HomeMy WebLinkAboutjune 13 Cty o Coge Staton
POST i OFFICE f BOX 9960 lle i
1101 TEXAS AVENUE
C COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77840 -2499
June 14, 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO: Art Toy, LMI, Inc.; Wayne Gregory, Golemon & Rolfe Assoc., Inc.;
Michael E. Lipscomb, Carter & Burgess, Inc.; Stuart Kling, Kling
Engineering; Jim Schutt, Landscape Architect; David Mayo, Engr.
FROM: Project Review Committee:
Al Mayo, Director of Planning
David Pullen, City Engineer
Ron Kaiser, P &Z Representative (also Ray Martyn & Celia Stallings)
Other Staff:
Coy Perry, Building Official
John Black, Traffic Engineer
Joey Porter, Ass't. Fire Marshal
Joe Guidry, Electrical Superintendent
Jane Kee, Zoning Official
Kim Johnson, Ass't. Zoning Official
Bob Epps, Ass't. Director of Public Services
Jim McCord, Elec. Power Engrs.
Shirley Volk, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Parking Lot Plan - University Inn - Jersey /Wellborn Rd. (84 - 414)
The P.R.C. met on June 13, 1984 to review the above mentioned project, and the fol-
lowing report was the result:
COMMENTS
(1) Distribution of project (buildings /parking) is poor. Suggest redistribution of
facilities (parking & buildings) to improve convenience and accessibility.
(2) Show all island dimensions. (9 ft. x 20 ft. or 180 sq. ft. minimum).
(3) Ordinance requires a minimum eight foot setback from R.O.W. to any paved area.
(4) Handicapped parking spaces should be designed according to regulations.
(5) Entrance /exit signs are limited to 3 or 4 sq. ft. with no logo or wording, other
than directional. The number and spacing appears to be excessive. Delete most
of the signs.
(6) Legal access to the existing building must be provided (Drew Woods project).
(7) Every curb end must be marked as a Fire Lane on the perimeter of the building.
(8) Fire hydrants must be within 300 feet of all parts of every building as the hose
lays. (Coordinate location with the Superintendent of Water and Sewer).
(9) The above ground gasoline and diesel fuel storage tanks at the Drew Woods project
must be placed underground when this project begins.
PRC Report (84 - 414)
6 - 14 - 84
page 2
(10) Allow an area no less than 14 feet in width for backing trucks to compactor.
Compactor must be compatible to City trucks. Coordinate with Department of
Public Services.
(11) Discuss changing the point of electrical service with the Electric Department.
Loop -type service is a possibility, and a meeting should be scheduled.
(12) PRC Drainage Statement provided. Compliance is required. Something other
than an open ditch as shown on the plans should be provided.
(13) Parking problems are anticipated; this facility does not provide ample parking
nor does the apartment project across the street, so there is no overflow
cross- parking possible.
(14) The location of this project will cause access problems due to the location of
the railroad tracks, the number of trains and the lack of crossings. Emergency
services will be difficult to provide.
(15) Sanitary sewer and water details must be coordinated with the City Engineer and
the Superintendent of Water & Sewer (Bennie Luedke).
(16) Sprinkler systems for buildings must be tapped off the main water line.
(17) Spacing of driveways relative to others in this area area acceptable.
(18) Landscaping (plant material) points as shown meet ordinance requirements, minimally.
Landscape Architect has indicated more landscaping than is shown will be included.
(19) Sign location and regulations are governed by Ordinance 850. Coordinate with
Zoning Official Jane Kee prior to design.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This project has an application pending before the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a
variance to the parking requirement. The PRC submits the following recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Adjustment for consideration:
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ZBA
Director of Planning Mayo is opposed to any type of parking variance for this project
for the following three reasons:
A. This is a unique site due to its isolated location. There is nothing in the
area to accommodate any overflow parking, therefore parking must be handled
on -site. (The apartment dwellers across the street are likely to park on
this lot.)
B. Parking standards provided at site review of a different Sheraton hotel project
ranged from 1.3 to 1.8 spaces per room. If 1.8 is used (rather than the City's
requirement by Ordinance), 405 spaces are needed for the proposed number of
rooms alone. In addition to this figure, parking must be provided for the
other facilities, totalling approximately 470 spaces in all. When parking
is figured by the City's ordinance requirement (cumulatively), 523 spaces
PRC Report (84 -414)
6 -14 -84
page 3
are required.
C. The legal description received for what was represented as land for this
project includes approximately 4 additional acres than is shown on this
site plan, which means there is land available to develop more parking to
meet requirements. Please Note: A representative of this applicant has
indicated the additional 4 acres are not a part of this project, and he
has no knowledge of them.
City Engineer Pullen Is opposed to this variance request for the following reasons:
A. The very magnitude of the request.
B. There is no land available for any overflow parking for this project or the
apartment complex across the street.
Planning and Zoning Representative Kaiser is opposed to this variance request for the
following reasons:
A. The magnitude of the request.
B, Unavailability of land or parking lots for overflow parking which might be
created at certain times (i.e., football weekends, etc.)
C. All options apparently have not been explored by the developer; facilities
could be altered or modified to require less parking, since apparently no
more land is available,
SAFETY CONCERNS
The following safety concerns were voiced:
A. Inadequacy of the intersection to handle traffic.
B. The proximity of this project to both the railroad tracks and the concrete
plant,
C. The lack of access for both public vehicles and emergency vehicles (fire,
ambulance, police, etc,)
P.R.C. REVIEW RESULTS
There are three voting members on the Project Review Committee: The Director of Plan-
ning, the City Engineer and a Planning & Zoning Commission representative.
Director of Planning Mayo made two recommendations. The first is that no building permit
or approved site plan should be issued for a project of this type on this site. The
reasons are:
1) Safety - this project will create a dangerous and hazardous situation. About
twenty trains a day pass this site, most being unscheduled. All sorts of
materials are handled, and derailments are not uncommon. The intersection at
Jersey and Wellborn Road may have difficulty handling the greatly increased load.
The concrete plant could be subject to hazardous dust. This is just not a safe
environment to put the general public.
PRC Report (84 -414)
6 -14 -84
page 4
2) Planning - the Comprehensive Plan shows and has always shown this site as
industrial, not commercial. It is not a good commercial site. The zoning,
M -2, Is a heavy industrial zone. Even though this zone is cumulative, allowing
commercial uses, it is clear that the City's intention has always been and
still is that this site is industrial. A heavy commercial use here is
incompatible.
3) Availability of alternate locations - there is an abundance of undeveloped,
commercially -zoned sites that would be good locations for this project.
These sites would be safe, accessible and serviceable.
If, however, the City should decide to overlook these factors and ultimately grant a
permit for this project at this location, the second recommendation is to redesign
the plan to more evenly distribute the parking areas in relation to the uses and /or
to reduce the size and complexity of the project.
City Engineer Pullen recommends against this project for the following 2 reasons:
1) The emergency services (medical, fire, police, etc.) problem; (in case of
fire this becomes a rescue type situation in a 10 story building rather than
a fire fighting situation).
2) The project is too stretched -out in design; it is a design which promotes
off -site parking.
PAZ Representative Kaiser recommends against this project as it is being presented
because too many safety questions have been voiced and answers as to degree of risk
have not been addressed. He expressed a preference to treating this as a rezoning
request and holding a public hearing in order to have some input from the public due
to the impact a project of this magnitude would have on the City.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Assistant Fire Marshal Porter has pointed out to the developers that the east side
of the building, as this project is proposed, is useless in a rescue type situation
because large emergency vehicles cannot function in the 20 foot fire lane on that
side of the building.
APPEAL PROCEDURE
Appeals of the Project Review Committee recommendations must be made to the Planning
and Zoning Commission. Should the applicant wish to be included on the P &Z Agenda
for the regular meeting on July 5, 1984, please submit 10 copies of site /landscaping
plan, along with any other information to be included in the packets for the Commissioners,
to the Planning Department by Friday, June 29, 1984 at 5:00 P.M.
sjv