Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Review • P STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO.3 Project: GANDER MOUNTAIN (SP) - 06-00500258 PLANNING 1. Provide height and type of screening (well, fence, etc) around the outdoor storage area. This note must identify the minimum height as required, and note that the material must be in compliance with the UDO Section 7.11, Outdoor Storage and Display 2. Clearly identify the limits of the screening for the compactor/truck loading area. (This was noted to be shown in the next round of site plan review). 3. Please provide standard pavement details for each pavement type. Minimum standards can be found in the Site Design Standards on page 5. 4. The landscape calculations were incorrect.They should read as follows: State Highway 6 Streetscaping: (356'/50') x 300 = 2190 15 canopy trees required Horse Haven Streetscaping: (810'/50') x 300 = 4860 26 canopy trees required Landscaping Points: (376,446/1000) x 30 x 2 = 22,587 Total Points Required: 29,637 Canopy Points = 14,819 5. Plantings located in the buffer yard may not count towards landscaping points. Please provide a separate legend with the required planning calculations. This buffer will required 1 1.25-inch caliper non-canopy tree per 15 linear feet of the buffer and one 2-inch caliper canopy tree per 25 linear feet of the buffer. This should come out to at least 45 non canopy trees and 27 canopy trees. If the wall is being substituted with a fence, then the area and the plantings required in the buffer must be doubled. 6. Provide barricade detail showing how the existing trees will be protected during construction. Standard detail is located in the Site Design Standards on page 24. 7. The minimum caliper to receive points for existing canopy trees is 4-inches. These plants receive 300 points if barricaded (400 pts if over 8-inch caliper) 40 points if not. Non-canopy trees must be at least 2- inch caliper, and receive 150 points if barricaded (200 if 4-inch caliper or higher), and 35 points if not barricaded.Please revise landscape legend accordingly. 8. To receive 150 points for a Burr Oak, it must be at least 2.1-inch caliper. Review landscape legend accordingly. 9. Texas Mountain Laurel is considered a non-canopy tree if it is greater than 1.25-inch caliper, and counts for 40 points. Same for the Southern Wax Myrtle. 10. Keep in mind that dwarf species may not be used in buffer or required screening areas. 11. Landscaping or site plan must show the location of the required tree wells, and the tree well detail. 12. Provide all material samples. 13. Provide material/color chart for each facade. The chart should break up the square footage and the percentage of the facade by type of material, and further by color. The chart should be similar to the following: Material 1, Color 1 X sf X% Material 1, Color 2 X sf X% Material 2 X sf X% Total X sf 100% 14. In order to verify compliance with the Non-Residential Architectural Standards, we will need a scaled building footprint and elevations. Reviewed by: Lindsay Boyer,Staff Planner Date: December 6,2006 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans,that have not been requested by the City of College Station,must be explained in your next transmittal letter and"bubbled"on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City,will constitute a completely new review. 2 of 3 10. Clarify table narrative"Ult". Does this mean 4.23 cfs and 8.96 cfs will bypass proposed storm piping and will enter piping through Academy? 11. The discharge velocity at the creek should be reduced to 6 fps by means of baffles,warped directional headwalls,and rip-rap, etc. 12. Similarly,provide additional existing and proposed grade detail at creek discharge. 13. Confirm TxDOT dialogue regarding necessity of TxDOT easement along the creek. Rough Grading 14. Fyi,the development permit will be issued for the rough grading plan. 15. Fyi,I will add a note on plan that the retaining wall blocks in the ROW of Horse Haven Lane are the City's property. If the proposed site grading needs the wall to be removed, the blocks should be carefully disassembled and temporarily stored on site for the City to be able to collect the blocks. 16. Demolition Permit will be need to remove the structures. Utilities 17. Decrease length of waterline (infront of building) and relocate waterline by proposed northern main. This will maintain adequate fire coverage. 18. Depict proposed water,irrigations,and sewer services with meter location(s) and cleanouts, etc. 19. Provide a Water Report include fire flow analysis. 20. The fire line design for sprinkling should follow as below: "Public"Fire Line • Extent: ❑ From main to and including isolation gate valve ❑ Typically ends at street ROW or edge of existing easement but in no case closer than 15 feet to building edge • Design (on Site Plan and Construction Plans*): ❑ To public standards: BCS United Design Guidelines ❑ Coordinate sizing with Licensed Fire Sprinkler Engineer: 3",4",and 6"are standard sizes ❑ *Less than a joint,does not require Plan and Profile,or PE—Provide details on Site Plan ❑ *More than a joint, does require Plan and Profile, and PE ❑ Isolation gate valve with a AmPro USE,LL562 lockable lid or equivalent approved by City ❑ Fire Hydrants, domestic,and irrigation services may be Tapped off Public Fire Lines (Hydrant and service taps not acceptable if after an external back flow prevention vault) • Inspection: ❑ Accepted with Letter of Completion "Private"Fire Suppression Line • Extent: ❑ From back side of isolation gate valve to the building • Design (on Building Plans): ❑ To NFPA 24 Standards ❑ Sized and Certified by Licensed Fire Sprinkler Engineer ❑ Provide detailed engineered Sprinkler Plans covering Private Fire Suppression Line ❑ Does not require Plan and Profile ❑ No taps are permitted off Private Fire Suppression Lines Outdoor display areas may not exceed more than 5 feet from the wall of the building. Please modify. 25. Provide details for the screening of the detention ponds in compliance with Section 7.9.B.1 — Required Screening. 26. Please clearly delineate the area proposed for bicycle parking.* 27. What is the area located behind the outdoor display area proposed for? If this is for parking or customer loading, the area should be striped and islands provided. Regardless, please clearly identify how this area is to be utilized. 28. Please show all landscaping items, like tree wells and buffer areas that impact the design of the site on the site plan as well as the landscape plan. 2®Please note that the subject property,and the adjacent Lot 2B is one building plot. 30. Site Plan will not be approved until TxDOT approval has been granted. 31. When designing site lighting, please keep UDO Section 7.10 — Outdoor Lighting Standards in mind. All lighting must comply with these requirements. 32. Provide a general note that all roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view or isolated so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or residential district within 150' of the subject lot,measured from a point five feet above grade. Such screening shall be coordinated with the building architecture and scale to maintain a unified appearance. Reviewed by: Lindsay Boyer, Staff Planner Date: November 21,2006 LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER 1. Landscape Plan was not submitted. The approved Landscape Plan will be required double landscaping points,as well as a 2"—caliper minimum for all canopy trees. (UDO,Section 7.9). 2. Show limits of buffer area on site plan. Provide buffer plantings in accordance with the UDO, Section 7.6—Buffer Requirements. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394. Reviewed by: Lindsay Boyer,Staff Planner Date: November 21,2006 TxDOT 1. The existing driveway will not meet the 425' spacing requirement, but each property is entitled to 1 access point. 2. Since the current property owners have an access driveway, the driveway shown should be shifted to the north & provide a joint access to both tracts. No additional access between Switch Station Road &Horse Haven Lane will be allowed. 3. A right-in,right-out driveway with raised divider island would be recommended. 4. A short decel lane would be recommended, since it has been offered. Reviewed by: Jay Page Date: November 20,2006 ELECTRICAL 1. Any relocation of existing utilities due to driveway & detention pond locations will be at the cost of the developer. Contact me or Tony as soon as possible so work can be scheduled. Reviewed by: Sam Weido Date: November 21,2006 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and"bubbled"on your plans.Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. Page 3 of 4 ENGINEERING Note: Due to the short turn around, comments may be not be conveniently ordered or fully"word-smithed". 1. Provide TxDot Driveway application addressing TxDot's attached comments. Additionally, drainage calculations need to be provided for the proposed culvert in this drive. Provide standard driveway details with culvert end treatment, etc. Early discussions with TxDot are encouraged (See note 5 as well). 2. Depict all existing drives along Horse Haven Lane and provide adjacent and opposite spacing from proposed driveways. Alignment of existing and proposed drives is encouraged. Final approval of these drive alignments will not be approved until this information is provided. 3. Provide Water-Wastewater Report addressing fire flows, sprinkling, domestic flows,meter sizing, etc. 4. Provide a Drainage Report addressing pre and post conditions. As discussed with Brett McCully with Bleyl Engineering, the tributary south of Academy is designated as a primary drainage course and a good candidate for accepting flows undetained. This will require traversing the Academy, likely meaning the post-flows to the mid-block inlet on Horse Haven must be designed back to pre-flows by decreasing the drainage area or a pond—as the downstream drainage traverses Academy's private existing system. The drainage flows directed toward frontage road could be conveyed by a proposed public storm system along the existing 20'PUE to the tributary. This would require the storm sewer be extended to Lot 2B to be public. It is advisable to consider sizing this line so that post flows could be conveyed and detention ponds may not be necessary. This would require a certification from the design engineer in regard to no negative impacts based on the primary designation,policy of rapid conveyance, and a statement to the lag times creating no negative impacts. It should be noted that Lot 2C may also require connection into this suggested public line and therefore should be addressed as a potential future condition as there is little to no opportunity to convey drainage southward for Lot 2C. Specific attention should be given to the discharge point in to the tributary — dissipation blocks, velocity, angle of discharge, slope stability, etc. Also, there is a TxDot Easement on the tributary requiring a State Permit as well. 5. Provide a Development Permit application and the associated$800 fee. 6. Provide all associated Grading / Erosion Control Plans including all existing and proposed (rough) grading. (Site Plan will ultimately need detailed proposed grading and spot elevations, etc.) An intermediate Development Permit can be issued for this work along with the Demolition Permit for the structures. Note that this site should have a SWPPP and an NOI for the TPDES Ph.2 Storm water Permit with the State. Define the intention of the coordination of the retaining wall or if it is to be removed. If it is to be removed, you need to confirm if it is in the ROW (and public) and if there are additional associated requirements. 7. Provide Construction Plans for associated public infrastructure which would appear to be both water and storm sewer. 8. A separate Development Permit for the Water line should be acceptable to accelerate the building permit. In general, the water and access are necessary to be constructed on the site prior to combustibles are allowed to go vertical on the building permit. It the Building Official's discretion (in coordination with the City Engineer and Fire Marshall) to consider a slab only prior to these items. 9. Depict all existing and proposed pertinent features such as public utilities, hydrants, private services, meters, irrigation, electric, edge of pavement, sidewalks, inlets, drives, retaining walls, ponds, structures, etc. 10. Coordinate details of electric service and conflicts - such as with the detention pond with Tony Michalsky with CSU Electric at (979)764-3681. 11. Additional cross access easements along the rear of Lot 2A and 2B would assist future development between the two commercial lots. Also,depict the joint"western"access easement. 12. Depict dumpster location and details. 13. Depict a 10'PUE along perimeter of all lots. Reviewed by: Alan Gibbs Date: November 21,2006 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and"bubbled"on your plans.Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. Page 4 of 4 t 4 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: GANDER MOUNTAIN (SP) —06-00500258 PLANNING We recognize that a rough site plan was submitted and hope that these comments help you to prepare your full site plan proposal.Additional comments may arise as these items are addressed. 1. Provide building height. Please keep in mind that the height may equal no more than 1/2 the distance from any property line that is adjacent to residential, i.e., the building should be located 70 feet from the / neighboring residential property line to be a height of 35 feet (UDO,Section 7.1.H—Height). 2. The parking row above the southmost parking island (of 3805 feet) shows 16 spaces. I counted only 15. Please correct. 3. Provide pavement and curbing detail in compliance with the City of College Station "Site Design Standards."http://www.cstx.gov/docs/site design standards.pdf 4. Curbing should be located along all pavement edges in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.2.H — Curbing Required. This includes along the outdoor display area on the east side of the building and temporary curbing where the access easement meets the property line. VS. Clearly identify the proposed access easement on the site plan and all other proposed easements reflected on the plat. 4. The area shown for the northern access point to the adjacent proposed Lot 2B will most likely be used for parking until time that the two sites connect. It could be striped as such. V7. Provide a note that all signs are through separate permit. `r8. Show limits of floodplain, or a note confirming there is no floodplain,providing the verifying FIRM Map Panel number. 9. Provide zoning and ownership information of abutting property. 10. Provide note identifying the zoning of the subject property. When the site plan is approved, the zoning should be C-1, General Commercial. 11. Provide a complete title bar, including the name, address, and legal description, as well as the name and contact information of the developer and applicant (if different). 12. Show C-1 setbacks in accordance with the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 5.4 — Non- Residential Dimensional Standards. 13. If elevations are to be submitted separately, they will count towards additional site plan reviews. Please have architects fully review the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.9 — Non-Residential Architectural Standards. 14. Provide existing and proposed topography. 15. Provide proposed grading. 16. Provide dimensions of all throat depths and widths, as well as all opposite and adjacent driveways. 17. Show decel lane,and median for Right-In,Right-Out along State Highway 6 (see TxDOT notes). ✓'18. Provide utility demands. 19. The FDC (Fire Department Connection) must be within 150'of a fire hydrant. 20. Show all utilities and fire hydrants. 21. Provide screening details for the compactor. Additionally, the driveway to the compactor must be paved to firelane standard. Sanitation is fine with the compactor, however, there should be sufficient room around the compactor to access and service the compactor. Please be aware of this when designing the 16 screening. . Provide screening details for outdoor storage area in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance, Section 7.11 —Outdoor Storage and Display. libProvide limits of the Outdoor Display,in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance, Section .9.E — Non-Residential Architectural Standards - Additional Standards for 50,000 S.F. or Greater. This allows outdoor display within 30 percent of the area of the required 10-foot sidewalk immediately adjacent to the building. NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and"bubbled"on your plans.Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City,will constitute a completely new review. Page 2 of 4 f ENGINEERING Site Plan 1. Depict proposed and existing storm sewer DE and PUEs. 2. TxDOT permit needed for drive and culvert to frontage road. 3. Confirm that our new fire truck has adequate clearance to traverse the steep drive grades and break-overs off Horse Haven Lane. 4. Provide standard construction detail for drive aprons,culverts,headwalls,etc. 5. Demolition Permit will be needed to remove the structures. 6. Update the site plan to match the drainage and utility sheets where the proposed storm sewer does not conflict with the fire suppression line and the bike racks. Drainage 7. There appears to be a discrepancy between exhibits and tables with E2 and E3. 8. Clarify table narrative"Ult". Is this in addition to Post? 9. Confirm TxDOT dialogue regarding necessity of TxDOT easement along the creek. 10. Provide a detail that depicts modifications to the existing storm inlet on Horse Haven that has the proposed drive apron over it. Appears to need a grate,designed to handle structural HD20 loadings and accept the equivalent flow as the existing open throat inlet. Note in drainage report to the analysis. 11. Note a minimum of a one foot clearance between proposed public storm and the existing sanitary sewer. 12. Add storm lead to JB-2 in plan view. Utilities 13. Note a minimum of a one foot clearance between proposed public storm and proposed water. 14. Cut a tee and place a 12"gate valve on the water connection near the frontage road. 15. Fyi,the water report is acceptable. Reviewed by: Alan Gibbs Date: December 7,2006 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans,that have not been requested by the City of College Station,must be explained in your next transmittal letter and"bubbled"on your plans.Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City,will constitute a completely new review. 3 of 3 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Project: GANDER MOUNTAIN (SP) - 06-00500258 PLANNING 1. Show proposed location of the tree wells. This impacts the site construction. They may be noted as proposed and refer to an approved landscape plan, but the contractor should be put on notice, that the sidewalks will have tree wells that are contiguous with the soil at grade. 0 Provide height and type of screening (well, fence, etc) around the outdoor storage area and truck loading/compactor site. Details may be provided with the architectural plans, but the site plan should also indicate the type and height. 3. Please expand on the Building Plot note to say that "This will also include the requirements for a Traffic Impact Analysis if the uses on the entire building plot generate more than 5,000 trips per day, or as set by the Unified Development Ordinance at the time of development." The line thickness makes it very difficult to determine if curbing has been provided around all paved areas. Please use a smaller line or provide a plan for just curbing and pavement that clearly shows the curbing and the areas to be paved to firelane standard and the areas to be paved to standard parking lot standard,with details for each pavement standard. 5. Provide a detail for the bicycle rack,provided in the Site Design Standards,page 21. yClearly identify the limits of the screening for the compactor/truck loading area. 7. Remove or x out standard details on Sheet 2 that do not pertain to this site. ✓8. The setbacks that are shown are for A-O,upon permitting, this site has to be zoned C-1. Please show C-1 z setbacks. " 9. Materials: The metal samples are fine. The colors Wool Skein and Quiver Tan are on the approved color palette. Isle of Pines is not an approved color, and if used must cover no more than 10% of a facade.The closest color I found on the palette is SW 6195—Rock Garden, but it is not nearly as bright as the Isle of Pines. ' . d e Celt I Q In c 6, (:)/) Reviewed by: Lindsay Boyer,Staff Planner Date: November 30, 2006 ENGINEERING Site Plan 1. Depict proposed and existing storm sewer and associated PUEs. 2. TxDOT permit needed for drive and culvert to frontage road. 3. Confirm that our new fire truck has adequate clearance to traverse the steep drive grades and break- overs off Horse Haven Lane. 4. Provide standard construction detail for drive aprons, culverts,headwalls, etc. 5. Confirm that electric conflicts are resolved. 6. Update plan in accordance with drainage report regarding the detention ponds. 7. Add a note on plan that the retaining wall blocks in the ROW of Horse Haven Lane are the City's property. If the proposed site grading needs the wall to be removed, the blocks should be carefully disassembled and temporarily stored on site for the City to be able to collect the blocks. Drainage 8. Provide addition certification language based on your analysis to the effect of that due to location in watershed,lag-times, there is no negative impacts for a direct storm discharge into the creek—and that detention would increase peaks, etc. 9. There appears to be a descrepency between exhibits and tables with E2 and E3.