Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCopper Creek Condos..-iw • ---"'Jiii/ ~ '.// " ·--,.~ ·i oP-oa-c'11~~ co;~ e s-h""1t-k-- -~ ProNAlL 111J.~(;"l-.~11ls -1 1 • I . . e ( \ I I I I I f--·---1 \. \ '" ---I ·;~· . ---~·f~ ·---·--· -· G) SITE PLAN t~:~ 16: t::~: -ti) Ul~rrs 1 n BEDROO~tS ,.. 12 211 PKG. SP.\CES 22DSH\.."Yl:1'1 ----• .__ . .___ .__Yl_C.IN-'--ITY_M_AF ___ = -·----"'""""'I@~'", I c 0 pp ER c REEK I"''" ...... 1 :;,·.~~·.\;...~;.7..-;Q:io ~:~-· CO l.l.l?GF. STAllON Tr:XAS A 1 :."·..,·..:~'·· . .-::-;;-;~ ;: .. M .. ~ . . . :::::.:.::.=.:: · , . Transition Des1e:n Service • ~.... i~ .•\' 101 \\'. \'111<1 M11ri.s ~.o.!d • llry'"· TnA~-«ll • (97'91,;.'t?-1777 t Copper Creek Condos -Requirements for the Multi-use Path • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Requirements: o Community and Neighborhood development parkland fees can be used to develop the multi-use path. If used, amenities as outlined below will be required. • Planning and Zoning Commission Requirements Q. \£' o If fencing is used to separate the development from the multi-use path, two-ff-iirds of • the length of the fencing adjacent to the multi-use path will need to be open v1~1 h1 t~ • fencing. Costs: All parkland dedication fees will be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. Once the multi-use path is constructed and dedicated, the community and neighborhood development portion of the parkland fees will be reimbursed to the applicant. This amount will need to be based on the actual construction costs and design fees associated only with the multi-use path which will need to be submitted before the reimbursement will occur. If design and construction costs of the multi-use path exceed the proposed credit for parkland fees: 1. The applicant will be required to pay the additional costs associated with completing the multi-use path. 2. The City will not participate in additional costs. If design and construction costs are less than the cost of the multi-use path, the applicant will be reimbursed up to but not to exceed the actual construction cost and design. Design requirements: The design of the multi-use path should be in accordance with local standards as well as AASHTO (including the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities), ADA, and MUTCD. The flexibility offered within the AASHTO guidelines should be fully used to design at the lowest practical design speed. The path must be a minimum 10 ft wide concrete surface with two foot graded areas on both sides. The path should have as little negative impact as possible to the area including minimal clearing of vegetation except for selective clearing where necessary for construction or to achieve clear zones. A vegetative buffer between the stream and path should stay intact . Best management practices should be used to minimize siltation and erosion to prevent future problems and assure minimal maintenance in the future. Location -It will be expected that although the applicant has chosen to place the multi- use path in the floodplain, the alignment will be as far away from Bee Creek as possible. Access -At least one access point from the development to the multi-use path will be required. If only one access point is provided, it must be central to the development for easy access by all residents. ADA applies to this requirement. Fencing and Retaining walls -Staff will need to approve the location and style of any fencing and/or retaining walls. The height of any fencing along the multi-use path cannot exceed 6 feet in height from the grade of the multi-use path although something lower is preferred. Retaining walls will need to be kept to a height not to exceed 2.5 feet and must replicate stone, wood, or other alternatives to be approved by the City. Cost -An Estimate of Probable Costs will be required at 603 design. Review requirements: Review and approval of design by the City of College Station will be required. Plans should be submitted for review at 303, 603, and 903. Plans solely of the multi-use path will be required although design and construction should occur simultaneously with the development to insure cohesion between the two projects. Each plan review will take no less than two (2) weeks by City staff and will include the Project Manager, Engineer, Greenways Program Manager and the Parks and Recreation Department, among others. Please keep in mind that the site plan will not be approved until the plans for the multi-use are complete and approved. Any changes to plans made that are not communicated through comments should be noted as additional changes if different from the previous set of plans submitted for review. Construction requirements: Construction of the multi-use path must occur simultaneously with the development. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development w ill be tied to the completion and acceptance of the multi-use path. Dedication of public access easement for multi-use path: Dedication of an easement no less than 16 feet in width will be required by plat or separate instrument. Amenity requirements: A minimum of 2 exercise stations will be required. Additional amenities can be added at the discretion of the applicant but will require approval from the City. Location and selection of types of equipment will need to be determined by 603 review. They can be placed along the trail or in one location but must be outside of the floodplain. Examples are provided through the list of vendors below. A synthetic surface (rubberized mulch) would need to be used if the equipment chosen requires a fall zone. The Parks and Recreation Department can provide more info on that. Let me know if you decide to go that route and I can give you contact info to learn more about it. The material is from T.F. Harper. Concrete is permissible if the pieces chosen don't require a fall zone. Equipment that has minimal or no moving parts would be ideal since they will have less maintenance or the likelihood of breaking. Recreation Creations inc. www.rec-creations.com This vendor has a set of equipment called The Challenge Group http://www.rec-creations.com/cataloq/biq/index.html p.52-53 GameTime http://www.qametime.com/ (Total Recreation,800-392-9909) ParaCourse FitCenter At top of website click on Products; Sports Eq uipment; ParCourse Landscape Structures www.playlsi.com They have an online catalog Go to Independent Play Sports and Fitness The equipment is called HealthBeat Outdoor Fitness System p.184-185 Also FitCore Outdoor Fitness Equipment p. 196 Playworld systems http://www.plavworld systems.com/desiqn/new produc ts/energi A product called ENERGI Total Body Fitness System TriActive Fitness http://www.tri activeameric a .com/ LOT 5R, BLOCK t Tii SCHICK AQDITION PHASE TWO 867/731 (PLAT) ADJACENT COUU'ERCIAL OEVEl.OPMENr --:----..-_ -- POO f"\11PQ11'1 St1t1.:imtint Tile pUJPO'IC-04 IJ'IO POO la'° bufd • mllf~#T'41y <faoJ1,1k>9tY1&nt con~tstng Df 112, cm 3 t'ldrwm unil1. The pr0Ject .,,.q1 pi1130rte Ute noooploln u; opon IP\,~ •rd dedlcfOI .,,d 001"Ve!Op u 111.1lti·utt pmn w11 ahOwn on tho blke1<W . .,.. m111111m pbn. In MaulM 1h!J de¥ •lopment wm meet lhl rie~banooo promt~un ~tandor«lt 10 PfOffC1 im-1ongla r1unty O.YllQPRWl'i( ncllfl(:el\llQtllooor'\h, ~PPROi. t llOYR FUXJDP!A'N PER FEl'AA PAN[l / <.80<1 CO IB2C LOT I MRKWAY CIRCU 508/~& 1 (PLAT) PAAt<WAY CIRCL( APIJmmtrs. LTD. 1237/242 NOTES; ~Portion>f:/Lol2R ii I sled iuifoTJfthe 100lnifloo..1 ~ain, .:is. k!Eintitlild by thfr Federal ~ Managcm'Mil AQtoncy 01'1 commur.ity Pan•l.t-'o. d041C0182 C, daled Ji..ity'2, ,\1192, All P~ lo b(I an.tlclaty &1 ... -ah rM> am~l fi.1'1l l'JioYC!nd fi'ttl l)fop!lrfy llM. Thene&dbcar'IOC>Ytn1'111lnlitu~~liAltl~ll bl detarrnln«latalteptan. lWtJ..1itarY bUftcU'lg&. l.1Lltlf<.ri'y 1). & 3 bOdfoorn units. ClJn11Glef p3dt to bl toc:ai.d ontit.. m~mum of 5G' lrom propet1YRI&. Rear 'eteen on north~ llna to De 100'".fl op81fJ8 for lf\e ~l ftnq (3) lat.I In italghL 61S% d" 191\0inQ alottg the ~open I p!IC'O tM:ll alloW I« liislblflY no at• opan gpaoe wee. AppmK. deM!ty 18 d.uJaue beMd on l.S ~opiibl& nerns. Flrtll dantlty lo ti• d<1te1m1ned -silo plan. il:ago. Any ao1*"'*1t• dedlcoltld wnh th11 pre...0..1 "SoulhW"MI ~silo philn dated 2009 w'il be 1tiandonod. Thlt i-Kk.00. 4 PUl?a WI WGteriln11· llt'ld e t:Nnk91 ui1ement for l;ho 4'ioctncal .~. Multl-uu psth rout& f'nd .,menHfes ID bo delermlned' ;,• 11611. cif tr. lilci pt.Mt,. LocvUonfl '°' pedllW'IAn SICOKll lo iM n\IJ/&.UHI path ai'td tb lt\e lldjacent CXK1111'1'1f'tiol wU1 be det111ml'*1 in par1 d. full •Ito plan rovl6W'. vtCINrr'I MAP N.T.S. CONCEPT PLAN Copper Creek Condos 6.326 ACRES LOT 2R WILLIAM BROOKE HUNTER ESTATES CITY OF COLLEGE STATION BRAZOS CO., TEXAS l~MOUI' SCALE 1"-«I' ftlll\Jary, ZQtO FOUR AGS llMSTl.IENTS LP. 6701 IMPERIAL DR W/<ro, TX 70712-6809 TRIP RA 'IF.S 1R1PS n""'" 611 UNIVEFl VORM E.,S:1E20S COl.LCGE !rATION, TEXl<S 7111.40 (97'91'46-1!!59 MITCH ELL &),IOl\QAN, LL.P. ~1 1 UNIVERSITY Ofl!\'E e .. &T~ ~ GOU.EGE ST•TfON, TCXAS 17!1'11> r.J79)2:ll0-6963 0 E§ z ~ n tTJ z 0 N 0 ...... 0 I w N Ul O'\ tTJ ~ ~ ........ t:d ........ >--3 ~ n 0 z >--3 z c tTJ u Copper Creek Condos -Requirements for the Multi-use Path • Parks and Recreation Advisory Board requirements: o Community and Neighborhood development parkland fees can be used to develop the multi-use path and will also require amenities • Planning and Zonin g Commission Requirements Costs: o If fencing is used to separate the development from the multi-use path, two-thirds of the length of the fencing against the multi-use path will need to be open fencing. All parkland d edication fees will be required prior to th e issuance of any building permits. Once the multi-use path is constructed and dedicated, the community and neighborhood development portion of the parkland fees will be reimbursed to the applicant. This amount will need to be based on the actual construction costs and design fees associated only with the multi-use path which will need to be submitted before the reimbursement will occur. If design and construction costs of the multi-use path exceed the proposed credit for parkland fees: l . The applicant will be required to pay the additional costs associated with completing the multi-use path. 2. The City will not participate in additional costs. If design and construction costs are less than the cost of the multi-use path, the applicant will be reimbursed up to but not to exceed the actual construction cost and design. Design requirements: Th e design of the multi-use path should be in accordance with local standards as well as AASHTO (including the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities), ADA, and MUTCD. Th e fl exibility offered within the AASHTO guidelines should be fully used to design at the lowest practical design speed. The path must b e a minimum l 0 ft wide concrete surface with two foot graded areas on both sides. Th e path should have as little negative impact as possible to the area including minimal clearing of vegetation except for selective clearing where necessary for construction or to achieve clear zones. A vegetative buffer between the stream and path should stay intact. Best management practices should be used to minimize siltation and erosion to prevent future problems and assure minimal maintenance in the future. Location -It will be expected that although the appli cant has chosen to place the multi- use path in the floodplain, the alignment will ~Jifi'P be as far away from Bee Creek as possible. Access -At least one access point from the development to the multi-use path will be required. If only one access point is provided, it must be central to the development for easy access by all residents. ADA applies to this requjremer,it. r ~ ~ 11 I _ t . ---\u t.~ ...... t\. 5 ~ L... t-"'I f'"...tAc.. j u.Jl>.. / ur me....'"') 7 Fencing -Staff will need to approve fencing style. The height of the fence cannot '-'-l~ / exceed 6 feet although something lower would be preferred. L . Cost -An Estimate ot Probable Costs will be required at 603. -&..,; r x (~A 'VJ) ~.,I/, I {\-eJJ t'v "'...i1J-~ tf..> f'( . . ?<u -vll, /'clt- ('l'U1 ~ -....J~ ) L. ,.11.} t-> <-fl-" 1"" N.1·-7i-f r L l,t.. v-c.r _ \. 1 , f r-u..r ~ ~(JU/- 1-;:aining wap -If retaining walls are proposed with the de.velopment, they shall not exceed 2.5 feet and mu~t not serve as gro1 100 level f()r the installatien of ~encing, - Review requirements: Review and approval of design by the City of College Station will be required. Plans should be submitted for review at 303, 603, and 903. Plans solely of the multi-use path will be required although design and construction shou ld occur simultaneously with the development to insure cohesion between the two projects. Each plan review will take no less than two (2) weeks by City staff and will include the Project Manager, Engineer, Greenways Program Manager and the Parks and Recreation Department, among others. Please keep in mind that the site plan will not be approved until the plans for the multi-use are complete and approved. Any changes to plans made that are not communicated through comments should be noted as additional changes if different from the previous set of plans submitted for review. Construction requirements: Construction of the multi-use path must occur simultaneously with the development. Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the development will be tied to the completion and approval/inspection of the multi-use path. ~Landscaping:?? "1 tf'w..1r~ • Dedication of public access easement for multi-use path: Dedication of an easement no less than 16 feet in w idth will be required by plat or separate instrument. Amenity requirements: A minimum of 2 exercise stations will be required. Additional amenities can be added at the discretion of the applicant but will require approval from the City. Location and selection of types of equipment will need to be determined by 603 review. They can be placed along the trail or in one location but must be outside of the floodplain. Examples are provided through the list of vendors below. A synthetic surface (rubberized mulch) would need to be used if the equipment chosen requires a fall zone. The Parks and Recreation Department can provide more info on that. Let me know if you decide to go that route and I can give you contact info to learn more about it. The material is from T.F. Harper. Concrete is permissible if the pieces c hosen don't require a fall zone are selected. Equipment that has minimal or no moving parts would be ideal since they will have less maintenance or the likelihood of breaking. Recreation Creations inc. www.rec-c reations.c om This vendor has a set of equipment called The Challenge Group http://www.rec-creations.c om/catalog/big/index.html p.52-53 GameTime http://www.gametime.com/ (Total Recr~ation,800-39 2-9909) ParaCourse FitCenter At top of website click on Products; Sports Equipment; ParCourse Landscape Structures www.playlsi.com They have an online catalog Go to Independent Play Sports and Fitness The equipment is called HealthBeat Outdoor Fitness System p. l 84-1 85 Also FitCore Outdoor Fitness Equipment p. 196 Playworld systems http:/(www.playworldsystems.com/desiqn/new products/enerqi A product called ENERGI Total Body Fitness System TriAc tive Fitness http://www. triactiveamerica .com/ I -. ,-----++-- . l CITY OF Cou,EGE STAflO. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION, 'J'EXAS 77842 MARK MCAULIFFE, LAND AGENT (979) 764-6272 CELL (979) 229-3405 mmcauliffe@cstx.gov REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL REPORT Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 Property Owner: Four Ags Investments, LP CITY OF OLLEGE STATION Property Location: Northwest side of Southwest Parkway, Northeast of Wellborn Road College-Station, Brazos County, Texas Capital Improvement Project: Greenways Acquisition Effective Date of Value: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Client: City of College Station, Texas -Public Works Department Intended Users: City of College Station Staff Intended Use: The report is to be used to make decisions regarding the purchase of the property by the City of College Station. The property is to be used in conjunction with the referenced Capital Improvement Project. Capital Improvement Project Description: One function of the Greenways Program is to purchase land located in flood-prone areas. The land is set aside to enhance drainage and public safety and to beautify the City. Neighborhood I Market Description: The subject property is located in the west section of College Station. The neighborhood is bound to the north George Bush Drive and the Texas A&M University Campus, to the east by Texas Avenue, to the south and the west by FM 2818. Surrounding land use is high density multifamily development, restaurants, strip retail centers, manufacturing, older single family homes, parks, schools, churches and numerous tracts of vacant land. The neighborhood is mostly residentiat with a large population atcollege students. Property values nave remained steady over the past few years, and the trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Subject Property Description (Whole Property) • Property Type: Vacant Land • Size: Approximately 2.39 out of a 6.326 acres tract. • Location: Northwest side of Southwest Parkway, approximately 570 feet northeast of Wellborn Road. • Legal Description: Part of Lot 2R, William Brooke Hunter Estates, College Station, Brazos County, Texas • Tax ID: R302591 • Current Use of the Real Estate: Vacant Land • Use of the Real Estate Reflected in this Report: Vacant Land. • Highest & Best Use: The Highest & Best Use of the subject property is to use it in conjunction with the entire 6.36 acre tract. The Highest & Best Use is Multi-Family development, with a portion being used for greenways or drainage. Page 1of4 • EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION I HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: As noted above, the Highest & Best Use of the subject property is to develop it in conjunction with the entire 6.36 acre tract. Separating the 2.39 acre subject property from the 6.36 acre tract will have a detrimental effect on the subject property. It would be difficult to develop the subject property by itself. Considering the appraisal assignment at hand, the appraiser has estimated the subject property as part of the 6.362 acre tract. • Street Type: Four-lane asphalt paved street with center turn lane, concrete curb and gutter drainage. • Utilltles: All public services available. • Zoning: C-1 -General Commercial. This zoning would need to be changed to a multi family zone in order to develop the property to its highest and best use. • Flood Zone: According to the F.1.R.M. Map, Panel No. 48041C0182 C, Dated 07-02-1992, a portion of the property is in a Flood Zone "X" Shaded area. • Topography: A creek forms the northeast boundary of the property. Drainage is toward the creek. • EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION I HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: There are ongoing discussions between City staff and the property owner concerning the size and location of the flood plain. The appraiser has made no determination of either, but for this report, has estimated the size of the flood plain area to be 1.5 acres, based upon the Final Plat of Lot 1 R and Lot 2R William Brooke Hunter Estates. Pr~erty Qwner and OwnemJllp History: Eour Ags LP purchased 10.464-aeres of land on March 25, 2004. Part of the tract (0.789 acres) was purchased from Jay P Kraak alkla Jay Paton Kraak. The deed is recorded in Volume 5937, Page 137. The purchase price is unknown, but the terms are assumed to be cash. The adjoining tract (9.675 acres) was purchased on the same day from LJR Properties, Ltd. The deed is recorded in volume 5937, page 115. The purchase price is reported to be $1,240,000 ($2.94 I SF), and the transaction required a $1,200,000 lpan from PlainsCapital Bank. The property was re-platted into two lots in October, 2006. The commercial tract along Wellborn Road (4.138 acres) has been developed with a multi-tenant retail shopping center. The subject property is part of the multi-family tract (6.326 acres}, which is undeveloped at this time. Property Interest Appraised: Fee Simple Estate, subject to existing easements and oil, gas & mineral leases. Comparable Market Data: The appraiser researched market activity in the neighborhood and found sufficient market data to develop a credible opinion of value. Following is a summary of the comparable land sales used to estimate the value of the property. Sale# 1 43.633 acre located on the south side of FM 2818, across from Luther Street. Linda Gozycki, et al sold the property to Hammond Jone Real Estate Development, LP on April 27, 2007. The reported sale price is $1,600,000, or $0.841 SF. Approximately 50% of the tract is affected by flood zone. The zoning is R-4 -Multi Family. Overall, this tract is considered inferior when compared to the subject property. Sale# 2 14.25 acres IOQated on Crescent Point Parkway, north of Harvey Road in College Station. Crescent Pointe, LTD sold the property to SW Crescent Pointe, LP on November 16, 2006. The reported sale price was $1,551,825, or $2.50 I SF. None of the property is affected by flood zone. The zoning is R-4 Multi Family and is being developed with an apartment project. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Sale# 3 14.847 acres located at the east comer of Wellborn Road and Southwest Parkway. Hills for College Station, LLC sold the property to Woodlands of Athens Cottage Rental, LLC on August 10, 2005. The reported sale price was $1,750,000 or $2.71 /SF. Approximately one acre of this tract is located in the flood zone. The zoning was C-1 Commercial and A-0 Agriculture. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Page 2 of4 Sale#4 20 acres located on Pendleton Drive, northeast of Copperfield Drive in Bryan. Bryan Development sold the property to Pendleton Apartments, Ltd on April 5, 2005. The reported sale price was $2,134,440, or $2.45 I SF. None of the property is affected by flood zone. The zoning is PD Planned Development and is being developed with an apartment project. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Sale # 5 -Parent Tract to the Subject Property 9.675 acres that wraps the north corner of Wellborn Road and Southwest Parkway in College Station. LJR Properties, Ltd sold the property to Four Ags Investments on March 25, 2005. The reported sale price was $1,240,000 or $2.94 I SF. Approximately one and a half acres of this tract is located in the flood zone. The zoning was C-1 Commercial and part of the tract has been developed with a retail shopping center. The subject property is located on the rear part of this tract. Overall, the sale is considered superior when compared to the subject property, as the comparable has access to Wellborn Road and, although there is flood zone on site, it is a small percentage of the total land area. Market Value Comments: The comparable sales listed above represent the most recent activity of tracts with similar highest and best use to the subject property. Four of the five were superior to the subject, while one was inferior. Sales No. 2 through No. 5 have a tight value range -from $2.45 to $2.94. They were relied upon to determine the value of the property not affected by flood plain. Sale No. 1 was very low -$0.841 SF due to the large amount of flood plain and the location of the flood areas upon the tract. This sale was used to determine the value of the flood plain. Market Value and Just Compensation -Tabulation Property I Description Quantity Price I Unit Total Value Item of Value Land Multi-Family 0.89 acre $2.50 I SF $96 921 Land Flood Plain 1.5 acre $0.25 /SF $16,335 Total $113 256 Conclusions of Market Value: In accordance with the Appraiser's Certification as well as the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions listed below, my opinion of the market value of the subject property follows: One Hundred Thirteen Two Hundred Fifty Six Dollars ($113,256) Mark Edwin McAuliffe I ( Land Agent, City of College Statibn, Texas Date State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, TX-1326493-G I Exp 30 Nov 2008 Real Estate Broker-Texas Real Estate Commission, 0376344 /Exp 31 Aug 2008 Page 3 of 4 Purpose of the Appraisal: To develop an opinion of market value in terms of cash or financing terms equivalent to cash. Market Value DeflnltJon: The most probable price for which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.· Implicit in this definition Is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. buyer and seller are typically motivated; both parties are well Informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best Interests; a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; payment b made in terms of cash In United States dollars or In tenns of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. Source of Definition: Regulations published by federal regulatory agencies pursuant to Tille XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. Scope of Work: The appraiser inspected the subject property and completed sufficient market research and analysis to develop an opinion of the subject property's market value. This report was developed In accordance with the standards for a Summary Appraisal Report as described by the Appraisal Standards Board In the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As this is a summary report. additional information is contained in my work file. Appraisal Methods and Techniques Employed: The Sales Comparison Approach of the vacant land was developed herein. The appraiser recognizes the fact that the Whole Property is improved, but the acquisition of the Part to be Acquired will neither damage nor enhance the remainder property. Excluslon of Sales Comparison Approach, Coat Approach or Income Approach: This report makes the assumption that the site is vacant land. As a result, the Sales Comparison Approach· As Improved, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach to value have not been developed. Appraiser's Certification I certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief. that the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal. impartial and unbiased profesalonal analyses, opinions, and concluslons; I have no present or prospective interest in the property that Is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved except as described below; I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment, except as described below; I am employed by the client, the City of College Station, but I have no bias with respect to this assignment; my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results; my compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client. the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal; my analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Unifonn Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; • I have made a personal Inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; • no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions • All of the Information reported was verified either through personal inspection or reliable outside sources. • The lnfonnation obtained from outside sources is assumed to be correct. • The subject property is appraised as though title is marketable. • The appraiser has no knowledge of hazardous materials located on the subject property. Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypotlletlcal Conditions • Please see content of the report. ff- ~-(W..~A.,I~~ '30 Avy --z...o>[ Mark Edwin McAuliffe Date Land Agent, City of College Station, Texas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, TX-1326493-G I Exp 30 Nov 2008 Real Estate Broker. Texas Real Estate Commission, 0376344 /Exp 31 Aug 2008 Page 4 of 4 ·~ ::1 tH g ~ ~ ' M~ I. " p !'5 N ", >o ii '~ §ii i§ ,11 ' I =~ !I' :,1µ1 ' I L ~1 i! 1~1 s ~ ~!I~ A ii 'it! ,, __ I~ 0 • G • :'i\i ~;:~ -~i i~ wr ,_ " ; z ~ = "' . !! ~; ): . ~ ~~ 8~~~~~ ~~ H ~:n;<-1:"' kb :I.!.!~~ ,_ f5 • : . ~ h I :i ~ ~ ;~ .., . . . . . .. . .. ,_ ~ ~ p '~ n n ~ ~ tl ip ~l n .., I d ii •• u ~ t ' ~ "'. u I ; ,_ u n u n H H ;n §1 u *:; , , , ' ' , •• ! ~ ~ :! , .. ~" ... ~ :i 00 0 <.O ~~ ~ • ' "' I 0 ii ~ u U1 • ~ 11 I r~ § I J • ~ . ~ ~ . '. I w ;!: ~ z ; ~ ~H :; "' 2 • ~ . ~ • ::> u (5128/2008) Venessa Garza -Fwd: Fieser HousingTax Credit Proposal From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments: Mark McAuliffe Garza, Venessa; Gibbs, Alan; Roach , Art 5/28/2008 9:45 AM Fwd : Fieser Housing Tax Credit Proposal Fieser Housing Tax Credit Proposal Talk about thorough! More information on the property from Art Roach . Mark McAuliffe, Land Agent Capital Projects Department City of College Station, Texas, USA 979/764-6272 * 979/229-3405 (Cell) >»Art Roach 5/28/2008 9:30 am »> Mark -Here are the details of the transaction. Page 1 I [5128/2008) Venessa Garza -Fieser Housing Tax Credit Proposal From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments: Art Roach Terry Childers 1/24/2008 2:11 PM Fieser Housing Tax Credit Proposal Fieser Site 2008.jpg; 2008 HTC Preapplications Reg 8.pdf; Fieser HTC Propos al 2008.pdf CC: David Gwin; Randy Brumley Terry -Randy asked if I would put together some information for you regarding the most recent Housing Tax Credit development proposed in College Station. The developer has not yet contacted our office regarding this proposal, but I was able to gather this information from TDHCA's website. Based upon the pre-application scoring and the amount of tax credits available in the region, at this time it does not appear likely that the development will receive funding for the 2008 HTC cycle . There five developments ranked ahead of this one in this region, two of which are in Bryan (only one will likely receive HTC funding). The pre-application scoring Jog for the region is attached, as is a map and photo of the proposed site. I hope that this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need anything else. DEVELOPER: James W. Fieser, an experienced HTC developer based in Katy, Texas. Mr. Fieser has developed 995 HTC units in 13 different Texas cities since 1998, according to data from the TDHCA website. PROPOSED CS DEVELOPMENT: 144 units for elderly (55+) located at Southwest Pkwy and Welborn Rd. The development is proposed to consist of 18, 100% masonry exterior, two-story buildings with a density of 22.76 units/acre. 1 BR rent: $457, 2 BR rent $541. Scanned preapplication to TDHCA: http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/htc/docs/2008Preapps/08212.pdf SITE: The proposed site is a 6.326 acre tract in the 300 block of Southwest Pkwy near Wellborn Rd owned by Four Ags Investments, L.P. (Andy Restivo of Waco is the registered agent for Four Ags. Hunter Goodwin of Oldham Goodwin Group in College Station is the managing member). It is currently zoned C-1. The site is bounded to the east by the Parkway Circle apartments and to the west by the Southwest Crossing shopping center (C&J BBQ, CC Creations, etc). The property is not in the 100-year floodplain, but does have 500-year floodplain and a creek on the eastern boundary. SALE: The proposed sales price is $1.075M, or about $3.90/sq. ft. Switzer Deason is the broker representing Mr. Fieser in the sale. The seller's broker is Oldham Goodwin. Sellers are represented by local attorney Chuck Ellison. Buyers by Peggy Feldham of Houston. ADDillONAL 2008 PROJECTS PROPOSED BY THIS DEVELOPER: Fieser has proposed two additional HTC elderly developments in Texas City that appear likely to receive funding. See TDHCA scoring log (Region 6): http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/htc/docs/08-RegionalPreAppSubmission-080118.pdf TDHCA will receive feedback at a regional public hearing in April, at a time, place, and date to be announced (likely Waco, second week of April). COMMENTS: Written comments concerning the development should be addressed to: Multifamily Finance Production Division Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs P.O. Box 13941 Austin, Texas 78711-3941 Phone: (512) 475-3440 Website: http://www.tdhca.state. tx. us/multifamily/htc/index. htm. TIMELINE: March 1st -Full Application Submittal due to TDHCA April: Public hearings; Letters of support or opposition from local and elected officials due as well as full application Page 1 SS/28/2008) Venessa Garza -Fieser Housing Tax Credit ProQ_Q_sal feasibility documentation. May-June -TDHCA underwriting & staff recommendation of awards July -TDHCA Board Meeting and award of Housing Tax Credits September -Land closing We're happy to answer an questions that may come up. Best Regards -Art Art Roach Community Revitalization Coordinator Economic & Community Development Dept. City of College Station (979) 764-3811 (979) 764-3785 fax Page""'2 I °(5128/2008) Venessa Garza -Fieser Site 2008.jpg Page 1 I date project page '----------------~--' -------------. ---- ---------------------. ------.... ------------------------------------------------------------ "'" J hii~ ~~=~:~~~=::~~:~~-:-::::~:_:~:~:_:_: __ ::~~~~~:~~--:~:::=:::::_·:_::_~=~ ___ :-~_: __ :~~~:-=--~-~-~~~~~-z::t~:~~-~-:::::: ____ :: ___ ~·:::_:~ __ ::_::==~:~~~:~:::=::=~~:=~~:::::_ 100 + ~l~ -~=~-:-:-=-~~~~"-.=-=-==--:=:=-1:1~-~~~~~~~i=TI~i,:~:=~= :::=-==~-==~ !\"' ~pllc.~-t \e.~ :=:=--=-: :=-_ ~~~~~~~~-=:-=--~r=~~:;-~k~~~(~=~~---===~~ ~-=~-=~:-~=--~ ----------------------------------.. -···------·--''-0------------------------·------------____ -1:_~--~-~--·--------------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- task list: .. !.,<) C7\Atct 11'\. ~ A 301 ~ o 1 er o JJ~ At0--fU!.Met-V Design of the multi-use pajh weuld occrn i11 pl 1ase 1 ai 1d be construct_ed ne lffieF--than..with pt rose 2 of the aevelopr 11~ 1• . 11 ~ ~ n 6 l./ s..L-~. ~ -3 -hJC-4'. ~JL II~· V"" t"....L.t.. 0:-. I ·TTl If design and construction costs are less than the cost of developing the multi-use path: 1. The applica~~ be required to pay the remaining portion of the neighborhood .LarrLf . acquisition por~ .. ::_~sH the Parkland Dedication fee. . ~ ~~ Specific requirements for design and construction of the multi-use path: The design of the multi-use path should be in accordance with local standards as well as A~SHTO, ADA and MUTCD . The flexibility offered within the AASHTO guidelines should be fully used to design at the lowest practical design speed. The path must be a minimum of 10 ft wide concrete surface with three foot graded areas on both sides. Review and approval of design b the City of College Station will be required. The path should have as little negative impact as possible to the area including minimal clearing of vegetation except for selective clearing where necessary for construction or to achieve clear zones. A vegetative buffer between the stream and path should stay intact or native vegetation should be introduced. Bes I management practices should be used to minimize siltation and erosion s provide stream ban s a 11za ion to prevent future problems and assure minimal maintenance in the fp:lme~ ('<. "'J._. l °"'~ti tr\.--. -Dedication of public access easement for multi-use path:" --:----~c?rv Le fefCt; va:)@..·· ~ f6le>t • u -l ru=.---f'!riAi?1ictrt-tt-ziAf'=:-:-lvtr--t:op~R~P<smi-d~r ·--...--ls c... 1__i.~+¥1+141!tJ um number of exercise stations will need to be 2-3. tion and selection of type of equipment will need to be determined by 603 revie~ They can be placed along the trail or in one location. Examples are provided in the vendor info below. If placed in a concentrated location, it will need to be outside of the floodplain. A synthetic surface (rubberized mulch) would need to be used and that would also allow for equipment that requires a fall zone. The Parks and Recreation Department can provide more info on that. Let me know if you decide to go that route and I can give you contact info to learn more about it .. the material is from T.F. Harper. If placed along the trail. concrete is permissible but then pieces that don't require a fall zone will need to be selected. Equipment that has minimal or no moving parts would be ideal since they will have less maintenance or the likelih ood of breaking. Recreation Creations inc. www.rec-creations.com This vendor has a set of equipment called The Challenge Group http://www.rec-creati ons.com/catalog/big/index.html p.52-53 Game Time http://www.gametime.com/ (Total Recreation,800-392-9909) ParaCourse FitCenter At top of website click on Products; Sports Equipment; ParCourse Landscape Structures www.playlsi.com They have an online catalog Go to Independent Play Sports and Fitness . The equipment is called HealthBeat Outdoor Fitness System p. l 84-185 Also FitCore Outdoor Fitness Equipment p. 196 Playworld systems http://www.playworldsystems.com/design/new_products/energi A product called ENERGI Total Body Fitness System TriActive Fitness http://www.triactiveamerica.com/ CrrY OF Cow=.GE TATION PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM, Tuesday, April 13, 2010 The Green Room at Wolf Pen Creek -1015 Colgate College Station, TX 77840 STAFF PRESENT: BOARD PRESENT: VISITORS: Marco A. Cisneros, Director; David Schmitz, Assistant Director; Amanda Putz, Board Secretary; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Curtis Bingham, Park Operations Superintendent; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent Gary Erwin, Chair; Douglas Becker, David Scott, George Jessup, Billy Hart, Jon Denton Scott Ball, 4711 Johnson Creek Loop, CS Doug Tremaine, 530 Southwest Parkway, CS Jonathan Kennedy, 707 Edgemore Dr., Bryan John S., 2301 Eastmark Dr., CS Scott Mason, 4320 Meadowbrook, Bryan David Kindt, 3157 Moonlight Dr., Bryan Maria Via Regoe, 4151 Wellborn Rd., Bryan Jane Kee, IPS Group, CS Jan McMurrey, 3400 Mustang, CS CiCi Torrie 1. Call to order and Roll Call: The meeting was called to order with a quorum present at 7:05 p.m. 2. Possible action concerning requests for absences of members: Gerard Kyle, David Scott, and Jody Ford had sent in requests for absence. Jon Denton made a motion to approve the absence requests submitted, and Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Hear visitors: Doug Tremaine, representative for the Brazos Valley Senior Games, explained the event and what is involved with the Brazos Valley Senior Games. He reported that the attendance for the 2010 Senior Games shows an increase of 263 applicants from last year. The Games are going to be held between April 22nd and May 2nd. He explained that College Station was granted the 2011-2012 Brazos Valley Senior State Games, and that many athletes will be coming into the Bryan/College Station area for the state games. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 4. Consideration, possible approval, and discussion of minutes from the meeting of March 9, 2010: Billy Hart made a motion to approve the minutes with a revision of his name being placed on the attendance list once rather than twice, and George Jessup seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on Disc Golf activities and facilities: Marco A. Cisneros, Director, explained the locations of the disc golf courses that are located in the parks system. David Kindt, Jr. introduced the group known as the Brazos Valley Disc Golf Club. He explained the advantages of the sport of disc golf and reasons why the sport is great. Scott Mesa, another representative of Brazos Valley Disc Golf Club, reported that they were the eyes and ears of what is going on with the courses. Representative Jonathan Kennedy explained that they want to present themselves and the Club to the community. Their club would love to improve the quality of the parks, and improve the amount of people that are in the parks playing disc golf. They explained that there is a lot of opportunity to work with charities. The future goal is for a championship disc golf course to be established, which involves 18 holes. A championship course could be established on a nice 20 -25 acre park, which is roughly one hole per acre. The Board suggested that the Club offer clinics or classes to children and the community. Mr. Mesa explained that they have already started an event to reach out to the community. Discussion followed. Brazos Valley Disc Golf Club Contact Information: • Face Book • Web address: www.stopcryingdiscgolf.com This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on proposed Park Vendor Permit Policy: Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent, reported on the proposed Park Vendor Permit Policy. He explained what had been accomplished with this policy and the Task Force changes that have been made. Discussion followed. Glenn Schroeder moved to accept the 2 April 13, 2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes ~ aJn ~l~·+~u.. -~ I f:~ .,~. ore-.~ 8. e~.J.h.,. N>~,~~ W · '------,9. M~ ~ 3? ~d},. 'r).ocJiJ>Jlf'° • )~ report that the Task Force submitted with the additional recommendation that a fee be associated with the permit. The six month permit shall also list the number of participants, and be organized in a three tier structure as follows: • 10 or less participants -$25 Permit Fee • 11 to 25 participants -$50 Permit Fee • 26+ participants -$100 Permit Fee George Jessup seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a request to allocate Park Land Dedication Funds towards multi-use path improvements for the Southwest Parkway Apartments: Jane Kee, IPS Group representative, presented a proposed park land dedication to the Board. She explained that the developer, Scott Ball, wanted to dedicate the property for a trail, while also building the trail to include amenities. The dedication involves 72 dwelling units. The proposal is for the developer to use the neighborhood and community development fees to pay for the trail. It will cost $50,000 to develop the trail and $5,000 -$7,000 to design the trail. The proposed trail would be an extension of an existing trail and a continuation of the Greenways trails system. Douglas Becker made a motion to accept both the community and neighborhood development fees to be used to develop the trail with amenities, and Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. Update on Quarterly Park Maintenance Standards Report: Curtis Bingham, Park Operations Superintendent, reported on the Quarterly Park Maintenance Standards Report. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the usage and calculation of College Station Park Acreage Standards: Documents were included in the Board packet to reference the calculations with regard to the College Station Park Acreage Standards. Douglas Becker was questioning if these were the right amounts to be asking for. There was discussion that followed. There was no motion made to change the current standards, and no action was required. vs1 . l~~. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the May . Parks and Recreation Facilities Tour: The May Board meeting will be ' ~ ,~~~~· 3 Ap ril 13, 2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes I~ -- 11. scheduled as a facilities tour for the Board. The Board members were asked to come up with three park locations and/or facilities that they were most interested in seeing. Those suggestions will be reviewed, and staff will coordinate an itinerary. Discussion followed. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. Discussion and possible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Goals for FV10: This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 12. Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the current Capital Improvements Program: ., ~ Capital Improvements and Park Land Dedication Project Lists of April 2010: Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner, reported on the current Capital Improvement projects. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. ~ Dedications of Less than Five Acres: Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner, reported on the Dedications of Less than Five Acres: • Emerald Ridge Estates, Phase 1 rv Park Zone 8 • Alexandria Subdivision, Phase 6 rv Park Zone 10 • Lincoln & Churchill (FP -Replat) rv Park Zone 2 This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 13. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting: • Next Regular Meeting rv May 11, 2010, Facilities Tour, 5:30 p.m. 14. Adjourn: Billy Hart made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Douglas Becker seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. 4 April 13, 2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes ? ' ) 304.000000 294.43 G [ .293.67 TH .294.22 TH .294.74 SL .294.74 SL . 295.16' ~94.61 .294.79 .294.97 G SL .295.19 SL . 294.-92 G?94.63 SL SL .295.13 G .294.52 SL .294.02 .294.37 TH SL .293.74 SL ,294.04 G .293.26 SL .29J.72 G .293.69 TH . 93.57 .,J SL (_)< / .293.60 SL / .J'. ~J' .293.31 G .293.27 G . 293.41 SL . 293.33 SL .292.84 G 293.20 "SL~ .292.29 TH .292.53 .293.21 TH Sl:~·~J.03 293.42 t .293.12 G .293.87 TH 293.66 293.87' ~3.67 88 fs~3.5q~3.32 SL .2gJ,8 OP . 93.85 .293.39 45 OP TH ~.49 SL The Natural Areas Reserved needs to be hatched which will include Identify th~ centerline of the creek At least one access area should be identified The Hike/Bike Path shouldJ:~amed 'Multi-use Path' The multi-use path will be ~oot public access easement ~ A grading plan will be required before the final location of the Public Access easement for the multi-use path is determined. It will need to be located outside of the floodplain The multi-use path easement will be places outside o(the floodplain. -fk. MEMORANDUM March 4, 201 O TO: Matt Robinson, Staff Planner FROM: Jane Kee, IPS Gro Please fin~ responses to th~ 2-23-10 Staff Comments (received 3-2-10 via FAX to IPS Group from the City of College Station) as well as the following information / One (1) 24"x36" copy each of Rezoning Map and Co~t Plan; :=2' Nineteen (19) 11"x17" copies of Rezoning Map; =z Nineteen ( 19) 11"x17" copies of Concept Plan; STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: COPPER CREEK CONDOS (REZ)-(10-00500016) Many of the comments received seem more appropriate to a full site plan review. Since this is only a concept plan, we have addressed the items as best as we can considering the stage of the process. Many of these comments will be further refined and addressed as we move through the more detailed site plan review. We have modified the concept plan to address the issue staff raised regarding the placement of the non-residential building. After considering the staff comment, we agree that a better orientation to SWP would be more beneficial, particularly since there is no access easement from the adjacent commercial development to the west that could provide vehicular connectivity. There is also very poor visibility from Wellborn into the site. To best assure this, as well as integration of non-residential uses with the adjacent development to the west, we propose to mimic the adjacent building that faces SWP. We will match the building size and mimic its orientation, setback and design as closely as possible. This creates a more cohesive and visually appealing entrance off SWP. The two buildings on either side of the access easement will create the effect that the two developments were designed and built together as one project. The remainder of the concept plan will include the buildings housing the residential units. PLANNING 1. Are you proposing a wider private access easement off of SWP? The concept plan shows a 50' wide access easement, where only a 30' private access easement exists. • The plat indicates a 50' wide access easement. 511 University Drive East, Suite 205 , College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 846.9259 office I (979) 324.9196 cell 2. Please label the location of the different uses. • Done 3. As an fyi, Lots 1 R and 2R of Hunter Brooke Estates are considered one building plot and as such the proposed commercial building(s) will need to utilize materials and colors that are similar and complement the existing commercial development. In addition, "all buildings shall employ architectural, site and landscaping design elements that are integrated with and common to those used on the main/primary buildings or structures on site" (UDO Section 7.9.B.3). • OK 4. Please provide the density of the multi-family units on the concept plan. • Approximate density will range from 13 to 18 dwelling units per acre depending on detail site layout. 5. Please specify the proposed allowed non-residential uses in the development. • See application and concept plan and response to 9.2. below 6. Show pedestrian circulation through the site. • Done. Pedestrian access and circulation will be via a sidewalk on Southwest Parkway (SWP). Sidewalk along SWP will provide pedestrian connection both east and west from residential units to commercial and back. There is no access easement anywhere else to gain access into the commercial areas to the west other than along the SWP sidewalk. 7. Please show the approximate location of artificially lit areas. • Shown on concept plan as being in parking areas. 8. Please see the Greenways Program Manager comments. As proposed, the trail is shown directly adjacent to proposed building areas without any buffer area considerations. Revise the Concept Plan to illustrate additional flexibility. • Done 9. Based on the application and associated concept plan, staff recommends the following: 1. Revising the PDD Purpose Statement to say a "minimum of 8,000 s.f. of non- residential uses." • See revised concept plan and response to #9.4 below. 2. Staff recommends removing the C-2 and C-3 districts, as well as removing uses such as fuel sales, storage, vehicle sales etc. from the allowed uses. • Will remove C-2 and C-3 uses as well as the Industrial and Manufacturing uses allowed in C-1. We need to include the remaining C-1 uses to provide as much flexibility as possible. 3. Staff recommends providing pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent commercial development to the east (WEST?). • We assume this should be "commercial development to the west". Connectivity will be provided via a sidewalk along SWP. 4. Staff recommends that non-residential uses be contained in the building(s) ~losest to .swP an? .be configured in such a way to maximize visibility and integrate with the existing commercial development to the east. (WEST?) • We have modified the concept plan to address this as staff requests. We agree that a better orientation to SWP would be more beneficial. To best assure a better orientation to SWP, as well as integration of non- residential uses with the adjacent development to the west, we propose to duplicate the adjacent building that faces SWP. We will mimic its 511 University Drive East, Suite 205, College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 846.9259 office I (979) 324.9196 cell orientation, setback from SWP and design as closely as possible. We can match the building size, but cannot go larger because of the site's limited frontage on SWP, the location of the floodplain, location of the future bike path and the location of the existing access easement. By matching the building we will create a more cohesive and visually appealing entrance off SWP. The two buildings on either side of the access easement will create the effect that the two developments were designed and built together as one project. • To provide as much room as possible for the non-residential building we propose to place the building as close to the access easement boundary as possible. We are unsure whether this requires any kind of waiver. If it does, then we request this in order to accommodate the non-residential building layout. 5. Staff's recommendation will include the condition that non-residential buildings be constructed in Phase 1 if doing a multi-phase development. • OK 6. Increased buffering via canopy trees would be recommended if proposing any lighting near the single-family development to the north. • Any lighting will be focused inward to the development. We will substitute canopy trees for the required non-canopy in any instances where lighting is an issue. This will be examined more closely at the stage of full site plan review. At this conceptual stage we do not know whether there will be just building lighting, parking lot lighting or both. ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. The City issued a development permit and approved a site plan for Southwest Crossing, a proposed commercial development which included utilities and grading. Since there was not a "Fill Permit" issued for this site, the application should be revised to reflect that it was a development permit and site plan. • We acknowledge this with this response. Since the City does not allow saving a completed application form, this seems the best way to address this at this time. 2. Four new PUEs and a Temporary Blanket PUE were dedicated to accommodate utilities in association with the Southwest Crossing site plan & development permit. Please show these easements on the Concept Plan and Existing Easements Exhibit. • All Easements are shown on revised rezoning map. The Concept Plan shows all easements except those easements associated with the Southwest Crossing Site Plan. These will be abandoned as part of the full site plan process for this development. 3. Since a 5-ft Right-of-Way dedication along SWP has already been granted, it should not be shown as part of the property. For clarity, it should also be labeled as "Existing." • Done 4. The boundary dimensions do not appear to match the plat. Please provide the accurate boundary information including survey calls. • Done 5. The 1"=100' scale in the title block of the Concept Plan needs to be revised. • Done 6. Our records indicate that the 20-ft PUE (V.800, P.173) along SWP overlaps the dedicated 5- ft ROW. • OK 511 University Drive East, Suite 205, College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 846.9259 office I (979) 324.9196 cell 7. Please show the existing 20-ft PUE along the western property line which was dedicated by plat. • Done 8. Please show the Private Access Easement as dedicated. • See Planning comment #1 above. 9. FYl ... The location of existing easements on the site may cause building encroachments with the proposed layout. Easement abandonments may need to be pursued in the future. • We agree. All easements dedicated as part of the site plan will be abandoned.· GREENWAYS 1. Revise the Concept Plan to illustrate/delineate the Natural Areas Reserved landuse. It should include the floodplain and an additional public access easement outside of the floodplain for the multi-use path. • Done 2. The public access easement will need to allow for flexibility in design based on topographic and site conditions and will still need to be determined. The approximate floodplain location has been requested from Kimley-Horn to help determine a feasible alignment of the proposed multi-use path that will also be least detrimental to the existing trees and vegetation. • We acknowledge as previously stated on the concept plan that the easement location will be better defined as we move through the site plan process. We will dedicate an easement but understand that path design and construction will be done by the City at the City's expense. 3. At least one pedestrian connection should be identified from the site to the multi-use path. • Done 511 University Drive East, Suite 205, College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 846.9259 office I (979) 324.9196 cell i - F'!A~ S tb bv.,ld. Tf...c... ~l-b·tA.~wf-h ~6~-th Tu mtA( t·w.t ~ ptA..i'1 ~~ he-~s-ttu,. -~ ~.( Thf, ~GA:x ·I~· ;"~f<:o(., . lJ.~flt., fk 't\. ~ft; ... u St: f'~~ ~ S ~'"': A~~ , l\n&...b~ld t+ ,..,· ~JMiv-furw ~1-ft.... 1-k , tl.bje»f ) -fk P/<tewE5 JtN;k IA~uf P~~~fC~trJ.,.;' (/..t.dtclVTr~ )~ f-_oR..7l\>1-\ ~ c~ix_ptAR~. . ·--·----~~~~~ i:= ~fl_fl.o~ +'-4.. ~~flu. At3 (. ~~~~<. ti L<~ 11,e., I ,_~.,.,,.. ,,f h~I°"'---~1~'-'dS · - ll.t,_~ E(l.J~ s~vf S~I~.- ~ GAA ll J;,e., PcfJUi~_ . -· -~· ' ... •."' . .. •' - ~ .. : , I i ." m--T" f ---- i i i i i i i i i i I ! ! j ! ! ! I I ! ~=~=-====m-.l_.l._J_.,_.l.-1.-.L.1-.-1._;~T I ! I _L _ _j __ ,_ ... ~ 6-313 18 Ix 1) ,., 18 ~~=~~ ~ : ~:~~! : gg 6-111 6 I( 1.5) • 9 ,: ~~~~fts 14: BEORd~~~ =~,,...,,:.=.a~ .•• ~.c=Es 205SHOWN ---·---. ---· ---Southwest Parkway Apts. ""' -'~'°0 COLLEGE STATfON TEXAS A 1 Transition Design Service PRF.ll~·llNARY 4323 Wcllbom Road • Bryan, Texas 7i801 • (979) 260-2029 11/21/2008) Venessa Garza - Fieser Housing Tax Credit Proposal From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments: Art Roach Terry Childers 1/24/2008 2:11 PM Fieser Housing Tax Credit Proposal Fieser Site 2008.jpg; 2008 HTC Preapplications Reg 8.pdf; Fieser HTC Propos al 2008.pdf CC: David Gwin; Randy Brumley Terry -Randy asked if I would put together some information for you regarding the most recent Housing Tax Credit development proposed in College Station. The developer has not yet contacted our office regarding this proposal, but I was able to gather this information from TDHCA's website. Based upon the pre-application scoring and the amount of tax credits available in the region, at this time it does not appear likely that the development will receive funding for the 2008 HTC cycle. There five developments ranked ahead of this one in this region, two of which are in Bryan (only one will likely receive HTC funding). The pre-application scoring log for the region is attached, as is a map and photo of the proposed site. I hope that this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need anything else. DEVELOPER: James W. Fieser, an experienced HTC developer based in Katy, Texas. Mr. Fieser has developed 99S HTC units in 13 different Texas cities since 1998, according to data from the TDHCA website. PROPOSED CS DEVELOPMENT: 144 units for elderly (SS+) located at Southwest Pkwy and Welborn Rd. The development is proposed to consist of 18, 100% masonry exterior, two-story buildings with a density of 22.76 units/acre. 1 BR rent: $4S7, 2 BR rent $S41. Scanned preapplication to TDHCA : http:/fwww.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamilv/htc/docs/2008Preapps/08212.pdf SITE: The proposed site is a 6.326 acre tract in the 300 block of Southwest Pkwy near Wellborn Rd owned by Four Ags Investments, LP. (Andy Restivo of Waco is the registered agent for Four Ags. Hunter Goodwin of Oldham Goodwin Group in College Station is the managing member). It is currently zoned C-1. The site is bounded to the east by the Parkway Circle apartments and to the west by the Southwest Crossing shopping center (C&J BBQ, CC Creations, etc). The property is not in the 100-year floodplain, but does have SOO-year floodplain and a creek on the eastern boundary. SALE: The proposed sales price is $1.07SM, or about $3.90/sq. ft. Switzer Deason is the broker representing Mr. Fieser in the sale. The seller's broker is Oldham Goodwin. Sellers are represented by local attorney Chuck Ellison. Buyers by Peggy Feldham of Houston. ADDmONAL 2008 PROJECTS PROPOSED BY THIS DEVELOPER: Fieser has proposed two additional HTC elderly developments in Texas City that appear likely to receive funding. See TDHCA scoring log (Region 6): http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamify/htc/docs/08-Regionaf PreAppSubmission-080118.pdf TDHCA will receive feedback at a regional public hearing in April, at a time, place, and date to be announced (likely Waco, second week of April). COMMENTS: Written comments concerning the development should be addressed to: Multifamily Finance Production Division Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs P.O. Box 13941 Austin, Texas 78711-3941 Phone: (S12) 47S-3440 Website: http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/muftifamily/htc/index.htm. TIMELINE: March 1st -Full Application Submittal due to TDHCA April: Public hearings; Letters of support or opposition from focal and elected officials due as well as full application Page 1 11/21/2008) Venessa Garza -Fieser Housing Tax Credit Prof)osal feasibility documentation. May-June -TDHCA underwriting & staff recommendation of awards July -TDHCA Board Meeting and award of Housing Tax Credits September -Land closing We're happy to answer an questions that may come up. Best Regards -Art Art Roach Community Revitalization Coordinator Economic & Community Development Dept. City of College Station (979) 764-3811 (979) 764-378S fax Page 2 R302591 Page 1 of 1 Current Owner Legal Description Exemptions Appraised FOUR AGS INVESTMENTS L.P. (01691 82) WILLIAM BROOKE HUNTER ESTATES, Lot 2R, ACRES 6.326 729,180 6701 IMPERIAL DR WACO.TX 76712 Entitles Homestead Cap C2, G1 , S2 0 Situs Address History Information SOUTHWEST PKWY 2008 2007 2006 2005 Imp HS --$0 - Imp NHS --$0 -Sales Land HS -$0 -- Date Volume Page Seller Name Land NHS $729,180 $729,180 $597,460 - 6688 137 FOUR AGS INVESTMENTS L.P. Ag Mkt --$0 - Ag Use --$0 - Tim Mkt --$0 - Tim Use ---$0 - HS Cap ---- Assessed $729,180 $729,180 $597,460 - Building Attributes Improvement Sketch Construction Foundation Exterior Interior Roof Flooring Heat/AC Baths Fireplace Year Built Rooms Bedrooms Improvements Type Description Area Year Built Eff Year Value Land Segments SPTB Description Area Market Ag Value C2 Undeveloped-vacant >=5 Aa 6.32600 729,180 0 CITY OF C OLLEGE STATIO CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TEx,A.S 77842 MARK MCAULIFFE, LAND AGENT (979) 764-6272 CELL (979) 229-3405 mmcauliffe@cstx.gov REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL REPORT Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 Property Owner: Four Ags Investments, LP CITY OF C OLLEGE 5TATIO, Property Location: Northwest side of Southwest Parkway, Northeast of Wellborn Road ---College-Station;-Brazos-County, Texas -- Capital Improvement Project: Greenways Acquisition Effective Date of Value: Tuesday, August 21 , 2007 Client: City of College Station, Texas -Public Works Department Intended Users: City of College Station Staff Intended Use: The report is to be used to make decisions regarding the purchase of the property by the City of College Station. The property is to be used in conjunction with the referenced Capital Improvement Project. Capital Improvement Project Description: One function of the Greenways Program is to purchase land located in flood-prone areas. The land is set aside to enhance drainage and public safety and to beautify the City. Neighborhood I Market Description: The subject property is located in the west section of College Station. The neighborhood is bound to the north George Bush Drive and the Texas A&M University Campus, to the east by Texas Avenue, to the south and the west by FM 2818. Surrounding land use is high density multifamily development, restaurants, strip retail centers, manufacturing, older single family homes, parks, schools, churches and numerous tracts of vacant land. The ~hborhood is mo§lli'. residential,_ wilb a large_ population oLcollege- stuaents. Properfy values nave remained steady over the past few years, and the trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Subject Property Description (Whole Property) • Property Type: Vacant Land • Size: Approximately 2.39 out of a 6.326 acres tract. • Location: Northwest side of Southwest Parkway, approximately 570 feet northeast of Wellborn Road. • Legal Description: Part of Lot 2R, William Brooke Hunter Estates, College Station, Brazos County, Texas • Tax ID: R302591 • Current Use of the Real Estate: Vacant Land • Use of the Real Estate Reflected in this Report: Vacant Land. • Highest & Best Use: The Highest & Best Use of the subject property is to use it in conjunction with the entire 6.36 acre tract. The Highest & Best Use is Multi-Family development, with a portion being used for greenways or drainage. Page 1of4 • EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION I HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: As noted above, the Highest & Best Use of the subject property is to develop it in conjunction with the entire 6.36 acre tract. Separating the 2.39 acre subject property from the 6.36 acre tract will have a detrimental effect on the subject property. It would be difficult to develop the subject property by itself. Considering the appraisal assignment at hand, the appraiser has estimated the subject property as part of the 6.362 acre tract. • Street Type: Four-lane asphalt paved street with center turn lane, concrete curb and gutter drainage. • Utllltles: All public services available. • Zoning: C-1 -General Commercial. This zoning would need to be changed to a multi family zone in order to develop the property to its highest and best use. . • Flood Zone: According to the F.1.R.M. Map, Panel No. 48041C0182 C, Dated 07-02-1992, a portion of the property is in a Flood Zone "X" Shaded area. • Topography: A creek forms the northeast boundary of the property. Drainage is toward the creek. • EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION I HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: There are ongoing discussions between City staff and the property owner concerning the size and location of the flood plain. The appraiser has made no determination of either, but for this report, has estimated the size of the flood plain area to be 1.5 acres, based upon the Final Plat of Lot 1 R and Lot 2R William Brooke Hunter Estates. _fropertLOwner and OwrutrshJp History:_ Eour AgS-LP purohased 1(}-;-464 acres ot-lanct-on March 25, 2004.- Part of the tract (0. 789 acres) was purchased from Jay P Kraak a/kla Jay Paton Kraak. The deed is recorded in Volume 5937, Page 137. The purchase price is unknown, but the terms are assumed to be cash. The adjoining tract (9.675 acres) was purchased on the same day from LJR Properties, ltd. The deed is recorded in volume 5937, page 115. The purchase price is reported to be $1,240,000 ($2.94 /SF), and the transaction required a $1,200,000 loan from PlainsCapital Bank. The property was re-platted into two lots in October, 2006. The commercial tract along Wellborn Road (4.138 acres) has been developed with a multi-tenant retail shopping center. The subject property is part of the multi-family tract (6.326 acres), which is undeveloped at this time. Property Interest Appraised: Fee Simple Estate, subject to existing easements and oil, gas & mineral leases. Comparable Market Data: The appraiser researched market activity in the neighborhood and found sufficient market data to develop a credible opinion of value. Following is a summary of the comparable land sales used to estimate the value of the property. Sale# 1 43.633 acre located on the south side of FM 2818, across from Luther Street. Linda Gozycki, et al sold the property to Hammond Jone Real Estate Development, LP on April 27, 2007. The reported sale price is $1,600,000, or $0.84 /SF. Approximately 50% of the tract is affected by flood zone. The zoning is R-4 -Multi Family. Overall. this tract is considered inferior when compared to the subject property. Sale# 2 14.25 acretl~ted...on Cr.escentPointParkwB¥.-north.of Harvey.Road-in Cottege Station;- CrescentPointe, LTD sold the property to SW Crescent Pointe, LP on November 16, 2006. The reported sale price was $1,551,825, or $2.50 I SF. None of the property is affected by flood zone. The zoning is R-4 Multi Family and is being developed with an apartment project. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Sale# 3 14.847 acres located at the east corner of Wellborn Road and Southwest Parkway. Hills for College Station, LLC sold the property to Woodlands of Athens Cottage Rental, LLC on August 10, 2005. The reported sale price was $1,750,000 or $2.71 I SF. Approximately one acre of this tract is located in the flood zone. The zoning was C-1 Commercial and A-0 Agriculture. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Page 2 of4 Sale#4 20 acres located on Pendleton Drive, northeast of Copperfield Drive in Bryan. Bryan Development sold the property to Pendleton Apartments, Ltd on April 5, 2005. The reported sale price was $2, 134,440, or $2.45 I SF. None of the property is affected by flood zone. The zoning is PD Planned Development and is being developed with an apartment project. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Sale # 5 -Parent Tract to the Subject Property 9.675 acres that wraps the north comer of Wellborn Road and Southwest Parkway in College Station. LJR Properties, Ltd sold the property to Four Ags Investments on March 25, 2005. The reported sale price was $1,240,000 or $2.94 I SF. Approximately one and a half acres of this tract is located in the flood zone. The zoning was C-1 Commercial and part of the tract has been developed with a retail shopping center. The subject property is located on the rear part of this tract. Overall, the sale is considered superior when compared to the subject property, as the comparable has access to Wellborn Road and, although there is flood zone on site, it is a small percentage of the total land area. Market Value Comments: The comparable sales listed above represent the most recent activity of tracts with similar highest and best use to the subject property. Four of the five were superior to the subject, while one was inferior. Sales No. 2 through No. 5 have a tight value range -from $2.45 to $2.94. They were relied upon to determine the value of the property not affected by flood plain. Sale No. 1 was very low -$0.84 /SF due to the large amount of flood plain and the location of the flood areas upon the tract. This sale was used to determine the value of the flood plain. Market Value and Just Compensation -Tabulation Property I Description Quantity Price I Unit Total Value Item of Value Land Multi-Familv 0.89 acre $2.50 I SF $96,921 Land Flood Plain 1.5 acre $0.25 I SF $16 335 Total $113.256 Conclusions of Market Value: In accordance with the Appraiser's Certification as well as the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions listed below, my opinion of the market value of the subject property follows: One Hundred Thirteen Two Hundred Fifty Six Dollars ($113,256) Mark Edwin McAuliffe I ( Land Agent, City of College Station, Texas Date State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, TX-1326493-G I Exp 30 Nov 2008 Real Estate Broker-Texas Real Estate Commission, 0376344 I Exp 31 Aug 2008 Page 3 of 4 Purpose of the Appraisal: To develop an opinion of market value in terms of cash or financing terms equivalent to cash. Market Value Definition: The most probable price for which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.· Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. buyer and seller are typically motivated; both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting In what they consider their own best interests; a reasonable time is allowed for exposure In the open market; payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. Source of Definition: Regulations published by federal regulatory agencles pursuant to Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. Scope of Work: The appraiser inspected the subject property and completed sufficient market research and analysis to develop an opinion of the subject property's market value. This report was developed In accordance with the standards for a Summary Appraisal Report as described by the Appraisal Standards Board In the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As this Is a summary report. additional information is contained in my work file. Appraisal Methods and Techniques Employed: The Sales Comparison Approach of the vacant land was developed herein. The appraiser recognizes the fac1 that the Whole Property Is improved, but the acquisition of the Part to be Acquired will neither damage nor enhance the remainder property. Exclusion of Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach or Income Approach: This report makes the assumption that the site Is vacant land. As a result, the Sales Comparison Approach -As Improved, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach to value have not been developed. Appraiser's Certification I certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that the statements of fact contained in this report ere true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are llmited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; • I have no present or prospective interest in the property that Is the subject of this report and no personal interest with respect to the parties Involved except as described below; • I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment, except as described below; I am employed by the client, the City of College Station, but I have no bias with respect to this assigrvnent; my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results; • my compensation for completlng this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the Intended use of this appraisal; my analysts, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; • I have made a personal Inspection of the property that Is the subject of this report; • no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. Assumptlom5 and Limiting Conditions All of the Information reported was verified either through personal inspection or reliable outside sources. The information obtained from outside sources Is assumed to be correct. • The subject property Is appraised as though title is marketable. • The appraiser has no knowledge of hazardous materials located on the subject property. Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions • Please see content of the report. If!- ~-C\D,A.,A_.,/,~ ""°30 Avy. 1.-o>{ Mark Edwin McAuliffe Date Land Agent, City of College Station, Texas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, TX-1326493-G I Exp 30 Nov 2008 Real Estate Broker -Texas Real Estate Commission, 0376344 I Exp 31 Aug 2008 Page4 of 4 Cm OF C oLJ..EGE ST.rnON PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES REGULAR MEETING 7:00 PM, Tuesday, April 13, 2010 The Green Room at Wolf Pen Creek -1015 Colgate College Station, TX 77840 STAFF PRESENT: BOARD PRESENT: VISITORS: Marco A. Cisneros, Director; David Schmitz, Assistant Director; Amanda Putz, Board Secretary; Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner; Curtis Bingham, Park Operations Superintendent; Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent Gary Erwin, Chair; Douglas Becker, David Scott, George Jessup, Billy Hart, Jon Denton Scott Ball, 4711 Johnson Creek Loop, CS Doug Tremaine, 530 Southwest Parkway, CS Jonathan Kennedy, 707 Edgemore Dr., Bryan John S., 2301 Eastmark Dr., CS Scott Mason, 4320 Meadowbrook, Bryan David Kindt, 3157 Moonlight Dr., Bryan Maria Via Regoe, 4151 Wellborn Rd., Bryan Jane Kee, IPS Group, CS Jan McMurrey, 3400 Mustang, CS CiCi Torrie 1. Call to order and Roll Call: The meeting was called to order with a quorum present at 7:05 p.m. 2. Possible action concerning requests for absences of members: Gerard Kyle, David Scott, and Jody Ford had sent in requests for absence. Jon Denton made a motion to approve the absence requests submitted, and Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Hear visitors: Doug Tremaine, representative for the Brazos Valley Senior Games, explained the event and what is involved with the Brazos Valley Senior Games. He reported that the attendance for the 2010 Senior Games shows an increase of 263 applicants from last year. The Games are going to be held between April 22nd and May 2nd. He explained that College Station was granted the 2011-2012 Brazos Valley Senior State Games, and that many athletes will be coming into the Bryan/College Station area for the state games. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 4. Consideration, possible approval. and discussion of minutes from the meeting of March 9, 2010: Billy Hart made a motion to approve the minutes with a revision of his name being placed on the attendance list once rather than twice, and George Jessup seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 5. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on Disc Golf activities and facilities: Marco A. Cisneros, Director, explained the locations of the disc golf courses that are located in the parks system. David Kindt, Jr. introduced the group known as the Brazos Valley Disc Golf Club. He explained the advantages of the sport of disc golf and reasons why the sport is great. Scott Mesa, another representative of Brazos Valley Disc Golf Club, reported that they were the eyes and ears of what is going on with the courses. Representative Jonathan Kennedy explained that they want to present themselves and the Club to the community. Their club would love to improve the quality of the parks, and improve the amount of people that are in the parks playing disc golf. They explained that there is a lot of . opportunity to work with charities. The future goal is for a championship disc golf course to be established, which involves 18 holes. A championship course could be established on a nice 20-25 acre park, which is roughly one hole per acre. The Board suggested that the Club offer clinics or classes to children and the community. Mr. Mesa explained that they have already started an event to reach out to the community. Discussion followed. Brazos Valley Disc Go lf Club Contact Information: • Face Book • Web address: www.stopcryinqdiscqolf.com This was an informational item.only, and no action was required. 6. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on proposed Park Vendor Permit Policy: Peter Lamont, Recreation Superintendent, reported on the proposed Park Vendor Permit Policy. He explained what had been accomplished with this policy and the Task Force changes that have been made. Discussion followed. Glenn Schroeder moved to accept the 2 April 13, 2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes • scheduled as a facilities tour for the Board. The Board members were asked to come up with three park locations and/or facilities that they were most interested in seeing. Those suggestions will be reviewed, and staff will coordinate an itinerary. Discussion followed . This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 11. Discussion and oossible action concerning the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Goals for FV10: This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 12. Presentation, possible action, and discussion concerning the current Capital Improvements Program: );>. Capital Improvements and Park Land Dedication Project Lists of April 2010: Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner, reported on the current Capital Improvement projects. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. );>. Dedications of Less than Five Acres: Pete Vanecek, Senior Park Planner, reported on the Dedications of Less than Five Acres: • Emerald Ridge Estates, Phase 1 "' Park Zone 8 • Alexandria Subdivision, Phase 6 "' Park Zone 10 • Lincoln & Churchill (FP -Replat) "' Park Zone 2 This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 13. Presentation, possible action, and discussion on future agenda items: A Board Member may inquire about a subject for which notice has not been given. A statement of specific factual information or the recitation of existing policy may be given. Any deliberation shall be limited to a proposal to place the subject on an agenda for a subsequent meeting: • Next Regular Meeting"' May 11, 2010, Facilities Tour, 5:30 p.m. 14. Adjourn: Billy Hart made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Douglas Becker seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. 4 April 13, 2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes report that the Task Force submitted with the additional recommendation that a fee be associated with the permit. The six month permit shall also list the number of partici pants, and be organized in a three tier structure as follows: • 10 or less participants -$25 Permit Fee • 11 to 25 participants -$50 Permit Fee • 26+ participants -$100 Permit Fee George Jessup seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 7. Presentation, discussion, and possible action on a request to allocate Park Land Dedication Funds towards multi-use oath improvements for the Southwest Parkwav Apartments: Jane Kee, IPS Group representative, presented a proposed park land dedication to the Board. She explained that the developer, Scott Ball, wanted to dedicate the property for a trail, while also building the trail to include amenities. The dedication involves 72 dwelling units. The proposal is for the developer to use the neighborhood and community development fees to pay for the trail. It will cost $50,000 to develop the trail and $5,000 -$7,000 to design the trail. The proposed trail would be an extension of an existing trail and a continuation of the Greenways trails system. Douglas Becker made a motion to accept both the community and neighborhood development fees to be used to develop the trail with amenities, and Glenn Schroeder seconded the motion. The vote was called. All were in favor, and the motion passed unanimously. 8. Update on Quarterly Park Maintenance Standards Report: Curtis Bingham, Park Operations Superintendent, reported on the Quarterly Park Maintenance Standards Report. This was an informational item only, and no action was required. 9. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the usage and calculation of College Station Park Acreage Standards: Documents were included in the Board packet to reference the calculations with regard to the College Station Park Acreage Standards. Douglas Becker was questioning if these were the right amounts to be asking for. There was discussion that followed. There was no motion made to change the current standards, and no action was required. 10. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding the Mav Parks and Recreation Facilities Tour: The May Board meeting will be 3 April 13, 2010 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Meeting Minutes If design and construction costs exceed the cost of developing the multi-use path: 1 . The City will not participate in additional costs. 2. The applicant will be required to pay the land acquisition portion of the Parkland Dedication fee. If design and construction costs are less than the cost of developing the multi-use path: 1. The applicant will be required to pay the remaining portion of the neighborhood and community development portion of the Parkland Dedication fee. Specific requirements for design and construction of the multi-use path: The design of the multi-use path should be in accordance with local standards as well as AASHTO, ADA and MUTCD. The flexibility offered within the AASHTO guidelines should be fully used to design at the lowest practical design speed. The path must be a minimum of 10 ft wide concrete surface with three foot graded areas on both sides. It should be as far away as possible from the floodway. The path should have as little negative impact as possible to the area including minimal clearing of vegetation except for selective clearing where necessary for construction or to achieve clear zones. A vegetative buffer between the stream and path should stay intact or native vegetation should be introduced. Best management practices should be used to minimize siltation and erosion as well as provide stream bank stabilization to prevent future problems and assure minimal maintenance in the future. ~ Review and approval of design by the City of College Station will be required. This will include ~ 30,60, 90 percent reviews. Each review will require a minimum of two weeks for City staff to review. K.. ~e minimum number of exercise stations will need to be 2-3. ~· They can be placed along the trail or in one location outside of the floodplain. Examples are " provided in the vendor info below. A synthetic surface (rubberized mulch) would need to ~~ be used if the equipment chosen requires a fall zone. The Parks and Recreation Department can ~provide more info on that. The material is from T.F. Harper. i..,,.. it...... Concrete is permissible but then pieces that don't require a fall zone will need to be selected. I .v n l• The Parks and Recreation Department will need to approve pieces that you choose. ~·"'~Equipment that has minimal or no moving parts would be ideal since they will have less ~ maintenance or the likelihood of breaking. Vendors: Recreation Creations inc. www.rec-creations.com This vendor has a set of equipment called The Challenge Group http://www.rec-creations.com/catalog/big/index.html p.52-53 GameTime http://www.gametime.com/ (Total Recreation,800-392-9909) ParaCourse FitCenter At top of website click on Products; Sports Equipment; ParCourse Landscape Structures www.playlsi.com They have an online catalog Go to Independent Play Sports and Fitness The equipment is called HealthBeat Outdoor Fitness System p.184-185 Also FitCore Outdoor Fitness Equipment p. 196 Playworld systems http://www.playworldsystems.com/design/new products/energi A product called ENERGI Total Body Fitness System · TriActive Fitness http://www.triactiveamerica.com/ THE QLDHAM GOODWINGROUP 11c a-:.J<:RAGE DoVE.OPMENT MAt-;AGEME'lT Date: October 31 , 2007 Robert S. Cowell, Jr., AICP Director of Planning & Development P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 TEL. 979-764-3760 FAX. 979-764-3496 VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Property Owner: Four Ags Investments, LP Mr. Cowell, Property Location: Northwest side of Southwest Parkway, Northeast of Wellborn Road, College Station, Brazos County, Texas Capital Improvement Project: Greenways Acquisition I received from Mark Smith on August 30th, 2007 via email a Real Estate Appraisal Report (see Attachment A) prepared by Mark Edwin McAuliffe, Land Agent for the City of College Station. Subsequent to receipt of this Real Estate Appraisal, I have hired my own independent Real Estate Appraisal by Paramount Property Analysts, located at 2402 Broadmoor, Bldg D-2, Suite 117, Bryan, TX 77802. As you will find in the attached appraisal, (see Attachment B) the value that your Land Agent derived is significantly different from the value that our independent appraiser concluded. I am representing Four Ags Investments, LP as the owner of the tract in question. Four Ags Investments, LP has met with the City of College Station representatives on this tract for over three years in an attempt to reach some resolution. We have exhausted efforts and discussed several different scenarios. I would appreciate a timely response from the City regarding how to precede either with an offer for purchase via Greenway Acquisition at a price that is agreeable between both parties or allowing us to develop within the current zoned use of C-1 , Commercial. However, in regards to developing the tract we will need the City of College Station to determine how much of the property falls within the undetermined 100 year floodplain. Four Ags has already submitted a hydrology study that was at first accepted and now we are told is not 809 University Drive East, Suite 101 A College Station, TX 77840 Phone: (979)-268-2000 I Fax: (979)-846-7020 www.oldhamgoodwin.com Robert S. Cowell October 31, 2007 Page2 acceptable. Four Ags Investments, LP cannot continue to provide the City of College Station with hydrology reports at our costs. We feel strongly that the City is developing a behavioral pattern of doing everything possible to deter development on this lot. Please feel free to call with any questions, and it would be greatly appreciated if some resolution could be determined in an expeditious manner. Four Ags Investments, LP Member Enclosure(s) 2/hg cc: Via Hand Delivery Mark Smith Director of Public Works PO Box 9960 City of College Station, TX 77842 TEL. 979-764-3639 CELL. 979-777-0679 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77842 MARK McAULIFFE, LAND AGENT (979) 764-6272 CELL (979) 229-3405 mmcauliffe@cstx.gov REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL REPORT Date: Thursday, August 30, 2007 Property Owner: Four Ags Investments, LP CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Property Location: Northwest side of Southwest Parkway, Northeast of Wellborn Road College Station, Brazos County, Texas Capital Improvement Project: Greenways Acquisition Effective Date of Value: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 Client: City of College Station, Texas -Public Works Department Intended Users: City of College Station Staff Intended Use: The report is to be used to make decisions regarding the purchase of the property by the City of College Station. The property is to be used in conjunction with the referenced Capital Improvement Project. Capital Improvement Project Description: One function of the Greenways Program is to purchase land located in flood-prone areas. The land is set aside to enhance drainage and public safety and to beautify the City. Neighborhood I Market Description: The subject property is located in the west section of College Station. The neighborhood is bound to the north George Bush Drive and the Texas A&M University Campus, to the east by Texas Avenue, to the south and the west by FM 2818. Surrounding land use is high density multifamily development, restaurants, strip retail centers, manufacturing, older single family homes, parks, schools, churches and numerous tracts of vacant land. The neighborhood is mostly residential, with a large population of college students. Property values have remained steady over the past few years, and the trend is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Subject Property Description (Whole Property) • Property Type: Vacant Land • Size: Approximately 2.39 out of a 6.326 acres tract. • Location: Northwest side of Southwest Parkway, approximately 570 feet northeast of Wellborn Road. • Legal Description: Part of Lot 2R, William Brooke Hunter Estates, College Station, Brazos County, Texas • Tax ID: R302591 • Current Use of the Real Estate: Vacant Land • Use of the Real Estate Reflected In this Report: Vacant Land. • Highest & Best Use: The Highest & Best Use of the subject property is to use it in conjunction with the entire 6.36 acre tract. The Highest & Best Use is Multi-Family development, with a portion being used for greenways or drainage. Page 1 of4 • EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION I HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: As noted above, the Highest & Best Use of the subject property is to develop it in conjunction with the entire 6.36 acre tract. Separating the 2.39 acre subject property from the 6.36 acre tract will have a detrimental effect on the subject property. It would be difficult to develop the subject property by itself. Considering the appraisal assignment at hand, the appraiser has estimated the subject property as part of the 6.362 acre tract. • Street Type: Four-lane asphalt paved street with center turn lane, concrete curb and gutter drainage. • Utilities: All public services available. • Zoning: C-1 -General Commercial. This zoning would need to be changed to a multi family zone in order to develop the property to its highest and best use. • Flood Zone: According to the F.l.R.M. Map, Panel No. 48041C0182 C, Dated 07-02-1992, a portion of the property is in a Flood Zone "X" Shaded area. • Topography: A creek forms the northeast boundary of the property. Drainage is toward the creek. • EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION I HYPOTHETICAL CONDITION: There are ongoing discussions between City staff and the property owner concerning the size and location of the flood plain. The appraiser has made no determination of either, but for this report, has estimated the size of the flood plain area to be 1.5 acres, based upon the Final Plat of Lot 1 R and Lot 2R William Brooke Hunter Estates. Property Owner and Ownership History: Four Ags LP purchased 10.464 acres of land on March 25, 2004. Part of the tract (0.789 acres) was purchased from Jay P Kraak a/kla Jay Paton Kraak. The deed is recorded in Volume 5937, Page 137. The purchase price is unknown , but the terms are assumed to be cash. The adjoining tract (9.675 acres) was purchased on the same day from LJR Properties, Ltd. The deed is recorded in volume 5937, page 115. The purchase price is reported to be $1,240,000 ($2.94 I SF), and the transaction required a $1,200,000 loan from PlainsCapital Bank. The property was re-platted into two lots in October, 2006. The commercial tract along Wellborn Road (4.138 acres) has been developed with a multi-tenant retail shopping center. The subject property is part of the multi-family tract (6.326 acres}, which is undeveloped at this time. Property Interest Appraised: Fee Simple Estate, subject to existing easements and oil, gas & mineral leases. Comparable Market Data: The appraiser researched market activity in the neighborhood and found sufficient market data to develop a credible opinion of value. Following is a summary of the comparable land sales used to estimate the value of the property. Sale# 1 43.633 acre located on the south side of FM 2818, across from Luther Street. Linda Gozycki, et al sold the property to Hammond Jone Real Estate Development, LP on April 27, 2007. The reported sale price is $1,600,000, or $0.84 I SF. Approximately 50% of the tract is affected by flood zone. The zoning is R-4 -Multi Family. Overall, this tract is considered inferior when compared to the subject property. Sale# 2 14.25 acres located on Crescent Point Parkway, north of Harvey Road in College Station. Crescent Pointe, LTD sold the property to SW Crescent Pointe, LP on November 16, 2006. The reported sale price was $1,551 ,825, or $2.50 I SF. None of the property is affected by flood zone. The zoning is R-4 Multi Family and is being developed with an apartment project. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Sale# 3 14.847 acres located at the east comer of Wellborn Road and Southwest Parkway. Hills for College Station, LLC sold the property to Woodlands of Athens Cottage Rental, LLC on August 10, 2005. The reported sale price was $1,750,000 or$2.71 I SF. Approximately one acre of this tract is located in the flood zone. The zoning was C-1 Commercial and A-0 Agriculture. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Page 2 of4 Sale #4 20 acres located on Pendleton Drive, northeast of Copperfield Drive in Bryan. Bryan Development sold the property to Pendleton Apartments, Ltd on April 5, 2005. The reported sale price was $2, 134,440, or $2.45 /SF. None of the property is affected by flood zone. The zoning is PD Planned Development and is being developed with an apartment project. Overall, this tract is considered superior when compared to the subject property. Sale# 5 -Parent Tract to the Subject Property 9.675 acres that wraps the north corner of Wellborn Road and Southwest Parkway in College Station. LJR Properties, Ltd sold the property to Four Ags Investments on March 25, 2005. The reported sale price was $1,240,000 or $2.94 /SF. Approximately one and a half acres of this tract is located in the flood zone. The zoning was C-1 Commercial and part of the tract has been developed with a retail shopping center. The subject property is located on the rear part of this tract. Overall, the sale is considered superior when compared to the subject property, as the comparable has access to Wellborn Road and, although there is flood zone on site, it is a small percentage of the total land area. Market Value Comments: The comparable sales listed above represent the most recent activity of tracts with similar highest and best use to the subject property. Four of the five were superior to the subject, while one was inferior. Sales No. 2 through No. 5 have a tight value range-.from $2.45 to $2.94. They were relied upon to determine the value of the property not affected by flood plain. Sale No. 1 was very low -$0.84 /SF due to the large amount of flood plain and the location of the flood areas upon the tract. This sale was used to determine the value of the flood plain. Market Value and Just Compensation -Tabulation Property I Description Quantity Price I Unit Total Value Item of Value Land Multi-Family 0.89 acre $2.50 I SF $96 921 Land Flood Plain 1.5 acre $0.25/SF $16,335 Total $113,256 Conclusions of Market Value: In accordance with the Appraiser's Certification as well as the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions listed below, my opinion of the market value of the subject property follows: One Hundred Thirteen Two Hundred Fifty Six Dollars ($113,256) Mark Edwin McAuliffe Date Land Agent, City of College Station, Texas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, TX-1326493-G I Exp 30 Nov 2008 Real Estate Broker-Texas Real Estate Commission, 0376344 /Exp 31Aug2008 Page 3of4 Purpose of the Appraisal: To develop an opinion of market value in terms of cash or financing terms equivalent to cash. Market Value Definition: The most probable price for which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price ls not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. buyer and seller are typically motivated; both parties are well Informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; a reasonable time is allowed for exposure In the open market; payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. Source of Definition: Regulations published by federal regulatory agencies pursuant to Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989. Scope of Work: The appraiser inspected the subject property and completed sufficient market research and analysis to develop an opinion of the subject property's market value. This report was developed in accordance with the standards for a Summary Appraisal Report as described by the Appraisal Standards Board in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As this is a summary report, additional Information Is contained In my work file. Appraisal Methods and Techniques Employed: The Sales Comparison Approach of the vacant land was developed herein. The appraiser recognizes the fact that the Whole Property is improved, but the acquisition of the Part to be Acquired will neither damage nor enhance the remainder property. Exclusion of Sales Comparison Approach, Cost Approach or Income Approach: This report makes the assumption that the site is vacant land. As a result, the Sales Comparison Approach -As Improved, the Cost Approach and the Income Approach to value have not been developed. Appraiser's Certification I certify, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that • the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and llmiting conditions and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; • I have no present or prospective Interest in the property that is the subject of th is report and no personal interest with respect to the parties Involved except as described below; I have no bias with respect to the property that Is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment, except as described below; I am employed by the client, the City of College Station, but I have no bias with respect to this assignment; my engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results; my compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal; • my analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; • I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; • no one provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the person signing this certification. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions • All of the information reported was verified either through personal inspection or reliable outside sources. • The information obtained from outside sources is assumed to be correct. • The subject property Is appraised as though title is marketable. • The appraiser has no knowledge of hazardous materials located on the subject property. Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions • Please see content of the report. Mark Edwin McAuliffe Date Land Agent, City of College Station, T xas State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, TX-1326493-G I Exp 30 Nov 2008 Real Estate Broker -Texas Real Estate Commission, 0376344 /Exp 31 Aug 2008 Page 4 of 4 .· ·~ 'f:"" .:~. :: ~~ .... , .. :.·· ~·· ·.-!.; . · ... · •• ~> .... '.' • :-... _.,.··:· ,. ;) .. "·~·-,.,.. . : ,~~"(:,~ ~, ,1:o· . • ;:~-:=-<~ ..... •"/•' ;-·: . ... t· ,,~~;~~~~~~~~~5~~~1~~; \.. , ~-/· .,.:tc::ae.~ ~·~~~if(···: ,!-~' .... '. ~ ,-~ {·~:1 \ \ '\. . ' ·.ii _::.· . ...~. ,:,,,i·· ...... . lg~-..... ;7"';i.:"'"~ ... _, .. ,· . ' "·'!..'.. "~:· "·~-'-..,., .. · .~~ .. / '· ,r. if · •• -t .. '-'' r_._ ··'.,# ;<-, '· '.· "' ·'' .... .; ·•: ci:: ... ; .. ·,.; .... , "" ~· ...... · ··; A Complete Appraisal of Real Property In a Summary Report OF Appraisal of a +/-2.39 acre tract being identified as part of Lot 2R, William Brooke Hunter Estates out of a 6.326 acre tract located on the north line of Southwest parkway just east of Wellborn Road, College Station, Brazos County, Texas FOR Hunter Goodwin Four Ags Investments, LP 809 University Dr. STE 101A College Station, TX 77840 BY PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ANALYSTS A DIVISION OF PARAMOUNT ANALYSTS LLC 2402 Broadmoor, Bldg D-2, Suite 117 Bryan, Texas 77802 ASOF September 15, 2007 REPORTED ON 2 ATTN: Reference: PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ANALYSTS A DIVISION OF PARAMOUNT ANALYSTS LLC Hunter Goodwin 2402 Broadmoor, Bldg D-2, Suite 117 Bryan, Texas 77802 Phone: (979) 776-8999 Fax: (979) 776-8544 Four Ags Investments, LP 809 University Dr. STE 101A College Station, TX 77840 Fax (979) 846-7020 Ph. (979) 268-2000 October 2, 2007 Appraisal of a+/-2.39 acre tract being identified as part of Lot 2R, William Brooke Hunter Estates out of a 6.326 acre tract located on the north line of Southwest parkway just east of Wellborn Road, College Station, Brazos County, Texas Dear Mr. Goodwin: As requested, we are providing a summary appraisal of the above referenced property. As requested by our client, the purpose of this appraisal is to provide an opinion of the market value and total compensation for the proposed acquisition by the City of College Station. It is our opinion that the total compensation as of September 15, 2007 is as follows: $664,423 Market value, as used herein, is defined as, "The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus." Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: a) buyer and seller are typically motivated; b) both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he considers his own best interest; c) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; d) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and e) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. 3 Unless otherwise stated in this report, the existence of hazardous substances, including without limitation asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls petroleum leakage, and agricultural chemicals, which may or may not be present on the property, or other environmental conditions, were not called to the attention of nor did the appraiser become aware of the existence of such materials on or in the property unless otherwise stated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. The presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, and the value herein would be invalid. The value estimated is predicted on the assumption that there is no such condition on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it should cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. It should be noted that the market value estimate is based on a Reasonable Marketing and Exposure period of twelve months or less, which is based on an analysis of market transactions and on our interpretation of market participants in Brazos County. The appraisal is being prepared in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USP AP). The appraisal is not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or loan approval. Yours truly, PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ANALYSTS A DIVISION OF PARAMOUNT ANALYSTS LLC ~ Brian M. Stephen, MAI State Certification TX-1320550-G 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary of Salient Facts and Conclusions ..................................................................................... 6 Preface ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Market Value Defined .................................................................................................................... 11 Property Rights Appraised .............................................................................................................. 12 Americans with Disabilities Disclosure ......................................................................................... 13 Brief History .................................................................................................................................. 14 Bryan/College Station .................................................................................................................... 15 Neighborhood Data ..................................................................................................... : .................. 19 Site Data ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Highest and Best Use ..................................................................................................................... 26 The Appraisal Process .................................................................................................................... 29 Direct Sales Comparison Approach ............................................................................................... 30 Whole Property .............................................................................................................................. 31 Reminder after Taking ................................................................................................................... 51 Part Taken ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Correlation and Final Opinion of Value ........................................................................................ 54 Certificate ....................................................................................................................................... 55 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions .......................................................................................... 57 Addenda ......................................................................................................................................... 62 5 SUMMARY OF SALIENT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Location: Purpose of Appraisal: Effective Date of Valuation: Whole Property: Part Taken: Remainder: Improvements: Real Property Value Indication: WHOLE PROPERTY: PART TAKEN: The subject property is located on the north line of Southwest parkway just east of Wellborn Road, College Station, Brazos County, Texas Conclude appraiser's opinion of market value and total compensation for the proposed acquisition by the City of College Station as of the effective date of the appraisal. September 15, 2007 6.326 acres +/-2.39 acres 3.936 acres Vacant land with no structural improvements. $964,464 $217,364 REMAINDER BEFORE THE TAKING: $747,100 $300,041 REMAINDER AFTER THE TAKING: DAMAGES: $447,059 TOT AL (OR, JUST) COMPENSATION $664,423 Estimated Exposure Period: 6 12 months or less, which is based on an analysis of market transactions and on an interpretation of market participants in Brazos County and the surrounding area 7 ----- PHOTOS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Looking North at Subject Property Looking North at Subject Property 8 Looking West along Southwest Parkway Looking at Adjacent Shopping Center 9 .. PREFACE An appraisal is a type of research into the law of probabilities with respect to real estate valuation. Through appraiser's education, training, experience, knowledge, and integrity, he is able to project sellers' and buyers' activities into a forecast of real estate values. Because of the individuality and uniqueness of each property, comparisons of like properties often entail adjustments in arriving at a conclusion. Financial consideration for similar properties sometimes reflect sentiment, compassion, sympathy, bias, politics, specific needs, lack of understanding and other factors not considered by the impartial appraiser. The appraiser is an advocate of the property being appraised. His judgment and opinion cannot be altered by principals of the transaction, the lender, seller, purchaser, or broker. An appraisal cannot be guaranteed; cannot be proved. However, the opinion of value can be substantiated and justified and the final opinion of value is the result of professional analysis of a considerable quantity of physical and economic facts. An appraisal must not be considered absolute but should be used as a basis of negotiation between parties involved in the property, whatever their interests. With the foregoing in mind, the reader is invited to review the following report, which sets forth the data and reasoning leading to the estimate of value of the property under appraisement. This is a Summary Appraisal, which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standard 2-2(a) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal for a Summary Appraisal. As such, it presents a complete discussion of the opinion of the value; and supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is included in this report. The analyses and conclusions contained in this report are specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use as stated as follows: The appraiser is not responsible for any unauthorized use of this appraisal report. 10 EFFECTIVE DATE AND PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to provide an opinion of the market value and total compensation for the proposed acquisition based on market conditions as of September 15, 2007. MARKET VALUE DEFINITIONS Market Value is defined as the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and each acting m what he considers his own best interest; 3. 4. 5. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. Source: Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, The Appraisal Foundation. Dec. 1990. Page B-7. REAL ESTATE An identified parcel or tract of land including improvements, if any.1 FEE SIMPLE ESTATE Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate subject only to the four powers of government.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 6.326 acres ofland being Lot2R William Brooke Hunter Estates, College Station, Brazos, Texas. I The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 2nd edition, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Page 247. 2 The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 2nd edition, American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, Page 120. 11 • MARKETING PERIOD An attempt was made to locate comparable sales and listings that are similar to the subject property in order to determine the marketing time for the subject property. In confirming these sales and listings, marketing information was not available for each of the sale properties. However, a typical marketing period for property such as the subject generally extends from six to eighteen months. The listing price is a main determinant of how long it takes a property to sell. Based on the most similar sales in the subject market, it is our opinion that the subject property should have a marketing time of approximately twelve months if prudently managed and aggressively marketed at the herein-appraised value. INTENDED USER No other users are permitted outside the intended user of this report which is the addressee, Four Ags Investment, LP PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The value estimate contained herein is based on the fee simple interest of the subject property. FUNCTION OF THE REPORT The function of this appraisal report is to provide an opinion of the market value and total compensation for use in the acquisition of land by The City of College Station. SCOPE OF THE APPRAISAL 'The term "scope of the appraisal" is defined as the extent of the process of collecting, confirming, and reporting the pertinent data contained in an appraisal report. In this appraisal, an attempt was made to collect and verify all relevant general and specific data pertaining to the subject property and the subject market area. Information was obtained from real estate and economic publications, the appraiser's own files, as well as contacts with other appraisers, brokers, developers, and other knowledgeable people in the subject market area. The information obtained from these sources was verified by more than one source and is felt to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The valuation of the subject property involved the following steps: 1) an inspection of the subject property and surrounding neighborhood to observe physical conditions, amenities, and available services; 2) a detailed highest and best use analysis to determine the most profitable use for the subject property; 3) an estimate of market value of the subject property by consideration of the Cost, Income and Sales Comparison Approaches. 12 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DISCLOSURE The existence of potentially hazardous material, which may or may not be present on the property, was not observed during the inspection, nor is there any knowledge of the existence of such materials on or in the property. Various construction materials may contain items that have been or could in the future be determined to be hazardous (toxic) or undesirable, and may need to be specifically treated or removed. For example, some properties have transformers and other electrical components contain PCB's, and asbestos is sometimes used in components such as fireproofing, heating and cooling systems, air duct insulation, spray-on and tile acoustical materials, linoleum floor tiles, roofing, drywall and plaster. There may be hazardous or undesirable metals, minerals, chemicals, hydrocarbons, and biological and/or radioactive items (including electric and magnetic fields) in the soils, water, building components, above or below- ground containers or elsewhere in areas that may or may not be accessible or noticeable. Such items may leak or otherwise be released. Real estate appraisers have no expertise in the direction or correction of hazardous or undesirable items. Expert inspections are necessary and are advised. Current or future laws may require clean-up or correction by past, present, and/or future owners and/or operators. It is the responsibility of the client to retain qualified experts to detect and correct such matters and fo consult with legal counsel of their choice to determine what provisions, if any, they may wish to include in transaction documents regarding the subject property. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT DISCLOSURE The United States Congress has recently enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which among other things is intended to make many business establishments equally accessible to persons with a variety of disabilities. The requirements of ADA may or may not require modifications to the subject property, which could include the installation of or modifications to access ramps, door widths, public restrooms, etc. State and local laws also may mandate changes to the subject improvements. Real estate appraisers are not qualified to advise the client what, if any, changes may be required now, or in the future. Owners and tenants should consult the attorneys and qualified designated professionals of their choice for information regarding these matters. Real estate appraisers also cannot determine which attorneys and/or designated professionals have expertise in this area. USPAP COMPETENCY PROVISION COMPLIANCE According to the competency provision of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USP AP), "an appraiser must properly identify the problem to be addressed and have the knowledge and experience to complete the assignment competently ... " .3 This assignment involves the appraisal of a 6.326 acre tract of land. The appraisers involved in this assignment have adequate knowledge and experience in the appraisal of this type of property within this particular market area; therefore, no further steps were taken to comply with the competency provision ofUSPAP. 3 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; page B-4; The Appraisal Foundation, December 1990; Washington, D.C. 13 HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY According to the Brazos County tax records, the 6.326 acres is currently owned by Four Ags Investments L.P. They purchased a total of 9.437 acres (of which the subject is a part) on March 25, 2004 as recorded in volume 5937 page 115 for $1 ,240,000 from LJR Properties LTD. LJR Properties LTD owned the property for a period exceeding three years. 14 BRYAN/COLLEGE STATION Bryan/College Station is located in South Central Texas within a Dallas-Houston-San Antonio triangle. The two adjoining cities have grown in step with Texas A&M University, the oldest public institution of higher education in Texas. The Bryan/College Station MSA includes only one county, Brazos, which is part of the Brazos Valley region of Texas. Employment Top Ten Employers Texas A&M University Education 16,248 employees Bryan ISD Education 1,949 employees St. Joseph Regional Hospital Health Services 1,590 employees Sanderson Farms, Inc. Poultry Processing 1,539 employees College Station ISD Education 1,400 employees Reynolds & Reynolds Computers 959 employees City of Bryan Government 889 employees City of College Station Government 865 employees Brazos County Government 751 employees Wal-Mart Retail 650 employees 15 Top Ten Private Employers St. Joseph Regional Hospital Health Services 1,590 employees Sanderson Farms, Inc. Poultry processing 1,539 employees Reynolds & Reynolds Computers 959 employees Wal-Mart Windows 650 employees New Alenco Windows 611 employees HEB Grocery Retail 590 employees West Corporation Telecommunications 550 employees Scott & White Clinic Health services 500 employees College Station Medical Center Medical 420 employees Kent Moore Cabinets Cabinets 400 employees • Employment Growth by Industry Employment growth 2006 (in percent) Unemployment rate (in percent) New jobs in 2006 Bryan/College StationMSA 1.5 4.1 1,300 Texas 3.3 4.9 318,300 Employment growth in sector, 2006 (in percent change) Natural Resources, Mining, and Construction Manufacturing Trade, Transportation and Utilities Information Financial Activities Professional and Business Services Educational and Health Services Leisure and Hospitality Government 5.1 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 7.5 3.2 2.5 -0.4 2.6 6.0 2.8 3.9 1.7 Bryan/College Station's total nonfarm employment grew 1.5 percent in 2006, to a total of 90,200 jobs, according to the Texas Workforce Commission. Unemployment has remained around 4 percent for the past three years. The area has had the lowest unemployment rate in Texas for the past several years. The area is influenced significantly by education. Texas A&M, the county's largest employer, had a $672.5 million payroll in 2005, compared with $523.9 million in 2000. A study done by Texas A&M shows the institution's estimated direct economic impact on the area in 2005 was a record $1 billion, an increase of almost $67 million over 2004. The study also states that the local economic impact of the university's students was approximately $228.4 million, a $4.8 million increase. Economic Growth Residential and commercial development has continued to increase for the Bryan/College Station area. Several new hotels and motels have opened in Bryan and College Station over the past two years. College Station saw the opening of the area's first ice rink in 2005, Arctic Wolf. Various shopping centers and restaurants have opened throughout the area. A new Gander Mountain is now open off of Bypass 6 and several new shopping centers and restaurants are currently under construction. An Ashley Furniture store just opened at the beginning of 2007 off of Bypass 6. In Bryan, major developments completed in 2005 included the Kroger Signature Store and Premiere Movie Theater located at William Joel Bryan Parkway and North Earl Rudder Freeway. Other projects in 2005 included: A new surgical wing opened at The Med, which increased its capacity from 115 to 140 total beds. The project is part of a $32 million construction and renovation project. St. Joseph Regional Health Center opened four new operating room suites. The $4.4 million facility increased the hospital's surgical capacity by 25 percent. Texas Institute for Genomic Medicine could create some 30 to 40 research positions in College Station along with a new $15 million facility at Research Park. [Bryan-College Station Eagle] 16 • Population Population growth in the Bryan/College Station MSA continues to be strong. The MSA grew by more than 19,811 people since 1996. Bryan/College Station had a 2006 population of 192,152, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Bryan/College Station MSA Population Year 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Population 172,341 176,098 179,498 182,327 184,885 184,709 186,191 187,947 188,745 189,735 192,152 Bryan/College Station MSA Projected Population Texas State Texas Water Year Data Center Development Board 2010 207,256 213 ,828 2015 218,778 2020 230,437 244,466 Bryan/College Station had an estimated 2000 per capita income of $20,033, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The state average in 2000 was $27,752. The Bryan/College Station figure is low because of high concentration of college students in the MSA. The area has a large population between the ages of 18 and 30 because of the university but has a significantly smaller Hispanic population compared to the state. The area's Hispanic population is growing, following a statewide trend. 17 \ ' .. __ .. Data use subject ID license. © 2007 Delorme. Street Atlas USA® 2008. www.delorme.com .... __ .. . ' ·- r teep Hollow WellDom ARE.A. l\IAP ~ml 0 Yi 1 1Yi 2 2Yi MN(4.2" E) Data Zoom 11-0 18 • NEIGHBORHOOD DATA NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS A neighborhood is generally part of a larger city, town or community. According to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th edition, a neighborhood is defined as a grouping of complimentary land uses. It is usually considered to be an area with definite boundaries that exhibit fairly high degrees of homogeneity as to use, tenancy and certain other property characteristics. BOUNDARIES North: South: East: West: LOCATION George Bush Drive Harvey Mitchell Parkway Texas Avenue Wellborn Road Central College Station MAJOR THOROUGHFARES The primary thoroughfares throughout the subject neighborhood are Wellborn Road, George Bush Drive, Texas Avenue, and Harvey Mitchell Parkway. ACCESSIBILITY The subject neighborhood has convenient access to employment within the neighborhood and other nearby neighborhoods. Churches, retail centers, and recreation facilities are easily accessible from the neighborhood. There are several major traffic routes that allow convenient travel throughout the neighborhood. The subject neighborhood is considered to have good accessibility via the above-mentioned thoroughfares. LAND USE The neighborhood is approximately 90% built-up and is primarily comprised of residential and commercial properties. Land use patterns are anticipated to incur an increase in single-family development with commercial developments continuing to thrive. 19 • CONFORMITY The construction quality of improved properties fronting the major thoroughfares within the neighborhood are generally of good conformity. ZONING The City of College Station utilizes zoning ordinances in an attempt to ensure property conformity and balances for land use within the city. The most predominant zoning use within the subject neighborhood is the "R-1" zoning ordinance on secondary thoroughfares. CONCLUSIONS In summary, the neighborhood is positively influenced by its easy access to Wellborn Road and Texas A venue. The neighborhood is also positively influenced by convenient accessibility provided by several additional major traffic routes that extend to the immediate area and throughout the Brazos Valley. Based on surrounding property influences and recent growth trends, property values should generally remain steady in the near term. 20 • Collei e Station ~ Data use subject to license. ~ 2007 Delorme. Street Atlas US.A@ 2008. www.delorme.com ~ },~GHBoRHoL MN (4.2• E) 21 ~ml 0 % y, % 1 Data Zoom 12-4 SITE DATA-Whole Property: LAND SIZE The site consists of a 6.326 acre tract according to the survey provide this office. LOCATION North line of Southwest Parkway just east of Wellborn Road. BOUNDARIES North South East West Single-Family Residential Southwest Parkway Multi-Family Residential Multi tenant retail center aka Southwest Crossing SITE CHARACTERISTICS The site is generally level and has an adequate shape to provide it good development potential. SHAPE Irregular. TOPOGRAPHY Appears to be level. DRAINAGE The majority of the site appears to drain adequately. No evidence of problems due to ponding or standing water was evident. STREET TYPE Southwest Parkway is a two-way paved road. FRONTAGE The tract has approximately 430-FF along Southwest Parkway. TRAFFIC COUNT 10,530 cars per day along Southwest Parkway. 22 .. ACCESSIBILITY Good. UTILITIES The subject site is provided public sewer and water from the City of College Station. EASEMENTS No adverse known. CURRENT USE Vacant Land RESTRICTIONS There are no known land use restrictions imposed on the site outside of zoning requirements. ZONING C-1 , Commercial FLOODPLAIN According to the survey plat provided this office, 1.50 acre of the site (±24%) is in the 100-year flood plain. The site reportedly does not incur drainage problems though this is assumed to be the case. SOIL AND SUB-SOIL CONDITIONS A soil and subsoil survey has not been provided to this office. However, as evidenced by the surrounding and existing development on the sites, the soil content appears to be adequate for most types of construction. IMPROVEMENTS None OVERALL MARKET APPEAL The site's physical characteristics are generally similar to those of the surrounding neighborhood. The site has an adequate amount of frontage and has good visibility and access. 23 ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS No evidence of toxic or hazardous materials were viewed during the inspection. This appraisal has been prepared under the assumption that the subject property is free and clear of all toxic or hazardous waste contamination, and it is the appraiser's suggestion that the site be inspected by a qualified authority to determine whether or not the subject property is contaminated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. If the presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, the value rendered herein would be invalid. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there are no such conditions on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSIONS In summary, the site has good accessibility. It also has overall good development potential due to its size There do not appear to be any negative aspects regarding the marketability of the site. PARTIAL ACQUISITION The proposed acquisition by The City of College Station consists of ±2.39 acres located along the easterly section of the site encompassing virtually all of the subject's frontage along Southwest Parkway. This negatively impacts the market value of the remainder after the taking. REMAINDER The remainder before and after the taking will consist of 6.326 acres of land, of which 2.39 acres will be the part being taken by the City of College Station. 24 .. 4-: ;.~:.~~2~t.7 ~ . ,,. ·a '\. }.'- ~, ,_ SITE MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Subject Remainder After Taking >-...... 25 ..... '· -~ ... ·~ .. -. rv,.----·-~ .. :· .. ' .·.: ~ ~:: ,, ·.- .; HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS A property is an integral part of its neighborhood and cannot be treated as an entity separate and apart from its environment. The value of real property is not intrinsic, but flows into the property from surrounding forces and shares the future with the neighborhood in which it is located. Real Estate is valued in terms of its highest and best use. According to The Appraisal of Real Estate, 10th edition, highest and best use is defined as the reasonable, probable, and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible and that results in the highest value. The highest and best use of the site as if vacant may be different from the highest and best use of the improved property. This will be true when the improvement is not an appropriate use and yet makes a contribution to total property value in excess of the value of the land. The highest and best use of both land as though vacant and property as improved must meet four criteria. The highest and best use must be 1) physically possible; 2) legally permissible; 3) financially feasible; and 4) maximally productive. These criteria are usually considered sequentially. Explanations for each criteria are as follows: 1) Physically Possible Uses Many characteristics of the subject parcel such as size, shape, topography, frontage, depth, ingress, egress, and utility are factors which must be considered when estimating the possible physical uses of the site. Also included are the off-site improvements, such as public utilities, roadway maintenance, infrastructure, and all other physical aspects that might affect the uses to which a site can be developed. 2) Legally Permissible Uses Consideration is given to legally permissible uses such as deed restrictions, zoning districts, building codes, historic district controls, and environmental regulations, as they may preclude or enhance the potential highest and best use. 3) Financially Feasible Uses In determining which uses are physically possible and legally permissible, several uses are eliminated from consideration. Then the uses that meet the first two criteria are analyzed further to determine which are likely to produce an income, or return, equal to or greater than the amount needed to satisfy operating expenses, financial obligations, and capital amortization. All uses that are expected to produce a positive return are regarded as financially feasible. 4) Maximally Productive Uses Of the financially feasible uses, the use that produces the highest price or value is considered to be the most profitable likely utilization of a property. The opinion of such use may be based on the highest and most profitable continuous use to which the property is adapted and needed, or likely to be in demand in the reasonably near future. It should be noted that the "most profitable use" may take the form of amenities; thus, it cannot always be interpreted strictly in terms of 26 money. The use that produces the greatest return to the property is considered to be the maximally productive use. After satisfying the four criteria of being physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive, the remaining use is considered to be the highest and best use of the property. After analyzing the data gathered in the Site Analysis, the following analysis considers the highest and best use of the subject as if vacant. In this analysis, the subject land will be considered for all uses that are physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible, and maximally productive. Highest and Best Use of the Sites: 1) Physically Possible As previously explained in the report, there are no known physical problems associated with topography or easements, which would limit development of the subject site before the acquisition as a whole 6.326 acre tract. The flood plain area extends along the eastern boundary and would allow for parking for future development. Therefore, the possible uses of the whole 6.326 acre tract based on physical characteristics includes most uses. The acquisition consists of a site containing 2.39 acres. Due to the size, shape, location, frontage and flood area of the site this area 's highest and best use is for parking and driveways future development of the whole site. In our opinion, without the 2.39 acres, the development potential of the whole site is negatively impacted by virtue of it's drastically reduced street frontage on Southwest Parkway (taking will encompass virtually all of the street frontage) limited parking in meeting parking requirements set forth by the city and associated restricted size of future commercial structure(s) all of which considerably lowers the return on the property for an investor. 2) Legal Restrictions No legal restrictions are known to exist on the subject site outside of zoning. The whole site is currently zoned C-1, commercial which allows for most commercial uses. 3) Financially Feasible The surrounding properties and land uses are considered when determining feasible uses. The subject property is located on the north line of Southwest Parkway just east of Wellborn Road. Demand for commercial space has remained fairly consistent and steady within the subject market area during the past 24-month period, as supported by the land sales included herein and their intended uses as well as the adjacent Southwest Crossing Retail Center. Based on current market conditions, average visibility and access, and surrounding development trends, the potential use which would be financially feasible and provide a positive return to the land would most likely be for future commercial development. On Texas Avenue around Holleman Drive is a prominent shopping area which has experienced major development with older retail centers being razed or renovated. Examples include the Shops on Texas which contains a Blockbuster Video, Rhino Games, Philly Connection, and 27 more. Also A new Chase Bank was built at that intersection and a retail center which includes Jimmy John's Sandwiches and Men's Warehouse. Another new retail center at the comer of Park Place and Texas Avenue includes Verizon Wireless, Systek Computers, and Doc Green's Salads. The new H.E.B. grocery store in the area is the third highest producing H.E.B. in Texas. Some of the other new developments include the Colony Park Shopping Center located at the intersection of State Highway 6 and Booneville Road, an 111,600-square-foot shopping center anchored by a 74,000-square-foot Kroger Signature grocery store. The project includes four one-acre pad sites that could add up to 30,000 square feet of extra retail space. Also the Gateway development, with its "restaurant row" and new strip of upscale shops along an eastern entrance to College Station has been very successful. Along University Drive between Home Depot and Texas A venue, numerous commercial ventures are cropping up. Petsmart and Linens 'n Things opened recently next to Home Depot. A 24,000-square-foot center at 1501 University Dr. East contains a Talbot's, a Chico's, a Kirkland's, a Starbucks, and a Jos. A. Bank Clothiers. Another development includes the University Towne Center where a new hotel (Hampton Inn) currently exists along with several new restaurants and a water feature. Also wrapping the southeast comer of Briarcrest Drive and Earl Rudder Freeway, a Target anchored shopping center is currently under construction. 4) Maximally Productive After analyzing all four criteria for highest and best use, it is our opinion that the highest and best use of the subject whole site, as if vacant, is for future commercial development. Considering the subject's location off of Wellborn Road next to the Southwest Crossing Retail Center, either a coinciding use or owner occupied commercial use appears most likely. An alternative use for the site would be for multi-family (see two subject offers pgs 38 and 39). However, this would require rezoning which appears to have been difficult to change based on discussions with the owner. A commercial use represents the most feasible use considering the size, land use pattern (conformity), current zoning, and convenient access near primary traffic routes in a neighborhood which is in the transitional stage of development. The highest best use of the remainder after the taking will be greatly reduced due to an inferior commercial use as a result of virtually all of the whole site's frontage along Southwest Parkway being taken. The highest and best use or the part taken is for parking and driveways associated with the future development of the whole site. 28 THE APPRAISAL PROCESS There are three basic approaches that may be used by appraisers in the estimation of market value. These three approaches provide market data from three different sources when all are available. One is known as the Cost Approach, which involves an estimate of reproduction cost new and of accrued depreciation as of the date of the value estimate, plus an estimate of the value of the site based upon the sales of similar or comparable sites. The second approach is the Direct Sales Comparison Approach which has as its premise a comparison of the subject property with others of similar design, utility and use, that sold in the recent past. The third approach is the Income Approach which involves translating net income which, when capitalized in a manner that in commensurate with the risk and the life expectancy of the improvements, will indicate the present value of the income stream. Normally, these three approaches will each indicate a different value. The best possible judgment must be exercised to estimate what value the ownership interests being appraised are worth under the market conditions or standards specified in the appraisal problem. That is why alternative techniques for approaching a professionally acceptable and reliable valuation conclusion are used. The appraiser, in applying the tools of analysis at his disposal to the problem in question, seeks to simulate the thought process of the most probabl~ decision maker rather than a particular one with specified individual interests. The various approaches to valuation are merely simulations of these alternative courses of action potentially open to the decision-maker. The appraiser's judgments concern the applicability of alternative tools of analysis to the facts of the problem, the data and information needed to apply these tools, and the selection of the analytical approach and data most responsive to the problem in question. Thus, depending upon the type of property appraised or the purpose of the appraisal, one approach may carry more weight or may furnish a more reliable indication of value for the subject property. In other instances, because of the inadequacy or unavailability of data, one or two of the approaches may be accorded little weight in the final value estimate. The value indications developed via consideration of the Cost Approach, Sales Comparison Approach and the Income Approach follow in subsequent sections of this report. The conclusions obtained by analyzing the property by each of the approaches utilized are then correlated into a final estimate of value. For the subject, since it is vacant land, the Sales Comparison Approach was the only applicable approach in arriving at the market value. 29 DIRECT SALES COMPARISON APPROACH The Direct Sales Comparison Approach is used to estimate the land value of the subject property. The methodology includes an analysis of what buyers in the area are paying for similar properties. The value of the subject is derived from comparison with sales of comparable properties. It is necessary to evaluate factors such as date of sale, location, size, density, plottage and other factors when making the comparison. The following properties are considered the most comparable land sales available in the subject market area. These sales were relied upon in estimating the land value of the subject. 30 • MARKET VALUE FOR THE SUBJECT WHOLE PROPERTY - PRIOR TO THE TAKING 31 COMP ARABLE LAND SALE NUMBER ONE Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas 101-111 Maple February 14, 2002 Gregory Skypala Norma Mitchell 0.99 acres Boyett, Block 15, Lots 1, 2, 19, and 20 Volume 4495, Page 230 $270,000 Cash to seller $6.26/SF Multi-Family Residences None apparent NG-1 , Northgate Rectangular/Rolling topography 32 COMPARABLELANDSALENUMBERTWO Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas North line of University Drive just west of Spring Loop July 10, 2003 Rossco Holdings Incorporated James H. Woods 4.45 acres University Park #2, Block V, Lot 3-B (pt ot) Volume 5433, Page 025 $1 ,077,172 Cash to Seller $5.56/SF None apparent C-1 , Commercial Irregular shape/Gently rolling topography 33 COMPARABLELANDSALENUMBERTHREE Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: ·Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas North line of University Drive just west of Spring Loop July 10, 2003 Jam es H. Woods College Station Lodging 2.00 acres University Park #2, Block V, Lot 3E Volume 5433, Page 030 $720,000 Cash to seller $8.26/SF None apparent C-1 , Commercial Slightly irregular shape/rolling topography 34 COMPARABLELANDSALENUMBERFOUR Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas South line of University Drive just west of Spring Loop October 21 , 2003 LTHV #1 L.P., A Texas Limited Partnership Kyle Legends I, L.P., A Texas Limited Partnership 2.4 acres Lot 1 R, Block 1, Wheeler Subdivision Phase Two Volume 5682, Page 291 $790,000 Cash to seller $7.56/SF Small part in 100-year flood plain C-1 , Commercial Irregular/Rolling topography 35 COMPARABLE LAND SALE NUMBER FIVE Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas West line of State Highway 6 South just south of Sara Drive February 2, 2004 Davis & Thelma McGill Family Trust Kendall & Brendan Gillum 2.19 acres or 95 ,604 SF Southwood Valley PHS 4B, Block 18, Lots 5, 6, & 7 Volume 5870, Page 018 $575,000 Cash to seller $6.01/SF Office Building None apparent C, Commercial Rectangular/Flat topography 36 COMPARABLE LAND SALE NUMBER SIX Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas South line of Spring Loop just north of University Drive April 16,2005 Rossco Holdings, Inc. Alton Ofczarrak and or assigns 4.698 acres Block U, Lots 4-9, University Park #2 $550,000 Cash to seller $2.69/SF Vacant Land -future office development None apparent A-P, Administrative professional Rectangular/Rolling topography 37 COMPARABLELANDSALENUMBERSEVEN Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas Northeast corner of Rock Prairie Rd and State Highway 6 September 7, 2005 Cedar Creek Condos Ltd. The Plazas at Rock Prairie Rd Ltd. 77, 101 square feet Plazas at Rock Prairie, Block 1, Lot 1 Volume 6929, Page 245 $627,602 Cash to seller $8.14/SF Retail Center under construction None apparent C-1 , Commercial Irregular/Gently sloping topography 38 • COMPARABLE LAND SALE NUMBER EIGHT Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas Southwest comer of State Highway 6 and Southwest Parkway September 27, 2005 Texas Hotel Management Corp Brenham National Bank 162,043 square feet Liberty, Block 1, Lot 2A Volume 694 7, Page 057 $1,500,000 Cash to seller $9.25/SF Brenham National Bank None apparent C-1, Commercial Rectangular/Gently sloping topography 39 • COMP ARABLE LAND SALE NUMBER NINE Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Utilities: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas Southeast line of Harvey Mitchell Parkway just east of Texas A venue South 211512006 Dan E. Williams. Pickens Financial Group LLC 6.94 acres or 302,306 Lakeview Acres, Lot 7 A Volume 7156, Page 226 $1 ,025,000 Cash to seller $3.39/SF Vacant Land None apparent C, Commercial All public utilities at site Rectangular/Rolling topography 40 COMPARABLELANDSALENUMBERTEN Map Reference: College Station, Brazos County, Texas Location: East line of State Highway 6 just south of University Drive *Date of Sale: 7 /31/06, Firm Agreement 7 /05 Gran tor: Anthony Y. Majors Grantee: Ashley BTS JV II LP Size: 110,512 square feet Legal Description: High Ridge, Block 1, Lot 2A Recording Data: Volume 7489, Page 154 Sales Price: $575,000 Financing: Cash to seller Unit Price: $5.20/SF Current Use: Ashley Furniture Store Flood Plain: The site is not located in the 100 year flood plain Zoning: C-1 , Commercial Shape/Topography: Rectangular/Gently sloping topography *According to information provided this office in July 2005 there was a firm agreement to purchase this property at a price of $5.20/SF. The buyer requested an extension before the close of the transaction which increased the sales price to $5.40/SF. The property finally closed on July 31 , 2006. For purposes of this appraisal we have utilized the agreed upon sales price ($5.20/SF) and original date of the agreement (July 2005). 41 ., COMPARABLELANDSALENUMBERELEVEN Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas North line of Harvey Road just east of State Highway 6 August 10, 2006 Frank Thurmond Trustee Kelvin Corporation Inc. 2.06 acres or 89,734 square feet Harvey Road East, Block 1, Lot 2 Volume 7514, Page 078 $340,000 Cash to seller $3.84/SF Vacant Land None apparent C-1, Commercial Rectangular/Rolling topography 42 COMPARABLELANDSALENUMBERTWELVE Map Reference: Location: Date of Sale: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Recording Data: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Proposed Use: Flood Plain: *Adjusted Unit Price for Flood Plain Area: Zoning: Shape/Topography: College Station, Brazos County, Texas East line of Texas Avenue South just north of Harvey Mitchell Parkway. August 2, 2007 LJR Properties Ltd. Galleria 8 Development L.P. 10.526 acres or 458,513 square feet M. Rector, A004601, Tract 46 and Lakeview Acres, Lot IC Volume 8160, Page 285 $1,500,000 Cash to seller $3.27 per square foot Vacant Land Multi Tenant Retail Center According to the realtor 3.70 acres out of the 10.526 acre site Was out of the 100 year flood plain (flood area= 65%) $1.25 SF C-1, Commercial Rectangular/Gently sloping topography *Through discussions with the realtor approximately 3.70 acres of this property is located outside the 100 year flood plain. This 3.70 acres was given an allocated value of $7.00 per square foot. 43 COMP ARABLE LAND SALE NUMBER THIRTEEN Offer on Subject Whole Tract prior to replat Location: Date of Offer: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: Comments: North line of Southwest Parkway just east of Wellborn Road, College Station, Brazos County, Texas July 17, 2006 Four Ags Investments, L.P .. Brazos Gateway Place, Ltd. 6.85.8 acres (prior to subject replat) Lot 2, William Brook Hunter Estates $896,196 Cash to seller $3.00/SF Vacant Land -future commercial development ±22% or ±1.50 Acre C-1 , Commercial Irregular/Generally level The proposed purchaser (David Scarmardo) intended on purchasing this tract for multi-family development which would require the subject to be rezoned. The contract did not close due reportedly to re-zoning issues. 44 COMP ARABLE LAND SALE NUMBER FOURTEEN Offer on Subject Whole Tract prior to replat Location: Date of Offer: Gran tor: Grantee: Size: Legal Description: Sales Price: Financing: Unit Price: Current Use: Flood Plain: Zoning: Shape/Topography: Comments: North line of Southwest Parkway just east of Wellborn Road, College Station, Brazos County, Texas November 2006 Four Ags Investments, L.P .. Scott Ball and or Assigns 6.858 acres (prior to subject replat) Lot 2, William Brook Hunter Estates $896,500 Cash to seller $3.00/SF Vacant Land -future commercial development ±22% or ±1.50 Acre C-1, Commercial Irregular/Generally level The proposed purchaser (Scott Ball) intended on purchasing this tract for multi-family development which would require the subject to be rezoned. The contract did not close due reportedly to re-zorung issues. 45 • ~~fr @f t,C:. ~-~ / ,.._ ' <II .:!:: mm , / /' 46 SITE ANALYSIS -WHOLE 6.326 ACRE SITE Date o(Sale After discussions with realtors and other market participants the comparables were adjusted up for date of sale to account for the change in the market since 2002. Through discussions with realtors and other market participants for the date of sale adjustments we have concluded 6% per year or 0.5% per month. We have adjusted the other comparables accordingly. Market Condition A market condition adjustment is utilized when there is evidence that the buyer and/or seller involved in a transaction are non-typically motivated. All of the Comparable Sales utilized are transactions that occurred under normal circumstances and transferred under typical market conditions. Size The subject size is generally similar in size compared to Comparable Nine. The remaining market data was adjusted employing the doubling technique to reflect the economics of scale. Said theory concludes that in general larger tracts of land sell for lower unit prices (price per square foot or acre), and smaller parcels ofland sell for higher unit prices. Location The subject's inferior location on Southwest Parkway warranted a downward adjustment to the superiorly located comparables. Comparable numbers nine and eleven were judged similar in this aspect. Zoning (Highest and Best Use) The subject whole tract is zoned C-1, Commercial which allows for most commercial uses. Two independent offers were made on the subject in 2006 by multifamily developers, however, neither closed reportedly due to complications with re-zoning. While the subject lacks direct exposure and visibility to Wellborn Road (FM 2154), it is still conducive to a commercial related development giving its proximity to the Southwest Crossing Retail Center and excellent neighborhood characteristics. In instances wherein re-zoning is an issue, the current zoning legally supersedes all other tests performed to reach the highest and best use estimate. Given the subject's existing C-1 commercial zoning and above discussion, the most comparable land sale data is that which coincides or is closely related to C-1, commercial zoning. All of the previous comparable market data were judged similar in this aspect. Flood Plain The subject has some flood area (±24%) situated along its eastern boundary. Most of the comparables were unaffected and received downward adjustments of 10%. Comparable four was judged similar while twelve had 65% of its site located in the 100 year flood plain and received an upward adjustment. Subject Offers Comparable market data thirteen and fourteen involve cash offers on the subject site for $3.00 per square foot, respectively. These were made by multi-family developers. Neither closed due, in part, to re-zoning issues. However, these provide additional support into the relating recent demand for the subject site. 47 Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Price/SF $6.26 $5.56 $8.26 $7.56 $6.01 $2.69 $8.14 Time/Date 2/14/02 7/10/03 7/10/03 10/21/03 02/02/04 4/16/05 09107105 of Sale +33.50% +25% +25% +23.50% +21.50% +14.50% +12% Condition Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Financing Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Size 0.99 acres 4.45 acres 2.00 acres 2.40 acres 2.19 acres 4.698 acres 1.77 acres (6.326 acres) (-30%) (-10%) (-15%) (-15%) (-15%) (-10%) (-10%) Location Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Inferior Superior (-45%) (-45%) (-45%) (-45%) (-45%) (+20%) (-45%) Developmental Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Potential (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Flood Zone: None None None Yes None None None (-10%) (-10%) (-10%) (-0%) (-0%) (-10%) (-10%) Adjusted Price/AC $3.04 $3.34 $4.54 $4.80 $3.10 $3.08 $3.42 48 Price/SF Time/Date of Sale Condition Financing Size (6.326 acres) Location Developmental Potential Flood Zone: Adjusted Price/AC *Adjusted Range: *Overall Median: *Overall Mean: Comparable Eight $9.25 09/27/05 +12% Market Typical 3.72 acres (-10%) Superior (-45%) Similar (0%) None (-10%) $4.35 $3.04 to $4.80 $3.41/SF $3.60/SF Comparable Nine $3.39 02/15/06 +10% Market Typical 6.94 acres (0%) Similar (0%) Similar (0%) None (-10%) $3.39 Median -Comps 6-12 (2005 or newer sales dates): $3.42 Mean -Comps 6-12 (2005 or newer sales data): $3.48 *Excluding comps 13 and 14 -subject offers Comparable Comparable Comparable Ten Eleven Twelve $5.20 $3.84 $3.27 7/05 08/10/06 08/02/07 +13% +6.50% 0% Market Market Market Typical Typical Typical 2.54 acres 2.06 acres 10.526 acres (-15%) (-15%) (+10%) Superior Similar Superior (-20%) (0%) (-45%) Similar Similar Similar (0%) (0%) (0%) None None Yes (-65%) (-10%) (-10%) (+40%) $3.54 $3.13 $3.43 A comparison of the subject site to the comparable land sales results in the following conclusion of value: 6.326 Acre Whole Tract $3.50 per SF X 275,561SF = $964,464 Total value of subject whole property: $964,464 49 Comparable Comparable Thirteen Fourteen $3.00 $3.00 07/17/06 11/06 +7% +5% Subject offer subject offer Market Market Typical Typical 6.858 acres 6.858 acres (0%) (0%) Similar Similar (0%) (0%) Similar Similar (0%) (0%) None None (0%) (-10%) $3.21 $3.15 MARKET VALUE FOR THE SUBJECT REMAINDER - AFTER THE TAKING 50 SITE ANALYSIS -REMAINDER AFTER THE TAKING The subject will be reduced to 3.936 acres after the taking and judged to be similar in most categories to the whole tract with exception of development potential. The subject will be adversely impacted by the taking since virtually all of its Southwest Parkway frontage will be lost. Developmental Potential Discussion in addition, the subject remainder after the taking will for all practical purposes have no frontage left on Southwest Parkway. According to the owner, the only access the subject will have is through an easement across the proposed part taken. It goes without saying that a property with major road frontage will sell for a higher price psf than a tract that virtually has no street frontage whatsoever. Comparing limited access frontage tracts to those with adequate access frontage shows a range of 40-65% discount from properties with good frontage on a major thoroughfare to virtually no frontage on a major thoroughfare, all other characteristics held equal. As a result, the highest and best use of the remainder after taken is greatly reduced to a lower commercial development requiring little to no exposure and limited accessibility (ie.mini storage facility). Sales data retained in our files ranging from $0.70 per square foot to $1.80 per square foot for properties with little to no frontage, and limited visibility, exposure and/or accessibility. We have adjusted the comparable data of which all had good frontage on major thoroughfare in the middle of the range or 50%. Local developers, real estate investors, and realtors indicated that a tract of 6.326 acres (subject site) compared to a smaller sized parcel of 3.936 acres (after taking) is easier to develop due to the larger land areas needed for parking, driveways, retention ponds, and common areas. The above market participants indicated they would pay less per square foot in the development potential category for the reduced subject remainder. Size and flood plain adjustments were applied where necessary. The following chart sets forth these adjustments for the subject remainder tract after the part taken. 51 Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Price/SF $6.26 $5.56 $8.26 $7.56 $6.01 $2.69 $8.14 Time/Date 2/14/02 7/10/03 7/10/03 10/21/03 212104 4/16/05 917105 of Sale +33.50% +25% +25% +23.50% +21.50% +14.50% +12% Condition Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Financing Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Size 0.99 acres 4.45 acres 2.00 acres 2.40 acres 2.19 acres 4.698 acres 1.77 acres (3 .936 acres) (-20%) (0%) (-10%) (-10%) (-10%) (-5%) (-10%) Location Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Inferior Superior (-45%) (-45%) (-45%) (-45%) (-45%) (+20%) (-45%) Developmental Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Potential (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) Flood Zone: None None None Yes None None None (0%) (0%) (0%) (+10%) (0%) (0%) (0%) Adjusted Price/AC $1.66 $1.67 $1.65 $1.40 $0.99 $2.14 $0.57 52 • -...... ~~ ....... ~.._......_....._... ___________ -- Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve Thirteen Fourteen Price/SF $9.25 $3.39 $5.20 $3.84 $3.27 $3.00 $3.00 Time/Date 9/27/05 2/15/06 7/05 8/10/06 8/2/07 7/17/06 11/06 of Sale +12% +10% +13% +6.50% (0%) +7% +5% Subject offer Subject offer Condition Market Market Market Market Market Market Market Financing Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical Size 3.72acres 6.94 acres 2.50 acres 2.06 acres 10.526 acres 6.858acres 6.858 acres (3.936 acres) (0%) (+10%) (-10%) (-10%) (+15%) (+10%) (+10%) Location Superior Similar Superior Similar Superior Similar Similar (-45%) (0%) (-20%) (0%) (-45%) (0%) (0%) Developmental Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Superior Potential (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) (-50%) Flood Zone: None None None None Yes (-65%) Yes Yes (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (+50%) (+10%) (+10%) Adjusted Price/AC $1.57 $2.37 $1.72 $1.79 $2.29 $2.31 $2.25 *Adjusted Range $0.57 SF/2.37SF *Overall Median $1.66 *Overall Mean $1.61 Median -comps 6-12 (2005 or newer sales dates): $1.79 Mean -comps 6-12 (2005 or newer sales dates) $1.78 *Excluding comps 13 & 14 -subject offers A comparison of the subject site to the comparable land sales results in the following conclusions of value: 3.936 Acre Remainder After Taking $1.75 per SF x 171,452 SF = $300,041 Total Value of subject remainder property after the taken: $300,041 53 INDICATED VALUE OF THE PART TAKEN The part taken is considered to be an integral part of the whole property. The City of College Station has proposed a partial taking out of the subject whole property. The partial taking consists of a ±2.39 acre site located along the eastern boundary of the whole tract with ±1.50 acres in the flood plain. The part taken has been evaluated on the basis of the amount of land area lying outside of the flood plain or 0.89 acres combined with the rather larger percentage of approximately 63% of the site lying with the 100% flood zone. As seen earlier, comparable market data number twelve consisted of a total of 10.526 acres which sold in the August of this year (2007) with a similar flood plain ratio of 65% (vs 63% subject part taken). Only 3.70 acres of this tract lied outside of the flood plain wherein the remaining flood land had an allocation of $1.25 per square according to the realtor who handled this transaction. Typical flood plain land sells for $1.00 -$1.50 per square foot. We have based our estimate on the above supported land sale along with discussions with other market participants in the area. The "high and dry'' section of the part taken of 0.89 acre is valued on the same basis as the whole site. The following concludes our estimated value of the part taken: 0.89 Acres or 38,768 SF (non flood plain) at $3.50 per SF 1.50 Acres or 65,340 SF (flood plain) at $1.25 per SF Part Taken: $135,689 $81,675 $217,364 CORRELATION AND FINAL OPINION OF MARKET VALUE All three approaches were considered in valuing the subject property. The subject property is vacant land therefore the only applicable approach was the Sales Comparison Approach. Based on the Sales Comparison Approach, the appraiser's opinion of market value as of September 15, 2007 is as follows: WHOLE PROPERTY: PART TAKEN: REMAINDER BEFORE THE TAKING: REMAINDER AFTER THE TAKING: DAMAGES TOT AL (OR, JUST) COMPENSATION 54 $964,464 $747,100 $300,041 $217,364 $447,059 $664,423 CERTIFICATE AND FINAL VALUE ESTIMATE We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in the report are true and correct. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject ofthis report, and we have no personal interest or bias with respect to parties involved. Our compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. The appraisal assignment is not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or the approval of a loan. Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. As of the date of this report, Brian M. Stephen, MAI has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Brian M. Stephen, MAI is currently certified under the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Brian M. Stephen made an inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. Timothy T. Mayfield provided significant professional assistance other than the person signing this report. 55 The following concludes the requested value for the subject property: Total (or, just) Compensation: $664,423 PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ANALYSTS A DIVISION OF PARAMOUNT ANALYSTS LLC {ff;Stephen, MAI State Certified TX 1320550-G 56 Effective Date September 15, 2007 ., ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS This appraisal is subject to the following assumptions limited conditions: This appraisal report has been prepared for the exclusive benefit of Four Ags Investments, L.P. It may not be used or relied upon by any other party. Any party who uses or relies upon any information in this report, without the prepairer's written consent, does so at his own risk. The legal description furnished me is assumed to be correct. We assume no responsibility for matters legal in character, nor do we render any opinion as to the title, which is assumed to be good. Any existing liens, easements, deed restrictions, clouds, encumbrances, and other conditions have been disregarded and the property appraised as though free and clear under responsible ownership and competent management. Insurance against financial loss resulting in claims that may arise out of defects in the subject property's title should be sought from a qualified title company that issues or insures title to real property. We have made no survey and assume no responsibility in connection with such matters. We believe to be reliable the information identified in this report as being furnished by others, but we assume no responsibility for its accuracy. Unless otherwise specifically noted in the body of this report, it is assumed: that the existing improvements on the property or properties being appraised are structurally sound, seismically safe and code conforming; that all building systems (mechanical/electrical, HV AC, elevator, plumbing, etc.) are in good working order with no major deferred maintenance or repair required; that the roof and exterior are in good condition and free from intrusion by the elements; that the property or properties have been engineered in such a manner that the improvements, as currently constituted, conform to all applicable local, state, and federal building codes and ordinances. The construction and condition of the improvements mentioned in the body of this report is based on observation, and no engineering study has been made which would discover any latent defects. No certification as to any of the physical aspects could be given unless a proper engineering study was made. Unless otherwise specifically noted in the body of the report: no problems were brought to the attention of Paramount Analysts, LLC. by ownership or management; and we inspected less than 100% of the entire interior and exterior portions of the improvements. If questions in these areas are critical to the decision process of the reader, the advice of competent engineering consultants should be obtained and relied upon. If engineering consultants retained should report negative factors of a material nature, or if such are later discovered, relative to the condition of improvements, such information could have a substantial negative impact on the conclusions reported in the appraisal. Accordingly, if negative findings are reported by engineering consultants, Paramount Analysts, LLC. reserves the right to amend the appraisal conclusions reported herein. The distribution of the total valuation between land and improvements in this report applies only under the existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal, and are invalid if so used. It is assumed there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil or structures that would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or the engineering which may be required to discover such factors. Since no engineering or percolation tests were made, no liability is assumed for soil conditions. Because such knowledge goes beyond the scope of 57 ' this appraisal, any observed condition comments given in this appraisal report should not be taken as a guarantee. No guarantee is made as to the adequacy of the foundation, roof, exterior walls, interior walls, floors, heating system, air conditioning, plumbing, electrical service, insulation, or any other construction matters. If any interested party is concerned about the existence, conation, or adequacy of any particular item, we would strongly suggest that a construction expert be hired for a detailed investigation. Information (including projection of income and expenses) provided by others is assumed to be true, correct, and reliable. No responsibility for the accuracy of such information is assumed by the appraiser. The comparable sales data relied upon in the appraisal are believed to be from reliable sources. The value conclusions are subject to the accuracy of said data. Engineering analyses of the subject property were neither provided for use nor made as part of this appraisal contract. Any representation as to the suitability of the property for uses suggested in this analysis is based on an investigation by the appraiser and the value conclusions are subject to said limitations. All values shown in the appraisal report are based on our analysis as of the date of the appraisal. These values are not valid in other time periods or as conditions change. Further, that the dollar amount of any value opinion herein rendered is based upon the purchasing power of the American Dollar on that date. Since the values are based on estimates and assumptions which are inherently subject to uncertainty and variation depending on evolving events, we do not represent them as results that will be achieved. Unless otherwise noted in the body of the report, it is assumed that there are no mineral deposits or subsurface rights of value involved in this appraisal, whether they are gas, liquid, or solid. Nor are the rights associated with extraction or exploration of such elements considered unless otherwise stated in the appraisal report. Unless otherwise stated it is also assumed that there are no air or development rights of value that may be transferred. Paramount Analysts, LLC. is not aware of any contemplated public initiatives, government development controls, or rent controls that would significantly affect the value of the subject. The estimate of Market Value, which may be defined within the body of this report, is subject to change with market fluctuations over time. Market Value is highly related to exposure, time promotion effort, terms, motivation, and conclusions surrounding the offering. The value estimate(s) consider the productivity and relative attractiveness of the property, both physically and economically, on the open market. Any cash flows included in the analysis are forecast of estimated future operating characteristics are predicated on the information and assumptions contained within the report. Any projections of income, expenses and economic conditions utilized in this report are not predictions of the future. Rather, they are estimates of current market expectations of future income and expenses. The achievement of the financial projections will be affected by fluctuating economic conditions and is dependent upon other future occurrences that cannot be assured. Actual results may vary from the projections considered herein. We do not warrant these forecasts will occur. Projections may be affected by circumstances beyond the current realm of knowledge or control of Paramount Analysts, LLC. 58 ., Unless specifically set forth in the body of the report, nothing contained herein shall be construed to represent any direct or indirect recommendation of Paramount Analysts, LLC. to buy, sell, or hold the properties at the value stated. Such decisions involve substantial investment strategy questions and must be specifically addressed in consultation form. Also, unless otherwise noted in the body of this report, it is assumed that no changes in the present zoning ordinances or regulations governing use, density, or shape are being considered. The property is appraised assuming that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents, or other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state, nor national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the value estimates contained in this report is based, unless otherwise stated. Acceptance and use of information in this report in any manner or purpose is acknowledgment that the entire report has been read by the user and that he agrees with the conclusion and the data contained in this report. The client agrees to notify the appraiser of any error, omissions or invalid data within 15 days of receipt of the appraisal and return the report along with all copies to the appraiser for correction prior to any use whatsoever. Information contained in the appraisal may be utilized by the specified client, but the report remains the property of Paramount Analysts, LLC. The company or appraiser(s) liability will not exceed the fee actually collected by the appraiser and possession of the report carries no right of publication or distribution without written approval from Paramount Analysts, LLC. No evidence of toxic or hazardous materials were viewed during the inspection. We were not provided the documentation of this removal; and therefore, as a special limiting condition this appraisal has been prepared under the assumption that the subject property is free and clear of all toxic or hazardous waste · contamination, and it is the appraiser's suggestion that the site be inspected by a qualified authority to determine whether or not the subject property is contaminated. The appraiser, however, is not qualified to test such substances or conditions. The presence of such substances, such as asbestos, urea formaldehyde foam insulation, contaminated ground water, or other hazardous substances or environmental conditions, may affect the value of the property, and the value rendered herein would be invalid. The value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there are no such conditions on or in the property or in such proximity thereto that it would cause a loss in value. No responsibility is assumed for any such conditions, nor for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The client is urged to retain an expert in this field, if desired. All furnishings, equipment and business operations, except as specifically stated and typically considered as part of real property, have been disregarded with only real property being considered in the report unless otherwise stated. Any existing or proposed improvements, on or off-site, as well as any alterations or repairs considered, are assumed to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices based upon the information submitted to Paramount Analysts, LLC. This report may be subject to amendment upon re-inspection of the subject property subsequent to repairs, modifications, alterations and completed new construction. Any estimate of Market Value is as of the date indicated; based upon the information, conditions, and projected levels of operation. We are not required to give testimony or attendance in court by reason of this appraisal with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been made therefore. 59 - Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not carry with it the right of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by anyone other than the addressee without the previous written consent of the appraiser. This report shall not be used to induce a third party to purchase the property or to make a "sale" or "offer for sale" of any "security", as such terms are defined and used in the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Client shall indemnify and hold Appraiser harmless from any claims, expenses, judgments or other items or costs arising as a result of the client's failure or the failure of any of the Client's agents to provide a complete copy of the appraisal report to any third party. In the event of any litigation between the parties, the prevailing party to such litigation shall be entitled to recover from the other reasonable attorney fees and costs. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this reports shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the written consent and approval of the author, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI designation. Any value estimate provided in the report applies to the entire property, and any pro ration or division of the title into fractional interests will invalidate the value estimate, unless such pro ration or division of interests has been set forth in the report. The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the existing program of utilization. Component values for land and/or buildings are not intended to be used in conjunction with any other property or appraisal and are invalid if so used. The maps, plats, sketches, graphs, photographs and exhibits included in this report are for illustration purposes only and are to be utilized only to assist in visualizing matters discussed within this report. Except as specifically stated, data relative to size or area of the subject and comparable properties has been obtained from sources deemed accurate and reliable. None of the exhibits are to be removed, reproduced, or used apart from this report. Paramount Analysts, LLC. assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need, for flood hazard insurance. An agent for the Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance. Acceptance and/or use of this report constitutes full acceptance of the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions and special assumptions set forth in this report. It is the responsibility of the Client, or client's designees, to read in full, comprehend and thus become aware of the aforementioned contingencies and limiting conditions. Neither the Appraiser nor Paramount Analysts, LLC. assumes responsibility for any situation arising out of the Client's failure to become familiar with and understand the same. The Client is advised to retain experts in areas that fall outside the scope of the real estate appraisal/consulting profession if so desired. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS No extraordinary assumptions were made in this appraisal assignment. 60 HYPOTHETICAL CONDITIONS No hypothetical conditions were made in this appraisal assignment. 61 - ADDENDA 62 - - PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ANALYSTS A DIVISION OF PARAMOUNT ANALYSTS LLC Paramount Property Analysts a division of Paramount Analysts LLC offices in Bryan, Texas and was founded in 1992 to provide professional appraisal and real estate counseling services. Brian M. Stephen is the sole owner of the firm. Since 1984, Mr. Stephen has been engaged in evaluating various types of real estate, including single family residential, farm and ranches, vacant land, commercial, industrial, and special purpose properties, in various cities within the State of Texas. Clients included banks, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, government agencies, asset management companies, developers, and individuals. The staff of Paramount Property Analysts a division of Paramount Analysts LLC has developed the expertise to analyze all types of real property through intensive education provided by the Appraisal Institute. These services include appraisals, investment counseling, feasibility and market studies for such purposes as: mortgage loan, estate planning, investment analysis, and condemnation purposes. The firm of Paramount Property Analysts a division of Paramount Analysts LLC is dedicated to the highest standards of professionalism and subscribes to the Code of Ethics and Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. The company, through its principals and staff, will continue to provide the highest quality, reliable service for which it is recognized and meet the challenges of the ever-changing field of real estate in the endeavor. PRINCIPALS OF PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ANALYSTS A DIVISION OF PARAMOUNT ANALYSTS LLC BRIAN M. STEPHEN, MAI is President of Paramount Property Analysts a division of Paramount Analysts LLC and has been a practicing real estate appraiser and consultant since 1984. He holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree from Sam Houston State University. His qualifications include MAI designation of the Appraisal Institute and a licensed real estate broker in the State of Texas. Real estate and appraisal education includes real estate land and real estate finance at Sam Houston State University, Real Estate Principles, Basic Valuation Procedures, Standards of Professional Practice, Capitalization Theory and Techniques Parts A and B, Narrative Report writing, and Case Study courses with the Appraisal Institute. Mr. Stephen's background in real estate appraising includes commercial, industrial, residential, condemnation, special-use properties, feasibility studies, and real estate consultation. The Appraisal Institute conducts a program of continuing education for its designated members. MAis and SRP As who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic education certification. Mr. Stephen is currently certified under this program. Mr. Stephen is currently a State certified General Real Estate Appraiser, Certificate No. TX-1320550-G for Texas. TIM MAYFIELD, located in Bryan, Texas, is a licensed Real Estate appraiser. He received a Bachelor's Degree in Mechanical Engineering in 2001 and a Master's Degree in Land Economics & Real Estate in 2005, both from Texas A&M University. He specializes in commercial appraisal including retail, office, multi-family, subdivision developments, industrial, and farm and ranch. 63 SUMMARY RESIDENCY EXPERIENCE EDUCATION - BRIAN M. STEPHEN, MAI Experienced Real Estate Appraiser with a background in appraisal reviews, production, supervision and consulting. Bryan, Texas 28 years; Houston, Texas 8 years; Huntsville, Texas 2 years Paramount Management Company, Inc Owner Bryan, TX 1992 to present National Realty Consultants Houston, TX Senior Real Estate Appraiser -Reviewer -Consultant 1984 to 1992 • Direct and manage real estate appraisal services and consultations for clients involving commercial, industrial, mixed-use, agricultural, special-use and undeveloped properties throughout the United States. • Directly responsible for executing appraisals for office, retail, industrial, hotel and multi-family properties for large portfolios of insurance companies, pension funds and large banks with values up to $300 million. • Develop and plan project requirements for property appraisals; develop new clientele for providing services. • Perform initial client interviews and site analyses; define project scope. • Supervise and train new appraisers and support staff (8 employees) with annual billings exceeding $1.0 million. • Execute appraisals based on market value in fee simple, leased fee or leasehold interest; conduct feasibility studies and associated financial/economic analyses. • Prepare and submit reports to clients with interpretive review. • Perform appraisal reviews (daily) of clients' outside appraisal reports as well as in-house appraisals to assure accuracy and completeness. Computer Software • ARGUS, Symphony, LOTUS 1-2-3 and WordPerfect. • MCS Forms Warehouse, Windows, Lighthouse, Voyager. Internist {1983) Sam Houston State University B.B.A. -Finance The Appraisal Institute MAI Designation Real Estate and Appraisal Courses Huntsville, TX 1984 Real Estate Principles, Basic Valuation Procedures, Standards of Professional Practice, Capitalization Theory and Techniques Parts A and B, Narrative Report Writing Case Studies Texas Real Estate Commission Texas Real Estate Brokers License 64 State Certified Real Estate Appraiser Texas: Certificate #TX-1320550-G SPECIALIZATION Mr. Stephen specializes in the appraisal of real estate for the following property types: Type of Property Comments Special Purpose Appraised Texas World Speedway, Ice Skating Rinks, Airport ground lease evaluation/consultation; Appraised 60 plus bank buildings including First City, former Southwest Savings branches, multi-tenant bank owned building; other special purpose properties including 1.0 million square foot cotton warehouse, 300K square foot candle making plant, timeshare units, auto dealerships, vacant hospital, resort facility, bowling alleys, mobile home parks, and daycare facility. Farm and Ranch/Agricultural Large income producing ranches up to 30,000 acres all over Texas. Hotel/Motel Ranging from Mom and Pop operated motel to chain operated motel to high rise hotel. Multi-Family Garden type apartment projects ranging from 20 units to 600+ units with estimated values ranging from $300,000 to $10 million plus. Retail Ranging from small strip centers to large community centers of200,000 square feet and up; estimated values ranging from $500,000 to $15 million plus. Restaurants Have appraised numerous fast food and sit down restaurants including Pizza Huts, Dairy Queens, Whataburgers, Shoney's Office Single tenant of 20,000 square feet and less ranging to multi-tenant high rise downtown; values ranging from $350,000 to $30 million plus. Warehouse Single tenant metallic structure to multi-tenant service distribution of 150,000 square feet plus; values ranging from $300,000 to $5 million plus. Single Family Residential Ranging from $30,000 to $30,000,000 in value. 65 - ... Timothy T Mayfield Permanent: (979) 776-8324 -4504 Kensington, Bryan, Texas 77802 -ttm7907@verizon.net EDUCATION Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Masters of Land Economics and Real Estate Graduation: May 2005 Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Graduation: May 2001 , GPA:3.20 SIGNIFICANT COURSEWORK Real Estate Development Income Property Analysis Market Analysis for Development Analysis of Real Estate Investments SKILLS Real Estate Appraisal Commercial Real Estate Law Real Estate Development Analysis Managing Construction Operations Real Estate Investment Land Economics Real Property Valuation Real Property Finance Argus, Microsoft Word, Windows Operating System, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Power Point, !BI-Focus programming language, Patran Command Language WORK EXPERIENCE Paramount Property Analysts. College Station, Texas 7/03-Present State Licensed Real Estate Appraiser: Assist in the appraisal of various types of commercial real estate, including industrial properties, office buildings, apartments, restaurants, and raw land. Value fee simple and leasehold interests for the purposes of financing, disposition and acquisition. Responsibilities involve all aspects of the appraisal process including market research and demographic analysis, comparable verification and data collection, subject property inspection, financial analysis and report writing. El Paso Energy Corp, Houston, Texas 5/01-7/03 Asset Management Analyst: Took the lead role in the development and implementation of the new gas trading system. It is an intranet based system that tracks trades made throughout the day. Performed open season operations which include preparing and posting the initial offering of pipeline capacity, evaluating all bids according to net present value, and preparing and posting the winning bids. Gathered any data needed by the traders and generated reports using the !BI-Focus programming language. Universal Computer Systems, College Station, Texas 10/00-5/01 Quality Control: Checked that computers were operating properly before being sent out to the customer. Evaluated the manufacturing process of products to ensure quality and efficiency. Tested computer software to make sure there were no system errors and the program ran as designed for the customer. Raytheon Systems Company, Waco, Texas 9/99-12/99 Co-op. Methods & Finite Element Analysis: Evaluated fuselage skin panel buckling of the 747SP finite element model within the MSC/P ATRAN database employing Patran Command Language. Evaluated the 747SP external loads to check for balances of finite element load conditions. Helped to develop balanced internal pressure condition for model. 66 - PARAMOUNT PROPERTY ANALYSTS PARTIAL CLIENT LIST Bank of America Bank of Houston Bank One Branscomb, P.C. Brazos Valley Bank Citicorp Trust Bank Commerce National Bank Compass Bank Cornerstone Community Bank First American Bank First Bank of Snook First International Bank First National Bank of Bryan Gateway National Bank General American Corporation South General American Resources General Electric Capital Asset Mgmt. Hansen Quality Loan Services Hettig & Company John R. Clark and Associates Metropolitan Mortgage & Securities National Western Life Insurance Co. Orange Savings Bank, SSB Pace Realty Advisors, LLC Payne, Watson, Miller, Malechek & Scherr PC 67 .. PARAMOUNT PROPE:\~TY ANALYSTS PARTIAL CLIENT LIST (continued) R. T. Minor Management Realand Corporation Regions Bank Robert Todd & Co. Skibell Properties LLC State Bank Success Investments Texas A&M Systems Real Estate Office Texas National Bank of Jacksonville The Blanco National Bank The Express Bank The Glenmede Trust Company, N. A. The ReaLand Corporation The Staubach Company Victoria Trust 68 Copper Creek Condos Multi Use Path, Retaining Wall and Sidewalk Engineers Preliminary Quantity an Cost Estimate 6/3/2013 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST 1 MULTI USE PATH LAYOUT, CLEAR & GRUB, EXCAVATION L.S. 1 $4,500.00 2 MUL Tl USE PATH 10-FOOT WIDE X 4" THK REINFORCED SF. 8188 $5.00 -----;: r.Dl\rn=n C:l-lnl II m :i;ic; rn~ml FTF IN DI ArF 3 WORK-OUT STATION 10'X10' COMPLETE IN PLACE L.S 1 $2,500.00 4 RE-VEGETATION: CURLEX BLANKETS, HYDROMULCH TO L.S. 1 $1 ,500.00 ui::: Al Tl-lV r.Dn1 11\ln rnvi:::o SUB TOTAL = ,......,...'"T'"J\lf\111\1/""' ... I I: -~r ~ v ·--tt I -.p ...,..., . ..)U ..., r :j>'IW.UU ,__ '" 11'4\J "\LL ~ -· . I IL 8 RETAINING WALL #3 L.F. 102 $100.00 SUB TOTAL = - 9 l$11'.5EWALK LAYQUT, CLEAR & GRUB, EXCAVATION L.S __k.. $500.00 -~1n ii:: 11. or~~~ ,.Y r ro~r'".1 A1 v Al,.....,,... cn1 ITq\MFC:T DLIDVIAl[\V /c;F (/q-z.-z,~ d-cnn ' --'/ -·-· 11 RE-VEGATION: CURLEX BLANKET, HYDROMULCH TO Fc;TARI ,,..., •r • ~· r'Y'll INn rnl/FD v -------- .............__ ~S~ .., ~.fr . <00 \ 1s-1--(p.::. ~70 l ~s1ft, 'I. 8 THE SEAL APPEARNG ON THIS DOCUMENT WAS AUTHORIZED BY MICHAEL G. HESTER, P.E. ON JUNE 3, 2013 RELEASED FOR RECORD ?5~0-fbn-, P-t:, HESTER ENGINEERING COMPANY #f-3476 ' A ....... LS 1 $500.00 SUB TOTAL = MUL Tl USE PATH= RETAINING WALL= SIDEWALK ALONG SOUTHWEST PARKWAY= TOT AL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = -~~--Q~/E1.- -<..';. *. "J"f ~-. J' *." ·.* *· ·* EXTENSION $4,500.00 $40,940.00 $2,500.00 $1,500.00 $49,440.00 l>LU,::>UU.W .p I 1,---·-- $10,200.00 $41,900.00 $500.00 fd:.11 rrc ::-0. 'I '-• / $500.00 $5,665.00 $49,440.00 $41,900.00 $5,665.00 $97,005.00 I 100 ?,\ ~--\'\ June 20, 2013 '1/rU CJTY OF Cou..EcE ST T ro H11111e ofTtxaJ A&M Uniwrsity• 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM TO : Alton Ofczarzak; via: monical@oakchb.com FROM: Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner SUBJECT: Copper Creek Condos (SP) Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review: City of College Station Transmittal Letter One(1) complete set of site civil construction documents for the proposed development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached One (1) revised site plan One (1) landscaping 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 there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised site plan, please attach a letter explaining the details. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Michael Hester, P.E.; via: mhester@hester-engr.com Angel Cacho-Negrete; via: kdhomebuilders@verizon.net Case file no. 13-00900084 6-27-13 for meeting at 3:30 with CoCS staff and Applicant Pl11m1i11g & Drorlopmrrrl Srrvicrs P.O_ BOX 9%0. 1101 TEXA AVENUE . COLLEGE -rATION • ·n~XAS • 778 l TE'L 'J?'.l-76'1 .3570 • F1\X. 'Jn.76 _ _;49<1 cstK.gov/devservices lton, extra parking spaces for additional units PLANNING STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Copper Creek Condos (SP) -13-00900084 1. Page 3 of the revised application must be signed by Mr. Ofczarzak. o Please bring this to the meeting this week and Alton can sign it. 2. I understand that Mr. Ofczarzak would like to phase this development for sale; however, in order to do this each phase must be able to stand alone to meet ordinance requirements, including emergency vehicle turn-around. The phasing plan still does not meet this requirement. In order to obtain site plan approval the phased plan must include provisions for emergency vehicle access and turn-around for each phase. Verbally stating the fire access will be determined during construction is not sufficient. o Alton will clarify his request in the meeting & I will change my drawings accordingly. 3. In addition, the phase lines must be revised to end before the multi-use path public access easement. The current phase lines give the impression that the multi-use path will be constructed in different segments. You previously provided a note on the site plan stating the phasing of the multi-path construction, which is clear and sufficient documentation. o The note was added due to a staff comment by Venesa Garza. I believe Alton's plan is to build the entire multi use path project at one time. Alton will clarify this in the meeting. 4. Single-family protection requires Building D to be located no closer to the property line than a doubled horizontal distance of the height of the structure. Based on the location of Building D, it cannot be taller than 10 feet. Previously we had discussed that the building roof line would slope and a cross section of the building was provided that verified the height was 10 feet. The site plan now labels Building D as 24 feet 4 inches and a retaining wall has been added which increases the height. Please verify that the "24'4"" measurement is to the tallest point located farthest away from the building and that the same cross section previously discussed is still being utilized. The site plan cannot be approved if the building does not meet single-family protection standards. In addition, add the detailed cross section on the site plan and a note stating "This site must meet Section 7.2.H.2 Single-Family Protection" so that the contractor is also aware of the height requirement. o Alton will discuss this in our meeting. 5. Patios may not be located in the buffer area. In order to reduce electrical conflicts and keep the patios for residents, reduce the buffer back down to 10 feet and relocate the canopy trees as close to the property line as possible. o Reducing the buffer is not a problem but moving the trees into the 10-foot wide drainage swale area may restrict storm water flow. Is there a reason we cannot put the trees in the back yard next to the patio? lton may have a solution to this. 6. In response to email questions sent June 6, 2013 below is the parkland dedication breakdown based on 53 units: a. Total Parkland Dedication Fees: $86,708.00 b. Parkland Dedication Fees (Development Fee Portion) that may credited towards the construction of the multi-use path: $58,936.00 c. Once the revised cost estimate is completed for the multi-use path you will be able to determine if you have any out-of-pocket costs that remain to construct the path. Any path costs beyond $58,936.00 will have to be paid by Mr. Ofczarzak. o We will need to discuss this in the meeting. lton would like to discuss the construction cost of the retaining walls also o I am discussing the Southwest Parkway pedestrian crossing with Joe Blaschke. I asked if he would seal the drawing. I told him of the flooding issues at the crossing. 7. For the landscaping plan you may remove trees in the undeveloped floodplain that were placed in order to meet buffer requirements. Since no development is occurring there no buffer will be required. Just make sure that you are meeting the buffer requirements along the Building D until you reach the wrought iron fence and then you may stop, similar to how you did the hedge row. Also, make sure you still have the necessary 12 trees to meet the additional landscaping requirement for Phase 4. o Please see plan. 8. Please note that 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 the City has not been made aware of will constitute a completely new review. Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers Date: June 20, 2013 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3 Site Plan 1. (Repeat) Please add the date of the study to the first note. Please add when you receive the updated study from KHA. o Please see Site Plan, I drew a blank space on the Site Plan note to write the date in as soon as I have it. 2. (Repeat) FYI. .. Retaining walls over 24-inches in height will require separate building permits. Yes, the contractor will need to apply for this building permit. Please add a note to the site plan referencing this. o Please see Site Plan, note added . 3. (Repeat) Please adjust the PUE such that the Retaining Walls #1 & #2 are outside of the PUE. Please make the PUE containing part of Retaining Wall #2 narrower so that it only contains the waterline (5.5-ft from edge of PUE to centerline of pipe) and not private storm. Also, it looks like the wall could be clipped back a bit in that area to remove it from the easement completely and just replace it with steeper grading. Our preference is that the wall along the back of Building D be removed from the PUE. o Yes, retaining wall 1 & 2 can be removed with a 15-foot wide easement. o I will reduce the easement to get it away from the storm sewer & clip the wall to remove it from the easement. Is this really necessary? Is there a reason that nothing else can go in the easement? o The wall placement along the back of Building D is for storm water flow. The entire area behind the building is an easement. It was final platted with a 10-foot public utility easement and Weldon Davis in CoCS Electrical Division has requested that it be 20-feet wide. There is no where else to place it. We can discuss t his with Alton in the meeting. 4. (Repeat) Additional comments regarding the utility plans are pending, but initial comments based on the site plan are as follows: d. Meter boxes should be located outside of paved areas and as far away from buildings as possible. Meters should also be located at the edge of the PUE. Please adjust them such that proposed trees are not on top of meters or waterlines. o All of the meters are out of pavement & are in PUE's? o I will add a note on the Landscape Plan not to put trees on or near the meters or water servic lines. Space is limited in the parking areas? f. All private storm sewer needs to be relocated outside of PUEs (with the exception of the discharge pipes within the creek). Please reduce the 40-ft PUE in front of Building A to remove the storm sewer. Also, we prefer that the grate inlet at the rear of Building E be removed from the PUE. o Please see plans, there will be some strange looking easement! o Easements will be available before the CO, we need to discuss this in our meeting. Construction Documents 1. (Repeat) Please provide an NOi. Yes, the contractor will be responsible for maintaining the site erosion control. He will need to bring a copy of the NOi when he comes to pick up the Development Permit. o Yes 2. (Repeat) G1 -The concrete flumes need to be removed from the PUEs. FYl ... Typical earthen swales in easements are okay. The detail only shows a 10-ft PUE rather than a 20-ft PUE. o The flumes were removed from the pues and replaced with earthen swales? o 20-foot pue note added to plans, please see plans. 3. (Repeat) G1 -Show and label proposed contours throughout the creek area. There were cut areas identified in the recent KHA study that seem to be missing from the grading plan. FYl. .. I will compare the plans when the revised report is submitted. o The contours should be exactly as shown on the KHA study. There is some minor tweaking due to additional topographical information that was obtained. o The targets ots "K-H FG 293.50" are an overlay from the KHA study. All of the contours are uite close? 4. (Repeat) G1/MUP -Show and label the 100-yr floodplain and floodway per the recent KHA study. FYl...I will compare the plans when the revised report is submitted. o The floodway was basically traced/digitized from the KHA study to the site plan S1 and the floodplain changed very little. There is no way to get any more accurate and comply with the KHA study? 5. (Repeat) MUP -Please revise the top of Wall #3 so that the trail is not lower than the wall. Based on the KHA study, it does not seem like lowering the wall to match the proposed downstream side of the trail would be impactful. Please lower wall to match cross-sectional detail provided on the MUP sheet. o This wil l not com ly with the KHA study but please see plans. 6. (Repeat) MUP -The Access Easement should be reduced along the majority of the trail to 15-ft. Retaining Walls #1 and #2 should be removed from all easements. From the property line bordering the Southland St. lots to a point 80-ft into this tract, The entire portion of property within the floodplain between the beginning of the MUP turnaround to the property line (-80-ft) should remain Access Easement. Since Walls #1 and #2 are private, please remove them from the public infrastructure cost estimate. o Please see plans, access easement reduced to 15-feet. Retaining wall 1 & 2 have been removed from pue. o Please see revised engineers estimate. 7. (Repeat) STM1 -Label the separation distance at the storm/utility pipe crossings. Please provide a minimum 1-ft clearance between storm and water. o Please see plans. 8. (Repeat) W1/W2 -A minimum 2-ft vertical clearance is required between water and sanitary sewer pipes. Also, note on the plans TCEQ requirements such at centering a joint of waterline over the sewer at each crossing location. At approximate Sta.11 +50, please provide a minimum 2-ft cover. Also, please add the referenced TCEQ notes at water/wastewater crossings on all water sheets. o Please see plans. 9. W3 -The stationing in plan & profile do not match. o Please see plans. 10. (Repeat) EC -Is silt fence in the middle of the creek because of grading? I am concerned that the silt fence will affect drainage in this area. Could another medium provide adequate erosion control? FYl ... Adjustments may be needed during construction if the silt fence becomes an issue. o The silt fence in the middle of the creek is there to contain sediment on site. This is my erosion control plan. The Contractor can use mine or if he has a better method he can use his. The Contractor is solely responsible for obtaining the permit, installing, maintaining and removing the sediment/erosion control system. o Is there a preferred location for the sediment control system? If you see any hing tha will work better please let me know, I will be haR v to put it on the plans. 11. (Repeat) EC -Please provide inlet protection at existing and proposed inlets. Please label proposed inlet protection. o The CoCS standard storm water pollution prevention details were included in the construction drawings. What exactly is required? A note @ each inlet? Please clarif . 12. (Repeat) Water Report -The fire flow needs to be calculated per the 2012 IFC based on material, size, and construction material type. Please revise. We do not believe that proposed waterline sizes will change, but the report needs to reflect the minimum fire flow requirements for on a Type VA, unsprinkled, 12,000 s.f. building per the 2012 IFC. The model needs to show that the system is adequately sized to support the fire flow plus the peak domestic demands. 13. (Repeat) Drainage Report -Provide hydrographs for the KHA timing analysis. FYI .. .I will review when the revised report is submitted. o he h drograQhs were included in the re-submittal? 14. (Repeat) Drainage Report -Please revise the flood study to reflect the proposed floodplain improvements. FYl ... I will review when the revised report is submitted. o This latest site information has been sent to Chris Harris with KHA and if Chris makes any revisions to the original study I will forward them to you. For the most part I followed his study as best I could. However, there was a difference from the original study at the north property line, I inserted the Freeze & Nichols mitigation plan. 15. Please submit easement applications as soon as possible. o Yes 16. S1 -Please add a note indicating that all private structures, swales, and landscaping in PUEs will be removed if infrastructure maintenance is needed. Replacement will be at the owner's expense. o Please see plan. 17. S1 -Per Water Services, the proposed storm drain, which will lead to washing all the grease, liquids, etc. down the storm sewer in the dumpster enclosure area, is not acceptable. If there is a hose bib (with a required RPZ backflow device) there needs to be a drain to the sanitary sewer, and an enclosure that includes a roof would be needed to prevent excess storm water from entering the sanitary sewer system. If there is oil containing equipment in the enclosure there needs to be a sand-oil separator. o Please clarify 18. S1 -It appears that the floodplain note has been removed and needs to be added back on the site plan. o Please see plan. 19. FYI. .. Since buildings are directly adjacent to PU Es, extra caution will need to be taken to assure that these structures do not encroach in the easements. o Yes, this will be controlled by the Owner L.Contractor agreement. 20. FYI ... Additional Development Permit Fee in the amount of 1 % of the total public infrastructure cost will be required. Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: June 19, 2013 GREENWAYS 1. Please add a note to the site plan that states: Exercise equipment and surface type will need to be approved before purchase and installation. Please confirm that the pad size for the exercise equipment will be large enough for the equipment chosen. o Alton will include this in the architectural Rlans, I am not familiar with this and do not want it in my plans. I have provided a site location for the work -out station & out of the floodplain. 2. In regards to the multi-use path cost estimate. Please remove Item #10. A 6 foot sidewalk is required with the development and is not a part of the cost of the multi-use path. To adjust for the additional 2 feet requested by the City to create an 8 foot sidewalk along a portion of Southwest Parkway, the sidewalk along Southwest Parkway can be shorten (by subtracting the square footage the additional 2 feet) from the northern end of the sidewalk (closest to the creek) which if calculated correctly would remove about 24 feet in length or 190 square feet from the northern end. So to state it differently, keep the 8 foot sidewalk but to compensate for the additional 190 square feet end the sidewalk where it totals the square footage of a 6 foot sidewalk. o This will be discussed in the meeting this afternoon @ 3:30 Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: June 20, 2013 .. Venessa Garza From: Sent: To: Subject: Venessa Garza Friday, June 21 , 2013 2:37 PM Teresa Rogers; Erika Bridges RE: COPPER CREEK CONDOS -PROJECT CLARIFICATION MEETING My calendar is up-to-date. But can't we answer some of these questions by phone or email. Here are some responses to tweak for some of the items. It's actually retaining wall #1 and #2 that will need to be removed from the estimate because they are adjacent to and necessary for the development. For the street crossing, we have decided to keep that project separate and will not need your services after all but will pay any expenses incurred to this point. I don't understand his parkland ded ication question? Venessa From: Teresa Rogers Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 2:11 PM To: Erika Bridges; Venessa Garza Subject: FW: COPPER CREEK CONDOS -PROJECT CLARIFICATION MEETING Let me know your availability © Teresa Rogers Staff Planner Planning & Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 From: Michael G. Hester, P.E. [mailto:mhester@hester-engr.com] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 12:46 PM To: Teresa Rogers Subject: COPPER CREEK CONDOS -PROJECT CLARIFICATION MEETING Teresa, We need to meet & disc uss the items below. Can you please set something up as soon as possible. 1 -Freeze and Nichols Study requires clearing, grubbing, excavation, stabilization, re-vegetation, and tree replacement by a arborist -Retaining Walls: 2&3 -Multi Use path: Who will seal the drawings for the mup street crossing. How will parkland dedication funds be allocated to each item? -Participation Agreement -Parkland form Thanks, Michael G. Hester, P.E. Hester Engineering Company #f-3476 7607 Eastmark Drive, Suite 253-B College Station, Texas 77840 979-693-1100 mhester@hester-engr.com 2 Co12 (!;tL ~t­ E(A~~ V'· d..-th f')(.~ e 1f~~ -AdcL n~· -a.pp1~1 h h~_s. ---------l~c-"'-'-~~::t;. \ \_:_pl.tc..s~5 _ ~ ~ -p"---fk t(, he.. h-\.~~~ce ~ ~. ------"'-------------------- ----------------- ~-------H------------------ May 11, 2013 """!'A..", CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Home of Texas A&M University• MEMORANDUM TO: Alton Ofczarzak; via : monical@oakchb.com FROM: Teresa Rogers , Staff Planner SUBJECT: Copper Creek Condos (SP) Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review and final approval: Seven (7) complete sets of site civil construction documents for the proposed development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached; One (1) 24x36 grading and erosion control plan; Two (2) revised site plans; One (1) landscaping/phasing 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 there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised site plan, please attach a letter explaining the details. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Teresa Rogers at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff Review Comments pc: Michael Hester, P.E .; via: mhester@hester-engr.com Angel Cacho-Negrete; via: kdhomebuilders@verizon .net P&DS Project No . 13-00900084 Planning & De11eloprnent Ser11ices P.O. BOX 9960 • 1 lO l ·rEXAS AVENUE · COLLEGE STArlON • TEXA.'l • 77842 TEL 979.764.3570 ·FAX. 979.764.34% cstx.gov/devservices STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: Copper Creek Condos (SP) 13-00900084 PLANNING 1. Note #13, which was added for emergency access, must be a minimum 48 foot radius to meet fire standards. Please revise this note. Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers Date: July 30 , 2013 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3 2. The Development Permit Fee balance of $952.42 is due before or at the time the contractor comes to pick up the Development Permit and plans . Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: July 30, 2013 GREENWAYS 1. The exercise area must be located in a public access easement, since it will be used by the public. 2. Building permits will not be issued for the development until the exercise equipment type and vendor is approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. Since this information has not been provided on the site plan , it should be submitted as soon as possible by the architect or owner to avoid construction delays. Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: July 30, 2013 I Copper Creek Condos Multi Use Path, Retain ing Wall an d Sidewalk Engin eers Preliminary Qu antity and Cost Estimate 7/15/2013 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENSION 1 MUL Tl USE PATH LAYOUT, CLEAR & GRUB, EXCAVATION L.S. 1 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 2 MUL Tl USE PATH 10-FOOT WIDE X 4" THK REINFORCED S.F. ~ ~ $40,970.00 ------:o;_ r Dl\m:n c:~nl II nFDC: rn~ADI FTF IJ\1 DI ArF ,, 3 -IWORK-OUT STATION 10'X10' COMPLETE IN PLACE / LS. { 1 I ( $2,500.0cy $2,500.00 ~ RE-VEGETATION: CURL EX BL:l\NICH-S;-Fl¥9R9MtJl-cfi TO L.S. ~ r~o $1,500.00 l.Ut:i\.I T~V r.Dnl INn rn11i::o SUB TOTAL= $49.470.00 5 RETAINING WALL #3 L.F. 102 $100.00 $10,200.00 SUB TOTAL= $1 0,200.00 ~ f/ SIDEWM_K LAYOUT, CLEAR & GRUB, EXCAVATION L.S. 1 $500.00 $500.00 (7 6 & 8 FOd\ WIDE SIDEWALK ALONG SOUTHWEST PARKWAY S.F. 776 $5.00 $3,880.00 I ~ \ RE-VEGATION: CURLEX BLANKET, HYDROMULCH TO F<;T ARI IC:~ ~FAI TV l.k'nt INn rn\/Fk' / THE SEAL APPEARNG ON THIS DOCUMENT WAS AUTHORIZED BY MICHAEL G. HESTER, P.E. ON July 15, 2013 RELE.A.SED FOR RECORD ~~,9o. ti-"') P~, HESTER ENGINEERING COMPANY #f-3476 L.S. 1 $500.00 $500.00 SUB TOTAL= $4,880.00 MULTI USE PATH= $49.470.00 RETAINING WALL= $10,200.00 SIDEWALK ALONG SOUTHWEST PARKWAY= ($4,880.00) r---'°""=:::::_=:::::::=""""i 5 ~ I (t f (), TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST= $64,550.00 Fred, I received your voicemail as well. Is this related to a application that has been submitted? If not, can you forward a drawing or sketch that lays out this issue? Thanks, Alan Alan Gibbs, P.E., CFM City Engineer City of College Station From: Al Lehtonen [mailto:lehtonenltd@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:11 AM To: Fred Paine Cc: Alan Gibbs Subject: Re: Tower Point Phase llB, Lot 9 -Meeting Request Let me know as to when. My schedule is pretty flexible this week. Al On 6/10/2013 10:03 AM, Fre d Paine wrote: Al , Erika is out this week so I've left voicemail with Alan Gibbs requesting a meeting with him and a representative from Public Works to re-evaluate the possibility of utilizing a 4' block wall within the PUE . Best Regards, Fred Fred Paine, P.E., CFM KLING ENGINEERING & SURVEYING A Division of Civil Engineering Consultants 4101 S. Texas Avenue, Suite A Bryan, Texas 77802 Telephone 979/846-6212 KJ ing Engineering & Uf" yiog t•,A•,t1JUtd . t.1 .. hO'&tlU.liN Ufliii" h-G1h lljj r-Hu ·~.-.. ~n too.110 \a N 4 1.j f loj I I • l rl '· ( l fl D '* • l 1, C ~ I l r. I ~ f 'l This e-mail and any attachments may co ntain confidenti al and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immed iately by return e-mail, delete this e-mai l and destroy any copies. Any di sseminati on or use of this information by a person other th an the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be ill egal. 2 Michael G. Hester, P .E. To: Venessa Garza, CoCS Development Services Dept. Subject: COPPER CREEK CONDOS -VENESA GARZA REVIEW COMMENTS ') '"'~ ~~cU..£rt. 2-'sho1..1..L~. f6J . 0\ From: Venessa Garza [mailto:vgarza@cstx .aov] 1.. )~s Sec\\~ -$~ \\-~~ ~ Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:36 AM CoCS $~1"11t. CL lS To: Michael G. Hester, P.E.; 'Alton Ofczarzak, Oakwood Custom Homes' Cc: Teresa Rogers; Erika Bridges; Alan Gibbs 3) (~~ \ •-..l r "',,~.I •••• : . Subject: Response to Trail comments J ~"'4 '11' ·~ """"""'~ ~ . Good morning, Below are responses to discussion from our last meeting. Please let us know if you have any questions. 1.Please place phasing on the site plan. ./ p~ (}A~f«'+' • Please see phase plan. putting the phasing on the site plan would be to busy. 2. In regards to the trail and phasing, we had requested the trail be completed with Phase I or Phase II and Alton had expressed concern with this. After discussing internally, you will be required to begin construction of the trail with Phase II, if not sooner, and completion will be required with Phase Ill. • I added a note to the site plan. luoll--t.t.+ wo~5 · 3. The omon a s ope a minimum .5% as indicated in the Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities by AASHTO -4 th e .. • This is not necessary nor required, storm water will rain across from the mup at 2-percent. The 0.5% is required when water is running down the mup. With this layout it is running across the mup and down to the creek . Also the elevations and grades comply with the Kimley-Horn report. 4. We are open o the poss1 1 o an ame r e evaluated in regards to flooding impacts and will need to be privately owned and ma \ntained. • This is a continuing discussion with the applicant, Alton Ofczarzak. -y.J\\ \ b-e ~ lt\...,\.ea... ( 5. For the exercise equipment, below is additional information. As a reminder, two exercise stations will be required and the equipment and surface type will need to be approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. The size of the pad will be dependent upon what equipment is chosen. The equipment cannot be plastic and if wood is chosen it will need to be treated. A synthetic surface (rubberized mulch) or granite gravel would need to be used if the equipment chosen requires a fall zone. Concrete is permissible if the pieces chosen don't require a fall zone. Equipment that has minimal or no mo · · · · maintenance or the likelihood of breaking. • This will be provided by the Applicants archite . _ ,·~ ~ p~ °"°~ \ P«LP/-~~\..,' Here is a list of possible vendors although others may be used: The Campus Village development used Columbia Cascade Timberform http://fitness.columbia-cascade.com/?PageData=baseproducts&catclear=l Others include: GameTime (Total Recreation,800-392-9909) http://www.gametime.com/outdoor-fitness-eguipment/ Landscape Structures www.playlsi.com http://www.playlsi.com/Explore-Products/Product-Lines/Park-Fitness-Equ ipment/HealthBeat/Pages/HealthBeat- Fitness.aspx Playworld systems http://plavworldsystems.com/product listing?cat°/oSB%5D=772&sect°/oSB%SD=749 TriActive Fitn ess http:Uwww.triactiveamerica.com/industries/trails.php Venessa Garza Greenways Program Manager Planning & Development Services City of College Station P.O.Box 9960 11101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77845 Phone: (979) 764-3674 I Fax : (979) 764-3496 Website: cstx.gov /bikepedgreen ways City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University® 2 On· oF COLLEGE STAT1or-: Home ofTl'Xl11 A&M Unio=t'fJ,. MEMORANDUM May 11, 2013 RESUBMITTED TO CITY 6-3-13 TO: Alton Ofczarzak; via: monical@oakchb.com FROM : Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner SUBJECT: Copper Creek Condos (SP) Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review: City of College Station Transmittal Letter; Memo providing written responses to all of staff's comments (identify the specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not addressing the comment); $ 85,072.00 Parkland Dedication fees, based on 52 units, prior to issuance of a building permit; Two (2) complete sets of site civil construction documents for the proposed development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached; Four (4) revised site plans; One (1) landscaping plan ; Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents (please note that the Site Plan will not be stamped approved until the Blanket Easement, or all other appropriate easements, have been dedicated to the City of College Station). 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 conta ined herein. If there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised site plan, please attach a letter explaining the details. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Teresa Rogers at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff Review Comments pc: Michael Hester, P.E.; via: mhester@hester-engr.com Angel Cacho-Negrete; via: kdhomebuilders@verizon .net P&DS Project No. 13-00900084 P/11n11ing & D~lopmtnl St!rPiU5 P.O. BOX 'N6U • I IOI T l.XAS ;\\'E='L:F • '01.LFG[ ~TATION • ·n _XA.) • ~76-1.! TFT. 'I''' <>·i • .i~~o ·~AX. '>"l.~(,4. 14% cstK.gov/devservices PLANNING STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: Copper Creek Condos (SP) 13-00900084 1. On page 2 of the application please revise the number of required parking spaces to 192 spaces based on the 52 units provided. In addition, the clubhouse is considered an accessory use to the condos and does not have to have its own required parking. • Please see application. 40x4=160 13x2x1.25=32.5 = 193 2. On page 2 of the application please revise the current zoning to POD not PDDC. • Please see application. 3. On page 3 of the application please remove 2.34 from the "# of acres in greenways" since no greenway dedication is being requested or proposed. • Please see application. 4. Please verify the reasoning for phasing and note there may be additional comments regarding the phasing once an answer has been provided. • In our meetings we have discussed this and I hope you are satisified with Alton's explanation. Basically he plans to build the entire site at once but he want's the flexibility of selling units in each building once they are completed. In our meeting Tuesday, May 21"' we discussed the necessity of the fire department having the ability to access the site and sufficient turning radius. I think this will need to be considered during the construction phase. When/if Alton requests a CO for building A we could meet with the fire marshal for his input, he may require a temporary turn-around for example. 5. Add a note to the site plan stating the POD zoning ordinance number is 2013-3482. • Please see site plan, notes. 6. Add to the existing landscape note on the site plan and landscape plan so that they read "In the event structures and parking area placed in the existing floodplain, any removal of vegetation will require restoration with a native species . All plant restoration in floodplain shall be completed by a certified arborist or landscape architect" • Please see site plan, notes. 7. Please be aware that according to the UDO Section 7.1 .H Height, the structure shown 20 feet from the property line adjacent to single family or townhouses can only build to a height of 10 feet. I discussed this with Alton and his response was "We can make a retainer wall then a valley as shown in diagram•. Please clarify this with Alton. 8. Add the building heights to the site plan . • Please see site plan, each building 9. Please label the fence types and heights that will be used throughout the property. For example, I know an 8-foot wood fence is proposed at the northern property line and I am assuming that some type of wrought iron fence will be used along the trail. • Please see site plan along each area. 1 o. I am concerned about the location of the plantings for the buffer yard over the utility easement. In order to accommodate all of the plantings an additional 5 foot buffer area beyond the 1 O foot PUE may be necessary. I will have to follow up with you on this comment because additional research is needed. • An additional 5-foot buffer width was added to the site plan. Weldon Davis, COC:S electrical division needed a 20-foot easement in this area, the concrete flume was removed after our meeting Tuesday, May 21. 11. It appears there are 52 units based on the site plan provided. It looks like 2 -2 bedroom units may have been replaced by an ADA accessible 4 bedroom unit. Please revise the site plan and page 3 of the application to match. The total Parkland Dedication amount may also be adjusted to reflect the one unit reduction. • The handicap unit will be a ground floor 2-bedroom unit and there will be a 2-bedroom unit above the handicap unit. Please see site plan. 13-2 bedroom 12. Label typical parking space dimensions on the site plan. • Please see site plan adjacent to Building G. 13. Two of the parking spaces provided do not meet the minimum size requirements and conflict with the parking aisle or adjacent parking. These spaces will need to be removed from the site plan : • The first space is located in the triangular parking area of Phase 2 on the north side of the 8 space parking aisle. • The second conflict is at the northwestern corner of the development in front of Buildings D and E. The two end spaces conflict with each other and one of them will need to be removed. However, one space was initially not counted in the parking tabulations and may be added to the total number of parking spaces provided. There should be 5 spaces, not 4, labeled northeast of Building F. • Please see sight plan. I revised the drawing by adjusting the parking spaces & had to remove a few spaces. Also I relocated the interior islands along buildings D&E to line up with the building foundation vertical drops. 14. Parking requirements on the Phase Plan appear to be incorrect. The lines for Phase 3 indicate that no parking will be provided at this phase, however 20 spaces were included in the "parking spaces provided" calculations. Please revise the phase lines so that the parking requirements are met. •There were 20 parking spaces along Building E. Please note when I adjusted the end islands the parking spaces changed and I had to increase Phase Three parking spaces to for phase 4 to work . To be able to increase the parking spaces in Phase Three I had to take in more area. Then I had to recalculate all the points for the phase's that were affected. however due to the small area increase the number of trees did not change. 15. Adjust the parking requirements to match the number of units provided. It appears there are now 41 - 4 bedroom units and 11 -2 bedroom units which will reduce the amount of parking required for the site. •There are 40-4 bedroom & 13-2 bedroom. the handicap is a one story unit with 2-bedrooms and one 2-bedroom unit above it. I added verbiage to the site plan. 16. Remove the extra "p" from all of the "fire lane stripping" labels on the site plan . The spelling should read "fire lane striping". • Please see site plan, doh' 17. Label the square footage for parking end islands some of the end islands appear to be less than 180 square feet. • Please see site plan. I adjusted some of the parking and removed a few spaces. 18. Provide calculations for the required interior island square footage. Based on the number of interior parking spaces (61), it appears that there is adequate interior island space. • We discussed this in a phone conversation. 19. Wheel stops should be provided for ADA parking spaces. • Please see plans. I put some at the office/rec/pool area but they will not be needed at Building F. 20. Multi-family developments must provide the required pad and screening for one eight-yard dumpster for every 16 dwelling units. Please provide additional dumpsters to serve the number of units proposed . LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER • I removed the landscape plan and replaced it with the Phasing plan that shows landscaping and parking requirements. 1. Label the buffer yard. •Please see site plan in lot 10 along Southland Addition. This was increased to 15-foot. 2. As stated previously in Comment #8, the buffer area may need to increase by 5 feet due to the easement location. All new plantings should be located outside the easement. • Weldon Davis with CoCS electrical division is requiring a 20-foot PUE along the Southland property line. The buildings are set at 20-feet from the property line, where can I put the plantings? 3. Buffer areas are required to have one 2" caliper canopy tree for every 25 linear feet of landscape buffer. When you say 2-inch do you mean 2.1-inch? Is the buffer area the entire length of the property line or does it stop at the end of the houses. Do I need to place trees down in the creek beyond the dwelling units. can I locate the trees in Weldon Davis 20-foot pue? 4. All buffer yard landscaping areas not dedicated to trees or shrubs must be landscaped with grass, ground cover, or other appropriate landscape treatment. • Please see notes in phase plan, is this different than note 8 below? 5. Please depict and label all areas of grass or ground cover, both in the site plan and the legend. • Please see ground cover note "100-percent coverage of ground cover .... • on phase plan. Is this sufficient? 6. Phase 3 is required to provide 8 trees in order to meet the landscape point requirements, however only 7 are shown. Please revise the landscaping to meet phasing requirements. • Please see plan. This plan was revised due to parking space requirements. I reduced the number of parking spaces in phase four and had to get more out of phase three so the square feet changed and this changed everything. 7. The 6 screening shrubs located at the front of the development may be counted towards provided landscaping point totals. •Are there any other reductions in points available, the additional trees in the buffer area? Is there any reduction available? 8. Provide a general note that 100% coverage of groundcover, decorative paving , decorative rock (not loose), or a perennial grass is required in parking lot islands, swales and drainage areas, the parking lot setback, rights-of-way, and adjacent property disturbed during construction. • Please see the phase plan & the phase plan is now the landscape plan. Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers Date: May 11 , 2013 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 -Site Plan 1. Please add the date of the study to the first note. • I will add the date to the site plan when we get the final report from Kimley-Horn submitted to the City. The report is being updated to show the final contours per your request @ our meeting Tuesday May 24"'. 2. FYI. .. Retaining walls over 24-inches in height will require separate building permits. • The plan is for Keystone walls as shown in the construction plans, the Contractor will apply for the permit? 3. Please adjust the PUE such that the Retaining Walls #1 & #2 are outside of the PUE. • Please see plans, sheet G1. 4. The note regarding the fire lane striping needs to include specific details such as letter height per the Site Design Standards. • Please see site plan. 5. The water and sewer demands should be calculated via the Fixture Unit Method referenced in the BCS Unified Design Guidelines. • Please see site plan. 6. Additional comments regarding the utility plans are pending, but initial comments based on the site plan are as follows: a. Public waterlines are not permitted to be 10-inches. This will need to be an 8-or 12-inch waterline based on the demand. The size of the encasement pipe will also need to change accordingly. • Please see plans. b. The waterline needs to be at least 5.5-ft from the edge of the PUE. • Please see plans. c. Provide two gate valves at each fire hydrant tee and one gate valve at each service lead. • Please see plans. d. Meter boxes should be located outside of paved areas and as far away from buildings as possible. • Please see plans. e. The sanitary sewer is only serving this development and should be private. Please remove sanitary sewer lines from all PUEs. • Please see plans. f. All private storm sewer needs to be relocated outside of PUEs (with the exception of the discharge pipes within the creek). • Please see plans. One line is in the middle of everything. An easement for the waterline would be shaped quite odd. Also there will be additional easement once the electrical conduits are installed. We discussed this and decided to get everything built and cover everything with easements. However, I would like to request your consideration of leaving the 18-inch parallel to Building Bin the PUE, it has to go down the pavement? 7. FYl ... Engineering documents are still under review and may affect the site plan. Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: May 1 O, 2013 GREENWAYS 1. The trail design is still being reviewed and there will be additional comments that will affect the design. 2. Please remove the work out station from the floodplain. Also provide info about equipment type and vendor for approval by the Parks and Recreation Department. • I placed the workout station between Buildings B & C. 3. Provide an access point central from the development to the trail. • Please see plans. 4. Label radii on horizontal curves . • Please see plans. 5. The floodplain area will not be a dedication of greenway. It will stay in ownership by the property owner. A public access easement will be required along the trail and where the workout station is located. • Please see plan. 6. The connection to Southwest Parkway will need to be discussed further to align with a crosswalk across Southwest Parkway. A meeting will be scheduled to discuss further. • Please see plans. Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: May 7, 2013 ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. SITE PLAN/PLAT: Developer will provide CSU with a digital, AutoCAD dwg format, version of plat and I or site plan as soon as it is available. Email to : sweido@cstx.gov and wdavis@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. • This will be provided by Architect/ Applicant. 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. • Applicant is getting signatures. 4. EASEMENTS: No overhang or any part of any building may be in PUE's. 5. EASEMENTS: Will need 20' easements for all electrical primary to accommodate pad mounted transformer dimensions. • This will be provided after the lines are installed. 6. If easements are existing, the developer will be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries. 7. The following easements will be required: • 20' along the common back I ine 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.Developer installs puff boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design, Pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU. \ May 22, 2013 CITY OF COLLEGE ST/\TlO 1 Home o/Texm A&M University• MEMORANDUM TO:Alton Ofczarzak, via: monical@oakchb.com FROM: Erika Bridges, Graduate Civil Engineer SUBJECT:Engineering Document Comments for Copper Creek Condos Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review and approval of the plans: One (1) set of revised construction documents. Please note that the Development Permit Balance (Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee), will be calculated and requested once the construction documents and engineer's estimates have been reviewed and approved. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments:Staff review comments pc: Angel Cacho-Negrete; via: kdhomebuilders@verizon.net Michael G. Hester, P.E.; via: mhester@hester-engr.com P&DS Project No.13-900084 Planning & Development Sf!l·vices P.O. BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVE UE • COi.i.EGE STATION · TEXAS · 77842 Engineering Comments for Copper Creek Condos P&DS Project No. 13-900084 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 -Construction Documents 1. Please provide an NOi. •This will be provided by the Contactor? The Contractor will be responsible for submitting and maintaining the erosion control system. Please clarify. 2. S1 -Please shift gate so that it is outside of a PUE. •There is no other place to locate the sliding gate. There is no mechanical parts in the easement. 3. G1 -There is an existing concrete wall labeled behind Building 0 . Is this proposed to be removed? •No this is an existing wall that will remain. 4. G1 -The concrete flumes need to be removed from the PUEs. FYI. .. Typical earthen swales in easements are okay. •Please see plans. The flumes were removed. 5. G1 -Can the easement lines be turned off on this sheet? They are very similar to the proposed contours, which is a bit confusing. •Please see plans. 6. G1 -By Building F, there is a proposed contour that appears to be labeled 298 and 298.5. Please clarify. •Yes this is correct, there is a curb and the contour raises 0.5-feet. 7. G1 -Please label finished floor on all buildings. •Please see plan . 8. G1 -Show and label proposed contours throughout the creek area. There were cut areas identified in the recent KHA study that seem to be missing from the grading plan. • Please see plans, certain areas changed due to a detailed topographical survey work and will not match the KHA study exactly. 9. G1 /MUP -Show and label the 100-yr floodplain and floodway per the recent KHA study. •The flood plain is on the site plan sheet S1 and I added the floodway to sheet S1. 10. G1 -Please provide a detail for the proposed Curlex Blanket. • American Excelsior detail sheet added to plans. Also the erosion control plan shows the limits of the sediment control. 11. G 1 -Please label DS#5 in plan view. •Please see plan, all of the drainage structures have been labeled and the top of grates added. 12. G1 -Label additional spot elevations along the top and bottom of the retaining walls. •Please see plan. The retaining wall tops are level at the elevation shown. I labeled the bottoms per the KHA study and the bottoms are driven by the right edge of the mup shoulder. 13. G 1 -Provide a detail for the second outfall structure. •The second outfall structure is #DS-8 and is built to the CoCS standard 03-00. A detail is provided in the CoCS drainage plans .. 14. G1 -Label the top of grate elevation for all inlets. • Please see plan, there are elevation shown, they are also for the pavement. 15. G1 -Verify that the max 4:1 slopes in easements and 3:1 everywhere else are not being exceeded. •Please see plan . J 16. MUP -Please revise the top of Wall #3 so that the trail is not lower than the wall . • I am complying with the elevations shown on the Kimley-Horn report. I put a cut-out in retaining wall #3 so the water will drain out@ this low point. · 17. MUP -Per AASHTO, a minimum·0.5% longitudinal slope is needed along the trail. .. 48. Drainage Report -Please provide a certification letter in accordance with Section 111.C.1. of the BCS Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. • See attached. 49. Drainage Report -Provide hydrographs for the KHA timing analysis. • I have contacted Chris Harris with Kimley-Horn and requested this information. Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 5/17/13 • The grading plan got very busy so I moved the curlex blanket, turf reinforcement mat area's to the erosion control (EC) drawing. I also removed the notes specifying the rock rip rap and erosion control to the plan . • I added a detail to the grading plan showing the grate inlet standard detail, a detail for final grading along the mup & the retaining wall along Building D. • I added a note@ the bottom of G1 stating the Contractor is responsible for concrete quality. • I added a note@ the bottom of G1 stating the Contractor shall comply with ADA standards. • The original standard details were removed and replaced with CoCS standard details. Solid Waste Detail was moved to sheet S1 Frame and grate to sheet STM Attachments: Section 111.C.1 CoCS Storm Water Design Guidelines certification Detention exemption letter revised Construction plans, revised: 6-3-2013 Site Plan1 Grading Plan2 MUP3 Phase Plan/Landscape Plan4 Storm Sewer5 Water Lines6-8 Sanitary Sewer9-11 Erosion Contro112 American Excelisor 13 Keystone14 Electrical15 Standard Details CoCS Drainage Standard Details 16 CoCS Sidewalk Standard Details17 CoCS Street Standard Details18 CoCS SWPP Standard Details19 CoCS Sewer Standard Details20-21 CoCS Waterline Standard Details 22-23 2 copies 2 copies Copper Creek Condos Multi Use Path, Retaining Wa ll and Sidewalk Engineers Preliminary Quantity and Cost Estimate 4/24/2013 ITEM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ' DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT COST EXTENSION MULTI USE PATH LAYOUT, CLEAR & GRUB, EXCAVATION L.S. 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 MULTI USE PATH 10-FOOT WIDE X 4' THK REINFORCED S.F. 8420 $5.00 $42,100.00 lr n f\lrDl=TI= r:Dl\n i:n c;~nl II n i:i;ic; rn~ADI l=TI= 11\l DI Ari= WORK-OUT STATION 10'X10' COMPLETE IN PLACE L.S. 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 RE-VEGETATION: CURLEX BLANKETS, HYDROMULCH TO L.S. 1 $1 ,500.00 $1,500.00 Ul:AI T~V r:l?nl INn rnvi::i;> SUB TOTAL= $47,100.00 RETAINING WALL #1 L.F. 205 $100.00 $20,500.00 RETAINING WALL #2 L.F. 112 $100.00 $11 ,200.00 RETAINING WALL #3 L.F. 102 $100.00 $10,200.00 SUB TOTAL = $41,900.00 SIDEWALK LAYOUT, CLEAR & GRUB, EXCAVATION L.S. 1 $500.00 $500.00 5-FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG SOUTHWEST PARKWAY S.F. 647 $5.00 $3,235.00 RE-VEGATION: CURLEX BLANKET, HYDROMULCH TO L.S. 1 $500.00 $500.00 F<;T/\01 IC:U Ul:AI TV r:m1 1Nn rrntl=I? SUB TOTAL = $4,235.00 MULTI USE PATH= $47, 100.00 RETAINING WALL = $41,900.00 5-FOOT SIDEWALK ALONG SOUTHWEST PARKWAY = $4,235.00 THE SEAL APPEARNG ON THIS DOCUMENT WAS AUTHORIZED BY MICHAEL G. HESTER, P.E. ON April 24, 2013 RELEASED FOR RECORD HESTER ENGINEERING COMPANY #f-3476 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = $93,235.00 May 11 , 2013 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: C: rn or C:ou .H il ~ S1·,\Tt01\ fiomr <f7h.11 Ad·M U11i1•mity" MEMORANDUM Alton Ofczarzak; via: monical@oakchb.com Teresa Rogers, Staff Planner Copper Creek Condos (SP) Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m . for further staff review: City of College Station Transmittal Letter; Memo providing written responses to all of staff's comments (identify the specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not addressing the comment); $ 85,072.00 Parkland Dedication fees, based on 52 units, prior to issuance of a building permit; Two (2) complete sets of site civil construction documents for the proposed development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached; Four ( 4) revised site plans; One (1) landscaping plan; Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents (please note that the Site Plan will not be stamped approved until the Blanket Easement, or all other appropriate easements, have been dedicated to the City of College Station). 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 there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised site plan, please attach a letter explaining the details. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Teresa Rogers at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff Review Comments pc: Michael Hester, P.E.; via: mhester@hester-engr.com Angel Cacho-Negrete; via : kdhomebuilders@verizon.net P&DS Project No. 13-00900084 f'li11111i11g ..::,!... fJ.-l'elop1111·11t St'1 l'ic.-s I \.·\·· 1.\1\.11 ·lll[', I '-\[[11"'· I I \.\\· ~'- f I ~ l ~' I ! I • I .. ' . I ' ' \ I cst><.gov/devservices PLANNING STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: Copper Creek Condos (SP) 13-00900084 1. On page 2 of the application please revise the number of required parking spaces to 192 spaces based on the 52 units provided . In addition, the clubhouse is considered an accessory use to the condos and does not have to have its own required parking . • Please see application. 2. On page 2 of the application please revise the current zoning to POD not PDDC. • Please see application. 3. On page 3 of the application please remove 2.34 from the "# of acres in greenways" since no greenway dedication is being requested or proposed. • Please see application. 4. Please verify the reasoning for phasing and note there may be additional comments regarding the phasing once an answer has been provided . • xxxx 5. Add a note to the site plan stating the POD zoning ord inance number is 2013-3482. • Please see site plan, notes. 6. Add to the existing landscape note on the site plan and landscape plan so that they read "In the event structures and parking area placed in the existing floodplain, any removal of vegetation will require restoration with a native species. All plant restoration in floodplain shal l be completed by a certified arborist or landscape architect" • Please see site plan, notes. 7. Please be aware that according to the UDO Section 7.1.H Height, the structure shown 20 feet from the property line adjacent to single family or townhouses can only build to a height of 1 O feet. • xxxxx 8. Add the bu ild ing heights to the site plan. • Please see site plan, each building 9. Please label the fence types and heights that will be used throughout the property. For example, I know an 8-foot wood fence is proposed at the northern property line and I am assuming that some type of wrought iron fence will be used along the trail. • Please see site plan along each property line. 10. I am concerned about the location of the plantings for the buffer yard over the utility easement. In order to accommodate all of the plantings an additional 5 foot buffer area beyond the 10 foot PUE may be necessary. I will have to follow up with you on this comment because additional research is needed. • I provided a detail on the phasing plan for this area, XXXXX 11 . It appears there are 52 units based on the site plan provided. It looks like 2 -2 bedroom units may have been replaced by an ADA accessible 4 bedroom unit. Please revise the site plan and page 3 of the application to match. The total Parkland Dedication amount may also be adjusted to reflect the one unit reduction. • The handicap unit will be a ground floor 2-bedroom unit and there will be a 2- bedroom unit above the handicap unit. Please see site plan. 12. Label typical parking space dimensions on the site plan . • Please see site plan adjacent to Building G. 13. Two of the parking spaces provided do not meet the minimum size requirements and conflict with the parking aisle or adjacent parking. These spaces will need to be removed from the site plan : • The first space is located in the triangular parking area of Phase 2 on the north side of the 8 space parking aisle. • The second conflict is at the northwestern corner of the development in front of Buildings D and E. The two end spaces conflict with each other and one of them will need to be removed. However, one space was initially not counted in the parking tabulations and may be added to the total number of parking spaces provided. There should be 5 spaces, not 4, labeled northeast of Building F. • Please see sight plan, I revised the drawing by adjusting the parking spaces & had to remove a few spaces. Also I relocated the interior islands along buildings D&E to line up with the building foundation vertical drops. 14. Parking requirements on the Phase Plan appear to be incorrect. The lines for Phase 3 indicate that no parking will be provided at this phase, however 20 spaces were included in the "parking spaces provided" calculations. Please revise the phase lines so that the parking requirements are met. • There were 20 parking spaces along Building E? Please note when I adjusted the end islands the parking spaces changed and I had to increase Phase Three parking spaces to for phase 4 to work. To be able to increase the parking spaces in Phase Three I had to take in more area. Then I had to recalculate all the points for the phase's that were affected, however due to the small area increase the number of trees did not change. 15. Adjust the parking requirements to match the number of units provided. It appears there are now 41 -4 bedroom units and 11 -2 bedroom units which will reduce the amount of parking required for the site . • There are 40-4 bedroom & 12-2 bedroom, the handicap is a one story unit with 2- bedrooms and one 2-bedroom unit above it, I added verbiage to the site plan. 16. Remove the extra "p" from all of the "fire lane stripping" labels on the site plan . The spelling should read "fire lane striping". • Please see site plan, doh! 17. Label the square footage for parking end islands some of the end islands appear to be less than 180 square feet. • Please see site plan, I adjusted some of the parking and removed a few spaces. 18. Provide calculations for the required interior island square footage. Based on the number of interior parking spaces (61 ), it appears that there is adequate interior island space. • ? 19. Wheel stops should be provided for ADA parking spaces. • Please see plans. I put some at the office/rec/pool area but they will not be needed at Building F. 20. Multi-family developments must provide the required pad and screening for one eight-yard dumpster for every 16 dwelling units. Please provide additional dumpsters to serve the number of units proposed. • Please see plan, there are two dumpster sites, one was not noted, see area between Building's C&D. 21. Revise the dumpster detail to match the proposed double dumpster pad size found in the Site Design Standards. • Please see SOD 22. Since the dumpster is visible from the right-of-way a gate will need to be provided. It must have a minimum width of 12 feet when open, must swing 180 degrees from the closed position, and must utilize a positive-locking mechanism while in the open position. • Please see architectural plans 23 . Provide a detail of dumpster screening if it will be a masonry wall, or a note and label if it will be a wood fence. Please note the screening must be at least 6 feet in height. • Please see architectural plans 24. Please add a note to the site plan stating the owner is responsible for replacement of dumpster screens located within utility easements if it becomes necessary to remove them for utility construction and/or maintenance. • Please see site plan . 25. Provide a the design specs with colors for the security gate. • Please see architectural plans 26. Since these units are individually owned, who will be in charge of the maintenance of the property? The multi-use path and landscape/retaining walls will need to be privately maintained. A note should be added to the site plan regarding all maintenance of any common areas, the multi-use path, site landscaping, and retaining walls. • Please see note on site plan, it is the responsibility of the home owners associations. 27. Label any common areas located on the property. • The entire sight is a common area except for the buildings, please clairify. 28. Since the property is proposed to be gated and the units are proposed to be privately owned condos, legal documentation must be provided that shows the establishment of a Homeowners Association. The property will be required to meet the regulations for Owners Associations for Common Areas and Facilities found in Section 8.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance. • Please clarify, Is there something Alton needs to provide? 29. Please be aware that mechanical equipment screening will be checked at CO inspection and must meet ordinance requirements. Provide a general note on the site plan that all roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view or isolated so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or residential district within 150' of the subject lot, measured from a point five feet above grade. Such screening shall be coordinated with the building architecture and scale to maintain a unified appearance. • Please see site plan. 30. Please be aware that lighting will be checked at CO inspection and must meet ordinance requirements. Provide a general note on the site plan that states the following: Exterior building and site lighting will meet the standards of Section 7 .10 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The light source shall not project below an opaque housing and no fixture shall directly project light horizontally. Fixtures will be mounted in such a manner that the projected cone of light does not cross any property line. • Please see site plan. 31. Please note that 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 the City has not be made of aware of will constitute a completely new review. • Please see site plan. Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER 1. Label the buffer yard. Date: May 11 , 2013 • Please see site plan in lot 10 along Southland Addition . 2. As stated previously in Comment #8 , the buffer area may need to increase by 5 feet due to the easement location. All new plantings should be located outside the easement. • Weldon Davis with CoCS electrical division is requiring a 20-foot PUE along the Southland property line. The buildings are set at 20-feet from the property line, where can I put the plantings? 3. Buffer areas are required to have one 2" caliper canopy tree for every 25 linear feet of landscape buffer. • When you say 2-inch do you mean 2.1-inch? Is the buffer area the entire length of the property line or does it stop at the end of the houses. Do I need to place trees down in the creek beyond the dwelling units. Can I locate the trees in Weldon Davis 20-foot pue? 4. All buffer yard landscaping areas not dedicated to trees or shrubs must be landscaped with grass , ground cover, or other appropriate landscape treatment. • Please see notes in phase plan, is this different than note 8 below? 5. Please depict and label all areas of grass or ground cover, both in the site plan and the legend. • Please see ground cover note "100-percent coverage of ground cover .... "on phase plan. Is this sufficient? 6. Phase 3 is required to provide 8 trees in order to meet the landscape point requirements, however only 7 are shown. Please revise the landscaping to meet phasing requirements. • Please see plan. This plan was revised due to parking space requirements. I reduced the number of parking spaces in phase four and had to get more out of phase three so the square feet changed and this changed everything . 7. The 6 screening shrubs located at the front of the development may be counted towards provided landscaping point totals. • Are there any other reductions in points available, the additional trees in the buffer area? Is there any reduction available? 8. Provide a general note that 100% coverage of groundcover, decorative paving , decorative rock (not loose), or a perennial grass is required in parking lot islands, swales and drainage areas, the parking lot setback, rights-of-way, and adjacent property disturbed during construction. • Please see the phase plan . • The phase plan is now the landscape plan . Reviewed by: Teresa Rogers Date: May 11, 2013 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 -Site Plan 1. Please add the date of the study to the first note. 2. FYI ... Retaining walls over 24-inches in height will require separate building permits. • The plan is for Keystone walls, what is required? 3. Please adjust the PUE such that the Retaining Walls #1 & #2 are outside of the PUE. 4. The note regarding the fire lane striping needs to include specific details such as letter height per the Site Design Standards. • Please see site plan. 5. The water and sewer demands should be calculated via the Fixture Unit Method referenced in the BCS Unified Design Guidelines. • Please see site plan . 6. Additional comments regarding the utility plans are pending, but initial comments based on the site plan are as follows: a. Public waterlines are not permitted to be 10-inches. This will need to be an 8-or 12-inch waterline based on the demand. The size of the encasement pipe will also need to change accordingly. b. The waterline needs to be at least 5.5-ft from the edge of the PUE. c. Provide two gate valves at each fire hydrant tee and one gate valve at each service lead. • Clarify, do meters need to be in 15-foot easements? d. Meter boxes should be located outside of paved areas and as far away from buildings as possible. e. The sanitary sewer is only serving this development and should be private. Please remove sanitary sewer lines from all PUEs. • Please see plans. f. All private storm sewer needs to be relocated outside of PUEs (with the exception of the discharge pipes within the creek). • Please see plans. 7. FYl ... Engineering documents are still under review and may affect the site plan. Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: May 10, 2013 GREENWAYS 1. The trail design is still being reviewed and there will be additional comments that will affect the design. 2. Please remove the work out station from the floodplain. Also provide info about equipment type and vendor for approval by the Parks and Recreation Department. • Can we build this up above the floodplain? 3. Provide an access point central from the development to the trail. • Please clarify 4. Label radii on horizontal curves. 5. The floodplain area will not be a dedication of greenway. It will stay in ownership by the property owner. A public access easement will be required along the trail and where the workout station is located . • Please see plan. 6. The connection to Southwest Parkway will need to be discussed further to align with a crosswalk across Southwest Parkway. A meeting will be scheduled to discuss further. Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: May 7, 2013 ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. SITE PLAN/PLAT: Developer will provide CSU with a digital, AutoCAD dwg format, version of plat and I or site plan as soon as it is available. Email to: sweido@cstx.gov and wdavis@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. • This will be provided by Architect/Alton 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. • Alton is getting signatures. 4. EASEMENTS: No overhang or any part of any building may be in PUE's. 5. EASEMENTS: Will need 20' easements for all electrical primary to accommodate pad mounted transformer dimensions. 6. If easements are existing , the developer will be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries. 7. The following easements will be required : • 20' along the common back line 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 Weldon Davis at 979.764 .5027. Reviewed by: Weldon Davis Date: April 30, 2013 FIRE 1. This project was reviewed with the understanding that the pavement will be constructed at the beginning of the project. If the installation of the pavement changes there may be additional comments. Verify the turn rad iuses are okay, fire lane sign and curbs are stenciled as needed by phases. In addition , all lanes must remain clear and hydrants must be accepted and functioning. • We need to discuss this 2. No combustibles will be allowed on site until all-weather roads and fire hydrants have been accepted by the City. 3. A site plan shall not show any part of a structure over one hundred and fifty feet (150') from an approved access road . • ? 4. If a fire lane extends more than one hundred feet (100'), an approved turn-a-round or ''T" wil l be required . • ? 5. No more than a six percent (6 %) grade is allowed on any length of fire lanes. 6. Fire lanes wi ll be constructed using the "Fire Apparatus Turning Radius Template" and have a fire lane sign at the entrance. Curbs to be marked "Fire lane, No Parking, Tow Away Zone" with a minimum of four (4") letters. • Please see site plan . 7. A "Knox Box" security key system is required on all buildings and a Knox Switch is required on all gated entrances. • Please see site plan. 8. Commercial construction requires a fire hydrant within three hundred feet (300') from the main entrance and within four hundred and fifty feet (450') from any part of a structure. • Please see site plan. 9. F.D.C. locations will be within one hundred and fifty feet (150') of a fire hydrant and located on the "road side" of a structure. • NA 10. Aerial Access Easement Roads having a twenty-six foot (26') width are required on structures thirty feet (30') or more in height. •NA Reviewed by: Raymond Olson Date: May 8, 2013 SANITATION 1. Project is ok with sanitation just need to know what type of screening will be used? • This will be provided by the Alton/Architect. Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: May 8, 2013 • • • 0 100 ---====-----•Feet 25 50 City of College Station Administrative Approval for Required Parkland Dedications of Less than Five Acres 1. Applicant Name: ____________ -'-'A"""lto=n'-'--=0'-'-fc=z=a""'rz=a=k_,__ _______________ _ Address: __________ 4~0-=6~0--'-H~i~gh~w~a~y~6~S .... o~u-'-th~·-C~o~l~le~g~e~S .... t~at"--io~n~·~T~X~7_7-'8~4-=5 __________ _ Phone : ____ _.(-=-9""-79"-')-=6-=9-=-0-'-1-=5-=-04-'-------E-Mail: ______ '"'"m'""o~n~ic=a~l@==o=a'-'-kc~h~b-'-.c=o~m~----- 2. Development Name: _______ C=o~p""'p=e~r-'C=r-=e~e'"'"k-=C~o-'-n=d~o=s _____ _ Project #: __ ~1 =3--=0-=-8--'-4 __ Development Location =------~30~1~S~o~ut"--h'-'-w~e-=s~t "--P=a'"'"rk'"'"w'""'a"""y_._. -=C-=o""'lle~g""e"-=S=ta=ti=o"""n.._, T"""X'-'-'"7-'-7-=-8--'-4=5 _______ _ 3. Dwelling Units: _Q_ Single Family ~5=2 __ Multi-family Units, located in Neighborhood Park Zone _6 __ _ _o_ Single Family 52 Multi-family Units, located in Community Park Zone B 4. Development Fees and Dedication Requirements: a. Land Dedication or Fee in Lieu of Land (Choose One): Neighborhood Community Total Single Family: One (1) acre per 117 DU 's 0 ac One (1) acre per 128 DU's 0 ac= 0 ac Multi-family: One (1) acre per 117 DU 's 0 ac One (1) acre per 128 DU's 0 ac = 0 ac TOTAL = 0 Acres -OR- Fee Paid in Lieu of Land Dedication Neighborhood Community Single Family: @ $274.00 per DU $ ---=-0 __ @ $250.00 per DU $ __ -=O'---= $ ___ 0~-- Multi-family: @ $274.00 per DU $ 14 248.00 0 Development F:0 Neighborhood Single Family @ $362.00 per DU $ __ 0=---- Multi-family $18,824.00 5. Comments: @ $250.00 per DU$ 13,000.00 = $_~2~7=2-'-48=·~00~- TOTAL (Neighborhood and Community) = $_-=2""-7=,2-'-48=·-=-00"---(~ ~ Community Single Family @ $375.00 per DU $ 0 = $ O -.............._ ( Mui~ per DU$ 39,000.00 = C:57.824.oi) ~L (Neighborhood and Community) = $ 57,824.00 ------------------------------------- The City of College Station agrees to accept: GRAND TOTAL (Neighborhood and Community) 52 Units x $1,636.00 = $ ___ ___;8:;..:5""'0:;..:7-=2'""".0:;..:0'------ Land Dedication _o~a~cr._.e-=s _____ _ Name Date Venessa Garza From: Alan Gibbs Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8:48 AM To: Venessa Garza; Erika Bridges; Teresa Rogers Subject: FW: Tower Point Phase 11 B, Lot 9 -Meeting Request Attachments: 2013-05-30-Preliminary Grading Plan-Wall.pdf; 2013-05-30-Preliminary Grading Plan-No Wall.pdf fyi From: Fred Paine [mailto:fpaine@cectexas.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:19 PM To: Alan Gibbs; Al Lehtonen Cc: rob@navcongroup.com Subject: RE: Tower Point Phase 118, Lot 9 -Meeting Request Alan, Thanks for the response. This is a new project which hasn't been submitted as of yet. Attached are two sketches -One without the proposed 4' block wall and one with the wall. The largest design constraint for the si te is the south entrance. As you may recall and can see on by the existing grades, the HEB ring road is approximately 16'-17' above the lower access road. Without the wall, the south entrance slopes are pretty steep, with the wall they are acceptable. We would like to keep the character of the site such that circulation flows well and site elements look good. The wall would also accentuate the proposed sidewalk along the lower access drive. The owner is will ing to accept responsibility for removal and replacement should an occasion arise w here waterline maintenance would be necessary. Please review and let me know when we can discuss options. Best Regards, Fred Fred Paine, P.E., CFM KLING ENGINEERING & SURVEYING A Division of Civil Engineering Consultants 4101 S. Texas Avenue, Suite A Bryan, Texas 77802 Telephone 979/846-6212 ., AN 4 '• r (1 -. 1 (J ,. l., k' l t> -' S. P) A~ i.;_ 0 l l f '•I !f ,. 1 I 0 ... From: Alan Gibbs [mailto:agibbs@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 12:08 PM To: 'Al Lehtonen'; Fred Paine Subject: RE: Tower Point Phase 118, Lot 9 -Meeting Request 1 Venessa Garza From: Alan Gibbs Sent: Tuesday, June 11 , 2013 2:43 PM To: Subject: Attachments: Venessa Garza; Erika Bridges; Jason Schubert FW: Tower Point Trail -preliminary design Sections -Detention South Line .pdf fyi From: Becky Darien [ma ilto:bdarien@cectexas.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:35 PM To: Alan Gibbs Subject: Tower Point Trail -preliminary design Alan, (this is from Stewart, not Becky) Please find attached a completed preliminary design from Arrington Road along Phase 10B to the box culverts at State Highway No. 6. You may remember that in May, we presented a preliminary design to you which lacked the Arrington Road tie in (approx .. 100 feet). This design provides that Arrington Road connection and you will note that we come directly off of the Arrington Road sidewalk on a 4% grade to an~he rear lot line for Phase lOB. We have eliminated the structural wall o9ti d this design proposes ~arth slope up to a 20' wide shelf with a 10' wide trail centered on the shelf, and 2 foo landscape block wall along! south edge of the 20' shelf. et I 5 e I I do have a conference call Thursday at lOam so if we could meet before then, that would be helpful. Please ad vise if you have any questions. Thanks . Stewart KLI NG ENG INEERING & SURVEYING A Division of Civil Engineering Consultants 4101 S. Texas Avenue, Suite A Bryan, Texas 77802 Telephone 979/846-6212 o 12 .. t:h:v~~ viJ..J.... ~\_ <:: ~ ~~~~­~/bt? This e-mail and any attachm ents may contain confidential and privileged information. If yo u are not the intended recipien t, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail , delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is un authorized and may be ill egal. This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this