Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes MINUTES FROM IYIEETING Subject: Pre-Development Meeting ~~' College Main Parking Garage G v City of College Station, Texas Q-~ F ' Date: 20 October 1997 (2:30 p.m.) v ` /~ U I:1 3 1 lgg~ ~`/ ~~ 1 n Attendees: Jane Key, City Planner h~.t~ Shirley Volk, Development Coordinator JK '~~( ,~• Sabine McCulley, Planning & Zoning Veronica Morgan, Engineering VM Tony Michalsky, Electrical 'IM Mazk Smith, Public Services MS Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager/Project Manager TB Todd McDaniel, Economic Dev./Northgate Coordinator TMc Chad Grauke, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. CG Mark McClure, Walter P. Moore & Assoc. MM ~aa .~ ~~ ~~ ~ General Fax 409 s46 e274 TMc gave a brief overview of the project, including site location, property www.arkitez.com owners, status of land aquisition, scope Of project, anticipated parking capacity, height, etc. CG distributed a print of the land survey and a copy of one of the preliminary building layouts. Also, noted the boundaries of the original site and the subsequent inclusion of Lot 14, Block 7 at the northwest corner. It was noted that the Preliminary Review Committee (PRC) and the Northgate Revitalization Board (NRB) would be involved in the approval process. Drainage CG noted that the vast majority of the site would be covered by the new development and that drainage would be hard piped and metered into existing storm drains. TB observed that the site generally drains to Church Street (south). MS commented that directing drainage to the north would be preferable. SM indicated that a drainage report would be required and VM noted that an analysis of the drainage basin would be required. VM further noted that the site was located neaz the dividing line of two drainage basins and that 100% impervious coverage would be assumed if drainage re-routed to new basin (as requested by TB) whereas only the increased impervious area would need to be addressed if drainage routed to south (historical drainage direction). VM commented that requirements were fully defined in the drainage ordinance. CG requested a copy of the drainage ordinance for MM at the conclusion of the meeting. Storm sewer improvements along Church Street, approximately one block to the southwest of the site were noted. MM commented that he would usually prefer to not cross drainage basins. It was mentioned that the northwest corner (Lot 14, Block 7) could be used as a detention area. MM requested copies of water and sewer plans, design reports and plans of recent improvements, and the topo map indicating drainage basins. (VM to provide). • Electrical Service CG questioned how the City would advise that we handle the service lines currently located in the middle of the site. TM indicated that the City would Principals remove the existing lines and provide service to the northwest corner of the site to a transformer for the new garage. Our new project would need to include chai>i` slurla, AIA extension of conduit for electrical service to properties located south of the site cbutris~arkitex.com (Lots 14 & 15 of Block 7 and Lots 26 &27 of Block 6). TM also mentioned n:. Eltoa Abbott, Au that a 10 foot electrical easement would need t0 be aqulred along the northwest `"~°u~ark;wx.com property line of Lot 15, Block 7 (Henning property) from 2nd Street to the Chad Grauke, AIA north corner. cgrauke®arkitez.com Slt UnNersky Dr. East Suite 201 Cdl1•ye SiaiCart,'.X 77840 Minutes From Pre-Development Meeting College Main Parking Garage Page 2 • Water and Sewer Service VM provided maps of water and sewer service in the area. A 6" water line was noted along the south side of Church Street. The site survey indicates a 12" water line on the east side of College Main. The 6" sanitary sewer line that now runs through the middle of the site will need to be re-routed (under this project) to serve the existing buildings at the south end. MM requested that the surveyor provide locations of sanitary sewer tie-ins to the existing buildings. Setback Requirements JK indicated that a 15' rear setback would be required with zero setbacks on other sides. It was noted that traffic planning consultant John DeShazo had developed concept layouts with no setbacks. JK stated that a variance can be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustments, the process takes 21 days and requires that the Owner establish special conditions to show hardship. CG questioned ~=~hich face ~=.~ould be interpreted as the "rear". TMc mentioned ti'~t the ingress/egress is to be located on College Main and therefore, the rear would face 2nd Street. During the discussion, JK and SM conferred and later indicated that no setbacks would be required. • Landscaping SM mentioned that the requirements within the Northgate area are different than normal landscape requirements and that specific information could be found in the Zoning ordinance. It was noted that the R.O.W. could be utilized to satisfy requirements. SV mentioned that benches, planters and other items can be utilized as landscaping. No streetscaping is required nor screening to adjacent properties. It was noted that an artists rendering of the proposed design would be helpful in describing the project to the NRB. Sidewalks The existing sidewalk along College Main will be demolished during the new construction and will be replaced. Brick pavers similar to other sidewalks along University and College Main are preferred. A sidewalk on 2nd Street to the pedestrian entry to the building will be necessary. TMc noted that 2nd Street is in poor condition. Street improvements are not to be included within the project. Specific sidewalk requirements will be set by the NRB and PRC. • Fire Protection A fire hydrant is indicated on City maps at College Main and Church Street. CG noted that the new garage is to have a fire sprinkler system. Fire walls were discussed and CG was referred to Lance Simms for requirements. Concluded meeting around 4:30 p.m. and departed. Signed, kitex Inc. ad~rau ipa cc:vTom Brymer Todd McDaniel Walter P. Moore & Associates Burns DeLatte McCoy, Inc. DeShazo Tang & Associates ~.r/ , / 7, /~ /9, moo, i ~ a , ~ ~ a3 a ~/ ~ a.~ ~~~y ~ a~ '~ ~c*~/, ~ ~o " ~~~C~ ~~~ o `~p ~ ~ '~iCoGih' /h.CC.C ~IJo ~ ~~i.C(:ed~C_' /~.d ~i S~ , N ~~ ~ _. .. ~ ~ Jhirley Volk Mtg W/ A&M s Tom Williams _ ....... :. _ .. Pale 1 From: Edwin Hard To: JCALLAWAY, JKEE, SVOLK Date: 1 /26/98 12:08PM Subject: Mtg. W/ A&M's Tom Williams Per P8~Z Chairman Massey's request, Scott and I met with Tom Williams regarding the design of the Northgate Parking Garage. We met for about an hour and reviewed the plans together. Tom told us how they compared to campus garages. He had some fairly significant concerns and was somewhat surprised that our consultant would recommend the design as such. Below are the general comments/concerns: 1. Tom said that all TAMU garages are 1-way with 60-65 degree angle parking. He thought the depth of the parking spaces and the width of the travel isle would be awfully tight for 2-way traffic and for vehicles' ability to get into the spaces. He said the design would work better with with one-way operation and angle parking. Staff made similar comments on the site plan. Tom said we should take a trip to Dallas and have our consultant show us some of the parking garages there. He doubted that any of the "public" garages in Dallas are designed in the manner that is proposed for Northgate. He said there may be some but that they would probably be private. 2. Tom thought another entry/exit was needed for the garage...or at least another exit. Second street looks to be the best option for this. He said under the current design the garage would take about an hour and a half to empty. He said the current entry/exit drive is problematic b/c of the numerous turning/lane conflicts. He also had a concern for the large queues of traffic that would form in College Main in front of the gargage and at the signal at University Drive. Staff made similar comments on the site plan. 3. Tom had concern about the garages' ability of meet the Life Safety Code. He said that even with 2 sides open it still may not meet the 50 percent requirement. 4. Tom asked about the payment system. He said it was very important that the payment system be determined first in order that the that the garages entry/exit could be designed around it. He said that you SHOULD NOT design/build a gargage and then think about the payment system....it must be done first and designed in. He said we should consider the automatic pay system where patrons use a value card with a magnetic strip. Tom said that if we were going to contract out the Admin. of the garage (ie to someone like Alright) then they need to be on board right now to have input on design. Tom also offered to take a group of us on a tour of the TAMU garages to illustrate some of the points he made. I told him we take him up on it and that I would get back with him about when and who would be coming. Yall let me know if you're interested and I'll set it up. Jim, pls let me know if Tom will be going. Thx. Scott, pls feel free to comment it I have left anything out. EH CC: SHESTER MINUTES FROM MEETING 511 Unlve rally Dr. East Suite 201 College Station, TX 77840 voloe aos 2so zs3s Fax 400 846 8224 www.arkite:.oom Subject: Preliminary Design Review Meeting College Main Parking Garage City of College Station, Texas Date: 18 December 1997 (10:30 a.m.) Attendees: Tom Brymer, Assistant City Manager/Project Manager TB Todd McDaniel, Economic Dev./Northgate Coordinator TM Chad Grauke, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. CG Charlie Burris, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. CB Land Aquisition TB gave a brief overview of the status of land aquisition (approval granted by Council to purchase Benning property, condemnation procedures underway on one property and negotiations proceeding with other land owners). TB mentioned that if it is not absolutely required that additional land be squired, then it should be avoided. TM mentioned that he believed that City staff expected additional land aquisition to provide more clearance for construction, easements, landscaping, etc. CG and CB concurred that aquisition of additional land would not be required -the City is to dictate the site and the A/E is to respond with an appropriate design. Building /Site size The size of the building, as designed, provides almost no setback from the side property lines. Without aquisition of additional land or reducing the width of the building, construction would be difficult and probably costly. CG noted that the building width could be reduced by utilizing a 22' isle (in lieu of 24') with 9' wide parking spaces (in lieu of 8'-6"). This would reduce the overall width of the building by 8'. If a construction easement could be squired for the narrow property on the north side adjacent to lot 21, then the entire 8' of additional area could be located along the south side. This would produce adequate clearances for construction around the entire perimeter. Therefore, it was requested that TM pursue aquisition of a construction easement on the narrow strip of land adjacent lot 21. CB and CG reviewed other complications of the limited size of the site including space for Contractor laydown, staging, storage and parking. TM mentioned City owned land adjacent Cafe Excell, and TB mentioned leasing the mud lot or leasing nearby vacant lots owned by the Lutheran Church. CB and CG indicated that the closer, the better. Principals • Staff Comments TM presented preliminary design booklet and prints that had been reviewed by Charlie Burris, AIA City staff. No marks were observed in the booklet. CG read each comment on cburris@arl:itex.wm the prints and discussion included the following: Chad Grauke, AIA cgrauke@arkitex.com Parking_Space Dimensions; Dimensions are based on recommendations of the traffic planning consultant, John DeShazo and do not comply with the City Dr. Elton Abbott, AIA eabbott@arkitex.com ordinance requirements. It was observed that City ordinance requirements pertain to surface parking lots and there is no previous experience with parking Mike Tibbetts, AIA garage structures. CG observed that increasing the parking space dimensions to a;etibb@swbelLnet meet ordinance requirements would make the building wider than the site. Staff requested a floor plan from one of the garages designed for Texas A&M University for comparison. It was suggested that John DeShazo meet with City staff to review normal dimensions for structured parking garages. Also, it was Austin Office suggested that Tom Williams from Traffic, Transportation and Parking at Texas ~o~~e 5,2/244-7670 A&M be invited. Thereafter, it would be determined if a new ordinance should Fax 512/244-0237 be written or if a variance should be requested to the existing ordinance. .................................. Minutes From Preliminary Design Review Meeting College Main Parking Garage Page 2 Width of Entry/Exit; Currently, four entry/exit drives are indicated onto College Main. The driveway width is indicated on A2 as 9'-0" and on A3 as 10'-0". Based on conversations with John DeShazo that have occurred since the Preliminary Design submittal was prepared, future submittals will indicate three entry/exit drives, each at 10'-0" wide. Mr. DeShazo can address the adequacy of the entry/exit capacity in the meeting to be held with City staff. Exit onto Second Street; Staff indicated that a minimum of one exit should be provided onto Second Street. It was observed that several of the earlier designs had involved access to Second St. but had been abandoned due to the poor street conditions. It was surmised that the staff comment was based on concern with the cueing clearance onto College Main. Currently two cars per lane can be in line before traffic backs onto College Main. CG suggested that reducing the depth of the pedestrian entry element could allow the building to be moved closer to Second St. and therefore, add length to the entry/exit drives. It was agreed that the final design should maximize cueing distance onto College Main but that an entry/exit onto Second Street would not be pursued further. Angled harking; Staff questioned whether one way access with angled parking had been considered. CG located the "one-way" design layout that had been previously considered. One of many earlier designs, this layout was discussed during the Pre-development meeting with City staff. The primary problem with the "one-way" approach is that only 673 parking spaces can be achieved. Sidewalks; The width of the sidewalk along College Main (5') was questioned in the staff comments. CG noted that a six foot wide sidewalk could be provided. Currently, it is anticipated that the sidewalk location and width will correspond with the canopy design. Further development of the canopy design and sidewalk will be included in future submittals. Landscaping; Ordinance requirement for landscaping was noted by staff. The Site Plan included in the booklet incorporates landscape elements, some of which will be located in the Right of Way. Further development of the landscaping will be forthcoming in future submittals. Code Issues; Sprinkler system requirement was noted by staff. It is our understanding that a dry standpipe system is required by Standard Building Code and therefore is included in the outline specifications. The City ordinance requiring all buildings larger than 15,000 square feet to be sprinkled may be the basis of staff's comment. It is our opinion that since the garage is not a "Habitable Space", the ordinance would not apply. We will verify this interpretation with the City Building Inspections department and pursue a variance if necessary. Fire wall construction requirements (for shaft walls and at north and south exterior walls) and the requirement for h.c. signage were also noted. Future submittals will respond to these requirements. Control System; The only staff comment on the building elevations was a question about whether a booth would be located at the entry/exit onto College Main. The parking control and security systems are under investigation at this time. John DeShazo has been asked to summarize options and relative cost of the various systems. The garage is to be accessible 24 hours a day and that the specific control system(s) will be selected after a thorough review by the A/E and City representatives based on function and cost. TM mentioned that asking Texas A&M to operate the facility is an option that may need to be considered. Minutes From Preliminary Design Review Meeting College Main Parking Garage Page 3 Fire line; The new 6" fire line location was questioned. Currently, the fire line is indicated as tapping the 6" water line on the south side of Church Avenue and extending along the east side of Second Street. Further consideration is to be given to tapping the 12" water line on the east side of College Main. Other; Staff comments also included requests for several items to be provided in future submittals such as: drainage report; plan & profile sheets, ambulatory ramp details, demolition plan and signage plan. Electrical comments were noted to be forthcoming. Water and sanitary sewer maps of the area were received. Handicap Parking The distribution of handicap spaces was questioned. CG noted that a total of 16 handicap spaces are located adjacent to the elevator/stair at each level (4/level). This affects the clearance height requirement of each level (by adding 1'-0") and requires "areas of refuge" to be provided on upper levels. Locating all of the spaces on one level requires a 3' wide walkway in front of the spaces, which increases the overall building size. All options are still being considered. Total Parking Spaces The preliminary design indicates 753 spaces. CG noted that 702 spaces were included at the time that the Architect's Contract was signed and asked what acceptable range existed for the total number of spaces. TM indicated that 725 spaces should be provided. TB preferred at least 745 spaces. Both agreed that the important issue is the ratio of cost to the income from the spaces provided. Budget The preliminary design submittal indicates an estimated cost of $5,264,544.00. Exhibit B of the Architect's Contract indicates an anticipated construction cost of $5,052,600.00. TM and TB agreed that the total budget for the project that has been accepted by the Council is $6,800,000.00. Deducting land aquisition costs and A/E fees yields an amount available for construction of around $5,800,000.00. Although the preliminary design was prepared with the belief that the estimated cost was over the budget, discussion at the meeting indicated that the actual budget is significantly higher. We respectfully request a review of the project budget and determination of the amount available for construction. • Summary Issues of primary importance were reviewed and included: the overall building width; queing distance onto College Main; handicap parking space locations; and the security/control systems to be utilized. Concluded meeting around 11:30 p.m. and departed. Signed, The Arkitex Studio, Inc. Chad Grauke, AIA, Principal cc: Tom Brymer Todd McDaniel Walter P. Moore & Associates Burns DeLatte McCoy, Inc. DeShazo Tang & Associates