HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments Cm OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning d Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
October 16,2007
TO: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group,via Natalie(d ipsgroup.us
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: THE LOFI S,WOLF PEN CREEK(SDSP) —Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff review
comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following
information for further staff review. Once the items have been sufficiently addressed, additional copies will
be requested for the Design Review Board (DRB) consideration and the project will be scheduled for the
next available DRB meeting:
Two (2) revised site plans;
One (1) revised landscaping plan;
Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents (please allow 4 weeks to process);
Other materials and information as described in the comments.
The agenda and staff report for your project can be accessed at the following web site on Tuesday the week
before the DRB meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/home/index.asp?page=31
Please note that additional construction documents will be required once the DRB has approved the Site
Plan, so that they can be stamped approved. If you have any questions or need additional information, please
call me at 979.764.3570.
pc: Mark Lindley,Asset Plus Corporation,via mlindley(&,assetpluscorp.com
Veronica Morgan,Mitchell&Morgan,LLP,via v((-4mitchellandmorgan.com
Case file no. 07-00500247
Staff Review Comments No. 1
THE LOFTS PH 1(SDSP) - 07-00500247
1. It appears that a 10' sanitary sewer easement,as shown on the Final Plat,exists along the
northwestern property line of Lot 1,Block 1. As submitted, this easement will need to be abandoned
prior to approval of the site plan. It may be possible,however, to phase the site plan in such a way
that work may begin (i.e. garage).
2. As agreed in the August 1,2007 memo, 5'is to be dedicated for ROW along Dartmouth St. and the
6.26 acre tract. It is staff's understanding that this is to be filed at the Court House shortly. Please
show the ROW dedication and label with volume and page.
3. As per agreement for the Richards and Sterling ROW abandonments with Public Works,9'will be
dedicated along Holleman Dr. after full building permit but prior to C.O. Staff appreciates the
willingness to be party to this agreement and understands the concern regarding the potential of
creating non-conforming areas due to the dedication. UDO Section 7.2,Reduction for Public
Purpose,provides the opportunity for reduced setbacks due to dedication to be legitimate. I would
like to discuss the possibility of showing the dedication on the site plan,with only minor adjustments
to the site, and thus ultimately resulting in an approved (stamped) site plan with the dedication
shown.
4. Please note that if it is desired to obtain CO's for portions of the development at a time,it will be
necessary to phase the site plan and landscape plan accordingly.
5. Please be aware that according to the UDO Section 7.1.H Height, the non-residential and multi-
family structures must meet the 1:2 height/distance ratio to the single family along Crest St. The 9'
height variance granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in April 2007 and differences in
elevation can be taken into account. The information necessary to verify compliance is required
prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. There appears to be a number of inconsistencies between the site plan and landscape plan. These
include dimensional differences, for example, the diameter of the circle off of Holleman Dr, the
distance between the Holleman Dr ROW and parking spaces, and other substantive differences such
as sidewalks to the townhome units, different island configuration in the circle drive, etc. Please
revise so that they are consistent.
7. Please rename the proposed"Townhomes" to another name. The City's definition of townhome
limits it to single family units on individually platted lots.
8. The rear setback in a WPC district is 15'. Please revise.
9. Please show the jog in rear setback along the western property line by the garage.
10. Please provide a note that the three properties are considered a building plot.
11. Please revise General Construction Note 15 to state: building architecture,"materials, colors" and
scale.
12. Please provide the finished floor elevations on the site plan.
13. Please provide the gross square feet of each proposed use and delineate the area used on the first
floor for the retail and clubhouse.
14. Due to the separation of the site by Manuel Dr,a minor collector, the required parking for
townhomes is to be provided adjacent to the townhomes. Please revise.
15. The site plan shows parking along Holleman Dr within 15' of the ROW(though the landscape plan
does not). If so,it is to comply with UDO 7.2.C.7,having a double-sized interior landscape island
for every 7 contiguous parking spaces. Please revise.
16. Please clarify the curbing around the circle drive and the Holleman Dr parking spaces. Interior
islands are to be curbed. Also,please verify that the handicap spaces have an accessible ramp and
wheelstops,as appropriate.
17. The minimum interior island area is not to be less than 180 square feet. Please revise.
18. Parking spaces may be reduced to 18'in depth if they are adjacent to a landscape island at least four
feet in depth or a 6' sidewalk. It appears that the parking spaces along the eastern edge of the drive
aisle to the garage as well as those fronting the townhomes do not meet this requirement.
19. There appears to be only 25 parking spaces along western property line by the garage,not 26. Please
revise the calculations.
20. The end island by the jog in the western property line and the townhome driveway to Manuel Dr
does not appear to be at least 180 square feet in area. Please revise.
21. Show location of proposed bike rack for the retail area on site plan. Are other bike racks proposed
for the development?
22. Please note that the Administrative Adjustment application for the front setback along Dartmouth
St. has been received and is under review.
23. Staff understands that the Fire Department has requested a pull-off lane for fire access along
Dartmouth St. Please illustrate the lane,label for bus and fire access,and provide details of the lane
that show it would support a fire apparatus.
24. At Fire's request,please note that if a bus shelter is ever provided at the pull-off location,it must be
located between the sidewalk and the buildings so as to allow aerial access.
25. Please provide a note that FDC connections will be shown on the fire sprinkler plan.
26. Please revise Site Plan Notes 9 & 10 to provide the water and sewer demands.
27. The driveway curb returns along Holleman Dr have a 20'radius. The western curb return of the
townhome driveway has a 15'radius. Please revise to between 25'and 30'.
28. The proposed driveway along Holleman Dr exceeds the maximum width of 36'. Please provide
justification as to why the maximum is to be exceeded.
29. According to ADA standards, at least one handicap spot (first one being van accessible) must be
placed in each type of parking space area (i.e. garage,driveway outside of garage, and townhome lot).
It appears that two would need to be provided in the parking area outside the garage and one in the
townhome area. Please revise.
30. Provide a handicap ramp to the sidewalk on south side of garage by the grasscrete.
31. Please provide material samples for the Aluminum Mesh Screen, Steel Mesh Guardrail,and the
pavestone,and other proposed materials.
32. Provide the exterior lighting details for review and consideration by the DRB.
33. Provide the details for the grasscrete pavement, ensuring that it meets the fire lane standards.
34. Engineering comments are forthcoming and the construction documents are still under review and
may affect the site plan.
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. Show the location of the retaining wall on Landscape Plan.
2. Revise the site area and landscape points as per ROW changes requested above.
3. Please add the linear frontage of each side of Manuel Dr to the streetscape calculations.
4. Please note that the linear feet considered for streetscaping is the total frontage while driveway
openings and areas located within the visibility triangle can be removed.
5. Please show in table form which plantings are used to achieve the landscape points.
6. The landscape calculations may be revised to show the reduction in required points due to the points
credited for the irrigation system,enhanced paving,and special facilities.
7. Please provide the area and percentage of area to be considered for special facilities. This allowance
of these features for credit has not yet been determined by the Administrator.
8. The development is adjacent to single family homes along Crest St. Provide a buffer yard as per
UDO 7.6 along the common property line with those properties. Please note that plantings within
the buffer yard cannot count toward landscape points.
9. Improvements and plantings are proposed in the ROW. In order to perform these,a Private
Improvement in a Public Right-of-Way(PIP) application must be submitted and approved. Though
they may be provided through a PIP,plantings in the ROW may not count toward landscaping
points. Please revise.
10. Please resolve the discrepancy between the subtotals of streetscape required points
(4,158+3,390=8,088) and points required in calculations (7,548).
11. There appears to be 73 Bald Cypress canopy trees provided (not 74). Please revise.
12. Please note that Eastern Red Cedar trees may qualify as canopy trees (and landscaping points) if the
caliper inch is known.
13. River rock is not an approved groundcover material. Please revise.
14. Please provide a general note that 100% coverage of groundcover, decorative paving, decorative
rock, or a perennial grass is required in parking lot islands, swales and drainage areas, the parking lot
setback,rights-of-way,and adjacent property disturbed during construction.
15. Please provide a note that the irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum
Breaker, a Reduced Pressure Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double-Check Back Flow Device, and
installed as per City Ordinance 2394. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon
installation as per City Ordinance 2394.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: October 16,2007
SANITATION
1. Need to show garbage collection method.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: October 10, 2007
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
2. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines (including street
lights).
3. Additional easements are necessary for electric service. The location and size of the easements are
dependent on the requested location of the meters and transformers.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per City specs and design.
2. City will provide drawings for conduit installation.
3. Developer provides 30'of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. City installs riser.
4. Developer to intercept existing conduit at designated transformers and extend as required.
5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer, developer to furnish and install conduit as shown on
electrical layout.
6. Developer pours transformer pad(s) per City specs and design.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals as per City specs and design (pull boxes and
secondary pedestals provided by the City).
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of site plan. Email to bread@cstx.gov.
9. Developer provides load data for project.
10. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Brent Read at 979.764.5026
Reviewed by: Brent Read Date: October 10,2007
IPS Group
PAilizini Planning Solutions
MEMORANDUM
October 29,2007
TO: Jason Schubert,Staff Planner
FROM: Natalie Ruiz,IPS Group
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS,WOLF PEN CREEK —Response to Site Plan Comments#1
In response to your staff review comments#1,we have provided the following:
Two (2)revised site plans;and,
One(1)revised landscaping plan;
The easement dedication sheet referenced in your last memorandum was submitted to the City is August.
Again, thank you for all of your help in getting this project to the Design Review Board as soon as possible.
If there is anything that we can do to help your review of the revised plans;such as a work session to review
the plans together,we'll be glad to help. We look forward to hearing from you soon.
pc: Mark Lindley,Asset Plus Corporation
Veronica Morgan,Mitchell&Morgan
Case file
x _)41
511 University Drive East, Suite 211 College Station, TX 77840 979-846-9259 www.IPSGroup.us
Response to Staff Review Comments No.1
THE LOFTS PH 1(SDSP) -07-00500247
1. It appears that a 10'sanitary sewer easement,as shown on the Final Plat,exists along the
northwestern property line of Lot 1,Block 1. As submitted,this easement will need to be abandoned
prior to approval of the site plan. It may be possible,however,to phase the site plan in such a way
that work may begin (i.e.garage).
Response: We modified the site plan by numbering individual buildings that will be
permitted and C.O.'d separately. We understand that for buildings located on top of the
easement in question;building permits will be held until the sewer line is taken out of
service and the easement is abandoned.
2. As agreed in the August 1,2007 memo, 5'is to be dedicated for ROW along Dartmouth St. and the
6.26 acre tract. It is staff's understanding that this is to be filed at the Court House shortly. Please
show the ROW dedication and label with volume and page.
Response: Reflected on the site plan.
3. As per agreement for the Richards and Sterling ROW abandonments with Public Works,9'will be
dedicated along Holleman Dr. after full building permit but prior to C.O. Staff appreciates the
willingness to be party to this agreement and understands the concern regarding the potential of
creating non-conforming areas due to the dedication. UDO Section 7.2,Reduction for Public
Purpose,provides the opportunity for reduced setbacks due to dedication to be legitimate. I would
like to discuss the possibility of showing the dedication on the site plan,with only minor adjustments
to the site,and thus ultimately resulting in an approved(stamped) site plan with the dedication
shown.
Response: Reflected on the site plan.
4. Please note that if it is desired to obtain CO's for portions of the development at a time,it will be
necessary to phase the site plan and landscape plan accordingly.
Response: As discussed last week,each building will be numbered so that individual
permits and C.O.'s may be issued.
5. Please be aware that according to the UDO Section 7.1.H Height, the non-residential and multi-
family structures must meet the 1:2 height/distance ratio to the single family along Crest St. The 9'
height variance granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in April 2007 and differences in
elevation can be taken into account. The information necessary to verify compliance is required
prior to issuance of a building permit.
Response: Noted. This issue will be resolved with the next submittal of the construction
plans for the garage. The architect is preparing a graphic to show exactly how we're meeting
the terms of the height variance.
6. There appears to be a number of inconsistencies between the site plan and landscape plan. These
include dimensional differences, for example, the diameter of the circle off of Holleman Dr, the
distance between the Holleman Dr ROW and parking spaces,and other substantive differences such
as sidewalks to the townhome units, different island configuration in the circle drive, etc. Please
revise so that they are consistent.
Response: These discrepancies have been resolved.
7. Please rename the proposed"Townhomes"to another name. The City's definition of townhome
limits it to single family units on individually platted lots.
Response: Noted.
8. The rear setback in a WPC district is 15'. Please revise.
Response: Revised.
9. Please show the jog in rear setback along the western property line by the garage.
Response: Reflected on the site plan.
10. Please provide a note that the three properties are considered a building plot.
Response: Noted. See general notes section.
11. Please revise General Construction Note 15 to state: building architecture,"materials,colors"and
scale.
Response: Noted.
12. Please provide the finished floor elevations on the site plan.
Response: Reflected on the site plan.
13. Please provide the gross square feet of each proposed use and delineate the area used on the first
floor for the retail and clubhouse.
Response: Reflected on the site plan.
14. Due to the separation of the site by Manuel Dr,a minor collector,the required parking for
townhomes is to be provided adjacent to the townhomes. Please revise.
Response: As discussed in our meeting on Tuesday,October 23,2007,only three required
parking spaces for the"townhomes"are located across Manuel Drive.
15. The site plan shows parking along Holleman Dr within 15'of the ROW(though the landscape plan
does not). If so,it is to comply with UDO 7.2.C.7,having a double-sized interior landscape island
for every 7 contiguous parking spaces. Please revise.
Response: As discussed in our meeting on Tuesday,October 23,2007,this issue will be
referred to the DRB as an alternate parking standard with staff support.
16. Please clarify the curbing around the circle drive and the Holleman Dr parking spaces. Interior
islands are to be curbed. Also,please verify that the handicap spaces have an accessible ramp and
wheelstops,as appropriate.
Response: The curing issue will be forwarded to the DRB. The handicap spaces have
accessible ramps and wheelstops as appropriate.
17. The minimum interior island area is not to be less than 180 square feet. Please revise.
Response: Again,this issue will be forwarded to the DRB for consideration.
18. Parking spaces may be reduced to 18'in depth if they are adjacent to a landscape island at least four
feet in depth or a 6'sidewalk. It appears that the parking spaces along the eastern edge of the drive
aisle to the garage as well as those fronting the townhomes do not meet this requirement.
Response: Corrected on site plan.
19. There appears to be only 25 parking spaces along western property line by the garage,not 26. Please
revise the calculations.
Response: Corrected.
20. The end island by the jog in the western property line and the townhome driveway to Manuel Dr
does not appear to be at least 180 square feet in area. Please revise.
Response: The"townhome"area has been completely revised. The owner requested a
gated entrance.
21. Show location of proposed bike rack for the retail area on site plan. Are other bike racks proposed
for the development?
Response: Noted on landscape plan—see sheet L1.01.
22. Please note that the Administrative Adjustment application for the front setback along Dartmouth
St. has been received and is under review.
Response: Noted.
23. Staff understands that the Fire Department has requested a pull-off lane for fire access along
Dartmouth St. Please illustrate the lane,label for bus and fire access,and provide details of the lane
that show it would support a fire apparatus.
Response: Shown on the site plan.
24. At Fire's request,please note that if a bus shelter is ever provided at the pull-off location,it must be
located between the sidewalk and the buildings so as to allow aerial access.
Response: Noted.
25. Please provide a note that FDC connections will be shown on the fire sprinkler plan.
Response: Noted.
26. Please revise Site Plan Notes 9& 10 to provide the water and sewer demands.
Response: Noted.
27. The driveway curb returns along Holleman Dr have a 20'radius. The western curb return of the
townhome driveway has a 15'radius.Please revise to between 25'and 30'.
Response: Again,this entire area has been redesigned.
28. The proposed driveway along Holleman Dr exceeds the maximum width of 36'. Please provide
justification as to why the maximum is to be exceeded.
Response: Corrected on site plan.
29. According to ADA standards,at least one handicap spot(first one being van accessible) must be
placed in each type of parking space area (i.e.garage,driveway outside of garage,and townhome lot).
It appears that two would need to be provided in the parking area outside the garage and one in the
townhome area. Please revise.
Response: After discussing this issue with Ben McCarty,the original handicap parking
locations remain.
30. Provide a handicap ramp to the sidewalk on south side of garage by the grasscrete.
Response: Corrected on site plan.
31. Please provide material samples for the Aluminum Mesh Screen,Steel Mesh Guardrail,and the
pavestone,and other proposed materials.
Response: As discussed,the aluminum mesh screen and steel mesh guardrail will be
manufactured specifically for this project.
32. Provide the exterior lighting details for review and consideration by the DRB.
Response: The lighting plan is under design now and will be available for the DRB meeting.
Our intent is to meet the current pole lighting found in the Wolf Pen Creek area.
33. Provide the details for the grasscrete pavement,ensuring that it meets the fire lane standards.
Response: See detail.
34. Engineering comments are forthcoming and the construction documents are still under review and
may affect the site plan.
Response: Noted. Per discussion with Carol Cotter,the retaining wall between the Ice Rink
and the subject property was relocated.
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. Show the location of the retaining wall on Landscape Plan.
Response: Shown.
2. Revise the site area and landscape points as per ROW changes requested above.
Response: Due to the quick turnaround time,the right-of-way dedication is not shown on
the landscape plan at this time.
3. Please add the linear frontage of each side of Manuel Dr to the streetscape calculations.
Response: See revised calculations.
4. Please note that the linear feet considered for streetscaping is the total frontage while driveway
openings and areas located within the visibility triangle can be removed.
Response: See revised calculations.
5. Please show in table form which plantings are used to achieve the landscape points.
Response: See revised calculations.
6. The landscape calculations may be revised to show the reduction in required points due to the points
credited for the irrigation system,enhanced paving,and special facilities.
Response: See revised calculations.
7. Please provide the area and percentage of area to be considered for special facilities. This allowance
of these features for credit has not yet been determined by the Administrator.
Response: See revised calculations.
8. The development is adjacent to single family homes along Crest St. Provide a buffer yard as per
UDO 7.6 along the common property line with those properties. Please note that plantings within
the buffer yard cannot count toward landscape points.
Response: Reflected on revised plan.
9. Improvements and plantings are proposed in the ROW. In order to perform these,a Private
Improvement in a Public Right-of-Way(PIP) application must be submitted and approved. Though
they may be provided through a PIP,plantings in the ROW may not count toward landscaping
points. Please revise.
Response: We will follow-up with a PIP application once it is determined that plantings
within the right-of-way will count toward landscaping points.
10. Please resolve the discrepancy between the subtotals of streetscape required points
(4,158+3,390=8,088) and points required in calculations (7,548).
Response: See revised calculations.
11. There appears to be 73 Bald Cypress canopy trees provided(not 74). Please revise.
Response: See revised calculations.
12. Please note that Eastern Red Cedar trees may qualify as canopy trees (and landscaping points)if the
caliper inch is known.
Response: See revised calculations.
13. River rock is not an approved groundcover material. Please revise.
Response: This is an issue that should be forwarded to the DRB for consideration.
14. Please provide a general note that 100% coverage of groundcover, decorative paving, decorative
rock, or a perennial grass is required in parking lot islands, swales and drainage areas, the parking lot
setback,rights-of-way,and adjacent property disturbed during construction.
Response: Noted.
15. Please provide a note that the irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum
Breaker,a Reduced Pressure Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double-Check Back Flow Device,and
installed as per City Ordinance 2394. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon
installation as per City Ordinance 2394.
Response: Noted.
SANITATION
1. Need to show garbage collection method.
Response:
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
Response: Blanket easement was provided to the City in August,2007.
2. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines (including street
lights).
Response: Once locations are known,we will provide the necessary easements.
3. Additional easements are necessary for electric service. The location and size of the easements are
dependent on the requested location of the meters and transformers.
Response: Noted.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per City specs and design.
2. City will provide drawings for conduit installation.
3. Developer provides 30'of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. City installs riser.
4. Developer to intercept existing conduit at designated transformers and extend as required.
5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer, developer to furnish and install conduit as shown on
electrical layout.
6. Developer pours transformer pad(s) per City specs and design.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals as per City specs and design (pull boxes and
secondary pedestals provided by the City).
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of site plan. Email to bread@cstx.gov.
9. Developer provides load data for project.
10. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Brent Read at 979.764.5026
Response: Noted,items 1-10.
1 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570/Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MEMORANDUM
November 6, 2007
TO: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, via Natalieipsgroup.us
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK (SDSP) - Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. The next submittal will be the third
and final review by staff for this round of reviews. If all items have not been addressed on the
next submittal, another $200 processing fee will need to be submitted for the subsequent set of
three (3) reviews. Please address the comments and submit the following information for
further staff review:
Eight (8) revised site plans;
Eight (8) revised landscape plans;
Eight (8) sets of building elevations;
One (1) complete set of revised construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached;
Other documents as requested in these and previous comments.
A Design Review Board (DRB) meeting is being tentatively scheduled for Thursday, November
15, 2007, 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Administrative Conference Room, 1101 Texas Avenue. If
the items have not been submitted by Thursday, November 8, 2007 at 10:00am with the
comments sufficiently addressed, the item will be delayed to a future meeting.
If there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised site plan, please attach a
letter explaining the details. Please note that the above copies are requested for the DRB
meeting. If approved, additional copies will be requested for formal approval/stamping. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 764-3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation, via mlindleyassetpluscorp.com
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via va,mitchellandmorgan.com
Case file no. 07-00500247
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK (SDSP) - 07-00500247
PLANNING
1. Show the revised setback lines along Dartmouth Street and Holleman Drive which will
be in effect when the 5' and 9' ROW dedications have both taken place.
2. Please provide a note that states the setbacks along Holleman Drive are being met
through 7.1.D.2, Reduction for Public Purpose.
3. There is not an end island at least 180 square feet at the east end of the parking area
adjacent to the units. Please revise.
4. Repeat comment: show the location of the proposed bike rack on the site plan. Also,
please locate the bike rack on the subject property.
5. The "townhome" area is now shown to be gated. Please show the location of the gate,
swing path, and key pad.
6. Please provide a note that states all improvements in the right-of-way are for illustration
purposes only and will require an approved Private Improvement in the Public Right-of-
Way permit to be installed.
7. Please submit Private Improvement in the Public Right-of-Way permit application for
consideration.
8. In the Parking Requirement calculations, please rename the slang term "parks" to
"parking spaces."
9. Repeat comment: material samples are requested for the Aluminum Mesh Screen and
Steel Mesh Guardrail. The applicant may either choose to delay the consideration of the
building permits (except for the garage) or proceed without staff recommendation of
approval. In either case, color building elevations for all buildings, including the garage,
will need to be submitted for the DRB to consider.
10. As per your response comment, please provide the lighting plan and details.
11. The Holleman Dr parking area is not compliant with UDO Section 7.2.C.7, which
requires double landscape islands for the dimensions provided. If it is the intent of the
applicant to seek a DRB waiver from this requirement (UDO Section 7.2.C.9), please
revise application to include it in "Variance Requested" section or provide a separate
letter stating the justification for the waiver.
12. Due to the moving of the retaining wall, the proposed buffer yard along the Crest St
single family properties is no longer at least 10' in width. If it is the intent of the applicant
to seek an appeal from this requirement (UDO Section 7.6.H), please revise application
to include it in "Variance Requested" section or provide a separate letter stating the
justification for the appeal.
13. Please show the overhead electric shown through buildings 6 and 7 as being removed.
14. As per your response comment, please note that for the garage building permit to be
approved, additional information is necessary to verify compliance with UDO 7.1.H.
15. On the landscape plan, please clearly show the placement of the trees directly along the
property/ROW line to be planted on the subject property.
16. The 10% credit for enhanced paving is to be reduced from the total required points not
deducted from that figure while also added to points provided calculation. Please revise.
17. Please note that the plantings within the ROW cannot be counted toward landscaping
points, though there have been sufficient plantings to satisfy the points without them.
18. Repeat comment: the sanitation service method must be approved before the site plan
can be scheduled for a DRB meeting.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: November 5, 2007
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Realign the proposed 15' PUE to follow the relocated 12" water line.
2. We discussed realigning the sanitary sewer line in the rear access drive to eliminate the 90
degree changes in flow, or provide additional fall at manholes. Was additional fall added?
3. Engineering comments will follow with review of the revised construction plans and drainage
report.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: November 5, 2007
FIRE
1. Need to see the pavers and a letter stating that they are capable of support for a fire lane.
2. The pavers will still need to meet the guidelines according to city specification for fire lane
markings.
3. Turn out on Dartmouth needs to be painted for fire lane.
4. After the grasscrete is complete a letter from an engineer is required stating that the
grasscrete is installed to manufacture specification.
5. The grades in the fire lane cannot exceed 6.1%.
Reviewed by: Eric Dotson Date: November 1, 2007
•
IPS Groupty,
10:41,--1, Planning Solutions n. ���
MEMORANDUM
November 8, 2007
TO: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
FROM: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group—Planning Solutions
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS,WOLF PEN CREEK-Site Plan Review, 2nd Round Comments.
As requested, we have addressed your review comments dated Tuesday, November 6th
regarding the site plan package for The Lofts, Wolf Pen Creek. We have provided the following
information for further staff review and consideration by the Design Review Board on Thursday,
November/15, 2007.
�� J Eight(8) revised site plans;
5J�6� '‘.7 Eight(8) revised landscape plans;
Eight (8) sets of revised building elevations;
One (1) complete set of revised construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached;
Other documents as requested in these and previous comments:
Outdoor lighting details— 1 set
DRB Waiver Request for Parking Lot Standards
DRB Waiver Request for Buffer Yard Requirements
We look forward to presenting our project before the Design Review Board on Thursday,
November 15th, 2007. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me
at 979-846-9259.
Attachments: Response to staff review comments#2.
pc: Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell &Morgan, LLP
Brian Adams, SMR Landscape Architects
Keith Malone, Meeks + Partners
511 University Drive East, Suite 211 College Station, TX 77840 979-846-9259 www.IPSGroup.us
RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK
PLANNING
1. Show the revised setback lines along Dartmouth Street and Holleman Drive which will
be in effect when the 5' and 9' ROW dedications have both taken place.
RESPONSE: Shown on site plan.
2. Please provide a note that states the setbacks along Holleman Drive are being met
through 7.1.D.2, Reduction for Public Purpose.
RESPONSE: Noted on site plan.
3. There is not an end island at least 180 square feet at the east end of the parking area
adjacent to the units. Please revise.
RESPONSE: Shown on site plan.
4. Repeat comment: show the location of the proposed bike rack on the site plan. Also,
please locate the bike rack on the subject property.
RESPONSE: Noted on the landscape plan.
5. The "townhome" area is now shown to be gated. Please show the location of the gate,
swing path, and key pad.
RESPONSE: Shown on the site plan.
6. Please provide a note that states all improvements in the right-of-way are for illustration
purposes only and will require an approved Private Improvement in the Public Right-of-
Way permit to be installed.
RESPONSE: Noted on the site plan.
7. Please submit Private Improvement in the Public Right-of-Way permit application for
consideration.
RESPONSE: As discussed with Jason Schubert on Wednesday, November 6, 2007, the
PIP application will be submitted after DRB consideration and approval.
8. In the Parking Requirement calculations, please rename the slang term "parks" to
"parking spaces."
RESPONSE: Corrected on site plan.
9. Repeat comment: material samples are requested for the Aluminum Mesh Screen and
Steel Mesh Guardrail. The applicant may either choose to delay the consideration of the
building permits (except for the garage) or proceed without staff recommendation of
approval. In either case, color building elevations for all buildings, including the garage,
will need to be submitted for the DRB to consider.
RESPONSE: The aluminum mesh screen is associated with the signage for the retail
area. As discussed previously, there is a sign consultant on board designing a package
for the entire site. Since signs are permitted separately, we propose to bring the sign
package back to you at a future date. This should in no way hold up the site plan or
building permits for development. It should simply hold up building permits for signage.
The aluminum mesh proposed is a custom fabricated material that is extremely difficult
to have ahead of time. We ask that you allow the DRB to review our submittal and we
believe that from the elevations, they can visualize what is proposed. With respect to
the building elevations for the garage, we are modifying the elevations provided to you
with the original submittal. The only other material sample remaining is the steel mesh
guardrail that is manufactured out of Cleveland. There is no way to get a sample
delivered in two days. Instead, we propose to bring this sample to the DRB meeting on
November 15th.
10.As per your response comment, please provide the lighting plan and details.
RESPONSE: See attached lighting plan.
11. The Holleman Dr parking area is not compliant with UDO Section 7.2.C.7, which
requires double landscape islands for the dimensions provided. If it is the intent of the
applicant to seek a DRB waiver from this requirement (UDO Section 7.2.C.9), please
revise application to include it in "Variance Requested" section or provide a separate
letter stating the justification for the waiver.
RESPONSE: See attached variance request letter.
12. Due to the moving of the retaining wall, the proposed buffer yard along the Crest St
single family properties is no longer at least 10' in width. If it is the intent of the applicant
to seek an appeal from this requirement (UDO Section 7.6.H), please revise application
to include it in "Variance Requested" section or provide a separate letter stating the
justification for the appeal.
RESPONSE: See attached variance request letter.
13. Please show the overhead electric shown through buildings 6 and 7 as being removed.
RESPONSE: Noted on site plan.
14.As per your response comment, please note that for the garage building permit to be
approved, additional information is necessary to verify compliance with UDO 7.1.H.
RESPONSE: As discussed with Jason Schubert on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, the
previously submitted graphic is acceptable and this issue is resolved.
15. On the landscape plan, please clearly show the placement of the trees directly along the
property/ROW line to be planted on the subject property.
RESPONSE: Clarified on landscape plan.
16. The 10% credit for enhanced paving is to be reduced from the total required points not
deducted from that figure while also added to points provided calculation. Please revise.
RESPONSE: Clarified on landscape plan.
17. Please note that the plantings within the ROW cannot be counted toward landscaping
points, though there have been sufficient plantings to satisfy the points without them.
RESPONSE: Noted.
18. Repeat comment: the sanitation service method must be approved before the site plan
can be scheduled for a DRB meeting.
RESPONSE: We have discussed our proposal with Wally Urrita and he has approved
the overall concept. Trash will be picked up by the custodial staff from the residents and
the retail businesses. It will be deposited into a compactor in the garage and then into 4
or 5 yard rolling containers. On collection days, these rolling containers will be rolled out
into the "hammerhead" turnaround area for pick-up. Prior to purchasing the compactor
and rolling containers, we will finalize the details with Mr. Urrita.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Realign the proposed 15' PUE to follow the relocated 12"water line.
RESPONSE: Reflected on site plan.
2. We discussed realigning the sanitary sewer line in the rear access drive to eliminate the 90
degree changes in flow, or provide additional fall at manholes. Was additional fall added?
RESPONSE: Yes, additional fall was added at the manholes.
3. Engineering comments will follow with review of the revised construction plans and drainage
report.
RESPONSE: Noted.
FIRE
1. Need to see the pavers and a letter stating that they are capable of support for a fire lane.
RESPONSE: We submitted the specifications to Eric Dotson who agreed that this issue is
resolved.
2. The pavers will still need to meet the guidelines according to city specification for fire lane
markings.
RESPONSE: Our landscape architect is looking into this issue. The paver company has
the ability to"chisel"the appropriate wording into the individual bricks.
3. Turn out on Dartmouth needs to be painted for fire lane.
RESPONSE: See detail on site plan sheet.
4. After the grasscrete is complete a letter from an engineer is required stating that the
grasscrete is installed to manufacture specification.
RESPONSE: Noted. The plan is have the geotechnical engineer inspect the installation of
the grasscrete.
5. The grades in the fire lane cannot exceed 6.1%.
RESPONSE: Noted. See the revised grades on the site plan.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
1. Show retaining wall total depth in profiles.
2. Show total width of retaining wall in plan view. We are concerned about the area remaining
for utility maintenance.
3. Show encasement in profile W-8.
4. Needs to be perfectly clear to contractor that the proposed water line W-cannot be located
under 6x4 storm.
5. Please encase water line if under retaining wall/footer, or sleeve if passes through.
6. Do sanitary sewer/storm sewer lines need encasement or sleeving?
7. Is drainage report based on current layout of storm pipe or first layout that was submitted?
Executive Summary is not clear on this and drawings show previous layout, not what is
currently on the plans.
8. Page 4 of Drainage Report refers to 2006 LOMR, but previous references are to 2007
LOMR.
9. Is a 6x4 box needed the entire route? I am unclear why 6x4 discharges into 2-36" pipes.
10. What are velocities in storm pipe? Is there at least 2.5 fps flowing full?
11. I don't see 100-yr hydraulic grade line calculations for pipe CB9 to Out1. Where are the
hydraulic grade line calculations for new 36" under Holleman?
12. Plan view does not show connection of SD-8 with 6x4 box, but profile does.
13. Show water line conflicts with SD-1 and SD-2.
14. Proposed 6x4 storm sewer is too close to structure. This requires additional PUE. Is
Structure on piers?
15. Place valves on hydrant leads closer to main line.
16. Show TCEQ water/sewer crossing requirements.
17. Show existing and proposed PUEs on P&P sheets.
18. Note deflection is along length of pipe, not at joints.
19. Show limits of structural backfill on all utilities.
20. Utilities has a couple concerns about the sewer issue after reading the sewer report.
A. They are giving up a large amount of existing capacity (50%).
B. The proposed exchange is a 6-in sewerline and 8-in sewerline, both on steep grade to a
10-in/12-in line on minimum grade.
Looking at future build-out of the area some capacity can be sacrificed. However, if capacity
is sacrificed, then this line should be of a size and slope to fit the needed capacity. Main
concern with the 12-in line is that the minimum 2 ft/s velocity is only achieved under the
peak, wet weather, maximized development flow scenario. Which means for the
foreseeable future the line will operate during everyday flow conditions at a much lower flow
and velocity. They are of the opinion this will result in a sewer line that will not only have
operational problems but as a result of operational problems have odor problems affecting
the surrounding area. And once its built and everything around it built Suggestion is to
look at designing this sewer replacement line as an 8-in at a slope of 0.5 % (or so) and a
connecting it at the manhole approximately 190-ft to the north.
21. Because of the concerns with the retaining wall, please consider rerouting the waterline as
shown in email. You will need to verify that there is still your required fire flow in this
configuration.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: November 16, 2007
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3
In an effort to issue a DP for the sanitary sewer relocation while the water line routing is being
worked out, I have reviewed the submitted plans for sanitary sewer construction. And have the
following comments:
1. Show limits of structural backfill.
2. Provide TCEQ crossing requirements for sanitary crossing over water.
3. Provide engineers sealed cost estimate for sanitary sewer.
4. Additionally, please provide amended Drainage Report to reflect what is currently being
proposed. Some of the report reflects initial design. Also, excessive velocities are shown
from JB8 to JB9. What is the 100-year flow path (HGL is out of pipe)?
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: December 17, 2007
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning d Development Services
0.
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570/ Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
March 18, 2008 /
TO: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, via fax:979.260.3564V
FROM: Carol Cotter, Acting Development Engineer
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned project as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and
submit the following information for further staff review.
Revised construction documents
Building permit application
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
pc: Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation, via fax: 713.268.5111 V
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via fax: 979.260.3564 V
Case file no. 07-00500247
`
Maw
\ o
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 4
1. Design Guidelines call for 2% slope from property line to sidewalk.
2. Per the 2006 Building Codes, a building permit is required for the retaining wall.
3. Are you proposing any sort of safety railing between property line and retaining wall?
4. Show required PUEs for water and sanitary sewer lines.
5. I only have Sheets 02, 06, 07 and 09. I am not comfortable permitting only a portion of the
water line without a revised Water Design report.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: March 12, 2008
1 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
Or. College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570/ Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MEMORANDUM
April 25, 2008
TO: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, via Natalie(a�ipsgroup.us
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK (SDSP) - Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. If you would like to proceed with
the conditionally approved site (to obtain building permits prior to DRB approval of the
revisions), please address the comments and submit the following information for further staff
review:
$200 processing fee for the next round of three (3) staff reviews;
Seven (7) complete sets of construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached (one set will
be returned to you, please submit additional copies if you want more than one
approved set);
Two (2) revised site plans;
One (1) landscaping plan;
One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan;
OR
If you are waiting for DRB approval of the revisions prior to obtaining building permits,
please address the comments and submit the following:
$200 processing fee for the next round of three (3) staff reviews
The documents required for submission to proceed to DRB along with the $200
fee;
One (1) complete set of construction documents for the proposed development
with the revised site and landscaping plans attached.
If there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised site plan, please attach a
letter explaining the details. If you have any questions or need additional information, please
call me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation, via mlindleyassetpluscorp.com
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via v(a�mitchellandmorgan.com
Case file #07-00500247
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3
Project: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK(SDSP) - 07-00500247
PLANNING
1. Show the new property line based on the final plat being filed and the associated ROW
dedicated.
2. Make the property lines along Manuel Drive dark.
3. Please label the volume and page for 5' ROW dedicated along Dartmouth St from the
corner tract and show it as the new property line.
4. Revise the number of spaces provide in garage from 674 to 673 (as given in the revised
building plans) and the total parking spaces from 723 to 722.
5. Please provide a note referencing the Administrative Adjustment (07-251) granted for a
1.5 foot setback reduction for Lot 1, Block 1 The Lofts.
6. Please provide a note referencing the 9-foot height variance (07-50) granted by ZBA.
7. Please revise General Construction Note 20 to also state "...except for the required
sidewalk..." after"All improvements in the right-of-way".
8. Please be aware that the agreement for the ROW abandonments of Richard St and
Sterling St included the dedication of 9' of ROW along Holleman Drive to be completed
after building permits were issued but prior to obtaining Certificates of Occupancy.
9. As mentioned previously, revisions from the conditionally approved site plan, landscape
plan and building elevations require approval by DRB of those revisions.
10. Please note that 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 the City has not been made
aware of will constitute a completely new review.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: April 10, 2008
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 5
1. Remove private roof drains from PUE at rear of Building 1.
2. Verify all fire hydrants are located in PUEs.
3. Waterline C— Note that deflection is along barrel of pipe and not at joints.
4. Any manholes in areas of ponding will need water tight lids.
5. Provide manufacturers specifications for turfstone pavers to insure meets fire lane load
requirements. Fire Marshall had requested a letter stating this.
6. Once the turfstone pavers are installed, a letter from the engineer to the Fire Marshall is
required stating that the turfstone is installed to manufacturers specifications.
7. It appears that additional FDCs will be required. These locations will be determined from
Fire Marshall review of fire sprinkler design by.
8. Ribbon curb standard detail and that shown in turfstone detail don't match.
9. Verify that the details shown for private cleanouts meet plumbing code.
10. Verify that the cleanout details shown on Sheet 04 are for private lines only and indicate on
plans. City standard details are provided on Sheet S and shall be used as required.
11. Are the cleanouts that are shown at the ends of proposed services in addition to the ones
required in our standard details which locate then within ROW or Easement?
12. Clearly indicate public vs private infrastructure.
13. JB-2 appears to conflict with retaining wall footing (SD-1)
14. The flowlines for SD-7 do not match between Sheets E7.3, E7.5, and Sheet 11. Where is
SD-7 shown in E7.3 reflected in the construction plans?
15. Roof Drain from Building 1 should enter at a junction box.
16. Will 8" nominal rock rip rap sustain the outfall velocities and flows? It appears that much of
the rip rap at the existing outfall. Please also verify that Parks does not have a specific
requirement for type of rip-rap, or bull rock.
17. What modifications to the existing outfalls need to be made to handle the increase in
velocities, especially OUT4?
18. You have provided replacement tables and Exhibits for the Drainage Report. Please
provide revised narrative portions as well. It will be very confusing to others years from now
to have one thing written and another depicted.
19. The hydraulic gradeline is significantly above finished grade in many locations. What is the
flow pathway for the 100 year storm?
20. I am concerned about the close proximity of the retaining wall to the sidewalk along Manuel
Drive and the possibility of young children riding that close to the 11 foot (in places) drop. I
had inquired about a safety railing in previous comments, but believe it should be a
requirement. This should also be considered all along the retaining wall perimeter since
access between the ice rink has previously been mentioned. Are you fencing the site?
21. Verify electrical layout.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: April 25, 2008
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3
Project: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK (SDSP) - 07-00500247
The applicant reviewed the Staff Comments #3 from Planning and Staff Comments #5 from
Engineering. Changes were made as noted below in the Planning" comments. However, site
plan changes were not made based on Engineering Comments#5. The changes, if necessary,
will be addressed with the final set of construction documents for stamping.
PLANNING
1. Show the new property line based on the final plat being filed and the associated ROW
dedicated.
RESPONSE: Shown on the revised site plan.
2. Make the property lines along Manuel Drive dark.
RESPONSE: Shown on the revised site plan.
3. Please label the volume and page for 5' ROW dedicated along Dartmouth St from the
corner tract and show it as the new property tine.
RESPONSE: THIS IS A NEW COMMENT. We submitted the necessary paperwork to
the City for dedicating the Dartmouth right-of-way. We have not received copies of the
filing information from the City's legal department; therefore, we cannot fill in the blanks
shown on the site plan.
4. Revise the number of spaces provide in garage from 674 to 673 (as given in the revised
building plans) and the total parking spaces from 723 to 722.
RESPONSE: Reflected on revised site plan.
5. Please provide a note referencing the Administrative Adjustment (07-251) granted for a
1.5 foot setback reduction for Lot 1, Block I The Lofts.
RESPONSE: THIS IS A NEW COMMENT. However, noted on the revised site plan.
6. Please provide a note referencing the 9-foot height variance (07-50)granted by ZBA.
RESPONSE: THIS IS A NEW COMMENT. However, noted on the revised site plan.
7. Please revise General Construction Note 20 to also state "...except for the required
sidewalk..."after"All improvements in the right-of-way".
RESPONSE: THIS IS A NEW COMMENT. However, noted on the revised site plan.
8. Please be aware that the agreement for the ROW abandonments of Richard St and
Sterling St included the dedication of 9' of ROW along Holleman Drive to be completed
after building permits were issued but prior to obtaining Certificates of Occupancy.
RESPONSE: The abandonment agreements DID NOT include the dedication of 9' of
right-of-way along Holleman Drive. We have a "gentleman's agreement" with Alan to
dedicate the right-of-way IF it does not negatively impact the site.
9. As mentioned previously, revisions from the conditionally approved site plan, landscape
plan and building elevations require approval by DRB of those revisions.
RESPONSE: Noted.
10. Please note that 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 the City has not been made
aware of will constitute a completely new review.
RESPONSE: Noted.
Responses by: Natalie Ruiz Date: April 25, 2008
1 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Ckff Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MEMORANDUM
May 5, 2008
TO: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, via Natalieaipsgroup.us
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK (SDSP) — Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned project as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments
and submit the following information for further staff review by Monday, May 12, 2008, 10:00
a.m. to be scheduled for the next available Design Review Board (DRB) meeting on Friday,
May 23, 2008, 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Administrative Conference Room, 1101 Texas
Avenue:
Ten (10) revised site plans;
Ten (10) revised landscape/hardscape plans (only Sheets L1.00 & L3.00 are
necessary for DRB);
Ten (10) sets of color building elevations (only elevations depicted on Sheets
A.400, A.4.01, and A4.06 are necessary for DRB);
One (1) complete set of revised construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached;
Color Samples.
The agenda and staff report for your project can be accessed at the following web site on
Tuesday the week before the DRB meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/home/index.asp?page=31
Please note that additional copies of the documents will be required once the DRB has
approved the Site Plan, so that they can be stamped approved. If you have any questions or
need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
cc: Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation, via mlindleyassetpluscorp.com
Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via vmitchellandmorqan.com
Case file #07-00500247
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 4
Project: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK(SDSP) - 07-00500247
PLANNING
1. Repeat Comment: Please show the property line along Dartmouth St based on the final
plat being filed (ROW dedicated).
2. Repeat Comment: Please show the property line along Dartmouth St based on the
ROW dedicated by separate instrument (as shown on the Landscape Plan). The
Volume is 8296 and Page is 49 for this dedication.
3. As stated in Engineering Comments No. 5, the proximity of the retaining wall drop off
near Manuel Drive poses a safety concern. Please provide the handrail/guardrail at the
top of the retaining wall as shown as an option on the retaining wall building permit or
provide fencing along this area of Manuel Drive to act as a safety barrier.
4. Since the proposed retaining wall is sloped, please verify that the base of it on the west
side of Building 6 does not encroach into the sidewalk required for ADA accessibility.
5. As stated in our April 16th meeting, Staff is concerned about the relationship of the
garage to the adjacent Richards Subdivision. In reviewing the revised South Elevation
and associated building permit, it appears that only 1.5 feet of concrete with cables
above it screen the vehicles and headlights. The East and West garage sections,
however, have concrete that is 3-foot 9-inches in height. Please be aware that unless
revised, Staff will express concerns about the untreated concrete material and lack of
adequate vehicle screening as part of the presentation to DRB.
6. Please address Engineering Comments No. 5.
7. Please note that Brent Read, the project coordinator for Electric, has stated that he was
notified on May 1st regarding the developer's desire to redesign the electric
infrastructure from what was initially anticipated. Please be aware that the Electric
Department has stated that this redesign will take some time to perform.
8. Please note that General Construction Note 19 was added to document the ROW
dedication for Holleman Dr. In short, UDO 7.1.D.2 states that if the remaining setback
distance after dedication is still at least half of the standard setback then it satisfies the
full setback requirement. The required streetscape and landscaping has already been
placed outside of the ROW dedication area. The only setback affected by dedication is
the 10 foot setback for parking from ROW, which with this provision could be reduced to
5 feet and still be conforming. That setback is currently 13.65 feet so 8.65 feet could be
dedicated. Please consider an 8-foot dedication and revise the site plan accordingly.
9. Please note that 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 the City has not been made
aware of will constitute a completely new review.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: May 5, 2008
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. For the Hardscape, please provide color samples for the colors to be used for the
stamped and colored concrete (A, B, & C) and the two stained concrete colors.
2. In the Landscape Tabulations (Sheet L3.00), the 10% credit for enhanced paving is only
to be deducted from the total required points not also added to the points provided
calculation. Please revise.
3. Please revise the figure for reduction for enhanced paving from "-2,129" to "-2,082".
4. Add the plant legend back in, including the symbols of the plantings.
5. Add back in the caliper or gallon size for the plantings and note that the Burford Holly
shrubs along the parking row are to be 3' in height when planted.
6. At the November 15, 2007 DRB meeting, a waiver was granted to reduce the buffer yard
width from 10' to 6'. Please revise the "Provided" width as 6' and reference the waiver.
7. Please label the fence in the buffer yard area.
8. Some plantings in plaza area appear to be planted in concrete.
9. It appears a tree is planted in the garage (sheets L3.00 and L3.02).
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: May 5, 2008
(4,"411114
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning d Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570/ Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
July 9, 2008
TO: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, via Natalieipsqroup.us
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK (SDSP) — Site Plan
Staff reviewed the additional materials for the above-mentioned project as requested. The
following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed.
Please address the comments and submit the following information for further staff review by
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. to be scheduled for the next available Design Review
Board (DRB) meeting on Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Administrative
Conference Room, 1101 Texas Avenue:
Ten (10) revised landscape/hardscape plans (only Sheets L1.00, L1.01, L1.02 &
L1.03 are necessary for DRB);
Ten (10) color elevations of Building #3;
Color Samples.
The agenda and staff report for your project can be accessed at the following web site on
Tuesday the week before the DRB meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/home/index.asp?page=31
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
pc: Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation, via mlindley(a�assetpluscorp.com
Case file #07-00500247
Staff Review Comments No. 5
Project: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK (SDSP) - 07-00500247
1. Provide the Amber and Pine color samples for the respective stained parking bay and
sidewalk concrete.
2. Please verify that the color samples for Red Clay, Goldenrod and Paprika submitted on May
13`h on a printed color page best represent the proposed colors.
3. Please revise the Hardscape Legend on the Landscape Key Sheet (L1.00)with the
proposed colors and patterns.
4. The stained and colored concrete areas depicted on Sheet L1.01 need to be provided in
color. If desired, 11x17 sheets may be provided for the meeting packets instead of full-size
sheets. If 11 x17s are utilized, a full-size sheet will need to be available at the meeting.
5. The letter from Keith Malone dated June 16, 2008 states that the stainless steel samples
may be used or perhaps other material painted to mimic stainless steel. If stainless steel is
not used, please provide the proposed alternative material and finishing for the DRB's
consideration.
6. Please provide color elevations of Building #3 with labels pointing to where the stainless
steel material is proposed on the façade and guardrail. The copies are to be provided in the
same manner as described in Comment#4.
7. Please note that the proposed color and pattern of concrete will need to be approved by the
DRB before the Private Improvement in Public ROW Permit (PIP) can be issued. In
addition, DRB approval of the stainless steel material is also necessary before a full building
permit can be issued for Building #3.
8. Please note that a quorum for the July 25th DRB meeting has not yet been confirmed, we will
keep you informed if the meeting will need to be scheduled for a different date.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: July 9, 2008
(*1,1411114
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
PLe+ai ig a.Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570/ Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
July 9, 2008
TO: Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group, via Natalie[cr�_ipsgroup.us
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: THE LOFTS, WOLF PEN CREEK(SDSP)—Site Plan
Staff reviewed the additional materials for the above-mentioned project as requested. The
following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed.
Please address the comments and submit the following information for further staff review by
Wednesday. July 16, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. to be scheduled for the next available Design Review
Board (DRB) meeting on Friday, July 25, 2008, 11:00 a.m. in the City Hall Administrative
Conference Room, 1101 Texas Avenue:
Ten (10) revised landscape/hardscape plans (only Sheets L1.00, L1.01, L1.02 &
L1.03 are necessary for DRB);
Ten (10) color elevations of Building #3; •
Color Samples. (cj
The agenda and staff report for your project can be accessed at the following web site on
Tuesday the week before the DRB meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/home/index.asp?page=31
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
pc: Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation, via mlindley(a�assetpluscorp.com
Case file#07-00500247
a7-A-7