The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutstaff commentsII 3 U~ aplo mil' U~b MEMORANDUM March 4, 2010 TO: Matt Robinson, Staff Planner FROM: Jane Kee, IPS Gro SUBJECT: COPPER CREEK O OS (REZ) - Rezoning Please find responses to the 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 Concept Plan; Nineteen (19) 11"x17" copies of Rezoning Map; 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 / (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 7.9.13.3). • 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) closest to SWP and 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 / (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 1(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. FYI...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 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 / (979) 324.9196 cell