HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondences Bridgette George - Putz Tract - Pre Application Meeting Page 1
From: "Fred Paine" <fred @klingeng.com>
To: "Spencer Thompson" <Sthompson @cstx.gov >, "Bridgette George"
<BGEORGE @cstx.gov >, "Carol Cotter" <Ccotter @cstx.gov >, "Ken Fogle" <kfogle @cstx.gov >, "Ronnie
Bolin" <rbolin @cstx.gov >, "Jennifer Prochazka" <jprochazka @cstx.com>
Date: 2/10/2004 2:15:27 PM
• Subject: Putz Tract - Pre Application Meeting
Putz Tract on University Drive - David Scarmardo - Proposed Commercial
Development
Based on our February 09, 2004 Pre - Application meeting, I understand the
following:
Engineering:
Definition of a floodway is not required to develop on this tract unless
fill is proposed to be placed in the floodplain.
Development can occur in accordance with FEMA publication 265 "Managing
Floodplain Development in Approximate Zone A Areas"
A CLOMR / LOMR can be filed to redefine limits of the regulatory floodplain
/ floodway
A CLOMR / LOMR submittal is not necessary for development specific
site /waterway alterations including fill in floodplain, partially or fully
culverting channel, channel improvements, ect... An engineering report on
proposed improvements submitted to the City Floodplain Administrator will be
sufficient for development to occur.
On -site detention can occur in the zone A floodplain. The floodplain limits
can be re- defined / re- shaped to incorporate the limits of an on -site
detention area
Transportation:
A traffic signal at the Tarrow / University Drive intersection is planned.
Signal may be a developer cost - City to clarify responsible parties &
participation S MS -0(
Joint access with the adjacent Smith tract will be required
Entrance drive lane configurations to be determined based on a site traffic
analysis. Possible 1 lane in and 2 to 3 lanes out.
No median crossing is planned for the Henton /Lincoln - Putz joint access
drive, however a left-in only break is present near the location. City to
clarify if alternate side driveway separation distances apply
Utilities:
Easements will be defined based on site layout and most likely routed around
the perimeter of the site.
The existing 10' P.U.E. orQhe Putz tract will most probably be abandoned
for an alternate route o
Bridgette George - Putz Tract - Pre Application Meeting Page 2
Sanitary Sewer is readily available to the site, Water is stubbed out to the
site, Electric is stubbed out to the site, (Gas is stubbed out to the site)
Planning: 6lAd0
A Preliminary Plat of the entire parent tract will be required
Current zoning is C -1 with Corridor Overlay & R -1
Current land use plan indicates Retail- Regional from University south to an
extension of Vassar Ct.
Preliminary staff support of re- zoning portions of the R -1 to C -1, City
staff to verify
Please respond should you find the above statements regarding the February
09, 2004 Pre - Application meeting to be in error or contrary to recollection.
Thank you,
Fred Paine
KLING ENGINEERING & SURVEYING
Consulting Engineers . Land Surveyors
4101 Texas Avenue, Suite A
Bryan, Texas 77802
Telephone 979/846 -6212
Fax 979/846 -8252
CC: "David Scarmardo" <david @scarmardofoods.com>
Ken Fogle - Re: University/Tarrow Signal Page 1
From: Mark Smith
To: Ken Fogle; Lee Robinson; Roxanne Nemcik; Troy Rother
Date: 2/16/2004 10:41:32 AM
Subject: Re: University/Tarrow Signal
Here's the policy that I can find with regard to our traffic signal installations:
CITY CODE - CHAPTER 10 SECTION 2 A. TEXAS MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES ADOPTED
All traffic control devices including signs, signals, and markings on pavement and curbs used for the
purpose of directing and controlling traffic within the city, shall conform with the Texas Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, which is published by the State Department of Highways
and Public Transportation. All traffic control devices so erected shall be official traffic control devices of
the City of College Station, Texas.
TMUTCD Guidance says the following:
A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors (warrants) described in this
Chapter (4C.) are met.
A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic
control signal will improve the overall safety and /or operation of the intersection.
I think that we do have some policies to give us guidance. The policy that we do have says that we should
not construct signals unless they are warranted. That should be the first question that is answered. The
responsibility for payent is another issue. Apparently the UDO intends that the developer pay for the part
of the need he creates. As I see it there is no way a signal meets any warrant if the development is not
there. So, the signal is needed only to serve conditions created by the proposed development. So, I
come to the conclusion that the developer pays for the full cost. Now, there is always the possibility of an
economic development agreement. We have policies that guide us in that regard.
Mark Smith
Director of Public Works
979 - 764 -3690
»> Roxanne Nemcik 2/16/2004 10:07:32 AM »>
If there is not written policy approved by council then staff is not authorized to financially participate absent
council approval since it has not been delegated. Why don't you draft up the procedures for signal
installation and the percent of financial participation required of the development in the installation of the
signal and submit it to council. Also, it appears that in order to determine developer impact you need to
require either a signalization or impact study to ascertain that impact.
»> Mark Smith 2/9/2004 8:13:27 PM »>
I am not aware of a traffic signal policy. I will search for one but I do not believe that one exists. I think
that we should consult with Legal to determine how to handle this with the policy absent.
Mark Smith
Director of Public Works
979 - 764 -3690
»> Ken Fogle 02/09/04 2:28 PM »>
Hey guys...
A developer is looking at developing the Putz tract which is across University Drive from the Hilton (see
attached). The fourth leg of the FM 60/Tarrow intersection will be developed as the only direct access to
the site. Since this is a signalized intersection, this driveway will require another mast arm, heads, etc. The
developer asked how the cost of these improvements will be handled. The UDO states the following.
Ken Fogle - Re: University/Tarrow Signal Page 2
"Access points on arterial and collector streets may be required to be signalized in order to provide safe
and efficient traffic flow. A development may be responsible for all or part of any right -of -way, design,
hardware, and construction costs of a traffic signal if it is determined that the signal is necessitated by the
traffic generated from the development. The procedures for signal installation and the percent of financial
participation required of the development in the installation of the signal shall be in accordance with criteria
set forth in the City's Traffic Signal Policy."
The "traffic signal policy" was a carry over from the previous driveway ordinance. Is there such a policy? If
not, how is the cost burden handled?
They also wanted to know how the drive should be constructed. I told them that one inbound lane would
be required and two or three outbound lanes would be required. Obviously, three would be ideal so each
movement could be separated and the signal could operate at maximum efficiency. Is there any reason
why we would allow two? They are prepared to conduct a TIA if necessary.
Please let me know what your thoughts are.
Thanks,
Ken
Ken Fogle
Transportation Planner
City of College Station
Phone: 979.764.3570
Fax: 979.764.3496
E -mail: kfoglecstx.gov
Web: www.cstx.gov
CC: Bridgette George; Harvey Cargill
Bridgette George - Fw: Putz- Meyers Place plat for pre -dev mtg.
From: "Kling Engineering" <stewart(uklingeng.com>
To: "Bridgette George" <bgeorgegacstx.gov>
Date: 5/5/2004 11:26 AM
Subject: Fw: Putz- Meyers Place plat for pre -dev mtg.
Original Message
From: Kling Engineering
To: Bridgette George
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:08 AM
Subject: Putz- Meyers Place plat for pre -dev mtg.
Bridgette,
Attached is the master preliminary plan for Putz- Meyers Place - the subject of the May 10 pre - development meeting.
Discussion items will be:
1) City requirements for infrastructure (utilities)
2) Access to University Drive
3) Rezoning request and buffers
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Stewart Kling
Kling Engineering
979- 846 -6212