HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Review STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: CAPSTONE COTTAGES AT FM 2818 (REZ-PDD) —(08-00500155)
PLANNING
1. Provide the legal description(s) of the subject property on the Rezoning Map.
2. Though the color format of the concept plan may provide a good illustration of the proposal,
the concept plan is to be provided in black and white with labels, as this is how the rezoning
ordinance will be documented with the City Secretary's Office.
3. The City Property may be shown on the concept plan as it shows what the realigned
Holleman Drive Extenstion/Jones Butler Road will ultimately be, but more clearly delineate
the subject property from it. In addition, the Oil Field is part of the property and is to be
included within the property's boundary.
4. Provide a key map on the concept plan.
5. Provide name, address, and phone number of applicant, developer, and architect/engineer
on the concept plan.
6. Provide the legal description of the property on the concept plan.
7. Provide the total site area on the concept plan.
8. The concept plan is not intended to be to scale, please remove the scale.
9. A PDD zoning district is based on an existing zoning district with proposed
modifications/variances that would otherwise prevent the development from occurring
through the standard requirements. Please state which zoning districts (residential and non-
residential) will be used as the basis for dimension and bulk standards as well as a list of
uses if they vary from that base district. In addition, separate the requested variations and
listings according to the underlying districts.
10. Please verify that the flood zone boundary depicted on the concept plan is the adopted
FEMA 100-year floodplain. If not, please provide that area and show other floodplain
study/boundary areas if desired.
11. Please describe the cottages, manor homes, and other uses in terms of uses defined in the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). From previous conversations, the understanding is
to allow single, detached units on multi-family lots.
12. The density described on the concept plan legend for the Cottage Development and
Apartments is shown as acres per unit, not units per acre. Please revise.
13. The connection road shown to Place Properties is not situated in the proper place to make
the connection. From their site plan, it appears that the connection stub is located between
two northern most drainage areas, over 500 feet down the property line from Harvey Mitchell
Parkway.
14. If the internal network is to consist of private gated streets, they must be built to public
standard with the associated ROW width reserved. Please be aware that it must comply
with Section 8-W Gating of Roadways in the Subdivision Regulations which requires the
legal instruments to be provided for the HOA formation, street maintenance agreement,
reserve fund for maintenance, etc all to be accounted for with the platting of the property.
15. Please note that this request may only proceed if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
request is approved by Council and will be subject to any stipulations of that approval.
16. Please note that the additional 11"x17" copies for meeting packets will be requested after
Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and review of the revisions
requested herein.
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City 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. 2 of 4
The following comments are intended to provide a general outline of some concerns identified
by Staff. Please be aware that if the request and/or concept plan are not revised to satisfactorily
address these items, they will likely be identified in the Staff Report and Recommendation
presented to P&Z and Council:
17. It appears that the driveway spacing along the Holleman Drive Extension would not meet
the spacing requirements for a Major Collector. If not anticipating meeting driveway spacing
requirements, include it as one of the variations sought.
18. It appears that Tracts A, B and C are not integrated together as expected with a planned
development as no connections are shown or described between them and they are
individually gated.
19. The proposed retail area appears to be too large to be neighborhood scale in nature.
20. The range in heights allowed (10-70 feet) does not appear to be appropriately scaled,
specifically when approaching the adjacent low density single family subdivisions.
21. The Buffer Zone proposed along North Dowling Road does not appear to be significant in
width to retain any substantial amount of existing vegetation. Most of the length along North
Dowling Road is sparsely vegetated while there are some clusters of vegetation that could
be preserved.
22. Variations #6 & #7 are not in keeping with a planned development request and concept
plan. The concept plan is to show approximate locations of streets and parking areas and
will be used in evaluating plat and site plan conformance to it.
23. It appears that Variation #9 should include Tract B so as each tract is site planned (or
perhaps better stated, phased) separately.
24. Variation #10 is too general in nature. Please specify which TND principles that are desired
and are not otherwise permitted using the standard development requirements of the UDO.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: August 11, 2008
TXDOT
1. Access driveways to FM 2818 must meet TxDOT's current "Regulations for Access
Driveways to State Highways". Regulations are primarily based on posted speed limits and
distances between proposed & adiacent access points. Where the posted speed limit is 50
MPH or greater the required spacing between access points is 425'; @ 45 MPH the required
spacing is 360'. Where access spacing is insufficient joint access will be required or access
to internal/external streets. Appropriate data, including drainage will be required for any
future work/permits in the ROW @ this development site.
Reviewed by: Karl Nelson Date: July 11, 2008
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Due to the size and existing FEMA designation of the subject tract, a detailed study
determining the base flood elevations and the floodway location will be required with the
development of this tract. Depending on the proposed floodplain modifications a zero rise
study, variances, and FEMA submittals may potentially be required.
2. Assuming that the proposed private drive isles internal to your development will not have
individual lots fronting on them, it is more appropriate to call these private drive isles rather
than private streets. There is a difference in the design requirements for"private drive isles"
vs. "private streets", as well as differences in future maintenance responsibility implications.
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City 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. 3 of 4
3. In regards to thoroughfares, design of all public streets must meet the design requirements
set by the BCS design guidelines. To vary from these guidelines your design must be
submitted and accompanied by a letter acknowledging the proposed changes. The
proposed design will then be reviewed and it will be determined if the City is comfortable
with the proposed changes, as well as the future maintenance implications of the proposed
changes.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: August 12, 2008
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Two easements not available for electrical use are existing. A 40' BTU transmission
easement and a 15' PUE that is restricted for water lines only. Plat a 60' PUE that 55' is
junior in standing to the two existing easements with the last 5' holding a senior standing,
that can be used for utilities. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for
construction purposes or provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as
designed by CSU for electric lines (where applicable, including street lights).
2. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
3. If applicable, the following easements will be required: A 10' PUE on each side of the
Holleman Drive Extension for future use for utilities for the development.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices
and extend as required.
5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices, developer will
furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout.
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU
specs and design.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design (pull
boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU).
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and/or site plan. Email to:
wdavis@cstx.gov.
9. Developer provides load data to CSU as soon as it is available to avoid construction delays.
Delivery time for transformers not in stock is approximately 40 weeks.
10. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical
service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as
designed by CSU.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Weldon Davis at
979.764.5027.
Reviewed by: Weldon Davis Date: July 9, 2008
SANITATION
1. Sanitation is okay with this project.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: July 9, 2008
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City 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. 4 of 4
L Jason Schubert-Capstone Cottage rez—^ing comments Page 1 .I
From: Jason Schubert
To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Date: 8/13/2008 11:14 am
Subject: Capstone Cottage rezoning comments
CC: bsbugler@comcast.net
Veronica,
I have attached the staff comments for the rezoning request. I have also attached the staff report for the
Comp Plan amendment going to tomorrow night's P&Z meeting, if you have not already obtained it
online. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Schubert, AICP
Staff Planner
Planning &Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.gov