Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS LIST CHECKED-OFF WfTH 16 FOLDED COPIES OF S1TE PLAN FOR REVIEW 1\~IINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FORSITE PLAN PROPOSALS (ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIlVIITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. heet 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 Ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels. . A key map (not necessarily to scale). 1~J 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.) C1 8. All existing streets, drives, buildings, and water courses on or adjacent to the proposed project site. J~ 9. Locate 100 yr. floodplain on or adjacent to the proposed project site, note if there is none on the site. C~10. Location and size of existing utilities within or 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. Pro osed streets, drives, and curb cuts. For each proposed curb cut (including driveways, streets, alleys, etc.) P 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.) 3. '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 ®rdinance # 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 15. Indicate unit type (number of bedrooms). .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. '`e. (,~" 1 . 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 (rr<inimum, maximum and average demands in gallons per minute) and sewer loadings (maximum demands rn 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). ® .Minimum parking space is 9' X 20', or on a perimeter row, 9' x 18' with. a 2' overhang. Wheelstops may be required on interior rows longer than 10 spaces or in special situations. . 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 p row. Additionally, 180 sq. ft. of landscaping for every 15 interior parking spaces must be provided somewhere on the site. 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 Engineer. No exceptions will be made for areas designated as "reserved for future parking". " 8. 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). 9. Locations of dumpsters on pad at least 12ftx12ft shall be such that dumpsters are not visible from streets. Gates are. discouraged and visual screening 'from R.O.W. is required. Coordinate accessibility of dumpster with planning, using same turning raidus requirements as those of a Fire Department Pumper Truck. ^ ~10. Healthy, native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible. 1. Fire lanes of a minimum of 20 feet in width with a minimum height clearance of 14 feet must be established if any ~i~ structure of any type is more than 150 feet from a public street or highway. 12. 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 alon a ublic street or along an approved fire lane as the hose is laid off the truck. g P 13. 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. 14. 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. O 5. A twenty four foot setback from R.O.W. to curb of parking lot is required. Parking may be auowea m uus erica up to a maximum of 7 contiguous spaces. 0 b. All plans must include imgation 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: Paul Kaspar To: City of College Station.City Hall(shomeyer), SVOLK Date: 6/16/97 5:47pm Subject: -315 church street -Reply I have just approved the Drainage report for it, but I don't .think I have seen an erosion control plan The only other items are the fees (haven't been paid) and the application signed by owner (we have it, just not. signed by owner -.best to wait until the last item, then can sign actual DP at same time) ~ (~ylb~'"`" t~/ G G~~ From: Sabine McCully To: City of College Station.City Hall(NRUIZ), SVOLK Dater 6/17/97.8:31am Subject: potential-nrb meeting -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply heard from richard yesterday and he would like to go to the nrb. please set one up for him -- lets' try for next week early. »> Shirley Volk 06/16/97 08:27am »> I had a call from the Marek Bros-. about the status of 315 Church St. plans and I told them (on voice mail) about this irrigation requirement and questions as to how it will be handled.. .Maybe they will follow up on it because they want to be finished with the project. I'll keep you posted if I hear anymore about it. »> Sabine McCully 06/10/97 02:54pm »> it is an nrb discretionary item,''not a variance. the. parking and landscaping sections of the new northgate districts were intended to give the nrb very broad discretion -- however, it is their discretion, not ours, so this decision needs to be made at the-nrb level. the board is in a very important time period right now, where just about every decision. they make is tantamount to policy setting. we have been using the existing requirements of sections 9 and ll as a "jumping off" point of discussion for the. board. i don't think staff is in a position yet to use previous nrb decisions as a guide, 1 ike we do now in wpc. the ball is in their court on this one. i told Paul wilmarth that we could set up a meeting in a few days, but. he needed to get with richard and then they were supposed to l'et us know. gave him the choice -- either put in an irrigation system or request an nrb"meeting. »> Natalie Ruiz 06/10/:97 02:31pm »> Has anyone heard anymore on this'? I guess I'm kind of confused as to what is actually required in Northgate as far as landscaping. In the NG-2 district it lists a few standards for landscaping and then says these are in lieu of and not in addition to Section 11 (Section ll requires the irrigation system.) I'm not sure if the northgate section really should exclude everything in Section 11 - we may need to look at that a little more closely. I guess my question is, dan we .require an irrigation system in Northgate given the current ordinance requirements? Does this really have to be a variance? »> Shirley Volk 06/03/97 09:45am »> We've never done that, but I don't mind "going with the flow"! These "small projects" become giants, don't they! Apparently Mike Hester has been contacted to be the engineer re:drainage on this. Don't know if he's actually been hired or not. »> Sabine McCully 06/03/97 09:40am »> Paul wilmarth with the achitex studio .called to ask whether or not an irrigation system will be required at 315 church -- benning/burgerboy. i think that the question needs 'to be answered by nrb, either as a general policy or on a case-by-case basis. he is going to get back. with benning to see if he wants to go 'back to nrb. he'll let us know if we need to try to get one together. Shirley, does he need to pay another $100.00? CC: City 'of College Station.City Hall(jkee), From: Toz Date: Subject: Sabine McCully City of College Station.City Hall(NRUIZ), SVOLK 6/17/.97.8:31am potential nrb meeting -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply -Reply heard from richard yesterday and he .would like to go to the nrb. please set one up for him -- lets'. try for next week early. »> Shirley Volk 06/16/97 08:27am »> I had a call from the Marek Bros. about the status of 315 Church St. plans and I told. them (on voice mail) about this irrigation requirement and questions as to how it will be handled. Maybe they will follow up on it because they want to be .finished with the project. I'll keep'youu posted if I hear anymore about it . »> Sabine McCully 06/10/97 02:54pm »> it is an nrb discretionary item, not a variance. the parking and landscaping sections of he new northgate districts were intended to give the nrb very broad discretion -- however, it is their discretion, not ours, so this decision needs to be made at the nrb level. the board is in a very important time period right now, where just about every decision they .make is tantamount to policy setting. we have. been using the existing requirements of sections 9 and 11 as a "jumping off" point of discussion for the .board. i don't think staff is in a position yet to use previous nrb decisions as a guide, like we do 'now in wpc. the ball is in their court on this one. i told paul wilmarth that we could set up a meeting in a few days, but he needed to get with richard and then they were supposed to let us know. i gave him the choice -- either put in an irrigation system or request an nrb meeting. »> Natalie Ruiz 06/10/97 02:31pm »> Has anyone heard anymore on this? I guess I'm kind. of confused as to what is actually required in Northgate as far as landscaping. In the NG-2 district it lists a few standards for landscaping and then says these are in lieu of and not in addition to Section 11. (Section 11 requires the irrigation system.) I'm not'sure if the northgate section really should exclude everything in Section 11 - we may need to look at that a little more closely. I guess my question is, can we require an irrigation system in Northgate given the current ordinance .requirements? Does this really have to be a variance? »> Shirley Volk 06/03L97 09:45am »> We've never done that, but I don't mind "going with the flow"! These "small projects" become giants, don't they! Apparently Mike Hester has .been contacted to be the engineer re:drainage on this. Don't know if he's actually been hired or not. »> Sabine McCully 06/03/97 09:40am »> paul wilmarth-with the achitex studio called to ask whether or not an irrigation system will be required at 315 church -- benning/burgerboy. i think that the question needs to be answered bg nrb, either as a general policy or on a case-by-case basis. he is going to get back with benning to see if he wants to go back to nrb. he'll let us know if we need to try to get one together. shirley, does he need to pay another $100.00? CC: City of College Station.City Hall(jkee), From: Jane Kee Toe SMccully,SVOLK Date: 6/17/97 5:16pm Subject: Development Permit - 315 Church (Richard Benning) -Reply it's NOT a variance. It's more like an interpretation. We want NRB to take a position on whether irrigation is `intended to be required or not. We are having our own internal discussions as to what is really the proper way to handle this, but it ain't a varaince - that we agree on. »> Shirley Volk 06/17/97 05:12pm »> Pat Marek is the contractor for this project. He wants to get his development permit tomorrow so he can build .his parking lot. I told him that I still need the erosion control plan, the $100 dp fee, and signatures on .the application for dp and the dp itself. He knows Richard is going for a variance to the irrigation requirement, but he says he will go ahead and put in'"sleeves" so the irrigation can be easily added if the variance isn't granted. The only other .comment I-have on anything pertains to the meters, and as it is, there is already one meter there and Paul at the architect's office says the demand on that one meter. will be 19.6 gpm for the first lease space. Guess clarification needs to be made as to whether. or not additional meters will be needed for this building!. How do they do it at shopping centers where there are multiple lease spaces,, but the tenants are not known, so the demands aren't known? Also, since. Richard is going for a variance to the irrigation, can that meter requirement be determined later and handled separately? Also, Steve, your "sticky note" 'says "see comments on apron section", but there aren't any-comments there! Please help me on this. Pat would like his dp tomorrow. Thanks. CC: nruiz .From: Jane ..Kee To: SMccully,SVOLK Date: 6/17/97 5:16pm Subject: Development Permit - 315 Church (Richard Benning) -Reply it's NOT a variance. It's more like an interpretation. We want NRB to take a position on whether irrigation is intended to be required or not. We are having our own internal discussions as to what is really the proper way to handle this, but it ain't, a varaince - that we agree on. >» Shirley Volk 06/17/97 05:12pm »> Pat Marek is the contractor for this project. He wants to get his development permit tomorrow so he can build his parking lot., I told him that I still need the erosion control plan, the $100 dp fee, and signatures on the application for dp and the dp itself. He knows Richard is going for a variance to the irrigation requirement, but he says"he will go ahead and put in "sleeves" so the irrigation can be easily added if the variance isn't granted:. The only other comment I have on_anything pertains to the meters, and as it is, there is already one meter there: and Paul at the architect's office says the demand on that one meter will be 19.6 gpm for the first lease space. Guess clarification needs to be made as to whether or not additional meters will be needed for this building'. How do they do it at shopping centers where there are multiple lease spaces, but the tenants are not known, so the demands aren't known? Also, since Richard is going for a variance to the irrigation, can that meter requirement be determined later and handled separately? Also, Steve, your."sticky Note" says "see comments on apron section", but there aren't any comments there! Please help me on this. Pat would like his dp tomorrow. Thanks. CC: nruiz ICATE OF . ~, ..ti CUPANCY CHECKLI T ~ ~3~~ J ~~~~~ ELECTRIC: (Ray 3680, Tony 3438) Drainage, Site Utilities, Impact Fees ENGINEERING: Covers Water, Sewer, (Kent 3581, Veronica 3763, Steve 3592) (Vern W. 777-0192, Jerry J. 777-3557, John L. 229-5873) FIRE: ~~~~a~ 3~~-~ D~ LEGAL: (Jan 3546) {Easement?) ZONING/PARKLAND/LANDSCAPING/DUMPSTER LOCATI N & SCREENING: ~ (Sabine 3782, Joey 3748) / ~ ~ A/~~ ~ !~- ~ `" .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~-~ ~, ~ DU PSTER S RVICE: Jim S., ally, Freddie -all at 3690) ~~