Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesPROJECT .REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT March 4, 1994 TO: North B. Barden Jr., Municipal Development Group 203 Holleman East, College Station, TX 77840 First Federal Savings & Loan 2202 Longmire, College Station, TX 77845 FROM: Project Review Committe - Jane Kee, City Pla e David Pullen, City er Craig. Hall, P & Z Re re entative Others Attending Natalie Thomas, Planning Tec ni ' Shirley Volk, Development Co d at Tony Michalsky, Electrical Operatr s Coordinator Samantha Smith, Engineering Assistant Pete Vanacek, Parks Senior Planner Tim DeDear, Fire Protection Specialist Brett McCully, Project Engineer Laverne Akin, GTE Representative George McLean, CSISD Representative SUBJECT: Parking Lot Plan -First Federal Savings Bank; proposed drive-in addition to the existing banking facility at 2202 .Longmire, previously First American Bank. (94-403) A Project Review Committee meeting was .held Wednesday, March 2, 1994 to discuss the above mentioned parking lot plan. City Engineer David Pullen moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: _ A sidewalk must be installed along the frontage of Longmire Drive.. _ Provide an access and parking easement to cover the portion of the parking lot addition located on the west side between this lot and lot 4R. Reference the volume and page of the easement dedication prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Label Longmire Drive. _ Relocation of any existing utilities will be at the cost of the developer. .~ PRC Report First Federal Case #94-403 Page 2 P&Z Representative Hall seconded the motion .which passed unopposed (3 - 0). The following comments were made by the various reviewing agents: COMMENTS/CONCERNS: _ Relocate the existing meter. _ Coordinate telephone service with G.T.E. Representative Laverne Akin at (409) 821-4723. _ Submit revised landscape plan. SUBMIT 4 COMPLETE SETS OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WITH THE REVISED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN ATTACHED AND 4 ADDITIONAL REVISED SITE PLANS ONLY TO CONTINUE WITH PHASE II OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. APPEAL PROCESS: An applicant may- appeal the' decision of the Project Review Committee to the Planning and Zoning Commission within five. days after the PRC Committee meeting. .Failure to appeal the PRC action shall constitute a contractual acceptance of all conditions imposed, and. a waiver and surrender of all complaints, defects, or potential invalidity, whether ..under state or .federal law. An .applicant appealing the. decision of the PRC shall file ten .copies ofthe final site plan as approved by the PRC, showing all changes and requirements imposed by the PRC, and accompanied by a written. explanation of those items being appealed.. Until said copies are on file, no further development approval shall occur,. and no further action by the Commission sha1L take place. An applicant may` appeal only certain aspects of -site plan review, and in the absence of discretionary review by the Commission, or review pursuant to a petition, all other aspects of the site plan shall be final. Any notice of appeal shah state with .particularity the aspects which are to be appealed. Coordinate appeal process through Development Coordinator Shirley Volk at (409) 764-3741. - ; d ~~. ~:~~ ,~ Commissioner Hall opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Russ Hutchins of 2207 Woodsong Trail in Arlington, approached the Commission and offered to answer questions about the proposed development. A total of 136 units°are planned consisting of 13 buildings with 12 living units per building. He stated that the proposed retirement community will consist of 70% affordable housing retirees and the remaining 30% of the units will be at market rate. The rents will range from $350 - $SSO per month. Mr. Hutchins stated .that the actual density of the project is less than 10 units per acre. Access to the site will be from a proposed. street that will connect to Wellborn Road. There will. be no .direct access from the proposed site to Wellborn Road. Commissioner Hall closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved to recommend approval of a rezoning .request for 4.314 acres located along the east side of Wellborn.: Road approximately 500' north of the Graham Road. intersection from C-2 Commercial. Industrial to`R 5 Medium Density. Apartments. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO.3: ' Consideration of a variance request to the minimum. parking lot standards for the First Federal Savings and. Loan .building located of 2202 Longmire Drive. (94-403) Project. Engineer McCully informed the Commission that the .parking lot plan-for the First Federal ..Banking facility on Longmire Drive was approved by staff. in the course of the normal review process. The Project Review .Committee (PRC) approved the ..site plan on March 4, 1994. However, approval of the site plan does not exempt an applicant from meeting all ordinance requirements even if certain requirements were not mentioned in the PRC review. At .the completion of site construction, an inspection. was made and it was found that .the southern limit of the original parking area, which extends a length of approximately 180 feet, had not been curbed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. It was determined that the marking on the plans was consistent with that of a proposed curb, but no note or direction was included on the plans which would ensure that the curb would be `installed.: The applicant and contractor were notified of the deficiency, and directed to install the curbing as required. Instead,. the. contractor installed concrete. wheel. stops along the edge of paving, believing that the wheel. stops would meet our' Ordinance. Because the discrepancy was not specifically noted during the original plan review, and due to the concerns of staff to not hinder the occupancy of the building,. a temporary certificate of occupancy was prepared, with the curbing required to be bonded by the applicant. This agreement has not:.been signed by the applicant because a variance to the standards is pending. ;There is therefore no certificate of occupancy at this time and technically .the building should not be occupied. Since the: occupancy of the building, the .applicant. has. resisted efforts to install the curbing based on the following reasoning: the original parking lot was not curbed, the intention of the applicant is to further expand to the south and would have to remove this curbing at some point and ,because the comment-was not made during the original plan review process. Several telephone meetings were 'held to inform the applicant of the :City's intention to pursue code. enforcement options to have the curb installed. `During the course of these meetings, rt was decided that because the curbing requirement- could have been appealed xo the Planning and Zoning Commission after PRC> and since the applicant was not aware of his opportunity, that the applicant should be allowed to request a `variance to the Zoning Ordinance. Normally,.. a variance request .must be submitted no later: than ten days after. PRC review. The variance request is based upon the opinion of the applicant that the wheel stops are the same as curbing, that the openings between he stops will allow drainage to -exit the site .better,: and that the replacement of the stops , with curbing is an unnecessary expense. P & Z Mrtz~tes September I S, 1994 Page 2 of .S .. ,_ ~: ~'~-~ Project Engineer McCully stated that section 9.2.D of the Zoning Ordinance requires that-all on site driveway and parking areas. be surrounded by a raised 6" high concrete. curb. Concrete wheel stops are not acceptable options.:because they do not adequately meet. the intent of curbing. It is staffs opinion hat the curbing should be installed to meet the aesthetic intentions of the Ordinance; to prevent the loss of control over the edge of the parking area. by the eventual loss and or destruction of the wheel stops; and to .confine the drainage outflow from the parking into the two established paths- which.: existed prior to the expansion. Based upon these facts, staff recommended denial of the variance. request and. requested direction to the applicant to install the curbing. Stan Stevens and -Bobby Williamson, representatives of the First Federal Savings and Loan Association, approached the "Commission and. stated that they.. have complied with .all of the improvements Ghat they proposed. There was never any plan to .curb that particular .section of the existing parking lot to allow for future expansion.. If the curbing was .installed, it would have to be removed wrtlun;the next three to five. years when the site is expanded. Mr. Stevens apologized for .any misunderstanding and explained than having to install the curb would require the bank o go through another approval process through the regulatory agencies in Dallas. If the problem would have been identified dunng construction,. then. the problem could have been resolved at that time. However, he was not notified until after the fact of the requirement to install. the curb. Mr. Stevens stated that he would install the curb if for some reasonthe facilitgr is not expanded within. the next five years.: Staff Planner Kuenzel explained that on June 10, 1994 the site was inspected: and the missing curb section was identified. On June 13th, the contractor was notified of the problem. At that time, a °` ~ temporary certificate. of occupancy was drafted to require a bond for -that section of the curb that '~. ' was never signed by the applicant. `- Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the local architect or engineer should have been aware of the City ordinances. Any variances to the current standards should have been identified during the site planning stage. Commissioner Gribou moved to deny the variance request to the minimum parking lot standards for the First Federal Savings and Loan building located at 2202 Longmire Dnve. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Commissioner Hall stated that the site has been brought up to code with the exception of the curb .:which was a'misunderstanding, He suggested that the variance be denied with the condition that. the applicant have a three to four year time period of compliance. This would allow the wheel stops to remain until the site: is expanded. The original motion to deny the variance .request failed {3 - 2 - 1). Commissioners Lightfoot and Hall voted against the motion. and Commissioner Garner abstained. Commissioner Smith explained that he voted in favor of the motion with the understanding that the three to five year. time period: of compliance was part of the motion. Since that condition was not part of the motion, Commissioner Smith requested to change his vote against the original motion: to deny the variance. request. Commissioner: Smith moved to deny the variance request with the condition: that .the applicant is allowed a four.. year time period to come into compliance with the City standards. Commissioner ;~~~~ Lightfoot seconded the motion with a second'condrtion that the wheel stops must be installed in a continuous fashion placed end to end to give the appearance of a curb with. only two gaps in the .wheel stops to allow for drainage. Commissioner Smith agreed to the amendment. The motion passed (4 - 1 - 1); Commissioner Gribou voted in opposrt~on to the motion and Commissioner. Garner abstained: P & Z Minutes September 15, 1994 Page 3 of S