Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceJennifer Reeves - Re: Pebble Creek - Phase 9 Page 1 From: Mark Smith To: Ken Fogle Date: 7/14/2004 8:42:59 AM Subject: Re: Pebble Creek - Phase 9 Who can answer the question as to whether the LIDO applies in this case or not? If it is simply a Subdivision Regs issue then it is good to go and no variance is required. I am confused about what you say we want. Do we want to prohibit driveways onto minor collectors or not? If we do not want to prohibit them then why would we want to add more prohibitive language to the Subdivision Regs. >>> Ken Fogle 7/13/2004 5:11:23 PM >>> I think the issue that we have here is there is a requirement in the UDO that should be in the subdivision regulations. Whether or not residential driveways are allowed on a minor collector should be decided at the time of platting (subdivision regulation authority). If a residential area is platted with lots fronting on a minor collector, we automatically fall into the "no local street can be made available" when it comes to the question of driveway access. Currently the subdivision regulations allow PZ to make the call to whether residential lots front on arterials or collectors (8 -G.8). Here is my recommendation: As part of the LIDO clean up, remove the language in the LIDO that states where residential uses can and cannot take access. This is already covered in the subdivision regulations in 8 -G.8. When we finish the connectivity project, we'll update the subdivision regulations with any new regulations for residential lots fronting on minor collectors (deeper or wider lots, provisions to remove backing maneuvers, etc.). This way, PZ has the authority to make the call on whether or not to approve the Pebble Creek - Phase 9 plat. Isn't this the way it should be? Let me know what you think and we'll proceed accordingly. >>> Mark Smith 7/9/2004 12:59:54 PM >>> I can't tell from what you have sent me whether they need a variance or not. Does the LIDO apply here if their master plan was approved pre -UDO? Apparently the Subdivision Regulations do not make such a requirement. If the LIDO does not apply here then we can assume that the proposed arrangement is good to go unless the P &Z wants to exercise its right to prevent driveways opening into such streets. If the UDO does apply here then I think that a variance from ZBA is required. There is no "driveway application" here. I'll agree that the platting of lots fronting on a street implies that access will be taken from that street but I don't think that the development engineer should get into approval or denial of implied driveways. The reason for the LIDO requirement under Article 7, Section 7.3 B.b is to catch these potential access problems at the platting stage. The following language: b. Minor Collector Streets: No single- family dwelling, townhouse, or duplex shall take direct access to minor collector streets except when no local street is or can be made available or when the residential lot has at least 200 feet of frontage on the minor collector street. is unambiguous LIDO language. I don't think that staff has the authority to grant a variance to this. If a variance is required it would need to be granted by the ZBA as described in Article 3, Section 3.16. This may well be something that needs revision, but that is the way the LIDO reads at this time and it doesn't appear to give us any discretion. Mark Smith Director of Public Works Jennife R eeves - Re: Pebble Creek - Phase 9 P age 2 979 - 764 -3690 >>> Ken Fogle 7/9/2004 9:09:29 AM >>> Mark, Since this is not a variance to the subdivision regulations, should we require him to show the findings as listed in the subdivision regulations? When the applicant is requesting a variance to the LIDO, we usually require a letter requesting the variance and why ... no specific findings. Let me know what you think. Ken --------------------- --------------------- Ken Fogle, P.E. Transportation Planner City of College Station Phone: 979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 E -mail: kfogle(a.cstx.gov Web: www.cstx.gov >>> Mark Smith 7/9/2004 7:45:31 AM >>> I am inclined to agree with you Ken. I would like for Davis to submit a request for the variance. The burden is on the applicant to make a case for the variance. He should address each of the four "findings" listed in Section 5 of the subdivision regulations. The variance request should be in the form of a letter addressed to that case's project manager. Is this plat on a time clock yet? Mark Smith Director of Public Works 979 - 764 -3690 >>> Ken Fogle 7/8/2004 5:18:35 PM >>> Mark, I have a situation that I need your help with. Davis Young is preparing to plat Pebble Creek - Phase 9. This phase includes a segment of a minor collector (St. Andrews I believe). On Pebble Creek's master plan (prior to the UDO), they show residences on St. Andrew's having driveway access. Based on the LIDO, no single - family home shall take direct access unless no other street can be made available (not applicable in a developing area) or the lots have over 200 feet of frontage. Prior to the UDO, staff usually restricted driveways on collectors; the only place (that I am aware of) that it was regulated was through the subdivision regulations that allows the PZ Commission to restrict driveways on arterials and collectors. In the past, we have allowed driveway access on some minor collectors in Pebble Creek. Davis Young has been calling with concerns (he's pretty worked up) about us not allowing to develop this phase as it was planned on their master plan. The LIDO calls for the Development Engineer to review driveway variances, so this is your call. Do you feel the surge of power welling up within you yet? I've been working with the Long Range Planning staff on the connectivity project and one of the things that we've discussed is whether or not to restrict driveway access on minor collectors. I believe that we should remove this restriction so that our minor collector roadways act as a residential collector, and allow driveway access ... a wider version of a collector street. One idea is to require these homes to have driveways that would allow them to head out, rather than back out, onto the minor collector roadway. In a well connected subdivision, it works very well. This is the way that Francis and Walton operate in the East Molly Hitchc - Response to Staff Comments P Page 1 Planning and Land Use Solutions MEMORANDUM August 24, 2004 TO: Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planner via e-mail mhitchcock(cD-cstx.gov FROM: Jessica Jimmerson via e-mail jj(a)plusplanning.com SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION (REZ) Case file #04- 00500183 Staff Review Comments No. 1, August 16, 2004 Planning Comment #2 In 1991, the developer expressed his desire to donate parkland in this area to the City and it was discussed at a Parks Board meeting. The Parks Board has identified the area as a 4.54 -acre "future park ". What is the intent in regards to the parkland? Despite the fact that the Special Warranty Deed of Parkland signed in 1988, entitles the developer to credit for future parkland dedication requirements for up to 3630 dwelling units, which have not all been utilized, the developer recognizes the need for a park in this area. Therefore the development plan does continue to include a park in this area. It will most likely initially be a privately maintained park, however, the specifications and exact boundaries of the park are yet to be determined. The developer is working with the City's Parks Department professionals and intends to continue discussions with the Parks Board to ensure that the park is well designed for its intended functions. More details will be worked out as the area approaches the platting stages of development. 3211 Westwood Ma in, Brya Texas 77807 iiCa plusplanning.com 979 - 224 -4340 Phone, 979 - 775 -5107 Fax From: Kristan Clann To: Hitchcock, Molly Date: 9/16/2004 2:12:36 PM Subject: Pebble Creek greenway Attached is my message for the Council mtg next week re: Pebble Creek re- zoning. Let me know if you need any clarification. Thanks!! kristan ------------------ ------------------ Kristan D. Clann Greenways Program Manager City of College Station Phone: 979.764.3844 Pebble Creek comments 9/16/04 Kristan met with Jessica Jimmerson on 9/14/04. Regarding the re- zoning of the area east of Pebble Creek Parkway, the Greenways Program recommends that the Lick Creek portion of the greenway be maintained as a greenway and protected from development. This section of greenway is classified as a "suburban greenway" in our Master Plan. The primary functions of a suburban greenway include: flood control, recreation, transportation, economics, and aesthetics. Filling the Lick Creek portion of greenway would prevent these functions from being fulfilled. However, the Greenways Program will negotiate the possible development of the Alum Creek fringe portion of the greenway, which is labeled as a " rural greenway" in our Master Plan. The primary functions of a rural greenway include: protect wildlife, flood control, and aesthetics. It is likely these functions can be fulfilled by neighboring Lick Creek Park. Jennifer Reev - Re: Pebble Creek - Phase 9 Gate area. Regarding internal connectivity, I believe that Pebble Creek does a pretty good job. External connectivity is another issue. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if it were my call, I'd allow residential lots to front and have driveway access onto St. Andrews. I'd like to get your thoughts on this as soon as you can so we can get back to Davis Young. Let me know what you think. Thanks for your help on this! Ken --------------------- --------------------- Ken Fogle, P.E. Transportation Planner City of College Station Phone: 979.764.3570 Fax: 979.764.3496 E -mail: kfogleCcDcstx.gov Web: www.cstx.gov Page 3 CC: Carol Cotter; Jane Kee; Jennifer Reeves; Natalie Ruiz; Spencer Thompson TO: Mrs. Mollv Hitchcock TRANSMITTAL LETTER Staff Planner CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Date: 8/20/20 Prop Project: Pebble Creek Su bdivision Rezoning Map We are sending you the following: ❑ Invoice ® Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Contracts ❑ Other ® Attached ❑ Under Separate Cover Via: ❑ Contractor ❑ Bid Books ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order Invoice Copies Date Description 2 Prints of revised rezoning map These are transmitted as follows: ❑ For Approval ❑ Approved as Submitted • For your use ❑ Approved except as noted • As Requested ❑ Resubmitted after Revisions ❑ For Review Comment ❑ Other: Sets to approved and returned to me Copies for your files Corrected Prints REMARKS: COPY TO: S IGNED: Michael R. McClure, P.E., R.P.L.S. -� President Z• F- >' i MCCLURE & BROWNE ENGINEERING/ SURVE INC. 1008 Woodcreek Drive, Suite 103 • College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 693 -3838 • Fax (979) 693 -2554 • Email: mikem @tca.net