HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsCITY OIL COLLEGE STATION
Home ofTexz AcW University'
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
January 13, 2012
TO: Mitchell & Morgan, Veronica Morgan, via email: v(cDmitchellandmorgan.com
FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP
Principal Planner
SUBJECT: THE PLAZA AT COLLEGE STATION (REZ)
Thank you for the submittal of your REZONING application. This project will be distributed to
staff next week for their review.
cc: Woodridge College Station, Rick Arambulo, via email: rick(),woodridgecapital.com
Amanda Wallis, via email: awallis(a)capstone-dev.com
Case file no. 12-00500010
(*Oiir�
CITY OF COI.LF.GE, STATION
Hoene of Tex& AeW University'
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
January 26, 2012
TO: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via email: v(a)mitchellandmoMan.com
FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: THE PLAZA AT COLLEGE STATION (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, February 6, 2012, 10:00 a.m., for your project to be
placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting scheduled for
Thursday, February 16, 2012, 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) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan;
Thirteen (13) 11 "x17" copies of the revised Concept Plan;
One (1) copy of the revised Metes and Bounds;
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.
Perhaps moving the anticipated Commission date to the March Vt meeting may better serve
this project by allowing the necessary time to refinement on the front end. If all required items
are not received, your project will not be scheduled for the anticipated P&Z agenda but will be
placed on a future agenda once all comments have been addressed and the appropriate re -
advertising fees paid. 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. 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: Rick Arambulo, Woodridge College Station, via email: rick(a),woodridgecapital.com
Amanda Wallis, via email: awallispcapstone-dev.com
Case file #12-00500010
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: THE PLAZA AT COLLEGE STATION (REZ) — (12-00500010)
PLANNING
1. Please note that we have mutually scheduled a facilitation meeting to discuss this project
and associated review comments on Tuesday, January 315t at 11:00 AM at City Hall.
2. The application provides metes and bounds for the individual properties and tracts. A
continuous metes and bounds of the perimeter of the area is required for the rezoning
ordinance. This is necessary for both of the two rezoning areas of this development.
3. On the Rezoning Map, revise the label of the 0.17 acre tract at the corner of Texas Avenue
and University Drive so it is labeled as being zoned C-1 (not C-2).
4. On the Rezoning Map, provide the metes and bounds for a few areas that are not labeled.
These areas include along the two lengths of the portion of Lot 3 owned by 7-D Investments
and the lengths on each side of the remaining Meadowland Street right-of-way.
5. Phasing of the project is not mentioned in the application. If there is a desire to phase the
project, please provide some an outline of how the development and associated
improvements will be ordered.
6. The property is to be replatted as part of the redevelopment. We should further discuss the
process by which this is to occur and include it as part of the PDD rezoning request.
7. The rezoning should address the timing of the demolition of existing buildings, including
those not part of the first phase of development.
8. If this application is approved, the Concept Plan will be inserted into the rezoning ordinance
in 8.5x11" form. Please reformat the Concept Plan so that all aspects will legible at that
scale.
9. Remove the note that there is no flood plain on the site from the Concept Plan.
10. Please note that if the development proposes more than 625 new multi -family units, it
exceeds a threshold that would require the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board to consider
whether land for parkland dedication would be required. If it is less than this figure, staff can
administratively approve fee -in -lieu of parkland dedication. If needed to be scheduled,
please contact the Parks & Recreation Department
11. More information is needed on the manner in which sanitation service will be provided to the
proposed commercial and multi -family uses.
12. The Fire Department needs to verify that all proposed buildings have adequate fire
coverage. One of the areas of concern is the southwest corner where the existing Kettle
restaurant exists. Previous discussion included having a grasscrete fire lane area come off
of University Drive with an adequate turn around area.
13. The placement of the bus stop pull off with the adjacent driveway for the remaining use is a
concern that needs to be addressed.
14. The development proposes high density multi -family uses but appears to close off the
corner of the development closest to the main destination, Texas A&M University. How are
adequate bicycle facilities and bicycle and pedestrian routes being accommodated with the
proposed development?
15. Many of the requested meritorious modification (bulk variances) requests are too vague to
include in a rezoning ordinance. We should discuss how to further define the requested
items and determine if some are needed or appropriate for the development. Here are some
thoughts concerning them based on their proposed number:
1. The proposed parking garages already help this development have the opportunity to
have a much more pedestrian friendly environment. What level of parking reduction
would be proposed? Would a general 1:250 parking ratio with no increases for any
intense uses be sufficient?
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. 2 of 6
2. There is concern with the reduced setbacks when the full right-of-way dedication is
not proposed (#6) and reduction in building setbacks from utilities is proposed (#15).
3. With the additional (doubled) density is . requested with #8, the importance of
additional connections increases. We should discuss this further.
4. Agreed, driveways have been discussed at length. Based on TIA comments, there
may be a need to make some revisions.
5. In the list of P-MUD uses to be removed, single-family detached and duplex should
be added to the list. Also, given the scale of the development, it is recommended that
Utility and Wireless Telecommunication Facilities not be removed in case those uses
need to be utilized at some point in the future.
6. See #2, need to discuss further.
7. More definition to the parking reduction should be made. Would 1 parking space per
bedroom with some specified accommodation for visitors be sufficient?
8. The increase in the density from a maximum of 30 to 60 units per acre has an impact
on the ability for services (transportation and utility) to be provided. Greater
consideration regarding the effect on these services should be provided with the
requests made.
9. More definition is needed in how the public way would need to be altered.
10. See #9, need to discuss further.
11. See #9, need to discuss further.
12. Associated with #1 and #7. we should discuss an allowable maximum.
13. Given the urban nature of the proposed development, the general landscaping
requirements likely would not be appropriate. The City has adopted landscape
standards for similar types of development in the Northgate. It is recommended that
we look at adopted those, perhaps with some minor modifications.
14. When the property is replatted, only the perimeter property lines would exist, do not
believe a reduction in side setbacks between buildings would have any effect.
15. See #2, need to discuss further.
16. Should discuss this item further. With other modifications, it appears the proposed
public way is being modified where it would function even less like a thoroughfare.
17. It may be best to adopt the architecture standards developed for the Northgate as it
is much more appropriate for the pedestrian scale. The most concern relates to the
architecture of the buildings, including the parking garage, facing Texas Avenue and
University Drive and main interior commercial public way corridors.
18. Wayfinding signage is a permitted by the ordinance; provide additional detail on what
would be requested.
19. Super Graphics have been part of previous discussions. While they may exist in
large-scale urban environments in other parts of the country, this area does not lend
itself to this type of signage. Staff requests that you remove this request or modify it
to request signage more appropriate to the scale of the development and area.
20. A modification to identification signs could be considered, we should discuss further.
16. The community benefits stated are generally antidotal or are benefits already anticipated by
the Comprehensive Plan with the Urban/Redevelopment designation on the subject
property. In general, community benefits should be targeted to offset the modifications
requested and should demonstrate an alternative or increase in standard that would not be
otherwise realized. Please revise the proposed community benefits to fit this format.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert
Date: January 26, 2012
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
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Our records indicate that an additional 20-ft PUE (Vol.1130, P.761) is located on the
property. Please verify.
2. General Comments per Stephen Maldonado, Jr. of the Water Services Department:
Sanitary Sewer:
The existing Plaza Development is currently served by an 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer
collection line that spans from University Drive to the existing Hensel Park Lift Station. This
respective lift station then pumps sanitary sewer flow to the 'Northeast Trunkline' via a 12-
inch force main. The 'Northeast Trunkline' conveys this flow to the Carters Creek
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Using the City of College Station's sanitary sewer modeling
software and the proposed build -out sanitary sewer demands submitted by the developer,
the City has determined that there is NOT adequate capacity in the existing 8" sanitary
sewer line that spans from this respective development to the existing Hensel Park Lift
Station. The City has, however, concluded that there is existing available capacity in the
Hensel Park Lift Station/force main as well as the 'Northeast Trunkline'. Because of this, this
development would need to include off -site sanitary sewer improvements to provide
additional collection system capacity.
Water Distribution:
The existing Plaza Development is currently served by adjacent 12-inch waterlines along
Texas Avenue and University Drive. Per discussions with the developer's engineer,
additional information is needed through fire demand modeling on existing available
capacity concerns. Once this has been analyzed by the developer's consultant, the City can
better understand the proposed locations, potential required up -sizing, and the potential
required re -alignment of existing waterlines within/near this proposed development.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: January 26, 2012
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. 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 if necessary)
2. Developer may be responsible for locating existing or proposed dedicated easements on
site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
3. Developer will pay CSU (cost to be determined) for the removal of existing overhead
infrastructure and for any additional electrical facilities or devices needed for the conversion
of existing overhead infrastructure to underground. Cost will also include the relocation of
one, existing pad -mounted switchgear, and one existing manhole.
4. Developer will install any and all conduit included in the relocation or conversion of existing
overhead lines and services to underground facilities.
5. All General Electrical Comments below apply to all phases of this project.
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.
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. 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:
gm artinez(o)cstx. gov.
9. Developer provides load data to CSU as soon as it is available to avoid construction delays.
Delivery time for transformers not in stock is approximately 40 weeks.
10. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical
service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as
designed by CSU.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6265.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez
TRANSPORTATION
Date: January 23, 2012
1. The trip generation rates should use the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Report
8th edition. The rates used in the trip generation table do not reflect the 8th edition of the
ITE report.
2. In the trip generation table please separate dwelling units per pad site. This will help should
phasing the project become one mitigation option.
3. Because the intersection of Texas Avenue and University Drive is already operating at
unacceptable levels of service (LOS), demonstrated strategies must be presented as part of
the PDD to minimize further impact to University Drive and Texas Avenue. To satisfy the
question that may be presented by Planning and Zoning or City Council, "why should we
approve this if the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue is operating at
unacceptable LOS", stating that this development adds less than the five percent of traffic as
per the UDO requirement threshold at such a critical intersection is not acceptable as a
mitigation option and because this is a PDD rezoning request, traffic mitigation is part of the
PDD negotiation process.
4. Because the driveways proposed do not meet TxDOT spacing requirements and are subject
to TxDOT permitting, all driveways to the site will have right turn deceleration lanes and
must meet TxDOT right turn length requirements. As per TxDOT's request all driveways will
be right in and right out only. To accomplish this on Texas the current raised median needs
to be extended to the north past the proposed driveway location. These will be conditions
for meritorious modification #4.
5. Staff recommends that Meadowland's current intersection with University Drive be retained
to provide another access point to the site via eastbound University Drive. This would allow
eastbound traffic from campus to avoid the intersection of University Drive. and Texas
Avenue. providing some mitigation relief to that intersection. Furthermore, a public way
projection to the Texas A&M property along the former Meadowland Street will allow for an
alternative route for traffic to avoid the intersection of University Drive and Texas Avenue.
Both of these will be a condition for meritorious modifications #3 and will be considered a
mitigation strategy.
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
6. With the additional ROW dedication on Texas Avenue, a dual right turn lane configuration
southbound to eastbound should be explored as a mitigation strategy and could satisfy
meritorious modification #6.
Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Date: January 23, 2012
TxDOT Comments
1. The planned access drive from FM 60 (University Drive) labeled "Main Entry" will be right
in/right out only with no modifications to the existing raised median.
2. The existing raised median opening on FM 60 (University Drive) at Meadowland Street
should be closed as part of this project with the removal of the connection through this
development.
3. The planned access drive from BS 6 (Texas Avenue) labeled "Entry/Exit' should be right
in/right out operation. The existing raised median on BS 6 should be extended to the north
limit of this development as part of this project.
4. The planned on site parallel parking on both the main entry and the entry/exit should be
located further from the access drive connection to the state roadway to provide sufficient
throat length for entering/exiting vehicles. The current designated parking locations are too
close.
5. The planned bus stop from FM 60 (University Drive) should be coordinated with the Texas
A&M University transit to properly locate the facility.
Reviewed by: Chad Bohne Date: January 19, 2012
GREENWAYS
1. No comments.
Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: January 17, 2012
SANITATION
1. Sanitation is ok with this project.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: January 19, 2012
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