HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments(�1 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
*—College Station, Texas 77842
Circ or COLLEGE STnrtorr Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
June 4, 2007
TO: The Hillel at Texas A&M University, via email at Hillel(a,)startel.net
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: THE HILLEL AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY (CPDD) — Concept Plan
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned concept plan as requested. The following page is a list of
staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the
comments and submit the following information for further staff review:
One (1) revised concept plan;
One (1) revised application and additional information as requested
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
PC: Fernando Corrales, Spencer Partnership Architects, via fcorrales(0)sparchitects.com
Case file #07-00500126
NOTE..: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requcstcd hN1 the Cite of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal
letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a
completely new review. Page I of 2
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: THE HILLEL AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY (CPDD) — 07-00500126
PLANNING
1. With the recent amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and your
postponement of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and Rezoning applications,
the Concept Plan could now be considered part of the rezoning ordinance. This is one of
the alternatives provided to you previously, which removes the necessity to take the
Concept Plan to the Design Review Board (about a month's process). If you choose this
option, please fill out the new P -MUD rezoning application. A new application fee will not be
required. In either case, the legal notification fees for the CPA and Rezoning requests will
need to be remitted since those notices will need to be resent when the items are scheduled
for the Planning & Zoning Commission.
2. Staff has not yet received the updated land use percentages for the Rezoning application.
Please provide a revised concept plan that illustrates these percentages and revise the
applications as well, which at a minimum would remove the Retail (if that is still your desire).
3. Please provide the proposed range of density for the development in dwellings per acre.
4. Due to the requested setbacks, it does not appear that the Concept Plan provides sufficient
area in order to meet the landscaping and streetscaping requirements given in UDO Section
7.5. Meeting these requirements are necessary in order to obtain an approved site plan.
Though landscaping may be voluntarily provided in the right-of-way (ROW) through an
approved Private Improvement in a Public Right -of -Way application, plantings in the ROW
cannot be used to meet the landscaping or streetscaping requirements. If the footprint of
the building is not revised to allow adequate area for landscaping, the concept plan will need
to include landscaping as one of the variations being sought.
5. Please note that Parkland Dedication fees for the residential units will be required at the
time of building permit.
6. Please know that because of the impacts upon the adjacent neighborhood and surrounding
area, Staff will not be able to support the scope of the proposed concept.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: June 4, 2007
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. This development will need to meet the minimum requirement of the most recently adopted
BCS Unified Storm water Guidelines, and submit a drainage report accordingly. These
guidelines may be found at bcsunited.net. The increased run-off will need to be mitigated,
obviously one mitigation option is to do on-site detention. This development's drainage
impacts on the surrounding properties are certainly a concern.
2. Access along Dexter will not be allowed as the proposed driveway does not meet the
minimum spacing requirement of 175 -ft on a minor collector. Variances to this requirement
are processed through the DRB (Design Review Board).
3. Additional information is needed regarding the existing alley (i.e. ownership, size, etc.) I
would also encourage communication with the adjacent property owner concerning the
future of the alley. If the alley is proven to be public, one solution may be to dedicate
additional ROW and improve the alley to meet the minimum public alley/fire lane standard.
TxDOT permits would be required for any improvements in TxDOT right-of-way.
4. A fire flow report will be required with the site plan for this project.
5. A sanitary sewer report, verifying capacity, will be required with the site plan for this project.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: June 4, 2007
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the CitN, of College Station, must be explained in Hour nest transmittal
letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, urill constitute a
completely new revicxv. y,tge. 2 of
PDD POLICY
AS APPROVED BY THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITY COUNCIL
AUGUST 2001
The goal of the Planned Development District is to promote and encourage innovative development that is sensitive to
surrounding land uses and to the natural environment. In order to justify varying from certain standards, the proposed
development should demonstrate community benefits. To achieve this goal, the City of College Station has adopted the
following policies:
1. CONCEPTS ONLY: A PDD should not be used to guarantee specific site or building characteristics within a
development. A PDD should be submitted for multiple sites, and should not be used to apply additional development
standards to a single site.
2. RELIANCE ON EXISTING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: A PDD should not be used to require buffering or other
standards that are over and above existing district standards. If the existing buffering standards are deemed
inadequate, the standards themselves should be reviewed and upgraded.
3. INNOVATIVE DESIGN: A PDD application should be encouraged where a development is to follow a modern trend
style such as new urbanism, mixed use, or cluster, and that includes all or some of the following elements:
❑ Preservation of open space in prominent locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access
❑ Preservation of wetlands, ponds, or other natural resources
❑ Good connectivity within the development as well as connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods and
thoroughfares
❑ Significant amenities located in highly visible locations with good vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access
❑ Preservation of significant tree stands
e( Inclusion of neighborhood supporting uses such as workplaces, recreation, shopping, and personal services with
orientation to the neighborhood and good pedestrian and bicycle access
❑ Incorporation of public transit waiting stations in pedestrian friendly areas
❑ Accommodation of the existing topography to minimize required grading
V A mix of residential densities and housing styles
❑ Inclusion of urban open spaces such as plazas or marketplaces
❑ Location of elementary school sites in areas easily accessible by pedestrians and cyclists
❑ Connectivity of natural areas within the development and to those in surrounding areas
❑ Avoidance of cul-de-sacs
❑ Traffic calming features
❑ Vistas
❑ Pedestrian and/or bicycle trails and paths
Parking located such that it is screened or hidden from view
❑ Avoidance of a monotonous "superblock"
A commercial frontage that is two or three stories, with architectural embellishments
❑/ Street trees and peripheral landscaping
�f Streetscape features
4. SENSITIVE AREAS: A PDD should be required in infill areas to assure similar residential densities to those of the
surrounding area.
5. MERITORIOUS MODIFICATIONS: A developer may choose to request a PDD if the proposed development will result
in alternative bulk standards than currently exist in the City of College Station development regulations. These may
include variations such as:
➢ Decreased lot size
➢ Decreased lot dimensions
➢ Decreased right-of-way and/or street widths
➢ Alternative access to the public street requirements for lots, such as may be desired for traffic calming or to
create vistas/views to internal or external amenities
➢ Reduction in standard buffering requirements or fencing requirements
➢ Increase in height restrictions
➢ Alternative sidewalk requirements
➢ Alternative site landscaping requirements
If the developer requests significant variations from the above list, the plans should also include a significant amount
of elements from the first list of beneficial development elements.
6/13/03 4 of 4