Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00070449STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 1 Project: GATEWAY PH 2 (PP)-PRELIMINARY PLAT (0-232) ENGINEERING 1. Please clarify the westerly limit of the 5.700 acre tract. My metes & bounds check shows the heavy line boundary to encompass 5.700 acres. Is the parent tract 5.700 acres? 2. Is the tract to be platted made up of two lots? There appears to be a drafting mistake showing two 'LOT 1's (5.700-(2.54+2.54)=.62 acres?). My boundary check shows the bottom lot to be 3.15 acres, where 3.15+2.55=5.700 acres. 3. Please annotate University Park II, Block "N" as R-3 zoning and the property to the west as R-5 zoning. 4. Who has determined the Wetland Areas? 5. Please clarify the symbols for the proposed 8" water line inside the Proposed 15' Public Utility Easement. 6. Is the location of the well site at the end of the access road or is it able to be shown on the plat? Reviewed by: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Date: 12/22/00 ELECTRICAL 1. Developer / Owner is responsible for: Installs conduit, transformer pads & j-boxes / pull boxes per city specs & design. Provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes and necessary meet & bound descriptive easement upon completion of project. 2. Provide 20 ft easement across the front of property along University Dr. access road or is it able to be shown on the plat? Reviewed by: Tony Michalsky. Date: December 27, 2000 NOTE: 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 Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 3 Project: GATEWAY PH 2 (PP)-PRELIMINARY PLAT (0-232) ENGINEERING 1. The A-P tract to the west needs access per an easement from Lot 1 through Lot 2. Otherwise, it will be landlocked because access for that lot from University Drive is prohibited. 2. The 100' landscape buffer between the C-B and R-5 tract needs to be the whole 100' on your side of the property line. The purpose of the buffer is to screen the future residential tract from the commercial lot. Reviewed by: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Date: 3/6/01 NOTE: 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 have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 Transmit Log Record Status Date Time To OK 3/8/01 10:32:28 Danny Miller OK 3/8/01 10:33:48 Danny Miller BitWare Client Company Application Page 1 Longaro & Clarke, Inc. Microsoft Word - PZ04470.DOC Longaro & Clarke, Inc. Microsoft Word - PZ04461.DOC STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 2 Project: GATEWAY PH 2 (PP)-PRELIMINARY PLAT (0-232) ENGINEERING 1. We do not require the annotation of wetlands area on our plats here at the City of College Station. Please remove the designation, outline and hatching of the wetlands area from the plat. 2. This Gateway property was rezoned from R-1 to R-5 in 1995 along with the 20 R-5 zoned acres to the north. At that time, the intent was for all of the R-5 area to become a single multi-family development. In 1997, the property was rezoned to C-B, which essentially disconnected the future multi-family property, to the north of this 5.700-acre tract, from any street frontage. That rezoning included 4 conditions, three of which need to be shown on the plat at this time. There needs to be only one access drive for the entire 5.700-acre tract. There needs to be access through the subject tract that serves both the R-5 tract to the north and the A-P tract to the west; and that there be a 100' landscape buffer between the C-13 and R-5 tracts. Note: The fourth condition of the 1997 rezoning requires the property owner to provide a sewer impact study analyzing the impact of the development on the sewer infrastructure. Staff is currently researching whether this condition has been satisfied with any recent city sewer projects. Reviewed by: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Date: 11 JAN 01 NOTE: 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 have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: GATEWAY PH 2 (SP)-SITE PLAN (01-053) PLANNING The following pages were considered: 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10. 1. Please include the submittal date on the site plan and add revision dates as appropriate. 2. Please show the ownership and zoning of the subject parcel and abutting parcels. 3. Please annotate the ROW width. 4. Please show the size of the existing wastewater line. 5. Please provide a water and sanitary sewer legend to include water demands (minimum, maximum and average demands in gallons per minute) and sewer loadings (maximum demands in gallons per day). 6. Parking islands must be landscaped or treated with enhanced pacing. One island is identified as sidewalk. Please provide more information. 7. 1032 feet of interior islands are still needed. 8. Unless otherwise required by Sanitation, the dumpster enclosure needs to be 12 ft. x 12 ft. Please remove the gates from the enclosure. 9. Please indicate the location of the fire department connections. 10.On page 10, please add a note that the accessible-related details shown will meet ANSI standards. 11.A 6-inch raised curb is required around all edges of all paved areas. This includes off-street parking areas. 12. Please verify that #4 bar will be used in curbs. 13. The following trees are shown within barricade areas but do not have the symbol designating such: 29, 34, 35, 43, 295, 297, 326, 328, 334, and 350. Is it that these trees will be within the fenced area but the fence will not be the appropriate distance from the trunks? Please clarify. 14. There seems to be a discrepancy between the number of existing canopy trees outside the barricade area and within the barricade area. Please confirm these numbers. 15. Please include trees # 326 and 328 in the tree list on page 9. 16. Trees outside of the property line can not be counted for this project. 17. Note #2 on page 4 states that all parking islands will be landscaped. Please identify the vegetation to be used in the southern and eastern islands. 18. Under "Irrigation Notes", please state the irrigation will be approved prior to C.O. 19. Parking requires a continuous screen from the ROW. Please continue the line of shrubs or provide a berm in the gap along the southernmost parking area. Reviewed by: Molly Hitchcock Date: March 2, 2001 Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 ENGINEERING 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. TXDOT is going to add sidewalks, a storm sewer system and place/replace driveways with their near future widening of University Drive. It might be to your benefit to coordinate with them on building your driveway. Please send a completed 'Permit to Construct Access Driveway Facilities on Highway Right of Way' (TXDOT Form 1058) and two copies along with three additional copies of your Site Plan (sheet 4) so we can forward for administrative approval to TXDOT. Please annotate your sheets with individual titles. Your creek flow arrows are going in the wrong direction. I don't see any flow indicators except for what is in the legend. Please put all of your drainage and storm sewer layout on your grading plan and increase the line widths on the SSLs, which I assume stands for Storm Sewer Line. It appears that you have drainage inlet grates on your sidewalks. Please clarify this. Reviewed by: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Date: March 5, 2001 (initial) Mach 12, 2001 (revised) MISCELLANEOUS 1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum Breaker or Reduced Pressure Principle Back Flow Device and installed as per City Ordinance 2394. 2. Back Flow devises must be tested upon installation as per City Ordinance 2394. Reviewed by: Rob Werley NOTE: 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 have not been pointed out to the City will constitute a completely new review. Staff Review Comments Page 2 of 1 VJ/1J/Vl 1V:V`J "ulto 104 J4y0 vhv Ludy lNl JVt.J WJUU1 ACTIVITY REPORT TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO. 6984 CONNECTION TEL 3060338PPPPP161 CONNECTION ID START TIME 03/13 10:07 USAGE TIME 01'13 PAGES 3 RESULT OK STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 2 Project: GATEWAY PH 2 (FP)-FINAL PLAT (1-500047) ENGINEERING 1. The bearing on L18 needs to be the same as the bearing on the property line separating the A-P tract, 48d 10" 42'. 2. L22 needs to be a curve as part of the curve for the 60' private access easement. Reviewed by: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Date: 04/10/01 NOTE: 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 have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 5 Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 FILE NOTES Project: Gateway, Phase 2 1401 University Drive East DATE: 02/JAN/01 File - DP 00-89 FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Reference the applicant's transmittal letter. They wish to clear what is necessary to gain access for their boring equipment and vehicles in order to take soil samples. Therefore, it is not necessary for them to obtain a full permit at this time. A partial permit for clearing and grading only is all that is required this time. Furthermore, item #3 (Grading Plan) on the Development Permit Issuance Checklist is not necessary, at this time, for a partial permit, but is eventually necessary for a full permit. DATE: 10/JAN/01 File - PP 00-232 FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. No driveway to University Drive will be allowed by plat for Lots 5, 6, 7, or 8. Refer to the original preliminary plat for approved driveway locations for each individual lot based on internal circulation layout. Access to University Drive for Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 was not able to meet the driveway ordinance as originally platted on the Master Preliminary Plat. When a median is installed on University Drive, driveway possibilities will be more flexible. DATE: 07/MAR/01 File - PP 00-232, FP 01-47 FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. The preliminary plat was approved, with conditions, by the P&Z Commission on 18/JAN/01. The final plat was on the P&Z Agenda for 15/MAR/O1. Because the PP conditions were not met the staff was going to deny the FP. In lieu of this Kling Engineering opted to pull the FP from the agenda. DATE: 12/MAR/01 File - PP 00-232, FP 01-47, SP 01-53 FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. FAX to Danny Miller: This is to recap the points of our meeting this afternoon. Attached are revised Staff Review Comments No. 1 (Site Plan) to lift the `Stop Review'. The Assistant City Engineer has determined that no detention is necessary. We will proceed with Comments No. 2 after the re-submittal. We will check with our Water/Waste Water Department to assure that the sanitary sewer has been upgraded. You will meet the conditions for the Preliminary Plat and represent those changes on the Final Plat to which you will resubmit both on Monday, March 19, 2001 in order for the Final Plat to go to the P&Z Committee on April 5, 2001. We are waiting to receive your LOMR. DATE: 28/MAR/01 File - PP 00-232, FP 01-47 FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Nothing was submitted on March 19 to satisfy the PP/FP requirements stated in the above note. I left a message, in regard to the deadline requirements, with Danny Miller on March 23. Kling Engineering submitted the FP only on March 26 with the current FEMA map flood plain depicted. I called Stuart Kling on March 28 and told him that the new flood plain needs to be depicted. They have satisfied the conditions for the PP on the FP, but I told him that a copy of the PP is necessary (with the conditions satisfied) to be on file in our office. He said he would submit the PP and resubmit the FP today. Later called in by Danny Miller, he said he was depicting the current FEMA map flood plain because technically the LOMAR has not been approved and, therefore, according to the City of Austin, the current FEMA map flood plain should be shown on the FP. I told him we accept the new revised flood plain per his drainage report and the flood plain administrator's (Assistant City Engineer, Ted Mayo mentioned above in the FAX to Danny Miller) agreement that a 0.01 rise in the base flood elevations and no detention is acceptable. He requested to have the FP pulled from the April 5`h P&Z agenda and will have revised PP/FP by April 9th for the April 19`h P&Z meeting. I told him he must send us a written request to pull the FP by noon March 29`h, or we will recommend disapproval to the Commission. DATE: 10/APR/01 File -PP 00-232, FP 01-47 FROM: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. The PP and FP were submitted on April 9`h. The FP will go to the P&Z on April 19`h with the conditions of FP Staff Review comments #2. It will not be filed until the LOMAR is submitted and approved by us, then sent to/approved by F.E.M.A.