HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff CommentsMarch 4, 2011
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
(*t/q"
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Home of Taw AcW University'
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
Rabon Metcalf via email
Molly Hitchcock, AICP
Planning Administrator
MEMORANDUM
00
rabon@rmengineer.com
LUTHER STREET STUDENT HOUSING (SP)
Thank you for the submittal of your SITE PLAN - RESIDENTIAL application. This project will be
distributed to staff next week for their review.
cc: American Campus Communities via email ccarroll@americancampus.com
Case file no. 11-00500038
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OP C011.I.GP STATION
Hmm, ofTn.MIM Ud,,Wy'
MEMORANDUM
;_
March 16, 2011 4 /°�f �1
TO: Rabon Metcalf, P.E., RME Consulting Engineers via email
FROM: Matt Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Luther Street Student Housing (Sp)- Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and
submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review:
City of College Station Transmittal Letter;
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;
$263,360 Parkland Dedication fees prior to issuance of a building permit;
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
Matt Robinson at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
VF .�
PC: American Campus Communities via email ccarroll@americancampus.com
Case file #11-00500038
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: Luther Street Student Housing (Sp) - 11-00500038
PLANNING
1. As shown on the site plan, all of phase two will need to be completed prior to issuance of a
CO. If the intent is to develop phase 2 in multiple sub -phases by obtaining certificates of
occupancies separately, please phase the site plan and landscape plan accordingly. Each
phase must be able to stand along to meet ordinance requirements independently.
2. FYI - the calculated parkland dedication fees in the application are incorrect. The # of multi-
family dwelling units is 160 (not 36). As such the required parkland dedication fees are
$263,360. As a reminder, parkland dedication fees will be due at time of building permit.
3. Please show the boundaries of each phase on the subsequent site plan sheets (i.e. C1.1A,
C1.1B and C1.1C).
4. Revise note #7 on sheet C1.1 - The actual density of the development is 9.59 units per acre
(160 units/16.673 acres = 9.59 du/acre)
5. Please explain note #12 on sheet C1.1 - What accessory uses are included in the
development?
6. Label driveway widths for the drives off of Marion Pugh Drive.
7. The throat length for the first gated keypad entry is not long enough. A better location would
be along drive aisle adjacent to the bus stop. Please revise.
8. Sheet C1.1A - parking label adjacent to Building #32 states 7 spaces. 12 spaces are being
provided - please revise.
9. Sheet C1.1A - parking adjacent to Building #29 states 21 spaces & 2 handicap spaces.
Actual provided is 19 spaces & 2 handicap spaces - please revise.
10. Sheet C1.1 B - parking closest to the railroad states 16 spaces and 9 spaces for a total of 25
spaces. 26 spaces are actually provided - please revise.
11. Provide screening detail for mobile trash enclosures and compactor - architectural plans
were not included. For clarification purposes, are the mobile trash enclosures intended to be
collected by onsite personnel and then transferred to the compactor for pickup by
Sanitation?
12. The access to the trash compactor is not meeting drive standards. Please revise.
13. Sheet C2.8 Lift Station Plan - was not included in the plans submitted.
14. Provide water and sanitary sewer legend on the site plan.
15. Please provide the details of the proposed carport canopies. These are necessary to
determine if they will interfere with fire lanes and fire access to buildings.
16. Verify all turning radii for fire lanes. See the Site Design Standards for radii requirements.
17. Details for fencing, screening, enclosures and gates were not provided with this submittal.
18. Engineering is still reviewing the plans and comments will be returned when
completed.
19. 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: Matt Robinson Date: 3/15/11
LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER
1. Please show the boundaries of each phase on the landscaping plans (L1.1A 41-1.1 C)
2. Revise plan note # 3 on sheets L1.1A 41-1.1C - shrubs are being planted along Marion
Pugh Drive and Holleman Drive, not Harvey Road.
3. Lacebark Elms are considered a non -canopy tree on the City's approved plant list and as
such only qualify for 40 points per tree. Please provide an approved canopy tree as listed on
the City's approved planting list.
4. FYI — along Marion Pugh Drive it shows a subtraction for visibility triangles, leaving 1,125
L.F. of streetscaping required. The calculation of streetscape points along this street was not
reduced, it was calculated off of 1,300 L.F.
5. The point total and number of plants is reversed for Greencloud Texas Sage and Seagreen
Juniper.
6. Along Marion Pugh Drive, it says 14 canopy trees and 63 non -canopy trees are provided. By
my count only 13 and 62 are provided. Please revise the number provided or add the
missing trees to the plan.
7. FYI - There are 252 crepe myrtles shown on the site plan, but only 250 being accounted for
in the Landscape Legend.
8. Each phase of the project must stand alone in meeting the requirements. As discussed in
our phone conversation the phase lines will be changing. Please provide details showing
that all landscaping requirements, parking etc. will be met for each phase.
9. 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: Matt Robinson Date: 3/15/11
GREENWAYS
1. Please consider providing pedestrian access through the parking lot to Holleman Drive
East
Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: March 10, 2011
TRANSPORTATION
1. General Comments:
a. Because 30% transit trip reduction will be used and is a significant reduction,
justification documentation must be provided; the word of the applicant is not
reasonable documentation.
b. The statement in the TIA, "Per the City of College Station's Unified Development
Ordinance (LIDO), mitigation of deficiencies is required by the Applicant if project
traffic contributes at least 5 percent (5%) of the peak hour traffic' is
misinterpreted. This is only applicable if traffic is already falling to meet Level of
Service "LOS D". The minimum LOS standard is LOS D. The following is the
language in the UDO; "Where the development is contributing five percent (5%)
or more of the traffic at locations failing to meet LOS D or better the total trips
should be mitigated by the applicant to low enough levels to achieve the required
standard (or to pre -development levels, whichever is greater).
c. Yes, the City agrees the applicant can use the extension of Jones Butler as an
existing facility.
d. No, the assumption that the TxDOT improvements on George Bush and
Wellborn are imminent can be made. There are presently no construction funds
only engineering design funds.
2. Specific Comments:
a. Table 1-Ttrip Generation illustrates, 111 net trips inbound for the pm peak hour
yet in Figure 7 the only inbound opportunity is thru the northernmost driveway
and it illustrates 61 trips inbound in the pm peak. This brings into question how
the trip distribution was conceptualized.
b. According to the UDO Article 7, Section 7.3, subsection 7 paragraph L, a
deceleration lane may be required for an access with projected peak hour right
turn ingress of 50 vehicles per hour (vph). The City feels the deceleration lane is
warranted at the northernmost driveway especially since this is the only ingress
into the sight.
c. At Holleman and Marion Pugh the southbound left turn movement fails LOS E
and there is a 5 % increase in traffic thru the intersection. Westbound
movements are not shown in Table 4. Mitigation is required for southbound left
turn movements. Options to include warrant study for signalization or a duel left
configuration.
d. At the George Bush and Wellborn Intersection, the turning movements,
northbound left, northbound east through, and southbound west left were all
failing (pm peak hour) with regards to LOS and continued to fail in the pm peak
hour future network scenario with traffic increasing by 5%. This intersection will
have to be mitigated at those turning movement locations.
Reviewed by: Joe Guerra, AICP, PTP, Transportation Planning Coord. Date: 3/11/2011
FIRE
1) Note: All buildings do not need a Knox box as denoted in Civil Site Notes #18, one Knox box
centrally located on the clubhouse with keys to all the riser rooms will be fine.
Reviewed by: E.Dotson Date: 3/14/11
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes and provides
descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for electric lines (where
applicable, including street lights if required)
2. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices
and extend as required.
5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices, developer will
furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout.
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU
specs and design.
7. Developer installs pull boxes per CSU specs and design (pull boxes provided by CSU).
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and / or site plan. Email to:
gmartinezacstx.gov — received February 2011.
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 — received February
2011.
10. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical
service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as
designed by CSU.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez
SANITATION
Date: 03.14.2011
1. Trash compactor enclosure needs to meet the 29' deep by 16' width dimension.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia
TxDOT Comments
1. No Comment (not applicable)
Date: March 15. 2011
Reviewed by: Chad Bohne Date: March 11, 2011
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
CITY OF COMEG); STATION
Horne ofTa AdV v"i ..1"
MEMORANDUM
April 14, 2011
TO: Rabon Metcalf, P.E., RME C nsulting Engineers via email j
rabon@rmengineer.com V CV
FROM: Matt Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Luther Street Student Housing (Sp) - Site Plan h
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned site plan as requested. The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. The next submittal will be the third
and final review by staff for this round of reviews. If all items have not been addressed on the
next submittal, another $932 processing fee will need to be submitted for the subsequent set of
three (3) reviews. 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
Four (4) revised site plans
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 call me
at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
cc: American Campus Communities via email ccarroliCoDamericancampus.com.V/
Case file #11-00500038
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: Luther Street Student Housing (Sp) - 11-00500038
PLANNING
1. It appears that there are multiple aisle widths shown throughout the site plan (An
example is C1.1 B next to the Pool House there are widths of 20' and 27' called out)
2. Show boundary lines for phases on the detailed site plans C1.1A 4C1.1 C
3. How is sanitation being served for Phase 1 and Phase 2? There are no dumpster
enclosures shown/provided for these first two phases.
4. Is the south entrance gate going to be utilized for residents while Phases 2 and 3 are
under construction?
5. 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.
LANDSCAPING
1. Provide landscaping point requirements for Phase 3.
2, Landscaping point requirements should be provided for Phase 2 independent of Phase
1, especially if looking to bond Phase 2.
3. Show boundary phase lines on landscape plan — it appears the boundary isn't turned on
(it is labeled however).
4. Revise Phasing Note #4 to state that all irrigation, landscaping, and sodding must be
installed prior to issuance of C.O. In lieu of installation a bond may be provided for each
individual phase.
Reviewed by: Matt Robinson
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
Date: 4/12/11
1. Please pay outstanding development permit balance of $2805.43.
2. Please illustrate the construction site entrance on the Erosion Control Plan,
3. How will the construction site entrance and "Exit Only" access point function once Phase
1 is complete and construction and leasing activities are utilizing the same exit?
4. How will solid waste/sanitation be collected while Phase 1 & 2 are complete and Phase
3 is still under construction?
5. Please submit letter of acknowledgement.
6. (Site Plan) There appears to be a typo on Note 17 concerning the sprinkler system
rating, "0 Sprinklered".
7. (C1.2A) Please provide a detail for the proposed outfall structure.
8. (C1.2B) Please provide a detail of the proposed "sidewalk leave -out" and emergency
spillway. Please clearly state the intended spillway elevation. Are you proposing to
ramp the sidewalk down and back up again?
9. (C2.4) Sta. 13+55.93, please provide double 45. Please revise in profile as well.
10. (Drainage Report) Parking lot areas may only be used for storage up to a depth of 6
inches, it appears that this depth is exceeded this at the following Inlets: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 18,
21, 22, 23.
11. (Drainage Report) Can the FFE of Bldgs 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, as well as the top of
pavement elevation of the Lift Station be adjusted to at least 321.05 to provide 1 foot of
free board above the 100-yr water surface elevation.
12. (Drainage Report) Table #8 - Note 1, Bldg 22 appears to only have 0.60' of freeboard
above the 100-yr water surface elevation, please clarify?
13. (Drainage Report) Can the top of Private Manhole 3 & 4 be adjusted to an elevation
above the 100-yr water surface elevation? Are water tight locking lids proposed for
those manhole lids near the 100-yr water surface elevation?
14. Utilities has no additional comments.
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: April 12, 2011
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes and provides
descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for electric lines.
Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
Some conduit routing is still being discussed between Civil Engineer and CSU.
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 each riser. 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 per CSU specs and design (pull boxes provided by CSU).
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and / or site plan. Email to:
amartinez(a)cstx.gov — received February 2011.
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 — received February
2011.
10. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical
service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as
designed by CSU.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Gilbert Martinez at
979.764.6255.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez . Date: 04.06.2011
SANITATION
1. Revised trash compactor enclosure meets sanitation standards.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: April 5, 2011
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979,764.3496
GITYOf Q)1.LI iGHSD\TION
H r d'vn I
°""J "°' a. """`° I MEMORANDUM
May 31, 2011
TO: Rabon Metcalf, P.E., RME Consulting Engineers via emailV"' �\ \
FROM: Matt Robinson, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Luther Street Student Housing (Sp) - Site Plan
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned site plan as requested.
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed.
submit the following information by any Monday at 10:00 a.m.
City of College Station Transmittal Letter
One (1) revised landscaping plan
The following page is a list of staff
Please address the comments and
for further staff review:
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 call me
at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
PC: American Campus Communities via email ccarroll(a)americancampus.com ✓
Zach Hunter, Land Design Partners, Inc. via email zhunter@landdesignpartners.com✓
David Brothers Construction via email: bob@davisbros. net ✓
Case file #11-00500038
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 3
Project: Luther Street Student Housing (Sp) - 11-00500038
PLANNING
1. Revise - Provide a landscaping point schedule showing the point break down for the
landscaping being provided. There is no reference to the points required for
streetscaping nor for the overall site on the revised plans that were submitted. Please
see the approved landscape plan for a reference.
2. Revise - Phasing and plan notes that were on the original landscape plan are now not
included (Plan Note #1 and 3, and Phasing Note #4 should be included). This includes
the landscaping/points being provided for each phase.
3. Revise - Show phase lines on landscape plan.
4. FYI, there are quite a few plantings that are not on the approved planting list and as
such will not count towards meetings the landscaping point requirements. Please visit
the following link for a list of approved plantings:
http://www.cstx.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=l 0243
5. Provide the following notes:
a) 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.
b) All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as per
City Ordinance 2394.
6. Please note that any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the
City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on
your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that the City has not been made
aware of will constitute a completely new review.
Reviewed by: Matt Robinson Date: 5/27/11
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning &Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
IJ)ID)Pi(07:1.1011" W1
March 22, 2011
TO: Rabon Metcalf, RME Engineering, via email: rabonCcilrmengineer.com
FROM: Josh Norton
SUBJECT: Engineering Document Comments for Luther Street Student Housing (DP)
Staff reviewed the above -mentioned engineering documents 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 and approval of the plans:
One (1) set of revised construction documents.
Please note that the Development Permit Balance (Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection
Fee), will be calculated and requested once the construction documents and engineer's
estimates have been reviewed and approved.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Josh Norton at
979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
PC: American Campus Communities Operating Partnership LP, via email:
ccarroll americancampus.com
Davis Brothers Construction, via email: boK0avisbros.net
Case File No. 11-500038
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Please pay outstanding development permit fee of $2514.87 upon re -submittal.
2. Please update the engineers cost estimate if necessary based on the comments
below, this will change the outstanding development permit fee amount.
3. The blanket easement will need to be executed prior to site plan approval.
4. The specific utility easements will need to be dedicated prior to building CO.
5. Please label all "Proposed Public Utility Easements" to be dedicated upon
completion of utility construction; this may be most appropriate on Sheet C1.1.
6. All proposed retaining walls greater than 2 feet in height require a standalone
building permit.
7. Please submit depth and flow line data for the proposed vault.
8. Please submit the engineering documents and details pertaining to the vault
system. The vault system plans will need to be submitted to the building
department for review and permitting as well. This permit thru the building
department must be issued prior to site approval.
9. If any of the "private" water or sanitary sewer lines are proposed to be installed
prior to full building permit approval, you will need to apply for a plumbing only
permit thru the building department. This permit must be received prior to site
approval.
10. Please submit letter of acknowledgement.
11. How will the proposed vault system be accessed for long term maintenance?
12. (Site Plan) Please provide a note on the site plan that no combustible building
materials will be allowed on site until fire hydrants are operable and fire
department approved emergency access has been provided.
13. (Site Plan) Please provide water and sewer demands.
14. (Site Plan) Please include in the fire flow note the buildings square footage and
number of hydrants required for each building.
15. (Site Plan) There appears to be a typo on Note 17 concerning the sprinkler
system ratings.
16. (Site Plan) Please provide the water meter sizing table on the site plan, as well
as a note stating that all "master metered" buildings/units must be plumbed in a
manner to be able to be individually metered in the future.
17. (C1.2B) Please provide erosion control for proposed detention outfall.
18. (C1.2B) The adjacent off -site grade appears to be higher than the proposed
outfall elevation.
19. (C1.3A) On 'Typical Meter Bank Schematic" the line prior to the isolation valve is
considered public.
20. (C2.4) Sta. 13+55.93, please provide double 45.
21. (C2.3, C2.4 & C2.6) The proposed 6 inch water main can have no more than 2
hydrants. A portion of the proposed 6 inch main needs to be replaced with 8 inch
main at least back to the 2" d of the proposed 3 hydrants.
22. (C2.5) Sta. 2+10.79, please provide double 45.
23. (C2.7) Please check manufactured specified steel casing size for 8 inch carrier
pipe, 16 inch instead of 18 inch?
24. (C2.7) Please provide traffic control/work zone safety plan for proposed street
open cut.
25.(C2.8) Missing Sheet?
26. (Water Report) Meters # 1, 2 & 3 appear to be oversized and should be 2 inch
meters. A 3 inch meter is not justified until a peak flow of 160,,gpm is reached.
Meters # 4 & 8 appear to be oversized and should be a 1.5 inch meter. A 2 inch
meter is not justified until a peak flow of 100 gpm is reached.
27.(Fire Flow) The FDCs near Buildings 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23 appear to be
located more than 150 feet from a fire hydrant. Please verify that all FDCs are
located within 150 feet of a FDC.
28. (Fire Flow) Where are the 16 inch and 18 inch water mains that are identified in
the fire flow report?
29. (Fire Flow) The velocities should not exceed 12 ft/s in any scenario.
30. (Fire Flow) Page 6, typo in Fire Flow Scenario Note 1.
31. (Fire Flow) Although the 50% reduction is allowed the minimum resulting fire flow
shall not be less than 1500 gpm for the prescribed duration as specified in Table
13105.1 (per Section B105.2 of the IFC). Please run the scenarios in order to
achieve the 1500 gpm, meaning more than one hydrant may need to be open.
32. (Drainage Report) Based on the proposed parking lot detention storage,
Buildings 20, 22, 24 & 26 should be elevated at least 1 foot above the 100-yr
event.
33. (Drainage Report) Parking lot areas may only be used for storage up to a depth
of 6 inches, it appears that this depth is exceeded in some location, please
revise.
34. (Drainage Report) There does not appear to be an emergency spillway proposed
for this project, please revise.
35. (Drainage Report) The 6 inches of freeboard must be achieved during all storm
events, please revise.
36. (Drainage Report) As a point of clarification, Table #9 represents a comparison of
pre and post drainage areas #3, which both drain to their adjacent right-of-ways
therefore neither get routed through the downstream study point or detention
facility, correct?
37. (Drainage Report) Table #6, is the flow from Drainage Area CV1 included in the
flow stated for Drainage Area X? If so, than the flow reaching the 42 inch rail
road culvert during the 100-yr event is 131.95 cfs, correct? What is the
maximum capacity of the 42 inch rail road culvert?
38. (Drainage Report) Based on the storm event pool elevation, it appears that even
during as small as the 2-yr storm water is backing up into the drainage pipe
collection system. How was the back water affect analyzed during each flood
event?
39. (Drainage Report) Why does the system 'over detain" in the larger storm events,
it appears that the outfall could be modified to make the system more "efficient'?
In other words the 100-yr release is 71.77 cfs, but could be increased as much
as 22.26 cfs to release 93.92 cfs? Is this data being interpreted correctly?
40. In addition to the following standard comments, if more than 5 acres will be
disturbed during construction of this project a NOI must be filed with the state
and a copy provided to the CoCS. Storm water management requirements are
as follows any questions may be directed to Donnie Willis, CoCS Drainage
Inspector, at 979-764-6375:
Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has issued a general permit for
construction activities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The
general permit (TXR150000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less
than 5 acres or is part of a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less
than 5 acres.
You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site
to the City of College Station's Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4):
1. Read the general permit (TXR150000) to make sure it applies to your situation.
2. Adhere to the requirements of the general permit (TXR150000).
3. Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance
with Part III of the general permit (TXR150000).
4. Sign and post a construction site notice.
5. At least 2 days before beginning construction, provide a copy of the site notice to
the operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into
which storm water will be discharged.
A MS4s include streets, channels, gutters, ditches or anything else that is publicly
owned, designed or used to collect or transport storm water.
As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to
discharge storm water.
No notice of intent (NOI), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required under this
option —as long as the requirements of this general permit are followed.
This particular general permit will expire at midnight on March 5, 2013.
A copy of General Permit TXR150000 can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx. us/assets/public/permitting/waterq uaIity/attachments/stormwater/txr150000.
pdf
A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at:
http/www.tceq.state.tx. us/assets/public/permitting/waterq uality/attachments/stormwater/txrl 52d2. p
df
Reviewed by: Josh Norton
WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
Date: March 22, 2011
1. Please revise the paragraph in SECTION 3.2 that states the 'AVG DAILY FLOW VALUE'
to match the computed 'AVG DAILY FLOW VALUE' depicted in TABLE #3 of the report.
2. Please verify that the lift station design includes provisions that incorporate a double
throw switch (manual transfer switch) with a generator quick -connect plug.
3. Please depict proposed signage that will convey that this lift station is to be privately
owned/operated by COMPANY "
information.
"with 24-hr emergency contact
➢ CS LIFT STATION DESIGN GUIDELINE COMMENTS:
o Please note that because this Lift Station is to be privately owned/operated,
that the following comments do not necessarily need to be addressed. Our
department does, however, feel that the maintainability/operability/durability of
the proposed lift station would be substantially improved if the following
comments were considered.
Please submit the CS LS Design Guideline required subsurface exploration and
geotechnical study. Please refer to the respective guidelines on what the minimum
requirements are for the study.
Although the CS LS Design Guidelines prefer the use of a reinforced concrete wet well,
a fiberglass reinforced wet well is allowed. If a FRP wet well is to be used, ,please
include a section in the design report that discussed how the wet well was structurally
designed with respect to lateral earth pressures discussed in the required geotechnical
investigation.
6. Please note that the CS LS Design Guidelines require a minimum 12" thick top slap for
the proposed wet well.
7. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please provide buoyancy calculations that use
the findings of the required geotechnical investigation.
8. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please verify that the proposed fiberglass wet
well bottom slab design/dimensions, backfill material, footer, etc. will be adequate in
regards to calculated buoyant forces.
9. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please provide a riser pipe above the top of
slab w/ an isolation valve and male cam -lock with cap to facilitate by-pass pumping
operations.
10. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please verify that no proposed upstream
manholes will overflow during an emergency power outage situation.
11. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please include the structural design of the
bottom slab and valve vault assembly.
12. Please label the proposed support pole material for the control roof structure (Note that
wooden supports are not allowed per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines).
13. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please verify that a proposed upstream
manhole is no longer than 80-ft away to facilitate bypass pumping.
14. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please provide a section in the report that
evaluates the potential for odor generation in the proposed lift station and also includes
odor control mitigation.
15, Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please label and depict all proposed isolation,
and combination air vacuum release valves along the proposed force main.
16. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please depict a required Air and Vacuum
Release Valve on each leg of force main in the proposed valve vault.
17. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please submit a specification and/or include
on plan set, the proposed 100% solids epoxy coating on wet well interiors.
18. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please include a label stating that the interior
of the proposed valve vault, as well as the piping within the lift station/valve vault are to
also be coated with the coating specified in the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines.
19. Please depict the wall thickness of the proposed wet well.
20. Please include a detail and specification for the proposed wall penetration into the
" proposed fiberglass wet well. Should addition reinforcement need to be considered
during the FRP design at the wall penetrations? How will the penetrations be sealed?
21. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please include a note and/or specification
stating that all Air & Vacuum Valves are AWWA C512-92 compliant.
22. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please include a note and/or specification
stating that all Swing Check Valves are AWWA C508 compliant.
23. Per the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines, please include a note and/or specification
stating that all Eccentric Plug Valves are AWWA C500 & C507 compliant with stainless
steel bushings.
24. Please include a label stating that intermediate guide bar brackets should be installed in
10-ft intervals.
25. Please provide proposed valve vault specifications. Is it to be cast -in -place or pre -cast?
Please design/select per Geotechnical Investigation results.
26. Please depict/include a detail showing the proposed adjustable steel pipe support in the
valve vault.
27. Currently, the CS Lift Station Design Guidelines require that underground concrete valve
vaults are to be structurally connected to the wet well. Please depict on plans how valve
vault is to "tie -onto' proposed wet well.
28. Please include the B/CS standard detail for tracer wire installation. Please verify that a
tracer wire access point is to be installed at no more than 500-ft along the proposed
force main alignment.
29. Will any air & vacuum release valves be needed along the proposed force main
alignment?
30. Please provide a'/<" potable water connection, meter box, reduced pressure principal
backflow assembly conforming to the requirements of AWWA standard C511097 or
Manual M14, hose bib(self-draining and freeze resistant installed 12" above 100-yr
floodplain), hose bib vacuum breaker, and freeze protection.
31. Please include in the report/plans what provisions the contractor should take if
groundwater is encountered during the construction of the lift station.
Reviewed by: Stephen A. Maldonado Date: March 22, 2011