HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrawingsFUTURE CONTROL SIGNAL
07LOT 17A \ O�O�OgT/DIV CONCEPT SITE PLAN
PAD IT
R,0 W O
7/r B
¢0±1.07 AC./wABwBL OO gTjON�7WEl
` LOT 17 v
UVACEK LEASE O
f4.64 AC.
o
O
7 /
11
/ LOT 1A 11
±1.29 AC 11
1 I g BEST,
60 Sp, PROy
10713
1 I P. P
11 ��
1 I BANK 19
1 1 6,000 SY
LOT 12
V 1
11 1
1
1
jA
I.. 32 SP.►
SP.
x �
0 SP. PR 70 SP. PROV. 70 SP. PROV.
I LL I LL
�N I R•p I �N
1 1 1
LOT 8 I
OT 10 LOT 9 In
l B -"—
B CON�OU SIGNAL
EXIS¶NG
j RETAIL g
RETAI
40 49
or
\
\ NOT A PART
\ i
--Eff_ I
JR. ANCHOR ANCHOR3 s
30,187 sf. 20,929sf. J:NORg
RETAIL
8,746sf.
,
.... `gyp
VAN
1144/14L6
36 p 35 36 36
1
DETENTION
1
LOT 19 —
ra u 10.49 AC.
1 ME SP. PROV. 1 98 SP. PROV. 1 130 SP. PROV. 65 SP. PROV.
1 > i
m 1
RETAIL; REST. ~
rs
RETAIL, REST. I EMIL, I § 24,080 S.F. s 1 w
8,000
TABULATIONS
PARCEL
BLDG. AREA
GROSS
SITE AREA(APPROX)
PKG.RATIO PKG.REODJPROV.
1 RETAIL
203,000 S.F.
21.76 AC.
1:200
1015/1021
2 RETAIL
88,242 S.F.
11.50 AC.
1:200
441/480
RETAIL
5,000 S.F.
—
1:100
50/65
2A RETAIL/REST.
24,080 S.F.
2.53 AC,
1:200
121/130
4 RETAIL, REST.
8,000 S.F.
1.42 AC.
1:250, 1:65
65/65
5 REST.
4,000 S.F.
1.32 AC.
1:100
40/65
6 RETAIL.REST.
8,000 S.F.
1.56 AC.
1:250, 1:65
91/98
7 RETAILREST.
20,984 S.F.
2.53 AC.
1:200
105/156
8 REST.
5,000 S.F.
1.60 AC.
1:100
50/70
9 REST.
5,000 S.F.
1.30 AC.
1:100
50/70
10 REST.
51500 S.F.
1.61 AC.
1:100
55/77
11 GAS/CONV.
5,000 S.F.
1.35 AC.
1:250
20/20
12 BANK
6,000 S.F.
1.71 AC.
1:200
24/92
13 REST.
5,500 S.F.
1.28 AC.
1:100
55/60
17 UVACEK LEASE —
4.64 AC. — —
17A AVAILABLE PAD —
1.07 AC. — —
19 DETENTION —
0.49 AC. — —
21 DETENTION —
0.29 AC. — —
R.O.W. DEDICATION #1
1.01 AC. — —
TOTAL 392,306 S.F. ±58.97 AC.
NOT A PART
1 r
Lor 5
' LOT 71 LOT 6
1[-jjjLLLLLLL[jLMLV1
------- -- -- ---_
ET�gEGDEMOOl R
OSHEO
This 9W plan is presented so[* for the propose of Idenry6ng the apprmdmate Iocatlan and site of the bullngs presently mdetnpla�d W dw ovmer.
Building sizes, site dimensions, access and parking areas, existlng tnant lootlons and Identltles are sub)eU to changes wid,out rwUca and at tlw omw s disaedlon.
Unit rumbas as Indicated are not recessadty the actual suite numtwrs and are InUr4ed for use as a refer, only.
2182/2469
www.weingarten.com
WEINGARTEN REALTY INVESTORS
2600 CITADEL PLAZA SUITE 300 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77008
P.O. BOX 924133 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77292-4133
(713) 866 6000 TOLL FREE (800) 688 8865 FAX (713) 866-6049
PATE 4- ENGINEERS
8150 BROOKRIVER DRIVE, SUITE S-700, DALLAS, TEXAS 75247
TEL: (214)357-2981 FAX (214) 357-2985
JOB NO. 074400400 DATE: JUNE 14, 2006
Scala: 1"=100'
0
-1
............
T iv WAS '
A-0
NN
tp
is
A-0
NN
tp
Rnumbei
Acres
Percent of Total Value
R1 0607
4
$1)267)405
R1 0636
18
$1,874,500
R10659
6
$771
R13876
5
$8053154
R13879
1
$1207875
R13892
6
$5153750
R1 3906
8
$273173666
R13960
1
$3507930
R303884
10
$1,514,234
Total
60
$87 767, 279
5•
f0� -
m
-
O'n¢n�
ROCK PRAIRIE ROAD
I
� � l
� /moi `� `•' [l% _ U
O
16— Spo. 00,01ov-, S
R10636
s
sCU
N
g
47
F.
O}
I
q
�
t^
1
I
i
}
Lo
6
Concluding Comments
I would like to provide several concluding comments related to the domain of this
document.
1. The hundreds of citizens who have been engaged in seeking positive solutions to
protect the integrity of their neighborhoods, while enabling various forms of
commercial and retail development, are heroes and not villains in this saga.
2. The land owners who have been seeking changes in land use are victims and not
villains in this saga.
3. The citizens and land owners are both victims of the ineffectiveness [and much more]
of certain personnel in Planning and Development Services.
4. We are at tipping point in knowing if the College Station mission and the expressed
No. 1 priority of City Council are real or not worth the paper they are written on.
5. The proposed outcome of this saga has the potential for establishing a positive
precedent and constructive guidelines in proposed future land use changes throughout
the city that threaten the integrity of surrounding neighborhoods.
6. The proposed outcome creates, in the long run, the potential for win-win solutions
between citizens and developers who seek changes in land use. Developers and city
staff will understand from the get go that the integrity of neighborhoods takes priority
and must be preserved proactively. Moreover, the after the disaster mitigation
measures proposed by certain personnel in Planning and Development Services will
not be tolerated or found to be acceptable.
7. There should be no reduction in the low tax rate of the City of College Station. If city
council finds a surplus of $4 million or so after completion of the budget process, the
appropriate city parties should immediately initiate a dialogue with the Texas
Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This dialogue should focus on the financial
resources that the city may be able to bring to the table to accelerate the critically
needed highway infrastructure changes in the Rock Prairie zone and related access
road area. I was told by one member of this commission that the state of Texas does
not plan to do anything in the Rock Prairie zone until 2010. That is unacceptable and
impossible. The city needs to negotiate with TxDOT by bringing resources to the
table. It is the citizens, retailers, and commercial land developers who are