HomeMy WebLinkAboutstaff review STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 12 (FP) - 06-00500092
PLANNING
1. The pavement width for Eagle Avenue should be 38' not 27'.
2. TxDOT Permits will need to be submitted for the State Highway 40 connection.
3. The construction documents are still under review by engineering. Comments will be
returned as soon as possible.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves/Josh Norton Date: May 3, 2006
TxDOT
1. Developer should verify the location of the control of access section along the north
ROW of SH 40 with respect to Eagle Avenue access, etc.
2. Appropriate information will be required for any future permits at this site, which
should include drainage data etc.
Reviewed by: Karl Nelson, TxDOT Date: May 5, 2006
ELECTRICAL
Developer installs conduit per city specs and design.
City will provide drawings for conduit installation.
Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. City installs riser.
Developer to intercept existing conduit at designated transformers and extend as
required.
If conduit does not exist at designated transformer, developer to furnish and install
conduit as shown on electrical layout.
Developer installs pull boxes & secondary pedestals as per city specs and design.(pull
boxes & secondary pedestals provided by the city).
Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and/or site plan email to
sweido(u�cstx.00v
Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines
(including street lights).
To discuss any of the above electrical comments, please contact Sam Weido at
979.764.6314.
Reviewed by: Sam Weido Date: 5-2-06
Sanitation Comments
1. Sanitation is ok with this project.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: May 3, 2006
NOTE: 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 have not 2
been pointed out to the City,will constitute a completely new review.
ENGINEERING
1. Please submit an engineers cost estimate.
2. (Sheet 4) Please verify correct erosion control measures for the storm inlet/outlet
at SH 40 and Eagle Ave.
3. (Sheet 5) The proposed curve radius does not meet the guidelines min, please
modify.
4. (Sheet 6) The proposed curve radius does not meet the guidelines min, please
modify. Also, please provide curve detail data.
5. (Sheet 10) The 7-ft x 2.5-ft box culvert under Oldenburg Lane does not appear to
meet the 2-ft cover requirement for C789 design, the box culvert will need to be
designed to C850 standard, please provide detail of design, as this does not
appear to be a standard size.
6. (Sheet 11) All sanitary sewer services are shown to be 4-in, do those that serve
two duplexes or four units not need to be larger?
7. (Sheet 15) The typical pavement sections should show 2-in Hot Mix Asphaltic
Concrete Pavement not 1.5-in. Also, check spelling of "asphaltic" on the 27-ft
section.
8. (Sheet 15) There appears to not be any rebar in the vertical portion of the "Type
4 Curb". I believe the correct detail is a combination of ST1-02A and ST1-02B,
including the recessed portion in ST1-02B.
9. (Drainage Report) A flume analysis was performed for Sta. 15+30 to 22+35.25,
what about Sta. 10+00 to 15+30?
10. (Drainage Report) In Exhibit C-3, the velocities in inlets 87 thru 89 appear to be
below 2.5 fps? Also please explain "C3"?
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: May 15, 2006