Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 5 1. There are issues with the private drainage facilities in the public drainage easement. The way it is designed now appears to have the potential to require the future acceptance of the improvements as public for public maintenance. If part of the retaining wall fails, the City would then be liable. Your design needs to be modified to physically differentiate between public and private drainage improvements/structures. 2. The retaining walls require professional structural engineering certification to H-20 loading. 3. You need to provide details for front and rear retaining walls. Retaining walls over 2 feet in height require a building permit. 4. Retaining wall along TxDOT ROW will require decorative finish (cannot be plain concrete). 5. Still need copy of filed shared access easement. 6. Need power of attorney that to show that H.K. Pitts has the authority to sign for Scott Gilchrist on the fill permission letter. 7. Labels in the shaded area are not legible. 8. Emergency spillway is required. 9. What is the height of freeboard for detention pond? It does not appear that you included any freeboard. 10. It appears that the curb elevation is determining what the max depth of water is in the parking lot. This need to be determined from routing of inflow and outflow through pond. 11. What is max depth of water in parking lot? 12. Grading plans show parking in TxDOT ROW in the access easement with the adjacent property. This area needs to be revised. 13. It appears you are including the fill slope area as part of your detention volume, as well as the area in TxDOT ROW. 14. It appears that you are taking more flow to TxDOT ROW than currently is discharged there. Verify that the drainage ditch can handle the additional volume. 15. A portion of the eastern driveway slope exceeds the max of 6% that a fire truck can negotiate. Please verify. Be aware that after constructed it will be tested by the Fire Marshal's office and may require modification prior to CO of building. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: August 7, 2008 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 6 ON HOLD 1. You are correct in that the drainage facility is located on private property. However, my previous comment and subsequent discussion with you, was in regards to the retaining wall in the public drainage easement. If part of the retaining wall fails, the City would then be liable. Although you have modified your design to physically differentiate between public and private drainage improvements/structures, I'm not sure it is enough. What is separation between retaining wall and existing concrete drainage channel? Your detail is "Not to Scale". 2. Previous comment also recommended the retaining wall be designed by structural engineer, to ensure certification to H-20 loading. Your design does not incorporate any sort of footing. Does the mere embedment of the retaining wall 1' into of undisturbed soil provide enough structural support for H2O loading? What about the area 4' above natural grade? As we discussed, the Site Plan shows parallel parking along the back that is required for the development. (You were going to get a copy of the Site Plan from the architect to verify layout.) 3. Retaining Wall Details need to reflect that "height varies" and provide a maximum height. 4. Details on Sheet Cl conflict with details on Sheets S3 and S4. 5. Location of emergency spill way is not clearly denoted. 6. Please read Stormwater Design Guidelines. Freeboard is required on detention ponds. 7. You are still showing a different parking lot configuration that the Architect. Your layout does not meet UDO requirements and also shows parking in TxDOT ROW. This has not been approved as you state in your response to comments. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: September 16, 2008 19. Will you be stubbing out water and sewer services to Phase Two at this time? If so, show how you plan to provide water and sewer service to Phase Two. (Repeat comment) 20. Are you planning a master meter for domestic, or individual for multiple tenants? (Repeat comment) 21. Minimum curb return radius is 25'. The approved TxDOT permits also require this. Please review permit for any additional requirements. 22. Exhibit B is referred to in the access agreement, but is not provided. Please provide. Also, this easement needs to be field at the courthouse before the Site Plan can be approved. We have no record that a filed copy was submitted. (Repeat comment) 23. The fire flow report needs to show the flow requirements for the structure you are proposing based on the Fire Code. This is determined from the size and construction type of the structure, as well, as the number of hydrants required to supply this flow. (Repeat comment) 24. Easement dedication application is still not complete. A copy of a recent (within 90 days) deed or title policy is required to process the dedication. If deed or title policy is older than 90 days, then a nothing further certificate will suffice. Also, it is the property owner that is dedicating the blanket easement. Please revise the dedication sheet to show correct ownership and proof of person authorized to sign for corporation. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: October 26, 2007 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3 Project: CROSSROADS (SP) - 07-00500164 PLANNING 1. The zoning of the abutting parcels is not correct (repeat comment). The lot developed as Lock-N-Roll storage to the north (Block 1, Lot 1R) is zoned C-2, the others are C-1. Please revise. 2. Please submit the revised building elevations, ensuring to address the previous comment that the Front Elevation consists of at least 25% masonry. Please revise. 3. Please note that the shared parking and access agreement with the adjacent property must be executed and documentation provided and the requested Temporary blanket easement must be received and processed before the site plan or development permit can be approved or issued. Please complete these items in full. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: October 30, 2007 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 4 1. In order to say that detention is not required for this project, you will need to provide an engineering analysis supporting this determination. (Repeat comment) 2. If your analysis shows that detention is not required then the certification verbiage found on page 11 of Section 2 in the Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines also needs to be provided. 3. Provide Executive Summary as required as Part 1 of the Technical Design Summary 4. Provide name of regulatory water course (pg 4) 5. Does "This information is on file or is under review at the controlling jurisdiction" mean that an earlier hydrologic analysis has been done for larger area including subject property? Please check appropriate box (pg 7) 6. You have checked the "Detention is not required" on page 7, but the "Need must be evaluated" is what needs to be checked per Table B-1 in Appendix B. 7. The project area does receive runoff from upland areas. Half of the drainage channel conveying this runoff is located on your property. (pg 8) 8. Is the "culvert" referred to on page 9 the drainage channel along the rear of the property? 9. The general description provided for Scenario 2 on page 10 is too vague. You need to be certifying why detention is not required. 10. What is Exhibit 1? (pg 10) 11. Answer the main yes/no questions on page 11. 12. You describe the roadside ditch as rectangular in shape. Are you referring to the roadside ditch or the drainage channel? (pg 12) Is the side slope relatively flat? 13. What is Exhibit A? (pg 12) 14. Provide yes/no or NA answers to questions on page 17. 15. How did you size the driveway culverts without the design info on page 19? What is the design flow used? Is Worksheet-1 for both proposed culverts? 16. Is a SW3P established for project construction? (pg 22) 17. You will need a more site specific drainage area map for you evaluation of detention requirements. (pg 23) 18. It appears that the floodplain location you are showing is still incorrect. Please refer to most current FEMA FIRM panel for location. 1 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 (Ck College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM November 2, 2007 TO: John Rhodes, R.A.I. Designs, Inc., via jrhodesraidesiqns.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CROSSROADS (SP) - 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: $200 processing fee for the next round of three (3) staff reviews; Seven (7) complete sets of revised 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) set of revised building elevations One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents 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: Case file #07-00500164 1010r1 50 •Pa• 1 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 �►� /—� Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979.764.3496 V4 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM August 27, 2007 TO: John Rhodes, R.A.I. Designs, Inc., via jrhodes(a�raidesigns.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CROSSROADS (SP) - 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 revi . 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 roved set) Two (2) revised site plans r One (1) landscaping plan One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan 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 764-3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Case file #07-00500164 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning&Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM October 9, 2007 TO: John Rhodes, via fax 846.3365 V FROM: Bridgette George, Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Engineering Document Comments for The Crossroads Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The following 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 and approval of the plans: One (1) revised Drainage Report; and One (1) sets of revised construction documents. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Carol Cotter, Graduate Civil Engineer at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments pc: San Trink, 2828 Brandywine Circle, College Station, Texas, 77840 Case File No. 07-500164 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3 1. The drainage report that was submitted is incomplete in that there are several blanks in the Design Summary and inconsistencies with the Site Plan. 2. In order to say that detention is not required for this project, you will need to provide an engineering analysis supporting this determination. The certification verbiage found on page 11 of Section 2 in the Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines also needs to be provided. 3. Please explain the statement "The subject property will be within pre-development conditions by allowing storm water to drain directly into the water shed". Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: October 9, 2007 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 1. It appears that the floodplain location you are showing is incorrect. Please refer to most current FEMA FIRM panel for location. In addition there is a flood study under way at the City of Bryan which may affect the flooplain location in this area. You will need to review this as well to determine most conservative location of the floodplain. 2. Show location of existing water and sewer mains on the property. 3. Will you be stubbing out water and sewer services to Phase Two at this time? If so, show how you plan to provide water and sewer service to Phase Two. 4. Please indicate that the water and sewer lines to your building are service lines. 5. If the utility and access easements are existing, then there are associated volume and page numbers for their dedication. Please provide. 6. Domestic and irrigation meters are required and they must be located within a PUE. Are you planning a master meter for domestic, or individual for multiple tenants? 7. You say that an irrigation meter was added to the left side of the building. I don't see this. 8. What are the "bowtie" looking things on the water line? 9. Provide curb return radii on driveways. 10. A portion of the dumpster pad is located within a PUE. Per the UDO, "Dumpster screens should be located outside of utility easements. Property owners with dumpster screens located within utility easements are hereby warned that they will be responsible for the replacement of the screens if it becomes necessary to remove them for utility construction and/or maintenance". Please add a note to the plans acknowledging this. 11. Exhibit B is referred to in the access agreement, but is not provided. Please provide. Also, this easement needs to be field at the courthouse before the Site Plan can be approved. 12. We are still waiting on approval of the TxDOT driveway permit. Site Plan cannot be approved until the driveway permits are approved. 13. Refer to Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines for requirements to drainage design. The checklist included in the guidelines needs to be filled out and submitted. In addition, this site is in the evaluate area. You may want to provide time to peak calculations. 14. The fire flow report needs to show the flow requirements for the structure you are proposing based on the Fire Code. This is determined from the size and construction type of the structure, as well, as the number of hydrants required to supply this flow. 15. Easement dedication application is not complete. Please see items 1-6 at bottom Easement Dedication Sheet.(Repeat comment.) Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: September 10, 2007 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Project: CROSSROADS (SP) - 07-00500164 PLANNING 1. Please locate the project area on the key map. 2. The zoning of the abutting parcels is not correct. Please revise. 3. The property to the east has been platted. Please revise. 4. Please note that the shared parking and access agreement with the adjacent property must be executed and documentation provided before the site plan can be approved. 5. It appears that parking space #30 is counted twice. As a result, one additional space is being provided. 6. It appears that the rear parallel spaces could be reduced to 22 feet in width to allow an additional space. This item is at the applicant's discretion. 7. Please ensure the number of parking spaces on the site plan is consistent with the number in the Parking Analysis table. 8. Please ensure the proposed square feet for the building is consistent between the site plan, Parking Analysis table, and landscape plan. 9. It appears that additional handicap spots will be required to reach ADA compliance. 10. Please revise General Note 8 to state the legal description (Lot and Block) of the lot to the east specifically. 11. Please add the following to General Note 9: ...right-of-way "or residential district within 150 feet of the perimeter boundary of the subject lot, measured from a point of five (5') feet above grade. Such screening shall be coordinated with the building architecture, materials, colors and scale to maintain a unified appearance." 12. Remove the canopy tree from front landscape island on site plan. 13. It appears that the Dumpster Enclosure Detail does not provide at least 12' of depth within it. Please revise. 14. The Retaining Wall/Fence Detail shows a wood fence though the site plan refers to a wall with a chain link fence on top. Please clarify and/or resolve. 15. For the building elevations, the Front Elevation still does not consist of at least 25% masonry. Please revise. 16. The calculations on the landscape plan for "Screening Required" is not necessary and can be removed. Please add a note however that states 10 shrubs for every 30 linear feet of parking space frontage and that the screening may be accomplished using plantings, berms, structural elements or the combinations thereof, and must be a minimum of three feet above the parking lot pavement elevation. If it is the intent to meet this requirement with plantings only, please make a reference on the plant list that the Bufford Hollies are to be 3 feet in height when planted. 17. The streetscape calculations are correct. However, please revise "10.81" to "12.19" to accurately reflect 609.72'/50'. 18. The TxDOT permits have been received and are being processed. Please note that these must be approved by TxDOT before the site plan or development permit can be approved or issued. 19. Please note that the requested Temporary blanket easement must be received and processed before the site plan or development permit can be approved or issued. 20. The revisions are still under Engineering review and those comments are forthcoming. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: August 24, 2007 (k.1 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 August 27, 2007 TO: John Rhodes, R.A.I. Designs, Inc., via jrhodes(c�raidesigns.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CROSSROADS (SP) - 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: 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 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 764-3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Case file #07-00500164 ifs.% 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM July 19, 2007 TO: John Rhodes, R.A.I. Designs, Inc., via jrhodesraidesigns.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CROSSROADS (SP) — 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: One (1) complete set of construction documents for the proposed development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached; One (1) revised site plan; One (1) revised landscaping plan; Engineering reports and data as described in the comments 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: Case file #07-00500164 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 1 of 5 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: CROSSROADS (SP) — 07-00500164 PLANNING 1. In the package of provided, Sheet S-2 (Dimension Control Plan) will serve as the site plan and should stand independent of the other pages. Please add the following to S-2: 2. Key map. 3. Ownership and zoning of all abutting parcels. 4. Setbacks. 5. FEMA floodplain delineation and note. 6. Throat depth for each driveway must be at least 55 feet. Please revise the western drive. 7. Submit a TxDOT driveway permit application for the proposed driveway and modification to existing drive. 8. A previous concept showed having a drive-thru lane provided at one or both ends of the building. If a drive-thru lane(s) is anticipated, please provide the lane and queuing spaces. 9. Remove General Note 7 on Sheet S-2. 10. Provide the shared parking and access agreement with the adjacent property. 11. It appears that the property line on the adjacent property along Harvey Road is not illustrated correctly. According to the plat, at 70.93 feet east of the common property line, the right-of-way shifts north 15.17 feet. This has substantial impact on the shared agreement as the some of the proposed parking spaces would be in the right-of-way. 12. Illustrate the boundaries of the proposed agreement on the site plan and provide the appropriate easement dedication documents. 13. Is the adjacent owner to the east aware that required parking spaces for the proposed development are being provided on their property? As a result, those spaces could not be used to meet parking requirements for any potential future building(s) on their property. 14. Only 75 parking spaces have been provided, not the required 76. Please revise. 15. The parking spaces along Harvey Road are within 15 feet of the right-of-way. Therefore, an 18-foot by 20-foot landscaped island must separate every section of 7 parking spaces. Please revise. 16. Revise the label for handicap spot 47, to parking space number 57. 17. In order for parking spots 62 and 63 to be 18 feet deep, they must be abut a 6-foot sidewalk or four foot landscape area. Please reconcile. 18. Will Phase Two be able to provide the required parking spaces within it for a future building it will contain? 19. Provide at least temporary curbing around the perimeter of Phase Two. 20. Please note that Phase Two will require its own site plan in the future. 21. Compliance with ADA may require that an ADA accessible route (sidewalk, ramps, striping) be provided from the property line to the building. 22. Both phases of the proposed development and Lot 2, Block Two Gateway Park subdivision (the adjacent lot to the east) have been determined to be a building plot. Please provide a note that they are a building plot for signage, access, parking, and the Non-residential Architecture Standards found in Section 7.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 23. There is an additional standard for building plots that have more than 20,000 gross square feet. The standard is that any façade facing a public right-of-way must consist of at least 25% masonry material as described in UDO Section 7.9.D. Though the proposed building is less than 19,000 sq. feet, Phase Two would make the building plot exceed this threshold. 24. The Front elevation has just over 20% stone material. This facade must have at least 25% stone to meet the material requirement. Please revise. 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 5 25. The Rear Elevation has over 82% hardie-plank siding material. There is a maximum of 75% for this type of material on any one façade. Please revise. 26. It appears that the Rear Elevation only accounts for architectural relief elements through the use of 4 pilasters. There must be two different types every 60' section, please revise. 27. Provide the percentage of each color used on each façade. Please note that no more than 15% of any one façade may consist of accent colors, those not on the color palette. 28. Please note that a silver metallic color is permitted only on roofs, not awnings. Please provide a different awning colors. 29. The proposed chain link fence on top of the new retaining wall is considered visually offensive and must be screened. Staff recommends that the fence be replaced by another type of barrier. 30. 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: Jason Schubert Date: July 17, 2007 LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER 1. On the bottom of the Landscaping Plan, it notes a 1" = 30' scale while another area states "NTS." The site plan has a 1" = 20' scale. Verify that the landscape plan has a scale and is labeled correctly. 2. The area of Phase Two may be excluded from the landscape calculations. Please provide the square feet for Phase Two and deduct it from the total site area. 3. The area of the existing channel cannot be deducted from the area for landscape calculations (not an undeveloped floodplain). Please revise the calculations. 4. Since the driveway and parking area on the adjacent property to the east are part of the project, please calculate and provide landscaping and streetscaping for the area. 5. The total linear frontage for streetscaping should include the entire property length and the off-site driveway area, minus the driveways. Please recalculate this frontage and the number of trees required. 6. The total required landscaping points are to include the points based on site area and the points required due to streetscaping (UDO Section 7.5.D.3). Please add the streetscaping points to the total required points and revise the plan accordingly. 7. Please distinguish the plantings by providing a different symbol for each type of planting. 8. The point values for the plantings are not correct. For example, canopy trees >1.5" receive only 75 points each, not 200. Canopy trees would need to be >2.1" to receive 150 points each and 3.5" and larger to receive 300 points. Please revise. 9. 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. 10. Provide a note that Irrigation systems 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. 11. Provide a note that all BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: July 16, 2007 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 5 TxDOT 1. Access driveways to SH 30 must meet TxDOT's current "Regulations for Access Driveways to State Highways". Regulations are primarily based on posted speed limits and distances between proposed & adjacent access points. Where the posted speed limit is 50 MPH or more the required spacing between access points is 425'. Where access spacing is insufficient joint access will be required or access to internal/external streets & any City of College Station directives. Appropriate data will be required for any future work/permits in the ROW @ this development site, which should include drainage data, etc. Reviewed by: Karl Nelson Date: July 13, 2007 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. Locate floodplain and floodway with on the ground survey and show on Site Plan. 2. Show all existing easements, including access. Indicate volume and page. 3. Submit TxDOT permit for water line connection in ROW. 4. Fire suppression line to building for sprinkler system shall be designed to meet BCS Unified Design Guidelines. 5. Show location of irrigation meter. 6. Provide size of water and sewer services. Design shall meet plumbing code (ie, cleanout required every 100 feet.) 7. Provide additional grade points on Grading Plan and show how site tries to existing grade/contours on adjacent properties. 8. I don't think the scale is correct on the Grading Plan. 9. Show proposed improvements to existing drive aisle between site and gas station. 10. Provide calculations used to size driveway culvert. 11. Provide Drainage Report. 12. Provide Fire Flow Report. 13. Provide Erosion Control Plan. 14. Easement dedication application is not complete. Please see items 1-6 at bottom Easement Dedication Sheet. 15. Additional comments may follow upon review of information requested. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: July 18, 2007 FIRE 1. Needs to show Fire Lane striping for site as per Code. 2. Fire flow calculation for building needed to determine number of hydrants. 3. At least one Fire Hydrant within 150 feet as the truck drives to lay the hose off in order to supply the Fire Department Connection for the sprinkler system. 4. Fire Department Connection shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. 5. Immediate access to fire department connections shall be maintained at all times and without obstruction by fences, bushes, trees, walls or any other object for a minimum of 3 feet. 6. Locking fire department connection caps required. 7. Knox box(s) are required and place of installation will be approved by fire code official 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 5 8. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered available unless fire apparatus access roads extend between properties and easements are established to prevent obstruction of such roads. Reviewed by: Jerry Duffey, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: July 11, 2007 ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines (including street lights if required). 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 location, transformer, or device and extend as required. 5. If conduit does not exist at designated location, transformer, or device the developer will 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 plat and/or site plan. Email to: gmartinez©cstx.gov. 9. Developer provides load data for project. 10. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at 979.764.6255. Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: July 19, 2007 SANITATION 1. The dumpster enclosure needs to have the inside dimensions to be at 12' by 12', not 12' by 10'. 2. Enclosure angle needs to be turned 10 to 15 degrees clockwise in order to have clear maneuvering area for sanitation vehicle. (see design gudelines) Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: July 11, 2007 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 5 of 5 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: CROSSROADS (SP) — 07-00500164 PLANNING 1. In the package of provided, Sheet S-2 (Dimension Control Plan) will serve as the site plan and should stand independent of the other pages. Please add the following to S-2: 2. Key map. added 3. Ownership and zoning of all abutting parcels. added 4. Setbacks. added 5. FEMA floodplain delineation and note. added 6. Throat depth for each driveway must be at least 55 feet. Please revise the western drive. The throat depth of the western drive has been modified to meet the 55' min. requirement. 7. Submit a TxDOT driveway permit application for the proposed driveway and modification to existing drive. Permit applications have been submitted 8. A previous concept showed having a drive-thru lane provided at one or both ends of the building. If a drive-thru lane(s) is anticipated, please provide the lane and queuing spaces. Potential drive thru's and queing areas added 9. Remove General Note 7 on Sheet S-2. Note has been removed. 10. Provide the shared parking and access agreement with the adjacent property. Being put together. 11. It appears that the property line on the adjacent property along Harvey Road is not illustrated correctly. According to the plat, at 70.93 feet east of the common property line, the right-of-way shifts north 15.17 feet. This has substantial impact on the shared agreement as the some of the proposed parking spaces would be in the right- of-way. This has been corrected. 12. Illustrate the boundaries of the proposed agreement on the site plan and provide the appropriate easement dedication documents. Drawn on plan. Documentation being worked on 13. Is the adjacent owner to the east aware that required parking spaces for the proposed development are being provided on their property? As a result, those spaces could not be used to meet parking requirements for any potential future building(s) on their property. Parking has been modified to not count those spaces for our project. 14. Only 75 parking spaces have been provided, not the required 76. Please revise. 85 total spaces have been provided. 15. The parking spaces along Harvey Road are within 15 feet of the right-of-way. Therefore, an 18-foot by 20-foot landscaped island must separate every section of 7 parking spaces. Please revise. Parking has been modified to this requirement. 0— (Q/ `1 c ' 6-01 T�� 16. Revise the label for handicap spot 47, to parking space number 57. This was a typo and has been revised. 17. In order for parking spots 62 and 63 to be 18 feet deep, they must be abut a 6-foot sidewalk or four foot landscape area. Please reconcile. Building porch has been revised to allow a 6' sidewalk to abut these two spaces. 18. Will Phase Two be able to provide the required parking spaces within it for a future building it will contain? Yes, Parking was revised. Made driveway behind building oneway thus giving us additional parallel parking in rear. 19. Provide at least temporary curbing around the perimeter of Phase Two. A temporary 6" curb has been added to surround the entire phase two. 20. Please note that Phase Two will require its own site plan in the future. Note 7 added to general notes. 21. Compliance with ADA may require that an ADA accessible route (sidewalk, ramps, striping) be provided from the property line to the building. These plans will be submitted to an Eddie Hare for review 22. Both phases of the proposed development and Lot 2, Block Two Gateway Park subdivision (the adjacent lot to the east) have been determined to be a building plot. Please provide a note that they are a building plot for signage, access, parking, and the Non-residential Architecture Standards found in Section 7.9 of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Note 8 added to the general notes. 23. There is an additional standard for building plots that have more than 20,000 gross square feet. The standard is that any façade facing a public right-of-way must consist of at least 25% masonry material as described in UDO Section 7.9.D. Though the proposed building is less than 19,000 sq. feet, Phase Two would make the building plot exceed this threshold. This is understood. 24. The Front elevation has just over 20% stone material. This façade must have at least 25% stone to meet the material requirement. Please revise. Completed 25. The Rear Elevation has over 82% hardie-plank siding material. There is a maximum of 75% for this type of material on any one façade. Please revise. Completed 26. It appears that the Rear Elevation only accounts for architectural relief elements through the use of 4 pilasters. There must be two different types every 60' section, please revise. Awnings were added 27. Provide the percentage of each color used on each façade. Please note that no more than 15% of any one façade may consist of accent colors, those not on the color palette. Added to elevation color selections sheet 28. Please note that a silver metallic color is permitted only on roofs, not awnings. Please provide a different awning colors. Color has been changed. 29. The proposed chain link fence on top of the new retaining wall is considered visually offensive and must be screened. Staff recommends that the fence be replaced by another type of barrier. This has been replaced with a wood fence. 30. 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. NOTE #9 added in the general notes. Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: July 17, 2007 LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER 1. On the bottom of the Landscaping Plan, it notes a 1" = 30' scale while another area states "NTS." The site plan has a 1" = 20' scale. Verify that the landscape plan has a scale and is labeled correctly. This has been revised. 2. The area of Phase Two may be excluded from the landscape calculations. Please provide the square feet for Phase Two and deduct it from the total site area. Added to landscaping calculations. 3. The area of the existing channel cannot be deducted from the area for landscape calculations (not an undeveloped floodplain). Please revise the calculations. Channel not used in calculations 4. Since the driveway and parking area on the adjacent property to the east are part of the project, please calculate and provide landscaping and streetscaping for the area. We included these in the revised landscaping plan. 5. The total linear frontage for streetscaping should include the entire property length and the off-site driveway area, minus the driveways. Please recalculate this frontage and the number of trees required. This was re-calculated 6. The total required landscaping points are to include the points based on site area and the points required due to streetscaping (UDO Section 7.5.D.3). Please add the streetscaping points to the total required points and revise the plan accordingly. Added and revised 7. Please distinguish the plantings by providing a different symbol for each type of planting. Legend and plan updated 8. The point values for the plantings are not correct. For example, canopy trees >1.5" receive only 75 points each, not 200. Canopy trees would need to be >2.1" to receive 150 points each and 3.5" and larger to receive 300 points. Please revise. Caliper was revised 9. 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. Note added 10. Provide a note that Irrigation systems 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. Note added 11. Provide a note that all BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394. Note added Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: July 16, 2007 TxDOT 1. Access driveways to SH 30 must meet TxDOT's current "Regulations for Access Driveways to State Highways". Regulations are primarily based on posted speed limits and distances between proposed & adjacent access points. Where the posted speed limit is 50 MPH or more the required spacing between access points is 425'. Where access spacing is insufficient joint access will be required or access to internal/external streets & any City of College Station directives. Appropriate data will be required for any future work/permits in the ROW © this development site, which should include drainage data, etc. Reviewed by: Karl Nelson Date: July 13, 2007 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. Locate floodplain and floodway with on the ground survey and show on Site Plan. Approximate flood plain line noted based off fema maps 2. Show all existing easements, including access. Indicate volume and page. All easements new and old shown. Volume and page number noted where applicable 3. Submit TxDOT permit for water line connection in ROW. Application is made 4. Fire suppression line to building for sprinkler system shall be designed to meet BCS Unified Design Guidelines. This will not be required due to use installing the proper fire rated walls throughout the building. 5. Show location of irrigation meter. METER added to left side of building 6. Provide size of water and sewer services. Design shall meet plumbing code (ie, cleanout required every 100 feet.) Sizes of services verified and clean outs added to s.s. every 100' or less 7. Provide additional grade points on Grading Plan and show how site tries to existing grade/contours on adjacent properties. Addition gradelines to existing site are added along with grade elevations throughout the site. 8. I don't think the scale is correct on the Grading Plan. This has been corrected. 9. Show proposed improvements to existing drive aisle between site and gas station. Driveway to be widened at curb cut and new asphalt to be replaced 10. Provide calculations used to size driveway culvert. See attached engineering report 11. Provide Drainage Report. See attached engineering report 12. Provide Fire Flow Report. See attached engineering report 13. Provide Erosion Control Plan. S.W.P.P. ADDED TO DRAINAGE PLAN, AND SEE DETAILS ON SHEET S-4 14. Easement dedication application is not complete. Please see items 1-6 at bottom Easement Dedication Sheet. 15. Additional comments may follow upon review of information requested. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: July 18, 2007 FIRE 1. Needs to show Fire Lane striping for site as per Code. Stripping added and see note on sheet S-4 2. Fire flow calculation for building needed to determine number of hydrants. Fire flow has now been completed. See attached engineering 3. At least one Fire Hydrant within 150 feet as the truck drives to lay the hose off in order to supply the Fire Department Connection for the sprinkler system. The building will have proper fire walls no sprinkler will be in building. 2 fire hydrants are on or near the site and noted on plan 4. Fire Department Connection shall be located on the street side of buildings, fully visible and recognizable from the street or nearest point of fire department vehicle access or as otherwise approved by the fire code official. 5. Immediate access to fire department connections shall be maintained at all times and without obstruction by fences, bushes, trees, walls or any other object for a minimum of 3 feet. 6. Locking fire department connection caps required. 7. Knox box(s) are required and place of installation will be approved by fire code official 8. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered available unless fire apparatus access roads extend between properties and easements are established to prevent obstruction of such roads. Reviewed by: Jerry Duffey, Deputy Fire Marshal Date: July 11, 2007 ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines (including street lights if required). 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 location, transformer, or device and extend as required. 5. If conduit does not exist at designated location, transformer, or device the developer will 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 plat and/or site plan. Email to: gmartinez©cstx.gov. 9. Developer provides load data for project. 10. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at 979.764.6255. Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: July 19, 2007 SANITATION 1. The dumpster enclosure needs to have the inside dimensions to be at 12' by 12', not 12' by 10'. Correction made. 2. Enclosure angle needs to be turned 10 to 15 degrees clockwise in order to have clear maneuvering area for sanitation vehicle. (see design gudelines) Correction made Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: July 11, 2007 ff44Or1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM November 2, 2007 TO: John Rhodes, R.A.I. Designs, Inc., via jrhodesraidesiqns.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CROSSROADS (SP) - 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: $200 processing fee for the next round of three (3) staff reviews; t/ Seven (7) complete sets of revised 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) V* Two (2) revised site plans V One (1) landscaping plan is" One (1) set of revised building elevations V One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan Easement Dedication Sheet and required d'6Ei ents—, yyrapPe 00- 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: Case file #07-00500164 c#,1. 1v4 ..,w+ -n ;.. .... ' .A.................,.+.-aaw._ -e•.3r_"i x a S z,*aw.�.....Wb.w.urw:- ,.. _ sem..;.,,..,,...... ,., .,..,..,.....�,...-..,..,-.a- ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 5 1. There are issues with the private drainage facilities in the public drainage easement. The way it is designed now appears to have the potential to require the future acceptance of the improvements as public for public maintenance. If part of the retaining wall fails, the City would then be liable. Your design needs to be modified to physically differentiate between public and private drainage improvements/structures. 2. The retaining walls require professional structural engineering certification to H-20 loading. 3. You need to provide details for front and rear retaining walls. Retaining walls over 2 feet in height require a building permit. 4. Retaining wall along TxDOT ROW will require decorative finish (cannot be plain concrete). 5. Still need copy of filed shared access easement. 6. Need power of attorney that to show that H.K. Pitts has the authority to sign for Scott Gilchrist on the fill permission letter. 7. Labels in the shaded area are not legible. 8. Emergency spillway is required. 9. What is the height of freeboard for detention pond? It does not appear that you included any freeboard. 10. It appears that the curb elevation is determining what the max depth of water is in the parking lot. This need to be determined from routing of inflow and outflow through pond. 11. What is max depth of water in parking lot? 12. Grading plans show parking in TxDOT ROW in the access easement with the adjacent property. This area needs to be revised. 13. It appears you are including the fill slope area as part of your detention volume, as well as the area in TxDOT ROW. 14. It appears that you are taking more flow to TxDOT ROW than currently is discharged there. Verify that the drainage ditch can handle the additional volume. 15. A portion of the eastern driveway slope exceeds the max of 6% that a fire truck can negotiate. Please verify. Be aware that after constructed it will be tested by the Fire Marshal's office and may require modification prior to CO of building. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: August 7, 2008 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 December 9, 2008 TO: John Rhodes, R.A.I. Designs, Inc., via email jtrhodes(a�raidesigns.com FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CROSSROADS (SP) - 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: 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) revised landscaping plan One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan Other documents as detailed in the Staff Review Comments. 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 cc: Case file #07-00500164 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 4 Project: CROSSROADS (SP) - 07-00500164 PLANNING Site Plan 1. The zoning of the Drewdawn property to the west and Gilchrist property to the east are zoned C-1. Please revise the labels. 2. The number of required parking spaces for a 18,593 sq ft shopping center at a 1:250 ratio is 75 spaces. Please revise the number in the Parking Analysis table. 3. A portion of parking space #40 appears to be within the TxDOT (Harvey Road) ROW. Please revise. 4. There appears to be 7 spaces between parking spaces #2 and #7. Revise the parking numbers and labels for the site. 5. Provide the site area on the site plan and provide the area of Phase 2 in square feet. 6. The interior dimensions of the dumpster enclosure are to be a minimum of 12 ft by 12 ft including bollards. Please revise the site plan and enclosure detail to comply. 7. The chain link fence on top of the retaining wall at the rear of the site is not an approved material. Please revise the fencing and/or retaining wall details. 8. Please label the bike rack on the site plan. 9. Provide a note on the site plan that exterior lighting for the site (freestanding and attached lights) will need to comply with UDO Section 7.10 Outdoor Lighting Standards. The site will be reviewed for compliance with this Section during the inspection of the site prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 10. Please note that as stated in General Note #8, this site is a building plot with Phase 2 and the Gilchrist property to the east. As such, freestanding signage will be shared between these properties. Landscaping Plan 11. The site area and linear feet of frontage for streetscaping are different from the previous submission. Please verify, making sure all areas being developed are incorporated including the portion of the Gilchrist property (Block 2, Lot 2) to the east. 12. There appears to be landscaping proposed in the TxDOT (Harvey Road) ROW near the new driveway on the east side of the site. Please remove/revise. 13. The shrubs screening the parking do not meet the number/amount required to meet UDO Section 7.5.D.5. 14. The number of streetscape trees compared to canopy trees do not seem to be quantified correctly in the Landscape Analysis. 15. The line for the silt fence does not appear to match the Line Legend. Please revise. Building Elevations 16. On the building elevations, identify the colors to be used and what each section of the building will be colored. 17. Provide the percentage of materials and colors on the elevations. 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. 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: December 8, 2008 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 7 1. There are issues with the private drainage facilities in the public drainage easement. The way it is designed now appears to have the potential to require the future acceptance of the improvements as public for public maintenance. If part of the retaining wall fails, the City would then be liable. Your design needs to be modified to physically differentiate between public and private drainage improvements/structures. 2. It is understood that the revised Site Plan will include retaining walls instead of fill on adjacent property. The retaining walls require engineering certification to H-20 loading. 3. Retaining walls over 2 feet in height require a building permit. 4. Retaining wall along TxDOT ROW (Concrete Curb w/Footing") will require decorative finish (cannot be plain concrete). 5. TxDOT has requested new driveway permit be submitted. Proposed grade/fill needs to be shown with permit. This is not reflected on Site Plan. 6. Show location of 8" sanitary sewer line on grading plan for clear picture of any impact by retaining wall. 7. Verify there is no off-site drainage through property from western adjacent property. 8. Provide Appendix D of Stormwater Design Guidelines. 9. Creek Meadows is mentioned in Section 1.4 Page 2. 10. Pond 5 is mentioned in Section 4.3, Page 8. 11. Pond 2 outlet structure is stated as having a 12" diameter in the report, but the plans show a 24" diameter outlet. 12. Due to the interest in the drainage design by the downstream property owners, you might want to reduce discharge for all storms to predevelopment conditions, unless you are comfortable defending the negligible increase. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: December 9, 2008 STAFF REVIEW COMMETNS NO.4 Project: CROSSROADS (SP)—07-00500164 Planning Site plan 1. The zoning of the Drewdawn property to the west and Gilchrist property to the east are zoned c-1. Please revise the labels. Revised the labels. 2. The number of required parking spaces for a 18,593 sq ft shopping center at a 1:250 ratio is 75 spaces. Please revise the number in the Parking Analysis table. Revised table to reflect actual number. 3. A portion of parking space#40 appears to be within the TxDOT(Harvey Road) ROW. Please revise. Revised—one space removed. 4. There appears to be 7 spaces between parking spaces#2 and 37. Revise the parking numbers and labels for the site.—renumbered all parking spaces. 5. Provide the site area on the site plan and provide the area of Phase 2 in square feet. Noted on building 99034—Total 6. The interior dimensions of the dumpster enclosure are to be a minimum of 12 ft by 12 ft including bollards. Please revise the site plan and enclosure detail to comply. Corrected on plan&detail. 7. The chain link fence on top of the retaining wall at the rear of the site is not an approved material. Please revise the fencing and/or retaining wall details. —Revised detail. 8. Please label the bike rack on the site plan. — Labeled—detail on sheet S-6 9. Provide a note on the site plan that exterior lighting for the site (freestanding and attached lights) will need to comply with UDO section 7.10 Outdoor Lighting Standards. The site will be reviewed for compliance with this Section during the inspection of the site prior to Certificate of Occupancy—Added to general notes#12. 10. Please note that as stated in General Note#8,this site is a building plot with Phase 2 and the Gilchrist property to the east. As such, freestanding signage will be shared between these properties—added to note#8 on General Notes. Landscaping Plan 11. The site area and linear feet of frontage for streetscaping are different from the previous submission. Please verify, making sure all areas being developed are incorporated including the portion of the gilchrist property(Block 2, Lot 2) to the east. Revised to match previous. 12. There appears to e landscaping proposed in the TxDOT (Harvey Road) ROW near the new driveway on the east side of the site. Please remove/revise.Revised. 13. The shrubs screening the parking do not meet the number/amount required to meet UDO Section 7.5.D.5. Revised Per UDO. 14. The number of streetscape trees compared to canopy trees do not seem to be quantified correctly in the Landscape Analysis. Adjusted to proper amount. 15. The line for the silt fence does not appear to match the Line Legend. Please revise. Revised. Building Elevations 16. On the building elevations, identify the colors to be used and what each section of the building will be colored. Submitted color 11x17 rendering. 17. Provide the percentage of materials and colors on the elevations. Resubmitted 11x17" sheet ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 7 1. There are issues with the private drainage facilities in the public drainage easement. The way it is designed now appears to have the potential to require the future acceptance of the improvements as public for public maintenance. If part of the retaining wall fails, the city will then be liable. Your design needs to be modified to physically differentiate between public and private drainage improvements/structures.—We reduced building sq footage in order to remove all items from the easement. 2. It is understood that the revised site plan will include retaining walls instead of fill on adjacent property. The retaining walls require engineering certification to H-20 loading. 3. Retaining walls over 2 feet in height require a building permit.—Separate permit will be pulled. 4. Retaining wall along TxDOT ROW(Concrete Curb w/Footing") will require decorative finish (cannot be plain concrete) Revised. See civil sheets for detail and final location. 5. TxDOT has requested new driveway permit be submitted. Proposed grade/fill needs to be shown with permit. This is not reflected on Site Plan. Resubmittal has been done. 6. Show location of 8" sanitary sewer line on grading plan for clear picture of any impact by retaining wall. By engineer 7. Verify there is no off-site drainage through property from western adjacent property. By Engineer 8. Provide Appendix D of Stormwater Design Guidelines. By Engineer 9. Creek Meadows is mentioned in Section 1.4 page 2, - removed by engineer. 10. Pond 5 is mentioned in Section 4.3 Page 8. —Removed by engineer. 11. Pond 2 outlet structure is stated as having a 12"diameter in the report, but the plans show a 24"diameter outlet.—Removed by engineer. 12. Due to the interest in the drainage design by the downstream propOerty owners, you might want to reduce discharge or all storms to predevelopment conditions, unless you are comfortable defending the negligible increase. —Engineer was consulted on those. ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 8 1. There are issues with the private drainage facilities in the public drainage easement. The way it is designed now appears to have the potential to require the future acceptance of the improvements as public for public maintenance. If part of the retaining wall fails, the City would then be liable. Your design needs to be modified to physically differentiate between public and private drainage improvements/structures. 2. It is understood that the revised Site Plan will include retaining walls instead of fill on adjacent property. The retaining walls require engineering certification to H-20 loading. 3. Retaining walls over 2 feet in height require a building permit. 4. Retaining wall along TxDOT ROW (Concrete Curb w/Footing") will require decorative finish (cannot be plain concrete). 5. TxDOT has requested new driveway permit be submitted. Proposed grade/fill needs to be shown with permit. This is not reflected on Site Plan. 6. Show location of 8" sanitary sewer line on grading plan for clear picture of any impact by retaining wall. 7. Verify there is no off-site drainage through property from western adjacent property. 8. Provide Appendix D of Stormwater Design Guidelines. 9. Creek Meadows is mentioned in Section 1.4 Page 2. 10. Pond 5 is mentioned in Section 4.3, Page 8. 11. Pond 2 outlet structure is stated as having a 12" diameter in the report, but the plans show a 24" diameter outlet. 12. Due to the interest in the drainage design by the downstream property owners, you might want to reduce discharge for all storms to predevelopment conditions, unless you are comfortable defending the negligible increase. Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: February 3, 2010 ifs.% 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM February 17, 2009 TO: John Rhodes, R.A.I. Designs, Inc., via email itrhodes(c�raidesigns.com FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CROSSROADS (SP) - 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: 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) Four (4) revised site plans One (1) landscaping plan One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan OR Four (4) revised site plans and one (1) landscaping plan. 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 cc: Case file#07-00500164 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 5 Project: CROSSROADS (SP) - 07-00500164 PLANNING 1. Please revise the label on the site plan regarding the rear retaining wall and fence to reflect the Detail 3 given on Sheet S-6. 2. The Front elevation must have at least 25% brick or stone to meet the material requirement. Please revise. 3. The Landscape Plan meets the minimum requirements, Planning has no additional comments regarding it. 4. 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: February 16, 2009 0 CROSSROADS PROJECT August 29. 2008 REPLY - ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO.6, BY CAROL COTTER. 8/7/08 - isA,C) ?Drainage facility is located on private property. \'n & . 2. Retaining walls are designed by licensed engineer. 3. Retaining Wall details are included on drawing Cl. Permits will be procured by owner. 4. Retaining Wall finish will be noted and specified by architect. 5. Filed access agreement will be provide by owner. 6. Power of attorney will he provided by owner. 7. Labels on drawing have been made more legible. 8. Emergency spillway is provided by design and location. See detail drawing Cl. 9. Detention pond, by ordinance, does not require freeboard. 10. Maximum depth of water in parking lot is determined by design and agreement. 11. Maximum is set at six inches. X12. Parking lot design was set by site plan that has been approved for construction. 13. Fill slope area in design was inadvertently included and has been deleted. See drawing Cl. 14. By design and objective the detention pond will not increase flow rate in to ditch. 15. Driveway slope has been redesigned to maintain equal or less than 6% slope. See drawing Cl. L. A. Berry, P. E. _ p OA' ?i0Jul l,wV . Berry Engineering Company �J\rye ( c)