HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsCITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of TeensA&M University'
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
October 13, 2011 t l�
TO: Steve Duncan, via email: sduncan(@ionescarter.comt // Q i
FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP v
Principal Planner
SUBJECT: HOME2 SUITES (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:
Brazos County Appraisal District records show that the property is currently
owned by Vasu Demla LLC. Provide proof of authority that Suraj Demla can sign
the zoning application on behalf of the Vasu Demla LLC.
Please be aware that if this application is not completed before Monday, December 5, 2011, 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: Suraj and Anita Demla, via email: suraldemlaCa'bgmail.corn V�_ /
Anil Ram, ADR Designs, via email: adrdesigns@sbcglobal.net l
Case file No. 11-00500158
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 I�
College Station, Texas 77842 10
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM `y
October 14, 2011 /
TO: Steve Duncan, via email: sduncan(@ionescarter.com
FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP
Principal Planner
SUBJECT: HOME2 SUITES (REZ)
Thank you for the submittal of the requested information for your REZONING application. This
project will be distributed to staff next week for their review.
cc: Suraj and Anita Demla, via email: suraidemla(o)gmail.com ✓
Anil Ram, ADR Designs, via email: adrdesigns(a)sbcglobal.net
Case file no. 11-00500158
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Horne 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
October 26,2011
TO: Steven Duncan, via email: sduncan@jonescarter.
FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: HOME2 SUITES (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, November 1, 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 Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas
Avenue:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Rezoning Map;
Thirteen (13) 1 Vx17" copies of the revised Rezoning Map;
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan; and
Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised Concept Plan.
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.
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:
Case file #11-00500158
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
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: HOME2 SUITES (REZ) — (11-00500158)
PLANNING
1. Based on the nature of the comments provided in this review, I recommend scheduling a
facilitation meeting to discuss the comments. Please contact me at your earliest
convenience to do so.
2. Consolidate the Rezoning Exhibit (Map) into one figure instead of the Existing Zoning and
Proposed Zoning figures. The consolidated exhibit should clearly outline the boundary of the
properties included in the proposed rezoning and show the current C-1/R-4 boundary within
them.
3. The buildings lines can be removed from the Rezoning Exhibit. While they were shown on
the plats for these properties, they do not need to be illustrated on the Rezoning Exhibit,
4. It appears that the Existing Zoning figure identifies a "20' Easement" along the southeast
property line that should be labeled as a 3', easement.
Concept Plan Review
1. The Concept Plan is intended to show the general layout of the proposed development
all the detailed legal aspects are to be depicted on the Rezoning Map. Items suc
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
internal property labels and the scale should be removed.
Please shrink the size of the Vicinity Map and expand the size of the Concept Plan.
h
The boundary of the proposed rezoning should be illustrated more clearly. This may best
occur by decreasing the line thickness of the surrounding properties.
It was discussed that site plan level detail was not essential for the Concept Plan since it is
not intended to be a site plan level review for this request. However, there are additional
features, detail, and relationships that should be shown. For example, show general
driveway locations (with the Texas Avenue needing TxDOT approval), cross access
locations, sidewalks, etc.
Add a note to the General Notes that the property is required to replat into one lot, the
applicable part of the abandoned Meadowland Street right-of-way included in the plat, and a
Public Way or right-of-way provided.
If a Public Way, illustrate where the proposed Public Access Easement will be located and
the drive surface and associated sidewalks.
Please note that a Public Way is a transportation facility provided in lieu of a public street
and as such developments are to relate to Public Ways the same as public streets.
Therefore, requirements such as streetscape, parking setback, parking screening, parking
islands, increased non-residential architecture standards for facing a street, etc would apply.
Please note that based on changes made and additional detail received regarding the
Concept Plan and draft site plan, additional comments and evaluation may result.
Meritorious Modification Review
1. Staff will not support the requested modification that cuts in half the parking requirement for
the proposed hotel. This request either needs to be removed or if Staff is otherwise able to
recommend approval of the project, we will do so with the condition that this reduction not
be included. With the entire redevelopment of these properties, it is difficult to argue that it
would not be possible to fit parking in. If there is not enough area for parking spaces then
too many rooms are proposed.
2. The request to remove all buffer zoning requirements is not necessary. This area is in an
identified redevelopment area so it is exempt from buffer requirements.
3. Blanket removal of all 50,000+ sq ft building plot requirements is not justified without any
community benefit to offer. It would be best if we discussed the specific requirements in
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
which you have concern and come to an agreement on which types of requirements are
related to a suburban -style and are not appropriate for an urban type development area.
4. As with public streets, the space between the Public Way and associated sidewalk should
not be eliminated without an increase in sidewalk width. Staff will need more detail regarding
the merits of this item and inability to meet standard parking dimensions on the site without
this modification.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert
Date: October 26, 2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Please include the volume and page number on all the existing easements.
2. If any, label all proposed easements as "Proposed."
3. Please label the portion of Meadowland St. that has been abandoned as abandoned right-
of-way.
4. Please label the width of former Meadowland Street right-of-way. This development will be
required to provide a minimum of 20 feet of the required minimum 40-foot wide Public
Access Easement in place of the abandoned Meadowland. If the width of the former right-
of-way is deficient, additional easement would need to be dedicated on these properties.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: October 24, 2011
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,
including street lights.
Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
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:
gmartinez@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.
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
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: October 21, 2011
GREENWAYS
1. No comments
Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: October 13, 2011
TxDOT Comments
1. Access easements between this parcel and the adjacent parcels are encouraged for future
cross access between developments.
Reviewed by: Chad Bohne
Date: October 19, 2011
cc: Suraj and Anita Demla, via email: suraid ern la@gmaail.corn
cc: Anil Ram, ADR Designs, via email: adrdesigns@sbcglobal.nety
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
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: HOME2 SUITES (REZ) — (11-00500158)
Engineer's Response to City Comments 1 —November 1, 2011
PLANNING
1. Based on the nature of the comments provided in this review, I recommend scheduling a facilitiation meeting
to discuss the comments. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to do so.
Met to discuss on Thursday, October 27, 2011
2. Consolidate the Rezoning Exhibit (Map) into one figure instead of the Existing Zoning and Proposed Zoning
figures. The consolidated exhibit should clearly outline the boundary of the properties included in the
proposed rezoning and show the current C-1 / R-4 boundary within them.
OK
3. The buildings lines can be removed from the Rezoning Exhibit. While they were shown on the plats for these
properties, they do not need to be illustrated on the Rezoning Exhibit.
Building lines have been removed.
4. It appears that the Existing Zoning figure identifies a "20' Easement" along the southeast property line that
should be labeled as a 3' easement.
Correct.
Concept Plan Review
1. The concept plan is intended to show the general layout of the proposed development and all the detailed
legal aspects are to be depicted on the Rezoning Map. Items such as internal property labels and the scale
should be removed.
Legal aspects of internal property labels have been removed. Scale has been removed.
2. Please shrink the size of the Vicinity Map and expand the size of the Concept Plan.
OK
3. The boundary of the proposed rezoning should be illustrated more clearly. This may best occur by decreasing
the line thickness of the surrounding properties.
OK
4. It was discussed that site plan level detail was not essential for the Concept Plan since it is not intended to be
a site plan level review for this request. However, there are additional features, detail, and relationships that
should be shown. For example, show general driveway locations (with the Texas Avenue needing TxDOT
approval), cross access locations, sidewalks, etc.
Texas Avenue driveway location shown as well as proposed cross access easement with Applebee's has been
shown. The BTU easement has been added, and the proposed force main easement has been added. A
proposed sidewalk parallel and adjacent to Texas Avenue and a five-foot sidewalk parallel and adjacent to
Meadowland have been added. The proposed Meadowland Public Way has been shown.
5. Add a note to the General Notes that the property is required to replat into one lot, the applicable part of the
abandoned Meadowland Street Right -of -Way included In the plat, and a Public Way of right-of-way provided.
Note added.
6. If a Public Way, illustrate where the proposed Public Access Easement will be located and the drive surface
and associated sidewalks.
Public way details have been added.
7. Pease note that a Public Way is a transportation facility provided in lieu of a public street and such
developments are to relate to Public Ways in the same as public streets. Therefore, requirements such as
streetscaping, parking setback, parking screening, parking islands, increased non-residential architecture
standards for facing a street, etc. would apply.
Noted. Variances are being sought regarding parking islands, tree wells, parking setbacks.
8. Please note that based on changes made and additional detail received regarding the Concept Plan and draft
site plan, additional comments and evaluation may occur.
Noted.
Meritorious Modification Review
1. Staff will not support the requested modification that cuts in half the parking requirements for the proposed
hotel. This request either needs to be removed or if Staff is otherwise able to recommend approval of the
project, we will do so with the condition that this reduction not be included. With the entire development of
these properties, it Is difficult to argue that It would not be possible to fit parking in. If there is not enough
area for parking spaces then too many rooms are proposed.
2. The request to remove all buffer zoning requirements is not necessary. This area is in an identified
redevelopment area so it is exempt from buffer requirements.
3. Blanket removal of a 50,000+sf ft building plot requirements Is notjustified without any community benefit to
offer. It would be best If we discussed the specific requirements in which you have concern and come to an
agreement on which type of requirements are related to a suburban -style and are not appropriate for an
urban type development area.
Seeking variance to remove requirement of 10' Sidewalk and Tree Wells on sides facing public ROW.
4. As with public streets, the space between the Public Way and associated sidewalks should not be eliminated
without an increase in sidewalk width. Staff will need more detail regarding the merits of this item and
inability to meet standard parking dimensions on the site without this modification.
Please refer to Concept plan sheet for changes.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert
Date: October 26, 2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Please include the volume and page number on all the existing easements.
OK
2. If any, label all proposed easements as "Proposed"
OK
3. Please label the portion of Meadowland Street right-of-way. This development will be required to provide a
minimum of 20 feet of the required minimum 40-foot wide Public Access Easement in place of the abandoned
Meadowland. If the width of the former right-of-way is deficient, additional easement would need to be
dedicated on these properties.
This has been labeled.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: October 24, 2011
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
All electrical comments are site plan related; therefore none are addressed at this time.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
All electrical comments are site plan related; therefore none are addressed at this time.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: October 21, 2011
GREENWAYS
1. No comments
Reviewed by: Vanessa Garza
Date: October 13, 2011
TxDOT Comments
1. Access easements between this parcel and the adjacent parcels are encouraged for future cross access
between developments.
Cross access will be provided to the Applebee's parcel adjacent to the north, but cross access will not be
physically available due to significant grade differences between the Hampton parcel to the South.
Reviewed by: Chad Bohne Date: October 19, 2011