Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning d Development Service 1101 Texas Avenue,P.O. Box 9960 College Station,Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM April 23, 2007 TO: 60-Jones, LLC dba Aggieland Business Park—Jim Jett, via fax 764.7676 FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner SUBJECT: AGGIELAND BUSINESS PARK PH 4 (FP) - Final Plat 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. If all comments have been addressed and the following information submitted by Monday, April 30, 2007, 10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for, May 17, 2007, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. Two (2) 24"x36"copies of the revised final plat; Sixteen (16) 11"x17" copies of the revised final plat; One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat;and One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to sgriffin@cstx.gov and awelsh@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 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/home/index.asp?page=2481 If you have any questions or need additional information,please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Joe Schultz,P.E.,Civil Development,Ltd.,via joena,cdlbcs.com Case file#07-00500090 Cs!b-Y AR-A t'49, ,demos cc:444/ Y vrA t=ic 77s CIVIL DEVELOPMENT, Ltd.* CIVIL ENGINEERING&DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES TRANSMITTAL Date: April 30, 2007 To: Jason Schubert Development Services City of College Station From: Joe Schultz, P.E. ‘p Civil Development° td. P.O. Box 11929 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone: (979) 764-7743 Subject: Revised Final Plat Z Aggieland Business Park, Phase 4 College Station, Texas )4 _ Remarks: Attached are 2 full-sized copies and 16-115(17 copies of the revised Final Plat for the above-referenced project. Our response to Staff Review Comments No. 1 is attached. A mylar original and the digital file will be submitted upon final approval. If you have any questions, please give me a call. .r:°4-0\ Response to Staff Review Comments No. 1 (dated April 23, 2007) Aggieland Business Park, Phase 4 Planning 1. "Lot"designation has been added as requested. 2. The Developer has requested that the lot numbering remain as it is to avoid confusion in the future. We were not able to locate any requirement for starting with Lot 1 at each new block. 3. Noted. 4. Noted. Engineering Comments No. 1 1. General Note 3 has been revised to include only FEMA FIRM panel 200, which is the only panel that applies to Phase 4 of this development. 2. This information is not addressed on the Final Plat. 3. Noted. 4. This information is not addressed on the Final Plat, nor does it pertain to Phase 4. 5. Phase 4 does not have any street or drainage plans associated with it. 6. A TxDOT permit is not required for the development of Phase 4. 7. General Note 6 has been revised. 8. A monument tie has been added. 9. There is no infrastructure construction required for this phase of the development, so no engineer's cost estimate is required. BTU 1. Note has been added. 2. Noted. General Electric Comments & Sanitation comments have been noted. From: "Kent Laza" <KLaza©CDLBCS.com> To: "Alan Gibbs" <Agibbs@cstx.gov> Date: 8/8/2007 4:27 PM Subject: RE: Flow test for Aggieland Business Park, Ph 4 CC: "Joe Schultz" <Joe©CDLBCS.com>, <jimjett@cox-internet.com> Alan, I have sealed the Addendum which includes the test report. The flow test was performed in accordance with NFPA 291 to the extent possible, but if you read that document carefully it requires that the test be conducted using two adjacent hydrants. Since we do not have two adjacent hydrants, we are forced to use the hydrant for the flow measurement and a hose bib on an ajdoining house for the pressure measurement. Otherwise, the NFPA 291 methodology is used. However, I cannot truthfully attest that the test was in strict compliance with NFPA 291. The flow measurement is usually taken from the 2.5" nozzle on the hydrant, not the 5" nozzle that the fire department would tie to. (The cities of Bryan and College Station also use this nozzle when conducting their tests.) That is why the measured flowrate is almost always less than the hydrant's capacity to produce water. However, the computer model is able to use the flowrate and residual pressure as a data point to develop a "pump curve" and predict the system's response at any given flowrate. The 1600 gpm is the figure from the International Fire Code for the Frat House that is being built. It is the same flowrate that we used in the initial report to you in February. It was our understanding that as long as we could demonstrate that our system could produce this much water, it would be acceptable. That is what we have done using the computer model. The 3000 gpm flowrate comes from my trial and error testing of the model to see how high the flowrate could go and still maintain a minimum of 20 psi. It is not relevant to this project, but it gives the developer some idea of what could be built on an adjoining lot. I hope that helps explain how the report was developed. This is the same methodology used for all of our projects - both commercial or residential - in the two cities. Kent Original Message From: Alan Gibbs [mailto:Agibbs@cstx.gov] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:27 PM To: Kent Laza Subject: Re: Flow test for Aggieland Business Park, Ph 4 Kent, I looked over the submittal. The test reflects a flow of 1062 gpm. The test needs to be PE certified that NFPA 291 method was used. I was also not clear how 1600 gpm or 3000 gpm was arrived at? Per the deed restrictions, the site construction should not exceed the associated existing flow. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> "Kent Laza" <KLaza@CDLBCS.com> 8/8/2007 1:28 PM >>> Alan, Yesterday, Steven Cast and I performed a hydrant flow test on the new hydrant between lots 7 & 8 in Phase 4 of the Aggieland Business Park. The results were better than we had origianlly predicted last February. I've prepared an addendum to the Water Report for the subdivision that includes the flow test report and summarized data from the computer model using the new test results. I will drop it off later today for your reveiw. As soon as you have looked it over, please proceed with filing the plat for Phase 4 as soon as you can. Thank you. Kent Laza, P.E. Project Manager Civil Development, Ltd. 2033 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South College Station, Tx. 77840 979-764-7743 office 979-220-1957 cell 979-764-7759 fax College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. I don't think we can issue this letter. However, as previously noted, Schultz indicated they can deliver 1000 gpm and the waterlines were said to be designed to City standards, and has public street access - so, this being the case, it could actually be platted. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> Mark Smith 1/4/2007 3:03 PM >>> In looking at LGC Ch 212 and our sub regs, it look's to me like we can require development plats regardless of the lot size if it is for a non-agricultural use and building and/or development is proposed. However, if Mr. Jett were to simply subdivide and sell the property in greater than 5 acre tracts without any stated intent to develop he could do that. If the new owner of the >5ac tract chose to develop our building regulations would not apply and we would have no way of withholding permits or connection to other retail utility providers. I believe we can regulate lot size in the ETJ. Especially if our holding zone upon annexation is AO. It would be safe to assume that any undeveloped property in the path of annexation (ETJ) would have that land use. Our minimum lot size of 5 acres would be logical. I do note that the LGC indicates that the municipality can not regulate the number of units per acre of land. Mark Smith Director of Public Works PO Box 9960 City of College Station, TX 77842 979-764-3639 -office 979-777-0679 - cell From: Alan Gibbs To: Gibbs, Alan Date: 1/4/2007 3:34:13 PM Subject: Fwd: Aggieland Business Park -Jim Jett Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>>Alan Gibbs 12/21/2006 6:20 PM >>> Jim Jett called and was very concerned about his understanding and the impacts of development plat and fire flow requirements - and ultimately wanted to meet with us. Jim Jett (developer), Randy Marsette (sp? atty and buyer), Joe Schultz and Kent Laza (engineer) want to attend regarding this subject property in the ETJ on FM 60. Specific issues include: -Will a future ETJ development consisting of greater than 10 acre part of 78-80 acres of the reserve in this preliminary plat require a development plat? I'm told Brushy water and public street access exists to this tract. -Confirming the fire flow requirement in the ETJ. In the absence of zoning, it has been understood to be the minimum threshold of the residential standards stated in the Engineering Design Guidelines as min 1000 gpm at a max 1000 ft spacing with a max 12 ft/s with residual min pressure of 20 psi. This is a test is required at the completion of the line per NPFA 291? (As opposed to the commercial standards set forth in Engineering Guidelines and in the Fire Code.) Jim has been told by Joe's analysis that it can meet the 1000 gpm and therefore should be able to plat. However, he wants all city staff with a stake in this to meet and hopefully satisfy Mr. Marsette. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works From: Carla Robinson To: Alan Gibbs; Lance Simms; Mark Smith; Molly Hitchcock Date: 1/4/2007 4:55:16 PM Subject: Re: Aggieland Business Park-Jim Jett A development plat is required under the UDO at any time a tract"develops" unless an exemption applies. The only exemptions to the development plat requirement are: (1) when an applicant is required to file a preliminary plat or final plat; or(2) when a tract is larger than five acres, has access, and is a residential use for the property owner, an acces_s_ory structure, or an accessory structure of the home, or an accessory structure for agricultural use.If Jett subdivides his property into tracts greater than five acres with each tract having access and no public improvements to be dedicated, a preliminary plat is not required. So, at the time of development, a development plat would be required under the UDO. Carla A. Robinson '' ( ea)? ""� �� / __�► Senior Assistant City Attorney City of College Station Phone: (979) 764-3507 Fax: (979) 764-3481 This e-mail and/or attachment is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and /or legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and paper copies of the original message and any attachments. Thank You. >>>Alan Gibbs 01/04/07 4:19 PM >>> The use or the development, with the exceptions you stated, of any size lot requires atleast a development plat-so the development would be in violation if a plat or development plat was not recorded -though we don't have permit authority to stop the development, enforcement if pursued would be by other means. There are LGC exceptions to subdivide without a plat where tracts are: >5acres (city), >10 acres(county), and does not need public utilities or streets extended - in which case a deed is acceptable. As currently proposed, the proposed internal roads are to be private but built to County standards, additionally each tract would have direct access to an existing public road along the perimeter. The waterlines and their easements would be dedicated to Brushy. If he is able to plat, the proposed internal roads would be dedicated to the County and the water would still be to Brushy. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> Mark Smith 1/4/2007 3:58 PM >>> I agree that we can't issue the letter that he is requesting. The reason being that we can not regulate the "use" of the property under the Local Government Code. We can't OK it nor can we deny the use of it. Is it a violation if he subdivides by deed? The LGC says "A fine or criminal penalty prescribed by the ordinance does not apply to a violation in the extraterritorial jurisdiction." We would have to go to district court for injunctive relief. Are we willing to do that? Mark Smith Director of Public Works PO Box 9960 City of College Station, TX 77842 979-764-3639 -office 979-777-0679 -cell >>>Alan Gibbs 01/04/07 3:47 PM >>> I met with Jim this morning briefly where he dropped off his waterline construction plans for our information. He and his buyer are requesting the City issue a letter stating that, in his words, "College Station is 'okay'with the 'use' of a 10 acre tract subdivided by deed." Meaning it would not be in violation of the development plat or fire flow requirements. I don't think we can issue this letter. However, as previously noted, Schultz indicated they can deliver 1000 gpm and the waterlines were said to be designed to City standards, and has public street access - so, this being the case, it could actually be platted. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works >>> Mark Smith 1/4/2007 3:03 PM >>> In looking at LGC Ch 212 and our sub regs, it look's to me like we can require development plats regardless of the lot size if it is for a non-agricultural use and building and/or development is proposed. However, if Mr. Jett were to simply subdivide and sell the property in greater than 5 acre tracts without any stated intent to develop he could do that. If the new owner of the >5ac tract chose to develop our building regulations would not apply and we would have no way of withholding permits or connection to other retail utility providers. I believe we can regulate lot size in the ETJ. Especially if our holding zone upon annexation is AO. It would be safe to assume that any undeveloped property in the path of annexation (ETJ) would have that land use. Our minimum lot size of 5 acres would be logical. I do note that the LGC indicates that the municipality can not regulate the number of units per acre of land. Mark Smith Director of Public Works PO Box 9960 City of College Station, TX 77842 979-764-3639 - office 979-777-0679 -cell