HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReviewCOLLEGE STATION
P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842
Tel: 409 764 3500
WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
July 10, 2000
TO: Blake Brown, 1514 Ranch R., 620 South, Austin, Texas, 78734
FROM: Design Review Board
Kay Henryson, DRB Chair
Bill Trainor, DRB Member
George McLean, DRB Member
Judy Holt, DRB Member
John Happ, P&Z Commissioner
~ Others Attending: _ --
Natalie Ruiz, Development Coord' a
Shauna Anderson, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: Rudy's Barbecue ~ A proposed change to the existing building signage alon
arve oad frontage, 504 Harvey Road, Lot 1, Wolf Pen Creek. (Case fi 99-
419)
A Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board meeting was held on Wednesday, June 28, 2000, to
review the above-mentioned project. The applicant proposed a white aluminum circle
approximately 6 %' in total width to be placed behind the existing Rudy's sign that is attached to
the building along Harvey Road. The lighting for the sign will not change.
Development Coordinator Ruiz informed the Board that the proposed sign was originally
approved as part of the site plan package. The white metal backing was not installed initially
with the building. However, the previous minutes and renderings did not specify a size
limitation. Staff felt that the sign should come back to the Board to determine the overall size.
Chairman Henry expressed concern about the appearance of the sign and that the white circular
piece was more fitting for a gas station and not a restaurant. After some discussion, DRB
Member Trainor moved to approve the sign as presented. P&Z Commissioner Happ seconded
the motion which passed (4 - 1); Chairman Henry voted against the motion.
Home of Texas A&M University
~~
~f~~
~Iq
~~~
X
X
~/ ~~
" I ~;,~cXI~Q
~~ V
~~.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
No. 1
Project: Rudy's Bar-B-Q
1. Show ownership and zoning of adjacent parcels on the plan.
2. Show distances between opposite and adjacent driveways.
3. Provide 360 sq. ft. of interior islands in the parking rows #2133, 7~0, I~6,a~
and/or 90-93. ~
4. Show where the existing "benched" area is on OfficeMax with other facilities
including vegetation located in the southeast corner of the OfficeMax site.
5. Show Sonic's improvements and vegetation in this corner.
6. We need to know what these "catch basins" are and where they discharge. They
should be consolidated and there should be only one discharge point. The
discharge point must be all the way at the creek flow line.
7. The sidewalk must be 6' wide (if it is against back-of-curb) and line up with
Sonic's. It can be 4' wide if it is moved at least 6' behind the curb.
S. The pathway along the rear of the property appears to enter private property,
will there be an easement dedication here?
9.
10.
11.
~t-~r.~""'~ 12.
13.
Y~ 14.
X~"~16.
We need some technical information regarding the staining. It needs to be an
easily-maintained ~a and we need to know the color. We need specs on the
grass Crete as well(? }
Note #3 should be modified/clarified to assure that all end islands will be
landscaped.
Need specs on the benches for the Design Review Board.
Show existing and proposed water lines, sewer lines, and electric lines.
Need to submit plans of topo/drainage.
Dimension the compact car spaces.
Make a note that the property owner is responsible for opening the dumpster
gates at the appropriate time. Also, widen the gate opening to 12 feet. /
Concrete details: change #3 rebar to #4. Fire lane pavement must be 6".
~! 17. You'll need a TxDOT Driveway Permit (see attachment).
x I8. Provide water and sewer demands.
t/ 19. Designate the front drive aisle as a fire lane and mark it on the plan. The rest of
the fire lane will be determined based on the FDC location.
X ~, ~ 20. Where is this? Are there any existing trees your are retaining?
21. Make a note that these trees will be planted at least 20' apart.
22. Add street tree count requirement for streetscape area.
23. We'll need some shrubs in this area to screen utility connects.
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 2
'~ 24. Need to either set a fire hydrant or move the FDC to get the hydrant between
150' and 300'. The FDC needs to be on a designated fire lane. If the grass crate
area is part of the fire lane, it need to be approved by the Fire Department.
25. Show the median in the Sonic driveway.
/ 26. Either remove the wheelstops or provide 20' parking spaces.
27. The electrical and park access easements don't match the plat; change to match
the plat. Also, how are you providing access to the park?
Reviewed by: Sabine McCully, Senior Planner
Staff Review Comments Page 2 of 2
developed out there has never been platted, but developed by metes and bounds back in the early
1960's.
Chairman Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Parker moved for approval, and Commissioner Horlen seconded.
The vote passed 7-0
Agenda Item No. 9: Discussion and possible action on a conceptual site plan for .504 Harvey
Road, Rudy's BarBQue.
Senior Planner McCully presented the staff report. This is the fourth restaurant to locate in the Wolfe
Pen Creek Corridor along Harvey Road. Unlike the other three restaurants, which were vacant, Rudy's
plans to develop analready-existing site. The Design Review Board (DRB)has met several times
regarding the Rudy's plans and has given strong opinions that the building should be oriented to the
creek. The Planning and Zoning Commission will be the approving body for the final site plan, although
that is not what is currently before the Commission. There are three site plans, Options A, B, and C
respectively, before the Commission so that the developer can get some clear direction on which
concept to prepare the final site plans for. The final site plans will then go before the DRB for
recommendation, and then before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 17, 1999.
Concept A shows a circulation drive around the building. It shows the area between the creek and the
building as a landscaped area with a driveway of grasscrete, which is perforated concrete that allows
grass to grow through it. The hatched lines show astamp-dyed concrete area, and the rest of the area
will be concrete. This concept would require a variance of 17 parking spaces, which would go to the
Zoning Board of Adjustments, and the ZBA is scheduled to hear that request on June 1.5, 1999. This
property will be going to the ZBA with a recommendation from the DRB.
Concept B shows a straight driveway with no turn-around for drivers. Between the creek and the
building would be a landscaped area with a patch of stamp-dyed concrete. There were concerns that
creating two dead-end parking rows could cause problems with multiple backing maneuvers, especially
during peak times. This concept would require a parking variance of 13 spaces.
Concept C was the least favored by the DRB. It shows a standard circulation aisle between the building
and the creek with parking on one side, which is a change from the original plan, which showed it
double-loaded. In order to soften the view from the back patio, where there will be an eating area, the
applicant would review an area of parking and replace it with landscaping, which would require a
variance of three parking spaces.
All of the parking variances would be considered by the ZBA and the applicant would like to get some
feedback as to which of the three options the Commission prefers. Planner McCully pointed out that
the three new buildings did orient to the creek, and this would be a retrofit situation that the applicant is
trying to work with.
Commissioner Floyd asked if there were parking variances at the new buildings. Senior Planner stated
that they were not.
Commissioner Mooney asked how the driveways at the other restaurants were designed.
P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 13 of I S
Commissioner Kaiser answered that Sonic has a circular drive, and Kona's and Carino's were designed
to take advantage of the amenities of the Creek. The main concern was whether or not to put pazking
lots along one of our most scenic amenities, and we moved away from the circulaz approach. There
was also a safety concern regarding the circular lot design.
Commissioner Mooney noted that there were some flaws in design "C". One was along the back line,
the pazking spaces were compact. Another was that it was almost a straight shot towazd the back of the
lot. The main problem with design "B" was where to go if you get to the end of the drive and cars aze
behind you, as there was no place to turn around. Plan "A" was the most amenable to the Commission.
Commissioner Kaiser stated that there is a potential problem when the lot is filled and people have to
back out. Plan "A" attempts to remediate that, but the park-like setting is lost. City staff has indicated
that none of the plans pose problems with fire trucks servicing the area.
Commissioner Warren asked where staff anticipated overflow parking going, and Planner McCully
stated that the applicant has extra spaces on the Carino's site for employee pazking.
Chairman Rife asked if protection of the natural trees existed and Planner McCully stated that she
believed so. She stated that that could be a condition when the Development Permit was issued.
Chairman Rife opened the public hearing.
Jim Basset, 303 West Dexter, has been a College Station resident for 36 years. One of his sons is an
officer of the Rudy's corporation and will be the oversight manager of the local operation. It was stated
that one of the applicants would have been present had they known what was going on.
Bill Davis, 1219 Boswell Street, suggested putting a "Y"-type configuration at the end of the lot with
no pazking so drivers could maneuver aturn-around. Commissioner Kaiser stated that if that were
done, there would be a parking variance of 17 spaces.
Commissioner Rife closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kaiser moved to adopt plan "B" with the recommendation that the applicant consider the
"L"-shaped configuration. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion, with the condition that the
existing trees be protected, and for ZBA to approve the variance.
Commissioner Warren stated that she preferred plan "A as it was more aesthetically pleasing.
Commissioner Floyd agreed with plan "A", as did Chairman Rife.
Chairman Rife called for the vote of the approval of proposal "B". Motion fails 4-3.
Commissioner Mooney moved to accept proposal "A" and Commissioner Floyd seconded. Motion
carries 4-3.
Agenda Item No. 10:
Committee.
Appoint an alternate member to the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight
P&Z Minutes June 3, 1999 Page 14 of lS
COLLEGE STATION
P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842
Tel: 409 764 3500
WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
June i 6, 1999
TO: Blake Brown, 1514 Ranch R., 620 South, Austin, Texas, 78734
FROM: Design Review Board
Kay Henryson, DRB Chair
Bill Trainor, DRB Member
George McLean, DRB Member
Karl Mooney, P&Z Commissioner
Richard Floyd, P&Z Commissioner
Steve Parker, P&Z Commissioner
Others Attending:
Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator
Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinato
Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer
Sabine McCully, Senior Planner
Charles Wood, Senior Economic Development Analyst
Jessica Jimmerson; Staff Planner
Paul Clarke
SUBJECT: Rudy's Barbecue ~ A revised site plan for a restaurant located at 504 Harvey
Road, Lot I, Wolf Pen Creek. (Case file 99-419)
A Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board meeting was held on Wednesday, June I6, I999, to
review the above-mentioned project. Sabine McCully began the meeting by reviewing the
action taken at the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) meeting the previous night. She stated
that they tabled their decision on the parking variance due to the applicant not wanting the
variance. Blake Brown stated that they have decided they want as much parking as possible
on the site and would like the DRB and Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) to reconsider
the site plan. Mr. Brown stated that originally workers from Rudy's were going to park at
Kona's to help with the reduced parking. But, Kona's has had record sales and does not desire
to have their parking taken up by Rudy's employees. __
Jane Kee informed Mr. Brown that new restaurants typically go through a I ~/z-year
honeymoon" period where parking is a problem, -and then when the newness wears off,
parking is adequate. Sabine McCully stated that Mr. Bown should be planning for long-term
parking and not short-term parking.
Veronica Morgan stated that she attended the Wolf Pen Creek Oversight Committee meeting
the previous week, where they looked at several different concepts for the design of the creek.
One of the concepts being considered is relocating the creek to the south, downstream of the
planned George Bush Drive Bridge, filling in the natural creek and making it a natural trail
Home of Texas A&M University
system. She reiterated that it was a concept only, and that the committee gave their approval
to look at the feasibility of doing that. No decision was made at the meeting on which concept
would be approved.
Paul Clarke stated that he saw plans that showed that the new creek bed would be constructed
about 100-200 yards south of the natural creek and that it would have trails constructed on
each side of it. Veronica Morgan stated that she has not seen any plans that depict that, and
stated that the committee is still supporting the trail system to be located adjacent to the
restaurants along the creek.
After some discussion regarding the parking, Mr. Brown stated that they would like 104
parking spaces, and no less than 95.
Ms. Morgan suggested adding parking on the east side of the rear property Iine, because of the
existing retaining wall and the tight space in that immediate area.
Commissioner Mooney motioned to approve the revised site plan with 96 parking spaces:
including adding three along the creek on the southwest property line (cast of the retaining
wall), adding four along the rear of the building (west of the patio area), changing the island
along the west property line to a parking space, adding one parking space to the southeast
corner parking row and moving the tree to the extreme southeast corner property line,
removing the tree on the north property line on the east side of the west entrance; construct
seating along the back property line behind the three parking spaces extending over beyond
the turn around drive with scored stained concrete walkway; and, to continue the grass Crete
from the sidewalk to the end of the turn around.
Natalie Ruiz informed Mr. Brown that by Friday, June 18, 10:00 a.m., he would need to turn
in a letter explaining what happened at the previous ZBA meeting and why they are asking
for a change; along with the $75 application fee, so that he can be scheduled for the July 20
meeting. She also stated that he needs to turn in the revised site and landscaping plans by
Friday, June 18, at 10:00 a.m. to be scheduled for another DRB meeting.
WPC Do~gn Review Board ZS-Mar-98 Page 2 0( 2
WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
May 25, 1999
TO; Blake Brown, 1514 Ranch R, 620 South, Austin, Texas, 78734
W. Michael Steffey, 2180 North Loop West #350, Houston, Texas, 78734
Mark Ferguson, 3709 South College Avenue, Bryan, Texas, 77801
FROM: Design Review Board
Kay Henryson, DRB Chair
Phillip Kelby, DRB Member
Chara Ragland, DRB Member
Bill Trainor, DRB Member
George McLean, DRB Member
Wayne Rife, P&Z Chairman
Karl Mooney, P&Z Commissioner
Ron Kaiser, P&Z Commissioner
Others Attending:
Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator
Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinator
Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer
Sabine McCully, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Rudy's Barbecue ~ A site and landscaping plan for a restaurant located at 504
Harvey Road, Lot 1, Wolf Pen Creek. (Case file 99-419)
A Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board meeting was held on Wednesday, May 19, 1999, to
review the above-mentioned project. The applicants were provided with a list of staff review
comments and discretionary items that were reviewed during the meeting. Mr. Steffey
informed the members that they would be tearing down the existing building and leaving 3/a
of the building slab. All of the parking lot surface will remain and they will be adding
additional concrete.
After some discussion regarding parking issues and the throat depth of the west access, DRB
Member Trainor motioned to lose parking spaces No. 49 and 50 on the site plan, and adjust
the ends to allow compact spaces. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rife and passed
6-0.
Commissioner Kaiser suggested moving the building further towards the creek and moving
the parking towards the front of the building. He stated that he would like to have the patio
areas overlooking the creek and not the parking lot. Mr. Steffey stated that would be difficult
to do because of the parking requirements and needed turnarounds. Commissioner Kaiser
stated that he would support a request to ZBA for fewer parking spaces if moving the building
to the creek would cause that. DRB Chair Henryson offered an alternative, suggesting moving
the building back slightly and moving the rear parking adjacent to the building, to the front of
the building.
DRB Member Ragland arrived.
Commissioner Rife motioned to eliminate the parking spaces that the patio overlooks and
landscape that area, or, explore moving the building back to the creek, The motion was
seconded by DRB Member Kelby and passed 7-0.
The DRB voiced their concern about the protection and barricading of trees prior to any
construction. Mr. Steffey was informed that "protected" trees must be protected in the field
and that must be shown on the site/landscape plan.
DRB Chair Henryson motioned to relocate the tree, in the island at the entrance adjacent to
parking space no. 103, to the No. 49 and 50 parking spaces to provide additional screening at
that location. The motion was seconded by DRB Member Ragland and passed 7-0.
DRB Chair Henryson suggested increasing the island at the No. 1 parking space and removing
or decreasing the island at No. 7.
DRB Member Ragland stated that she would like to see more variety of plants in the rear of the
site, like that at the front of the site.
DRB Member Kelby left the meeting.
Mr. Steffey stated that the building would have a metal roof, natural stones, wood-stained
clear cedar, and a wood picket fence, stained and sealed. The wood surrounding the fireplace
on the left elevation will be a dark brownish-red. He also stated that all AC/fans would be
screened by parapet. He also stated that they would be proposing a freestanding sign at a later
time.
Commissioner Rife left the meeting.
After some discussion about the colors red and yellow, DRB Member Ragland motioned that
they use the darker red color for the building, dark brown for the upper windows, a white or
cream background on the round sign, and a white or cream background on the take out sign.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kaiser and passed 6-0
Commissioner Mooney motioned for the freestanding sign to have dark red or maroon letters
on a white or cream background, with the pole being black, cream, green, or brown; and for
the freestanding sign's arrow be white or cream instead of yellow. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Kaiser and passed 6-0. A marquee will be allowed as long as it meets the
district's ordinance requirements.
After further discussion, the DRB and applicants agreed to meet the following Wednesday,
May 26, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. to review revised site plans that Mr. Steffey stated would be
turned in by Friday, May 21. The revised plans would include conceptual layouts; one that
would include moving the building closer to the creek, and another one that would remove
the parking spaces adjacent to the patio area.
wec a,~„ R~;~..• ~,.d zs-ewe-ss Page 2 of 2
WOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
May 26, 1999
TO: Blake Brown, 1514 Ranch R., 620 South, Austin, Texas, 78734
W. Michael Steffey, 2180 North Loop West #350, Houston, Texas, 78734
FROM: Design Review Board
Kay Henryson, DRB Chair
Chara Ragland, DRB Member
Bill Trainor, DRB Member
George McLean, DRB Member
Karl Mooney, P&Z Commissioner
Ron Kaiser, P&Z Commissioner
Others Attending:
Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinator
Veronica Morgan, Assistant City Engineer
Sabine McCully, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Rudy's Barbecue ~- A revised site plan for a restaurant located at 504 Harvey
Road, Lot 1, Wolf Pen Creek. (Case file 99-419)
A Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board meeting was held on Wednesday, May 26, 1999, to
review the above-mentioned project. Some discussion took place regarding the floodway and
floodplain area. Commissioner Mooney asked about terracing requirements for the site.
Veronica Morgan stated that there shouldn't be any necessary because there is already an
existing retaining wall that was constructed previously.
The DRB members concurred that the revised site plan scenario #2 was better than the
original plan except that the patio area extends over a utility easement. Commissioner Kaiser
suggested moving the building towards Harvey enough to move it off of the easement. Mr.
Steffey voiced concern about having to move the traffic aisle if the building was moved due to
access traffic with the adjacent property. The members suggested that the parking aisle be
slightly altered from the access point to prevent any possible hazards.
DRB Member Henryson suggested moving the seven parking spaces located at the front of the
building to each side of the building. This would provide six spaces rather than seven, but the
aisle serving them could be eliminated and the building could move forward of the electric
easement and allow room for additional landscaping at the front and rear of the building.
Mr. Steffey voiced his concern about having dead-end parking. Commissioner Mooney also
voiced his concern about not having a loop around the back of the building.
DRB Member Henryson motioned for Mr. Steffey to provide two site plans: one moving the
building off of the easement and moving the front parking spaces to each side of the building;
and, another one with the same site plan but including a traffic loop around the back of the
building. The Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) can determine which plan is best.
Commissioner Mooney seconded the motion which passed 6-0.
Mr. Steffey stated that the paving material for the traffic loop behind the building could be
concrete with grass in between that wouldn't look like a driveway, or, a patterned concrete or
other material which would handle traffic without the visual impact of concrete. It was noted
that it was important to designate the pedestrian path from the walkway system across this
drive so that traffic would recognize the pedestrian crossing and slow down.
DRB Member Ragland suggested angling all of the parking to help direct traffic flow. Mr.
Steffey stated that this would be confusing to patrons and not work with all of the parking on
site.
Commissioner Mooney motioned to recommend to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA)
their support for the parking variance for a reduced number of spaces. It was suggested that
restaurant staff could park at the owner's other property on Harvey Road. The motion was
seconded by Bill Trainor and passed 6-0.
Commissioner Kaiser motioned to move three of the five handicap parking spaces to the east
side of the building near the entrance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mooney
and passed 6-0.
Some discussion took place regarding the building colors. The DRB approved the dark red
sample per the rendering, in addition to the colors approved at the previous meeting. They
also agreed that a light yellow as the sign background and the canopy "pick-up" sign would
be acceptable, but postponed making a formal motion and approval until such time that a
sample is provided.
Mr. Steffey stated that he would provide staff with revised conceptual site plans the following
day for the P&Z meeting scheduled for June 3. The parking variance will be presented to the
ZBA on June 15. The final site and landscape plan will then go to the P&Z for approval on
June 17.
WPC Design Review Board 29-Mar-99 Pgge 2 of 2
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Rudy's Barbecue
Case #99-419
May 18, 1999
DRB Discretionary Items:
Lighting standards;
Pavement treatment along the rear of the building and the creek;
Preservation of existing trees (no existing trees are shown on the
landscape plan);
Dumpster location on a 12' x 12' pad and appropriate screening (this area
could serve as access to the park for maintenance vehicles);
Pedestrian access to the park as well as pedestrian access between the
commercial sites;
Rear elevation of building (creek side);
Utility connections to the building, including air conditioner;
Sign ~ freestanding (not submitted at this time but can be submitted later and
reviewed/approved by the Board); and
Creek orientation..
Technical Review/Staff Concerns:
Provide a more specific vicinity map (1);
Label and dimension property lines;
Provide details of the materials and colors of these areas and use description of
circular area (3);
This island needs to be a minimum of 180 sq. ft. unless you are going to tie it
into a bigger landscaped area. Is this pavement going to be enhanced? If so,
the sq. ft. of the island will be okay but we will need design specifications (4);
This island needs to be 360 sq. ft. (5);
Dimension the distance from the parking spaces to the property line (6);
Locate the 24' landscape reserve and calculate the amount of pavement
encroachment to verify that each segment does not exceed 1,134 sq. ft. (it
appears to be okay, but hard to verify because of the lack of dimensions) (7);
Need title block information on plans: legal description and property address;
Provide ownership and zoning of all adjacent parcels;
Still need existing/proposed utility line information and meter locations;
Need topography and drainage information as referenced on checklist;
Label all setbacks;
Provide typical parking space dimensions, driveway dimensions and circulation
aisle dimensions (13);
Need one more handicap parking space;
Is there an existing sidewalk along Harvey? If so, show it. If not, you'll need to
construct one and show it on the plans;
°fechnical Review/Staff Concerns (cont.)
Show the Fire Department Connection (FDC) on the building;
Show fire lanes (we are concerned that there is not enough room for the radii
required);
What is this dimension (19)? If it is closer than 2' to property line provide
wheels stops;
Provide pavement and curbing details;
Provide water and sewer legend with appropriates demands;
Show how the vertical retaining wall relates to the parking; and
Show the 100-year floodplain and floodway line per the 1998 NDM study.
FILE N®'TE
Rudy's Barbecue & Country Store
Case #98-443
DRB Members Present: Kay Henryson, Chara Ragland, George McLean, James Massey, Jane Kee
and Veronica Morgan.
Staff Present:. I~latalie Ruiz and Shirley Volk.
Applicant: Blake Brown, Rudy's Barbecue & Country Store and Paul Clarke, Clarke & Wyndham.
On Wednesday, October 14, 1998 the Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board met to discuss the use
only of the property located along the south side of Harvey Road, just east of the Office Max
development (formerly known as Sneakers and the Christmas Store). Blake Brown with Rudy's BBQ
informed the Board that they are interested in purchasing the site for a restaurant and country store with
gas pumps. The gas pumps will probably be placed adjacent to the Office Max building so they will be
less obtrusive from Harvey Road. They have chosen to use non-branded gasoline so that there are no
signage or trademark requirements for the awning over the pumps.
The Board expressed concern with the use of gas pumps in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. The
country store (or convenience store) seems to be an accessory use to the restaurant and is much smaller
in comparison to the restaurant. Chairman Henryson moved to recommend that a conditional use
perrrut not be issued for the use of gas pumps in the Wolf Pen Creek zoning district. Ms. Ragland
seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0).
The Board stated that the restaurant and small country store does fit within the uses listed in the WPC
zoning district and will be a nice addition to the area. City Planner Kee moved to recommend approval
of the use of Rudy's Barbecue and Country Store (the restaurant and small convenience store) without
the use of gas pumps. Chairman Henryson seconded the motion which passed unopposed (6 - 0).
The following is a list of concerns expressed by the Board with respect to the conceptual site plan:
-- The lack of throat depth for the proposed driveway on Harvey Road,
-- The DRB suggested that the row of parking along the creek be removed.
-- Antique pumps could be considered instead of active pumps.
-- The red pole on the freestanding sign should be changed. Colors suggested were black, green,
cream, etc.
Rudy 's BBQ
DRB 10/14/98
Case # 98-443
Page 2 of 2
DRB Concerns/Comments (cont.):
-- The bright red color of the building may not be allowed. The DRB would consider a maroon color.
(Recently the DRB denied the use of a bright red and yellow colors on the adjacent Sonic
development.)
-- The "Take Away" sign that is placed perpendicular to the building may not be allowed under the
City's sign ordinance.
-- The screening of the service/dumpster area is an area of concern. The applicant should incorporate
materials and colors of the building instead of a solid cedar fence.
-- The landscaping should be more natural with fewer straight lines. The goal is to blend with the
future park setting along the rear of the property.
-- Provide more plantings up towards the building to provide a smoother transition. (The photographs
provided show little to no landscaping between the parking lot and building.)
-- Address pedestrian access to the site and potential conflicts with vehicular traffic.
This item is scheduled for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday, October
15, 1998.
Natalie Thomas Ruiz
Assistant Development Coordinator
October 22, 1998
~~~ ~u~
street to connect with Faulkner Drive in the Foxfire Subdivision (which complies with the City's
Thoroughfare Plan). Staff recommended approval with the addition of a 10 foot public utility easement
along the backs of Lots 8-12, Block 34 and Lots 1-8, Block 33.
ConuTlissioner Parker moved to approve the Final Plat with staff recommendations. Commissioner
Mooney seconded the motion which passed unopposed. (5-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Consideration of a proposed use on the site formerly known as
Sneakers in the Wolf Pen Creek District.
City Planner Kec explained the permitted uses for the Wolf Pen Creek District. The request is for a
country store and restaurant with gasoline pumps. The Design Review Board met October 14 and the
only concern they had was with the gasoline pumps. The DRB voted unanimously to approve the
restaurant and store request with elimination of the gasoline pumps. The applicant wanted the
Conunission's direction before proceeding with the site plan. The request may come back as a
conditional use permit in the future to allow for the pumps.
Mr. Paul Clarke, Clarke & Wyndham, explained that the applicant agreed to use non-brand gas which
would allow the canopy to match the building. Mr. Blake Browne said that they would consider
eliminating the gas pumps if a conditional use permit was not approved. Ele said they would be willing
co do whatever the City requested behind the building (the part that backs up to the creek).
T}ie Commission carne to the consensus to allow the applicant to proceed with the site plan and return
with the site plan without the gasoline pumps.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Public hearing and consideration of a proposed amendment to Chapter
9, Section 10 of the College Station Code of Ordinances, updating the parkland dedication
requirements for residential developments. (98-818).
City Planner Kee explained that the original ordinance and dedication fees were adopted in 1981. She
explained that from talking to builders, developers, architects, engineers, and homeowners, there is a
high regard for the City's park system. The results of the 1998 Citizen Survey showed 94% of
respondents were satisfied with the cleanliness and maintenance of our parks and 73.5 percent would
favor a bond issue to pay for parks and recreation improvements. She said there was no set national
standard for parkland, but the newest publication of the National Recreation and Parks Association
(1996) emphasized that each community should establish its own standards to fit their needs. Currently
combined neighborhood and community parkland is approximately 7 acres per 1,000 population; with
about half of this acreage being neighborhood parkland. Staff felt the City was close to falling below
our current standard: The reasons for this decline is because our ordinance had not.been reviewed or
updated since 1981. The current dedication fee is $225 per dwelling unit (as established in 1981), but
applying the consumer price index to our current fee it would adjust to $418 per dwelling unit. The
current fee has not kept up with inflation, land costs, or construction costs since 1981.
A subcommittee was formed including staff of Parks Department, Development Services, and
representatives from the P&Z Commission and the Parks Board. This subcommittee formed initial
recommendations and met with a focus group of developers and builders. Those recommendations
were reflected in this proposed ordinance.
P&Z Minutes October I S, 1998 ~ Page 3 oj6