Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments(*414" CITY OR COI.I..13(iI!'. STATION Howe of Texas ArM University" 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979,764.3570 / Fax 979,764.3496 MEMORANDUM June 18, 2013 TO: Natalie Ruiz, Principal, IPS Group; via: natalie@ipsgroup. FROM: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner SUBJECT: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) 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 any Monday at 10:00 a.m., for your project to be placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue: One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan; One (1) copy of the digital file of the revised rezoning Metes & Bounds on diskette or e-mail to pdsdigitalsubmittal(a)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 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: Randy French, President, BCS Development Co.; via: rfrench@stylecraftbuilders.com / J. Dale Browne, McClure & Browne Engineering; via: daleb@mcclureandbrowne.com J Case file no. 13-00900077 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 1 of 3 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Project: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) — (13-00900077) PLANNING 1. Currently, the Concept Plan is proposing approximately 13% open space. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an amount of 15% or greater open space in this growth area where clustering is utilized. The Concept Plan should be revised in order to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. As follow up to Comment #5, Fire will allow a maximum of 30 lots to be completed before secondary street access is required. Therefore, modification #5 should be removed from the Concept Plan. 3. As follow up to Comment #11, the slivers of open space along the edge of the residential lots backing up to Castlegate and also along William D. Fitch are still proposed on the Concept Plan. These areas are located in easements. Explain how these open space areas will be utilized to benefit property owners. 4. Add the gross density of the residential subdivision to General Note #1. The gross density for Restricted Suburban is a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. 5. Revise the open space, residential, and Suburban Commercial acreage to be more generic. Approximations would be more appropriate than specific acreages rounded to the hundredth of a percent. If the development needs slightly change, providing an approximation will prevent having to modify the PDD through a rezoning. 6. The three cluster development criteria listed under General Note #4 should be moved as a subheading under General Note #1, since they give additional specific criteria that must be used in developing the residential subdivision. Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers Date: June 18, 2013 TRANSPORTATION 1. TIA - Traffic counts were taken on May 8rh and may have not reflected true conditions, because TAMU last regular class for the spring semester was April 30r". Aspen Heights (multifamily student housing) just southwest of the subject tract could have come into play if counts were taken before April 304 2. TIA - Regarding Table 3 please provide a trip generation rate column, and total trip generation per land use, AM, PM and 24 hour total. 3. TIA— Regarding Exhibit 10, trip distribution detail E1, the assumption that only 2% of traffic would be turning left northbound on to Wellborn Road is questionable. Wellborn Road is the only north and southbound arterial in close vicinity of the project in question. Origin and destination should be TAMU campus and the heart of the City in general. That percentage should be re-evaluated and should approach no less than 30% or justify otherwise. 4. TIA - Regarding detail E4 and E5 in Exhibit 10, the assumption that zero traffic (E5) and 1% traffic (E4) would be utilizing Victoria Ave northbound at its intersection with SH 40 is also flawed please re-evaluate or justify otherwise. 5. TIA — Regarding Exhibit 11 and details P1 and P3 illustrates zero ingress for SH 40 eastbound into the subdivision and minimal ingress to Victoria Ave from SH 40 eastbound please re-evaluate or justify otherwise. 6. TIA - For all exhibits provide legend designating AM or PM counts/traffic volumes. NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 2 of 3 7. TIA — Results of TIA with regards to level of service (LOS) or mitigation requirement decisions cannot be made until trip distribution assumptions are corrected and Synchro model repeated. Please contact me so that we can schedule a meeting to discuss the TIA results. Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coord. Date: June 17,2013 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 3 of 3 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 IIKIT, 9CG\- N April 22, 2013 / TO: Natalie Ruiz, Principal, IPS Group; via: natalie@ipsgroup.us ✓ T2 FROM: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner SUBJECT: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) 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 any Monday at 10:00 a.m., for your project to be placed on the next available Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting 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; One (1) copy of the digital file of the revised rezoning Metes & Bounds on diskette or e-mail to pdsdig ita Isubm ittal pcstx. 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. 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: Randy French, President, BCS Development Co.; via: rfrench@stylecraftbuilders.com J. Dale Browne, McClure & Browne Engineering; via: daleb@mcclureandbrowne.com Case file no. 13-00900077 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: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) — (13-00900077) PLANNING 1. Currently, this property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and may be developed to R-1 standards. However, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning as presented, because the rezoning request is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would allow a rezoning to Restricted Suburban, not General Suburban as requested. Medium density single-family lots, which average 10,000 square feet are appropriate in Restricted Suburban, or smaller if clustered and open space is retained. rDue to the unique location of this property in Growth Area IV of the Comprehensive Plan, ' additional development opportunities (townhomes, office, and suburban commercial) may be permitted in conjunction with a PDD Planned Development District Rezoning where the residential zoning component is Restricted Suburban. A PDD request must include the following requirements: Minimum of 30 acres Incorporate specific design criteria of open space, floor -to -area ratios, and bufferyards 2. Would you be interested in developing a Cluster Development for this property? It appears that open area has already been provided and minimum width and depth are not required for cluster developments. In addition, setbacks would only apply around the perimeter of the development. The minimum lot size in a cluster development is 6,500 square feet and an average of 8,000 square feet. Additional information regarding proposed lot averages and open spaces area would be necessary if you would like to pursue this option. 3. Staff cannot recommend approval of the amount of Suburban Commercial as presented due to the large amount of Suburban Commercial that is proposed. The suburban commercial land is located in close proximity to estate sized lots and is located on land that is designated as Restricted Suburban on the Comprehensive Plan. I would be open to discussing alternatives that you feel would be viable for this portion of the property. 4. Please be aware this rezoning must go to Parks and Recreation Advisory, Board before it can be scheduled for a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Please be aware that Parkland Dedication will be required for this development. i)Please be aware that the request to phase lots may be considered for UDO requirements, but the PDD may have to receive an additional variance through Construction Board of Adjustments for Fire Code requirements. �Jo,, The following comments are for the Rezoning Map: 6. Revise the zonings for adjacent properties on zoning map. The W.A. Dunlap tract is zoned PDD and the Edward E. Thomas tract is zoned C-3. 7. Delineate areas zoned A-O and R-1. The following comments are for the Concept Plan: Please be aware this development currently does not meet requirements for block length. In Restricted Suburban designations, block length should not exceed 1,200 feet. 9. Please add a note to the Concept Plan stating the Open/Recreational Areas will be privately maintained. 10. Provide a breakdown of the proposed Suburban Commercial and residential acreage amounts on 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. 2 of 4 11. Specify the amount of open space provided on the Concept Plan. Please note that slivers of "open space" along the edge of the residential lots do not meet the intent of the open space requirement for the PDD. This area should not be included in the percentage calculations. 12. Please specify if any buffering will be provided for the Suburban Commercial development to the Westminster Subdivision. 13. Remove the scale from the Concept Plan. The following comments are for the Application: 14. The extension of W.S. Phillips Parkway should be removed as a Community Benefit since this is a requirement of the Thoroughfare Plan. 15. Provide a list of community benefits to balance the modifications being sought. 16. Provide a purpose and intent statement. additional document was provided. Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers The application says "see attached" but no Date: April 22, 2013 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. Our records in that the following easements are located on the subject tract and need to be verified: • 50-ft Pipeline Easement (V.9565, P.135) • 10-ft Communications Easement (V.3766, P.234) • 20-ft PUE (V.8250, P.111) —through center of property for sanitary sewer • 20-ft PUE (V.6918, P.244) — along Hwy.40 ROW 2. FYI ... Our records indicate that the following companies have gas pipelines traversing the property, which may require additional easements in the future: • Southwestern Gas Pipeline • Devon Gas Services (natural gas) • Mitchell Gas Services (natural gas) • Citgo/Arco Pipeline Reviewed by: Erika Bridges TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS Date: April 15, 2013 1. The PDD rezoning application will need to be looked at as a whole, and the trips generated by the proposed land uses and acreage will produce trips over the zoning traffic impact analysis (TIA ) threshold requirement of 150 trips per the peak hour. 2. Please submit the TIA with scope discussed at meeting held on 4-10-2013. Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP TxDOT COMMENTS Date: April 15, 2013 1. Planned access to the site is not clearly detailed. Information denoting proposed access drives, existing drives to be removed, and their locations in relation to adjacent access drives should be submitted for review. Proposed cross -access easements to adjacent parcels should be noted on the site layout. No access permit can be approved prior to receipt and approval by TxDOT of this information. Reviewed by: Chad Bohne Date: April 10, 2013 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 ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. SITE PLAN/PLAT: Developer will provide CSU with a digital, AutoCAD dwg format, version of plat and / or site plan as soon as it is available. Email to: ehortonCa)cstx.gov. 2. LOAD DATA: The developer will provide load data to CSU as soon as it is available. This information is critical for CSU to accurately determine the size and number of transformers, and other equipment, required to provide service to the project. Failure to provide load data will result in construction delays and, due to clearance requirements, could affect the final building footprint. Delivery time for transformers and other equipment not in stock is approximate 26 weeks. 3. EASEMENTS: Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes and upon completion of project must provide descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU. 4. EASEMENTS: Developer provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU, as shown on plat or site plan. 5. If easements are existing, the developer will 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 each riser conduit. 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, or other device, 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. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical service, i.e. transformers, pull boxes, or switchgears, all meter locations, and conduit routing as designed by CSU. 9. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Eric Horton at 979.764.6280. Reviewed by: Eric Horton Date: April 12, 2013 SANITATION 1. Sanitation is ok with this project. Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: April 15, 2013 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 j CITY OF COLLEGE. STATION Nome of (Texas A&M UviversiJy° MEMORANDUM April 5, 2013 TO: Natalie Ruiz, Principal of IPS Group; via: Natalie@ipsgroup.us V FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP Principal Planner SUBJECT: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) Thank you for the submittal of your PDD REZONING application. This project will be distributed to staff next week for their review. Please be aware that a traffic impact analysis will be required with this project. As a whole, this development creates more than 150 trips so a TIA is required as the trips cannot be broken out into separate independent sites. Also, please note that Ordinance 2012-3450 approved in September 2012 created trip generation rates for the Suburban Commercial zoning district. It appears that Municode has not correctly revised the UDO on their website according to the adopted ordinance and we are working with them to update it. The trip generation figures adopted with the ordinance for SC are: Maximum Units/Acre - 11,000 sf, ITE Land Use Code — 820, Trip Rate/KSF — 3.75, and Trip Rate/Acre — 40. Based on these calculations, a proposed rezoning of at least 3.75 acres of Suburban Commercial reaches the 150 trip threshold by itself. cc: Randy French, President of BCS Development Co.; via: rfrench@stylecraftbuilders.corct' J.Dale Browne, McClure & Browne Engineering; via: daleb@mcclureandbrowne.corr Case file no. 13-00900077 Planning & Development. Servires P.O. BOX 9960 • 1101'1'LXASAVENUE • (::OLLEGESPM I ON -TEXAS •?79A2 11-1 . 979.764.3570 • EAX. 979.764. t49(i csb(.gov/devservices RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS Barron Crossing & Bridgewood July 1, 2013 PLANNING 1. The following comments are new comments made based on the proposed change in land use: a. Approximate rights -of -way locations must be shown for the R-3 Townhouse development. RESPONSE — See revised concept plan for approximate right-of- way locations. b. Verify the approximate square footage for the Suburban Commercial Development. While the acreage has been reduced from the previously submitted Concept Plan, the square footage was not. Are you proposing an increase in the density or is this a typo? RESPONSE — The square footage was modified to a maximum of 45,000 sq. ft. 2. As a reminder, TxDOT's previous comments stated their approval would be required for the access drive locations on William D. Fitch Parkway. All access drives along William D. Fitch Parkway will be required to meet TxDOT spacing standards. This process may be completed during the platting stage. RESPONSE — Noted. TRANSPORTATION 1. Please see response to comments below, sent via e-mail on 6/27/2013: We have met internally to discuss keeping this application on track to meet the d--adli; e for the P&Z meeting, and with the new changes to the Suburban Gorrmercial piece of the Barron CrossinglBridgewood Subdivision we have made a o_ _ - _ _ - _ - uon Ui t if iict uE "i iV .J ui.i c... :..t tC; p:f Vlii.!3I!iCJ J casdi c.: "vf f a......< 'vUil .�«..!!cit VViii tt iutjv1 :mow, V'v 6ltsii el M.vf ...». f>iCl f ..v G ! , Uc CAI Of E If W.10 5eC IfJt i L . 0LeS tE ice[ a Ely-, ue .C.H 1 ____ . c u ..1y- _:i _ 4i u�E ..a ohiccu Ji zCJ iliNii �..f gr.:.3G.1 .iM IR:-%lJl ff, ti lc 13r�5t,fcf3 {ci.�ua.. u �Iy:.c .t.: : ezanfity, *,e au reef Er ta- €nu uet ir- reg6rEaing a rtgf ti mrI -I tar is u S ,v, un vrvV_y perm..ai ng proce55 .,ruo' suriitnar iZ: no meeting writ ue necessary ana no upuam LO me I to regaatoing you I lavc arty CluuestiUiuss. I n.anvs. N -Z`I)Nl'47, fAoiao anti inanK y(3UI i /4" _ CITY of Coid.E3GF. STATION Home ofTexnsA&M University" MEMORANDUM April 19,-201-3-. TO: Natalie Ruiz, Principal, IPS Group; via: natalie@ipsgroup.us FROM: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner SUBJECT: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) 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 at 10:00 a.m., for your project to be placed on the July 18, 2013 Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) meeting in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue: One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan; One (1) copy of the digital file of the revised rezoning Metes & Bounds on diskette or e-mail to pdsdigitalsubmittalacstx oov. Please note -hat 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.gov/oz If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff Review Comments PC: Randy-Frenchi President, BCS Development Co.; via: rtrench@stylecraftbuilders.com ✓/ J. Dale Browne, McClure & Browne Engineering; via: daleb@mcclureandbrowne.com Case file no. 13-00900077 Home of Texas A&M University STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO, 1 Project: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) — (13-00900077) PLANNING I. The following comments are new comments made based on the proposed change in land use: a. Approximate rights -of -way locations must be shown for the R-3 Townhouse development. b. Verify the approximate square footage for the Suburban Commercial Development. While the acreage has been reduced from the previously submitted Concept Plan, the square footage was not. Are you proposing an increase in the density or is this a typo? As a reminder, TxDOT's previous comments stated their approval would be required for the access drive locations on William D. Fitch Parkway. All access drives along William D. Fitch Parkway will be required to meet TxDOT spacing standards. This process may be completed during the platting stage. Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers TRANSPORTATION Date: June 28, 2013 1. Please see response to comments below, sent via e-mail on 6/27/2013: We have met internally to discuss keeping this application on track to meet the deadline for the P&Z meeting, and with the new changes to the Suburban Commercial piece of the Barron Crossing/Bridgewood Subdivision we have made a new determination. By decreasing the intensity of the land uses and going from 14 acres of Suburban Commercial to 5 acres and proposing 9 acres of Townhomes, the impact to the surrounding transportation network is greatly diminished. So much so, that we feel the revision or update of the TIA based on our comments is not necessary. However, there is enough traffic being generated by the suburban commercial piece, 200 vehicles in the peak hour, that will trigger our UDO requirement of a right turn deceleration lane on connections to SH 40. The requirement under Article 7, section 7, sub section L states that a right turn deceleration lane will be required if ingress volume is more that 25 vph for facilities with a speed of 40 mph or greater and TxDOT in the past has required a right turn deceleration lane for access along SH 40. In order not to delay the application process for the rezoning, we do feel that the details regarding a right turn lane on access to SH 40 could be done at the site plan stage and be part of TxDOT's driveway permitting process. So to summarize no meeting will be necessary and no update to the TIA regarding staff comments and the new land use changes are necessary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coord. Date: June 27, 2013 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. 2of2 MEMORANDUM June 26, 2013 TO: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner FROM: Natalie Ruiz, Principal of IPS Group SUBJECT: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) As requested, we have modified the Concept Plan and responded to the attached staff review comments. We would like to move forward with the notification requirements for the July 18t' Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. As discussed, we are willing to consider townhome uses in the PDD in place of some of the SC Suburban Commercial land uses. One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised Concept Plan; One (1) copy of the digital file of the revised rezoning Metes & Bounds on diskette or e-mail to pdsdigitalsubmittal(a)-cstx.gov. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.846.9259. Attachments: Response to Staff Review Comments RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Project: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) — (13-00900077) PLANNING ✓1. Currently, the Concept Plan is proposing approximately 13% open space. The Comprehensive Plan calls for an amount of 15% or greater open space in this growth area where clustering is utilized. The Concept Plan should be revised in order to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: We have examined the possibility of increasing the open space; however, we would like to proceed with 13%. �2. As follow up to Comment #5, Fire will allow a maximum of 30 lots to be completed before secondary street access is required. Therefore, modification #5 should be removed from the Concept Plan. RESPONSE: Note #5 was modified to reflect 30 lots. �3. As follow up to Comment #11, the slivers of open space along the edge of the residential lots backing up to Castlegate and also along William D. Fitch are still proposed on the Concept Plan. These areas are located in easements. Explain how these open space areas will be utilized to benefit property owners. RESPONSE: This open space has been removed from the calculations. V,f. Add the gross density of the residential subdivision to General Note #1. The gross density for Restricted Suburban is a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. RESPONSE: General note #1 has been revised to include a maximum of 4 dwelling units per acre. 5 Revise the open space, residential, and Suburban Commercial acreage to be more generic. v Approximations would be more appropriate than specific acreages rounded to the hundredth of a percent. If the development needs slightly change, providing an approximation will prevent having to modify the PDD through a rezoning. RESPONSE: Acreages have been modified. V,9. The three cluster development criteria listed under General Note #4 should be moved as a subheading under General Note #1, since they give additional specific criteria that must be used in developing the residential subdivision. RESPONSE: Notes moved to general note #1. TRANSPORTATION 1. TIA - Traffic counts were taken on May 8m and may have not reflected true conditions, because TAMU last regular class for the spring semester was April 30tn. Aspen Heights (multifamily student housing) just southwest of the subject tract could have come into play if counts were taken before April 30tn 1. The concern is noted. There could be a minor impact but is most likely negligible or within the standard 10% acceptable error. The Aspen Heights development is primarily accessible from Wellborn Road. If traveling to campus, the logical route would be to utilize Wellborn Road versus the longer route of Barron Road to Wellborn or Barron Road to SH 6. Additionally, final exams were taking place on May 8 and the majority of students were still present. Based on a quick review of the Texas A&M Exam Schedule for May 8, exams fall on the same day as classes. For example the Wednesday, May 8 exams included MWF classes. 2. TIA - Regarding Table 3 please provide a trip generation rate column, and total trip generation per land use, AM, PM and 24 hour total. 1. This information will be added. These values have also been provided in Appendix E. 3. TIA — Regarding Exhibit 10, trip distribution detail E1, the assumption that only 2% of traffic would be turning left northbound on to Wellborn Road is questionable. Wellborn Road is the only north and southbound arterial in close vicinity of the project in question. Origin and destination should be TAMU campus and the heart of the City in general. That percentage should be re-evaluated and should approach no less than 30% or justify otherwise- 1 - I understand your assumption; however traffic counts indicate this to be accurate. Barron Road is a straight shot to SH 6 and based on the current traffic distribution it appears that current users prefer this route most likely because the only signal between SH 40 and SH 6 is at Victoria Avenue versus numerous signals along Wellborn including the interchange at FM 2818. 1 distributed traffic based on the outlined assumptions at our first meeting with 60% utilizing Barron Road. The majority of traffic currently travels northeast on Barron Road. Very little traffic from Barron utilizes SH 40/Wellborn. 4. TIA - Regarding detail E4 and E5 in Exhibit 10, the assumption that zero traffic (E5) and 1 % traffic (E4) would be utilizing Victoria Ave northbound at its intersection with SH 40 is also flawed please re-evaluate orjustify otherwise. 1. I again understand your assumption; however traffic counts indicate this distribution to be accurate. I distributed traffic based on the outlined assumptions at our first meeting with 20% utilizing SH 40. The majority of traffic currently travels eastbound at Victoria Avenue. It is currently a 60/40 WB/EB split in the AM and 41/59 WB/EB split in the PM along SH 40. It should also be assumed (and has been w/60% directed west — in line with the current split) that if travelers wanted to travel westbound they would utilize the Barron Road interchange. If this assumption needs to be adjusted then the 60% value through the Barron Road interchange should be reduced to increase the distribution through the Victoria Interchange. 5. TIA — Regarding Exhibit 11 and details P1 and P3 illustrates zero ingress for SH 40 eastbound into the subdivision and minimal ingress to Victoria Ave from SH 40 eastbound please re-evaluate orjustify otherwise. 1. Low ingress volumes from SH 40 were intentional as a conservative approach to determining need for the Barron Cutoff at Barron Road intersection. All SH 40 ingress from the north and west were placed through the Barron Cutoff intersection. Volumes can be reduced at Barron Cutoff and redistributed through the SH 40 access connections. Minimal volumes from the development to the Victoria Avenue interchange are in line with the City's desired distribution values discussed in the initial meeting. 6. TIA - For all exhibits provide legend designating AM or PM counts/traffic volumes. 1. This will be corrected. 7. TIA — Results of TIA with regards to level of service (LOS) or mitigation requirement decisions cannot be made until trip distribution assumptions are corrected and Synchro model repeated. Please contact me so that we can schedule a meeting to discuss the TIA results. 1. I also would like to meet and discuss the TIA and agree upon an acceptable set of distribution values. RESPONE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: BARRON CROSSING & BRIDGEWOOD (PDD-REZ) — (13-00900077) PLANNING ✓1. Currently, this property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and may be developed to R-1 standards. However, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning as presented, because the rezoning request is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan would allow a rezoning to Restricted Suburban, not General Suburban as requested. Medium density single-family lots, which average 10,000 square feet are appropriate in Restricted Suburban, or smaller if clustered and open space is retained. WM0 QnU, Due to the unique location of this property in Growth Area IV of the Comprehensive Plan, additional development opportunities (townhomes, office, and suburban commercial) may be permitted in conjunction with a PDD Planned Development District Rezoning where the O�y� yau, residential zoning component is Restricted Suburban. A PDD request must include the Y following requirements: ✓2. ok 3. to tou �b dwiity • Minimum of 30 acres • Incorporate specific design criteria of open space, floor -to -area ratios, and bufferyards RESPONSE: The PDD rezoning request has been modified to rezone the existing General Suburban residential to Restricted Suburban. We are proposing to voluntarily bring the existing R-1 zoned property into compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Would you be interested in developing a Cluster Development for this property? It appears that open area has already been provided and minimum width and depth are not required for cluster developments. In addition, setbacks would only apply around the perimeter of the development. The minimum lot size in a cluster development is 6,500 square feet and an average of 8,000 square feet. Additional information regarding proposed lot averages and open spaces area would be necessary if you would like to pursue this option. RESPONSE: The PDD request has been modified to comply with the cluster development option with one exception — reduced 5' side setbacks around the perimeter. The reduced setbacks fit within the context of this PDD and have no negative impacts to the surrounding properties. The perimeter consists of two major roadways (Highway 40 and W. S. Phillips Parkway), a natural designated open space reek area and the Castlegate Subdivision. The homes within the Castlegate Subdivision that abut the subject property mirror the requested 5' side setbacks. Staff cannot recommend approval of the amount of Suburban Commercial as presented due to the large amount of Suburban Commercial that is proposed. The suburban commercial land is located in close proximity to estate sized lots and is located on land that is designated as Restricted Suburban on the Comprehensive Plan. I would be open to discussing alternatives that you feel would be viable for this portion of the property. RESPONSE: We are requesting that you reconsider your position. There are physical limitations of the property that limit the development potential of the future Suburban Commercial tract. The extension of W.S. Phillips Parkway to Barron Road creates a narrow strip of property not marketable for single family land uses. The creek that bisects the property provides a natural buffer and open space area between residential and commercial land uses. We explored the possibility of office, multi -family and general commercial uses. However, the Suburban Commercial district offered the most protection to surrounding single family development. Office uses are allowed within the Suburban Commercial designation with additional bulk limitations such as height and architectural style. Multi- family uses are not as desirable as neighborhood commercial uses and could have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. ,/4. Please be aware this rezoning must go to Parks and Recreation Advisory Board before it can be scheduled for a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Please be aware that Parkland Dedication will be required for this development. RESPONSE: In our discussions with Parks and Recreation Director David Schmitz, he has requested a fee in lieu of land dedication. lease be aware that the request to phase lots may be considered for UDO requirements, but the PDD may have to receive an additional variance through Construction Board of Adjustments for Fire Code requirements. RESPONSE: Noted. Our major concern is that we agree up front as to how many residential lots may be constructed before a secondary p� entrance is provided. Given that our connection to W. S. Phillips Parkway is off -site and that �o our primary access is from Highway 40, It is critical that we understand how many lots may h be constructed initially. The following comments are for the Rezoning Map: V6. Revise the zonings for adjacent properties on zoning map. The W.A. Dunlap tract is zoned PDD and the Edward E. Thomas tract is zoned C-3. RESPONSE. Rezoning map modified. ✓ 7. Delineate areas zoned A-O and R-1. RESPONSE. Delineated on the revised rezoning map. The following comments are for the Concept Plan: ✓8. Please be aware this development currently does not meet requirements for block length. In Restricted Suburban designations, block length should not exceed 1,200 feet. RESPONSE. - Given the lack of connectivity to the Castlegate Subdivision and the existing natural/creek �7 area, we are requesting a modification to the block length requirement. maxlmuyg. Please add a note to the Concept Plan stating the OpentRecreational Areas will be privately �/ maintained. RESPONSE. Note added to Concept Plan. glF� Q �10 rovide a breakdown of the proposed Suburban Commercial and residential acreage Il YON nts on concept plan. RESPONSE: See acreage notations on the concept plan. 11 Specify the amount of open space provided on the Concept Plan. Please note that slivers of / "open space" along the edge of the residential lots do not meet the intent of the open space '11lZcl+ 0f requirement for the PDD. This area should not be included in the percentage calculations. L RESPONSE. See the revised calculations on the Concept Plan pertaining to average lot i�IILufT Q• size and open space. The slivers of open space along the edge of the lots have been RffW removed from the calculations. �12. Please specify if any buffering will be provided for the Suburban Commercial development to the Westminster Subdivision. RESPONSE: No additional buffer is proposed between the subject property and Westminster Subdivision. Given the bulk limitations within the SC district, the commercial development will be in scale with the neighborhood and buffered by a major arterial, W. S. Phillips Parkway. ,,13. Remove the scale from the Concept Plan. RESPONSE. Scale removed. The following comments are for the Application: 14. The extension of W.S. Phillips Parkway should be removed as a Community Benefit since this is a requirement of the Thoroughfare Plan. RESPONSE. See revised portion of the application entitled `PDD Specks" 15. Provide a list of community benefits to balance the modifications being sought. RESPONSE: See revised portion of the application entitled "PDD Specks". 16. Provide a purpose and intent statement. The application says `see attached" but no additional document was provided. RESPONSE: See revised portion of the application entitled `PDD Specks". ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 6 wla 1. Our records in that the following easements are located on the subject tract and need to be 11^n verified: {� Dh • 50-ft Pipeline Easement (V.9565, P.135). RESPONSE: The instrument found in V. rj(1`}� 9565, P. 135 is a release of an existing easement. ii • 10-ft Communications Easement (V.3766, P.234). RESPONSE: This easement has been added to the drawings. • 20-ft PUE (V.8250, P.111) —through center of property for sanitary sewer. RESPONSE: Based on my research, the actual Volume and Page number is V. 8250, P. 105 as shown on the Rezoning Map. • 20-ft PUE (V.6918, P.244) — along Hwy.40 ROW. RESPONSE: Based on my research, the actual Volume and Page number is V. 6918, P. 231 as shown on the Rezoning Map. FYI ... Our records indicate that the following companies have gas pipelines traversing the property, which may require additional easements in the future: • Southwestern Gas Pipeline • Devon Gas Services (natural gas) • Mitchell Gas Services (natural gas) • Citgo/Arco Pipeline RESPONSE: Noted. Many of these pipelines have been abandoned. aT ANSPORTATION COMMENTS 1. he PDD rezoning application will need to be looked at as a whole, and the trips generated by the proposed land uses and acreage will produce trips over the zoning traffic impact analysis (TIA) threshold requirement of 150 trips per the peak hour. RESPONSE: See attached TIA. 2. Please submit the TIA with scope discussed at meeting held on 4-10-2013. RESPONSE: See attached TIA_ OT COMMENTS 1. fanned access to the site is not clearly detailed. information denoting proposed access drives, existing drives to be removed, and their locations in relation to adjacent access drives should be submitted for review. Proposed cross -access easements to adjacent parcels should be need or, the site layout. No access permit can be approved prior to receept 9m2v.r;m vmy ?e,y Tv: e f e nz,'+ss;a z ,a'r. �icss.s i�i-Cv^,n G ?l:nrore T;�p n- �. ¢;ter n. - iv- r. r.'av- - r4. p:fih /^:h: lc>--.'.�i Gel ............. ... .._.�a,i:j ..... • 3n-_.,.'n ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION SITE PLAN/PLAT: Developer will provide CSU with a digital, AutoCAD dwg fom?at, version of plat and / or site plan as soon as it is available. Email to: ehorton(aD_cstx.gov. RESPONSE: Noted. 2. LOAD DATA: The developer will provide load data to CSU as soon as it is available. This information is critical for CSU to accurately determine the size and number of transformers, and other equipment, required to provide service to the project. Failure to provide load data will result in construction delays and, due to clearance requirements, could affect the final building footprint. Delivery time for transformers and other equipment not in stock is approximate 26 weeks. RESPONSE., Noted. 3. EASEMENTS: Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes and upon completion of project must provide descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU. RESPONSE. Noted. 4. EASEMENTS: Developer provides descriptive easements Tor electric infrastructure as designed by CSU, as shown on plat or site plan. RESPONSE. Noted. ti. reasements are existing, the developer Will be resDOnsime Tor iOCating easements on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries. RESPONSE: Noted. GENERAL ELECTRI CAL C0PY1NIIENTS 1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design. RESPONSE: Noted. 2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical instailation. RESPONSE: /voted. 3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for each riser conduit. CSU installs riser. RESPO€%fSE_ 1"Voted. 4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices and extend as required. RESPONSE: Noted. 5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices, developer will furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical lavout. RESPONSE: Noted. 6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings, i.e. transformers, pull boxes, or other device, per CSU specs and design. RESPONSE: Noted. 7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design, Pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU. RESPONSE: Noted. 8. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical service, i.e. transformers, pull boxes, or switchgears, all meter locations, and conduit routing as designed by CSU. RESPONSE. Noted. 9. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Eric Horton at 979.764.6280. RESPONSE. Noted. 1. Sanitation is ok with this project. RESPONSE: Noted.