2381 Earl Rudder Freeway South Rezoning
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•2,920 vues
The document proposes rezoning the McGill Tract to allow for hotels, drive-thru restaurants, and retail space up to 50,000 square feet, while applying general commercial zoning standards. It would allow parking between buildings and residences, but offers community benefits like expanding buffer yards to 30 feet and limiting building heights to 49 feet.
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Plus de City of College Station
Plus de City of College Station (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
2381 Earl Rudder Freeway South Rezoning
- 3. Concept Plan
- 4. Modifications & Community Benefits Modifications To allow hotels, drive-thru restaurants and retail sales and service not to exceed 50,000 sf To apply GC General Commercial NRA standards To allow parking between buildings and adjacent residences Community Benefits Expand buffer yard from 20’ to 30’ Limit building height to 49’
- 5. Height Ratio & Encumbrances
Notes de l'éditeur
- We are requesting a rezoning from Suburban Commercial to PDD with a SC base, and with modifications to some SC standards. The property was zoned in 2013 from PDD to SC after the creation of the district hoping that the new zone would open opportunities for development. The owner has learned that the district not attractive for the property’s marketability and it is limiting in both use and design standard. Understanding that the property is adjacent to the Raintree neighborhood and that any development should be sensitive to the nearby residences, we are seeking a middle ground that would be more favorable for development but also offering important neighborhood protections.
- Here again is the proposed concept plan. Building areas are depicted in red and all other parking and access areas are in blue and yellow. The proposed buffer area is identified in green. The large building area at the back of the property was placed there due to a sewer line that runs near the rear property line. I will show the easements for that line in the next slide but it is approximately here. We are unable to build over the line, but we will get as close as possible understanding the concerns from the neighborhood.
- In addition to the concept plan, we have requested the following modifications for any future development. We request that in addition to the permitted uses under SC Suburban Commercial, that hotels, drive-thru restaurants and retail sales and service not to exceed 50K sf also be allowed. We are requesting the uses in order to offer more permitted uses that are more economically appropriate for property along a state highway without requesting a full rezoning to GC General Commercial. By requesting only these uses, we are not allowing fuel sales, vehicular sales, repair, rental and service, car washes, retail sales and service over 50K and other uses that would be considered more offensive adjacent to residential areas. And to give examples for reference, Gander is 65K, Academy is 53K and Target is 112K. These buildings would not be allowed on this lot. To give you an idea of what could be allowed, Cavender’s before the expansion was 18K, Guitar Center on Harvey Road is 19K and Barnes and Noble is 25K. The city’s economic development department has recently been stressing the importance of capturing commercial property along highway 6, as we recently saw with the science park property, and this lot is another prime example of undeveloped land along the highway that is ideal for commercial development. We are not asking for all commercial uses to be permitted, but asking for greater flexibility in what can be developed. The owner has also found that the SC NRA standards present a challenge when marketing the property. The property draws interest for regional commercial but is ultimately deterred by the limited allowed uses and residential style architectural standards. In order to make the property more marketable, we request that buildings on this lot be allowed to building under the GC General Commercial NRA standards. Lastly, we understand the need to buffer the residences from the businesses and establishments and are therefore asking for a modification to allow parking and access areas between the buildings and residences. In return, we have offered to increase the required buffer yard from 20’ as required by the UDO, to 30’ and offered a 49’ maximum height for all buildings.
- The Staff is recommending approval with the condition that in addition to the voluntary height cap of 49’, that the height be restricted from a 2:1 distance ratio to a 3:1 ratio. And what that means is for every vertical foot of the building, the structure must be placed twice as far back. We understand the desires to limit impact to the adjacent neighborhood, but we believe this increased height limit is too restrictive for commercial development on this tract. The 2:1 distance to height ratio standard was adopted as a result of a tall commercial building that was built too close to a nearby residence. Since that development, the 2:1 ratio has been accepted and applied to non-residential buildings adjacent to single-family residences city wide. We are asking for this accepted standard to be applied to this development as well. The 3:1 ratio is particularly restrictive for the tract due to the sewer line that runs at the back of the property, shown here. The two red lines represent easements that we are not allowed to build over. The area in between is not enough room to build either. If you imagine one of these houses in this area, you can see that even a 2K building would be a tight fit. The yellow and orange areas represent the closest point for a 49’ building to be built under the 2:1 and 3:1 ratios.. I want to make sure I’m clear that this area here does not mean that this is completely unbuildable. This is for the purposes of a 49’ maximum height building. The UDO would allow for a 49’ building to be built up to the outside edge of the yellow area. Under the recommended 3:1 ratio at the outside edge of the orange area, you can see that the buildable area for a maximum height building is significantly decreased and presents a challenge to build a reasonable development and design the site in an efficient manner. The site is also encumbered by the pond here and channel that runs from WPC out to the creek here. We have not yet had environmental studies of the property done so we don’t know how much area we can fill and recover as buildable area. Between the physical attributes of the property and the sewer line, the site is already facing challenges for usable area. A 3:1 ratio would make it even more challenging. I’d also like to point out that under the existing SC zoning that is on the property now, a 49’ office building could be built up to the outer edge of the yellow area today by right. A building under this PDD would be no less obtrusive to the neighborhood than what is currently permitted.