HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
August 31, 2011 r "5 , , 'i
TO: Jesse Durden, via email: lesse.durden(a caprocktx.com `�f>C cct
FROM: Matt Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FOSTER AVENUE APARTMENTS (REZ)
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:
Proof of signing authority for Clint Cooper on behalf of CC BCS 1 LP
Please be aware that if this application is not completed before October 17th, it will expire and a
new application and fees will be necessary to continue the rezoning process.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
cc: Clint Cooper, CC BCS 1 LP, via email: ccooper(c)caldwellcos.com
Gary Hill via email: garyl (a)hfi-architects.com
Case file No. 11-00500135
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
September 1, 2011
TO: Jesse Durden, via email: jesse.durdenCa caprocktx.co
FROM: Matt Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: FOSTER AVENUE APARTMENTS (REZ)
V1 CID
Thank you for the submittal that completes your REZONING application. This project will be
distributed to staff next week for their review.
cc: Clint Cooper, CC BCS 1 LP, via email: ccoo er aldwellcos.com' v
Gary Hill, via email: aary1(a�hfi-architects.co
Case file no. 11-00500135
CITY Or COT=,GP. STATION
x »,r fr..-„, A&1,1 U» ,,nhy
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
September 14, 2011
TO: Jesse Durden via email: jesse.durden@caprocktx.com
FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: FOSTER AVENUE APARTMENTS — PDD 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, , 10:00 a.m., for your project to be placed on the
next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for 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 revised Rezoning Map;
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: Clint Cooper via email: ccooper@caldwellcos.com
Gary Hill via email: gary1@hfi-architects.com
Case file #11-00500135
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 6
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: FOSTER AVENUE APARTMENTS (REZ) — (11-00500135)
PLANNING
The following comments are related to the Concept Plan.
1. Being situated across the street from a Neighborhood Conservation area, it is going to be
important to limit the impact that this development will have on the neighborhood. Though
multi -family is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Eastgate Plan does mention the
need for sensitivity to the existing uses that are to remain. There are numerous adjustments
that can be made to the site and building that can make this development an asset to the
neighborhood. This is what I would like to discuss during the September 14t" meeting at
2:00 pm. A few of Staff concerns are regarding, but are not limited to: access to Francis;
setbacks; parking; 65' height; parking screening; addition waivers needed for the proposed
layout; and architectural design.
2. Sidewalks that are back of curb need to be 8' wide.
3. A PIP is required for landscaping and irrigation in the right-of-way. Required landscaping
should be located on -site. Additional landscaping in the right-of-way may be proposed to
reduce the visual impact of parking.
4. Please remove the scale, parking striping, cars, fire lane designations and dimensions, bike
rack labels, and lobby/stairwell details.
5. What is the line with circles at the rear of the property symbolizing?
6. FYI... the parking spaces, parking setbacks, and fire lane do not meet dimensional
standards as shown.
7. Perimeter parking, in the amount shown, is not appropriate for the neighborhood.
8. Parking is not properly screened as presented. Also, the screening method needs to be
clearly defined instead of landscaping or fencing.
9. A 6' tall fence will segregate this development from the rest of the neighborhood, instead of
making it part of the neighborhood. Please consider the use of a 3'4 tall fence if the
purpose is parking screening.
10. A cross -access easement should be provided to the abutting residential lot.
11. The dumpster must be relocated so that the backing maneuver does not occur within the
right-of-way.
12. The Concept Plan shows the front setback as 5' and the rear as 5'. This is not consistent
with the application.
13. The note that building location "will change..." needs to be removed. The exact location is
allowed to vary as long as it stays within the parameters established by the PDD ordinance.
14. Total elimination of parking islands is not suitable for the area.
The following comments are related to the PDD Application:
1. Page 2: In the proposed uses box, please indicate that the base zoning will be R-6.
2. Question 3 Page 3: More architectural detail needs to be provided to indicate how the
architecture will be complimentary to the neighborhood. This answer should also include
other elements of the project that are being added to increase compatibility. A few
suggestions are low -profile signage, lighting, architecture, scale, etc.
3. Question 4 Page 3: Please address what makes this project suitable against the existing
residential units that are anticipated to remain.
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 6
4. Question 5 Page 3: The land use is the same, but the density that is being requested is
greater than allowed by R-6.
5. Question 7 Page 3: This question should be answered with a description of site features
that are proposed with the development that encourage the rezoning. Possible features
might include public sidewalk, additional streetscaping, sidewalk to Texas Avenue, sidewalk
to Walton, bike lane striping from Foster to Texas Avenue, right-of-way dedication,
crosswalks.
6. Question 8 Page 4: The use needs to be mentioned in the purpose statement.
7. Question 1 Page 4: Please state the maximum height in feet and how the multiple stories
will be situated in relation to Foster. A suggestion is to tier the development back from the
street and have the highest point in eastern corner.
8. Question 5 Page 5: This question should be answered with statements directly addressing
community character and stability. The information regarding bicycle and pedestrian traffic
and facilities is appropriate for this question. The ratio of bike parking per bedrooms would
also be useful.
9. Question 7 Page 5: The architecture, scale of the building, setbacks, and other compatibility
items should be addressed.
10. Question 8 Page 5: Please mention building orientation, if the development will be gated,
and how units will be accessed.
11. Question 9 Page 5: This is where public sidewalks can be mentioned.
12. Question 10 Page 6: What design elements are proposed that will eliminate the concern of
injury to neighboring properties? Also, how will the intense vehicular traffic be addressed to
alleviate safety concerns?
13. Question 11 Page 6: Please provide an estimated reduction that can be expected on
vehicular traffic from the addition of bike racks? Please mention where the nearest bus
stops are located.
The following comments are related to the Variance Request submittal.
1. Setbacks waivers require further discussion. The Concept Plan shows a 5' rear setback.
2. The proposal does not appear to equate to120 beds/acre. Also, this is nearly twice as
dense as the most intense multi -family development that we have records for. The Eastgate
Plan language does not promote this level of intensity.
3. The requested height of 65' is not appropriate when abutting Foster directly. A tiered
development for this site may be more correct for the neighborhood.
4. To reduce the parking requirement and avoid overflow into the neighborhood streets, a
shared parking agreement paired with the striping of bike lanes may be a solution.
5. Total elimination of parking islands is not appropriate for the area. A reduction of island
square footage is reasonable if parking is not visible from the right-of-way. A possible
solution would be a building wall extension that screened the parking. I will explain this
option further during the September 14th meeting.
6. Access to Francis is not going to be supported. Fire access must be accommodated using
an alternative method. Per the College Station Fire Marshal, aerial access may be
accommodated off -site.
7. As stated previously, required landscaping should be on -site, but additional streetscaping
can be provided to lessen the visual impact of the development.
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 6
8. The sidewalk width shown is not adequate when located at back -of -curb. The minimum
width is 8'.
9. Please contact the Parks Department to discuss parkland dedication alternatives. A waiver
of fees will not be supported by Planning Staff without related community benefits.
10. Several of the community benefits listed are not considered community benefits. I will work
with you to further develop this section.
General comments:
1. Please provide information regarding the number of 1, 2, 3, and 4 bedroom units that are
proposed so that parking can be evaluated.
2. The "UNAMIMOUS CONSENT OF MANAGERS IN LIEU OF ORGANIATIONAL MEETING
OF CC BCS 1 GP, LLC" was submitted for verification of authority to sign on behalf on the
property -owning company, CC BCS 1 LP. Please submit proof of signing authority for CC
BCS 1 LP.
3. Perimeter dimension need to be added to the rezoning map. These will also be used to
confirm the written metes and bounds that were submitted.
4. Information needs to be provided that confirms that a Traffic Impact Analysis is not needed
for this proposed development.
5. On the rezoning map, please indicate that there is no FEMA designated floodplain on the
property, show lot lines (gray lines would be best), and label the 15' alley at the rear of the
property.
6. EFIS/stucco is not a common architectural material in this area. A compatibility element that
may be added would be to not allow or limit this material.
7. One suggestion for the architectural design is to observe the neighborhood and find features
that are commonly found to mimic (porches, gables, pitched roof).
8. If architectural and site rendering are available, they would aid the PDD discussions
between the developer and Staff. Though they should not be placed into the ordinance,
they can assist in the understanding of the project.
9. Due to the complexity of this site and situation, and the implications of Staff comments, the
next submittal will be reviewed as a first round of review.
Reviewed by: Lauren Hovde, Project Manager Date: September 13, 2011
TxDOT Comments
1. No Comment (not applicable)
Reviewed by: Chad Bohne Date: September 9, 2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
Concept Plan
1. Please the bearings and distances around the boundary of the property.
2. Please show and label the right-of-way and street with approximate widths.
3. The fire lane through the property will need to be a minimum of 26-ft wide since the
building is proposed to be over 30-ft tall.
4. If surface detention is proposed, please show and label on the Concept Plan.
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 6
5. There are existing 8" and 2" waterlines along Francis and Foster, respectively. Per the
Water Dept., Fire Flow requirements need to be examined by the project engineer as
soon as possible to determine if the 2" waterline will be sufficient under fire flow
conditions. The waterline may need to be upsized prior to development on -site.
6. Sidewalks along Francis and Foster will be required to meet City Standard Detail SW1-
02 (6-ft with a 3-ft grass adjacent to back -of -curb or a total of 8-ft with a 2-ft paver strip
adjacent to back -of -curb).
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: 9/9/11
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes and provides
descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for electric lines (where
applicable, including street lights)
Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
If applicable, the following easements will be required:
• 20' PUE along entire length of property line that backs Chili's Restaurant.
• 10' PUE along the perimeter on the remaining three sides of the property.
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:
g marti nez(a)cstx.g ov.
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 Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez
GREENWAYS
Date: 09.08.2011
1. No comments
Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: September
6, 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 6
SANITATION
1. Dumpster pad does not meet sanitation standards.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: September 7, 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. 6 of 6