HomeMy WebLinkAbout000707235 proved the Final Plat for Sun Meadows, Phase 1 consisting
IoNLed on South Graham Road at Schaffer Street. (00 -229)
2.6 Moved t he Regular Agenda the Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for The Gat ;
2 consisting f 2 C -B Business - Commercial lots on 5.7 acres located at 1401 U vers
East. (00 -232)
2.7 Approved the Final t for 2 lots in Southwood Plaza on 1.22 acre d located on
Boulevard. (00 -233)
2.8 Approved the Final Plat for Ca egate Subdivision Section JIf Phase I consisting of 28 PDD -H
lots on 16.26 acres and located rth of Greens Prair' oad and west of the future State
Highway 40. (00 -237)
GENDA ITEM NO. 2.4 Consideration of a F� 1 Plat - Replat for Fairfield at Luther
illiams Addition consisting of 20.237 acr located o he south side of Luther Street West at
M 2818. (00 -71)
aduate Engineer Thompson report that the issue on this pr ' ct is the off -site easement. He
indicated that the applicant is prese and would like to make a verbs eement with the commission
regarding the plat and easement.
The applicant, Paul JohnsX 2045 N. Hwy. 360, addressed the co
approved this evening t e filed later when the easement is in place.
that the plat be
C/nne ooney pened the item for public comment. Because there were no co ents, the i
wor di ussion among the Commissioners.
C Floyd motioned to approve the plat with the condition as stated by the pplic
Cer Harris seconded the motion.
Aity Attorney Nemcik clari fied for the Commission that the off -site easement is air ahe also stated that the filing of the easement is being delayed to coincide with the
b applicant is the equitable interest holder.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.6 Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for The Gateway, Phase 2
consisting of 2 C -B Business - Commercial lots on 5.7 acres located at 1401 University Drive East.
(00 -232)
Graduate Engineer Vennochi presented the staff report. He opened by stating that Staff recommends
approval of the final plat with the following three conditions:
• Only one access drive for the entire 5.700 -acre tract.
• Access through the subject tract to serve both the R -5 tract to the north and the A -P tract to the
west.
• A 100' landscape buffer between the C -B and R -5 tracts.
P&Z Minutes January 18, 2001 Page 2 of 8
He explained that this property is a 5.700 -acre tract, to be platted as two separate lots and is part of the
25.566 -acre parent tract. The subject property was rezoned from R -1 to R -5 in 1995 along with the 20
R -5 zoned acres to the north. At that time, the intent was for all of the R -5 area to become a single
multi - family development. In 1997, the property was rezoned to C -B, which essentially disconnected
the future multi - family property from any street frontage. That rezoning included 4 conditions, three
of which were indicated earlier in my report and should be shown on the plat at this time.
Commissioner Floyd asked if the staff was agreeing to the single access point as being where it is
currently shown on the plat and how does that access point line up with Forest Drive? Mr. Vennochi
stated that the access point lines up exactly with Forest Drive according to TX DOT and may be
considered for possible future signal -light installation.
Opened the meeting for public comment.
Danny Miller, 1101 Capital of Texas Highway, Austin, stated that the conditions are acceptable. He
added that the intent of this development is to locate the driveway and a site plan has been prepared
that reflects the access point and it's exact alignment with Forest Drive for signalization by TX DOT at
the time of widening the road.
Chairman Mooney opened the meeting for public comment. No one came forward with a comment.
The item was moved to discussion among the Commissioners.
Commissioner Floyd motioned for approval with conditions as stated by staff. Commissioner Horlen
seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 -0.
one.
)A ITM NO. 4: Consideration of report to City Council: Protocol Issues. ( 1)
in Mooney s ed that this item was originally tabled at an earlier Plann' and Zoning
3sion Meeting an as discussed previously this evening during the Wor op Meeting. He
the item for public co ent.
;nito Flores - Meath, 901 Val e stated that he agreed with a Commission about better
plaining the platting process, re ing public comments, d perhaps revising ordinances
cordingly. He encouraged the Commi on to consider ramifications of not allowing public
mment on items not posted as public rings. finally, Mr. Flores -Meath suggested the
)mmission use the same process the City Counc to hear public comments on items that are not
, sted as public hearings by requiring the co ti of a request form prior to the meeting. The
)mmission would then call forward to hea a commen from only those who completed and turned
the forms.
Chairman Mooney closed the lic comment portion of the meets He explained that during the
workshop meeting Part 3,05s deleted from the original report. Also, i e discussion of Exhibit A,
Item E, it was dete ed that a statement, which requires the Commission accept a plat if it meets
all the criteria r irements, is needed to clarify the Commissions' restrictions ith regards to their pe
decision on ether to accept or deny a plat. This should help to alleviate any misle ing or confusion
for the licant or others in attendance at the meetings. Additionally, in the fins ort to City
Minutes January 18, 2001 e 3 of 8
.l
C . QUORLIE - ELAINE
- 2a. �-
/
/
AO� :
Il k
STORM
-... .. • 1\VJLI•1UL1 \V f\CI+VRL
THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF BRAT
BEARING: N 48'10'42 "E.
2. A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT
YEAR FLOODPLAIN ACCORDING TC
RATE MAP FOR BRAZOS COUNTY,
AREAS. COMMUNITY NO. 480083,
48041CO142C. EFFECTIVE DATE:
SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON AI
MAP REVISION ON FILE AT THE C
ENGINEER'S OFFICE.
3. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTE(
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURAN(
TITLE INSURANCE CO., COM #OOR(
JUNE 27, 2000, TO WIT THE FOI
COURSE
L1
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L9
L10
L11
L12
L13
L14
L15
b.) 60' WIDE PRIVATE ACCES
` °.P.ecmSED 15 PUBLIC 212. THIS EASEMENT ADJOIN
UT1L/TY EASEMENTMEIF. THE SUBJECT TRACT. THIS E
SUBJECT TRACT AND IS SHO'
N
S
N
N
20'48'20"W
48'09'30 "W
41 50 29"W
86'5030 "W
48'09'30 "W
41 50'29E
•- 48'09'31 'E
4'1 50 29 "W
' 48'09'30'E
86
41 '50'30 "E
48'09'31 'E
41 50'30 "W
48'09'30'E
20'48'20'E
DISTANCE
47.33'
81.32'
15.15'
41.57'
115.36'
35.64'
15.00'
20.64'
94.15'
29.14'
84.18'
15.00'
60.24'
84.97'
51.12'
d.) 20' SANITARY SEWER EA`
THIS EASEMENT LIES ADJACE
OF THE SUBJECT TRACT AND
e.) 30' COLUMBIA GAS DEVEI
EASEMENT, VOL. 2067, PG.
THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF TF
SHOWN HEREON.
f.) TERMS, PROVISIONS, AND
EASEMENT AS SET FORTH IN
EASEMENT 1 HAS NO DEFINE
STATEMENT CAN BE MADE AS
THE SUBJECT TRACT.
S
S.
S
S
S
EASEMENT 2 DEFINES GLENHI
NORTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT
TO THE SUBJECT TRACT AND
4. STORM WATER DRAINAGE IS
BURTON CREEK.
5. CURRENT ZONING FOR LOTS
6. ACCESS TO LOTS 1 & 2, AND
TRACT, LOCATED WEST OF THIS S
TO ONE (1) POINT OF ACCESS Fl
AND RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEME
BE DEFINED BY A SEPARATE INST
DEVELOPMENT OF EACH RESPECTI`
NOT FOI
PRELIM11
THE G.
0
Z
PHA
25 :4CCESS EASEMENT METES-
All
Q
COURSE _
-....: -• -- ~° $E4R/NG
5:6'31 '10 "W
DISTANCE
15.53'
TABLE
Q�
l ZS....
L 16
S "W 41 '50'30
158.43'
Z C
25.01'
7
;
C2
10.38'
L17
L 18
:' S69'40'54V
S48 Qom\ "
205.59'
28.26'
20.97'
49.50'
7 L19
N6,9`40'541
-
185.6
('!/
6 "N5512223 "hf- 27.26'
N69'40'54"
.94'
L21
N4 > 50'30'-
"W
164.62'
1
N43'03'51
30.37'
EASEMENT 2 DEFINES GLENHI
NORTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT
TO THE SUBJECT TRACT AND
4. STORM WATER DRAINAGE IS
BURTON CREEK.
5. CURRENT ZONING FOR LOTS
6. ACCESS TO LOTS 1 & 2, AND
TRACT, LOCATED WEST OF THIS S
TO ONE (1) POINT OF ACCESS Fl
AND RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEME
BE DEFINED BY A SEPARATE INST
DEVELOPMENT OF EACH RESPECTI`
NOT FOI
PRELIM11
THE G.
0
Z
PHA
I
CURVE
TABLE
CURVE
LENGTH
RADIUS
DELTA CHORD BEARING
Z C
25.01'
49.50'
28'57'07" S32'02'37 "W- 24.75'
C2
10.38'
24.50'
24'16'23" 5 N29'42'15'EW10.30'
/6 C3
20.97'
49.50'
24'16 28" N29 42'16'E-20.82'
f� C4
28.91'
24,50'
6 "N5512223 "hf- 27.26'
EASEMENT 2 DEFINES GLENHI
NORTHEAST OF THE SUBJECT
TO THE SUBJECT TRACT AND
4. STORM WATER DRAINAGE IS
BURTON CREEK.
5. CURRENT ZONING FOR LOTS
6. ACCESS TO LOTS 1 & 2, AND
TRACT, LOCATED WEST OF THIS S
TO ONE (1) POINT OF ACCESS Fl
AND RECIPROCAL ACCESS EASEME
BE DEFINED BY A SEPARATE INST
DEVELOPMENT OF EACH RESPECTI`
NOT FOI
PRELIM11
THE G.
0
Z
PHA
D E: 7/MAY /01
The engineer called to ask if his driveway permit could be sent as soon as possible when
he sends in the additional 3 copies of Site Plans.
DATE: Ol /Jun /01
Awaiting the following:
their next submittal with P &P of Fire and Sanitary Sewer;
min -max avg. demand table;
and, completed TxDOT utility permit for which I left a message with Danny Miller.
TxDOT driveway permit has been forwarded to Jay Page.
DATE: 07 /Aug /01
TxDOT Utility permit has been returned appproved. All permits with attached material
needs to be forwarded to applicant with the Development Permit.
TxDOT Driveway permit has been resubmitted to TXDOT showing University Drive
widening and driveway tie -in.
Called Danny Miller and requested a cost estimate for the Sanitary Sewer, Water Line
and Street construction. He said he would like to send in mylars for stamping then send
us the required copies.
He also said not to expect anything within the next three weeks because he needs to
receive payment from Extended Stay America for his services.
FILE NOTES
Project: Gateway, Phase 2
1401 University Drive East
DATE: 02 /JAN /01 File - DP 00 -89
FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr.
Reference the applicant's transmittal letter. They wish to clear what is necessary to gain
access for their boring equipment and vehicles in order to take soil samples. Therefore, it
is not necessary for them to obtain a full permit at this time. A partial permit for clearing
and grading only is all that is required this time. Furthermore, item #3 (Grading Plan) on
the Development Permit Issuance Checklist is not necessary, at this time, for a partial
permit, but is eventually necessary for a full permit.
DATE: 10 /JAN /01 File — PP 00 -232
FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr.
No driveway to University Drive will be allowed by plat for Lots 5, 6, 7, or 8. Refer to
the original preliminary plat for approved driveway locations for each individual lot
based on internal circulation layout. Access to University Drive for Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8
was not able to meet the driveway ordinance as originally platted on the Master
Preliminary Plat. When a median is installed on University Drive, driveway possibilities
will be more flexible.
DATE: 07 /MAR/01 File — PP 00 -232, FP 01 -47
FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr.
The preliminary plat was approved, with conditions, by the P &Z Commission on
18 /JAN /01. The final plat was on the P &Z Agenda for 15/MAR/01. Because the PP
conditions were not met the staff was going to deny the FP. In lieu of this Kling
Engineering opted to pull the FP from the agenda.
DATE: 12 /MAR/01 File — PP 00 -232, FP 01 -47, SP 01 -53
FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr.
FAX to Danny Miller:
This is to recap the points of our meeting this afternoon. Attached are revised Staff
Review Comments No. 1 (Site Plan) to lift the `Stop Review'. The Assistant City
Engineer has determined that no detention is necessary. We will proceed with Comments
No. 2 after the re- submittal. We will check with our Water/Waste Water Department to
assure that the sanitary sewer has been upgraded. You will meet the conditions for the
Preliminary Plat and represent those changes on the Final Plat to which you will resubmit
both on Monday, March 19, 2001 in order for the Final Plat to go to the P &Z Committee
on April 5, 2001. We are waiting to receive your LOMR.
DATE: 28 /MAR/01 File — PP 00 -232, FP 01 -47
FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr.
Nothing was submitted on March 19 to satisfy the PP/FP requirements stated in the above
note. I left a message, in regard to the deadline requirements, with Danny Miller on
March 23. Kling Engineering submitted the FP only on March 26 with the current
FEMA map flood plain depicted. I called Stuart Kling on March 28 and told him that
the new flood plain needs to be depicted. They have satisfied the conditions for the PP
on the FP, but I told him that a copy of the PP is necessary (with the conditions satisfied)
to be on file in our office. He said he would submit the PP and resubmit the FP today.
Later called in by Danny Miller, he said he was depicting the current FEMA map flood
plain because technically the LOMAR has not been approved and, therefore, according
to the City of Austin, the current FEMA map flood plain should be shown on the FP. I
told him we accept the new revised flood plain per his drainage report and the flood plain
administrator's (Assistant City Engineer, Ted Mayo mentioned above in the FAX to
Danny Miller) agreement that a 0.01 rise in the base flood elevations and no detention is
acceptable.
He requested to have the FP pulled from the April 5`" P &Z agenda and will have revised
PP/FP by April 9 for the April 19`" P &Z meeting. I told him he must send us a written
request to pull the FP by noon March 29 or we will recommend disapproval to the
Commission.
DATE: 10 /APR/01 File —PP 00 -232, FP 01 -47
FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr.
The PP and FP were submitted on April 9`". The FP will go to the P &Z on April 19`" with
the conditions of FP Staff Review comments #2. It will not be filed until the LOMAR is
submitted and approved by us, then sent to /approved by F.E.M.A.