Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutstaff comments0 o Response to Staff Review Comments # 1 1. Are property ownership lines and rezoning lines the same? If so, please also label as property line. If not, please add property line. The property ownership line and rezoning lines are the same. The legend has been revised on the Zoning Map and the Concept Plan. 2. What is the approximate acreage of floodplain shown on the subject property? The approximate acreage of the floodplain on the subject property is 3.26 AC for the current effective floodplain and 2.22 AC for the floodplain per the pending LOMR, prepared by Walter P. Moore & Associates. 3. Note 5: All Items not included in the requested variations with this PDD will meet all requirements. Note 5 has been revised to include this statement. 4. Note 7: Will the access road act as a street for the purposes of streetscaping? Also, the minimum 24-foot width may limit building height to under 30 feet. No, the access road will not act as a street for the purpose of streetscaping. Only public streets will have streetscaping. Note 7 has been revised to address the drive aisle width. 5. Note 9: Where is the % acre of un-developed floodplain proposed to be located? The location needs to be delineated on the Concept Plan. The approximate area of the undeveloped floodplain (Flood Hazard Area) is shown on the Concept Plan. 6. Note 10: If any bicycle or pedestrian facilities beyond the minimum requirements of the UDO are proposed, please include their general location on the Concept Plan. Please note on the Concept Plan which roadways will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the type proposed (ie: bike lane, sidewalk, etc.) Note 10 has been revised. 7. FYI - as shown, it is likely that this development would need variations to the Subdivision Regulations (in the UDO), such as block length, in order to develop in this manner. Rights-of- way from Castle Rock Parkway stubbing into the Seaback property should be proposed or a variation sought. Note 5 has been revised to request block length variance. A separate document with justification for this variance is also provided. 8. Please indicate that Castle Rock Parkway is a 2-Lane Minor Collector (General Suburban context) on the Thoroughfare Plan. Site note 4 has been added. 9. Please include information about the proposed phasing of the development. Because of the nature of the proposed uses, the existing development in the area, and the existing and proposed street network in the area, staff recommends that access to William D. Fitch Parkway be developed with the first phases of this development. Note 11 has been added. The developer proposes only limited development until access to William D. Fitch or Victoria Avenue is provided. 10-1-73 S-3040 (:OV © o 10. An indication of the potential range of building heights is a requirement of the PDD Concept Plan. Please include a range of building heights on the Plan. Note 2 gives no indication of possible building heights because height is not limited in the C-1, A-P and R-4 districts when they are not located adjacent to a townhome or single-family use. Note 2 has been revised. 11. Please note on the Concept Plan which roadways will include bicycle and pedestrian facilities and the type proposed (ie: bike lane, sidewalk, etc.) Note 10 revised. 12. Please provide information indicating that the Parks Board has reviewed the proposed Concept plan. The Parks Board has not reviewed the plan - scheduled for their review at the September 14, 2010 Parks Board meeting. ENGINEERING 1. If this property develops as shown in the Concept Plan, a drainage study including No Adverse Impacts (NAI) analysis will be required. Noted. Please clearly indicate on the concept plan where required mitigation will be located. We cannot determine the exact mitigation area until a detailed study is performed. It is anticipated that the mitigation will occur within the Flood Hazard Area and will be excavation below the base flood elevation. 2. Note #9 only specifies a Y2 acre will be left undeveloped. Is this a proposed mitigation area? This area could be used as a mitigation area if the area is not wooded. Excavation could be done and then trees planted in the area. GREENWAYS 1. Multi-use Path • Criteria for the design and construction of the multi-use path will be developed by the City with the plat/construction plans for the project and will be consistent with the LIDO Noted. The proposed alignment of the multi-use path may need to change after design begins and must stay out of the floodplain Noted, with the exception that a small portion may be placed in the floodplain. The proposed alignment on the northern end of the tract will need to follow the northern property line from east to west ending at the Froeling tract. On this northern portion of the path, the location of the path will also need to be offset to stay 20 feet away from the stream conveyance pathway. The proposed alignment of the multi-use path has not been changed as requested. This development has been burdened with a significant portion of the multi-use path © O which, in our opinion, should be constructed entirely in the city owned property as originally envisioned. The city property has more than 450, of common boundary with the Froeling tract with approximately 50% not in the floodplain. The path can be constructed on city property in this area instead of in this development. 2. Floodplain • Staff had previously stated support of some encroachment in portions of the floodplain (in the south eastern portion of the property), subject to compliance with all of the no- adverse impact requirements of the UDO. With that said, development will need to be offset at least 75 feet from the stream conveyance pathway and will need to stay undisturbed to protect the riparian area. The 75 foot offset condition cannot be met by the Developer. Except for the area shown to not be developed, all other areas may be disturbed. The Castle Rock Subdivision and the Castle Rock Park have been developed without this requirement. TRANSPORTATION All comments have been noted. o ~ Justification for Block Length Variance This Concept Plan shows a private driveway & cross access easement connecting to each side of Castle Rock Parkway within this development. From a block length perspective, these will function similar to a public street because they allow access to the adjacent developable property. Additional streets or drives were not provided between these drives and the first intersecting streets in the Castle Rock Subdivision due to the riparian buffer areas on each side of Castle Rock and the public park on the north side of Castle Rock Parkway. The buffer area is also located north of the park and since street construction is not allowed in these areas, additional streets could not be provided. Due to requirements of the COE permit, no street connectivity was allowed between the Castle Rock Subdivision and the Tower Point development resulting in the longer block lengths. E TRANSPORTATION 0 1. A TIA was required to be submitted by the applicant with a five year build out and by submitting a PDD, the applicant, provided staff a clearer picture of the internal traffic circulation within the different uses and the impacts to the surrounding transportation network (i.e. Castle Rock Parkway and SH 40). 2. A general observation resulting from concept plan depicts that within the site three collectors will be providing the roadway traffic volume capacity, Castle Rock Parkway, a Commercial Collector and a private driveway built to collector standards with regard to the number of travel lanes, sidewalks, access management such as driveway spacing and speed. A minor collector has a volume capacity of 5,000 vehicles per day (VPD) combined these collectors provide for 15,000 VPD capacity and five outlets for traffic to egress and ingress the site with each outlet generally dividing the capacity equally for 3,750 VPD per outlet. 3. The TIA states that the proposed development will generate 6,404 VPD with 827 VPD presently utilizing Castle Rock Parkway. Another 2,621 VPD will be generated by the Castle Rock subdivision at build out calculated and based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Report, trips generated by a single family land use. Combined these trips total 9,852 VPD. Divided by the five collector outlets equals 1,970.4 VPD well within the collector VPD capacity 4. A more detail analysis was conducted as part of the TIA to describe the impacts to the surrounding roadway network more specifically a level of service analysis LOS was developed for following intersections: SH 40 at Victoria, Castle Rock Parkway at Victoria Ave, SH 40 and Castle Rock Parkway and SH 40 at the commercial collector roadway. Furthermore, two scenarios were developed, scenario one with Castle Rock Parkway extending to Victoria Ave and the internal collectors (commercial street and private drive) providing internal circulation. Scenario two, depicted the internal circulation provided by the internal collectors however, Castle Rock Parkway was not extended to Victoria Ave. 5. With a LOS scale of A thru F, with A depicting the best traffic operation and F the worst traffic operation the scenarios analyzed the intersections of Castle Rock Parkway at Victoria, Castle Rock Parkway at SH 40 and SH 40 at the commercial collector; scenario one at build out generally operated at a better LOS and had both scenarios operating within a LOS A and B. The worst LOS of these intersections under scenario two was the intersection of Castle Rock Parkway at SH 40 operating at a LOS C. 6. With regard to the intersection at Victoria and SH40 taking into account the traffic generated by Castlegate, the new High School and Philips Square the northbound and the southbound movements at Victoria operated at a LOS of E and F in both scenarios with LOS D being the acceptable threshold as per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 7. A previous TIA conducted by the College Station Independent School District (CSISD) for the new High School indicated a signal met the warrant analysis based on the peak hour volume at the intersection of SH 40 at Victoria, however, TxDOT relies more on the 8 hour traffic volume warrant and the crash frequency warrant when warranting a signal, SH 40 is a TxDOT roadway. With theTIA for this development further confirming the operational deficiencies at this intersection a signal will need to be installed in the future (when signal 8 hour warrant is met) and funding would need to be identified and potentially a sharing of costs could be worked out with CSISD, TxDOT, City of College Station and the developer. For example the developer paying a quarter of the cost with details being worked out with staff at a later stage. 0 0 8. The TIA analyzed the intersection at Victoria at SH 40 with a signal in place and LOS improved dramatically with a LOS C or better. 9. The TIA recommends that a right turn deceleration lane be constructed at the intersection of the commercial collector at SH 40 (ingress). Staff further recommends that right turn lanes be provided at each intersection of the private drive collector with the commercial collector and Castle Rock Parkway. Staff basis this recommendation on the UDO requirement that any development that generates 50 vehicles per hour (VPH) ingress will need to provide a right turn deceleration lane. This site generates 246 VPH ingress divided by four intersections (commercial collector at SH 40, private drive at Castle Rock Parkway and private drive at commercial collector) equals 61.5 VPH ingress. 10. Staff is comfortable with the private drive being built to collector type standards with regard to the number of travel lanes, sidewalks, access management such as driveway spacing, speed and the 24 foot width provided no parking is allowed and the right turn deceleration lanes are provided as per the UDO requirement. However, the private drive if intended to provide fire access will have to be worked out with the City's fire department to meet fire lane requirements. 11. With regard to phasing, Staff recommends that phasing be structured so that a connection to SH 40 be accommodated within the early phases, to provide for an additional outlet besides Castle Rock Parkway at SH 40. 12. Finally with regard to the TIA recommendations to Victoria at SH40 these can be worked out internally by staff and incorporated into the design of the future Victoria Ave extension project being built by the City: Southbound approach of the proposed Victoria Ave extension be built and striped to provide two southbound lanes and one northbound lane at a minimum. The SH 40 crossover be restriped for four lanes with the two interior lanes being exclusive left turn lanes one northbound and one southbound. The existing northbound approach of Victoria at SH 40 be striped for two northbound lanes and one southbound lane at a minimum. Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coord. Date: 8-24-2010 0 Minor Collector = 5,000 Vehicles per day (vpd) capacity Level of Service (LOS) is based on Volume to Capacity Ratio LOS for a Minor Collector is as follows: ~n LOS A = 833 vpd LOS B = 1,666 vpd ii(Q~ C LOS C = 2,500 vpd ` LOS D = 3,333 vpd LOS E = 4,166 vpd 1 (e7 LOS F = 5,000 vpd ~ U)c rx