Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous~~ ~ a ale~Ruiz -~Re.Ne_::,,..::.::veto ,.merit ::.:.:......... ..... .................._.......__.........._ _:._.. .........._........._..._ ..._...................................... ...~:::.:P::::.::.. N t w De p age 1 From: Tony Michalsky To: NRUIZcLDCITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL Date:. Fri, Aug 28, 1998 2:31 PM Subject: Re: New Development Development Comments Cornerstone Commercial Section Two (98-323j We need a 10 ft easement along the east property line of Lo# 1 and Lot 2. We need a 10 ft easement along the north property Ilne of Lot 2, Lot 3 and Lot 6. We need a 20 ft easement, 10 ft on each side of the property line between Lots 3 & 6 and Lots 4 & 6 to be able to provide service#o Lot 5. Johnny Carino's Italian Restaurant (98-439) Kona's Steak House (98-438) Sonic Drive-In Restaurant (98-430 The'Electricat Division will want to install an electrical duct system across the front of this property within the proposed 20 ft .easement #or future burying of the ovefiead lines along Harvey Rd. The work will need to be coordinated with construction of the development. Developer is responsible for 20°~ of he cost for providing electrical service to the :property. Developer installs conduit and pours transformer pad per city specs and requirements. Developer wili need to provide easements for any on site electrical infrastructure. Need electrical load data and service voltage requirements Need. to show existing electrical line along front of property and anypower poles. Coordinate with electrical. division location of padmount transformer on site plan. Carter Lake Section Five (98-231). Carter Lake Section Six (98-332) No Comments Living Hope. Baptist Church {98-705) Show Overhead electrical line across front of property and power poles. Electrical service can be provided from front overhead line. Service will need to be underground, the :developer Installs conduit per city spec and requirements. Developer pays 20% of the cost for electric service. Hotel /Conference Center (98-437) Developer is responsible for 20% of the cost for providing electrical service to the property. Developer installs conduit and pours transformer pad per city specs and requirements. Developer will need to provide easements. for any on site electrical infrastructure. Need electrical load data and service voltage requirements Need to show existing electrical lines along property line backing up to the Crest lots, along Dartmouth and. along Richards St. Coordinate with electrical division location of padmount transformer on site plan. »> Natalie Ruiz 08/26/98 03:47PI41 »> Attached is a list of items submitted this week for review. Thanks! (409)774-2528 Fax (409).220-5455 Mobile .ddorougl@ tuelectric.com Comments: We need a gas equipment list broken down by appliance and a rating for each piece of gas equipment before a service line can be run or a meter is set to serve this restaurant. There is no charge for the service line if we are allowed to install the service before any lime stabilization or paving is in place. We also reserve. the reserve the right to determine the meter location.. HoteUConference Center - A preliminary site plan for a hotel, conference center and office building development to be located on the southwest corner of Holleman Drive and Dartmouth Street in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. (This is a site plan only, the applicant will submit grading, drainage and other construction details at a later date. 98-437) Texas Utilities/Lone Star Gas Company Contact for this project: David L. borough Manager, New. Customer Development 4200 S H,6 S Bryan, TX 77802. (409) 774-2527 Office (409)774-2528 Fax (409) 220-5455 Mobile ddorougl@ tuelectric.oom Comments for this project: We need a breakdown of the gas equipment by building and by appliance with a rating for each appliance. We need to know how many meters the City of College Station will require for-this project. onic Drive-In Restaurant. - A site plan for a new restaurant to be constructed on along the south side of Harvey Road, just west of the'Woodstock condominiums in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district, lot 2 of the West Wolf Pen Creek Subdivision. (98-430) Texas UtilitiesfL,one Star Gas Company Contact for this project: David L. borough Manager, New Customer Development 4200SH6S Bryan, TX 77802 (409) 774-2527 Office (409)774-2528 Fax (409) 220-5455 Mobile ddorougl@ tuelectric.com Comments: t We-need a gas equipment list broken down by appliance and a rating for each piece of gas equipment before a service line can be run or a meter is set to serve this restaurant. There is no charge for the service line if we are allowed to install the service before any lime stabilization or paving is in place. We also reserve the reserve the right to determine the meter location. Carter Lake Section Five - A final plat of approximately 12.6 acres divided into two lots generally located in the City's. E.T.J. 1/4 mile northeast of Rock Prairie Road, on the :Northwest side of Hams Drive. (98- 231) No Comments -Texas Utilities/Lone Star Gas Company Carter Lake Section Six - A final plat of approximately 6.6 acres divided into two lots generally located in the City's E.T.J. 1/4 mile northeast of Rock Prairie Road, between Harris Drive and Bradley Road. (98- 232) No Comments - Texas Utilities/Lone Star Gas Company ' Living Hope Baptist Church- A site plan for a temporary ofl'ice building to be located at 4170 State Highway 6 South;. just north of Fire Station #3. This. site plan. is part of a conditional use permit request that will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (98-705) No Comments -Texas Utilities/Lone Star Gas Company GTE 301 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. XA 77803.., BRYAN TE S ANTHONY VITANZA DESIGNER .ACCESS DESIGN ..409/821--4754 I j DATE: AUGUST 28, 1998 CASE: SONIC DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT REVIEWED BY: ZAVERNE AKIN AFTER REVIEW OF THE ITEM LISTED ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS ~ WERE NOTED; PROVIDE 20 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG HARVEY ROAD. THE.DEVELOPER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND PLACING 1-4 INCH CONDUIT WITH PULL STRING FROM THE OUTSIDE BUILDING G E TERMINATION TO THE ZO UTILITY EASEMENT. ALONG HARAVEY ROAD. THE CONDUIT SHALL ELL UP 4 FEET AT THE OUTSIDE BUILDING TERMNATION AND ELL UP 6 INCHES IN THE EASEMENT. THE OUTSIDE BUILDING TERMINATION MUST BE WITHIN 20 FEET OF POWER - IF :NOT; THE DEVELOPER.OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PRQVIDING AND PLACING A 8'X5/8" COPPER GROUND .ROD AT THE BASE OF THE TERMINATION.. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: CONTACT ANTHONY VITANZA WITH GTE AT 409/821-4754 IEOR CONDUIT PLACEMENT AND TELEPHONE REQUIREMENTS, AND UCCIT]~ANCY DATE. ;', i STAFF REVIEW NOTES Sonic Drive-In Restaurant Case #98-430 Discretionary Items: Ordinance Requirements: i Site Plan Related .The landscape berm shown along Harvey Road will need to have at least 21' of width for it to be 3' tall and maintainable. If screening is to be accomplished as per the landscape plan, remove the "landscape screen berm" note and all references to a berm. _ Provide a material and color sample of the proposed brick pavers to be located in the entrance median. (The pavers must be of a non-gray .color.) Show the concrete pad for the proposed bicycle rack. Revise the submittal date. Landscape Plan Related ~, _ The two cedar elms and 4 white tree crepe myrtle's may count toward the Streetscape ~ point requirements. Note and label the current floodway and floodplain locations. i I ~ ~ „ _ ,.. _. Non-Site Plan Related.`. , t Grading Plan Related.• fr E y ~ V Comments/Concerns: I _ A final plat is required prior to issuance of a building permit. (We still need a mylar of the revised preliminary plat. that meets all of the Planning and Zoning Commission conditions.) i ,f "A h't ,,.ter - :. ~ _ t ~~ €,'g ,., .. ~ .. _ INCLUDE .INFO. ON THE STATUS OF THE FEMA STUFF AND THAT NO DEVELOPMENT PERMITS MAY BE ISSUED UNTIL ADOPTED BY FEMA. HOW DOES IT EFFECT THIS SITE? _ The .proposed fire lane and fire hydrant must be installed and accepted prior to combustibles being stored on site. Staff comments on the Storm Sewer Plan and Profile sheet will returned at the meeting. _ A separate permit will be required forthe irrigation system by a licensed irrigator. _ The electrical division will want to install an electrical duct system across the front of this property within the proposed 20' easement for future burying of the overhead lines along Harvey Road. The work will need to be coordinated with construction of the proposed development. The developer is responsible for 20% of the cost for providing electrical service tot he property. The .developer installs conduit and pours transformer pad per city specifications and requirements. The developer will also. need to provide easements. for any on site electrical .infrastructure. Provide the electrical load data and service voltage requirements..' Show the existing electrical line along the front of the property and any power poles. Coordinate electrical service details and the location of the padmount '; transformer with Electrical Operations Coordinator Tony Michalsky at {409) 764-3660: For gas service, provide a gas equipment list broken down by appliance and a rating for j each piece of gas equipment before a service line can be run or a meter. is set to serve this restaurant. There is not change for the service line if we are allowed to install' the service before any lime stabilization or paving is in place.. We also reserve the right.. to determine ~ the meter location. For more information, contact David L. borough with Texas ''I Utilities/Lone Star Gas Company at (409) 774-2527, office; .(409) 220-5455 mobile; or e- mail at "ddorougl@tuelectric.com". _ Provide a 20' public utility easement along Harvey Road. The developer is responsible for providing and placing ane 4" conduit with pull string from the outside building teriination to the 20' utility .easement along .Harvey Road. The conduit shall ell up 4' at the outside buildingtermination and ell up 6" in the easement. The outside building termination must be within 20' of power;. if not, the .developer is responsible for providing and placing a 8' x 5/8" copper ground rod at the base of the termination. For more information contact Anthony Vitanza at (409) 821-4754 for conduit placement, telephone.. requirements and a future occupancy date. I SUBMIT 10 COPIES OF THE REVISED SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS BY NOON ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1998 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKETS FOR THE MEETING ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1998. THE MEETING WILL BE AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 1 T01 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH. COORDINATE FUTURE SUBMITTALS .WITH ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR NATALIE RUIZ AT {409). 764-3570. i i it FILE NOTE Sonic Drive-In Restaurant Case #98-430 On Wednesday, August 19, 1998,. the Wolf Pen Creek DRB met with Ray Corkran of Sonic and Greg Taggart with MDG to discuss the new restaurant .proposal on Harvey Road, lot 2 of the West Wolf Pen Creek Subdivision. DRB Members Present:. Kay Henryson, George McLean, Chara Ragland, James Massey, Veronica Morgan and Jane Kee. (Phil Kelby was not present; however, he sent a letter expressing his opinion on the proposal..) Staff'Present: Natalie Ruiz and Shirley Volk. James Massey moved to appoint Kay Henryson as Chairman of the DRB. Chara Ragland seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0) The DRB Members expressed many concerns with the proposed Sonic restaurant. Staff reviewed the site plan and made several redlines with respect to technical requirements. A copy of these redlines were given' to Greg Taggart for changes. The DRB did not make a final decision on the project; however, they did express several concerns with the project. Major Concerns _ .The intent of the WPC ordinance is not met. There was no attempt made to .address the various elements listed in the WPC ordinance; including but nat limited to: _ Orientation to the creek, .pedestrian .traffic, bikeways, etc. Lighting details. Discussed a possible seating area. to the rear of the site with a walkway down to the creek. Dumpster location and its proximity to the minimum reservation line. (The DRB may be able to support a variance to the requirement depending on how the site is re-oriented.) The DRB also requested that the color.. of the dumpster screening match the proposed building and the stripes be removed. Colors presented are not harmonious .with the district. (The yellow color is not compatible with the district. George McLean expressed concern that yellow should not be allowed in the. signage or-.the building and that the DRB did not allow Office Max to use the same color.) ~. File Note. Sonic Case #98-430 Page 2 of 2 Major Concerns (cont.) _ There is a problem with traffic circulation through the site. The drive-thru does not meet the "pedestrian" oriented nature of the district. The DRB discussed several changes to the site including removing the drive-thru re-orienting the building and pulling the drive-thru traffic away from the creek area; and, eliminating the parking in the rear. so that you don't have backing maneuvers into the drive-thru traffic queue. _ Show where the retaining wall is .proposed and provide details, elevations, color, etc. In terms of parking, additional spaces are not required for the building. However, parking will be required for the front. patio area as well as a small percentage of parking for the rear patio area. ` (Include a parking legend addressing these areas including employee parking to be considered by the DRB and P&Z.) Mr. Corkran and Mr. Taggart agreed to address the redlined comments, as well as the concerns expressed by the DRB, and resubmit site plans for further review and approval. r ;-; I ! ~~ "~ ~, ;~~ /// / Natalie Thomas Ruiz Assistant Development Coordinator August 25, 1998 .:...:::.Page 1 : Shine Volk- Re: Paul Clarke. From: Jane I<ee To: SVOLKcLDCITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITYNALL .Date: 10/8/98 9:30AM Subject: Re: Paul Clarke yes. there is no final,plat yet. And they still need to revise the PP. It doesn't need to go back to anyone, just have the changes made that came outta the mtgs. »> Shirley Volk 10/08/98 08:OSAM »> I started looking for the final plaf file for West Wolf Pen Creek and, of course, can't find one because we don't have one ! At least, if we do I can't find a file. If, indeed, we don't have one, should we be reminding Paul: Clarke so they don't think they can get building permits forthese restaurants and then find out when they are ready to build that they can't? I'm gathering some information for Jim to give to Paul today, so it might be a good time to remind him. That means infrastructure plans, etc. ~~ ~ ~G ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~` Kay.Henryson, AZA 76Q7 Eastmark #24S College Station, TX September 14, 1998 Jane Kee City Planner City of College Station Rec Wolf Pen DRB notes Dear Jane, I never .did. receive copies of these site plans- so I'm trying to do this by memory... 1) Sonic; Signs - we asked that the yellow color. be omitted on the main large sign, however Z didn't think that we were requiring it on all signs (i.e. there are several signs that are small on the building and on the. menu board signs that include yellow- I don't have a problem with this in small amounts) ~/Pedeetrian access around seating: I think that we decided that the pad for tables was adequate in size for pede trians to walk.. through this area, although an area to the side would be an improvement ~ Later in the discussion with Kona/Carino's we discussed requiring an exit sign to encourage traffic through the Sonic exit and not through the adjacent parking Iot Note: Owner agreed that site furniture in the patio aria and trash receptacles, etc. would also use the green color or adobe color to blend in with the building ~J 2} Kona's: Compact car spaces: Agreed to look at using these to reduce the overall spaces closest to the creek/Sonic and to look at grouping these, i.e. in the center bank so that four together would allow for an area S' x 15' for planting, or to group two or three.. together at the Sonic drive to give a break in the long line of pavement. °'Alternate'° makes it sound .like alternating regular and..compact - which is confusing In order to of }° °} ben... t from; creek or~entat~on to the rear, the impact of service area and parking needs to '' be reduced as is noted in the radius by the dumpster ' and the reduction in overall spaces facing the creek. i Note about dumpster: Correct under discretionary items loeated within service area fence- under ordinance ~x~ ~ you ask for It in the rear parking row - not what we ~" "~ discussed. ~~ ~~ Z ~G~a~~ ~J call me if you have anything else, see you Tuesday afternoon. /,~ ~ j~ Thanks S („J Since ely, J~ ; K ~ ~ ay, [~•. xenryso~i, AIA /r.. ~., 4. 1 ~ ~-~'"' ~ L ~ -- 7. Ca • a ~~ Z Z 969 60t 3211N3~ 3121tiW1SC3 Wt1 0S: S0 86-~ i-d3S Lowe's Project Design System, Store #103 409-774-4141, Bryn, TX' Thu Sep 10 15:51.:21 1998 The materials in this deck will cost $3562.00 untitled.DER 3D View Federal Emergency Management Washington, D.C. 20472 JAM 0 51999 CERTIFIED .MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED The Honorable Larry Ringer Mayor, City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842-0960 Dear Mayor Ringer: IN REPLY REFER TO: Case No.: 99-06~065R ~~ Community: City of College Station, Texas Community No.: 480083 104 This responds to a request that. the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) comment on the effects that a proposed project would have on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for Brazos County, Texas and Incorporated Areas (the effective FIRM and FIS report for your community)., in accordance with Part 65 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. In a letter dated October 9, 1998, Ms. Veronica J. B. Morgan, P.E., Assistant City Engineer, City of College Station, requested that FEMA evaluate the effects that placement of fill along Wolf Pen Creek from approximately 780 feet upstream to approximately 4,020 feet upstream of the intersection of Dartmouth Road and Holleman Drive and along Wolf Pen Creek Tributary A (Tributary A) from its confluence with Wolf Pen Creek to just upstream of Harvey Road would have on the flood hazard. information shown on the effective FIRM and FIS :report. In addition, this request included an updated hydraulic analysis that incorporated more detailed topographic information to reflect existing watershed conditions along Wolf Pen Creek from approximately 1,770 feet downstream,to approximately 5,530 feet. upstream of the intersection: of Dartmouth R®ad and Holleman Drive and along Tributary A from its confluence to approximately 950 feet upstream of Harvey Road. All data required to complete our review of this request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) were submitted with letters from Mr. Mark W. Roberts, P.E., Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers,'Inc., and Ms. Morgan. We have completed our review of the submitted data and the flood data used to prepare the effective FIRM for your community. The submitted existing conditions HEC-2 hydraulic computer model, dated October 22, 1998, based on updated. topographic information, was used as the base conditions model in our .review of the proposed conditions model for this CLOMR request. We believe that, if the proposed project is constructed as shown on the work map entitled "NBB Project 2492-000009," dated October 23, 1998, and as described. in the report entitled "Request for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision -Wolf Pen Creek," dated September 1998, both prepared by Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc., and the data listed below are received, a revision to the FIRM would be warranted.. The existing conditions analysis incorporated more detailed topographic information to reflect existing watershed conditions along Wolf Pen Creek.. The elevations of the flood having a 1-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood) increased and decreased compared to the effective base flood elevations (BFEs). The maximum increase in BFE, approximately 0.6 foot, occurred approximately 4,020 feet upstream of the intersection of Dartmouth Road and Holleman Drive. The 2 maximum decrease in BFE, approximately 2.5 feet, occurred just upstream of the intersection of Dartmouth Road and Holleman Drive. As a result of the proposed. project, the BFEs along Wolf Pen Creek will increase compared to the existing conditions BFEs. The maximum increase in BFE, .approximately 0,3 foot, will occur approximately .1,470 feet upstream of the intersection of Dartmouth Road and Holleman Drive. These increases in BFE will be a result of placement of fill in the floodway fringe. As a result of the proposed project and updated topographic information, the BFEs along Wolf Pen Creek will increase and decrease compared to the .effective BFEs. The maximum increase in BFE, approximately 0.6 foot,- will occur approximately 4,020 feet .upstream of the intersection of Dartmouth Road and Holleman Drive. The maximum decrease in BFE, approximately 2.5 feet, will occur just upstream of the intersection of Dartmouth Road and Holleman Drive. The existing conditions analysis for Tributary A incorporated more detailed topographic information to reflect existing watershed conditions. As a result of the more detailed topographic information, the BFEs increased and decreased compared to the effective BFEs. The maximum increase in BFE, approximately 2.9 feet, occurred just upstream of Harvey Road: 'The .maximum decrease in BFE, approximately 1.3 feet, occurred approximately 100 feet upstream of Harvey Road. As a result of the proposed project, the BFEs along Tributary A will increase and decrease compared to the existing conditions BFEs. The.. maximum increase in BFE, approximately 0.05 foot, will occur approximately 950 feet upstream of Harvey Road. The maximum decrease in BFE, approximately 0.1 foot, will occur just upstream of Harvey Road. These increases in BFE will be a result of placement of fill in the floodway fringe. As a result of the proposed project and updated topographic. information, the BFEs along Tributary A will increase. and decrease compared xo the effective BFEs. The maximum increase in BFE, approximately 2.8 feet, .will occur just upstream of Harvey Road. The :maximum decrease in BFE, approximately 0.9 foot, will occur approximately 100 feet upstream of Harvey Road. The widths of the Special Flood. Hazard Area (SFHA), the area that. would be .inundated by the base flood, and regulatory floodway will increase in some areas and decrease in other areas compared to the effective SFHA and floodway widths along Wolf Pen Creek and Tributary A. All affected property owners were notified of the proposed project in a letter dated September 16, 1998. Upon completion of the project, your community may submit the data listed below and request that we make a final determination on revising the effective FIS report and FIRM. • Effective October 1, 1996, FEMA revised the fee schedule for reviewing and processing requests for conditional and final modifications to published flood information and maps. FEMA. established flat review and processing fees for most types of requests. Effective March 10, 1997, FEMA modified the fee schedule that became effective on October 1. In accordance with this schedule, the fee for your map revision request will be $2,300 and must. be received before we can begin processing your request. Payment of this fee shall be made in the form of a check or money order, made payable in U.S. funds to the Nar;onal Flood Insurance Program, or by credit card. The payment must be forwarded to the following address: Federal Emergency Management Agency Fee-Collection System Administrator P.O. Box 3173 Merrifield, VA 22116-3173 • As-bui1C plans, certified by a registered professional engineer, of all proposed project elements • Community acknowledgment of the map revision request • Certification that all fill placed in the currently effective base. floodplain and below the proposed BFE is compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density obtainable with the Standard Proctor Test method issued by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM Standard D-698) or an acceptable equivalent method for all areas to be removed from the base floodplain • A copy of the public notice distributed by your community stating your community's intent to revise the floodway, or a statement by your community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions • A letter stating that your community will adopt and enforce the modified floodway • Hydraulic analyses, for as-built conditions, of the base flood; the .floods having a 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year; and regulatory floodway if they differ from the proposed conditions models After receiving appropriate documentation to show that the project has been. completed, FEMA will initiate a revision to the FIRM and FIS report. Because the BFEs would change as a result of the project, a 90-day appeal period would be initiated, during which community officials and interested persons may appeal the revised BFEs based on scientific or technical data. This CLOMR is based on minimum floodplain management .criteria established under the NFIP. Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain development, and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been received. State, county, and community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction in the SFHA. If the State, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria. 5 4 If you have any questions regarding floodplain management regulations for your community or the NFIP in general, please contact the Consultation Coordination Officer (CCO) for your community. Information on the CCO for your community may be obtained by contacting the Director, Mitigation Division of FEMA in Denton, Texas, at-(940) 898-5127. If you have any technical questions regarding this CLOMR, please contact Mr. Alan Johnson of our staff in Washington, DC, either by telephone at (202) 646-3403 or by facsimile at {202) 646-4596. Alan A. Johns n° P.E., Project Engineer Hazards Study nch Mitigation Directorate cc: Ms. Veronica J. B. Morgan, P.E. Assistant City Engineer City of College. Station For: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief .Hazards Study Branch Mitigation Directorate Mr. Mark Roberts, P.E. Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. Sincerely, ~•~ CITY O~~' COLLEGE STATI01`I `~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jane R. Kee, City. Planner RE: Three Restaurant Developments in the Wolf Pen Creek Comdor k~ ~~ -~ ~0 / PLANNING DIVISION PC'iT OFFICE BOX 9960 1101 TEXAS AVENUE COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842-9960 (409)764-3570 DATE: September 16, 1998 The Design Review Board has been. working with three separate restaurant developments that are adjacent to each other in the Wolf Pen Creek Comdor. They are located on lots 2,3 and 4 in the West Wolf Pen Creek Subdivision.. These lots are located along Harvey Road just east and. adjacent to an existing building, formerly Sneakers. and The Christmas Store. Two of the restaurants are owned by the same company, Kona's Steakhouse and Johnny Casino's Italian Restaurant. The third is a Sonic. The three will be presented and discussed together at the. P&Z level because of their relationship to each other. Color and material samples, photographs and similar design information will be presented at the P&Z meeting. The P&Z must determine whether these uses meet the intent of the WPC master plan as designed. Restaurants are. permitted uses in the district buttheir design and orientation are all things that the DRB and ultimately members of the P&Z must decide. The site plans in your packets have been revised as per the Design Review Board's direction. DRB notes are included in your paclet for reference. Individual members of .the DRB stopped by to review each plan and 'considering DRB review and the individual members comments, staff offers the following: Sonic: scretionar Items • The Use: There was discussion as to whether this use "fits" in with the vision of the WPC corridor. The major concerns involved the drive-through and the "design" in general. The DRB worked. with the applicant on alternative colors and designs. The applicant added an outdoor seating area in the rear to attract pedestrians moving through the corridor. .~ ~'' ~ • Outside Rear Patio: ,This outside seating area has not been designed using materials ~~ ~ !91~~ ~" ~ approved by the as yet. Initially a concrete slab was proposed. Screening of the J" slab w ld~e~requu ue to the .elevation. Rather than apply some kind of .~ de ` rative facing o ~r~et g wall feature, the applicant ubmitted wooden decking material. Individual DRB members (James Massey,. Kay Henryson and Phil Kelby) had concerns about the decking and how it harmonizes with the rest of the design. There wasalso concern about providing a place for trash, food and animals to collect underneath 4 ~• Patio Furniture: DRB approved the outside seating to .match the green color .provided by the applicant. This is not noted on the site plan and should be part of any motion for approval. /® Transition Between Sonicand Sneakers: DRB requested some screening between this property and the adjacent soon to be redeveloped propertye The applicant shows a 6' high cedar fence. This was not discussed at the DRB meeting, Plant material was mentioned to provide a soft but effective transition. ~ • Dry Storage Bldg: DRB has not reviewed elevations of this area. Location was ~~ approved but we do not know what the roof structure will look like. ~~1~ '`bk Front Brick Wall: DxB has not reviewed what this will look like. Plans state that this wall will match the bldg. colors whichwill be a stucco material in a sand or taupe Q}' color.' There will be brick pavers in the entry drive which will be red in color. C Cone Shaped Lighting~Elements:, These cones: are red with fiber optic tubing around them that. can change colors. It was not clear whether the intent was to use these. They are not part`` of the :design of the store used as an example showing the green ~9.color scheme. The DRB objected to the use of bright reds and yellows in the original v `~ Sonic color scheme. "~~~. Signage: DRB felt that an exit sign at the front of Sonic would encourage patrons to use. the Sonic driveway rather than heading east through the adjacent parking lots to exit-onto SH 30. DRB did not a_ pprove use of the. e_~ lhbackground for the main Sonic sign. The background into be white. _ • Transition between Kona's and Sonic: It is not clear how Sonic and Kona's integrate their sites at the rear. This area contains Sonic's outside seating area and dumpster -~----and Kona's vehicular accessway. ~~ ~. ~ ~l~j(n • On th Section A A detail on the Landscape Plan show."limits" of the exposed face • d' i~c~ o the plan view. ~ ~~, Tec nrcalltems ~{~ _°°-~" ~• Show the top-of-curb elevations betwe n Sonic and Christmas e to show urbs on ~ ____. each property to assure a smooth transirrtii on. `'~ 'JQ~ ~ J ul ~ ~ X 10 " r 1 ~' "®"st~'rpt"WPC-EAT.doc a v ,-. Kona's Steakhouse The applicant intends to dedicate the minimum reservation.and floodway area alongahe .tributary (that comes:from Oaks Park and runs between these two restaurants) to the City. There is a meeting scheduled between the staff and ahe applicants to work out details of how: the City and applicant might work together to develop this area where it benefits the City, the Wolf Pen Creek area and the restaurants. Results of this effort will be reported at the P&Z meeting. The revised site plan submitted atahe time of this writing is unclear relative to or lacks the following information: Discretionary Items • Signage: The signage will be reviewed later by the Design Review Board. • MetaTRoof: Some DRB members expressed concern about the galvanized metal roof. The applicant states this: is an important part of the image of the restaurant. The DRB agreed to have the decision made at P&Z and not come back for .further review. • Sidewalks: There is a sidewalk requirement along SH 30. This is noted on the plan. However, staff'had mentioned building this sidewalk fizrther into the tributary area rather than. along SH 30. This item was to be part of the discussion concerning this dedication as mentioned previ®usly. Staff is confused as to why the sidewalk is shown on the revised plan along SH 30. • Switch Gear Location: This was to be located adjacent to the transformer and screened with it as a "unit". It is shown apart and away from the transformer and dumpster area. • Landscape. Screening: The area behindahe dumpster and transformer was to show a continuous .landscape. screen • Pedestrian Access:. It is unclear how pedestrians coming from the creek area will move onto and through Kona's property t® access the restaurant itself. There are landscape beds and driving aisles that must be crossed. • Transition between Kona's and Sonic: It is not clear how .Sonic and Kona's integrate their sites at the .rear. This area contains Sonic's outside seating area and dumpster .and Kona's vehicular accessway. Technical Items • Floodplain Line:. More than. one 100 yr. floodplain line. is shown. Label both the correct floodway and floodplain lines as the 1998 NDM study. Floodplain and floodway lines on landscape plan should match lines on other plans. • Tree Protection: Details must be shown on approved plans. "®"stffrpt"WPC-EAT.doc • .Vehicular Maintenance Access: The City will need an access easement all the way from SH 30-to the minimum reservation area. A minimum 10' wide paved surface must be provided up to the minimum reservation area. Travel through the parking area is acceptable:. Design must address how drainage water will not leave the parking lot through this accessway and will get to the gates in the parking lot so that it will leave underground. Johnny Casino's Discretionary Items • Sidewalks: There is a sidewalk requirement along SH 30. This is noted on the plan. However, staff had mentioned building this sidewalk further into. the tributary area rather than along SH 30. -This item was to be part of the discussion concerning this dedication as mentioned previously. Staff is confused as to why the sidewalk is shown on the revised plan along SH 30. • Dumspter Location:. Staff is working with sanitation and owners on an acceptable location that can be accessed. Decorative Swale: On the grading plan there is a decorative swale but there is no detail showing what it will look like. Technical Items • Pedestrian walkways: There are 6' walks that are mentioned on the plan but not located. All pedestrian walkways must be 10' wide. • Deck Area: There is a "deck area as per the WPC standard" which is mentioned but not located:on the plan. • Floodway/Floodplain Line: Should be labeled as the correct 1998 NDM study and should be the same on all 3 plans (site, landscaping and grading). Vehicular Access Easement:.. An access easement must be provided from SH 30 to the minimum reservation area. It must be a minimum 10' wide and paved. Travel through the parking area is acceptable. Design must address how drainage water will not leave the parking lot through this accessway and will get to the gates in the parking lot so that'it will leaveunderground. • Clarify top-of--curb of adjacent property parking lot (Woodstock) to east showing transition between 21ots. attachments:. Original DRB notes, revised site plans "®"stffrpt"WPC-EAT.doc SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS LI5T CHECKED OFF WITH 16 FOLDED COPIES OF SITE PLAT FOR REVIEW I ' ini 36" " e j C~ 1. mum) x (m - 24 Sheet siz LI 2. Title block to include: 0' Name, address, location,. and legal description ~ Name, address, and telephone number of applicant q.~ .Name, address,. and telephone number of developer/owner (if differs from applicant) B' Name, address, and telephone number of architect/engineer p'/ Date of submittal ~" 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. ~. C~ 6. Provide north. arrow. ^ 7. Existing locations of the following on or adjacent to the subject site: ^ Streets and sidewalks ~rr~12~ °i vJ ? ~-'~,'D-Q't~' -"„`" ..~ ~- t~ -~ Driveways (opposite and. adjacent per D?veway Ordinance 1961) ~ L~ Buildings CY Water courses I! ~ Show all easements clearly designating a existin and type. (utility, access, etc.) C~ 100 yr. floodplain and floodway (if applicable) on or adjacent to the proposed project site, / note if there is none on the site. ~/ Utilities {noting size and designate as existing) within or adjacent to the proposed site, including building transformer o 'ons, above ground and underground service connections to buildings. L9'~ Meter locations -- y~)~ds~ ,,,rc ~~?) C~ Topography. {2' max or spot elevations) and other pertinent drainage information. (If plan has too much information, show drainage on separate sheet.) ^ 8. Proposed location, type and size of the following.: C~ Building and structures ^ Off-Street parking areas with parking spaces drawn tabulated, and dimensioned. ~` ~ L~ Sidewalks ~ Common. open spaces sites ~q '~ SITECK.DOC O1/28/99 i .RI'' ~ V° .~ ^ Sites for solid waste containers with screening: Locations of dumpsters are accessible but not visible from streets or residential areas. Gates are discouraged and visual screening is required. (minimum 12 x 12 pad required). 't7~--°~,eading docks C~ Gates (-~ _ _ won ponds Medians ^ Retaining walls - ~ -All required and other types offences (a 6' privacy fence is required between industriaUcommercial and residential developments as well as between multi-family and / single family developments) ~( Proposed streets, drives, and curb cu or each proposed curb cut (including driveways, streets, alleys, etc.) locate existing curb cuts on the same 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.) d Meter locations (must be located in public r.o.w. or public utility easement.) Ctl~ Proposed grading (1' max for proposed or spot elevations) and other pertinent drainage information. (If plan has too much information, show drainage on separate sheet.) ^ 9. Show dimensions to size and locate all: Structures Parking spaces Drives L~/ Curb cuts Ch" Parking Islands Setbacks. Show building setbacks as outlined in Ordinance 1638 Zoning Ordinance, Table A (Section 7, P 30.) ~-~ ^ ~~10. Building separation is a minimum of 15 feet. ^ 11. Minimum parking space is 9' x 20', or on a perimeter row 9' x 18' with a 2' .overhang. \~~12. Wheelstops maybe required when cars overhang is onto property not owned by the applicant or ®®~~' where there maybe conflict with handicap accessible routes or above ground utilities, signs or - other conflicts. ~/ ^ 13. Minimum drive aisle width is 23' with head-in parking or 20' without parking. 14. A 6" raised curb is required around all edges of all parts of all paved areas without exception. (To include island, planting areas, access ways, dumpster locations, utility pads, etc.) Curb details maybe found in theZoning Ordinance Section 9 and alternatives to those standards must be approved by the City Engineer. No exception will be made for areas designated as "reserved for future parking." 15. Raised landscape islands, (6" raised curb) of a minimum of 180 sq. ft. are located at both ends of every parking row (greenspace area contiguous to the end island maybe applied toward the SITECK.DOC 01/28/99 required 180 sq. ft.). Additionally,. 180 sq. ft. of landscaping for every 15 interior parking spaces must be provided. All required islands must be landscaped or set with decorative. pavers, or stamped dyed concrete or other decorative materials as approved. 16. A twenty four foot setback from r.o.w. to curb of parking lot is required. Pavement may encroach into this 24' reserve by up to 1134 square feet if streetscape requirement can still be met. In no case may the pavement be less than 6' from the property line. ^ Landscape plans 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 ~G~ plan. Attempt to reduce or eliminate plantings in easements. Include information on the plans such as: required point calculations additional streetscape points required proposed new plantings with points earned proposed locations of new plantings screening of parking lots existing landscaping to remain show existing trees to be barricaded and barricade plan ^ ~ I~`18. The total number ofmulti-family buildings and units to be constructed on the proposed project `` site. (see application) ^ ~ All plans must include irrigation systems for landscaping. Irrigation meters are separate. from the regular water systems for buildings and will be sized by city according to irrigation demands submitted by applicant and must include backflow prevention protection. © 20. Streetscape compliance is required and all streets larger then a residential street. ^ ~~ 21 ~22 ^ 23 Q 24 Gd" 25 The density of dwelling units per acre of the proposed project. (see application) The gross square footage of buildings and the proposed use of each building. If different uses are to be located in a single building, show the location and size of the uses within the building. Designate number of parking spaces required by ordinance and provided by proposal. (see application). Any structure in any zoning district other than R-l, R-lA, or R-2 must. be within 300 feet of a fire hydrant as measured along a public street, highway or designated fire lane. 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. [~ 26. Fire hydrants must be operable and accepted by the City, and drives must have an all weather surface as defined in the Zoning Ordinance Section 9 before a building permit can be issued. 27. Fire Department connections should be within 150' of the fire hydrant. In no case shall they be -any further than 300' apart. SITECK.DOC 01/28/99 C>~' 28. Fire lanes a minimum of 20 feet in width with a minimum height clearance of 14 feet must be ~'I established if any portion of the proposed structure is more than 150 feet from the, curb line or ~ pavement edge of a public street or highway. I ^ ~~ 29. All FDC's shall be accessible from the parking lot without being blocked by parked cars or a structure. 30. 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). i 31. 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). I CY 32. Are there impact fees associated with this development? Yes. ^ No SITECK.DOC 01/28/99 August 18, 1998 Shirley J. Volk, Development Coordinator City of College Station Shirley, I will not be able to attend the Design Review Board meeting on the 19th due to out of town obligations, but I wanted to put my two cents worth into this discussion. After re- reading the codes established for the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor it is plain to me that a drive-in fast food outlet is not what was originally intended for this area. In the future the city envisions a park like setting wherebusiness and nature conservancy mixes easily. The noise, traffic, waste and congestion of a fast food drive-in will not allow for the mix of nature and business. It is my belief that the DRB was started to protect the overall image and design of the corridor and keep the integrity of the area intact. I hope this helps you, I apologize for not being available for the meeting, but one of your city councilmen keeps sending me out of town. Sincerely, s Q ` .Phillip M. Kelby i Memorandum l ~ To: Veronica Morgan City of College Station I From: flay Corkran I Sonic i Date: May 6,1999 Re: Sonic Peak Water Demands Per our current layout and design for. Sonic we have he following equipment in the store. Tvue Total Peak Flowrate Fountain Unit (2) 6 gpm . Ice Cream Machines (l) 3 gpm Ice Maker Heads (2) 7 gpm Slush Machines (2) 4 gpm Steam Cleaner (1) 4 gpm Sinks. (4) 12 gpm Toilets (2) 10 gpm Triple Sink{l) 4 gpm 50 gpm Please. use this information in lieu ~~ of that provided by MDG' on the site plan. i # t Y r /~ t ~t ~. ~ _ s, ~'~ N ~~ ~~ /' ,~ ~~ ' o' /~ ~ , s.. --ate 1 ~~'~~ ~`~Q i R` 12 s~„~ta~ ~ ~-~ P~aald~s 2 ~ sP~~es T~I~'S ~ir~er /so~a~S f~l' ~" /'fir o~i~i~~ ~'rQ'4S 7T~J/n f/CI ~~~ Q/ld l~lD~/Cy.S ~Or,Ei%~~ D6~C~C~`~v~s . ~° N' ' 61r`~~~ _ c~'~`" s ..-~ ; '~~:~`'~ 1 ~~•~ ~ QeQ ~~~ . ~~ C m3 ~~ 0 G m B-7 . ~3~s~ orr o~'~9i~a/ ~o%f~ w~ c~iiye - ~hr-~r ,~¢~ii~s ~ibnf s2a~i~p~ ~i'd~i~cs /~~' ~~Q "'~9 ~~Q~ ~~s ~o~ /C - OUri"e Cl~~~ m~~- l~,~ss ~y a ~ f~~~ /arses T~%s .s~a~vs 23 Ser~~Ce ~~aCQs ,h/~ ~~o~o s ~ `~e~~ .6oa,-mss i~ reQ~ seQ~~~, ~~~/ ~o~i~9 ~/'i1~ - ~hror m~n~ ~~ ~ /n4f~i~~~ ~ ~ eve lP,~~~ ~.. s.. -~ - -- MZINICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GR®Z~P 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste.. A • College Station, Texas .77840 •409-693-5359 • FAX.• 409-693-4243 • E-mail: mdgcs@gte. com Consulting Engineers, Surveyors, Planners and Environmental Consultants '~~ August 26, 1998 Shirley Volk City of College Station College Station, Texas Re: Sonic Site Plan, Resubmittal 1 (Change C) MDG No. 000009-2944 Dear Shirley: We herewith resubmit the Sonic Site Plan and are addressing the comments as discussed on the red lined site plan. I well address each comment: 1. Pavement Cross-Section notes - we have changed to #4 @ 18" spacing. tV~ c.~a.~ ~:~~" 2. WPC notes - we have added a bicycle rack. ~~ m ;~'~ 3. WPC notes - we have added parking area screenings. l+~~S `~" ~-``r°G` ~'`'~"°"? ? ~`4~WPC Notes -park access easement. for vehicle has been accom lis~~h~~ed__~~in plat of Lot 1. We~L ~ request not burdening Lot 2 with same. 6`~ ~~-- c'~~G~c.¢.GX.I CG ~ I__ ,~V'~ . I!~'~L-`~,~ I , ~ r~~~r f ` ~ ~ ~- Vim( 5. Driveway - we have given the. distance for opposite and add acent drives. Nom, ~Q c.~,, ~' 6. About the 21ane entry. We are attempting to avoid stacking in the east bound lane of Iiarvey Rd during high volume traffic flows. 7. The entry drive is located as depicted on the preliminary plat and approved by Paul Kasper. 8. The island is onl .half on our ro ert . he full is and which~i-s/ alf on s is a standard 180 square feet. p{~p' , ~' ~ "~. J ~ -~ ° .~ '`~_-- -°~"'~ half on Kona, J~~' ~! We have labeled the 25° private access easement. c.01-36(2944) i 10. utdoor eating area has been created at rear, as discussed at DRB, and as noted on the mark-up. 11. We have installed landscape screen @ rear elevation. ~j~,,d' ~a c~e~S ~/ ~ T2. We now show a pedestrian access to rear. _ ~zp,,,~~,,, ~" .~SY ~ ~N 1~!' Parking - 5 spaces have been removed in rear. 14. Dumpster has been relocated .. ~~ 15. Rear island has been ensured to be 180 SF. `,j~~ (T ~~ (~CArI`~ 16. Entry median is grassed. ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~` ~o'"t ~ t ~ ~ ~ T Tc.r~,~l. \ h ~A~lp T~µ,~,J2 u~.rc~f~ ~5~ ~. ~~ 17. We have changed the parking count. `-~j ~ c,Ip,,,.~, ~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~o~~D SNP, ! ~~ ! 18. We have changed sewer demands to gpd. r.. J(-~4 t,,_, ~ 1, rr ~ W ' G®6fl ~ ~ 19. Entrance median details will be shown on grade/drain plan. ~)~,utn.~ ~ ~" (y _ ' ~o 20. Owner ship of abutting parcels is shown. ~ J n '~ \ `' ` Sincerely, ~~ ~ ~` ~~' n ~,k, , ~ ~" / Gregory K. aggart Vice President c.01-36(2944) S, p. "ti ¢Ivl~B REQUIRE1~~iENTS FOR SITE PLAN PROPOSALS SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS LIST CHECKED-OFF WITH 15 COPIES OF SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW 1. Sheet size - 24'° x 36" v~ 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 -~ de) Name, address, and telephone number ofarchitect/engineer ~.) Date of submittal •~(~, 3. Ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels. I ~ 4. A key map (not necessarily to scale). ~~ 5. Scale should be largest standard engineering scale possible on sheet. j ~ 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. ~1~, 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 within or adjacent to the. proposed project site. i~ 11. Proposed location, type, and size of the following: I', /a.) Buildin sand structures g /6.) Off Street parking areas with parking spaces drawn, tabulated, and dimensioned 1 /c.) Sidewalks mod.) Common open space sites V'" e.) Sites for solid waste containers V~ 12. Proposed streets, drives, and curb cuts.. For. each proposed curb cut (including driveways, streets, alle s, y 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 t~nveway Ordinance. (See Ordinance 1961 for driveway location and design requirements.) ~~13. The total number of residential buildings and units to be constructed on the ro osed ro'ect site. l~ P P P J /~ 14. Landscape plan as required. in Section 11 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Zoning Ordinance. (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 o remain /b) required point calculations Vic) proposed new plantings with points earned ~5. Indicate unit t e number of bed yp ( rooms). ~~~ Standards for Plan Development Page 2 of 3 . s ' I6. The density of dwelling units per acre of the proposed project. N`/~ 17, 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. /1$ 20. Show dimensions to size and locate all structures,. parking spaces, drives, curb cuts, parking islands, and setbacks. Standards for Plan Development ti Page 3 o f 3 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, ~ ~1 /~ 3. 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. ~(~ 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. ~6. Landscaped islands are also located every 15 spaces or interior rows and every ZO spaces on perimeter rows. ~,/~7. A 6" raised curb is required around all edges of all parts of all paved areas without exce tion. To P 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". / [~ Wheelstops may be required on interior rows longer than 10 spaces or in special situations. y ,~ 9. Sidewalks are a mmrmum of 4' wide on site; 6' wide adjacent to parking spaces. Q 10. Director of Public Services determines number, size, and approves location of dumpsters. ~11. Parking islands are 9' X 20 ; or 180 square feet. "' R9 12. Healthy, native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible. ~/~- 13. Fire. lanes ofa 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. ~' 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. p" 15. Fire hydrants must be Iocated 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. ~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. fams/pl an/si teeeq/ 12-93 9': .. ~~ ~~S/ ~ 9 SUBMIT APPLICATION AND THIS LIST CHECKED-0FF WITH 16 FOLDED COPIES OF SITE PLAN FOR REVIEW MINIMUM RE~UIREMEN°TS FOR SITE PLAN PROPOSALS ALL C TY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET INCLU~ING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLL WING: l~ 1. Sheet size - 24" x 36" C~ 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 architectlengineer e.) Date of submittal f.) T®tal site .area 3. Ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels. 4. A key map (not necessarily to scale). ~. 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. (^ J9. 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 within or adjacent o the proposed project site. 11. Proposed location, type, and size of the following:.. a:) Buildings and structures mob.) Off-Street parking areas with parking spaces drawn, tabulated, and dimensionwi /c.) Sidewalks /d.) Common, open space sites ~ e.) "Sites for solid waste containers 2. 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. 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 ype (number of bedrooms). ~~ ® 16. The density of dwelling units per acre of the proposed project. ~3 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? ® 1. 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). (D 22. Show all meter locations. Meters must be located in easements or RO.W. (City will size meters.) T1he following are typical standards for Plan Development established by Ordinance or Policy: ® 1. Building separation is a minimum of 15 feet. t3" 2. Building setbacks are outlined in Ordinance 1638, Zoning Ordinance, Table A (Sec. 7, P. 30). (~/3. Ivlinitnum parking space is 9' X 20', or on a perimeter row, 9' x 18' with a 2' overhang. t~ 4. 11Tinimum 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. C~ 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, utrlrty pads, etc:), Curb detail to be approved by City En ig Weer. 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 RO.W. is required. ^ 11. I~ealthy,.native trees over 6" in caliper should be retained whenever possible. ~12. Fire lanes of a minimum of 20 feet in width with aminimum- 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 off the 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. ~l 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. tocurb 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. COLLEGE STATION P. O. Box 9960 ~ 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 August 28, 1998 Paul Clarke Clarke & Wyndham 3608 East 29th Street, Suite 100 Bryan, TX 77802 Re: Proposed restaurant developments in the Wolf Pen Creek district. Dear Paul, Staff is currently reviewing the three restaurant proposals recently submitted for Sonic, Kona's Steak House and Johnny Casino's to be located along Harvey Road in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. As requested, I am coordinating all correspondence, plans review, future meetings, etc. with you as our single point of contact. From the Ci y's perspective, I will be coordinating the review and scheduling of all three. projects and will be your single point of contact with the City. I look. forward to working with you on these projects .and seeing this area of Wolf Pen Creek develop in accordance with the vision of the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan... As requested, the following. is a summary of the status of each project: Kona's Steak House & Johnny Casino's Italian Restaurant: We received the site plans with color and material samples on Wednesday, August 26, 1998. However, landscape plans are missing for both sites. including the Wolf Pen Creek tributary area located on lot 4. As part of the approval of the Preliminary Plat of West Wolf Pen Creek, this tributary area was "to be dedicated or developed in accord with the Master Plan at the time of development of lots 3 and 4" as noted on the Plat. We did not receive information concerning the development or dedication of this area with the submittal on Wednesday. The site plan submitted refers to a "Landscape Pian" that we have not received to date. Staff has been directed to refrain from forwarding incomplete submittals to the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board (DRB). Before a DRB meeting, staff needs ample time to review the landscape plans for lots 3 and 4. Therefore, these proposals will. not be scheduled .for the September 17, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting. I've tentatively scheduled a DRB meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. and will place both restaurants. on that agenda with the condition that we receive a complete submission by noon on Wednesday, September 2, 1998. Once we receive a complete submission, staff will perform a technical. review of the site, landscape and grading plans and forward comments to the DRB. Depending upon the outcome of the DRB meeting, it is possible that both restaurants could then be placed on the Thursday, October 1, 1998 P&Z meeting for final approval. The September 2, 1998 deadline is critical to meet the October 1, 1998 P&Z meeting for several reasons. Due to the current personnel constraints in the Development Services department, increased development pressures throughout the City and prior staff commitments in September, the three weeks between the DRB meeting and the P&Z meeting .will allow the. DRB and staff time o work with the applicant to make any corrections or changes before staff reports -: are due to the P&Z on September 23, 1998. ,' Home of Texas A&M University .~ ., .Letter to Paul Clarke WPC Restaurants August 28, 1998 Page 2 of 2 Sonic Drive-In Restaurant:. A DRB meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 2, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. to review the Sonic proposal. I've enclosed a copy of the original redlined plans that were discussed at the August 19, 1998 DRB meeting in addition to a file note that. includes a brief summary of the meeting and the major concerns discussed. At that meeting, the DRB did not make a final .decision on the project; however, they did express several concerns. Staff began the review of the .revised site plan submitted on Thursday, August 27, 1998; however, they stopped the review because too-many items were either missing or not addressed on the revised plan.. A revised site .plan was submitted; however, a revised landscape plan and grading and drainage plan was not. (The original redlines for these two sheets were not resubmitted as well.) There are also many details missing including parking lot/landscape screening, the pedestrian access to the creek, retaining wall details, etc.. The revised color scheme submitted looks great; however, staff feels that the intent of the WPC ordinance is still not rnet with respect to pedestrian/vehcular traffic conflicts. As requested, we will proceed to DRB on September 2, 1998. At that time, staff will inform the DRB of the items lacking or not addressed and will recommend denial .until such time that a complete submittal is .received with all previous redlines and' DRB concerns addressed. If there are items that the applicant does not want to address, he has the option of 'submitting these items in writing explaining why they are not addressed for the DRB and P&Z to' consider.. Staff also suggested that it might be helpful to the DRB to see an elevation or perspective drawing of all three restaurants from Harvey Road showing how designs relate to each other. This is not a requirement; however, it. may be beneficial to the DRB -and the P&Z during their review of the .proposals. I look forward to working with you on all three developments in the Wolf Pen Creek district and we are excited to see so much activity in .the area. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (409) 764-3570. Sincere Natalie~Thomas Ruiz Assistant Development Coordinator cc: se File #98-430 Case File #98-438 Case File #98-439 Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, .via fax {409) 693-4243 Ray Corkran, Sonic Restaurants, via fax (409) 294-0442 Charles Mercer, Fired Up, Inc., via fax (512) 263-8055 (w/o Attachments) 'iz Attachments .v . . Page 1 > .Shirley Volk r Re Sonic Dnve In Site Plan From: Shirley Volk To: LCARTER~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.UTILITYSERVlCES C... Subject: Re: Sonic Drive-ln Site Plan Yes, if you don't need them, please send them back to us (Nat or me} and we will give them to the developer with the other redlines. Thanks. »> Lawrence Carter Q8/07/98 09:13AM »> 1. The existing Fire Hydrant. looks like it is attached to the sewer line. I beAeve teat it is actually attached to the existing 18" water line_ on the north side of Harvey Road... The plans should show that. They should also show it's actual location in relation to the sewer line. 2. The proposed 8" water I;ine is floating in space. It isn't attached to anything. Will they bore Harvey Road to tap the 18"? Or will they extent the existing 8" water which is already on the south side. of Harvey Road? 3. 1Nhat size is the grease trap and is it adequate? 4. The proposed. 6" .private sewer main .crosses the proposed 8" water main. Separation distances must be maintained IAW 290.44 TNRCC regs. 5. What do you want us to do wgith these. after we see them and comment on them. We,don't need them any more and they bay be of benefit tp you or the developer to actually see the red marks on the plans. Let me know how you want to handle it. GTE 301 INDUSTRIAL BLVD. BRYAN, TEXAS 77803 ANTHONY VITANZA DESIGNER ACCESS DESIGN 409/821-4734 DATE:. AUGUST 6, 1998 CASE: SONIC DRIVE-IN 98-430 REVIEWED BY: LAVEKNE AKFN AFTER REVIEW OF THE ITEM I.XSTED ABOVE, THE .FOLLOWING CONCERNS WERE NOTED: THE DEVELOPER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND PLACINCI 1-4 INCH CONDUIT WITH PtTLL STRING FROM THE OUTSIDE BiTII.DING TERMINATION TQ INF. 20 FOOT iJTII,ITY EASEMENT ALONG HARVEY ROAD. THE CONDUIT SHALL ELL UP 4 FFF.T AT THE OUTSIDE BUII.DING LOCATION AND ELL UP 6 ~INCHE5 IN THE EASEMENT. THE OUTSIDE BUII.DING TERMINATION MUST BE WITHIN 20 FEET OF POWER - IF NOT, THE DEVELOPER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND PLACiNC'T A S'XS/S" COPPER GROUND ROD AT THE BASE OF THE TERMINATION. ADDTI`IONAL COMMENTS: CONTACT ANTHONY VITANZA WITH GTE AT 4091821-4754 FOR TELEPHONE. REQ~FIRF,MENTS, CONDUIT PLACEMENT, AND OCCUPANCY DATE. ' Shirle °Volk - Re. New Develo merit Week of Au ust 3, 1998 ~~Page..1. from: Tony Michalsky To: SVOLKcLDCITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY HALL. Date: 8/7/98 9::01 AM Subject: Re: New Development Week of August 3, 1998. Post Oak Village "Drop Off. Parking :Spaces" 98-429 No Comments SonicDrive-ln 98-430 The Electrical Division. will want #a install. an electrical :duet system across the front of this property within the 20 foot easement for future burying of the overhead lines along Harvey Rd.. This work will need to be coordinated with construction. of the Sonic. Developer is responsible for 20°~ of the cost. for providing electrical service to the property. Developer install conduit for service and concrete transformer pad per city design and specs. Developer will need to provide easement for any on site electrical infrastructure. Need electrical-load data and service voltage requirements. Need to show existing electrical line along front of property and any power poles. Coordinate with electricaF division location of padmount transformer on site plan. »> Shirley Volk 08/05/98 03:22PM »> Actual Date Received:. August 5, 1998 POST OAK VILLAGE "DROP OFF PARKING SPACES" - 98-429: Reconfiguration of an interior island and creation of drop off parking spaces for a daycare center o be located in this shopping center. SONIC DRIVE-IN - 98-430: Proposal forthe development,of this drive-in restaurant in the WPC zoning district to be located east of the vacant Sneakers building on Harvey Road. ATTENTION DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Sl'AFF: A Design Review Board meeting will be scheduled to review the Sonic plans. Date and time of this meeting will be posted once the meeting is scheduled. Please review the above .projects and return you comments to me by Monday, August 10, 1998. August 7, 1998 TO: Wolf Pen Creek :Design Review Board FROM: Shirley J. Volk, Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Sonic Drive-ln Parking Lot Plan proposal (98-430) We have received a complete .package for. a proposal to construct a Sonic Drive- In restaurant along Harvey Road, just east of the existing vacant building which was the former Christmas Store and Sneakers Bar & Restaurant. I have included for your review of this proposal a site plan and a landscape plan, as well as a checklist of the items which are specific requirements of the WPC zoning district#or your review. I have also included a copy of Section 7.21 of the zoning ordinance which is the section which covers the .requirements of the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. Please take the time to review this carefully, and then try to make time to come by,the Development Services department offices to look at the material samples and photograph submitted to complete the submittal package. We have purposely delayed the official DRB consideration of this project to allow you time to review the proposal very carefully. This is the first new commercial .project we have .received for the district in a :Fong time and the use is not one which had been thought of when "restaurant" was listed as a permitted use in the district. Also, staff has been working with the .applicant to ensure compliance with the intent of the WPC ordinance, and the submittal, in staff's opinion, does not appear to meet this intent. The applicant has been .advised of this and still is insistent on going forward to the DRB for consideration.. The DRB mee#ing will be held on August 19 1998 at 10:30 a.m. in the City Hall Training Room. Please make-every effort to attend this. meeting because the decision made will help establish standards for future projects in this important area of our City. Thank you. Giiy of College Station 1101 South Texas Avenue P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION `~ DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Phone: 7 r ~ " l%3 Fax hone: 02 ~' CC: Date: / /~/ ~O Number of pages including Dover sheet: From ~ r , Phone: 409-764-3570 Fax phone: 409-764-3496 , ^ Ur ent ^ For yourreview-- / ^~~Reply~A-~SjA~P ^ Please comment I i ~/f~ ~~ • iii '~ - ~~ ~° (6~ ..~ • ~ --- • If you did i of receive a complete fax, please call our office immediately for a new tzansmittal. GE STATION COLLE P. O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue :College Station. TX 77342 TeL 409 764 3500 WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD REPORT September 11, 1998 TO: Ray Corkran, Sonic 829 South Sam Houston Avenue, Huntsville, TX 77340 William Koehler,. Municipal Development Group 2551 Texas Avenue South, Ste A, College Station, TX 77840 ..Paul Clarke, Clarke & Wyndham 3608 East 29th Street; Bryan, TX 77802 FROM: Design Review Board Kay Henryson, DRB Chairman Philip Kelby; DRB Member Chara Ragland, DRB Member George McLean, DRB Member James Massey, P&Z Chairman Jane Kee, City Planner Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engin r Others Attending Natalie Ruiz, Assistant Development Coord° to Tony 11~ichalsky, Electrical Operations Coor ina or Jennifer Reeves, Electrical Line Designer Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator Ric Ploeger, Assistant Director of Parks Pete Vanecek, Senior Parks Planner SUBJECT: Site Plan -Sonic Drive-In Restaurant; proposed restaurant development to be constructed along the south side of Harvey Road, just west of the Woodstock condominiums in the .Wolf Pen Creek zoning district, lot 2 of the West Wolf Pen Creek Subdivision. (98-430) A Design Review Board (DRB) meeting v~ras held Wednesday, September 9, 1998 to discuss the above mentioned restaurant. Ms. Ragland moved to recommend approval of the development proposal with the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Discretionary Items: dec.~~n~ l~nk~> ~~~=~~ The DRB directed .the applicant to provide some variety and screening to transition ~`'~ ~'"ors: ~p~~v~~' ~~ 3cG ~~~~ between the Sonic property and the existing building to the west. e5~: I~iDTC The yellow .color should be eliminated from all signage and replaced with a white ~ -~ background. Home of Texas A&M University ~; MEMORANDUM DATE: Monday, January 25, 1999 ,~~ _ TO: North B. Bardell, P.E. Veronica J.B. Morgan,. P.E. FROM: W.F. Koehler ~ ~~~~ RE: Sonic Drive In; MDG Job 009-2944 ~~~,~ We have reviewed Soruc's estimated water requirements by several methods. We obtained a high peak of 18 gpm by applying a multiplier to the monthly billings of the Sonic Drive-In on Texas Avenue and. a low peak of 9.9' gpm by applying per-seat. formulae. that we use as a general case for restaurant occupancies. Fixture unit calculations fell within this range. The architect's plumbing plan called fora 1-1/4" building supply line. The owner tells us that their operating .practices impose a sharp peak at the end of the day when they use high delivery pressure cleaners. Based on our estimates, the owner's information and the City's table of meter sizexequirements that we use for estimates, we would recommend no less than a 1" meter for this service. ~. ,'y1R.A,t'~.. 1'~- ~,l1n.a~ tom)-'~a.~ '°~ c~ i.~.Q. ~ '"°~`~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ -~ ~ `~, I l1 APR 2 8 1Qaq .I qQ~~~~~, MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A College Station, Texas 77840 x'409-693-5359 3FAX.• 409-693-42433E-mail: mdgcs@gte.net Engineering, Surveying, Planning and Environmental Consultants ~_t, water meter.doc MDG -1 j4/'S/94 16:00 ~~v~ "04 34 ::~ ~"" 1JL' ' }~ ~„/' ' ~T: ' g VJ R ~iE, rRS . . 2 Table Z-2 Total Quanrides R egistered. Per Monu~ by M tern Operarin t Varying Perc entages of Maximum Ca{~aci ry Y '~ `tetcr size and Ty / pe ; i ~- ta e P `/~-in 3'+-in. 1 ia. 2-IR. l:i-in. Compound Displace- Displaccmeat 4-in. ~ Displace- g ercen of Safc . . Displace- Displace- Displace- mcnt oe or Class 3-in. 3-in. 3-in. Class I & II C tnent or Com- Maximum mentor nsent or mcnt or t hi j M Class I I & II Turbine Turbine lace- Disp went om- pound Turbine pound Capacity Multi-jet Muld-jet e u - d Maximum Capac; ~ ~ ;~ 50 _ I - .160` © ~.~320_ ;35a ••'SOQ• ~,(~ t.q !~. 5 r ' aids o Garr ; /~~~p~t J ~ ~ l0 86 ~ 16 s.2 691 1296 1 I510 20 173 259 432 364 2 2 2165 302 4320 , 30 259 389 648 1296 2074 3888 4147 4536 ~ 6480 ` 33 302 a32 734 1426 228 ~ 4320 4608 5168 7340 40 346 518 864 1728 2765 5184 5534. 6048 8640 50 432 648 1080 ([2160 3456 6480 69I2 ?660 10 080e 60 518 778 1296 2592 4147 7ir6 8294 9072 12960 70 605 907 1512 3x24 4838 9072 9677 10 584 I5 120 80 691 1037 1728 3456 5530 d0 368 ! 1059 12096 I7 280 90 778 1 I66 1944 3888 6221 I Y 664 12442 13608 19 4=A 100 864 1296 2160 4320 691 Z 12 960 13 824 15 100 21 600 Tito¢rartdt o~ Cu.Sic Feet II 10 12 I7 29 58 92 173. 184 202. ~ I 20 Z3 35 58 II5 I84 346 369. 404 576 30 35 52 86 I73 277 518 553 606 ~ 33 38 57 45 190 307 570 614 666 960 ~~ 40 4b 69 115 230 369 69t 737 809 1152 II 5~ 58 86 144 288 461 864 922 lOII 1440 ' ~ 4 60 69 I04 173 346. 553 1037 II06 1213 1728 e ~ 70 EI 121. 202 403 645 1210 1290 14li 2016. 4 Z / 80 92 138 330 461 737 1382 .1475 1617 2304 ~ 90 ~ 156 259 518 824 104 1555 1659 1820 2592 1~ 100 . 115 173 288 576 922 I728 1843 2022 2880 ~ •Nou: Displacement type meters manufactured in accordance with 0700-7t ( znd orlier 0700 editions} should not frcqurntly be ruo =t ', 0 more than 33 _ xrcrnt of maximum a city. Newer displacement meters and other. meter types should notfrequentl be run at more than 5 arc given onT?6r purposes of computing overloaiiiri~: , acit m ca ifei of ~ p nax:mu s c3pau[y. tgures above 33 or 50percent percent of magi mum Tne safe maximum opendng capacities apply only for short periods o oC meters y f ux of peak toads oeeuring at long intervals. Considering . variation in flow rates usually encountered, the mor.-hly totals should be somewh at less than chose of continuous operation at these Elowz. Post-lt" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 rot P,gs To ~~ `! From ~R'tAn co. co. / _ c~,R, Dn t pow, Ptwrw r~J' ~-7 _ ~jZ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~' ~ ,, ~. r M N .~ N Q C L N C N N (~ U •L Q U .~ O ~< m v Memorandum To: Veronica Morgan City of College Station From: Ray Corkran Sonic Date: May 6, 1999 Re: Sonic Peak Water Demands Per our current layout and design for Sonic we have the foliow~ag e.~::ipment in, the s*~re. Tyne Total Peak Flowrate Fountain Unit (2) 6 gpm Ice Cream Machines (1) 3 gpm Ice Maker Heads (2) 7 gpm Slush Machines (2) 4 gpm Steam Cleaner (1) 4 gpm Sinks (4) 12 gpm Toilets (2) 10 gpm Triple Sink (1) 4~pm 50 gpm Please use this information in lieu of that provided by MDG on the site plan. ~-