HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/03/2003 - Regular Minutes - Design Review Board (2)MINUTES
Project Review Committee
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Administrative Conference Room
City Secretary's Office
1101 Texas Avenue
July 3, 2003
6:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners McMath, Shafer and White.
STAFF PRESENT: Director of Development Services Templin, Development
Review Manager Ruiz, Assistant City Engineer McCully,
Transportation Planner Fogle and Staff Assistant Hazlett.
OTHERS PRESENT: Chuck Ellison, Joe Schultz and Wallis Philips.
Variance to Driveway Regulations: Discussion and possible action on a proposed driveway
variance at 4300 Berwick Place located in Section 2 of the Castlegate Subdivision. (03-146)
Commissioner McMath called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Assistant City Engineer McCully explained that the applicant is requesting relief from Chapter 3,
Section 3.H (2).(d) of the Code of Ordinances, which requires corner residential properties to take
driveway access from the lesser adjacent street. He pointed out that when the application for a
building permit for the subject property was received, the site plan depicted a side driveway connection
to Rockcliffe Loop, a loop street and the greater, rather than Berwick, which is a cul-de-sac and
determined by ordinance as the lesser street. Therefore, the permit was denied.
Chuck Ellison, representing the applicant, stated that in this case the difference between the lesser and
the greater street is minor because neither street is designed to or actually functions as a collector or
arterial and are both local, interior subdivision streets. He added that by allowing the homeowner the
flexibility of entering on either the loop or the cul-de-sac, the home could be adjusted on the lot in a
way that can preserve the native vegetation and conserve energy relating to solar conditions. Mr.
Ellison also explained that the conditions in Castlegate are unique in that all interior streets are loops or
cul-de-sacs and that there are lots in Castlegate that have driveways on loop streets that have more
vehicle trips per day than Rockcliffe Loop or Berwick. He concluded that granting the variance would
not violate the City's Driveway Ordinance and because residential drives onto small loop streets or cul-
PRC_Abinites Ali, 3, 2003 Page I oft
de-sacs that are interior to the subdivision do not require the application of the City's Driveway
Ordinance.
Mr. McCully, using the ASSHTO information and guidance as his basis, stated that a street which
serves solely to access individual lots, and in this case, a cul-de-sac, will have the lowest level of
function, while a street that serves to collect traffic from multiple cul-de-sacs and also serve individual
lots will have a higher level of function. 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 the City's current
ordinance requirement. He added that this regulation is included in the currently effective sections of
the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and was not commented on by the development
community during the preparation or hearing procedures. Mr. McCully also pointed out that 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. In closing, Mr. McCully requested guidance from the Planning
and Zoning Commission on the possibility of modifying this regulation in order to clearly reflect the
desires of the Commission.
Further discussion ensued regarding a total of 19 corner lots in the Castlegate Subdivision and the
location of the driveway accesses.
Commissioner White motioned to approve the variance and was seconded by Commissioner Shafer.
The variance was granted with a vote of 3-0.
FOR: White, Shafer and Mcmath.
AGAINST: None.
Commissioner White motioned to recommend to the Commission that the Driveway Access Location
and Design Policy be revisited and a recommendation made to the City Council for UDO revisions.
Commissioner Shafer seconded the motion. The motion carried 3-0.
FOR: White, Shafer and Mcmath.
AGAINST: None.
Commissioner White motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Commissioner Shafer. The motion
carried 3-0.
FOR: White, Shafer and Mcmath.
AGAINST: None.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
PRC_Abinites Juh, 3, 2003 Page 2 oft