HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Page 1 of 3
Lindsay Boyer- Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
From: "Daniel Lunsford" <dlunsford@Gessnerengineering.com>
To: "Lindsay Boyer" <Lboyer@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/31/2007 1:45 PM
Subject: Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
CC: "Thomas Gessner" <tgessner@gessnerengineering.com>, "Morgan Lund"
<mlund@gessnerengineering.com>
Hello Lindsay,
Thanks for offering use of e-mail to expedite some of these issues. Here's the comments that we are
confused on or require clarification on for Tuesday. As you can see by the omissions, there's a lot of
comments that I do understand to keep me busy till then. The meeting is 9:30 Tuesday 09/04 correct?
Also, either Quinn Williams or Billy Chenault with CGM Homebuilders (our clients)will be joining us in
the meeting.
REZONING COMMENTS:
Planning
1. I checked surveyors written metes and bounds by setting true north in AutoCAD Civil 3d 2008 and
drawing each segment by bearing and distance. I found that they do indeed close.
Greg Tagged, surveyor of record with Municipal Development Group, verified that the metes
and bounds are accurate within legal parameters and were map checked using two different methods to
verify. However, he agreed to double-check them prior to next submittal.
3. Rezoning Map and Master Plan now show the same areas to be rezoned. As per our phone
conversation earlier this week, the entirety of the proposed Riverstone Park is now to remain"A-O" to
ensure that the entire floodplain of Spring Creek Branch D is contained in parkland. Also, the area to
remain A-O was extended 70' to the northeast property line to avoid a 70' wide strip of R-1 land for the
future unnamed street. (please verify this is correct).
MASTER PLAN COMMENTS:
Planning
1. See Rezoning comment 3.
PRELIMINARY PLAT COMMENTS
Planning
2. See Rezoning Comment 1.
3. Please reference Sanitation Comment 1 (below) and clarify. Should temporary turnarounds be
omitted, or will they be needed for garbage truck movements?
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lboyer.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\46D81B8... 9/4/2007
a
Page 2 of 3
4. We were under the impression that street names were not needed for preliminary plat application, as
per phone conversation Morgan S. Lund with Gessner Engineering had with Lindsay Boyer(?) the week
ending 08/17/07. The understanding was that Addressing would approve street names and assign 911
addresses upon final plat approval. Please clarify if streets shall be named on preliminary plat.
5. We need to discuss this comment in general. I do not understand what is wrong with our block and lot
numbering.
7. Vicinity map is provided on Page One of the two-sheet Preliminary submittal. It was omitted from
sheet 2 due to space constraints.
9. Noted. Some blocks exceed maximum lengths,but we intend to ask for variances in keeping with the
essentials of the `coving' concept. We'd like to discuss this Tuesday.
13. In a previous review, we were told that the label `green space' was not permitted. The `reserve
tracts' are all either landscaped `green spaces', public parkland, or active oil/gas wells. Please clarify
what these areas shall be called.
15. The parkland shall be added to Phase I to avoid the need for a financial guarantee as per Subdivision
Regulation Section 10-B.
19. See Comment 9.
20. Note 20 will remain unchanged since the park (and floodplain therein) is now part of Phase One. Is
this correct?
27. Question: can a general note covering this be provided to make plans as readable as possible?
Something like, "all proposed streets shall have a 50' right of way unless noted otherwise"?
28. Changed lot layout whenever possible to avoid lots meeting at right angles. Please note that acute lot
line angles are unavoidable with a true `coving' concept, so we would like to discuss resolution with
you.
32. Please clarify req'd width and purpose (labeling) of said easements.
33. Please clarify that preliminary plat requirements state, "names of contiguous subdivisions and names
of owners of contiguous unsubdivided parcels of land" shall be provided. We interpreted this to mean
individual lots of subdivisions already platted (such as Castlegate) need not be individually labeled. Is
this correct?
35. Drainage will be via storm sewer lines and detention facilities (note detention has not been designed
at this point).
Electrical Comments (immediate attention)
1. Shall we provide notes on the plat to address these three issues?
Sanitation
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lboyer.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\46D81 B8... 9/4/2007
Page 3 of 3
C
1. See Master Plan- Engineering comment 1.
Addressing
1. See Preliminary Plat- Planning comment 4.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lboyer.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\46D81B8... 9/4/2007
Page 1 of 5
Lindsay Boyer - Re: Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
From: Lindsay Boyer
To: Daniel Lunsford
Date: 8/31/2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
CC: Morgan Lund; Thomas Gessner
Daniel-
If Greg wants to talk to someone about the closure, I would talk with Sven Griffin. He is our mapping
coordinator that checks closure and was the person who gave me the comments about the closure.
As far as the outstanding rezoning and master plan comments, I think we are on the same page. If the phasing
is being realigned to include the park, go ahead and show that on the Master Plan as well.
As far as the preliminary comments, here is what I can address to hopefully speed along the process.
1. Temporary Turnarounds -These should not be shown on the plat. The plat is a drawing that shows what will
be legally platted. Unless you want to have to go through the ROW abandonment process to gain back what is
shown as temporary turnaround, they only need be shown on the Construction Documents for the Final Plat. It
is understood that they will be there from a preliminary plat standpoint.
2. I don't remember the conversation with Alton about not providing street names. We check the street names
that are submitted to make sure that they are not duplicated and will assign the numerical portion of the
address at the time of final plat. I'm sorry if that was unclear.
3. Lot numbering will be easier to show. I was having a hard time writing it.
4. There really isn't a need for 2 sheets. The area map showing the phase in relation to the rest of the site is
unnecessary. If you can shrink the line table, you can probably get it on Sheet 2. Additional sheets at the final
plat cost more to file with the County.
5. I did not receive a variance request for the block length so I was a little confused on this point. If you are
requesting a variance, we need a letter with the variances you are requesting, an additional $100 to process
those, and how the variances meet the criteria in SubRegs section 5-A. This will be included in the packet for
the P&Z.
6. The reserve tract area can be called Common Area. A note will to be added to address who will own and
maintain them. Usually requires the establishment of an HOA.
7. Note 20 does need to stay if the parkland is in phase 1.
8. I would prefer that each street have a label similar to the one the entrance street across from Sweetwater
Drive that says the ROW width and the pavement width. Most of the streets have them. Maybe one or two did
not.
9. As far as the existing v. proposed, I can show you that on Tuesday. Easier talking it out.
10. Storm sewer lines should be shown on the Preliminary Plat. Carol may be able to better address the issues
of detention and drainage.
With the electrical issues, you may just want to talk with whomever reviewed your plans. They'll know best what
they meant as far as their comments.
Hope this helps-
Lindsay
Lindsay B. Boyer, AICP
Senior Planner
file://C:ADocuments and Settings\lboyer.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\46D81Fl... 9/4/2007
Page 1 of 7
Lindsay Boyer- RE: Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
From: "Daniel Lunsford" <dlunsford@Gessnerengineering.com>
To: "Lindsay Boyer" <Lboyer@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/31/2007 5:45 PM
Subject: RE: Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
I just thought of something we need to discuss at the meeting (I'm e-mailing you even if it is after
hours lest I forget by Tuesday). Alton was concerned about how much R.O.W. dedication CoCS may
require for future widening of Greens Prairie. Before I draw in sidewalks along there, I'd kind of like to
know, too.
From: Lindsay Boyer [mailto:Lboyer@cstx.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 3:02 PM
To: Daniel Lunsford
Subject: RE: Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
Daniel-
You don't need to show the entire subdivision since you have a Master Plan. If Phase 1 takes more than 1 page
at 1:100 you need an index sheet, yes. But Phase 1 plat doesn't take more than 1 sheet. I'm confused...
Lindsay
>>> "Daniel Lunsford" <dlunsford@Gessnerengineering.com> 8/31/2007 2:59 PM >>>
The thought occurs to me that the page one of our preliminary plat is to show the overall subdivision,
so that we can in turn show Phase One at a smaller scale. I believe this is required if the entire
subdivision (regardless of phasing) is not shown on one sheet. So...I don't think we can eliminate
page one.
From: Lindsay Boyer [mailto:Lboyer@cstx.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 2:36 PM
To: Daniel Lunsford
Subject: RE: Questions for Meeting Tuesday 09/04/07
Daniel-
On 1. Remove the turnarounds. I can guarantee that you will not get that comment again. On second round
reviews Planning reviews for all comments. I think Sanitations comments are just as an FYI that on the final plat
file://C:ADocuments and Settings\lboyer.CSTX\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\46D853A... 9/4/2007