Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments`*1" CITY OF C0UEGCSfAT10N H.wsfTe=xbb/Wiwnsy 1101 Taxes Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM December 5, 2011 TO: Jesse Durden, via email: iesse dub 0caoroddx corn FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING — 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 Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 10:00 a.m., for your project to be placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 15, 2011, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue: One (1) 24"x36' copy of the revised Rezoning Map; Thirteen (13)11°x17- copies of the Rezoning Map; One (1) 244x38° copy of the revised Concept Plan; Thirteen (13) 11'x17" copies of the revised Concept Plan; Revised Application Details and Meritorious Modification sheets; and _ One (1) copy of the digital file of the rezoning Metes & Bounds on diskette or e-mail to P&DS Digital_ Submittal@cstx.gov (if not already submitted). Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, g 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 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. htbx.//W Ww.Cstx ocy/Dz If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff Review Comments PC: Joe Schultz, Schultz Engineering, via email: i2eschultz84Averizon net Case file #11-00500128 NOTE: Any Changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by Me City of College Station, must be explained in your next seasonal letter and'bubbled on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will mnsetute a completely new review. lots STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO.2 Project COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING — (11.00500128) PLANNING 1. Please feel free to contact me to discuss these comments over the phone or schedule a facilitation meeting If you need clarification. Thank you. 2. Revise the Concept Plan and Rezoning Map to reflect the revised acreage and additional existing Arnold Road right-of-wsy as identified in the recent survey of the property. The Concept Man and Re -Zoning Map have been revised. S. Application Details: The terms "senior -targeted" and "active -adult being used as part of a use description is too vague to administer as part of a zoning ordinance. Please include a definition to "senior and'acive-adult" on this sheet to help further clarify what is intended. The Application Details Sheet has been revised to include these deffnitim& 4. Meritorious Modifications 1 and Concept Plan Note 5.1: From the layout of the proposed Concept Plan, it does not appear a reduction to the required setbacks in UDO Section 5.2 & 5.4 is needed for this development. These setbacks apply for buildings in relation to property lines and much of the perimeter of the development consists of parking that is not applicable to these setbacks. Please revise. The request for setback variances has been removed from the Meritorious Modifications Sheet and the Concept Plan Notes. 5. Meritorious Modifications 2.f and Concept Plan Note 5.2.F: The request to reduce Townhouse parking is not needed since individually platted lots each with street frontage is not proposed as part of this rezoning. The request for a reduction in Townhouse parking has been removed from the Meritorious Modifications Sheet and the Concept Plan Notes. 6. Concept Plan and Concept Plan Note 6: It appears that the proposed 6-foot wide pedestrian path located along the City of Bryan electrical easements is intended to be a publicly owned and maintained facility with a public access easement. If so, it should be depicted along the outside edge of the easement as 0 is not likely the City will obtain first rights and there Is concern regarding the impact maintenance of the electrical facilities may have on the sidewalk. Please see revised Concept Plan Note 6 which addresses the Applicant's intent to provide a privately -owned and maintainadpedwi trian public access way. NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station. must be explained in your read Iran ntral letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on Mess plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 2 of 4 7. Concept Plan Note 8: After discussions with staff and the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, the proposal to not have sidewalks on both sides of the Arnold Road extension will not be supported. Sidewalks are in place in the existing section and bike lanes are planned in this section thereby reducing the need for an off-street multi -use path. Additional width to the six -fool sidewalk on the north aide of Arnold Road can be provided but not at the reduction or elimination of the opposite side. Please revise. The Concept Plan has been revised to show sidewalks on both sides of Arnold, in lieu of the multi -use path as previously proposed by the Applicant. 8. Concept Plan Note 8: The application refers to pedestrian connections though it is not clear whether each of the three development areas will have pedestrian access between them and to the adjacent pedestrian paths, outside of access to the pedestrian facilities along the street. Note 8 refers to UDO requirements, of which there is few related requirements. Please clarify this note to state what is intended. The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board has also expressed interest In a pedestrian connection from future Normand Drive to the park ilr7rTiRL�77F7r;777'T7T1= Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: December 5, 2011 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 1. Please remove the note on the Rezoning Map and Concept Plan stating, "Normand Drive extension in existing ROW by the City of College Station". This note has been removed. 2. Please provide a note on the Concept Plan stating that the extensions of Arnold Road and Normand Drive from Rock Prairie Road must be constructed with the first phase of development with this Planned Development District zoning. This note has been added as Note 10 to the Concept Plan Notes. 3. The City is prepared to provide the existing right-of-way for Normand Drive and the cash surely previously received from the College Station Medical Center toward the construction of this portion of Normand Drive. In addition, the City is willing to financially participate in some aspects of the Normand Drive connection to Rock Prairie Road. These aspects could include work to The College Station Medical Center parking lot and existing detention facility as these facilities currently exist in right-of-way. Noted. 4. The City Is currently In the process of contacting the College Station Medical Center, regarding the Normand Drive extension, however as the City will not be physically constructing the project, additional communications between the subject development and the College Station Medical Center is certainly warranted. NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not bean renuested by the City or College Station, must be explained in your real transmasl lefter and "bubbled' on your plena. Any additional changes on tow plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will consglulea completely new review. 3 of 4 Noted. 5. The 'Preliminary Layout* illustrates 70 feet of right-of-way existing for Normand Drive, please revise. This illustration has been clanged. The existing ROW is 60' and is shown on the Exhibit as well as a 70' ROW that will be needed if turn lanes are added at Rock Prairie Road and at the driveway into the tract and to Arnold Road for south bound traffic. Also, noted are the pavement widths for Normand Drive which exceed the 38' minimum width. The extra width for the turn lanes was done for cost estimating purposes until a detailed design can be prepared. 6. FYI - In order to provide for appropriate traffic movement and safety the following should be considered with the design and construction of the intersection at Normand Drive (south) at Rock Prairie Road: a. Provide additional lane at intersection to accommodate left and right turn movements from Normand Drive onto Rock Prairie Road. b. Provide deceleration lane on Rock Prairie Road for right turn movements onto Normand Drive. c. Provide striping plan for the entire 4legged intersection. d. The adjacent parking lot and detention facility shall be repaired in a manner acceptable by the College Station Medical Center and City of College Station. These comments have been noted, and will be discussed further during the platting process. 7. The proposed intersection design will likely require additional right of way or access easement dedication from the College Station Medical Center property. Noted. Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: December 5, 2011 NOTE: Any changes made to q e plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Elation, must be explained in your neat transmittal letter and "bubbled' on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have rid been pointed out to the City, vtll conatiMe a completely may review. 4 of 4 j Cnv or Qiu.W1%SfA110N How yTnrv, AdAf UxiwWM 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.35701 Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM December 5, 2011 TO: Jesse Durden, via email: iesse.durden2Bcaerocktx.com FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING — 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 Wednesday, December 7, 2011, 10:00 a.m., for your project to be placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for Thursday, December 15, 2011, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue: One (1) 24'x36' copy of the revised Rezoning Map; Thirteen (13) 11"xl7° copies of the Rezoning Map; One (1) 24'x36' copy of the revised Concept Plan; Thirteen (13) 1Vyc!7" copies of the revised Concept Plan; Revised Application Details and Meritorious Modification sheets; and _ One (1) copy of the digital file of the rezoning Metes & Bounds on diskette or e-mail to P&DS—Digital—Submittal@mtx.gov (if not already submitted). 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 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. httmilwww.cstx.00 tl If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764,3570, Attachments: Staff Review Comments PC: Joe Schultz, Schultz Engineering, via email: ioeschultz840verizon.net Case file #11-00500128 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have net been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your nest transmittal letter and'bubblech on your plans. Any additional Combos on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new moles. t of 3 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Project: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING — (11-00600128) PLANNING 1. Please feel free to contact me to discuss these comments over the phone or schedule a facilitation meeting if you need clarification. 2. Revise the Concept Plan and Rezoning Map to reflect the revised acreage and additional existing Arnold Road right-of-way as identified in the recent survey of the property. 3. Application Details: The terms "senior -targeted° and "active -adult" being used as part of a use description is too vague to administer as part of a zoning ordinance. Please include a definition to "senior' and "active -adult" on this sheet to help further clarify what is Intended. 4. Meritorious Modifications 1 and Concept Plan Note 5.1: From the layout of the proposed Concept Plan, it does not appear a reduction to the required setbacks in UDO Section 5.2 & 5.4 is needed for this development. These setbacks apply for buildings in relation to property lines and much of the perimeter of the development consists of parking that is not applicable to these setbacks. Please revise. 5. Meritorious Modifications 2J and Concept Plan Note 5.2.F: The request to reduce Townhouse parking is not needed since individually platted lots each with street frontage is not proposed as part of this rezoning. 6. Concept Plan and Concept Plan Note 6: It appears that the proposed 6-foot wide pedestrian path located along the City of Bryan electrical easements is intended to be a publicly owned and maintained facility with a public access easement. If so, it should be depicted along the outside edge of the easement as it is not likely the City will obtain first rights and there Is concern regarding the impact maintenance of the electrical facilities may have on the sidewalk. 7. Concept Plan Note 8, After discussions with staff and the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board, the proposal to not have sidewalks on both sides of the Arnold Road extension will not be supported. Sidewalks are in place in the existing section and bike lanes are planned in this section thereby reducing the need for an off-street multi -use path. Additional width to the six-foot sidewalk on the north side of Arnold Road can be provided but not at the reduction or elimination of the oppos0e side. Please revise. S. Concept Plan Note 8: The application refers to pedestrian connections though It is not clear whether each of the three development areas will have pedestrian access between them and to the adjacent pedestrian paths, outside of access to the pedestrian facilities along the street. Nate 8 refers to LIDO requirements, of which there is few related requirements. Please clarify this note to state what is intended. The Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Advisory Board has also expressed interest in a pedestrian connection from future Normand Drive to the park. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: December 5, 2011 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 1. Please remove the note on the Rezoning Map and Concept Plan stating, °Normand Drive extension in existing ROW by the City of College Station". 2. Please provide a note on the Concept Plan stating that the extensions of Arnold Road and Normand Drive from Rock Prairie Road must be constructed with the first phase of development with this Planned Development District zoning. NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of Colors Sadon, must be explained in your next bansmllel letter and'bubbled- on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been painted out to the City, will coatings a wmpletely now review. 2 Y 3 3. The City is prepared to provide the existing right-of-way for Normand Drive and the cash surely previously received from the College Station Medical Center toward the construction of this portion of Normand Drive. In addition, the City is willing to financially participate in some aspects of the Normand Drive connection to Rock Prairie Road. These aspects could include work to The College Station Medical Center parking lot and existing detention facility as these facilities currently exist in right-of-way. 4. The City is currently in the process of contacting the College Station Medical Center, regarding the Normand Drive extension, however as the City will not be physically constructing the project, additional communications between the subject development and the College Station Medical Center is certainly warranted. 5. The °Preliminary Layout" illustrates 70 feet of right-of-way existing for Normand Drive, please revise. 6. FYI - In order to provide for appropriate traffic movement and safely the following should be considered with the design and construction of the intersection at Normand Drive (south) at Rock Prairie Road: a. Provide additional lane at intersection to accommodate left and right turn movements from Normand Drive onto Rock Prairie Road. b. Provide deceleration lane on Rock Prairie Road for right turn movements onto Normand Drive. c. Provide striping plan for the entire 4 legged intersection. d. The adjacent parking lot and detention facility shall be repaired in a manner acceptable by the College Station Medical Center and City of College Station. 7. The proposed intersection design will likely require additional right of way or access easement dedication from the College Station Medical Center property. Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: December 5, 2011 NOTE: My changes made to he plans, that have but been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. My additional changes on these plans that have not been panted out to the City, will constants a completely new review. 3 of 3 RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING-(1"0500128) PLANNING 1. Based on the comments made as part of the staffs review, please contact Jason Schubert at 764-3570 to schedule a facilitation meeting to discuss the project. Meeting held on October 6, 2011. 2. Please note that with the request to eliminate parkland dedication requirements and propose facilities on the Concept Plan, the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board will need to provide a recommendation before the Planning & Zoning Commission can consider the request. Elimination of Parkland Dedication requirements is no longer part of the PDD application. The applicant does propose to construct approximately 320' of multi -use path (as shown on the City's Bicycle, Pedestrian & Greenways Master Plan) inside the boundary of the Southwood Community Park. BACKGROUND: The BCG Master Plan shows the path on City land, but per conversations with City staff the path will be required to be installed by the Developer on Applicant's land during construction. We request the path be built by the Developer on City parkland during construction of the adjacent portion of the property. This request will be heard and action should be taken at the Parks Board meeting on December 13e, 2012, 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Natural Areas - Protected. As this property is not in public ownership, staff is willing to consider the property as the adjacent Institutional land use designation. As you are aware, this property is part of the area being studied by the City for a potential medical corridor. The current draft concept for this area would be for medical -related uses. Noted 4. With the Institutional designations or future medical considerations, neither scenario anticipates stand-alone restaurant or retail uses, which would be more appropriate in General Commercial or Suburban Commercial land use designations in other parts of the area. However, restaurant or retail could serve as an accessory use to another primary use. The potential for these as stand-alone uses would need to be removed from the request or a Comprehensive Plan amendment be approved before this application could proceed for consideration. Understood. See Page 2 of 7 on the Application and the "Application Details^ sheet. 5. If the all or some of the proposed residential uses are an extended care facility, convalescent home, or nursing home, change the name of the proposed use(s) to reflect that instead of muliFfamily. The application has been updated to reflect this comment. See Page 2 of 7 on the Application and the "Application Details" sheet for clarification. Concept Plan Review 1. Remove the scale from the concept plan, it is not intended to be a scalable document. The scale has been removed Z Some areas of the proposed concept plan are too general. While a specific end use does not need to be determined, whether it is non-residential or residential should be shown. The uses have been shown. 3. Based on use changes, the zoning districts used as the standard for the different use areas may also need to change. R-6 is proposed as base district for Residential uses, C-1 is proposed as base district for non-residential uses. 4. More detail regarding general building and parking locations is to be provided on the Concept Plan. Additional detail has been provided on the Concept Plan. 5. The proposed building heights of the development should taper as it approaches General Suburban -scale development on the southwest side by the existing Arnold Road. The revised Application accomplishes this request. The western portion of the Property is limited to 3, todes, or 50' in height. The middle portion of fhe property is limited to 4-stories, or 60' in height. The eastern portion of the property is limited to heights allowed under the C-1 ordinance. 6. The traffic impact analysis assumes that the extension of Normand Drive from Rock Prairie Road will be constructed for this development to occur. Place a note on the Concept Plan to this effect. This extension will entail also working with The Mad in making modification$ to their existing packing lot, drive isles, end islands, landscaping and detention facility and will entail working with the City of College Station on a development agreement which addresses development and construction matters on the portion of land between the subject Property and Rock Prairie Road. The Applicant has engaged Schultz Engineering to provide a preliminary layout and estimate for the portion of the proposed Normand Drive that does not lie within the subject Property. Those preliminary layouts and estimate are attached hereto for use In this rezoning effort. These estimates are preliminary in nature and should only be used for this re -zoning effort. More accurate and detailed estimates should be prepared for use In any oversize participation agreement between the Applicant/Developer and the City. In addition, Applicant has been made aware of a separate agreement whereby the College Station Medical Center gave the City its right-of-way and approximately $135,000 for the extension of Normand Drive to our Property. Given this prior agreement with the Med, the Applicant believes the City should participle financially in the construction of the portion of Normand Drive between the Property and Rock Preide Road. The Applicant is prepared to accept responsibility for the construction of the portion of Normand Drive off of our Property, so long as the Applicant and the City can reach an agreement on the amount of City Participation due from the City and the Application/Developer is granted all necessary construction and access easements and right of way dedication, if necessary, from the College Station Medical Center. 7. Please note that the traffic impact analysis may need to be updated based on changes to the proposed uses. Noted 8. Provide more description regarding the pedestrian paths (width and construction type). The section of multi -use path to be constructed on the City parkland shall be 10' in width, and made of concrete. The pedestrian path that runs diagonally near the center of the Property shall be no less than 6' in width and made of concrete. The multi -use path proposed on the north side of the Arnold Road extension shall be 10' in width, setback 4' from the back o1 curb, and be made of concrete. 9. Are the proposed pedestrian paths along Arnold Road and Normand Drive in lieu of the sidewalks related to those streets? Will they be located outside the standard right-of-way? Applicant requests elimination of the sidewalk along the south side of Arnold Road. In exchange, Applicant proposes the construction of a 10' concrete multi -use path on the north side of Arnold Road, setback 4' from the back of curb. This path will likely be located partially In the Arnold Road right-of-way, and partially in another public access easement that will be created for the multi -use path. This multi -use path will provide a crucial connection between the Southwood Community Park and the College Station Medical Center. Also, by locating the path on the north side only, we will reduce the impact that construction equipment may have on the oak trees and their root systems located on the City's property immediately to the south. This path is proposed along Arnold Road only, not along Normand Drive. A typical street progle with sidewalks on both sides is proposed along Normand Drive. 10. The pedestrian path along the southwest edge of the property by the soccer fields is identified as a multi -use path on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan. Based on block length, an Access Way (at minimum) would be required from Arnold Road to connect to the park property. See Planning Note 82 and Concept Plan Note 8 8, above. 11. It appears that the detention ponds are outlined by drive aisles, thus excluding them from the development when they could be more integrated with it. The drive aisles shown were meant to be "bubbles", see new Concept Plan. 12. The overall site appears to be outlined by drive aisles. Would it not be more desirable to locate the development closer to the park than drive aisles and parking? In addition, the location of a drive aisle in the electric easement area is not clear, please clarify. The drive aisles shown were meant to be "bubbles", see new Concept Plan. 13. Please note that the concept plan will be included as part of the rezoning ordinance on 8.Sxl1' paper. The Concept Plan Notes will not likely be legible at that size, so the updated notes will need to be provided on a separate sheet of paper to be included in the ordinance. The proposed Concept Plan Notes are located on Sheet 2 of 2 of the Concept Plan. Meritorious Modification Review 1. A number of setback reductions have been requested to help create an urban -style campus setting. Staff will further evaluate the need for this reduction when the additional building and parking detail is provided. See additional building and parking detail as provided on the revised Concept Plan. 2. UDO Section 7.1.H.2 Single Family Protection does not limit commercial buildings to 50 feet in height, just a ratio of 2 feet back from the property line for every 1 foot in height. If the non-residential and mufti -family buildings do not share a common property line with a single family or townhouse use, then this section of the ordinance would not apply. Applicant has removed this note from the requestedMadfodous Modifications. 3. For staff to support a parking reduction, additional detail should be provided to justify the request. Modifications that result in a parking reduction of 40% or more seem excessive. Applicant has reduced the variance requests to 40% or less. Multifamily parking reduction requests were derived using historical information provided by NRP, a national senior housing developer. Overall, reductions In parking should be considered for this development due to the senior -citizen oriented nature of this development. Many seniors choose not to own a car, or choose not to drive. Some are prohibited from driving. Many senior couples also share vehicles to reduce the unnecessary expense related to maintenance and registration. 4. It is not understood why a reduction to driveway spacing is necessary given the few amount of driveway constraints that exist for this development and how it could be designed to meet the standard. Noted, we have dropped this request. 5. Is this additional signage request for standard C-1 signage and apartment identification signage for all parts of the development? Please clarify the request. Since Applicant is now requesting a separation into 2 base zoning designations, this variance request is likely unnecessary. Applicant requests R4 sign standards in the residential area, and C.1 sign standards in the commercial (non-residential) area. 6. Staff will not be supportive of the eliminating parkland dedication requirements. Staff is still evaluating the need for additional park facilities in this area. Applicant intends to address specific needs provided by City of College Station Parks 6 Recreation during the Site Planning process, In thm of the Zoning process. At that time, specific additions to the Southwood Park can be proposed. None of these park improvements should be evaluated as Community Bermfilb or variances at this time. 7. Unless the request is not fully understood, it is staffs opinion that the proposed community benefits are not significant enough to offset the amount and degree of proposed modifications. Please re-evaluate based on the update Application and Concept Man. Thank you. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. The proposed 60 foot right of way for the proposed minor collectors on this tract does not meet the current requirement. With that said, the proposed thoroughfares are connecting existing streets or existing right of way dedication and will suffice for this specific project. However, additional easements at the time of platting may be required adjacent to these thoroughfares in order to provide adequate room for utilities. Noted 2. On the Concept Plan, please remove the portion of right of way proposed on the `Amold Tract', as the Arnold Tract is not part to this rezoning request. The illustrated projection of the thoroughfare should not encroach into the "Arnold Tract" on this Concept Plan. The existing Arnold Road was designed to project into a very small portion of the Arnold Tract as shown on the Concept Plan. A portion of the existing road would have to be removed and reconstructed in an alternate alignment to completely miss the Amold Tmct. The Applicant will attempt to negotiate with the Arnold's for right of way dedication of this area. If this is not achieved, the alignment can be adjusted at platting stage. 3. On the Concept Plan, please remove the portion of right of way proposed on the "College Station Utilities Property". College Station Utilities has an active training and storage facility In this area, which is buffered from the subject tract by a row of canopy trees and a fence. The proposed right of way should not encroach the canopy trees or fence in order to preserve the existing training and storage area. If there is some portion of College Station Utility's property that is outside the fenced area, it could be considered for the use of the Arnold Road extension. Applicant has revised the layout to show all of the Arnold Road right of way on the subject property at the College Station Utility Service Centerproperly 4. Please provide a note on the Concept Plan stating that the proposed thoroughfares shall be constructed to meet the Minor Collector standard per the BCS Guidelines Please revise Note 6 to state that the pedestrian paths shall be constructed as part of the development of this tract. This note has been added to the Concept Plan notes. 5. Please revise Note 6 to state that the pedestrian paths shall be constructed as part of the development of this tract. Note 6 has been revised 6. Does the proposed horizontal alignment of Normand Drive meet the BCS Standards? The centerline radius o1 the Normand Drive right of way Is 400' which is less than the 430' minimum radius required by the BCS Standards. However, the street pavement can be constructed using a centerline radius of 430' and the pavement will fit within the existing right of way Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: October 3, 2011 4or'" CMOFC01MGESTAT10N , - HewefTnnAdMUniwnry' 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 I V %' \1 College Station, Texas 77842 c ' Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 ; V MEMORANDUM October 3, 2011 TO: Jesse Durden, via email: iease,durdan(@ceorocktx.com>/ FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING — 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 fallowing information by Monday, October 24, 2011, 10:00 a.m., for your project to be placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 17, 2011, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hell Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue: Thirteen (13) 11uxl7" copies of the Rezoning Map; Four (4) 24"x36" copies of the revised Concept Plan; Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised Concept Plan; One (1) copy of the digital file of the rezoning Metes & Bounds on diskette or e-mail to P&DS—Digital—Submittal@mtx.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 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. htto://www. cstx.cov/oz If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570 Attachments: Staff Review Comments PC: Joe Schultz, Schultz Engineering, via email: ioeschultze4,ffiverizon.net✓ Case file #11-00500128 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College 3letlon, must he explained In your next transmittal letter and "bubbled' on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been painted out 0 the City, will constitute a completely new review. t of 4 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING—(11-00500128) PLANNING 1. Based on the comments made as part of the staffs review, please contact Jason Schubert at 764-3570 to schedule a facilitation meeting to discuss the project. 2. Please note that with the request to eliminate parkland dedication requirements and propose facilities on the Concept Plan, the Parka & Recreation Advisory Board will need to provide a recommendation before the Planning & Zoning Commission can consider the request. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Natural Areas — Protected. As this property is not in public ownership, staff is willing to consider the property as the adjacent Institutional land use designation. As you are aware, this property is part of the area being studied by the City for a potential medical corridor. The current draft concept for this area would be for medical -related uses. 4. With the Institutional designations or future medical considerations, neither scenario anticipates stand-alone restaurant or retail uses, which would be more appropriate in General Commercial or Suburban Commercial land use designations in other parts of the area. However, restaurant or retail could serve as an accessory use to another primary use. The potential for these as stand-alone uses would need to be removed from the request or a Comprehensive Plan amendment be approved before this application could proceed for Consideration. 5. If the all or some of the proposed residential uses are an extended care facility, convalescent home, or nursing home, change the name of the proposed use(s) to reflect that instead of multi -family. Concept Plan Review 1. Remove the scale from the concept plan, it is not Intended to be a scalable document. 2. Some areas of the proposed concept plan are too general. While a specific end use does not need to be determined, whether t is non-residential or residential should be shown. 3. Based on use changes, the zoning districts used as the standard for the different use areas may also need to change. 4. More detail regarding general building and parking locations is to be provided an the Concept Plan. 5. The proposed building heights of the development should taper as it approaches General Suburban -scale development on the southwest side by the existing Arnold Road. 8. The traffic Impact analysis assumes that the extension of Normand Drive from Rock Prairie Road will be constructed for this development to occur. Place a note on the Concept Plan to this effect. This extension will entail also working with The Med in making modifications to their existing parking lot, drive isles, end islands, landscaping and detention facility. 7. Please note that the traffic impact analysis may need to be updated based on changes to the proposed uses. 8. Provide more description regarding the pedestrian paths (width and construction type). 9. Are the proposed pedestrian paths along Arnold Road and Normand Drive in lieu of the sidewalks related to those streets? Will they be located outside the standard right-of-way? 10. The pedestrian path along the southwest edge of the property by the soccer fields is identified as a multi -use path on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greemvays Master Plan. Based on block length, an Access Way (at minimum) would be required from Arnold Road to connect to the park property. NOTE: Any charges made to the plans, than have not been requested by the City of College Stallion, must he explained In your next hardan dal letter and °bubbled on your plans. Any additional changes an these plena that have not been pointed out to the Clty, vat constitute a completely new review. 2 of 4 11. It appears that the detention ponds are outlined by drive aisles, thus excluding them from the development when they could be more integrated with it. 12. The overall site appears to be outlined by drive aisles. Would it not be more desirable to locate the development closer to the park than drive aisles and parking? In addition, the location of a drive aisle in the electric easement area is not clear, please clarify. 13. Please note that the concept plan will be included as part of the rezoning ordinance on 8.5°x11" paper. The Concept Plan Notes will not likely be legible at that size, so the updated notes will need to be provided on a separate sheet of paper to be included in the ordinance. Meritorious Modification Review 1. A number of setback reductions have been requested to help create an urban -style campus setting. Staff will further evaluate the need for this reduction when the additional building and perking detail is provided. 2. UDO Section 7.1.1-1.2 Single Family Protection does not limit commercial buildings to 50 feet in height, lust a ratio of 2 feet back from the property line for every 1 foot in height. If the non-residential and multi -family buildings do not share a common property line with a single family or townhouse use, then this section of the ordinance would not apply. 3. For staff to support a parking reduction, additional detail should be provided to justify the request. Modifications that result in a parking reduction of 40% or more seem excessive. 4. It is not understood why a reduction to driveway spacing is necessary given the few amount of driveway constraints that exist for this development and how it could be designed to meet the standard. 5. Is this additional aignage request for standard C-1 aignage and apartment identification aignage for all parts of the development? Please clarify the request. 6. Staff will not be supportive of the eliminating parkland dedication requirements. Staff is still evaluating the need for additional park facilities in this area. 7. Unless the request is not fully underatood, It is staff's opinion that the proposed community benefits are not significant enough to offset the amount and degree of proposed modifications. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Dale: October 3, 2011 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. The proposed 60 foot right of way for the proposed minor collectors on this tract does not meet the current requirement. With that said, the proposed thoroughfares are connecting existing streets or existing right of way dedication and will suffice for this specific project. However, additional easements at the time of platting may be required adjacent to these thoroughfares in order to provide adequate room for utilities. 2. On the Concept Plan, please remove the portion of right of way proposed on the "Arnold Tract', as the Arnold Tract is not part to this rezoning request. The illustrated projection of the thoroughfare should not encroach into the "Arnold Tract" on this Concept Plan. 3. On the Concept Plan, please remove the portion of fight of way proposed on the "College Station Utilities Property". College Station Utilities has an active training and storage facility in this area, which is buffered from the subject tract by a now, of canopy trees and a fence. The proposed right of way should not encroach the canopy trees or fence in order to preserve the existing training and storage area. If there is some portion of College Station Utility's property that is outside the fenced area, it could be considered for the use of the Arnold Road extension. NOTE: My changes made to the ptens, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained In your rem mansmXlal letter and'bubble& on your plena. Airy additional changes on these plans that have not been punted out to the City, will constitute a completely new revlew. 3 of 4 4. Please provide a note on the Concept Plan stating that the proposed thoroughfares shall be constructed to meet the Minor Collector standard per the BCS Guidelines. 5. Please revise Note 6 to state that the pedestrian paths shall be constructed as part of the development of this tract. 6. Does the proposed horizontal alignment of Normand Drive meet the BCS Standards? Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: October 3, 2011 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requestad by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal latter and'bubbled' on your plans. AN additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, Mil oonstilute a completely new review. 4 of 4 (* "i CITYOPCOlu RSTMON H ofTmmA6M UtlwMry' 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.35701 Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM September 26, 2011 L' AO , TO: Jesse Durden, via email . iesse durden(alcaorocMx con(✓ CID FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP Senior Planner SUBJECT: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING (REZ) Thank you for the submittal confirming the TIA, which completes your REZONING application. This project will be distributed to staff this week for their review. cc: Texas Hotel Management Corp., via fax: 979.314.7606 Joe Schultz, Schultz Engineering, via email: ioeschultz84nverizon.net✓ Case file no. 11-00500128 j _ f G rr un CuLLitca: Si 'rnoN 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.35701 Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM August 18, 2011 1 TO: Jesse Durden via email: jesse.durden@caprocktx.com ✓ 1 � 1 FROM: Molly Hitchcock, AICP a., Planning Administrator SUBJECT: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL AND SENIOR LIVING (POD) I reviewed the above -mentioned REZONING application and determined it to be incomplete. The following is the preliminary list of items needed to complete the submittal so that staff may conduct a thorough review. Please submit the following information by 10 a.m. on any Monday for review that week: A Traffic Impact Analysis. Title of the person that signed the application and Proof of Authority for that parson to sign the application on behalf of Texas Hotel Management Corp. Please be aware that if this application is not completed before October 3, 2011. it will expire and a new application and fees will be necessary to continue the rezoning request process. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. oc: Texas Hotel Management Corp, via fax, 979-314-7606✓ Joe Schultz, via email: joeschultz84@verizon.net,�' Case file No. 11-00500128