HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to CommentsCarol Cotter
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Ave. S.
College Station, Texas 77840
MITCHELL
MM
MORGAN
RE: Lofts Final Construction Plans -Engineering Review #6
Dear Carol:
May 19, 2008
I would like to thank you and Dave Coleman for coming to our offices on Friday to go over your fina l
comments on the Lofts -Wolf Pen Creek. As with any project of this size and complexity it is often
difficult to fully understand the comments expressed. By meeting and looking at the digital drawings
together we were ab le to very quickly look at different scenarios until we found a solution. That could
not have worked without yours and Dave's assistance!
I had mentioned that we would bubble everything that changed since the bid documents went out but
we have decided aga inst that as it made the drawings way too confusing. Rather we will send the
contractor a "bubbled" set for him to use as a reference and then the construction set is clean.
As requested we have made the following changes:
• Change the waterline as it "45"s around the building along Dartmouth to extend the straight run
and effectively move it further away from the building.
• Change the sanitary sewer profile to add additional pressure pipe where the waterline change
mentioned above affected the sanitary sewer line.
• We did not discuss this change on Friday, but we had not labeled the rubber gasketed sections
of private storm sewer lines as they go under the building. This has now been added.
Again, thank you for your help with this project. Once completed, it should be a wonderful asset to the
olf Pen Creek area.
Veronica J.B.
Managing Partner
Cc: Dave Coleman, Director of Water Services
Mark Lindley, Asset Plus
Natalie Ruiz, IPS
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.m1tchellandmorgan.com
MITCHELL
MM
MORGAN
Carol Cotter, Acting Development Engineer
City of College Station
Planning & Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek, Case File No. 07-00500247
Dear Carol,
March 31 , 2008
Attached are the following items for the Wolf Pen Creek Lofts Site Plan Review.
• One (1) set of revised construction documents
PLANNING'
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 4
Project: The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek
It is acknowledged that no comments were made, however if this changes please do not
hesitate to call (979) 260-6963.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 4
Comment:
Design Guidelines call for 2% slope-from property line to sidewalk.
Response:
The grading plan has been revised to account for the 2% slope from the property
line to the sidewalk.
Comment:
Per the 2006 Building Codes, a building permit is required for the retaining wall.
Response:
Retaining wall plans are included in this set.
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
Comment:
Are you proposing any sort of safety railing between property line and retaining wall?
Response:
Information on any railing will be submitted with the structural plans.
Comment:
Show required PU Es for water and sanitary sewer lines.
Response:
All proposed and existing PUE's are indicated on the plans.
Comment:
I only have Sheets 02, 06, 07, and 09. I am not comfortable permitting only a portion
of the water line without a revised Water Design report.
Response:
All sheets are in this submittal. The waterline will be constructed in its entirety.
Comment:
The aesthetics of the retaining wall need to be approved by Planning.
Response:
Information for the retaining wall is attached. It is a stone masonry wall.
Comment:
Please provide a revised Site Plan indicating any changes in number of units,
parking, etc.
Response:
There are no changes to the number of units and there is only one change to
parking and it occurs in the garage. There has been a loss of 2 parking spots in the
garage, but our original count was in error by 1 parking spot so the total parking
provided is 723.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
-
Cc. File
Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group
Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation
PLANNING
Comment:
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 4
Project: The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek
Repeat Comment: Please show the property line along Dartmouth St. based on
the final plat being filed (ROW dedicated).
Response: We have changed the very dark line to the new right-of-way line.
The old right-of-way line had to remain because it was an edge line to
easement dedications but we have made it very light.
Comment:
Repeat Comment: Please show the property line along Dartmouth St. based on
the ROW dedicated by separate instrument (as shown on the Landscape Plan).
The volume is 8296 and Page is 49 for this dedication.
Response: See response above.
Comment:
As stated in Engineering Comments No. 5, the proximity of the retaining wall
drop off near Manuel Drive poses a safety concern. Please provide the
handrail/guardrail at the top of the retaining wall as shown as an option on the
retaining wall building permit or provide fencing along this area of Manuel
Drive to act as a safety barrier.
Response: We have indicated on the site plan a fence line on the top of the
retaining wall and have stated for details see Sheet RW1.
Comment:
Since the proposed retaining wall is sloped, please verify that the base of it on
the west side of Building 6 does not encroach into the sidewalk required for
ADA accessibility.
Response: We have revised the retaining wall line type width in this area to
2'6" to show both the top (1 ') and maximum batter (1 '6"). It is important to
note that this sidewalk is not an ADA required ingress/egress.
Comment:
As stated in our April 16th meeting, Staff is concerned about the relationship of
the garage to the adjacent Richards Subdivision. In reviewing the revised South
Elevation and associated building permit, it appears that only 1.5 feet of
concrete with cables above it screen the vehicles and headlights. The East and
West garage sections, however, have concrete that is 3-foot 9-inches in height.
Please be aware that unless revised, Staff will express concerns about the
untreated concrete material and lack of adequate vehicle screening as part of
the presentation to DRB.
Response: There was some confusion on our part regarding this detail. We are
proposing a 42" concrete wall to screen the parking along the south elevation.
Revised garage plans will be submitted on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 showing the
concrete wall.
Comment:
Please address Engineering Comments No. 5.
Response: See engineering comments above.
Comment:
Please note that Brent Read, the project coordinator for Electric, has stated that
he was notified on May F regarding the developer's desire to redesign the
electric infrastructure from what was initially anticipated. Please be aware that
the Electric Department has stated that this redesign will take some time to
perform.
Response: We have shown an electrical reroute and will coordinate this
placement with electrical once they have completed their design.
Comment:
Please note that General Construction Note 19 was added to document the
ROW dedication for Holleman Dr. In short, UDO 7.1 .D.2 states that if the
remaining setback distance after dedication is still at least half of the standard
setback then it satisfies the full setback requirement. The required streetscape
and landscaping has already been placed outside of the ROW dedication area.
The only setback affected by dedication is the 10 foot setback for parking from
ROW, which with this provision could be reduced to 5 feet and still be
conforming. That setback is currently 13.65 feet so 8.65 feet could be
dedicated. Please consider an 8-foot dedication and revise the site plan
accordingly.
Response: We have revised the future right-of-way dedication along Holleman
to 8'. We have also added language to note #19 stating the setbacks on
Dartmouth & Holleman all being met thru UDO Section 7.1.D.2.
Comment:
Please note that any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested
by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter
and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that the
City has not been made aware of will constitute a completely new review.
Response: I think we have bubbled all additional changes.
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
Comment:
For the Hardscape, please provide color samples for the colors to be used for
the stamped and colored concrete (A, 8, & C) and the two stained concrete
colors.
Response: Color specifications to be submitted on Wednesday.
Comment:
In the Landscape Tabulations (Sheet L3.00), the 10% credit for enhanced paving
is only to be deducted from the total required points not also added to the
points provided calculation. Please revise.
Response: Revised on Sheet L3.00.
Comment:
Please revise the figure for reduction for enhanced paving from "-2, 129" to "-
2,082".
Response: Revised on Sheet L3.00.
Comment:
Add the plant legend back in, including the symbols of the plantings.
Response: Revised on Sheet L3.00.
,, -
MITCHELL
MM
MORGAN
May 12, 2008
Jason Schubert
City of College Station
Planning & Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek, Case File No. 07-00500247
Dear Jason,
Attached are the following items for the Wolf Pen Creek Lofts Site Plan Review.
• Ten (1 O) revised site plans
• Ten (1 O) revised landscape/hardscapey lans (only SJiee_ls_ L 1.00 & L3.00) J,.,._.. 4
• -€elor Samples OOt...Lf) '5.e.,{'" o+-re-vfSRct cons-trvuh'on O{,UA~~
The following will be submitted on Wednesday, May 14, 2008:
• Ten (1 O) sets of color building elevations (only Sheets A.400, A.4.01, &
A.4.06)
• One (1) sets of rev i!eel censtrl::lction decu11 1e11ts
Qo\or-6a.mptes
PLANNING
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3
Project: The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek
It is acknowledged that comments were made, however Natalie Ruiz of IPS has
already responded to these comments. If you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to call (979) 260-6963 .
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 5
Comment:
Remove private roof drains from PUE at rear of Building 1.
Response:
These roof drains have been moved to right outside the easement.
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
01-~~1 00-1~ -oY<
JD: 16
Ac-
Comment:
Verify all fire hydrants are located in PUEs.
Response:
All fire hydrants are now within PUEs.
Comment:
Waterline C -Note that deflection is along barrel of pipe and not at joints.
Response:
See Sheet 08, this note has been added.
Comment:
Any manholes in areas of ponding will need water tight lids.
Response:
We have looked at the grading plan along with the sanitary sewer lids and we
don't see any of the lids sitting in "ponding" areas.
Comment:
Provide manufacturers specifications for turfstone pavers to insure meets fire
Jane load requirements. Fire Marshall had requested a letter stating this.
~Response:
See attached.
Comment:
Once the turfstone pavers are installed, a letter from the engineer to the Fire
Marshall is required stating that the turfstone is installed to manufacturers
specifications.
~ esponse:
Acknowledged.
Comment:
It appears that additional FDCs will be required. These locations will be
determined from Fire Marshall review of fire sprinkler design by.
Comment:
You have provided replacement tables and Exhibits for the Drainage Report.
Please provide revised narrative portions as well. It will be very confusing to
others years from now to have one thing written and another depicted.
Response:
The drainage report has been revised to reflect the plan changes.
Comment:
The hydraulic gradeline is significantly above finished grade in many locations.
What is the flow pathway for the 100 year storm?
Response:
This occurs at SD6.1 and you will note that the lowest point in this profile is the
inlet at STA 8 + 06 on profile SD6.2. The throat of that inlet is 270.52' as seen
on Sheet 02. Water will pond to 272 in the back and then flow down the swale
behind building 2 toward Holleman where it will enter the two grate inlets. In
addition, as the HGL rises in the 5'x4' box water will exit the inlet in the front
parking lot once the HGL gets to 270.25 and their flow over the Holleman curb
at 271.15. The only other system which shows the HGL above finished grade is
that along Holleman. The overland relief here is to Holleman Drive and this
occurs once the water surface gets above 272.16.
Comment:
I am concerned about the close proximity of the retaining wall to the sidewalk
along Manuel Drive and the possibility of young children riding that close to
the 11 foot (in places) drop. I had inquired about a safety railing in previous
comments, but believe it should be a requirement. This should also be
considered all along the retaining wall perimeter since access between the ice
rink has preciously been mentioned. Are you fencing the site?
Response:
Sorry -We were always going to put a fence/handrail there, it was just
"floating" between who's sheet it would be shown on. See detail on Sheet 01
where we now call out a 48" wrought iron fence to be place on top of each
retaining wall.
Comment:
Verify electrical layout.
Response:
We have contacted electrical about the layout.
Response:
We have shown 2 FDC Locations if these need to be altered once the fire
sprinkler plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal please let us know and
we will revise accordingly.
Comment:
Ribbon curb standard detail and that shown in turfstone detail don't match.
Response:
The ribbon curb detail has been crossed out on the ST detail sheet. We need to
use the deeper ribbon curb for the aggregate base under the turfstone.
Comment:
Verify that the details shown for private c/eanouts meet plumbing code.
Response:
The sewer cleanout on Sheet 4 uses the same material and slope as city details.
We have added a note that this detail is intended to depict cleanout at the
building and does not supersede the city detail and the cleanout required at
right-of-way.
Comment:
Verify that the cleanout details shown on Sheet 04 are for private lines only and
indicate on plans. City standards details are provided on Sheet S and shall be
used as required.
Response:
The word private has been added to the title. See response above.
Comment:
Are the c/eanouts that are shown at the ends of proposed services in addition to
the ones required in our standard details which locate then within ROW or
Easement?
Response:
Yes, they are additional.
Comment:
Clearly indicate public vs. private infrastructure.
Response:
These have been labeled in profile view on each sheet.
Comment:
JB-2 appears to conflict with retaining wall footing (SD-1)
Response:
We have accurately drawn the footing of the retaining wall on Sheet 10 based
upon the chart on Sheet RW2 . The wall here is approximately 8'6" tall at this
location, which means "T1 11 is 4'1011 and on Sheet 10 11T1 11 is drawn as 5' and
shows no conflict.
Comment:
The flowlines for 50-7 do not match between Sheets E7.3, E7.5, and Sheet 11 .
Where is SD-7 shown in E7.3 reflected in the construction plans?
Response:
These sheets have been revised (E7.3, E7.5). SD-7 as shown on E7.3 is depicted
on the Manuel Drive construction plans.
Comment:
Roof Drain from Building 1 should enter at a junction box.
Response:
Please see the revised junction box on Sheet 10.
Comment:
Will 8" nominal rock rip rap sustain the outfall velocities and flows? It appears
that much of the rip rap at the existing outfall. Please verify that Parks does
not have a specific requirement for type of rip-rap, or bull rock.
~Response:
On Sheet 11 you will see that we have changed the headwall to one that
includes dissipater blocks along with 26 SQ YDS of rock rip rap (8 11 nominal
diameter). We have sent Pete Vanecek an email asking if he has any specific
rock he wants here.
Comment:
What modifications to the existing outfalls need to be made to handle the
increase in velocities, especially OUT4?
Response:
'( We have added the dissipater blocks at this location to handle the increased
o velocities.
Comment:
Add back in the caliper or gallon size for the plantings and note that the
Burford Holly shrubs along the parking row are to be 3' in height when
planted.
Response: Noted on Sheet L3.00.
Comment:
At the November 7 5, 2007 ORB meeting, a waiver was granted to reduce the
buffer yard width from 10' to 6'. Please revise the "Provided" width as 6' and
reference the waiver.
Response: Revised and noted on Sheet L3.00.
Comment:
Please label the fence in the buffer yard area.
Response: Labeled on Sheet L3.00.
Comment:
Some plantings in plaza area appear to be planted in concrete.
Response: Corrected on Sheet L3.00.
Comment:
It appears a tree is planted in the garage (sheets L3.00 and L3.02).
Response: Corrected on Sheets L3.00 and L3.02.
se let us know if you have any questions.
Veronica J. or
Managing Partne
Cc. File
Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group
Mark Lindley, Asset Plus Corporation
MITCHELL
MM
MORGAN
January 10, 2008
Carol Cotter
City of College Station
Planning & Development
PO Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
RE: THE LOFTS @ WPC
Dear Carol:
Attached are 10 sets of construction plans for the Lofts sanitary sewer plans. We have broken this portion of
the project out in an effort to expedite the abandonment of the existing sanitary sewer and the easement.
The following are the answers in response to the Staff Comments No. 3 regarding the Lofts at Wolf Pen
Creek sanitary sewer plans.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS
Question 1:
Response 7:
Question 2:
Response 2:
Question 3:
Response 3:
Question 4:
Response 4:
Show limits of structural backfill.
These have been indicated on the plans.
Provide TCEQ crossing requirements for sanitary crossing over water.
A note has been added to the plans regarding this and the material type of the sanitary
sewer has changed accordingly.
Provide engineers sealed cost estimate for sanitary sewer.
Please see attached.
Additionally, please provide amended Drainage Report to reflect what is currently being
proposed. Some of the report reflects initial design. Also, excessive velocities are shown
from JB8 to JB9. What is the 100-year flow path (HGL is out of pipe)?
The report dated November 2007 titled "The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek Drainage Analysis" is
the final report for the drainage system on Dartmouth Drive. The design storm (7 0-year) has
velocities of 6 fps per Exhibit 5 (J8 to J9). Per Exhibit 7.4 the 7 00-year HGL is out of the pipe
but is under the groun d elevation;, the pipe is under pressure flow but does not surcharge
the manholes.
As always, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Cc: file
Mark Lindley, Asset Plus
Natalie Ruiz, IPS Group
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
1nfo@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
MITCHELL
MM
/(),. 8 ·U7
/IJ:OtJ;
CflJ
November 26, 2007
Carol Cotter
City of College Station
Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
MORGAN
RE : Engineering Comments for The Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek
Attached are the following items and responses to your comments:
t7J . / 1JblY1 I
• One (1) set of revised construction documents (only sheets affected by the
comments)
• One (1) table of stormsewer velocities
• One (1) set of hand calculations for 100 year HGL (CB9 to Out1)
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: Engineering Document for the Lofts at Wolf Pen Creek
PLANNING
1. QUESTION : Show retaining wall total depth in profiles.
ANSWER : With changes in alignment of the sanitary sewer and the deletion of the
waterline between Holleman Drive and Richards Street we have eliminated most of the
retaining wall conflicts . The only one remaining is where the waterline goes under the
retaining wall at Richards Street to serve the fire pump room in the parking garage. In
this case, the retaining wall depth is shown in profile.
2. QUESTION : Show total width of retaining wall in plan view. We are concerned about
the area remaining for utility maintenance.
ANSWER: The total width of the retaining wall is now being shown, the retaining
wall is being shown, along with the flume at the top of the wall and the "winged
footings" on either side of the wall.
3. QUESTION : Show encasement in profile W-8.
ANSWER: This encasement has been shown.
4. QUESTION : Needs to be perfectly clear to contractor that the proposed water line W-
cannot be located under 6x4 storm .
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST. SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com • www.mitchellandmorgan.com
ANSWER : By deleting the waterline between the building and the retaining wall we
have removed this conflict.
5. QUESTION: Please encase water line if under retaining wall/footer, or sleeve if passes
through.
ANSWER: Encasement has been added under the retaining wall.
6. QUESTION : Do sanitary sewer/storm sewer lines need encasement or sleeving?
ANSWER: We do not see any locations where encasement or sleeving of the sanitary
sewer or storm sewer is needed.
7. QUESTION: Is drainage report based on current layout of storm pipe or first layout
that was submitted? Executive Summary is not clear on this and drawings
show previous layout, not what is currently on the plans.
ANSWER: Yes the drainage report is based on the previous layout, but the changes to
the layout will only make the HGLs lower.
8. QUESTION : Page 4 of Drainage Report refers to 2006 LOMR, but previous references
are to 2007 LOMR .
ANSWER : The LOMR is actually a 2006 LOMR submittal (FEMA Case No. 07-06-
0545P) but is currently under review in 2007 by FEMA.
9. QUESTION: Is a 6x4 box needed the entire route? I am unclear why 6x4 discharges
into 2-36" pipes.
ANSWER : Yes, the 6'x4' box is needed to handle the 100 year flow from Richards
Street.
10. QUESTION : What are the velocities in the storm pipe? Is there at least 2.5 fps flowing
full?
ANSWER: The velocities for the design storm are provided in Exhibit 5 of the Drainage
report. Please see the attached Table for velocities at full capacity.
11 . QUESTION : I don't see 100-yr hydraulic grade line calculations for pipe CB9 to Out1 .
Where are the hydraulic grade line calculations for the new 36" under
Holleman?
ANSWER : Please see the attached hand calculations that were prepared with the
already submitted drainage report.
12. QUESTION : Plan view does not show connection of SD-8 with 6x4 box, but profile
does.
ANSWER : This has been changed in the plan view.
13 . QUESTION : Show water line conflicts with SD-1 and SD-2 .
ANSWER: These conflicts are now depicted on the storm profiles
14. QUESTION : Proposed 6x4 storm sewer is too close to structure. This requires
additional PUE. Is Structure on piers?
ANSWER: Yes the structure is on piers and we have verified that the 6x4 location
does not conflict with the piers.
15. QUESTION : Please valves of hydrant leads closer to main line.
ANSWER: We have added the valve closer to the main line.
16. QUESTION: Show TCEQ water/sewer crossing requirements.
ANSWER: These have been shown.
17 . QUESTION: Show existing and proposed PU Es on P&P sheets .
ANSWER: The existing and proposed PUE's are shown on the P&P sheets.
18. QUESTION: Note deflection is along length of pipe, not at joints.
ANSWER : This note has been added.
19. QUESTION: Show limits of structural backfill on all utilities.
ANSWER: These limits have been shown on the plans .
20. QUESTION: Utilities has a couple concerns about the sewer issue after read ing the
sewer report.
A. They are giving up a large amount of existing capacity (50%).
B. The proposed exchange is a 6-in sewerline and 8-in sewerline, both on
steep grade to a 1 O-in/12-in line on minimum grade.
Looking at future build-out of the area some capacity can be sacrificed .
However, if capacity is sacrificed, then this line should be of a assize and
slope to meet the needed capacity. Main concern with the 12-in line is that
the minimum 2ft/s velocity is only achieved under the peak, wet weather,
maximized development flow scenario. Which means for the foreseeable
future the line will operate during everyday flow conditions at a much
'" .
lower flow and velocity. They are of the op1n1on this will result in a
sewerline that will not only have operational problems but as a result of
operational problems have odor problems affecting the surrounding area .
And once it's built and everything around it built.. .Suggestion is to look at
designing this sewer replacement line as an 8-in at a slope of 0.5% (or so)
and connecting it at the manhole approximately 190-ft to the north.
ANSWER : We have changed the alignment and pipe size for this san itary sewer line
and as such have increased the slope as requested .
21 . QUESTION : Because of the concerns with the retaining wall, please consider rerouting
the waterline as shown in email. You will need to verify that there is still your required fire
flow in this configuration.
ANSWER: We have deleted this waterline and the revised fire flow calculations are
attached.
let us know if you have any questions or comments.
Cc: Mark Lindley. Asset Plus Corporation, via fax 713.268.51111
Natalie Ruiz, JPS Group
file