HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence Bury +Partners
MOO lin I:n inc� rs /tiim�i I I
IUU(IO Pcdru A\ inu�• /tini1�1011
Anlnnif).
Tel 3111 /i ' ;- 4)114)1)
: t
210/52i-1629
June 4, 2003
Bridgette George
Assistant Development Manager
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842
Re: Home Depot — College Station
Bulletin No. 4
Dear Ms. George:
We are sending the changes made to sheets C -1.2, C -2.1, and C -5.6 of the Home Depot -
College Station project. Enclosed are:
• Sheet C -1.2: Replaced heavy -duty asphalt with heavy -duty concrete for
deceleration lane along SH 6 per Drash Consulting Engineers, Inc. report number
DCE Project No. 203G1178, dated May 15, 2003. Face of curb to be installed 4
feet from existing curb line.
• Sheet C -2.1: Added details of drainage pipes to sheet. (Detail "A ", Detail `B ",
Detail "C ")
• Sheet C -5.6: Previous Standard Fire Hydrant ran out past curb. Moved up to the
curb and to the west. Placement is now behind the curb. See College Station
Standard Detail 1 -A.
Please call our office at (210) 525 -9090, if you have any questions or comments. Thank
you for your time.
Sincerely,
L 0 atilY132_
Ricardo M. Villarreal, E.I.T.
I: \048 \030 \Letters \060403 George.doc.gc
\uslin I).(;. 1 )nII s 1luuslnn
OCT -14 -2003 11:55 FROM:OC 9725030278 TO:9797643496 P.002/002
k(U
CSC Services p
QUALITY • INTEGRITY • SERVICE 7
•
October 14, 2003
Veronica Morgan
Mitchell & Morgan
511 University Drive East
Suite 204
College Station, TX 77840
Re ' arm water nd detention pond
a
Gatewy Cgllege Station
Dear Veronica,
We are in receipt of a letter addressed to Mr. Spencer Thompson dated September 22, 2003
from your office. It Is our opinion that the 66" storm water piping, as Installed by a joint
development of Delmar Baronhead Company and Home Depot, Is not to be tapped and/or
used. For this line to be used by any entity "off site" of the Home Depot /Delmar Baron head
tracts will require permission from the joint development ownership.
The Congleton tract is excluded and separate from the Delmar Bcar+anhead /Home Depot joint
development. It was our opinion that the Congleton tract was a "stand alone" tract and
detention would be required and their source of drainage would be through the drainage area
east of their tract. Although the detention pond /drainage system of the Delmar
Baronhead /Home Depot joint development has contemplated other off site land areas, no
other off site entity has contributed to the cost of the detention pond, drainage system and /or
the infrastructure.
Resolution of any connection between the Delmar Baronhead /Home Depot tract and the
Congleton tract must be finalized with the joint development which Is spear headed by Mr.
Frank Mlhalopoulos.
Please contact me with questions regarding this issue.
Sincerely.
John R. Batsell
cc: Frank M)halopoulos
Spencer Thompson
Terry Mopes
Phone (972) 503 -0277 8150 N. Control Expressway Suite 750
Fax (972) 503 -0278 Dallas, TX 75206
"MAY. 30. 2003 9 :52AM DRASH CONSULING ENG. NO, 6185 P. 2
1 Drash
v o -
Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Geotechnicol • Construction Materials Testing • Environmental
May 15, 2003
SUBJECT:
Concrete Pavement Recommendations
Mr. Mike Fitzgerald Deceleration Lane at The Home Depot
White Spurner Construction University Drive and State Highway 6
2654 Cameron Street College Station, Texas
Mobile, Alabama 36607 DCE Project N 20301178
PO No. 7835
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
Drash Consulting Engineers, Inc. (DCE) is pleased to submit these concrete pavement
recommendations for the deceleration lane at the above referenced project. Presently the lane is
designed as follows:
• Three (3) inches hot mix asphaltic concrete;
• Nine (9) inches TxDOT Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 or 2 base material; and
• 10 inches of lime treated subbase.
The estimated Structural Number (SN) for this section is 3.58. We understand that'in order to
shorten the time required for construction, the lane may be constructed of reinforced concrete
instead.
In developing these recommendations, DCE contacted the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) Brazos County Division and the City of College Station to determine any specific
requirements for concrete deceleration lanes. TxDOT representative Mr. Jay Page stated the
section should be a minimum of six (6) inches thick with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars spaced at
24 inches on- center -each -way (OCEW), Mr. Brett McCully with the City of College Station
stated the minimum required concrete section was six (6) inches thick with No. 4 steel
reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches OCEW. No minimum standards for traffic volumes or
reliability were available for deceleration lanes from either TxDOT or the City of College
Station.
DCE used the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
design procedures to develop an equivalent concrete section to replace the heavy -duty asphalt
currently proposed for the deceleration lane. The following asphalt pavement design parameters
were used:
Reliability 90 percent Po 4.2
S 0.45 Mr 3,000 psi
Pt 2,25
Son Antonio
4926 Research Drive • San Anton10, Texas 78240
P.O. Box 781208 • San Antonio, Texas 78278 -1208
(210) 641 -2112 • (800) 332 -1728 • FOX; (210) 641 -2124
Erroll: drosh@drashce.com
Brownsville • Harlingen • Laredo • Pharr • San Antonio
1
' 'MAY.30.2003 9:53AM DRASH CONSOLING ENG. NO. 6185 P. 3
•
These parameters and the estimated SN for the section yielded an expected 18 -kip equivalent
single axle load (ESAL) of 170,000 for the asphalt pavement.
DCE then used the expected ESAL capacity of 170,000 for the asphalt pavement and the
following parameters to design the new concrete pavement:
Reliability 90 percent p, 4.2
So 0.35 p 2.25
k 65 Modulus of Elasticity 3,100,000 psi
Load Transfer 2.9 Modulus of Rupture 600 psi
These parameters resulted in the following:
Reinforced Concrete, inches: 6 6.5
Subbase, inches: 8
Moisture Conditioned Subgrade inches: - -- 8
This required concrete section is similar to the heavy -duty concrete pavement sections presented
in DCE Project N 202G1012, dated May 31, 2002. The subbase should meet the
recommendations outlined in our report. Concrete joint spacing and reinforcement should also
follow the current plans and specifications (namely, joints at 15 feet OCEW; and No. 4 bars at 18
inches OCEW). The concrete deceleration lane will tie into heavy - duty concrete pavement used
for driveways at the site,
Unless noted otherwise in this report, our geotechnical recommendations are as presented
in our report dated May 31, 2002.
Please contact me or Laura J. Campa, P.E. if you have any questions or if we can be of
further assistance.
Very y Yours, r' �` t i t �
brash Co ► g gtn , Inc.
r •
$ cHuCK A. o r
(N, , _ , P.E. ° B3148 ✓
Princi , , . ,
CAG/ljc 203G1178 • • -x
Copies Submitted: (1) White Spurner Construction; Mr. Mdse Fitzgerald
(1) White Spurner Construction; Mr. Paul Lowe
(1) Home Depot USA, Inc.; Mr. Terry Mapes
(1) Bury + Partners; Mr. Coy Armstrong, P.E.
(1) The City of College Station; Mr. Brett MoCulley
J!
Drosh DCE Report Ns 203131178
Co
l n Inc
ng Page 2 of 2
y •1 Ers, ,
Natalie Ruiz - HOME DEPOT OUTDOOR DISPLAY Page 1
From: "Larry Koehler" <Ikoehler @greenbergfarrow.com>
To: < nruiz @ci.college- station.tx.us>
Date: 6/18/03 12:45PM
Subject: HOME DEPOT OUTDOOR DISPLAY
Dear Natalie
I had a discussion with the Home Depot team about the compromise screening solution to the Outdoor
Display Area in our parking lot. We still believe that this very late passage of your New Ordinance well
beyond our Permitted Site Plan Approval and Building Permit should not in any way apply to our Outdoor
Display Areas. However, since Home Depot has enjoyed such a good working relationship with the City,
we would like to offer yet another compromise screening solution. The long narrow Display Area out from
the Contractor's Canopy is generally carrying low materials. That in addition to the fact that it backs up to
the landscape area, we don't believe makes good sense to screen that, so we would like to leave that
unscreened. Also, there isn't a permanent display in this area either. It tends to be seasonal as is the
other area as well. Now, the larger area at the other end of the parking lot, we would like to propose that
we only screen the long side that faces the Highway 6 Access Road. The reality of screening from
University St. through a double set of restaurant pads seems to be of little real value. Also, we would
propose that the fence be erected as a temporary one: there are times that no merchandise would be in
that particular area or that only a portion of that area would have merchandise for display. Having a free
standing fence with no merchandise in and around it, would cause Home Depot Operational Problems
and possible issues of Liability, if any accident were to occur in and around that area. I think you could
imagine why this would be a concern. So I would ask you to please consider this solution from Home
Depot as a sincere one. You may call me with any questions or comments. I am leaving for an afternoon
meeting, so we could talk in the morning. Thank you.
Oh, and Natalie, one more thing while I am thinking about it. What about our Temporary Sales Areas -
Christmas Trees comes to mind - how will this merchandising and sales period need to be addressed?
Thanks once again.
Larry Koehler
CC: <Dave_Cassman @HomeDepot.com >, <Mike_Todd @HomeDepot.com >,
<robert simmons @HomeDepot.com >, <terry_mapes @HomeDepot.com >, <brothschild @hssw.com>
09/11/02 09:10 From: Bridgette George 979 - 764 -3895 Page 2 of 6
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
COLLEGE STATION College Station, Texas 77842
Phone (979) 764 -3570 / Fax (979) 764 -3496
MEMORANDUM
September 11, 2002
TO: Coy D. Armstrong, P.E., Bury & Partners, Via fax 210 - 525 -0529
FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager
SUBJECT: GATEWAY SUBD - HOME DEPOT (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 for further staff review:
Two (2) complete sets of construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached.
Easement Dedication Sheet and required documents (see attached).
Please note that the Easement Dedication Sheet and the necessary documents are
required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 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 764-3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
cc: Delmar Baron Head J. Ltd, Via fax 972 - 233 -1870
Terry Mapes, Home Depot, USA, Inc., Via fax 972 -402 -3871
Case file #02- 00500187
Home of Texas A &M University
• 09/11/02 09:10 From: Bridgette George 979 - 764 -3895 Page 3 of 6
•
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: GATEWAY SUBD - HOME DEPOT (SP) — 02- 00500187
PLANNING
1. Please explain the limits of construction. You are showing your limits of construction around the
whole Gateway development. If you would like to get a Development Permit for the whole
Gateway site, staff suggests that you get two separate permits one for Home Depot and one for
the rest of the site. This would create less confusion. The Stanley D. Rosenberg property is
also included in this. Please be aware that any kind of clearing and grading on this property will
require permission from the landowner, please reflect this on the site plan.
2. Please show phase lines for each phase 20 -ft. beyond any new site amenities.
3. Please show all building setbacks on the site plan.
4. Please call out driveway dimensions on the site plan.
5. All paved areas must be curbed.
6. You will be required to show fire lanes all the way around the building. The fire hydrants cannot
have more than 600 ft. separation along the drive surface. You will need to do some shifting
around to meet this requirement.
7. Signs are to be permitted separately.
LANDSCAPE /STREETSCAPE
8. In reviewing the landscape staff noticed that you subtracted the floodplain area. Since you are
developing in the floodplain you will have to count all of this in your site calculation for your
landscape point requirement (11.49 acres x 43,560 sq. ft. = 500,504 divided by 1000 x 30 =
15,603.12 landscape point requirement)
9. Please be ware that Section 9.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance states that 4" caliper trees and
above must be preserved in the 24 - ft. landscape reserve. In previous visits to this site staff
has noticed dozer work all around these trees that are in the 24 - ft. landscape reserve. Prior to
CO staff will have to make a determination if these trees are healthy enough to survive, or may
require the developer to provide a Landscape Architect to examine the health of these trees.
10. You will need to show a barricade detail on the landscape plan. Before any dirt is moved on this
property the existing trees that you are counting toward your landscape /streetscape as well as
the 24' landscape reserve will have to be properly barricaded and approved by staff in the field.
11. Please delineate which trees are what caliper, as well as what species in this group of existing
trees that you are counting toward your landscape and streetscape point requirement.
12. Your landscape plan measures out to 128 - ft. of Hwy. 6 frontage minus 30 - ft. of driveway
comes to 98 - ft. divided by 25 = 4 canopy trees, 98 -ft. divided by 50 = 1.96 x 300 = 588
additional landscape points that will be required.
13. The two islands across from the lumber canopy are not showing any irrigation. Is this
enhanced paving or grass area?
Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves Date: 09 -09 -02
ENGINEERING
1. Title Sheet note 11A should be revised to correct phone # to 979 - 764 -3690.
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.
Page 2 of 5
' 09/11/02 09:10 From: Bridgette George 979 - 764-3895 Page 4 of 6
2. Title Sheet note 11G should be moved to occur after note L.
3. Title Sheet Special Note 1, third paragraph should be revised to "...applicable requirements for
public works improvements."
4. Title Sheet Special Note 3 should be revised to "...drawings to the City Engineer prior.."
5. Sheet C -0.2 (Typical) No work should be shown in TxDOT ROW unless developer desires that
site plan approval will be contingent upon TxdDOT permit issuance and compliance.
6. Sheet C -0.2 Should be revised or a note included indicating that lot lines and easements
shown are based on proposed plat not currently on record.
7. Sheet C -0.3 Suggest showing continuous silt fencing around project limits, particularly east of
detention basin and northern corner of site & SH6 to preclude contractor creep into areas to be
protected.
8. Sheet C -0.2 Silt or tree protection fence should be added along SH6 ROW line at any locations
where fencing does not currently exist.
9. Sheet C -1.0 (typical) Written permission will be required for offsite fill east of Home Depot pad.
This comment is also being made on fill permit response.
10. Sheet C -1.1 Clarify limits of curbing, slab and striped areas at and around lumber canopy at
front of building.
11. Sheet C -1.1 Clarify conflict of fire lane and traffic markings at south entrance.
12. Sheet C -1.2 Revisions may be required to driveways to meet TxDOT requirements once permit
is issued.
13. Sheet C -2.1 Clarify grading and drainage in vicinity of gravel drive east of HD pad site. Is the
grade shown on drive acceptable for maintenance use?
14. Sheet C -2.1 (typical) water and wastewater lines shown in Section AA do not appear to meet
TNRCC clearance requirements (9' clear).
15. Sheet C -2.2 Please provide additional erosion control at downstream ends of outlet structures
or provide design information to indicate velocities appropriate for native grasses.
16. Sheet C -3.0 Review design of connection of 6" ww line from HD pad to increase connection
angle or create drop structure to preserve integrity of manhole.
17. Sheet C -3.0 Please clarify limits of these utilities vs. those shown on plans for public water and
wastewater submitted with plat.
18. Sheet C -3.1 Storm drain connections to proposed public main (GI -1, GI -3, GI -8, etc) must
have manholes at junction for access.
19. Sheet C -3.1 Suggest clarification of SSMH to avoid confusion with sanitary sewer.
20. Sheet C -4.1 Detail C -4.1.2 should be revised to show typical curb to match cross section
shown for expansion joint detail.
21. Sheet C -4.1 Detail C -4.1.6 should be removed or stricken as not allowed.
22. Sheet C -4.1 Detail C- 4.1.13 should be modified to match City of College Station streetscape
railing detail as allowed by TxDOT.
23. Sheet C -4.2 Detail C -4.2.1 should be modified to address different geometrics of proposed
driveways.
24. Sheet C -4.2 Detail C -4.2.3 should have a note added requiring adhearence to Texas
Architectural Standards for accessibility.
25. Sheet C -4.2 Detail C -4,2,8 should be modified to show footing of curb and gutter section.
26. Sheet C -4.3 Detail C -4.3.5 should be replaced with COCS standard detail.
27. Title Sheet, Public Water & Wastewater Plans General Note 2 should be modified to require
notice to the City of College Station Public Works Department 979 - 764 -3690.
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.
Page 3 of 5
09/11/02 09:10 From: Bridgette George 979 - 764 -3095 Page 5 of 6
28. Title Sheet, Public Water & Wastewater Plans General Note 10 should be reworded as no
work order or notice to proceed are issued for development projects.
29. Title Sheet, Public Water & Wastewater Plans "Note" should be revised to indicate that all
water line construction on lines in right of way and easements shall comply with COCS details
and specifications.
30. Title Sheet, Public Water & Wastewater Plans Please revise notes to indicate applicability to
sanitary sewer, and include sewer notes, or include separate sheet with required notes on pipe
materials, etc.
31. Sheet C -5.2 (typical) water (and wastewater) lines should be located minimum of 7.5 feet from
property and /or easement lines to provide construction access.(repeated comment)
32. Sheet C -5.2 Show flange elevation of hydrant at station 7 +38 to be above 100 year floodplain
elevation. (repeated comment)
33. Sheet C -5.2 (typical) Revise note on deflection distances to meet City standards for minimum
radii of pipe curvature.(repeated comment)
34. Sheet C -5.4 Request use 1/8 bends instead of 1 /4 bends for fire flow lines. These bends can
be used to gain required cover depth.
35. Sheet C -5.5 Show use of pipe deflections to cross storm sewer instead of fittings in detail.
36. Sheet C -5.5 Address apparent grade conflict with storm inlet station 15 +65.
37. Sheet C -5.6 Suggest revision of storm drain and water profiles to cross water over storm drain
to save cost and efficiency.
38. Sheet C -5.6 Show flange elevation of hydrant at station 14 +63 to be above 100 year flood
elevation.
39. Drainage /Detention Report - Indicate the limits of the 100 -year event in areas where the storm
drainage system is designed to carry a lesser storm event and insure the protection of building
pads and public facilities from these flows.
40. Drainage /Detention Report - It appears that the storm drain lines will be subjected to pressure
flow contrary to Section V of the Drainage Design Standards. Please clarify and /or revise.
41. General - No storm drainage improvement plans have been submitted or reviewed, therefore
additional comments may be generated in comparing the private and public plans to any
previously reviewed and /or approved.
Reviewed by: Brett McCully, P.E. Date: September 9, 2002
TxDOT
1. We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted by Jeff Milburn for the Gateway
Development. The analysis appears to be reasonable. We agree with the recommendations to
close driveway 1 and 5. If it is not possible to close at least driveway 1, we recommend
combining driveway 2 and 3 to achieve a larger spacing between driveways improving the
stopping sight distance.
2. The TIA did not discuss the necessary weaving requirements from the off -ramp to the
driveways. The off -ramp is also not shown in relationship to the development on the plans.
3. The developer is proposing to do several things in the right of way that may be a future Iiablity
to the state such as building retaining walls on right of way, extending a 24" structure and
placing a drop inlet on right of way and placing fill, not associated with the drives, within the
right of way. These items will require future meetings and discussions to determine necessary
types of agreements to allow these items within TxDOT right of way.
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.
Page 4 of 5
09/11/02 09:10 From: Bridgette George 979 - 764-3895 Page 6 of 6
4. We recommend designing driveway 2 or 2/3 combined where metal beam guard fence (MBGF)
is not necessary. This MBGF will become a maintenance responsibility for the State.
5. On the heavy -duty deceleration lane typical section, we require a surface treatment between the
flex base and hot mix.
6. Any proposed utilities in the right of way will need to be approved through the permit process.
Driveways will need to get final approval through the driveway permit process
Reviewed by: Catherine Hejl September 10,2002
•
ELECTRICAL
1. Developer installs conduit per city specs and design.
2. Developer provides 30' of #4 rigid conduit for riser poles. Developer installs
first 10'. City installs remainder.
3. Developer pours transformer pad(s) per city specs and design.
4. Developer installs pull boxes as per city specs and design.(pull boxes
provided by the city.
5. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 14 version of plat and /or site plan.
email to rbolin @ci.college- station.tx.us
6. Developer provides load data for project.
7. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction
purposes.
8. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for
electric lines.
9. Developer coordinates with City of College Station Electric Department to determine
route of electric lines and secondary service.
Reviewed by: Ronnie Bolin Date:9 -4-02
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. All BackFlow devices must be installed and 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.
Page 5 of 5
HOME DEPOT (SP) (0200500187)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No 1
Thooc commonto aro from the initial review of sheet C -7.0 dated 9/3/02.
1. As per site plan comments No. 1, pressure flow is not allowed in public storm
drains.
2. As per site plan comments, review design of end apron to prevent potential
erosion problems in all design storms.
3. Please provide material specifications and details for bedding and
construction.
4. Suggest Inclusion of note on this sheet requiring inspector notification prior to
construction.
Reviewed by: Brett McCully, P.E. Date: 9/16/02
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City
of College Station, must be explained in your rrexi transmittal letter and "bubbled"
on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed
out to the City of Collogo Station will constitute a oompletely new review.
e0 /Z0 39dd 63S IN3Wd013A3Q S000 96VE 9L6L6 Tb :SI Z00Z /9I /60
09/16/2002 15:41 9797643496 COCS DEVELOPMENT SER PAGE 03/03
09/16/2002 11:5811I 9797843737 CCS PARKS & REC. 01002
mpf y .4
. 'i'
Pi] ti h ' r
XD .r
;m , * , .
m
•• { �..-.
{ �k
%' { T x:
i ! - - , •
{ : .
' l -`��,�
, ,
•
I
. ; .
• l . \
. ..,...›. . ...
f-- - j .... ' - ' " ' I A 1 . . 0: i :Z %- •
j ' -- r"'! r ,, i
' . : )•...„...c.._ ' ;: , : _. ..
• , • III ,'- •-
___• _.,.. ;__ ,_ : .
. x 2,c: 0 . 4, .'!..i. i
':&.• : ' ' -■,(. ,,'-:'
..., `F ; ,:.,
ti
% v
.. - .; i ii:1-1
i 1
.7'1- tt;
hi '
Inc.
rs -SA,
rw Bury -+- Partners Consulting l Burry +Partne /Snrveyots
10000 San Pedro Avenue /Suile100
San Antonin, Texas 78216
Tel 210/525 -9090
Fax 210/525 -0529
w VV. buIvpartners.conl
a G. Principals t 22, 2002
Larry G. I Irinier, P.E. PI; �
Nlark 1'..lohnson, P.E.
Paul J. Gory, III, P.R.
Gregory S. Striniska,
.lames IS. Knight, P.E.
AssouiotIes
Ms. Bridgette George
willituu O. Schock, P.I ?.
City of College Station Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Gateway Subdivision - Home Depot (SP)
Dear Ms. George:
We have reviewed your comments for the above referenced project in a letter dated
September 11, 2002. Below are our responses to each of your comments:
PLANNING
1. As discussed with city staff, we have agreed to leave the limits of construction line as
shown on the plans.
2. Site Phase Line for Home Depot Development added to site plan.
3. Building setbacks have been added to the site plan.
4. Dimensions for all driveways have been added to the site plan.
5. All new paved areas are curbed.
6. Fire lane was shown around the building. Fire hydrant locations have been modified
to meet the 600 ft. spacing requirement.
7. Sign permitting is not included with this Site Plan submittal.
LANDSCAPE /STREETSCAPE
Comments 8 -13 are addressed in a separate letter (attached) by Land Design Partners.
ENGINEERING
1. Phone number corrected.
2. Note moved as specified.
3. Note revised as specified.
4. Note revised as specified.
5. Site plan has been revised to remove the middle driveway along SH 6 frontage road.
Site Plan approval is contingent on Driveway Permit approval by TxDOT.
6. Note added.
7. Additional silt fencing has been added.
Austin VV'ashington, D.C. Dallas llouston
Bury - Partners
Ms. Bridgette George
October 23, 2002
Page 2
8. Silt fencing has been added.
9. Written permission is being obtained by current owner /developer of property.
10. The building slab and lumber canopy should be detailed with the architectural and
structural plans in the building permit package. No curbs are placed around the
lumber canopy. Striping around the building is detailed in the architectural plans.
The remaining site striping is indicated on the Civil Site Plan.
11. Entrance striping has been modified to correct conflict with fire lane.
12. Comment noted.
13. Drainage inlet has been place behind curb (in line for future development) with a
concrete apron to accept storm drainage. The gravel stabilized drive entrance to the
detention pond has a flush curb entrance. The pond and gravel drive into the pond is
sloped at a 4:1 slope. Construction and maintenance equipment can traverse this
slope.
14. All water and waste water lines paralleling one another have been placed and
dimensioned at a minimum of 9' apart from outside diameters of pipe.
15. Rip -rap, an additional row of energy dissipaters, and a 6" sill have been added to the
public storm drain outlet for additional velocity control. The 100 yr design velocity is
12.2 ft /s before the addition of energy dissipaters. The 10 yr design velocity is 10.6
ft /s before the addition of energy dissipaters.
16. Drop structure added to design.
17. The utility plan is limited to Lot 11 for utility connections and services. The Utility
Plan shows the proposed public improvements for connection and alignment purposes
only. The public water and wastewater plans are stand -alone plans for the
construction of the public mains. The public improvements have been screened -back
on the utility plan to help distinguish the difference between the public and private
improvements.
18. Plans have been revised to place manholes at junction locations.
19. Legend depicts this clarification.
20. Typical stand -up curb has been removed. Typical curb has been modified to match
pavement cross - section at connection.
21. Detail has been replaced with a curb opening with apron. This detail will be used at a
low point along the deceleration lane to drain storm water from the roadway. A
similar existing structure exists at approximately the same location.
22. Handrail has been modified to match the City of College Station detail.
23. Detail has been modified. Geometrics of driveways and additional driveway
pavement sections have been addressed on the site plan sheet and/or paving plan
sheet.
24. Note added to detail sheet.
25. Detail has been modified to tie into concrete pavement section.
Bury +Partners
Ms. Bridgette George
October 23, 2002
Page 3
26. Detail removed and replaced with drop manhole detail for connection purposes only.
Manholes will only be installed with public wastewater plans that have attached
COCS details.
27. Note revised as specified.
28. Note revised as specified.
29. Note revised as specified.
30. Note added as specified.
31. The water main has been moved to provide required clearance.
32. Flange height elevation and elevation of 100 yr. Flood plain have been added to call
out note.
33. Note has been added for contractor to meet City standards for minimum pipe radii of
pipe curvature.
34. 1/8 bends (instead of 1/4 bends) have been called out as previously depicted in view.
Elevation of existing main at tie -in was corrected to reflect previous plans.
35. Plans have been modified as specified to use deflection instead the use of fittings.
36. Water main has been shown to deflect horizontally around inlet box.
37. Elevation not available for redesign of storm drainage system.
38. Flange elevation and 100 yr flood plain elevation added to plan view callout.
39. The storm drainage system can carry handle (under pressure flow) the 100 yr storm
event. The l0yr and 100yr HGL is shown as a StormCad plan and profile exhibit in
Appendix 3.
40. Storm drain has been revised to reduce /eliminate pressure flow for the 100yr storm.
41. Comment noted.
New comments dated: 9/16/02
1. See note 40.
2. See note 15.
3. Bedding detail added to plan sheet.
4. Note added.
TxDOT
1. The middle driveway has been removed from plans to achieve a larger spacing
between driveways as requested.
2. Comment forwarded to Developers Traffic Engineer consultant.
3. Retaining walls and metal beam guard fence (MBGF) have been removed from
TxDOT ROW as requested. However, fill and drainage improvements within
TxDOT right -of -way will be required to develop Lot 10. Therefore, an Advanced
Funding Agreement (AFA) between the City and TxDOT will be required in the near
future for the development of Lot 10. Since we are told that this process can be time -
consuming, we are requesting this permitting process to be continued to avoid delay
of the development of Lot 10.
Bury +Partners
Ms. Bridgette George
October 23, 2002
Page 4
4. Middle driveway on SH 6 has been removed from the Site Plan. Metal beam guard
fence (MBGF) has been removed from TxDOT ROW as requested.
5. Surface treatment has been added to pavement section between flex base and hot mix
as requested.
6. All proposed utilities have been removed from TxDOT R.O.W. TxDOT driveway
permit has been submitted to COCS for driveway approval process.
Electrical
1. Notes have been added to utility plan.
2. Notes have been added to utility plan.
3. Notes have been added to utility plan.
4. Notes have been added to utility plan.
5. Site Plan and Utility plan was previously emailed to rbolinga,ci.college- station.tx.us.
Updated digital file will be e- mailed again this week.
6. Load data for Home Depot previously provided. Additional information required?
7. Blanket easement is being prepared by developer and will be submitted soon.
8. Public utility easements have been provided with replat of Gateway Subdivision.
Any additional electric easements, if required, will be provided by separate
instrument (metes and bounds).
9. Notes have been added to utility plan.
Miscellaneous
1. Note will be addressed with landscape /streetscape comments.
2. Backflow for irrigation will be addressed with landscape /streetscape comments. Fire
line backflow device is located inside building and should be address with building
permit.
Thank you for your time reviewing our report and construction documents. Feel free to
call me if I can answer any questions or provide additional information.
Sincerely yours,
4
Coy D. Armstrong, P.E.
Project Manager
I: \048 \030 \Letters \102202 George.doc.vrc
• PARTNERS
September 30, 2002
Mr. Rob Werley
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Home Depot — College Station
Dear Mr. Werley:
This letter is in regard to the comments relating to the above referenced project. The
following is a list of responses to the comments pertaining to the irrigation plan:
1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum
Breaker or Reducer Pressure Principle Back Flow Device and installed as
per City Ordinance 2394.
Please reference legend for change in model and backflow preventer detail
for information.
2. ALL Backflow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as
per City Ordinance 2394.
Please reference Installation Note #13 and backflow preventer detail for
information.
Please call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
4(4.^
Hollie Herring
Project Manager
HH/kd
3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 100 • • • •
Austin, Texas 78746 • • • •
Phone 512.327.5900 • • • •
F a x 5 1 2. 3 2 8. 1 2 5 3 ■ ■ ■■
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
•
4, PARTNERS
September 25, 2002
Ms. Jennifer Reeves
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Home Depot — College Station
Dear Ms. Reeves:
This letter is in regard to the comments relating to the above referenced project. The
following is a list of responses to the comments pertaining to the landscape and irrigation
plans:
8. In reviewing the landscape staff noticed that you subtracted the
floodplain area. Since you are developing in the floodplain you will have
to count all of this in your site calculation for your landscape point
requirement (11.49 acres x 43,560 sq. ft. = 500,504 divided by 1000 x 30 =
15,603.12 landscape point requirement).
Calculations have been revised accordingly.
9. Please be aware that Section 9.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance states that 4"
caliper trees and above must be preserved in the 24 — ft. landscape
reserve. In previous visits to this site staff has noticed dozer work all
around these trees that are in the 24 — ft. landscape reserve. Prior to CO
staff will have to make a determination if these trees are healthy enough
to survive, or may require the developer to provide a Landscape
Architect to examine the health of these trees.
Informational comment.
3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 100 • • • •
Austin, Texas 78746 • • • •
Phone 512.327.5900 • • • •
F a x 5 1 2. 3 2 8. 1 2 5 3 ■ ■ ■■
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
10. You will need to show a barricade detail on the landscape plan. Before
any dirt is moved on this property the existing trees that you are counting
toward your landscape /streetscape as well as the 24" landscape reserve
will have to be properly barricaded and approved by staff in the field.
Detail has been provided on Sheet L -1.1.
11. Please delineate which trees are what caliper, as well as what species in
this group of existing trees that you are counting toward your landscape
and streetscape point requirement.
The tree numbers, size and species of the existing trees counted towards the
landscape and streetscape point requirements have been provided under their
appropriate headings in the Landscape Calculations table on Sheet L -1.1.
12. Your landscape plan measures out to 128 — ft. of Hwy. 6 frontage minus
30 — ft. of driveway comes to 98 — ft. divided by 25 = 4 canopy trees, 98 —
ft. divided by 50 = 1.96 x 300 = 588 additional landscape points that will
be required.
Calculations have been revised accordingly.
13. The two islands across from the lumber canopy are not showing any
irrigation, is this enhanced paving or grass area?
Irrigation has been provided in two islands across from lumber canopy.
For comments not addressed in this letter, please reference Bury + Partner's comment
response letter. Please call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
14i
t�, v
Hollie Herring
Project Manager
3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 100 • • • •
Austin. Texas 78746 • • • •
Phone 512.327 5900 • • • •
F a x 5 1 2. 3 2 8. 1 2 5 3 ■ ■ ■■
L A N D D E S I G N PARTNERS
Bury +Partners -SA, nc
10000 San Pedro Ave ., Ste. 100
p Bury - Partners VA)11 San Antonio, Texas 78216
(210) 525 -9090 - Telephone
Consulting Engineers and SurvC (210) 525-0529 - Fax
Letter of Transmittal , l�
To: Development Services Project No.: 50048 -30
Company: City of College Station Date: April 1, 2003
Address: 1101 Texas Avenue cc:
College Station, TX 77842
Re:
❑ Delivery ❑ Overnight ❑ Pick -Up ❑ Courier El U.S. Mail
Quantity Description ofItem(s)
1 Check #2781, dated 4/1/03, $75.00 for cost of 6 copies - 3/27/03
1 Copy of receipt for 6 copies dated 3/27/03
Notes -
Please contact our office at 210/525 - 9090 if you have any questions. Thank you.
Prepared By: Coy D. Armstrong, P.E. C(),ei
o -1 r7
Invoice # f 4 5
COPS J
Customer ID#
L
Service & Technology 1404 Texas Avenue South
College Station, Texas 77840
(979) 694 -COPY FAX: (979) 693 -1367
Company � i i i � 1 Date ! ;
1
Department Person
Address Phone #
Purchase Order # Account #
# Sets # Dig @ $ /Copy Description Set Price Price
1 41 IA i i f '�>> L
@
1 • ,P /1 /5 0
oapp16,-el
Employee(
Sub Total �'
Tax Ma Received By
Y
TOTAL ,���_
White copy is for Copy Corner records. Yellow copy is for the Customer.
NOV -13 -02 WED 06:47 PM FAX NO, C / rj P. 01/03
h 11:1frA49- ,
.Ruxy Partners 0,(2
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors
4'
COMPANY; ()AT1;:
01-44/ 0'7C i 4.7 e szirzer.„ 43/02 FAX NU IIERt TOTAL ff OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER):
76 3 v9�a� ._._......, .� . _.W ., . ,,.._,.. ___ .�..�..T — . �... __.. �..,.....
1'R JEC'T NAME: PROJECT NO.:
N( is //10MML•N1S:
n a. „/.. cse e- erdne- Gi/cs
Qno{ wsv!tr ("me e tvroftes , a_S you r re rat ..1
ihr-r - 6/1I ' 1 14 e- PK 7 ciru rccoiriel - e 4 e.
ferea G Gay A& b o ih 1 d ms ,art a Zle"-
� u ' ' - (m f r o ilcot r4 7 A r. etc i! 7 6ew.4 G/- a 4 le
/
( /Item 1"/')n A Zeivi ads Lis art cc 9 0 -6-16-. 7 t Ave..
53 No Copy to Vo11ow GG „ B eo ' /C 0-this aia C774 Z03- 1/3.2
1541 Copy to Follow via First Class Mail N; ,t'r Toga 07.22) 1 49.2— 3868
GJ Messenger 7 rry l'Avac_s C 7 yP.2 - 3 67/
❑ Certified Mail
id try h' j r 7.2) 5 V7 +1
❑ Overnight Uelivery
Please Note: If you did non receive all of the pag,c s, pleAse contact the Sender at the number below as soon as
possible, 'Thanks!
Bury+ Partners -SA, Inc
10000 San Pedro Ave., Ste. 100
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Telephone: (210) 525 -9090
Fax: (210) 525 -0529
NOV -13 -02 WED 06:48 PM FAX NO. P. 02/03
3 ury +Partners
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Date Prepared: 11/13/02
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for: WATER
GATEWAY SUBDIVISION
COLLEGE STATION, TX
ITS : r , 7P
S0l30CIN: : ::;.:,° •:::::::: 00.:.c? ;.::,!,Nr"T . .. : :; ;:'UI1I7 >: ; : :0 TA,I- „::'
:.>VI0 . $.,.
:
?G
A
Public Wator Imgrovoments
1 12” PVC C -900 Pipe 4,100 LF $35.00 $143,500.00
2 8" PVC C -900 Pipe 45 LF $30.00 $1,350.00
3 6" PVC C -900 Pipe 500 LF $25.00 $12,500.00
4 3/4" Air Release Assembly 1 EA $1,250.00 $1,250.00
5 12" Gate Valve 9 EA $1,250.00 $11,250,00
6 8" Gate Valve 2 EA $775.00 $1,550.00
7 6" Gate Valve 8 EA $700.00 $5,600.00
8 Pipe Fittings 3.5 Ton $2,300.00 $8,050.00
9 Standard Fire hydrant Complete 7 EA $2,100,00 $14,700.00
10 Concrete Encasement 70 LF $25.00 $1,750.00
11 Trench Protection 4,645 LF $2.00 $9,290.00
$210,790.00
Note: The above "Opinion of Probable Construction Cost" is made by an
engineer, not a professional construction estimator. The accuracy of
estimates cannot be guaranteed.
,7w►L
— CccP57rmstrong, P.E. COY h ARMSTRONG N
Bury +Partners, Inc 9 $7617
10000 San Pedro, Suite 100 e r7CE NStif '
San Antonio, Tx 78216 � s: ...,«.' z
j:1WTF1234111- 13- 02water•xis 1 Date Printed: 11/13/2002
NOV -13 -02 WED 06:48 PM FAX NO. P. 03/03
Bury +Partners
Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Date Prepared: 11/13/02
Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for: SANITARY SEWER
GATEWAY SUBDIVISION
COLLEGE STATION, TX
E b C IPTIO MS� vAS ,..:.: i , .:::'CU�'AL�:
� .O
Cif
Public Sanitary Sewer Improvements
1 8" SDR - 26 PVC Pipe (10' - 14' Cut) 1,138 LF $40.00 $45,520.00
2 Standard Manhole 6 EA $2,500.00 $15,000.00
3 Extra Depth Manhole ( >6') 35 VF $125.00 $4,375.00
4 Adjust Existing Manholes 11 VF $200.00 $2,200.00
5 Trench Protection 1,138 LF $2.00 $2,276,00
$69,371.00
Note: The above "Opinion of Probable Construction Cost" is made by an
engineer, not a professional construction estimator. The accuracy of
estimates cannot be guaranteed.
Goy . Armstrong, P.E.
Bury4-Partners, Inc
10000 San Pedro, Suite 100 • *.r4....... �� ,... F��
C0� �• AkMSt'RaN
8 751 7 . Al r
San Antonio, Tx 78216 \ ." SE�s As
1044 >rri��
1 %141
j: \WTF \234 \11- 13- 02Sewer.xis 1 pate Printod; 11/15/2002
OCT -23 -02 WED 09:36 AM FAX NO. P. 10/16
].�t l -+I- 1 Ru,y +h.nlnr•,ti tit,
i y 1 . arI cliffs c0,l;:l
i Ibo(1O S, a Pcdl'„ Ar,r„r /tiuiic100
Si„ 1 Agroi io,'11•Nas 78210
TO 210/121 00110
1' 210/121 (n.!!)
vyll w.blll)1Gll'I,Ir'I roil
"'`'1'' October 22, 2002
M:u•A 11. Julm 1.I'..
J. A111011,1'1'
rn•. ,,y '. tai n,h1,a. BR,
.1;tti" 14, KIN hl, r'h.
Ms. 13riclgette George
1l'lllmul (1.tihhbk,Pl,.
City of College Station Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O, Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Gateway Subdivision - home Depot (SP)
Dear Ms. George:
We have reviewed your comments for the above referenced project in a letter dated
September 11, 2002. Below are our responses to each of your connaicnts:
PLANNING
'1. As discussed with city staff, we have agreed to leave the limits of conslniclion line as
shown on the plans.
2. Site Phase Line for Home Depot Development added to site plan,
3, Building setbacks have been added to (lie site plan.
4, Dimensions for all driveways have been added to the site plan.
1 S. All new paved areas are curbed.
•.i 6. Dire lane was shown around the building. Fire hydrant locations have been modified
to meet the 600 ft, spacing requirertmcnt,
J7. Sign permitting is not included with this Site Plan submittal.
Y,ANDSCAPE /STREE.TSCAFE
Comments 8 -13 are addressed in a separate leper (attached) by Land Design Partners.
ENGINEERING
, Phone number corrected.
2. Note moved as specified.
3. Note revised as specified.
4, Note revised as specified,
5. Site plan has been revised to remove the middle driveway along SH 6 frontage road.
Site Plan approval is contingent on Driveway Permit approval by'1'xDOT.
6. Note added,
7, Additional silt fencing has been added,
Alls101 %1roshin2,1ou, 1)-(L 1).111,1s 11uLr to,l
OCT -23 -02 WED 09:37 AM FAX NO. P, 11/16
Buryd- ParEners
Ms. Bridgette George
October 23, 2002
Cage 2
B. Silt fencing has been added,
9. Written permission is being obtained by current owner /developer of property.
10, The building slab and lumber canopy should be detailed with the architectural and
structural plans in the building permit package. No curbs are placed around the
lumber canopy. Striping around the building is detailed in the architectural plans.
The remaining site striping is indicated on the Civil Site Plan.
11, Entrance striping has been modified to correct conflict with fire lane.
12. Comment noted.
13. Drainage inlet has been place behind curb (in line for future development) with a
concrete apron to accept stone drainage. The gravel stabilized drive entrance to the
detention pond has a flush curb entrance. The pond and gravel drive into the pond is
sloped at a 4:1 slope. Construction and maintenance equipment can traverse this
slope.
14. All water and waste water lines paralleling one another have been placed and
dimensioned at a minimum of 9' apart from outside diameters of pipe.
15. Rip -rap, an additional row of energy dissipaters, and a 6" sill have been added to the
public storm drain outlet for additional velocity control. The 100 yr design velocity is
12.2 ft/s before the addition of energy dissipaters. The 10 yr design velocity is 10.6
ft/s before the addition of energy dissipaters.
. -16. Drop structure added to design.
-17, The utility plan is limited to Lot 11 for utility connections and services. The Utility
Plan shows the proposed public improvements for connection and alignment purposes
only. The public water and wastewater plans are stand -alone plans for the
construction of the public mains. The public improvements have been screened -back
on the utility plan to help distinguish the difference between the public and private
Improvements.
18. Plans have been revised to place manholes at j unction ]ocations.
19. Legend depicts this clarification.
20. Typical stand-up curb has been removed. Typical curb has been modified to match
pavement cross-section at connection
21, Detail has been replaced with a curb opening with apron. This detail will be used at a
low point along the deceleration lane to drain storm water from the roadway. A
similar existing structure exists at approximately the sane location.
X22. Handrail has been modified to match the City of College Station detail,
23. Detail has been modified. Geometries of driveways and additional driveway
pavement sections have been addressed on the site plan sheet and/or paving plan
sheet.
24. Note added to detail sheet.
25. Detail has been modified to tie into concrete pavement section.
OCT -23 - 02 WED 09:37 AM FAX NO. P. 12/16
BBu ry -Ta -rtne.r D s
Ms. Rridgette G
October 23, 2002
Page 3
26,'Dctail removed and replaced with drop manhole detail for connection purposes only.
Manholes will only be installed with public wastewater plans that have attached
COCS details,
•' Note revised as specified.
28. Note revised as specified.
39. Note revised as specified.
30. Note added as specified.
31. The water main has been moved to provide required clearance.
,r`32. Flange height elevation and elevation of 100 yr- Flood plain have been added to call
out note,
• 33. Note has been added for contractor to meet City standards for minimum pipe radii of
pipe curvature.
_34. 1/8 bends (instead of /a bends) have been called out as previously depicted in view.
.,f levation of existing main at tie -in was corrected to reflect previous plans.
35 Flans have been modified as specified to use deflection instead the use of fittings
3G Water main has been shown to
deflect horizontally around inlet box,
37. Elevation not available for redesign of stone drainage system.
38. Flange elevation and 100 yr flood plain elevation added to plan view callout.
39. The stomp drainage system can carry handle (under pressure flow) the 100 yr stone
event. The 10yr and 100yr IIGL is shown as a StormCad plan and profile exhibit in
Appendix 3.
'40. Stoma drain has been revised to reduce /eliminate pressure flow for the 100yr storm.
41. Comment noted.
New comments dated: 9/16/02
1. Sec note 40.
2. See note 15.
3. Bedding detail ad.dcd to plan sheet,
4. Note added,
TxDOT
1. The middle driveway has been removed from plans to achieve a larger spacing
between drivcways as requested.
2. Comment forwarded to Developers Traffic Engineer consultant.
3. Retaining walls and metal bean guard fence (M13G1 have been removed from
TxDOT ROW as requested. However, fill and drainage improvements within
TxDOT right- of-way will be required to develop I,ot 10. Therefore, an Advanced
Funding Agreement (AFA) between the City and TxDOT will be required in the near
future for the development of Lot 10. Since we are told that this process can be time-
consuming, we are requesting this permitting process to be continued to avoid delay
of the development of Lot 10.
OCT - 23 - 02 WED 09:37 AM FAX NO. P. 13/16
. ury +Par triers
Ms. Bridgcttc George
October 23, 2002
Page 4
4. Middle driveway on SH 6 has been removed from the Site Plan. Metal beam guard
fence (MBGF) has been removed from TxDOT ROW as requested.
5. Surface treatment has been added to pavement section between flex base and hot mix
as requested_
6, All proposed utilities have been removed from TxDOT R.O.W. TxDOT driveway
permit has been submitted to COCS for driveway approval process.
Electrical
1. Notes have been added to utility plats.
2. Notes have bccn added to utility plan.
3. Notes have been added to utility plan.
4. Notes have been added to utility plan.
5. Site Plan and Utility plan was previously entailed to rbolin @ci_college- sltliion,tx.us.
Updated digital file will be c- mailed again this week.
6, Load data for Home Depot previously provided. Additional information required?
7, Blanket easement is being prepared by developer and will be submitted soon.
8. Public utility casements have been provided with replat of Gateway Subdivision.
Any additional electric easements, if required, will be provided by separate
instrument (metes and bounds).
9. Notes have been added to utility plan,
Miscellaneous
1. Note will be addressed with landscape /streetscapc comments,
2, Backflow for irrigation will be addressed with landscape /streetscape comments, Fire
line backflow device is located inside building and should be address with building
permit.
Thank you for your time reviewing our report and construction documents. Fccl free to
call me if 1 can answer any questions or provide additional information.
Sincerely yours,
Coy D, Armstrong, P.E.
Project Manager
1;1048\0301Le1tcrs11 a icorgc.duc.vrc
OCT -23 -02 WED 09:37 AM FAX NO. P, 14/16
LAN D
D E S I G N
September 30, 2002
Mr. Rob Werley
City of College Station
'1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Horne Depot W. College Station
Dear Mr. Werley
This letter is in regard to the comments relating to the above referenced project. The
following is a list of responses to the comments pertaining to the irrigation plan:
1. Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum
Breaker or Reducer Pressure Principle Back Flow Device and installed as
per City Ordinance 2394.
Please reference legend for change in model and backflow prevcntcr detail
for information,
2. ALI., Backflow devices must be installed and tested upon installation as
per City Ordinance 2394.
•
Please reference Installation Note #13 and backflow preventer detail for
information.
Please call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
4 t.a .
Mollie herring
Project Manager
.F 11 /k d
33 '15 rie." !00 • nor
Austin, Texas 71i746 • • • •
Phone 512 32 "59 00 • • • •
F a x 5 1 2 3 2 8. 1 2 5 3 • • • •
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
OCT -23 -02 WED 09 38 AM FAX N0. P. 15/16
L A N D
D E S I G N
September 25, 2002
Ms. Jennifer Reeves
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re; Home Depot — College Station
Dear Ms. Reeves:
This letter is in regard to the comments relating to the above referenced project. The
following is a list of responses to the comments pertaining to the landscape and irrigation
flans:
/ 8. In reviewing the landscape staff noticed that you subtracted the
floodplain area. Since you are developing in the floodplain you will have
to count all of this in your site calculation for your landscape point
requirement (11,49 acres x 43,560 sq. ft. = 500,504 divided by 1000 x 30 =
1 5,603.12 landscape point requirement),
Calculations have been revised accordingly.
9. Please be aware that Section 9.2,5 of the Zoning Ordinance states that 4"
caliper trees and above must be preserved in the 24 — ft. landscape
reserve. In previous visits to this site staff has noticed dozer work all
around these trees that are in the 24 - - ft. landscape reserve. Prior to CO
staff will have to make a determination if these trees are healthy enough
to survive, or may require the developer to provide a Landscape
Architect to examine the health of these trees.
Informational comment.
3315 fire ('.eve.: Rom:, Suite; 100 • • • •
Austin, Texas 78716 • • • •
Phone 512 327.5900 1111
Fax 512.3 • • • •
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
OCT -23 -02 WED 09:38 All FAX NO. P. 16/16
/10. You will need to show a barricade detail on the landscape plan. Before
any dirt is moved on this property the existing trees that you are counting
toward your landscape /strcetscape as well as the 24" landscape reserve
will have to be properly barricaded and approved by staff in the field.
.Detail has been provided on Sheet L -1.1.
1 1 1. Please delineate which trees are what caliper, as well as what species in
this group of existing trees that you are counting toward your landscape
and streelscape point requirement.
The tree numbers, size and species of the existing trees counted towards the
landscape and sireetscapc' point requirement have been provided tnrdcr their
appropriate headings in the Landscape Calculations table on Sheet 1. -1,1.
1 12. Your landscape plan measures out to 128 — ft. of Hwy. 6 frontage minus
30 — ft. of driveway comes to 98 — ft. divided by 25 = 4 canopy trees, 98 —
ft. divided by 50 = 1.96 x 300 = 588 additional landscape points that will
be required.
Calculations have been revised accordingly.
J 13. The two islands across from the lumber canopy are not showing any
irrigation, is this enhanced paving or grass area?
Irrigation has been provided in two islands across from lumber canopy.
For comments not addressed in this letter, please reference Bury + Partner's comment
response letter, Please call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
d ieU L't, :k
Hollic Herring
Project Manager
3345 life CAW:, 0c d, Suite 100 ■ )r 111 1
Austin, Textis 78746 •111111
PIiohc 612,327.5700 w A N i
F a x 512.a28,1253 1 1 . 0 1 1
1 A N D f) E S I G N PARTNERS
y� p artn y � ty � y � Rury +Partners -SA, Inc.
Bury�PerS Consulting Engineers /Surveyors
10000 San Pedro Avenue /Suite100
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Tel 210/525 -9090
Fax 210/525 -0529
www.burypartners.com
La rr y . I November 7, 2002
Larry G. I[cimer, BP;.
Mark 11. Johnson, P.E.
Paul .I. Bury, III, P.F.
Gregory S. Strmiska, P.F.
James 5. Knight, I'1'.
Associates
Steven 1). Eklund,''.''. Ms. Bridgette George
William O. Sehoek, P.E.
City of College Station Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Gateway Subdivision - Home Depot
Dear Reviewer:
We have reviewed your comments for the above referenced project in a letter dated
October 31, 2002. Below are our responses to each of your comments:
PLANNING (LANDSCAPE /STREETSCAPE)
Comments 1 -6 will be addressed in a separate letter (attached) by Land Design Partners.
ENGINEERING
°''1. Water line has been shown to be concrete encased 10' centered at manholes locations
(see sheets C -5.3, C -5.4, C -5.5, and C -5.6)
�. Complete junction boxes have been added as requested. Storm drain has been
modified to allow for 0.1' drops in junction boxes (C -7.0).
Detail C4.5.5 has been removed from sheet C -4.5 and laterals added to public
wastewater plan & profile with notes indicating drop inlet for laterals per City of
College Station Drop inlet manhole detail (C -5.7).
( Detail has been removed.
4. Water line has been shown to jog around inlet.
6. Deceleration lane length and configuration has been modified as agreed upon by
Spencer Thompson and Ken Fogel on 10/5/02 (C- 1.1)(See attached Fax).
e- 7. Driveway has been modified as requested (C -1.1).
-8. Silt fencing has been added to cover work in TxDOT ROW (C -0.3).
V9. A culvert is not necessary at the northern driveway. The northern driveway will form
a high point directing flows North and South to an existing 24" culvert crossing the
southbound frontage road (C -2.1).
40. Plan and profile sheets have been corrected to indicate correct finished grade and new
water main profile (C -5.3).
,/11. Grade breaks on water line C have been adjusted as specified (C -5.6).
Austin Washington, D.C. Dallas Houston
Bury +Partners
Ms. Bridgette George
November 7, 2002
Page 2
ADDITIONAL CHANGES
1. Changed 3" Gas main to 4" Gas main per TXU (C -3.0).
y 2. Underground electrical lines extending from rear property line of Lot 11 to Lot 10, to
pylon sign along SH -6 frontage road, and to Lot 2R have been adjusted per Ronnie
Bolin w /City of College Station (C -3.0).
Thank you for your time reviewing our report and construction documents. Feel free to
call me if I can answer any questions or provide additional information.
Sincerely yours,
C9- 22
Coy D. Armstrong, P. .
Project Manager
I: \048 \030 \Letters \110702 George.doc.vrc
•
PARTNERS
November 4, 2002
Ms. Jennifer Reeves
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Horne Depot — College Station
Dear Ms. Reeves:
This letter is in regard to the comments relating to the above referenced project. The
following is a list of responses to the comments pertaining to the landscape plans:
1. Please show the same phaseline on your site plan, landscape plan and
irrigation plan.
Phaseline has been provided on landscape and irrigation plans.
• 2. Existing tree #1443 is located within a future phase and cannot count toward
the point requirement for Home Depot.
Phaseline has been revised, and existing tree #1443 is now included in Home
Depot phase.
r 3. Existing trees #1443 & #1445 are located within a future phase and cannot
count toward this project.
Phaseline has been revised, and existing trees #1443 & #1445 are now included
in Home Depot phase.
4. The streetscape trees you are proposing to count for Home Depot are also
located within a future phase and cannot count toward this project.
3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 100 • • • •
Austin, Texas 78746 • • • •
Phone 512.327.5900 • • • •
Fax 5 1 2. 3 2 8. 1 2 5 3 ■ ■ ■■
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
f ,
Phaseline has been revised, and streetscape trees are now included in Home
Depot phase.
5. Streetscape trees must be located within 50 feet of Right of Way along Home
Depot's frontage.
Existing trees counted toward streetscape requirements are within 50' of the
R.O. W. along Home Depot's frontage.
6. The 46 canopy trees that are being proposed must have at least a 20 -ft.
separation distance from one another. Currently most of them do not meet
this distance requirement. Please make this minor adjustment to accumulate
your points.
Proposed canopy trees have been moved so that they are planted a minimum of
20' apart.
Sincerely, - '
4.. Laeia
lJ�
Hollie Herring
Project Manager
HH /kd
3345 Bee Caves Road, Suite 100 • • • •
Austin, Texas 78746 • • • •
Phone 512.327.5900 • • • •
F a x 5 1 2. 3 2 8. 1 2 5 3 • • • •
L A N D D E S I G N PARTNERS
MAY 15. 2003 4:34PM DRASH CONSULING ENO, NO. 5558 P. 2/3
4/1 Drash
Consulting
Engineers, Inc,
Geotechnlcol • Construction Materials Testing • Environmental
May 15, 2003
SUBJECT:
Concrete Pavement Recommendations
Mr. Mike Fitzgerald Deceleration Lane at The Home Depot
White Spunner Construction University Drive and State Highway 6
2654 Cameron Street College Station, Texas
Mobile, Alabama 36607 DCE Project N -° 203G1178
PO No. 7835
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
Drash Consulting Engineers, Inc. (DCE) is pleased to submit these concrete pavement
recommendations for the deceleration lane at the above referenced project. Presently the lane is
designed as follows:
• Three (3) inches hot mix asphaltic concrete;
• Nine (9) inches TxDOT Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 or 2 base material; and
• 10 inches of lime treated subbase.
The estimated Structural Number (SN) for this section is 3.58. We understand that in order to
shorten the time required for construction, the lane may be constructed of reinforced concrete
instead.
In developing these recommendations, DCE contacted the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) Brazos County Division and the City of College Station to determine any specific
requirements for concrete deceleration lanes. TxDOT representative Mr. Jay Page stated the
section should be a minimum of six (6) inches thick with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars spaced at
24 inches on- center -each -way (OCEW). Mr. Brett McCully with the City of College Station
stated the minimum required concrete section was six (6) inches thick with No. 4 steel
reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches OCEW. No minimum standards for traffic volumes or
reliability were available for deceleration lanes from either TxDOT or the City of College
Station.
DCE used the .American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
design procedures to develop an equivalent concrete section to replace the heavy -duty asphalt
currently proposed for the deceleration lane. The following asphalt pavement design parameters
were used:
Reliability 90 percent p 4.2
S 0.45 M 3,000 psi
p 2.25
San Antonio
4926 Research Drive • San Antonio, Texas 78240
P0, Box 781208 • San Antonio, Texas 7B278 -1208
(210) 641-2112 • (800) 332 -1728 • Fax: (21Q) 641 -2124
Email; drash«drashce,com
Brownsville • Harlingen • Laredo • Pharr • Son Antonio
MAY 15. 2003 4:34PM DRASH CONSULING ENG. NO. 5558 P. 3/3
These parameters and the estimated SN for the section yielded an expected 18 -kip equivalent
single axlc load (ESAL) of 170,000 for the asphalt pavement.
DCE then used the expected ESAL capacity of 170,000 for the asphalt pavement and the
following parameters to design the new concrete pavement:
Reliability 90 percent Po 4.2
S 0.35 Pt 2.25
k 65 Modulus of Elasticity 3,100,000 psi
Load Transfer 2.9 Modulus of Rupture 600 psi
These parameters resulted in the following:
Reinforced Concrete, inches: 6 6.5
Subbase, inches: 8 - --
Moisture Conditioned Subgrade inches: - -- 8
This required concrete section is similar to the heavy -duty concrete pavement sections presented
in DCE Project N 202G1012, dated May 31, 2002. The subbase should meet the
recommendations outlined in our report. Concrete joint spacing and reinforcement should also
follow the current plans and specifications (namely, joints at 15 feet OCEW; and No. 4 bars at 18
inches OCEW). The concrete deceleration lane will tie into heavy -duty concrete pavement used
for driveways at the site.
Unless noted otherwise in this report, our geotechnical recommendations are as presented
in our report dated May 31, 2002.
Please contact me or Laura J. Campa, P.E. if you have any questions or if we can be of
further assistance.
Very ruly Yours ��t ��
Drash Co :1 g gala rs, be. r * jt 'i t�
CHUCK A GREGORY J
• , ck A. e , 63148 - - - -- � �
Princi 10'•.4/ O '
CAG /ljc 203G1178 ti .
S = /$- c3
Copies Submitted: (1) White Spunner Construction; Mr. Mike Fitzgerald
(1) White Spurner Construction; Mr. Paul Lowe
(1) Home Depot USA, Inc.; Mr. Terry Mapes
(1) Bury + Partners; Mr. Coy Armstrong, P.E.
(1) The City of College Station; Mr. Brett McCulley
4 Drash DCE Report N 203G1178
% ' Eng Consulting ineers Inc, Page 2 of 2
,
g
41 Drash
C��"
Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
Geotechnica! • Construction Materials Testing • Environmental
May 15, 2003
SUBJECT:
Concrete Pavement Recommendations
Mr. Mike Fitzgerald Deceleration Lane at The Home Depot
White Spunner Construction University Drive and State Highway 6
2654 Cameron Street College Station, Texas
Mobile, Alabama 36607 DCE Project N 203G1178
PO No. 7835
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
Drash Consulting Engineers, Inc. (DCE) is pleased to submit these concrete pavement
recommendations for the deceleration lane at the above referenced project. Presently the lane is
designed as follows:
• Three (3) inches hot mix asphaltic concrete;
• Nine (9) inches TxDOT Item 247, Type A, Grade 1 or 2 base material; and
• 10 inches of lime treated subbase.
The estimated Structural Number (SN) for this section is 3.58. We understand that in order to
shorten the time required for construction, the lane may be constructed of reinforced concrete
instead.
In developing these recommendations, DCE contacted the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) Brazos County Division and the City of College Station to determine any specific
requirements for concrete deceleration lanes. TxDOT representative Mr. Jay Page stated the
section should be a minimum of six (6) inches thick with No. 4 steel reinforcing bars spaced at
24 inches on- center - each -way (OCEW). Mr. Brett McCully with the City of College Station
stated the minimum required concrete section was six (6) inches thick with No. 4 steel
reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches OCEW. No minimum standards for traffic volumes or
reliability were available for deceleration lanes from either TxDOT or the City of College
Station.
DCE used the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
design procedures to develop an equivalent concrete section to replace the heavy -duty asphalt
currently proposed for the deceleration lane. The following asphalt pavement design parameters
were used:
Reliability 90 percent Po 4.2
S 0.45 M 3,000 psi
Pt 2.25
San Antonio
4926 Research Drive • San Antonio, Texas 78240
PO. Box 781208 • San Antonio, Texas 78278 -1208
(210) 641-2112 • (800) 332 -1728 • Fax: (210) 641 -2124
Email: drash@drashce.com
Brownsville • Harlingen • Laredo • Pharr • San Antonio
These parameters and the estimated SN for the section yielded an expected 18 -kip equivalent
single axle load (ESAL) of 170,000 for the asphalt pavement.
DCE then used the expected ESAL capacity of 170,000 for the asphalt pavement and the
following parameters to design the new concrete pavement:
Reliability 90 percent Po 4.2
S 0.35 p 2.25
k 65 Modulus of Elasticity 3,100,000 psi
Load Transfer 2.9 Modulus of Rupture 600 psi
These parameters resulted in the following:
Reinforced Concrete, inches: 6 6.5
Subbase, inches: 8 - --
Moisture Conditioned Subgrade inches: - -- 8
This required concrete section is similar to the heavy -duty concrete pavement sections presented
in DCE Project N 202G1012, dated May 31, 2002. The subbase should meet the
recommendations outlined in our report. Concrete joint spacing and reinforcement should also
follow the current plans and specifications (namely, joints at 15 feet OCEW; and No. 4 bars at 18
inches OCEW). The concrete deceleration lane will tie into heavy -duty concrete pavement used
for driveways at the site.
Unless noted otherwise in this report, our geotechnical recommendations are as presented
in our report dated May 31, 2002.
Please contact me or Laura J. Campa, P.E. if you have any questions or if we can be of
further assistance.
Very ruly Yours, c ` _ It
Drash Co . • 1 g gin r s, Inc. .. 4
C CHUCK A. REGORY i
A f'� - ���63148 Y JI.
Princ is iC ®
CAG /ljc 203G1178
/ r 0 3
Copies Submitted: (1) White Spunner Construction; Mr. Mike Fitzgerald
(1) White Spunner Construction; Mr. Paul Lowe
(1) Home Depot USA, Inc.; Mr. Terry Mapes
(1) Bury + Partners; Mr. Coy Armstrong, P.E.
(1) The City of College Station; Mr. Brett McCulley
I/••••• Drash DCE Report Ns 203G1178
Consulting Page 2 of 2
# . Engineers, Inc,
Q Bury +Partners -SA, Inc. Ofel-
1 (�"
Bury- Partners Consulting Engineers /Surveyors �"
10000 San Pedro Avenue /Suite100 1 0 - W /
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Tel 210/525-9090
Fax 210/525 -0529
www.burypartners.com
Lar G. H RE. November 13, 2002
Mark R. Johnson, P.E.
Paul J. Burp, III, P.1:.
Gregory S. Strniska, P.E.
Janes R. Knight, P.E.
Associates
Steven O. Eklund, EE. Ms. Bridgette George
William 0. Sehock, P.E.
City of College Station Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Gateway Subdivision - Home Depot (SP)
Dear Reviewer:
We have reviewed your comments for the above referenced project in a letter dated
October 31, 2002. Below are our responses to each of your comments:
PLANNING (LANDSCAPE /STREETSCAPE)
1. LDP was aware of the 35 -ft. spacing requirement for live oaks. Their construction
documents have locations of live oak identified and spaced accordingly.
ENGINEERING
1. We have attached three copies of plans that include all work done in TxDOT ROW
for submittal to TxDOT with the driveway permit previously submitted. Per my
phone conversation with Catherine Hejl on 11/13/02, TxDOT has verbally approved
the deceleration lane indicated on the site plan in the previous submittal.
Attached is a vellum set of final construction documents as you requested to be stamped
for approval and returned.. Feel free to call me if I can answer any questions or provide
additional information.
Sincerely yours,
d o
Coy D. Armstrong, P.E.
Project Manager
1:A048 \030 \Letters\1 11302 Comment Letter.doc.vrc
Austin Washington, D.C. Dallas Houston
t( e cYnt ,6' agt
tom- 1,4 / ,
- cca ph eATI,ict.etj a -s
0 1,1„. 4 ol'4 rP/1
iN''' '
-
•.l _ f ( clhocy1pstn
cL 1' • 1) - c�
o ion716)1 P
,7 af-ot 0111,4e. •
1 0 6- - ,fie(;
tuJ otU Corfnad-6) 62-I't
- tnctlat' )c a 4, ► IL \ uo \,0
Mufk*//( 640_1 Ai
.1e - 72 d�n (J )
04-*bvslin. u- Tultz -f D LomCL
WPM
ot-- moz/ io i , ' cc?�-�zer,�
V ' Ia ttilf C o ff° c .ctO - b
, m 19 - /moth f
I - J 6ta/n/cut
- R t diynaa 0 714,cd 4„,
I
Tf ut� cm - Tv/ AA "� — ,
�,, cL rx