HomeMy WebLinkAbout45 Williamsgate CorrespondanceI
Ofc: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979 .693.4243 Ema il : mdgcstx @yahoo.com
March 11 , 2005
Alan Gibbs, P .E.
City of College Station
Planning & Development Services
110 I Texas Ave., South
College Station, Texas 77842
RE: Williamsgate Subdivision -Drainage Report
Mr. Gibbs:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 25, 2005 regarding the detention
basin analysis in the drainage report for Williamsgate Subdivision.
I
The estimated required volume for the detention basin was determined to be 14,074 ft 3 •
This value was calculated using pre and post-development h~drographs for the site as
described in the Drainage Policy and Design Standards for the City of College Station.
The detention basin was designed to have a maximum depth of 2.5 ft with a total volume
of 23,981 ft3. With these parameters, the detention is adequate for the site and also allows
for one foot of free board and sedimentation.
The outlet structure was designed to keep post-development flows from the site at 90% of
the pre-development flows from the site. In addition to tlie outlet flows from the
detention basin, Drainage Area 1 also runs directly off site. The ~e flows must be added to
the outlet structure flows when comparing the pre and post-development runoffs. The
total post-development runoff for the site at the 100-year storm period is 42.45 cfs, which
includes the 19.94 cfs from the detention basin and 22.51 cfs from Drainage Area 1.
It must also be assumed that the detention basin could somehow become entirely full. If
this were to occur, the weir must still regulate the outflow as previously mentioned.
Taking this into consideration, the maximum elevation head at the weir would be 2.5 ft.
At this elevation, the designed 7 ft wide rectangular weir would release 83.01 cfs. If the
runoff from Drainage Area 1 were added to this, the total post l development runoff from
the site would be 105.52 cfs. Because the post-development flows for this most severe
situation would be at 90% of the pre-development flows, we considered this design more
than adequate for the site. I
The weir does regulate the outflow from the detention basin at J 1ow rate when compared
to the pre-development flows. If. the weir were designed with a larger opening, larger
flows could exit the basin for the 100-year storm event. ~owever, for the ultimate
I
situation described above , the post-development flows would be larger than the pre-
development flows.
Although it is highly unlikely the basin would ever become entirely full , the design is still
adequate as the basin only rises to a depth of 0.92 feet for the 1 100-year storm event. At
this depth, the volume in the basin would be 6,507 ft3 . This value was obtained from the
Storage Indication table located in the drainage report. This table should be used when
calculating the volume of water in the basin at a given elevation determined through the
routing analysis. If the routing analysis were to yield an elevation that calculated the
volume to be greater than the provided 23 ,981 ft3 of storage ; the basin would need to be
resized. Because the routing analysis does not yield an elevation greater than 0.92 feet,
the size of the basin is adequate.
If you have any questions , please call.
Very sincerely yours ,
Municipal Development Group
Lenwood S. Adams, P.E .
Principal
j(--17.02
Mark Taylor
Engineer 's Assistant
I
..
Tc(min) Post-Development, P re -Development (cfs)
2 Year 5 Year 10 Year
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 11 .8 82 .413 62 .538 100.211 76 .076 112.479 85.407
20 23.6 4 1.207 31 .269 50.106 38 .038 56 .239 42 .703
30 35 .4 0 0 0 0
I
0 0
VOL= 7700 VOL= 9329 VO L = 10452
25 Year 50 Year 100 Year
0 0 0
10 11 .8 128.462
20 23 .6 64.231
30 35 .4 0
VO L=
2-Year Hydrogra ph
100
~ 40 /
5 20
f:~/--
0 +---...,.-----,---...,..-------;
0 10 20
Tlme(mln)
30 40
10 -Year Hydrograph
0 10 20
Time(mtn)
30 40
50-Year Hy d rogra ph
0 10 20 30
Tlme(mln)
Williamsgate Subdivision
Job # 000886-3736
40
0
97 .552
48.776
0
11928
--Post-Development
Pre-Development
--Post-Development
--Pre-Development
--Post-Development
--Pre-Development
0 0 0 0
145.217 110.284 151 .62 0 115 .141
72 .608 55 .142 75 .810 57 .571
0
VOL=
0 0 0
13474 VOL= 14074
5-Year Hydrogra ph
120
• 100 ~ 80 1~D
0 10 20
Time(mln)
30 40
25-Year Hyd rograph
I
140 nlt>~ o 20 I
0;
0 10 20 I
Time(mln)
30 40
100-Year Hydrograph
200 -,------------~
i 150 . ..
~ 100 .
.c
~ 50
i5
0 +---~--~-+--~e--=----!
10 20 I 30 0 40
Tlme(mln)
--Post-Develo pment I
Pre-Development
--Post-Development I
--Pre-Development
--Post-Development
--Pre-Development
·Project M~nager: Greg Taggart
Calculations : M.T .
3/11/2005
Elevation
(ft)
303 .5
304 .0
304.5
305.0
305 .5
306 .0
.Detention Basin
Depth
(ft)
0
0 .5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2 .5
Area
(ff)
0
9155
9982
10828
11699
12596
Depth vs. Storage
y = 0.0001x + 0.1893
Storage
(fr\
o I
2289
7073
12276
17908
2398~
3.0 -..------,.-----,----..,.---,--.-~.,.-----,
2.5 -1-----+-----+----t---t---::;;iio...--t----J = 2.0 +----+----+----t-~"""--+----.-t----1 -:5 1 .5~----+-----+-~~~---+----+--t----J c.
CD c 1.0 -1-----+-=i1111!!5"""'--t----t---t-----'--t----J
0.5 +--..ill!l~-+----,--+----t---+-----t----t
0 .0 -----+------+---____,---+----+------'
j 5000
Williamsgate Subdivision
Job # 000886-3736
0 5000 10000 15000 20000
Volume (ft3)
Project Engineer: Lee Adams
Calculations: Mark Taylor
30000
3/11/2005
-~
(.) -~
0
to
::::s
0
Williamsgate Subdivision
Job # 000886-3736
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.0
Outlet Control
Depth
(ft)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2 .0
2.5
Velocity
(fUs)
0.00
2 .12
3 .00
3 .67
4 .24
4 .74
Q = 3Ly11 (3/2)
Outflow
(cfs)
0.00
7.42
21 .00
38.58
59.40
83 .01
Q => capacity in cfs 1
L => length of the opening which water enters into the weir
y => total depth of water or head on the weir
L=
y=
7 ft
2.5 ft
Omax = 83.01 cfs
0.5
Outflow vs. Depth
y = 33 .631x-7 .1372
1.0 1.5 2.0
Depth (ft)
Project Engineer: Lee Adams
Calculations: Mark Taylor
2 .5 3 .0
3/11/2005
Williamsgate Subdivision
Job # 000886-3736
Depth
(ft)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2 .0
2 .5
~ 20000
(,)
Storage Indication
Storage Outflow S-(0/2).6.t
(cf) (cfs) (cfs)
0 0 .00 0.00
2289 7.42 2066 .08
7073 21 .00 6443 .22
12276 38.58 11118.47
17908 59.40 16125.81
23981 83 .01 21491 .18
5-(0/2).6t vs. Depth
y = 8817 .?x -1481.4
I
S+(0/2).6.t
: (cfs)
I o.oo
2511 .55
I
17703 .22
/3433.23
19689.63
26471.76
I
I
-:;:: 15000 +----f---+---+----:~+----+-+----f
<]
~ 10000 +-----t---+----::o4i1'9---t---++---I
0 -ch 5000 +-----t--::;;i~""--l-----1---t---++---I
a.a 0 .5. 1.0 1.5
Depth (ft)
2 .0
Depth vs. 5+(0/2).6t
y= 9E -05x + 0 .194
2.5 3 .0
3.0 ,-----,r-----r----,----..,.---.,-----,
= 2 .0 1 ----fl----+---+--~~--f------f -= 1.5 +----f~---t--:'""""111~---+----t------f a.
Cl) c 1.0 -t----f--:;illlll'!:0"9----+----+----l-----f
0.0 ~---t---+----+----+----1-----i I
25000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
S+(0/2).6.t (cfs)
Project Eng ineer: Lee Adams
Calculations: Mark Taylor
30000
I
I
3/11/2005
I •
C ITY OF C OLLEGE S TATION
Planning & Development Services
11 0 1 Texas Ave nue So uth, P O B ox 996 0
Co ll ege Stati o n , Texas 77842
Pho n e 979.7 64.3570 / Fax 979.7 64 .34 96
MEMORANDUM
March 22 , 2005 /
TO : Greg Taggart , Municipal Development Group, Via fax 693.4243 J
FROM : Bridgette George , Assistant Development Manager
SUBJECT: WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP)
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 for further staff review and approval of the
plans :
__ One (1) sets of revised construction documents .
If you have any questions or need additional informat ion , please call Alan Gibbs or myself at
764 .3570 .
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
Cc : Robbie Robinson, Ltd,./Shane Williams , via fax 696 .8019
Case file no . 05-00500013
Home of Texas A&M University
I • I
WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) (05-00500013)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 2
Construction Plans Comments : (numbers relate to the 2/17 /05 e-mail)
1. Clarify the proposed utility limits of Phase 1.
3. The waterline connection to the Wellborn line requires the gate valve on the proposed line
side , in addition to Wellborn's requirements .
4 . Two sets of waterline layers are left "on" throughout the plans .
12. Note and depict that the water and sanitary crossing near Hancock Sta. 9+00 should be in
accordance with TCEQ ch .290.44(e)(4)(B)(iv)(ll) such that the encasement should be on
the sanitary and separation from the encasement to the waterline shall be a minimum of 6
inches . Additionally , depict the storm , water and sanitary in profile at this crossing
throughout the plans . (This appears to apply to Phase 3 as well.)
18 . Depict the proposed culverts for each of the two intersections of Hancock Loop and Rock
Prairie Rd and provide associated design calculations in the drainage report .
19. Site grading at the rear of the lots to provide a swale appears to be graded backwards.
Additionally , a swale is also needed at the rear of lots between Tony Court and Shelbea
Court .
29 . Provide the temporary culdesac easement.
30 . Provide profile detail of all storm sewer infrastructure leading into the detention pond past
Junction Box 1 and Inlet 3.
32 . (C 10 : This comment appears to apply to Phase 2) extend the sanitary sewer to
approximate Sta . 22+10 to make the last long side service perpendicular to Hancock
Loop .
34 . Provide the plan and profile of the 8 in . northern extension out on Shelbea Drive .
39 . (C16) The concrete valley gutter should be 4 ft. wide with 12 in . toes and a 6 in .
depression per Figure VII - 1 of the Drainage Design Standards .
Final Plat Comments that apply to the Construction Plans: (numbers relate to the Staff Review
Comments returned 2/17/05)
1. Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review by City of
College Station Water and Wastewater and will return comments as soon as possible .
2 . Fire Flow Report is inadequate . The fire flow report is based on information from an
ex isting City of College Station water system which will not be connected to the system
supporting this development. Each phase of construction should stand alone and should be
analyzed independently as well.
3. As previously commented , there appears to be an error the detention analysis in that the
proposed detention volume is significantly smaller than the estimation of the difference of
the triangular hydrographs . It may be worthwhile to meet on this topic .
5. FYI : This development is located in a sewer impact fee area and a fee of $300/LUE is due
at the time of the filing of each plat (Phase 1: 33 Lots = $9,900 ; Phase 2: 31 Lots = $9 ,300 ;
Phase 3: 18 Lots= $5400).
10. Please provide agreement or easement with adjoining property owner for offsite drainage.
Reviewed by: Alan Gibbs Date: 3-22-05
NOTE : Any cha nges made to the plans , that have not been requested by the City of Co llege Station , must be explained in your
next transmittal letter and "bubbled " on your plans. Any addit iona l changes on these plans that have not been pointed out
to the City of College Sta t ion will const itute a completely new rev iew.
Page 2 of 3
..
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Lee ,
Alan Gibbs
mdgcstx@yahoo.com
3/22/2005 11 :28 :05 AM
Williamsgate Phase 1
Attached please find comments for the subject construction plans . Let me know if you would like to meet.
Bridgette will send another final copy of this with a revised cover sheet.
Thanks ,
Alan
Alan P. G ibbs, P.E.
Sr. Asst. City Eng ineer -Development
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P. 0 . Box 9960
College Station , Texas 77842
Ph : (979) 764-3570
Fx : (979) 764-3496
agibbs@cstx.gov
www .cstx .gov
CC: George , Bridgette ; Norton , Josh
TO :
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Pla n ning & D evelop ment S ervices
1101 Texas Avenue South, P O Box 9960
Co ll ege Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979 .7 64.3570 /Fax 979.7 64.349 6
MEMORANDUM
FROM : Bridgette George , Assistant Development Manager
SUBJECT: WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP)
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
for further staff review and approval of the plans :
Two (2) sets of revised construction documents .
If you have any questions or need additional information , please call * or myself
at 764 .3570.
Attach men ts : Staff Review Comments
Cc :
Case file no. 05-00500013
Home of Texas A&M University
WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) (05-00500013)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 2
nstruction Plans Comments:
Clarify the proposed utility limits of Phase 1.
The waterline connection to the Wellborn line requires the g q t ~ yalve on th ~ /
proposed line side, in addition to Wellborn's requirements. /.J>-1 ,.. fr•'ttlC..
~ Two sets of waterline layers are left "on" throughout the plans .
12 . Note and depict that the water and sanitary crossing near Hancock Sta .
9+00 should be in accordance with TCEQ ch.290.44(e)(4)(B)(iv)(ll) such
that the encasement should be on the sanitary and separation from the
encasement to the waterline shall be a minimum of 6 inches. Additionally,
depict the storm, water and sanitary in profile at this crossing throughout the
lans . (This appears to apply to Phase 3 as well.)
Depict the proposed culverts for each of the two intersections of Hancock
Loop and Rock Prairie Rd and provide associated design calculations in the
drainage report . ~-Site grading at the rear of the lots to provide a swale appears to be graded
backwards . Additionally , a swale is also needed at the rear of lots between
Tony Court and Shelbea Court.
".@ Provide the temporary culdesac easement.
~rovide profile detail of all storm sewer infrastructure leading into the
detention pond past Junction Box 1 and Inlet 3.
~C 10 : This comment appears to apply to Phase 2) extend the sanitary
sewer to approximate Sta. 22+10 to make the last long side service
/
1 ~erpendicular to Hancock Loop. ft .. ~ 1-J &~r?vide the plan and profile of the 8 in . northern extension out on Shelbea
Drive .
~(C16) The concrete valley gutter should be 4 ft. wide with 12 in . toes and a
6 in . depression per Figure VII - 1 of the Drainage Design Standards.
inal Plat Comments that a I to the Construction Plans :
1 Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review
by City of College Station Water and Wastewater and will return comments
£\ as soon as possible.
'\!) Fire Flow Report is inadequate . The fire flow report is based on information
from an existing City of College Station water system which will not be
connected to the system supporting this development. Each phase of
construction should stand alone and should be analyzed independently as
~well.
~ As previously commented, there appears to be an error the detention
analysis in that the proposed detention volume is significantly smaller than
the estimation of the difference of the triangular hydrographs. It may be
worthwhile to meet on this topic .
NOTE : Any changes made to the plans , that have not been requested by the City of College Sta tion , 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 Stat ion will constitute a completely new review .
Page 2 of 3
Page 1of1
Josh Norton -Williamsgate -Response to 11/30/05 Submittal
From: Josh Norton
To: MDG; Robinson, Robbie
Date: 12/19/2005 4:45 PM
Subject: Williamsgate -Response to 11/30/05 Submittal
CC: Gibbs, Alan; Smith, Mark
Lee,
These comments are in response to the submittal made by MDG on November 30, 2005:
~Sheet "Detention Plan and Detail") The Weir Flowline Out Elevation of 303.5 on sheet "Detention Plan and
Details" does not match the flowline elevation of 303.1 on sheet "Drainage Outfall".
\.21sheet "Drainage Outfall") The only necessary easement is the proposed 0.63 acre easement that apparently
takes the drainage improvements to the pond. Please only show the proposed drainage improvements within
this easement.
w({sheet "Drainage Outfall") Please illustrate the location of the septic field.
~Sheet "Drainage Outfall") Please illustrate the location of the house .
.'-J Sheet "Drainage Outfall") Please illustrate the location of the driveway and culvert.
~(Sheet "Drainage Outfall") Please illustrate the location of the pond.
~(Sheet "Drainage Outfall") Within the proposed 0.63 acre easement, there appears to be grading
improvements outside of the easement. Please provide a temporary construction easement for any
. imyrovements outside of the proposed 0.63 acre easement.
~(Sheet "Drainage Outfall") Please provide written documentation that these drainage improvements have
been designed in a way that will enable the Haupt Family to continue to use these fields as currently in use.
Below is a brief description of sequence of events we discussed in our meeting on Friday, December 9, 2005:
~he above comments regarding the drainage improvements are addressed.
2. Decision is made whether to use prosed public sewer line or continue with the lift station/force main design.
Construction documents for stamping should be changed accordingly.
~ellborn Water Agreement is signed.
4. Development Permit is issued by the City and the Final Plat process for Williamsgate continues.
Thanks -Josh Norton
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jnorton \Local%20Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .H... 12 /28 /2005
~~~2-55_l_T_e_x_as_A_v_e_._s_ou_ili_,_s_re_._A.~C_o_ue_g_e_s_ta_ti_o_~_T_X~77_8_4_0~~~~~~~~~~~
\...~~f' Ofc : 979 .69 3.5359 Fax : 979 .69 3.4243 Email : mdgcstxd @y ahoo .com or -D \
·~$.~~ 'V .,~<f' la\ ?-\l ~
December 21 , 2005
Mr. Josh Norton
City of College Station Development Services
College Station, Texas 77840
Subject: Williamsgate Off-Site Drainage Plan comments
Dear Mr. Norton,
tr. oQ
Pv~
Municipal Development Group (MDG) has reviewed your comments and have made the
changes and clarifications on the plan submitted with this letter. An overview is as follows :
~ 1. The weir tlowline is 303 .5 and the bottom of the drainage ditch off the edge of the
weir is 303 .1 and this area will have rip-rap . The elevation you mentioned is the elevations
of two separate items .
~2 . We adjusted the grading to stay within the easement and have hatched and labeled
the pond .
~through 6 . We have indicated the location of the septic field , house driveway, culvers
and pond on the plan . There are two existing 12 " culverts to convey the water under the
dri v eway .
~ Seeltem2
~· A note was added to the notes on the plan set.
If you have any questions please call me .
Sincerely,
Municipal Development Group
Lenwood S . Adams, P .E .
Managing Principal
I ' t
,
7
0
Page 1of3
Josh Norton -Re: Williamsgate
From: Municipal Development Group <mdgcstx@yahoo.com>
To: Josh Norton <Jnorton@ cstx.gov>
Date: 10/27/2005 12: 15 PM
Subject: Re: Williamsgate
Thanks Josh, I take a look at the drainage report. He may have the prev ious vers ion , or not picking up
some of the finer points because I don't quite know where he is getting his numbers. San Antoino did
not have a drainage ordinance until about 1998 and they are probably using one that is similar to
Austin's. They work off of impervious cover which is built into the coefficients here. But I'll check
everything.
Thanks
Josh Norton <Jnorton@cstx.gov> wrote:
Lee ,
Here are the items that still need to be submitted :
etes and Bounds , and Exhibit of Proposed Off-Site Drainage Easement
evised Drainage Report to reflect offsite drainage improvements and to
r ct the changes recommended by Bob Liesman
evised Construction Documents to reflect drainage changes
il Road Permit
* igned Wellborn Water Agreement
7
0
I have attached the recommendation made by the Haupt Family engineer, Bob Liesman. It ma y
be helpful to us as well as the Haupt Family if you wrote a response to the Bob Liesman
comments, simply explaining how each concern has been covered. This response could
be turned in with your next submittal for us to keep in our records. I understand this is not a
formal requirement, but may help to clarify a few issues.
Any questions regarding SWPPP requirements can be answer by Donnie Willis , the CoCS
Drainage Inspector (979-764-6375).
Thanks -Josh Norton
Josh Norton, E.I.T.
Graduate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P. 0. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Ph: (979) 764-6221
Fx: (979 ) 764-3496
College Station. Heart of the Research Valley.
file://C :\Documents %20and%20Settings~norton\Local %20Settings\Temp\GW }00001 .HTM 12/2/2 005
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:33 :23 -0500
From: "Alan Gibbs" <Agibbs@cstx.gov>
To: "Josh Norton" <Jnorton@cstx.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Williamsgate Subdivision
fyi
>>>"Bob Liesman" <BLiesman@mbcengineers.com> 9/30/2005 11 :53:52 AM >>>
Mr. Alan Gibbs and Mrs Rene Ellis :
Page 2of3
At Mrs. Ellis ' request and with Mr. Gibbs cooperation I have (finally) taken time to review MDG's plans for
that single family subdivision proposed for that 20 .27-acre tract abutting the southeast property line of the
Haupt farm on Old Welbourne Road . As we all know by now, Mrs. Ellis and her siblings (who now own
the farm) are very concerned about the possible harmful effect on their property of increased runoff from
the proposed subdivision.
For the past 25 years or so I have been doing land development engineering here in San Antonio, and
therefore looking at questions such as here considered from a Developer perspective . I certainly do not
claim to be any great expert, but I am going to declare my opinions for whatever they are worth . I have
told Mrs . Ellis that an upgradient property owner cannot divert runoff, nor increase runoff, nor concentrate
runoff on his neighbor without putting himself in jeopardy for lawsuit ; also that it is my understanding that
The City of College Station reguires stormwater detention for developments such as that proposed .
Saying that, it is also my understanding that the outcome of a lawsuit is a function not only of factual
issues , but degree of damage. From maps that I have seen, the natural course of runoff from most all of
the Williamsgate property appears to be onto and thru the Haupt property. Therefore , no appreciable
diversion of watershed is proposed -or would be allowed by the City . Any development of property will
increase the amount (that is volume) of water that flows off the tract. Detention, as proposed for this
project, retards the increase in RA TE of runoff by holding some of that volume for delayed. later release .
For a small watershed such as this, that lengthening of the time of discharge is negligible . So , it appears
to me that the strategy for handling runoff from the proposed subdivision is appropriate , but I do have
some issues with the details.
Mrs. Ellis and family are concerned about the quality_ of runoff as well, but I cannot speak to that issue .
Certainly that runoff will contain some unnatrural products like any development would .
Let me move-on to some those details .
1. I would agree with the computation of runoff rate prior to development for the development as a
whole . However, I think that the calculation of post-development runoff is low, due to an
underestimation of post-development impervious cover. The report uses a runoff coefficient of
0 .54, based upon an assumption of impervious cover of 13 .8%. Considering roof tops, driveways ,
and street paving, I think that the impervious cover will be more like 40% for this small lot
subdivision. Here in San Antonio, a development like this would warrant a runoff coefficient of
0 .67 . [ I am presuming a 20 ' front setback, a 40 ' rear setback, and 1 O' side setbacks.]
2 . MDG is comparing gross pre-devel. runoff to gross post-devel. runoff. While that may be good for
a point a couple of hundred feet downstream from the Haupt property line (but with a "C" value
adjustment), at that property corner where they wish to discharge, the natural drainage area
appears to me to be only about half of that 20 .27 acres . So , to not increase Q at that point, one
would need a considerably larger detention volume, so as to counter both the increase in
impervious cover and the increase in drainage area at that point. Once the post-devl .. "Q" might
be corrected (if you concur Mr. Gibbs), this second discrepancy might be neglected IF the
Developer could convince Mrs . Ellis , et al , that he could (to their satisfaction) improve the channel
in the Haupt property between the property line and that point downstream where the full area of
the subdivision naturally came to focus -so as to not increase flood effect thru that reach .
3 . MDG appears to have the discharge for the basin at an elevation about a foot below existing
file://C :\Documents%2 0and%20Settings\jnorton \Local%20Settings\ Temp\GW} 00001.HTM 12 /2/2 005
Page 3of3
ground, and they appear to be proposing a "grade-to-drain" channel for some 250 ft . or so . I have
suggested to Mrs.Ellis that I do not think that is a bad thing. That which helps runoff traverse their
property more quickly makes it less boggy. The question would be to what extent might such a
channel hinder their farming operation as regards driving thru it or around it. -I don't know ..
Bob Liesman, P.E.
Vice-President
Macina, Bose, Copeland & Associates, Inc.
1035 Central Parkway North
San Antonio, Texas 78232
(210) 545-1122, Fax: (210) 545-9302
www.mbcengjneers.com
bobliesman@mbcen ineers.com
Municipal Development Group
2551 Texas Ave n ue South Ste. A
College Station, Texas 77840
Phone: (979)693-5359
Fax: (979) 693-4243
Website: MDG
Yahoo! FareChase -Search multi le travel sites in one click .
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jnorton\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00001 .HTM 12 /2/2005
· 1 Josh 'No .rton -Re : Willif,msgate
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Mark Smith
Josh Norton
10/27/200511:15:58AM
Re : Williamsgate
I think that covers it except we will be getting the easement from the Haupt Partnership . Mr . Robinson
should not have to provide us with the easement dedication.
Mark Smith
Director of Public Works
979-764-3639
»>Josh Norton 10/27/05 10:18 AM»>
Mark,
Have you heard anything regarding Williamsgate recently? Lee Adams called me this morning wanting to
know what they needed to submit. Here is what I came up with , let me know what you think :
Bounds and Exhibit of Proposed Off-Site Draina e Easement
edication Application 1 ne Hau t P ·
L.!ReV ised Drainage epo to reflect offsite drainage improvements and to
reflect the changes recommended by Bob Liesman
~sed Construction Documents to reflect drainage changes
~Road Permit
&.!8!Qn ed Wellborn Water Agreement
Thanks -Josh
CC: Alan Gibbs ; Municipal Development Group ; Wayne Rife
Page 1 I
Annexation Area 1 and Steeplechase Impact Fee Sewer Project Location
~Josh Norton -New Development Commentary
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Spencer Thompson
Alan Gibbs
2/2/2005 5:25: 16 PM
New Development Commentary
Comments: 1 The Glade
Are they dedicating ROW on SWPkwy to meet the T-fare Plan? 111
lat shows the water line on Lot 1 at the corner of Glade and SW Pkwy as being 3-in but our records
iodicate it is 6-in . n the last plat they were having to tie this 6 to the line on Laura . Now it ooks like
they're boring the road/
4:1e••~ i0 ch 1de at least 11 1 O ft Pl::IE 011 the-peli111ete1 of ti ie p1 opertn
~ria is the Pl IF as shown on EXISTlf!>IG PLAT fror:+1 bet a ta Let 20? It eoes 11ot appel!lr OFI Re~lal
(fire hydrant should be near entryway.)
ots 1 and 2 should be served water from new line .
--Abb lots she1:118 80 serves sewer e~ the Rew sewer liAe . Pl<a«•e req1 lire
Conne~tieR& AH eo1meclibfls a/Id se1 oiee laabts s/:J&IJ f;)e ir:istaf.ff:}c;f ta ae#i sides of alt r:eabta ar:icJ •l~1 s aL
the time of mair:i J.iRf!L:>.
installation.
Ne Rew sel'Vtees te els sl•y liAe .
Williams Gate
Fire flow report? Using actual field data from water line . Not engineer's theoretical model.
Sewer Report? The sewer will discharge into the Impact Fee line. Just like Dove Crossing, the customers
on that line paid the impact fee. They and all future development in the Approved Area have the "right" to
the line capacity. This development has to show there is additional capacity for the entire line and that the
sewer at point of discharge has capacity. Lift station pump sizes/ discharge rates? They have also been
notified that if the LS is to be operated by the City then the City will have to approve the final design.
Meadow Creek
Fire flows? The plans I have for the entire Wellborn SUD water system show a 6-in line along Kappe
Bridge Road.
Do we have wastewater info on this?
thx
st
Spencer G . Thompson , Jr.
W /WW Engineering Services
City of College Station
PO Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Ph. 979 .764.5011 Fx . 979.764 .3452
www .cstx .gov
CC: Carol Cotter ; Josh Norton
Page 1 j
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: WILLIAMSGATE (PP) -04-135
ENGINEERING
1. Sewer report is insufficient for approval. Refer to BCS Un ified Des ign Manual.
Demonstrate downstream impact. The sewer line shown as the discharge point was
designed as a Sewer Impact Fee line . Demonstrate how the proposed system
affects the impact fee line?
2 . Water re port is not in compliance with City design standards. Refer to BCS Unified
Design Manual. Water line sizes shown on plat must be in compliance with City
standards.
3 . If proposed wastewater lift station is public, the design must be reviewed and
approved by staff.
4. If proposed wastewater lift station is private , easement dedication documents are
required with construction documents .
5. A waterline extends south along Shelbea. The water line should also extend north ,
as well.
6 . Discharge of storm water should be to a defined channel.
7 . Sanitation has requested a temporary turnaround on Shelbea Dr. Please discuss
options with staff.
Reviewed by: Spencer Thompson Date: June 9, 2004
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans , that have not been requested by the C ity of College Stat ion ,
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
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning & Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue South , PO Box 9960
College Station , Texas 77842
Phone 979.764 .3570 / Fax 979 .764 .3496
MEMORANDUM
February 17, 2005
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT:
Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, Via fax 693.4243
Bridgette George, Development Coordinator
WILLIAMSGATE 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, February 28,
10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting scheduled for, March 17, 2005, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue.
Two (2) 24"x36" copies of the revised final plat;
Ten (10) 11"x17" 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@cstx .gov
Please note that Sewer Impact fees ($300/LUE) are due prior to filing the plat (31 Lots x
$300 = $9,300). 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 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. If you have any questions or need additional information , please call Josh Norton
or myself at 979.764.3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
cc: Robbie Robinson, Ltd,./ Shane Williams, via fax 696.8019
Case file #05-00500014
Home of Texas A&M University
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: WILLIAMSGATE PH 2 (FP) -05-00500014
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
1. Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review by
City of College Station Water and Wastewater and will return comments as soon
as possible.
2. Fire Flow Report is inadequate . The fire flow report is based on information from
an existing City of College Station water system which will not be connected to
the system supporting this development. Each phase of construction should
stand alone and should be analyzed independently as well.
3. The detention design in the Drainage Report appears to reflect that additional
flows could be released from the pond . Furthermore, the pond volume based on
calculated depths, proposed volume provided, and the volume approximated for
the pre/post flows are not consistent. Please clarify . Common Area "E" is
subject to change based on the final Drainage Report and final Sanitary Report.
4. Site grading must be revised such that there is not a propensity for flooding or
future blocked drainage due to flows across lots and the absence of a drainage
system in these locations . Extensions of drainage systems would require a PUE .
Additionally, please note that approximately 12 lots have over 2ft of fill which will
require either additional beam depths for the house foundations or the fill be
placed , compacted, and tested to satisfy 95% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698).
5. FYI : This development is located in a sewer impact fee area and a fee of
$300/LUE is due at the time of the filing of each plat (Phase 1: 33 Lots = $9,900 ;
Phase 2: 31 Lots= $9,300; Phase 3: 18 Lots= $5400).
6. The water lines are located outside of ROW and in some cases located 25ft
away from back of curb . These lines may be relocated within the ROW to
remove or release the adjacent easement.
Reviewed by : Jennifer Reeves/Josh Norton Date: 02-17-05
ELECTRICAL
1. Project is in Bryan Texas Util ities Service Territory.
2. To discuss any of the above comments, please contact Tony Michalsky at
979.764.3438.
Reviewed by : Tony Michalsky Date: 2-2-05
NOTE : Any chang es made to th e plans , tha t have not been request ed by the City of Coll ege Statio n, must be ex plained in your
next trans mittal letter and "bubbled " on your plans . A ny add it iona l ch anges on t hes e plans t ha t ha ve not be en poi nted out
to th e City , will constitute a compl etely new review.
Page 2 of 2
..
CITY OF COLLEGE S TATION
Pla nning & D eve lop ment S ervices
1101 Tex as Av enue South , PO Box 9 960
College Station , Tex as 77842
Phone 979 .764.3570 / F ax 979 .764 .349 6
MEMORANDUM
February 17, 2005
TO:
FROM :
SUBJECT:
Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, Via fax 693.4243
Bridgette George, Development Coordinator
WILLIAMSGATE 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, February 28 ,
10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting scheduled for, March 17, 2005, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue .
Two (2) 24"x36" copies of the revised final plat;
Ten (10) 11"x17" 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@cstx.gov
Please note that Sewer Impact fees ($300/LUE) are due prior to filing the plat (18 lots x
$300 = $5,400). 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 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 . If you have any questions or need additional information , please call Josh Norton
or myself at 979.764.3570.
Attachments : Staff review comments
cc: Robbie Robinson, Ltd,./ Shane Williams, via fax 696.8019
Case file #05-00500015
Home of Texas A&M University
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: WILLIAMSGATE PH 3 (FP)-05-00500015
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
1. Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review by
City of College Station Water and Wastewater and will return comments as soon
as possible.
2. Fire Flow Report is inadequate. The fire flow report is based on information from
an existing City of College Station water system which will not be connected to
the system supporting this development. Each phase of construction should
stand alone and should be analyzed independently as well.
3 . The detention design in the Drainage Report appears to reflect that additional
flows could be released from the pond. Furthermore, the pond volume based on
calculated depths, proposed volume provided, and the volume approximated for
the pre/post flows are not consistent. Please clarify. Common Area "E" is
subject to change based on the final Drainage Report and final Sanitary Report.
4. Site grading must be revised such that there is not a propensity for flooding or
future blocked drainage due to flows across lots and the absence of a drainage
system in these locations. Extensions of drainage systems would require a PUE.
Additionally , please note that approximately 12 lots have over 2ft of fill which will
require either additional beam depths for the house foundations or the fill be
placed, compacted, and tested to satisfy 95% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698).
5. FYI: This development is located in a sewer impact fee area and a fee of
$300/LUE is due at the time of the filing of each plat (Phase 1: 33 Lots = $9,900;
Phase 2: 31 Lots= $9,300; Phase 3 : 18 Lots= $5400).
6. The water lines are located outside of ROW and in some cases located 25ft
away from back of curb. These lines may be relocated within the ROW to
remove or release the adjacent easement.
Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves/Josh Norton Date : 02-17-05
ELECTRICAL
1. Project is in Bryan Texas Utilities Service Territory.
2. To discuss any of the above comments, please contact Tony Michalsky at
979.764.3438.
Reviewed by: Tony Michalsky Date: 2-2-05
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station , must be explained in you r
next transmitta l letter and "bubbled " on your plans . Any additional changes on these plans tha t have not been poin ted ou t
to t he City , will constitute a completely new review .
Page 2 of 2
/ Josh Norton -Fwd : Williamsgate Lift Station Comments
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Spencer Thompson
Josh Norton
2/16/2005 4:12:50 PM
Fwd: Williamsgate Lift Station Comments
»> Fred Surovik 2/15/2005 4:45:20 PM »>
There are a number of items that vary from our design standards for lift stations, however, given the two
year projected life of the station and it's relatively modest size , I believe it will best if we live with most of
them rather than require a complete redesign of the station.
The plans weren't real clear on several items we want to include . We want to provide the telemetry unit
and the antenna . The antenna mast (pipe, pole or tower?) will need to have line of sight to Park Place
Elevated . We will want them to provide an NEMA 4X termination cabinet in leu of the telemetry unit they
show and provide us a place to mount a 24" X 30" telemetry unit adjacent to it. We want them to provide
us dry contacts to the termination strip , unpowered or 24 Volts DC max, No 120 Volt!
Pump 1 Run
Pump 2 Run
Pump 1 Overload
Pump 2 Overload
High Level Wet Well
Utility Power Failure
Control Panel Door Open
We would prefer Roto Floats to the transducer shown on the drawings or better yet, control with the Roto
Floats and give us an Analog Output of the transducer reading so we can see if it is a control technology
we might want to adopt. Regardless, we want high level wet well from an independent float switch , not an
output from the transducer.
Also a flashing light for alarm or high level is OK but buzzers just annoy the neighbors .
Thank you for the opportunity to comment!
Page 1 I
) : V\5
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) -05-00500013
~LANNING/ENGINEERING
UJ ·anitary 'Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review by
h City of College Station Water and Wastewater and fill return corments as soon ~ ,, as possible. ~ _,. cJ-~,,...,._fc ~ / . ~ .... ,(/ /)/b~ ~~ ~ Fire Flow Report is inadequate. The fire' flow report is ba~ed on ii'llormation from ,-1'" an existing City of College Station water system which will not be connected to
the system supporting this development. Each phase of construction should
_ 't/u . stand alone and should be analyzed independently as well. ~~6 The detention design in the Drainage ~eport appears to reflect that additional
J,. flows could be released from the pond. Furthermore, the pond volume based on
t-;~ calculated depths, proposed volume provided, and the volume approximated for
... ~ the pre/post flows are not consistent. Please clarify. Common Area "E" is subject
to change based on the final Drainage Report and final Sanitary Report. (3> Site grading must be revised such that there is not a propensity for flooding or
future blocked drainage due to flows across lots and the absence of a drainage
\ L system in these locations. Extensions of drainage systems would require a PUE.
L..J"~ Additionally, please note that approximately 12 lots have over 2ft of fill which will
y· require either additional beam depths for the house foundations or the fill be
_Alaced , compacted, and tested to satisfy 95% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698).
~· ~YI: This development is located in a sewer impact fee area and a fee of
$300/LUE is due at the time of the filing of each plat (Phase 1: 33 Lots = $9,900;
Phase 2: 31 Lots= $9,300; Phase 3: 18 Lots= $5400).
LY.The water lines are located outside of ROW and in some cases located 25ft
away from back of curb. These lines may be relocated within the ROW to
remove or release the adjacent easement. ·
i%. With the proposed sewer line alignmen~ Lot 12 of Phase 1 requires additional
easement to ensure that the sewer line 'Is no closer than 5ft to the edge .. of the
easement.
t.%. The area that the lift station is located needs to be designated as either a public
or a private easement. .
vSY." A temporary cul-de-sac is required to be provided on Hancock where is abuts
phase II, by means of temporary easement. This change should be made to the
~ ;j)construction documents as well.
~~.Please provide agreement or easement with adjoining pr.operty owner for offsite
drainage. w ,f{ {JI">""~ "\Ste~\
r "f'.'7 o.P ~f i>
Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves/Josh Norton Date: 02-17-05
ELECTRICAL
1. Project is in Bryan Texas Utilities Service Territory.
2. To discuss any of the above comments, please contact Tony Michalsky at
979 .764.3438 .
Reviewed by : Tony Michalsky Date: 2-2-05
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans , tha t 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 poin ted ou t
to the City , will constitute a completely new review . Page 2 of 2
Cf :8 3 ~..l-~--L-_s_HE_ET_1 _o~_--_=v..__:e_\J ..
•
' fW4I ...... -
fl'
l Jg_s_h~~-o_rt_on~=-~P_re_l _im_i =na_ry-'--R_e_v_ie_w~C_o_m_m_e_n_t_s _fo_r_W~il _lia_m_s~g~a_te~C_o_n_s _tr_uc_t_io_n_D_o_c_u_m_e_n_t_s ~~~~~~~~~~~~P-a~ge~1 ~!
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Lee ,
Josh Norton
mdgcstx@yahoo .com
2/17/2005 7:31 :29 PM
Preliminary Review Comments for Williamsgate Construction Documents
Here are the comments I mentioned on the phone yesterday that I would send over to you . Listed below
are the preliminary comments for the Williamsgate Construction Documents .
Thanks -Josh Norton
The Following Comments Apply Only to the Construction Documents
·\ti~ '1f:) -~1~"<.. 1.J! Break the construction plans into three separate phases and each phase must be designed to v~ stand alone .
\~:.; j 2 . The engineering cost estimate should also be broken down into the three separate phases
u'l . .r accordingly. Some of the estimated costs, such as the pump station, seem to be low . Cost estimate also
:1t-"'t\: 9-Qes not seem to take into account the cost of boring Wellborn Rd . ~v u>+ (!)'1 ....-7 @) (Throughout Plans) Water line valves are required every 800ft, as well as 2 valves per (tee) ~t ~( ,! t intersect ion and 3 valves per (cross) intersection. In the areas where the water line is being connected to
~<' · ~ a Wellborn Line, provide a minimum of 1 valve and contact Wellborn for their specific tap requirements .
t ~ ~v\S'...J[) (Throughout Plans) The water lines located outside of ROW and in some cases located 25ft away
l<.S o n Vo m back of curb . This line may be relocated with in the ROW to remove or release the adjacent
_ lf; e"' ~asemen t. \~~ rl/fr/5. (Throughout Plans) Relocate the force main from the rear of lots to the sanitary side of the ROW .
V6. (Throughout Plans) Prov ide proposed slope of streets in profile .
V7 . (Throughout Plans) Provide proposed top of centerl ine pavement of street.
v i} (Throughout Plans) Provide horizontal and vertical curve information .
VY . (Throughout Plans) Why does fill not match the center line of the fill. v 10 . (Throughout Plans) Proposed grades , especially street grades should not be irregular but "
~mooth ".
v 11. (Throughout Plans) Differentiate top of ground, water/sewer, and street grade line types . It is
difficult to tell which line is wh ich once they cross and some seem to be incorrectly labeled , spec ifically the
j of the Street. ~
(Throughout Plans) Show detail of all sanitary sewer ·n conflicts and des ign to TCEQ
apter 290 and 317 standards (ex. (C6) Sta . -25+00.00, C6) Sta. 9+00 . , (C8) Sta . 12+00.0 ~~
13 . (Throughout Plans) Sanitary Sewer service lines are require to be 4" not 1.5"
'v"1 4 . (Throughout Plans) Label all adjacent water and sanitary sewer service lines on plan and profile .
0f 5 . (Throughout Plans) Label san itary sewer line sizes on profile .
A 6. (Throughout Plans) Water lines are requ ired to be C909 not C900 .
LJ,\H... <J!> (Throughout Plans) The water lines are located outside of ROW and in some cases located 25 ft
fr"". away from back of curb. These lines may be relocated within the ROW to remove or release the adjacent
~ement.
~ (Throughout Plans) Depict the proposed culverts for each of the two intersections of Hancock
loop and Rock Prairie Rd and prov ide associated design calculat ions in the drainage report.
~ 1.h ~ 19 . (C4) Site grading must be revised such that there is not a propensity for flooding or future blocked
~;~: dra inage due to flows across lots and the absence of a drainage system in these locations . Extensions of
vJ~ dra inage systems would require a PUE. Additionally, please no t e that approximately 12 lots have over 2ft
of fill wh ich will require either additional beam depths for the house foundations or the fill be placed,
_ /compacted , and tested to satisfy 95% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698).
v 20 . (C5) Scale is 1 to 80 , but is labeled as 1 to 40 .
V 21 . (C5) Recessed Curb Inlet deta il shows no reinforcement for Baffle Piers .
/22. (C5) Clar ify existing and proposed contours , as well as provide profile detail of detention pond .
Include offsite contours as well as the outfall ditch .
~.----~--~~--=-~~~-:::~-:--::-~~~-::--:--:-~~~-=~~~~--::::-~~~~-===================-~~~-, l Josh 11orton -Preliminary Review Comments for Williamsgate Construction Documents Page 2 I
V""2 3. (C5) Junction Box 2 as it appears on sheet C5 is labeled as J2, but the same Junction Box is
19.beled as J1 on sheet C7.
\/24. (C5) Weir should be centered on high point of berm and provide a minimum of a 5ft top of berm .
y-25. (C5) Show dissipation technique for velocities exiting the concrete weir at the Northwest corner of
the development.
v26. (C6) Please clarify the labeling of the different grades , as some leaders seem to conflict with
others .
V 27 . (C6) Please clarify the depiction of the "3" PVC Sleeve " at Sta . 8+00 .00.
(C6) Label all bends of main lines in profile (ex . (C6) Sta . 8+75 .00 , (C8) Sta . 14+50.00). v~
~ (C7) A temporary cul-de-sac is required to be provided on Hancock where is abuts phase 11 , by
-;#.fj) ~eans of temporary easement.
\C ,.i ~ . (C7) Provide profile detail of all storm sewer infrastructure leading into the detention pond past
unction Box 1 and Inlet 3.
~ (C8) The SS MH at Sta. 11 +25.00 and Sta. 9+00 .00 appear to be missing a second inflow .
) • 3 (C10) Remove adjacent sewer service line from SS MH Sta . 21 +96 .65. Lots 6 and 7 of Tony
. uA %~J ourt should be served by the sewer line proposed with Tony Court in Phase 1, not with the sewer line ~,,...~ v-i". j reposed for Hancock Loop in Phase 2.
) ~ 33 . (C12) FYI: Shelbea Court may be reduced to a 3" water line from a 6".
<, ,. 34 . (C12) 2" Blow off required at Sta . 0+00 .00 , where Shelbea Dr is terminated .
</ 35 . (C12) A sanitary sewer service line appears on plan view but does not appear in profile (Approx . '· S , at Sta. 5+ 75.00).
cir-.· 36. (C13) Two sanitary sewer service lines appear on plan view but do not appear in profile (Approx .
\ at Sta . 2+50.00).
37 . (C13) A water service line appears on plan view but does not appear in profile (Approx . at Sta .
~ }+75.00).
Y 38 . (C13) Lots 6 and 7 of Tony Court should be served by the sewer line proposed with Tony Court in
ase 1, not with the sewer line proposed for Hancock Loop in Phase 2 .
(C18) Design Low Flow Flume in accordance with Figure VII -1 of the Drainage Design
ndards .
CC: George, Bridgette; Gibbs, Alan
..
~UN IC IP AL DE :-JE L 0 p MEN T . GR 0 Up
2551 TEXAS AVE SOUT . . TEXAS 7 8 ~ H I ; STE A *COLLEGE STATION
. 7 4 o 9 7 9 -6 9 3, t 5 3 5 9 ,~ F A X : 9 7 9 • 6 9 J . 4 2 4 3 "' '
. E ·MA IL : MD G c;:s 'I' x..@_Y AH Q.Q_,_C OM . ---·
'.
F ACSIMILE TR,ANSMITTAL SHEET
o~CS
FllX NUMBER' 'i'O TAL Nt . 0 1' PAGl.;$ INC J .. UD!NG COYER :
PHONE NVM!lrm :
'
0 :FOR REVIEW 0 PLEASE RECYCU
N.OTES/COMMENTS: ' '
I :
..
f1
I '
I Gl<T
. i ~·
' : ~001-lJ.J
CONP!DENTIAL!TY NOTICE: 1J-!IS 1: ACS!Mll.E MESSAGE AND ACCOMPANYING ·f\. I\~· ~
coMMUNJCATIONS AND /OR oocuMENTS AR~ 1N TEND1rn r oR THE !l.XCL\JS!VE AN!> I \...X
1
<.ONl'IPENTJAl USE OF THE I N DIVJDUAL OR ENTITY 1'0 WH I CH THC. Mf.SSAGE IS
A DL)RBSSEO · ·1 . ·30 ~
id Wd£c:v0 V00G 90 "l8Q £VGV-£69-6L6 : "ON X ~j dn0~8 lN3Wd013~3a l~dIJINnw: WO~j
FROM ;
Oc t, 06 2004 02:04P 1 P i
~?~ o~o i~o o 2
'U -.:J1 1 ·'~JI.I ''--'---p •
J.F. FONTAINE A ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ 5, 20N
Ma!o St9"eU C .. t:
QtmenJ. ......
•U.t1on -..Ci-1 vtUit>-tibtdc~
p.o.-. tso
w.J,2J,vn1 ...._ '7tU:.
Mt We~ 0P"bl vt.il.UF Di~t.ot
•a.-Jrlow ~h1e-.i.t::r "1t\ldf'
IZ i.e. 2'Nlf••ieJ. ~.-&•10• --'* ~ aou. Uta V.l•t.A CJ.\rut;i.411' liaad..-
we h&Tfr ~•ed ff.t• fJ.ow of s.~ooo Clrll plua ~ak J\wn~ ti• to
ti. ~ UnlOSllillil&'t.
VtilMMs & pr-cipo-4 ~2 i.nc1:a ...aa f~ IGlf aou ~o ~l9e INMivi•ian.
~... tfelJ.borll q•C.. ia c:s~uh of. ~~ 1, 000 gal;\(llt.S pd'
.WW~ &U. flow la. ..tfttioJt to eM J:MNk J:aou'1y flow Ul4 »" .-.
t.a... 20 pe:L nalc1ua4 ~nn ..
s.ooo :L.I'. -l.J• l'VC. 17.0Q =
12D ~.~. • it• ~ ' ~ ... • 15.00 •
2 ...,. -ia• c:ace Y*1" • 1.,&oo.oo •
~ ~ • 1t• lilt~ .,.. • J.OOO.OD ~
~iol> •
----~..-. . 'l'ol:al •
$ u..,000 .01
u.:oo .ae
a.too.co
~
$ n,000.00
.. i.1Qo.ag
$ '3,"rCIG.Cll
'tlae aa .ln• ,...u ~-l,,600 oaJ,l.ea. of •tano•• O .J -.U9D8
~._ta ~ U14 M4k boia:r:1.¥ Caw f.o¥ 12 n•~W .-..Le••·
U YOG ~ ._. qa••t1ou, p1e&ee cal.1 .
£PcP-£69-6L6 : "O N X ~~ dn0~8 l N3Wd013~3G l~dIJI N nw: WO~~
MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP
2 5 5 1 T E X A S A V E . S O U T .H j· S T E A '' C 0 L L E G E S T A T I 0 N ,
TEX N S 7 7 8 4 0 •:· 9 7 9 · 6 9 3 , 5 3 5 9 ''F AX; 9 7 9 -6 9 3 -4 2 4 3 ''
E -MA IL ; MD G C:S TX@ YA H 0 0 . C 0 M --·--. ..-·· ----···--
FACSIMILE 1"RANSM1TTAI. SHEET.
'J'O'l'AL NO. Ol'JAG£S INCLUD!NG COVEi\,
LI
J'HONE NUM!lcll ' RE:
0 URGENT 0 :FOR R£VIEW 0 PLE/\SE COMMENT 0 PL EASE R EPLY 0 PLE ASE RECYC!J;
NOTES/COMMENTS:
i
j .
CONFlDENTll\LlTY NOTICE ; 1'HIS I'ACSlMILE M ES SA GE AND A.CCOMl'.ANYING
CO MM UNICll.'flONS ANP/OR DOCUM.EN IS ARE !NTl!.N DED \OR THE EXCLUSIVE AN D
c O N F l D EN T ) A L U S E 0 F 'J' H E J N D l V I D!ll A L () R E N T 11' Y T 0 :W H I C. H HI E M ES S A 0 E l S
ADDRr;SSED
£vcv -£69-6l6: ·oN x ~j dnD~9 lN3Wd013~3a l~dIJINnw: WO~j
"' Engin<ers, Sm-voyo'" Plaunm, Conmltan1' & Mmge,, .
s.~..f' 2551 Texas Ave _ South, Ste . A, College Station, TX 77840 · · ·
,,~~~~ Office: 979 .693 .5359 Fax: 979 .693.4243 Email: mdgcsrx@yahoo.com ~A.0 .
~ . ' ~ ()
6 October 2004 .
Alan Gibbs P .E., Development Engineer
City of College St.ation
1101 Texas Ave South
College Station, Texas 77840
Re: Williamsgate Water Supply Issue
Dear Alan:
When the Williamsgate project went to council for rezoning to R-1 , everyone was excited
about this, the first "quality residential development" west of the railroad tracks in south
College Station. We have been puttjng all the pieces together, but we have hit a n1ajor
snag. Lee and I understand your staff have already talked to our client, Robbie Robi~on
and his partner Tom Adair, with regard to fire water availability for Williamsgate . They
were told that Williamsgate must meet the 1500 gpm fire flow standard. Lee contacted ·
Spencer to discuss this issue; he referred us to you.
The initial Wellborn water report prepared by Fontaine Engineering states that a single
12" line will not meet the gpm 1500 standard. I think we were all aware of that. The
report goes on to suggest a $250,000 solution, involving more than 11,000 LF of 12"
water line. This is totally out of the question for our client, and in fact will kill the project
and stamp the land as ''tainted" and undevelopable .
On 4 October, Fontaine issued a supplemental report indicating that if the Brushy System
connections are added to the model, then 1500 gpm with a residual pressure of m9re than
20 psi is achievable. We realize this connection is 120-150 days out, but when it occurs,
that will obviate all concerns. I have included the supplemental report ..
At a minimum Font.aine says that it is possible to provide 1000 .gpm through a single 12 "
water line extension to our site . 1000 gpm is adequate fire flow according to the current
city practices.
Fontaine Engineers is issuing a supplemental letter report indicating that the proposed
single 12" water line along Rock Prairie West will provide sufficient water pressure/
volume to meet the 1000 gpm fire flow standard without the addition of the Brushy .
000886-c:l 0 (3 736)
[VGV-[69-6l6 : 'O N X~~ dn0~9 1N3Wd013~3a l~d!JINnw: WO~~
connection. We hereby request that you .issue a letter stating that 1000 gpm is
satisfactory . If such a letter requires a formal variance request, then please consider this .·
letter as such. I know 1000 gpm has been approved in other situations .
Our client is in a serious time crunch and must meet certain milestones for this project to
proceed. We Wlderstand that there are some real inter-agency conflicts with regard to
water system CCN issues , but it is unfair to pW1iSh a responsible developer who has
simply been caught in the crossfire between the City of College Station and Wellborn
SUD. We ask that you bring this issue to whatever management level is necessary to get
this obstacle to development removed.
I will call this afternoon to discuss this matter and set a meeting. Lee and I will attend , as
will our clients . · ·
Enclosure-Fontaine Engineer Oct 4 Report
000886-c. l O .(3736)
£vcv-£69-6l 6: 'ON X ~~ d n o~~ 1 N 3 W d013 ~3 a l~dI J I Nnw : WO~~
' .
FROM .FAX NO. :
Wel l bor n
Det. 06 2004 08:26AM P1
S79 6~~ 1260 ~-~
• Ci..! ·04-2034 ~6~ 33 r iQ'\; Jf-f()W::INE yu!.~. !t .b.>f• J.L.MMJ.
J .. F. FONTAINE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
r.o . .so. •111
Palestine, Texas 7SIOl
*·it..-.. cut
~ ....... *"'••
CONSULTING ENGrNEERS
tfeJ.Uton .... l.&1 Dt1l.1ty z:ti.11U'~~'
•·O~ llC* Mo
.. llllQll"2'-~ ., '781U.
li.e:1 'N*Ul:ionl -.Oi.•l. VtUity ll!St:dct.
ri .. l'.l.Ow -.l:rtb/Ca,pud.~ StU41f .
12 IAat. M9id•tiu •UcU-.is1oa
1c~0191)7~
Fil <MJ) 7lt.-7311
llocilk t:Rlarle ao.4. "'1~& Vbk =i••i.aa Aoadelll'
Dea' Mr• C.»C I
.ueu .ar-c~ioe.t.t .... • t>y ~· el!lis 110rniag. 'Wt:ll laavt1 •ad•d lM ku_. 1l8t ~~aa to the bd:~lic ..S.1 t;o da~ Qa fh'•
fl.ow c~U.~ af 7°""' •Yd~ ·~ t.M .atr--=c t:o ta.. ~•fer~
•OClimicm,
vt:i.Usi.U 6 ~""" ll ~ll aaia f:raa. :ta Jl.gd t:o tMI ~'Yi•1-
tll• w.iaoc. qaem1 ia c~• of pr:oiv!.A!Uo 1,!100 gaJ.1•• pg
-1.mate f.U. fl!i* iA UAit.ioza t.o ~ ~ak !a.OU1y •J.ow 6M ban m=e
~ ao ·"°" :r .. 1....i »r•"qr-e .
~orefo.. w sea 1 GI ·~ tllb INbcl:l.vb"-wi.Ui tlle
eip.a.l.atioa uat cia. d9"1.gpc b•tt.U • 13 ~-.tu--.aiu &1oaa
aock h'dd• ao.4 !i'a ~ 1'0&4 ~~ t'6 o&Umlc• •o ~ p~M
.-aldL-n..iCG. De .. t,,.ted cson ot ~~o ~·•••'-' 1& .. to11ow.i
:.ii, DC>O 1..:r • -1.a• nc e 11.~c • * u~ 1too. oa
uo I,.l". -~·· Bore • ~. 11.00 :: 10,2co.oo
a 1:ac:h -12• Gat• v.lv. t 1.~00.00 ., 2.too.00
l. ~ -12• Bot~ .. ~ a.ooo .o ~ • .i. QQ~~~g
CGMt:~t.tcm Ill • 11.aao.oo
Cnri••~£ao • 1,zgg .g,g
~h1 • • n,no.oo
Tile 82 lOt:• 'WQUlcS z-cquinl U.tOC gal.1-a of n=ac1•, 69.2 11.i.1-.
M:r:-~· nD»l.v _. pe.a lulGW'1r now E.-12 n•;,.ol0Da£•• HWi_..
y_. • ...uy ~.
~.&'»~
J~ 7. l'&ata.t-.. i' .••
JU'/wjg
£vcv-£69-6l6 : ·oN x ~~ dn0~8 1N3Wd013~3a l~dIJINnw : WO~~
CITY OF COLLEGE S TATION
Planning & D evelop ment S ervices
1101 Tex as Av enue South , PO Box 9960
College Station , Tex as 77842
Phone 979 .764 .3570 / F ax 979 .764 .3 4 96
MEMORANDUM
February 17, 2005
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, Via fax 693.4243
Bridgette George, Development Coordinator
WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (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, February 28 ,
10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting scheduled for, March 17, 2005, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Counc il
Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue.
Two (2) 24 "x36 " copies of the revised final plat ;
Ten (10) 11 "x17" 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@cstx.gov
Please note that Sewer Impact fees ($300/LUE) are due prior to filing the plat (33 lots x
$300 = $9,900). 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 not be
scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commiss ion meeting. 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 Josh Norton
or myself at 979.764.3570 .
Attachments: Staff review comments
cc: Robbie Robinson , Ltd,./ Shane W illiams , via fax 696.8019
Case file #05 -00500013
Home of Texas A&M University
\ . c
(
):~
) : lAS
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) -05-00500013
~LANNING/ENGINEERING
UJ Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review by
h City of College Station Water and Wastewater and fill return cor ments as soon ~ as possible . ~ ~ r.J--~""~ fo /. /{._, Vf'?(i .IJ/2>vJ..t. ~~ ~ Fire Flow Report is inade:fquate . The fire flow report is based on i1l fformation from W an existing City of College Station water system which will not be connected to
the system supporting this development. Each phase of construction should
_ 'i:/u ~ stand alone and should be analyzed independently as well.
~~0 The detention design in the Drainage Report appears to reflect that additional
~,... flows could be released from the pond. Furthermore, the pond volume based on
"~ '\~ calculated depths, proposed volume provided, and the volume approximated for
r ~ the pre/post flows are not consistent. Please clarify. Common Area "E" is subject
to change based on the final Drainage Report and final Sanitary Report . G Site grading must be revised such that there is not a propensity for flooding or
• future blocked drainage due to flows across lots and the absence of a drainage
L system in these locations. Extensions of drainage systems would require a PUE.
Additionally, please note that approximately 12 lots have over 2ft of fill which will
require either additional beam depths for the house foundations or the fill be
~laced, compacted, and tested to satisfy 95% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698).
//°· ~YI: This development is located in a sewer impact fee area and a fee of
$300/LUE is due at the time of the filing of each plat (Phase 1: 33 Lots = $9,900;
Phase 2: 31 Lots= $9,300 ; Phase 3 : 18 Lots= $5400).
LJV"'The water lines are located outside of ROW and in some cases located 25ft
away from back of curb. These lines may be relocated within the ROW to
remove or release the adjacent easement.
0.' With the proposed sewer line alignment Lot 12 of Phase 1 requires additional
easement to ensure that the sewer line is no closer than 5ft to the edge of the
easement.
~The area that the lift station is located needs to be designated as either a public
or a private easement.
~A temporary cul-de-sac is required to be provided on Hancock where is abuts
phase II, by means of temporary easement. This change should be made to the
~ ;j)construction documents as well.
~~.Please provide agreement or easement with adjoining property owner for offsite
drainage. VJ ,f{ {JI">""~ ~~ \
( 'l .'J '1.p -t-f i>
Reviewed by: Jennifer Reeves/Josh Norton Date: 02-17-05
ELECTRICAL
1. Project is in Bryan Texas Utilities Service Territory.
2 . To discuss any of the above comments, please contact Tony Michalsky at
979. 764 .3438 .
Reviewed by: Tony Michalsky Date: 2-2-05
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans , that have not been requested by the City of College Station , must be explained in your
next transm itta l 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
(R~M :MUNICIPRL DEVELOPMENT GROUP FRX NO. :979-693-4243 Rug. 09 2005 04:23PM Pl
! '
''
j :
'" I ..... ~~f
. I ,, ·:,,;r:<:~iw'·'<
~~ :r'.:1 9::x:;;:~:0;:, :~9:~~:~::· :.:::":,::J::ahoo.c"n • •. ·'• ·' . ·•='.i,''.·;';'.,,;[, , ' . ·,.
"'~ (; · .. ' ' " ,•• ' .
· . .....
>" •••
DATE:
·j
;
''
· Confidentiality notice: This facsimile message and accompanying com111~nications and/ ot d~cum~nts arc .::;_:,:·~;:::-.:::,:,\ .: .. :·.,,. -;
intei1dcd for the exclusive an µ co,hfidehtial use or the h1di vic.lual or cntity jtd, +hich the n-ie~~uge_i,~ a.1~f~~~~-:;::·;\·:.:;~·:::;r':~:
''· . .. : / f Ii ·:;-'}f'.;l.f:::~l~i~.~~~;~)
FROM :MUNIC IPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP FAX ND. :979-693 -4243 Aug. 09 2005 04:24PM P2
PERMIT 1'0 BF. ON RAILROAD .PROPF.Rn'
FOR NONlNTRllSIYE CTVll. ENGINF.F.Rll'IG SlffiVl!:Y WORK
RECITALS :
1, The un dersigned party see ki ng penniss ion ta be 011 Railroad pfopcrty is hereinafter ca lled "Permi ttee".
2. Ou e tu th~ natun: of Rai lroad opcrntions , Rai!ro n<l property can be~ dangerous pl ace for people and/or property . F.<tiko3.d 's safc:ty
ru lt:li ~l\d practice s shl!JI be strictly observed amJ followed at all tim es while on Ra ilro<t<l pro perty .
WH ER EAS , Permittci: desires ta obtain temporPry permission to enter and be on or about the tracks and/or propcny of the UNIO N
PAC IFI C RAI LROAD COMPANY (herei naf\crcalle<l "Rai lroad"), for the purpose ofperfom1ing nonintru~ivc civil engineering sur.rcy
work. without the use of vehicles.and/or rrulChincry on Railro~n·s property; and
WHEREAS. the Railroad is willing to allow th e rermiuee telTlporary pein1i~sion 10 be on or abo\t its premises for the purpose afo resaid
011 the terms and co nd iti ons slllted he rein :
NOW THEREFORE, Railro~d grants io Pl?rmittee t ~mpornry ptmnissi on to b~ Mor a bou t the tracks ;1 nd/or pro ~ of the Railroad fnr
the pu<PO~e above stated , subject to the follow ing conditions:
I , Befor e exe rci sing any pri vilege under the pcrmissio11 herein given . rermitt.ce sha ll co nt<1c1 the Ra ilroad Super intc ndenl's office
hav ing juri sdiction over tic pr0perty involved .
2. l'cnni ttee shall become familia r wi th and slrictl y observe Railroad's safdy mies nn d all othct' rules, regul3tions, or direct ions of
Railroad 's Superin tendent or his rcprc:Sentativcs .
3. ·l'erm ittcc shnll agree to the terms and conditions ufth is instrume nt, a11d ~hall so evidence by his exec ution ofSNne.
4 . The a])Ove recited permiss ion is granted so lely upon the condition that f'erm ittee sh.,11 and hereby does agree to i1ldcmnify, protect
nnd save harmless, Railroad from any and all loss or d ~tna gc tha t Rail road may sus~~in or become liable for. cuui;ed by, resulting from , or
by reaSQn of any injury to or dcg th of any pc rsuns wh omsoever, or destructio n of propcny of any kild to whomsoever belonging,
hows('>Cver suffered or .ca11sed, regardless of whethe r caused solely or contributed to in pmt by the negligence or fault of the R~ilroad, in
or inci de nt to or in connoction with the aforesaid wiirk on R.nilroad'~ prope rty here inabovc re ferred to . Public Agencies shall in demnify
Rn ilroa<l as h~rcin descri bed to Uie extent allowed by law .
5. Upon completion (Jfy our work, b11t in no even t late r than the l~st dny of the t~rm of thi~ aerecmcnt, J>ettnittcc ·will remove all of his
tools , equipment, nn<l other property of any kind what•oever, <111d re.i~re Railroad's propert y to substantially the gnmc conditio n that
c1'ist ed prior lo 1he perfonnancc of your work hereunder.
6. This permit moy be revokod nt any time by tho Kai l road , hu t if not r~vo kcd shall expi re at the e1id of the last J;1t~ written below ,
PLEASE complet.c the follo wing information and execute in the spiicc m nrk~ "By~. You should then !>'AX a copy to 402-233-2018 for
c~ccu tion on beha lf of the Rl!ilroad Company , after which one copy will be: relttrned to'yuu by f~x . You must KF,~P your fully.executed
~npy in your possession at 1111 times while <m Railroad property. lt MUST be shown on request to nny Railroad e1nploycc or o!f!Ci~I.
di,;;\ i C. \r>c ~ .. \ \2e ,;elo1)t-'<f r1 t C\r:x ,CJ UN ION PACIFIC RAI LROAD COMPANY
. ' (C omp a11y Ndmc) 1
·1 i " · ·r-" · i <' A' ..1.-:.-.'-) ,) IP M.,, '-\Vr0 -':::.2t)f it=Ja .,;.1(.
. _ -(Street Addrc~s) BY : __ ~----------L l/e n.J'. ,'.:>t<i,J: ,";;a J ·T"A 7 7 Ji'j..Q__ Director-Contructs
, ~ (City. State , Zip)
( q7q ) b(·i?. S-~5 $') {. £1 1'1) 0·13 ·-l-j l''i 3
(Tel ephone (Return Pnx Number)
J,) . ~~ t-t. . n. h . , ~ v'\
ROIZ l•ennil ·Survey
Rt:11I Estnte
Union Pa ci fic Railroad Com pany
STOl' 1690
1400 Dnuglas Street
Omaha N £ 68179-1690
Alternate fax : (402) 501--0340
PROM :MUNIC IPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP FAX NO. :979-693-4243 Aug. 09 2005 04:24PM P3
PLACE ARROW IND fC ATING NORTH ~ FORM OR-040 ~-B
REV. 5-I$-98
· www .uprr.com
ENCASED NON~FLAMMABLE
DIRECTION RE LATI VE 10 CROSS IN G ,~
' .!?
@ /j
tj PIPELINE . CROSSING
~.&
~-~~ NO SCALE
NOTE : ALL AVAILABLE DlMEN SIO NS MUS l BE
FILLEO IN ro PROCESS THIS APPLICAT ION .
@ ¢:;')
-//'/-r,..----=~~(-S:-:-.N~O-T-(~f'3_T_O_>_l ___ ,,,,._ ___ (_>E=(=NO=lt-~-.8-5;T, ----...! · 1 J,
Coilea.e · ~ Ii : --°"' · -·
IC L I v ',/f ., f Lt:.= t)Q 0 ~ ~TO ?T0.=1'\D/\. "' a::1o.1 (ANCLE QI.' CRO~.S.I~) ~~
I HEARES( (LR. TOWN! c""' !!:! 'l_ MAlH Jn.6(:11. -
1-+---1-----+-~ 4\ ~
To Wellbor1' _
C NtARE~f R.R. TOWN!
• , Ot SCRIB < <IKEO OOJ(Cl)
(SEE NO l( 6)
. _/
(OE>Cf<l ~t FIX(0 08JEC1)
(SEE NOi( S)
ID I ~ 1"1CF. ALO•C TRAC. FR OM SECT I ON LIN E cno ss I NOi t'.Q r1.
k--------__ FT.
(t/OTE: '"IS Oll,l(NS IOH Rto ulREO rn ALL CASES, ~
AT LOC•T IDNS NOT USI NG S(CT IONS, DIST;NCE 'lJI
TO . Lf:GAL ~UrtVEY LIN [ IS Rrn~,i ~co_i __ ..... ,_ ______ _
RR' S ~IW
/
/
/
/
5Q....rr. ------0 FT . 5QJT.
~ rr. ~--3S FT.
filrr.
ill2_rr.
Nt)l'f$; (C•SIN(i U'NClH 'ftM[N i.tr.,.s,u nr o ALOMC P IPELI NE.)
I I .\LL HORIZONTAL 01:.l ANCES TO st M{ASUR CO AY AICH T AllGLU t"ROM'L Of TR ACIL
21 CftS IMC TO (Xl(NO BEY ON D f HE t. OF fl1 ACX AT RIGHT ANCl..E S THE cnEHER OF 20 .. ~o f'T ., OA ;,o FT. I
..., BU ONO Ll•I T OF RAILROAO RICHT-Of•WAT IF •iCtSS•RY TO PROVIDE PRoO(A ~El<C T H OUl '10C OF TRAC <-
)1 1.4 JNI M.IM OF so· FROM T~f. EHD OF ~y IU ILROAO SSHO CE, Cl or AN'f CU.V!AT, OR FROM ANY ~"ITCHING AO:EA.
'~I
I
STEEL CASING WALL
rttlCKNESS CHART
MI NlMUt.l TH ICKNESS
'2500" 11•·
.312S" 5116"
'3150-318"
. 4375• 7116'
. 5000' 112·
• S625 ' 911 6" . &2 so· Ste•
DIAME TER OF
CASING PIPE
12-O~ LESS
OVER 12--I 8"
OVER I 8"-22'
OVER 22--zs·
OVER 2s·-)4"
OVER 3<"-42"
OVE~ 4~-. 48"
OVER <S' IA.JS T 8£
APPRO VED 8 Y R. R. CO.
NOTE: TH IS CIUllT I S ON"
FOR SMOOT~ $TEEL CASIN G
PIPES WITH MINl!IUM YI ELO STRENGTH OF 3~, 000 PS 1.
FORMULA TO FIGURE CASING
LENG TH I'll TM ANClE OF
CROSS I NG OT HE R THAN 900
·~ ... ~+
UJ. SIN ~'~~
~· B
~\.,,
" >ICNAL A(PA>SENTATIV( UIJST BE PR£StNi OURl~C I NSlALLATION IF RAILAO•O SlCllALS AA(· IN THE VIC IN ITY OI GQOSS I NC .
MIN.0 !5 T,
( ltQ ([ >)
SI ALLOfABL( flXED D(;J(CTS INCLLll)(: 8ACKWALLS o• l!RIDGt~: 'l OF ROAD coOSSJH C> a DV(OWiAD VIAOUC TS ( CIV£ 0060 "-'Mrl ' Oo C~•VERl!>.
6 1 CAS ING ••O CAR111 £R PI PE ~USl 0[ P•AC EO • ~IM IMUM al' 2 r[ET 8EL01! TH( EX I STING fl8[0 Ol'TIC C•8,E. ANY (XC•VATION ~(OUIREO WITKI~
$ FEEi or · Ttt< EXI STING f 16ER CPI IC c•e E OU.OT 8E HAND DUC.
Al IS PIPELINE CROS SI NG WITHIN DEDICATED 5TRE:ET ? __ YES ; __ NO;
Bl IF YES, NAMJ;; OF' STREET 12oc-k ?ell-Irle. W!i..fit
Dl DI ST RJS UTlO N LIN E OR TRANSt-JIS S JON LINIO ._..---
Cl CARRIER PIPE ; .
CDMMOD[T'f TD BE CONVE'.YED . So..1\i'it:\:r~ s~w~
Oi='ERAT[NG PRESSURE io PS J. II 'i)V/'
WAL L TH I CKNE 55 0 --Z,~'' ;DIAMETER ~ i MATER I AL ___,, __ ._"'---;
El CASING PIPE : ~ .· /O '' \"\'J: o WALL THICKNE SS Q,"dJ ;D IAM ETER ;MA TER IAL V 1-;
NOTE :C AS ING MUST HA VE 2" CLEARANCE BE TW EEN GREA TES T
OUTSlDE DIAME TER OF CARRfER P IP E ANO INTERIOR DIAMETER or
CASIN G PIPE . WHEN FURNISHING O!MENSIO NS, GIVE our s10~ OF
CARR I ER PIPE A D lNS IOE OF CASING P rPE.
F l METHO D or INS TA LLI NG CASI NC PIPE UNDER l RACK I SI:
. ~DR Y SORE ANO JACK CWET BORE NO T PERMI TT EOl
. __ TU NN EL j OTHER-------------=-----
Gl WILL CONS TRUC TION BE BY AN OUTS I DE CONTRACTOR?:.;;;:::::;:E5;------1'<0i
H l ~lf J f ~g!'. Pf ~~M w~f~T~~A~J~f o or T r ~f ~~r T~N ~C~~ f gcfR£~K BO~;'fi~ ;~o
ll APPLJCANT /.!A S CONTACH'.D . 1-800-336-9193, . ( >D' UIM..)
U. P. CDMMUNICAl(ON DEPARTMEN T, ANO HAS DETERM I NED F l OER
OPTIC CABLE ~DO ES ; __ oOES NOT j EXIS.1_ 1~ VICINITY o•
WORK TO BE PERFORMED. TICKET NO . z,fi0'1Q1:zSDCJ10
EXHIBIT "A"
UN!ON PACIF I C RAILROAD CO.
I W80 1Vl ilQH1
M.P c:.s . ____ _
ENC ASED -----CROSS I NG AT
11t(.&At U CIT"l
RR .FILE NQ, ___ _ DATE_,;_ __ _
IY A R N I N G
IN All OCCO.SION S. U, P, CQloi,tJNICAl IONS
DEPARTMENT ~T 8£ COllT•CTEO I N ADVl.NCE
Of' Al('f WQAJ( TO OE TCAillNE EX I ST~~CE ANO
LOCltT I ON Of FIBER OP T IC C::l\S Lt.
P~( : 1-800-llG-9 1'1)
, FROM :MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT GROUP FAX NO. :979-693-4243 Rug. 09 2005 04:25PM P4
7). When do you expect CQnstruction lo begin on the Railroad Company's property? 3"v\~ / A~ust-" Z,OOS
8) .. When do you need to receive this agreement from the Railroad Company? J" vl ~ Z.00 5 ·
(Please allow 30·45 days for crossings and 90· l 20 duys !Ore croachments)
9). Permanent or Temporary Installation -Pc>.r Mc'.l./\ e.o + bto,1 e v(.r fo be. t q.,._ke o m+ of
If Temporary, estimated term -S<'..t-v~( f?' w.i·f-k j a ·h.N.-,. "'( eo.,,rs.
10). Location of installation· C,l le~e . S±o .. :Hon ~l"c....z.os. Tex.i:; s 1 City, County & State)
-------ft. {N), (S), (E), or (W) of the (N), (S), (E), (W) or (Center) line of Section--------
Township-~---(N) or (S), Range--··~--(€) or (W).
11) New instulhnion, relocation or modification of existing installation which is locntcd on the Railroad Company's property or
across tracks?
12). Do you have an existing agreement at this location with the Railroad Company which is to be affected by this request?
13).
14).
(~o ( ) Yes , Railroad Company Contract Number: ______________________ _
Is installation a crossing Cro;,s; il-'.'.) or encroachment---~--or both? ------
ls installation localed within a dediW1ted public street? No __ _
Yes ·/,enclosed arc records which identify 11nd prove the dedication of such public way.
l $). Additional information pertinent to this installation ;
s°"" l ~a. r 'I se •. ,,u-Ii 11 e. io c;;e..c ve.. pro po ·.e.~ .su bt)i ...;; s : o r1.
16). If an encroachment, who will be served'!
(Railroad , Railroad Tenant, General l'ublic, etc.)
17). Did the Railroad Company's magazine advertisement affect your decision to utilize the right-of-way for a utility corridor?
( ) Yes ( ) No . lfnot, did another medium impress your decision? ( ) Yes ( ) No.
18).
If.applicable, please advise other medium : ______________ ~------------
CONTRACTOR AND INSTALLATION INFOR~1A TION
Will construction be by a Contractor? ( ) No ( ~
lfyes,Contractorwill be: 15!'a.zc,<> Vn...{/ e..'t . Se.J"vll.e.S
Address : _.!:::to:QJ.(.lJ{ e~·')\Lr' ___.5..J.:t;k~, ,:r·hl.!··:?2'4a..,-, __!TLC.<i'c~)(..ti.O.O...';l;i,· -------------------
Corporate Status :--------·---------------------------
Name and Phone Number of individual to contact in the event of questions:
le-n wo b '» S. A d a..,....., s ) 'P, F: ·-q 1 i -6 CZ 3 -S 3" S CJ
19). Describe in detail the method imd manner of installation on the Railroad Compun y's property:
':fu,,..e 00-<\ ~a..~k pe..c c. t't of C.nl!ey 5~".A''b.o 5pec.i h·ca.ti'O/l~-
J .
WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) (05-00500013)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 3
\yv
ruction Plans Comments : (numbers relate to the 2/17/05 e-mail) Jl
Repeat comment, please clarify the proposed utility limits of Phase 1.
(Show this change in profile) The waterline connection to the Wellborn line
equires the gate valve on the proposed line side , in addition to Wellborn's
equirements . I\ (C6) On water/sanitary sewer conflict at Sta. 8+ 75.00, must provide 2' separation
• . / between the water and sanitary sewer system, per TCEQ .
~9 . Please make note of the temporary turn-around easement on Final Plat under
.) general notes .
k'" Final Plat Comments that apply to the Construction Plans: (numbers relate to the Staff
\
(;rJ'-0 Review Comments returned 2/17 /05) C ( 1. Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review by City v of College Station Water and Wastewater and will return comments as soon as
G \ 2 . (As an updated fire flow report has not been submitted) Fire Flow Report is \ &v"(9 possib1e .
inadequate . The fire flow report is based on information from an existing City of
College Station water system which will not be connected to the system supporting
this development. Each phase of construction should stand alone and should be
analyzed independently as well.
3 . As previously commented, there appears to be an error the detention analysis in that \
the proposed detention volume is significantly smaller than the estimation of the
ifference of the triangular hydrographs . It may be worthwhile to meet on this topic.
Gl le~se provide agreement or easement with adjoining property owner for offsite
ra1nage .
Reviewed by : Josh Norton Date : April 1, 2005
L(}zt /'1S
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans , that have not been requested by the City of College Stat ion , 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 .
Page 2 of 2
.J/W~l-
~'/J 'f°C/j <
-At11 ""'.J\S \ ~., :"" ~w ,
> .,J~ lx <
---J~
-vvtt~'41 -:]-» ~ ~ <
Li-~ #)
"r+j~ ' ~4"" )JV)
Jll
LA/ \f ?Vf s
t;)__,,, /"'/ 5 -
..
') ....
C ITY OF C OLLEGE S TATION
Pla nn ing & Develop ment Se rvices
1 101 Texas Avenu e, P.O. B ox 996 0
Co ll ege St ati on, Texas 77842
Pho n e 97 9.764.35 70 /Fax 979.7 64 .3496
MEMORANDUM
August 9, 2005
TO : Greg Taggart , Municipal Development Group, Via fax 693.4243 ,/
FROM : Bridgette George , Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) (5~
D 5 -13
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned eng ineering 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 for further staff review and
approval of the plans :
__ One (1) set of revised construction documents .
If you have any questions or need additional information , please Josh Norton or myself
at 764 .3570 .
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
Cc : Robb ie Robinson , Ltd. I Shane Williams, via fax 696.8019 /
Case file no . 05-00500013
..
WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) (05-00500013)
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 5
Lee , please pay special attention to comments 3a and 3b , as the others have been
previously discussed .
Final Plat Comments that apply to the Construction Plans: (numbers correspond
to the Staff Review Comments returned 4/1/05)
1. Sanitary Sewer: need for TxDOT and Union Pacific Rail Road permits for
boring FM 2154 and the rail road respectively .
2. Water : Prior to the Final Plat being approved by the Planning and Zoning
Commission, a sufficient offsite water line must be constructed to this property .
(Under Review by CoCS Legal Department)
3. Drainage :
a . The flow line outlet is .5ft below the adjacent ground. Are you proposing
to daylight 200ft offsite? Please provide existing as well as proposed
offsite cross sections and cross section detail.
b. The proposed contours along the proposed berm do not match the
existing contours . A retaining wall would be needed to construct the
detention pond as proposed or shift the berm such that the proposed
contours match the existing contours at the property line. As proposed
portions of the berm would have to be constructed on the adjacent
properties to the north and to the east. Is this what you are considering?
10 . Please provide agreement or easement with adjoining property owner for offsite
drainage .
Reviewed by : Josh Norton Date: August 9, 2005
July 18 , 2005
C ITY OF C OLLEGE S TAT IO N
Planning & Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue, P .O . Box 9960
Co ll ege Stati o n , Texas 77 842
Pho n e 979.76 4.3570 /F ax 979.7 64.3496
MEMORANDUM
TO : Greg Taggart, Municipal Development Group, Via fax 693.4243 /
FROM : Bridgette George, Development Coordinator
SUBJECT : WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) (If)
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 for further staff rev iew:
__ One (1) set of revised construction documents .
If you have any questions or need additional information , please Josh Norton or myself
at 764.3570 .
Attachments : Staff Rev iew Comments
Cc : Robb ie Robinson , Ltd . I Shane Williams, via fax 696.8019 ./
Case file no. 05-00500013
"
Williamsgate FP (05-00500013)
ENGINEERING RE;VIEW
COMMENTS No. 4
Final Plat Comments that apply to the Construction Plans : (numbers correspond to the
Staff Rev iew Comments returned 4/1/05)
1. The Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design were reviewed by the CoCS
Water and Wastewater Department and comm'ents were returned via e-mail 7/6/05.
2 . Fi r:e low and Water Report
a. lease provide the actual documentation from the fire flow test.
. Please certify that the test was done to NFPA standards .
~Page 4) The velocities in pipe 0 and pipe P are greater than the maximum
allowable velocity of 12 fps . Perhaps increasing the size of pipe would decrease
these velocities .
d . FYI : It has come to our attention that the noted "Existing 12in Wellborn Waterline "
throughout the construction documents do ~s not actually ex ist.
e. Prior to the Final Plat being approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission , a
sufficient water line must be constructed to this property .
3. Drainage Report :
a . The flow line outlet is .5ft below the adjacent ground . Are you propos ing to
daylight 200ft offsite?
b. The proposed contours along the proposed berm do not match the existing
contours . A retaining wall would be needed to construct the detention pond as
proposed or shift the berm such that the proposed contours match the existing
contours at the property line .
10 . Please provide agreement or easement with adjoining property owner for offsite
drainage.
The Final Plat of Phase One will need to include the "Temporary Turn-Around
asement" as previously depicted on the Plat.
If you have any further questions, please contact me. It may be helpful to set up a
meeting to discuss these issues .
Reviewed by : Josh Norton Date : July 18 , 2005
Josh Norton -Williamsgate Lift Station
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Spencer Thompson
Josh Norton
7/1/2005 5:22 PM
Williamsgate Lift Station
Sheet 4. Line should read SDR-26 Class 160
Sheet 4. Change 4"x90 MJ bend to 2 45s
Sheet 4. Show bends on plan view and station.
Page 1 of 1
In order to further approve the drawing set all requirements for UPRR and TxDOT will have to be met on the
plans.
st
Spencer G. Thompson, Jr.
W/WW Engineering Services
City of College Station
PO Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842
Ph. 979.764.5011 Fx. 979.764.3452
WWW .cstx . ov
Utility Service Center
file://C :\Documents %20and %20Settin g s ~norton\Local%20Settings \Temp \GW }00001 .HTM 7/21 /2005
April 1 , 2005
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Pla nning & Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue So uth, P O Box 996 0
College St ation, Texas 77842
Pho n e 979.7 64.3570 /Fax 979 .764 .3496
ME MORA NDUM
TO : Greg Taggart , Mun icipa l De velopment Group , Via fax 693.4243
FROM : Bridgette Geo rge, Assista nt Development Manager
SUBJECT: WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP ) (:))
Staff reviewed the abov e-men tioned eng ineering documents as requested. The
following page is a list of st aff re view comments detailing items that need to be
addressed . Please address th e co mme nts and submit the following information for
further staff review and approv al of the pla ns :
__ One (1) set of revis ed cons truction documents .
If you have any questions or ne ed additi onal information, please call Josh Norton at
764 .3570 .
Attachments : Staff Re view C omme nts
Cc : Robbie Robinson , Ltd . I Sh ane Willi ams, via fax 696 .8019
Case file no . 05-00 50 00 13
Home o f Texas A&M University
WILLIA MS GATE PH 1 (FP) (05-00500013)
ENGINEE RING REVIEW
COMM ENTS No. 3
Construction Plans Comments : (numbe rs relate to the 2/17 /05 e-mail)
1. Repeat comment , please cl ar ify the proposed utility limits of Phase 1.
3. (Show this change in profil e) T he waterlin e connection to the Wellborn line
requires the gate valv e on th e propo sed line side , in addition to Wellborn's
requirements .
12 . (C6) On water/sanitary sew e r conflic t at Sta . 8+ 75 .00, must provide 2 ' separation
between the water and sani ta ry sewe r system , per TCEQ .
29 . Please make note of the temporary turn-around easement on Final Plat under
general notes .
Final Plat Comments that apply to the Construction Plans : (numbers relate to the Staff
Review Comments returne d 2/17 /0 5)
1. Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Report and Design are currently under review by City
of College Station W ater and Waste wat er and will return comments as soon as
possible .
2. (As an updated fire flow re port has not been submitted) Fire Flow Report is
inadequate . The fire flow re port is base d on information from an existing City of
College Station water syst em w hich wi ll not be connected to the system supporting
this development. Eac h pha se of con struction should stand alone and should be
analyzed independently as we ll.
3. As previously commented , th e re appe ars to be an error the detention analysis in that
the proposed detent ion volum e is sig nific antly smaller than the estimation of the
difference of the triang ular hy d ro graph s . It may be worthwhile to meet on this topic .
10 . Please provide agreem e nt or easeme nt with adjoining property owner for off site
drainage .
Reviewed by : Josh Norton Date : April 1, 2005
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans , tha t have not bee n requested by the City of College Station , must be
expla ined in your ne xt transmittal letter and "bubble d" on you r plans . Any addit ional changes on these plans
that have not been po inted out to th e Ci ty of Co llege Station will constitute a co mpletely new review .
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF COLLEGE S TATION
Planning & Development Services
1101 Texas Avenue So u th, P O Box 996 0
College Station, Texas 77842
Pho n e 97 9.764.35 70 /Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORAN DUM
March 22 , 2005
TO : Greg Taggart , Municipal Deve lopment Group , Via fax 693.4243
FROM : Bridgette Georg e, Assis ta nt De ve lopment Manager
SUBJECT: WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) ( Z)
Staff reviewed the above-ment ion ed engineerin g documents as requested. The following page
is a list of staff review comments detailing item s that need to be addressed. Please address the
comments and submit the follow ing informati on for further staff review and approval of the
plans :
__ One (1) sets of revised constru ction documents.
If you have any questions or need ad diti onal informat ion , please call Alan Gibbs or myself at
764 .3570 .
Attachments : Staff Re view Co mment s
Cc : Robbie Robinson , ltd ,./Shane Williams, via fax 696 .8019
Case file no . 05-005000 13
Home o f Texas A&M University
WILLI AMSGAT E PH 1 (FP) (05-00500013)
EN G INE ER ING REVIEW
COMME NTS No. 2
Construct ion Plans Comments : (numb ers re late t o the 2/17 /05 e-ma il )
1. Clarify the p roposed ut ilit y lim its of Phase 1.
3. The waterline connection t o th e Wellborn line requires the gate valve on the proposed line
side , in add it ion to Wellbo rn's requiremen ts .
4 . Two sets of waterline lay ers are left "o n" t hroughout the plans .
12 . Note and dep ict that the water a nd sanitary c ross ing near Hancock Sta . 9+00 should be in
accordance w ith TCEQ c h .290.4 4(e)(4)(B)(iv )(ll) such that the encasement should be on
the sanitary and separat io n from the enc as ement to the waterl ine shall be a min imum of 6
inches . Add itionally , dep ic t th e storm , wate r and san itary in profile at th is cross ing
throughout the plans . (This app ears to ap ply to Phase 3 as well .)
18 . Depict the proposed culv ert s for each of the two intersections of Hancock Loop and Rock
Prairie Rd and provide associat ed design calculations in the drainage report .
19 . Site grading at the rea r of the lots to pro v ide a swale appears to be graded backwards .
Additionally , a swale is als o nee ded at the rear of lots between Tony Court and Shelbea
Court .
29 . Prov ide the temporary cu ldesac easeme nt .
30 . Prov ide profil e detail of all storm sewe r in fr astructu re leading into the detention pond past
Junction Box 1 and Inlet 3.
32 . (C10 : Th is comment appea rs to apply to Phase 2) extend the sanitary sewer to
approximate Sta . 22+1 O to make the la st long side service perpend icular to Hancock
Loop .
34 . Prov ide the plan and pro file of th e 8 in . nort hern extension out on Shelbea Drive .
39 . (C16) The concrete va ll ey gutt er shoul d be 4 ft. wide w ith 12 in . toes and a 6 in .
depression per Figure VI I -1 of the Drain age Des ign Standards .
Final Plat Comments that ap p ly t o the Constru ction Plans : (numbers relate to the Staff Review
Comments returned 2/17/05)
1. San itary Sewe r and Lift Station Report and Des ign are currently under review by City of
College Station Water and Waste water and will return comments as soon as possible .
2. Fire Flow Report is inad equate. The fire flow report is based on information from an
ex ist ing City of College Stat io n water syste m wh ich will not be connected to the system
supporting th is developm ent . Eac h phase of construction should stand alone and should be
analyzed independently as well.
3. As previously commente d , there appears to be an error the detention analysis in that the
proposed detent ion volu me is sig nificantly sm aller than the estimation of the difference of
the triangular hydrographs . It may be wort hwh ile to meet on th is topic .
5. FYI : This development is locat ed in a sewe r impact fee area and a fee of $300/LUE is due
at the time of the filing of each plat (Pha se 1: 33 Lots = $9 ,900 ; Phase 2 : 31 Lots = $9 ,300 ;
Phase 3: 18 Lots = $5400 ).
1 O. Please prov ide agreeme nt or easement wit h adjoining property owner for offsite drainage.
Reviewed by: Alan G ibbs Date: 3-22-05
NOTE : Any chang es ma de to t he pla ns , that have not been requ ested by th e C ity of College Statio n, must be expla ine? in you r
next tra ns m itt al letter and "bu bbled " on yo ur plans. Any additional ch ang es o n these plans that have not been poin ted ou t
to the C ity of Colle ge Station will constitut e a com pl ete ly new review.
Page 2 of 2
CITY O F COLLEGE STATION
Planning & Deve lopm ent Service s
1101 Texas Ave nue S outh, PO Box 9960
Coll e ge Station, Texas 77842
Phon e 979.7 6 4.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMO RANDUM
February 17, 2005
TO :
FROM :
SUBJECT:
Greg Taggart , Mun icipal De velopment Group, Via fax 693.4243
Bridgette Georg e, De vel opm ent Coordinator )
WILLIAMSGAT E PH 1 (FP) -Final Plat ( f
Staff reviewed the above-men tione d final pla t as requested. The following page is a list
of staff review comments det ailing items that need to be addressed. If all comments
have been addressed and th e follo wi ng in formation submitted by Monday , February 28,
10:00 a .m ., your project will be pla ced on the next available Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting schedul ed fo r, Marc h 17, 2005 , 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 1101 Texas Aven ue.
Two (2) 24"x36 " co pie s of the revised final plat ;
Ten (10) 11 "x1 7" co pi es of th e revised final plat;
One (1) Mylar o rigin al of the re vised final plat; and
One (1) copy of the digi tal file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to
nmanhart@cst x .g ov
Please note that Sewer Imp act fee s ($30 0/LUE) are due prior to filing the plat (33 lots x
$300 = $9,900). Upon recei pt of the req uired documents for the Planning & Zoning
meeting , your project will be con side red formally filed with the City of College Station .
Please note that if all com ments have not been addressed your project will not be
scheduled for a Planning & Zon ing Commis sion meeting . Your project may be placed
on a future agenda once all th e rev isions have been made and the appropriate fees
paid . If you have any questio ns o r need add itional information, please call Josh Norton
or myself at 979 .764 .3570 .
Attachments : Staff review co mmen ts
cc : Robbie Robinson, Ltd ,./ Sh a ne Wi ll iam s, via fax 696 .8019
Case file #05-00500 013
H ome of Texas A&M University
STAFF REV IE W COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: WILLIA MSGATE PH 1 (FP) -05-00500013
PLANNING/ENGINEERING
1. Sanitary Sewer and Lift Sta tio n Report and Design are currently under review by
City of College Station Wate r an d Wastewater and will return comments as soon
as possible .
2 . Fire Flow Report is inadequ ate . The fire flow report is based on information from
an existing City of College Stati on water system which will not be connected to
the system supporting th is deve lopment. Each phase of construction should
stand alone and should be analyze d independently as well.
3. The detention design in th e Dra inage Report appears to reflect that additional
flows could be released from th e pond . Furthermore, the pond volume based on
calculated depths, propose d volume provided , and the volume approximated for
the pre/post flows are not c onsisten t. Please clarify. Common Area "E " is subject
to change based on the fin al Drain age Report and final Sanitary Report .
4. Site grading must be revis ed suc h that there is not a propensity for flooding or
future blocked drainage du e to fl ows across lots and the absence of a drainage
system in these locations . Extensi ons of drainage systems would require a PUE .
Additionally , please note t hat app rox imately 12 lots have over 2ft of fill which will
require either addition a l beam de pths for the house foundations or the fill be
placed, compacted , and tes ted to sa t isfy 95% Standard Proctor (ASTM D-698).
5. FYI : This developm e nt is located in a sewer impact fee area and a fee of
$300/LUE is due at th e t ime of the fi ling of each plat (Phase 1: 33 Lots = $9 ,900 ;
Phase 2 : 31 Lots= $9 ,300 ; Phase 3: 18 Lots= $5400).
6 . The water lines are loc ated outside of ROW and in some cases located 25ft
away from back of cu rb . These li nes may be relocated within the ROW to
remove or release th e adj acent ease ment.
7. With the proposed sewer line alignm ent Lot 12 of Phase 1 requires additional
easement to ensure t ha t the sewer li ne is no closer than 5ft to the edge of the
easement.
8 . The area that the lift station is located needs to be designated as either a public
or a private easeme nt.
9 . A temporary cul-de -sa c is required to be provided on Hancock where is abuts
phase II , by means of tempo rary ease ment. This change should be made to the
construction documen ts as well.
10 . Please provide agree ment o r easeme nt with adjoining property owner for offsite
drainage .
Rev iewed by : Jennifer Reeves/Josh Norton Date : 02-17-05
ELECTRICAL
1. Project is in Bryan Texa s Ut ilit ies Serv ice Territory .
2. To discuss any of th e ab ov e comm ent s , please contact Tony Michalsky at
979 .764 .3438 .
Rev iewed by : Tony Michalsky Date : 2-2-05
NOTE : A ny changes mad e to th e pl ans , that hav e not been reques ted by the City of College Station , m ust be explained in you r
next t ran sm itta l lett er and "bu bbl ed " on your pl an s. Any add it iona l ch anges on the se plans that have not been pointed out
to th e City , will co nstitute a com ple te ly ne w revi ew . Page 2 of 2
' \
ld
,.,
" p
·.: .. ·
DURGENT Ol'OR REVIEW OPLEASE COMME NT OP LEASE REfii:, Y
NOT~S/ COMMENTS:
Wij9!7:11 S00c cc
'I . I
I
f !
i i
..
......
.: ~< · ..
~··
;::
'.1:
...
'·: .. ' , 'I ·. 'l t ~l"•• ,'•,ffv?•;1\~V: ( ;.~: _,!,~' ... ;.,,,' '
:::
' I
i :
·:··
...
: : .
.. ·
! i . ,'' 't;: ~· '·· .. ',· ..
. . ; ~ ~:~:.
. ::
· ..
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
OF A 0.193 ACRE TEMPORARY
TURN-AROUND EASEMENT
CRAWFORD BuRNETT LEAGUE, ABSTRACT NO. 7
COLLEGE STATION, BRAWS COUNTY, TEXAS
Metes and bounds description of all that certain O .193 acre tract or parcel of land , lying
and being situated in the Crawford Burnett League, Abstract No. 7 , College Station ,
Brazos County , Texas, and being part of the composite 20.27 acre tract conveyed to
Robbie Robinson , 'Ltd ., by warranty deed and recorded in VOLUME 6446 PAGE 09 2 of
the Official Records of Brazos County, Texas, said 0.193 acre tract more particularly
described as follows :
BEGINNING at a capped 12'' iron rod found for a curve point in the southeasterly right-
of-way (50 foot) of the proposed HancockLoop and being the northwest comer of Lot 1,
Block 4 of the proposed Williamsgate Subdivision, Ph. 1, said subdjvision being 8.54
acres out of the said 20.27 acre tract; a capped W' iron rod found for the north corner of
this proposed subdivision and also being .common with the north comer of the said 20.2 7
acre tract bears N 02° 46' 22" E-255.73 feet ;
THENCE: S 43 ° 32' 40" W - 5 1.42 feet .along the said right-of-way line to a point for
the beginning of a curve to the right ;
THENCE: 235.62 feet along said curve (Curve Data: Delta= 270° 00 ' 00''; Radius =
50 .00 feet and chord bears N 01° 27' 20" W -70 .71 feet) to a point for the end of this
curve ;
THENCE: S 48° 04' 39" E-50.02 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING, and
containing 0.193 acres ofland.
July, 2005
Municipal Development Group
College Station, Texas
.:A-./) . .
'
·-.... ,
• :.._ '4 i._: i .. t : ..... ~.~
000886-f .01(3736)
£vcv-£69-6l6: 'O N X ~~ dn0~8 1 N 3Wd013~3 a l~d !JIN nw : WO~~
. '.
I . • ~
r-
()_ I")
""'}(>;\37J6'11111m 'll'bo '.9iEETS'om6 ~d"!l , omn~
.A"
.... -~-~.::::---
FU TUR E
SHELBEA DR IVE
50' RIG HT-OF-WAY
7 6.22'
HANCOCK LOOP
50' RIGHT -OF-WAY
SHELBEA COUR T
!)0' RIGHT -OF '-WA Y
I
I
I
-----.---· ------r-------·-.---------.--
3 c z
()
-u
I> r
el m c m r
0 -u
3 m z
-l
G1 :;o
0 c -u
'I
I> x
z
0
I\)
I\)
I\)
lSl
lSl
(.J1
A
CD
I>
3
Parcel name: 2
North: 6086.9687
Line course: N 48-04-39 w
North: 6120.3883
Curve Length: 235.62
oelLa: 270-00-00
Chord: 70.71
Course In: S 43-32-40 W
RP North: 6084.1463
End North: 6049.7004
Line course: N-43-32-40 E
North: 6086.9717
tempturn_maptheck
East : 4182.8964
Length: 50.02
East :
Radius:
· TangenL:
course:
course out:
East
East
Length: Sl. 42
4145.6790
50.00
50.00
S 01-27-20 E
S 46-27-20 E
4111.2332
4147.4752
East 4182.8993
Perimeter: 337.06 Area: 8,426 sf 0.193 acres
Mapcheck closure -(Uses 1 i ste.d courses, radii, and deltas)
Error closure: 0.0042 Course: N 44-05-51 E
Error North: 0.00302 East : Q.-00293
Precision 1: 80,252.38
Page 1
£PcP-£69-6l6: "ON X~~ dno~~ 1N3Wd013~3a l~dIJINnw: WO~~
t-
0'.'.
0
0.... w
Cl'.'.
z
0
H
t-<r u
H
LL
H
Cl'.'. w >
z
0
H
(f)
(f)
H
::E
(f) z <r
Cl'.'.
t-
WW • ::E ::E x _J Cl'.'.
H<I<I WW
t-Z LL t-U"l
CD
(Y)
w
(f) z
0
0....
(f) w
Cl'.'.
0 z ---.... >-(f)
::J
i:o
..
>-(f)
::J
i:o
(J~/ ----
Reaction
LL =640. lJ::.s
DL =640. lts
TL =1 280. lbs
'--
'--
L:..""' 80 plf
D;J= 80 plf
2 -2x12 SOU'IHERN 1
16 1 -oon
Min Bearing =1. 5 in
Based on t~p edge taving continuous lateral support.
Increase in a l =..owal:·le for duration cf load = o %
DEJ
L/:
BENDING
ALLOWED
ACTUAL
Bending
= 99.6% of the allowed
-51699.2 inch/lbs
""' 5 l 440. inch/lbs
OK
Plan Analyst Software
by Ben Weese and Assoc .
www .planana l yst.com
SHEAR ;.
ALLOWED
ACTUAL
No increase
Shear OK
= 2025. pounds
= 1 13 O. pounds
City of College Stati on
Building Inspection
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 7?840
979-764-3744
L/:
L/:
L/•
TL
LL
De :
Josh Norton -Williamsgate
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Lee,
Josh Norton
MDG
10/27/2005 11:46 AM
Williamsgate
Gibbs, Alan
Here are the items that still need to be submitted:
*Metes and Bounds, and Exhibit of Proposed Off-Site Drainage Easement
*Revised Drainage Report to reflect offsite drainage improvements and to
reflect the changes recommended by Bob Liesman
*Revised Construction Documents to reflect drainage changes
*Rail Road Permit
*Signed Wellborn Water Agreement
Page 1of1
I have attached the recommendation made by the Haupt Family engineer, Bob Liesman. It may be helpful to us
as well as the Haupt Family if you wrote a response to the Bob Liesman comments, simply explaining how each
concern has been covered. This response could be turned in with your next submittal for us to keep in our
records. I understand this is not a formal requirement, but may help to clarify a few issues.
Any questions regarding SWPPP requirements can be answer by Donnie Willis, the CoCS Drainage Inspector
(979-764-6375).
Thanks -Josh Norton
Josh Norton, E.l.T.
Graduate Civil Engineer
Public Works Department
City of College Station
P. 0. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Ph: (979) 764-6221
Fx: (979) 764 -3496
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\jnorton \Local %20Settings\ Temp\GW} 0000 l .H ... 10/2 7 /2005
,_ . . .
~ 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste_ A; Co llege Statio11, TX 77840 ~W-"-Ofco 919.693.5359 F~o 97 9.693.4243 Email o mdg"''®Y'hoo.oom
~~¥-d_ *to'->' {j~ G
.FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO:_~~~T<Mi~~A_,__~~~o~r~~o~n~,---------~
FROM:~~~.c:::ii;:d"°L-~~~~·~-~nel~·~5~~--'---------~
DATE: ---'i~~f'__.-z.~?:'-----,1/._,,o~b=------!-------~
FAXNUMBER: .111 7~'· ~41"'
PHONE NUMDER: q7q~ 1(plr. ~510 .
TOT AL NO. OF PAGES : _ _.7~===: ~--,------__..,..---------,-:-
OURGENT' O FOR REVIEW DPLEASE COMMENT OPL .EASE REPLY D PLEASE RECYCtE
NOTES / COMMENTS:
CoM4ecloY: t:>,,., wi 1/,·qm 5f;r-t ·:;#:z .. h ~ a s J.·p-G..-. ,_,
..fo . tneJ&-ke-: ../-6.~~ Cu vb tn s~4 di1 ~
. C 1.J.:y '~ . Kilt'! o/ ~ /'JM muteb, ~·.J!..fe~MC~
.,
Con!identiality notice : This facsimile m.e$Sage and accompanying communications a1\d/ or documents arc
intended for the exclusive a11<l confidential use of the individual or entity to which the message is addfossc<l
lo .· ·· •
ld Wd00 :v0 g00G lG ·unr dn0~8 1N3Wd013 ~3a l~dI J INn w : WO~~
FROM :MUNI CIPR L DEVELOPMENT GROUP FR X NO . :979-693-4243 Jun . 27 2006 04:00PM P2
' ... -.. ... .. -·--···· ·-~-.____..._~ .. ~ , ...
'3it j
-I ' ···--,. ·~ ' .. -
-·-~-··-· ..
.. . ..... , -
-·
C""' -
~
~" ' ~
-· .... ,_. __
...... -------•!
~ --.-~ -/ I
~ I ~·
--d. •· 1 I .
-'" ~ ~ I 7 l
C"'I'-~
("'\ I I
t... I I I ::s
"--' I I
~ I l --~ --~ -..... I 7 er .---· '--I I ~·
I I I
I I "
-I I
I I
~-I I ' .
. .. .. . ···-..... ----. . .... -· . " ... . .. .....
-. -. . .. -....... -· .. . .. ··-· ...... ... -..... ~ ~ I
........ . .. .. -.........
11
. . ........ ·-
' ' . .
~~~2-5 5_I_T_e_x_as_A_v_e_._s_ou_t_h,_S_te_._A_,_c_o _lle_g_e _S_ta_ti_on_,_T_X_7_7_8_40~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~":~~ Offi ce: 97 9.693 .53 59 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email : mdgcstx@yahoo .com
;!"~~.~ ~"OO'V <:>~(,~
November 28 , 2005
To : Mr. Mark Smi th, P.E.
Planning an d Development Se rv tces
City of College Station
From: Mr. Lenwood S. Adams, P.E.
Re: Wiliiamsgate Drainage Report Addendum
Offsite Drai nage Impro vements
Drainage Report D ated June 27, 2005
A trapezoidal di tch with an 18' base , 4 to 1 side slo pe, and 1.5' of depth is to be constructed
from the detention p ond outlet weir to a st ock ta nk on the Ha upt Ranch property. This 30' wide
ditch wi ll be ce ntered within a 4 0' w ide drai nage 1::asement. The di tch has a capacity of 178 cfs
thu s exceeding the 128.6 cfs peak di sch arge of the detention pond. The ve locity at the peak flow
of 178 cfs is 4 .06 fps.
f"
Page 1 of 2
Josh Norton -Fw: Haupt ranch in College Station
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
"Donald Ellis" <donald.e.ellis @worldnet.att.net>
<msmith@CSTX.gov>, <agibbs@CSTX.gov>, <jnorton@CSTX.gov>
7/26/2006 5:09 PM
Fw: Haupt ranch in College Station
"Lewis Haupt" <lewis.haupt@earthlink.net>, "Luella Trotter" <lutrotter@s bcglobal.net>,
"Florence H. King" <fking@pipeline .com>, "Randall Pratt" <drpratt2@yahoo.com>
---------·----------·--------------~·· ~sh -Thonl< you fo< speaking with me and prnviding the e -maH add<esses fo< Ma<k Smith and Alan Gibbs .
your offer to inform them of my call.
I also appreciate
We are asking that you provide us wit l copy of the College Station established procedures and paramenter of drainage
design and, as suggested in paragraph tw ~;)f ceive a confirmation from the City Engineer that they concur in ALL MDG's
hydro logic and hydraulic calculations". ~ we receive these we will be ready to confer with Lee Adams and Robbie
Robbinson about the final plans for the drainage route to the west of the house.
We will appreciate your careful review of Bob Liesman's concerns expressed in the following e-mail that I am forwarding .
Reni Ellis
22629 Spanish Oak
San Antonio, TX 78266-2697
Tel: 210-651-6740
-----Original Message -----
From: Bob Liesman
To: donald.e.ellis worldnet.att.net
Cc: ellis susan@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Sunday , July 23, 2006 7:49 PM
Subject: Haupt ranch in College Station
Reni: the following are some comments stating my opinion of where we are now as re . your family property in
College Station.
The City has a responsibility and the prerogative to establish procedures and parameters for drainage design in
their jurisdiction, such as flow rates and procedures to be used for detention design . My earlier communication to
the City questioned some of the procedures used by the firm of MDG, asking the City to re-review the data and
verify that those calculations actually were correct in the City Engineer's eyes. I don't know if that that re-review
has happened. It seems from my remote vantage point that they probably have not. I don't feel like its my place
to declare that the City 's standard design procedures are not correct , but I will continue to suggest that the MDG
design may not be correctly calculating differences in pre-development flow rate vs post-development flow rate,
and t~ay not have the basin appropriately sized . But this is the City's call. If I were you, I would like to
recei confirmation from the City Engineer that they concur in ALL MDG's hydrologic and hydraulic
calcula ions. .
As Mr. Lee Adams has declared, there are different procedures used across the country to calculate basin
volume. It's the City's job to specify which of them an engineer must employ (as a minimum) to obtain their
approval
I see a detention basin of close to its original size, now indicating a volume of 36,985 cubic feet, with a discharge
directed toward that "western" swale . Its discharge flow line remains at an elevation of 503 .5, which is (from all
the info that I have) about one(1) vertical foot below the ground at your fence line . I've said earlier that I don't
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings~norton.CSTX\Local%20Settings\ Temp\GW} 000... 7 /27 /2006
r '•
Page 2 of2
think that that's a bad thing, but they~ need your concurrence, or a drainage easement indicating same, in
order to cut a channel of some limited length in your property to allow the basin to empty -whether the discharge
is directed west or east. [ I still see no reason for the earlier-suggested drainage easement all the way down to
and past the ranch house .]
I direct the following to the City Engine~ru you, Reni ). MDG 's calculations, in their report to the City, show
essentially the same time of concentra o ie, about 10 minutes) for both the pre-development and post-
development runoff from the Williamsga e property . Such will rarely be the case , and I don 't think that it is here .
For what its worth, I would calculate a pre-development time of concentration of more than 20 minutes (for more
than 1,000 If of overland flow length) and a post-development time of concentration of about 17 minutes -both
longer than MDG indicates , but showi~ 1\inificant difference in time, which generates a difference in flow
rates . Also , MDG indicates a pre-dev~nt "C" value of 0.49, which I agree with, but a post-development "C"
value of only 0 .53 , based on their estimation of impervious cover of 13.8 %. I think that these post-development
figures are appreciably low . Unless the houses to be built at the site are much smaller than I'd view as normal for
a 70 ' x 120 ' lot , I would expect impervious cover to be more like 35% and "C" to be more like 0 .67 . The effect on
increased site runoff to the basin from changes in these two parameters would increase basin volume , regardless
of which sizing procedure that The City considered satisfactory.
One additional thing , if you inspect MDG's drainage area map, you will see that there is an area on the south
s ide of the project (in Block One) that does not currently drain toward the Haupt property , but will after ~development. I'd say its about 90 ' by 300 ' .= 0 .6 acre . Strictly speaking, this area really should not be included in ~the calculation of pre-development flow.
If I saw a proposed basin which (using procedures that I'm familiar with) appearing to be about the right size , I
wouldn 't be inclined to question the various parameters so much . But, again , if the City Engineer says the
hydrologic and hydraulic calculations are correct, per The City's accepted procedure, that is good enough for me
/;]')for the time being . Whether the basin actually functions as it is supposed to during a significant flood event will be CY the next issue .
Reni, one more thing, if I may . In your note to me you mentioned that the water in the basin was up to with in
about one foot of the top before water was recently released as a test. I doubt that this has any significance since
I understand that they were holding water in the pond by valving-off the discharge. During normal operation, the
water level in the basin will increase as it retards the outgoing flow rate to the the pre-developmentrate , stabilizing
at the level at which it is supposed to function for the 100-year storm . The water level will then quickly go down
when rain slows-down . The Williamsgate site will discharge runoff longer than it used to ; that's the nature of the
mechanism .
I am going to send you a copy of my original memo re . this subject for ready reference as soon as I pull the trigger
on this .
Bob Liesman, P.E.
Vic e-President
Macina, Bo se, Copeland & Associates, Inc.
1035 Central Parkw a y North
San Antonio, Texas 78232
(210) 545-1122, Fax: (210) 545-9302
www.mbcen ineers.com
bobliesman@mbc en · neers .com
N o viru s found in this incoming message.
Checked by A VG Free Edition.
Version: 7 .1.394 I Virus Database : 268 .10 .3/395 -Release Date : 7 /21 /06
file://C:\Documents %20and %20Settings~norton. CSTX\Local%20Settings\ Temp\GW} 000. .. 7/2 712 006
·'
II . City of College Station Drainage System Policies
A. General
For purposes of regulation, the drainage system of College Station shall be split
into geographical and functional groupings. The drainage system consists of all
natural and man-made features that collect or receive concentrated flows of
stormwater. Examples are natural swales or man-made channels , streets, storm
sewer, minor streams and major streams.
Functional division consists of separation of the components into the primary and
secondary drainage systems. The primary system consists of major streams that
convey collected stormwater through and out of the city . The secondary system
consists of all minor streams , streets, storm sewers , and swales that collect
stormwater and convey it to the primary system.
From a hydrologic standpoint, the secondary system is sensitive to short duration ,
high intensity rainfall events . Flood effects occur suddenly and dissipate quickly ,
usually within a period of a few hours. The primary system is sensitive to longer
duration , moderate intensity rainfall events. Flood events occur over a longer period ,
with a slower rise to the fall from peak flows and flood elevations. This fundamental
difference between the primary and secondary system forms the basis for strategies to
control stormwater and its effect within each.
Geographical division involves separating the various streams and drainage areas
into basins having similar characteristics in terms of land cover, pattern of
development, governmental jurisdiction, proposed land uses, and system
interconnection . Recognition of these differences allows for rational formulation of
policies and standards tailored to specifics rather than generalities .
5
B. Principles for System Policy
1. Secondary System
Stormwater problems in the secondary drainage system are site specific and
scattered throughout the city. Typically they result from inadequate design of
streets, storm sewers , and collection channels. Examples are excessive ponding in
streets at low points, overflow of streets on to private property, excessive storm
flows in streets restricting or blocking traffic capacity, etc.
Causes for problems in the secondary drainage system are listed as follows :
• Inadequate capacity for design flows.
• Inadequate allowance for increases in design flows due to future
development.
• No provision for containing and controlling the discharges from the 100
year rainfall event and ultimate development conditions.
• Failure to control discharges of new developments that exceed the
capacity of the receiving secondary system, existing or proposed.
The results are creation of nuisance problems and situations where damage to
public and private property can occur. Remedial measures may range from
expensive capital improvements to situations where remedies are infeasible from
a practical standpoint.
The policy of the City shall be to attempt to prevent the formation of these
problems at the design and development stage. Central to this strategy are the
performance standards for drainage design contained in subsequent chapters and
the "pathway concept" for containing the discharges from the base flood.
Under this policy performance standards are set for design rainfall events .
The emphasis at the performance level is to mitigate the nuisance aspect of storm
drainage to reasonable occurrences. An example of a performance standard
would be "Design the street to carry the discharge
6
from a 10 year rainfall event leaving one lane at the center open". Subsequent
chapters contain similar performance standards for the various portions of the
secondary and primary drainage systems .
Additionally the secondary system is evaluated and designed for the
stormwater conditions that will exist up to the 100 year rainfall event and ultimate
development within the applicable basin. A pathway for this stormwater sball be
identified and provided from its source to its discharge into a main channel of the
primary drainage system. Tbe designated pathway shall be wholly contained
within designated drainage rights of the way and easement, except in areas of
existing development. e purpose at this level is to prevent the creatio p of
hazardous situations to life , and damage to public and private property. Some
performance standards have been set at this level , in an attempt to prevent the
formation of hazardous conditions, but the major emphasis is on control and
confinement to known pathways.
2. Primary System
Stormwater problems in the primary drainage system result from floodwaters
rising out of the banks of natural streams and inundating adjacent natural
floodplains. Typical problems described are flooding of building structures,
overflow of bridges and culverts cutting off or restricting traffic access , and
damage to public and private infrastructure (utilities , roads , etc).
Causes for problems in the primary system are listed as follows:
• Inadequate capacity of crossing structures and failure to allow for
overflow.
• Placing the finish elevation of the lowest floor of a structure adjacent to
the primary system below the ex isting or ultimate 100 year flood
elevation.
• Inadequate or out-dated engineering studies that form the basis of the
regulatory flood elevations.
7
Josh Norton -Williamsgate
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Robbie,
Josh Norton
Robinson, Robbie
8/10/2005 5:07 PM
Williamsgate
George, Bridgette; Gibbs, Alan; Mosley, Bob
Page 1 of 2
There are a few issues that remain unresolved concerning the Williamsgate Subdivision .
Here is a brief description of those issues:
1. Sanitary Sewer: need for TxDOT and Union Pacific Rail Road permits for boring
FM 2154 and the rail road respectively.
2. Water: need for the construction of a sufficient offsite water line to this
development.
3. Drainage: need for easement or agreement with adjoining property owner for
offsite drainage and propose0 drainage improvements.
Attached is a copy of the last set of engineering review comments you received from the
CoCS on August 9, 2005. These comments have been updated to reflect MDG's last
submittal on July 25, 2005 to the CoCS. These comments have been attached to further
expand on the above "brief description".
At this time the CoCS has decided to let you proceed at your own risk with some portions of
the construction of the Williamsgate Subdivision . These portions include onsite water and
onsite sanitary sewer. This approval does not include any offsite improvements or the
construction of any streets, storm sewer, or detention facility. The construction documents
will be stamped by the CoCS development engineer accordingly.
Until all the issues concerning this development are resolved the final plat will not be
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission or platted with the county. Likewise this
development will not be eligible for building permits.
Please allow me to reiterate that any further construction of the Williamsgate Subdivision
without resolving the above mentioned issues is at your own risk and does not guarantee the
CoCS acceptance at anytime . Feel free to contact me with any further questions, 979-764-
6221.
Thanks -Josh Norton
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 5
WILLIAMSGATE PH 1 (FP) (05-00500013)
file ://C :\Documents%20and%20Settings\jnorton\Local%20Settings\ Temp\G W } 00001.HTM 8/10 /2 005
"" .
Page 2 of2
Lee, please pay special attention to comments 3a and 3b , as the others have been previously
discussed .
-
Final Plat Comments that apply to the Construction Plans: (numbers correspond to the Staff
Review Comments returned 4/1/05)
1. Sanitary Sewer: need for TxDOT and Union Pacific Rail Road permits for boring FM
2154 and the rail road respectively .
2. Water : Prior to the Final Plat being approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission , a
sufficient offsite water line must be constructed to this property . (Under Review by CoCS Legal
Department)
3. Drainage :
a. The flow line outlet is .Sft below the adjacent ground. Are you proposing to daylight 200ft
offsite? Please provide existing as well as proposed offsite cross sections and cross
section detail.
b. The proposed contours along the proposed berm do not match the existing contours . A
retaining wall would be needed to construct the detention pond as proposed or shift the
berm such that the proposed contours match the existing contours at the property line .
As proposed portions of the berm would have to be constructed on the adjacent
properties to the north and to the east. Is this what you are considering?
10 . Please provide agreement or easement with adjoining property owner for offsite
drainage .
Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date : August 9, 2005
file:/ IC :\Documents%20and%20Settings~norton\Local%20Settings\ Temp\G W} 0000 l .HTM 8/10/2 005