HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments�tt
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of Texas A&M University`
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 17, 2014
TO: Davis Young, Pebble Creek Land Company, via; davis.y(a-,)pebblecreektx.com
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, AICP
SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK PH 7D (FP)
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat 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 and to be scheduled for a future Planning
& Zoning Commission meeting:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised final plat;
One (1) 24"x36" Revised set of construction documents;
Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised final plat;
One (1) Mylar original -of the revised final plat (required after P&Z approval); and
One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to:
pdsdigitalsubmittal(a)-cstx.gov.
Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be
considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that this application will
expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response
comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review
comments contained herein. If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be
scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Your project may be placed on a
future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your
item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at
the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/pz
Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P&Z approval and
prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
PC: Jeff Robertson, McClure & Browne Engineering, via; ieffr mcclurebrowne.com
P&DS Project No. 14-00900160
Planning & Development Services
I'.O. SOY 9960 • 11.01 TEYAS AZ,ENt?E • COLLEGE ST.)ITION • 'I13XAS • "7842
'LEL. 979.764.3570 • FAY. 979.764.3496
csb(.gov/devservices
s;3+
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of Texas AdM University'
DATE: November 17, 2014
TO: Davis Young, Pebble Creek Land Company, via; davis.y(a)pebblecreektx.com
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, AICP
SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK PH 7D (FP)
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat 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 and to be scheduled for a future Planning
& Zoning Commission meeting:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised final plat;
One (1) 24"x36" Revised set of construction documents;
Thirteen (13) 11 "x17" copies of the revised final plat;
One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P&Z approval); and
One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to:
pdsdigitalsubmittal(a)-cstx.gov.
Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be
considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that this application will
expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response
comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review
comments contained herein. If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be
scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Your project may be placed on a
future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your
item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at
the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/pz
Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P&Z approval and
prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
PC: Jeff Robertson, McClure & Browne Engineering, via; jeffr mcclurebrowne.com
P&DS Project No. 14-00900160
Planning & Development Services
I'.O. BOX 9960 • 1 1.01 TEXAS AVENUE • COLLEGE STATION • 'TEXAS • 77342
TEL. 979.764.3570 • FAX. 979.764.3496
CSN.gov/devservices
17. Why does lot 78 on Quarry Oaks Dr. have 2 sewer service lines?
18. MH 1.05 does not have a transition drop. Please adjust the slope so that it has at least a 0.1
feet transition drop.
19. Please check MH2.02, the flow line shows a 0.1 feet drop but the profile seems to show a
greater drop.
20. Please correct the label of the waterline conflict on profile for SE-5. WA-1 is shown instead
of WA-2.
21. The grade changes from .40% to .45% between MH 1.03 & MH 1.04. Please add a manhole
or adjust the grade.
22. Check the flow lines for MH 7.03 & MH 7.04.
Storm Sewer Lines / Drainage Report
23. The outfall for SD-3 needs to be pulled back and in acute angle towards the creek flow.
Please confirm that the outfall velocity entering the creek is fairly similar to the Creek's
velocity to minimize turbulence.
24. Please correct 7.1's curb inlet stationing.
25. Why were the inlet computations changed from Recessed Inlet on Grade to Recessed Low
point Inlet for Inlet # 4.4 & 8.1? These two inlets should've stayed Recessed Inlet on Grade
like your previous Drainage report has shown.
26. Please provide justification and the assumptions being made for the calculations of the
creek's capacity.
27. It seems that a different area for the street capacity calculation was used for the 10 year
storm event. Please correct the area value used for the calculations, and it also seems that
the determined flows on exhibit C-1.exceeds the flow determined for your street capacity.
Oversized Participation Requirements
1. Please provide a sealed metes & bound.
2. Please provided an updated Insurance policy, the current one is about to be expired.
3. Please provide filled out Performance Bond. (See attached file)
4. Please provide a water map that corresponds with the provided Fire flow reports.
Reviewed by: Danielle Singh / Kevin Ferrer Date: November 17, 2014
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of TexasA&M University'
DATE: July 14, 2014
TO: Davis Young, Pebble Creek Land Company, via; davis. V(q-).pebblecreektx.com
FROM: Danielle Singh, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK PH 7D (FP)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Please label the volume and page numbers for all existing easements. See
revised plat.
2. The scale appears to be incorrect. See revised plat.
3. Please clarify in note 8 that privacy fences are not allowed in the floodplain as
this would impede flow. See revised plat.
4. Some bearings have not been labeled near the common area. Please ensure all
necessary bearings are included. See revised plat.
5. Please show markers for lot corners or other changes in direction (some are
missing around the property boundary). See revised plat.
Development Permit Comments:
6. Please provide a water report, sanitary sewer report and letter acknowledging
City Standards. Please include any designs that deviate from the standards
(including sewer slopes).
7. Please review the last two notes on sheet C1.1, it appears that symbols were left
of the plans.
8. On the grading an erosion control plan, please show contours for the entire
property.
9. It appears that some erosion control measures may be needed along the north
property line.
10. Please show a construction entrance.
11. Please provide a street light layout.
12. Please provide a street sign layout.'
13. Please show the limits of the floodplain on the construction plan. Please add a
note that about no construction activities in the floodplain unless otherwise
specified.
14. Has the post office reviewed the location of the mailbox?
15. The sidewalk should be shown behind the mailbox turnout, not through it. Please
add a public access easement for the new sidewalk location. Curb ramps and
detectable warning pavers should be shown at all intersections. Please remove
Planning & Development Services
P.O. BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE • COLLEGE STATION • TEXAS • 77842
TFT 070 76A 2570 . FAX 07Q 7(,A AAO(
(frffig
CITY OF COI.I.FGE STATION
Home of Texas AIM University'
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 14, 2014
TO: Davis Young, Pebble Creek Land Company, via; davis.y(cr�,pebblecreektx.com
FROM: Danielle Singh, Transportation Engineer
SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK PH 7D (FP)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
4. Please label the volume and page numbers for all existing easements.
C2?'The scale appears to be incorrect.
,e Please clarify in note 8 that privacy fences are not allowed in the floodplain as
this would impede flow.
yr Some bearings have not been labeled near the common area. Please ensure all
necessary bearings are included.
Please show markers for lot corners or other changes in direction (some are
missing around the property boundary).
.development Permit Comments:
Please provide a water report, sanitary sewer report and letter acknowledging
L61
City Standards. Please include any designs that deviate from the standards
(including sewer slopes). . — See attached.
J'Please review the last two notes on sheet C1.1, it appears that symbols were left
of the plans. — See revised plans.
Ar On the grading an erosion control plan, please show contours for the entire
property. — See revised plans.
$- It appears that some erosion control measures may be needed along the north
property line. — See revised plans.
YR. Please show a construction entrance. — See revised plans.
)4'.Please provide a street light layout. — See revised plans.
aPlease provide a street sign layout.' — See revised plans. k}eI
13 Please show the limits of the floodplain on the construction plan. Please add a
note tfiat about no co" 'struction activities in-The' floodplain unless otherwise
specified. — See Sheet C1.1
4!,.Has the post office reviewed the location of the mailbox?
)The sidewalk should be shown behind the mailbox turnout, not through it. Please
add a public access easement for the new sidewalk location. Curb ramps and
detectable warning pavers should be shown at all intersections. Please remove
overlapping text and verify labels are shown correctly. There appear to be a lot
Planning d-Development Services
of misplaced labels. - See revised plans. Turnout has been removed. Curb
Ramps have been added and labels adjusted.
3 Is oversized participation being requested with this section? If so, this needs to
be included in the next submittal. . - See attached.
17 Please specify that the curb should be laydown curb. - See revised plans.
Typical street sections have been added to Sheet C2.1 and C2.5 showing the
curbing.
eOn
sheet 2.5, the slope should not exceed 2% in the first 25' of the intersection. -
See revised plans
9Please place curb inlets on before the bend in Quarry Oaks Drive.
-Label the curb radius at all streets intersections.
).1-.There are entire street profiles that were not included in these plans. - See
revised plans
QAt T- intersections, please add a curb ramp to cross over the main streets to
provide additional access. - The ramps have not been added in order to be
consistent with the rest of the develoment and approved preliminary plan.
There does not appear to be a design for the drainage at the end of Brandon
Dunes Court. - See revised plans Bandon Dunes has to be drained back to
o24 ?uarry Oak.
he configuration for SD-3 is not an acceptable design as it will cause additional
drainage to already established lots. This storm sewer should outfall to a
different location. This could potentially be combined with the Brandon Dunes
storm sewer. - The existing drainage of this area of the development flows to
the creek between Phase 7B and 7D. The stormwater needs to be released at
this point. The headwall has been pulled away from the property line to be
similar to the discharge in Phase 7C.
2� Please correct your storm sewer profile on sheet C3.1. Inlet 1.3 will not drain. -
/ See revised plans
X. Please show details for pipe SD-1 , rip-rap, end treatments, existing grades, etc.
- See revised plans
(!.There does not appear to be a reason for a grate inlet at 2.1. . - See revised
plans
28 There are several locations where junction boxes would be better served as curb
inlets. - The junction boxes have been left since it appears the water is being
removed from the street appropriately with the current configuration and
changing the j/box to inlets will cause the pipe sizes to be larger further upstream
than currently shown.
Please label the roads in all plan views. It is very difficult to review the plans as
is. . - See revised plans
X.Please label all station numbers there are several places labeled as ???. . - See
revised plans
Pleasease check flow lines labels for storm sewer and sanitary sewer at junction
•oints. - See revised plans
•'lease check your stationing on sheet C3.3---Gee revised plans
k9/. Please label all utility crossings in profile views. Check locations of services that
have been shown. There are locations where services are shown to cross
through proposed lines. — See revised plans
....c ._
Please complete your water line design before resubmitting (show bending
radius, label services in plan view, label all fittings, sanitary crossing with TCEQ
requirements, etc.) Also, please review your fire hydrant locations. — See revised
Xfans
On Flint Hills Drive, the waterline should not reduce to a 6" (for 100') between the
two 8" lines. — See revised plans
The waterline along Bandon Dunes Court can be 4". — See revised plans
.The
label sanitary sewer services in the plan view. — See revised plans
d:'.Please complete your sanitary sewer profiles before resubmitting. — See revised
plans
/38'Drainage report is still being reviewed. Comments will be sent via email.
Reviewed by: Danielle Singh Date: 7/8/14
PC: Jeff Robertson, McClure & Browne Engineering, via; jeffr c@mcclurebrowne.com
P&DS Project No. 14-00900160
CITY OF COJJ.FGE STATION
Home of Texas Aer'M University'
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 8, 2014
TO: Davis Young, Pebble Creek Land Company, via; davis.y(a�pebblecreektx.com
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, AICP
SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK PH 7D (FP)
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat 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 and to be scheduled for a future Planning
& Zoning Commission meeting:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised final plat;
One (1) 24"x36" grading and erosion control plan;
Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised final plat;
One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P&Z approval); and
One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to:
pdsdigitalsubmittalcstx.qov.
Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be
considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that this application will
expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response
comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review
comments contained herein. If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be
scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Your project may be placed on a
future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your
item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at
the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting.
http://www.cstx.gov/pz
Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P&Z approval and
prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
PC: Jeff Robertson, McClure & Browne Engineering, via; jeffr@mcclurebrowne.com
P&DS Project No. 14-00900160
Planning e&"Development Services
P.O.BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE •COLLEGE STATION •TEXAS •77842
TEL.979.764.3570 •FAX. 979.764.3496
cstx.eov/devservices
CeC 1a- C , 3 . to , `- )
1V2.0-
oir\da) , s 1 /
(go so0
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 O1
Project: Pebble Creek Ph 7d (FP) (14-00900160)
PLANNING — Repeat Comments
1. Please provide an index sheet showing the entire subdivision with matchline and label the
matchlines on the other pages. The overall layout and matchlines are shown on the vicinity
map on page 1.
2. Please provide the total lot count in the title block. See revised plat.
3. Please label all roads on Inset "A." See revised plat.
4. The current zoning of the property is GS General Suburban (no longer called R-1).
5. The scale does not appear to be 1"=100' as indicated. Please check. See revised plat.
6. Please provide volume and page of all existing easements on the plat. . See revised plat.
7. 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.
8. Please note that you may be required to submit paid tax certificates if they are not current
prior to the filing of your plat.
9. Please be aware that each lot will be required to provide a minimum of two (2) trees of at
least two inches (2") in caliper or one (1) tree of four inch (4") caliper per Ordinance No.
3222.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: October 7, 2014
ADDRESSING — Repeat Comment
1. Please change Royal Adelade Drive to Royal Adelade Loop. The street name needs to
be continuous. See revised plat.
Reviewed by: Robin Krause, Permit Technician Date: 6/24/14
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1 . The following easements will be required:
BLOCK 62 IN BETWEEN LOTS (21 & 22) (14 & 13) 5' PUE See revised plat.
BLOCK 64 IN BETWEEN LOTS (16 & 17) 5' PUE See revised plat.
BLOCK 64 IN BETWEEN LOTS (9 & 10) (19 & 20) 10' PUE See revised plat.
BLOCK 43 IN BETWEEN LOTS (92 & 93) 10' PUE See revised plat.
Reviewed by: Eric Horton Date: 7/11/14
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3
e The scale shown on plat is not corresponding with the scale specified on the title block.
See revised plat.
Please provide a 20' PDE along SD-3 on plat. See revised plat.
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMMENTS
2." Please fix/update the Sheet List Table on the cover sheet. See revised plans.
It seems that Quarry Oak Drive's street plan and profile are not included. See revised
plans.
Please provide updated Engineering estimate. See attached.
6. Please include the street names on all the sheets. See revised plans.
Please clarify what the circle symbols that are shown by the cul de sac on the grading
and erosion control plan. They were lines created by AutoCAD"s grading program. They
have been removed.
.8' Please provide a street sign detail. See revised plans (Sheet C1.1).
.9' Please add a note stating that no construction activities in the floodplain unless
otherwise specified. See revised plans (Sheet C1.1).
0 The 6" Curb needs to be changed to a lay-down curb. Please make sure this change will
be reflected on your drainage report. The curbs on Royal Adelade are 6" to match the .
existing sections of the street in Phase 7C. The other streets are all laydown curb.
1 I Please adjust the intersection grades in such a way that the first 25 feet do not exceed
+-2% grade. (Royal Adelade Drive & Pebble Creek Pkwy, Royal Adelade Drive & Quarry
Oaks Drive) See revised plans. Royal Adelade Drive intersects Pebble Creek Pkwy at
the crest of a vertical curve. The grades with the limits of the apron are less than 2%.
The grades on Quarry Oaks Drive has been revised to be 2%.
. Please provide elevation every 25' along the eyebrow on Hawks Ridge Drive. See
revised plans..
y3'. Please label the sidewalk on both sides for typical 28' pavement section on sheet C2.5.
See revised plans.
14. Please show propose contour tying with existing contours with lots sloping away from
the street. We have concern with the driveway, and drainage issues that may arise. See
revised plans.
�A slope of 0.6% on Bandon Dunes Ct. will result in slopes less than minimum
requirements in the gutter around the cul de sac. Please label spot elevations around cul
de sac. See revised plans. Grades around the cul-de-sac have been added every 25' to
ensure a grade >0.6% around the cul-de-sac.
WATER LINES
Please show Sewer conflict on water conflicts on profiles. See revised plans.
y7' On Waterline WA-1 profile by station 7+00, there's a donut shape symbol above the
waterline. Please label what this is. See revised plans.
APlease show Gate valves and Fire Hydrants on profiles. See revised plans.
ems'Please make sure to have gate valves at least every 800 feet. See Quarry Oak Dr. See
revised plans.
0. Please provide the curvature for the water lines on the profile and confirm that they meet
the maximum deflection per BCS guidelines. Please use fittings where applicable. See
revised plans.
l Please use appropriate gate valve sizes, Tees, and Anchor Coupling. See insets. See
arevised plans.
Please label all your water service lines on the plan & profile view. Also make sure that
they are corresponding on the plan & profile. See sewer lines also. See revised plans.
Please make sure that all the labels with leaders are pointing at the right item on the
profiles. See revised plans.
'. Crossings are not meeting TCEQ. See WA-1 on SE-2, WA-2 on SE-5, SE-3 & SE-6 on
WA-2, and laterals. Please note lateral clearance is only a recommendation. See revised
plans.
2f Please confirm that lots 95-89 on block 43 is acquiring their water service lines by the
12" water line through Pebble Creek Parkway and that they are being left between 2'
and 3' deep at the point of terminus with a ball valve by the contractor. Yes, these
services are shown on the Pebble Creek Pkwy plans.
,. Waterline WA-2's profile is showing SD-1, but the overall plan shows that SD-1 does not
cross WA-2 but WA-1. Please fix. See revised plans.
77. Is there a particular reason why the WA-2 has sections that are 8 feet deep? We prefer
to keep the maximum depth of a main line to 5 feet if there are no special circumstances
that would require a greater depth than 5 feet. See revised plans.
28. In lieu of achieving a minimum 4 feet depth on several portions in all your waterlines, we
would need to have the sections that do not meet the minimum 4 feet depth change to
ductile iron pipe with cement stabilized sand backfill. See revised plans.
?•9. Please provide the stationing on waterline WA-2's plan view. See revised plans.
It seems that the water service line for lots 88 & 87 of Block 43 along Quarry Oaks Way
is connected at the bend of WA-1. Please move it before or after the bend. Also see
water service line for lots 15 & 16 of Block 64 on WA-3 See revised plans.
". Are lots 11 & 12 of Block 64 having a water service line of Quarry Qaks Dr? Please
show water service on WA-2 plan and profile. See revised plans.
3/ Is there a particular reason why the water service line for lot 25 of Block 62 is a 1.5"
service line instead of 1.0"? See revised plans.
The water service line for lots 60 and 59 on block 39 can't be sharing the same service
point with the sewer service line. Please relocate the water service line or sewer service
line in such a way that they are not using the same property border. See revised plans.
X34. Please fix Water profile title on sheet C4.6. It's stating that a 6" & 8" are being used. See
revised plans.
A. Notes on sheet C4.6 are not legible. See revised plans.
X. Please show the slopes of all waterlines on the profiles. See sheet C4.6 See revised
plans.
SEWER LINES
7. Sewer service line SS5.02 can't service both lots with a water service line on that
property lot line. Please relocate the service line to the lot line between 1 & 2, and have
another service line between lot lines 3 & 4. This also eliminates having a sewer service
line on Hawks Ridge Dr. and Quarry Oaks Dr. FYI, we would like to keep the service
lines on the frontage of property. See revised plans.
38. Please fix the north arrows, they seem to be pointing in the wrong direction for sheets
C3.1, C3.3, C4.3, C4.4, C5.3, C5.6, C5.7. It's confusing when you're trying to orient
yourself with the north arrows. See revised plans.
Is there a sewer service line for lots 88 & 89 of Block 43 connected to MH 2.01? Please
show service line on plan view. Also see service line for lots 16 & 17 of Block 64
connecting to MH 4.01. See revised plans.
Please adjust sewer service lines in such a way that they are perpendicular to the sewer
/mains. Same goes for water service lines if applicable. See revised plans.
Please fix profiles, there are measurements without correspondence to nearby utility
lines. See revised plans.
_NZ. SS4.05 seems to be mislabeled since its showing Sta 9+99. See revised plans.
Please correct lot numbering on sheet C5.5, C5.7. See revised plans.
44. There are several sewer service lines that are showing negative grade percentage and 0
percent. Please address these lines to have adequate gravity flow slope. The negative
slope just indicates flow direction based on which way the pipe was drawn in the
computer. The service elevations drop from the property line to the sewer main. The
0% grades have been fixed.
(5J Please make sure that all the Manholes have at least a .1 foot drop between the
��/ transitions. See revised plans.
O. Please fix sewer lines to have the minimum slope requirement per B/CS. Or Address this
fin the letter acknowledging city standards with justification. See attached letter.
57. Please make sure that the Manholes are corresponding Stationing and label on plan and
profile view. See Sheet C5.2. See revised plans.
48. SE-2 section (Sta 6+00 to Sta 7+00) is having a depth of 10 feet and the horizontal
clearance from the line to the PUE is only 8 feet. Move the section closer towards the
sidewalk so that there's at least 10 feet clearance between the line and PUE. Or provide
additional PUE along those lots. See revised plans. Easement width has been
increased.
MH 2.03 needs to be changed to a drop manhole since the 4" is entering the manhole
more than 2 feet above the exiting flow line elevation. Also please move the label since
its cut off. See revised plans.
5. Please show PUE boundaries on sheet C5.4. Please note that if the PUE horizontal
clearance to the depth of the sewer line ratio is less than 1:1. Additional PUE is going to
be required or the sewer line has to be shifted to provide adequate clearance. See
revised plans. Easement width has been increased.C)51. SE-7 is having sections that are 10 feet to 15 feet deep. The line needs to be shifted
owards the ROW in such a way that there's at least a 1:1 ratio of depth to horizontal
clearance to the PUE boundary. If this is not possible we would need to acquire
additional PUE so that it meets the ratio. See revised plans. Easement width has been
increased.
WATER & SEWER REPORT
ePlease show proposed Fire Hydrants on the Overall Sheet, and water map report.
Please make sure that the fire Hydrants are 1000 feet apart and that no structure is
more than 500 feet away that is measured along the ROW. See revised C1.1 and
Exhibit B-1.
13. Please check water report, the table shows a junction node 6 which is not shown on the
water map. J-6 is the fire hydrant located between J-7 and J-16. It has been added to
the water map. See revised Exhibit B-1.
&Please show the fire flow demand for each Fire Hydrant, and label them uniquely on the
Water map. The water reports have always been prepared with a static flow condition to
identify the fire hydrant with the lowest pressure (most hydraulically remorte) and the fire
flow has been added to that hydrant in order to avoid many un-necessary models for
each hydrant. Has the policy changed on this requirement?
/5. Sanitary Sewer Analysis table seems to be using the incorrect min design slope. See
revised Exhibit E.
•
5(The Manning friction slope ADF is not corresponding with the slopes provided on the
construction documents. The Manning friction slope ADF calculates the minimum slope
,, for that particular pipe size and material. It is not the same as the slope in the plans.
(7. The velocity of the sewer lines shown on the sewer analysis table are below the
minimum velocity of 2.5 fps. Please address this issue. The minimum slopes for each
diameter pipe is based on the pipe flowing full and producing 2.5 feet per second.
Sewer pipes will almost never flow full and will not reach the minimum velocity unless
they are full. Pipe slopes would have to be increased significantly or pipe diameters
reduced in order to achieve 2.5 fps on an ADF flow.
Please check Sewer analysis spreadsheet, there are several lines that are showing a
peak flow depth of 0. See revised Exhibit E.
STORM SEWER LINES / DRAINAGE REPORT
,8"6. Please check your stationing for all your inlets on plan and profile view. See revised
plans.
. . Please correct FL in & FL out on the storm drain & sewer profiles See revised plans.
i . Please make sure that there's at least .1 foot drop between the transition of all inlets,
junction boxes, and manholes. See Inlets 3.2 & 3.4. See revised plans.
0. Please pull back SD-3 & place outflow in an acute angle towards the flow. Please make
sure that the discharge location has adequate armor and that the flow stays within the
easement. Also provide a cross section detail of the discharge location. See revised
plans.
Please provide pre-development drainage conditions and map. Please show that flows
adjacent to existing properties are not increasing. Also show a summary table showing
the impact of the proposed drainage compared to the pre-development drainage
conditions. The pre-developed flow for this creek was mitigated with the retention ponds
built with Phase 9C. The original drainage area upstream of this discharge point was
-50 acres, but approximately 30 acres of this is now being captured by the ponds in
Phase 9C which reduces the overall flowrates. Phase 7D will increase the flow in this
creek due to development, but the total is much less than the original flow rate. See
attached exhibits.
Technical Design summary is stating that there's a SD-2, but the construction
documents do not show a SD-2. Did you mean SD-3? If it is SD-3, the headwall is not
showing a rock rip rap. Please address and fix. See page 14 on appendix D. Yes, this
was intended to be SD-3. See revised exhibit.
9,5/. Technical Design Summary page 23 is stating a drainage area 15b. There's no drainage
area 15b shown on the drainage map. Please address this issue See revised exhibit.
56. Why's a roughness coefficients of .024 for street gutters being assumed? Instead of the
roughness of .018. See revised exhibit.
537-!Why's the roughness coefficient for RCP and HDPE .014 being assumed? Instead of
.013 and .012 respectively. 0.014 is being used to be conservative on the flow capacity
of these pipes. If the pipe has some silt in it, this is a more realistic value.
On pages 24 & 25 in Technical Design Summary, the use of culverts is being shown.
Please remove. See revised exhibit.
€4. Please label Exhibit C-2's Storm year. See revised exhibit.
.7'6. Please provide inlet computation for a 100 year storm. See revised exhibit.
)Does Exhibit C-2 take clogging factor into account? Please add a note that clogging
factor has been taken into account. Clogging has been taken into account. See revised
exhibit.
7. On Exhibit C-2, Inlets 1.3 and 8.1 have Q carry over which does not transition to the next
inlet. See revised exhibit.
, 3. The required street slope on exhibit C-2 does not correspond with the construction
documents. See revised exhibit.
74. Please use Tc value 10.0 min for exhibit C-3 & C-4 like it was determined by exhibit C-1.
Please note that the maximum velocity for conduits is 15 ft/s. The time of concentration
shown on these exhibits is "cumulative". The 10 minutes is used for the first inlet in the
system, but the travel time through the pipes is added as the water flows from inlet to
inlet.
Please fix the design storm column on exhibit C-4. See revised exhibit.
The flow on exhibit C-5 is not corresponding with the flow determined in exhibit C-3.
Please fix this. See revised exhibit.
77. Exhibit C-5 & C-6 are showing different pipe slope, diameter, flow elevation, street
slopes compared to the construction documents. See revised exhibit.
_.V-Column SF on exhibit C-5 & C-6, is this the friction slope? Please check the friction
slope some are not corresponding with exhibit C-3 & C-4. See revised exhibit.
-7.9-7—Please use roughness coefficient .018 in your pavement section calculations. See
revised exhibit.
7.14The calculated flows in your pavement section exceed the flows determined in C-1.
iOr
Please address this. See revised exhibit.
Reviewed by: Danielle Singh Date: October 8, 2014
(lieril141
CITY OF COIJ.FGE STATION
Home of Texas A6M University'
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 17, 2014
TO: Davis Young, Pebble Creek Land Company, via; davis.y@pebblecreektx.com
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka, AICP
SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK PH 7D (FP)
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat 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 and to be scheduled for a future Planning
& Zoning Commission meeting:
One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised final plat;
One (1) 24"x36" Revised set of construction documents;
Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised final plat;
One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P&Z approval); and
One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to:
pdsdiqitalsubmittalcstx.qov.
Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be
considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that this application will
expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response
comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review
comments contained herein. If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be
scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Your project may be placed on a
future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your
item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at
the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting.
http://www.cstx.qov/pz
Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P&Z approval and
prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call
me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff Review Comments
PC: Jeff Robertson, McClure & Browne Engineering, via; ieffr@mcclurebrowne.com
P&DS Project No. 14-00900160
Planning er Development Services
P.O.BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE •COLLEGE STATION •TEXAS •77842
TEL.979.764.3570 •FAX. 979.764.3496
cstx.eovidevservices
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: Pebble Creek Ph 7d (FP) (14-00900160)
PLANNING — Plat to be submitted later this week.
1. Repeat Comment: Please provide an index sheet showing the entire subdivision with
matchline and label the matchlines on the other pages. To clarify, Sec. 12-3.4.C.3.b.4) of the
Unified Development Ordinance requires that when the plat is on more than one page, an
index sheet including the layout of the subdivision at a scale of 1:500 or larger be provided.
Please let me know if you have further questions about this.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: November 17, 2014
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 4
Please fix the scale of Inset "A" on final plat sheet.
0 Please add a note regarding requirement for compaction of fill or engineered slab for
affected lots that have greater than 2 feet of fill. Also please list the lots that would require
this.
Z Please indicate minimum habitable finish floor elevation for lot 69 on Block 39.
4. Provide an updated Engineering cost estimate. — See attached.
MH 2.02 & 4.02 is 10 feet deep and the horizontal clearance with the PUE is not adequate.
Please provide an additional 5 feet PUE around manholes 2.02, 4-02, .77-62% (The additional
PUE is only required for lots that are adjacent to the manholes.) See Revised plans. The
easement has been increased or the manhole has been moved.
LJ The additional PUE provided for SE-7 Sta 10+00 to Sta 17+00 is not adequate. Please
provide additional PUE in such a way that there's at least a 1:1 ratio of depth to horizontal
clearance of the sewer line to the PUE boundary. See Revised plans. The the sewer line
has been moved.
Water Lines
0 Check the proposed sizes for Inset "A" on sheet C4.1. See Revised Plans.
8. It appears fire hydrants are more than 1000 feet apart. Please add additional fire hydrants or
adjust the fire hydrants' locations. See Revised Plans. Fire Hydrant at Pebble Creek Pkwy
and Royal Adelade has been removed. A new hydrant has been added at the intersection
of Hawks Ridge and Flint Hills. Fire Hydrant at intersection of Quarry Oaks and Hawks
Ridge has been moved to the other side of intersection to reduce spacing distances.
- In lieu of achieving a minimum 4 feet depth on several portions in all your waterlines, we
would need to have the sections that do not meet the minimum 4 feet depth change to
ductile iron pipe with cement stabilized sand backfill. See waterlines WA-1, WA-2 (Sta
12+20 — 13+10) and WA-3 (Sta 6+38 — 8+20). See Revised Plans. WA-1 is 4' below
Proposed Grade for the entire length now. Near Station 2+25 to 4+00 is less than 4' to
Existing Ground, but that will not be the final surface.
SE-3 does not meet TCEQ clearance requirement with WA-2. See Revised Plans.
t".-We don't have equipment to maintain an 8 feet waterline. Please adjust Water line WA-2 to
have a maximum depth of 5 feet and cross the sewer lines above. The line may need to be
changed to ductile iron if it doesn't meet the minimum 4 feet depth requirements. See
Revised Plans.
Please check your water & sewer service lines on plan and profile. They seem to be
mislabeled. See Revised Plans.
5 There are several deflection that appear to need bends, show the curvature with radius and
vertical curves and confirm that they meet the maximum deflection per B/CS guidelines.
Please use fittings where applicable. The allowable radii in the BCS guidelines correspond
to the following changes in grade for a 20' vertical curve:
Pipe Diameter Minimum Radius Change in Grade
6" 220' 8.75%
8" 400' 5.0%
12" 600' 3.5%
All vertical and horizontal pipe deflections meet this requirement.
Sewer Lines
Grades for sewer service lines don't correspond with flow line elevations, please revised.
Also the flow line elevation at the property line seem to be deeper than the maximum 3.5
allowable terminus depth. Please address and fix. See Revised Plans. The flow at end
marked in the plan view represents the elevation at the wye or bend. The contractor is
responsible for extending the service up to within 3.5' of the surface at the terminus.
E5)1Please fix lot numbering on sheet 05.3, 4' See revised plans.
It seems there is no sewer service line for lots 69 & 70 on Block 39, and lot .
See revised plans.
a-. Why does lot 78 on Quarry Oaks Dr. have 2 sewer service lines? See revised plans.
�1 . MH 1.05 does not have a transition drop. Please adjust the slope so that it has at least a 0.1
c/ feet transition drop. See revised plans.
Please check MH2.02, the flow line shows a 0.1 feet drop but the profile seems to show a
vgreater drop. See revised plans.
,U. Please correct the label of the waterline conflict on profile for SE-5. WA-1 is shown instead
of WA-2. See revised plans.
,2'l. The grade changes from .40% to .45% between MH 1.03 & MH 1.04. Please add a manhole
or adjust the grade. See revised plans.
Check the flow lines for MH 7.03 & MH 7.04. See revised plans.
Storm Sewer Lines / Drainage Report
The outfall for SD-3 needs to be pulled back and in acute angle towards the creek flow.
Please confirm that the outfall velocity entering the creek is fairly similar to the Creek's
velocity to minimize turbulence. See revised plans. SD-3 has been turned downstream. A
45 deg. Bend has been added just upstream of the headwall.
2 Please correct 7.1's curb inlet stationing. See revised plans.
,25. Why were the inlet computations changed from Recessed Inlet on Grade to Recessed Low
point Inlet for Inlet # 4.4 & 8.1? These two inlets should've stayed Recessed Inlet on Grade
like your previous Drainage report has shown. The street grade has been changed to allow
these inlets to be analyzed as low point inlets.
.6. Please provide justification and the assumptions being made for the calculations of the
creek's capacity. The slope was determined by on-the-ground survey information.
Roughness coefficient (0.035) is the normal value for straight, full stage minor streams with
some weeds and stones per HEC-RAS manual. The area and wetted perimeter are based
on a cross section of the creek made by survey at the discharge location.
Olt seems that a different area for the street capacity calculation was used for the 10 year
storm event. Please correct the area value used for the calculations, and it also seems that
the determined flows on exhibit C-1 exceeds the flow determined for your street capacity.
Label in the plan view was incorrect. It has been corrected on the attached sheet.
Oversized Participation Requirements—Working on compiling this information.
1. Please provide a sealed metes & bound.
2. Please provided an updated Insurance policy, the current one is about to be expired.
3. Please provide filled out Performance Bond. (See attached file)
4. Please provide a water map that corresponds with the provided Fire flow reports.
Reviewed by: Danielle Singh / Kevin Ferrer Date: November 17, 2014
CITY OF COI,I T:(.;E STATION
Home of Texas A&M University` /
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 21, 2014
TO: Davis Young, Pebble Creek Land Company, via; davis.y(cz?pebblecreektx.com
FROM: Danielle Singh, Transportation Planning Coordinator
SUBJECT: PEBBLE CREEK PH 7D (FP)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
Drainage Report:
1. The drainage report needs to be sealed.
2. There are only 14 inlets on the plans, but 16 are analyzed in your drainage report.
3. Your inlet numbers on the plans do not correspond to the inlet numbers in the drainage
report. This makes it very difficult to review.
4. Please revise your drainage map. There are drainage areas that are not labeled.
5. Please provide an exhibit with inlet and pipe labels.
6. All of the inlets are analyzed as low point inlets when most are on grade.
7. The flow in your inlet calculations does not reflect the actual flow to the inlets. Please
revise.
8. Please provide street capacity calculations.
9. Please provide hydraulic grade line calculations and graph.
10. Please show your capacity calculations for the drainage way between Phase 7B&7D.
Please make sure to include drainage from Pebble Creek Parkway. Calculations should
include downstream area in 7C.
11. Your pipe sizes do not correspond with your construction plans
12. The flows in your pipes do not reflect the cumulative flows in the pipes.
Reviewed by: Danielle Singh Date: 7/21/14
PC: Jeff Robertson, McClure & Browne Engineering, via; jeffr(c,mcclurebrowne.com
P&DS Project No. 14-00900160
Planning er Development Services
P.O.BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE •COLLEGE STATION •TEAS •77842
TEL.979.764.3570•FAX. 979.764.3496
cstx.gov/devservices
Kevin Ferrer
From: Stephen A. Maldonado Jr.
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 4:03 PM
To: Kevin Ferrer
Subject: RE: Pebble Creek Phase 7D
Kevin,
Your comments are good. We'd much rather deal with repairing/maintaining a shallower waterline (that meets our
design specs) than a deeper one that would require a large excavation during a repair, with a potential sewer line in the
way.
Thanks,
Stephen
From: Kevin Ferrer
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 3:56 PM
To: Stephen A. Maldonado Jr.
Subject: Pebble Creek Phase 7D
Hi Stephen,
I'm currently reviewing Pebble Creek Phase 7D.They are proposing a 8" waterline that is 2 feet below the ground. I was
going to make them change that section to ductile iron with cement stabilized sand backfill in lieu of 4 foot depth. Is this
section too shallow for that? Please note that there is a sewer main crossing below the proposed waterline that needs
additional clearance. Or would we rather have them cross the sewer main below? Let me know what you guys would
prefer. I'm providing a profile portion of the section as reference. I'll appreciate your feedback to give them an
appropriate comment.
Thanks,
Kevin Ferrer, EIT
Graduate Civil Engineer
Planning & Development Services
City of College Station
Office: (979) 764-3760
Email:kferrerpcstx.gov_
.. ...._...._..
1