and concerns. Please contact me if you have any questions. Re • ctfully submitted, "APO &MOW (, * *• * * *. *. «� • Joseph D. Blaschke, D.Eng., P.E. 4 President JDB /sb Attached Figures Jul —01 -03 11:17am From — Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.01 F -823 CHARLES A. ELLISON, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2501 ASHFORD DRIVE SUITE 100 COLLEGE: STATION, TEXAS 77840 -4098 MAILING ADDRESS P.D. BOX 10103 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 -0103 CHARLES A. ELLISON TELEPHONE: (979) 696.9889 AMY L. CLOUGH• FACSIMILE: (979) 693 -8819 J. ALLAN GARRETT -also licensed in Wiseonsln FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER PAGE DATE: July 1, 2003 TO NATALIE RUIZ FACSIMILE NUMBER: 764 -3496 FROM: CHUCK ELLISON NUMBER OF PAGES: 7 (including this page) RE: COMMENTS: Accompanying this fax please find a letter from Joe Blaschke regarding the Castlegate Variance Request. Would you please provide this to the PRC for their consideration at the hearing. It is my understanding from my discussions with Dr. Blaschke that it is his opinion that AASHTO does not draw a distinction between greater or lesser local streets and that whether the street, as it is in Castlegate, is a loop street or a cul de sac they all serve the purpose of a local street. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Chuck CONFIDENTIAL IMPORTANT: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended for the lawful use of the individual or entity named below. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (collect if necessary) and return the original message to us at the address above via United States Postal Service. Thank you. Jul -01 -03 11:1Tam From - Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.02/07 F -823 1 — ,Jran4portation eniineei'ini ' na1G sLs Joseph 0, Blaschke, 0, Eng,, P.F•., President 1008 Woodcreek Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 • 979/693 -5800 - fax: 979/693 -5870 • e - mail: tealttca.nef June 18, 2003 Charles A. Ellison, P.C. Attorneys at Law ATTN: Mr. Charles A. Ellison P. O. Box 10103 College Station, Texas 77842 -0103 RE: Variance Request for Access to Corner Residential Tracts Castlegate Communities College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Ellison: It is my understanding that you have submitted to the city of College Station a Variance Request for certain comer lots in the Castlegate Communities, located in College Station, Texas. These specific corner lots are illustrated in Figure 1, and are identified by "darkened shading." A total of 19 lots are identified. It is also my understanding that the city of College Station's Code of Ordinances states ((in Chapter 3, Section 3 K(2)(d)), "For corner tracts, access to residential tracts shall be taken from the lesser street. The determination as to the lesser (or greater) street shall be based on AASHTO criteria for functional street classification." AASHTO is the acronym for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials_ Since the 1940's, this organization has published the recommended state-of-the-art geometric design features for highways and streets. AASHTO's criteria for functional street classification is found in the Green Book, the common name for the AASHTO publication titled A Policy on Geometric Desigg of Highways and Streets. The most recent Green Book was published in 2001. Basically, you have asked me to evaluate the AASHTO Green Book to determine AASHTO's criteria for functional classification and how it would be related to the city of College Station's Ordinances. Furthermore, you have asked me to review the locations of the specific corner lots, as illustrated in Figure 1, to determine if access to these lots should be relegated to one adjacent street or permitted for either adjacent street in order to conform to the city ordinances. Initially, it is important to understand the purpose of access control, because the restriction of driveway access is a type of access control. The AASHTO Green Book states that "The functional advantage of providing access control on a street or highway is the management of the interference with through traffic. This interference is created by vehicles or pedestrians entering, leaving, and crossing the highway." Obviously, the word "highway" in the second Specializing in: Traffic Engineering • Roadway Design Accident Analysis Jul-01 -03 11:19am From - Ellison Law 9796938819 T-962 P.07/07 F -823 PROPORTION OF SERVICE Mobility Arterials .., ; ,,,, ,.., ...\ r 'll Collectors L dal loaate \ Locals Exhibit 1 -5. Relationship of Functionally Classified Systems in Serving Traffic Mobility and Land Access ---' L LJ • LJ U fJ LJ . -.. _I i ' :4 L'. --- '.:;‘#,:::,;‘. i7-47/ =S 3 .-.--'- ill :. 1----�n E_ 1) c ]R L ...... _ . , . '0, 1 - , '' 3 , C., j ., 4' L • LEGEND - Arterial Street szwx. Collector Street ;=u., Commercial Area Eta Public Area = Local Street Exhibit 1-4. Schematic Illustration of a Portion of a Suburban Street Network Jul-01-03 11:18am From — Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.04/07 F -823 Mr. Charles A. Ellison June 18, 2003 Page 3 However, AASHTO does not classify local streets into various levels or categories. Hence, it is obvious that AASHTO would recommend providing access from a collector street at an intersection of an arterial with a collector, and access from a local street at an intersection of a collector and a local. But AASHTO does not provide any suggestion or guidance concerning classifying local streets into major and minor (or greater and lesser) categories. Because local streets are short in length, accommodate low traffic volumes, and operate at low travel speeds, there is no need to establish major and minor local street classifications. All local streets, regardless of alignment and length, have the same amount of importance. Other publications, like the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Transportation and Land Development, provide additional classifications of streets. Such publications classify arterials into freeways, major arterials, and minor arterials, collectors into major and minor collectors, and locals into local (2 Ways Out), local loops, cul-de -sacs, and alleys. However, such publications do not establish any type of priority for access permits at intersections of two local streets. Basically, these publications state what AASHTO suggests, that corner lots be required to take access from the lesser street. Specifically, that would mean "-.to the local instead of the collector or to the minor collector instead of "the major collector" as indicated in the Transportation and !..and Development publication. Hence, there is no indication in the AASHTO Green Book (or in other publications that address access control issues) that there is a purpose or reason for restricting access at a corner lot at an intersection of two local streets to only one of the streets. Because all local streets have a minimal amount of through traffic (if any) and operate at low speeds, access control is not an important design feature because the purpose of access control is to minimize interference of through traffic. However, there is one design feature relative to access control that should be incorporated along local streets. As stated in the Transpo and Land Development publication, "Access should be at the greatest possible distances from the intersection in order to achieve the maximum possible corner clearance." When residential driveways are located away from intersections, movements into and out of the driveways will have less effect on intersectional operations. In summary, driveway access locations at corner lots adjacent to intersections of local streets should not be restricted to only one of the two local streets. This does not mean access should be provided to both streets. The fact that one of the two local streets may be longer than the other or would likely accommodate more traffic is not really important. Both streets carry only a small amount of traffic and operate at low speeds so access from either street results in about the same result. In other words, there simply is no recognizable advantage to restricting access from one local street and requiring access to be provided from the other. However, wherever access is provided at the corner lot, it should be encouraged to be located as far from the intersection as possible. Jul -01 -03 11:18am From — Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P. 05/07 F -823 Mr. Charles A. Ellison June 18, 2003 Page 4 In regards to the specific lots identified in Figure 1 that have been identified for requested variances, none should have access to a collector street. The only collector streets shown are Victoria Avenue and Castlegate Drive. Obviously, only four of those shaded lots are adjacent to a collector street, specifically, Victoria Avenue. It is my understanding that the requested variance for these lots does not include a request for access from Victoria Avenue. However, there is also the desire to locate access as far as possible from intersections. Obviously, the intersection of a collector street with a local street is more important (and "busier ") than intersections of two local streets. Hence, it would be advisable to restrict access for the four shaded lots adjacent to Victoria Avenue to N orham Drive instead of Camber Court, Drogo Court or Colchester Court. There is no reason to restrict access at the other 15 lots. I hope this discussion has addressed your questions and concerns. Please contact me if you have any questions. ' Re s ectfully submitted, ha / r 7)E?4 maim RAWHIKE .r ..... ...... «� • Joseph D. Blaschke, D.Eng., 4?�4 President JDB /sb Attached Figures Jul -01 -03 11:18am From — Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.03/07 F -823 Mr. Charles A. Ellison June 18, 2003 Page 2 sentence could be replaced with the word "street" The key words are "...management of the interference with through traffic." In addition, the Green Book states that access management is "...a way to anticipate and prevent congestion and to improve traffic flow." It is very obvious that the intent of access management is to minimize interference to traffic flow, and specifically, to minimize interference to "through" traffic flow. AASHTO classifies roadways into three categories, arterials, collectors, and locals. As shown in Figure 2, and included as Exhibit 1 -5 in the 2001 AASHTO Green Book, the functional classification of these three types of roadways is based on two operational features, mobility and access. Arterials are the highest classified type of roadway and the primary function of arterials is mobility, or moving traffic. At the bottom end of the roadway classification system are locals, which have the primary function of providing access. Collectors are those roadways between arterials and locals which provide both mobility and access. Basically, arterials are the freeways and major city streets that are designed to move large volumes of traffic with little or no access to adjacent properties. Collector streets connect arterials to local streets and they provide access to both small and large commercial establishments. Local streets are defined as any roadway not classified as an arterial or a collector. Ideally, local streets should not intersect with arterials, or such intersections should be restricted to right -in, right -out operation. Local streets should intersect only with collector streets or with other local streets. In a residential development bordered by arterial streets, as shown in Figure 2, and included as Exhibit 1-4 in the 2001 AASHTO Green Book, collector streets enter into the subdivision to provide circulation within the subdivision and access to Local streets. Ideally, collector streets (typically called major collectors or minor collectors) should not provide direct access to residential Tots. Local streets extend throughout the subdivision intersecting collector streets and other local streets. These local streets may be straight or curved, "looped.," or cul- de- sac'd. Access to residential lots are provided by these local streets. AASHTO recognizes the desire to control access for both traffic flow efficiency and safety. When access locations are minimized along arterials, traffic flow efficiency is maximized and accident rates are minimized. Hence, access to properties should be maximized along local streets, and provided along collector streets where there will be minimal interference with "through" traffic. Driveway access locations should be spaced at maximum intervals and as far from intersections as possible along collector streets. This process provides minimal interference with the "through" traffic on collector streets. Driveway spacings alon: local s • - • ontrol because there is little or no "through" traffic. Hence, AASHTO does not address access control issues on loci L stree — ts — .7The AASHTO Green Book states that "Direct property access should be denied or limited along higher class roadways, whenever reasonable access can be provided to a lower class roadway." Hence, AASHTO does suggest providing access from the "lesser" street when reasonable, which is consistent with the city of College Station ordinances. Jul -01 -03 11:17am From — Ellison Law 9796938819 T-962 P.02/07 F -823 �■ Jaiusportation enineerin4 'rta p of Joseph D. Blaschke, D. Eng., P.E., President 1008 Woodcreek Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 • 979/693 -5800 • fax: 979/693 -5870 • e -mail: tea @tca,ner June 18, 2003 Charles A. Ellison, P.C. Attorneys at Law ATTN: Mr. Charles A. Ellison P. O. Box 10103 College Station, Texas 77842 -0103 RE: Variance Request for Access to Corner Residential Tracts Castlegate Communities College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Ellison: It is my understanding that you have submitted to the city of College Station a Variance Request for certain corner lots in the Castlegate Communities, located in College Station, Texas. These specific corner lots are illustrated in Figure 1, and are identified by "darkened shading." A total of 19 lots are identified. It is also my understanding that the city of College Station's Code of Ordinances states ((in Chapter 3, Section 3 K(2Xd)), "For corner tracts, access to residential tracts shall be taken from the lesser street. The determination as to the lesser (or greater) street shall be based on AASHTO criteria for functional street classification." AASHTO is the acronym for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials_ Since the 1940's, this organization has published the recommended state-of-the-art geometric design features for highways and streets. AASHTO's criteria for functional street classification is found in the Green Book, the common name for the AASHTO publication titled A Policy on Geometric Desigsn of Highways and Streets. The most recent Green Book was published in 2001. Basically, you have asked me to evaluate the AASHTO Green Book to determine AASHTO's criteria for functional classification and how it would be related to the city of College Station's Ordinances. Furthermore, you have asked me to review the Locations of the specific corner lots, as illustrated in Figure 1, to determine if access to these lots should be relegated to one adjacent street or permitted for either adjacent street in order to conform to the city ordinances. Initially, it is important to understand the purpose of access control, because the restriction of driveway access is a type of access control. The AASHTO Green Book states that "The functional advantage of providing access control on a street or highway is the management of the interference with through traffic. This interference is created by vehicles or pedestrians entering, leaving, and crossing the highway." Obviously, the word "highway" in the second Specializing in: Traffic Engineering • Roadway Design Accident Analysis Jul —01 -03 11:17am From—Ellison Law 9796938819 T -962 P.01 F -823 CHARLES A. ELLISON, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2501 ASHFORD DRIVE SUITE 100 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840-4898 MAILING ADDRESS P.D. BOX 10103 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 -0103 CHARLES A. ELLISON TELEPHONE: (979) 896.9889 AMY L. CLOUGH' FACSIMILE: (979) 602 -8819 J. ALLAN GARRETT -also ucenseoin Wisconsin FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER PAGE DATE: July 1, 2003 TQ NATALIE RLTIZ FACSIMILE NUMBER: 764 -3496 FROM: CHUCK ELLISON NUMBER OF PAGES: 7 (including this page) RE: COMMENTS: Accompanying this fax please find a letter from Joe Blaschke regarding the Castlegate Variance Request. Would you please provide this to the PRC for their consideration at the hearing. It is my understanding from my discussions with Dr. Blaschke that it is his opinion that AASHTO does not draw a distinction between greater or lesser local streets and that whether the street, as it is in Castlegate, is a loop street or a cal de sac they all serve the purpose of a local street. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. Chuck CONFIDENTIAL TMPORTANT: This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law, and is intended for the lawful use of the individual or entity named below. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error, please immediately notify us by telephone (collect if necessary) and return the original message to us at the address above via United States Postal Service. Thank you.