HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondenceM ITCHELL
I vs6
MORGAN
September 17, 2004
Bridgette George
COCS - Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
Re: Central Park Lane Comments
Dear Bridgette,
We have attached 3 sets of construction plans for Central Park Lane. Listed below are our
answers to your comments.
Engineering:
Comment: Construct 38 -ft B -B roadway section as per T -fare Plan.
Answer: Construction plans changed to reflect 38' B -B roadway section.
Comment: Minimum radius on 12 -in line is 600 -ft.
Answer: Waterline radius changed to 600 -ft.
Comment: If waterline is 5 -ft outside of paved areas, structural fill not required.
Answer: Acknowledged.
Comment: Air relief required on peak of 12 -in line, approx. Sta. 25 +60.
Answer: Because of the reduced pavement section we have been able to move the waterline
out from under the storm sewer which negates the need for the air relief.
Comment: 6 -ft sidewalk back of curb or 4 -ft per Sub Regs allowed on this type roadway.
Answer: A 6 foot sidewalk at the back of the curb is what we would like to construct.
Thank you for your help on this project. If you have any question please give us a call.
Veronica J.B. Morgki, P.E.
Managing Partner
Cc: Jim Stewart, Waterwood Condos
File
,,20 "�j' -j
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 - COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564 �.
CIVIL ENGINEERING . HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info @mitchellandmorgan.com www.mitchellandmorgan.com `���
M ITCHELL
I V4 1-- A
MORGAN
September 20, 2004
Alan Gibbs
City of College Station
Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
Re: Waterwood Phase 3 Rough Grading
Dear Alan,
As we discussed we would like to request a rough grading permit for Waterwood Phase 3
while we await full plan approval. We have attached 4 sets of grading plans for approval.
All development permits have been applied for and paid as part of the site plan submittal.
Thank you for your help on this project. Please call if you have any questions.
1 5i erely,
Veronica JBI g P. .
Managing Partner
Cc: Jim Stewart
File
DP c4
511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564
CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS HYDROLOGY UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS
info@mitchellandmorgan.com www.mitchellandmorgan.com
20'0
September 20, 2004
Bridgette George
v
� COCS- Development Services
L 0 P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
ch
++ N Re: Waterwood Condos Phase 3 (SP) - 04 -181
Cv �Cd
O ra °-' rn
c Dear Bridgette,
c
= Cd M
i C Attached are 2 revised site plans, 1 landscape plan and 6 sets of construction plans
Ch S' ° for the above referenced project. Below is our response to your comments.
C o L
a -
C .> � � Planning•
W 0 2! = to cn '
Comment: Behind building 16 is an identified side setback. This should be a 20-
ft. rear setback.
Answer: Per our conversation with Molly & Bridgette we should disregard
this comment.
C W
I M a Comment: A 10 -ft. planted buffer and wooden screening fence is required
0 a = along the Lutheran church's property line. The drive aisle will not be
a , allowed in the buffer yard.
g' a Answer: Drive aisle has been relocated to 10' off the property line.
.L
C Comment: Will there be a pedestrian entrance off of Central Park Lane? Will
there sidewalks interior to the site connecting with this entrance?
j Answer: No, Jim Stewart requested that we not extend the sidewalk to
Central Park Lane.
J Comment: Please identify the Knox Box location for the Central Park Lane
.J N O entrance.
Q 41 Answer: The knox box location has been added on Sheet 1.
C7 FA h
a' Landscaping /Streetseaping/Buffer:
O
U Comment: A landscape plan was not submitted, but will be required to complete
C F- the site plan.
c `p In Answer: Landscape plan has now been attached.
J ,O�
W I aN�
r.
_ > U)
tZ 0 F� n
Tel = B
K
Engineering•
Comment: Show public infrastructure in "Proposed PUE ". See BCS UDG for
width requirements.
Answer: Width of the PUE has been increased to twenty feet for the
relocated sewer line.
Comment: If CSU needs a PUE along back side of Buildings 8 and 9, private
sewer will need to become public or be relocated.
Answer: We have confirmed with CSU that they do not need an easement
behind building 8 & 9. Sewer will remain there and be private.
Comment: Additional hydrants are required for Site Plan to meet IFC.
Answer: Additional fire hydrants have been added.
Comment: Additional easement needed on 12 -in sewer main.
Answer: The easement for the 12 inch sewer has been increased to 20' in
width.
Comment: The 3 -in line in front of Building 10 should 6 -in for future tie -in.
Answer: This line has been changed to a 6 inch line.
Comment: Water line #8 should extend over public sewer line. Separation
requirements per TCEQ are required, 9 -ft in all directions or
accommodate per regs.
Answer: Water line #8 has been extended and separation criteria met.
Comment: Show limits of structural fill on public water or provide detail
depicting when and where.
Answer: Structural fill limits has been added to the plans.
Comment: Show blow -offs on 6 -in line extensions for future use, Sheet 8.
Answer: Blow offs are shown on sheet 8.
Comment: 8 -in water line bend is 400 -ft radius per BCS UDG.
Answer: Radius in 8 inch line has been changed to greater than 400 feet.
Comment: Is retaining wall really needed? Grade change does not appear to
warrant retaining wall.
Answer: Retaining wall has been removed.
Comment: Add note. All private sewer to be installed per Plumbing Code and
inspected by City Plumbing inspector.
Answer: Note has been added.
Electrical:
Comment: Developer installs conduit per city specs and design.
Answer: Acknowledged.
Comment: Developer pours transformer pad(s) per city specs and design.
Answer: Acknowledged.
Comment: Developer installs pull boxes as per city specs and design. (pull
boxes provided by the city).
Answer: Acknowledged.
Comment: Developer provides digital AutoCAD version 2000 of plat and /or
site plan.
Answer: AutoCAD 2000 drawing has been sent to Tony Michalsky for
electric layout.
Comment: Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction
purposes.
Answer: Temporary blanket easement exists on the property.
Comment: Developer provides metes and bounds descriptive easements for
electric infrastructure as installed before temporary blanket easement
can be released.
Answer: Acknowledged. We will most likely provide an as -built condition
plat once complete.
Comment: College Station Utilities will provide Electric Distribution design
plan to developer for installation of electric infrastructure. Contact
Tony Michalsky at (979- 764 -3438) for copies.
Answer: Acknowledged.
Comment: Central Park Lane construction. Developer will be responsible for
the installation of conduit for future service to Phase 4 and Street
Light installations per city spec and design. College Station Utilities
will provide Electric Distribution design plan to developer for
installation of electric infrastructure. Contact Tony Michalsky at
(979- 764 -3438) for copies.
Answer: Acknowledged. We will contact Tony Michalsky and have his plans
inserted into one construction set.
Miscellaneous:
Comment: Irrigation system must be protected by either a Pressure Vacuum
Breaker, a Reduced Pressure principle Back Flow Device, or a
Double -Check Back Flow Device, and installed as per City
Ordinance 2394.
Answer: Acknowledged.
Comment: All BackFlow devices must be installed and tested upon installation
as per City Ordinance 2394.
Answer: Acknowledged.
Thank you for your help on this project. If you have any question please give us a
call.
Veronica T or n, iE.
Managing Partner
Cc: Jim Stewart, Waterwood Condos
File
L'rT
01 A-D 64
N R
l�
c
c v►
L
Aj c in
u► M
C-a c c�
CTioO
U =a c
c —c_�
c
E
C w m
.� � a •–
W V =inU)
W
4.
W
c a
La v�
t 0
L r1
0.
�
d'
N O
o
W
In
0 en
J �NO
'
U
C �aat
n V a
Vol ss
94 0 K
Ln U 12
ot,uncer Thompson
City of College Station
Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
RE: Waterwood Condominiums —Fire Flow Update
Dear Spencer:
August 26, 2004
On Friday, August 20` Veronica and I met with the Fire Marshall, Eric Hurt, to discuss the
need for a third fire hydrant to serve Phase III of the Waterwood Condominiums. As we have
previously discussed, the largest building in this phase is 11,550 square feet. A building of this
size that is not sprinklered and is type V -B material requires a fire flow of 3,000 gpm per the
2000 International Fire Code.
Per appendix C of the 2000 International Fire Code a fire flow of 3,000 gpm requires at least
three hydrants to serve the building. The Fire Marshall told us that although appendix C
requires three hydrants, two hydrants will be sufficient to serve our fire flow needs if our
modeling shows that each hydrant can provide 1,500 gpm while meeting the correct pressure
and velocity requirements.
Although two hydrants will provide the needed fire flow, the hydrant layout as currently
designed will only provide buildings 10, 11, 16 and 17 with one hydrant within the 300 foot
distance requirement. An additional hydrant on each pod will be necessary to provide two
hydrants with a combined flow of 3,000 gpm to each building. The additional hydrants have
been added, as shown on the revised site plan.
The Fire Marshall said that future fire hydrant placement should ensure for that the proper fire
flow is provided, with a maxium flow of 1,750 gpm per hydrant, provided chat the modei
ensures this flow is available. If the proper flow is provided, the minimum hydrant
requirements as outlined in appendix C do not apply.
If you have any future questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,_
Rebecca Riggs, EI
Graduate Engineer
cc: file
S:\Proj\ 0229- stewartcondos \docs\ 0229- Ph3_fire_ hydrants- 040824.doc