HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneousraymart redevelopment:
this is a partial punchlist camsethatlwilltneed to beraddressedebefore long:
far, we have the following ite
1. we need a new landscaping plan. mostever hsinceeitYehasechangedt looks
like they have been busy replanting hoWto a~ rove the new landscaping - if
'~ significantly, they need to get the city PP
you'll recall, a landscape. plan that met all current requirements was a part
of the raymart settlement agreement.
2. the end islands in the back need to be filled and planted.
4. the new parking lot on the prince irrxceed thelrequirement for thet66cted
before co's can be issued for uses that e
parking spaces that are existing currently (this 66 does not count the
proposed parking on prince's site - it has not been started yet).
CC: lbattle, bmccully, jsmith
-~
C~~.
1~~~~ V
,p ~ 69,.x- 7~1~
~ ~~
l0 y"
N CHECKLIST ~~~
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPA
Date: ~ ~ Project:
ELECTRIC: (Ray 3680 ony 3438
~ :tea O~'• -~-~ ~'
ENGINEERING: Covers Water, Sewer, Drainage, Site Utilities, Impact Fees
(Kent 3581, Veronica 3763, Steve 3592)
(David D. 777-3942, Vern W. 777-0192, Jerry J. 777-3557, John L. 759-3970)
~la~` ~.e .~i~~.~'~-ti`G -~'~'~'~'
FIRE: (Jon 3781)
LEGAL: (Jan 3546)
(Easement?)
ZONING/PARKLAND/LANDSCAPING/DUMPSTER LOCATION. & SCREENING:
(Sabine 3782, Joey 3748)
DUMPSTER SERVICE
.~ o~ ~~.
Jam' Wally, Freddie -all at 3690)
A
® `.__f
From: Tony Michalsky
To: CITY HALL(SVOLK)
Date: 3/25/97 9:03am
Subject: Raymart -Reply
everythings okay with us
»> Shirley Volk 03/5/97 08:59am »>
Just talked to Wallace Phillips and he thinks he will be completely finished
with the exterior work he is doing on Raymart by Monday (3/31) with exception
of the sign and the awnings. He will not be .finished with all interior work
(not all lease spaces will be ready) at that time, but he should have his
striping, etc. finished for final inspections on Monday. Please make plans to
set up an inspection early in the week - he will let me know specifically
later, but those are his tentative plans now: If you know of any problems he
should )ae made aware of, please let me know.. Thanks.
From: Jane Kee
To: SVOLK
Date: 6/27/97 12:03pm
Subject: Wallace Phillips -Reply -Reply
OK thanks. We didn't talk at .all about pavement condition or any of that. We
should be able to work with him on that. it shouldn't bea surprise. We can
talk about it more Monday. He says he'll want the CO Monday.
»> Shirley Volk 06/27/97 11:52am »>
Thanks, Jane. I think that's what I would have done; that is, try to call the
restaurant incidental to the motel. I do believe that when Wallace brings in
the perpetual easement stuff he needs to know that wherever he is sharing the
parking needs to be brought up to some kind of standards. Nat & I drove by
there today and the parking lot by the restaurant is in pretty sad shape. I
would say to try to get him to designate the "truck parking" along the rear as
what he is sharing because I seem to remember that they simply just put a
gravel "lot" in for trucks and Al had a fit about it. It was never approved
(as I recall). Maybe we can look that up and do something to get'that area
upgraded. When I visited with Wallace a long time ago it's the spot I
referred to as perhaps he could make work for him instead of Prince's lot.
I'll try to see what I can find in the files on that - if anything!!
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission ~~
b~~
FROM: Sabine 1Vl`Cully, Senior Planner
DATE: Halloween, 1996
RE: Establish parking'requirement -Gymnastics school
The applicant in this case proposes to purchase the former Raymart site and remodel the
buildings for a mix. of warehouse, daycare, retail, and .gymnastics uses. The conversion
from the former warehouse uses to this mix will require additional parking. The applicant
intends to create the additional parking on the adjacent site.
The Zoning Ordinance does not list specific parking requirements for gymnastics schools.
Parking must therefore be approved by the Commission.
The City has not had a need in the past to establish a parking requirement for gymnastics
schools because these schools have located in shopping centers, which provide parking for
a mix of shopping center uses.
.Staff has recently requested research'of other ordinances. and found that most cities do not
specifically address such uses. One city lists gymnastics schools and requires 1 space for
every 300 square feet of building area. We contacted the zoning official of that city and
were told that the ratio is not considered high enough.
The applicant in this case is proposing a higher requirement of 1 space for :every 250
square feet, for a total of 40 spaces' for. the L0,000 square foot facility. He proposes to
provide a total of 8-1 spaces for the' entire site, which will be shared by all users of .the
Raymart site.
Staff recommends approval.
From: Kent Laza
To: Smccully
Date: 11/7/96 9:D7am
Subject: Ray Mart Site Redevelopment
I looked at the site. plan you gave me and drove out to look at
the building itself. The two questions the potential buyer had
of we were:
1. Can they use the ROW on Pinon Drive for a playground area?
Short answer: No
2. Can they have another curb cut and driveway along their south.
property. line where the access easement is shown on the adjoining
property?
Short answer: Yes, as long as it is understood and agreed by
the other property owner that it will be a shared access point
for both to use. The reason I agree to this new curb cut is
because someone established the access easement in the past with
the presumption that a driveway would one day be built. .Even
though it doesn't meet our separation distance requirement, it
seems logical to follow through with the previous understanding
that a driveway would go there.
If this comes back tows again, this will be the position I take
regarding the two questions posed to us so far.
CC: JKEE, SVOLK, SHOMEYER
.~-'
SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS
LIST CHECKED-0FF WITH 16
FOLDED COPIES OF SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN PROPOSALS
((ALL (:ITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET)
INCLU]~ING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
^ 1. Sheet size - 24" x 36"
^ 2. Title block to include:
a.) 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
f.) Total site area
^ 3. Ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels.
^ 4. A key map. (not necessarily to scale).
^ 5. Scale should be largest standard engineering scale possible on sheet.
^ 6. Provide a north arrow.
^ 7. Topography, final grading plan, and other pertinent drainage information. (If plan has too much
information, show drainage on separate sheet.)
^ 8. 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.
^ 10. Location and size of existing utilities withinor adjacent to the proposed project site.
^ 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
^ 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.)
^ 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
n landscaping .plan can be shown on a separate sheet if too much information is on the original site plan.
Y 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
^ 15. Indicate unit type (number of bedrooms).
^ 16. The density of dwelling units per acre of the proposed project.
^ 17. The gross square footage of buildings and the proposed use of each building.
^ 18. Designate number of parking spaces required by ordinance and provided by proposal.
^ 19. Show dimensions to size and locate all structures, parking spaces, drives, curb cuts, parking islands, and
setbacks.
^ 20. Are there impact fees associated with this development?
^ 21. Provide a water and sanitary sewer legend to include water demands (minimum, maximum and average
demands in gallons per minute) and sewer loadings (maximum demands in gallons per day).
^ 22. Show all meter locations. Meters must be located in easements or R.O.W. (City will size meters.)
The following are typical standards for Plan Development established by Ordinance or Policy:
^ 1. Building separation is a minimum of 15 feet.
^ 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.
^ 4. Minimum drive width is 23' with head-in parking or 20' without parking.
^ 5. Raised landscaped islands, (6" raised curb) of a minimum of 180 sq. ft. are located at both ends of every
parking row. Additionally, .180 sq. ft. of landscaping for every 15 interior parking spaces must be
provided.
^ 6. Streetscape compliance is required which involves special plantings along streets specified in the City°s
Streetscape Plan.
^ 7. A 6" raised curb is required around all edges of all parts of all. paved areas without exception. (To
include islands, planting areas, access ways, dumpster locations, utility pads, etc.) Curb detail to be
approved by City En ineer. 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).
^ 10. Locations of dumpsters shall be such that dumpsters are not visible from streets. Gates are discouraged
and visual screening from R.O.W. is required.
^ 11. Healthy, native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible.
^ 12. Fire lanes of a minimum of 20 feet in width with a minimum 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.
^ 13. 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 along an approved fire lane as the hose is laid offthe truck.
^ 14. 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 City Engineer.
^ 15. Fire hydrants must be operable and accepted by the City and drives must have an all weather surface
before combustibles can be brought on any site.
^ 16. A twenty four foot setback from R:O.W. to curb of parking lot is required. Parking may be allowed in
this area up to a maximum of 7 contiguous spaces.
^ 17. All plans must include irrigation systems for landscaping. Irrigation meters are. separate from the regular water
systems for buildings and must be sized accordingly and include backflow prevention protection.
From: Sabine McCully
To: SVOLK
Date: 6/30/97 10:02am
Subject: Wallace Phillips
-Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply
we have changed our approach to site upgrades according to some extensive
legal research and conversations we've had with that department .
grandfathering has to do with the structure itself, not the user. i wish we
could get upgrades in such cases, but i don't think we would have legal
support for such. because the structure of the older approved parking areas
will not be changing, the best we can do is require basic maintenance (filling
potholes, restriping, etc.)
the one area that was never approved has no grandfathered status, therefore we
can require all of our current requirements (pavement materials, curbing,
landscaping, streetscaping, fire codes, driveway req'ts, etc.)
»> Shirley Volk 06/30/97. 09:36am »>
Why, if they are basically being "leased"' to another, different kind of use
would they be "grandfathered".? It would seem to me that if they are being
"transferred" to another use, we should have some ability to get them
upgraded.
»> Sabine McCully 06/30/97 08:41am »>
i don't think this is the area that he is getting the easement to use. the
illegal truck parking area sounds like it needs to be brought up to code.
other parking areas may need to get some maintenance but if they are exisiting
and approved then I'd say they have some grandfathered status to remain.
»> Shirley Volk 06/27/97 11:52am »>
Thanks, Jane. I think that's what I would have done; that is, try to call the
restaurant incidental to the motel. I do believe that when Wallace brings in
the perpetual easement stuff he needs to know that wherever he is sharing the
parking needs to be brought up to some kind of standards. Nat & I drove by
there today and the parking lot by the restaurant is in pretty sad shape. I
would say to try to get him to designate the "truck parking" along the rear as
what he is sharing because I seem to remember that they simply just put a
gravel "lot" in for trucks and Al had a fit about it. It was never approved
(as I recall). Maybe we can look that up and do something to get that area
upgraded. When I visited with'Wallace a long time ago it's the spot I
referred to as perhaps he could make work for him instead of Prince's lot.
I'll try to see what I can find in the files on that - if anything!!
CC: City of College Station.City Hall(JCallaway, JKee,...
E STATION
OLLEG
C
P. a. Box 9960 .1.101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842
Tel: 409 764 3500 G - r ' ~~
t ~ t+-C
,~ ~~
~~
Friday, June 23, 2000
Mr. Wallace Phillips
RE: Request to relocate dumpster for businesses located at 3800 Texas. Avenue
Dear. Mr. Wallace:
I am writing in response to your request to relocate your dumpster to the northeastern-
most corner, of Lot Al Ponderosa Place Section 2. Please note that the location you had
indicated involves a 30' access easement, which cannot be blocked.
Any relocation of the dumpster will need: to be submitted ; as an amendment to your
approved site plan. Tf the :new dumpster location will be on an adjoining site,. please note
that a maintenance easement will be required. All other review requirements, such as
accessibility and screening, will apply.
If you have any additional .questions regarding this or any other matter, please do not
hesitate to give me a call.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sabine Kuenzel
Senior Planner
Home of Texas A&M University
t
', \
a~
a ~
~\
~ ~~
r
Lot Al
~~.~
~~~
i
5°~
G~
~~~
~N \
w
o„Z
~,N~~
Trac
~ ~ ~~ ~~~/~~
~~ C[ ~F' COa,~ GE STATION
ning Division
~ ~ ~
~~~~u ~ a~ . ~~
~~~~
~ r
~ ~~~~ _
~ ~ `~` ~~
~~ `~ca°C~~w~ CJ ~~~
~iw~ ~~,
~2e~:~Qs 'o~Cs'r u~
~~2,Ce~ E inart~L,~~~k
February 19, 2004
2BAM Ltd.
500 N. Capital of Texas Hwy.
Austin, TX 78746
DD&H Investments
4490 Castlegate Drive
College Station, TX 77845
Re: 3800 State Highway 6 South, College Station TX (The Emporium Center)
To Whom It May Concern:
The above mentioned property is zoned C-2 Commercial Industrial. Currently, the existing retail
and office uses are grandfathered in this center. This letter is to inform the property owner and
2BAM Ltd., that the City will allow the Pizza Hut Delco unit to go into 2000 square feet of Suite
206 to replace the previous retail use. However, the Pizza Hut Delco unit may not have indoor
seating/dining at any time.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to give me a call at (979) 764-3570.
Jennifer Reeves
Development Review Planner
Jennifer Reeves -Letter
__
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Jennifer;
__ _ -..,
_ __ - ,,,-~ _ _ _ Pale 1
"gball" <gball@txcyber.com>
<jreeves@cstx.gov>
2/20/2004 9:15:07 AM
Letter
The letter looks fine. Thanks for your good work and assistance.
George A. Ball
Property Consultants
3800 State Hwy. 6 S., Ste. 108A
College Station, TX 77845
P: 979/694-7705
F: 979/694-2719
E-mail: gball@txcyber.com
TRANSMISSION ~'ERIFICATI~DN REPURT
DATE,TIME
FAQ NO.INAME
DURATION
PACES)
RESULT
MADE
,~ ~ ~~~ ~-r' ~,~ ~ X0`1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ }
February 19, 2044
~BA,M ltd.
5041~T. t':a~ital afT~xa.~ H~uy-
Austin, T~ 7S7R~6
I]D&H Investments
4490 Ca~stle,gate Drive
Golle~e eta#iozr., T 77845
02119 16:46
96901041
00:00:17
01
04
STANDARD
ECM
TIME 0211912004 16:46
NAME : COCS DEVELOPMENT SER
FA}{ 9797649496
TEL 9797643570
SER.# BROE2J341073
~,~e: 3840 State kIighway fi South, College Station T~ (The Emporium Center)
Ta WhQrn It may Concern;
The above mentioned prolserty is zoned C-2 Commercial industrial. Cuxrcntly, the existing retail
a,ad 4'i~cc uses arc grandfathcrcd irA this center. This letter is to inform the property owner and
2EAM Ltd., that the City wi1.1 allow the Piz~~a Hut Dclc~ uaait to ga into 2000 square feet of Suite
20~ tc replace the previous retail use. However, the Pizza Hut De1,c0 unit may loot have ir~d+~or
~GSil,f.l~;/s~~T.l.1.l,kg al ~zky IIIIAC:.
i
III
i
Thank you fc~r your eonricratian in t1~is mattcr_ T~' yon, have any glAeatinn;~, I-laa~e do nt~t hesitate
to give me a call. at (97~} 764-3570.
JcA~Aait`ex Reeves
Development I+tevicw Planner