The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondence® O Page 1 of 1 .Jennifer Prochazka - Plazas at Rock Prairie From: Natalie Ruiz <natalie @ipsgroup.us> To: <bcowell @cstx.gov >, <jprochazka @cstx.gov> Date: 4/13/2011 10:51 AM Subject: Plazas at Rock Prairie Good morning! I wanted to let you guys know that we submitted an Alternative Parking Plan application this morning for the Lehtonen's property at Rock Prairie and Highway 6. We're simply requesting that the 1:250 shopping center requirement apply with the exception that the 25% limitation on intense uses be removed. Our goal is to address the parking issue as simply as possible. I wanted to include similar rationale used by Weingarten; but, their application didn't include much at all. The Lehtonen's would like to resolve the parking issue as soon as possible - definitely by the 4/21 P &Z meeting. If there's anything you need from me to help approve the application, please don't hesitate to ask. I look forward to hearing from you guys soon! Thanks! Natalie file://CADocuments and Settings \jrochazka \Local Settings \Temp \XPgrpwise \4DA58042C... 4/21/2011 ,..% Page 1 of 1 Jennifer Prochazka - Plazas at Rock Prairie From: Natalie Ruiz <natalie @ipsgroup.us> To: <jprochazka @cstx.gov> Date: 4/20/2011 11:48 PM Subject: Plazas at Rock Prairie CC: "Lehtonen Investments, Ltd." <lehtonen @suddenlinkmail.com> Attachments: Lehtonen Parking Plan.docx Good morning Jennifer! Thanks for taking time to visit with me yesterday about the alternative parking plan at Rock Prairie. I've attached some additional information for the plan; however, I did not include some of the information you referenced in the code. We didn't submit the "required study and analysis" referenced in the shared parking plan alternative. I didn't think that was the best option since we're proposing to construct all of the parking on our property. The code outlines 3 eligible alternatives (shared being one of them); however it also states that the "Administrator shall be authorized to consider and approve any alternative to providing off - street parking spaces on the site of the subject development if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed plan shall result in a better situation..." Instead, we selected "other" alternative parking plan as allowed per the application. In "contents ", the code states that "at a minimum, such plans shall detail the type of alternative proposed and the rationale for such a proposal ". We were trying to focus on the rationale of varying peak times based upon the parking requirements established by the UDO. If 25% of the shopping center can be intense uses, why not strategically stagger their peak times to fully utilize the parking? We're not trying to recreate the wheel, just apply another level of control at the owner's level to regulate intense uses. We're trying to provide you the rationale to grant the alternative and also keep the application as simple as possible. Please review and let me know your thoughts. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to resolve this issue as soon as possible. If you have any ideas on how to restructure the request or modify the calculations, we're open. Thanks again JP! Natalie file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \iprochazka \Local Settings \Temp \XPgrpwise \4DAF70DA... 4/21/2011 Page 1 of 2 Jennifer Prochazka - Re: Fwd: Plazas at Rock Prairie ! m u !!!!!u!! !!!,u!! !! - . ._ " e W I: . !uv�D,a uti!s!w!!! iuu!!!!! ir!!!!!!!!!!i .a, uu d _ I$a % Rm!wu m !! �!!!!ffl!!ra r. r v. r �, q pl, % ! !!! > ksh = ! !! ! !rte,; „ „ y.. vl!mN t,!!!!d!,mu ,, „ !r From: Bob Cowell To: Jennifer Prochazka Date: 4/25/20119:11 AM Subject: Re: Fwd: Plazas at Rock Prairie Jennifer, Thanks for the information. Based on our conversation this morning, I offer the following. Please provide the information to Natalie and the property owner. I am not willing to approve an increase in the % of intense uses permitted for the site. This was discussed at our meeting with the property owners and rejected as an option for staff. If this is the direction sought by the property owner then the PDD or a ZBA variance are the proper routes. I am willing (and empowered via the UDO to do so) to approve an alternative parking plan that permits (based on data provided by the applicant) that permits additional breakfast uses (within the allowed 25% intense land use) based on differing peak parking demands from the other businesses. I am not willing to permit the alternative parking plan absent data as required by the UDO. At a minimum I need to know what the current parking demands of the center are and what the projected parking demands will be for an average "collection" of breakfast restaurants (the types noted in Natalie's e- mail). Finally, once we have the data and assuming it demonstrates that breakfast establishments can be accommodated along with the other intense land uses due to alternate parking demands, we will need to formalize this in some fashion. Natalie seems to indicate that the management of this will be left up to the property owner. In actuality it will need to be something also monitored by the City and new uses will need to be checked against what has been approved to ensure continued compliance. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thanks, :•• >>> Jennifer Prochazka 4/21/20119:21 AM >>> Bob, Let me know if this is what you had in mind. I was thinking something more concrete and enforceable, but, I am not too concerned with parking issues on this site. >>> Natalie Ruiz <natalie @ipsgroup.us> 4/20/2011 11:48 PM >>> Good morning Jennifer! Thanks for taking time to visit with me yesterday about the alternative parking plan at Rock Prairie. I've attached some additional information for the plan; however, I did not include some of the information you referenced in the code. We didn't submit the "required study and analysis" referenced in the shared parking plan alternative. I didn't think that was the best option since we're proposing to construct all of the parking on our property. The code outlines 3 eligible alternatives (shared being one of them); however it also states that the "Administrator shall be authorized to consider and approve any alternative to providing off - street parking spaces on the site of the subject development if the applicant demonstrates that the proposed plan shall result in a better situation..." Instead, we selected "other" alternative parking plan as allowed per the application. In "contents ", the code states that "at a minimum, such plans shall detail the type of alternative proposed and the rationale for such a proposal ". We were trying to focus on the rationale of varying peak times based upon the parking requirements file: //C: \Documents and Settings \iprochazka \Local Settings \Temt) \XPv- mwise \4DB53ACF... 4/25/2011 Page 2 of 2 established by the UDO. If 25% of the shopping center can be intense uses, why not strategically stagger their peak times to fully utilize the parking? We're not trying to recreate the wheel, just apply another level of control at the owner's level to regulate intense uses. We're trying to provide you the rationale to grant the alternative and also keep the application as simple as possible. Please review and let me know your thoughts. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to resolve this issue as soon as possible. If you have any ideas on how to restructure the request or modify the calculations, we're open. Thanks again JP! Natalie filets: \Documents and Settings \iorochazka \Local Settinvs \Temp \XP2rowise \4DB53ACF... 4/25/2011 L L+-ems -II - - uLdUK uA i (� GL Q4 S - ar ' 7