HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportPROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Brett McCully, P.E. Date: October 24, 2002
Email: bmccully @ci.college - station.tx.us
For
2064 Ravenstone Driveway Variance (PRC) (02- 00500234)
Zoning District: The property is zoned R -1
Location: The site is located at 2064 Ravenstone Loop within Section 1, Phase 2 of
the Castlegate Subdivision
Applicant: Dusty Phillips Construction, inc.
Item Summary: Consideration of possible variance(s) to the Driveway Access Location
and Design Ordinance limitations to the maximum allowable individual and combined
widths of residential driveway approaches.
Item Background: On October 11, 2002, an application was submitted to construct two
driveway approaches onto Ravenstone loop and connect them in a large circular drive
for a new home. The northern drive approach was proposed to be significantly wider to
allow direct access to the garage of the proposed home. The combined width of the
two approaches measured at the property line was shown on a site plan to be thirty -
eight feet, four and one -half inches (384- 1/2 ").
Within Ordinance Chapter 3, Section 3, there are three primary regulations that apply to
single family residential driveways.
Section (2)(c) states: "One curb cut shall be allowed for access to single family and
duplex residential tracts. More than one curb cut may be allowed upon approval by the
City Engineer."
Section (6)(f) states: The combination of two driveways for residential circular drives
shall not exceed twenty -eight feet (28).
Section (6)(d) states: "The maximum width of residential driveway
approach..... measured at the property line, shall not exceed twenty -eight feet (28) in
width, while the minimum shall not be less than ten feet (10)."
On October 11, the application was denied based on the combined width exceeding
that allowed under section (6)(f). The denial included the statement that if the planned
widths could be reduced to the 28' limit at the property line, no further permit process
was required and the driveway approaches would be allowed under the Authority
granted by Section (2)(c). The denial also included a reminder to the applicant of his
right to appeal.
On October 21, 2002, a Project Review Committee Application was received for the
purpose of obtaining variance from these requirements. The application includes a
request for driveways totaling 48 feet at the property line, an increase of approximately
10 feet from the previous submittal, however a revised site plan was not provided for
review.
Discussion:
The primary purpose of regulating drive approaches is to protect the needs of the public
using the adjacent street(s) while allowing reasonable access to private property.
The maximum width of a single drive approach is limited to prevent large, unattractive
areas of parking that will primarily be used for backing into public streets. The width is
also limited to provide protected areas along the lot frontage for fire hydrants, mail
boxes, street lights, drainage inlets as well as overflow street parking.
Circular drives are actually safer since they discourage backing into public streets, but
only if used in a one -way manner. The allowance for more than one residential
opening, and the maximum combined width of circular drives are provided to promote
the safer, one -way movement while still protecting the same frontage area for utilities
and appurtenances.
It is very important to note that the maximum widths are measured at the property line,
and drives are allowed to expand significantly once on private property.
The layout of this specific application is in keeping with the desired means of private
home access. However staff has not found sufficiently unique and special
circumstances at this site to allow such a significant increase in concrete area within the
public street right of way. Staff is concerned that if granted, the variance would
encourage additional backing maneuvers into a minor collector street in a location of
poor sight visibility. For these reasons,
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variance request.
Appeal Authority
Ordinance Chapter 3, Section 3(9)(c) states: "The Project Review Committee may
authorize on appeal a variance to the Driveway Access Location and Design Ordinance
when such variance will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to unique
and special circumstances not normally found in like areas, a strict enforcement of the
provisions of the ordinance by the City Engineer would result in an unnecessary
hardship, and so that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial
justice done."
Supporting Materials:
1. Application
2. Copy of photos submitted by Applicant
3. Copy of Castlegate Section 1, Phase 2 Final Plat
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Prochazka Date: October 28, 2003
Email: jprochazka @cstx.gov
Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a rezoning for
Montelongo's Jewelry, Lots17 & 18, Block D, College Heights Addition,
consisting of 0.34 acres generally located at the northeast corner of University
Drive and Nimitz Street, from PDD Planned Development District to C -3 Light
Commercial. (03 -234)
Applicant: Robert Payne, agent for Jesse Montelongo, Jr., property owner
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the rezoning.
Item Summary: The owner is requesting rezoning in order to develop the
property as a jewelry store. The current PDD zoning allows for specialty retail,
including a jewelry store, but limits what the property owner may do
architecturally.
Prior to the adoption of the Unified Development Ordinance, PDD zonings
included approval of building materials, colors and design. This property was
included as the second phase of the Benjamin Knox Gallery in the original PDD
zoning; however, Mr. Knox never purchased these two lots. The first phase of
the PDD has since been modified not to include any architectural controls, but
the original design limitations are still in place on the subject property.
Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan slates this property
and all surrounding properties for Redevelopment. University Drive is
designated as a major arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan.
Located to the east of the subject property is the Benjamin Knox Gallery, to the
north is a single family home that is zoned A -P Administrative Professional and
shown for Redevelopment on the Land Use Plan, to the west is Nimitz Street,
and to the south is University Drive.
Item Background: The College Heights area was platted many years ago as a
residential subdivision. Over time, the lots fronting on University Drive became
commercial. The larger lots were zoned general commercial and smaller lots
were rezoned to less intense commercial districts. The subject property was
rezoned A -P many years ago to allow limited commercial and office uses, and
again rezoned in 2000 to the current PDD that, at the time, was for the second
phase of the Benjamin Knox Gallery.
R:IHTLTRI PZLTRIPRODIPZ20031P0008676. DOC
Created on 10121103 11:06 AM
Commission Action Options: The
on the question of rezoning, which
The Commission options are:
1. Recommend approval;
2. Recommend denial;
3. Table indefinitely; or,
4. Defer action to a specified date.
Supporting Materials:
1. Location Map
2. Application
3. Infrastructure and Facilities
Commission acts as a recommending body
will be ultimately decided by City Council.
R: IHTLTRIPZLTRIPRODIPZ20031P000 DOC
Created on 10121103 11:06 AM
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Water: There is a 6" waterline that exists along Nimitz that is adequate
to serve the development.
Sewer: There is a 6" sewer line in Nimitz and a 6" sewer line that exists
along University Drive with adequate capacity to serve the proposed
development.
Streets: University Drive is a major arterial and Nimitz is a residential
street. There is currently a platted but undeveloped alley that runs along
the east side of the subject property.
Off -site Easements: None proposed at this time. Current City policy is
to require abandonments of entire alleyways rather than sections of one.
Drainage: Will be required to meet drainage ordinance with the site plan
submittal.
Flood Plain: None on site.
Oversize request: None at this time.
Impact Fees: None in this area.
NOTIFICATION:
Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 10 -21 -03 and 11 -07 -03
Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11 -06 -03
Advertised Council Hearing Dates: 11 -25 -03
Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 18
Response Received: None as of date of staff report
R: IHTLTRIPZLTRIPRODIPZ20031P000 DOC
Created on 10121103 11:06 AM