Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence MITCHELL OJf'1 . M io • is .og MORGAN October 13, 2008 Lauren Hovde City of College Station Planning & Development Services PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 RE: THE EXCHANGE II (SP) — SITE PLAN- 0800500197 Dear Lauren, Attached are the following items for the above mention project: • Cover memo providing written responses to all of staffs comments (identify the specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not addressing the comment); • Four (4) revised site and; • One (1) landscaping plan • Letter of Acknowledgement • Engineer's Estimate; • Easement Dedication sheet is forthcoming as we are waiting on a title report STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: THE EXCHANGE II (SP) — 08-00500197 PLANNING 1 A site plan cannot be approved until the property has been platted. Response: We understand that we will have to file the final plat before we can get an approved site plan. As discussed we will work through a schedule of events in order to prepare for the closing. The applicant needs some assurance that the site plan is "approvable" once the plat and blanket easement are filed before they will close on the property. We understand that this assurance will come in the form of an official letter from the city stating the plans are "approvable"once certain conditions are met. '2. All proposed and existing easements must be shown and dimensioned. Response: All proposed and existing easements are now shown and dimensioned. According to the Subdivision Regulations Section 8-M.1, sidewalks along rights-of- way must be provided, unless a variance is granted during the platting process. 511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963 • E 979.260.3564 CIVIL ENGINEERING ^ HYDRAULICS ^ HYDROLOGY . UTILITIES STREETS ^ SITE PLANS ^ SUBDIVISIONS info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com Response: Sidewalks are shown to be constructed along Holleman Drive and there is an existing sidewalk on Jones-Butler. We also understand from the City staff that we are not required to construct a sidewalk on FM2818. Please label each curb return radii on any entrance or firelane. Response: All curb return radii on fire lanes are now labeled. Z. Please provide the height of each building next the Building Type graphics in the upper right hand corner. Response: The heights of all buildings are now indicated next to the Building Type graphic. 6Parking Requirements Table: - Please check room calculations. For instance, it seems that there is only one Building Type II Alt so there should only be 5 B1ALT instead of 15 as shown in the table. Unit type AH could not be located, but instead there are 3 Al H rooms. - Please show the square footage of each unit type on this chart as well. Response: The chart has been revised as requested. 7. Title Block - Include the property address. - Provide each owners' information. - Show the engineer's information labeled as the applicant and engineer. Response: The property address has been added to the title block and owner information and engineer information in the Site Plan Notes section on the site plan have been indicated. '8. The property owner on the site plan is different than what the application states. Response: Yes, this is because the owner currently is TLS and Arapaho but the ultimate owner will be Fairfield Development. We would like to leave the applications and site plans as submitted. The site plan really is Fairfields but the application is required to be from the property owner(TLS and Arapaho). 9 The property abutting Holleman is not shown to be owned by TLS Properties, LLP. Response: Acknowledged, it is owned by Arapaho and is indicated as such on the site plan. All three parties are aware of this project and understand what is being proposed on the property. As stated in #1 above we will have to work out a schedule of events to get the property to change hands all the while protecting all parties, the city, Fairfield, TLS and Arapaho. ,40. Please correct the scale to show numbers. Response: This has been corrected. t1. Ownership of the Holleman Village Addition needs to be shown. Response: Ownership of Holleman Village Addition is now shown. t\12.If Note #16 is to remain on the site plan, the project must be phased on the site plan. If a --' single phase is desired, please remove Note#16. Response: We have modified Note #16 per our discussions. 1 .'A note needs to be added that all signage is permitted separately. Response: This note has been added. 14 The gated entrances, all drive aisles, and islands must be dimensioned. Please show the total square footage of interior islands required and the amount provided. End islands next to a dumpster must be at least 180 square feet. Response: The dimensions for these items are now shown on the site plan. The dumpsters were relocated (shifted) to accommodate the 180 square foot island requirement. In doing so we did lose 1 parking stall on the northern property line near Building 9. The interior island exhibit is attached separately as an 11x17. .Please show all existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle rights-of-way abutting the property. Response: All existing abutting pedestrian facilities are shown on the site plan. Per our discussion, it is my understanding that we do not need to show bicycle facilities. 1.6.Each parking section needs to be dimensioned. Response: We have added dimensions to all parking sections. 17.Please provide a detail of the gate that is going to be utilized. Response: The gate detail has been added to the site plan. 1.8.A curb and pavement detail must be added to the site plan. Response: This detail has been added. 19.The interior clearance (inside the screen) dimensions for a single (one eight-yard) dumpster enclosure shall be twelve feet deep by twelve feet wide (12'x12'). Response: All dumpsters shown have this dimension. It is even clarified on our detail sheet #22. 20.Please label the dumpster pad between buildings 7 and 5. Response: The dumpster pad has been labeled. 21.Please show the pool fence on the site plan. Response: The pool fence has now been shown. 22.Staff was unable to locate the fire hydrants on the site plan. Response: The site plan was so cluttered that we showed that on the utility plan. We have now broken the site plan into three sheets, one for an overall "clean"site plan, and two others with a match line so that we could increase the scale and put all utility information on that drawing. 23.Please show the dumpster enclosure and screening detail on the site plan. Dumpsters which will have the front visible from the ROW must be gated. Response: We have shown the dumpster enclosure and screen detail on the site plan and have indicated which dumpsters will be gated. 24.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 be made of aware of will constitute a completely new review. Response: Understood. 25.FYI...When a final plat has been approved, Staff reserves the right to conduct another full review of the submitted site plan. Response: Understood. LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER 1. The total site area is different on the site plan than is shown on the landscape plan, staff will re-verify points after that is resolved. Response: The site area is now consistent. • 2,. Please remove plant types from the "New Plantings" table that are not being utilized. Response: Only the plant types we are using are shown. '3. Please consolidate the "New Plantings", "Planting Schedule", and "Legend". The table should show the category (canopy-barricaded), plant type (Live Oak), scientific name (Quercus Virginiana), quantity (42), size and landscape points associated (Min. 3 '/2 - 300 pts)", number of points earned depending on quantity, and symbol together. Please indicate the height of the shrubs being utilized. Response: A chart was created combining the new plantings, planting schedule and the trees from the legend. 4. Staff calculations for required streetscaping points were different from what is shown on the landscape plan. Please see UDO Section 7.5.D for streetscape formulas regarding canopy trees. Also, please provide the total number of linear feet being calculated for streetscape. Response: The streetscape linear footage was recalculated and updated. 5: Please revise Note #1 to state the following: "100% coverage of groundcover, decorative paving, decorative rock (not loose), 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." Loose rock is not a permitted ground cover. Response: Note #1 was revised. 6. Please add to Note #3 that if any substitutions are made a revised landscape plan shall be submitted. Response: Note #3 was revised. '7. Dwarf plant species are not permitted in required screening areas, with the exception of Dwarf Wax Myrtle. Response: Other shrub types were selected that were not dwarf. -a. Please reduce the boldness of the dashed circles indicating the removed trees. Response: The linetype on the removed trees was changed. R. "Ornamental Trees" and "Proposed Shrubs" must be identified. Response: All ornamental trees and shrubs were identified. 10.Street trees must be within 50' of the ROW. Response: All street trees that are counted in meeting the street tree requirement are within 50'of the ROW. 11,Chain link fencing can not to be visible from a ROW or adjacent property. The property needs to be screened with solid hedgerow or wood fence. Response: Decorative metal fencing is now shown turning the corners along the existing multi-family. 12.Please identify which Parking Lot Concept Plan, found in UDO Article 7-9.7, is being utilized. Response: According to the applicability of section 7-9 only non-residential buildings must comply with this section, therefore this plan does not have to comply with the parking lot concepts listed in this section. See below: 7.9 Non-Residential Architectural Standards A. Applicability The design standards of this Section shall apply to development, redevelopment, and facade changes to all non-residential buildings located in any zoning district with the exception of the M-1, M-2, R&D, NG-1, NG-2, and NG-3 districts. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum Breaker, a Reduced Pressure Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double-Check Back Flow Device, and installed as per City Ordinance 2394. Response: Acknowledged. 2. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394. Response: Acknowledged. TXDOT 1. Access driveways to FM 2818 must meet TxDOT's current "Regulations for Access Driveways to State Highways". Regulations are primarily based on posted speed limits & distances between proposed & adjacent access points. Where the posted speed limit is 50 MPH or greater the required spacing between access points is 425; @ 45 MPH spacing is 360'; © 40 MPH spacing is 305'. Where access spacing is insufficient joint access will be required or access to internal/external streets. Appropriate data, including drainage will be required for any future work/permits in the ROW @ this site. Developer should coordinate proposed design /construction activities with TxDOT Bryan Area Office (778-6233) on current FM 2818 @ UPRR/ FM 2154 Grade Separation Project (2399-01- 022). Response: We do not intend to take any access to FM2818. The existing driveway currently serves as an access by the gas company to maintain their gas regulator station and it will remain to serve only that purpose. ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. Please submit Letter of Acknowledgment. Response: See attached. 2. Please submit Engineer's Cost Estimate. Response: See attached. 3. FYI ... The property is required to be platted prior to plan approval. Response: Understood. Construction Plans 4. Please provide volume and page number for all existing easements. Response: Volume and page numbers are now indicated on all existing easements. 5. Please clearly indicate that storm sewer is private. Response: All storm sewer sheets now have the word private in their title. 6. Sheet 2 — Please show all electrical lines and transformers. Required PUEs will need to be recorded prior to plan approval. Response: All electrical lines have now been shown as well as all PUE's required for those lines. 7. Sheet 2 — Please include water & sewer demands on the site plan. Response: Water and sewer demands are now indicated on the site plan. 8. Sheet 2 — Please add note stating that structural backfill is required under the waterline in areas subject to vehicular loadings. Response: All plan & profile sheets now are indicating in the profile section that structural backfill is required. Also this is shown on the detail sheet. 9. Sheet 2 — Please show all proposed water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure on the site plan. Response: These are all now shown on the site plan. 10.Sheet 2 — Please complete "Site Plan Notes" #9 and #10. Response: These have now been completed. 11.Sheet 2 — Please submit signed and sealed construction drawings for the proposed sidewalks. Response: As discussed we will add additional information to the grading sheet and paving sheet for the contractors reference indicating where to find the details to construct the sidewalk. He should be able to construct the sidewalk along Holleman from those two sheets of plans along with their reference sheets. 12.Sheet 2 —What is the intended purpose of the driveway to 2818? The driveway will need to be removed if it is not serving the property. Response: See the response to TxDOT's comment above. 13.Sheets 3A & 3B — Please provide pavement slopes so that we can verify maximum fire lane slopes are not being exceeded. Response: Pavement slopes are now indicated on the "steepest" slopes in the parking lot. These are shown on the grading plan. 14.Sheet 3B — Please specify the material and slope of the swale through the detention pond. Please also provide a detail for the swale. Response: This has now been indicated on the sheet 03A and 03B. 15.Sheet 3B — Please show emergency spillway, its intended path, and associated elevations. Response: The emergency spillway the flow path and elevations of the ground surface along this route are shown on sheet 03B. 16.Sheet 5 — Cleanouts on the sanitary sewer line are required every 100 feet. It appears that there are three locations where cleanouts need to be adjusted. Response: These lengths are now all less than 100 feet. 17.Sheet 6 — It appears that additional silt fencing is needed along the southwestern corner of the property. Please verify. Response: This has been revised. 18.Sheet 6 — Please include standard inlet protection around all inlets rather than silt fencing. Response: As we have discussed silt fence will be ok for all grate inlets in yard areas. 19.Sheet 6 —The note in the upper right corner should specify re-establishing vegetation as well. Response: This note has been modified. 20.Sheet 8 — Is there an existing PUE on the northern property where the waterline tie-in is proposed? If not, an offsite easement will be required, and must be filed prior to plan approval. Response: Yes, there is an existing easement there and it is now indicated on the plans. 21.Sheet 8 —At Stations 5+72.77 and 6+01.07, the bends are called 6-inch rather than 8-inch. Response: These have been changed to read 8 inch. 22.Sheet 10 —Where the waterline is crossing the sanitary sewer line, please use appropriate safety measures per TCEQ Ch. 290 (i.e. center waterline joint, etc.). Response: The sanitary sewers are all private service lines. TCEQ requirements do not apply to sanitary service lines rather only to public mains. We have indicated a note to center a joint of waterline at these crossings but the rules do not require us to do so. 23.Sheet 10 — Please verify that there is a minimum 9-ft horizontal separation distance between water and sewer lines. Response: We have verified that there is 9 ft horizontal separation. 24.Sheet 13 — Please verify that the waterline has a minimum 4-ft cover at all points. Response: We have verified that all waterlines have 4ft minimum cover. 25.Sheet 13 —At Station 35+50, it appears that the waterline flowline is incorrect. Response: The waterline at this station has been revised to reflect the correct grade of the storm sewer. 26.Sheet 14 — Station and flowline information is missing in plan view for 8-inch gate valve. Response: This has been revised. 27.Sheets 8-14 — Please verify that all fire hydrants and waterlines are at least 5.5-ft from the edge of the PUE. Response: We have verified that the waterlines and fire hydrants are at least 5.5 feet from the edge of the PUE. 28.Sheets 8-14 — On the fire suppression line, an isolation valve is required just inside the PUE. The remainder of the fire suppression line should be private. Response: The isolation valve has been shown and it is within the PUE. 29.Sheets 8-14 — Fire suppression lines cannot be tapped for private service, and should be private beyond the meter box. Response: These have been revised as indicated. 30.Sheets 8-14 — Please note on the plans that the fire suppression line shall have a lockable lid on the isolation valve. The lockable lid shall supply the same protection as the AMP or USA, LL562 Locking Lid at a minimum. An alternate lockable lid shall be approved by College Station Utilities Director or his designee. Response: The isolation valve has been shown as directed. 31.Sheets 8-14 — Please label all separation distances at utility crossings. Response: The separation distances have been labeled. 32.Sheets 8-14 —Where the waterline exceeds 6-ft of depth, additional easement is required. Response: We have added extra easement width where the waterline is deeper than 6 feet. 33.Sheet 20 — Show & label surface treatment at outfall. Response: This has been shown and labeled. 34.Sheet 20 — FYI ... We would typically require a 0.1-ft drop is across the inverts at Sta. 30+43.42 and 33+28.49. Response: Understood. Because of grade problems and depth of cover we had to delete the 0.1-ft drop at a few locations. 35.Sheet 20 — FYI ... We do not recommend tying the 12-in PVC pipe directly into the RCP. Response: We will discuss this with the contractor as to his method of construction. 36.Sheet 16-20 — FYI ... On public storm sewers, we require that pipe soffits be matched rather than flowlines in order to limit surcharging within the system. Response: Understood. These storm sewers are private and where we could we matched soffits but we did have grade concerns and at those locations had to allow the storm sewer to match at flowlines and surcharge. 37.Sheets 16-20 — Please label separation distances at utility crossings. Response: All separation distances are now labeled. 38.Sheet 22 —The detention pond detail should provide the correct elevations and the swale. Response: These have now been corrected. 39.FYI ... You can consolidate details and provide only those that apply to this project. Response: Thanks. Drainage Report 40.The 100-yr hydraulic grade line appears to exceed the inlet rim elevation at several locations. What is the maximum depth of ponding anticipated within the street/parking lot? Response: Yes, due to depth constraints on the outfall there are areas where we did not have significant fall to work with and the 100 year HGL exceed the top of the inlet. The maximum depth of ponding occurs at inlet 4A on Storm Sewer 4 and it is .58 feet. The water surface elevation will pond in the parking lot and breach the curb slightly and run between buildings 5 and 6. The water surface elevation of the HGL at this location is 316.53'and these two building finished floors are 317.25' well above this water surface elevation. General 41.FYI ... Storm water management requirements are listed below. In addition to the following standard comments, if more than 5 acres will be disturbed during construction of this project a NOI must be filed with the state and a copy provided to the CoCS. Any questions may be directed to Donnie Willis, CoCS Drainage Inspector, at 979-764-6375: Response: Acknowledged. 42. Sheet 11 — Our GIS system shows a 6-in waterline stubbed out across Jones-Butler to your property. The plans are indicating an existing 12-in. Please clarify and/or revise. Response: We have found that there are three different source with three different line sizes here. We have noted that the Contractor must field verify this line size prior to construction. 43. Sheet 11 — It is hard to see what is going on at the waterline tie in to the existing. Please provide a detail of that area. Response: There should be enough detail to indicate how the contractor should tie in. If you have questions please call. 44. Sheet 5 — One of the callouts for the existing sanitary sewer line mentions an "Error In Survey" and provides "assumed" flowlines for the remainder of the line. Please clarify. Response: The survey had a bust at the sewer flowlines and the as-built drawings from the city were used cautiously. The contractor is to field verify and notify the engineer if the "assumed"flowlines are incorrect. 45.It seems that the profile for the 27-inch RCP from the detention pond to the existing storm sewer system is missing. Please revise drainage report as well to include this line. Response: This line has been added as a plan & profile. The drainage report already takes this line into consideration in the pond calculations and routing of the storms through the outlet works. ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes or provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for electric lines Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries. Response: We will provide a blanket easement for the site. GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS 1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design. Response: Acknowledged. 2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser. Response: Acknowledged. 4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices and extend as required. Response: Acknowledged. 5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices, developer will furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout. Response: Acknowledged. 6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU specs and design. Response: Acknowledged. 7. Developer provides load data to CSU as soon as it is available to avoid construction delays. Delivery time for transformers not in stock is approximately 40 weeks. Response: Acknowledged. 8. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as designed by CSU. Response: These are now all shown on the utility and site plans. 9. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Sam Weido at 979.764.6314. Response: Thanks. FIRE 11. No combustibles will be allowed on site until all-weather roads and fire hydrants have been accepted by the City. Response: Acknowledged. 2. A site plan shall not show any part of a structure over one hundred and fifty feet (150') from an approved access road. Response: All structures are within 150' of an approved fire lane. 3. If a fire lane extends more than one hundred feet (100'), an approved turn-a-round or "T" will be required. The lane between bldg 1&2 and the lane between 4&5 are deeper than 100ft. Response: We have shortened those fire lanes to 100 feet. 4. No more than a six percent (6%) grade is allowed on any length of fire lanes. Response: We do not have any greater than 6% grade in the parking lot. The maximum grades are indicated on the grading plan. 5 Fire lanes will be constructed using the "Fire Apparatus Turning Radius Template" and have a fire lane sign at the entrance. Curbs to be marked "Fire lane, No Parking, Tow Away Zone" with a minimum of four (4") letters. Response: Acknowledged. 6 A "Knox Box" security key system is required on all buildings and a Knox Switch is required on all gated entrances. Response: Acknowledged. T. Commercial construction requires a fire hydrant within three hundred feet (300') from the main entrance and within four hundred and fifty feet (450') from any part of a structure there are none shown on the site plan. Response: Sorry, the fire hydrants were shown on the utility plan. They have now been indicated on the site plan as well. 8. F.D.C. locations will be within one hundred and fifty feet (150') of a fire hydrant and located on the "road side" of a structure. There are no hydrants shown for proper measurement. Response: Sorry, the fire hydrants were shown on the utility plan. They have now been indicated on the site plan as well. 9 Aerial Access Easement Roads having a twenty-six foot (26') width are required on structures thirty feet (30') or more in height. Response: Acknowledged. 10. Building 3,4,7,8,9,10 and 11 are all outside the 15ft to 30ft limit from the fire lane for structures over 30ft in height. Response: The fire code simply states one side of the building must be within this distance and does not indicate that it must be the long axis of the building. All of these buildings are within this distance on the short side and many are within 31-33 feet on the long axis. 11. Building 2, the fire lane behind this building does not go the full length of the building so the lane in the front will need to be a fire lane. Response: Building 2 uses the fire lane on the short axis of the building on the Jones-Butler side of the building. 12. The type II buildings are required to have a sprinkler in the hallway of the breezeway. Those buildings are 1, 2, 3,5,6,7,8,10 and 11. Response: Per our conversation on the phone 10/08/08, with Eric Dotson of The State Fire Marshall's Office, it was concluded that we were not required to sprinkle hallway off of corridor, due to corridor and hallway, being all of 1 hour construction and hallway area not of combustible material. SANITATION 1. Dumpster pad south-east of bldg. 2 needs to be rotated 5 degrees clockwise. Response: As discussed, with the relocation of these dumpsters to accommodate the comment regarding the 180 sf end island requirement and keeping the dumpsters out of this area we solved the rotation concern as well. 2. Dumpster pads west of bldg. 4 need to be rotated 5 degrees counter clockwise. Response: As discussed, with the relocation of these dumpsters to accommodate the comment regarding the 180 sf end island requirement and keeping the dumpsters out of this area we solved the rotation concern as well. 3. Dumpster pad south-west of bldg. 5 needs to be rotated 15 degrees clockwise. Response: As discussed, with the relocation of these dumpsters to accommodate the comment regarding the 180 sf end island requirement and keeping the dumpsters out of this area we solved the rotation concern as well. 4. Dumpster pad north-east of bldg. 10 needs to be rotated 5 degrees clockwise. Response: As discussed, with the relocation of these dumpsters to accommodate the comment regarding the 180 sf end island requirement and keeping the dumpsters out of this area we solved the rotation concern as well. 5. Approach and turn-around concerns at dumpster pad location north-west of bldg. 11. Response: As discussed, the sanitation vehicles will be able to use the gated entrance on Holleman which should solve this concern. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to call (979) 260-6963. IiSerely, 164 Sit Veronica Mi ga .E., C.F.M Managing k artn CC: File Larry Lee, Fairfield ff,„4-.444 1101 Texas Avenue,P.O. Box 9960 College Station,Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE SIA HON MEMORANDUM October 23, 2008 TO: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP. via fax: 260-3564 FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner SUBJECT: THE EXCHANGE II (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 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: TLS Properties, LTD. do Bruce Smith via fax: 713-461-5662 Arapaho, Ltd. via postal mail: 310 University Drive, College Station, TX 77840 Case file #08-00500197 TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 10/24/2008 17:04 NAME : FAX . TEL . SER.# : 000L5J596800 DATE,TIME 10/24 17:03 FAX NO./NAME 99792603564 DURATION 00: 00:51 PAGES) 04 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM 1101 Texas Avenue,P.O. Box 9960 1 , College Station,Texas 77842 P44 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 cry OP COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM October 23, 2008 TO: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP. via fax: 260-3564 FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner SUBJECT; THE EXCHANGE II (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 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 • TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 10/24/2008 17:07 NAME : FAX . TEL . SER.# : 000L5J596800 DATE,TIME 10/24 17:05 FAX NO./NAME 917134615662--89732 DURATION 00:01:35 PAGE(S) 04 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM crArrift% 1101 'Teas Avenue,P.O, Box 9960 College Station,Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 /Fax 979.764.3496 Crry o f COLLEGE 5TA flON MEMORANDUM October 23, 2008 TO: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via fax: 260-3564 FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner SUBJECT: THE EXCHANGE 11 (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 If there are comments that you are not addressing with the revised site plan, please attach a lettar exnlainina the details. If you have any questions or need additional information, please 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 ff„„74,4 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570/Fax 979.764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM September 29, 2008 TO: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP. via fax: 260-3564 FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner SUBJECT: THE EXCHANGE II (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: Cover memo providing written responses to all of staff's comments (identify the specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not addressing the comment); Four (4) revised site and one (1) landscaping plan; $ Parkland Dedication fees prior to issuance of a building permit; Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents (please note that the Site Plan will not be stamped approved until the Blanket Easement, or all other appropriate easements, have been dedicated to the City of College Station). 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 contact Lauren Hovde at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments pc: TLS Properties, LTD. do Bruce Smith via fax: 713-461-5662 Case file #08-00500197 TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 09/29/2008 17:59 NAME : FAX . TEL . SER.# : 000L53596800 DATE,TIME 09/29 17:57 FAX NO./NAME 99792603564 DURATION 00:01:42 PAGE(S) 08 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM Ocir7109 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570/Fax 979764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM September 29, 2008 TO: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP. via fax: 260-3564 FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner SUBJECT: THE EXCHANGE II (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: Cover memo providing written responses to all of staff's comments (identify the specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not addressing the comment); Four(4) revised site and one (1) landscaping plan; $ Parkland Dedication fees prior to issuance of a building permit; Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents (please note that the Site Plan will not be stamped approved until the Blanket Easement, or all other appropriate easements, have been dedicated to the City of College Station). 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 contact Lauren Hovde at 979.764.3570. TRANSMISSION VERIFICATION REPORT TIME : 10/01/2008 09:24 NAME : FAX . TEL . SER.# : 000L5J596800 DATE,TIME 10/01 09: 20 FAX NO./NAME 917134615662--89732 DURATION 00: 03:24 PAGE(S) 08 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM 4,„44-1.44 '1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979,764.3570/Fax 979.764.3496 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION MEMORANDUM September 29, 2008 TO: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP. via fax: 260-3564 FROM: Lauren A. Hovde, Staff Planner SUBJECT: THE EXCHANGE II (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: Cover memo providing written responses to all of staffs comments (identify the specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not addressing the comment); Four(4) revised site and one (1) landscaping plan; $ Parkland Dedication fees prior to issuance of a building permit; Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents (please note that the Site Plan will not be stamped approved until the Blanket Easement, or all other appropriate easements, have been dedicated to the City of College Station), 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 contact Lauren Hovde at 979.764.3570. (*ffill1144 CITY OF COLI FGE STATION Planning d Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM August 25, 2008 TO: Mitchell & Morgan, LLP. via fax 260.3564 FROM: Molly Hitchcock, AICP �) (1 " c Planning Administrator V l 1/ SUBJECT: THE EXCHANGE 2 (SP) -Site Plan I reviewed the above-mentioned site plan application and determined it to be incomplete. The following is a preliminary list of items needed to complete the submittal so that staffmay conduct a thorough review. Please submit the following information by any Monday at 10 a.m. for review that week: One (1) Electrical Plan If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. pp c: TLS Properties, LTD. do Bruce Smith via fax 713.461.5662 ✓ Case file #08-00500197