HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to Staff Comments. Y
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: RANDALL UNIVERSITY PARK L3R2 (REPLAT FP) - 10-00500267
PLANNING
1) Please show and label Cooner Street on the platting document. Revised accordingly.
2) Please locate the adjacent property information on the respective properties. It is a little
confusing with the information in the current location. Revised accordingly.
3) Please add a 20-foot P.U.E. along the rear property lines which boarder the City of Bryan.
Revised accordingly.
4) 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. Adjustments to five (5) lot sizes.
5) Please note that you may be required to submit paid tax certificates if they are not current
prior to the filing of your plat. Understood.
6) The construction documents and reports are still under review and may affect the plat.
Understood.
7) Please be aware that each lot will be required to provide a minimum of two (2) trees of at
least two inches (2") in caliper or one (1) tree of four-inch (4") caliper per Ordinance No.
3222. See Final Plat Note #7.
Reviewed by: Matthew Hilgemeier, Staff Planner Date: December 8, 2010
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
Please submit all required engineering documents and reports as required with
t Development Permit Application submittal. Attached with this submittal.
, ease verify that all proposed/existing culverts have appropriate end treatments
d erosion control measures. See Construction Drawings, sheet GP-01.
Existing sidewalk along Chimney Hill should be extended to connect to proposed
subdivision entrance, beyond this point will be considered cul-de-sac. See
construction Drawings, sheet GP-01.
lease verify and place a note on the plans that no sanitary sewer service will be left
more than 3.5 feet deep at the point of terminus by developer's contractor. See Plan
mate #5 on Construction Drawings, sheet U-01.
Please verify and place note on plans that water services will be left between 2 and 3
feet deep at the point of terminus by developer's contractor. Also note that a ball valve
is required at the point of terminus. See Plan Note #4 on Construction Drawings, sheet
01.
Please provide a note explaining the maintenance and ownership responsibilities
of the "Variable Width Private Cross Access Easement". The (0000/000) can be
removed as the easement can be dedicated with this document. Understood.
ee Final Plat Note #9.
lease provide a private drainage easement thru the site for the conveyance
storm water from the upstream "Randal's" detention facility as well as the
proposed detention facility. Revised accordingly.
%K "Please provide a note explaining the maintenance and ownership responsibilities
of the "Private Drainage Easement". See Final Plat Note #9.
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
j.o Please contact and provide correspondence from United States Postal Service
concerning mail service for the proposed subdivision: Understood.
a. Frank Borroni
frank. e. borroni6a~usps.gov
979-693-4152
Reviewed by: Josh Norton
Date: December 9, 2010
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes or
provides descriptive easements for electric infrastructure as designed by CSU for
electric lines (where applicable, including street lights)
2. Developer may be responsible for locating easements on site to insure that electrical
infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries.
3. If applicable, the following easements will be required: 5' PUE on each side of
interior lot lines in case of needed extension for electrical and other utilities.
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for riser poles. CSU installs riser.
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing
devices and extend as required.
5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices,
developer will furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout.
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings (i.e. transformers, pull boxes etc)
per CSU specs and design.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design
(pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU).
8. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and / or site plan.
Email to: wdavis@cstx.gov or ehorton@cstx.gov.
9. Developer provides load data to CSU as soon as it is available to avoid construction
delays. Delivery time for transformers not in stock is approximately 40 weeks.
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 Weldon Davis at
979.764.5027.
Reviewed by: Weldon Davis
Date: 12.9.10
SANITATION
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
1. Sanitation is ok with this project.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: December 8, 2010
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
Page 1 of 2
Josh Norton - Randall's University Park Replat - Respones to Various Comments made at P&Z
Meeting "Hear Citizens" - 2/3
From: "Ration Metcalf' <rabon@rmengineer.com>
To: "'Josh Norton"' <Jnorton@cstx.gov>, "'ali jaffer"' <aliinksa@yahoo.com>
Date: 02/08/2011 8:25 AM
Subject: Randall's University Park Replat - Respones to Various Comments made at P&Z Meeting
"Hear Citizens" - 2/3
Josh,
Below are my responses to comments made during the "Hear Citizens" portion of the 2/3 P&Z meeting. A lot of
the comments were non-technical pertaining to integrity of subdivision, student housing vs. single family, noise,
crime, property values, two-car garages, etc... These comments do not apply to the current ordinances and
though they may be real concerns to the neighborhood HOA's they are not applicable to the technical
completeness and adherence of this replat to the City's codes of governance. Therefore, I'm only addressing
relevant technical questions. Duplicate comments (i.e. pertaining to drainage) will be addressed only once by
the first party that mentioned that specific item.
Paul Booth:
1. Comment in regards to floodplain: The current Zone A floodplain is illustrated on the Replat and
relevant Construction Drawings. The floodplain, as illustrated on the DFIRM Brazos County website is
practically identical to the effective FIRM with only a shift to provide better creek alignment. Regardless
of the which floodplain limit is utilized the proposed project's fill and/or drainage improvements will not
encroach in mapped floodplain;
2. Stormwater Quality: A SWP3 has been prepared for this project and will be filed with the TCEQ prior to
construction activities beginning. Stormwater Quality measures are currently not required by the CoCS;
Joe Armond:
1. Earthwork management or placement of the houses relative to the power lines and creek: As
illustrated on the Grading & Drainage Plan the proposed residences are placed between the powerline
easement and the dedicated drainage easement. Sufficient space exists for the construction and
grading required without placement of fill in the creek;
John Nichols:
1. The TCEQ Dam Safety Program has some exclusions in regards to the determination of whether a
detention facility shall be classified as a dam or not as a dam. This office has not investigated whether
this structure is classified as a dam or not, however, it is not the responsibility of the downstream
developer to determine this. If this retaining wall structure is classified as a dam then the Probable
Maximum Flood (PMF) that must be conveyed by the dam's principle and emergency spillway is
determined by it hazard rating (downstream public safety conditions). If this structure is considered as a
dam by the TCEQ then its hazard rating would be classified as Small Size w/High Hazard and it would be
required to convey 75% of the PMF. This hazard rating does not change whether this development
occurs or doesn't occur. Also, if the rating classification did change then it would be the responsibility of
the dam owner to insure their structure satisfies the TCEQ Rules & Regulation and not a downstream
owner;
2. 900 mm pipe: This actually is a 60" diameter pipe (1525 mm diameter). The drainage study illustrates
that it will convey the 100-year flood.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jnorton\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D50FDECCit... 02/09/2011
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2
1. Submit revised engineer's cost estimate if applicable. Revised Engineer's Cost Estimate
attached;
2. Submit revised fire flow report to incorporate the Fire Department's most recent comments.
The changes worked out with the FD where drive oriented only. No revisions to the Fire
Flow report are necessary;
3. Submit Letter of Acknowledgement. Attached;
4. Please revise plans per the Fire Department's most recent comments. Revised accordingly;
5. Please include BCS Construction Details. Included-,
6. Please check sidewalk ramp detail reference, as SW-01 does not correlate. Revised
accordingly;
7. Is the existing culvert a 60 inch RCP? Yes;
8. Please reference commercial driveway detail (ST2-03), instead of ST1-06, as the driveway
is intended as a fire lane. Please label curb return radii. Revised and labeled accordingly;
9. The City recommends the use of RCP in structural areas, the proposed fire lane is certainly
considered structural and RCP should be utilized in this application. Per our phone
conversations ADS will be acceptable;
10. Please provide flow line data for sanitary sewer manhole service connection. Revised
accordingly;
11. How much of the existing vegetation on the tract is proposed to remain undisturbed? Is
there extensive grading proposed in the "drainage easement area"? It is difficult to
determine this based on the grading plan? Areas that will be disturbed in the private
drainage easement is as follows:
• Extension of 60" Culvert;
Water & sanitary sewer service crossings;
12. Does the area inlet referenced on GP-01 and MD-01 correlate? Revised accordingly;
13. Please provide a blow up in plan and profile of the proposed detention area being created.
Revised accordingly;
14. Please call me to discuss the drainage report and calculations. Comments addressed per
our phone conversations;
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: December 20, 2010