HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Review STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: LOWES (SP) —08-00500225
PLANNING
1. Please note that the site plan will not be approved or development permit issued until the
property being development has a final plat that is filed for record at the Courthouse.
2. Please revise the lot numbers according to the approved preliminary plat.
3. Provide a note on the site plan that this property.is a Building Plot with Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
and 8 of Block 1. Please note that this Building Plot is required to meet the Non-Residential
Architecture Standards in excess of 150,000 square feet of gross floor area and the
comments in this review reflect the requirement to meet these standards.
4. Provide the ownership and zoning of the abutting property to the northwest.
5. The Subdivision Regulations require that streets and other infrastructure be constructed to
and through the property being platted, which will be necessary with the final plat of this
proeprty. Please revise the site plan to show Lakeway Drive and other infrastructure
accordingly.
6. Please note that the TIA has been reviewed internally and externally through Kimley-Horn
and Associates. Comments requesting revisions to the TIA have been forwarded to Anna
Martin at HDR/WHM Transportation Engineering on October 13, 2008. The TIA revisions
and any improvements identified must be incorporated into the site plan before it can be
approved.
7. In accordance with the conditions of Development Permit (04-62), when this property is
developed, joint access is to be provided to the adjacent Exxon / McDonald's property and
it's driveway to William D. Fitch Pkwy be removed. If an agreement to remove the driveway
can not be reached, then a right turn lane at the William D. Fitch Pkwy / State Hwy 6
Frontage Road is to be constructed. Please note that cross access will need to be provided
to this property with the development of Lot 3, Block 1.
8. Please verify that the cross access easements shown align with those on the approved
preliminary plat and forthcoming final plat and project into the neighboring lots accordingly.
9. Since Lot 4, Block 1 will not likely be platted with this site, the proposed drive aisle to the
rear of the Exxon / McDonald's is proposed on unplatted property and will not be allowed at
this time. When Lot 4 develops, cross access to this property will be provided.
10. Provide a deceleration lane to the driveway proposed to William D. Fitch Pkwy.
11. In coordination with TxDOT, the driveway originally proposed on Lot 9 of the adjacent
property has been allowed to move to the common property line with Lots 7 & 9. Since
driveway spacing will not be met, this comes with the condition that the driveway to Lots 7 &
9 will have a deceleration lane and the driveway proposed with this site provide a
deceleration lane and acceleration lane. When the two driveways are built, the acceleration
lane for this driveway in combination with the deceleration lane of the driveway will form one
auxiliary lane. A right-in/right-out concrete median will also need to be constructed at the
site's driveway location. Please include these in the TxDOT permit.
12. Please clearly identify the location of the 100-ft wide undisturbed area along the eastern
property line as required with Ordinance #2229.
13. As the 100-ft wide undisturbed area is being reduced with proposed alignment of Lakeway
Drive, there is a requirement to plant trees and scrubs to adequately screen noise, light and
views between the commercial development and the existing residential lots. With final
platting of this lot and construction of Lakeway Drive, please provide the trees and scrubs.
14. There appears to be 512 parking spaces currently provided on the site. The two rows near
Lot 3 appear to undercount one space in each row. Please revise the figures.
15. Based on the gross floor area of 163,626 square feet and a parking ratio of 1:250, the site
requires 655 parking spaces. Please revise, provide alternative parking plan, or other
alternative allowed within the UDO for consideration.
16. With the height of building in excess of 30 feet, it appears that the requirement for an aerial
fire lane of 26-feet in width with its associated spacing is not being met. Please revise.
17. End islands are required at the ends of the 15-space row on the south side of the building.
18. Wheelstops will be required for the parking spots along the 15-space row on the south side
of building.
19. It does not appear that a bike rack has been provided. Please revise.
20. Please note that the 10-foot sidewalk and tree wells proposed to be constructed along
Lakeway Drive will need to be constructed with the development of this site.
21. Show the proposed plaza on the site plan and identify the three elements to be used in the
plaza from the permitted list of options.
22. Please provide designated connections to future buildings for pedestrian and bicycle traffic
as described in UDO Section 7.9.E.4.
23. Provide a note that signs are permitted separately and that future freestanding signs are to
be shared with the other lots in the building plot.
24. The location of the 6-foot screening fence along the rear of the site is not clear. Please
clarify.
25. Provide a general note that all roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from view or isolated so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or
residential district within 150' of the subject lot, measured from a point five feet above grade.
Such screening shall be coordinated with the building architecture and scale to maintain a
unified appearance.
26. Please provide a note that the site will need to comply with UDO Section 7.10 Outdoor
Lighting Standards and when acquiring light fixtures on the exterior of the building and in the
parking lot, please verify that they comply with this Section.
27. Please note a number of features on the site such as mechanical equipment, off-street
loading areas, retaining walls, etc may be required to be screened. Please clarify the
location of the 6-foot fence along the rear of the site. Additional comments may result when
the "Details" referenced on the site plan are provided.
28. 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.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: October 22, 2008
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. Show existing and proposed utilities and easements on the landscape plan.
2. It appears that the area of Lot 2, Block 2 is incorporated into the site area calculations for
the required landscaping points. This area may be removed from the landscaping points for
the site. Lot 2, Block 2, however, will need to comply with zoning for the property,
Ordinance#2229, regarding the buffer area that is to be planted and/or maintained.
3. It appears that the linear feet used in the streetscape calculations includes the driveways.
These may be removed from the total linear distance used for the streetscape calculations.
4. The trees and shrubs planted to meet the streetscaping, tree well, and screening
requirements may be used in calculating the total number of landscape points provided.
5. Please provide the detail used for the tree wells.
6. Please verify that the square feet figures shown with the end islands are the amounts that
the islands are the amount in excess of 180 square feet per space or 360 square per double
parking row.
7. Please specify the plants or list of plantings to be used, noting that that they will be
according to the approved list is not sufficient.
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.
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.
10. Provide a note that all BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as
per City Ordinance 2394.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: October 21, 2008
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. The portion of Lakeway Drive adjacent to this tract needs to be designed and constructed in
it's entirety with the development of this tract. This requirement is in compliance with your
approved preliminary plat phase plan. All infrastructure required by plat including Lakeway
Drive will need to be built or bonded in order for the final plat of this lot to be filed for record
and for your site plan to be approved.
2. It appears that the Lakeway is being aligned in a way to allow the Lowe's and St. Joseph
sites to completely bypass the existing sheet flow of water across their properties and
channelize it into the undisturbed area. We are concerns about the disturbance of this
green space and the impacts that channelizing this existing sheet flow into a "point
discharge" may create for this green space. This design certainly does not meet the intent
to preserve this green space.
3. Due to the existing adjacent residential lots, it does not appear to be appropriate to elevate
Lakeway Drive in order to create a channel cross section to accommodate this diversion of
water. There are certainly other options to accommodate this drainage and develop this
site.
4. It appears that there is adequate space on this site to accommodate the drainage
infrastructure needed to almost entirely bypass the undisturbed area and allow for a
discharge much closer and more aligned with the down stream detention pond.
5. The St. Joseph site is currently designing the portion of Lakeway Drive adjacent to their
tract, without coordination between St. Joseph and Lowe's, design decision that are being
made at this time will most certainly limit site design options for the Lowe's site. Please
coordinate these design efforts.
6. As the St. Joseph's site is currently in for site plan review, it appears that their design of the
Lakeway drainage infrastructure does not take into account any post development flows
from the Lowe's site. This will require the Lowe's site to detain its post development flow
entirely on site.
7. Please provide drainage report, including technical design summary, which can be found at
www.bcsunited.net
8. How is this site proposing to mitigate the post development flows, due to the increased
impervious cover added to this site? Please address this in details with your drainage report
per the BCS Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines. Also, please provide all appropriate
certification which can be found in the aforementioned document.
9. How will the drainage of the remaining undeveloped lots be addressed?
10. The City of College Station's master utility plan illustrates a 12-inch water main to be
extended from William D Fitch Pkwy along Lakeway Drive, please address. This main could
be incorporated with your site development as you are already proposing a water line for fire
coverage behind the Lowes building. This would allow for adequate fire coverage of your
site and satisfy the City Master Utility Plan requirements.
11. 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.
12. Please verify that the proposed easements are adequate based on utility depths per BCS
Guidelines.
13. As a part of your existing fire flow report, please provide the proposed building type and
square footage per Table B105.1 and C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code.
14. Please provide sanitary sewer system design report.
15. Please provide an exhibit and report verifying that the proposed infrastructure extensions
proposed with this development are being size appropriately to serve the great surrounding
area. This could also be incorporated with your water and sewer reports.
16. Please provide engineers cost estimate for all public infrastructure.
17. Please provide plan and profile detail for all public infrastructure improvements.
18. The design of all public infrastructure located under pavement must incorporate structural
backfill.
19. Please provide water and sewer demand on site plan.
20. Please label the size of the proposed meters, these meters should be in accordance with
the water demands provided. Meters must be located within an easement.
21. Please provide letter of acknowledgement, which can be found at bcsunited.net
22. The proposed water system layout does not appear to be a looped system, as it includes
several dead ends. These types of dead end mains are not allowed per the BCS Design
Guidelines.
23. We would prefer that the connections to the 24-inch water main along State Hwy 6 be
spaced more than proposed. This may be accomplished by eliminating one of the runs from
the Lowes building back toward State Hwy 6. Shorter 6-inch main runs could be installed to
service lots 5 and 6. Please call to discuss.
24. We would prefer the proposed water mains around the south and west building faces be
moved away from the building at least behind the first set of end islands, outside of the
heavy duty concrete.
25. Please eliminate the proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer main and manhole, which is stubbed
out to the building, this is more appropriately a private service line.
26. On the fire suppression line, an isolation valve is required just inside the PUE. Also note on
the 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.
27. FYI -Within the last year the City adopted the 2006 Building Codes which require
a standalone Building Permit and inspection for all retaining walls greater than 2 feet above
grade - and need to be sealed by an engineer. This application is the standard Building
Permit application which is reviewed and inspected by the Building Department.
28. Please submit TxDOT permit. 5 sets of the permit application, plans and appropriate details
should be submitted to the city, as the city submits all TxDOT driveway permit to TxDOT.
29. Please find the following site plan review comments from TxDOT regarding the proposed
access location:
Lowe's (Site Plan) (SH 6) - Access driveways to SH 6 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. (Shift Access between Lots 5 & 6 -- 15' north)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 Proiect (0049-12-069).
30. FYI -The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area.
31. 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:
Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has issued a general permit for construction
activities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The general permit
(TXR150000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres or is part of
a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres.
You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site to the
City of College Station's Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4):
1. Read the general permit(TXR150000) to make sure it applies to your situation.
2. Adhere to the requirements of the general permit(TXR150000).
3. Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Part
III of the general permit(TXR150000).
4. Sign and post a construction site notice.
5. At least 2 days before beginning construction, provide a copy of the site notice to the
operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into which storm
water will be discharged.
A MS4s include streets, channels, gutters, ditches or anything else that is publicly owned,
designed or used to collect or transport storm water.
As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to discharge storm
water.
No notice of intent (NO1), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required under this option—as
long as the requirements of this general permit are followed.
This particular general permit will expire at midnight on March 5, 2008.
A copy of General Permit TXR150000 can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txr150000.pdf
A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txrl 52d2.pdf
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: October 22, 2008
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
2. Developer provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for
electric lines (where applicable, including street lights).
3. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices
and extend as required.
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.
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU
specs and design.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design (pull
boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU).
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and site plan. Email to:
gmartinez(c�cstx.gov.
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.
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.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: September 19, 2008
FIRE
1. No combustibles will be allowed on site until all-weather roads and fire hydrants have been
accepted by the City.
2. No more than a six percent (6%) grade is allowed on any length of fire lane.
3. A "Knox Box" security key system is required on all buildings.
4. Fire Lanes shall be marked per City of College Station ordinance. Loading areas marked in
yellow at the front of the building are not allowed.
Reviewed by: Steve Smith Date: September 18, 2008
SANITATION
1. Sanitation is ok with this project.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia / Rodney Harris Date: September 17, 2008
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
LOWES (NRA) — NRA Review
08-00500228
PLANNING
Review of Revised Building Elevations and Sample Board
1. Please note that with the elements as proposed, the requirements for architectural relief
design elements and façade articulation for each elevation have been met.
2. Provide all of the materials on each elevation (including doors, windows, openings, etc) such
that the square feet and percentages of each façade total 100%.
3. Revise the amount E.I.F.S stated on the Front Elevation. It appears that there is 16% but
only 285 square feet of material is stated. Please reconcile.
4. Please remove the "No more than 33% of this elevation is in the same plane" note from the
Left Elevation as it does not need to meet this requirement.
5. The height of the rear of the building on the left side of the Left Elevation is likely 25' 4", not
the 31'-4" given. Please revise the label.
6. For buildings of this scale, only 5% accent color (colors not on the City's color palette or
equivalent to one) is permitted on each elevation. Provide the percentage of colors
proposed on each elevation and verify that proposed accent colors are within this limit.
7. For the canopies and awnings, only the sample for PF-2 is provided on the board while
some of them are labeled PF-4 on the elevations. Provide the PF-4 sample or correct the
label, if only PF-2 type is being used.
8. It is unclear of the material proposed on the Front Elevation that is in the areas around the
Faux Windows with Awnings. Please label.
9. The material labeled IC-1 Lowe's Light Beige (CMU) on the sample board has the
appearance of split face CMU. Labels on the elevations, however, state the use of a
Smooth Face CMU (IC-1). Please reconcile and verify the proposed material is split face. If
smooth face CMU is proposed, it may only cover 10% of an elevation. Also, split face CMU
can be used but it does not qualify to meet the requirement for 50% brick or stone on the
elevations facing a public right-of-way (Front, Right, and Rear).
Follow Up of Feb. 12th Meeting Regarding Outdoor Storage and Display (UDO Section 7.11)
1. Outdoor Display — There is desire for outdoor display areas along the Front Elevation. The
ordinance states that these areas are to be adjacent to a principle building wall and extend
no more than 5 feet from it. The initial determination is that the arcade area shown in the
center portion of the front elevation does not qualify as a principle building wall and the sales
areas will need to be located within the first 5 feet of the building proper. If there is a desire
to pursue this further, you may file a formal Written Interpretation application with the City. If
our written response to that request is not to your satisfaction, you may appeal the
interpretation to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).
2. Permanent Outdoor Sales Areas — This area applies to the Garden Center area proposed
on the Right Elevation. There is a desire to open up more of this area for greater circulation
and drainage and to trim construction costs. This can be accomplished with the use of
tubular steel as proposed, perhaps more or reconfigured in a different fashion. Planter
boxes could also be utilized in places to help meet the required screening. Since the
Garden Center functions as the façade on this side of the building, however, the elevation
as a whole will still need to meet the minimum and maximum percentage of materials.
3. General Outdoor Storage — This area applies to the storage area on the Rear Elevation.
This type of outdoor use has slightly different requirements than that of Permanent Outdoor
Sales Areas in that it is to be completely screened from public right-of-way and adjacent
properties with solid wall or fence between 6 and 8 feet in height. Though the proposed wall
is higher than eight feet, it functions as part of the building and façade and is acceptable.
Similar to the Garden Center, there is a desire to open up more of this area for greater
circulation and drainage and to trim construction costs. Openings such as the tubular steel
proposed in the Garden Center may be used but complete screening must still be provided.
This can be accomplished in part by the fence proposed along the back of the rear drive
aisle which may have a maximum height of 8 feet. As we discussed in the meeting, a cross
section of the building, fence and right-of-way would need to be provided to give visual
perspective and verification that the proposed alternative fulfills the screening requirement.
Also similar to the Garden Center, since the proposed wall functions as part of the façade,
the elevation as a whole will still need to meet the minimum and maximum percentage of
materials.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: February 25, 2009
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: LOW ES (SP)—08-00500225
PLANNING
1. Please note that the site plan will not be approved or development permit issued until the
property being development has a final plat that is filed for record at the Courthouse.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. Please revise the lot numbers according to the approved preliminary plat.
Response: Revised lot numbers on sheets SP-1, SP-2 and SP-3.
3. Provide a note on the site plan that this property is a Building Plot with Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
and 8 of Block 1. Please note that this Building Plot is required to meet the Non-Residential
Architecture Standards in excess of 150,000 square feet of gross floor area and the
comments in this review reflect the requirement to meet these standards.
Response: Added note on sheet SP-1.
4. Provide the ownership and zoning of the abutting property to the northwest.
Response: Added ownership on sheet SP-1.
5. The Subdivision Regulations require that streets and other infrastructure be constructed to
and through the property being platted, which will be necessary with the final plat of this
property. Please revise the site plan to show Lakeway Drive and other infrastructure
accordingly.
Response: Revised sheet SP-1 to reflect the construction of Lakeway Drive and infrastructure
as part of this project.
6. Please note that the TIA has been reviewed internally and externally through Kimley-Horn
and Associates. Comments requesting revisions to the TIA have been forwarded to Anna
Martin at HDRNVHM Transportation Engineering on October 13, 2008. The TIA revisions
and any improvements identified must be incorporated into the site plan before it can be
approved.
Response: TIA has been revised and resubmitted.
7. In accordance with the conditions of Development Permit (04-62), when this property is
developed, joint access is to be provided to the adjacent Exxon / McDonald's property and
it's driveway to William D. Fitch Pkwy be removed. If an agreement to remove the driveway
can not be reached, then a right turn lane at the William D. Fitch Pkwy / State Hwy 6
Frontage Road is to be constructed. Please note that cross access will need to be provided
to this property with the development of Lot 3, Block 1.
Response: Right turn lane has been added from proposed driveway to State Hwy 6 Frontage
Road.
8. Please verify that the cross access easements shown align with those on the approved
preliminary plat and forthcoming final plat and project into the neighboring lots accordingly.
Response: Verified location of cross access easements.
9. Since Lot 4, Block 1 will not likely be platted with this site, the proposed drive aisle to the
rear of the Exxon / McDonald's is proposed on unplatted property and will not be allowed at
this time. When Lot 4 develops, cross access to this property will be provided. .
Response: Discussed with City Staff to allow driveway to be built with Lowe's development.
10. Provide a deceleration lane to the driveway proposed to William D. Fitch Pkwy (SP-1).
Response: Added deceleration lane to proposed driveway to William D. Fitch.
11. In coordination with TxDOT, the driveway originally proposed on Lot 9 of the adjacent
property has been allowed to move to the common property line with Lots 7 & 9. Since
driveway spacing will not be met, this comes with the condition that the driveway to Lots 7 &
9 will have a deceleration lane and the driveway proposed with this site provide a
deceleration lane and acceleration lane. When the two driveways are built, the acceleration
lane for this driveway in combination with the deceleration lane of the driveway will form one
auxiliary lane. A right-in/right-out concrete median will also need to be constructed at the
site's driveway location. Please include these in the TxDOT permit.
Response: Added deceleration lane and concrete median to driveway(SP-1).
12. Please clearly identify the location of the 100-ft wide undisturbed area along the eastern
property line as required with Ordinance #2229.
Response: Added 100-ft undisturbed line to SP-1.
13.As the 100-ft wide undisturbed area is being reduced with proposed alignment of Lakeway
Drive, there is a requirement to plant trees and scrubs to adequately screen noise, light and
views between the commercial development and the existing residential lots. With final
platting of this lot and construction of Lakeway Drive, please provide the trees and scrubs.
Response: Acknowledged.
14. There appears to be 512 parking spaces currently provided on the site. The two rows near
Lot 3 appear to undercount one space in each row. Please revise the figures.
Response: Figures have been revised (SP-1).
15. Based on the gross floor area of 163,626 square feet and a parking ratio of 1:250, the site
requires 655 parking spaces. Please revise, provide alternative parking plan, or other
alternative allowed within the UDO for consideration.
Response: Building and garden center areas have been modified and the required parking has
been revised in the figure (SP-1).
16. With the height of building in excess of 30 feet, it appears that the requirement for an aerial
fire lane of 26-feet in width with its associated spacing is not being met. Please revise.
Response: Driveway width has been revised to 27.5' (SP-1).
17. End islands are required at the ends of the 15-space row on the south side of the building.
Response: Added end islands on SP-1.
18. Wheelstops will be required for the parking spots along the 15-space row on the south side
of building.
Response: Added wheel stops on SP-1.
19. It does not appear that a bike rack has been provided. Please revise.
Response: Added bike rack on SP-1.
20. Please note that the 10-foot sidewalk and tree wells proposed to be constructed along
Lakeway Drive will need to be constructed with the development of this site.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
21. Show the proposed plaza on the site plan and identify the three elements to be used in the
plaza from the permitted list of options.
Response: Plaza area is shown on SP-1.
22. Please provide designated connections to future buildings for pedestrian and bicycle traffic
as described in UDO Section 7.9.E.4.
Response: Added connector sidewalk to adjacent outlots (SP-1).
23. Provide a note that signs are permitted separately and that future freestanding signs are to
be shared with the other lots in the building plot.
Response: Added note on sheet SP-1.
24. The location of the 6-foot screening fence along the rear of the site is not clear. Please
clarify.
Response: Shown and labeled on SP-1.
25. Provide a general note that all roof and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from view or isolated so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way or
residential district within 150' of the subject lot, measured from a point five feet above grade.
Such screening shall be coordinated with the building architecture and scale to maintain a
unified appearance.
Response: Note added on SP-1.
26. Please provide a note that the site will need to comply with UDO Section 7.10 Outdoor
Lighting Standards and when acquiring light fixtures on the exterior of the building and in the
parking lot, please verify that they comply with this Section.
Response: Note added on SP-1.
27. Please note a number of features on the site such as mechanical equipment, off-street
loading areas, retaining walls, etc may be required to be screened. Please clarify the
location of the 6-foot fence along the rear of the site. Additional comments may result when
the "Details" referenced on the site plan are provided.
Response: Shown and labeled on SP-1.
28. 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: Acknowledged.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: October 22, 2008
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. Show existing and proposed utilities and easements on the landscape plan.
Response: Revised SP-3.
2. It appears that the area of Lot 2, Block 2 is incorporated into the site area calculations for
the required landscaping points. This area may be removed from the landscaping points for
the site. Lot 2, Block 2, however, will need to comply with zoning for the property,
Ordinance#2229, regarding the buffer area that is to be planted and/or maintained.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
3. It appears that the linear feet used in the streetscape calculations includes the driveways.
These may be removed from the total linear distance used for the streetscape calculations.
Response: Acknowledged.
4. The trees and shrubs planted to meet the streetscaping, tree well, and screening
requirements may be used in calculating the total number of landscape points provided.
Response: Acknowledged.
5. Please provide the detail used for the tree wells.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
6. Please verify that the square feet figures shown with the end islands are the amounts that
the islands are the amount in excess of 180 square feet per space or 360 square per double
parking row.
Response: Verified.
7. Please specify the plants or list of plantings to be used, noting that that they will be
according to the approved list is not sufficient.
Response: Revised SP-3.
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: Note added on SP-3.
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.
Response: Note added on SP-3.
10. Provide a note that all BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as
per City Ordinance 2394.
Response: Note added on SP-3.
7'NEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
he portion of Lakeway Drive adjacent to this tract needs to be designed and constructed in
its entirety with the development of this tract. This requirement is in compliance with your
approved preliminary plat phase plan. All infrastructure required by plat including Lakeway
Drive will need to be built or bonded in order for the final plat of this lot to be filed for record
and for your site plan to be approved.
yRe onse: Acknowledged.
. It appears that the Lakeway is being aligned in a way to allow the Lowe's and St. Joseph
sites to completely bypass the existing sheet flow of water across their properties and
channelize it into the undisturbed area. We are concerns about the disturbance of this
green space and the impacts that channelizing this existing sheet flow into a "point
discharge" may create for this green space. This design certainly does not meet the intent
to preserve this green space.
Response: Vertical alignment of Lakeway has been revised (lowered) and the channel in the
un ' turbed area has been deleted.
Due to the existing adjacent residential lots, it does not appear to be appropriate to elevate
Lakeway Drive in order to create a channel cross section to accommodate this diversion of
water. There are certainly other options to accommodate this drainage and develop this
site.
Response: Vertical alignment of Lakeway has been revised (lowered) and the channel in the
u sturbed area has been removed.
t appears that there is adequate space on this site to accommodate the drainage
infrastructure needed to almost entirely bypass the undisturbed area and allow for a
discharge much closer and more aligned with the down stream detention pond.
Response: The channel section has been removed and the discharge does align with the
.do n stream detention pond.
The St. Joseph site is currently designing the portion of Lakeway Drive adjacent to their
tract, without coordination between St. Joseph and Lowe's, design decision that are being
made at this time will most certainly limit site design options for the Lowe's site. Please
coordinate these design efforts.
7ponse: Acknowledged.
As the St. Joseph's site is currently in for site plan review, it appears that their design of the
Lakeway drainage infrastructure does not take into account any post development flows
from the Lowe's site. This will require the Lowe's site to detain its post development flow
entirely on site.
Response: Acknowledged. Developer is working with St. Joseph to get the Lakeway drainage
infrastructure revised.
7. Please provide drainage report, including technical design summary, which can be found at
esponse: Drainage report in progress (By Mitchell & Morgan .
8. How is this site proposing to mitigate the post development flows, due to the increased
impervious cover added to this site? Please address this in details with your drainage report
per the BCS Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines. Also, please provide all appropriate
which can be found in the aforementioned document.
Res ons . rainage report in progress (By Mitchell : V organ 1!
• = _ -•- • - -II- m• u o•ed lots •e addressed?
es• • e: Draina a of undeveloped lots is accommodated in proposed storm sewer desi•n
•. The City of College Station's master u i i y . - g _ - _ -inc water main to •e
extended from William D Fitch Pkwy along Lakeway Drive, please address. This main could
be incorporated with your site development as you are already proposing a water line for fire
coverage behind the Lowes building. This would allow for adequate fire coverage of your
site and satisfy the City Master Utility Plan requirements.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
>)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: Acknowledged.
syrPlease verify that the proposed easements are adequate based on utility depths per BCS
Guidelines.
Response: Acknowledged.
- a pa o pure • ' - .• .. , . -_ e provide the proposed building yp- _ -•
square footage per Table B105.1 and C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code.
• • _.
14. Please provi•e s_ _ .e stem design report.
Res.o -• ;-... •. • --
15.
-15. Please provide an exhibit and report verifying that the proposed infrastructure extensions
! ••- = •• ent are being size appropriately to serve the great surrounding
area. This could also be inc. porated with your water and sewer reports.
:es•onse: Re.o '• -- s.
•. = -- e prove• - - .' crs c• estimate for all public infrastructure.
•nse:
. Please provide plan and profile detail for all public infrastructure improvements.
• • se: Refer to Construction Drawings.
18. Th= design of all public infrastructure located under pavement must incorporate structural
•ackfill.
e: Acknowledged.
19. Pf=d' e provide water and sewer demand on site plan.
-sponse: Report in progress.
•a' -- Y- .'•el the size of the proposed meters, these meters should be in accordance with
water demands provided. Meters must be located within an easement.
Res. • .se: Revised SP-1.
. P e- e provide letter of acknowledgement, which can be found at bcsunited.net
- . •onse:
he proposed water system layout does not appear to be a looped system, as it includes
several dead ends. These types of dead end mains are not allowed per the BCS Design
Guidelines.
•onse:
e would prefer that the connections to the 24-inch water main along State Hwy 6 be
spaced more than proposed. This may be accomplished by eliminating one of the runs from
the Lowes building back toward State Hwy 6. Shorter 6-inch main runs could be installed to
service lots 5 and 6. Please call to discuss.
Response: Connection to 24" left to avoid future conflict with outlots.
. We would prefer the proposed water mains around the south and west building faces be
moved away from the building at least behind the first set of end islands, outside of the
heavy duty concrete.
yRes nse: Acknowledged and revised.
Please eliminate the proposed 8-inch sanitary sewer main and manhole, which is stubbed
out to the building, this is more appropriately a private service line.
Response: 8" to Lowe's building is a private line (not profiled).
On the fire suppression line, an isolation valve is required just inside the PUE. Also note on
the 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.
R- •nse: Acknowledged and revised.
I -Within the last year the City adopted the 2006 Building Codes which require
a standalone Building Permit and inspection for all retaining walls greater than 2 feet above
grade- and need to be sealed by an engineer. This application is the standard Building
Permit annGra+inn which is reviewed and inspected by the Building Department.
Res onse: Acknowledged and added Retaining Wall drawings.
ase submit TxDOT permit. 5 sets of the permit application, plans and appropriate details
shou be submitted to the city, as the city submits all TxDOT driveway permit to TxDOT.
Res se: TxDot permit has been submitted to City and TxDot.
. Please find the following site plan review comments from TxDOT regarding the proposed
access location:
Lowe's (Site Plan) (SH 6) - Access driveways to SH 6 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. (Shift Access between Lots 5 & 6 -- 15' north)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).
R onse: Acknowledged.
FYI -The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area.
Re onse: Acknowledged.
. 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:
Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has issued a general permit for construction
activities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The general permit
(TXR 150000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres or is part of
a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres.
You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site to the
City of College Station's Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4):
1. Read the general permit (TXR150000) to make sure it applies to your situation.
2. Adhere to the requirements of the general permit (TXR150000).
3. Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Part
Ill of the general permit (TXR150000).
4. Sign and post a construction site notice.
5. At least 2 days before beginning construction, provide a copy of the site notice to the
operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into which storm
water will be discharged.
A MS4s include streets, channels, gutters, ditches or anything else that is publicly owned,
designed or used to collect or transport storm water.
As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to discharge storm
water.
No notice of intent(NO/), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required under this option—as
long as the requirements of this general permit are followed.
This particular general permit will expire at midnight on March 5, 2008.
A copy of General Permit TXR150000 can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txr150000.pdf
A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txr152d2.pdf
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: October 22, 2008
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. Developer provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for
electric lines (where applicable, including street lights).
Response: Acknowledged.
3. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
Response: Acknowledged.
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 installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design (pull
boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU).
Response: Acknowledged.
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and site plan. Email to:
qmartinezcstx.qov.
Response: Acknowledged.
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: Acknowledged.
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: Acknowledged.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Response: Acknowledged.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: September 19, 2008
FIRE
1. No combustibles will be allowed on site until all-weather roads and fire hydrants have been
accepted by the City.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. No more than a six percent(6%) grade is allowed on any length of fire lane.
Response: Acknowledged.
3. A "Knox Box" security key system is required on all buildings.
Response: Acknowledged.
4. Fire Lanes shall be marked per City of College Station ordinance. Loading areas marked in
yellow at the front of the building are not allowed.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
Reviewed by: Steve Smith Date: September 18, 2008
SANITATION
1. Sanitation is ok with this project.
Response: Acknowledged.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia / Rodney Harris Date: September 17, 2008
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: LOWES (SP) - 08-00500225
PLANNING
1. Please revise the lot numbers shown on all sheets in the plan set according to the
approved preliminary plat. The St. Joseph Urgent Care was developed on Lot 6, Block 1
and the lot numbers had to be revised before the current preliminary plat was approved.
As such, Outlot 6 (Lot 6) is actually Lot 7, Block 1; Outlot 7 (Lot 7) is actually Lot 8, Block
1; and the Lowe's site is actually Lot 10, Block 1.
2. It appears the 0.993 acres of undevelopable area noted in the Site Data table has been
incorporated into Lot 1, Block 2. If so, remove the reference in the Site Data table.
3. There is a proposed cross access drive aisle on Lot 4 that extends to the existing
pavement on the adjacent Alam Addition (Exxon) property. It also appears to be
proposed through an existing sign. Provide documentation of cross access through the
adjacent property and permission from the adjacent owner that allows these
improvements to be constructed and the sign to be removed.
4. Move the label for the 100-foot wide undisturbed buffer to relate to the actual line
representing the 100-foot boundary.
5. Based on the gross floor area of 158,312 square feet and a parking ratio of 1:250, the
standard ordinance requires 634 parking spaces. These spaces will need to be provided
or a revised alternative parking plan will need to be approved. Please submit a revised
alternative parking plan as described in email correspondence from Bob Cowell on April
3rd and revise the parking on the site accordingly.
6. A landscape strip has been added to the front center parking area. For parking spaces
to be reduced to 18 feet in depth, they must be adjacent to a 6-foot sidewalk or 4-foot
landscape area. Please revise the sidewalk adjacent to the one parking row to be 6 feet
in width.
7. Provide the cross section perspective that shows the view of the rear façade with the 8-
foot wood fence and Lakeway Drive.
8. Provide the detail for the stamped dyed concrete sidewalk.
9. The detail for the planter box has been provided. Provide the details for the tree wells in
the sidewalks areas and the detail for the trees wells in the parking lot.
10. Remove Sheet OSD-1 Outdoor Sales Display from the plan set.
11. The revised building elevations are under review for compliance with the Non-residential
Architecture Standards and response comments will be provided when completed.
12. Reminder: Please note that the site plan will not be approved or development permit
issued for site development until the property being development has a final plat that is
filed for record at the Courthouse.
13. Please note that any changes made to the plans that have not been requested by the
City of College Station must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on
your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that the City has not been made
aware of will constitute a completely new review.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: April 24, 2009
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. It appears that the linear feet used in the streetscape calculations includes the driveways.
These may be removed from the total linear distance used for the streetscape calculations.
2. The calculations for the required number of landscaping points should be revised. Given a
base of 17,156 landscape points and 4,692 streetscape points, the total required points for
this site is not 40,888 but would be 39,004 (17,156 + 17,156 + 4,692). Please revise the
calculations, including that for the double points (19,020) to reflect this.
3. The 34 required tree wells/planter boxes are required to be planted with canopy trees. For
every non-canopy tree (crepe myrtle) provided in them, the corresponding number of
wells/boxes is doubled. There are 6 planter boxes with crepe myrtles so another 6
wells/boxes are required, bring the total number of them to 40.
4. The shrubs proposed along Lakeway Drive are not required for screening of parking
adjacent to the right-of-way. However, if provided, it is preferred that that there is more
grouping and clustering (perhaps closer to the retaining wall and/or 8-foot wood fence) than
providing them mostly in a strict linear fashion.
5. If through an alternative parking plan that areas are reserved on the site for potential parking
spaces, these areas are not to be planted with landscaping.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: April 24, 2009
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 (Site Plan)
1. This site plan cannot be approved until the final plat is filed for record. The final plat cannot
be filed for record until the infrastructure supporting these lots is constructed or bonded.
2. In reviewing the Lowe's site plan there appear to be some discrepancies between these and
those plans in regards to street trees, sidewalks, etc, please coordinate.
3. The 100 foot buffer space area that is proposed to be reduced needs to be planted with
trees and scrubs to adequately screen noise, light and views between the proposed
commercial development and the existing residential lots. Please clearly indicate where the
100 foot buffer space is proposed to be reduced.
4. Please provide drainage report, including technical design summary, which can be found at
www.bcsunited.net
5. How is this site proposing to mitigate the post development flows, due to the increased
impervious cover added to this site? Please address this in details with your drainage report
per the BCS Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines. Also, please provide all appropriate
certification which can be found in the BCS Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines.
6. If this project is not proposing detention, please *certify 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. Also, provide the following associated certification:
*Certification from BCS Unified Drainage Guidelines:
"I have conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the
existing and proposed flow patterns for storm water runoff from (name
of subdivision or site project) to the main stem of (name of creek). At
build-out conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat
note, the storm water flows from the subject subdivision or site project
will not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of
existing building structures, including basement areas, for storms of
magnitude up through the 100-year event":
7. How will the drainage of the remaining undeveloped lots be addressed?
8. It appears that the proposed 5x3 RCB is also picking up the post development flows from
several out parcels as well as Lakeway Drive. Please address this issue in your drainage
report, as post development flows were not anticipated with the design of the downstream
detention facility.
9. Please submit Letter of Acknowledgement, which can be found at bcsunited.net.
10. Please submit water system report.
11. As a part of your existing fire flow report, please provide the proposed building type and
square footage per Table B105.1 and C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code.
12. Please provide sanitary sewer system design report.
13. Please provide engineers cost estimate for all public infrastructure.
14. The design of all public infrastructure located under pavement must incorporate structural
backfill, please note this in profile view.
15. Please provide water and sewer demand on site plan.
16. Please label the size of the proposed meters, these meters should be in accordance with
the water demands provided. Meters must be located within an easement.
17. Please provide letter of acknowledgement, which can be found at bcsunited.net
18. Please provide additional detail of the proposed improvements at the SH 6 and William D.
Fitch intersection. There appears to be several existing utility pole conflicts.
19. Relocate right turn channelizing island outside of travel lane.
20. Remove right turn arrows on the decal lane section.
21. Add right turn lane "arrows" and "onlys" to the lane right before the intersection with SH 6.
22. Please revise and resubmit the TxDOT permit per comments e-mailed to Darrel Kotzur from
Joe Guerra on April 3, 2009. Please verify that the intersection improvements at the SH 6
and William D. Fitch intersection are included.
23. FYI -Within the last year the City adopted the 2006 Building Codes which require
a standalone Building Permit and inspection for all retaining walls greater than 2 feet above
grade - and need to be sealed by an engineer. This application is the standard Building
Permit application which is reviewed and inspected by the Building Department.
24. FYI -The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area.
25. (Sheet C-4.3 thru C-4.4) It may be appropriate to use junction boxes at bends, as well as
provide additional manhole access points for future maintenance.
26. (Sheet C-5.0) The proposed private sanitary service needs a clean out every 100 feet.
27. (Sheet C-5.1 thru C-5.2) Please label structural backfill in profile view for utilities located
under pavement or structural areas.
28. (Sheet C-5.1 thru C-5.2) The proposed concrete encasements should be steel, please
check the BCS Guideline, Details and Specs for specific diameter, thickness and casing
spacer requirements.
29. (Sheet C-5.1) The proposed sanitary sewer main crossing Lakeway (Major Collector) must
be encased (16 inch diameter steel pipe, 3/8 thick, with casing spacers).
30. (Sheet C-5.1) Please label water conflicts based on Comment#38 & 39 and verify the
appropriate TCEQ separation requirements have been met.
31. (Sheet C-5.2) The sanitary sewer main cover must be at least 3.5 feet or ductile iron pipe
and cement stabilized backfill must be used.
32. (Sheet C-5.2) The main proposed to be located under the retaining wall needs to be
encased.
33. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please verify that each "tee" connection has 2 gate valves and
each "cross" connection has 3 valves.
34. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please verify that each dead end main terminates in a blow off or
fire hydrant.
35. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please label structural backfill in profile view for utilities located
under pavement or structural areas.
36. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) The proposed concrete encasements should be steel, please
check the BCS Guideline, Details and Specs for specific diameter, thickness and casing
spacer requirements.
37. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please provide profile detail for any fire hydrant lead lines that
exceed 20 feet or conflict retaining walls.
38. (Sheet C-5.4) The water main illustrated parallel to the shared access drive is currently
under construction with the St. Joseph project. However, with the St. Joseph project the
proposed water main is beneath the shared access drive is not currently illustrating water
main stub outs to serve the Lowe's tract. Without coordination future access to this water
main will require open cutting of the shared access drive.
39. (Sheet C-5.4) This water main is currently being constructed from SH 6 to Lakeway,
therefore it is preferred that the next tap on the existing 24 inch main occur approx. 400 feet
closer to WD Fitch. This change would require a short run off this proposed main as well as
the main that St. Joseph is currently constructing in order to serve Out lot 5 & 6.
40. 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:
Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has issued a general permit for construction
activities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The general permit
(TXR150000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres or is part of
a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres.
You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site to the
City of College Station's Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4):
1. Read the general permit (TXR150000) to make sure it applies to your situation.
2. Adhere to the requirements of the general permit (TXR150000).
3. Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Part
III of the general permit (TXR150000).
4. Sign and post a construction site notice.
5. At least 2 days before beginning construction, provide a copy of the site notice to the
operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into which storm
water will be discharged.
A MS4s include streets, channels, gutters, ditches or anything else that is publicly owned,
designed or used to collect or transport storm water.
As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to discharge storm
water.
No notice of intent (NOI), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required under this option—as
long as the requirements of this general permit are followed.
This particular general permit will expire at midnight on March 5, 2008.
A copy of General Permit TXR150000 can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txr150000.pdf
A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txr15
2d2.pdf
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: April 23, 2009
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: LOWES (SP)- 08-00500225
PLANNING
1. Please revise the lot numbers shown on all sheets in the plan set according to the
approved preliminary plat. The St. Joseph Urgent Care was developed on Lot 6, Block 1
and the lot numbers had to be revised before the current preliminary plat was approved.
As such, Outlot 6 (Lot 6) is actually Lot 7, Block 1; Outlot 7 (Lot 7) is actually Lot 8, Block
1; and the Lowe's site is actually Lot 10, Block 1.
Response: Revised on appropriate sheets.
2. It appears the 0.993 acres of undevelopable area noted in the Site Data table has been
incorporated into Lot 1, Block 2. If so, remove the reference in the Site Data table.
Response: Removed from Sheet SP-1.
3. There is a proposed cross access drive aisle on Lot 4 that extends to the existing
pavement on the adjacent Alam Addition (Exxon) property. It also appears to be
proposed through an existing sign. Provide documentation of cross access through the
adjacent property and permission from the adjacent owner that allows these
improvements to be constructed and the sign to be removed.
Response: Proposed cross access drive has been eliminated to the adjacent Exxon
property.
4. Move the label for the 100-foot wide undisturbed buffer to relate to the actual line
representing the 100-foot boundary.
Response: Moved label for undisturbed buffer.
5. Based on the gross floor area of 158,312 square feet and a parking ratio of 1:250, the
standard ordinance requires 634 parking spaces. These spaces will need to be provided
or a revised alternative parking plan will need to be approved. Please submit a revised
alternative parking plan as described in email correspondence from Bob Cowell on April
3rd and revise the parking on the site accordingly.
Response: Revised and resubmitted alternative parking plan to Bob Cowell. Additional
parking spaces shown on revised plan are not reflected in this site plan package. Plans
will be resubmitted once Bob Cowell is satisfied with the parking plan.
6. A landscape strip has been added to the front center parking area. For parking spaces
to be reduced to 18 feet in depth, they must be adjacent to a 6-foot sidewalk or 4-foot
landscape area. Please revise the sidewalk adjacent to the one parking row to be 6 feet
in width.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
7. Provide the cross section perspective that shows the view of the rear façade with the 8-
foot wood fence and Lakeway Drive.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
8. Provide the detail for the stamped dyed concrete sidewalk.
9. The detail for the planter box has been provided. Provide the details for the tree wells in
the sidewalks areas and the detail for the trees wells in the parking lot.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
10. Remove Sheet OSD-1 Outdoor Sales Display from the plan set.
Response: Sheet OSD-1 has been left in plan set. Lowe's requires OSD-1 to be in civil
construction documents.
11. The revised building elevations are under review for compliance with the Non-residential
Architecture Standards and response comments will be provided when completed.
Response: Acknowledged.
12. Reminder: Please note that the site plan will not be approved or development permit
issued for site development until the property being development has a final plat that is
filed for record at the Courthouse.
Response: Acknowledged.
13. 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.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: April 24, 2009
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. It appears that the linear feet used in the streetscape calculations includes the driveways.
These may be removed from the total linear distance used for the streetscape calculations.
Response: Acknowledged and revised Sheet SP-3 and L-1.
2. The calculations for the required number of landscaping points should be revised. Given a
base of 17,156 landscape points and 4,692 streetscape points, the total required points for
this site is not 40,888 but would be 39,004 (17,156 + 17,156 + 4,692). Please revise the
calculations, including that for the double points(19,020)to reflect this.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
3. The 34 required tree wells/planter boxes are required to be planted with canopy trees. For
every non-canopy tree (crepe myrtle) provided in them, the corresponding number of
wells/boxes is doubled. There are 6 planter boxes with crepe myrtles so another 6
wells/boxes are required, bring the total number of them to 40.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
4. The shrubs proposed along Lakeway Drive are not required for screening of parking
adjacent to the right-of-way. However, if provided, it is preferred that that there is more
grouping and clustering (perhaps closer to the retaining wall and/or 8-foot wood fence) than
providing them mostly in a strict linear fashion.
Response: Acknowledged and deleted shrubs.
5. If through an alternative parking plan that areas are reserved on the site for potential parking
spaces, these areas are not to be planted with landscaping.
Response: Acknowledged.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: April 24, 2009
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 (Site Plan)
1. This site plan cannot be approved until the final plat is filed for record. The final plat cannot
be filed for record until the infrastructure supporting these lots is constructed or bonded.
Response: Acknowledged.
2. In reviewing the Lowe's site plan there appear to be some discrepancies between these and
those plans in regards to street trees, sidewalks, etc, please coordinate.
Response: Acknowledged and coordinated submittals.
3. The 100 foot buffer space area that is proposed to be reduced needs to be planted with
trees and scrubs to adequately screen noise, light and views between the proposed
commercial development and the existing residential lots. Please clearly indicate where the
100 foot buffer space is proposed to be reduced.
Response: Acknowledged and added L-4 to construction drawings.
4. Please provide drainage report, including technical design summary, which can be found at
www.bcsunited.net
Response: Acknowledged and drainage report being submitted by Mitchell & Morgan.
5. How is this site proposing to mitigate the post development flows, due to the increased
impervious cover added to this site? Please address this in details with your drainage report
per the BCS Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines. Also, please provide all appropriate
certification which can be found in the BCS Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines.
Response: Acknowledged and drainage report being submitted by Mitchell & Morgan.
6. If this project is not proposing detention, please*certify 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. Also, provide the following associated certification:
*Certification from BCS Unified Drainage Guidelines:
"I have conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the
existing and proposed flow patterns for storm water runoff from (name
of subdivision or site project)to the main stem of(name of creek). At
build-out conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat
note, the storm water flows from the subject subdivision or site project
will not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of
existing building structures, including basement areas, for storms of
magnitude up through the 100-year event":
Response: Acknowledged and drainage report being submitted by Mitchell & Morgan.
7. How will the drainage of the remaining undeveloped lots be addressed?
Response: Acknowledged and drainage report being submitted by Mitchell & Morgan.
8. It appears that the proposed 5x3 RCB is also picking up the post development flows from
several out parcels as well as Lakeway Drive. Please address this issue in your drainage
report, as post development flows were not anticipated with the design of the downstream
detention facility.
Response: Acknowledged and drainage report being submitted by Mitchell & Morgan
9. Please submit Letter of Acknowledgement, which can be found at bcsunited.net.
Response: Acknowledged and submitted Letter of Acknowledgement.
10. Please submit water system report.
Response: Acknowledged and water system report will be included in next submittal.
11. As a part of your existing fire flow report, please provide the proposed building type and
square footage per Table B105.1 and C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code.
Response: Acknowledged and will be included in next submittal.
12. Please provide sanitary sewer system design report.
Response: Acknowledged and sanitary sewer design report will be included in next
submittal.
13. Please provide engineers cost estimate for all public infrastructure.
Response: Acknowledged and submitted.
14. The design of all public infrastructure located under pavement must incorporate structural
backfill, please note this in profile view.
Response: Acknowledged and revised utility plan and profile sheets.
15. Please provide water and sewer demand on site plan.
Response: Acknowledged and will be included in next submittal.
16. Please label the size of the proposed meters, these meters should be in accordance with
the water demands provided. Meters must be located within an easement.
Response: Acknowledged and added meter sizes to SP-1.
17. Please provide letter of acknowledgement, which can be found at bcsunited.net
Response: Acknowledged and and submitted Letter of Acknowledgement.
18. Please provide additional detail of the proposed improvements at the SH 6 and William D.
Fitch intersection. There appears to be several existing utility pole conflicts.
Response: Acknowledged. Right turn lane is developer's responsibility and Lowe's has not
released design of this turn lane.
19. Relocate right turn channelizing island outside of travel lane.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
20. Remove right turn arrows on the decal lane section.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
21.Add right turn lane "arrows" and "onlys" to the lane right before the intersection with SH 6.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
22. Please revise and resubmit the TxDOT permit per comments e-mailed to Darrel Kotzur from
Joe Guerra on April 3, 2009. Please verify that the intersection improvements at the SH 6
and William D. Fitch intersection are included.
Response: Acknowledged and resubmitted without details for turn lane on William D Fitch
to SH 6.
23. FYI -Within the last year the City adopted the 2006 Building Codes which require
a standalone Building Permit and inspection for all retaining walls greater than 2 feet above
grade- and need to be sealed by an engineer. This application is the standard Building
Permit application which is reviewed and inspected by the Building Department.
Response: Acknowledged and retaining wall details are included in construction drawings.
24. FYI -The subject tract is located in the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee Area.
Response: Acknowledged.
25. (Sheet C-4.3 thru C-4.4) It may be appropriate to use junction boxes at bends, as well as
provide additional manhole access points for future maintenance.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
26. (Sheet C-5.0)The proposed private sanitary service needs a clean out every 100 feet.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
27. (Sheet C-5.1 thru C-5.2) Please label structural backfill in profile view for utilities located
under pavement or structural areas.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
28. (Sheet C-5.1 thru C-5.2)The proposed concrete encasements should be steel, please
check the BCS Guideline, Details and Specs for specific diameter, thickness and casing
spacer requirements.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
29. (Sheet C-5.1)The proposed sanitary sewer main crossing Lakeway (Major Collector) must
be encased (16 inch diameter steel pipe, 3/8 thick, with casing spacers).
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
30. (Sheet C-5.1) Please label water conflicts based on Comment#38 & 39 and verify the
appropriate TCEQ separation requirements have been met.
Response: Acknowledged.
31. (Sheet C-5.2)The sanitary sewer main cover must be at least 3.5 feet or ductile iron pipe
and cement stabilized backfill must be used.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
32. (Sheet C-5.2) The main proposed to be located under the retaining wall needs to be
encased.
Response: Acknowledged.
33. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please verify that each "tee" connection has 2 gate valves and
each "cross" connection has 3 valves.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
34. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please verify that each dead end main terminates in a blow off or
fire hydrant.
Response: Acknowledged and revised with blow off.
35. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please label structural backfill in profile view for utilities located
under pavement or structural areas.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
36. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) The proposed concrete encasements should be steel, please
check the BCS Guideline, Details and Specs for specific diameter, thickness and casing
spacer requirements.
Response: Acknowledged and revised.
37. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please provide profile detail for any fire hydrant lead lines that
exceed 20 feet or conflict retaining walls.
Response: Acknowledged. Fire hydrant leads exceeding 20 feet will be included in next
submittal.
38. (Sheet C-5.4) The water main illustrated parallel to the shared access drive is currently
under construction with the St. Joseph project. However, with the St. Joseph project the
proposed water main is beneath the shared access drive is not currently illustrating water
main stub outs to serve the Lowe's tract. Without coordination future access to this water
main will require open cutting of the shared access drive.
Response: Acknowledged and connections to St. Joseph water main.
39. (Sheet C-5.4) This water main is currently being constructed from SH 6 to Lakeway,
therefore it is preferred that the next tap on the existing 24 inch main occur approx. 400 feet
closer to WD Fitch. This change would require a short run off this proposed main as well as
the main that St. Joseph is currently constructing in order to serve Out lot 5 & 6.
Response: Acknowledged but Lowe's would like their main fire water line to be on their
property under pavement so the original alignment has been maintained.
40. 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:
Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has issued a general permit for construction
activities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The general permit
(TXR150000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres or is part of
a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres.
You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site to the
City of College Station's Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4):
1. Read the general permit (TXR150000) to make sure it applies to your situation.
2. Adhere to the requirements of the general permit (TXR150000).
3. Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Part
III of the general permit (TXR150000).
•
4. Sign and post a construction site notice.
5. At least 2 days before beginning construction, provide a copy of the site notice to the
operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into which storm
water will be discharged.
A MS4s include streets, channels, gutters, ditches or anything else that is publicly owned,
designed or used to collect or transport storm water.
As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to discharge storm
water.
No notice of intent(NOI), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required under this option—as
long as the requirements of this general permit are followed.
This particular general permit will expire at midnight on March 5, 2008.
A copy of General Permit TXR150000 can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txr150000.pdf
A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments/stormwater/txr15
2d2.pdf
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: April 23, 2009
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3
Project: LOWES (SP) - 08-00500225
PLANNING
1. Please note that when Outlot 4 is developed in the future it will need to provide cross access
to the adjacent Alam Addition (Exxon) property.
2. Please note that an Alternative Parking Plan has not yet been approved for this site. Any
changes resulting from an approval of such a plan will need be reflected on the site plan.
3. The proposed landscape plan for the buffer area (Sheet L-4) is not sufficient to meet the
buffer requirements when existing vegetation is used as a substitution or supplement for the
buffer planting requirements. Please refer to UDO Section 7.6 Buffer Requirements for the
specific details and options. Also for reference, a portion of Lakeway Dr on the St. Joseph
property enters the buffer area and they have approved landscaping plans to mitigate that.
The section in this area will differ some in that existing vegetation can help supplement the
planting requirements.
4. As the tree wells proposed in Lakeway Drive are not public improvements, submit a Private
Improvement in a Public Right-of-Way (PIP) application for them.
5. Like the existing island along William D. Fitch, the island at the driveway to the SH 6
Frontage Road that facilitates right turns will need to consist of enhanced paving (pavers or
stamped dyed concrete).
6. If Sheet OSD-1 Outdoor Sales Display is required in the plan set by the developer, then it
may only illustrate outdoor display areas that comply with the existing ordinance.
7. Provide the details for the proposed stamped concrete.
8. Please note that the bubbled areas showing changes may be removed when the next set of
revised plans are submitted.
9. Please note that any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City
of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your
plans. Any additional changes on these plans that the City has not been made aware of will
constitute a completely new review.
Reviewed by: Jason Schubert Date: May 22, 2009
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3 (Site Plan)
1. Please coordinate the proposed landscape plan for the buffer space encroachment with
Mitchell and Morgan.
2. (Sheet 02) Please revise the location of the proposed encased sanitary sewer main crossing
Lakeway, as discussed with Veronica. Also, please coordinate this effort with Ballard and
Braughton and verify that both plan sets match.
3. Please submit a drainage report specific to the Lowe's site. Mitchell and Morgan has
submitted a timing analysis for the overall tracts (St. Joseph and Lowes) but did not submit
any specific information regarding the drainage internal to the Lowe's site. Please reference
the Mitchell and Morgan report for any offsite outfalls not included in the forthcoming Lowe's
report. The Mitchell and Morgan report also references flow information provided from
Ballard and Broughton.
4. Please provide drainage report, including technical design summary, which can be found at
www.bcsunited.net
5. If this project is not proposing detention, please *certify 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. Also, provide the following associated certification:
*Certification from BCS Unified Drainage Guidelines:
"I have conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the
existing and proposed flow patterns for storm water runoff from (name
of subdivision or site project) to the main stem of (name of creek). At
build-out conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat
note, the storm water flows from the subject subdivision or site project
will not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of
existing building structures, including basement areas, for storms of
magnitude up through the 100-year event":
6. Coordination with the adjacent Lakeway plans and the adjacent St. Joseph plans is being
assume with this review, future changes or lack of coordination will result in the need for
significant modifications to these plans to include the need for on-site detention.
7. Please submit water system report.
8. As a part of your existing fire flow report, please provide the proposed building type and
square footage per Table B105.1 and C105.1 of the 2006 International Fire Code.
9. Please provide sanitary sewer system design report.
10. Please provide water and sewer demand on site plan.
11. (Sheet SP-1) Relocate right turn channelizing island outside of decel lane.
12. (Sheet SP-1) Remove right turn arrows on the decal lane section.
13. (Sheet SP-1) Add right turn lane "arrows" and "onlys" to the lane right before the intersection
with SH 6.
14. The City of College Station (Joe Guerra) has not received the revised TxDOT permit that
includes the turn lane on William D. Fitch Pkwy to the SH 6 frontage road. This needs to be
submitted in order to review and forward to TxDOT.
15. The retaining wall plans need to be submitted to the building department. Within the last
year the City adopted the 2006 Building Codes which require a standalone Building Permit
and inspection for all retaining walls greater than 2 feet above grade - and need to be sealed
by an engineer. This application is the standard Building Permit application which is
reviewed and inspected by the Building Department.
16. (Storm Infrastructure) Please verify and label that there is a drop across junctions, 1/10 foot
minimum.
17. (Storm Infrastructure) Junction boxes shall be provided al all changes in conduit size and
grade, and where changes in alignment are made at pipe joints. Manhole access shall be
provided as part of all junction boxes.
18. (Storm Infrastructure) A manhole is required every 300 feet along the 4x3 section of RCB
and every 500 feet along the 5x3 section of RCB.
19. (Sheet C-4.4) Please provide plan and profile detail for the water line modification due to the
proposed storm conflict.
20. (Sheet C-4.4) Please verify permission to lower existing gas line.
21. (Sheet C-5.0) Outlot 7 does not appear to have a water service stub.
22. (Sheet C-5.1) Please verify that the proposed steel pipe encasement has been extended
past proposed sidewalk/structural area.
23. (Sheet C-5.1 thru C-5.6) Please label the specific TCEQ separation requirement at each
water/sanitary conflict in profile detail. This becomes especially critical where water mains
are proposed beneath sanitary sewer mains.
24. (Sheet C-5.1) Please label water main conflict at Sta. 10+75.
25. (Sheet C-5.2) There appears to be some areas which do not have 3.5 feet of cover, these
areas required ductile iron pipe and cement stabilized backfill.
26. (Sheet C-5.2) The portion of sanitary sewer main proposed beneath the retaining wall needs
to be encased.
27. (Sheet C-5.3 thru C-5.7) Please provide profile detail for any fire hydrant lead lines that
exceed 20 feet or conflict retaining walls.
28. (Sheet C-5.4 thru C-5.6) Please verify that C-909 is specified throughout. It appears that C-
900 is called out in some locations.
29. (Sheet C-5.4) Please identify sanitary conflict at Sta. 0+25.
30. (Sheet C-5.4) Specify "Tee" connection and valve at Sta. 0+00.
31. (Sheet C-5.4 thru C-5.6) Please verify that each "Tee" connection has 2 gate valves and
each "Cross" connection has 3 gates valves. It does not appear that this comment was
addressed in the last revision.
32. (Sheet C-5.4 thru C-5.6)A 2 inch blow-off is required on 6 and 8 inch main terminations.
33. (Sheet C-5.4 thru C-5.6) Please review proposed valve placement, as it may be more ideal
to not place the 2 valves required at a "Tee" connection on the same main.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: May 18, 2009