Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD REPORT May 26, 1994 TO: James M. Goodson, III, Capstone Development 700 Luckie Drive, Ste 424, Birmingham, AL 35223 Demarest & Associates 2923 Canton Street, Dallas, TX 75226 FROM: Design Review Board David Brochu, DRB Chairman Kay Henryson, .DRB Member Jim Gardner, DRB Member Jane Kee, City'Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Charles Smith, P&Z Representat: Others Attending Natalie Thomas, Planning Techni,,la~~ Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Tony Michalsky, Electrical Operations Coordinator Samantha Smith, Engineering Assistant Brett McCully, Project Engineer Pete Vanacek, Parks Senior Planner Jim Smith, Sanitation Superintendent Tim DeDear Fire'Protection Specialist Laverne Akin, GTE Representative Mike Lavender'TCA Cable Representative SUBJECT: .Site Plan -University Commons Apartments; proposed apartment complex to be located along Colgate Drive at the Central Park Lane and Eastmark intersections in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. The site is approximately 16.5 acres with a total of 240 living units. (94-505) A Project Review Committee meeting was held Wednesday, May 25, 1994 to discuss the above mentioned site plan. Chairman David Brochu moved to .recommend approval of the site plan with the following comments: COMMENTS/CONCERNS: _ Provide a vicinity map. _ Show plant species and actual location of all plant material on the site plan and legend. Recommended that the proposed dogwoods and. camellias not be used because they do not grow well in this area. .University Commons Apartments Case #94-SOS Page Z of 3 _ Show. the existing .trees that are to be preserved with this development including the names and sizes. If points are claimed for these existing trees, provide details on how the trees will be barricaded during construction. _ Show details on the. proposed "seating area" including benches, walkways, landscaping, etc. _ The proposed .pavers to be used throughout the site do not have to exactly match the pink.. blocks in the Wolf Pen Amphitheater. However, pavers and blocks should be utilized to tie this development in with the public development. Present color .samples on the pavers and blocks at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. _ The proposed lighting .for the interior walkways and courtyard is acceptable as well as the parking lot lighting. However, provide more detail on the parking lot lighting including colored samples to the Planning and Zoning Commission since none was available at the Design Review Board meeting. Relocate several dumpsters on the site so that they are adequately screened and not visible from any public rights-of-way. _ Relocate the proposed .driveway entrance along .the Eastmark cul-de-sac to Colgate Drive to meet the Driveway Access and Location Ordinance. _ Locate the minimum reservation line on the site plan that is to be dedicated to the City and the 100 year floodplain line. Landscaping and other improvements should not be located in this area. _ According to the Sidewalk Master Plan, a sidewalk is required along the south -side of Colgate Drive. If .one is not planned, a variance must be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Provide building finished floor elevations. _ Coordinate a drainage conference with staff to discuss the amount of .fill to be added to the .site .and the final grading plan, and methods proposed for handling runoff. _ Curb and pavement details :must be included either on the site plan or construction documents. DRB Member Gardner seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). The following comments were made by various staff members: FIRE: Fire lanes must be provided in accordance with current ordinance requirements. WATER/WASTE WATER: Distinguish between existing and proposed water and sanitary sewer mains and note sizes. University Commons Apartments Case #94-SOS Page 3 of 3 _ Indicate fire hydrant locations. All hydrants must be installed and operable before any combustible materials are brought on site. Submit water demands and sanitary sewer loadings .including minimum, maximum and average demands. ELECTRICAL: _ It is the developer's responsibility for the placement of all conduit and for payment of twenty percent of the cost for electrical service. Submit a letter requesting electrical service and agreeing to pay. the associated .costs. _ Submit electrical loading demands, size of service, and load calculations. _ .Correct the conflict with the existing .street light pole and the proposed drive entrance along the south side of Colgate Drive. If the utility pole must be relocated, it will be done so at the developer's expense. G.T.E.: _ Telephone service lines will be placed in the same trench as electrical lines as much as possible. Coordinate telephone service details with G.T.E. Representative Laverne Akin at (409} 821-4723. T.C.A: Coordinate service details with T.C.A. Representative Mike Lavender at (409) 846-2044. 911 EMERGENCY:: _ Verify that Colgate "Drive" is the street name that was actually platted. 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. ~, . Bob Bower, . a partner in the East Bypass Development.. Group,. the owner of the subject property, .informed the Commission that he has a contract with. a local car :dealership for approximately` 4.0 acres: of the property.. He stated 'that he has a preliminary proposal .for the Douglass Nissan site: if the Commission would like to review it. Mr. Bower. offered to answer any questions pertaining. to ..the proposed rezoning request. Chairman Hawthorne closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gribou moved. to recommend approval. of the rezoning request for approximately 15 acres located at the southeast corner of Sebesta Road and State Highway 6 intersection .from R-1 Single Family :Residential to C-1 General Commercial with special attention being paid to the "step. down" approach and buffering of the existing single family development. Commissioner. Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed ..unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration of a parking lot. plan for future improvements of Certified Copy located. at 1911.. Texas Avenue in the Wolf Pen' Creek zoning. district. (94- 408) Staff Planner Kuenzel presented the .staff- report and recommend approval with all Project Review. Committee' and Design Review Board. recommendations. One issue that must be addressed by the Commission. relates to the driveway' throat length.. Site changes that require site plan .review .would justify a review of driveway. locations and design. Due to the fact that the drive. is existing and that it provides the sole. access point to ;the site, staff is allowing, the drive to remain. Staff does have the discretion to require .that throat length criteria be :met. Again, the ;layout of the existing site makes it impossible to meet the full length that would be required under the .ordinance. Therefore. staff stated Ghat at the very least, the throat .length .should be increased from the 10' shown on the site plan to 19' and - eliminate the .first two parking on either side of the .drive. The applicant has not submitted a revised .site plan showing this. or the other .changes as conditioned by the Design Review Board. .Commissioner. Hall moved. to approve the site plan with all staff .and Design Review Board recommendations. Thee sidewalk along Texas Avenue is important 'and .should not be negotiated. Commissioner Gribou seconded he motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a site plan for the. University Commons Apartments located along the north. and south sides of Colgate Drive at Eastmark Drive and Central Park Lane'in the: Wolf Pen Creek Zoning district (94505) City Planner Kee presented the staff report for a proposed multi-family project which will have 240 living units on 16.5 acres for a density. of 14S units per acre. Most of the project will be located on xhe south side of Colgate between Eastmark and Central park Lane with 6.4 acres located on .the north side of Colgate. The Design Review. Board saw the proposal on May 25, .1994 and required additional information pertaining to paving materials to be presented at .the Commission. meeting. The Board also, asked for details on benches and walkways... Overall, the. _Board was in favor of the. proposal having viewed a video of this company's similar .project in another state. _The sidewalk master plan calls for a sidewalk along both .sides of :collectors. There is a sidewalk along the north side.. of Colgate presently and the 'Board did not'see the. need for one on the south side. The Board would support the variance request to eliminate this sidewalk. Several of the dumpster locations as shown on .thee site plan would be visible from rights-of-way. The `Board required these to be relocated and screened. The applicant .has no .problem with this requirement. The site plan submitted reflects all Design .Review Board concerns except for paving materials, .information pertaining. to the details of benches in landscaped .areas, and walkways.. Staff had also requested thumbnail sketches of the propose drainage ditch from the Eastmark. Drive cul-de- sac to the creek that .have not :been submitted to date. The. applicant should be able. to address-these things during his presentation to the Commission. P & Z Minutes June 16, X994 Pale 2 of S ..Chairman Hawthorne expressed concern with' the Tack of buffering in the east and west parking areas to the. adjacent properties. City Planner Kee stated that there is no screening proposed in those .areas. but there is room for some trees, shrubs' or a combination. Applicant Jimmy 'Goodson approached the Commission and showed a video of a similar project. in Alabama. He :presented. color'samples of a rose colored .brick that will be used with a_beige or grey split. faced masonry block around the pool deck area. The landscape architect for the project is currently working on benches with pockets of landscaping around them to be located throughout the site.. Mr. Goodson stated that an underground pipe will be installed instead of the proposed open channel from the cul-de-sac to the creek to prevent .further eroding of the channel. Commissioner Gribou .expressed concern with the .conflict between the parking lot lighting .and interior lighting fixtures. He .suggested. that the lighting fixtures be more 'consistent with the overall site. Commissioner Hall expressed concern with not installing a sidewalk along the south side of Colgate. Considering: the use of the property, a sidewalk is essential. Once Colgate is extended the pedestrian traffic in the area will only increase. Without additional sidewalks, pedestrians arc being forced into the street. Chairman Hawthorne agreed< that. requiring the sidewalk along the south side of Colgate would be more consistent and. utilized by the'resdents of the site as well as the pedestrians in the overall neighborhood. Mr. Goodson stated. that an internal pedestrian sidewalk is provided that meanders through the site down. to the creek. An additional sidewalk along the south side 'of Colgate would not be; utilized. There is also a substantial ' elevation difference between Colgate and the site, ,approximately T. If a sidewalk is required, a retaining wall may have to be installed to maintain the required slopes.. Commissioner Gribou moved to approve the site plan with the following conditions: {1) All staff and Design Review Board comments and recommendations be met; (2) A sidewalk is required along the south side of Colgate Drive; and, (3) Staff has the discretion to approve the final drainage plan :including the aesthetics of the proposed. underground pipe from the cul-de-sac to the creek. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Establish pparking requirements .for a .manufacturing facility located at 512 F.M. 2818, previously Texas Digital Systems. (94802) Staff Planner Kuenzcl presented. the staff report. and stated that while it would be beneficial from a 'timing aspect to determine a parking requirement for all manufacturing uses,. the diversity within the industry makes such a `determination difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, it may be better in the .long -run for .each individual new site or additions to existing sites to come before the Commission. In this manner, the individual company ..can present the circumstances surrounding the use; and the Commission can condition the parking requirements on the use .remaining similar to the one. approved. If conditions change, they will then need to come back before the Commission.. for additional parking requirements. P & Z Mrnvtes June 16, 1994 Pale 3 of S