HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/2004 - Regular Agenda Packet - Design Review Board Agenda
College Station Design Review Board
• Friday, March 26, 2004
Administrative Conference Room
College Station City Secretary's Office
F.nubrucn;z the Past,Exploring the Future 1101 Texas Avenue
11:00 a.m.
1. Call to order.
2. Consider absence requests.
3. Consideration, discussion and possible action to approve meeting minutes
from March 12, 2004
4. Discussion, consideration and possible action on a concept plan for
Castlegate Section 6 located on the North side of Greens Prairie Road,just
west of Castlegate Drive. (04-49 JR).
• 5. Discussion and possible action on future agenda items — A Design Review
Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been
given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of
existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a
proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting.
6. Adjourn.
The building is wheelchair accessible. Handicap parking spaces are
• available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made 48 hours
before the meeting. To make arrangements call
(979) 764-3517 or (TDD) 1-800-735-2989.
Minutes
Design Review Board
March 12, 2004
11 :00 AM
Board Members Present: Scott Shafer, Alan King, Richard Benning &
Stanton Ware.
Board Members Absent: Dr. Phil Tabb, Bill Trainor& George McLean.
Staff Present: Staff Assistant Deborah Grace, Planning Intern Lauren
Harrell, Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka , Development
Review Manager Natalie Ruiz and Transportation Planner
Ken Fogle.
Others Present: Mike McClure.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 Call to order.
Mr. Shafer called the meeting to order.
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: Consider absence requests.
Dr. Tabb
Bill Trainor
George McLean
Mr. King made the motion to approve the absence requests. Mr. Ware seconded the
motions, which passed unopposed(4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: Consideration, discussion and possible action to
approve meeting minutes from February 13, 2004
Mr. King made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Ware seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed(4-0).
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: Discussion, consideration and possible to approve
meeting minutes from February 27, 2004.
Mr. Ware made the motion to approve the minutes. Mr. King seconded the motion,
which passed unopposed(4-0).
•
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: Discussion, consideration and possible action to on a
concept plan for Allsize Storage, a mini storage complex, zoned PDD, at 3101 Texas
Avenue South. (04-46).
Staff Planner Jennifer Prochazka presented the staff report and stated that the proposal is
for the development of a self-storage complex with an accessory office and living unit for
on-site management. This is only a review of the items required by the "Conceptual PDD
Site Plan Minimum Requirements". Approval of this Concept Plan does not imply site
plan approval or approval of specific site elements shown on the plan.
The purpose of the PDD at this location is to restore an agreement between the owners of
the subject property and the adjacent Mile Drive neighborhood, and limiting uses next to
an established neighborhood that may experience cut-through traffic as a result of
development of this property.
In 1987 a greenbelt and access easement were platted on this property as a requirement of
the 1987 rezoning that came out of an agreement between the subject property owners
and the Mile Drive residents. The greenbelt reserve and adjacent access easement serve
as a 70-foot buffer from the residential property for future structures, including parking,
on this site. The PDD zoning was approved with the understanding that this buffer would
be retained.
• Staff recommends approval of the concept plan with the condition that the parking shown
in the access easement is relocated to an approved area on site. Also, the gate will have
to be positioned to allow for others to access the access easement without going through
the gates. This access easement was platted as the sole access to the property located to
the east of the subject property; this easement must remain clear for access to the adjacent
property.
Staff has concerns with the location of the currently platted access easement. The current
location of the access easement does not meet the City's throat depth requirements and
may pose a safety concern. An alternate access point should be considered with this
concept plan.
Mr. Benning made the motion to accept with staff recommendations and reduce the
parking spaces by how the building is classified Mr. King seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed(4-0). .
•
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6: Discussion, consideration and possible action on
• proposed signs for A Ka Sa Ka Sake Bar, zoned NG-1 and located at 113 College
Main on the 2"d story. (04-43).
Staff Planner Prochazka resented the staff report and stated that the applicant is proposing
three new signs. The proposed signage will be attached for the A Ka Sa Ka Sake Bar
located on the second story of the structure at the southwest corner of College Main and
Patricia Street. The applicant is proposing 3-2'x l0' aluminum signs located on the west
side (facing the Promenade), the north side (facing Patricia Street), the east side of the
building (facing College Main).
Kyoto Sushi, located on the bottom level of this building, has signage approved in 2002.
Ms. Prochazka told the Board that the signs have already been put up and the applicant
was not in attendance at the meeting should they have any questions.
The Board discussed the signs. Without the applicant being present to answer questions
it was decided to decline the application.
Mr. King made the motion to decline the application and request that the applicant
return with an alternative design with a possibility of the sign being vertical on the end
of the building. Mr. Benning seconded the motion, which passed unopposed(4-0).
• AGENDA ITEM NO. 7: Discussion and consideration of future agenda items.
Update on sign regulations.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Adjourn.
Mr. Benning made the motion to adjourn. Mr. King seconded the motion, which
passed unopposed(4-0).
APPROVED:
Scott Shafer
ATTEST:
Deborah Grace, Staff Assistant
•
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
• PDD OR P-MUD CONCEPT PLAN
STAFF REPORT
Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Date: 03-02-04
E-mail: jreeves@cstx.gov
For
CASTLEGATE SEC 6 (CON) 04-00500049
A Concept Plan shall be required prior to any development of property zoned Planned
Development District (PDD).
Zoning District: PDD Planned Development District
Approved Land Uses: Single family, public and private parks, and open space
Location: 10.80 acres North side of Greens Prairie Road,just west of Castlegate Drive.
Applicant: Greens Prairie Investors, Ltd.
Item Summary: The developer wishes to continue the development as it was originally
envisioned and implemented in the previous Sections 1-5 of the Castlegate Subdivision.
• The Planned Development District is the only available district that provides for the
meritorious modifications of the regulations.
Allowable building heights are listed from 15 to 35 feet. Requested building setbacks are
requested as follows (LIDO standards follow in parenthesis):
Front: 20' minimum, (25')
Side: 7.5' (7.5')
Side Street: 15' (15')
Rear: 20' for lots > 100' in depth (20')
15' for lots < 100' in depth (20')
Minimum lot dimensions for lots that are located adjacent to the floodplain or greenway
areas are proposed as follows:
Minimum Lot Area: 8000 SF (5000 SF)
Minimum Lot Width: 50' at front or rear setback line (50')
35' at street right-of-way
Minimum Lot Depth: 101' (100')
•
Street pavement width for residential streets are proposed as follows:
• 24' width for cul-de-sac streets (27')
27' width for other residential streets (27')
Parks and Recreation Board Recommendations: The Parks Board has previously
approved the Castlegate Master Plan for parkland dedication.
Greenways Program Manager Recommendations: The developer has also worked
with the Greenways Program Manager to finalize plans for dedicating a 5.3-acre
greenway area in another portion of Castlegate.
Administrator Recommendations: The administrator recommends approval of the
plan as submitted.
Review Criteria:
1. The proposal will constitute an environment of sustained stability and will be in
harmony with the character of the surrounding area;
2. The proposal is in conformity with the policies, goals, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, and any subsequently adopted Plans, and will be consistent
with the intent and purpose of this Section;
3. The proposal is compatible with existing or permitted uses on abutting sites and will
not adversely affect adjacent development;
4. Every dwelling unit need not front on a public street but shall have access to a public
• street directly or via a court, walkway, public area, or area owned by a homeowners
association;
5. The development includes provision of adequate public improvements, including, but
not limited to, parks, schools, and other public facilities;
6. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
7. The development will not adversely affect the safety and convenience of vehicular,
bicycle, or pedestrian circulation in the vicinity, including traffic reasonably expected
to be generated by the proposed use and other uses reasonably anticipated in the
area considering existing zoning and land uses in the area.
Minimum Requirements: Unless otherwise indicated in the approved Concept Plan, the
minimum requirements for this development shall be those stated in the Unified
Development Ordinance for R-1 Single Family Residential
Attachments:
1. Application
2. Concept Plan
3. Planning and Zoning minutes from the March 18, 2004 meeting
•
FOR OFFFI E U$�LILY
W CASE NO 0 �� } 1
DATE SUBMITTED p' 3 -04
• CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW FOR PDD / P-MUD
c(PDD-H (Housing) o PDD-I (Industrial) o PDD-B (Business) o P-MUD
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Application completed in full
$200.00 application fee
✓ Ten (10) copies of the Concept Plan in accordance with Section 3 4.D of the UDO.
Written legal description of subject property (metes & bounds or lot & block of subdivision, whichever is
applicable).
Concept Plan Information sheet completed in full.
iJ Proof that the Greenways Manager has reviewed and approved your conceptual plan.
_ Proof that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has reviewed and approved your conceptual plan.
'�`pr�t�'.�Gt��,1 C�Y�1 i�,c21'1`,f.tin ���'•u.�r�lm ren}' hct5 r1.�6'C.�3�y 11(�.�r_t1 vn r�.
■
Date of Required Preapplication Conference: ;J/A
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION: _
Name(s) "Pret4ri r
Street Address 4-4-1C City _&1te JF SM70-vl
State I X Zip Code E-Mail Address J
• Phone Number `1 ZS Fax Number /e I
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name(s) C�r �n5 l�'uiriP_ .S✓I✓ �-�c�S
Street Address �14`iC �G2`� C)�.tr `►�'�, City (.
State
X Zip Coded E-Mail Address
Phone Number J�� h�j0- 72_ `�0 Fax Number
This property was conveyed to owner by deed, dated - 17- Zoe;r and recorded in Volume 5(?OJ ;
Page 5S of the Brazos County Deed Records.
General Location of Property Nirt(r, c1 - :c� 1110
Address of Property: ►lr,►,r,
Legal Description: Sy-
Total Acreage. nil s J
Existing Zoning A- C Requested Zoning. PPD
Present Use of Property- C't4c c(U,l4wetJ
J
Proposed Use of Property
•
r
CONCEPT PLAN INFORMATION
Purpose and intent of proposed development, as approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zoning
r�5(edr'1A0, 1 CC 01 wLwi.4yg Lc. ('41,, 6(Ll if i i[ fie-,
C,i,Ae-1 �r Cin �.�►hc:c.►�c��.1 ��,cL (.��� ,-,4- Lil,_11
List and explanation of the land uses approved by the City Council as part of the PDD zonJing: 5t,1l(�� itzmi (.1
C-�(�i�"..l' �„'1/'I 11 �'i � 'f.�Lo 7 _,�l• 1 � .1 qi'(w', e{ri/k' 1
r►'l
What is the range of future building heights 17 -
Please provide a general statement regarding the proposed drainage: t '- �,1 ",,r.�'�1 '�ct�1 nZ ioiil P(�_,
'ol ,., - - Ar L eazl ; 41te r1t 144 in if I t'� t✓�,c 7Gt2c-i �'7
rr baFralrif, rt)ii�-��'- ��4 6 6c' l t' ( ,.Aperi-t
7l �/ h� 1y a
buil (bn*�tl.l ? `i,,y_) P1Ab-1 Ltil Col's LLC f'�(�1C�IC 1iLl
)Kyrie,fCti. t'kiblt-t�-t.(k f {�, (t.l �cf�fi� �'ttX'''�� 11.i �I111� �i 1 / 'p� i'�(i
� 7 c Q'rL�,c r�� l� i.+r.'�''�1`�; (_ltii9 i Illl�K( lt.a
Gf y Com•/1�� r E: �ilnr n�r .
List the gene/ra�lLt�ulk or dimensional variations sought: S1h.rt' ;xc�E pi it y;/ �; �'e/�lh( �cyy �� .-ci.ref
Y-P5de &y'1 `;✓rLf�T t Ll L 1 �r 1� �f� (� ( ( L _ll� "I 11e'
��<. ,k L 1 -� ��a 1.-C<r•fr< ,, �'vlr ,in�.�yv1 k)t c��ICYI��t c►�, 1
If variations are sought, please provide a list of community benefits and / or innovative design concepts to
justify the request: See Au -k, me-rihn'L,,n I'�a r�i'c,�t �✓l�
`t� C�• ,cis .
(Please note that a "complete site plan” must be submitted to Development Services for a formal
review after the "conceptual" plan has been approved by the Design Review Board prior to the
issuance of a building permit— except for single-family development)
The applicant has prepared this application and supporting Information and certifies that the facts stated
herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct IF APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE
OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, APPLICATION MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
POWER OF ATTORNEY STATEMENT FROM THE OWNER
17
• /moi/. S ,% �i'` --`_� — ,�. - ...
Signature of owner oKapplicant Date
r
` v.ESTui R
R e SE
A-0 ' I •, i
SuuON' d
\' A•D
PDO
A•0
LIMITS
}/ A•0
A•0 \
A•OR
A.0
ETWA4 /
wEL N FOREST
Q P"' SwE6WATER
OAK
fd
x l �
/ \
wOODLAKE
\S ETwATER --r
0City of College Station, Texas CASTLE E SEC. 6 Case: CONCEPT
DEV PMENT REVIEW III III 04-49 ON