Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Review CommentsAGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for approximately 2.08 acres located on the northwest corner of Holleman at Harvey Mitchell. (00-31) Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report and pointed out that in December 1999, the applicant requested C-1 zoning on the subject property in combination with a request for duplex zoning on the property immediately to the north. The Commission recommended denial of the entire request with a recommendation to not allow a wavier to the 180-day waiting period. She explained that at the December meeting she was under the impression that the Commission did not feel that this site would be suitable for commercial development at that particular time. The City Council later denied the C-1 request. She said that Council seemed to favor some type of neighborhood oriented commercial development in this area that would serve the relatively large amount of apartments that currently surround this site. There are currently two vacant tracts that are zoned for neighborhood commercial uses in this area, one being a C-1 tract allowing a wide range of commercial uses (located at the corner of Wellborn and Holleman), the other is zoned PDD specifically for a neighborhood shopping center in the Melrose Subdivision (located at Luther and Jones Butler). She thought the Council felt this particular site should also be developed as neighborhood retail, but to assure the orderly development of such uses, the developer should return with a PDD request and therefore denied the C-1 portion of the request without prejudice. The applicant is now requesting the PDD request. She felt that the development policies would support commercial development as long as that commercial is limited to neighborhood uses, and as long as the site plan restricts access to Holleman only, allows no vehicular access between the commercial site and the residentially zoned areas, and buffers are provided between this site and the R-5 and R-2 zoned areas to the immediate north and west. The proposed development plan addresses all of staff s concerns; therefore Staff recommends approval of the request. Commissioner Floyd asked Ms. McCully to expand on the policy that designates commercial development at intersections of major roadways. Ms. McCully pointed out that Holleman is shown on the Thoroughfare Plan to continue south of Harvey Mitchell. She explained that when Staff is considering rezoning requests they consult the Thoroughfare Plan in addition to the Land Use Plan and development policies to determine whether the proposed zoning is compatible with stated goals. The reason commercial is placed at intersections of major roadways is to implement the step-down zoning approach, which helps avoid strip commercial. Commissioner Kaiser asked how many service stations were within a half-mile distance of this site to service the neighborhood. He said that he knew of a couple on Wellborn and one on Harvey Mitchell at Dowling Road. Ms. McCully said that there were none within this neighborhood, which she felt was the reason Council suggested the PDD. She said that the adopted development policies are used to determine whether or not Staff could recommend approval. She suggested that the development policies be reviewed if there is concern, but this would need to be done separate from any rezoning request. She believed that this request was in compliance with the existing development policies, although technically this request was not in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Acting Chairman Horlen opened the public hearing. Mr. Esrey Ash, Ash & Brown Engineering (3800 South Highway 6), was present to represent the applicant and to answer any questions regarding this request. P&Z Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 2 of 5 Commissioner Warren asked if uses, other than the gas station, had been considered. Mr. Ash responded that the applicant's desire is to have a convenience store with gas station, dry cleaners, and other uses oriented to neighborhoods. Mr. Ash said that the applicant felt this location was good for this use because it would serve the neighborhood. He felt that putting convenience stores at this type of location opposed to actually within the neighborhood would be more beneficial. The site is being oriented to avoid negative impacts (such as lighting) on surrounding neighborhoods. Commissioner Floyd asked for Mr. Ash to define neighborhood that this store would serve. Mr. Ash responded that since he had worked as the Director of Development Services for over twenty years, he said that he has had trouble with defining neighborhoods for years. For this request he determined that Harvey Mitchell Parkway and Wellborn Road and possibly Luther Street bound this neighborhood. He pointed out that the only access to this site would be on Holleman, which would make this development more accessible to primarily the neighborhood. Mr. Floyd asked why this development was being oriented towards the traffic on Harvey Mitchell and not to the neighborhood. Mr. Ash stressed that this was a major entrance into the neighborhood. Commissioner Kaiser asked for the number of planned gasoline pumps. Mr. Ash said that the plan was for six islands. Acting Chairman Horlen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to recommend approval of the rezoning request. Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion. Commissioner Kaiser said that he was opposed to the motion because this use is not consistent with the Land Use Plan, no demonstrated need for a gas station at this location, and because this change would pose a health, safety and welfare risk to the surrounding neighborhoods. He felt this represented an intrusion in aesthetics, and he felt aesthetics were legitimate concerns. He also felt this use would clutter a gateway into the City. Commissioner Floyd said that he asked if this use would need a conditional use permit to allow for development. Ms. McCully said that this use is included with the associated site plan and would not return to the Commission for consideration. The proposed development plan would be attached to the rezoning ordinance. She said that since this would be the only time the Commission would see the development/site plan, this was the opportunity to add conditions or restrictions (lighting, additional buffers, etc.). Commissioner Floyd said that was struggling with the number of gas stations needed in this community. He did not feel that all neighborhoods need gas stations and did not see the evidence to convince him otherwise. He said that he was more concerned with the site plan rather than the zoning. His understanding was that this was the direction Council want to go, and would like to concentrate more on the site plan at this point. Commissioner Warren said that she was not convinced that gas stations needed to be so close to neighborhoods. P&Z Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 3 of 5 Commissioner Parker said that he did not have difficulty with the proposed development plan and stressed that the development would have to be in accordance with this plan. Commissioner Mooney said that he liked the site plan. The site plan is proposing trees instead of shrubs. He said that this area is quickly becoming a very congested area and he said that he saw the need for this use, because there is not another convenience store until you get into Bryan. Acting Chairman Horlen called for the vote, and the motion to approve the PDD-B request with the associated site plan passed 4-2; Commissioners Warren and Kaiser voted in opposition to the motion. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.4: Consideration of a Final Plat for the Business Center at College Station, Lots 1 & 2, Block 5, consisting of 56.125 acres located adjacent to Lot 1, Block 6. (00-32) This item was removed from the consent agenda. Staff Planner Jimmerson approached the Commissioners and pointed out that there was an error on the Staff Report, the correct legal description is Lots 1 and 3, Block 4. She pointed out this item was removed from the consent agenda because of the discussion during the workshop because Staff wanted to change a staff condition adding a note to the plat. During the Workshop Meeting, Assistant City Attorney Nemcik said that this note could not be added to the plat but could be handled in a Development Agreement. Ms. Jimmerson told the Commissioners that Legal Staff was in agreement with approving the plat as submitted with no changes to Staff conditions at this time. Commissioner Mooney moved to approve the plat. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, which passed unopposed 6-0. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Update to the Commission of any new Minor or Amending Plats approved by Staff. Senior Planner McCully told the Commissioners that there was one minor plat approved at the Staff level, which was Grand Oaks Subdivision. This plat consisted of shifting a lot line. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion of future agenda items. The following items were discussed for future agenda items: ❖ Vision for Northgate. ❖ Definition of "neighborhoods". ❖ Land Use Plan along the Harvey Mitchell Parkway corridor. ❖ Development within the floodplain; long-term implications; 1-foot rise rule versus 0-foot rise. ❖ Wolf Pen Creek Subcommittee update. P&Z Minutes March 2, 2000 Page 4 of 5 02/28/00 16:25 '409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS 2002 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 4 Rock Prairie Crassing Shopping Center (1) Verify that the parking tabulations in the "Site and Building Data" legend match what's on the site plan. (Staff counted only 599 parking spaces shown. A total of 606 parking spaces are required.) (2) Remove the four parking spaces just south of the access easement and convert to a raised, landscaped island. Due to safety concerns related to traffic patterns and congestion in this area, parking in this location will conflict with traffic circulation- (3) The raised parking island on Pad D, closest to Pad E, does not meet the minimum 360 square feet requirement. (4) The backing area between Pad D and the main entrance drive should be a maximum of 5' in depth. (Staff is concerned that the proposed 12 /2' area would be used for parking.) (5) Dimension the 23' circulation aisle in the parking area between Pad D and Pad E. Reviewed by: Molly Hitchcock & Natalie Ruiz Date: 2/25/00 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 4 ROCK PRAIRIE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER 1. REFER TO ATTACHED PARKING TABULATIONS - " SITE AND BUILDING DATA." 2. DONE - REFER TO SITE PLAN "ASI". PER TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH NATALIE RUIZ ON MAR 2, 2000 t AFTER FURTHER REVIEW, THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ADDRESSED THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING ITEMS 3 t 4 AS FOLLOWS: 3. WILL NOT APPLY, IGNORE COMMENT. 4. CITY WILL ACCEPT STRIPING IN THIS AREA. 5. DIMENSION OF 23' IS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN. SITE AND BUILDING DATA KROGER RETAIL BLDG. "A" RETAIL BLDG. "B" FUTURE PAD "C' FUTURE PAD "D" FUTURE PAD "E" BUILDING TOTAL AREA SITE TOTAL AREA BUILDING / SITE RATIO PARKING REQUIRED (5.0 CARS PER 1000 S.F.) PARKING PROVIDED 63,373 S.F. 23,457 S.F. 11,400 S.F. 15,255 S.F. 3,600 S.F. 3,000 S.F. 120,085 S.F. 5462678 S.F. - 12.55 ACRES 21.97% 601 CARS 601 CARS HANDICAPPED PARKING REQUIRED 12 CARS (2% OF TOTAL SPACES) KROGER 63,373 S.F. RETAIL BLDG. "A" 23,457 S.F. RETAIL BLDG. "B" 11,400 S.F. BUILDING AREA 98,230 S.F. PARKING REQUIRED 491 CARS (5 CARS PER 1000 S.F.) FUTURE PAD *Co 15,255 S.F. FUTURE PAD "D" 3,600 S.F. FUTURE PAD "E" 3,000 S.F. BUILDING AREA 21,855 S.F. PARKING REQUIRED 110 CARS (5 CARS PER 1000 S.F.) PARKING REQUIRED 491 CARS FUTURE PARKING REQUIRED 110 CARS TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 601 CARS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 601 CARS .JP STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 3 Project: 99-104 KROGER CENTER SITE PLAN REVIEW 1. OK 2. OK 3. OK 4. Add a note to specify to "submit color specifications to the City of College Station for approval before pouring". 5. OK 6. OK 7. OK 8. Dimension the sidewalk width and the distance from the edge of pavement to the street curb. 9. Add a note "submit color spec. to the City of College Station for approval before installing", or "color to match building color". 10.OK 11.OK 12. OK 13. Make a note to "coordinate with Fire Department before installing FDC on the building to assure it is accessible". 14. OK 15. OK 16. OK 17. OK 18. OK 19. OK 20. There still appear to be conflicts for two of the transformer locations - on the landscape plan, it shows that there will be plantings where the transformers are shown on other sheets. Resolve these conflicts but also ensure that the transformers are screened from the ROW s. 21. OK 22. OK Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 23.O K 24. OK 25. OK Reviewed by: Sabine McCully Date: 8-16-99 Staff Review Comments Page 2 of 1 P S A m STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS g I'j I qC( No. 2 Project: 99-104 KROGER CENTER SITE PLAN REVIEW REVIEW WAS STOPPED BECAUSE WE CANNOT REVIEW THE LANDSCAPE PLANS OR VERIFY THEY ARE BEING COORDINATED WITH OTHER PLANS UNTIL WE RECEIVE THE ORIGINAL REDLINED LANDSCAPE SHEETS. THE FOLLOWING REDLINES FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL LIST OF REQUIRED REVISIONS: /'f . OK k OK ✓3. Future pad sites must have curbing around the edge of the sites where the pavement is to stop temporarily unless they are to be built with the first phase. The curbs in these areas may be "temporary knock-off curbs". ~a Show theepn orb tahe plC3nd specify the curbing type. Shown on plan Aft A J O~ Where is this spec? Somewhere it needs to specify what colors these will r' b95~+c. Moo nua 1 4ol o r ~-o bs s~q I e J44 ar (*t kr sta k i bu t' j ~w~ it nod btgr ~ etc. 5pcc. 5e~, o~ eneto~cd: o25ro 5}*,,,,~ lo~%,. C ~annot confirm that is redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. Or'o Inal l.Ar'4 4cfoe 5heefe Ao". r~ Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original ~ ,5 h~~~ C pGl oSed . redlined Igndscape sheet4toe na ll (4 nd0eA f~V OK 8 Show the sidewalk that constr c et>'~ d !on mirth a note that 9 it Y00 will be constructed with the street extension. Re : AS I - n o 4t q. 606 w irk; 40r.* v'- • Add information to this detail re: height, material, & colors of the dumpster enclosures. The screening must be a minimum of 8' and must either match the buildings or be screened with vegetation. Add a note that future pad sites will be required to provide their own dumpster location per City of pe.Aw C Ilege St ti n standards. Re : V 1 ATA5 4 4plor 1 omalwH f►koff tV i bu~ +0 Lve selc t*.iW. Inc.: Myra 2.s Por Vun+p ;-ei- annot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. QrV iru*1 &1W4*c4Vw She of enGloXe~• OK Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. tPrV iin-ol L4^4040-?c She4 eAalai;r4. We need to review the FDC locations for Retail Building A and the Kroger building before we can approve the final site plan. Also, make a note that Pad Site C cannot build to the full 15,255 square feet unless the required FDC can be provided per City of College Station re uirements. t7G Lotafto4 y ghown or p/an C # 1 No1ti .C~r p-Aa Srkc G , eU4-w 4o Me4c ##2L 1 SI! 11WW Staff Review Comments Pagel of 2 06116199 • *to c t46S; ot t o,0 S ACV f 04 OK K How will the blind corner with 2-way traffic be addressed? With signage . ,rWill there be a "no build" corner? 5tm nacre, - Re n4c 14 t 2-7 4'l OK On Sheet "I ~ Pr1w be One-w*y g"or'viee el r%ve. Make the straight arrow a right turn arrow (you cannot go straight out of re) and add a white line to delineate the left from the right turn lane. C,bne" Provide a "do not enter" sign that is oriented to Longmire. Vbnc Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. Qn191nal LA"OeAre shoo ' erw4osoj 4;6 ~b p a Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. br jq i ^at LAA-A Sc4cfie 5h*-e-f erw-10Se4. r22. Verify all fire hydrant locations per the Longmire extension plans. We cannot verify coverage until you provide the actual hydrant locations. (44-r OK I owls 0) Gs. V,0.0 0 OK W, THIS LAST ITEM IS A NEW COMMENT AND IS THEREFORE NOT A REDLINE BUT A SUGGESTION. THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR TRAFFIC MANEUVERABILITY. PERHAPS YOU WOULD CONSIDER WIDENING THE DRIVE AISLE AND REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE ISLAND (AS SHOWN OR OTHERWISE) TO IMPROVE THE CIRCULATION. d:) j< . Reviewed by: Sabine McCully Staff Review Comments Page 2 of 2 06116/99 Rock Prairie Crossing Shopping Center Rock Prairie @ Hwy. 6 College Station, TX Project No. 98167 CONCRETE PAVING - SECTION 02510 Page 8 of 9 resistant surface. B. For Parking Areas: 1. Coarse broom finish after steel troweling. C. For Ramps & Other Sloped Surfaces: 1. As indicated on drawings. 2. If finish is not indicated on drawings, slightly brush the sloped surfaces to provide a slip-resistant surface. 3. Brush perpendicular to walking direction. D. Finish the edges of concrete work with edging tool. E. Eliminate tool marks on concrete surface. 3.08 STAMPED CONCRETE A. Preparation 1. Forming: Carefully layout form work and joints taking into consideration pattern, intended aesthetics and construction sequence. B. Installation 1. Forming: Securely install forms and screeds. Assemble to permit easy stripping and dismantling without damaging concrete. 2. Concrete mix shall be placed and screeded to the proper grade and wood floated to a uniform surface in the standard manner. 3. Float concrete from two directions with wood floats to create an open and uniform surface. Do not use metal floats. 4. Trowel surface with a steel or aluminum trowel; leave no trowel marks. 5. Release Agent: Apply even thin coat. 6. Imprint Pattern: While concrete is still in the plastic stage of set, the patented forming tools shall be applied to make the desired patterned surface. Comply with tool manufacturer's instruction. Layout to proper alignment and imprint to a consistent depth while concrete is plastic. Hand-tool in areas where imprinting tools are not practical. 7. Control Joints: Control joints to be cut or construction joints. Depth of saw cuts to be 1/4 thickness of paving. Coordinate joint location with layout of imprinted pattern. 8. Protect concrete from premature drying, excessive hot or cold temperatures, and damage. 9. Detailing: Chip concrete "squeeze" left from tool placement. Rock Prairie Crossing Shopping Center Page 9 of 9 Rock Prairie @ Hwy. 6 College Station, TX Project No. 98167 CONCRETE PAVING - SECTION 02510 10. Clean up: Sweep, vacuum or pressure wash surface. For an even, variegated appearance, buff surface. Allow to dry. 11. Sealer: Apply sealer. C. Tolerances Because of the hand-crafted nature of imprinted concrete, minor variations in color, texture and pattern are acceptable. END OF SECTION 06/28/99 11:45 FAX 713 781 5347 OSBORN & VANE. STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 2 Project: 99-104 KROGER CENTER SITE PLAN REVIEW REVIEW WAS STOPPED BECAUSE WECANNOTREVIEW THELANDSCAPE PLANS OR VERIFY THEY ARE BEING COORDINATED WITH OTHER PLANS UNTIL WE RECEIVE THE ORIGINAL REDLINED LANDSCAPE SHEETS. THE FOLLOWING REDLINES FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL LIST OF REQUIRED REVISIONS: 0002/004 1. OK 2. OK 3. Future pad sites must have curbing around the edge of the sites where the pavement is to stop temporarily unless they are to be built with the first phase. The curbs in these areas may be "temporary knock-off curbs". Show them on the plan and specify the curbing type. 0 OsAcc . Mto AVaI Where is this spec. Som where it needs to specify what colors these will X. 401 oR.s wrII b~ vfe~cr~,~n0.4 ^t'.. l.A , , daft. V 1- 4-04- 5. Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. 6. Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. 7. OK 8. Show the sidewalk that is to be constructed on Longmire with a note that it will be constructed with the street extension. 9. Add information to this detail re: height, material, & colors of the dumpster enclosures. The screening must be a minimum of S' and must either match the buildings or be screened with vegetation. Add a note that future pad sites will be required to provide their own dumpster location per City of College Station standards. Sf ~1 dyd ogv ~01 5 /all 10. Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. 11. OK 12. Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. ~-.-a We need to review the FDC locations for Retail Building A and thlKroc er building before we can approve the final site plan.. Also, make a note that Pad Site C cannot build to the full 15,255 square feet unless the required FDC can be provided per City of College Station requirements. P~ ^f yew( Kr0 fV-& t 5 nor rWrf OP TO-95 40A+YXcf - wi (1 loe boo l r/ at A Cam Aafc. ~6w wjt1 rk t5 ArpVc T T" ArPPrbvaj gqs Statf Review Comments '51-1c, plan . Page 1 of 2 06H 6l99 06/28/99 11:45 FAX 713 781 5347 OSBORN & VANE. Z003/004 14. OK 15. OK UJ r SAPsl9n. .r._.~ C6 ) How will the blind corner with 2-way traffic be addressed? With signage? FqQj Will there be a "no build" mcQ,. er?_ NO 17. OK 18. Make the straight, arrow a right turn arrow (you cannot go straight out. of here) and add a white line to delineate the left from the right turn lane. 19. Provide a "do not enter" sign that is oriented to Longmire.; 20. Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. 21. Cannot confirm that this redline is addressed until we receive the original redlined landscape sheets. 22. Verify all fire hydrant locations per the Longmire extension plans. We cannot verify coverage until you provide the actual hydrant locations. 23. OK 24. OK 25. THIS LAST ITEM IS A NEW COMMENT AND 1S THEREFORE NOT A REDLINE BUT A SUGGESTION. THIS AREA IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR TRAFFIC MANEUVERABILITY. PERHAPS YOU WOULD CONSIDER WIDENING THE DRIVE AISLE AND REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE ISLAND (AS SHOWN OR OTHERWISE) TO IMPROVE THE CIRCULATION. Reviewed by: Sabine McCully Staff Review Comments Page 2 of 2 owl ew 06/28/99 11:45 FAY 713 781 5347 OSBORN & VANE. cip N A~ Ia004/004 A ; u i i O~ - T----. N I ~rII I~ - A r ;Ll ~t~• tr, ry nN; ~V OOo3' © L D 47`~ ~1 ~ STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 4 Rock Prairie Crossing Shopping Center (1) Verify that the parking tabulations in the "Site and Building Data" legend match what's on the site plan. (Staff counted only 599 parking spaces shown. A total of 606 parking spaces are required.) (2) Remove the four parking spaces just south of the access easement and convert to a raised, landscaped island. Due to safety concerns related to traffic patterns and congestion in this area, parking in this location will conflict with traffic circulation. (3) The raised parking island on Pad D, closest to Pad E, does not meet the minimum 360 square feet requirement. (4) The backing area between Pad D and the main entrance drive should be a maximum of 5' in depth. (Staff is concerned that the proposed 12 Y2' area would be used for parking.) (5) Dimension the 23' circulation aisle in the parking area between Pad D and Pad E. Reviewed by: Molly Hitchcock & Natalie Ruiz Date: 2/25/00