Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResposne to Staff Comments Grff144 Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 CITY 01 CO1;I,N.GH STATION Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 Home of Texas AthM University' MEMORANDUM July 12, 2011 TO: RME Consulting Engineers, via email: rabonrmenqineer.com FROM: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CREEK MEADOWS SC 2 PH 3 (FP) - Final Plat Staff reviewed the above - mentioned final plat as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. If all comments have been addressed and the following information submitted by Monday, July 18, 2011, 10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for, August 4,2011 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. X One (1) 24 "x36" copy of the revised final plat; X Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised final plat; Easement Dedication Sheet One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P &Z approval); and One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to: P &DS_Digital_Submittal ©cstx.gov. Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Your project may be placed on a future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P &Z meeting. http://www.cstx.gov/pz Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P &Z approval and prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Creek Meadows Partners, LP, via email: ieremvaloldhamgoodwin.com Case file #11- 00500092 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. 1 of 2 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: CREEK MEADOWS SC 2 PH 3 (FP) - 11- 00500092 PLANNING 1. Planning has no additional comments. Reviewed by: Matthew Hilgemeier Date: July 12, 2011 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 Final Plat 1. (Repeat) Per the Fire Code, two remote points of access are required when there are more than 30 lots in an area. With the proposed development, more than 50 lots will only be accessible from one point of access, so a secondary remote access point will be needed. The offsite Temporary Access Easement is required to be recorded prior to the plat being forwarded to a P&Z Meeting. Understood. A temporary Access Easement package will be submitted shortly. Construction Documents 2. (Repeat) FYI...The total Development Permit Fee is equal to 1% of the public infrastructure construction costs. Based on the Engineer's Cost Estimate, the balance of the DP Fee will be due prior to issuance of the Development Permit. Revised Engineer's Cost Estimate attached. 3. (Repeat) GP -01 — Is this the final lot grading that the builders are supposed to follow? Drainage looks like it is proposed to flow to Section 2, Page 1B and Section 2, Phase 2. Lots need to grade to drain to the street or private drainage easements, swales, etc. will be needed. Cross -lot drainage is still permissible, but provisions need to be put in place to prevent drainage from being blocked by future regrading /obstructions. With the proposed plan, how is this issue addressed? Revised per our phone conversation and emails to include private drainage easements and drainage elements. 4. (Repeat) ST -02 — The T/C along on left and right sides of the street along the Baker Meadow Loop Extension and the knuckle section on Baker Meadow Loop are not the same elevations as indicated by the profile. Please provide additional T/C elevations along the street curves at 20 -ft intervals. The slope along the gutter around the knuckle ranges from 0 - 0.2 %. This needs to be adjusted to provide a minimum 0.6% grade. Revised for right curb to have a minimum grade of 0.6 %. 5. (Repeat) MD -01 — The Grouted Manhole Connection Detail should not be necessary. The ADS Pipe Bedding detail is also not necessary. Revised accordingly. 6. (Repeat) Water /Sanitary Sewer Report — The map shows that all the waterlines in Sec.1A, Ph.3, 4A, 4B and Sec.4, Ph.2C, 2A are built and reflected the hydraulic analysis. The infrastructure in these sections isn't built, is it? Please submit the revised hydraulic analysis as well. Letter attached per our phone conversation. 7. Please include the sanitary sewer pressure pipe in the cost estimate. Revised Engineer's Cost Estimate attached. 8. GP -01 — Please provide a minimum 30 -ft radius on the fire access road. Revised accordingly. Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 7/11/11 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. 2 of 2 (1144 Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 CITY or C01.1.HG1-, STATION Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 Home of Texas AebM University' MEMORANDUM June 20, 2011 TO: RME Consulting Engineers, via email: rabonrmen iineer.com FROM: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner SUBJECT: CREEK MEADOWS SC 2 PH 3 (FP) - Final Plat Staff reviewed the above - mentioned final plat as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed in order for your item to be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting agenda. X One (1) 24 "x36" copy of the revised final plat; X Thirteen (13) 11"x17" copies of the revised final plat; N/A Easement Dedication Sheet for Temporary Turnaround ; One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P &Z approval); and One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to: P &DS_Digital_Submittal ©cstx.gov. Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that this application will expire in 90 days from the date of this memo, if the applicant has not provided written response comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review comments contained herein. If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Your project may be placed on a future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your item has been scheduled for the P &Z meeting, the agenda and staff report can be accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P &Z meeting. http: / /www. cstx. qov /pz Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P &Z approval and prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Creek Meadows Partners, LP, via email: Jeremv(a�oldhamgoodwin.com Case file #11- 00500092 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. 1 of 4 l 1 - Z_ /x'11 S"- STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: CREEK MEADOWS SC 2 PH 3 (FP) - 11- 00500092 PLANNING 1. Please add the word "greenways" into the Certificate of Ownership and Dedication as shown in Section 8.8 of the Unified Development Ordinance. Revised accordingly. Reviewed by: Matthew Hilgemeier Date: June 15, 2011 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 Final Plat 1. Our system indicates that there is a PUE (VoI.8028, P.249) along the northern property line. Please verify. Revised accordingly. 2. At the terminus of Baker Meadow Loop, please provide a temporary turnaround and a Temporary Turnaround Easement. The offsite easement is required to be recorded prior to the plat being forwarded to a P &Z Meeting. Not applicable with emergency access road. See Final Plat Comment #3. 3. Per the Fire Code, two remote points of access are required when there are more than 30 lots in an area. With the proposed development, more than 50 lots will only be accessible from one point of access, so a secondary remote access point will be needed. Added to Construction Drawings. See sheet GP -01. 4. The public water, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer lines crossing through the common areas need to be within PUEs. Common areas are wholly encumbered by a PUE. See Common Area Table. Construction Documents 5. FYI...The total Development Permit Fee is equal to 1% of the public infrastructure construction costs. Based on the Engineer's Cost Estimate, the balance of the DP Fee will be due prior to issuance of the Development Permit. Understood. Please email a "remaining balance ". 6. Please submit a Letter of Acknowledgment. Attached. 7. GN -01 — Shouldn't there be a street sign on the far western street corner? Not applicable. 8. GN -01 — Please provide a table of the street name and corresponding block number. Not applicable. 9. GP -01 — Is this the final lot grading that the builders are supposed to follow? Drainage looks like it is proposed to flow to Section 2, Page 1B and Section 2, Phase 2. Lots need to grade to drain to the street or private drainage easements, swales, etc. will be needed. Revised and adjusted accordingly as far as practical. The showing of lot drainage and grading has been slowly morphing over the years from "show the builders what to do and what not to do ", "make builders aware that there will be cross lot drainage ", to now "no surface drainage is permissible ". This is very difficult to achieve with downstream constraints already in place. I would propose that this phase be permitted as designed (unless this area has been reported with severe drainage issues) and modify and adjust drainage /lot grading with future phases. 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. 2 of 4 10. EC -01 — Please extend the silt fence along the south side of Lot 22, Block 6 and Lots 17 -33, Block 8. Added along Lot 22 and along Lot 33, Block 8. Drainage coming from Lot 8 is moving in a southeast direction and not southwest. If any drains to the southwest it would have to travel overland 150' at a velocity to sustain silt loading to "dump" into the existing street system. 11. ST -01 — Please verify that the previous street Tight in Sec.2, Ph.1 B is Tess than 300 -ft from the next proposed light in this phase. Additional lighting added. 12. ST -01 — The 24 -inch storm sewer line needs to be RCP. Revised accordingly. 13. ST -01/02 — All RCP -Class 3 is required to have a minimum 2 -ft of cover. Please revise. Adjusted to Class 4 pipe where under pavement. 14. ST -02 — The T/C along on left and right sides of the street along the Baker Meadow Loop Extension and the knuckle section on Baker Meadow Loop are not the same elevations as indicated by the profile. Please provide additional T/C elevations along the street curves at 20 -ft intervals. Revised and adjusted accordingly. 15. ST -02 — Please continue the 4 -ft sidewalk from the ambulance ramp to the street terminus. Sidewalks not required on both side of the street for this "grandfathered" project. 16.W-01 — Since there is a storm sewer inlet conflict, Lots 15 -16, Block 6 need single water service leads. Adjusted accordingly. 17.W-01 — The Design Guidelines require that a 6 -inch waterline may be no more than 1500 -ft, be connected to 8 -inch waterlines and have no more than 2 fire hydrants. Please revise the proposed waterline to meet this requirement. 8" water line extended to FH #26 per our phone conversation. 18.W-01 — Please show and label the proposed fire hydrants in profile. Already shown. 19. W -02 — The waterline needs at least 4 -ft of cover at the street crossing. Please revise. Increased to 3.5' of cover per our phone conversation. 20.W-02 — At waterline deflections, please label the flowline of the waterline at 10 -ft intervals. Detailed accordingly. 21.S -01 — Please move service connection for Lots 31 -32, Block 8 out from under the pavement. Adjusted accordingly. 22. S -01 — Please provide single service leads to Lots 27 -28, Block 8 to avoid conflicts with the storm sewer. Adjusted accordingly. 23.S-02 — Please move the MH #101 to the PUE rather than within the sidewalk. Adjusted accordingly. 24. S -02 — Please increase separation distance at the water and sanitary sewer line crossing. TCEQ requirements are not currently being met. Sanitary sewer pipe type changed to SDR26 — Class 160. 25. MD -01 — The Grouted Manhole Connection Detail should not be necessary. Removed. 26. Please include all City Standard Details. Attached. 27.Water/Sanitary Sewer Report — The map shows that all the waterlines in Sec.1A, Ph.3, 4A, 4B and Sec.4, Ph.2C, 2A are built and reflected the hydraulic analysis. The infrastructure in these sections isn't built, is it? Revised sheets attached. 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. 3 of 4 28. Water Report — In the fire flow scenario, is the peak hourly domestic flow being included? Yes. Peak domestic flow is included in all fire flow scenarios. 29. Sanitary Sewer Report — Where did the intensity and time of concentration come from? This is just carry -over data from using the Winstorm program and has no bearing on the analysis. Sewer flows are directly inputed into the program at various manholes. 30. Drainage Report — The 2 paragraph of Section 1.3 states that there are trees along the unnamed tributary. Also, elevations range from 310' to 317'. Please verify and /or revise. Revised portion of Drainage Report attached. Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 6/27/11 GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS 1. No comments. Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez Date: 06.17.2011 SANITATION 1. Sanitation needs to have a temporary turnaround at west -end of Baker Meadow Loop. Provided with emergency access road. Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: June 15, 2011 GREENWAYS 1. No comments Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: 06/15/11 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. 4 of 4