Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2001 - Regular Minutes - Wolf Pen Creek Oversight CommitteeWOLF PEN CREEK DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING July 29, 2002 TO: Richard Smith, Richard Smith & Associates, via fax — 260 -2758 FROM: Design Review Board Kay Henryson, DRB Member Judy Holt, DRB Member George McLean, DRB Member Bill Trainor, DRB Member Rick Floyd, P &Z Chairman John Happ, P &Z Commissioner Karl Mooney, P &Z Commissioner Carolyn Williams, P &Z Commissioner Staff: Bridgette George, Asst. Development Review Manager Sabine Kuenzel, Senior Planner Jane Kee, City Planner Molly Hitchcock, Staff Planner Ted Mayo, Development Services Engineer and Floodplain Manager Judy Downs, Greenways Program Manager Kim Foutz, Economic & Community Development Director Charles Wood, Senior Economic Development Analyst Tammy Macik, Secretary SUBJECT: WPC Development at Texas and Harvey.' Discussion and consideration of a conceptual site plan for a mixed -use retail building at the corner of Texas Avenue and Harvey Road. A Wolf Pen Creek Design Review Board (DRB) meeting was held on Wednesday, February 21, 2001 to review the above- mentioned proposal. Richard Smith with Richard Smith & Associates began by stating he has owned the land for 20 years and has had an interest in developing it. He has retained the services of Ash & Brown Engineering to look at the unusual tract in hopes that they could come up with some ways to fully utilize the property with its natural impediments. In reviewing the FEMA maps, Mr. Smith said they have found a way to design a building that would accommodate the floodway and floodplain. Therefore, he had an architect design a conceptual site plan that would work with a 5 -story building. The first story will be parking, the second, third, and fourth stories would be business office space, and fifth floor would be four condominium /apartment units. Development Services Engineer Mayo stated the project would require a reconstruction of the channel. The current floodplain is 200 ft wide and the Wolf Pen Creek ordinance requires an additional 20 -ft on either side as the dedication. Mr. Smith stated if the channel is to accelerate its flow, it would cause a problem down stream but if you narrow it, it would cause a problem up stream. Mr. Smith said that their intention is to design it from an engineering standpoint so it would not change the flow one way or the other. Engineer Mayo said it appears that it would have to go up stream to clear base flood elevation. Mr. Smith said the plan has a finished floor elevation in the parking garage, which is 12 inches above the floodplain. Senior Planner Kuenzel asked if the surface parking would be elevated? Mr. Smith stated it would be at the same level bases as the other parking areas within the corridor. Engineer Mayo mentioned that our ordinance requires a variance to be granted for parking in the floodway but, if it is elevated above the one hundred -year base flood elevation, it is acceptable. Senior Planner Kuenzel confirmed that if you put any kind of structure in the floodplain, a variance would be required. DRB Member Henryson asked Mr. Smith if Ash & Brown had coordinated any of the engineering studies like what McClure is doing for the city as far as the channel improvements. Mr. Smith said he didn't think so but after talking with Kim Foutz and Tom Brymer, they felt they could merge the Ash & Brown and McClure plans together. Senior Planner Kuenzel questioned if this project would be economically feasible after getting the Core of Engineer and FEMA permits. Ms. Foutz stated that the Public Works recommended that improvements be done in lieu of parkland dedication. Ms. Foutz told the DRB that when Mr. Smith created this project, he did include the city's ordinances and the modeling with the dedications. Even with the WPC Corridor Charrette Plan, Ms. Foutz stated that it has not been determined what the plans were in this area. Ms. Foutz said it is their desire to try to identify what direction the DRB would like to go in this so, that when Mr. Smith looks at his site plan he can accommodate it. Senior Planner Kuenzel pointed out that there is more floodway on the property than may have been anticipated. She stated that there are 2 20 -ft pedestrian easement on each side going up the bank and that the dedication would have to be on either side of floodway. Senior Planner Kuenzel also pointed out that the property was platted in 1981 and may not have had any restrictions during that time. She continued by stating that whatever parking is shown in the floodway will have be elevated. Commissioner Floyd asked what is the definition of the Wolf Pen Corridor? City Planner Kee stated that the Wolf Pen Corridor is a zoning district and everything in it is zoned WPC. She added that the only thing that is not included in WPC is the new Wolf Pen Plaza Shopping Center. DRB Member Henryson stated that there have been identity issues with this site as far as land use. Commissioner Floyd wanted to see the ordinance to make sure this property was included in the WPC Corridor. City Planner Kee stated that she could get him the metes and bounds description for that rezoning and that nothing has ever been rezoned in that corner out of WPC district. DRB Member Trainor asked how the Wolf Pen Plaza Shopping Center got out of the Wolf Pen Corridor. City Planner Kee stated that the property owner requested it be rezoned and council approved it with a couple of conditions. DRB Member Trainor avowed that Mr. Smith might need to request a rezoning. Senior Planner Kuenzel stated he would still need to take care of the engineering concerns and channeling. DRB Member Henryson agreed with Senior Planner Kuenzel and added that the traffic study along Texas also needs to be considered. Senior Planner Kuenzel continued stating that there would be more property dedication or rededication done by TxDot and asked if Mr. Smith had considered it. Mr. Smith stated that the architect already took out .2 acres of the property line on the plat prepared. Commissioner Floyd commended Mr. Smith on enduring such an ambitious project and made the comment that Mr. Smith could set the theme for the whole Wolf Pen Creek Corridor. Mr. Smith stated that it was just about the only way to develop the land. DRB Member Henryson stated it was a very prominent corner. Mr. Smith said he wanted to get a feel if he should continue with the project or discontinue it. Commissioner Mooney said that if Mr. Smith met all of the standards and continued with being an attractive entry as presented, it would be an ideal project for the property. Commissioner Happ agreed and said it would set the theme but stated his main concern was with traffic at that corner with a 5 -story building. Mr. Smith said he thought about traffic issues and that is why he decided on an office building WPC Design Review Board 07/29/02 Page 2 of 3 rather than a retail building. He also stated that one of his incentives for building an office building was to put his corporate headquarters in it. Commissioner Mooney stated that another possible advantage was that a building with open space on the bottom floor would serve as a buffer where people can see trees rather than the backside of buildings. Senior Planner Kuenzel asked whether the creek would be open and visible. Mr. Smith stated that the banks of the creek and the area underneath the building would depend on what they have to do to comply with FEMA and the Corps of Engineers on the flow of the water. Mr. Smith asked when the city was planning on building the walkway under Texas Avenue. Ms. Downs said they met with TXDot the previous day and will be meeting with them again but it is not in the current plan. She said they were anticipating in another 5 years or so. Mr. Smith asked if they would do the walkway the same time as the Texas Avenue widening. Ms. Downs said yes. Ms. Foutz questioned if there would be issues for maintenance to maintain the walkways or would the NRB rather prefer for Mr. Smith to do the improvements in lieu of parkland dedications. She continued by asking the possibility to get the improvements outside underneath the building way and try to discern from Mr. McClure where he should align on his property to make connection. Senior Kuenzel answered Ms. Foutz by stating that dedication and doing this project is mutually exclusive. Mr. Smith asked how wide is the floodway runs at that point. Engineer Mayo stated it is right at 200 ft. Mr. Mayo explained that the floodway is mathematical calculations that reserve capacity to pass the 100 -year event with maximum 1 -ft rise. He said you model the flood plain limits and then you start taking space out until you force 1 -ft rise. There is a little flexibility. DRB Member McLean asked about the upstream side and where the retention on Anderson Street was put in. He also asked what effect is it going to have on the downstream? Engineer Mayo stated that the school put in detention measures and Texas A &M is going to do detention above George Bush on that branch. A &M is committed to do detention on the Golf Course. If A &M does this, it would reduce the flow. Senior Planner Kuenzel went back to the parking in the floodway. She stated that in cases past, the city didn't allow any parking in the floodway. Engineer Mayo said the engineering analysis done by Ash & Brown does address the impact of parking. DRB Member Henryson stated that how you buffer the cars from adjacent properties and from the greenways would be critical from DRB standpoint. Mr. Smith questioned if that was something he needed to address with the adjacent property owners of the auto shop and the church or was it a city issue. DRB Member Henryson stated it was a city issue as far as landscaping plans. Mr. Smith felt the adjacent property owners would be on the same elevation as their parking. Since this was preliminary meeting to give Mr. Smith feedback on the project only, no voting was required at this time. WPC Design Review Board 07/29/02 Page 3 of 3