HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
May 26, 2011
TO: James Follis,Mary Cole Ventures, LLC., via mail%
FROM: Molly Hitchcock, AICP
Planning Administrator
SUBJECT: FOLLIS COLE NORTH GRAHAM RD (REZ)
Thank you for the submittal of your REZONING application. This project will be distributed to
staff next week for their review.
cc: Texas A&M Foundation Tr t Company, via mail
Eric Geppelt, via mail'
Case file no. 11-00500087
ITY OF COlJ.F(;l:? STATION
Home of Texas A&M University"
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
June 8, 2011
TO: Mary Cole Ventures, LLC., James Follis, via mail
FROM: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: FOLLIS COLE NORTH GRAHAM RD (REZ) — Rezoning
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned rezoning as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address all comments and
submit the following information by Monday, June 20, 2011, 10:00 a.m., for your project to be
placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for July
7, 2011, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan;
Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised Rezoning Map and Concept Plan;
One (1) copy of the digital file of the revised rezoning Metes & Bounds on
diskette or e-mail to P&DS—Digital_Submittal@cstx.gov.
Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the
applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the
Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If all required
items are not received, your project will be not be scheduled on the P&Z agenda. Your project
may be placed on a future agenda once all comments have been addressed and the
appropriate re -advertising fees paid.
Once your item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be
accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting.
http://www.cstx.qov/pz
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
PC: Texas A&M Foundation Trust Co., via mail
Eric Geppelt, via-mai#-CMO i
Case file #11-00500087
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. 1 of 5
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: FOLLIS COLE NORTH GRAHAM RD (REZ) — (11-00500087)
PLANNING
Please feel free to contact me to set up a meeting if you would like to discuss any of the
comments provided below.
1) The Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use and Character Map designates this property as
Business Park, which is generally for areas that include office, research, or industrial uses,
planned and developed as a unified project. What is proposed is more of a retail use that
relies on offering services to the general public for commercial activity rather than offering
uses which primarily serve other commercial, office, research and development, and
industrial enterprises.
The amount of self -storage identified on the Concept Plan is not appropriate for areas
designated as Business Park. At the Pre -Application Conference on April 6, 2011, the
proposal presented to staff included office/storage, but had more of a campus setting and
showed storage as an accessory use. Any self -storage proposed with this development
should serve as an accessory use and not the primary use of the development.
As it is currently proposed, staff cannot support approval of this rezoning request.
2) Please clarify what you mean by "Office/Storage." Is this a use that will be primarily offices
and may have some accessory storage, or is it that these buildings could be office or
storage?
3) Will the self -storage that remains as part of the proposal (if any) be accessed from the
exterior of the building (e.g. roll up doors) or will it be accessed from the inside?
4) There are several "Typ"s identified on the Concept Plan. Were there details or more
information about these you had intended to provide?
5) Under the "Concept Plan Supporting Information" section of the application, please address
the answers to the following questions:
a) Question 1 — With a building height variation of 10'-30', are there any plans for one part
of the development to be taller than others, if so where? Please be aware that building
heights may be restricted if any of the surrounding properties are developed for
residential uses prior to the development of this project.
b) Question 3 — Please list the specific variations you are requesting and what section of
the Unified Development Ordinance they pertain to.
i) "Minimized buffering requirements" is too vague, please identify what size buffer is
being requested, also; detention ponds are currently allowed in buffer areas. Please
be aware that Section 7.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) provides
some substitutions and variations to the standard buffer requirements. Please review
this section and if there are other variations being sought for this development,
please provide specifics.
ii) There may be some confusion about the value of existing trees and new plantings.
Existing trees that are barricaded before any construction begins on the site often
have a greater point value than new plantings depending on their size and species.
Please review Section 7.5 of the LIDO for specific point value information.
iii) The Concept Plan shows chain link fencing on two sides, but the application states
that it will in three locations. Please correct this on the document in error.
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 5
Generally, chain link fencing is not allowed on commercial developments in College
Station. If chain link fencing is necessary for this project, other screening methods
should also be provided.
iv) Identify the specific driveway spacing reduction being requested. Please be aware
that driveways spaced close together are considered safety issues along the right-of-
way.
c) Question 4 - Please provide community benefits related to the variations sought (not just
a list of variations). The community benefits related to the requested variations should
out -weigh any impact of the variations.
i) Identify the specific landscaping increases being proposed (e.g. two canopy trees for
every 25 feet of street frontage, double or triple landscape points). Please show the
locations of any existing landscaping that will be preserved. Landscaping should be
dispersed throughout all visible areas of the proposed development.
ii) Sidewalks will already be required for this development at the platting stage;
therefore, they cannot serve as an added public benefit of the development. Bicycle
racks will also be required of this development. Are you proposing something over
and beyond the standard requirements?
iii) Please explain what the picnic area will consist of; e.g. will it be covered; will it be
made of durable material; etc.
iv) Please provide a written description of the architectural design of the proposed
buildings. This development is required to meet the standards in Section 7.9-Non-
residential Architecture Standards of the LIDO. This will require the use of masonry
products and different architectural design elements. Identify the specific "unique
architectural fagade features" being proposed that are not already required by the
LIDO and how this will benefit the community.
v) Please use different line symbols to differentiate the new property line and setback
lines after the right-of-way dedication.
vi) What is the purpose of the 8-foot landscape setback along North Graham Road?
Please identify the extent of the landscape setback on the plan. If the plan is to use
existing vegetation in the 8-foot landscape setback, please show this on the plan.
vii) One of the "greenway/pedestrian way' call -outs points to what appears to be the 8-
foot landscape setback, while another points to a different area. It appears to show
that there will be two sidewalks next to each other. Please clarify.
d) Question 5 — You mention the conservation of existing trees. Please show these areas
on the concept plan. If you intend to use existing trees to meet this development's
landscape requirements, please identify (species and size) which existing trees will be
preserved. Will there be additional landscaping provided beyond what is required by
ordinance?
Irrigation for new plantings is required of all new developments. What specific irrigation
techniques are proposed to be employed for this development?
e) Question 10 — Explain how "ample access for ingress/egress into/from the property' will
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, health, or welfare etc. Driveways spaced
closely together along the right -of way are considered a safety issue.
What kind of site lighting is being proposed? Please note the restrictions of site lighting
in Section 7.10 of the LIDO.
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 5
6) As the plan should be conceptual in nature, specific dimension details (except those that are
related to the specific ordinance variation) are not under review at this time. Please only call
out dimension that are imperative to the development you are proposing. Some dimension
details can be listed as notes on the concept plan.
Reviewed by: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner Date: June 08, 2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. On the Zoning Map, please clearly show and label the North Graham Rd. right-
of-way.
2. The bearing on the southwestern property line should be the same on the
Concept Plan and Zoning Map.
3. Our records indicate that part or all of the 20-ft PUE adjacent to two property
lines was abandoned. Please verify.
4. Please include the volume and page number of the 20-ft PUE on the Concept
Plan (if the easement has not been abandoned).
5. Please clearly label the limits of the Right -of -Way Dedication on the Concept
Plan.
6. Please label the right-of-way width on the Concept Plan.
7. The proposed southern driveway to N. Graham Rd. is not meeting the driveway
spacing requirement of 235' and should be adjusted or removed.
8. Sidewalk will be required along N. Graham Rd. in conformance with City
Standards. Based on the Concept plan, it appears that a Public Access
Easement will be needed.
9. Concept Plan Question #2 needs to elaborate a bit on the proposed drainage
plan. Where will the detention pond discharge? Is this the current location
where runoff from the site is draining?
10.The Zoning Application should mention the proposed sanitary sewer line
extension from Rock Prairie Rd. as a public improvement.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: 6/6/11
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Project location is outside of College Station Utilities electric service area. CSU will
not provide electric service to this project.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez
Date: 05.31.2011
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 5
SANITATION
1. Sanitation is ok with this project.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: June 1, 2011
GREENWAYS
1. No comments
Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: June 1,
2011
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. 5 of 5
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
June 30, 2011 W
TO: Mary Cole Ventures, LLC ,James Follis, ail�OVA trv� a�+
FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: FOLLIS COLE NORTH GRAHAM RD (REZ) — Rezoning
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned rezoning as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address all comments and
submit the following information by Monday, July 18, 2011, 10:00 a.m., for your project to be
placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for
August 4, 2011, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan;
Thirteen (13) 11 "x17" copies of the revised Rezoning Map and Concept Plan;
One (1) copy of the digital file of the revised rezoning Metes & Bounds on
diskette or e-mail to P&DS_Digital_Submittal@cstx.gov.
Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the
applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the
Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If all required
items are not received, your project will be not be scheduled on the P&Z agenda. Your project
may be placed on a future agenda once all comments have been addressed and the
appropriate re -advertising fees paid.
Once your item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be
accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/pz
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
PC: Texas A&M Foundation Trust Co., via mail
Eric Geppelt, via mail
Case file #11-00500087
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. 1 of 3
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: FOLLIS COLE NORTH GRAHAM RD (REZ) — (11-00500087)
PLANNING
1) Staff continues to believe that the amount of self -storage shown on the Concept Plan is
inconsistent with the Business Park land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. We
recommend that Phase 2 be relabeled to exclude the use of self -storage. As shown, there
is approximately 2.5 times more self -storage than office/warehouse.
2) In order to avoid issues arising during the platting stage. Staff recommends that a minor
collector be accommodated within the bounds of the property or area for a Public Way, as
defined by the UDO, be designated.
3) Staff has previously been in opposition of the eastern most driveway. However, we Will
support the additional access point if a private access easement is projected to the abutting
property to the north, or if a minor collector or Public Way is constructed in this location, and
the landscape area between the two office buildings is enlarged to block through traffic to
the self -storage. The private access easement will alleviate the need for a future driveway
in the immediate vicinity on the abutting property.
4) During platting, a cross -access easement will be required along property frontage. In order
to accommodate this platting requirement, please show the front drive aisle extended to
both abutting properties with shared frontage.
5) Staff is willing to support the use of vehicular and boat storage if this storage area is
screened from the abutting properties by another building to the north and a solid masonry
wall, at the end of the storage row, to the east.
6) The community benefits that are being mentioned in the application do qualify as benefits to
the community, with the exception of a privately maintained sidewalk which will save on
future costs to the public for maintenance. Specifically, parking lot lighting is not considered
a community benefit since that is typically installed for site security and convenience. I will
be happy to meet with you regarding possible amendments to the plan that will accomplish
this requirement.
7) If additional landscaping is to be provided as a community benefit, please revise the
application to specify the amount of additional landscaping that is to be provided. This
benefit must be quantifiable. A specified 25' landscape area is not a community benefit
since streetscaping trees are required within 50' of the right-of-way.
8) If architectural enhancements are to be provided and the NRA will be exceeded, please
provide a written description of what sections of the NRA will be met and/or exceeded and
by how much. Is this offer only applicable to the front facade of the office buildings that face
North Graham Road?
9) Please identify what concrete product is being proposed for the buildings.
10) If existing trees are to be maintained and counted as a community benefit, the size, location,
and species of the trees must be specified on the Concept Plan. Staff is concerned that the
area shown will not be sufficient to protect and barricade the roots of mature trees.
11) Please specify in a revised application that the warehouse uses will be used for
office/business storage and warehousing for on -site office tenants.
12) Please show the zoning of the abutting properties on the Concept Plan.
13) There appears to be fences shown on the Concept Plan. What type of fence is proposed
where the line looks like this X—X --- X?
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 3
14) Please remove the off -site 20' public utility easement. A 20' PUE will be required on -site, at
the rear of the property, when the tract is platted.
15) The application needs to state that the PDD is being based of R&D but the additional land
use of self -storage is being requested. A reference to C-2 is not necessary. See question 2
page 3.
16) Question 3 page 3 of the application states that Phase 1 of the self -storage will be 20,000-
30,000 square feet. The Concept Plan is showing approximately 48,000. Though the
Concept Plan is not a site plan, there is a striking disparity. Please revise the application or
Concept Plan.
17) Question 3 on page 4 mentions using ornamental metal fencing in lieu of masonry.
However, masonry is not required. This may be revised.
18) Question 9 on page 5 mentions greenways, but this element is not shown on the Concept
Plan.
19) What type of signage and material is proposed for pedestrian safety?. See question 10 page
6.
Reviewed by: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner Date: June 24, 2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
1. (Repeat) Our records indicate that part or all of the 20-ft PUE adjacent to two property lines
was abandoned. Please verify. Our GIS system has a notation that this easement has
been abandoned, but this has not been verified. In the absence of additional
verification by your surveyor, please leave the easement on the concept and zoning
map.
2. (Repeat) Please include the volume and page number of the 20-ft PUE on the Concept Plan
(if the easement has not been abandoned). The volume and page are still not noted on
the Concept Plan.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 711/11
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 3
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
July 15, 2011
TO: Mary Cole Ventures, LLC., James Follis, via mail
FROM: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: FOLLIS COLE NORTH GRAHAM RD (REZ) — Rezoning
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned rezoning as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address all comments and
submit the following information by Tuesday, July 19, 2011, 10:00 a.m., for your project to be
placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for
August 4, 2011, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan;
One revised application.
Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised Rezoning Map and Concept Plan;
One (1) copy of the digital file of the revised rezoning Metes & Bounds on
diskette or e-mail to P&DS_Digital_Submittal@cstx.gov.
Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the
applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the
Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If all required
items are not received, your project will be not be scheduled on the P&Z agenda. Your project
may be placed on a future agenda once all comments have been addressed and the
appropriate re -advertising fees paid.
Once your item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be
accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting.
http://www.cstx.qov/pZ
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
PC: Texas A&M Foundation Trust Co., via mail
Eric Geppelt, via mail
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. 1 of 4
Case file #11-00500087
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested, by the. Gity 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
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3
Project: FOLLIS COLE NORTH GRAHAM RD (REZ) — (11-00500087)
PLANNING
1) Your response to Question 3 on Page 3 does not address how the change in zoning
classification will be compatible with the present zoning, and uses nearby. I suggest that you
discuss how the surrounding properties are (mostly) undeveloped, with the exception of the
properties to the east, and that the Comprehensive Plan shows the designated land uses as
Business Park and Suburban Commercial, which this use should be compatible with.
2) Question 4, page 3 - Please explain why the uses being proposed for this PDD are suitable
for this property. In your response you state that "retail is unlikely". The Business Park
^1 Future Land Use designation does not promote retail on this property so your statement is
not applicable for this rezoning. Please elaborate as to why "this location is great for
business that serve growing south College Station".
3) Question 5, page 3 — Please provide more detail as t0 why the property's current zoning
classification is not appropriate for this property at this time. What changes in the area
related to land use, not market forces, make the properties current zoning classification not
appropriate at this time?
4) Question 3, page 4 — Please provide the specific Sections of the LIDO that you are
requesting variations from and please provide the specific dimensions of the variations
being requested. A variation from the block length requirements is not necessary since you
are providing the public way; please remove this variation request.
5) Please remove the call -outs identifying where 100% masonry/stone will be used on each
building from the Concept Plan. This information is provided on the application and is not
needed on the Concept Plan. If you would like to have this information provided on the
Concept Plan, it can be added as a note on the side of the diagram.
6) Please clarify the meaning of the note regarding the extension of sanitary sewer. The
developer of this project will be responsible for extending any necessary sewer services.
,developer
is not necessary to point out the specific features of the proposed development that
exceed the minimum requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) on the
Concept Plan. These features should be addressed in the application. Please remove call -
out text that does this.
8) Please rename the 25' landscape setback to a 25' parking setback. A specified 25'
landscape area is not a community benefit since streetscaping trees are required within 50'
of the right-of-way:
9) Please remove the scale and property line call numbers from the Concept Plan.
10) The locations of the some of the existing trees do not appear to be in areas that will allow
them to survive. The Concept Plan shows that there will be existing vegetation retained in
the detention pond, but the detention pond has to be excavated and will damage the root
system of the existing trees. Please revise.
11) Please provide the general dimensions of the Conservation Buffer located near the
detention pond. This feature should be discussed as one of the community benefits of the
proposal on the application.
12) (Repeat Comment)Please specify in a revised application that the warehouse uses will be
used for office/business storage and warehousing for on -site office tenants.
13) Question 3 page 3 of the application states that Phase 1 of the self -storage will be 35,000-
45,000 square feet. The additional information provided with the application shows that
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
there will be roughly 68,000 square feet of self -storage. Please explain or correct the
�differences in the amount of self -storage that will be allowed on the application.
14) Question 7, Page 7 — Please add a sentence that self -storage and vehicular storage uses
,Will only be allowed in Phase 1 of this development and not in Phase 2.
15) What is the meaning of "Self -Storage A and B" and "Large Vehicular Storage A and B"? Is
this supposed to refer to the different phases? Please clarify. Is the break down for Phase 1
only or both phases? Please explain the percentage breakdown in more detail.
16) What type of signage and material is proposed for pedestrian safety? See question 10 page
6.
Reviewed by: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner Date: July 15, 2011
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