The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/03/2003 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board f • AGENDA Project Review Committee CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Administrative Conference Room In the City Secretary's Office 1101 Texas Avenue Thursday, July 3, 2003 6:00 PM Variance to Drivewav Regulations: Discussion, consideration and possible action on a proposed driveway variance at 4300 Berwick Place located in Section 2 of the Castlegate Subdivision (03-146). r • PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Brett McCully, P.E. Date: June 18, 2003 Email: bmccully@cstx.gov For Variance to Driveway Regulations 4300 Berwick (03-00500146) Location: The site is located at the intersection of Berwick Place and Rockcliffe Loop within Section 2 of the Castlegate Development. Applicant: Charles Ellison Item Summary: Applicant is requesting relief from Code of Ordinance Chapter 3, Section 3.H.(2).(d) which requires corner residential properties to take driveway access from the lesser adjacent street. Item Background: On May 29, 2003 application was made for a building permit at this • property. The site plan provided showed a side driveway connection to Rockcliffe Loop. Because this is a residential corner lot, the ordinance section referenced above requires that a determination be made as to the lesser street for driveway connection. Because Rockcliffe is a loop street serving roughly 60 homes, and Berwick is a cul-de-sac serving only 14 homes, Berwick was determined to be the lesser street, therefore the application for permit was denied on this basis. Items for Review: While this item is for a single variance for one property, On June 12, 2003 the applicant provided documentation to support identical requests for 18 other properties within the Castlegate Development. This submittal, along with a response memo from Staff is attached for your review and consideration. Supporting Materials: 1. Location map 2. Variance request letter from Applicant 3. Staff summary memo to P&Z R-1 M 0 T R-1 A-0 \ e R R-1 -1 R-1 \ r A-0 FUTURE SN 40 u -mow 1 6 J5 3I JJ J7 Jl JO 19 .. ...—.-B 1 I/ 10 J7 '� 78 784 19 •77 11 1; ?I 13 16 17 18 19 17 °8f 9 ....;E 17 17A 18 ROCKCUFFE (� ~ � IJ �q°q � 6/ 60 59 `.1B 37 16 ^-1 l i i/6 Jp Jl J7 LP a f2 61 51 56 g- 15 Y 16A 16 IS 18 ji�' II 11 ° IS 19 5p 37 57 w 21 154 �' 67 17 J9 JB JI z 0 v 78 m 41 11 10 71F Iw r1� rz z 131 /J li 12 ;15 'M JI I8 J6 509 '� Il 77 18 79 JO JI C 20 7 /6 IS !7 -10 7J J11 1 �1 51 2 71 I6 N0�0. 1B 17 19 l U 11 9 nt J 1 J7 S, 19 14, 18 ¢= ]J 15 70 !Jr RaKCUffE LP 7 B 1617 ' J 1 3 6 7 18 9 7 4�- 7 7 RAITNSTONE LOOP 77 1J 11 J 10 1 1 5 6 7 8 9 c4-11PDD-H p` x f�rE o r 7 � 77 78 J9 10 10 it 1773 7 1 1yGPti 75 6 1/11 PDD-H ' II J 7 p� 74 ¢p�W 10 cggrkP JI C° III 15 78 15 I Q J 7 IJ 6NOP iS 1817 a( 9 Hpq} 1617 6 .iT t2 IS 1 /9 JIB c7 1819 I � 7� 9 7 6 �r2p 5 6 17 fiY 16 17 !I IJ °1.7111)'llJlb� J �� 19p 61 /6� 8��p 6 ti a`y 51 J I GPffn 73 1778 `S{ 171110 afq c7 I 1B?e 5 , p JO 11 4 y'� 8 9 617�� I ogee SIFCy! 1 1B 7J l5 Il 9 0 33 J? 7 7 6 5 I 7 7 IJ 57 47 2 4 i cp 565 4 551 1 1 11 ��2 a' A-0 4 4 4 48 44 4 46 4 A-0 City f College 4300 WICK e Station, Texas I Case: DE)OOPM- NT REVIEW I III 03-146 v ANCE I CHARLES A. ELLISON, P. Ce ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2501 ASHFORD DRIVE SUITE 100 COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS 77840-4698 MAILING ADDRESS P0.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 Re: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO CORNER RESIDENTIAL TRACTS Applicant: Wallace Phillips, on behalf of Castlegate Communities Applicant Contact Information:4490 Castlegate Drive,College Station,TX 77845 979/690-7250 Date: June 12, 2003 Property Addresses and Descriptions: See attached list TO: Members of the Project Review Committee • REQUESTED VARIANCE Chapter 3, Section 3 K(2)(d)of the College Station Code of Ordinances(the"Residential Driveway Ordinance"or"RDO") provides, "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" This letter is to (i) appeal the decision of the Development Engineer which denied driveway access to loop streets; and (ii) request a variance to the aforementioned section in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 3 K(9)(c) of the College Station Code of Ordinances. This variance provision provides that the Project Review Committee ("PRC') may authorize a variance provided: 1. It will not be contrary to the public interest; 2. Because of the unique and special conditions, strict enforcement of the driveway provision will result in an unnecessary (emphasis added) hardship; and 3. The spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done. Enclosed for your review in the consideration of this variance request please find a graphic representation, with dimensions, of each lot for which this variance is requested. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE Public Interest: Granting the requested variance is not contrary to the public interest. The Applicant asserts that the requested variance is, in fact, in the public interest. The public interest is generally served by the RDO because under most circumstances, driveway entries on "lesser' • streets are safer and more conducive traffic flow. In this case,the difference between the"lesser" and the "greater" streets is, at best, minor. Neither street is designed to or actually functions as a collector or arterial. Both the"lesser"and "greater"streets are local, interior subdivision streets. Even if the drive enters on the loop (the greater street) rather than the cul-de-sac (the lesser street),the risk to public safety is arguably negligible and the benefit to the public is clearly tangible. Affording the homeowner the flexibility of entering on either the loop or the cul-de-sac will allow the home to be adjusted on the lot in a way that can (i) preserve native vegetation; and (ii) conserve energy by adjusting the home for solar conditions. Unnecessary Hardship: If this variance was a request to allow residential driveways to enter on to a collector or arterial, the hardship imposed on the lot owner would be necessary to provide for safer and more efficient traffic flow. The conditions in Castlegate are unique in that all interior streets which are the subject of this variance request are loops or cul-de-sacs. Because the variance is a request to allow driveways to enter from interior loop streets rather than collector or arterial streets,the hardship to the lot owners is unnecessary because the negative impact to traffic safety and traffic flow on those streets is de minimus. In fact, there are lots in Castlegate which have driveways on loop streets that have more vehicle trips per day than any of the loop streets which are the subject of this variance request. Spirit of the Ordinance: This variance, if granted, will not violate the spirit of the RDO and substantial justice will be done. The spirit of the RDO is to provide traffic safety and improve traffic flow. Because the streets in question are local and the difference in traffic flow is minor, residential drives entering on either the cul-de-sac or the loop street will have little, if any, effect on traffic safety or traffic flow. The just decision is to recognize that there are times when the RDO is • necessary to protect the public and there are time when it is not. The applicant suggests that residential drives onto small loop streets or cul-de-sacs which are completely interior to the subdivision do not require the application of the RDO to protect the public. For substantial justice to be done in this case, the variance should be granted. CONCLUSION Certainly, the application of the RDO is appropriate in most circumstances. This is not one. If the variance is granted,the impact on traffic flow and traffic safety will be de minimus and the hardship on the lot owners unnecessary. Government regulation should always be a balance between the public good and individual freedom. When the benefit to the public from applying a regulation is insignificant or nonexistent and the impact on individual freedom is great,the regulation should fall. Such is the case here. The purpose of the RDO, to provide traffic safety and enhance traffic flow, is not served in this case. In fact, other public benefits, like preservation of native vegetation and energy conservation,will be realized if this body grants the requested variance. Thank you for your favorable consideration. Respectfully submitted, e0� Charles A. Ellison • CAE:bg Enclosures cc: Joe Schultz with enclosures Wallace Phillips with enclosures Jeff Milburn with enclosures CITY OF COLLEGE STATION DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 COLLEGE STAXM'W 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 Reaulation 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 onlats 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 lessor 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 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 betweenuidelines 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), r 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 attemptin to have a safe a situation as possible for both the motorist entering the spreet, 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 Effectina Reaulation 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 r 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 permif 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. • • J