Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence cmi Kimley-Horn ❑ and Associates,Inc. Memorandum To: Alan Gibbs,P.E. —City of College Station From: Steven D. Galloway,P.E. -Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Cc: Joseph Johnson—The Dovetail Companies David Mulkey—The Dovetail Companies Thomas Mulkey—The Dovetail Companies Jerry Baker—The Dovetail Companies Kevin Gaskey—Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Chris Harris -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mark Smith—City of College Station Chuck Ellison—The Ellison Firm Date: November 28, 2006 Subj: Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR)Tributary naming convention The CLOMR submittal associated with The Woodlands at College Station development referenced improvements to two creeks: Tributary B to Bee Creek and an Unnamed Tributary to Tributary B to Bee Creek. For the purposes of clarity in the submittal, each of these creeks was assigned an abbreviated name for use throughout the report. These names, which are established in the Executive Summary of the report, are listed below: 1. Tributary B to Bee Creek is referenced throughout the report as"Tributary." 2. Unnamed Tributary to Tributary B to Bee Creek is referenced throughout the report as"Tributary A." Tributary B to Bee Creek is labeled with its full name on the workmaps included in the CLOMR submittal. The Unnamed Tributary to Tributary B to Bee Creek is labeled as "Unnamed Tributary"on the workmaps. A smaller label also references the Unnamed Tributary as"Tributary A"on the workmaps. U�' bJ eot°u G:\68167000-Woodlands-CS\Proj\Corres-Out\Memos\MEMO-CLOMR 20061128.doc �\'\/ Q ��^,lry From: Alan Gibbs To: Smith, Mark Date: 11/20/2006 5:46:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Woodlands Mark, I provided the attached to Chuck per his request. Below is brief summary: -A ZBA variance and a zero rise floodstudy was approved for the project - City can issue a permit if an adequate bridge design is submitted -The only thing the bridge"holds up" is the drive to 2818, not building permits etc -Though not required, the developer is pursuing a CLOMR -To submit a CLOMR to FEMA I have required a bridge schematic, and for the subsequent flood study to be a zero rise Interestingly, Kimley Horn took over the project just over 7 months ago. The bridge was a hot item then - this was part of the reason MDG was fired. The bridge is a subcontracted design that they simply haven't followed up on for some reason. I have asked for is a schematic to include within the CLOMR as an addendum and that they had agreed to provide previously. The zero rise issue is a bit more complicated. Basically, they performed a short study that achieved zero rise associated with ZBA. However, now their complete study included for the CLOMR does not achieve a zero rise. They are making the distinction (like Kling did previously) between the floodway encroachment and fringe encroachment-which FEMA has told us is inappropriate. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>>Alan Gibbs 11/20/2006 3:58:31 PM >>> v y J 4,44,, rt. Chuck, Attached is applicable emails. # L r y,t ►'G' J Alan Gibbs, P.E. 7 � City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works l3 15- �//,,�,0 L CCvt� Air t 'A1,44-4- (11) / Z- �i <, P r ( I) TteAR2 Amoy," OtazAmort etv 6T1 4y4 ik--4611 eirtml P • From: Alan Gibbs To: Kevin.Gaskey@kimley-horn.com Date: 11/17/2006 1:11:22 PM Subject: Re: Kevin, We received a submittal from Jerry yesterday solely regarding the waterline realignment at Fm2818. I have not completed the review. On Oct 20th, we received a complete civil construction set. I sent comments on Nov 3rd as attached. I trust this is submittal you are refering to, however I have not been able to locate the bridge schematic for the CLOMR. Please advise. The Hike and Bike Easement is a requirement of the Comprehensive Plan which is triggered as a requirement of the Final Plat. Yes, the intent is for the easement to follow the creek and to remain natural and undisturbed vegetation. Revising the easment location may be acceptable. The proposed fill into the easement is not allowed and the plans need to be revised accordingly. Similarly, there is a need to accommodate the easement with drives. On the northern drive, the headwall presents an obstruction and the pedestrian appears most appropriate near the roundabout-this will require minor structural accommodations with the curbs and islands, and additional easement. On the southern drive, Jerry indicated this may be an opportunity to pass the trail under the bridge-otherwise, the same issues need to be addressed. On a different note, I have dialogued with Ellison Law regarding the existing easement retained from the Christine Lane ROW abandonment. See attached. Similarly, we need to discuss elements associated with the gate and this easement as I believe it is not clarified in the plan submittal. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> <Kevin.Gaskey@kimley-horn.com> 11/17/2006 8:26:59 AM >>> Alan, Jerry Baker from Dovetail called yesterday to discuss a few items. CLOMR Jerry said you were waiting on the Bridge Design plans to submit the , CLOMR to FEMA. We are confused.,' n August 21st when we spoke to you about the ZBA submittal you said you would submit the CLOMR after the ZBA approval on October 3rd. The CLOMRwasmo suiiiriitted to our knowledge. e s -again October 18th and you said you needed a bridge schematic in order to s mit the CLOMR. W.efad sent.you this bridge schematic in our .d set on October 13 . It appears the CLOMR was no`fsubmitted" ien. FEMA does not requiie bridge design plans to review a CLOMR submittal. The data they need to review the bridge crossing is indicated in the model and shows the low chord and width of the bridge. The information FEMA needs for a review is contained in the report. The process has become confusing to us and Dovetail as we are told the process and the process changes over time. It places us in an uneasy position of telling our client one thing based on our conversations and then the process changing. We request you submit the CLOMR to FEMA based on the information you have which is sufficient for FEMA review. Please advise if you will be submitting this to FEMA. Hike and Bike Trail I want to make sure I have the history correct, so I will start there. The hike and bike trail was an item agreed to by Dovetail during the initial site planning process. The intent of the trail was to follow the natural creek as best as possible based on the MDG LOMR calculations. Is this correct? We now know the MDG calculations were inaccurate and the floodplain limits and work needed in the floodplain was more extensive than contemplated by MDG. Based on the revised floodplain and earthwork limits, the hike and bike trial easement and plan location need to be revised to match the grading and earthwork now occurring in the channel. If you agree with this, we can have the landscape architect update the location of the hike and bike trail on their plans to match the revised floodplain and earthwork limits. If you do not agree, please let us know what we are missing. Dovetail and Kimley-Horn want to be responsive to your requests. At the same time, we need to be able to move forward on the project based on conversations we have had in the past and be able to rely on these conversations for our direction and communication with Dovetail. Thanks and please advise on these two items. Respectfully, Kevin S Gaskey CC: Chris.Harris@kimley-horn.com; dmulkey@thedovetailcompanies.com; jbaker@thedovetailcompanies.com; tmulkey@thedovetailcompanies.com From: <hugo.morales@kimley-horn.com> To: <Agibbs@cstx.gov> Date: 11/13/2006 9:59:02 AM Subject: RE: Woodlands Alan, Please see our response below. Please call us if you have any questions. Thank you. Hugo Morales EIT Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 9300 Wade Blvd., Suite 320 Frisco, TX 75035 P. 972-335-3580 F. 972-335-3779 hugo.morales@kimley-horn.com Original Message From: Alan Gibbs [mailto:Agibbs@cstx.gov] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 11:17 AM To: Morales, Hugo; Jerry Baker Cc: Lindsay Boyer Subject: Fwd: Woodlands Hugo/Jerry, I have reviewed the resubmittal with the following comments: 1. Sheet C-2: The proposed fill west of the creek should encroach into the Hike and Bike easement. This easement should be left in natural state and no vegetation removed. We assume you meant"should not"encroach. The plat will be updated to accommodate the easement in the proper location. 3. Sheet C-2, and C-22: Due to the height of the headwalls at the two crossings, provide appropriate rails and a sidewalk for pedestrian passage. Also, please clarify how the hike and bike pedestrian movements are to be accommodated. Additional, hike and bike easement appears necessary as well as a structural modifications near each bridge/drive. Guard rails have been provided on the crossing from Southwest. Guard rail and Handrails have been provided for the Christine Lane crossing. The Hike and bike easement ends at Christine Lane. Also the plat will be updated to accommodate the easement to connect with Christine Lane. Structural modifications will not be necessary once the easement is updated. 4. Waterline"F": Depict line on site plan, provide a 4" blow-off at end or relocate FH to end, provide a gate valve at Sta. 2+00. 4" blow-off and FH will be relocated. Steve, 4 Response to attachment: 1. What is the status of the brigde design? 2. A zero-rise is required for the entire project. 3. It would be helpful to clarify in the report table and exhibits. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>>Alan Gibbs 10/6/2006 5:11 PM >>> Jerry/H ugo- The associated ZBA variance for the bridge encroachment into the floodway was approved this last Tuesday (10-3-6). The last set of plans did not have a bridge design included. Please provide the subject bridge design as well as the revisions stated below for a new stamped sets. The City will need additional copies for the revisions: 7 full sets (Site, Construction, and Landscaping) 2 site plans only 1 landscaping only (if altered) 1 set of 11x17 grading and erosion control plans 4 additional engineers cost estimates Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>>Alan Gibbs 9/25/2006 11:11 AM >>> Jerry/Kevin/Hugo, As discussed, the sizing of the RCBCs is acceptable. Specifically, 7—7'x4's and 5— 7'x4's for the two drive crossings from Southwest Parkway. However, there are additional items below that should be revised before I stamp the plans: 1. Sheet C-2: The proposed fill west of the creek should encroach into the Hike and Bike easement. This easement should be left in natural state and no vegetation removed. 2. Sheet C-25: Note in the typical blowups that the fire line from the main to the edge of the easement is to be 3" and a 3"gate valve is to be placed just inside the easement. (Beyond the easement and valve is private and can be reduced down to 2 '/2'.) 3. Sheet C-2, and C-22: Due to the height of the headwalls at the two crossings, provide appropriate rails and a sidewalk for pedestrian passage. Also, please clarify how the hike and bike pedestrian movements are to be accommodated. 4. A public waterline will need to be extended to serve the hydrant proposed with the construction of the drive off Harvey Mitchell Parkway. 5. FYI - FDCs are not depicted on the cottages or Building#13. The fire line and FDC do not appear to line up on Building#39. Some of the specifics may be addressed with the Fire Marshall during construction. 6. FYI -TxDOT has approved this drive off Harvey Mitchell Parkway. 7. FYI - FEMA has responded again to the LOMR Case#06-06-B753P submitted by MDG, by letter dated September 5, 2006 stating that a fee of$4,400 is required. At Dovetail's request, I have subsequently left a voicemail with Dr. Saleem Ashraf, P.E. (with Michael Baker for FEMA at 703/960-8800 x5229) to inform FEMA we wish this LOMR request be rescinded -and that a separate study was forthcoming. Also, I have let MDG know that I was contacting FEMA on Dovetail's behalf. 8. FYI -The ZBA variance associated with the floodway encroachment for the bridge with the drive from Harvey Mitchell Parkway is scheduled for the October 3rd ZBA Meeting which begins at 6pm here at City Hall's Council Chambers. Let me know if there are any questions. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. CC: <Kevin.Gaskey@kimley-horn.com> From: Alan Gibbs To: Baker, Jerry; hugo.morales@kimley-horn.com Date: 11/3/2006 11:16:30 AM Subject: Fwd: Woodlands Hugo/Jerry, I have reviewed the resubmittal with the following comments: 1. Sheet C-2: The proposed fill west of the creek should encroach into the Hike and Bike easement. This easement should be left in natural state and no vegetation removed. 3. Sheet C-2, and C-22: Due to the height of the headwalls at the two crossings, provide appropriate rails and a sidewalk for pedestrian passage. Also, please clarify how the hike and bike pedestrian movements are to be accommodated. Additional, hike and bike easement appears necessary as well as a structural modifications near each bridge/drive. 4. Waterline"F": Depict line on site plan, provide a 4" blow-off at end or relocate FH to end, provide a gate valve at Sta. 2+00. Steve, Response to attachment: 1. What is the status of the brigde design'? • 2. A zero-rise is required for the entire project. leo 3. It would be helpful to clarify in the report table and exhibits. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>>Alan Gibbs 10/6/2006 5:11 PM >>> Jerry/Hugo- The associated ZBA variance for the bridge encroachment into the floodway was approved this last Tuesday(10-3-6). The last set of plans did not have a bridge design included. Please provide the subject bridge design as well as the revisions stated below for a new stamped sets. The City will need additional copies for the revisions: 7 full sets (Site, Construction, and Landscaping) 2 site plans only 1 landscaping only (if altered) 1 set of 11x17 grading and erosion control plans 4 additional engineers cost estimates Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station J. Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> Alan Gibbs 9/25/2006 11:11 AM >>> Jerry/Kevin/Hugo, As discussed, the sizing of the RCBCs is acceptable. Specifically, 7— 7'x4's and 5— 7'x4's for the two drive crossings from Southwest Parkway. However, there are additional items below that should be revised before I stamp the plans: 1. Sheet C-2: The proposed fill west of the creek should encroach into the Hike and Bike easement. This easement should be left in natural state and no vegetation removed. 2. Sheet C-25: Note in the typical blowups that the fire line from the main to the edge of the easement is to be 3" and a 3"gate valve is to be placed just inside the easement. (Beyond the easement and valve is private and can be reduced down to 2W.) 3. Sheet C-2, and C-22: Due to the height of the headwalls at the two crossings, provide appropriate rails and a sidewalk for pedestrian passage. Also, please clarify how the hike and bike pedestrian movements are to be accommodated. 4. A public waterline will need to be extended to serve the hydrant proposed with the construction of the drive off Harvey Mitchell Parkway. 5. FYI - FDCs are not depicted on the cottages or Building#13. The fire line and FDC do not appear to line up on Building #39. Some of the specifics may be addressed with the Fire Marshall during construction. 6. FYI -TxDOT has approved this drive off Harvey Mitchell Parkway. 7. FYI - FEMA has responded again to the LOMR Case#06-06-B753P submitted by MDG, by letter dated September 5, 2006 stating that a fee of$4,400 is required. At Dovetail's request, I have subsequently left a voicemail with Dr. Saleem Ashraf, P.E. (with Michael Baker for FEMA at 703/960-8800 x5229) to inform FEMA we wish this LOMR request be rescinded -and that a separate study was forthcoming. Also, I have let MDG know that I was contacting FEMA on Dovetail's behalf. 8. FYI -The ZBA variance associated with the floodway encroachment for the bridge with the drive from Harvey Mitchell Parkway is scheduled for the October 3rd ZBA Meeting which begins at 6pm here at City Hall's Council Chambers. Let me know if there are any questions. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works CC: Boyer, Lindsay From: <Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com> To: <Agibbs@cstx.gov> Date: 10/16/2006 11:56:01 AM Subject: RE: Woodlands CLOMR Alan, In response to your questions: 1. You have not received the final design of that bridge, as it is a design-build by the bridge fabricator. In the past, I believe we have submitted CLOMRs to FEMA, and had acntecdyvith the onjschematic n e m orma ion such asiat foundthemce in the modeling Would it be posse le�"o yr ou To sig" r o on th LO ER-without the bridge design so that we can forward it to FEMA and begin the clock on the review process? We can work on getting the final bridge design in a meantime, so that if FEMA comments on it we can provide the design at that time. 2. I concur regarding the zero-rise in the floodway information. feel that the rises in the floodplain elevation are not caused by �,, impacts to the floodway, but are rather caused by floodplain impacts in 17 areas where the floodway is not defined. Since we seem to be in agreement on this issue, I do not plan to make revisions based on this issue. 3. In my copy of the CLOMR, we reference the Tributary as Unnamed Tributary on both Table 3 and the exhibits. We also reference it as Tributary A on the workmaps. This is due to the naming convention used in the report, which was implemented to avoid referring to the"Unnamed Tributary to Tributary B"throughout the document. Do you need us to change this convention or make any revisions to the workmaps or the report text? Let me know your responses to these items. Thanks, Steve Original Message From: Alan Gibbs [mailto:Agibbs@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:11 PM To: Galloway, Steve Subject: Woodlands CLOMR Steve, As you know the associated ZBA encroachment variance was issued last Tuesday. However, I do not believe I have recieved the design of the southern bridge to date. Similarly, the bridge design should be included with the CLOMR. In the text of the CLOMR, it is stated that a foot rise is allowed. Similarly, Table 2 depicts a rise of up to 0.28 ft. The proposed condition is a floodway encroachment which requires zero rise. However, the modeled rise is beyond the current detailed study which terminates at 103+50. On a minor note, Table 3 and the exhibits should reference the unnamed tributary(not Tributary A which is defined and its confluence is downstream of this study area). Please comment. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. From: Alan Gibbs To: Baker, Jerry; hugo.morales@kimley-horn.com Date: 10/6/2006 5:11:58 PM Subject: Fwd: Woodlands Jerry/Hugo- The associated ZBA variance for the bridge encroachment into the floodway was approved this last Tuesday(10-3-6). The last set of plans did not have a bridge design included._ Please provide the subject bride desi as well as the revisions stated Jatlat fora new stamped sets. *The City will need additional copies for the revisions: 7 full sets (Site, Construction, and Landscaping) 2 site plans only 1 landscaping only(if altered) 1 set of 11x17 grading and erosion control plans 4 additional engineers cost estimates Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>>Alan Gibbs 9/25/2006 11:11 AM >>> Jerry/Kevin/Hugo, As discussed, the sizing of the RCBCs is acceptable. Specifically, 7- 7'x4's and 5- 7'x4's for the two drive crossings from Southwest Parkway. However, there are additional items below that should be revised before I stamp the plans: S. Sheet C-2: The proposed fill west of the creek should encroach into the Hike and Bike easement. This easement should be left in natural state and no vegetation removed. t/2. Sheet C-25: Note in the typical blowups that the fire line from the main to the edge of the easement is to be 3" and a 3" gate valve is to be placed just inside the easement. (Beyond the easement and valve is private and can be reduced down to 2 W.) ✓3. Sheet C-2, and C-22: Due to the height of the headwalls at the two crossings, provide appropriate rails and a sidewalk for pedestrian passagee►Iso, p ease c arify how the hike and bike pedestrian movements are to be accommodated. W\ A''T- It / K it A public waterline will need to be extended to serve the hydrant proposed with the construction of the WM F iit' drive off Harvey Mitchell Parkway. —c,±4, Q(„ti,_ il,t4.,.:._t-J b1 pi' .r (.4., Fit-I...-. 4 OA' 0-4P° t/5. FYI - FDCs are not depicted on the cottages or Building_#13. The fire line and FDC do not appear to 6 line up on Building#39. Some of the specifics may be addressed with the Fire Marshall during construction. tn17 6,;.141,..) —�-4-. . j6. FYI -TxDOT has approved this drive off Harvey Mitchell Parkway. ✓7. FYI - FEMA has responded again to the LOMR Case#06-06-B753P submitted by MDG, by letter dated September 5, 2006 stating that a fee of$4,400 is required. At Dovetail's request, I have subsequently left a voicemail with Dr. Saleem Ashraf, P.E. (with Michael Baker for FEMA at 703/960-8800 x5229) to inform FEMA we wish this LOMR request be rescinded -and that a separate study was forthcoming. Also, I have let MDG know that I was contacting FEMA on Dovetail's behalf. (78. FYI -The ZBA variance associated with the floodway encroachment for the bridge with the drive from Harvey Mitchell Parkway is scheduled for the October 3rd ZBA Meeting which begins at 6pm here at City Hall's Council Chambers. Let me know if there are any questions. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works 1 From: <Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com> To: <Agibbs@cstx.gov> Date: 10/16/2006 11:56:01 AM Subject: RE: Woodlands CLOMR Alan, In response to your questions: 1. You have not received the final design of that bridge, as it is a design-build by the bridge fabricator. In the past, I believe we have submitted CLOMRs to FEMA, and had them accepted, with the only schematic bridge information such as that found in the modeling. Would it be possible for you to sign off on the CLOMR without the bridge design so that we can forward it to FEMA and begin the clock on the review process? We can work on getting the final bridge design in a meantime, so that if FEMA comments on it we can provide the design at that time. 2. I concur regarding the zero-rise in the floodway information. I feel that the rises in the floodplain elevation are not caused by impacts to the floodway, but are rather caused by floodplain impacts in areas where the floodway is not defined. Since we seem to be in agreement on this issue, I do not plan to make revisions based on this issue. 3. In my copy of the CLOMR, we reference the Tributary as Unnamed Tributary on both Table 3 and the exhibits. We also reference it as Tributary A on the workmaps. This is due to the naming convention used in the report, which was implemented to avoid referring to the"Unnamed Tributary to Tributary B"throughout the document. Do you need us to change this convention or make any revisions to the workmaps or the report text? Let me know your responses to these items. Thanks, Steve Original Message From: Alan Gibbs [mailto:Agibbs@cstx.gov] Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 4:11 PM To: Galloway, Steve Subject: Woodlands CLOMR Steve, As you know the associated ZBA encroachment variance was issued last Tuesday. However, I do not believe I have recieved the design of the southern bridge to date. Similarly, the bridge design should be included with the CLOMR. In the text of the CLOMR, it is stated that a foot rise is allowed. Similarly, Table 2 depicts a rise of up to 0.28 ft. The proposed condition is a floodway encroachment which requires zero rise. However, the modeled rise is beyond the current detailed study which terminates at 103+50. On a minor note, Table 3 and the exhibits should reference the unnamed tributary (not Tributary A which is defined and its confluence is downstream of this study area). Please comment. CoSep, 8. 2006 3:46PN The Doveta 1 Companies No. 4824 P. 11.ge 1 of t. DvET L BUT ! D (; R. S September 8, 2005 Mr. Alan Gibbs City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77840 Phone: 979-764-3570 Fax: 979-764-3496 Project [0504] Woodlands of College Station Subject LOMR for Bee Creek Tributary Dear Mr. Gibbs: Dovetail requests the City of College Station to notify FEMA that the LOMB submitted by MDC for the Bee Creek Tributary is withdrawn. Dovetail will be submitting to the City of College Station a CLOMR for the Bee Creek Tributary prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates reflecting the proposed site conditions and ultimate improvements. Sincerely, WatVe--ANO Larry Watkins Project Manager Cr Correspondence No. 00014 Dovetail Builders CL°Ailf 1550 Timothy Road Suite 201 Atha i/DAATZ-_Phone: (706) 357-9100 Fax: (701 https://secure.constructware.corn/CommonNiew/Document_Disp[ay.asp7DocumentType=41.&Zte... 9/8/2006 From: <Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com> To: <Agibbs@cstx.gov> Date: 8/31/2006 2:28:42 PM Subject: Summary of 8/31/06 phone conversation Alan, The following is a summary of our phone conversation regarding the ZBA submittal for the Woodlands development. Please let me know if you have any additions or deletions. There are currently three hydraulic models that impact this submittal: 1. FEMA effective model (100-year flow is 1540 cfs) 2. KLOTZ CLOMR model 3. KHA zero-rise model (100-year flow ranges from 2,098 to 1,832 cfs) The KHA model (Model 3) is being submitted to the City (ZBA) and to FEMA. The ZBA model will include the flows listed above (1,832 to 2,098 cfs). .ow-v-r due to the fact that the CLOMR has to tie-into the FEM I - ii•• ^•'her V o•e is toeing inc used in t e • R with the flows from Model 1 (1,540 cfs). Upon completion of the improvements detailed in the KLOTZ CLOMR (Model 2), a LOMR will be produced that will update the flows throughout the watershed and will replace the Model 1. Upon the completion of the improvements to the floodplain associated with the Model 3, a LOMR will be produced that will update the channel geometry in the vicinity of the Woodlands site. If Model 3 becomes a LOMR before Model 2 - KLOTZ will take the cross sections and the flows from the Model 3 City submittal and include them with the Model 2 LOMR. If Model 2 becomes a LOMR before Model 3 - KHA will submit the model 3 in a LOMR that ties into model 2 with the City flows previously described. If Model 2 and Model 3 are ready to become LOMR's at the same time, KHA and KLOTZ should work together and would preferably submit one LOMR to deal with both projects. However the timing of the LOMR submittals falls out, there will have to be coordination between the City, KLOTZ, and KHA throughout the process. In regards to the ZBA submittal, you have requested that the zero-rise study not include the Christine Lane crossing. The hydraulic model will be terminated downstream of the proposed crossing. The hydraulic model will include the entire portion of the creek that currently has a FEMA floodway associated with it. The model is being truncated due to the fact that the Christine Lane crossing includes a small increase in the 100-year floodplain elevation. Although there is no floodway in this area„ and City criteria allow up to a one-foot increase in this situation, we will not include the crossing in the model to avoid confusion with the ZBA submittal. ZBA approval is not necessary for the approval of the Christine Lane culverts, so the Christine Lane culverts will be approved by the City following your review and our satisfactory response to your comments and questions. The ZBA zero-rise study will include the hydrologic modeling we used to determine the 100-year existing condition flow, and the hydraulic model with floodplain elevations for the 100-year existing condition flow in both existing and proposed conditions showing no increase in the 100-year floodplain elevation. In regards to the MDG LOMR, I am still trying to determine if written notification has been sent to FEMA to request that they cease their review of the LOMR. Let me know if you have any questions or additions to these notes. Thanks, Steven D. Galloway, P.E. (TX) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 12700 Park Central Drive Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75251 Ph : 972.776.1704 Fx : 972.239.3820 steve.galloway@kimley-horn.com CC: <Kevin.Gaskey@kimley-horn.com>, <hugo.morales@kimley-horn.com>, <chelsy.stegall@kimley-horn.com> From: Alan Gibbs To: Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com Date: 8/31/2006 10:09:09 AM Subject: Re: ZBA submittal/CLOMR update for Woodlands Steve, See told comments below. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> <Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com> 8/29/2006 2:41 PM >>> Alan, I wanted to give you an update on our status regarding the CLOMR and zero rise study for the ZBA application for the Woodlands development. We recently received the effective FEMA models for the creek adjacent to the site. These models, while similar to the Klotz models, did not include the same flows as the Klotz modeling. The flows in the FEMA models were significantly less than the flows in the Klotz model, as well as the flows that KHA developed. This can be explained by the fact that the FEMA effective model is dated 1979. While the Klotz model was accepted by FEMA, it was a CLOMR, not a LOMR. Therefore, the effective models has not been revised, and the Klotz modeling is not recognized by FEMA. This could potentially create a problem in that the current KHA model, which shows a flow of approximately 2100 cfs immediately upstream of Harvey Mitchell, would have to tie into a FEMA model that shows a flow of approximately 1500 cfs downstream of Harvey Mitchell. In my experience, FEMA has balked at such submittals. Hove wondered about timing problems when subsequent LOMRs come in after approved CLOMRs. My preference would be for you to update the KLOTZ CLOMR. Based on past submittals to FEMA, we plan the following course of action: Submittal of a zero rise study to the City that ties into the Klotz model and uses the flows that we have developed as part of this study(the existing 100-year, fully developed 25 year, and fully developed 100 year flows that we discussed at our meeting last week)Okay. Submittal of a CLOMR study that ties into the effective FEMA model and uses the flows from the effective FEMA model. The geometry of the model would be the same as the geometry from the zero rise study. The CLOMR would eventually be forwarded to FEMA.As above. Both models would include zero rises at the Harvey Mitchell access road crossing, and both may show a slight increase in the floodplain elevation upstream of Christine Lane. Please clarify how a slight increase satisfies zero rise. I would anticipate that the zero rise study model would become the effective model for the City, and the eventual LOMR model for the Woodlands site would become the effective model for FEMA. When the City moves forward with the LOMR for the entire creek basin, based on the Klotz modeling, I would anticipate that you would include KHA hydrology and hydraulics from the zero rise study, at which point the City effective modeling would become FEMA effective. Again I think this would need to happen with the KHA CLOMR. Please let me know if you have any thoughts regarding this plan of action. Thanks, Steven D. Galloway, P.E. (TX) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 12700 Park Central Drive Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75251 Ph : 972.776.1704 Fx : 972.239.3820 steve.gallowayalkimley-horn.com From: Gaskey, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:08 AM To: Galloway, Steve; Stegall, Chelsy Cc: Morales, Hugo Subject: ZBA submittal Wanted to check on the status of the ZBA submittal and make sure we are coordinated for making the submittal on Friday. Thanks Kevin CC: chelsy.stegall@kimley-horn.com; hugo.morales@kimley-horn.com; Kevin.Gaskey@kimley-horn.com From: <Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com> To: <Agibbs@cstx.gov> Date: 8/29/2006 2:42:00 PM Subject: ZBA submittal/CLOMR update for Woodlands Alan, g C ,n„ I wanted to give you an update on our status regarding the CLOMR and / - Q zero rise study for the ZBA application for the Woodlands development. We recently received the effective FEMA models for the creek adjacent to ;let (iova5+ Ftews) the site. These models, while similar to the Klotz models, did not l include the same flows as the Klotz modeling. The flows in the FEMA ;r( models were significantly less than the flows in the Klotz model, as well as the flows that KHA developed. This can be explained by the fact 'g}t11 Athat the FEMA effective model is dated 1979. WhiletheXlotz model was 1'T' accepted by FEMA,l*wasa CLOMR, not a LOMB.. Therefore, the effective models has not been revised, and the Klotzmodeling is not recognized by FEMA. This could potentially create a problem in that the current KHA model, which shows a flew of approximately 2100 cfs immediately upstream of Harvey Mitchell would have to tie into a FEMA model tha shows a flow , _1 �'" of approximately 1500 cfs downstream of Harvey Mitchell tN�'`''` In my Sce- experience, FEMA has balked at such submittals. Based on past submittals to FEMA, we plan the following course of action: Submittal of a zero rise study to the City • *Onto the Klotz •• r g , ,rt of this p study(the existing os-ye- , y deve oiled 25 year,an• '► ly -� developed 100 year flows that we discussed at our meeting last week) Submittal of a CLOMR study4hat ties into the effective FEMA model and uses the flows from the effective FEMA model.1The geometry of the model would be the same as the geometry from the zeffo rise study. The CLOMR would eventually be forwarded to FEMA. Both models would include e o ris s at the Harvey Mitchell access road crossing, and both may show a slight• cr-ase in - floo•plain __ ? elevation u•s ream of i i (3 - -. wou • -nticip- a t•a e zero s- •• mo•e ^• d b- •met a effective model for the City, and the eventual LOMR modelf_or the Woodlands site would become the effective model for FEMA. h theCity owes forward with the LOMR for the entire creek sen ased on the Klotz modeling wou anticipate that ll v'i"(L" you would induct $HA hydrology and hydraulics from the zero rise study) at which point the City effective modeling would become FEMA effective. Please let me know if you have any thoughts regarding this plan of action. Thanks, Steven D. Galloway, P.E. (TX) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. From: Alan Gibbs To: Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com Date: 8/1/2006 8:14:42 AM Subject: Re: Woodlands - Bee Creek Tributary B CLOMR question Steve, These Tc's and Vs appear reasonable however, I would prefer they be calculated instead of assumed. The draft of our drainage guidelines provides standard recommended methods on Sec VI p. 28 (or p.88 of the pdf). Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> <Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com> 7/31/2006 5:04 PM >>> >Alan: > I am following up on the voicemail that I left you this afternoon. We > have developed time of concentration numbers for our CLOMR/zero rise > study for the Bee Creek Tributary B watershed. We have used the > method described below to calculate Tc values in both fully developed > and existing conditions, and wanted to determine if you agreed with > our assumptions. > In our calculations we are assuming an inlet time of 10 minutes for > multi-family areas and 15 minutes for single family areas. We also > assume a velocity of 6 ft/sec for storm drain pipe and constructed > channels and 1 ft/sec for natural channels. > Do you feel that this method of calculating the time of concentration > appropriate or is there another method you would prefer that we use to > calculate these values? > Please call or email me with questions or comments, or if you need any > additional information. Thanks, Steven D. Galloway, P.E. (TX) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 12700 Park Central Drive Suite 1800 Dallas, TX 75251 Ph : 972.776.1704 Fx : 972.239.3820 steve.gallowaykimley-horn.com CC: chelsy.stegall@kimley-horn.com From: Alan Gibbs To: Kevin.Gaskey@kimley-horn.com Date: 7/17/2006 5:07:47 PM Subject: RE: ZBA Variance for Floodway crossing Kevin, 1. This may present problems if the MDG LOMR is approved? With regard to ZBA dates, I'm told the deadline and meeting date are correct. I'm not sure if we could get a quorum for a different date, but we could check. Please keep in mind that we have to advertise 16 days before the meeting. 3. More specifically: Drainage Policy, Sec 5.C. states"If a modification of any watercourse is involved, an effective Conditional Letter of Map Amendment shall be on file with the Administrator prior to any development." In the definitions, a "watercourse - means any natural or artificial stream, river, creek, ditch, channel, canal, conduit, culver, drain, waterway, gully, ravine, or wash, in and including any area adjacent thereto which is subject to indundation by reason of overflow of flood water." This could be interpreted broader than I would apply it, but I cannot quantify it beyond what I have cited. If a proposed channel is si•nifica -•• •• • •-r a CL•11' it should be a••roved b FEMA •rior to construc .•i o erwise, the m a••royal of the zero rise stud and ZBA's •rantin• of the varia - . I. .-• for_ issuanc-o a d v it. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> <Kevin.Gaskey@kimley-horn.com> 7/17/2006 4:33 PM >>> Alan, Please see our responses below to each of your questions. Steve Galloway in our Dallas office is the H&H engineer for this project and will be contacting you as we move forward in the process. 1.The zero rise would be in relation to the existing condition model that we will produce based on our topographic information. It is possible (likely, in fact) that our existing conditions floodplain elevations will differ from effective and from the MDG modeling. Supporting information will include models, cross section locations, and a letter report. 2. The zero rise floodstudy will address the 100-year flood. The CLOMR would address the required FEMA models (10, 50, 100, and 500 year profiles, as well as floodway modeling). The CLOMR would also include a more detailed report, plans for the culvert, forms, ems. 1 he zero rise—_. study will indicate our review of the floo pain an Te'T you know that we have developed a plan that does not create a rise in the 100-year event. 3. What is your definition of a channel modification? Our intent is to provide a hydraulic model that shows the construction of a box culvert crossing of the channel. There may be an expansion of the channel in some locations to provide additional floodplain volume and reclaim floodplain area in the channel overbanks. The modeling will reflect the design of these improvements and will show a zero-rise in the 100-year floodplain elevation. It has been our and Dovetails understanding that upon your acceptance of this modeling and ZBA approval we would be allowed to proceed with construction of the improvements. We need clarification of this approval. Please see item#4 below. Please let me know if you need clarification of other items. Thanks Kevin Original Message From: Alan Gibbs jmailto:Agibbs@cstx.govl Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 3:09 PM To: Gaskey, Kevin Cc: Bridgette George; Morales, Hugo; Galloway, Steve; Iwatkins( thedovetailcompanies.com; tmulkey@thedovetailcompanies.com Subject: Re: ZBA Variance for Floodway crossing Kevin, More dialogue is necessary with regard to the timelines, but in that vein I had a few questions. 1. -Will the Zero-rise be in relation to effective study or the pending LOMR? -All supporting infomation for the zero rise floodstudy will be submitted Aug 7th? 2. The CLOMR will essentially be the same zero rise floodstudy with FEMA forms? 3. An approved CLOMR from FEMA would only be required ahead of construction (development permit issuance) if there was a channel modification. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> <Kevin.Gaskeykimley-horn.com> 7/17/2006 2:53:54 PM >>> Alan, I left you a voice mail on Friday afternoon concerning the Woodlands at College Station and following up with this email to make sure we are all on the same page. 1. On August 7th, we will submit the formal ZBA request(per the City submittal deadline) along with the information indicating a zero rise in the floodplain due to this crossing. (We are assuming a pre-submittal conference is not needed) Our understanding of the process is you will review this modeling and make a recommendation to the ZBA for approval (if the zero rise is met) The scheduled ZBA meeting is on Tuesday, September 5th at 6:00 pm. Larry recalls you saying you could convene a special ZBA hearing for this item prior to the 5th because of the nature of this request. Is that possible? I2. The complete CLOMR submittal will be ready for City review and submission to FEMA by August 28th. 3. After the ZBA approval on September 5th, Dovetail is approved to begin construction of the crossing, at risk, since the CLOMR submittal will not have been reviewed by FEMA. 4. If after review by FEMA, adjustments need to be made to the CLOMR, these will be revised by Kimley-Horn and Associates as it relates to the modeling and if field revisions to grading are needed these will be handled by Dovetail. Our expectation is that the CLOMR submittal will prove the zero rise in the floodplain elevations upstream of the structure. 5. A LOMR will be prepared after construction is completed for review and approval by the City of College Station and for forwarding on the FEMA for approval. If field revisions are needed when the record survey is prepared by Dovetail to comply with approved CLOMR, these will be made during the LOMR submittal. As you know, Dovetail is under a very tight schedule to begin construction and have these units available for students in August of next year. Dovetail and I appreciate your efforts to bring this project 1 to the finish line. Please call or email me if you have any questions or disagree with the premises stated above. Sincerely, Kevin Gaskey, PE 972-335-3580 College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. CC: George, Bridgette; hugo.morales@kimley-horn.com; Iwatkins@thedovetailcompanies.com; Steve.Galloway@kimley-horn.com; tmulkey@thedovetailcompanies.com CITY OF COJ.T.FGE STATION Planning cf.Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 October 4, 2006 RE: Variance Case 06-00500199 — 1725 Harvey Mitchell Parkway Dear Mr. Gaskey: The Zoning Board of Adjustments voted (5-0) to grant the variance for the flood encroachment for the above-referenced case. This vote was taken at the Board's regular meeting on October 3, 2006. If you should need anything else please contact me at 979.764.3784. Sincerely, Deborah Grace Staff Assistant Secretary to the Board PC: File Sent Via e-mail