HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMINUTES
Planning and Zoning Commission
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
July 20, 2000
7:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Commissioners Floyd, Harris, Happ, Williams, Warren,
and Ad Hoc Member Charles Thomas.
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chairman Mooney and Commissioner Horlen.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Members Maloney and Massey.
STAFF PRESENT: Zoning Board Member Richards, Parks Board Members
Glenn Davis, Beachy, Nicholas, and Bill Davis, Staff
Planners Jimmerson, Laauwe, and Hitchcock, Assistant
City Engineer Mayo, Graduate Engineer Thompson,
Transportation Planner Hard, Assistant City Attorney
Ladd, Director of Development Services Callaway,
Neighborhood Planner Battle, City Planner Kee,
Development Services Coordinator Ruiz, Neighborhood
Senior Planner Battle and Intern Flanery, and Staff
Assistant Hazlett.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: Hear visitors
The following items were approved by common consen&
AGENDA ITEM N0.2: Consent Agenda.
Agenda Item No. 2.1: Approved the minutes from the Workshop Meeting held on July 6, 2000.
Agenda Item No. 2.2: Approved the minutes from the Regular Meeting held on July 6, 2000.
REGULAR AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM N0.3: Public hearing and consideration of a rezoning for Castlegate
Subdivision, consisting of 162.86 acres out of the Crowley Master
Development Plan, from A-O, Agricultural-Open to PDD-H,
Planned Development District-Housing, located on Greens Prairie
Road west of the future intersection with Highway 40. (00-121)
P&Z Minutes Judy 20, 2000 Page 1 of 8
Staff Planner Jessica Jimmerson presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson said the applicant is
requesting to rezone the property to PDDH to allow for the modifications to the Subdivision
Regulations and Zoning Ordinance requirements, which this district allows. She explained that this area
was annexed in 1995 with the developer beginning discussions with the City for the Master
Development Plan soon after. The Plan was originally approved by Council in 1997 and modified in
1998. Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that this is the first azea of the Master Development Plan to be
implemented. The Land Use Plan shows the subject tract and surrounding azeas as Single Family
Residential. The property south of Greens Prairie Road, which bounds this tract, is outside the City
Limits but there is some residential usage in this area Ms. Jimmerson said. She described the property
location as being surrounded on the north, west and east by other areas of the Crowley Master
Development Plan and are vacant at this time. The reason for the proposed modifications is to enable
the development of a Woodlands type subdivision. She stated that the proposed modifications aze
considered part of the concept plan and will be attached to the rezoning ordinance. She explained that
the modifications are a result of a long-term collaboration between the developer, his design
professionals and many City staff representing multiple departments. She explained that this proposal is
in compliance with the plan with one exception of a street section shown as a minor collector on the
Master Development Plan. She stated that Staff has determined that the circulation that is being
proposed for this area is adequate to provide good circulation and that particulaz street section is not
necessary to be implemented. Ms. Jimmerson referred to Section 7.25D and Sections 7.25H and I of
the Zoning Ordinance and stated that Staff has determined that the proposed development is in harmony
with the planned and existing uses of the area and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She
indicated that the pazking issues would be in accordance with Section 9 of the ordinance. Ms.
Jimmerson said Staff recommends approval of the rezoning with the condition that any requirements not
specifically addressed in the attached modified standards default to R-1B, Single Family Residential,
zoning requirements. Lastly, she pointed out that the Parks Board approved the proposed pazk areas on
June 13, 2000. She explained that instead of the standazd sidewalks, the applicant intends to develop
trail azeas connecting the parks as well as pathways to connect the residential streets to the larger
pathways, and will return to the Parks Board for approval of the design specifications.
Commissioner Floyd asked Staff Jimmerson for clarification of the limitations of on-street parking and
the recommended action.
Planner Jimmerson explained that those limitations were specifically written in the attached
modifications of the concept plan.
Commissioner Warren asked what is the projected traffic volume for the new Highway 40.
Transportation Planner Hard stated that currently he is unaware of any Texas Department of
Transportation traffic projections for that area. However, Mr. Hard said, upon opening, he believes that
Highway 40 will certainly carry more traffic than Highway 47.
Commissioner Floyd wanted a better insight of the discussion that focused on eliminating one exit from
this area.
Mr. Hard explained that the logic behind that decision was driven primarily by the fact that State
Highway 40 will be a facility like Highway 47, an arched, divided highway, with speed limits up to 70
mph. With that and the intent of Highway 40 being a regional expressway, it is believed that the two
access points for this subdivision on the eastside would easily accommodate the traffic generated.
P&ZMinutes July 20, 2000 Page 2 oJ8
Commissioner Floyd asked Mr. Hard if consideration was given for an additional entrance to Greens
Prairie Road.
Planner Jimmerson explained that with the four areas that are being developed, there is an intent for an
emergency access to be developed for the area. She said once the connections are made through the
remainder of the phases, the emergency access would then be closed off and become a lot in the
subdivision. She pointed out that the Master Development Plan on display is part of the rezoning
ordinance and depicts the proposal for the emergency and fire department access. Finally, she stated
that the Fire Marshall's Office has also reviewed Master Development Plan.
Commissioner Floyd opened the public hearing.
Jim Wendt, The Woodlands, Texas presented the proposed plan and pointed out more particularly the
details of the park plans and pathways. He added that a tennis court, basketball court, picnic pavilion,
trails, fishing pier, lake and other amenities were being proposed.
Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Wendt about his experience with safety issues and subdivisions with
pathways built in the back sections of subdivisions.
Mr. Wendt said that he was proposing to place the pathway in a 30' forest preserve behind the lots
which would provide adequate room for undulation in the pathways, avoiding the trees. He said some
homeowners would place gates in their fences along the pathway for better access.
Mr. Tim Crowley, property owner said he is very pleased with the work being done on the project. He
said he believes this development will add a lot of value to the balance of his tract and prove to be a
valuable project for the City of College Station as well.
Commissioner Floyd closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hams motioned to approve as submitted to include the conditions recommended by
Star Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM N0.6: Discussion and consideration of the progress report for the Graham
Road Impact Fees, 92-O1, 97-01, 97-02B, and 99-01. (92-O1)
Agenda Item No. 6 has been moved forward on the agenda to Agenda Item No. 4 placement and
presented at this time.
Commissioner Floyd recognized Ad Hoc Member Charles Thomas as being present.
Assistant City Engineer Ted Mayo presented the progress report to the Commission on the four impact
fees that the City of College Station has in place at this time.
He explained the 92-01 Sanitary Sewer (Graham Road) impact fee was 508 acres initially implemented
in 1992 and revised in 1996 after approval of updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvement
Plan. The Capital Improvement Plan consists of three phases which have all been completed at a
combined cost of $452,070. The 1996 update to this plan estimated a combined cost of $655,000.
Phase III of the original plan was reduced by 1800' of 12", line resulting in a reduction of $140,000.
Fees collected through June 2000 total $146,586. In addition, $30,502 was collected prior to 1995 for
P&Z Minutes July 20, 2000 Pale 3 of 8
connection fees for industrial properties along Graham Road related to annexation agreements. At
present, Mr. Mayo said there are 332 acres developed in this area and that during the next ten years 149
acres are expected to develop.
Mr. Mayo, referring to the 97-01 Sanitary Sewer (Spring Creek) said that this fee which was
implemented in December 1997 involved 2000 acres. He said the Capital Improvement Plan consists of
Phase I, east of Highway 6, and Phase II, west of Highway 6. He explained that the estimated cost for
Phase I was $1,000,000 and was completed in 1999 at a cost of $671,246 and Phase II is estimated to
cost $1,350,000 with construction completed in 2000. As of the end of June 2000, Mr. Mayo said that
no impact fees have been collected in this area. He added that a development is currently underway
which consists of 11 i single-family lots. He said there were 137 developed acres in 1997 and that 818
acres are expected to develop by the year 2007.
Mr. Mayo reported that the 97-02B Sanitary Sewer (Alum Creek) fee was implemented in December
1997 and included 608 acres. He reported that the Capital Improvement Plan consists of running a 15"
sanitary sewer line from the south end of the College Station Business Park westerly along Alum Creek
to the east right of way of Highway 6. He said this project was estimated to cost $390,000 and was
completed in 1999 at a cost of $214,554. At the end of June 2000, Mr. Mayo said $4,867 in impact
fees have been collected in this area consisting of 20 single-family lots. In 1997 there were 95
developed acres and reports that 83 additional acres are projected for development in this area.
The 158 acres of the 99-01 Water Line impact fee which was implemented in April of 1999 consists of
running an 18" water line south along the east right of way of Highway 6 approximately 4800'. Mr.
Mayo stated that the estimated cast was $390,000 (Impact fee was based on an 8" line at $165,000. He
reported that a 2400' section of the 18" line was constructed in 1999 from the south end at a cost of
$148,317. Mr. Mayo said there have not been any impact fees collected in this area as of June 2000.
Mr. Mayo told the Commission that the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting would
represent the annual report that is the criteria of the advisory committee.
Commissioner Floyd called for a motion to receive the report as presented.
Commissioner Happ motioned to receive the Impact Fee Progress Report as presented and was
seconded by Ad Hoc member Charles Thomas. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
AGENDA ITEM N0.4: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the
Wellborn Special Utility District for a booster plant located at 1601 Greens Prairie Road West.
(00-85)
Agenda Item No. 4 was moved downward on the agenda to Agenda Item No. 5 placement and
presented at this time.
Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report. Ms. Jimmerson stated that this size is zoned A-O,
Agricultural-Open, and is currently used by Brazos County for one of its volunteer fire stations. The
explained that the applicant is proposing to add the Booster Plant to the site. She said the addition of
the Booster Plant will require the building of a water storage tank and a small enclosure for pumping
equipment. The existing fire station building is 14 feet in height and the water tank is proposed to be 34
feet, which is less than the maximum height allowed in the zoning district. She explained that municipal
facilities may be located in any zoning district with the granting of a Conditional Use Permit by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
Ms. Jimmerson stated that the Land Use Plan shows this tract and those to the north and south as
Regional Retail, with Institutional Use shown across Arrington Road. She states that the area to the
west across Arrington Road is zoned A-O and is vacant, while the property to the north across Greens
Prairie Rd. is zoned C-1 and is occupied by one of the College Station water towers and a GTE facility.
P&ZMinutes July 20, 2000 Page 4 of 8
She points out that there is more vacant land slightly north and west of the subject tract and is shown on
the Crowley Master Development Plan as future commercial, multifamily and single family.
Ms. Jimmerson pointed out that the subject tract is not directly adjacent to Highway 6, but is located in
a highly visible location. She explained that the developer has exceeded the landscaping requirements
for the site because of high visibility of the subject tract. She said the Zoning Ordinance does not
specifically require a fence in this situation, but indicated that the Staff would generally recommend a
solid screening fence. However, in this instance, the TNRCC (Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission) requires an intruder resistant fence (i.e. barbed wire across the top). Ms. Jimmerson
pointed out that the City water tower across the street has a similar fence.
Ms. Jimmerson also informed the Commission that the driveway ordinance allows the City Engineer (or
his designee, usually the transportation planner) to grants some variances to the driveway ordinance
standards due to special traffic conditions. She explained that in this particular instance, because of the
low frequency of the use and the fact that the public will not have access to the site, and because
Arrington Road is not an urban section of road, a 16' wide, asphalt driveway will be permitted.
Ms. Jimmerson said that this site is not currently platted but will be required to be so prior to the
issuance of a development permit. She also stated that this area has seen little development pressures
since its annexation in 1983, but points out that the City's growth projection map shows this area as a
high growth area in the near future.
Ms. Jimmerson said unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential
negative impacts, the Staff recommends approval with the driveway variances previously noted and
discussed above.
Commissioner Floyd asked Ms. Jimmerson about the materials to be used in the construction of the tank
and if it would be compatible and similar in nature with the area and the existing City water tower
across the street from the subject tract.
Ms. Jimmerson explained that the applicant has proposed to paint their tank to match the City's water
tower. She said that the City is planning to repaint the city tank, so staff is waiting to hear from the
Water Department the decision on the color of the repainting.
Commissioner Floyd also asked Staff if the applicant would consider paralleling the maintenance of the
proposed tank on the same schedule as that of the City Water Department.
Ms. Jimmerson said the request for the tank to match in color to the City's water tower was an
appropriate request and would need to defer to the applicant regarding the type of materials to be used
in the construction of the tank. She also said she would ask the applicant if he would consider painting
the tank on the same schedule as the City.
Commissioner Floyd opened the public hearing.
Mr. Steven Cast, General Manager, Wellborn Special Utility District, 4118 Greens Prairie Road, said
that the materials used in the construction of the tank is AWAW standards, using the same contractors
that built the City's tanks. He said he would not be adverse to using the same color and schedule of
painting maintenance for the tower as the City.
Commissioner Happ asked how the height of the tank was determined.
Mr. Cast explained that a certain volume of storage capacity was required and that the tank size and
height was determined by the size of the lot.
Commissioner Warren asked if the fence requirement was agreeable. Mr. Cast said yes.
Commissioner Floyd closed the public hearing.
P&ZMinutes July 20, 2000
Page S of 8
Commissioner Warren moved for approval with conditions. Specifically, the tower color match and a
repainting schedule in keeping with the City's schedule of it's tower maintenance, the chain-link/wood-
slat fence with intruder resistant barbed wire, and that in the event that Greens Prairie Road is widened,
the driveway would meet the City's variance requirements.
Commissioner Happ seconded the motion.
Commissioner Harris questioned the need to place all the conditions on the motion since the applicant
has indicated their intent to carry through on all of the mentioned items of concern.
Commissioner Floyd expressed a concern about the property being a highly visible tract for the city.
Commissioner Warren pointed out that the subject property is a gateway to the City. She also pointed
out that there is a City tower located across from the subject property. She expressed a concern about a
`utility" look with the construction of the added tower and the impact that it would make in terms of
that particular gateway to the City.
Commissioner Happ asked what alternatives there were. He stated that his earlier question regarding
the height of the proposed tower was because of the high visibility of this particular site and the impact
it would have being placed at one of the City's gateways.
Commissioner Floyd stated that alternatives were not discussed but as a Commission have the
opportunity to address this question and decide if this plan is an appropriate land use for this particular
site. He reiterated his concern for the industrial appearance of this gateway.
Commissioner Warren said that there was not an overlay area study done for this area enabling them to
see what the appropriate possible uses for this area are or could be.
Commissioner Williams agreed with Commissioners Floyd, Happ, and Warren. She asked if the
Commission could defer and obtain possible alternatives for the site.
Commissioner Floyd called for the vote for the motion and the second on the table.
The motion was unanimously opposed 5-0 and failed.
and
Staff Planner Laauwe presented the staff report. This case involves the redevelopment of the existing
Wolfe Nursery site. She said the site is within the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor.
The applicant is proposing to develop a nightclub that will include the serving of food and alcohol, live
music, games, pool tables, and sand volleyball courts. Ms. Laauwe explained that nightclubs are a
permitted use in the Wolf Pen Creek Development Corridor. She also stated that all site plans in the
Corridor District must be reviewed by the Design Review Board and the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Ms. Laauwe pointed out that the site does not meet the parking requirements for the intended night club
use and that the applicant has made a request for a parking variance from the Zoning Board of
Adjustments. She stated that the applicant has provided parking spaces for 183 cars, 33 motorcycles
and 10 bicycles. However, she pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance does not take into consideration
the motorcycle or bicycle spaces.
Ms. Laauwe reports that the Design Review Board met regarding the plans on July 5 and has given
strong opinions that they favor landscaping over the placement of additional parking. She also
P&Z Minutes July 20, 2000 Page 6 of 8
mentioned that the Design Review Board consistently prefers that parking not be adjacent to Wolf Pen
Creek and that they made a supporting recommendation of the variance to the Zoning Board of
Adjustments.
Ms. Laauwe also reported that the Zoning Board of Adjustments has granted an 81 parking space
variance. She said that Staff recommends approval with the site plan review conditions.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the joint access to the parking is part of the application and when the
adjoining property develops, if that is when the joint access will that occur. He asked if it would be
appropriate to make the joint access part of the requirements of the applicant. Commissioner Floyd also
asked if parking was allowed on Holleman and if there were any "No Parking" signs posted on
Holleman.
Ms. Laauwe was unsure about the parking situation on Holleman but did clarify the fact that joint
access was encouraged by all businesses in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. Ms. Laauwe pointed out that
the representative of Post Oak Mall has stated that they would not allow patrons of Rooster's to park in
the mall parking lot.
Commissioner Floyd opened the public hearing.
Clint Schroff, 424 Chimney Hill Drive, explained the color and the signage that is proposed for the
building. He also said adrive-through that will serve food continuously from the complete menu until
the close of operations each evening. He indicated the 30 additional parking spaces that are added to
the back of the site will be connected through the parking lot with etched concrete and raised walkways.
The tenant intends to use the back door as the main front entrance and place a canopy over that area
with the double sliding doors currently in the front of the building moved to the back. In addition, Mr.
Schroff said that the storage area in the back will be screened in with an 8' cedar fence as well as the
dumpster along with a gate. Along the side, a 36' canopy will be placed with wood truces and a metal
roof supported by cedar columns. This area will house the outdoor seating. The wrought iron fence
with have a split face columns consistent with what is currently used at the amphitheater.
Mr, Tom Bevans, 5008 Commonwealth explained that he is the Operations Manager for Rooster's and
that a very experienced management team should be in place by August 1, 2000.
Mr. Paul Clarke, Agua Rica, LTD, stated that he seeks the support of the Commission in seeing the
fruition of the project. He addressed the joint access agreement and explained that there were already
agreements and stipulations in place in the ordinances, and that there is an existing agreement of record
between the two pieces of property.
Commissioner Warren asked Mr. Clarke how soon the completion of the second piece of property
would be.
Mr. Clarke said that interested parties were waiting on the outcome and fate of Wolf Pen Creek.
Commissioner Warren expressed a concern on the parking situation and the patrons crossing the street
to enter the proposed nightclub and the fact that a variance has already been granted on 81 parking
spaces.
Mr. Clarke shared Commissioner Warren's concern. He explained that the sidewalks are there and
hopes that harmonious developments will continue to be drawn to the area with synergistic times to help
alleviate the joint access and parking issues. He explained that the previous owner of the site had a
freestanding sign along the front intersection. He said that the current applicant has agreed to dedicate
or by easement given this area of the site to the City for whatever focal features they desire for the Wolf
Pen Creek elements that are being planned.
P&Z Minutes July 20, 2000 Page 7 of 8
The General Manager of Foley's Department Stores expressed a concern of the safety of her employees
as they leave the mall each evening. She explained that her employees park in the back area of the mall
parking lot designated for Foley's employees.
Commissioner Warren asked her if the frequency of the patrolling of the mall security officers would
adequately provide her employees with the measure of safety that they desire. She suggested that other
strategies to help alleviate the safety issues of the Foley's employees, such as leaving in pairs, be sought
out.
Commissioner Floyd closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Harris motioned for the approval with the conditions reported by staff
Commissioner Warren seconded the motion. She pointed out that the intent of the City was to develop
a restaurant/entertainment district around Wolf Pen Creek and that the P&Z had denied a church with a
daycare for this location earlier. She reiterated her Concern over the safety issues of the mall employees
and expressed a desire of the proprietors of this venue would be sensitive to the issues of their clients
appropriate use of alcohol. She said she hoped that some informal strategies could be developed to
ensure the safety for the entire area.
Commissioner Floyd reiterated the statements made by Commissioner Warren. He said he believed that
the proposal for this site is an appropriate use and believes that all of the conditions are in place. He
said that other obligations of the City are to enforce the street parking, and other aspects to control the
impact that the new businesses in this area will have on the long-term existing retail establishments. He
said the cooperation of everyone is needful and wants to see the City demarcate the Wolf Pen Creek
area.
Commissioner called for the vote for the motion on the table. The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion of future agenda items.
None.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn.
Commissioner Happ motioned to adjourn the meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Warren.
The motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Chairman, Karl Mooney
Staff Assistant, Susan Hazlett
P&Z Minutes July 20, 2000 Page 8 of 8
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Landscaping Review
Project: ROOSTERS' (CUP)-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (0-119)
1. Draw the South site line in such a way as to include the proposed
landscaping. This area needs to be included in the total site area for the
calculation of total landscaping points needed.
2. Give caliper of proposed Crepe Myrtles. Must be at least 1.25".
3. Parking islands must be planted or treated with enhanced paving. Islands
with the landscape walkthrough need to be labeled "lawn."
4. Parking visible from the right-of-way needs to be screened with shrubs,
berms, and/or structural elements. Parking along Earl Rudder and
Holleman needs to be screened, including the recent added parking.
5. Need to apply for a Public Improvement Permit (PIP). This permit would
allow for the proposed landscaping along Holleman Drive that is located in
the City's right-of-way.
6. Need to apply for a TXDOT permit that would allow for the proposed
planting in the State's right-of-way.
7. Dumpster gates are not required.
*Note*
8. Canopy trees must be planted at a minimum of 20' from other canopy
trees. Live Oaks, however, must be planted at least 35' from other Live
Oaks. (This requirement will not apply to existing/protected trees).
Reviewed by: SHAUNA A. LAAUWE Date: 07/05/00
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the
City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and
"bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not
been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review.
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
No. 1
Project: ROOSTERS' (SP) (0-119)
1. Provide a key map (not necessarily to scale)
2. List address, location and legal description within the title block
3. Show ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels. Zoning
is WPC, not C-1.
4. Need to give separation distances of opposite and adjacent driveways.
5. Show 100 year floodplain and/or floodway. (I know this is still in dispute)
6. Need to show existing and proposed utilities. Several easements shown,
however no utility locations noted.
7. Show water meter.
8. This site encompasses three lots; show where these lot lines currently exist.
9. Place a phase line around the project site in order to separate the site from
the individual lots.
10.The gross square footage of the building was calculated to be 13,171.
11. Building setbacks shown are incorrect
Side Street setback = 15'.
Front = 25', Side = 7.5', Rear and
12. Show drive aisle width dimensions.
13. Parking Islands
:• Parking end islands must be at least 180 square feet. End island near
drive thru needs to be enlarged.
•:• End islands for the rear double row need to equal 360 square feet (one
near Holleman needs to be enlarged).
Need an end island on each side of landscape walk through. (row directly
behind motorcycle parking)
•:• Currently, only 720 square feet of interior islands is provided. Site needs
an additional interior island (180 sq.ft.). With present interior parking, 900
square feet of interior islands is required.
14. Show handicap parking detail demonstrating provisions to meet ASCII
standards. (sign, ramp, etc.)
15. Need screening fence around dumpster. Show detail.
16. In order for all portions of the building to be protected, a fire lane needs to be
provided along rear row of parking. Show detail.
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1
17. Show curb and pavement detail.
18. Give utility demands. (water and sewer)
19. Redesign drive thru such that drive thru lane intersects parking aisle at more
of a 90 degree angle. Provide lane overhangs/arrow to show one way
operation of drive thru. Pick up window may need to be moved back some
per this new design.
Miscellaneous
20. What are the "down" boxes?
21. Landscaping Plan HAS NOT been reviewed. Landscaping will be reviewed
when alternative parking plan is provided.
22. Landscape Reserve -pavement requirements will be considered legally non-
conforming.
23. Does this site have a detention pond?
24. Parking will be fully reviewed when alternative parking plan is provided.
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the
City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and
"bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not
been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review.
Reviewed by: SHAUNA A. LAAUWE
Date: June 30, 2000
ELECTRICAL
1. Need electrical load information as soon as possible.
Reviewed by: JENNIFER REEVES
Date: June 29, 2000
Staff Review Comments Page 2 of 1
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
Landscaping Review
Project: ROOSTERS' (CUP)-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (0-119)
1. Draw the South site line in such a way as to include the ro osed
landscaping. This area needs to be inc u ed in the total site area for the
cafcu a ion o~"total landscaping points needed.
2. Give caliper of proposed Crepe Myrtles. Must be at least 1.25".
3. Parking islands must be planted or treated with enhanced paving. Islands
with the landscape walkthrough need to be labeled "lawn."
4. Parking visible from the right-of-way needs to be screened with shrubs,
berms, and/or structural elements. Parking along Earl Rudder and
Holleman needs to be screened, including the recent added parking.
5. Need to apply for a Public Improvement Permit (PIP). This permit would
allow for the proposed landscaping along Holleman Drive that is located in
the City's right-of-way.
6. Need to apply for a TXDOT permit that would allow for the proposed
planting in the State's right-of-way.
7. Dumpster gates are not required. ~-~~
*Note*
8. Canopy trees must be planted at a minimum of 20' from other canopy
trees. Live Oaks, however, must be planted at least 35' from other Live
Oaks. (This requirement will not apply to existing/protected trees).
Reviewed by: SHAUNA A. LAAUWE Date: 07/05/00
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the
City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and
"bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not
been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review.
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
No. 1
Project: ROOSTERS' (SP) (0-119)
Provide a key map (not necessarily to scale)
~. 2. List address, location and legal description within the title block
/.3. Show ownership and current zoning of parcel and all abutting parcels. Zoning
is WPC, not C-1.
~4. Need to give separation distances of opposite and adjacent driveways.
5. Show 100 year floodplain and/or floodway. (I know this is still in dispute)
~, 6. Need to show existing and proposed utilities. Several easements shown,
however no utility locations noted.
~~7. Show water meter.
8. This site encompasses three lots; show where these lot lines currently exist.
9. Place a phase line around the project site in order to separate the site from
the individual lots.
v10.The gross square footage of the building was calculated to be 13,171.
11. Building setbacks shown are incorrect. Front = 25', Side = 7.5', Rear and
Side Street setback = 15'.
12. Show drive aisle width dimensions.
13. Parking Islands
:• Parking end islands must be at least 180 square feet. End island near
~-'~ drive thru needs to be enlarged.
• End islands for the rear double row need to equal 360 square feet (one
~-~ near Holleman needs to be enlarged).
•:• Need an end island on each side of landscape walk through. (row directly
behind motorcycle parking)
:• Currently, only 720 square feet of interior islands is provided. Site needs
an additional interior island (180 sq.ft.). With present interior parking, 900
square feet of interior islands is required.
14. Show handicap parking detail demonstrating provisions to meet ASCI I
standards. (sign, ramp, etc.)
15. Need screening fence around dumpster. Show detail.
16. In order for all portions of the building to be protected, a fire lane needs to be
provided along rear row of parking. Show detail.
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1
17. Show curb and pavement detail.
18. Give utility demands. (water and sewer)
19. Redesign drive thru such that drive thru lane intersects parking aisle at more
of a 90 degree angle. Provide lane overhangs/arrow to show one way
operation of drive thru. Pick up window may need to be moved back some
per this new design.
Miscellaneous
20. What are the "down" boxes?
21. Landscaping Plan HAS NOT been reviewed. Landscaping will be reviewed
when alternative parking plan is provided.
22. Landscape Reserve -pavement requirements will be considered legally non-
conforming.
23. Does this site have a detention pond?
24. Parking will be fully reviewed when alternative parking plan is provided.
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the
City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and
"bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not
been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review.
Reviewed by: SHAUNA A. LAAUWE
Date: June 30, 2000
ELECTRICAL
1. Need electrical load information as soon as possible.
Reviewed by: JENNIFER REEVES
Date: June 29, 2000
Staff Review Comments Page 2 of 1
City of College Station
Development Services
P. O. Box 9960 ~ 1101 Texas Avenue ~ College Station, Texas 77842
(979) 764-3570
WOLF PEN CREEK
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
July 13, 2000
TO: Tom Bevans, Jr., Clint Schroff, c/o Clarke & Wyndham, Via fax 846-1461
Mike Record, Arkitex Studio, via fax 846-8224
FROM: Design Review Board
Phillip Kelby, DRB Member
George McLean, DRB Member
Judy Holt, DRB Member
Joe Horlen, P&Z Commissioner
Carolyn Williams, P&Z Commissioner
Staff Attending:
Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator
Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinator
Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner
Shauna Laauwe, Planner
Ted Mayo, Asst. City Engineer
Other Attending:
Paul Clarke
Chris Peasek
SUBJECT: KoostersKestaurarrtarrdlcelYouse-2300 Earl Rudder Freeway South.
The Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board (DRB) met on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, to discuss
the aforementioned project. Rooster's is wanting to locate their business in the previous Wolfe
Nursery south of Post Oak Mall. Ms. Kuenzel began the meeting by briefing the members on
the project, stating that the applicant will be using the existing building with minimal changes
to the existing site. She stated that due to the use changing to a nightclub, as defined by city
ordinance, they will have to increase their parking to meet the parking ordinance or request a
variance. She informed the members that the applicant is requesting DRB support in asking for
a parking variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). Mr. Bevans, Jr. stated that
they did not want to add more concrete to the site if it was not needed.
The applicant was asked if Rooster's was a chain, and if so, what kind of parking the other
stores had. Paul Clarke said no, that this was a first concept, but stated that this business would
Home ofTexas A&M Unlverslty
be similar to other ice houses and most of their parking was gravel, dirt, or grass. Mr. Bevans
stated that he believed the current parking would accommodate 98% of their activities.
DRB member Kelby was concerned about the applicant being able to meet the landscape
ordinance by constructing the proposed parking south of the building where future
landscaping was shown. Mr. Clarke stated that if additional parking was constructed, the
landscaping would have to be moved further south of the parking closer to the creek.
Commissioner Horlen stated that he would rather see the landscaping put there and not the
additional parking since that area is closest to the creek.
When asked about the floodway line, Mr. Clarke stated that the floodway just touches the
southwest corner of the property, hence the 20' dedication would not impede the parking.
Mr. Bevans. Jr. was asked about the thirty future parking spaces shown on the west side of the
property. He stated that those would be constructed prior to the opening. He also mentioned
that the building would be repainted the same color as the current color. He informed the
members that the lighting for the property would be the same as approved for Wolfe Nursery.
Lighting on the building would be limited to lighting on the signs and above the doors.
Mr. Clarke stated that there would be no freestanding sign and mentioned that the only
attached signs would be those shown on the building elevations, as well as the drive-through
sign, and directional signs for the drive-through that would be located in the islands. He stated
that he was proposing to dedicate the northeast corner of the property to the city for the
installation of Wolf Pen Creek District entrance signs. He also mentioned that the outdoor
activities would be contained by a fence consisting of split-face blocks that match the
amphitheater color (CS pink) and a 6' black iron fence. Mr. Clarke also stated that the
dumpster area would be screened by an 8' cedar fence.
Mr. Clarke was asked about the pedestrian walkway leading from the building to the parking
lot on the west side. He stated that DRB member Henryson had asked that it be curved not
straight, possibly with a horseshoe design to add some character fo it. He also stated that it
would be stamped, colored concrete. Commissioner Horlen stated that he considered that
walkway a safety issue and would rather see it straight in order to get the pedestrians out of the
parking lot as quickly as possible.
When asked about the entrance to the building, Clint Schroff stated that there would be a
canopy over the main entrance door on the west side of the building where most of the parking
will be. He stated that they were going to make that their main entrance and that it would have
overhead lighting, with benches and planters near the entrance.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to recommend supporting the parking variance to the ZBA.
Commissioner Williams seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve the site plan with the directional sign information
going to the Planning & Zoning Commission, along with the site plan for final approval with
all DRB comments addressed. The motion was seconded by Commisioner Williams and passed
5-0.
Home ofTexasA~M University
MEMORANDUM
July 13, 2000
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Shauna A. Laauwe, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: Roosters' Icehouse, site plan
Item: Consideration of a site plan for Roosters' Icehouse, located at 2300 Earl Rudder
Freeway on the site previously known as Wolfe Nursery in the Wolf Pen Creek Corridor.
(00-119)
Applicant: Tom Bevans, Jr.
Item Summary: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing Wolfe Nursery
site with a night club that will include the serving of food and alcohol, live music, games,
pool tables, and sand volleyball courts. Night clubs are a permitted use in the Wolf Pen
Creek Development Corridor, however all sites in this district must come under review
by both the Design Review Board (for recommendation) and the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
The site does not meet the parking requirements for the intended night club use. The use
is considered more intense than the previous retail use; therefore the applicant is required
to provide additional parking. The plans provide for 34 parking spaces to be added to the
current site. With the additional parking, the site only provides for 69% of the parking
required. The applicant has made a request for a parking variance from the Zoning Board
of Adjustments for the remaining 31%. The applicant is proposing to provide parking for
cars, motorcycles and bicycles. The applicant has provided 183 spaces for cars, 33 spaces
for motorcycles and 10 spaces for bicycles. The Zoning Ordinance, however does not
consider motorcycle and bicycle parking towards the off-street parking requirement. The
applicant is scheduled to have his variance case heard on July 18, 2000.
The Design Review Board (DRB) met regarding the Roosters' plans on July 5`h and has
given strong opinions that they favor landscaping over the placement of additional
parking. It has consistently been the preference of the DRB that parking not be adjacent
to Wolf Pen Creek. The DRB made a supporting recommendation of the variance to the
Zoning Board of Adjustments.
Floodway exists on or near the property due to its proximity to Wolf Pen Creek. All
Wolf Pen Creek developments are required to either make improvements or dedicate a
20' reservation area for the future park area per the Wolf Pen Creek Master Plan. When
Wolfe Nursery was constructed in the early 90s, they opted to dedicate the 20' reservation
area. The City allowed the nursery to defer the dedication to a future date, which has
since come and gone during the closure of the business. The present applicant and
owners are currently working with City Staff to continue deferring the dedication.
Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval with the site plan review
conditions as attached.
Related Advisory Board Recommendations: The Design Review Board recommends
approval with Staff conditions. The Zoning Board of Adjustments ruling on the parking
variance request will be presented at the P&Z meeting.
Commission Action Options: The standards of approval to be used by the DRB and
P&Z on WPC projects are found in Section 7.21 E. of the Zoning Ordinance. The DRB,
which contains architects and other design professionals among its required members,
conducts thorough reviews and focuses mainly on the architectural character, material
selection and harmony and compatibility of the site. The P&Z looks upon a site based on
its conformance with code and ordinances and the attractiveness of the site.
The Commission has final authority over the site plan. The options are approval as
submitted, approval with conditions, table, defer action to a specified date, or denial.
Attachments:
1. Area map
2. Application
3. Copy of Site Plan
4. DRB minutes July 5, 2000
5. Staff Review Comments #3
City of College Station
Development Services
P. O. Box 9960 ~ 1101 Texas Avenue ~ College Station, Texas 77842
(979) 764-3570
WOLF PEN CREEK
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
July 13, 2000
TO: Tom Bevans, Jr., Clint Schroff, c/o Clarke & Wyndham, Via fax 846-1461
Mike Record, Arkitex Studio, via fax 846-8224
FROM: Design Review Board
Phillip Kelby, DRB Member
George McLean, DRB Member
Judy Holt, DRB Member
Joe Horlen, P&Z Commissioner
Carolyn Williams, P&Z Commissioner
Staff Attending:
Natalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator
Bridgette George, Asst. Development Coordinator
Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner
Shauna Laauwe, Planner
Ted Mayo, Asst. City Engineer
Other Attending:
Paul Clarke
Chris Peasek
SUBJECT: RoostersRestaurantandlceHouse-2300 Earl Rudder Freeway South.
The Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board (DRS) met on Wednesday, July 5, 2000, to discuss
the aforementioned project. Rooster's is wanting to locate their business in the previous Wolfe
Nursery south of Post Oak Mall. Ms. Kuenzel began the meeting by briefing the members on
the project, stating that the applicant will be using the existing building with minimal changes
to the existing site. She stated that due to the use changing to a nightclub, as defined by city
ordinance, they will have to increase their parking to meet the parking ordinance or request a
variance. She informed the members that the applicant is requesting DRB support in asking for
a parking variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). Mr. Bevans, Jr. stated that
they did not want to add more concrete to the site if it was not needed.
The applicant was asked if Rooster's was a chain, and if so, what kind of parking the other
stores had. Paul Clarke said no, that this was a first concept, but stated that this business would
Home ofTexas A&M UnlVerslty
be similar to other ice houses and most of their parking was gravel, dirt, or grass. Mr. Bevans
stated that he believed the current parking would accommodate 98% of their activities.
DRB member Kelby was concerned about the applicant being able to meet the landscape
ordinance by constructing the proposed parking south of the building where future
landscaping was shown. Mr. Clarke stated that if additional parking was constructed, the
landscaping would have to be moved further south of the parking closer to the creek.
Commissioner Horlen stated that he would rather see the landscaping put there and not the
additional parking since that area is closest to the creek.
When asked about the floodway line, Mr. Clarke stated that the floodway just touches the
southwest corner of the property, hence the 20' dedication would not impede the parking.
Mr. Bevans. Jr. was asked about the thirty future parking spaces shown on the west side of the
property. He stated that those would be constructed prior to the opening. He also mentioned
that the building would be repainted the same color as the current color. He informed the
members that the lighting for the property would be the same as approved for Wolfe Nursery.
Lighting on the building would be limited to lighting on the signs and above the doors.
Mr. Clarke stated that there would be no freestanding sign and mentioned that the only
attached signs would be those shown on the building elevations, as well as the drive-through
sign, and directional signs for the drive-through that would be located in the islands. He stated
that he was proposing to dedicate the northeast corner of the property to the city for the
installation of Wolf Pen Creek District entrance signs. He also mentioned that the outdoor
activities would be contained by a fence consisting of split-face blocks that match the
amphitheater color (CS pink) and a 6' black iron fence. Mr. Clarke also stated that the
dumpster area would be screened by an 8' cedar fence.
Mr. Clarke was asked about the pedestrian walkway leading from the building to the parking
lot on the west side. He stated that DRB member Henryson had asked that it be curved not
straight, possibly with a horseshoe design to add some character to it. He also stated that it
would be stamped, colored concrete. Commissioner Horlen stated that he considered that
walkway a safety issue and would rather see it straight in order to get the pedestrians out of the
parking lot as quickly as possible.
When asked about the entrance to the building, Clint Schroff stated that there would be a
canopy over the main entrance door on the west side of the building where most of the parking
will be. He stated that they were going to make that their main entrance and that it would have
overhead lighting, with benches and planters near the entrance.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to recommend supporting the parking variance to the ZBA.
Commissioner Williams seconded and the motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Horlen motioned to approve the site plan with the directional sign information
going to the Planning & Zoning Commission, along with the site plan for final approval with
all DRB comments addressed. The motion was seconded by Commisioner Williams and passed
5-0.
Home ofTexasA~M Unl~ersity
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS
No. 3
Project: ROOSTERS' (CUP)-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (0-119)
PLANNING
1. With the additional parking provided 1,260sq.ft. of interior islands is
required. Only one 180 sq.ft. interior island has been provided and Staff
has calculated 623 sq.ft. of excess interior end islands. Since this excess
may be counted toward the interior island requirement, a total of 803 sq.ft.
has met the island provision. Provide an additional 457 square feet of
interior islands to satisfy the requirement.
2. The site plan and landscaping plan need to use the same base site
layout.
3. Provide utility demands. (water and sewer)
Reviewed by: SHAUNA A. LAAUWE Date: 07/13/00
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the
City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and
"bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not
been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review.
Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1