HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence MITCHELL
RAM
MORGAN
September 8, 2008
Carol Cotter, PE
City of College Station
Planning & Development
PO Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
Re: St. Joseph EDI Center
Dear Carol,
Attached please find the following items for submittal for the St. Joseph EDI Center.
• $1000 check for application fees
• Application completed in full
• Fourteen (14) folded copies of site plan
• One (1)folded copy of landscape plan
• A copy of the attached checklist
• TxDOT Driveway Permit
• Timing Analysis
• Fire Flow Report
• A complete NRA standards application along with the required color board will be
forthcoming with the architectural plans.
Please contact our office if you have any questions at 979-260-6963.
erely,
OptG8
i1
Veronica J.V. Mo :a P.E.
Managing Partne r
Cc: File
Penny Busch, Hammes Company
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963• F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
CITY OF COI i.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
September 8, 2008 /(
TO: Veronica J.B. Morgan, PE, CFM, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via fax 260.3564 P
FROM: Molly Hitchcock, AICP
Planning Administrator
SUBJECT: ST JOSEPH EDI CENTER (SP)-Site Plan
I reviewed the above-mentioned site plan application and determined it to be incomplete. The
following is the preliminary item needed to complete the submittal so that staff may conduct a
thorough review. Please submit the following information by any Monday at 10 a.m. for review
that week:
A completed application for Non-Residential Architectural Standards
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570.
pc: David Hall, St. Joseph Health System, via first class mail VW
David Watkins, AIA, Ascension Group Architects, via fax 817.226.191910?
Case file #08-00500210
1 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
0-rffCollege Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570/Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MEMORANDUM
October 2, 2008
TO: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via fax 979-260-3564
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: ST JOSEPH EDI CENTER (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);
One (1) complete sets of revised construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached;
Four (4) revised site and one (1) landscaping plan;
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 me at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: V6avid Hall, St. Joseph Health System, via fax 979-776-5359
David Watkins, Ascension Group Architects, via fax 817-226-1919
Penny Busch, Hammes Company, via fax 972-385-4541
Case file #08-00500210
0' ) yTUU1l
IOi
MITCHELL Crfr)
IVM N-P310
MORGAN
October 20, 2008
Jason Schubert
City of College Station
Planning and Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: ST. JOSEPH EDI CENTER SITE PLAN (SP) -08-00500210
Dear Jason,
Attached please find the following:
• One (1) complete set of revised Construction Plans;
• Five (5) sets of TxDOT Driveway Permit
• Engineer's Estimate for Public Water& Sewer being constructed.
• Four(4) copies of the revised Site Plan;
• One (1) revised Landscape Plan; and
• The blanket easement is forthcoming for Lots 11, 12 and 13 (same owner) as
well as for Lot 9 (different owner).
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: ST JOSEPH EDI CENTER (SP)—08-00500210
PLANNING
1. Please note that the site plan will not be able to be approved or development permit issued
until the property being development has a final plat that is filed for record at the courthouse.
Response: We understand that we will need to have the final plat for Lot 9, 11, 12 and 13 filed
for record prior to receiving a building permit for the EDI. We also understand that we may
receive a Rough Grading permit once we have posted a financial guarantee for the construction
of Lakeway Drive and Lot 13 is filed for record.
2. Remove all off-site improvements on neighboring unplatted property (what will be Lots 9, 11,
and 12) or have those lots platted as well. Only those portions of the drive aisles that are
proposed on executed access easements and located on the common property line of Lot
13 will be permitted. Please ask for clarification if necessary.
Response: We are platting Lots 9, 11 and 12.
3. Place a note on the site plan that this property has been determined, as shown on the
Preliminary Plat, to be part of a Building Plot with Lot 6 and future Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12 that
will meet the requirements for non-residential projects exceeding 150,000 square feet. This
requirement is made due to the Building Plot supporting C-1 uses in excess of 150,000
square feet of gross floor area. The comments in this review reflect the requirement to meet
these standards as found in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Section 7.9.F.
Response: This note has been added to the notes section on the Site Plan.
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979 260 6963 • t- 979 260 3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
4. Please revise the Vicinity Map to reflect the site as only Lot 13.
Response: The vicinity map has been revised to show Lot 13 and Lot 9 since both will be
platted.
5. Please revise the zoning label for the City of College Station tract to the north as C-1 & M-1.
Response: The zoning label has been revised.
6. Please revise the parking labels at the rear of the building and along the drive aisle that
goes by the Urgent Care Center to reflect the number of spaces in those areas.
Response: The parking label has been revised as requested.
7. Setback and yard requirements apply to the Building Plot as a whole. Setbacks that are
interior to the Building Plot can be removed.
Response: These setbacks have been removed as requested.
8. Sidewalks connections to the existing Urgent Care Center and future buildings as described
in UDO Section 7.9.E.4 are required. Please note that walkways in parking areas are to use
brick pavers or stamped dyed concrete.
Response: A new sidewalk connection has been added to connect to the Urgent Care Center.
All new parking area crosswalks are shown as stamped colored concrete.
9. Provide a 10 foot sidewalk along the façade facing the State Hwy 6 with tree wells as
required by UDO Sections 7.9.E.3&4.
Response: A 10 ft sidewalk and tree wells have now been provided.
10. It does not appear that a bike rack has been provided. Please revise.
Response: A bike rack has now been added.
11. Provide a plaza area not less than 500 square feet and containing at least 3 elements as
described in UDO Section 7.9.F.1.
Response: A Plaza Area has now been added and the three elements are benches, shade
trees and public art.
12. In addition to the generator, please show all mechanical equipment and the screening
details to comply with the required screening as stated in General Construction Note 15.
Response: The generator and dumpster screening has been added to the site plan.
13. All parking areas must be screened from the public right-of-way using berms.
Response: Please refer to the Landscape Plan.
14. Provide a right-turn deceleration lane into the common driveway with the Urgent Care
Center. These improvements will require a TxDOT permit.
Response: A right turn deceleration lane has been added and a TxDOT permit is attached.
15. Provide the standard detail for curbing on the site plan.
Response: A standard curb detail has been added to the site plan.
16. Please note that comments from the Fire Department will be forthcoming.
Response: When can we expect to see the Fire Department comments?
17. 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. Please note that the driveway location has changed per the TxDOT
meeting.
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. Revise the site area and landscape calculations for an area that consists of only Lot 13.
Response: Please see the revised landscape plan.
2. For a Building Plot of this size, the number of required landscape points based on site area
calculations are to be doubled, UDO Section 7.9.E.3.a. Please revise.
Response: Please see the revised landscape plan.
3. Revise the landscape points based on frontage to be pro-rated for every 50 feet of frontage
and add this to subtotal to the subtotal of doubled site area points calculated above to
achieve the total number of landscape points required for the site.
Response: Please see the revised landscape plan.
4. The number of canopy trees to fulfill Streetscape Requirements is based on one tree for
every 25 feet of frontage along a highway (would be 7 for this site). Please revise the
calculations and plantings.
Response: Please see the revised landscape plan.
5. Show existing and proposed utilities and easements on the landscape plan.
Response: Please see the revised landscape plan.
6. Provide a break out of the number of plants and number of points per species in the
landscape calculations table.
Response: Please see the revised landscape plan.
7. Tree wells are required along the façade facing State Hwy 6 as required in UDO Section
7.9.E.3&4. Please revise to include the plantings.
Response: Tree wells have been added.
8. Provide a general note that 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.
Response: Please see the revised landscape plan.
9. Provide a note that the 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 and that all BackFlow devices must be
installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394.
Response: Please see the note on the irrigation plan.
ENGINEERINGGICOMMENTS NO. 1
' Please provide FFE elevation for proposed structure as well as adjacent BFE on the site
v plan.
Response: We have added the Finished Floor Elevation on the site plan.
The BCS Design Guidelines do not allow for the proposed dead end mains that are being
proposed for this development. The two proposed dead end mains will need to be looped.
In addition it appears that portions of the proposed water system are located off-site in un-
platted area or areas which are not currently proposed for platting; therefore the appropriate
easements have not yet been dedicated in order to allow for these extensions of public
infrastructure.
Response: We have modified the waterlines to reduce the length of the dead end mains and
we will provide blanket easements to cover the waterline and other utility construction both on
and off Lot 13.
, e construction of a partial, unconnected public sanitary main would not be allowed.
Response: We have removed the sanitary sewer along the center shared drive from our plan
set because it is not necessary to serve Lots 9, 11 or 12.
. Why is there an 8-in main being proposed along SH 6 paralleling the existing 24-in main? It
appears that the same result could be achieved by eliminating the proposed 8-in main and
simply making an 8-in tap on the 24-in main near the southwest corner of the MOB lot.
Response: We have moved the 8 inch main further into the site in order to loop the system.
6.9,
®As Lot 9 is not platted nor under review for site plan, the proposed TxDOT driveway permit
will not be processed at this time.
Response: A plat has been submitted for Lot 9 and TxDOT has now approved the new
drive ay location.
. Please find the follow TxDOT site plan review comments:
St. Joseph EDI Center (Site Plan) (SH 6) -Access driveways to SH 6 must meet
TxDOT's current "Regulations for Access Drive-ways 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'. 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 SH 6 Project (0049-
12-069).
41.3c4 Response: The driveway location has been ok'd by TxDOT.
0 Any public utility easements not illustrated on the final plat will need to be dedicated by
separate instrument before the acceptance of the subject infrastructure.
Response: Understood.
8 It appears that several of the proposed public utilities will require a 20-ft PUE as they are
D
ciCeJ
J deeper than 6-ft.
Response: We have modified the easements as requested.
Ia Please provide the technical design summary with your drainage report.
• Response: See attached drainage report technical design summary.
GI this project is not proposing detention, please certify (Section 2, page 11 of the BCS
Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines) that the development is utilizing rapid conveyance
.. to the primary channel, verifying that the sites discharge hydrograph and peak is ahead of
the main channels hydrograph is such a manor that it does not create a new resulting peak
greater than the main channels existing peak, so that there are no negative impacts.
Response: See attached drainage report technical design summary.
? 'lease provide an exhibit and reports verifying that the proposed infrastructure extensions
a proposed with this development are being size appropriately that upon future extension will
be able to serve the great surrounding area. This could also be incorporated with your
water and sewer reports.
Response: We have modified the water report to include this information.
. Please provide engineers cost estimate for all public infrastructure.
Response: Please see attached engineer's estimate.
. FYI -The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area
($349.55/LUE). This will be due with the building permit.
Response: Understood.
14. PIe se provide water and sewer demand on the site plan. Water meter sizing should be in
cordance with these demands.
Response: We have added these demands to the site plan.
7 400ease provide letter of acknowledgement, which can be found at bcsunited.net
b
Response: Please see attached letter of acknowledgement.
16. The design of all public infrastructure located under pavement must incorporate structural
backfill.
Response: Understood all P&P's have an added structural backfill note.
heet C05) Please verify that the water/sewer conflict at Sta. 3+50 meets TCEQ min. (i.e.
center one joint of pipe, 2 ft separation min, etc) ,� t,/L/1„, /(V sl , czi•''��
Response: We have centered one joint of waterline pipe or, this crossing but need to lower the
sanitary sewer if TCEQ requirements are 2' clear. We will check on the TCEQ separation
requirement.
. (Sheet C06) Please verify that the water/sewer conflict at Sta. 21+59 & Sta. 13+90 & meets
TCEQ min.
Response: This comment is not applicable since we deleted the sanitary sewer line.
,64,44''' 19. • _ the fire suppression line, an isolation valve is required just inside the PUE. Also note on
tt plans that fire suppression lines shall have a lockable lid on the isolation valve. The
lockable lid shall, at a minimum supply protection as the AMP or USA, LL562 Locking Lid.
Alternate lockable lids shall be approved by College Station Utilities Director or his
designee.
Respo se: We have added the isolation valve as requested.
. 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. Storm water management requirements are as follows, any questions may be
directed to Donnie Willis, CoCS Drainage Inspector, at 979-764-6375:
Response: This NOI has already been emailed to Donnie Willis and Josh Norton.
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
Response: Understood.
2. Developer provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for
electric lines (where applicable, including street lights).
Response: Understood.
3. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
Response: Understood.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
Response: Thank you.
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
Response: Understood.
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices
and extend as required.
Response: Understood.
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: Understood.
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU
specs and design.
Response: Understood.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design (pull
boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU).
Response: Understood.
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and/or site plan. Email to:
gmartinez(a�cstx.gov.
Response: These digital drawings have already been emailed to Gilbert.
9. 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: Understood.
10. 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: Understood.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Response: Thank you.
SANITATION
1. Sanitation is okay with this project.
Response: Thank you.
If •u have any questions or comments, please feel free to call our office at 979-260-6963.
Si i erely,
t
i i II
Veronica J.B. k orga ".E., C.F.M.
Managing Partner
Cc: File
David Hall, St. Joseph
Penny Busch, Hammes
Chuck Ellison, Ellison Law Office
David Watkins, AGA
Michal Tincup, Tincup
PrintFonn
9)9)
Grff"1"4' PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES o
a `_
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TRANSMITTAL COVER I�')UU
Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal.
❑ New Project Submittal
❑ D uments for a previous incomplete submittal
Existing Project Submittal
Project Name: 5\-- "5-n5- CSD C<i*eX
Contact Name: V-Fy 1COV O fir,11) Phone No.: 2,,(01)., (3
We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment.
(Please check all that apply).
['Comprehensive Plan Amendment ❑Non-Residential Architectural Standards
❑Rezoning Application ['Irrigation Plan
❑Master Development Plan ['Variance Request
❑Preliminary Plat ❑Development Permit
['Final Plat ❑Conditional Use Permit
❑Development Plat ❑FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR
❑Site Plan Bing Plan
❑Special District Site Plan la6ther- Please specify below
❑Special District Building/Sign zY1g;)'2 .y s as- )L&I d
❑Landscape Plan j y
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set.
The following are included in the complete set: ❑ Waterline Construction Documents
❑TxDOT Driveway Permit ❑ Sewerline Construction Documents
❑TxDOT Utility Permit ❑ Drainage Construction Documents
❑Drainage Letter or Report ❑ Street Construction Documents
❑ Fire Flow Analysis ❑ Easement Application
El Other- Please specify
Special Instructions:
29-Aug-08
Cff1 1101 Texas Avenue,P.O. Box 9960
College Station,Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MEMORANDUM
November 3, 2008
TO: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via v@mitchellandmorgan.com
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: ST JOSEPH EDI CENTER (SP) - Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. The next submittal will be the third
and final review by staff for this round of reviews. If all items have not been addressed on the
next submittal, another $200 processing fee will need to be submitted for the subsequent set of
three (3) reviews. Please address the comments and submit the following information for
further staff review:
Seven (7) complete sets of construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached (one set will
be returned to you, please submit additional copies if you want more than one
approved set)
Two (2) revised site plans
One (1) revised landscaping plan
One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan
Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents for temporary blanket
easement.
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: David Hall, St. Joseph Health System, via dhall(a st-ioseph.orq
David Watkins, Ascension Group Architects, via dwatkins( ascensiongroup.biz
Penny Busch, Hammes Company, via pbusch(cr�hammesco.com
Case file #08-00500210
MITCHELL
MM
MORGAN
November 26, 2008
Jason Schubert
City of College Station
Planning and Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: ST. JOSEPH EDI CENTER SITE PLAN (SP) -08-00500210
Dear Jason,
Attached please find the following:
• Seven (7) complete set of revised Construction Plans;
• Two (2) copies of the revised Site Plan;
• One (1) revised Landscape Plan;
• One (1) 11X17 grading and erosion control plan; and
• An Easement Dedication Sheet
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: ST JOSEPH EDI CENTER (SP) - 08-00500210
PLANNING
1. Add a note to the site plan that the "ghosted" buildings and parking areas not being
constructed with this site plan are for illustration purposes only and have not been reviewed
for compliance with the UDO.
Response: This has been added on note#18.
2. Please clarify the label that states the drive aisle along Lot 11 will be constructed with Lot 9
MOB #1. It is our understanding that this is being bonded with Lakeway Drive and will be
constructed with it.
Response: This label has been changed to read "to be constructed with Lakeway Drive."
3. Please clarify the paving plan to show that all parking and drive aisle areas are curbed.
Also, temporary curbing can be used where drive aisles are anticipated to be continued in
the future.
Response: We have added a note to the paving plan noting this.
4. Though specific easements are being dedicated by plat, College Station Utilities has
requested that a temporary blanket easement be dedicated for construction purposes.
Response: Please see attached Easement Application. �% 0
5. Please identify the three plaza elements on the site plan. 006
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
Response: The site plan now clearly labels the plaza and its three elements.
6. The each enclosure around a dumpster is to have 12-foot by 12-foot interior clearances,
which includes all bollards and gate hinges. Please revise.
Response: Please see the revised dumpster detail on the site plan.
7. A berm of at least 3 feet in height is to screen the parking lot in front of the building from SH
6 and can be located anywhere between the frontage road and the parking. Please provide
on all applicable plans.
Response: The berm has been added to the grading sheet as well as the landscape plan.
8. On sheet LPD.01, revise the Streetscape Requirements figure to state on 1 canopy tree per
25 feet linear feet, not 32 feet. The calculation of the number of trees is correct.
Response: This note has been revised to reflect 25 feet.
9. The proposed 3.5" caliper canopy trees are to receive 300 landscape points each, not 150
points as shown. Please revise the calculations.
Response: The point value on each tree has been revised on Sheet LPD.01.
10. Based on the linear feet of façade facing SH 6, 4 tree wells are required (137 feet x 15% / 6
feet). Please revise the number of tree wells provided.
Response: The number of tree wells has been increased to four as seen on the site plan.
11. Tree wells are to be planted with canopy trees. Non-canopy trees (which are proposed) can
be substituted if the number of tree wells is doubled. Please revise and provide the detail of
the tree wells.
Response: The Chinese pistache tree has now been placed in the tree wells.
12. 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.
Response: Understood.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
�� 1. The TxDOT permit for this project has been forwarded to the state with the previously
discussed comments from Joe Guerra (City's Transportation Planner), however we have not
heard anything from the state regarding the status of this permit. This permit will need to be
approved by the state prior to site plan approval.
Response: We have met with TxDOT regarding moving the "Shared Drive" as well as for the
discussion regarding the right turn deceleration lane.
1 1101 Texas Avenue,P.O. Box 9960
College Station,Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
MEMORANDUM
December 11, 2008
TO: Veronica Morgan, Mitchell & Morgan, LLP, via vmitchellandmorgan.com
FROM: Jason Schubert, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: ST JOSEPH EDI CENTER (SP) -Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments
and submit the following information for further staff review:
$200 processing fee for the next round of three (3) staff reviews
Seven (7) complete sets of 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 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: David Hall, St. Joseph Health System, via dhall(a,st joseph.orq
David Watkins, Ascension Group Architects, via dwatkins(a�ascensioncgroup.biz
Penny Busch, Hammes Company, via pbusch@hammesco.com
Case file #08-00500210
1X , io
MITCHELL r A'I7'0
Mill I�
MORGAN
December 16, 2008
Jason Schubert
City of College Station
Planning and Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: ST. JOSEPH EDI CENTER SITE PLAN (SP) -08-00500210
Dear Jason,
Attached please find the following:
• Fourteen (14) complete set of revised Construction Plans
(7) Copies for the City and (7) copies for Mitchell & Morgan;
• Four (4) copies of the revised Site Plan;
• One (1) revised Landscape Plan;
• One (1) 11X17 grading and erosion control plan.
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3
Project: ST JOSEPH EDI CENTER (SP) - 08-00500210
PLANNING
1. As a reminder, please note that the site plan will not be approved until the final plat for
these properties has been filed for record at the Courthouse and the blanket easement
has been executed.
Response: The final plat is currently being routed for signatures.
2. 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.
Response: Acknowledged.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3
1. Please sign the last page of the Technical Design Summary.
Response: We submitted a signed copy of the Technical Design Summary to Josh Norton
on Monday, December 15, 2008.
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963• F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
2. With construction of the EDI drainage system outlet 1 (OUT 1)will be direct discharging
toward the adjacent neighbor park/detention facility. Although this flow is proposed to
be managed with the construction of Lakeway Drive and its associated drainage
infrastructure, what is the contingency plan if EDI is completed prior to Lakeway Drive?
Response: Please see an attached letter for explanation.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call our office at 979-260-6963.
S erely,
I
Veronica J.:' 9Mor : .E., C.F.M.
Managing Partner
Cc: File
David Hall, St. Joseph Health System
Penny Busch, Hammes Company
Chuck Ellison, Ellison Law Office
David Watkins, AGA
Michal Tincup, Studio Tincup
s �
1-7.0
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
qt-D
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION TRANSMITTAL COVER t? d)(O
Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal.
❑ New Project Submittal
❑ Documents for a previous incomplete submittal
IP-Lending Project Submittal
Project Name: I T 5 h Z c-cAk-or
Contact Name: I \ON'C- O/1O C(17) I Phone No.: O 6_9e0,3 I
We are transmitting the following for Planning& Development Services to review and comment.
(Please check all that apply).
❑Comprehensive Plan Amendment
❑Non-Residential Architectural Standards
❑Rezoning Application
❑Irrigation Plan
❑Master Development Plan ❑Variance Request
❑Preliminary Plat
❑Development Permit
❑Final Plat
❑Conditional Use Permit
❑Development Plat ❑FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR
Mile Plan
❑Grading Plan
❑Special District Site Plan
126ther-Please specify belo
❑Special District Building/Sign i ' iA /` L r;YO ,
[Landscape Plan
I �
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set.
The following are included in the complete set:
aterline Construction Documents
❑TxDOT Driveway Permit ewerline Construction Documents
❑TxDOT Utility Permit rainage Construction Documents
O'5rainage Letter or Report ❑ Street Construction Documents
❑Fire Flow Analysis ❑ Easement Application
❑Other-Please specify I I
I I
I ISpecial Instructions:
29-Aug-68
MITCHELL
MM
MORGAN
January 14, 2009
City of College Station
Attn: Jason Schubert
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: ST. JOSEPH EDI PLANS VE CHANGES
Dear Jason:
The purpose of this letter is to list the Value Engineering changes pertaining to the EDI
plans. These plans are only the sheets affected by the Value Engineering study
performed. The changes are as follows:
• Changing the dumpster and mechanical pad screening materials from concrete
blocks to spruce wooden slates;
• Reducing the dumpster receptacle from two to one;
• New electrical conduit locations as shown;
• Removal of part of the drive, two inlets and associated grading with said removal.
This drive will be constructed at a later date with the medical office building under
design; and
• Shortening the width of the brick crosswalk material underneath the portico of the
circle drive.
One set has been provided; however if additional sets are needed we will be more than
happy to provide them. If you have any questions or comments please contact me at
(979) 260-6963 or by email at v(e mitchellandmorgan.corn.
Th. , you for your consideration in this matter.
Si -rely,
if SA, 4
Veronica J.B )or9: 1P.E., C.F.M.
Managing Pa 'ner 1
•
Cc: File
. v.
Ute• ,
` .4'
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST,SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION,TX 77840• T 979.260.6963• F. 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS - SITE PLANS SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.corn • www.mitchellandmorgan.corn
45
2 -?-0g
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TRANSMITTAL LETTER
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning er Development Services
Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal.
❑ New project.
❑ Incomplete: documents or information for a previous submittal determined to be incomplete.
❑ Existing project: plans for subsequent review as requested by staff.
171 Existing project: plans for stamping approved as requested by staff.
Project Name: 3 V� 2,0)(9 oNS
Contact Name: \102-00(c-f- ' I cP- Phone No.: 9-00-LocUP3
We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment: (Check all
that apply.):
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment 0 Non-Residential Architectural Standards
❑ Rezoning Application ❑ Irrigation Plan
n Master Development Plan ❑ Variance Request
❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Development Permit
Li Final Plat ❑ Conditional Use Permit
❑ Development Plat ❑ FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR
E Site Plan ❑ Grading Plan
0 Special District Site Plan ❑ Other- Please specify below
L7 Special District Building / Sign ❑
LI Landscape Plan ❑
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set.
The following are included in the complete set: ❑ Waterline Construction Documents
❑ TxDOT Driveway Permit ❑ Sewerline Construction Documents
❑ TxDOT Utility Permit ❑ Drainage Construction Documents
L7 Drainage Letter or Report ❑ Street Construction Documents
❑ Fire Flow Analysis ❑ Easement Application
,ZI Other- Please specify L1
❑ ( Aek �� % S( n
Special Instructions:
29-Aug-08
Print Form I
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
CI EY OF COLLEGE STAFION TRANSMITTAL COVER LETTER
Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal.
r7D-ocuments fora previous aase letesubmittal CGv1 S-Co( 16y)oiSG,eaq
r Existing Project Submittal
Project Name: ! 3A-. EC) I tiDg- zip
Contact Name: 1 Enc ,n 1v t 1 Phone No.:I si 1 _ - � _ i a) 1 •"1
We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment.
(Please check all that apply).
r Comprehensive Plan Amendment r Non-Residential Architectural Standards
r Rezoning Application r Irrigation Plan
r Master Development Plan r Variance Request
r Preliminary Plat r Development Permit
r Final Plat r Conditional Use Permit
r Development Plat r FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR
r Site Plan r Grading Plan
r Special District Site Plan r Other- Please specify below
r Special District Building/Sign
Landscape Plan
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set.
The following are included in the complete set: r Waterline Construction Documents
✓ TxDOT Driveway Permit r Sewerline Construction Documents
E TxDOT Utility Permit r Drainage Construction Documents
✓ Drainage Letter or Report " Street Construction Documents
I- Fire Flow Analysis r Easement Application
✓ Other- Please specify
Special Instructions:
S'vbrvipihn a, Y- (,n n 'ft, &tot s 1-1 a)pp ov{& 41.1 dr(#i t
/1V\
29-Aug-08 V
\ vv
Cr
[Ascension
,9114
Group
rchitects.ur
Transmittal
Attention: Jason Schubert From: Eric Nunnally
City Of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue AGA#: 08-035
College Station, TX 77840
PH: (979)764-3570 Date: 06.17.09
Subject:
We Transmit herewith items listed below:
Via: [Mail [' Fax ❑Courier ®Overnight
# of Copies:
1 Landscape Drawings
Purpose: Your Use ❑Your Records ['Your Comment
❑Requested Prints ❑Returned For Bids Due
on 00/00/00
Remarks:
Architecture Planning Interior Design
1250 East Copeland Rd.,Suite 500
Arlington,Texas 76011
Tel 817.226.1917
fax 817.226.1919
www.ascensiongroup.biz
E-mail Correspondence
From: Jason Schubert
To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Date: 1/30/2009 9:35 AM
Subject: St Joseph's EDI plans
Veronica,just to reiterate our conversation earlier,we have reviewed and have no comments regarding the revised
plans that include the"value engineering"changes. To have those approved,we will need 6 full sets of plans plus 1
site plan only sheet. You may provide additional sets as desired that will be stamped and returned t9 you. Let me
know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Schubert,AICP
Staff Planner
Planning& Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.qov
From: Josh Norton
To: Schubert,Jason
Date: 6/26/2009 1:24 PM
Subject: St. Joseph EDI
Jason,
Veronica called me this afternoon and asked if they could leave the gates off the dumpster enclosure out at the EDI
project. Her understanding is that it is not visible from a ROW therefore does not require the gates to be installed.
Can you call her or e-mail her when you get back or if you know the answer let me know and I can respond.
Thanks-Josh
From: Jason Schubert
To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
CC: Norton, Josh
Date: 6/29/2009 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: St.Joseph EDI
Veronica, in regards to the dumpster enclosure located behind the St Joseph EDI building, gates are not required. If
the gates are not installed I will note that change on the approved site plan when it comes time to inspect the site for
a CO. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Schubert,AICP
Staff Planner
Planning& Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.gov
From: <mandm2@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "Jason Schubert" <Jschubert@cstx.gov>
CC: <v@mitchellandmorgan.com>, "Josh Norton" <jnorton@cstx.gov>
Date: 6/29/2009 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: St.Joseph EDI
>Jason,
thanks so much for the information...it has been forwarded to st joes for
their decision.. it think we will end up with no gates..
V
From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert- <Jschubert@cstx.gov>
CC: "'Penny Busch"' <pbusch@hammesco.com>, "'David Hall-<DHall@st-joseph.org>
Date: 7/6/2009 2:17 PM
Subject: FW: St. Joseph EDI, Gates on Dumpster
Jason,
Please mark up your plan set for the St. Joes EDI with NO GATES on the dumpster enclosure.
Thanks
Veronica
From: Jason Schubert
To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
Date: 7/30/2009 8:49 AM
Subject: St Joseph EDI plaza
Veronica,
As per our conversation this morning, the stamped site plan (08-210) I have in early February 2009 states"Stamped
Colored Concrete Plaza Area w/the Following 3 Elements-Public Art, Seating &Vegetation Shade." It is possible to
change those but that's what's currently stated for the plaza.
Jason
Jason Schubert, AICP
Staff Planner
Planning&Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.gov
From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert-<Jschubert@cstx.gov>
Date: 7/30/2009 9:35 AM
Subject: RE: St Joseph EDI plaza
Great thanks..
Veronica
From: "Veronica Morgan" <v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert"'<Jschubert@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/4/2009 2:29 PM
Subject: st joes edi tree wells
Attachments: 0815-01-SITE PLAN-Model.pdf
Jason,
In forming the sidewalk for the front of this project the owner would like
to know if we can"skoot"the tree wells back 3 feet so that the sidewalk in
front of them is 7 feet wide rather than 4 feet wide(10'-6'tree well).
These tree wells only have bark mulch on them and not a grate so the walk
area is really only 4 feet. The tree"well"will still be there it will
just be that the tree trunk will be at the back of sidewalk(the mulched
area 3 feet w/in the sidewalk and 3 feet off). Will this be acceptable?
Thanks
Veronica
Veronica J.B. Morgan, P.E., C.F.M.
Managing Partner
From: Jason Schubert
To: Morgan,Veronica
Date: 8/5/2009 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: st joes edi tree wells
Veronica,
No, as per the Site Design Standards tree wells are to have a grate, or to have a raised planter around it at least 2
feet but not more than 3 feet in height. The location could be moved back if that is desired. Let me know if you have
any questions.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Schubert,AICP
Staff Planner
Planning& Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.gov
From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert' <Jschubert@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/6/2009 10:55 AM
Subject: edi tree wells
Jason,
In your edi tree wells research can you answer the following:
These tree grates come in half circles so could we skoot the tree back to
the back side of the sidewalk and then can we use a half circle grate(grate
on 1/2 the tree that is within the sidewalk). So 3'of the tree along with a
grate is in the sidewalk and the other half of the tree is in the landscaped
area behind the sidewalk with mulch on it rather than a grate.
V
Veronica J.B. Morgan, P.E., C.F.M.
Managing Partner
From: Jason Schubert
To: Morgan, Veronica
Date: 8/6/2009 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: edi tree wells
Veronica,
As we discussed previously, the Site Design Standards state that tree wells are to either have a grate or have a
raised planter around them. Tree wells required by the NRA standards do not need to be located in the sidewalk,just
along the sidewalk in front of a facade facing a public right-of-way. In short,whether in the sidewalk or next to it,
there needs to be a grate or raised planter used around the entirety of them.
As for the earlier question about the size of the tree well, there is a difference between Northgate and other parts of
the City. Not being in Northgate, it would need to be the 72 inch square(6'x 6'). Let me know if you have any
questions.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Schubert, AICP
Staff Planner
Planning & Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.gov
From: "Veronica Morgan" <v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert' <Jschubert@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/7/2009 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: edi tree wells
Jason,
Perhaps you can guide me to a location where a tree grate has been used outside a sidewalk but I don't think I have
seen one....Once you pull a tree out of a sidewalk why do you need a grate which has a tendency to"choke" a tree
and would a landscape architect recommend one?The grates as I have seen them used is to provide a containerized
area for the tree when they are in a sidewalk or plaza area(i.e. paved)...and this containerized area does two things..
grates provide a surface that is walkable but breathable for the tree and second they both keep mulch and water
within the containerized area and not falling out onto the sidewalk/plaza. I don't think I have ever seen a tree behind
a sidewalk in a landscaped area with a grate around it? I think the ordinance language intent thought that there was
pavement from the face of the building to the back of curb.. We don't have that case on EDI... we have a large
greenspace area in front of the building.
I think there is an oversight in the way the ordinance was originally worded... it should have stated that if the tree is in
the sidewalk it shall have a grate or raised planter but if there is room to locate it behind the sidewalk in a landscaped
area then these do not apply... What are your thoughts?
Thanks
V
From: Jason Schubert
To: Morgan, Veronica
Date: 8/7/2009 12:00 PM
Subject: RE: edi tree wells
Veronica,
We know that with ordinance language there are instances were it does not seem to address a particular set of
circumstances. In this instance, the UDO calls for tree wells along the facade facing a public right-of-way and the
Site Design Standards also further define a tree well as having grate or raised planter. There is not a reference about
if a tree is in a landscape area then these are not needed. Actually as for intent of the ordinance, I believe that
the tree well requirement is coupled with the 10 foot sidewalk in front of the facade which states they"shall be
placed along this walkway", likely so that shade can be provided to the sidewalk. Whether"along"means it has to be
entirely within the sidewalk width itself or can be next to it is not clear. In either case, l believe it is clear that when
provided,they are to have a grate or raised planter. If there are design concerns in starting to move it to the back
of the sidewalk width then I would suggest it's best to keep them where they are now provided.
Thanks,
Jason
Jason Schubert,AICP
Staff Planner
Planning & Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.gov
From: Bob Cowell
To: v@mitchellandmorgan.com
CC: Jason Schubert
Date: 8/12/2009 12:03 PM
Subject: St. Joseph's
Veronica,
As we discussed on the phone, I am comfortable with the required front sidewalk trees being placed at the edge of
the sidewalk(between the sidewalk and building)with the half-grate placed in the sidewalk. As also noted,these
trees must be placed in these locations or completely within the sidewalk to comply with the UDO and not be
relocated completely into the green space area in front of the EDI building.
While I believe the intent of the ordinance was/is to place a ten foot sidewalk with trees planted within the sidewalk
(either in tree grates or in planters), I concur that it is poorly written and am willing to support this adjustment.
Please submit revised plans detailing these adjustments as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Bob
From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Bob Cowell-<Bcowell@cstx.gov>
CC: "'Jason Schubert- <Jschubert@cstx.gov>, "'Joaquin U. Jaramillo"'
<joaquin@mitchellandmorgan.com>, "'Penny Busch"'<pbusch@hammesco.com>,"'Lisa Cantrell"'
<LCantrell@manhattanconstruction.com>, "'David Hall"'<DHall@st-joseph.org>
Date: 8/12/2009 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: St.Joseph's
We'll do.... thank you very much for allowing us to move the trees back.. I do believe the sidewalk with this
configuration will provide a much nicer environment for those going to the St. Joes facility.
Veronica
From: "Veronica Morgan"<v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert-<Jschubert@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/14/2009 9:40 AM
Subject: Tree Grates on St. Joes EDI
Jason,
I have one more question on these tree grates...we are trying to order them
and the 72"ones have to be special ordered... they are not carried as an
in-stock item at any distributor that we can find.They are only made once
you call and order one. So the delivery time is quite lengthy(6-8 weeks).
Is there any way we can use 60"grates since those are an in stock item and
can be delivered 2-4 weeks.
Thanks so much for checking..
Veronica J.B. Morgan, P.E., C.F.M.
Managing Partner
From: Jason Schubert
To: Morgan,Veronica
Date: 8/14/2009 10:42 AM
Subject: Re:Tree Grates on St.Joes EDI
Veronica, I checked about the size of the tree well and the ordinance states a minimum of six feet square so it will
need to be that or larger. I have confirmed this with Bob as well. Though I believe its hard to point out a timing
issue as they've been on the approved plans since December, I will allow that item on a temporary CO if it gets that
point.
Jason Schubert, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning& Development Services
City of College Station
tel: 979.764.3570
fax: 979.764.3496
www.cstx.gov
From: "Veronica Morgan" <v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert' <Jschubert@cstx.gov>
Date: 8/14/2009 11:32 AM
Subject: RE:Tree Grates on St. Joes EDI
Thanks for asking..
I'll let st joes know that they can open without the tree grates and come back to put them on when they are delivered.
Veronica
From: "Veronica Morgan" <v@mitchellandmorgan.com>
To: "'Jason Schubert" <Jschubert@cstx.gov>
Date: 9/22/2009 11:29 AM
Subject: st joes berm at front parking lot
Jason,
I know it is a bit rainy this week but can I steal you away from the office
for about an hour tomorrow or Thursday to go look at st joes and the
required berm... I want to talk about its location and there is a small part
of the parking lot that is"depressed"at least 3 feet below normal ground
where I don't think the berm is warranted.
Thanks
Veronica
Veronica J.B. Morgan, P.E., C.F.M.
Managing Partner