Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous`~~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I Planning Division ~~~"" ~f . ~~ ~v ~`~`~ ~~.~ ~~ r ~~-~-- .- y-"-~-.®.e. -~~,-poi Gc .~ -.,~C-~ ,~~~c-2J ~.~ .. /~, ~C~ l~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~. `~ CITY OF COLLEGE STATIOI`I ~ ~ ~ Planning Division ~' v' .- j~r~c ~ ,~~ ,~'..~G.;~~ ~C ~~ '/~"~~~f ~:. -~Z ~..~ ~-°~-~ ./ ""~ ACC ~~~~ ~~ ~~~-i ~~ ~~~~ ~~~~, `~~ CITY OF COLLEGE ~TATIOI`I Plannin Division 9 ~~ G~ ~,~ ~~~~~~~ ~Z~~ ~ ~ ,~~' ~ ~ ~~ ~~~. ~~ ~ ~ /~ , ; ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ,, ~~~~~ t ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ <~- `~ G'~_` F I,~~~ .~G .~ f~. ~ ~~` ._._: ~~ ~ ~~~ j~ December 9, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO FILE Subject: Predevelopment Meeting to review Conceptual Plan 313 Boyett Review Subcommittee of Northgate Revitalization Board NRB present: Julius Gribou, Charles Anderson, Cheryl Anz, Tara Sopasakas, Richard Benning PRC present: Senior Planner Sabine McCully, City Engineer Kent Laza, P&Z Representative Charles Smith Applicant present: David Scarmardo,.Roy Hammons (engineer) Others attending: Joey Dunn, Staff Planner; Lance Simms, Building Official (part of the meeting) and Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Chairman Gribou opened the meeting and turned the discussion over to Joey Dunn, the staff representative who had been working with the applicant. Mr. Dunn explained that as he understands it the applicant has submitted a general, or conceptual site plan for discussion and a decision as to whether or not the concept meets the intent of the NG-1 zoning. district. Discussion followed regarding how to handle the existing encroachment by the house on the adjoining lot with staff explaining that from an ordinance standpoint. the house is a legally non-conforming house and the City would not require any changes. However, if a replat is filed (for both lots), then the City would require all ordinance requirements to be met for both lots. Building Official Lance Simms pointed out that if any structure is less than 3 .feet from a properly line the exterior wall needs to be 1 hr fire rated with no openings. The applicant asked what the City would accept as a minimum to address the adjacent encroachment, and staff explained that the City. will not require anything for the existing encroachment, and anything that is done will become a legal issue between the 2 parties involved exceptfor anything less than what would be required by ordinance for any changes being proposed. Discussion followed concerning the conceptual plan submitted fora 2 story duplex with 6 parking spaces in the rear of the lot. Richard Benning and Julius Gribou indicated they would prefer to see an increase in the density existing in the area and submitted on this proposal. Other discussion followed with a consensus of the. group indicating that perhaps some parking should be included, but less would be satisfactory; bicycle. parking is required;'. solid waste should be addressed with the probability for the requirement of a dumpster being great, and at the very least, screened storage for the individual dumpsters will be required; gas meters should;be located by the building instead of out on the street; the mail box should either be in the building or on the building and not on a post outside; streetscape or some type of landscape element should be included along 1/3 of the property frontage; any. parking should be in the rear, not in the front; keep some greenspace in front; include a sidewalk across the front; materials should probably be primarily masonry. It was additionally pointed out that in the Northgate zoning district, a building can have a mixed use; that is, perhaps the building would be multi-storied with a 50 foot height maximum, and have commercial or office space in the front along the street with residential uses in the rest of the building, and perhaps even parking under the building. The developer thanked the review board for meeting to critique his proposal and said he was very thanldiil he had asked for this meeting because he was going away with a lot of ideas and understanding which he did not have before the meeting. Dennis K. Bruhl On-Line Real Estate Services, Inc. 3706 East 29th Street Bryan, Texas 77802-3999 RE: Property located 313 Boyett Street; Lot 17, Block 12 of W. C. Boyett Subdivision Dear Dennis: As per your request, this letter is intended to clarify the City's position on the future development of the above referenced lot. The lot is zoned NG-1 Historic Northgate, which. is amixed-use subdistrict that allows a variety of commercial as well as high-density residential uses. Area requirements are also more flexible in this subdistrict: zero front and side setbacks,. 15' rear setback, 50' maximum building height. In general, Northgate Redevelopment Plan recommendations as well as zoning requirements encourage higher-density urban redevelopment in this area. On November 27, 1996, the review subcommittee of the Northgate Revitalization Board (NRB) met in conjunction with the Project Review Committee (PRC) to consider a development proposal on this. lot from David Scarmardo and Roy Hammons. The preliminary site plan reflected a duplex with 6 parking spaces in the rear of the lot. Members of the NRB/PRC stated that a higher density development with more apartment units and less parking would also be encouraged. The site plan also indicated that the adjacent home on lot 18 to the South encroaches onto the subject property by approximately 2.37 feet. The City's position, which was. stated at the meeting, is that the encroachment is considered to be a prior nonconformity at the responsibility of the owner of lot 18. The City will. not prevent development of the. subject property due to the encroachment. As in many cases, the .lender may require that the encroachment be rectified in order to obtain title insurance. As discussed in the meeting, there are several ways this may achieved, such as dedicating an easement or relocating the property line. If the property line is relocated, the owner must file an amending plat. In order for the City to approve the amending plat, code requirements must then be met. Obviously, easement dedication is less cumbersome as long as the lender considers it to be acceptable. At this point, a more detailed development proposal must be submitted and approved by the NRB/PRC prior to issuance of any building permits. However, as stated above, the City will not allow the encroachment itself to prevent development approval. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you can reach me at 764-3570. S'ncerely, X\~ J~oe~y~D, nn Staff Planner inin Ordinance Re uirements -Ordinance u~u Permitted use for district -Densit re uirements Minimum lot size Setbacks ok Easements ~ -~ Non-conformities resolved ~ 2D' trian le clear at corner ~ ~, No more tkian 2 1/Z stor ~~ Re aired arkin _ na/ok J791 Street Ordinance !R eats = ~Ord~inastc=e Maximum drive width resid: 28` . Clearance to ad'acent drive - ~ r arterial {turnaround) e ctor o - Ooes not back on coll ~.5 - roved. b Cit En ineer - - - Resid. drive does not enter cn comm. drive na/ok St~bd'ririsiun R bons -Ordinance 690 q' raved subdivision - ..- . , . _ Plat filed - - na/ok _- R tious _ 7301 _ - _ _ _ .. lain ._:__ : _., ~._. :. Qoes not block an water course _ ~: --- .. _. :~~ deed elevation certificate - ~-> >:~ - _ , . - Zoning Official G/ C~ ~ ~ ~ _ . PLAN EXAMINER Oate l~ ~aATE From: Tony Mchalsky To: City Hal1.NTHOMAS, City Ha11.SVOLK Date: 11/26/96 4:30pm PRC Comments for 1D:00 am meeting. NONE Comment for the .11:30 meeting. Service for the Du-plex will come off the existing pole shown. It will need to be underground, builder needs to have a 2 inch conduit laved from meter to power pole and provide 30 ft. of .rigid conduit and a weatherhead for the riser. We will install the conductor. There is a street light pole near the driveway entrance, if it conflicts they will have to pay to have it relocated.