HomeMy WebLinkAboutresponse to commentsBrewer&Escalante
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
July 16, 2010
■ ■ ■
City of College Station
Planning & Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
RE: CHASE BANK — TOWER POINT
Response to Engineering Comments
To Whom It May Concern:
Please find included our response to your review for the Chase Bank in College Station, Texas at the southwest corner
of State Hwy 40 and Hwy 6 dated May 28, 2010. The issues of review disapproved have been addressed individually.
Comment 1: If possible, please submit the plans on 2406 sheets.
Response: In order to clearly convey all that is going on with this site a 30 "x42 " paper size
was necessary.
Comment 2: C1.0 — Please show and label all waterlines, water meters, sanitary sewer lines, and storm
sewer lines.
Response: This was done on Cl.0
Comment 3: C1.0 — Please include a note stating the required material, size, slope for water, sanitary sewer
and storm sewer lines.
Response: This has been reflected on CI.0
Comment 4: C1.0 — Please provide a table or note with minimum, average, and maximum water and
sanitary sewer demands for the site.
Response: This has been provided on C1.0 w/a note entitled "WATER/SANTARYDEMANDS"
Comement 5: C 1.0 — Please label the existing easements with volume and page number.
Response: Existing easements without recording information were created via Plat.
Comment 6: C 1.0 — There is also an existing 10 -ft PUE along the western property line and a 20 -ft PUE &
variable width PUE at the western end of the property. Please see the approved plat for this lot for the
exact locations.
Response: These easements have been corrected to represent what was platted.
Comment 7: C1.0 — The labeled 40 -ft Private Access Easement should also be labeled as a Public Utility
Easement.
Response: This correction has been made and is reflected on all drawings.
Comment 8: C1.0 — Please note on the plan that the building will not include a sprinkler system.
Response: This note was added on Sheet CI.0 on within the building outline.
Comment 9: C1.0 — Please specify the required fire flow per existing hydrant on the site plan.
7600 W. Tidwell, Suite 103
Houston, Texas 77040
113.688.3530
lux 713.688.5476
wmv.. b rewe r -e s co t o nte. c om
Chase Bank — College Station BrewerEscalarrte
City Comment Responses
July 18, 2010
Page 2 of 4
Response:
Comment 10: CLO — Show the closest fire hydrants and label there distance from the building along the
fire lane.
Response: This was reflected on CLO — Site Plan and the distance noted in note 33 of the same
drawing.
Comment 11: C 1.0 — Show and label the existing and proposed 2 -ft contours.
Response: Contours are reflected on C2.1. It is requested to include C2.0 and C2.1 as part of the
site plan itself so as to no impair the clarity of the site plan drawing with contour lines.
Comment 12: CLO — Shouldn't there be a handrail or fence at the top of the retaining wall for safety?
Response: A TxDOT traffic railing (T6) is planned for the top of the wall. Refer to drawings 53 -3
for details.
Comment 13: C 1.0 — Please add a note stating that this property is within the Spring Creek Sanitary Sewer
Impact Fee Area and that these fees will be due when the building permit is issued.
Response: This note is included on Sheet CLO as General Note #7
Comment 14: C2.0 — Please provide elevations at the top and bottom of the retaining wall.
Response: These elevations are provided on Sheet C2.0 — Elevation Grading Plan.
Comment 15: C2.0 — The maximum grade permitted within a PUE is 4:1. Please revise along Drive C.
Response: Sheet C2.1 has been revised to limit the grade within PUEs to 4:1.
Comment 16: C2.0 — Please verify that the maximum 3:1 slope (other than PUEs) is not being exceeded
anywhere on the site.
Response: The maximum slope anywhere on site is 3:1, and this area is out of any PUE. Refer to
Sheet C2.1 for confirmation.
Comment 17: C2.1 — The proposed contours on the northwestern side should be tying into existing
contours. Please revise.
Response: C2.1 has been revised to reflect Chase proposed contours tying in with the Developer's
designed contours.
Comment 18: C2.2 — Note #1 states that the storm sewer was designed for the 10 -yr storm, but the
Drainage Calculation Table references the 5 -yr storm. Please revise.
Response: This note #1 has been revised accordingly.
Comment 19: C2.2 — Please indicate the capacity of the existing storm inlet you are tying into in the
Drainage Calculation Table.
Response: The capacity of the receiving inlet has been added to the calculation table on C2.2.
Comment 20: C2.3 — The stabilized construction entrance is required to be at least 50 feet in length.
Response: This dimension has been added on Sheet C2.3
Comment 21: C2.3 —FYI ... Inlet protection barriers may be needed at the curb inlets along Drive C.
Chase Bank College Station — Comment Response Sheet — 7 -18 -10
Chase Bank — College Station Brewer Escalar to
City Comment Responses
July 18, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Response: These IPBs has been added to C2.3.
Comment 22: C2.3 — Please add the erosion control symbols and abbreviations to the Legend.
Response: These items have been added to the Legend of C2.3
Comment 23: C2.3 — Please identify where the concrete washout area will be located.
Response: The washout area has been reflected on C2.3 and clouded.
Comment 24: C3.0 — Should it be a 1 -inch tap and meter for a 1.5 -inch waterline?
Response: Two taps are proposed. A 1.5" tap and meter domestic and I " tap and meter for
irrigation.
Comment 25: C3.0 — Should you use a tapping saddle rather than a 12x1 tapping sleeve?
Response: Notes 4 & 6 on C3.0 have been revised to refer to a tapping saddle.
Comment 26: C3.0 — It looks like there may need to be an additional cleanout where the sanitary sewer
service line changes directions.
Response: Cleanouts have been added at every change in direction on C3.0.
Comment 27: C3.0 — Please show all easements and verify that all private utility lines are outside of the
easements. FYI ... Private services may cross a PUE, but they are not permitted to run inside them
diagonally or longitudinally.
Response: All private lines have been positioned to be outside of any PUE unless making a direct
cross to a point of connection.
Comment 28: Based on the proximity of the construction to existing gas lines, please provide letters from
the gas pipeline companies acknowledging the proposed work and stating any restrictions.
Response: A letter from Enterprise, owner of the pipelines within this easement has been included
with this resubmittal.
Comment 29: Please include all applicable City Standard Details.
Response: No city details were deemed to be necessary on this project due to most all of the
construction happening on private property and out of the right of way.
Comment 30: Please provide details or plans for the proposed retaining wall. FYI ... A building permit will
be required for the retaining wall.
Response: Sheets S3 -2 and S3 -3 are included with this submittal and include wall details.
Additionally, Sheet C2.0 includes a plan and section views of how the proposed wall footing is positioned
in relation to the existing 12" water line in its proximity.
Comment 31: FYI... Based on the plans for the retaining wall, the location of the wall in relation to the
PUE may be an issue.
Response: Section and plan views of the wall's footing and the as -built surveyed location of the
12 " water line are included on C2.0.
Chase Bank College Station — Comment Response Sheet — 7 -18 -10
Chase Bank — College Station
City Comment Responses
July 18, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Brewer&Escalante
Comment 32: Drainage Letter — Please include the runoff calculations and assumptions in the letter and
compare them to the design capacity (and available capacity) of the existing storm sewer that you are
proposing tying into.
Response: The Drainage Letter has been revised to include allof this necessary information and is
included with this resubmitted package.
Comment 33: FYI... The water, sanitary sewer, and storm infrastructure that is labeled as "existing" is still
under construction and has not been accepted by the City.
Response: A note has been added to C1.0 (Gen. Note 98) and C3.0 ( "Utility Line Note) stating
that these utilities are in fact in the ground but have not been formally accepted by the City of College
Station.
Comment 34: Please provide a fire flow report stating what the required fire flow is for this building in
accordance with the International Fire Code.
Response: I had conversations with Erica Bridges about this. She forwarded me HEB's similar
report and allowed for me to submit one for Chase by Tuesday morning (7120110). I intend to do so.
Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to call me at 832 - 615 -0331.
Respectfully,
Craig R. Artze, P.E.
Brewer & Escalante
7600 West Tidwell, Suite 103
Houston, Texas 77040
Texas Registered Engineering Firm #2136
Chase Bank College Station — Comment Response Sheet — 7 -18 -10