Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments The City of Co S tation , Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764 -3570 MEMORANDUM October 9, 2002 TO: Michael McClure P.E., McClure Engineering Inc., Via fax 693 -2554 FROM: Brett McCully, P.E, Assistant City Engineer / SUBJECT: EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (FP) — Engineering Comments Dear Mike, This letter should first serve to summarize our discussions regarding the first set of engineering review comments from our meeting yesterday. It should also provide the results of further investigation and review by Staff on some of the more involved issues. These responses are in the same order as the original comments. 1. The driveway shown to be constructed from Brandenburg to Lot 2 Elliot Subdivision should be noted on the construction . drawings to require a separate driveway permit prior to construction. The plans may move forward with this qualification, but the actual driveway permit process must take place in order for the construction to be allowed. We would like to see possible options of shifting the driveway further from Graham, and thus hopefully meeting the minimum spacing requirement, and /or the possible closing of the driveway on Graham nearest Brandenburg. 2. With the information you provided, we have no further questions on the pipe and box strength specifications. 3. Since this is the first `junction box' comment of several, I'II include the main issue discussion here. The COCS Drainage Design Standards state that junction boxes are required at all changes in conduit size, grade, alignment and at all conduit intersections in underground storm drains. A City Standard 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 exists labeled `Standard Junction Box ", but is not specifically identified by the design policy wording. This standard shows a 5' minimum horizontal dimension, and it can be argued that the square plan view denotes that this dimension applies to both interior sides. A minimum vertical dimension inside the box is not shown. We understand that due to extremely shallow line depths, there is not suitable cover over the box storm drain to allow an increase in vertical clearance without significant negative impact on the paving section directly overhead. Therefore a standard manhole ring and cover assembly, with minimal grade rings are all that are proposed over some junction areas, and no access provided at others. Because the City Standard does not include a minimum vertical dimension, I asked the supervisor of the storm drain maintenance crews how much vertical clearance is needed within the minimal 5'x5' junction box in order to get necessary cleaning equipment into position. He stated that in that minimally sized structure, with the manhole in the optimum location (as close to the lateral connection as possible), they would need a minimum of 4' of vertical clearance. The connections proposed by these plans would provide access areas as small as 4' wide and 2' high to the largest area of 7' wide by 3' high. The City Engineer is authorized to interpret the design policy, and therefore may approve the use of alternate structures on the basis that they would provide similar function comparable to published standards. For maintenance purposes, 4' of vertical clearance should be provided within an areas comparable to the standard 5'x5' junction box. It is my opinion that additional horizontal clearance available, in some of these cases 6 and 7 feet, can allow a decrease in the minimum height from 4' to 3' feet as proposed. Therefore, due to the specific conditions of this project including shallow downstream reteae elevation, pre- existing location within paved roadway section, and asphalt roadway construction, I will allow junction access areas that provide less than 4' vertical clearance given an increase in the minimum horizontal dimension. So in lieu of a 5'x5'x4' minimal access area, a 6'x6'x3' area will be accepted. The 7' widths will also comply as exceeding the 6' requirement. In the case of this specific comment, a 4' by 2' area is not sufficient, and so will not be allowed. Possible options that would be accepted include the construction of a junction box at this location that provides adequate access room as described above, or the redirection of this lateral to use the inlet on the other side of Oldenburg as a junction structure. 4. Per response to comment #3 this will be allowed as designed. 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 5. Per response to comment #3 suitable access must be provided where this connection ultimately occurs. Connection should also be shown in profile. 6. It is my understanding that this area which includes a 90- degree alignment change as well as connections of three different lateral pipes is being re- evaluated and potentially redesigned to provide a more efficient and maintainable layout. Conduit bends alone will require maintenance access as defined for junction boxes in response to comment #3 above. 7. This proposed junction of a 27 "RCP to the transition between the 6'x3 and 7'x3' boxes will be allowed with manhole access. 8. This connection will be allowed with the addition of manhole access into the box at this point. Possible alternative remains in combination of drainage inlet and box conduit. 9. The plans include sidewalk to be constructed 4' behind the back of curb contrary to City Ordinance, Chapter 9.8 -M.2, which calls for a minimum 6' buffer/ green space between the back of curb and inside edge of sidewalk. Project design also includes mountable curbs and not barrier type curbing. Section 9.8.M includes provision for a waiver or variance by City Council for the requirement to include sidewalks on streets, but variance to geometric design information is not included in this provision. Staff does not have authority to interpret or vary this requirement, therefore variance to the section will be required by the Planning and Zoning Commission The applicant will need to choose between modifying the design to match ordinance requirement, or seeking variance from the section via the Planning and Zoning Commission. As was performed for an earlier approval of this project, a variance request can be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to, but at the same hearing as the final plat. It must be pointed out that denial of a variance request will trigger either denial or agenda removal of the plat. If you wish to pursue this direction, please provide the application for variance(s) with appropriate backup information. Staff will make the determination whether to support the variance request based on the requirements of Ordinance Chapter 9, Section 5. Pedestrian safety will be a key Staff concern in this issue, so supporting information should include references to address this area. 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 10. We understand that the drainage easement will be changed to private and that drainage facilities in this area are being revised. 11. We agreed that the water line connection in Brandenburg at Graham is being revised and therefore has not been reviewed, and will not be reviewed until the revised plans are submitted. 12. We agreed that the plans already include the required water line, and that the line is not eligible for oversize participation. 13.Ordinance sections 9.8.F, 9.8.G.10 and 9.8.H.2 require alleys to have a 20' wide paved section. The project is currently designed with alleys that are only 15' wide. We understand that preliminary discussions have taken place regarding reducing the paved section, however such changes have not taken place. Should Staff propose, and Council consider such a change, it will be addressed in UDO article 8, which is presently reserved. Until such time as the ordinance requirement is changed, the current requirement, which is not subject to Staff waiver or modification must be adhered to. Therefore the applicant has the choice between modifying the design to match current ordinance requirement, or seeking variance from the section via the Planning and Zoning Commission. As in the sidewalk location issue, if a variance is desired, please submit the required information as soon as possible so Staff can obtain the necessary input from the City's various operational divisions. 14. As we discussed, the air relief valve cannot have an underground discharge per State mandate. The City detail should be used. 15. At this time we still do not have any information to support an adoption of the detail included in 'these plans by any City Staff. We will continue to pursue such information, however until that adoption or distribution information can be found, the City detail should be used. I know that this is a great deal of information, not all of which is good news. I know you support our goal to standardize our methods, and I hope you understand the related need to meet the written standards in place at this time. Should you have questions on these responses or other requirements or allowances, please feel free to call. cc: Steve Arden, Edelweiss Gartens Venture, Via fax 846 -0652 Case file #02- 00500202 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 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION ‘j DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1 101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979) 764 -3570 / Fax (979) 764 -3496 MEMORANDUM October 4, 2002 TO: Steve Arden, Edelweiss Gartens Venture, Via fax 846 -0652 FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager SUBJECT: EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (FP) — Engineering Comments Staff reviewed the above - mentioned construction documents as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following for further staff review and approval: Three (3) copies of the revised construction documents; If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Spencer Thompson or myself at 764 -3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Michael McClure, McClure Engineering Inc., Via fax 693 -2554 Case file #02- 00500202 Home of Texas A&M University EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (FP) (02- 00500202) ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS No. 1 Engineering Comments for construction associated with Edelweiss Gartens Subdivision Phase 2 Final Plat 1. Do not include private driveway on Brandenburg, Lot 2 Elliot Subdivision with these drawings. This drive does not comply with the City Driveway Ordinance. A permit request may be submitted and reviewed separately for this drive. 2. It appears the storm drain piping under Brandenburg meets ASTM C -850 standard. Why does the adjoining RCP with the same amount of coverage not meet the same standard? Is the RCP you have specified for this application capable of withstanding the expected, direct traffic Toads? 3. The 18" RCP connection to 4x2 SBC near Sta. 42 +00 is not allowed. 4. Sheet 2: Plan view does not show required junction box # 61. 61 must be a junction box. 5. Sheet 2: Junction box required where 36" RCP connects with 6x3 SBC. Also not shown on profile. 6. 45 Elbows are not allowed on storm sewers. However, 45 elbows on storm drain lines have been allowed in the past when the elbow is directly connected to a junction box (as done at JB's 51, 51.5, 70). The SBC line under Brandenburg violates the Ordinance and what has been allowed in the past by proposing an additional elbow unconnected to an adjacent junction box. A junction box is therefore required. 7. 74.5 must be a junction box, per Ordinance. 8. Sheet 6: Storm line from JB #78 into 7x3 SBC not allowed per Ordinance. 9. The Typical 27' Pavement Section detail, Sheet shows a 4' buffer/ green space behind curb. The Ordinance, Chapter 9.8 -M.2, calls for a 6' buffer/ green space. 10. Drainage easement along Lots 45 -51, Block 1 shall be private. 11. Sheet 9: Water line from Sta 238 +68 to Sta 241+97 has not been reviewed at this time due to the knowledge that this length of water main is due to change per phone conversation with Mr. Laza. 12. Please show 8" waterline to and through property to end of Brandenburg. An OP request may be submitted for this additional length of line. 13. Alleys do not meet minimum standards. 14. Please change Water Air Relief Valve detail to match approved City Specifications. 15. Please change Blow -off Valve Assembly detail to match approved City Specifications. Reviewed by: Spencer Thompson Date: October 2, 200 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 of College Station will constitute a completely new review. CITY OF COLLEGE STATION (j DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1 101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 COLLEGE STATION College Station, Texas 77842 Phone (979) 764 -3570 / Fax (979) 764 -3496 MEMORANDUM September 30, 2002 TO: Steve Arden, Edelweiss Gartens Venture, Via fax 846 -0652 FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager SUBJECT: EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (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, October 7, 10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for October 17, 2002, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. Ten (10) copies of the revised final plat; One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat; and One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to nmanhart@ci.college- station.tx.us 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 if all comments have not been addressed, your project will be pulled from the scheduled Planning & Zoning Commission Agenda. Your project may be placed on a future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Spencer Thompson or myself at 764 -3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Michael McClure, McClure Engineering Inc., Via fax 693 -2554 Case file #02- 00500202 Home of Texas ABM University STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (FP) - 02- 00500202 Please note that these comments are in relation to the plat. Engineering comments regarding construction drawings will be returned separately. ENGINEERING 1. Please show PDE on Lot 1, Block 4 to accommodate storm sewer. 2. Please show the call N 40 ° 31'18" E as N 40 ° 31'18" W. 3. Please change drainage easement on lots 46 thru 51, Block 1 to Private Drainage Easement. 4. Please include note on plat as to HOA maintenance of common areas. 5. Please include additional PUE along Brandenburg to accommodate proposed utilities. Also Karten Lane, Dresden and Hartford need additional easement, as well. 6. It was agreed between Parks Department, Development Services and Edelweiss Gartens Venture that this subdivision would dedicate the required parkland when 150 lots were plated. According to our calculations, this plat will bring that total to 156. Dedication must occur before this plat will be filed. 7. Please place 10' PDE on either Lot 28 or 29, Block 8 and center utility. 8. Please place 10' PDE on Lot 24, Block 8 and center utility. Reviewed by: Spencer Thompson Date: September 26, 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 2000i 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 (including street lights). 9. Call and verify with the City of College Station Electric Department the exact location of all electric easements. Reviewed by: Ronnie Bolin Date: 9 -25 -02 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 2 MEMORANDUM October 9, 2002 TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Spencer Thompson Email: sthompson @ci.college - station.tx.us SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT — (RESIDENTIAL) for EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (FP) Item: Discussion and possible action on a Final Plat — (Residential) for Edelweiss Gartens Ph 2 (FP), consisting of 93 single - family lots on 18.8 acres. (02- 00500202) Applicant: Mr. Steve Arden Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat as submitted. Item Summary: This item is for the consideration of a Final Plat for Edelweiss Gartens Phase 2 located south of Graham Road and east of Wellborn Road. The Final Plat conforms to the approved Preliminary Plat. Phase 2 adjoins the existing Phase 1 to the east. The Developer is constructing a collector street, Brandenburg Lane, to intersect with Graham Road. This was a requirement of the Preliminary Plat approval. Another collector, Hartford, will connect with Victoria to the east. Included in this phase of Edelweiss Gartens is 70 R -1 tracts and 23 R -3 tracts. The R -3 tracts will have street frontage as well as rear alley access. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: Land Use Plan: This area shown as single - family residential. Thoroughfare Plan: No thoroughfares shown on plan in this area. Parkland Dedication: Parkland be dedicated before this plat will be filed by the City. Open Space Dedication: Parkland and common areas. Special Area Plans: N/A Budgetary & Financial Summary: N/A Attachments: 1. Area map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of Plat `•, The City of ` College Station, Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764 -3570 MEMORANDUM October 9, 2002 TO: Michael McClure P.E., McClure Engineering Inc., Via fax 693 -2554 FROM: Brett McCully, P.E, Assistant City Engineer i # SUBJECT: EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (FP) — Engine ring Comments Dear Mike, This letter should first serve to summarize our discussions regarding the first set of engineering review comments from our meeting yesterday. It should also provide the results of further investigation and review by Staff on some of the more involved issues. These responses are in the same order as the original comments. 1. The driveway shown to be constructed from Brandenburg to Lot 2 Elliot Subdivision should be noted on the construction . drawings to require a separate driveway permit prior to construction. The plans may move forward with this qualification, but the actual driveway permit process must take place in order for the construction to be allowed. We would like to see possible options of shifting the driveway further from Graham, and thus hopefully meeting the minimum spacing requirement, and /or the possible closing of the driveway on Graham nearest Brandenburg. 2. With the information you provided, we have no further questions on the pipe and box strength specifications. 3. Since this is the first `junction box' comment of several, I'II include the main issue discussion here. The COCS Drainage Design Standards state that junction boxes are required at all changes in conduit size, grade, alignment and at all conduit intersections in underground storm drains. A City Standard 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 exists labeled `Standard Junction Box ", but is not specifically identified by the design policy wording. This standard shows a 5' minimum horizontal dimension, and it can be argued that the square plan view denotes that this dimension applies to both interior sides. A minimum vertical dimension inside the box is not shown. We understand that due to extremely shallow line depths, there is not suitable cover over the box storm drain to allow an increase in vertical clearance without significant negative impact on the paving section directly overhead. Therefore a standard manhole ring and cover assembly, with minimal grade rings are all that are proposed over some junction areas, and no access provided at others. Because the City Standard does not include a minimum vertical dimension, I asked the supervisor of the storm drain maintenance crews how much vertical clearance is needed within the minimal 5'x5' junction box in order to get necessary cleaning equipment into position. He stated that in that minimally sized structure, with the manhole in the optimum location (as close to the lateral connection as possible), they would need a minimum of 4' of vertical clearance. The connections proposed by these plans would provide access areas as small as 4' wide and 2' high to the largest area of 7' wide by 3' high. The City Engineer is authorized to interpret the design policy, and therefore may approve the use of alternate structures on the basis that they would provide similar function comparable to published standards. For maintenance purposes, 4' of vertical clearance should be provided within an areas comparable to the standard 5'x5' junction box. It is my opinion that additional horizontal clearance available, in some of these cases 6 and 7 feet, can allow a decrease in the minimum height from 4' to 3' feet as proposed. Therefore, due to the specific conditions of this project including shallow downstream reteae elevation, pre- existing location within paved roadway section, and asphalt roadway construction, I will allow junction access areas that provide less than 4' vertical clearance given an increase in the minimum horizontal dimension. So in lieu of a 5'x5'x4' minimal access area, a 6'x6'x3' area will be accepted. The 7' widths will also comply as exceeding the 6' requirement. In the case of this specific comment, a 4' by 2' area is not sufficient, and so will not be allowed. Possible options that would be accepted include the construction of a junction box at this location that provides adequate access room as described above, or the redirection of this lateral to use the inlet on the other side of Oldenburg as a junction structure. 4. Per response to comment #3 this will be allowed as designed. 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 5. Per response to comment #3 suitable access must be provided where this connection ultimately occurs. Connection should also be shown in profile. 6. It is my understanding that this area which includes a 90- degree alignment change as well as connections of three different lateral pipes is being re- evaluated and potentially redesigned to provide a more efficient and maintainable layout. Conduit bends alone will require maintenance access as defined for junction boxes in response to comment #3 above. 7. This proposed junction of a 27 "RCP to the transition between the 6'x3 and 7'x3' boxes will be allowed with manhole access. 8. This connection will be allowed with the addition of manhole access into the box at this point. Possible alternative remains in combination of drainage inlet and box conduit. 9. The plans include sidewalk to be constructed 4' behind the back of curb contrary to City Ordinance, Chapter 9.8 -M.2, which calls for a minimum 6' buffer/ green space between the back of curb and inside edge of sidewalk. Project design also includes mountable curbs and not barrier type curbing. Section 9.8.M includes provision for a waiver or variance by City Council for the requirement to include sidewalks on streets, but variance to geometric design information is not included in this provision. Staff does not have authority to interpret or vary this requirement, therefore variance to the section will be required by the Planning and Zoning Commission The applicant will need to choose between modifying the design to match ordinance requirement, or seeking variance from the section via the Planning and Zoning Commission. As was performed for an earlier approval of this project, a variance request can be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to, but at the same hearing as the final plat. It must be pointed out that denial of a variance request will trigger either denial or agenda removal of the plat. If you wish to pursue this direction, please provide the application for variance(s) with appropriate backup information. Staff will make the determination whether to support the variance request based on the requirements of Ordinance Chapter 9, Section 5. Pedestrian safety will be a key Staff concern in this issue, so supporting information should include references to address this area. 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 10. We understand that the drainage easement will be changed to private and that drainage facilities in this area are being revised. 11. We agreed that the water line connection in Brandenburg at Graham is being revised and therefore has not been reviewed, and will not be reviewed until the revised plans are submitted. 12. We agreed that the plans already include the required water line, and that the line is not eligible for oversize participation. 13.Ordinance sections 9.8.F, 9.8.G.10 and 9.8.H.2 require alleys to have a 20' wide paved section. The project is currently designed with alleys that are only 15' wide. We understand that preliminary discussions have taken place regarding reducing the paved section, however such changes have not taken place. Should Staff propose, and Council consider such a change, it will be addressed in UDO article 8, which is presently reserved. Until such time as the ordinance requirement is changed, the current requirement, which is not subject to Staff waiver or modification must be adhered to. Therefore the applicant has the choice between modifying the design to match current ordinance requirement, or seeking variance from the section via the Planning and Zoning Commission. As in the sidewalk location issue, if a variance is desired, please submit the required information as soon as possible so Staff can obtain the necessary input from the City's various operational divisions. 14. As we discussed, the air relief valve cannot have an underground discharge per State mandate. The City detail should be used. 15. At this time we still do not have any information to support an adoption of the detail included in 'these plans by any City Staff. We will continue to pursue such information, however until that adoption or distribution information can be found, the City detail should be used. I know that this is a great deal of information, not all of which is good news. I know you support our goal to standardize our methods, and I hope you understand the related need to meet the written standards in place at this time. Should you have questions on these responses or other requirements or allowances, please feel free to call. cc: Steve Arden, Edelweiss Gartens Venture, Via fax 846 -0652 Case file #02- 00500202 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 EDELWEISS GARTENS PH 2 (FP) (02- 00500202) ENGINEERING REVIEW COMMENTS No. 1 Engineering Comments for construction associated with Edelweiss Gartens Subdivision Phase 2 Final Plat 1. Do not include private driveway on Brandenburg, Lot 2 Elliot Subdivision with these drawings. This drive does not comply with the City Driveway Ordinance. A permit request may be submitted and reviewed separately for this drive. 2. It appears the storm drain piping under Brandenburg meets ASTM C -850 y l standard. Why does the adjoining RCP with the same amount of coverage not meet the same standard? r Is the RCP you have specified for this application capable of withstanding the expected, direct traffic loads? v 3. The 18" RCP connection to 4x2 SBC near Sta. 42 +00 is not allowed. 4. Sheet 2: Plan view does not show required junction box # 61. 61 must be a junction box. 5. Sheet 2: Junction box required where 36" RCP connects with 6x3 SBC. Also not shown on profile. 6. 45 Elbows are not allowed on storm sewers. However, 45 elbows on storm drain lines have been allowed in the past when the elbow is directly connected to a junction box (as done at JB's 51, 51.5, 70). The SBC line under Brandenburg violates the Ordinance and what has been allowed in the past by proposing an additional elbow unconnected to an adjacent junction box. A junction box is therefore required. 7. 74.5 must be a junction box, per Ordinance. 8. Sheet 6: Storm line from JB #78 into 7x3 SBC not allowed per Ordinance. 9. The Typical 27' Pavement Section detail, Sheet shows a 4' buffer/ green space behind curb. The Ordinance, Chapter 9.8 -M.2, calls for a 6' buffer/ green space. 10. Drainage easement along Lots 45 -51, Block 1 shall be private. • Sheet 9: Water line from Sta 238 +68 to Sta 241 +97 has not been reviewed at this time due to the knowledge that this length of water main is due to change per phone conversation with Mr. Laza. 2. Please show 8" waterline to and through property to end of Brandenburg. - QPquest may be submitted for this additional length of line. X33 Alleys do not meet minimum standards. 14. ,Please change Water Air Relief Valve detail to match approved City Specifications. al 5., Please change Blow -off Valve Assembly detail to match approved City Specifications. Reviewed by: Spencer Thompson Date: October 2, 200 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 of College Station will constitute a completely new review. / tyc z /ee.C. 71/ 4Z276 . �,� vim-- 2%. /- per' c-�-' < D/2/ \ c/7 6-7— -� C�,�r;3�'; �7��C� i� c_c74 -c— r C 7 7 Sc eT �/ �c�C= tic ` _S 0 77/ G L 0S . % c r2 ez <- /'iC ." ^ � � - l x. M TV AZT � -� x C - 25 t+ �}7t CA.- S L-1( �c , 5 7 /2' t /2 2 7 - - 7 (5 c 7? C72 /7 L 4 c_ c_ . (2 cc),Z--.. )- L ta?ock.c &)(_.)1 Or-- 2 ( A (K A �.i��� 3L(s71 F c/1=i2 nyt.-'‘ „.. `� C� �� ��l��C� C -U./ , / 16A - U Do 1 P7 (,•74, 045c 7 /7.3 7 -7/1„)‘cc, ft( /72 C57/- 7 eQ., , /its 60,.._c,/,„, IJ