Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesSTAFF PRC .REPORT Norhtgate Parking Lot Case #94-421 Discretionary Items: Provide one-way arrows: throughout the parking lot. Ordinance Requirements: Site Plan Related.• Show existing water and. sanitary sewer mains. Provide a vicinity map. Show the actual location of the hollies so staff can be sure the variance condition is met. Provide the scientific names of the proposed plant materials including the points claimed for each in the landscape table. fps ~~pp w~~ --~ C U1~6 inlG~ Wgiat~ t~gwi~J fc- 1b 6~ c.~lSM-ctc'Y'C,~ 7a G,~ 5~ Provide dimensions of the parking lot to the property lines, _ The throat. length must be 25'; however, staff would support a variance if the applicant requests one by the Planning and. Zoning Commission. Place the island. located in the northwest corner, at the end of the parking row. Show the required screen fence. Add the following two notes to the landscape plan: (1) All areas including .rights-of--way and adjacent property disturbed during construction shall be returned to their original condition.. (2) All areas not otherwise landscaped, built or paved shall be covered with perennial turf grass. Other O~°dinance Re~2~ii°ements: _ The developer is responsible for two 2" conduits from a meter pedestal to the existing .power pole. Supply a pull string. and provide a 2" rigid conduit and condulet for the City to install up the power pole. _ A drainage development permit is required prior to any site- work:. (Drainage ordinance requirements, grading plan and runoff criteria.) _.... ~ ~ ~i~/i9L~- Comments/Concerns: None. MTNUTES Zoning Board of Adjustment CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 5, 1994 7:0+0 P.NI. MEMBERS PRESENT; Chairman $irdwell, Members Rife, Holias, Poston and Alternate Member Ochoa. (Alternate. Member Blackwelder was in the audience.] MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Sawteile and Alternate Member Alexander. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Technician Thomas, Staff .Planner Kuenzel, Staff Planner Dunn and Assistant City Attorney Shively. AGENDA ITEM. NO. 1; Call to order -explanation of functions of the Board. Chairman Birdwell called the meeting to order and explained .the functions and limitations of the Board. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Approval of minutes from the meeting of May 17, 1994. Mr. Rife moved to approve the minutes from the meeting of May 17, 1994 as written. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed unopposed (S - d). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a variance request to the parking lot standards for the property at 315 Church Street to allow the custom location . of plant islands, space locations and distances. Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the staff report and a revised site plan of the subject property. .The applicant has reconfigured the parking lot with angled. parking so that the only variance requested is to the parking lot setback along Second Street. The applicant is ..proposing a 4' setback instead of the :required 8' and is no longer requesting a variance to the parking lot island requirements. The subject .lots and the lots in the Northgate area were originally subdivided for residential use. At the time that most of the area was rezoned for commercial use, the lots should have been resubdivided to provide adequate utility and street systems to accommodate more intense uses. The conversion of this area, however, occurred at a time when it was not standard practice to require such a .redevelopment. Therefore much of the Northgate area is congested and presents constant utility problems. Parking is relatively scarce and lot configurations do not lend themselves well to development other than single family. Site design becomes difficult where parking lots are considered. The College Main project includes the provision of a bike route, which will eliminate roughly 85 parking spaces on that street from Church north to the City limit line. These factors, while they constitute "special conditions", should be weighed against the intent of the requirements to ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is kept in tact and thus no precedence is set. Twelve surrounding property owners were not~tied with one inquiry. Chairman Birdwell opened the public hearing. Representative of the applicant Clint Schroff of Clarke & Wyndham Investments approached the Board and was sworn in by +Chairman Birdwell. He stated that the revised parking lot plan would decrease the number of parking :spaces by one; however, the revised plan meets all but one of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The variance request is necessary to have a minimum number of parking spaces to make :the project economically viable. The existing building is currently being used for storage and will probably remain if the variance is not. granted. The proposed use is anon-attended pay parking lot City Councilman. Hubbard Kennady approached the Board and was sworn in by Chairman Birdwell. He informed the Board that the City Council dedicated $300,000 for utility relocation for the College Main project. At that time, there was a commitment for the City Council. to replace the parking that was removed along College Main;. however, no money was allocated. There is a definite interest from the City Council that the Northgate area be improved and parking is a big issue. The proposed parking lot would help to alleviate a small .amount of the parking concerns. Chairman Birdwell closed the public hearing. Mr. Rife stated that if a variance was granted, a condition should be placed so that the portion along Second Street is adequately screened so that the intent of the ordinance is maintained. However, the buffering should not cause traffic visibility problems. Staff Planner Kuenzel stated that the site. plan will have to be reviewed and approved by the. Project Review Committee. The Committee.. will make sure that all safety standards are met. The site plan presented tonight could change once reviewed by the Project Review Committee. Staff Planner Kuenzel suggested that if a buffer is recommended, that staff be allowed to review the plans so that it does not cause site distance problems. Mr. Rife moved to authorize ,a variance from Section 15, Ordinance Number 1638 of 4' to the minimum parking lot setback requirement from' the terms of this. ordinance as it will not be contrary to the public interest, due to the following special conditions: the change in the area zoning from residential to commercial resulted in an unusually small lot and limited parking in the Northgate area; and because a strict enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship to this applicant being: limited parking in the Northgate area; and such that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done subject to the following limitations: that the landscaping be concentrated on Second Street with the understanding that it be approved by staff as to minimize any obstruction to traffic visibility. Ms. Poston seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Mr. Ochoa voted in opposition to the motion. Chairman Birdwell stated that the existing parking lots in the Northgate area are atrocious and the. proposed parking lot is an upgrade to the area. He thanked the applicant for meeting the parking lot standards and for not creating another "Mudlot" situation in the area . AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a special exception request to allow the expansion of a nonconforming use, the Bethel Baptist Church located on lot 1, block 1 of the Harvey Hillsides Addition. Staff Planner Dunn presented the staff report and stated that the subject site. is nonconforming. in .terms of parking lot design and landscaping.. Granting a special exception would allow the expansion without provision of asphalt/concrete paving, curbing or landscaping that is ordinarily required of site upgrades. The Zoning Board has the authority to grant a special exception to allow the expansion of a nonconforming building when the Board finds that the expansion is necessary and does not exceed 25% of the area of nonconformity. Special conditions and hardships need not be found to grant a special exception. Five surrounding property owners were notified with no response. ZBA Minutes .Iuly S, 1994 Pale 2 of 3 PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT August 18, 1994 TO: Paul J. Clarke, Northgate Joint Venture 3608 East 29th'Street, Bryan, TX 77802 Rick Robertson, Robertson Engineering .4103 South Texas Avenue Suite 211, College Station, TX 77840 FROM: Project Review Committee Sabine Kuenzel, Staff a r Brett McCully; Project gi eer Winnie Garner, P&Z Represent ive Others Attending .Natalie Thomas, Planning Techni a Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Samantha Smith, Engineering Assistant Don Lusk, ElectricaLLine Coordinator Pete Vanacek, Senior Parks Planner Bob Pursley, Drainage Foreman Ray Crow, Assistant County Engineer Laverne Akin, G.T.E. Representative SUBJECT:.. Pa~~king Lot Plan - Northgate Pa~•king Lot; proposed pay parking lot to be located on lots 14 and 15 of block 6-7 in the Boyett Subdivision. (94-421) A Project Review Committee Meeting was held :Wednesday, August 17, 1994 to discuss the above mentioned parking lot plan. Project Engineer McCully moved to recommend approval of the parking lot plan with the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Discretionary Items: Since the parking lot is one way circulation, provide one way arrows throughout the parking .lot. Staff Planner Kuenzel seconded the .motion to approve with the above .mentioned conditions which passed unopposed (3 - 0), The following is a list of ordinance requirements identified by the various reviewing agents: PRC Report 7Vorthgate Parking Lot Case #94-421 Page 2 of 3 Ordinance Requirements: Site Plan Related: Show that the curbing will continue around the parking lot along Second Street. _ Show existing water and sanitary sewer mains. _ Provide a vicinity map. Show the actual .location of the hollies along the Second Street frontage so staff can be sure the variance condition is met. Provide the scientific names of the proposed plant materials in the landscape table. Provide: dimensions from the parking lot to the property lines: Provide curbing, sidewalk, ramp and paving details or note that all of the City standard specifications will be used. The proposed sidewalk must be a minimum of 6' in width if placed against the back of curb. The throat length must be 25 ; however,.. staff would support a variance if the applicant requests one by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The minimum driveway width is 24'. If this cannot be met, a variance must be requested. Relocate the island shown in the northwest corner to the end of the parking row. Show the required screen fence between lot 16 and the subject property. _ Add the following: two notes to the landscape plan: (1) All areas including rights-of--way. and adjacent property disturbed during construction shall be returned to their original condition. (2) All areas not otherwise landscaped, built or paved shall be covered with perennial turf grass. Other Ordinance Requirements.• _ The developer is responsible for two 2" conduits from a meter pedestal to the existing power pole. Supply a pull string and provide a 2" rigid conduit and condulet for the City to install up the power pole. A drainage development. permit is required prior to any site work. (Drainage ordinance requirements, grading"plan and runoff criteria.) COORDINATE FUTURE. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SUBMITTALS WITH DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR SHIRLEY VOLK AT (409) 764-3570. PRC Repo°t 'YVo~°thgcrte Pa~•king Lot. Case #94-421 Page 3 of 3 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 of the 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 shall 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 shall state with particularity the aspects which are to be appealed. Coordinate appeal process through Development Coordinator Shirley Volk at (409)'.764.-3741.