Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemoCITY 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 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brett McCully, P.E., Development Engineer SUBJECT: Driveway Variance, 4300 Berwick Street DATE: June 18, 2003 Honorable Chair and Commissioners, The following should summarize both the background and recent events regarding residential driveway access on corner lots. Explanation of Current Regulation City of College Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 3, Section 3.H.(2)(d) states: "For corner tracts, access to residential tracts shall be taken from the lesser street. Access notes on lats shall supersede this requirement. The deter- mination as to the lesser (or greater) street shall be based on AASHTO criteria for functional street classification. " e Because residential drive access is prohibit within the City to any street collector level or higher, this section is my in reference to local streets. The wording is specific in determining ess r treet, as opposed to some other designation as in dead end street, or of specific function or widths. The wor g ang is also specific in using AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) criteria to distinguish between street functions. The current AASHTO guideline document is an extensive (900 +) page policy manual on most aspects of highways and streets. The document is broken down into different sections based on categories of function, thus differentiating between uidelines for local roads and streets (chapter 5) from those for freeways (chapter 8). The first chapter describes levels of function, and describes the differences between main movements (freeways) distribution movements (arterials), Collection movements (collectors) and access movements (local streets). There is a specific reference to the hierarchy of street functions in the following: "The complete hierarchy of circulation facilities relates especially to conditions of low - density suburban development, where traffic flows are cumulative on successive elements of the system. " Within chapter 5 is a subsection for "Local Urban Streets ", and includes the following under a heading of General Design Considerations ": "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. Given this information and guidance, it is clear that a street which serves solely to access individual lots (a cul -de -sac) will have the lowest level of function. It is also clear that a street which serves to collect traffic from multiple cul -de -sac streets as well as serve individual lots will have a higher level of function than the cul -de -sacs it serves. For this reason, lots which abut two streets, one of which is a cul -de -sac, would be required to access the cul -de -sac street to be in compliance with our current ordinance requirement. It is important to note that this regulation is included in the currently effective sections of the Unified Development Ordinance, and was not commented on by the development community during the preparation or hearing procedures. Intent of Current Regulation The ordinance section referenced at the beginning of this memo was included in the original driveway access management ordinance dating back to the early 1990's. Because residential driveways are expected to use backing maneuvers to access the adjacent streets, the regulation was imposed that where a choice between streets existed, the backing maneuver would be made into the street with less traffic. This is a simple means of attempptn to have a safe a situation as possible for both the motorist entering the street, and the traffic using the street at the time of entry. It is clear that backing entry into a cul -de -sac is safer than into a street of higher function. It is also clear that entering a street of higher classification is safer in the forward direction at a defined intersection than in a backing manner from an individual driveway. Recent Events Effecting Regulation Administration The past two years have seen two significant situations that have brought a great deal of attention to this regulation. The first issue has been a shift in the residential home construction market that has placed a high value on side entry homes. It has become very desirable to move the garage frontage away from the main facade of the home. Due to the higher perceived value by homebuyers, the market has attempted to shift to address this demand. The second issue was a drastic decline in the City ability to monitor and enforce this regulation during a prolonged period of staffing shortage experienced by the Development Engineering Division. The combination of these situations meant that homes were designed, submitted and permitted to be constructed contrary to this regulation. Therefore in many areas, homes have been constructed that are not compliant. Seeing these homes actually helped fuel the desirability of the layout. As part of my returning to lead this division and filling the other vacant position, we are now much more able to adequately permit screen applications, thus catching a large number of applications that do not meet the regulation. Most of the ma1�or developers, including those of Castlegate, Pebble Creek, Alexandria and Edelweiss have already been made aware of this issue over the past months. However the end result is that many homebuilders are displeased that they are not being allowed to produce a highly desirable product, that in the recent past they were not prevented from developing. Request from Staff As the designated administrator of the Driveway Access Location and Design Policy, it would be of great benefit to obtain guidance from the Commission on the possibility of modifying this regulation in order to clearly reflect the desires of the Commission. Any proposed revision would be brought back for consideration by the Commission and, with P &Z recommendation, taken to the Council as revisions to the UDO. WORKSHOP AGENDA ITEM NO.2 Driveway Access Location & Design Policy a le" I ,� �� 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 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brett McCully, P.E., Development Engineer SUBJECT: Driveway Variance, 4300 Berwick Street DATE: June 18, 2003 Honorable Chair and Commissioners, The following should summarize both the background and recent events regarding residential driveway access on corner lots. Explanation of Current Regulation City of College Station Code of Ordinances Chapter 3, Section 3.H.(2)(d) states: "For corner tracts, access to residential tracts shall be taken from the lesser street. Access notes on lats shall supersede this requirement. The deter- mination as to the lesser (or greater) street shall be based on AASHTO criteria for functional street classification. " Because residential drive access is prohibited within the City to any street collector level or higher, this section is applied only in reference to local streets. The wording is specific in determining a lesser street, as opposed to some other designation as in dead end street, or streets of specific function or widths. The wording is also specific in using ASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials) criteria to distinguish between street functions. The current AASHTO guideline document is an extensive (900 +) page policy manual on most aspects of highways and streets. The document is broken down into different sections based on categories of function, thus differentiating between uidelines for local roads and streets (chapter 5) from those for freeways (chapter 8). The first chapter describes levels of function, and describes the differences between main movements (freeways) distribution movements (arterials), Collection movements (collectors) and access movements (local streets). There is a specific reference to the hierarchy of street functions in the following: "The complete hierarchy of circulation facilities relates especially to conditions of low - density suburban development, where traffic flows are cumulative on successive elements of the system. " Within chapter 5 is a subsection for "Local Urban Streets ", and includes the following under a heading of General Design Considerations ": "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. " Given this information and guidance, it is clear that a street which serves solely to access individual lots (a cul -de -sac) will have the lowest level of function. It is also clear that a street which serves to collect traffic from multiple cul -de -sac streets as well as serve individual lots will have a higher level of function than the cul -de -sacs it serves. For this reason, lots which abut two streets, one of which is a cul -de -sac, would be required to access the cul -de -sac street to be in compliance with our current ordinance requirement. It is important to note that this regulation is included in the currently effective sections of the Unified Development Ordinance, and was not commented on by the development community during the preparation or hearing procedures. Intent of Current Regulation The ordinance section referenced at the beginning of this memo was included in the original driveway access management ordinance dating back to the early 1990's. Because residential driveways are expected to use backing maneuvers to access the adjacent streets, the regulation was imposed that where a choice between streets existed, the backing maneuver would be made into the street with less traffic. This is a simple means of attempting to have a safe a situation as possible for both the motorist entering the street, and the traffic using the street at the time of entry. It is clear that backing entry into a cul -de -sac is safer than into a street of higher le function. It is also car that entering a street of higher classification is safer in the forward direction at a defined intersection than in a backing manner from an individual driveway. Recent Events Effecting Regulation Administration The past two years have seen two significant situations that have brought a great deal of attention to this regulation. The first issue has been a shift in the residential home construction market that has placed a high value on side entry homes. It has become very desirable to move the garage frontage away from the main fagade of the home. Due to the higher perceived value by homebuyers, the market has attempted to shift to address this demand. The second issue was a drastic decline in the City ability to monitor and enforce this regulation during a prolonged period of staffing shortage experienced by the Development Engineering Division. The combination of these situations meant that homes were designed, submitted and permitted to be constructed contrary to this regulation. Therefore in many areas, homes have been constructed that are not compliant. Seeing these homes actually helped fuel the desirability of the layout. As part of my returning to lead this division and filling the other vacant position, we are now much more able to adequately permit screen applications, thus catching a large number of applications that do not meet the regulation. Most of the ma1'or developers, including those of Castlegate, Pebble Creek, Alexandria and Edelweiss have already been made aware of this issue over the past months. However the end result is that many homebuilders are displeased that they are not being allowed to produce a highly desirable product, that in the recent past they were not prevented from developing. Request from Staff As the designated administrator of the Driveway Access Location and Design Policy, it would be of qreat benefit to obtain guidance from the Commission on the possibility of modify - ing this regulation in order to clearly reflect the desires of the Commission. Any proposed revision would be brought back for consideration by the Commission and, with P &Z recommendation, taken to the Council as revisions to the UDO. 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 0� MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brett McCully, P.E., Development Engineer SUBJECT: UDO Amendment, Corner Residential Driveway Access Honorable Chair and Commissioners, At your July 3, 2003 workshop meeting, you were provided with information regarding driveway access for corner residential lots. Current regulations require access to the "lesser" street, however at the meeting interest was expressed in revising the ordinance upon developing a safe means of allowing access to either street at the discretion of the builder /owner. In evaluating potential changes, Staff looked at several possible development scenarios, and then considered the implications of each. We quickly realized that the most crucial component of this issue was sight distance. When a driveway connects to the same street as the adjacent lots, a visible corridor is created by the lack of conflicting fencing or private improvements. Thus the driveway from a corner lot connects to the same street as the adjacent lots, the sight distance criteria is preserved. There are no specific setback requirements between lot lines and driveways because a common sight area is provided by the front building setback line. In order to allow driveway connections contrary to the street connection standard, but in a safe manner, Staff proposes a revision to allow side connections to the "greater" street, with the provision that a 20 -foot setback be provided from the rear property line. In this manner, builders and owners have more options available to them, while the safety of the passing traffic on both the street and sidewalk is preserved. Because this 20 -foot dimension is the same as the rear building setback in this lot configuration, Staff proposes to simply apply the existing building setback dimensions to driveways for corner lots. Since the garages and the driveways line up, there should not be any negative impacts on corner proposals that will be providing a safe driveway connection. The current ordinance section 7.3.C.2.d reads as follows: "For corner tracts, access to residential tracts shall be taken from the lesser street. Access notes on plats shall supercede this requirement. The determination as to the lesser (or greater) street shall be based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) criteria for functional street classification. " Staff proposes this section to be replaced with the following: "For corner residential lots, side access driveways shall be subject to building setback requirements." Staff desires input from the Commission on this proposal, and stands ready to move forward to City Council with any recommendations and /or modifications deemed appropriate by the Commission. FILE CO�'f 6 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 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Brett McCully, P.E., Development Engineer SUBJECT: UDO Amendment, Corner Residential Driveway Access Honorable Chair and Commissioners, At your July 3, 2003 workshop meeting, you were provided with information regarding driveway access for corner residential lots. Current regulations require access to the "lesser" street, however at the meeting interest was expressed in revising the ordinance upon developing a safe means of allowing access to either street at the discretion of the builder /owner. In evaluating potential changes, Staff looked at several possible development scenarios, and then considered the implications of each. We quickly realized that the most crucial component of this issue was sight distance. When a driveway connects to the same street as the adjacent lots, a visible corridor is created by the lack of conflicting fencing or private improvements. Thus the driveway from a corner lot connects to the same street as the adjacent lots, the sight distance criteria is preserved. There are no specific setback requirements between lot lines and driveways because a common sight area is provided by the front building setback line. In order to allow driveway connections contrary to the street connection standard, but in a safe manner, Staff proposes a revision to allow side connections to the "greater" street, with the provision that a 20 -foot setback be provided from the rear property line. In this manner, builders and owners have more options available to them, while the safety of the passing traffic on both the street and sidewalk is preserved. Because this 20 -foot dimension is the same as the rear building setback in this lot configuration, Staff proposes to simply apply the existing building setback dimensions to driveways for corner lots. Since the garages and the driveways line up, there should not be any negative impacts on corner proposals that will be providing a safe driveway connection. The current ordinance section 7.3.C.2.d reads as follows: "For corner tracts, access to residential tracts shall be taken from the lesser street. Access notes on plats shall supercede this requirement. The determination as to the lesser (or greater) street shall be based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) criteria for functional street classification. " Staff proposes this section to be replaced with the following: "For corner residential lots, side access driveways shall be subject to building setback requirements." Staff desires input from the Commission on this proposal, and stands ready to move forward to City Council with any recommendations and /or modifications deemed appropriate by the Commission.