Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousMEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Steve Homeyer, Graduate Civil Engineer DATE: September 21, 1995 RE: Appeal of the Project Review Committee requirements for the construction of a sidewalk on Texas Avenue for Wings 'N' More (95-40~ This appeal is before the Commission at the request of Mr. Mark Dennard, owner of Wings 'N' More Restaurant at 3230 Texas Avenue. The legal description of this property is Lot 9 and 10, Block 16, Southwood Valley Section 3. The Presubmission conference was held on April 26, 1995 and approved the proposed four foot concrete sidewalk along Texas Avenue after discussion. The City's Sidewalk Ordinance requires a sidewalk to be six feet wide when placed directly behind the curb. If there is a six foot green space between the sidewalk and curb, the width of the sidewalk is then reduced to four feet. When this site plan was submitted, staff required the sidewalk to be six feet due to its location next to the curb. After discussions with the property owner, a discretionary variance was approved to allow the sidewalk to be five feet in width in order to accommodate the large Juniper shrubs planted along the right-of--way of Texas Avenue. During the project review meeting, the sidewalk was reduced to its present width of four feet. The applicant is appealing this requirement because he feels the construction of this sidewalk will cause undue hazards related to the pruning of these shrubs as well as creating an unsightly view. A copy of Mr. Dennard's letter and photographs which address. this issue are attached for your review. In a related case, the Goodyear store at 2998 Texas Avenue, on August 4, 1994, appealed to this commission for a variance to not include their sidewalk as part of the site plan. Their appeal was denied and they were required to install the sidewalk. As part of this same motion, the Commission conditioned the denial on the fact the City would continue the sidewalk across the City's right-of--way to the Sonic property line. The City's participation included the construction of the sidewalk and handrail to provide pedestrian access over the drainage ditch on City property. Staff recommends denial of this variance due to consistency and to support the Project Review Committee's decision to follow the City's Sidewalk Master Plan. Staff has consulted on site with the City's Forestry Department as to the resilience of the Juniper's foliage when pruned to such extent. Staff was told the Juniper will never fill out properly and will always have a bare side facing Texas Avenue. The Forestry Department suggested that the property owner choose a shrub that would require less maintenance. This large shrub Juniper would require extensive shaping to maintain accessibility to the sidewalk. The question is whether or not the City plans to follow the Sidewalk Master Plan and require the construction of these sidewalks or to selectively enforce this plan on a case by case basis. If the City were to construct the sidewalks in the future when pedestrian traffic necessitated their use, it would be faced with the Juniper situation at that time. For this reason, Staff feels that now is the appropriate time for this construction to take place. CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 September 28, 1995 Mr. Mark Dennard Wings'N' More Restaurant 1045 Texas Avenue S College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mark: This letter is to follow-up our phone conversation of yesterday regarding the need for you to provide the City with a revised, or "as built" site plan for your new store on Deacon & Texas. After our phone conversation I called Kling Engineering and spoke with Thomas, who was unaware of any order from you for a site plan. He was going to check with Stewart and call me back. He did, and said that you had also called Stewart, and they have plans to do the plan in the next few days. I want to, again, remind you that we will need that revised plan prior to issuance of a C.O. in order for staff to determine if what was built complies with our ordinance requirements. The previously approved site plan did comply. Veronica Morgan and Sabine Kuenzel made a site visit yesterday after you let me know your projected opening date and voiced concern about the lack of clearance between the guy wires and the sidewalk you have been required to build. I have not heard from Veronica about the visit, but Sabine noticed that there is no curbing around the dumpster pad, which is required. She also questioned whether the sanitation trucks would be able to service the dumpsters from that extremely steep driveway, but I know that you and the sanitation staff are working closely to address all questions about that. You granted the City a blanket utility easement prior to beginning construction on your site, and that easement can be released once you provide a specific public utility easement to cover the electric service from the pole to and including the transformer. That, plus the existing access parking and access easements are the only easements which are required by the City at this time. 1 mentioned this specific easement to Thomas when I spoke with him, and you might want Kling to take care of that while they are preparing the site plan. If any other questions or problems arise that I might be able to help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to the opening of your restaurant on the south side of town. Yours very truly, Shirle .Volk Development ordinator EioQrae of ~'exas At;P~i Ciniversity ® CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 7643500 September 28, 1995 Mr. Mark Dennard Wings 'N' More Restaurant 1045 Texas Avenue S College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mark: This letter is to follow-up our phone conversation of yesterday regarding the need for you to provide the City with a revised, or "as built" site plan for your new store on Deacon & Texas. After our phone conversation I called Kling Engineering and spoke with Thomas, who was unaware of any order from you for a site plan. He was going to check with Stewart and call me back. He did, and said that you had also called Stewart, and they have plans to do the plan in the next few days. I want to, again, remind you that we will need that revised plan prior to issuance of a C.O. in order for staff to determine if what was built complies with our ordinance requirements. The previously approved site plan did comply. Veronica Morgan and Sabine Kuenzel made a site visit yesterday after you let me know your projected opening date and voiced concern about the lack of clearance between the guy wires and the sidewalk you have been required to build. I have not heard from Veronica about the visit, but Sabine noticed that there is no curbing around the dumpster pad, which is required. She also questioned whether the sanitation trucks would be able to service the dumpsters from that extremely steep driveway, but I know that you and the sanitation staff are working closely to address all questions about that. You granted the City a blanket utility easement prior to beginning construction on your site, and that easement can be released once you provide a specific public utility easement to cover the electric service from the pole to and including the transformer. That, plus the existing access parking and access easements are the only easements which are required by the City at this time. 1 mentioned this specific easement to Thomas when I spoke with him, and you might want Kling to take care of that while they are preparing the site plan. If any other questions or problems arise that I might be able to help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to the opening of your restaurant on the south side of town. Yours very truly, Shirle .Volk Development ordinator Einme of Texas Af;N[ Qniversity CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I Post Office Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842-9960 (409) 764-3500 September 28, 1995 Mr. Mark Dennard Wings'Id' More Restaurant 1045 Texas Avenue S College Station, TX 77840 Dear Mark: This letter is to follow-up our phone conversation of yesterday regarding the need for you to provide the City with a revised, or "as built" site plan for your new store on Deacon & Texas. After our phone conversation I called Kling Engineering and spoke with Thomas, who was unaware of any order from you for a site plan. He was going to check with Stewart and call me back. He did, and said that you had also called Stewart, and they have plans to do the plan in the next few days. I want to, again, remind you that we will need that revised plan prior to issuance of a C.O. in order for staff to determine if what was built complies with our ordinance requirements. The previously approved site plan did comply. Veronica Morgan and Sabine Kuenzel made a site visit yesterday after you let me know your projected opening date and voiced concern about the lack of clearance between the guy wires and the sidewalk you have been required to build. I have not heard from Veronica about the visit, but Sabine noticed that there is no curbing around the dumpster pad, which is required. She also questioned whether the sanitation trucks would be able to service the dumpsters from that extremely steep driveway, but I know that you and the sanitation staff are working closely to address all questions about that. You granted the City a blanket utility easement prior to beginning construction on your site, and that easement can be released once you provide a specific public utility easement to cover the electric service from the pole to and including the transformer. That, plus the existing access parking and access easements are the only easements which are required by the City at this time. I mentioned this specific easement to Thomas when I spoke with him, and you might want Kling to #ake care of that while they are preparing the site plan. If any other questions or problems arise that I might be able to help you with, please do not hesitate to contact me. We look forward to the opening of your restaurant on the south side of town. Yours very truly, Shirle .Volk Development ordinator f-~ome of Texas A>;M Qniversity / ._~ ~ / 75.00' 9°° N ~' ~ 6 ~R.40D~ ~ ° N /q.31 ~ ~~ o' U k• 1 ~ ~~ ~a ,~ o .~ ~ Pl o © U ~ ~ •~~ O x \0 ~ O ~ s_ N ~ ~ A ~ Q. .~ ~- ,. o ,~ po a o ` " 1 ~ O Fy A tlD I ~ O ~ V O ZO ~ ~ o ~ o A <'' ~ i o ~ o P ~+ 7D v~ \ ~~ p ~ i O ~~ lT_ ~'- o ~ O ~ f~ ~'~ l11 \ 0 ~~ o w o • ~ N '' ~\\ ~ ~ o Z 0 0 'V i ~4, ~ a4r,, ( O l 75. DO p° °< ° 5 3Z7 36, ~~~a ~ `~ ti = ~ o ~' y, i~ 5 9: , 30. 30 ~ ~ \~y o W ~' N - 3p Ac ¢ss ~ • ~~ 0 40.0 4D p -~' _ _ ~ ~' ~8 ° o (11 ~ ; s~ \ t_,Ed erne f- 65,Op 90° /45.00 ~~jQ6, b .~ :503 c 25R~ N ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ' O ~ • q ! v l ~ v "V~ ~ ~ 9°, /45, op ~ X00 ~ {' ~ tJ 3 O ~ O ~ 70 B c O w ~. (~ ~ `1 7O. /J' ~'~ e 60 ,qc s ar,~; ~s ~ ` p _ - - W caw • ~,. ~ ° ° 40, 0 40..0 ~ o, b ° ~ti' ~ ' e ~ - _ Q o 0 ~O~(JI~%~%f y ~aaS2/ne~ f ' -~~4Ji-. oO ~ ~o ~ QL ju d ~!1 y~ V ~ - ~~. O ~~ o .8~ ~~ ~~ Commissioner Garner informed the Commission that she visited with the administrator of the existing Living Center who stated that the sidewalk will not be utilized. The distance between the two facilities is so far that a shuttle service will probably be provided instead of allowing the residents to walk across the driveway. Commissioner Garner stated that she has a problem requiring a sidewalk leading to nowhere. The only reason to require the sidewalk is if in the future, it will be extended to Rock Prairie Road. Assistant City Engineer Morgan informed the Commission that if future development occurs on the vacant tract near the St. Francis Episcopal Church, the Project Review Committee has the discretion to require the extension of the sidewalk to Rock Prairie Road. Engineering representative of the applicant, Mike Hester of Hester Engineering, informed the Commission that the proposed facility is an upscale retirement home. The existing Living Center is a nursing home and has no connection to the proposed retirement home. Mr. Hester stated that originally thirty beds will be provided and eventually, the facility will be expanded to sixty beds. Commissioner Hall stated that if active people will be living at the proposed location, it makes sense to provide a way for them to get out of the facility. Commissioner Lane agreed and stated that there may not be a connection between the two facilities right now; however, in the future, there may be a stronger connection as people in the retirement home find the need for more constant medical care. Commissioner Lane moved to deny the appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk between the proposed College Station Personal Care Facility at 1151 Rock Prairie Road and the adjacent Southwood Living Center. Commissioner Lightfoot seconded the motion which passed (4 - 1); Commissioner Garner voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. S: Consideration of an appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk along the Texas Avenue Frontage Road for the proposed Wings N More restaurant at 3230 Texas Avenue South. (95-407 Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer informed the Commission that the Project Review Committee agreed to a 4' concrete sidewalk along the Texas Avenue frontage after discussion concerning the existing shrubs. The City's sidewalk ordinance requires a sidewalk to be 6' wide when placed directly behind the curb. If there is a 6' green space between the sidewalk and curb, the width of the sidewalk is then reduced to 4'. When this site plan was submitted, staff required the sidewalk to be 6' due to its location next to the curb. After discussions with the property owner, a discretionary variance was approved to allow the sidewalk to be 5' in width in order to accommodate the large Juniper shrubs planted along the right-of--way of Texas Avenue. During the Committee meeting, the sidewalk was reduced to its present width of 4'. The applicant is appealing this requirement because he feels the construction of this sidewalk will cause undue hazards related to the pruning of these shrubs as well as creating an unsightly view. In a related case, the Goodyear store at 2998 Texas Avenue, on August 4, 1994, appealed to the Commission a variance to not construct their sidewalk as part of the site plan. Their appeal was denied and they were required to install the sidewalk. As part of this same motion, the Commission conditioned the denial on the fact the City would continue the sidewalk across the City's right-of--way to the Sonic property line. The City's participation. included the construction of the sidewalk and handrail to provide pedestrian access over the drainage ditch on City property. P & Z Minutes September 21, 1885 Page 4 of 7 Graduate Civil Engineer Homeyer recommended denial of the sidewalk variance due to consistency and to support the Committee's decision to follow the City's Sidewalk Master Plan. Staff has consulted with the City's Forestry department as to the resilience of the Juniper's foliage when pruned to such extent. Staff was told that the Juniper will never fill out properly and will always have a bare side facing Texas Avenue. The Forestry department suggested that the property owner choose a shrub that would require less maintenance. This large shrub Juniper would require extensive shaping to maintain accessibility to the sidewalk. The question is whether or not the City plans to follow the Sidewalk Master Plan and require the construction of these sidewalks or to selectively enforce this plan on a case by case basis. If the City were to construct the sidewalks in the future when pedestrian traffic necessitated their use, it would be faced with the Jutuper situation at that time. For this reason, staff feels that now is the appropriate time for this construction to take place. Alan Dunlap of 908 Winged Foot, part owner of the Wings N More restaurant, approached the Commission and stated that Mark Dennard is not able to attend the meeting because he is stuck in Houston due to the weather. One of the main concerns of constructing the required sidewalk is the possibility of relocating the existing shrubs. The Junipers have a tremendous root system and there is no way to relocate those shrubs. Mr. Dunlap stated that their intent is to have the shrubs face Texas Avenue to help screen the parking lot and continue the shrubs along the Texas Avenue frontage. When the land was purchased, the existing shrubs were counted as part of the required landscaping points. Mr. Dunlap stated that the nearest sidewalk is 1.7 miles from the subject property and if a sidewalk is installed, it will lead to nowhere for a long time. If there is a sidewalk requirement along Texas Avenue, it should be part of a bond issue to require all owners to have a continuous sidewalk. Commissioner Gribou stated that the proposed sidewalk is shown on the Sidewalk Master Plan and in order to be consistent with past decisions, he moved to deny the appeal to the Project Review Committee's decision to require a sidewalk along the Texas Avenue Frontage Road for the proposed Wings N More restaurant at 3230 Texas Avenue South. Commissioner Garner seconded the motion. Commissioner Lightfoot stated that the property owner brought up some logical conditions that they want to maintain the existing shrubs. However, there is a consistency problem if the Sidewalk Master Plan is not applied in this case. Commissioner Gribou stated that with 11' of space, there is enough room for the 4' sidewalk and 7' of green area for plantings. Commissioner Hall informed the Commission that his main concern is that he does not see that sidewalks along the Texas Avenue service road being conducive to residential pedestrian traffic. He stated that he would prefer to see a bond issue to install a continuous sidewalk. He stated that he does not have a problem with sidewalks in residential areas; however, the same approach should not be taken along Texas Avenue. The motion to deny the appeal passed (4 - 1); Commissioner Hall voted in opposition to the motion. P & Z Minutes September 21, 1885 Page 5 of 7 Printed by Veronica Morgan 9/15/95 5:28pm ~v ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sabina Kuenzel To: Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: wings ===NOTE====------=====b/14/95=10:04am=====__________________________________ hey! the landscape plan shows plantings along the texas avenue frontage that are more than likely in the row. remember we said that we need to coordinate with the state? well, i made the note on the plan that this still needs to be done becuase I'm not sure it has been taken care of. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/14/95==2:47pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel do~i need~to~do~anything~with~this~info~other than~be aware??~~~~ ~~~ Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/14/95==4:19pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Veronica Morgan CC: Shirley Votk well, i dunno. do we normally assist in these row things? do we need a formal application for a permit? i don't think mark knows too much about what he needs to do. Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==6/15/95==8:04am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan .............................................................................. Doesn't sound like we do, either!! .Anyway, my question is to V I guess: "Does Mark need to fill out an application for work in the ROW., or can we simply refer him to someone at TxDOT, and if that's the case, who? Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/23/95=11:37am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................ v -should/could i do anything here? i would call the state but they always say "no" to me. maybe i can get ed and Steve involved? steve was the one who helped out with the windwood landscaping on the hwy 30 row. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/25/95==9:48pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley Volk sabine, let me visit with you in the morning to discuss this. via this email, dont let me forget. the way i see this, the landscaping is existing so no need for a permit. the only permit i think he needs is for the construction of the flume and sidewalk which stuart should know he needs. he gets the permit from us. do not send him to texdot. now, what i need to confirm with you is that it is indeed existing and none proposed?? Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/26/95==8:28am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................. no, remember we are assessing for streetscape for the new part of the parking so he wilt be required not only to screen this (which he can do by either keeping the shrubs he has -- and these may be on his property -- or by putting in new screening) AND he needs to fit street trees. no way he can do it all on his property. i have a staff meeting but we can get together later? shirley - while I'm thinking of it last week mark said that someone here had told cls to put in more points?!? did this get resolved or do i need to do something? Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/27/95==5:46pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel CC: Shirley Volk ............................................................................. any luck talking to mark to see if he needs me or wants me (kinds sounds like a song, huh??) to work with texdot on any proposed plantings in teh row? Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==b/28/95==8:42am=====__________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................. No, I called there Monday after we had vis ited, and he was playing golf that day, so I left word for him to call me, but he didn't yesterday. Maybe I'll call and leave word again today. Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=7/12/95=11:51am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Votk, Veronica Morgan Joey and i were out this morning and noticed that the site is completely vacant now. what is he doing?!? Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==7/12/95=11:59am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................. Mark never did call me back. Maybe I pi...ed him off when I told him he "~~ w s~~ Page: 1 Printed by Veronica Morgan 9/15/95 5:28pm should stop yelling at staff! Anyway, I called Lawrence Link, the contractor for this project this week after I had noticed the entire site had been cleared, and Lawrence told me he would be bringing in building plans "real soon" for the entire building this time. Apparently the site is not going to change. Y still don't have an answer to any questions about the landscaping or the TxDot permit! After you and V and I talked, it sounded like the landscaping and streetscaping being required in the new area was all going to be on private property, hence a TxDot permit would not be required. In fact, I did call the landscape company and explained that the trees don't necessarily have to be spaced in that area in the existing part, but could all be grouped together is areas of the new part, so they would not have to tear up existing shrubs. The guy thanked me for calling, and I haven't heard anymore from him! Guess we'll wait to see what they turn in. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=7/12/95==5:43pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzet, Shirley Volk ............................................................................. so, are you assuming that they wont alter the existing shrub, hence wont need a texdot permit??? or we just dont know at this point?/ Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==7/13/95==7:48am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................. I wouldn't assume anything on this one!!! I left you a note reminding you that you submitted a TxDot permit to TxDot in March when it first came in - t don't know what it covered, but 1 would guess it at Least covered the sidewalk. You might want to check your files. That came in with the DDP app and first drainage report on 3/13/95, and you returned the DDP app and drainage report to Kling, but submitted the permit to 7xDot. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paae: 2 Printed by Veronica Morgan 9/15/95 5:26pm ~ `~ From: Sabina Kuenzel To: Ed Hard, Jane Kee, Shirley Sincinski, Veronica Morgan Subject: curbing vs. access easements ===NOTE====------=====7/26/95=11:21am== yesterday Shirley and i spoke with Lawrence link regarding the new wings site (AGAIN). he pointed out that due to our curbing requirements, we are essentially blocking access through the 70' access easements located across the front of the lots to the west of the wings site adjacent along deacon. so in his mind we are precluding cross access and showing some indication that multiple access drives may be allowed. what are your thoughts on this, guys? i would think that the curbing could get broken out pretty easily and that we would not want the entire 70' to be left open, but then again, a circulation aisle with parking on either side and enough room for landscaping would add up to anywhere from 69' to 87'. know what i mean, jelly beans? From: Terry Thigpin To: NTHOMAS Date: 10/18/95 4:38pm 5ubjeot: Wings g ~`~eted the Hood Test and Final Co at Wings to ay.......... did the alarm test at Islamic Church today............ Spencers in the Mall is requesting a CO Thursday... I'll be there....... Catch you later,........... Terry Shirley Volk From: JCallaway To: gdewalk at Wings Subject: ark Dennard.just called createdsand saidshe wouldelike atletterafrom the City M u wires being sidewalk/g Y Y• I explained that if there is a hazard, st indemifying him from liabilit roblem. I thanked him, however, and will not be his p sneering of will be in the r•o•w• attention and told him I would notify eng~ for bringing this to my ust now and they said they the possible hazard. I told Veronica and Brett j roblem unless the would take a look at it. V seemed to think there wasn' a but John Logan (City inspector) contractor is building the sidewalk wrong, roblem! Anyway called me about it yesterday and said he thinks it is a p apparently V will be checking it out. _'~ From: Shirley Volk To: SKUENZEL _ Subject: Wings 'N More -Reply -Reply Glad you went by. This is the kind of information I like to get back to the applicant as soon as I hear about it. As far as the dumpster location, Jim Smith told me just today that Wally had been working closely with Mark regarding this, and he anticipates no problems with it. »> Sabina Kuenzel 09/27/95 03:54pm »> do we have a site plan yet that includes all the changes? we drove out there today and he's going to have some problems with the following: - missing curbing around the dumpster pad - the dumpster pad is located just at the top of the very steep drive entrance off of the alley and the sanitation trucks will probably have problems getting on level ground to dump the container. - v thinks they can probably move one of the guy wires but i'll let her get you the details on this one. »> Shirley Volk 09/27/95 11:16am »> Talked to Mark Dennard this morning. He says he is going to try to open on October 16, so he'll want his C.O. close to that date (of course!). If you notice any problems which he needs to address prior to that time, please let me know so I can work with him to get them taken care of. Thanks. Also, Bovine Elite is going to try for a C.O. toward the end of next week (Oct 6). From: Jim Smith To: City Hall.SKUENZEL Date: 9/28/95 2:29pm Subject: Wings 'N More -Reply -Reply The container location at Wing 'N More is operationally okey for us to service as the grade will not be a problem. The collection vehicle will be on level ground when the dumpster is serviced. We will be ready to begin service as soon as the screening is in place and a C.O. is issued. Let me know. Thanks. CC: MASMITH, City Ha11.SVOLK From: Sabina Kuenzel To: SVOLK Subject: Various -Reply -Reply -Reply yes, but i need to add this to it first: even thought the dumpster is located on the adjacent lot, remember that the fact that some of the improvements are located on the second lot makes the two lots a single building plot and the two lots together constitute the "site". this needs to be reflected on the amended site plan! »> Shirley Volk 10/04/95 09:17am »> Have you reconsidered and reached a conclusion on my questions? You'll recall that the dumpster is actually off this lot and on the other one, I think, so If the service changes and more parking is added, I think we can require curbing at that time. Now that I've called Kling, looked up the file, made a copy and THEN talked to you and found that you have approved the dumpster pad without curbing, I'll just print this for the file! Would you do this for me since I seem to have been disconnected from the printer! Thanks. »> Sabina Kuenzel 10/02/95 12:llpm »> i guess what i would be worried about is if the service ever changes on this site, that the area could be converted somehow and leave a section of parking lot that is uncurbed (i don't agree that this is not a part of the parking lot. i think it is and we have in the past been pretty broad in our interpretation of a parking lot.) also, the curbing is an ordinance requirement and we don't have any precedence in dumpster areas like we do in access easements. so yes, unless he gets a variance i would say he needs the curb. »> Shirley Volk 10/02/95 11:19am »> Sabine: Joey & I have talked about both Furrows and the Wind Tunnel. He is working on these items, and I have given him the files with an update on the questions we had. What I need to talk to you about is Wings. I have talked with Jim Smith about the dumpster location, and the gates on the dumpster that V heard about this morning. Jim says they are o.k. with both items; that they can get to the dumpster and also that Mark's people will open the gates, etc. The other question which arose is the curbing around the dumpster pad - Veronica doesn't care about this, and neither does Sanitation. Since it's not actually part of the parking lot, and they will have the location delinated by a fence, why is curbing necessary - or is it? Let me know asap so I can get back to Mark on this. Thanks. From: Jim Smith To: City Ha11.SKUENZEL Date: 9/28/95 2:29pm Subject: Wings 'N More -Reply -Reply The container location at Wing 'N More is operationally okey for us to service as the grade will not be a problem. The collection vehicle will be on level ground when the dumpster is serviced. We will be ready to begin service as soon as the screening is in place and a C.O. is issued. Let me know. Thanks. CC: MASMITH, City Hal1.SVOLK From: Kent Laza To: City of College Station.City Hall(JKEE), SVOLK Date: 10/10/95 4:47pm Subject: Parking in an access easement -Reply I'll be glad to give my opinion. It would be cleaner if he would replat the subdivision and change the wording. But, since he owns everything anyway, no one is going to try to gain access except where Mark allows it. No one is going to challenge the use of that easement unless Mark decides to sell in the future. I suggest we leave it alone and not require a replat. »> Shirley Volk 10/09/95 05:lOpm »> Years ago when Mr. Fitch platted SWVSec 3, in the area between Tex Ave & Longmire, along the north side of Deacon, he encumbered most of the lots with a 60 foot utility, parking & access easement along Deacon, and an "utility & access easement" across the opposite (northern) property line. Then between lots 9 & 10 (which face Texas Ave) and the other 8 lots toward Longmire, he placed a 25 or 30 foot "utility and access easement". Well, now Mark Dennard owns all 10 lots, and wants to establish a parking lot along lot 8 (which is across the back of lots 9&10 (which face Texas Ave). The problem is there is that "access & utility easement on lot 8 adjacent to the backs of lots 9 & 10. My question is, since he owns all of the property, can he ignore the "access" part of the utility & access easement and establish parking there, or must he go thru a re-plat and get rid of the easement (which is a private easement, apparently). I know this is confusing, but it's Southwood Valley Sec. 3 if you want to look at the plat. Thanks for your help. CC: City of College Station.City Hall(SKUENZEL, VMORGA... From: Jane Kee To: KLAZA,svolk Date: 10/11/95 8:05am Subject: Parking in an access easement -Reply -Reply the only thing I can think of to be careful of is that access es. was put there to enable consolidating access points out onto Deacon. As long as we don't let parking occur such that, if he does sell a lot off, it has to take access at some point we would not have wanted. Is that clear as mud? I know what I'm saying! »> Kent Laza 10/10/95 04:47pm »> I'll be glad to give my opinion. It would be cleaner if he would replat the subdivision and change the wording. But, since he owns everything anyway, no one is going to try to gain access except where Mark allows it. No one is going to challenge the use of that easement unless Mark decides to sell in the future. I suggest we leave it alone and not require a replat. »> Shirley Volk 10/09/95 05:lOpm »> Years ago when Mr. Fitch platted SWVSec 3, in the area between Tex Ave & Longmire, along the north side of Deacon, he encumbered most of the lots with a 60 foot utility, parking & access easement along Deacon, and an "utility & access easement" across the opposite (northern) property line. Then between lots 9 & 10 (which face Texas Ave) and the other 8 lots toward Longmire, he placed a 25 or 30 foot "utility and access easement". Well, now Mark Dennard owns all 10 lots, and wants to establish a parking lot along lot 8 (which is across the back of lots 9&10 (which face Texas Ave). The problem is there is that "access & utility easement on lot 8 adjacent to the backs of lots 9 & 10. My question is, since he owns all of the property, can he ignore the "access" part of the utility & access easement and establish parking there, or must he go thru a re-plat and get rid of the easement (which is a private easement, apparently). I know this is confusing, but it's Southwood Valley Sec. 3 if you want to look at the plat. Thanks for your help. From: Veronica Morgan To: JKEE, SKUENZEL Date: 10/11/95 9:46am Subject: Parking in an access easement -Reply -Reply this is a sticky issue.....what i stated is that because the parking lot alone would not be the development for the site, i.e. we would see a development come in sooner or later that we could require sidewalk at that time and i couldnt speak to streetscape/landscape but that mark dennard would have to check that out. if streetscape is going to be required, we need to have the sidewalk at the very least designed (to avoid conflicts) and what we could do is get a guarantee for the site sidewalk to be built at a future date if development never occurs or cant occur because mark has used all the space to meet his parking requirements and the site can no longer support another use. because the parking lot is there, i would agree with you that streetscape needs to be there. one purpose of it is to screen parking lots. we need to get our heads together on this and give mark a definite list of do's and don'ts. since you are out maybe Jane can work with me onthis. »> Sabina Kuenzel 10/11/95 09:07am »> sorry guys if this is late but i am returning no less than 30-odd emails this morning! v, Shirley talked about this some at the staff meeting and said that you had discussed postponing the sidewalk construction as well as perhaps the lnadscaping/streetscaping? i will look to you for the sidewalk decision but also want to hear what the pnz rep would say - being that we've seen so many variances denied by the commission (i realize that this would not be a variance but it's akin). as for landscaping/streetscaping, i feel real uncomfortable because of past decisions to define "development" rather broadly so that we can require site plans and associated requirements (landscaping/streetscaping kick in only of we can require a site plan and we can only require a site plan upon development.) we have never delayed landscaping, even in the case where there is no c.o. required for a project. i realize that this means he will have to streetscape , which means quite a large relative cost due to the location of the access easement (along the entire frontage). but we have never made concessions where the landscaping/streetscaping costs have been a large proportion of the development (i'm thinking specifically of donny glanton's golf course - usually 1's/s's is about two to five percent of the permit fee but in his case it would have been over 80~). so i know that there are instances where 1's/s's could be a substantial factor but there is no precedence for making exceptions. nat pointed out that there is more development that we could hold up later and that is true. what we have done in the past is exclude future phases from the requirement. »> Shirley Volk 10/09/95 05:lOpm »> Years ago when Mr. Fitch platted SWVSec 3, in the area between Tex Ave & Longmire, along the north side of Deacon, he encumbered most of the lots with a 60 foot utility, parking & access easement along Deacon, and an "utility & access easement" across the opposite (northern) property line. Then between lots 9 & 10 (which face Texas Ave) and the other 8 lots toward Longmire, he placed a 25 or 30 foot "utility and access easement". Well, now Mark Dennard owns all 10 lots,. and wants to establish a parking lot along lot 8 (which is across the back of lots 9&10 (which face Texas Ave). The problem is there is that "access & utility easement on lot 8 adjacent to the backs of lots 9 & 10. My question is, since he owns all of the property, can he ignore the "access" Bart of the utility & access easement and establish parking there, or must he go thru a re-plat and get rid of the easement (which is a private easement, apparently). I know this is confusing, but it's Southwood Valley Sec. 3 if you want to look at the plat. Thanks for your help. CC: SVOLK From: Shirley Volk To: vmorgan, nthomas, Date: 10/13/95 3:25pm Subject: New Wings shomeyer, skuenzel Mark brought in this small version of a site plan of his parking. lot. I told him he needed to submit a drainage letter or something to address runoff for engineering to determine if it will work. He asked me to call Stewart and tell him that and I'm trying - I've left word for him to call me, but as of 3 p.m., I haven't talked with h Anyway, Mark wants to like to have his C.O. see if he can do this make it right! Also, these new islands, so pavers, etc. im yet . pour this asap, of course, because he would on Wednesday! Sooooooo, bottom line is, and let him know what he needs to do to he would like NOT to put landscaping in Sabine, you might want to talk to him about I've hung a copy of his proposal on V's door, Nat's door, Sabine's door & Steve's door. Mark's phone #s are: New Wings store - 694-8966 Old Wings store - 693-6363 Mobile - 268-1642 Home - 690-6070 I give you all the numbers, because you might need them - you know how he's going to act when he wants his C.O.! Good Luck!!! / ~.a.Ck ,it,.~.~~, i~r..1~;X~~aa.. ~ v r66- ~- ~, S%.~~~~.,- ~,-- ~-~ ~,~, ~ ~'` Printed by Sabina Kuenzel 7/25/95 10:57am From: Sabina Kuenzel To: Veronica Margan Subject: fwd: wings -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ==NOTE====------=====6/14/95=10:04am=====__________________-------------- hey! the landscape plan shows plantings along the texas avenue frontage that are more than likely in the row. remember we said that we need to coordinate with the state? well, i made the note on the plan that this still needs to be done becuase I'm not sure it has been taken care of. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/14/95==2:47pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel ............................................................................ do i need to do anything with this info other than be aware?? Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/14/95==4:19pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Veronica Morgan CC: Shirley Volk ............................................................................ well, i dunno. do we normally assist in these row things? do we need a formal application for a permit? i don't think mark knows too much about what he needs to do. Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==6/15/95==8:04am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan Doesn't sound like we do, either!! Anyway, my question is to V I guess: 11Does Mark need to fill out an application for work in the ROW, or can we simply refer him to someone at TxDOT, and if that's the case, who? Fwd=by:=Sabina=IZuenze=6/23/95=11:37am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................. v -should/could i do anything here? i would call the state but they always say "no" to me. maybe i can get ed and steve involved? Steve was the one who helped out with the windwood landscaping on the hwy 30 row. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/25/95==9:48pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley Volk ............................................................................ Sabine, let me visit with you in the morning to discuss this. via this email, dont let me forget. the way i see this, the landscaping is existing so no need for a permit. the only .permit i think he needs is for the construction of the flume and sidewalk which Stuart should know he needs. he gets the permit from us. do not send him to texdot. now, what i need to confirm with you is that it is indeed existing and none proposed?? Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/26/95==8:28am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan no, remember we are assessing for streetscape for the new part of the parking so he will be required not only to screen this (which he can do by either keeping the shrubs he has -- and these may be on his property -- or by putting in new screening) AND he needs to fit street trees. no way he can do it all on his property. i have a staff meeting but we can get together later? Shirley - while I'm thinking of it last week mark said that someone here had told cls to put in more points?!? did this get resolved or do i need to do PanA~ 1 ff~~ / v l ~~ September 17. 1997 ION T.AT` ES LEG CQ 1101 Texas Avenue^ College Station, TX 77i4~ J P. O. Box 9960 ~ ~f Mr. Mark Dennard Wings n' More Southwood Valley 3230 Texas Avenue South College Station, Texas 77845 Dear Mr. Dennard: ~, , On August 28, I wrote a letter to inform you that the temporary parking lot that you have constructed to the rear. of the Wings N More restaa ~t located I a S ~ ~°~ u ~1 ri ~ n°e tmo compliance with the City's regulations governing P g ou did leave a message to inform me resolve this issue. I understand from our receptionist that y that you were not permitting any parking to occur on the subject property. September 14, I drove by the site and noted that there On Thursday, September 11, and Sunday, roe The lot is in violation were several cars parked on the gravel that has been added to the p p tty of Section 9.2 of Ordinance No. 1938, the Zoning Ordinance ohs section requires patvted parking providing a copy of that section with this letter. In summary, that meets the minimum dimension and materia l~p io~c but onlynupon tl-e Pllamm~goand Zoning 9.2 G. does provide for temporary (gravel) p g Commission approval. I regret that I must now serve formal notice of the City's intent to file charges aga~ of bro n If you have not submitted either an application for either 1) a temporary p g noon ' October 15 or 2) a schedule for compliance with permanent parking lot standards by October 15, we will cite you for each day that the property is not in compliance. A Zoning Ordinance violation is considered a separate offense. for each day of violation, and each offense could cost up to $2000.00 a day, with a minunum fine of $25.00 a day. If you have any question please give me a call. Thank you. Sincerely, C~ I~I~-/t'~ ~l Sabine McCully Senior Planner 6h~C`~`~ xc: W. Paul Kaspar, Graduate Engineer Steve Homeyer, Assistant to the City Engineer Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Jon Mies, Code Enforcement Home of Texas A&M University __ .u ..+ 5 # .. ~ _ _. i _ ~ ~, t 3 ~ } ' J _ .. ~ -.... t .~-, . a _ ._ . _ _ .. ._ _ _ _.. _- _ 'a k 7a i G= t_ tti ~e ~ ` s ~ t ~3 i z~- t ~ f ' `' :1 u!~ ~ ,' ~ F'i-a x:~'E1t E -`r,~ - -4~ x{ l t F ..i£!'..L ._.~¢ L~.£.1L tiYNL~ 1 Y~.~.__z3~1V s.~ _s __.Sl _!-. __..~. _tC /F_s~l..'3 Lt~~ . S St `aFt .1 ..~. ~ ~. e. V t ~l \l:. L_'2 3 A i.5-,~ .1L'.:',i C ~~ .n xY _. L._ _. J .__ 1 ...1 .. -. _, _ J _ c _ r :: .Ty '-,r .a _. ,_~ .~-. i ''E.J e' ~"'er ~trv~~'"..: t.!'ti `2 L _~. f-E_ .'it_-*-s. ~ 1 `.w'!_~. `J___t. --._Al5~/_ ! .f-i L1J. Vt zFJ ...s __'iL V ~1t .~ _~ -. (. ~~ E z'. - - Z' ~ t i - r1 r`- %P -. r.:. i„T ` , u i ?i.~ ~s'T; T. D~ ~* ' r i ;. ';' __ 1. _.. J:Z ~_~..=t V a .. v _!f! "'1.1 ?t LE 1. 1i __J J1..1 `- V=11~i r . ... . , Y~ cis ... i,. t' ` ~ ~ C: ti R to i.~~ '~. (~_ ` .,..~ i rs` -'`~}'''?I vl~ I / }'C' J '~1. .~1 V_ - _. tt t~+.E3 -,-V'+.+ 13_L .J JLe'?_.F.1VAY 1: ~_• .. t.11 4 .... . _. .. ; ~ 3 ~y: ~y f - k a. t __.s Z_ - _..v _~- i rie v~~ zr _ t -_. .. 1.~J ~.; s. ~ ... Yl~ ~. ut..:•. J.X 3..M><. L\ V_:.1 v~-_1V tJ __ ~: Sl_hf llt:f/ _~ ~_'! i« ri F_9 :. r_ J ..S a... _ se 3~ t ?.. ~~ C iq•i%L ~I _.a .t ~ c. ~_ Lit. .._ ,.: .J ... _ 3'J ~_i _ _ _tF1 < _~-. J ~' ! it S~ '~'I REC. -.€..f-} ..k-Fie 7 ( ';,:'~%~ fE l~ 1~.' ;y. _:i 'tYE _YS-.•_ l~P\. _ _'~.L ~: M1J 1V _3.Lv Y V __~s~1. Y: S"].L t.._tr1_~1.t 1F-1 Lt~~r~ +.~ia~ t___i l.a i:u cz £a.. .i t_ ~_., i,~. .N _i -~_vv _. ~,, t'?t-, t o , i'[~.~ lvi¢i( E p.' ~ ( r-„tf :i ~ `'ALP-~ o~?',, ~,( (l-•~T ~_.,~i.~ i 31 Ge S: i t.: "~'T~t_a_ ( t.c.. ~ 3 _~_t.! ~ vC -. h!-j '~ 5.3~`~ i Jt P iT i• s L)t..._ J~ i^~=`Z i e-F'~1'. t:~ii ~i~~°i ti ~ v~..a 6 t_f E_ E € t• s ;emu e `"/~~ l~ SUBNIIT APPLICATION AND THIS LIST CHECKED-OFF WITH 16 FOLDED COPIES OF SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN PROPOSALS ~! ~ ' 1. Sheet size - 24" x 36" / ^- 2, Title block to include: ~'f Name, address, location, and legal description b.) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant c.) Name, address, and telephone number of developer/owner d.) Name, address, and telephone number of architect/engineer e.) Date of submittal ~C, ^ ' 3. Ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels. e/ C'j' 4. A key map (not necessarily to scale). d ^` 5. Scale should be largest standard engineering scale possible on sheet. J ^ 6. Provide a north arrow. ~, (a 7. Topography, final grading plan, and other pertinent drainage information. (If plan has too much information, show drainage on separate sheet.) I~ $. All existing streets, drives, buildings, and water courses on or adjacent to the proposed project site. '-9. Locate 100 yr floodplain on or adjacent to the proposed project site, note if there is none on the site. J C~' 10. L"ocation and size of existing utilities within or adjacent to the proposed project site. C~ 11. Proposed location, type, and size of the following: a.) Buildings and structures b.) Off-Street parking areas with parking spaces drawn, tabulated, and dimensioned c.) Sidewalks d.) Common open space sites e.) Sites for solid waste containers x, ®'12. Proposed streets, drives, and curb cuts. For each proposed curb cut (including driveways, streets, alleys, etc.) locate existing curb cuts on the same and opposite side of the street to determine separation distances between existing and proposed curb cuts, Indicate driveway throat length as measured in the Driveway Ordinance. (See Ordinance 1961 for driveway location and design requirements.) ~1~ ~ 13 The total number of residential buildings and units to be constructed on the proposed project site. 14. Landscape plan as required in Section 11 of the Zoning Ordinance (See Ordinance # 1638.) The landscaping plan can be shown on a separate sheet if too much information is on the original site plan. Attempt to reduce or eliminate plantings in easements. Include information on the plan such as: a) existing landscaping to remain b) required point calculations c) proposed new plantings with points earned ''(~c l~ 15. Indicate unit type (number of bedrooms). ~JP~ ~ 16. The density of dwelling units per acre of the proposed project. ~~ ' ''. The gross square footage of buildings and the proposed use of each building. ^ 18. The total site area and percent of building coverage of site. 19. Designate number of parking spaces required by ordinance and provided by proposal. C~` 20. Show dimensions to size and locate all structures, parking spaces, drives, curb cuts, parking islands, and setbacks. 'The following are typical standards for Plan Development established by Ordinance or Policy: J7 1. Building separation is a minimum of 15 feet. E~ 2. Building setbacks are outlined in Ordinance 1638, Zoning Ordinance, Table A (Sec. 7, P. 30) ^ 3. Minimum parking space is 9' X 20', or on a perimeter row, 9' x 18' with a 2' overhang. All multi-family parking lots must be screened from rights-of way. ®`" 4. Minimum drive width is 23' with head-in parking or 20' without parking. ~ 5. Landscaped islands of 6'° raised curb are located at both ends of each parking row. ~l 6. Landscaped islands are also located every 15 spaces or interior rows and every 20 spaces on perimeter rows. Streetscape compliance is required which involves special plantings along certain specified in the City's Streetscape Plan. 0 7. A 6" raised curb is required around all edges of all parts of atl paved areas without exception. (To include islands, planting areas, access ways, dumpster locations, utility pads, etc.) Curb detail to be approved by Cit~Engineer. No exceptions will be made for areas designated as "reserved for future parking" . ® 8. Wheelstops maybe required on interior rows longer than 10 spaces or in special situations. ^ ' 9. Sidewalks are required at time of development if property has frontage on a street shown on the sidewalk Master Plan or if the Project Review Committee determines the necessity. (Refer to Section 10.2 of the Zoning Ordinance). C~ '10. Director of Public Services determines number, and size of dumpsters. Locations shall be such that dumpsters are not visible from streets. Gates are discouraged and visual screening maybe required. (-d' -11. Parking islands are 9° X 20 ; or 180 square feet. 0 `=12. Healthy, native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible. ~` 13. Fire lanes of a minimum of 20 feet in width with a rrunimum height clearance of 14 feet must be established if any.structure of any type is more than 150 feet from a public street or highway. ^ 14. Any structure in any zoning district other than R-1, R-lA, or R-2 must be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant as measured along a public street or highway. C'~ 15. Fire hydrants must be located on the same side of a major street as a project, and shall be in a location approved by the Fire Marshal's office and the Superintendent of Water and Sewer. C7~ 16. Fire hydrants must be operable and accepted by the City and drives must have an all weather surface before a building permit can be issued. I~ 17. A raised island not less than 6" in height and not less than 8' in width shall separate parking areas from public rights-of--way. Eight foot setback from R.O.W. to curb of parking lot. ~~i ~~~ ~ f ~ ~ 1 ~~ !! InterO#'~Yce Memo Tot Sabine Kuenzel, Planning Division Fromt Jim Smith, Sanitation Division Date: March 9, 1995 3ub~ectt Review of Project Rcwiew Committee Agenda; March li, 1995 Packing Lot Plan -Wings and Mare Restaurant: The caatainer location and size listed is not adequflte. I have attached my recommndation for garbage collection to [his memo. Thanks agAin for keeping me in the loop. pl~se contact me if you have any quest~otts, wnina6l16 DEACON DRII/E ~ 7Q' R. 0. !~! ` ' 46' 8-B ASPHALT P~A9T. ~~ r Y .+ S a;®~ ~^e ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 00~ ~~ -r t '~'~ ~' ~J 1~~~ CITY 4F COLL~tiE STATIUI~ ~~ Phone: (409} 764-3690 Fax: (409) 764-3489 FAX COVER SHEET 6 ~ To Fax Number: ~ I?ate: ~ ~ ~ Business/Vendor: Attention: From: ~ . S~ ~'t- ®Extension: No. of Pages ~-.a` ~, (Including Cover Sheet} DEPARTIIIIENT QF PUBLIC SERVICES POST OFFICE 00%®980 2813 TE%AS AVENGE COLLEt3~ STATION, TE%A8 77842.4980 (40B) 76d-3890 Comments: August 28, 1997 P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 Mr. Mark Dennard Wings n' More Southwood Valley 3230 Texas Avenue South College Station, Texas 77845 Dear Mr. Dennard: It has come to my attention that y, ou have constructed a temporary parking lot to the rear of the Wings N More restaurant located off Deacon in south College Station. While it is permissible for such a temporary parking lot to be constructed, it must receive site plan approval from Planning and Zoning Commission through site plan review procedures (see attached copy of the Zoning Ordinance section addressing this issue). The approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission has not been sought or granted. The new parking area is therefore in violation with Section 9 of the City of College Station Zoning Ordinance. The addition of this impervious azea to your site will also cause an increase in storm water runoff that will have to be analyzed by a Professional Engineer in accordance with the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards Manual. Please contact me immediately to resolve this issue. If I have not heard from you by September 8, 1997, I must proceed with enforcement action. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~~ ~ Sabine McCully Senior Planner xc: W. Paul Kaspaz, Graduate Engineer Steve Homeyer, Assistant to the City Engineer Shirley Vollc, Development Coordinator Jon Mies, Code Enforcement Home of Texas A&M University X15 =~fa 7 COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 September 10, 1997 Mr. Mark Dennard Wings n' More Southwood Valley 3230 Texas Avenue South College Station, Texas 77845 Dear Mr. Dennard: It has come to my attention that you have not completed construction of the on site detention facility at the northwest corner of the parking lot behind the Wings N More restaurant located off Deacon in south College Station. It appears that the berm surrounding the detention pond does not have sufficient height to detain large rainfall events, thereby preventing the detention pond from performing as designed. This was noticed during a site visit concerning the unapproved parking lot addition to the property. Please finish construction of the detention pond as shown on the approved construction documents dated November of 1995 and call us for an inspection of the facility. Please contact me to discuss this issue or if you have any other questions. If I have not heard from you by September 24, 1997 about this issue I must proceed with enforcemern action. Sincerely, ~~ W. Paul Kaspar Crraduate Engineer xc: Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer Shirley Vollc, Development Coordinator Jon Mies, Code Enforcement Home of Texas ABM University October 13, 1J97 M-M Design 4103 South Texas Avenue Suite. 21~ Bryan, Texas 77802 City of Goflege Station ATT: Sabine McCully Senior lalanner This letter is In reference. to ou.r meeting last week about Wings and. Mores. vacant lot behind the new store located at 3230 Texas Avenue South, College Station. Kling. Engineering. and.. M-IM Qesgn are. bath working with Mr_ C?ennard on a 40x30 building to be placed at the vacant lot on Decon (behind the new store). As soon as the plans and engineering.. is complete an the. site- and. building we_ wi1L submit the.. project for a building permit. The estimated completed date for this project is mid November. Thank. you- for your assistance on this- project. :~ p Ste R. Musse M-M Des'rgri J f~ ~°~/ _ ~~,,, a' ~~,-- ~ ~~ ~~ ~.- " ~° ~ '°°~ ~ ~ r s f/Pip ~~ COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 September 17a 1997 Mr. Mark Dennard Wings n' More Southwood Valley 3230 Texas Avenue South College Station, Texas 77845 Dear Mr. Dennard: On August 28, I wrote a letter to inform you that the temporary parking lot that you have constructed to the rear. of the Wings N More restaurant located in Southwood Valley is not in compliance with the City's regulations governing parking lots. I asked that you contact me to resolve this issue. I understand from our receptionist that you did leave a message to inform me that you were not permitting any parking to occur on the subject property. On Thursday, September 11, and Sunday, September 14, I drove by the site and noted that there were several cars .parked on the gravel that has been added to the property. The lot is in violation of Section 9.2 of Ordinance No. 1938, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of College Station. I am providing a copy of that section with this letter. In summary, this section requires paved parking that meets the minimum dimension and materials specifications contained in this section. Section 9.2 G. does provide for temporary (gravel) parking lots, but only upon the Planning and Zoning Commission approval. I regret that I must now serve formal notice of the City's intent to file charges against this property. If you have not submitted either an application for either 1) a temporary parking lot by noon, October 15 or 2) a schedule for compliance with permanent parking lot standards by noon , October 15, we will cite you for each day that the property is not in compliance. A Zoning Ordinance violation is considered a separate offense. for each day of violation, and each offense could cost up to $2000.00 a day, with a minimum fine of $25.00 a day. If you have any question please give me a call. Thank you. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ ,(_(~~7 ti Sabine McCully Senior Planner ~n~~"w - 6 xc: W. Paul Kaspar, Graduate )/ngineer Steve Homeyer, Assistant to the City Engineer Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Jon Mies, Code Enforcement Home of Texas A&M University COLLEGE STATION FIRE DEPARTMENT PRC Checklist Fire hydrants are in islands or at least unobstructed by parked cars. Fire hydrants and access roadways are to be serviceable and unobstructed prior to and during construction. ^ Fire hydrants are to face the proper direction with the steamer connection (large, 4 1/2 inch opening) toward the roadway. ^' Hydrants must be serviceable and functional during construction. ^ The minimum access roadway width of 20 feet must be provided. `~ What type of fire protection systems may be required. (plans must be submitted with bldg plans). ', Sprinkler system ^ 5000 sq. ft. for assembly ^ 15,000 sq. ft. for other occupancies ^ sprinkler system shall meet NFPA 13. ^ Kitchen (hood) fire suppression system -Cooking any grease laden vapor foods in a commercial occupancy (anything possibly used or benefited by the public). Fire suppression system shall meet NFPA 17, 17A, and 96. Commercial cooking operations shall be protected in accordance with section 308 Exhaust Systems of the mechanical code. (churches that would have public fit into this category. Tim is not requiring plans here). ^ Fire alarm system -Shall meet NFPA 72. ^ Group A:. Having a capacity of 1,000 persons. (plans must be submitted with bldg plans). ^ Group B: Business buildings having a total occupancy of 500 or more persons or more than 100 persons above or below the street floor. (plans must be submitted with bldg plans). ^ Group E: Educational ^ Group F: Factory -Industrial occupancies of buildings two stories or more in height, and having a total capacity of 500 or more persons above or below the street floor level. ^ Group H: Hazardous Occupancies ^ Group I: Institutional, Restrained or Unrestrained. ^ Group M: Having a total occupancy of 500 or more persons or more than 100 persons above or below the street floor. ^ Group R: " Hotels having accommodations for more than 15 guests, apartment houses four or more stories high, dormitories, lodging or rooming houses having more than 20 sleeping accommodations. EXCEPTION: Where each guest room or apartment has a direct exit to the outside of the building and the building is three stories or less in height. ^f The manual fire alarm system required in 603.7.1 may be omitted in buildings equipped with an automatic fire alarm or automatic sprinkler system covering all areas. EXCEPTION: Hazardous material storage areas described in Chapter 22 of the SFC (1991). (this MUST be coordinated with fire for this exception). ^ ~ No building of any type construction for occupancy shall be constructed in such a manner that any part of the structure is more than one hundred fifty feet (150') from a public street or highway; provided, however, that such structure may be erected at a greater distance if the owner designates, constructs, and maintains a fire lane or access easement that has a minimum width of twenty feet (20') and a minimum height clearance of fourteen feet (14') terminating within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the furthermost point of such structure; providing further, however, that no fire lane shall be required for any single family or duplex dwelling. ~.,~~ ^ Any fire lane more than one hundred feet (100') in length shall either connect at each end to a dedicated street or be provided with a turnaround having a minimum diameter of eighty feet (80') when measured from curb to curb (or hammerhead or other options in development guide). ^ All curbs and curb ends shall be painted red with four inch (4") white lettering stating "NO PARKING -FIRE LANE -TOW AWAY ZONE" . Wording may not be spaced more than fifteen feet (15') apart. A ^ No continuous curb available: Two Options: ^ 1. sign (12" side by 18" height: See specs.) ^ 2. continuous red 8" stripe painted on drive surface with same wording as on curb. ^ ^ ^ ^q U Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed six hundred feet (600') in length to radius point, and shall terminate in a turn around not less than one hundred feet (100') in diameter, with a pavement diameter of eighty feet (80'). Fire hydrants -Residential - 500'. Other than single-family and duplex districts at such locations that n®~part of any structure shall be more than 300' from a fire hydrant as measured along the right-of-way of~a public street or along an approved fire lane as the fire hose is laid off the fire truck. ,; If building is sprinkled, submit sprinkler plans along with building plans. ' Truck can go in ONLY 100' without having fire lanes interior. ~~ d to th s'te ~ !~ v~,, ~ ~~~~ ~i~ ~~ Truck drops 5, .lme at°fue hydrant, then rives m e i -Commercia1300' ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~, - e >.~ -~~ pry ~ - ? - v w c.~:.t c~~ ~o.c s ~`*1 rs~ `~L. ~ ~ ~~C~zc~ ~ }~- - L ~ ~~ ~: ... . _ l ~~~ ~. a:\deve seav\v\fierk-sd.doc r `_ _ ~ r~_ ~GrNir~- l~r®ject I~evicw C®rntnii.i.ee CITY ~F C®LI.ECI~ STATION, TEXAS City hall Training Room Wednesday, March I5, 1995 I0:00 AoM. ~. PARKING LOT PLAN -Wings NMore Restaurant; proposed re;rrovations to the Apartments Ylus building located at 3230 Texas Avenue South on the ~iorthwest corner of 1?eacon and Texas Avenues. (95-q07) ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ :~~; ~~ ~~. h~.~ --him-~{-~-~r ~~. ~ ~n ~~ c~~- Una .(~ r ~ / ~- C,~ PRC-4-26-9~ E~EC'TR6CAI- ®~N LUSK 764-352 Interoffice Memo To: Sabine Kuenzel, Planning Division >j°°, ,. From: Jim Smith, Sanitation Divisiora~' Date: Apri121, 1995 Subject: Review of Project Review Committee Agenda; Apri126, 1995 Final Plat -Post Oak Forest (95-217): I do not have problems with this project. Parking Lot Plan - Wings N More Restaurant (95-407): This site plan is set fora 400 gallon, automated container collected twice per week. Since this is a restaurant and will require more than four yards of weekly capacity, I recommend a four yard FEL container collected five times per week. I have attached a copy of the site plan with my recommended container location drawn in red ink. I have given the Agenda Packet to Paul Urso, Street Superintendent, for his review. Please contact me if you have any questions. sabinel0/js Printed by Sabina Kuenzel 7/25/95 10:57am something? Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/27/95==5:46pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel CC: Shirley Volk any~luck~talking•to•mark.to•see~if.he•needs.me•or•wants.me.(kinda•sounds• like a song, huh??) to work with texdot on any proposed plantings in teh row? Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==6/28J95==8:42am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan No,•I•called•there~Monday~after~we~had•visited,•and.he•was•playing.golf~that day, so I left word for him to call me, but he didn't yesterday. Maybe I'll call and leave word again today. Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=7/12/95=11:51am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................ joey and i were out this morning and. noticed that the site is completely vacant now. what is he doing?!? Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==7/12/95=11:59am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan Mark never did call me back. Maybe I pi...ed him off when I told him he should stop yelling at staff! Anyway, I called Lawrence Link, the contractor for this project this week after I had noticed the entire site had been cleared, and Lawrence told me he would be bringing in building plans "real soon" for the entire building this time. Apparently the site is not going to change. I still don't have an answer to any questions about the landscaping or the TxDot permit! After you and V and I talked, it sounded like the landscaping and streetscaping being required in the new area was all going to be on private property, hence a TxDot permit would not be required. In fact, I did call the landscape company and explained that the trees don't necessarily have to be spaced in that area in the existing part, but could all be grouped together is areas of the new part, so they would not have to tear up existing shrubs. The guy thanked me for calling, and I haven't heard anymore from him! Guess we'll wait to see what they turn in. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=7/12/95==5:43pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley Volk ............................................................................ so, are you assuming that they wont alter the existing shrub, hence wont need a texdot permit??? or we just dont know at this point?/ Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==7/13/95==7:48am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................ I wouldn't assume anything on this one!!! I left you a note reminding you that you submitted a TxDot permit to TxDot in March when it first came in - I don't know what it covered, but I would guess it at least covered the sidewalk. You might want to check your files. That came in with the DDP app and first drainage report on 3/13/95, and you returned the DDP app and drainage report to Kling, but submitted the permit to TxDot. ~, ~, _, ,., ~, ._~ , ~, - ,; ~_~ A -r Paae: 2 Printed by Shirley Volk 6/28/95 8:38am ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Sabina Kuenzel To: Veronica Morgan Subject: fwd: wings ==NOTE====------=====6/14/95=10:04am=====__________________________________ hey! the landscape plan shows plantings along the texas avenue frontage that are more than likely in the row. remember we said that we need to coordinate with the state? well, i made the note on the plan that this still needs to be done becuase I'm not sure it has been taken care of. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/14/95==2:47pm______________________________°______ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel ............................................................................ do i need to do anything with this info other than be aware?? Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/14/95==4:19pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Veronica Morgan CC: Shirley Volk well, i•dunno.•~do~we•normally~assist~in•these•row•things?•~do•we•need.a••.. formal application for a permit? i don't think mark knows too much about what he needs to do. Fwd=by:=Shirley=Volk==6/15/95==8:04am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................ Doesn't sound like we do, either!! Anyway, my question is to V I guess: "Does Mark need to fill out an application for work in the ROW, or can we simply refer him to someone at TxDOT, and if that's the case, who? Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/23/95=11:37am____________________________________°_ Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan v -should/could•i•do•anything•here?••i•would•call•the•state•but•they.always• say "no" to me. maybe i can get ed and Steve involved? Steve was the one who helped out with the windwood landscaping on the hwy 30 row. Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/25/95==9:48pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel, Shirley Volk ............................................................................ Sabine, let me visit with you in the morning to discuss this. via this email, dont let me forget. the way i see this, the landscaping is existing so no need for a permit. the only permit i think he needs is for the construction of the flume and sidewalk which Stuart should know he needs. he gets the permit from us. do not send him to texdot. now, what i need to confirm with you is that it is indeed existing and none proposed?? Fwd=by:=Sabina=Kuenze=6/26/95==8:28am_______________________________________ Fwd to: Shirley Volk, Veronica Morgan ............................................................................ no, remember we are assessing for streetscape for the new part of the parking so he will be required not only to screen this (which he can do by either keeping the shrubs he has -- and these may be on his property -- or by putting in new screening) AND he needs to fit street trees. no way he can do it all on his property. i have a staff meeting but we can get together later? Shirley - while I'm thinking of it last week mark said that someone here had told cls to put in more points?!? did this get resolved or do i need to do something? Fwd=by:=Veronica=Morg=6/27/95==5:46pm_______________________________________ Fwd to: Sabina Kuenzel CC: Shirley Volk ............................................................................ any luck talking to mark to see if he needs me or wants me (kinda sounds like a song, huh??) to work with texdot on any proposed plantings in teh row? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pa~P~ 1 m ®' ~'; ~+`°-. ~ d 'I".7 A ~ e ®r - ~ ~~ ~ ~° ~ f -~.~~ ~; -~.~-d,t'~~~e'~.~ -~'°1C"'° ~':~'il~..~CL'Z.~ ~--~'~`l°-~'L~~.~.~~;~.-C Cam` ~-~- "~'~'`1 ~~ fr7 B~~ ~"' $r~..,~! - ~~-'~'`~~ l'~ .C~1.~~G~~'r .-y f ~, ^~ ,~v~ <~ ~'"~'~,.>~, '~~~r~'~ -r~" ~.~ ~~l ,!.-!-~~~' ~..~~~~~fi~ ~Ct,~. L~,l ~"-' j ~Y ~~3~' "~~.i,~"-~C.G~ t. ~' i a.--a'te'-?, ~J/~M~3~- `~~-'~,~- ~~ ~ ~~~.,, ~ ~ ~,C,",+"7~'i: ~ ~~ ^"'tr' ~ 'L~.'d~ l ~~r'~L~ a 9 ze' g ~~„~~ ~ lds'd~F'M_-~ '4!~.A' aR.i ~ 1 ~ ~~ / l L'6L'..'~( P/&. ~ A~ '(. '14 ~ ~ ; G' !/~ S ~ T ~ e p 6 u, v ~rr r j,~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~: ., ~ l°-j~' ~s~'S'~~7~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G~ ~~~'-~L~"r°~' f_~f~, ~.~~` y"a`~ fa?~', r~.~~~ ~,i u~~-..~'°1/L(._~'Ja:r ~e~~~i~"(_ `? ~ ~ ~ r~ -'~i`-~-~y~~ .k ~~-~"'~ ~ /~ ,~-'~y .- ._.~~~9 ~'~'2 `e, - ~` ~~Z~'.~ ~ `'~-4µ(G ~°,%~ _ µ _ ~ - e~ ~' ~~~ ~7 ~-~~~'~dYr~' 'i,~L . ~-l,~L~~~~~a' ~+' ~r ~.~k%'V~2,ar~~'~ 'Ow% ~/d~i':t ~~.,~ ~ il°_~-~.~C. ~''~'~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ C~..~~; ~~~~ ~~~ ~ , `~~'~~;% ~''~~° .~,r.>~ ~~c " r ~~.~-mot: ~ ~ r~ ~zc ~ ~ ~c ~~xr t 1045 Texas Ave. S. College Station, Texas 77840 (409) 693-6363 t ®a.°', . ~_ ~'~ S ~ jj ~ ~ < P t ~./ ~ ~ , ~Q d .,, . ~ ~, , , .. , . ~, .: w f Y f ~~ 4 ~ 3 9 ~-~ X1`1 "~~d~.~_.) ,fib'-~.t.~W..~~~ ; • ~ ~ ~~ ~ l ~~, ~" F ~/ ,--ti 1, . C~lle~e Station, Texas 77840 (409) 693-6363