HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Staff Comments(*-41T"
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning e Vrvednpmrrzt Services
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
April 7, 2010
TO: Kevin McGraw, via fax 517 - 703 -2152
FROM: Erika Bridges
SUBJECT: Engineering Document Comments for Campus Village Ph 1A
Staff reviewed the above - mentioned engineering 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 information by Monday, at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review and approval of the plans:
X One (1) set of revised construction documents.
Please note that the Development Permit Balance (Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee), will be
calculated and requested once the construction documents and engineer's estimates have been reviewed and
approved.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Erika Bridges at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
pc: Dave Mulkey, via fax 706 - 357 -9101
Kevin Gaskey, P.E., via fax 972 - 239 -3820
Case File No. 10- 100007
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
Hike & Bike Trail Plans
1. Please verify that the minimum required radii are being provided.
Response: Minimum of 25' radii is met throughout the trail except where geometry constraints warranted smaller radii.
These locations are limited to areas near tie -ins to roadways and are stopping points on the trail.
2. Please show and label sidewalk ramps. These should be based on the City's standard sidewalk details.
Response: Ramps were acknowledged by noting the trail's tie -in point to the Campus Village Roadway. Ramp details
were added to the new project detail sheet 13.
1
3. Sh.4 — It appears that there is a proposed 8.33% slope which would exceed acceptable grades. Please
clarify.
Response: The 8.33% grade shown on sheet 4 is a proposed handicap ramp at the max slope of 1:12.
4. Please show the location of the floodway on the plan and profile dwgs.
Response: Floodway is now shown.
5. In several locations it looks like the algebraic change in grade exceeds 1 %. Please provide vertical curves
in these areas.
Response: Changes in vertical grade exceeding an algebraic difference of 1% include a vertical curve except in areas
where the proposed trail ties into the Campus Village roadway with ADA ramps.
6. Please provide horizontal curve data.
Response: Horizontal curve data is now included.
7. All applicable City Standard Details should be included in the plan set.
Response: Applicable data is now included on the new detail sheet 13.
8. Please provide an Engineer's Cost Estimate for the hike & bike trail construction.
Response: Engineer's estimate included
9. Please provide a Letter of Acknowledgment for the hike & bike trail design.
Response: Acknowledgment letter attached
10. Please provide detailed grading information along the path and on either side of it (including additional spot
elevations).
Response: Contouring of the proposed trail grading has been included. It is expected the contractor will construct the
trail based on the information provided in the vertical profile and the typical cross section.
11. Please provide an erosion control plan including recommendations for stabilizing the slopes.
Response: Hydro - mulching and erosion control blanket extents are shown on the Erosion Control Sheets 10 -12.
Slope stabilization and erosion control blanket specifications are shown on the Miscellaneous Detail Sheet 13.
12. Based on the grading plan in the Campus Village Ph.1A construction plans, it appears that the "Typical
Section" detail on Sh. 2 is not completely accurate.
Response: Please see the updated "Typical Section."
13. Please verify that maximum grades are not exceeding 4:1 within PUEs or 3:1 in all other locations.
Response: Grades are designed not to exceed 3:1 slopes along the trail and 4:1 in Public Utility Easements.
14. Please verify that the 0.5% minimum longitudinal slope is being provided (unless the path is proposed at
natural grade which is Tess than the minimum).
Response: The trail has been designed with a minimum 0.5% slope except in locations where we are matching
existing grades and adjustment of those grades would result in additional grading within the floodplain area.
15. How will significant fill around Sta. 19 +00 be stabilized to avoid erosion and damage to the trail?
Response: The fill near Sta. 19 +00 will be located outside of the floodway, and stabilized by compacting the fill in
multiple lifts. The fill area will then be covered with an erosion control blanket as outlined in the slope stabilization on
sheet 14 and vegetative cover will be established.
16. Please list horizontal and vertical control data on the ground.
Response: BM now included on General Notes Sheet 2.
17. Please show where the limits of the cross - slopes along the path.
Response: The cross slope along the trail is designed to be 2% throughout.
pus Village Ph.1A Plans
Fire Flow — Fire flow demands are required to be based on the size and construction material type per the
2006 International Fire Code. Please revise fire flow report.
Response: Report updated to reflect 2006 IFC
Drainage — The Executive Summary should specify that only 19.2 Ac is being developed with the first
phase of the project.
Response: Summary revised to reflect only 18.66 acres being developed. (Temporary parking lot
removed from site plan which is the 0.54 acre area reduction.)
20. Drainage — It appears that significant fill within the floodplain may warrant a LOMR and CLOMR for this
stretch of Bee Creek Trib. B.
Response: The trail and roadway have been revised to reduce the impact on the floodplain and floodway.
A CLOMR and LOMR will not be needed for this project.
21. Drainage — Some of the DA's (i.e. 27, 31) seem like the C value of 0.74 is low. Please verify.
Response: 0.74 is per the Design Guidelines
22. Drainage — (App. B) Please verify what the maximum ponding depths are throughout the development.
Response: Depths indicated in updated chart on sheet C -15
23. Drainage — (App.D, p.17) Please finish the "Channel Improvements" section.
Response: Section has been completed
24. Drainage — (App.D, p.17) The provided response to the question regarding anything changing besides the
fringe was "No." This seems to be inconsistent with the proposed plan that shows the trail encroaching the
floodway.
Response: The trail alignment has been revised to minimize the impact of the trail into the floodplain area.
25. Drainage — Please verify that the floodplain and floodway lines shown are accurate. The contours based
on the survey data should correspond to the location of the floodplain /floodway in the effective LOMR.
Response: The floodplain and floodway lines have been updated to reflect the LOMR amendment
approved by FEMA.
26. Please verify that an Army Corps of Engineers permit is not needed for this phase of the project.
Response: A USACOE permit is not required as the impact to waters of the US is less than 0.10 acres.
27. Sh.10 -12 — Please verify that maximum grades are not exceeding 4:1 within PUEs or 3:1 in all other
locations.
Response: Grades have been verified and do not exceed above stated slopes
28. Please specify that water -tight rings & covers and minimum rim elevations for sanitary sewer manholes
proposed within the floodplain.
Response: A note has been added to each manhole in the floodplain
29. Sh. 19 -20 — Please provide flowline information at each manhole.
Response: Flowline information added to manholes
30. Please show sanitary sewer services in profile.
Response: Laterals added to profile sheets
31. Please provide plan and profile drawings which show that plan view of the utilities with stationing above the
corresponding profile views.
Response: Separate Plan view sheets and profiles sheets have been provided.
32. Please show and label all pipe crossings including the separation distance.
Response: Crossings shown and labeled on profile sheets
33. Sh.24 — It is my understanding that they are no longer making C909 pipe as specified for the waterline.
Please revise.
Response: Reference to C909 has been eliminated
34. Type K Copper Tubing is required for all domestic water services. Please specify.
Response: Domestic services noted on detail to be "Type K Copper Tubing" note # 8.
35. Please specify how you are connecting to the existing water line on the western side of the property. If
cutting in a tee, an additional valve will be needed on the existing line.
Response: A note for a tapping, sleeve, and valve has been added
36. Please show and label proposed PUE's on plan and profile drawings.
Response: PUE's noted on Plan sheets.
37. Two valves will be required at each tee connection and every 800 -ft.
Response: Per a discussion with Erika Bridges on April 29 valves added to the fire hydrant leads and
mains to provide "x-1" valves per "x" number of pipes. The services to the buildings are shown to have a
valve on the service.
38. Can you serve Bldg. 5 off of the 8 -inch main on the building's eastern side?
Response: Yes, and has been revised to eliminate long run in the PUE.
39. The minimum and maximum cover for 12 -in and smaller mains is 4 -ft and 5 -ft, respectively. When crossing
below other utilities, please make sure you get back to the required bury depth as soon as possible.
Response: Profiles updated to keep water as shallow as possible.
40. Please note all areas where structural backfill is required.
Response: Note has been added to the water and sanitary sewer plan sheets.
41. Please note the required TCEQ provisions for water /sanitary sewer crossings at the locations where this is
an issue.
t
Response: Noted
42. Where's the proposed /existing grade for the remainder of WL A -1?
Response: This has been revised to show the correct location of the existing watermain.
43. Please label all vertical bends on the profile and provide deflection radii (if applicable).
Response: Vertical bends have been labeled on the water profile sheets.
44. Sh.29 — A project this large seems as though it should have another stabilized construction entrance.
Response: Two entrances have been shown which are consistent with the temporary access requested by
the contractor from TXDOT.
45. Sh.29 — Please show the proposed spoils site and indicate necessary erosion control around it (i.e. silt
fencing).
Response: Spoils area has been noted on sheet C -29 and notes added to the plan.
46. FYI ... The required Development Permit fee is 0.75% of the total cost of public infrastructure based on the
approved cost estimate. The will be due prior to construction and site plan approval.
Response: Noted — developerlcontractor will be paying prior to site plan approval.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 4/6/2010
GREENWAYS
GREENWAYS
1. There are only two exercise stations shown. The minimum number of exercise stations will need to be 4 -5. Previous
direction on exercise stations is below. Since individual stations have been chosen what surface will be used and will they
be connected to the path. [They can be placed along the trail or in one location. Examples are provided in the vendor info
below. If placed in a concentrated location, it will need to be outside of the floodplain. A synthetic surface (rubberized mulch)
would need to be used and that would also allow for equipment that requires a fall zone. The Parks and Recreation
Department can provide more info on that. Let me know if you decide to go that route and I can give you contact info to
learn more about it. The material is from T.F. Harper. If placed along the trail, concrete is permissible but then pieces that
don't require a fall zone will need to be selected. The Parks and Recreation Department will want to approve pieces that you
choose. Equipment that has minimal or no moving parts would be ideal since they will have less maintenance or the
likelihood of breaking.]
Response: Equipment is shown. No fall surface is required per manufacturer.
2. Please provide the Geotechnical Engineering Report.
Response: Geotechnical Engineering Report is included.
3. Please provide a legend.
Response: Legend is provided.
4. Show utilities.
Response: Utilities are shown.
5. Please address locations where horizontal curve radius is below 25. See sheet 4 Station 0 +80 and sheet 8 station
23.
Response: These locations are isolated to locations where a stop is required due to road crossings. These
locations have been signed per the MUTCD.
6. The grading doesn't match up with the max slopes shown in the detail for the multi -use path. Please address.
Response: Grading has been updated and contours are provided.
7 Please provide recommendations for erosion control measures for the proposed grading.
Response: Recommendations are included on Erosion Control Sheets
8. List horizontal curve data at each sheet.
Response: Horizontal curve data is listed.
9. CaII out cross slope station limits.
Response: Consistent 2% left per typical detail.
10. Show crosswalk pavement markings and signage on these plans.
Response: The crosswalks are designed to be specialty pavement with the Campus Village phase 1A plans.
Therefore, we have referenced those plans for the actual road crossing. We have shown the warning and
regulatory signage required for the trail crossing.
11. Address how ADA will be accommodated through the site where sidewalks meet the path.
Response: All non ADA compliant connections to the trail have been eliminated.
12. The end of the trail on the east end will need to be addressed with some sort of treatment such as a turnaround,
signage, etc. Please provide a recommendation.
Response: Has been signed per the MUTCD. The trail is sufficient width to turn around.
13. Please label radius between stations 15 +36 and 16 +17.
Response: Radius has been labeled.
14. On sheet 5 from station 5 to 9, please move the path further away from the creek towards the development to help
address potential erosion issues. Other locations of concern where trail should be moved away from the creek
include: sheet 4 from Station 4 to 5 and sheet 7 from station 17 to 19.
Response: Comment has been addressed.
15. Please show the location of oaks, elms, and other native trees to be protected. Also show groups /cluster of small
trees and brush.
Response: No tree survey has been performed. The contractor is not to work outside the limits of disturbance
shown on the plans. Existing trees, brush, etc. within the limits of disturbance may be removed due to the grading
required for the trail and site.
Reviewed by: Venessa Garza, Greenways Program Manager Date: April 7, 2010
4.ff"
CITY OF C01.1 FGE ST.Yr i.\
Hun. ofTizas:icr.N G .icrnt7'
Attachments: Staff review comments
1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
June 16, 2010
TO: Kevin McGraw, Caddis Development, via kmcgraw
FROM: Jason Schubert, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Campus Village Ph la (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. The next submittal will be the third
and final review by staff for this round of reviews. If all items have not been addressed on the
next submittal, another $668 processing fee will need to be submitted for the subsequent set of
three (3) reviews. Please address the comments and submit the following information by any
Monday at 10:00 a.m. for further staff review:
X Seven (7) complete sets of construction documents for the proposed
development with the revised site and landscaping plans attached (one set will
be returned to you, please submit additional copies if you want more than one
approved set);
X Four (4) revised site plans;
X One (1) revised landscaping plan; and
X One (1) 11x17 grading and erosion control plan.
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 979.764.3570.
cc: Kevin Gaskey, Kimley -Hom and Associates, Inc, via Kevin.gaskey(a.kimley- horn.com
Chuck Ellison, The Ellison Firm, via chuck a(� ellisonlaw.com
Dave Mulkey, The Dovetail Companies, via dmulkey @thedovetailcompanies.com
Case file #10- 00500035
PLANNING
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: Campus Village Ph la (SP) - 10- 00500035
1. Near the traffic circle toward Southwest Pkwy, there needs to be a sidewalk ramp on the
Community Center side of the central drive aisle to receive the sidewalk from the Building 1
side.
Response: Sidewalk added.
2. There is inconsistency with the sidewalk ramps in different areas of the site. Some ramps
go directly into a drive aisle while others have landing areas outside of the drive aisle.
Whichever standard is used, please verify compliance with ADA requirements.
Response: Ramps updated as shown. Some ramps need to be configured as shown for
access.
3. Staff has noted the island transition between the parallel and head -in parking spaces behind
Building #1 has been added. Instead of removing a head -in space, the island could be
shifted to the remove one of the 3 parallel spaces. The remaining 2 parallel spaces could
be pulled back to increase the curve radii of the multi -use path in the area, reduce the
amount of concrete and still meet the hammerhead specifications.
Response: Island was added per City recommendation in March 31S response letter.
4. On sheet C -07, the parking added by Community Center mailboxes is not shaded with the
thickness of concrete to be used.
Response: Shading added
5. On sheet C -08, temporary curbing needs to be provided on all driveway stubs to be
extended with future development.
Response: Curb has been added
6. The Landscape Plan shows speed tables for the multi -use path crossings and other
decorative pavement features along central drive aisle. Please provide additional material
and color details /descriptions for these items.
Response: Landscape plan shows material and color information for crossings.
7. Correct the detail for the typical speed table section on sheet L -05 of the Landscape Plan, it
appears the dimensional figures are not correct or are incomplete. Also, verify that the
speed tables meet the slopes and wheelbase widths necessary for a fire apparatus,
particularly the aerial apparatus.
Response: Detail revised and Eric Dotson with the City of College Station was consulted by
John Fielder of KHA to verify the speed table is acceptable to the Fire Department.
8. The new rezoning ordinance allows the reduction of double to single landscape islands
when an equal number of trees are planted along the multi -use path. Based on the parking
configuration along the right -of -way, there is a reduction of 22 single size island areas in
Phase 1A and another 9 island areas in Phase 1B. As such, 31 canopy trees are to be
planted along the multi -use path. Please provide the canopy trees on the landscape plan
and multi -use path plan. The trees do not receive landscape points and are to be irrigated
unless some type of agreement or surety can be arranged for their survival for at least two
years. The trees should be placed to serve primary functions of stabilizing potentially
erosive stream bank areas and providing shade for the path.
Response: The trees have been added as noted as such on the landscape plan.
9. Additional shrubs are to be provided for screening of the exposed grade beams of Buildings
4 & 5.
Response: Additional Shrubs have been provided.
10. The phasing plan provided at the end of the civil set of construction documents also needs
to be provided as a separate sheet for planning file. As for the phasing, the compactor
would need to be part of the first phase that included multi - family units (the community
center likely could use a roll -out can initially). Also, please ensure that there is adequate
turn around areas for fire and sanitation vehicles as the phasing proceeds.
Response: The phasing plan has been added to the end of the CD's. A note has been
placed on the plan to ensure adequate area is provided for by the contractor for the fire
department.
11. Based on the 194 units proposed with this site plan, parkland dedication fees that total
$246,768 will be due for the building permits to be issued. This total consists of
Neighborhood Park Land Dedication (194 x $256 /unit), Community Park Land Dedication
(194 x $248 /unit), and Community Park Development (194 x $768 /unit). At this point the
Neighborhood Park Development fees are being credited with the multi -use path
construction. If the path is not constructed, an additional $120,668 (194 x $622 /unit) will be
due.
Response: Noted
12. Please note that the Engineering Comments below only reflect a review of the multi -use
path, the remaining construction documents comments from Erika will be forthcoming.
Response: Noted
13. Please note that 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 the City has not been made aware of will
constitute a completely new review.
Response: Noted
Reviewed by:
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
Jason Schubert Date: May 28, 2010
HIKE & BIKE TRAIL PLANS
1. It seems like the sidewalk ramps providing access to the proposed path should be installed with this
project. Why are they being included with Campus Village Ph.1A construction instead?
Response: The trail and the Campus Village phase la will all be constructed at the same time by the same
contractor. The road crossings contain specialty brick pavers and speed tables as part of the CV plans. There
are no ramps at these locations; the connections are flush to the road. For ease of construction and
coordination, it made more sense to include the crossing and the connections to the road as part of those plans.
2. Fill on Sheets 5 and 7 is still encroaching into the floodway and needs to be removed.
Response: The grading in these areas has been adjusted.
3. Please submit signed and sealed Engineer's Cost Estimate.
Response: A signed OPCC is included.
4. How was it determined which areas would be hydromulched and which areas would need an erosion
control blanket?
Response: All disturbed areas and a 4' wide strip off the trail will be hydromulched. Areas with 3:1 slopes will be
blanketed.
5. Please provide minimum 0.5% longitudinal slopes as it appears that existing grades are being adjusted
in all areas.
Response: Minimum 0.50% slopes have been included.
6. Please add a note that fill within the floodplain will be per FEMA Technical Bulletin 10 - 01.
Response: This note has been added to the general notes. Please note, we have exceeded the FEMA standard
for fill placement included in this technical bulletin (95% std proctor density compaction, Ref pg 15). Per our
plans on sheet 02, we are requiring a 98% standard proctor density compaction. Therefore, the technical
bulletin is in conflict with the direction provided to the contractor in the plans.
7. Please provide spot elevations along the tops of the retaining walls.
Response: Top and bottom of wall (TW / BIM elevations were provided in the previous submittal at positions that
indicate the beginning and end of the walls, inflection points, and points where the top of the wall changes
height.
8. Please revise the Legend to match the line types being shown in plan view.
Response: Line types in Legend are now changed to match those in plan view.
9. FYI...Retaining walls 24- inches and greater require a separate building permit.
GREENWAYS
1. Other legends are still needed including symbols and abbreviations.
Response: Legend is corrected.
2. North arrow on vicinity map is missing.
Response: North arrow is now shown.
3. Give description and location on plan view of vertical and horizontal control monument (i.e. NE corner
of Harvey Mitchell and Wellborn).
Response: Description and location has been added.
4. Indicate on Sheet 11 Note 1 the type of grass seed to be used.
Response: Reference note #2 shown on sheet 11. We are specifying the TxDOT Bryan district seed mix.
5. The surface for the exercise equipment will need to be decomposed granite gravel compacted to 4 ". It
will also need to be bordered with 1X4" bend a board (recycled plastic edging. It's available from Ewing
Irrigation, 690 -9191.
Response: Decomposed granite is now included on sheet 5.
6. Five access points were proposed at 30 %. 60% drawings only show two access points remaining.
Please add one or two back from the three removed. They do not all need to meet ADA but one more
needs to. It needs to be at sta 7 +58 and /or between sta 9 +28 and 10 (Sheet 5).
Response: An ADA accessible access point has been added at station 10 +85. There is a 6 foot elevation
difference between the parking areas and the trail at both stations 7 +58 and 9 +28 - 10 +00. Constructing an
ADA accessible connection at these locations is not practical as it would require a minimum of 72 linear feet of
ramping, 3 — 5 foot landings and handrails to accommodate the grade change. Station 10 +85 is the closest
point where an ADA accessible connection is practical.
7. The minimum two foot wide graded area should be clear of obstructions. Listed below are some areas
of concern where obstructions will need to be moved although there may be others. The trail should not
be moved closer to the floodplain to address these issues. Edge of proposed signage should be
outside of this two foot area as well.
o Sheet 4
• Between sta 0 +56.76 and 0 +80.33 — HVAC system
Response: Comment addressed, note in sheet 04.
• At C3 — signage
Response: Sign has been moved 2' of the edge of trail.
• At C3 - Proposed landscape wall location differs in trail plan vs. construction plan.
Need to use what is proposed in trail plan and change construction plans.
Response: noted.
o Sheet 5
• The exercise equipment ( #4, #9)
Response: All equipment is 2' off of the trail
o Sheet 7
• Sta 19 — sgnage
Response: Sign has been moved 2' off edge of trail.
o Sheet 8
• Light Pole at sta 25 (possibly)
Response: This is an existing street light and will not be removed.
• Between 22 +40 and 22 +8 — Signage
Response: Signage has been moved.
o Sheet 9
• Light Pole at sta 26 (possibly)
Response: This is an existing street light and will not be removed.
8. Replace W11 - 1 signs with W11 - 15 and W11 - 15 - P signs but also keep the W16 - 3A signs.
Response: W11 - 1 signs have been replaced.
9. Show cross slopes on plan view and station (sta) limits for change in cross slope locations.
Response: Cross slopes are included on each sheet. As previously noted, the trail is a consistent 2% cross
slope throughout.
10. C - 1, C - 23, C - 24 and C - 29 horizontal curve radius still do not meet AASHTO.
Response: These locations are limited to tie -ins to roadways and stopping points on the trail where cyclists will
be slowing to a stop. Curve warning and /or stop ahead signs have been provided in advance in these locations
in accordance with AASHTO and TMUTCD.
11. Label retaining wall sta limits.
Response: Station and offset are labeled on all retaining walls.
12. Label size of cross culverts, sta location and upstream and downstream flow lines.
Response: Cross culverts have been labeled.
13. Horizontal Curve PI's are not labeled please provide x,y coordinate or station and offset information.
Response: This information has been provided per your request.
Reviewed by: Venessa Garza Date: May 28, 2010
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS NO. 2 REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS NO. 2
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
2. There are a couple of routing issues that are currently being resolved.
3. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
4. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
5. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing devices
and extend as required.
6. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices, developer will
furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout.
7. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc) per CSU
specs and design.
8. Developer installs pull boxes per CSU specs and design (pull boxes provided by CSU).
9. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and / or site plan. Email to:
sweido @cstx.gov.
10. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide electrical
service, i.e. transformer(s), pull box(es), switchgear(s), meter location and conduit routing as
designed by CSU.
11. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Sam Weido at
979.764.6314.
Reviewed by: Sam Weido Date: May 14, 2010
Kimley -Horn
❑ 1 and Associates, Inc.
Memorandum
To: Erika Bridges
From: Chris Harris
Subject: Campus Village - Trail
Response to City Comments
Date: July 6, 2010
• Five sets of revised construction documents
• One set of grading and erosion control plans
KHA Job No. 644225500
K:\CST_Civil \64422500- Campus Village \ Does \Response to Review Comments 04.27.10
Page 1 of 3
Campus Village Ph. 1A — College Station, Texas
This memorandum is to address the City of College Station staffs comments on the above mentioned project as
received by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. on July 1, 2010. The following information has been included in
this submittal for your review.
Please find the written responses to staffs comments on the following pages. The original city comment is listed
followed by our response in bold print.
1111M/11 Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
KHA Job No. 644225500
K:`:CST Campus Village :Docs`Response to Review Comments 04 27.10
Page 2 of 3
Campus Village Ph. 1A — College Station, Texas
Engineering
1. There is still some concern about there being adequate drainage for portions of the trail
that are being constructed in low areas (i.e. Sta.25 +00).
The sections at 25 +00 specifically have been revised.
2. Could you give an estimate of the cut vs. fill within the floodplain areas?
KHA has prepared an average end area volume computation based on the cross
sections provided for cut / fill within the floodplain areas only. See the attached
calculations.
3. FYI... Retaining walls 24- inches and greater require a separate building permit. Signed
and sealed plans for the construction of these walls need to be submitted to building
along with the building permit application.
G ree nways
1. Sheet 2 - Pavement type - either 4" reinforced with steel or 6" reinforced with fiber.
The cross section has been updated to 6 ". Per Alan Gibbs' request, we are calling
for fiber reinforced concrete.
2. Sheet 5 - Please add Compacted to "4" Decomposed Granite Surface Course"
The note has been updated.
3. Sheet 7 - Is a rail not needed after all with the retaining wall?
The rail requirements have not changed. Rails are still required on any wall over
30 inches in height. We have added a schematic layout to the plans for the
approximate location where the rails will be needed. However, it is still the
contractor's responsibility to determine the final rail locations in the field based
on the constructed height of the wall. Please reference the retaining wall detail
and note #2 on the Trail Plan sheets.
4. Sheet 7 - Change W11 -1 sign to W11 -15 sign.
The sign has been updated.
5. Sheet 8 - What will be proposed for the stop ahead signage due to potential confusion
by motorists?
The proposed sign will be the smaller 18 "x18" sign (vs. a 30 "x30" std.) for Shared -
Use paths per the TMUTCD. In addition, the sign will be mounted at 5' vertical
height vs. 7' for road signs per the TMUTCD and is located a minimum of 13' off of
the back of curb for the drive lanes. We believe that this is a sufficient distance
and number of differences with the standard traffic signage to avoid motorist
confusion. Due to the parallel nature of the trail and drive lanes in this location,
there is not another option for screening the sign and maintaining visibility by the
shared -use path users.
6. Sheet 9 - Can language be added about trees to be protected?
Reference note #6. Language has been added requiring barricade fencing at the
drip line of any trees within the work zone.
Transportation
1. Horiz. Curve data for Curve C2 is not listed on Curve Data Table.
Revised
2. Regarding the Vertical Profile:
a. Station 2 +30 K value is less than 17 at the VPI Sag
b. Station 4 +00 K value = 6.10 at VPI crest and should be greater than 7
r7 /I Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Campus Village Ph. 1A — College Station, Texas
c. Station 6 +97.99 K value = 11.49 at VPI sag and should be greater than 17
d. Station 23 +50 K value = 16.67 at VPI sag and should be greater than 17
e. Station 26 +20 K value = 7.18 at VPI sag and should be greater than 17
The vertical profile has been revised to address the above comments.
3. I suggest listing earthwork quantities cut & fill on plan sheets per station.
Reviewed by: Joe Guerra Date: 6/29/10
KHA Job No. 644225500
K: Civil 64422500- Campus Village'Docs \Response to Review Comments 04.27.10
Page 3 of 3