HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments0001r"
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
H...fT A"1A.,..V
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
January 31, 2011
TO: John P. Cunningham, via email: locunningham(cDswmail.sw.org
and via regular mail: 2401 South 31It Street, Temple Texas, 76508
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka. AICP. Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Scott & White Hospital Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and
submit the following information for further staff review:
Cover memo providing written responses to all of staff's comments (identify the
specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not
addressing the comment);
Four (4) revised site and one (1) landscaping plan;
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).
Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the
applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the
Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If 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
Jennifer Prochazka at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: Joel Bock, P.E., Jacobs Engineering, via email: loel.bock(cDiacobs.com
Case file #11-00500005
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: Scott & White Hospital (SP) — 11-00500005
PLANNING
1. Please include the following required information in the title block of all site plan and
landscape plan sheets:
a. Name, address, location, and legal description (as it will be platted).
b. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant/owner.
c. Name, address and telephone number of the engineer.
d. Date of submittal (corrected).
e. Total site area.
2. Please label the ownership and zoning of all adjacent parcels (including all lots created by
the Scott & White plat).
3. Please include a note on the site plan referencing the zoning, including the ordinance
number.
4. Please include the gross square footage of all buildings and structures and the proposed
use of each. Please indicate building location more clearly throughout the set.
5. Please include the required setbacks on the site plan.
6. Please include a note stating that no floodplain exists on site and reference the FEMA/FIRM
panel number.
7. Please include existing topography (2' max or spot elevations) and proposed grading (1'
max or spot elevations).
8. Please remove the words "primary road" and "secondary road" from the public rights -of -way.
9. Label distances between driveways/streets, both opposite and adjacent according to the
LIDO, Article 7.3.
10. Indicate proposed driveway throat length according to UDO, Article 7.3.
11. Please dimension the width of the driveways at the right-of-way/property line.
12. Please provide a curb and pavement detail on the site plan.
13. Label proposed medians.
14. Provide the square footage of each end island and all interior parking islands.
15. Please label location of required bike rack capable of holding at least 8 bicycles and located
within 150 feet of the primary entrance of each structure (or tenant). Please provide detail of
bike rack in compliance with the City's site design standards.
16. Pedestrian walkways are required to connect public street sidewalks, all parking areas and
other buildings with the primary structure. In locations where the walkway is within a parking
lot area, it needs to be clearly designated using brick pavers or a stamped dyed concrete
pattern (please provide detail). These walkways are required to be a minimum of 5 feet
wide.
17. Please dimension the distance from the property line to the closest point of parking areas.
18. Please label all easements, whether existing or proposed, including type (ie: Public Access
Easement, Public Utility Easement) and volume and page. For easements being dedicated
with the plat, please label it with v_, p_ so that the V/P can be added once the plat is
filed, prior to site plan approval. Easements should be dimensioned (ie: 20' PUE) and
leaders should be used to show the limits of the easement.
19. Please include utilities (both on site and adjacent to the site) on the site plan, noting size
and designate as existing or proposed.
20. Please show and label all utility connection points, transformers, fire hydrants, etc.
21. Please include all symbols used on the plans in the legend. Symbols not used should not
be included in the legend. Symbols that are small or may be unclear should also be labeled
on the drawing.
22. Please show and label all meter locations.
23. Provide a water and sanitary sewer legend on the site plan that includes the following
information: minimum water demands, maximum water demands, average water demands
in gallons per minute, and maximum sewer loadings in gallons per day.
24. Section 7.9 requires that one of three parking concepts be used (Section 7.9.B.6) to break
up the parking lot area and minimize visual impact. Please show how this requirement has
been met.
25. Why does the 30' drive (from the north -south public access easement) turn into a 23-foot
drive aisle along the hospital development? This is a primary entrance and circulation aisle
and the Public Access Easement was required to break block length in lieu of a collector
roadway. Please make this drive 30 feet.
26. Please show all fire lanes.
27. Please show locations of fire hydrants and fire department connections.
28. Please show the limits of (and label) the detention pond.
29. Please provide detail of the retaining wall. Vertical concrete over 6" is required to be
enhanced (such as stamped and dyed) or screened.
30. Please provide information (on the site plan) about the treatment of concrete structures in
the detention pond. Any structure with over 6" of vertical concrete are required to be treated
so as to replicate stone, wood, etc. and need to be complementary to the buildings on site.
31. Please indicate the overall height of the structures on the site plan.
32. A Private Improvement in a Public ROW (PIP) permit will be required for the private medians
proposed in the public right-of-way (ie: where private drive meets public street) or the
median should be moved back to be wholly contained on private property.
33. Rainwater harvesting was included as part of the PDD. Are there any structures or any
infrastructure associated with this?
34. Please include details of proposed screening for utility connection points, the transformers
(leaving clearances), the generators, fuel tank, etc. Screening is required to be coordinated
with the building architecture. Elevations of such screening should be made a part of the
Non -Residential Architectural Standards submittal.
35. Please call out location of proposed solid waste/sanitation containers. How is the site
proposed to be serviced? How is this area proposed to be screened?
36. Please include a note defining building plot. Based on the zoning of the property, each of
the original seven tracts were considered to be a building plot for signage, landscape, and
Non -Residential Architectural Standards.
37. Please define the 500 s.f. public plaza area and proposed elements required by Section
7.9.F.1. Details required.
38. Please show berms on the site plan. Berms are required to screen any parking located
within 100 feet of the public right-of-way, per the PDD zoning. If berms are not used, please
indicate the screening method.
39. Section 7.9.E.4.d. requires that a 10-foot sidewalk be constructed along the full frontage of
any fagade facing a public right-of-way (north, south, west). A waiver was granted with the
PDD zoning to the requirement to have tree wells within these sidewalks, but the trees were
required to be planted adjacent to the sidewalk.
40. Please indicate your proposal for traffic calming along the entrance drive from Rock Prairie
Road, as was indicated during the rezoning hearings.
41. Provide a general note on the site plan 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.
42. Provide a general note on the site plan that states the following: Exterior building and site
lighting will meet the standards of Section 7.10 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The
light source shall not project below an opaque housing and no fixture shall directly project
light horizontally. Fixtures will be mounted in such a manner that the projected cone of light
does not cross any property line.
43. 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: Jennifer Prochazka Date: January 30, 2011
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. The landscape plan should include the following minimum information:
a. The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the tract
b. Topographic information and final grading adequate to identify and properly specify
planting areas needing slope protection, berms, etc.
c. Locations and dimensions of structures, parking lots, drives, sidewalks, solid waste
areas, fences, concrete structures, visible utility connection pints, etc.
d. The location of existing and proposed utilities and all easements on or adjacent to the
lot
e. Indication of the thoroughfare types adjacent to the development
2. Please use a darker line to indicate area to be developed. All proposed landscaping
(including existing trees to remain) need to be in the area. Include overall area in s.f. or
acres on the landscape plan.
3. Please identify existing trees to remain, show trees barricaded (barricade plan) and provide
a detail of the proposed barricading. The barricades must be in place prior to any
development permit being issued and must remain in place until site work is complete.
4. Please include the required landscape point calculations on the landscape plan, including
the additional streetscape points required.
5. Please include the street frontage lengths used to determine the required number of street
trees for each street.
6. The doubled landscape points and point credits should be prior to streetscaping points being
added in (calculations not shown).
7. Point credits will be awarded for % of required points, not provided.
8. Landscaping is required within and integrated with the detention pond (see Section 7.12).
9. Are berms proposed for parking screening from the right-of-ways? If so, please label and
provide detail and dimensions of the berm. If not, please label proposed screening.
10. The landscape plan should show all areas to be screened by landscaping (ie: transformers,
concrete retaining walls, utility connection points, dumpster enclosures, etc.).
11. 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.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: January 25, 2011
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum Breaker, a Reduced
Pressure Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double -Check Back Flow Device, and installed
as per City Ordinance 2394. Please add note to the plan.
2. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance
2394. Please add note to the plan.
TRANSPORTATION
1. The Site Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is consistent with the zoning TIA and its
mitigation requirements.
2. Lakeway drive pavement width and cross section should match pavement width of
section of Lakeway built east of Lowes and St Joseph clinic.
3. Rock Prairie deceleration lanes lengths are in compliance.
4. The deceleration lengths for the right turns on SH 6 NB frontage roads are short in
length based on TxDOT's design manual and being confirmed by TxDOT.
5. Please include traffic control plans for the construction of the deceleration lanes on SH
6 frontage Rd and Rock Prairie Rd based on TMUTCD guidelines,
6. Please include permanent pavement marking and signing layouts for proposed
thoroughfares.
Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coord. Date: 1/25/2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
Site Plan
1. Please label all easements with width, volume, and page number. If the easement has
not been dedicated, please leave blanks to be filled in later.
2. Plan and profile drawings and an engineer's cost estimate are required for additional
public water infrastructure.
3. FYI ... The Development Permit Fee is 1 % of the total public infrastructure costs, not to
be less than $600. This may result in additional development permit fees being due
prior to construction and/or site plan approval.
4. FYI ... All easements will need to be dedicated prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy (CO).
5. The Public Access Easement needs to allow for connectivity with unblocked pedestrian
and bicyclist access.
6. Show and label all proposed water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure
including size, material, and slope (if applicable). If they are shown in detail on a
separate set of plans, please clearly reference the plans.
7. Label the streets, right-of-way widths, and driveways.
8. FYI ... A revised Oil Well Permit and Site Plan will be required for the Uvacek Well Site
since revisions are being made to their site. This will need to occur simultaneous with
this application and be approved prior to Scott & White site plan approval.
9. Curb and ramp details need to be provided on the site plan.
10. Please show a minimum 2-ft existing and proposed contours.
11. Please show and label the proposed water meters and sizes.
12. General Note #1 should specify that a "TxDOT" permit is required for construction within
the SH6 Frontage Rd. right-of-way.
13. All applicable notes need to be included on the site plan rather than just referenced in
General Note #3.
14. General Note #6 should also apply where the sidewalks intersect a public right-of-way.
15. General Note #7 needs to be more specific about which plans it is referencing.
16. General Note #8 - Please specify what the clearance distance is between.
17. Please include the minimum, average, and maximum water and sanitary sewer
demands on the site plan.
18. Please show and label the fire hydrants, fire lines, fire department connections, isolation
valves, and fire suppression lines.
19. Please add the "Isolation Valve" Note.
20. Please label fire lanes.
21. If a flume is referenced, it needs to be shown graphically (i.e. Site Plan "E").
22. Drainage structures on Site Plan " F" need to be labeled.
23. Temporary culdesacs/turnarounds need to be provided at all dead-end public streets.
Additionally, a Temporary Turnaround Easement needs to be dedicated prior to site plan
approval.
24. A Temporary Blanket Easement for electrical infrastructure needs to be dedicated prior
to site plan approval.
25. Please add the following note to the site plan: "All Fire Suppression Lines shall have a
lockable lid on the City's isolation valve. The lockable lid shall, at a minimum, supply the
equivalent protection as the AM Pro USA, LL562 Locking Lid. Alternate lockable lids
shall be approved by the College Station Utilities Director or his designee."
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: 1 /31 /11
FIRE
1) Aerial Access Easement requirement will be on the East side of the structure using material
capable of 80,000 psi. Signed letter from Bock and engineer with material company needed.
2) Show F.D.C. locations
3) Show Fire Lanes
Reviewed by: Steve Smith
Date: 01 /31 /2011
SANITATION
1. Need to show dumpster pad or trash compactor location on site plan.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: January 25, 2011
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
A temporary blanket easement for the electrical underground that will service the
transformers since this is not in a dedicated easement at this time.
A 35' easement in total width from the common line of the Scarmardo tract to Lakeway
Drive.
Developer will be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
A 35' easement from Lakeway Drive to the common corner of the Bert Wheeler parcel. To
accommodate water, sewer, cable, telephone, gas and (2) separate electrical utilities.
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 / or site plan. Email to:
wdavis@cstx.gov or ehorton@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 Weldon Davis at
979.764.5027 or Eric Horton at 979.764.6280.
Reviewed by: Weldon Davis
TxDOT Comments
Date: 1.26.11
As Commented December 3, 2010 - Lakeway Drive is proposed to intersect the
northbound SH 6 frontage road in the vicinity of the existing entrance -ramp gore. The
location of this access point will be required to meet current regulations for access to
state highways including criteria for proximity to ramp gores. Provided information is not
sufficient to determine if the proposed location meets regulations. Future access to
development in Lot 6 and Lot 7 should be from the proposed public streets and not from
the SH 6 frontage road. Appropriate data, including drainage, must be submitted and
approved prior to any future work/permits in State ROW.
Reviewed by: Chad Bohne Date: January 27, 2011
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box
9960
1/ College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
r n UA A.Gl: STATION
Jr—AdM Uxlwviry•
MEMORANDUM
March 24, 2011
TO: John P. Cunningham, via email: locunningham(cDswmail.sw.org
and via regular mail: 2401 South 31It Street, Temple Texas, 76508
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka. AICP. Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Scott & White Hospital 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 by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review:
City of College Station Transmittal Letter;
Cover memo providing written responses to all of staff's comments (identify the
specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not
addressing the comment);
Four (4) revised site and one (1) landscaping plan;
Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the
applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the
Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If 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
Jennifer Prochazka at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: Joel Bock, P.E., Jacobs Engineering, via email: IOel.bock(cDIacobs.com
Chris Davis, via email: chris.c.davis(cDiacobs.com
Case file #11-00500005
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: Scott & White Hospital (Sp) — 11-00500005
PLANNING
1. The sheets in the construction doc set and the sheets in the site plan sets were different
(even when titled the same) — showing different information (different layers on). Comments
may be confusing depending on which version of each sheet we were reviewing at the time.
2. Please correct dates of submittal.
3. Indicate proposed driveway throat length according to LIDO, Article 7.3. on all driveways
from public roadways.
4. Please dimension the width of the driveways at the right-of-way/property line.
5. Please provide a curb and pavement detail on the site plan (may be kept on "site plan detail"
sheet, but the detail sheet needs to always remain in the site plan set).
6. Thank you for providing the square footage of the proposed parking islands. The minimum
end island size is 180 square feet for a single row of parking and 360 square feet for a
double row. Please increase the size of the islands not meeting this requirement.
7. Please label location of required bike rack capable of holding at least 8 bicycles and located
within 150 feet of the primary entrance of each structure (or tenant). Three bike rack details
have been provided. Which is proposed? None of them are as depicted in the College
Station Site Design Standards, but can be reviewed by our Greenways Coordinator once I
know which one is proposed and where it will be located, clear spaces, etc.
8. Pedestrian walkways are required to connect public street sidewalks, all parking areas and
other buildings with the primary structure. In locations where the walkway is within a parking
lot area, it needs to be clearly designated using brick pavers or a stamped dyed concrete
pattern. Please indicate on the site plan the cross walks to be stamp/dyed. These
walkways are required to be a minimum of 5 feet wide (please dimension). The cross walk
detail does not provide any information on the stamp pattern or color. Also, please indicate
that the color will be integral.
9. Please label all easements, whether existing or proposed, including type (ie: Public Access
Easement, Public Utility Easement) and volume and page. For easements being dedicated
with the plat, please label it with v_, p_ so that the V/P can be added once the plat is
filed, prior to site plan approval. Easements should be dimensioned (ie: 20' PUE) and
leaders should be used to show the limits of the easement. As a reminder, "sidewalk
easements" have been requested to be called "Public Access easements." Public Access
easements elsewhere on the site should also be depicted on the site plan.
10. Please show locations of fire department connections on site plans.
11. Is a footprint available for the clinic building yet? If details for the clinic are not shown at this
point, that portion of the site will need to go through the site plan review process separately
prior to building permit.
12. The clinic is shown in "building data" on the site plan as 94,000 and in "parking data" as
150,000.
13. Please show the limits of and label as retention pond on all sheets.
14. Please provide information (on the site plan) about the treatment of concrete structures in
the detention pond (including the concrete headwall). Any structure with over 6" of vertical
concrete are required to be treated so as to replicate stone, wood, etc. and need to be
complementary to the buildings on site. If the structure is under water ALL of the time, the
treatment is not necessary.
15. Please call out any vertical concrete exceeding 6". In all cases vertical concrete over 6"
must be screened (or aesthetically enhanced), in detention ponds it is required to be
stamped and dyed to resemble stone, wood, etc. As an example, the 4'x4' -4-sided inlet (on
page CS106) appears to exceed 6" and must be screened.
16. Please call out location of proposed solid waste/sanitation containers. How is the site
proposed to be serviced? How is this area proposed to be screened?
17. Screening is required for the recycler and bailer. How will this be accomplished? The
previous response was "screening is provided by landscaping," but this is not the case
(these items sit within a large concrete area with no landscaping — trees / shrubs along the
street, approximately 10 feet lower than the service area will not screen). 100% screening is
required.
18. Please show the extents (and call out height and material) of the proposed screening for the
transformers, genset, oxygen tanks, convault, etc.
19. Please show fire lanes on site plans. There locations have been provided on the
striping/paving plan, but I need to match them up with site grading, curb radii, hydrants and
FDCs.
20. Based on the striping/paving plan, fire lanes have been proposed on a variety of pavement
thicknesses. The minimum thickness of the concrete fire lane section is 6" (#4 bars, 18 o.c.).
21. Fire lanes are required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide and the max grade is 6% (notes
stated 15% max).
22. She C-510 includes a fire lane striping detail that does not meet College Station standards
(page 12 of the Site Design Standards), which require all curb and curb ends to be painted
red with 4" white lettering stating "FIRE LANE — NO PARKING — TOW AWAY ZONE."
Wording may not be spaced more than 15' apart. In areas where there are fire lanes, but no
curb, there are options of signs or striping. The striping runs behind all parking spaces and
are marked with a continuous 8" red stripe. The red stripe will contain the same wording
and size as above.
23. Please define the 500 s.f. public plaza area and proposed elements required by Section
7.95.1. Details required.
24. Please call out any fencing proposed. None was previously noted, however I saw in the
construction plans that chain link fencing is proposed. Chain link fencing is required to be
screened.
25. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). Berms shown need to be
extended to meet this requirement. This requirement is along all rights -of -way.
26. Please show the limits of the site plan (37.12 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 — based on last FP
submittal). Please revise the vicinity map to show only the site plan area.
27. Again, using varied line weights and shades of black/gray would make the sheets more
readable. Same line weights are being used for topo, building footprint, sidewalks, parking
striping, utilities, easements, etc. all in one area.
28. Please be sure that all necessary labels are visible (ie: CS104 has a topo label covering the
dimension of the driveway (since I can extrapolate the topo number from other topos
provided, the width of the driveway is more important in this case).
29. Please remove the "accepted for construction" certificates. We will add City of College
Station stamps when approved.
30. 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: Jennifer Prochazka Date: March 24, 2011
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. To avoid confusion, please title the landscape plans as such and not "site plan."
2. Previous comment: The landscape plan should include the following minimum information
(some of this may have been included, but because there are so many lines of the same
weight on the plan, it is difficult to tell the extents of easements, etc.):
a. The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the tract
b. Locations and dimensions of structures, parking lots, drives, sidewalks, solid waste
areas, concrete structures.
c. The location and dimensions of all easements on or adjacent to the lot.
d. Indication of the thoroughfare types adjacent to the development
3. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). Berms shown need to be
extended to meet this requirement. This requirement is along all rights -of -way.
4. Please add the following note to the landscape plan or site plant (found it in the construction
doc set, please move): "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."
5. Thank you for providing a darker line to indicate area to be developed. The "area to be
developed" should include only the hospital site (lot 1, Block 1) and not all of the subdivision
improvement areas. The area included in the point calculations is 1,695,971 s.f. (38.93
acres), however the site area shown on the site plan is 37.64 acres (Lot 1, Block 1 is 37.12
on latest FP submittal). If you want to broaden the site plan scope to include these other
areas, plantings will be required for the additional acreage and street trees will be required
along the rights -of -way. Please contact me if you need further clarification.
6. Plantings in the right-of-way (median in roundabout) should be on a separate PIP (Private
Improvements in a Public Right -of -Way) application, and should not be included with the
landscape plan.
7. Please identify existing trees to remain, their species and sizes, and show trees barricaded
(on the LS plan). I found this info in the construction doc set on the tree survey — please
include only the information on the trees to be saved on the drawing. The tree survey info
on the trees being removed is not necessary. Also, please provide verification that the
barricades were in place prior to any site grading (Kitchell should have this). If the required
barricades are not maintained during construction, barricaded points will be forfeited.
8. I have attached the City of College Station approved plant list so that you can evaluate the
proposed trees. Since the plan now breaks out the trees into canopy & non -canopy, I can
provide the following additional comment:
a. Big Toothed Maple is not included on the approved plant list. Based in information
that I found, it may not be tolerant of saline soils. Generally, we consider a canopy
tree as one with a minimum 40-foot spread at maturity. I found conflicting
information on spread.
b. Goldenrain Tree is considered a non -canopy tree.
c. Mexican Sycamore is not on the approved list. Based on information that I found, it
may not be cold tolerant.
d. Texas Red Oak is not specifically listed in the approved plant list, however Q.
Texana is — is this the same? We have Q. Texana listed under Shurmard Oak. Are
they different names for the same tree?
e. Lacebark Elm is considered a non -canopy tree.
f. Oklahoma Redbud and Goldenball Lead Tree are not on the City's approved list for
non -canopy trees
g. Non -canopy tree sizes need to be provided in minimum caliper for a single cane.
h. Fyi - Mimimum shrub size for points (10 points) / screening is 5 gallons.
i. The following shrubs proposed on the landscape plan are approved for screening:
Glossy Abelia and Pineapple Guava.
j. The minimum spacing for shrubs used as screening is 3 feet, minimum height is 3
feet.
k. Japanese Viburnum is not on the City's plant list.
I. Once points have been recalculated, be sure to retain at least 50% of the points
earned by canopy tree planting.
9. Street frontage lengths used to determine the required number of street trees for each
street. — don't match up with the area labeled "Area to be Developed."
10. As previously stated: point credits will be awarded for % of required landscape points (prior
to streetscape points), not provided points. Credit still being analyzed using percentage of
provided points, not required. Please contact me if you need clarification. Please also note
how the point credit is being earned (ie: water -conserving irrigation system by wet pond and
condensation collection). What are the "special features" areas that are proposed for point
credits?
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: March 24, 2011
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum Breaker, a Reduced
Pressure Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double -Check Back Flow Device, and installed
as per City Ordinance 2394.
2. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance
2394.
(please include this information with the landscape plan or irrigation plan — not the general site
notes that are only included in the construction doc set).
FIRE
1) Show F.D.0 location (Page CS106)
2) Detail shows 2' ribbon curb for Ariel Access Easement. The ribbon curb delineating Ariel
Access Easement should be 6" (six inches) (Page CS107)
3) What awnings (size, height, locations) are planned on the building?
4) The drive width from the large circle round -a -bout to the front of the hospital shows to be Fire
Lane. The drive width is only 16' and too small. This area does not have to be fire lane for the
hospital development, but may be needed for future development. (Page CS201)
5) Detail for "Fire Lane Stripping" is not correct. Detail should show "Fire Lane, No Parking,
Tow Away Zone"
Reviewed by: Steve Smith Date: 03/25/2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
1. (Repeat) Please label all easements with width, volume, and page number. If the easement
has not been dedicated, please leave blanks to be filled in later.
2. (Repeat) Plan and profile drawings and an engineer's cost estimate are required for
additional public water infrastructure.
3. (Repeat) FYI... The Development Permit Fee is 1 % of the total public infrastructure costs,
not to be less than $600. This may result in additional development permit fees being due
prior to construction and/or site plan approval.
4. (Repeat) FYI ... All easements will need to be dedicated prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy (CO).
5. (Repeat) General Note #1 should specify that a "TxDOT" permit is required for construction
within the SH6 Frontage Rd. right-of-way.
6. (Repeat) All applicable notes need to be included on the site plan rather than just referenced
in General Note #3.
7. (Repeat) General Note #6 should also apply where the sidewalks intersect a public right-of-
way.
8. (Repeat) General Note #7 needs to be more specific about which plans it is referencing.
9. (Repeat) Please include the minimum, average, and maximum water and sanitary sewer
demands on the site plan.
10. (Repeat) Please show and label the fire hydrants, fire lines, fire department connections,
isolation valves, and fire suppression lines.
11. (Repeat) Please add the following note to the site plan: "All Fire Suppression Lines shall
have a lockable lid on the City's isolation valve. The lockable lid shall, at a minimum, supply
the equivalent protection as the AM Pro USA, LL562 Locking Lid. Alternate lockable lids
shall be approved by the College Station Utilities Director or his designee."
12. Drainage Report - Please provide an updated report with all the design information
regarding the wet pond.
13. Water Report - Please provide an updated fire flow report with fire flow information
regarding the hospital building.
14. Sanitary Sewer Report - Please provide a letter indicating the proposed flows from this
development.
15. C005 - Seeding and hydromulch notes do not meet our standard Specs 32 92 13 and 32 92
19. Please revise.
16. C005 - Revise Fire Note #1 to include that waterline and fire hydrants must also be
accepted by the City prior to combustibles being brought on -site.
17. C005 - Fire Note #5 should indicate " 100-ft" rather than " 150-ft."
18. C005 - Fire Note #6 needs to be per our Site Design Standards.
19. C005 - Fire Note #10 should say "6%" rather than "15%."
20. C005 - Fire Note #1 5-We require that all fire hydrants be painted red.
21. C005 - Please add note indicating that Spec 33 12 19 must be followed for fire hydrants.
22. CS201/C510 - Note #1 does not meet our Site Design Standards.
23. (Repeat) The drive proposed to connect to Healing Way should be adjusted to provide an
extended throat depth.
24. On the site plan, the building size, material type, and whether or not it will be sprinkled
needs to be noted.
25. CS201 - "Light Traffic" concrete is specified for much of the fire lanes. These need to be
built to City standards for fire lanes.
26. CS201 - Please provide referenced details for all pavements.
27. CG107 - Show and label the 100-yr spillway for the wet pond.
28. CU201-302 - At all water/sanitary sewer crossings, the both pipes need to be labeled with
flowlines and TCEQ requirements need to be noted (i.e. center one joint of pipe, etc.).
29. CU301-302 - Fire suppression lines and isolation valves need to be shown and labeled.
30. Site Plan - The Harley Water Impact Fee note (same as on Final Plat) needs to be on the
site plan.
31. CU106 — Please label all fire hydrants and revise label to read 1-6" GV.
32. CU301-302 — Label bends on all waterlines.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: 3/24/11
Engineering Comments (Visibility Easements)
1. Current visibility language in the LIDO indicates 3 to 9 ft clear. Your current proposal
indicates trees within the visibility easement with branches below 6 ft to be removed and
maintained. Trees in the visibility easement are not ideal as they must be maintained as
noted, and specifically the 6 ft (vs 9 ft)may block traffic signage. Low landscaping should be
selected that can be maintained to be less than 3 ft - or ideally relocated just beyond of the
visibility easement. Low plantings within the visibility easement eliminate the benefit of
removing the standard berm. I would suggest you consider reducing the 20 ft (setback) for
the visibility easement to 15 ft and actually keep it clear of all plantings and depicted tree
drip lines.
2. The S&W signature sign must be relocated 15 or so feet further from the roundabout to
ensure the beginning of the 50 ft driver line of sight is clear. (The concept plan should be
not interpreted lock in this level of design detail.)
3. Patterned, colored concrete is allowed in lieu of pavers for the internal portion of the
roundabout pavement. If patterned, then intergral coloring to concrete is required as
opposed to post staining. Additionally, there should be minor mountable raised edge
leading into the patterned section.
4. Detailed gutter elevations and drainage flow direction around the roundabout in 25 ft
spacings should be provided to ensure positive drainage and no bird ponding.
5. Low landscaping/plantings in the circle should be submitted as a PIP (Private Improvements
in Public ROW) application.
Reviewed by: Alan Gibbs Date: 3/24/11
SANITATION
1. Please provide information.
Reviewed by: Wally Urritia Date 3-23-11
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Easements on site are existing. Electric facilities will be designed within existing easements,
where applicable.
2. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
3. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
4. If applicable, the following easements will be required: The PUE along Medical Avenue
from Lake Way running north to Rock Prairie Road will need to be cleared of all trees
to facilitate the joint overhead power line for CSU and BTU. It is critical since this will
provide the backup feed for the hospital.
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, street lighting 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 / or site plan. Email to:
wdavis@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 Weldon Davis at
979.764.5027.
Reviewed by: Weldon Davis Date: 3.23.11
College Station Plant List
This list recommends several species that do well in the College Station area. Not every species will
perform well in all locations, and some species have detriments that need to be considered. Careful
evaluation of the site, soils, available growing area, and climate needs to be exercised when selecting
species. The legend below indicates how certain plantings may be utilized within a landscape plan
according to Section 7.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance. In addition, this legend also shares
information regarding other specific attributes.
Qualifications Legend
*Recommended by Texas Forest Service for Brazos County
1=streetscape planting
2=screening
3=salt tolerant
4=evergreen
5=low water usageldrought tolerant
6=high water usage
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box
9960
1/ College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
r n UA A.Gl: STATION
Jr—AdM Uxlwviry•
MEMORANDUM
May 4, 2011
TO: John P. Cunningham, via email: locunningham(cDswmail.sw.org
and via regular mail: 2401 South 31It Street, Temple Texas, 76508
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka. AICP. Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Scott & White Hospital 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:
City of College Station Transmittal Letter;
Cover memo providing written responses to all of staff's comments (identify the
specific page that each comment was addressed on or the reason for not
addressing the comment);
Four (4) revised site and one (1) landscaping plan;
Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the
applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the
Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If 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
Jennifer Prochazka at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: Joel Bock, P.E., Jacobs Engineering, via email: IOel.bock(cDIacobs.com
Chris Davis, via email: chris.c.davis(cDiacobs.com
Peggy Carrasquillo, via email: peggy.carrasguillo(cDiacobs.com
Case file #11-00500005
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: Scott & White Hospital (Sp) — 11-00500005
PLANNING
1. Based on our conversation, the following comments pertain to the construction document
set and not the site plan that will be submitted at a later date (and ultimately included in the
construction document set). Further review cycles will be needed to ensure that the correct
information is included on the site plans.
2. In general, the legends are lacking symbols. If a symbol is on that sheet, the legend on that
sheet should include it. Unused symbols should not be included in a legend.
3. Labels are generally lacking.
4. Please correct dates of submittal.
5. Again, please dimension the width of the driveways at the right-of-way/property line. The
dimensions remain interior to the site and are different than the widths at the property line.
6. Minimum pavement section requires #4 bars, 18" o.c. (again, the curb/pavement detail will
need to be with the site plan).
7. Please label the crosswalks as such and refer to the associated stamped dyed concrete or
paver details. Again, the cross walk detail does not provide any information on the stamp
pattern or color. Again, please indicate that the color will be integral.
8. Again, please use leaders to show the limits of easements. Again, "sidewalk easements"
have been requested to be called "Public Access easements."
9. Again, please show the limits of and label as retention pond on all sheets.
10. Screening is still not shown for the switchgears.
11. Again, please define the 500 s.f. public plaza area and proposed elements required by
Section 7.95.1. Details required. (a site plan requirement).
12. Response to comments states that no fencing is included on site, but I still find chain link
fencing shown associated with the helipad. Chain link fencing is required to be screened.
13. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). The 3-foot height
requirement has still not been met.
14. Please show the limits of the site plan (37.12 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 — based on last FP
submittal). Still showing 37.64 as overall site area.
15. Again, using varied line weights and shades of black/gray would make the sheets more
readable. Same line weights are being used for topo, building footprint, sidewalks, parking
striping, utilities, easements, etc. all in one area.
16. Based on the wheel stop detail provided, the 18.5 foot spaces along the main drive aisle (at
a minimum width) will be reduced to 16 feet in length. Is this correct?
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.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: May 4, 2011
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
Previous comment: The landscape plan should include the following minimum information
(some of this may have been included, but because there are so many lines of the same
weight on the plan, it is difficult to tell the extents of easements, etc.):
a. The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the tract
b. Dimensions of structures, parking lots, drives, sidewalks, solid waste areas, concrete
structures.
c. The location and dimensions of all easements on or adjacent to the lot.
d. Indication of the thoroughfare types adjacent to the development
Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). Minimum 3' screening
has still not been provided.
Please remove landscape information off site. Off site improvements will not be part of this
site plan approval.
Site area still shown to be 37.64 (although the correct size — 37.12acres was used for calcs).
As previously requested, please identify existing trees to remain, their species and sizes,
and show trees barricaded (on the LS plan). I found this info in the construction doc set on
the tree survey — please include only the information on the trees to be saved on the
drawing (45 trees). The tree survey info on the trees being removed is not necessary. Also,
please provide verification that the barricades were in place prior to any site grading (Kitchell
should have this). If the required barricades are not maintained during construction,
barricaded points will be forfeited.
Two barricade details were provided — Sheet c502 and Sheet L110. The detail used should
show that full extents of all canopies a barricaded.
Again, dimensions along the tract will help me verify street frontage lengths used to
determine the required number of street trees for each street.
As previously stated: point credits will be awarded for % of required landscape points (prior
to streetscape points). The credit is being analyzed using overall point requirement,
including streetscape — this is incorrect. Again, I need information on the "special feature"
areas that are proposed for point credits — not seeing anything on the plans. 20% credit has
been claimed for this — meaning that 2% of the site (or 32,339 square feet) is proposed as a
special public feature.
Non -canopy tree sizes need to be noted for a single cane in the legend.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka
Date: May 4, 2011
FIRE
1) Show F.D.0 location - label on site plan. Show in locations previously discussed (due
+6% and fence).
2) Fire lane needs to be in the drive aisle closest to the building at the rear.
3) Information related to awnings or canopies in areas near fire lanes needs to be finalized
prior to the site plan being approved.
Reviewed by: Steve Smith Date: 5/3/2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
1. (Repeat) Please label all easements with width, volume, and page number. If the easement
has not been dedicated, please leave blanks to be filled in later. Easements for waterlines
need to be labeled as PUEs including widths throughout so we can verify that our
infrastructure is properly located within the PUE and private improvements are
outside of them.
2. (Repeat) Plan and profile drawings and an engineer's cost estimate are required for
additional public water infrastructure. Revise per plan changes and sign/seal estimate.
3. (Repeat) FYI... The Development Permit Fee is 1 % of the total public infrastructure costs,
not to be less than $600. This may result in additional development permit fees being due
prior to construction and/or site plan approval.
4. (Repeat) FYI ... All easements will need to be dedicated prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy (CO).
5. (Repeat) General Note #6 should also apply where the sidewalks intersect a public right-of-
way.
6. (Repeat) General Note #7 needs to be more specific about which plans it is referencing.
7. (Repeat) CS101 - The Harley Water Impact Fee note (same as on Final Plat) needs to be
on the site plan.
8. (Repeat) CS101 - Please show and label the fire hydrants, fire lines, fire department
connections, isolation valves, and fire suppression lines. Please add to CS101.
9. (Repeat) CS101 - On the site plan, the building size, material type, and whether or not it will
be sprinkled needs to be noted. Please include material construction type and state
that the building is sprinkled on the site plan.
10. CS102 - Can this sheet be omitted? It doesn't appear to be adding information.
11. CS107 - Please show the detention/wet pond.
12. CS103 - Please provide details for the proposed right turn lane, as with the previously
approved Subdivision Improvement Plans.
13. CS103 - Why is the accessible ramp back at the curb return rather than closer to the main
drive?
14. CS103 - Please show the sidewalk along Rock Prairie Rd. and tying into the public
sidewalk.
15. CS104-107 - Please identify the crosswalk paver sections.
16. CS104-107 - Please label all accessible ramps. Some appear to be labeled in the wrong
location, as well.
17. CS104-107 - Please provide accessible ramps by handicapped parking.
18. (Repeat) CS201 - "Light Traffic" concrete is specified for much of the fire lanes. These
need to be built to City standards for fire lanes. Should DI-3 say "Heavy" Traffic?
19. (Repeat) CS201/C510 - Note #1 does not meet our Site Design Standards. Please match
Fire Dept. Note #6 from Sheet C-005.
20. CS201 - Paver cross walks should be shown and labeled.
21. CG102-107 - You may consider adding additional manholes on long stretches of pipe
and/or at bends for maintenance purposes.
22. CG102/103 - Please remove private junction boxes and inlets out of the PUE.
23. CU104-106 - Please fill in missing water and sanitary sewer flowlines on the Utility Crossing
Table.
24. (Repeat) CU105-106/301-302 - Fire suppression lines and isolation valves need to be
shown and labeled. Please clearly label isolation valves.
25. (Repeat) CU301-302 - Label bends on all waterlines.
26. CU105 - The FDC does not appear to be within 150-ft of a fire hydrant. Please adjust.
27. CU106 - Please verify that a 10-inch waterline is necessary for the fire suppression line.
28. CU106/301-302 - Please label the water meter sizes.
29. (Repeat) CU301-302 — At all water/sanitary sewer crossings, the both pipes need to be
labeled with flowlines and TCEQ requirements need to be noted (i.e. center one joint of
pipe, etc.).
30. CU301 — Please show the water/sanitary sewer crossing near Station 1+00.
31. CU301/302 — Each of the PVI either need to be labeled as a specific bend or as a deflection
with the proposed radius.
32. CU301/302 — The minimum 4-ft cover needs to be provided.
33. CU301/302 — Bends or deflections are not permitted at joints. Please revise.
34. CU302 — The FDC needs to be located such that it is not obstructed by parking.
35. E102 — On Scott & White Dr. between Rock Prairie and the roundabout, it looks like the
spacing would support another light pole.
36. E102 — On Medical Ave. between Rock Prairie Rd. and Double Mountain Rd., it looks like
the spacing would support another light pole.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 5/6/11
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
(Repeat) CU301/302 — The minimum 4-ft cover needs to be provided over the waterline.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 5/13/11
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box
9960
1/ College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570/Fax 979.764.3496
r n UA A.G15$T\TION
Jr—AdM Uxlwviry•
MEMORANDUM
June 9, 2011
TO: John P. Cunningham, via email: locunningham(cDswmail.sw.org
and via regular mail: 2401 South 31It Street, Temple Texas, 76508
FROM: Jennifer Prochazka. AICP. Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Scott & White Hospital 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. The next submittal will be the fifth
formal review by staff. A $932 processing fee will need to be submitted to cover the cost of the
reviews that have occurred past the initial three (3) reviews.
City of College Station Transmittal Letter;
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);
Seven (7) complete sets of site civil 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
Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the
applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the
Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If 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
Jennifer Prochazka at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: Joel Bock, P.E., Jacobs Engineering, via email: IOel.bock(cDIacobs.com
Chris Davis, via email: chris.c.davis(cDiacobs.com
Peggy Carrasquillo, via email: peggy.carrasguillo(cDiacobs.com
Case file #11-00500005
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 4
Project: Scott & White Hospital (SP) — 11-00500005
PLANNING
1. FYI -"Site Plan" refers to CS101-CS107. CS201. CS202. C-509 — C-512.
2. Please update the page # / title schedule on the coversheet — Landscape page numbers
have changed.
3. FYI - Proposed landscape screening for switchgears may need to be field fit to
accommodate clearance needs for worker safety.
4. Response comments state that the public plaza area "will be built once donors have funded
this part of the project..." To clarify, the public plaza area will need to be completed with the
minimum required elements prior to C.O.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: June 9, 2011
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
Thank you for your email on June 9, 2011 providing verification of barricaded trees prior to
any site work. Please submit a hard copy of this information for the file with your next
submittal. As stated in my email dated June 9, 2011, any of the larger trees where the tree
protection clearly does not extend past the drip line should earn only non -protected points.
This shouldn't negatively affect your overall points.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: June 9, 2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 4
1. (Repeat) CU105-106/301-302 — Fire suppression lines and isolation valves need to be
shown and labeled. Please make sure the isolation valves are within a PUE. Also,
try to move them to an area that is not under pavement.
2. (Repeat) CU301/302 — The minimum 4-ft cover needs to be provided. Most of the
waterline looks like it has adequate cover. The area around Station 6+50 was the
only area that still looks deficient.
3. CS101 — Why is the average water demand less than the minimum? Please revise.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 6/9/11
2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78746 U.S.A.
1.512.314.3100 Fax 1.512.314.3135
June 13, 2011
Ms. Jennifer Prochazka
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: Scott & White Hospital (SP)—11-00500005
Comment Response Letter #4 — Planning Comment Response
Dear Ms. Prochazka:
0
Please accept this letter as our formal comment response to both your Site Plan comments dated June 9,
2011. Your comments are in below and our responses follow.
PLANNING
1. FYI -"Site Plan" refers to CS101-CS107, CS201, CS202, C-509 — C-512.
RESPONSE: Agreed. 2 copies of all of these sheets are separately submitted from the main
sheet set.
2. Please update the page # / title schedule on the coversheet — Landscape page numbers
have changed.
RESPONSE: Cover sheet updated.
3. FYI - Proposed landscape screening for switchgears may need to be field fit to
accommodate clearance needs for worker safety.
RESPONSE: Agreed. We will coordinate with CS Electric during landscape installation.
4. Response comments state that the public plaza area "will be built once donors have funded
this part of the project..." To clarify, the public plaza area will need to be completed with the
minimum required elements prior to C.O.
RESPONSE: Understood that the public plaza area will need to be completed with the minimum
required elements prior to C.O.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: June 9, 2011
LAN DSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. Thank you for your email on June 9, 2011 providing verification of barricaded trees prior to
any site work. Please submit a hard copy of this information for the file with your next
submittal. As stated in my email dated June 9, 2011, any of the larger trees where the tree
protection clearly does not extend past the drip line should earn only non -protected points.
This shouldn't negatively affect your overall points.
RESPONSE: Hard copy submittal of these items included in this package.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka
Date: June 9, 2011
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 4
1. (Repeat) CU105-106/301-302 — Fire suppression lines and isolation valves need to be
shown and labeled. Please make sure the isolation valves are within a PUE. Also,
try to move them to an area that is not under pavement.
RESPONSE: Isolation valve for the hospital fire line at approx Sta 2+00 brought into PUE but
will stay in the pavement due to utility alignment. Isolation valve for the clinic fire line at approx
Sta 14+90 adjusted to outside of pavement and kept within easement. The contractor has been
made aware of these changes.
2. (Repeat) CU301/302 — The minimum 4-ft cover needs to be provided. Most of the
waterline looks like it has adequate cover. The area around Station 6+50 was the
only area that still looks deficient.
RESPONSE: Final grading adjusted to increase the cover on the pipe in order to maintain
minimum of 4-ft of cover and profile of waterline was maintained as per the previous submittal.
3. CS101 — Why is the average water demand less than the minimum? Please revise.
RESPONSE: Average water demand recalculated to be the average of the minimum and
maximum daily flows.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 6/9/11
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project further, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
J /elock PE
Project Manager
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
"' 2705 See Cave Road, Suite 300
JACOBSAustin, Texas 78746 U.S.A.
1.512.314.3100 Fax 1.512.314.3135
June 2, 2011
Ms. Jennifer Prochazka
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: Scott & White Hospital (SP)—11-00500005
Comment Response Letter #3 — Planning Comment Response
Dear Ms. Prochazka:
Please accept this letter as our formal comment response to both your Site Plan comments dated May 4,
2011. As you know, the final plat for this project has been recorded on 5-27-11.
Your comments are in below and our responses follow.
PLANNING
1. Based on our conversation, the following comments pertain to the construction document
set and not the site plan that will be submitted at a later date (and ultimately included in the
construction document set). Further review cycles will be needed to ensure that the correct
information is included on the site plans.
RESPONSE: Site plan comments were addressed on all sheets with specific attention to your
comments to be addressed on the CS101-CS202 sheets per city site plan checklist items.
2. In general, the legends are lacking symbols. If a symbol is on that sheet, the legend on that
sheet should include it. Unused symbols should not be included in a legend.
RESPONSE: Legends updated.
3. Labels are generally lacking.
RESPONSE: Labels updated.
4. Please correct dates of submittal.
RESPONSE: Submittal date updated to June 2.
5. Again, please dimension the width of the driveways at the right-of-way/property line. The
dimensions remain interior to the site and are different than the widths at the property line.
SPONSE: Driveway widths dimensioned at public ROW on all CS sheets.
6. Minimum pavement section requires #4 bars, 18" o.c. (again, the curb/pavement detail will
eed to be with the site plan).
R PONSE: Pavement section for all pavement types updated on C509 showing #4 bars.
Please label the crosswalks as such and refer to the associated stamped dyed concrete or
paver details. Again, the cross walk detail does not provide any information on the stamp
pattern or color. Again, please indicate that the color will be integral.
RESPONSE: Crosswalks, with integral color and stamp pattern, updated in the sheets and on
the detail.
8. Again, please use leaders to show the limits of easements. Again, "sidewalk easements"
have been requested to be called "Public Access easements."
RESPONSE: Leaders added and PAE easements callouts updated, as recorded by final plat.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
9. Again, please show the limits of and label as retention pond on all sheets.
RESPONSE: Wet pond extents labelled.
10. Screening is still not shown for the switchgears.
RESPONSE: Screening requirements to be met with planting instead of walls around the
switchgears and this is shown on C106.
11. Again, please define the 500 s.f. public plaza area and proposed elements required by
Section 7.9.F.1. Details required. (a site plan requirement).
R SPONSE: Public plaza definition and proposed elements updated on L101. This plaza will be
b It once donors have funded this part of the project and it will meet or exceed the city
r quirements.
12. Response to comments states that no fencing is included on site, but I still find chain link
fencing shown associated with the helipad. Chain link fencing is required to be screened.
RESPONSE: Chain link fence around the helipad is eliminated and an aluminum picket fence is
proposed and shown on CS202.
13. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). The 3-foot height
requirement has still not been met.
2---RESPONSE: All berms within 100 feet of the property line updated per your redlines.
14. Please show the limits of the site plan (37.12 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 — based on last FP
submittal). Still showing 37.64 as overall site area.
RESPONSE: Limits of the 37.12 site plan now shown on the title block (for acreage) and on the
site plan sheets.
15. Again, using varied line weights and shades of black/gray would make the sheets more
readable. Same line weights are being used for topo, building footprint, sidewalks, parking
striping, utilities, easements, etc. all in one area.
RESPONSE: Line weights and shading have been adjusted for clarity.
16. Based on the wheel stop detail provided, the 18.5 foot spaces along the main drive aisle (at
a minimum width) will be reduced to 16 feet in length. Is this correct?
RESPONSE: Wheel stops have been eliminated on all parking spaces that are not HC.
Additionally, sidewalk width has been increased from 5' to 6' along these areas.
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: All changes to the site plan are a result of city comments.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: May 4, 2011
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
LAN DSCAPING/STREETSCAPI NG/BUFFER
1. Previous comment: The landscape plan should include the following minimum information
(some of this may have been included, but because there are so many lines of the same
weight on the plan, it is difficult to tell the extents of easements, etc.):
a. The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the tract
b. Dimensions of structures, parking lots, drives, sidewalks, solid waste areas, concrete
structures.
c. The location and dimensions of all easements on or adjacent to the lot.
d. Indication of the thoroughfare types adjacent to the development
RESPONSE: Information updated for Items A-D.
2. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). Minimum 3' screening
has still not been provided.
RESPONSE: All berms within 100 feet of the property line updated per your redlines.
3. Please remove landscape information off site. Off site improvements will not be part of this
site plan approval.
RESPONSE: Offsite landscaping has been removed.
4. Site area still shown to be 37.64 (although the correct size — 37.12acres was used for calcs).
RESPONSE: Limits of the 37.12 site plan now shown on the title block (for acreage) and on the
site plan sheets.
5. As previously requested, please identify existing trees to remain, their species and sizes,
and show trees barricaded (on the LS plan). I found this info in the construction doc set on
the tree survey — please include only the information on the trees to be saved on the
drawing (45 trees). The tree survey info on the trees being removed is not necessary. Also,
please provide verification that the barricades were in place prior to any site grading (Kitchell
should have this). If the required barricades are not maintained during construction,
�g barricaded points will be forfeited.
�(f RESPONSE: Tree list and calculations have been updated on the landscape sheets.
6. Two barricade details were provided — Sheet c502 and Sheet L110. The detail used should
i show that full extents of all canopies a barricaded.
RESPONSE: Tree barricades/protection detail is now the same for both civil/landscape
components and is shown on both C501 and C109.
7. Again, dimensions along the tract will help me verify street frontage lengths used to
determine the required number of street trees for each street.
RESPONSE: Dimensions added on all CS sheets for public street frontage lengths.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
8. As previously stated: point credits will be awarded for % of required landscape points (prior
to streetscape points). The credit is being analyzed using overall point requirement,
including streetscape — this is incorrect. Again, I need information on the "special feature"
areas that are proposed for point credits — not seeing anything on the plans. 20% credit has
been claimed for this — meaning that 2% of the site (or 32,339 square feet) is proposed as a
special public feature.
RESPONSE: Point credit tables have been updated per City requirements.
9. Non -canopy tree sizes need to be noted for a single cane in the legend.
RESPONSE: Included on the plant schedule on L108.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: May 4, 2011
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project further, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
A/IVI
Joel Bock, PE
Project Manager
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
L
June 2, 2011
Ms. Jennifer Prochazka
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78746 U.S.A.
1.512.314.3100 Fax 1.512.314.3135
RE: Scott & White Hospital (SP) — 11-00500005
Comment Response Letter #3 — Planning Comment Response
Dear Ms. Prochazka:
Please accept this letter as our formal comment response to both your Site Plan comments dated May 4,
2011. As you know, the final plat for this project has been recorded on 5-27-11.
Your comments are in below and our responses follow.
PLANNING
1. Based on our conversation, the following comments pertain to the construction document
set and not the site plan that will be submitted at a later date (and ultimately included in the
construction document set). Further review cycles will be needed to ensure that the correct
information is included on the site plans.
RESPONSE: Site plan comments were addressed on all sheets with specific attention to your
comments to be addressed on the CS101-CS202 sheets per city site plan checklist items.
2. In general, the legends are lacking symbols. If a symbol is on that sheet, the legend on that
sheet should include it. Unused symbols should not be included in a legend.
RESPONSE: Legends updated.
3. Labels are generally lacking.
RESPONSE: Labels updated.
4. Please correct dates of submittal.
RESPONSE: Submittal date updated to June 2.
5. Again, please dimension the width of the driveways at the right-of-way/property line. The
dimensions remain interior to the site and are different than the widths at the property line.
RESPONSE: Driveway widths dimensioned at public ROW on all CS sheets.
6. Minimum pavement section requires #4 bars, 18" o.c. (again, the curb/pavement detail will
need to be with the site plan).
RESPONSE: Pavement section for all pavement types updated on C509 showing #4 bars.
7. Please label the crosswalks as such and refer to the associated stamped dyed concrete or
paver details. Again, the cross walk detail does not provide any information on the stamp
pattern or color. Again, please indicate that the color will be integral.
RESPONSE: Crosswalks, with integral color and stamp pattern, updated in the sheets and on
the detail.
8. Again, please use leaders to show the limits of easements. Again, "sidewalk easements"
have been requested to be called "Public Access easements."
RESPONSE: Leaders added and PAE easements callouts updated, as recorded by final plat.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
9. Again, please show the limits of and label as retention pond on all sheets.
RESPONSE: Wet pond extents labelled.
10. Screening is still not shown for the switchgears.
RESPONSE: Screening requirements to be met with planting instead of walls around the
switchgears and this is shown on C106.
11. Again, please define the 500 s.f. public plaza area and proposed elements required by
Section 7.9.F.1. Details required. (a site plan requirement).
RESPONSE: Public plaza definition and proposed elements updated on L101. This plaza will be
built once donors have funded this part of the project and it will meet or exceed the city
requirements.
12. Response to comments states that no fencing is included on site, but I still find chain link
fencing shown associated with the helipad. Chain link fencing is required to be screened.
RESPONSE: Chain link fence around the helipad is eliminated and an aluminum picket fence is
proposed and shown on CS202.
13. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). The 3-foot height
requirement has still not been met.
RESPONSE: All berms within 100 feet of the property line updated per your redlines.
14. Please show the limits of the site plan (37.12 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 — based on last FP
submittal). Still showing 37.64 as overall site area.
RESPONSE: Limits of the 37.12 site plan now shown on the title block (for acreage) and on the
site plan sheets.
15. Again, using varied line weights and shades of black/gray would make the sheets more
readable. Same line weights are being used for topo, building footprint, sidewalks, parking
striping, utilities, easements, etc. all in one area.
RESPONSE: Line weights and shading have been adjusted for clarity.
16. Based on the wheel stop detail provided, the 18.5 foot spaces along the main drive aisle (at
a minimum width) will be reduced to 16 feet in length. Is this correct?
RESPONSE: Wheel stops have been eliminated on all parking spaces that are not HC.
Additionally, sidewalk width has been increased from 5' to 6' along these areas.
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: All changes to the site plan are a result of city comments.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: May 4, 2011
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
LAN DSCAPI NG/STREETSCAPI NG/BUFFER
1. Previous comment: The landscape plan should include the following minimum information
(some of this may have been included, but because there are so many lines of the same
weight on the plan, it is difficult to tell the extents of easements, etc.):
a. The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the tract
b. Dimensions of structures, parking lots, drives, sidewalks, solid waste areas, concrete
structures.
c. The location and dimensions of all easements on or adjacent to the lot.
d. Indication of the thoroughfare types adjacent to the development
RESPONSE: Information updated for Items A-D.
2. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive
aisles) within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). Minimum 3' screening
has still not been provided.
RESPONSE: All berms within 100 feet of the property line updated per your redlines.
3. Please remove landscape information off site. Off site improvements will not be part of this
site plan approval.
RESPONSE: Offsite landscaping has been removed.
4. Site area still shown to be 37.64 (although the correct size — 37.12acres was used for calcs).
RESPONSE: Limits of the 37.12 site plan now shown on the title block (for acreage) and on the
site plan sheets.
5. As previously requested, please identify existing trees to remain, their species and sizes,
and show trees barricaded (on the LS plan). I found this info in the construction doc set on
the tree survey — please include only the information on the trees to be saved on the
drawing (45 trees). The tree survey info on the trees being removed is not necessary. Also,
please provide verification that the barricades were in place prior to any site grading (Kitchell
should have this). If the required barricades are not maintained during construction,
barricaded points will be forfeited.
RESPONSE: Tree list and calculations have been updated on the landscape sheets.
6. Two barricade details were provided — Sheet c502 and Sheet L110. The detail used should
show that full extents of all canopies a barricaded.
RESPONSE: Tree barricades/protection detail is now the same for both civil/landscape
components and is shown on both C501 and C109.
7. Again, dimensions along the tract will help me verify street frontage lengths used to
determine the required number of street trees for each street.
RESPONSE: Dimensions added on all CS sheets for public street frontage lengths.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
8. As previously stated: point credits will be awarded for % of required landscape points (prior
to streetscape points). The credit is being analyzed using overall point requirement,
including streetscape — this is incorrect. Again, I need information on the "special feature"
areas that are proposed for point credits — not seeing anything on the plans. 20% credit has
been claimed for this — meaning that 2% of the site (or 32,339 square feet) is proposed as a
special public feature.
RESPONSE: Point credit tables have been updated per City requirements.
9. Non -canopy tree sizes need to be noted for a single cane in the legend.
RESPONSE: Included on the plant schedule on L108.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: May 4, 2011
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project further, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
Joel Bock, PE
Project Manager
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
&- \\ 0 \
RTITKC7=11
March 17, 2011
Ms. Jennifer Prochazka, AICP
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: Scott & White Hospital (SP)-11-00500005
Comment Response Letter #1
Dear Ms. Prochazka:
2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78746 U.S.A.
1.512.314.3100 Fax 1.512.314.3135
Please accept this letter as our formal comment response to both your Site Plan comments dated Jan 31,
2011.
Your comments are in below and our responses follow.
PLANNING
,,1/ Please include the following required information in the title block of all site plan and
landscape plan sheets:
a. Name, address, location, and legal description (as it will be platted).
b. Name, address and telephone number of the applicantlowner.
Name, address and telephone number of the engineer.
9C.)Date of submittal (corrected).
e. Total site area.
RESPONSE: Provided.
Please label the ownership and zoning of all adjacent parcels (including all lots created by
the Scott & White plat).
.RESPONSE: Adjacent Zoning is indicated on sheet CS101. We will also provide ownership.
Please include a note on the site plan referencing the zoning, including the ordinance
number.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
4'.." Please include the gross square footage of all buildings and structures and the proposed
use of each. Please indicate buiLdirlgJp_ca ij gn morq dearly throughout the set. 511.
ESPONSE: We will provide.
,,9.' Please include the required setbacks on the site plan.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
Please include a note stating that no floodplain exists on site and reference the FEMA/FIRM
panel number.
,,RESPONSE: We will provide.
Please include existing topography (2' max or spot elevations) and proposed grading (1'
max or spot elevations).
ESPONSE: We will provide.
lease remove the words "primary road" and "secondary road" from the public rights -of -way.
,RESPONSE: We will remove.
r9 Label distances between driveways/streets, both opposite and adjacent according to the
UDO, Article 7.3.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
!-
r
/,�gESPONSE: We will provide.
10. dicate proposed driveway throat length according to UDO, Article 7.3.
RESPONSE: Per the UDO Section 7.3.C.7.h the minimum throat length to a Collector is 25
feet; Minor Arterial 40 feet and Major Arterial 55 feet. Also stated is that more intense uses
(i.e., shopping center) are a minimum of 130 feet. As per the compromise meeting, the
hospital and clinic is not similar to a shopping center and utilizes 4 separate connections to
area roadways (driveway at Healing Way, S&W Drive, Rock Prairie and Medical Ave.
Additionally, the hospital and clinic operate with staggered shift changes, leading to off-peak
traffic generation that should not cause significant stacking with future end users of these
collector streets. Therefore, we maintain that all parking lot driveway throat lengths be
maintained as shown in the plans on this submittal, with the driveway onto Healing Way
shown as 60' of throat length.
11 Please dimension the width of the driveways at the right-of-way/property line.
t RESPONSE: We will provide.
r 2. Please provide a curb and pavement detail on the site plan.
r1�� j✓'- (/ RESPONSE: See sheets from site plan construction plan set.
Label proposed medians.' !
RESPONSE: We will provide. )�• sr'
314. Provide the square footage of each end island and all interior parking islands.
RESPONSE: See sheets from landscape plan set.
15. lease label location of required bike rack capable of holding at least 8 bicycles and located
within 150 feet of the primary entrance of each structure (or tenant) Please provide detail of
J\I bike rack in compliance with the City's site design standards.
ESPONSE: rovide on site p� n sheep
16. edestrian wa ways are required to connect public street sidewalks, all parking areas and
other buildings with the primary structure. In locations where the walkway is within a parking
lot area, it needs to be clearly designated using brick pavers or a stamped dyed concrete `
pattern (please provide detail). These walkways are required to be a minimum of 5 feet Yv ,
wide.
RESPONSE: Proposed sidewalks and crosswalks will be stamped dyed concrete. `
Please dimension the distance from the property line to the closest point of parking areas
RESPONSE: We will provide.
18. Please label all easements, whether existing or proposed, including type (ie: Public Access
Easement, Public Utility Easement) and volume and page. For easements being dedicated
with the plat, please label it with v_, p_ so that the V/P can be added once the plat is
filed, prior to site plan approval. Easements should be dimensioned (ie: 20' PUE) and
leaders should be used to show the limits of the easement.
ESPONSE: We will provide.
lease include utilities (both on site and adjacent to the site) on the site plan noting size , J `
and designate as existing or proposed. •, t.
i
ESPONSE: We will provide. Imo'
lease show and label all utility connection points, transformers, fire hydrants, etc.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
?f1 Please include all symbols used on the plans in the legend. Symbols not used should not
be included in the legend. Symbols that are small or may be unclear should also be labeled
on the drawing.
RESPONSE: We will provide as closely as possible.
2Z'`Please show and label all meter locations.
i
-�'��"thy ,=,'�,•'{��:� �� z ,
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
Provide a water and sanitary sewer legend on the site plan that includes the following
information: minimum water demands, maximum water demands, average water demands
in gallons per minute, and maximum sewer loadings in gallons per day.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
;A9p
Section 7.9 requires that one of three parking concepts be used (Section 7.9.6.6) to break
ithe parking lot area and minimize visual impact. Please show how this requirement has
JZ"peen met.
RESPONSE: Parking Concept 2 is being used. See supplemental color Exhibit for more
',---.detail. Provided is a total of 48,318 square feet of interior landscape islands (not including
the end islands) for 1,284 Parking Stalls. (See attached exhibit for locations) Only 19,260
square feet is required to meet Parking Concept 2.
?,/. Why does the 30' drive (from the north -south public access easement) turn into a 23-foot
drive aisle along the hospital development? This is a primary entrance and circulation aisle
and the Public Access Easement was required to break block length in lieu of a collector
roadway. Please make this drive 30 feet.
RESPONSE: Per the PDD the revised UDO table within Section 7.2.C. indicates two way
drive aisle widths as 23 feet. In addition the Preliminary Plat was approved indicating a 22.5
foot public access easement. We will be revising the 30 foot sections to a 23 foot section per
omment 40 below.
.26
lease show all fire lanes.47
RESPONSE: We will provide °
k27- ,Please show locations of fire hydrants an fire department connections?,
� RESPONSE: As per comment 20 above �e will provide.
28. Fease show the limits of (and lab the detention pomp "A'b4l . x
WESPONSE: Pond limits are showevidE tabels.
Please provide detail of the retaining wall. Vertical concrete over 6" is required to be
enhanced (such as stamped and dyed) or screened
RESPONSE: We will provide-
30. Please provide information (on the site plan) about the treatment of concrete structures in
the detention pond. Any structure with over 6" of vertical concrete are required to be treated
so as to replicate stone, wood, etc. and need to be complementary to the buildings on site.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
Please indicate the overall height of the structures on the site plan.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
A Private Improvement in a Public ROW (PIP) permit will be required for the private medians
,n proposed in the public right-of-way (ie: where private drive meets public street) or the
median should be moved back to be wholly contained on private property.
17 RESPONSE: We will submit for the appropriate PIP permit when the roundabout design is
B N =V' r alized with your team.
Rainwater harvesting was included as part of the PDD. Are there any structures or any
infrastructure associated with this?
RESPONSE: The entire storm drainage system is associated with this from the building and
parking lots to and including the on -site water quality and detention pond.
,54'Please include details of proposed screening for utility connection points, the transformers
(leaving clearances), the generators, fuel tank, etc. Screening is required to be coordinated
with the building architecture. Elevations of such screening should be made a part of the
Non -Residential Architectural Standards submittal.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
RESP ONSE: Screening will be provided and be coordinated with the building architecture.
35.;Please call out location of proposed solid waste/sanitation containers. How is the site
proposed to be serviced? How is this area proposed to be screened?
RESPONSE: We will indicate trash compactor location. Screening is provided by
=w' landscaping.
��} = Please include a note defining building plot. Based on the zoning of the property, each of
the original seven tracts were considered to be a building plot for signage, landscape, and
Non -Residential Architectural Standards.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
37. lease define the 500 s.f. public plaza area and proposed elements required by Section
9.17.1. Details required.
f- ESPONSE: An 11,000 square foot plus Healing Garden area is indicated on sheet L101.
Detailed plans have not been prepared as S&W is awaiting donor input.
3 Please show berms on the site plan. Berms are required to screen any parking located
g �� within 100 feet of the public right-of-way, per the PDD zoning. If berms are not used, please
" dicate the screening method.
^"4-^ a`'"RESPONSE: We will provide. Where berms are not provided landscape screening has
been.
39 Section 7.9.E.4.d. requires that a 10-foot sidewalk be constructed along the full frontage of
any fagade facing a public right-of-way (north, south, west). A waiver was granted with the
PDD zoning to the requirement to have tree wells within these sidewalks, but the trees were
ir quired to be planted adjacent to the sidewalk.
ESPONSE: As per the compromise meeting, the hospital and clinic is not similar to a
shopping center and utilizes select entrance locations (versus a strip shopping center or
office building). The entry areas provide a minimum of 10 foot wide sidewalks while the
walkways connecting these entries and the parking areas provide a minimum 5 foot
connecting sidewalk. Our team feels this system of walkways meets the intent of the LIDO to
_ ovide access around the building as well as any life/safety issues.
,, ••r r lease indicate your proposal for traffic calming along the entrance drive from Rock Prairie
G ' Road, as was indicated during the rezoning hearings.
RESPONSE: We provided an island separating the entry and exit lanes. In addition we will
be revising the 30 foot sections to a 23 foot section as narrower drives have been proven,
based on a combined study between the Urban Land Institute (ULI) & National Home
Builders Assoc.(NHBA), to be the best traffic calming method.
Provide a general note on the site plan 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: We will provide a note.
' XProvide a general note on the site plan that states the following: Exterior building and site
lighting will meet the standards of Section 7.10 of the Unified Development Ordinance. The
light source shall not project below an opaque housing and no fixture shall directly project
light horizontally. Fixtures will be mounted in such a manner that the projected cone of light
does not cross any property line.
RESPONSE: We will provide a note indicating the above along with the approved PDD
requirements.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
�- +
43. 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: Noted.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: January 30, 2011
`t/aN DSCAPI NG/STREETSCAPI NG/BUFFER
(j✓1. The landscape plan should include the following minimum information:
a. The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the tract
b. Topographic information and final grading adequate to identify and properly specify
planting areas needing slope protection, berms, etc.
c. Locations and dimensions of structures, parking lots, drives, sidewalks, solid waste
areas, fences, concrete structures, visible utility connection pints, etc.
d. The location of existing and proposed utilities and all easements on or adjacent to the
lot
e. Indication of the thoroughfare types adjacent to the development
RESPONSE: We will provide.
2. Please use a darker line to indicate area to be developed. All proposed landscaping
(including existing trees to remain) need to be in the area. Include overall area in s.f. or
acres on the landscape plan.
RESPOSE: We will provide.
Please identify existing trees to remain, show trees barricaded (barricade plan) and provide
a detail of the proposed barricading. The barricades must be in place prior to any
development permit being issued and must remain in place until site work is complete.
RESPONSE: Existing trees to remain are shown. We will provide a legend or notes as
needed..
4. Please include the required landscape point calculations on the landscape plan, including
the additional streetscape points required.
RESPOSE: Landscape points were calculated and approved within the PDD. The PDD
requirements are noted on sheet L101.
5. Please include the street frontage lengths used to determine the required number of street
trees for each street.
RESPONSE: Street lengths and Tree requirements were calculated and approved within the
PDD. The PDD requirements are noted on sheet L101.
6. The doubled landscape points and point credits should be prior to streetscaping points being
added in (calculations not shown).
RESPONSE: Landscape points were calculated and approved within the PDD. The PDD
requirements are noted on sheet L101.
7. Point credits will be awarded for % of required points, not provided.
RESPONSE: No landscape point credits are required as we are exceeding the required
minimum points.
8. Landscaping is required within and integrated with the detention pond (see Section 7.12).
RESPONSE: This has been provided as the landscaping within and around the on -site
water quality and detention pond are designed and planted as native prairie and wildflower
areas.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
9. Are berms proposed for parking screening from the right-of-ways? If so, please label and
provide detail and dimensions of the berm. If not, please label proposed screening.
RESPONSE: We will provide. Where berms are not provided landscape screening has
been.
10. The landscape plan should show all areas to be screened by landscaping (ie: transformers,
concrete retaining walls, utility connection points, dumpster enclosures, etc.).
RESPONSE: We will provide.
11. 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: We will provide a note.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: January 25, 2011
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum Breaker, a Reduced
Pressure Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double -Check Back Flow Device, and installed
as per City Ordinance 2394. Please add note to the plan.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
2. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance
2394. Please add note to the plan.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
TRANSPORTATION
1. The Site Plan Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is consistent with the zoning TIA and its
mitigation requirements.
2. Lakeway drive pavement width and cross section should match pavement width of
section of Lakeway built east of Lowes and St Joseph clinic.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
3. Rock Prairie deceleration lanes lengths are in compliance.
4. The deceleration lengths for the right turns on SH 6 NB frontage roads are short in
length based on TxDOT's design manual and being confirmed by TxDOT.
RESPONSE: We have received TxDOT permits) for all 3 driveways and 2 decel lanes
and have forwarded these permits previously.
5. Please include traffic control plans for the construction of the deceleration lanes on SH
6 frontage Rd and Rock Prairie Rd based on TMUTCD guidelines,
RESPONSE: We will provide.
6. Please include permanent pavement marking and signing layouts for proposed
thoroughfares.
RESPONSE: This was provided on sheet CS101. We will provide notes and or legend
as necessary.
Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, ACID, PTP, Transportation Planning Coord. Date: 1/25/2011
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
Site Plan
1. Please label all easements with width, volume, and page number. If the easement has
not been dedicated, please leave blanks to be filled in later.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
2. Plan and profile drawings and an engineer's cost estimate are required for additional
public water infrastructure.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
3. FYI ... The Development Permit Fee is 1 % of the total public infrastructure costs, not to
be less than $600. This may result in additional development permit fees being due
prior to construction and/or site plan approval.
4. FYI ... All easements will need to be dedicated prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy (CO).
5. The Public Access Easement needs to allow for connectivity with unblocked pedestrian
and bicyclist access.
RESPONSE: This has been provided with the proposed network of public roads, private
access easements, driveways and sidewalks.
6. Show and label all proposed water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure
including size, material, and slope (if applicable). If they are shown in detail on a
separate set of plans, please clearly reference the plans.
RESPONSE: Provided.
7. Label the streets, right-of-way widths, and driveways.
RESPONSE: Street and right-of-way widths are labels on sheet CS101, 104, 106, and
107. We will provide driveway labels.
8. FYI ... A revised Oil Well Permit and Site Plan will be required for the Uvacek Well Site
since revisions are being made to their site. This will need to occur simultaneous with
this application and be approved prior to Scott & White site plan approval.
9. Curb and ramp details need to be provided on the site plan.
RESPONSE: We will provide curb details. There are no ramps within the project site as
the slope is 5% or less for all sidewalks and access points.
10. Please show a minimum 2-ft existing and proposed contours.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
11. Please show and label the proposed water meters and sizes.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
12. General Note #1 should specify that a "TXDOT' permit is required for construction within
the SH6 Frontage Rd. right-of-way.
RESPONSE: We will revise note to provide.
13. All applicable notes need to be included on the site plan rather than just referenced in
General Note #3.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
14. General Note #6 should also apply where the sidewalks intersect a public right-of-way.
RESPONSE: We will revise the note to include intersections with streets.
15. General Note #7 needs to be more specific about which plans it is referencing.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
16. General Note #8 - Please specify what the clearance distance is between.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
17. Please include the minimum, average, and maximum water and sanitary sewer
demands on the site plan.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
18. Please show and label the fire hydrants, fire lines, fire department connections, isolation
valves, and fire suppression lines.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
19. Please add the "Isolation Valve" Note.
RESPONSE: We will provide a note.
20. Please label fire lanes.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
21. If a flume is referenced, it needs to be shown graphically (i.e. Site Plan "E").
RESPONSE: The flume is graphically indicated on the plan. A detail will be provided.
22. Drainage structures on Site Plan "F" need to be labeled.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
23. Temporary culdesacs/turnarounds need to be provided at all dead-end public streets.
Additionally, a Temporary Turnaround Easement needs to be dedicated prior to site plan
approval.
RESPONSE: All streets are concrete — no asphalt. We will add barricades at the point of
tangency for the curb returns so as to prevent turning movements onto these streets..
24. A Temporary Blanket Easement for electrical infrastructure needs to be dedicated prior
to site plan approval.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
25. Please add the following note to the site plan: "All Fire Suppression Lines shall have a
lockable lid on the City's isolation valve. The lockable lid shall, at a minimum, supply the
equivalent protection as the AMPro USA, LL562 Locking Lid. Alternate lockable lids
shall be approved by the College Station Utilities Director or his designee."
RESPONSE: We will provide a note.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: 1 /31111
FIRE
1) Aerial Access Easement requirement will be on the East side of the structure using material
capable of 80,000 psi. Signed letter from Bock and engineer with material company needed.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
2) Show F.D.C. locations
RESPONSE: We will provide.
3) Show Fire Lanes
RESPONSE: We will provide.
Reviewed by: Steve Smith
Date: 01/31/2011
SANITATION
1. Need to show dumpster pad or trash compactor location on site plan.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia
Date: January 25, 2011
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. A temporary blanket easement for the electrical underground that will service the
transformers since this is not in a dedicated easement at this time.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
2. A 35' easement in total width from the common line of the Scarmardo tract to Lakeway
Drive.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
3. Developer will be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
4. A 35' easement from Lakeway Drive to the common corner of the Bert Wheeler parcel. To
accommodate water, sewer, cable, telephone, gas and (2) separate electrical utilities.
RESPONSE: We will provide.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices
and extend as required.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
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: Comment noted.
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU
specs and design.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design (pull
boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU).
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and / or site plan. Email to:
wdavis@cstx.gov or ehorton(a)cstx.gov.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
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: Comment noted.
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: Comment noted.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Weldon Davis at
979.764.5027 or Eric Horton at 979.764.6280.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Reviewed by: Weldon Davis
Date: 1.26.11
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
TxDOT Comments
As Commented December 3, 2010 - Lakeway Drive is proposed to intersect the
northbound SH 6 frontage road in the vicinity of the existing entrance -ramp gore. The
location of this access point will be required to meet current regulations for access to
state highways including criteria for proximity to ramp gores. Provided information is not
sufficient to determine if the proposed location meets regulations. Future access to
development in Lot 6 and Lot 7 should be from the proposed public streets and not from
the SH 6 frontage road. Appropriate data, including drainage, must be submitted and
approved prior to any future work/permits in State ROW.
RESPONSE: Noted. TxDOT driveway permits for all 3 driveways have been granted and
have been forwarded to City staff.
Reviewed by: Chad Bohne
Date: January 27, 2011
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project further, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
�AW___
Joel Bock, PE
Project Manager
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Mi e
April 28, 2011
Ms. Jennifer Prochazka, AICP
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: Scott & White Hospital (SP)—11-00500005
Comment Response Letter #2
Dear Ms. Prochazka:
2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78746 U.S.A.
1.512.314.3100 Fax 1.512.314.3135
Please accept this letter as our formal comment response to both your Site Plan comments dated March
24, 2011.
Your comments are in below and our responses follow.
FaWEVOURM
1. The sheets in the construction document set and the sheets in the site plan sets were different (even
when titled the same) — showing different information (different layers on). Comments may be
confusing depending on which version of each sheet we were reviewing at the time.
RESPONSE: As coordinated between Jennifer P. and Joel B, future site plan submittals, including
this submittal, will be prepared using the construction documents only, until we get to a "comments -
cleared" status, whereby we will coordinate on splitting up the sheets to create the "permit" set.
2. Please correct dates of submittal.
RESPONSE: Corrected to 4-28-11.
3. Indicate proposed driveway throat length according to UDO, Article 7.3 on all driveways from public
roadways.
RESPONSE: Driveway lengths now dimensioned.
4. Please dimension the width of the driveways at the right-of-way/property line.
RESPONSE: Driveway widths now dimensioned.
5. Please provide a curb and pavement detail on the site plan (may be kept on "site plan detail: sheet, but
the detail sheet needs to always remain in the site plan set).
RESPONSE: Comment noted. This detail is on C-509.
6. Thank you for providing the square footage of the proposed parking islands. The minimum end island
size is 180 square feet for a single row of parking and 360 square feet for a double row. Please
increase the size of the islands not meeting this require.
RESPONSE: Island sizes increased to meet or exceeed the UDO minimums.
7. Please label location or required bike rack capable of holding at least 8 bicycles and located within
150 feet of the primary entrance of each structure (or tenant). Three bike rack details have been
provided. Which is proposed? None of them are as depicted in the College Station Site Design
Standards, but can be reviewed by or Greenways Coordinator once I know which one is proposed and
where it will be located, clear spaces, etc.
RESPONSE: Bike rack capable of holding at least 8 bicycles added to the front of the hospital and
clinic buildings.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
vAnsf
8. Pedestrian walkways are required to connect public street sidewalks, all parking areas and other
buildings with the primary structure. In locations where the walkway is within a parking lot area, it
needs to be clearly designated using brick pavers or a stamped dyed concrete pattern. Please indicate
that the color will be integral.
RESPONSE: Stamped dye concrete pattern, with an integral color, will be provided. This requirement
is added to the construction documents on the site plan sheets CS103-CS107.
9. Please label all easements, whether existing or proposed, including type (i.e.: Public Access
Easement, Public Utility Easement) and volume and page. For easements being dedicated with the
plat, please label it with V, P so that the V/P can be added once the plat is filed, prior to
site plan approval. Easements should be dimensioned (i.e.: 20' PUE) and leaders should be used to
show the limits of the easement. As a reminder, "sidewalk easements" have been requested to be
called "Public Access Easements". Public Access easements elsewhere on the site should also be
depicted on the site plan."
RESPONSE: There is only 1 easement shown on the site plan, the waterline easement wrapping
around the building. Callout for V , P has been added to
10. Please show locations of fire department connections on site plans.
RESPONSE: FDC locations shown for hospital, back by the trash compactor on the south side, and
the clinic, next to the meter connection to the 12" main.
11. Is a footprint available for the clinic building yet? If details for the clinic are not shown at this point,
that portion of the site will need to go through the site plan review process separately prior to building
permit.
RESPONSE: Footprint is included in this submittal.
12. The clinic is shown in "building data" on the site plan as 94,000 and in "parking data" as 150,000.
RESPONSE:
13. Please show the limits of and label as retention pond on all sheets.
RESPONSE: Water Quality pond shown on sheet CG107. The layer control required for showing this
pond on all other sheets would negate the effectiveness of the information shown on the other sheets.
14. Please provide information (on the site plan) about the treatment of concrete structures in the
detention pond (including the concrete headwall). Any structure with over 6" of vertical concrete are
required to be treated so as to replicate stone, wood, etc. and need to be complementary to the
buildings on site. If the structure is under water ALL of the time, the treatment is not necessary.
RESPONSE: Water Quality pond outlet structure is significantly below the top of the pond. A 2 page
l 1x17 exhibit is provided to illustrate this and we request that screening not be required for this outlet
structure.
Please call out any vertical concrete exceeding 6" In all cases vertical concrete over 6" must be
screened (or aesthetically enhance), in detention ponds it required to be stamped and dyed to resemble
stone, wood, etc. As an example, the 4'x 4' — four sided area inlet (on page CS 106) appears to
exceed 6" and must be scr ed.
RESPONSE: On the sit , no concrete exceeds 6" that is not screened per the landscape sheets and
AI detail sheet C-512.
Please call out location of proposed solid waste/sanitation containers. How is the site proposed to be
serviced? How is this area proposed to be screened?
RESPONSE: Screening provided with vegetated screenwall as shown on the landscape sheets and
civil detail sheet C-512.
17. Screening is required for the recycler and bailer. How will this be accomplished? The previous
response was "screening is provided by landscaping" but this is not the case (these items sit within a
large concrete area with no landscaping — trees/shrubs along the street, approximately 10 feet lower
than the service area will not screen). 100% screening is required.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
RESPONSE: 100% screening is provided as shown on the landscape sheets and civil detail sheet C-
512.
18. Please show the extents (and call out height and material) of the proposed screening for the
transformers, genet, oxygen tanks, convault, etc.
RESPONSE: Vegetated screenwall at top elev of 296 is provided for the screening of the
transformers, genset and convault. Vegetated screenwall at top elev of 304 (10' high) is provided for
the screening of the oxygen tanks.
19. Please show fire lanes on site plans. The locations have been provided on the striping/paving plan, but
I need to match them up with site grading, curb radii, hydrants and FDCs.
RESPONSE: Fire lanes added to the site plan sheets.
20. Based on the striping/paving plan, fire lanes have been proposed on a variety of pavement
thicknesses. The minimum thickness of the concrete fire lane section is 6" (#4 bars, 18 o.c.).
RESPONSE: Comment noted. All fire lanes run across concrete section of 6" or greater #4 bars, 18
021
O.C.
Fire lanes are required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide and the max grade is 6% (notes stated 15%
max) -
RESPONSE: Note changed for all fire lanes to be greater than 20' wide and less than 6% slope or as
approved by the Fire Marshal.
22. Sheet C-510 included a fire lane striping detail that does not meet College Station standards (page 12
of the Site Design Standards), which require all curb and curb ends to be painted red with 4" white
lettering stating "FIRE LANE — NO PARKING — TOW AWAY ZONE." Wording may not be spaced
more than 15' apart. In areas where there are fire lanes, but no curb, there are option of signs or
striping. The striping runs behind all parking spaces and are marked with a continuous 8" red stripe.
The red stripe will contain the same working and size as above.
RESPONSE: Sheet C-510 detail and note #1 on left hand side of CS201 updated.
23. Please define the 500 s.f. public plaza area and proposed elements required by Section 7.91.1. Details
required.
RESPONSE: Details shown in the landscape sheets.
24. Please call out any fencing proposed. None was previously noted, however I saw in the construction
plans that chain link fencing is proposed. Chain link fencing is required to be screened.
RESPONSE: Chain link is for safety during construction. No other fencing is proposed.
25. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive aisles)
within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD zoning). Berms shown need to be extended to
meet this requirement. This requirement is along all rights -of -way.
RESPONSE: Berms adjusted per the latest site plan.
26. Please show the limits of the site plan (37.12 acres, Lot 1, Block 1 — based on last FP submittal).
Please revise the vicinity map to show only the site plan area.
RESPONSE: Vicinity map revised.
27. Again, using varied line weights and shades of black/gray would make the sheets more readable.
Same line weights are being used for top, building footprint, sidewalks, parking striping, utilities,
easements, etc. all in one area.
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
28. Please be sure that all the necessary labels are visible (i.e. CS104 has a topo label covering the
dimension of the driveway (since I can extrapolate the topo number from other topo's provided, the
width of the driveway is more important in this case).
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
29. Please remove the "accepted for construction" certificates. We will add City of College Station
stamps when approved.
RESPONSE: Certificates removed.
30. 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 of aware of will constitute a completely new
review.
RESPONS 6Noted) �
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: 3/24/11
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPINGBUFFER
VK To avoid confusion, please title the landscape plans as such and not "site plan"
RESPONSE: Noted.
2. The landscape plan should include the following minimum information:
a. The location of existing property lines and dimensions of the tract
b. Locations and dimensions of structures, parking lots, drives, sidewalks, solid waste areas,
fences, concrete structures, visible utility connection pints, etc.
c. The location of existing and proposed utilities and all easements on or adjacent to the lot
d. Indication of the thoroughfare types adjacent to the development
RESPONSE: Information added. i
3. Berms are required for parking screening along 100% of all parking areas (including drive aisles)
within 100 feet of the property line (based on PDD Zoning). Berms shown need to be extended to
meet this requirement. This requirement is along all rights -of -way.
RESPOSE: Berms added.
Please add the following note to the landscape plan or site plant (found it in the construction
document set, please move): "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.
5. Thank you for providing a darker line to indicate area to be developed. The "area to be developed"
should include only the hospital site (lot 1 Block 1) and not all of the subdivision improvement areas.
The area included in the point calculations is 1,695,971 s.£ (38.93 acres), however the site area
shown on the site plan is 37.64 acres (Lot 1 Block 1 is 37.12 on the latest FP submittal). If you want
to broaden the site plan scope to include these other areas, plantings will be required for the additional
acreage and street tees will be required along the rights -of -way. Please contact me if you need further
clarification.
RESPOSE: Noted.
6. Plantings in the right-of-way (median in roundabout) should be on a separate PIP (Private
Improvements in a Public Right -of -Way) application, and should not be included with the landscape
plan.
RESPONSE: Plantings removed from ROW and PIP is not intended to be applied for at this time.
7. Please identify existing trees to remain, their species and sizes, and show trees barricaded (on the LS
plan). I found this info in the construction document set on the tree survey — please include only the
information on the trees to be saved on the drawing. The tree survey information on the trees being
removed is not necessary. Also, please provide verification that the barricades were in place prior to
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
any site grading (Kitchell should have this). If the required barricades are not maintained during
construction, barricaded points will be forfeited.
RESPONSE: Noted.
8. I have attached the City of College Station approved plant list so that you can evaluate the proposed
tress. Since the plan now brraks out the trees into canopy & non -canopy, I can provide the following
additional comment:
a. Big Toothe Mape is not included on the approved plant list. Base in information that I found,
it may not be tolerant of saline soils. Generally, we consider a canopy tree as one with a
minimum 40-foot spread at maturity. I found conflicting information on spread.
b. Goldenrain Tree is considered a non -canopy tree.
c. Mexican Sycamore is not on the approved list. Based on information that I found, it may not
be cold tolerant.
d. Texas Red Oak is not specifically listed in the approved plant list, however Q. Texas is — is
this the same? We have Q. Texana listed under Shurmard Oak. Are they different names for
the same tree?
e. Lacebark Elm is considered a non -canopy tree.
f. Oklahoma Redbud and Goldenball Lead Tree are not on the City's approved list for non -
canopy trees.
g. Non -canopy tree sizes need to be provided in minimum caliper for a single cane.
h. FYI- Minimum shrub size for points (10 points)/screening is 5 gallons.
i. The following shrubs proposed on the landscape plan are approved for screening: Glossy
Abelia and Pineapple Guava.
j. The minimum spacing for shrubs used as screening is 3 feet, minimum height is 3 feet.
k. Japanese Viburnum is not on the City's Plant list.
1. Once points have been recalculated, be sure to retain at least 50% of the points earned by
canopy tree planting.
RESPONSE: Coordination on this comment is ongoing between Jennifer P. and Shawn M. and this is
not resolved at this time.
9. Street frontage lengths used to determine the required number of street trees for each street. — Don't
match up with the area labeled "Area to be developed."
RESPONSE: Noted.
10. As previously stated: point credits will be awarded for % of required landscape points (prior to
streetscape points), not provided points. Credit still being analyzed using percentage of provided
points, not required. Please contact me if you need clarification. Please also note how the poing credit
is being earned (i.e.: water -conserving irrigation system by we pond and condensation collection).
What are the "special features" areas that are proposed for point credits?
RESPONSE: Coordination on this comment is ongoing between Jennifer P. and Shawn M. and this is
not resolved at this time.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Prochazka Date: 3/24/11
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum Breaker, a Reduced Pressure
Principle Back Flow Device, or a Double -Check Back Flow Device, and installed as per City
Ordinance 2394.
RESPONSE: Comment addressed on Sheet L113.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
2. All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394.
Please add note to the plan.
RESPONSE: Comment addressed on Sheet L113.
FIRE
1. Show Dire Department Connection (CS 106)
RESPONSE: 2.5" Siamese Connection FDC shown at the building in the truck dock and on the clinic.
2. Detail shows 2' ribbon curb for Arial Access Easement installation as per City Ordinance 2394.
Please add note to the plan.
RESPONSE: Note added to Sheet CS107 in the ribbon curb callout.
3. What awnings (size, height, locations) are planned on the building?
RESPONSE: Awnings/Canopies are not finalized at this time and site plan updates will be submitted
to staff for review.
4. The drive width from the large circle round -a -bout to the front of the hospital shows to be Fire Lane.
The drive width is only 16' and too small. This area does not have to be fire lane for the hospital
development, but may be needed for future development. (Page CS201)
RESPONSE: Fire lane striping has been removed from these one-way driveways. Note the 16' lanes
are 1 way should a fire truck require access.
5. Detail for "Fire Lane Stripping" is not correct. Detail should show "FIRE LANE, NO PARKING,
TOW AWAY ZONE".
RESPONSE: Sheet C-510 detail and note #1 on left hand side of CS201 updated.
Engineering Comments Number 2
1. Please label all easements with width, volume, and page number. If the easement has not been
dedicated, please leave blacks to be filled in later.
RESPONSE: Completed
2. Plan and Profile drawings and an engineer's cost estimate are required for additional public water
infrastructure.
RESPONSE: Wastewater line in front of the hospital is not needing to be public at this time. For the
waterline, Plan and Profile drawings CU301 and CU302 and a draft engineer's cost estimate are
included in this submittal.
3. FYI... The Development Permit Fee is 1 % of the total public infrastructure cost, not to be less than
$600. This may result in additional development permit fees being due prior to construction and/or
site plan approval.
RESPONSE: Noted.
4. FYI... All easements will need to be dedicated prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy
(CO).
RESPONSE: Noted.
5. General Note #1 should specify that a "TxDOT" permit is required for construction within the SH6
Frontage Road right-of-way.
RESPONSE: Noted.
6. All applicable notes need to be included on the site plan rather than just referenced in General Note
#3.
RESPONSE: Noted.
7. General Note #6 should also apply where the sidewalks intersect a public right-of-way.
RESPONSE: Noted.
8. General Note #7 needs to be more specific about which plans it is referencing.
RESPONSE: Noted.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
9. Please include the minimum, average, and maximum, average, and maximum water and sanitary
sewer demands on the site plan.
RESPONSE: Added to CS201
10. Please show and label the fire hydrants, fire lanes, fire department connections, isolation valves, and
fire suppression lines.
RESPONSE: Fire hydrants, isolation valves and fire suppression lines shown on CU301 and CU302.
Fire lanes shown on CS201.
11. Please add the following note to the site plan: "All Fire Suppression Lines shall have a lockable lid on
the City's isolation valve. The lockable lid shall, at a minimum, supply the equivalent protection as
the AMPro USA, LL562 locking Lid. Alternate lockable lids shall be approved by the College Station
Utilities Director or his designee.
RESPONSE: Note added on CU301 and CU302.
12. Please provide an updated report with all the design information regarding the wet pond.
RESPONSE: Design information regarding the wet pond was included in the report as submitted and
approved for the subdivision and has been added to the CG drainage sheets.
13. Please provide an updated fire flow report with fire flow information regarding the hospital building.
RESPONSE: Fire flow report and supplement for the hospital was submitted and approved for the
subdivision.
14. Please provide a letter indicating the proposed flow from this development.
RESPONSE: Fire flow report and supplement for the hospital was submitted and approved for the
subdivision.
15. C005 — Seeding and hydromulch notes do not meet our standard Specs 32 92 13 and 32092 19. Please
revise.
RESPONSE: Note revised.
16. C005 — Revise Fire Note #1 to include that waterline and fire hydrants must also be accepted by the
City prior to combustibles being brought on -site.
RESPONSE: Note revised.
17. C005 — Note #5 should indicate "100-ft" rather "150-ft"
RESPONSE: Note revised.
18. C005 — Fire Note #6 needs to be per our Site Design Standards.
RESPONSE: Note revised.
19. C005 — Fire Note #10 should say "6%" rather than "15%".
RESPONSE: Note revised.
20. C005 — Fire Note #15 —we require that all fire hydrants be painted red.
RESPONSE: Note revised.
21. C005 — Please add note indicating that Spec 33 12 19 must be followed for fire hyrants.
RESPONSE: Note revised.
22. CS201/C510 —Note #1 does not meet our Site Design Standards.
RESPONSE: Need further coordination on this comment.
23. The drive proposed to connect to Healing Way should be adjusted to provide an extended throat
depth.
RESPONSE: Driveway location and layout was updated per the compromise reached on 4-20-11.
24. On the site plan, the building size, material type, and whether or not it will be sprinkled needs to be
noted.
RESPONSE: Need further coordination on this comment.
25. CS201 — "Light Traffic" concrete is specified for much of the fire lanes. These need to be built to
City standards for fire lanes.
RESPONSE: Concrete sections updated on Sheet CS201 for all fire lanes.
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
26. CS201 — Please provide referenced details for all pavements.
RESPONSE: Details included on Sheet C-509.
27. CG107 — Show and label the 100-yr spillway for the wet pond.
RESPONSE: Spillway added on Sheet
28. CU201-302 — At all water/sanitary sewer crossings, the both pipes need to be labeled with flowlines
and TCEQ requirements need to be noted.
RESPONSE:
29. CU301-302 — Fire suppression lines and isolation valves need to be shown and labeled.
RESPONSE:
30. Site Plan — The Harley Water Impact Fee note (same as on Final Plat) needs to be on the site plan.
RESPONSE:
31. CU106 —Please label all fire hydrants and revise label to read 1-6" GV.
RESPONSE: Labels added and revised.
32. CU301-302 — Label bends on all waterlines.
RESPONSE: Bends labelled
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges
Date: 3/23/11
ENGINEERING COMMENTS VISIBILITY EASEMENTS
1. Current visibility language in UDO indicates 3 to 9 ft clear. Your current proposal indicates trees
within the visibility easement with branches below 6 ft to be removed and maintained. Tress in the
visibility easement are not ideal as they must be maintained as noted, and specifically the 6 ft (vs 9 ft)
may block traffic signage. Low landscaping should be selected that can be maintained to be less than
3 ft — or ideally relocated just beyond of the visibility easement. Low plantings within the visibility
easement eliminate the benefit of removing the standard berm. I would suggest you consider reducing
the 20 ft (setback) for the visibility easement to 15 ft and actually keep it clear of all plantings and
depicted tree driplines.
RESPONSE: Signage, landscape species and placement adjusted for this requirement.
2. The S&W signature sign must be relocated 15 or so feet further from the roundabout to ensure the
beginning of the 50 ft driver line of sight is clear. (The concept plan should be lock in this level of
design detail.)
RESPONSE: Signage, landscape species and placement adjusted for this requirement.
3. Patterned, colored concrete is allowed in lieu of pavers for the internal protion of the roundabout
pavement. If patterned, then integral coloring to concrete is required as opposed to post staining.
Additionally, there should be minor mountable raised edge leading into the patterned section.
RESPONSE: Compromise design included in the subdivision improvement plans.
4. Detailed gutter elevations and drainage flow diretion around the roundabout in 25 ft spacings should
be provided to ensure positive drainage and no bird ponding.
RESPONSE: Compromise design included in the subdivision improvement plans.
5. Low landscaping/plantings in the circle should be submitted as a PIP (Private Improvements in Public
ROW) application.
RESPONSE: A PIP permit is not proposed at this time.
Reviewed by: Alan Gibbs Date: 3/24/11
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
SANITATION
1. Please provide information.
RESPONSE: Sanitation services coordination needed between S&W & City of College Station per
utility request letter dated 8-26-10.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia
Date: 3/23/11
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Easements on site are existing. Electric facilities will be designed within existing easements, where
applicable.
RESPONSE: Noted
2. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
RESPONSE: Noted
3. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is
installed within easement boundaries.
RESPONSE: Noted
4. If applicable, the following easements will be required: The PUE along Medical Avenue from Lake
Way running north to Rock Prairie Road will need to be cleared of all trees to facilitate the joint
overhead power line for CSU and BTU. It is critical since this will provide the backup feed for the
hospital.
RESPONSE: Noted
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
RESPONSE: Noted
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
RESPONSE: Noted
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
RESPONSE: Noted
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices and
extend as required.
RESPONSE: Noted
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: Noted
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU specs and
design.
RESPONSE: Noted
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design (pull boxes and
secondary pedestals provided by CSU).
RESPONSE: Noted
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and / or site plan. Email to:
wdavis@cstx.gov or ehortonncstx.gov.
RESPONSE: Noted
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: Noted
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
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: Noted
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Weldon Davis at 979.764.5027.
RESPONSE: Noted
Reviewed by: Weldon Davis Date:3/23/11
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the project further, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
Joe Bock, PE
Project Manager
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.