HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Comments CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
COLLEGE STATION College Station, Texas 77842
Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496
MEMORANDUM
March 31 , 2003
TO: Wallace Phillips, Greens Prairie Investors, Ltd, Via fax 690.1041
FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager
SUBJECT: CASTLEGATE SUBDIVISION-SEC 11,12&13(MPP) - Preliminary Plat
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned preliminary 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,
April 7, 10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for April 17, 2003, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue.
Ten (10) copies of the revised preliminary plat; and,
One (1) Mylar original of the revised preliminary plat.
One (1) copy of the digital file of the preliminary plat on diskette or e-mail
to nmanhart@ci.college-station.tx.us
Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project
will be considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that if all
comments have not been addressed, your project will be pulled from the scheduled
Planning & Zoning Commission agenda. Your project may be placed on a future
agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please call Carol Cotter or myself at
764-3570.
Attachments: Staff review comments
cc: Joe Schultz, Texcon, Via fax 690-9797
Case file #03-00500077
Home of Texas A&M University
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: CASTLEGATE SUBDIVISION-SEC 11 ,12&13 (MPP) - 03-077
ENGINEERING
1. Please note, this project must submit a hydraulic model of Spring Creek
incorporating the effects of the upstream pond and fill of the proposed lots in the
floodplain. Floodplains that do not have floodways mapped on the FIRM must
demonstrate the effect of fill or encroachment. Please see Chapter 13, Section 5,
G, 4. (4) When a regulatory floodway has not been designated, no new
construction, substantial improvements, or other development, including fill, shall be
permitted within zones designated Al-A30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless
it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the proposed development, when
combined with all other existing and anticipated development, will not increase the
water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the
community.
2. The approved CLOMR shows a proposed, inline detention area, Detention Area 1.
You will need to show that this is no longer needed, taking into account that the
volume of the existing detention area (Detention Area 2) is being reduced with the
construction of Oxburg.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: March 31, 2003
PLANNING
1. In Note #2, please state that the minimum distance between buildings is 10 feet.
2. Lots 7, 8, and 18, Block 1 of Section 11 , Lots 6, 7, 30, 31 , and 32, Block 1 of
Section 12, and Lot 3 Block 1 of Section 13 will need variances unless variable lots
widths are requested for Sections 11, 12, and 13.
3. Please note that lots will meet the requirements of R-1 unless specified otherwise.
4. Please add a note that the HOA will maintain all common areas.
5. Is there a way to make Common Areas 5 and 7 inviting for pedestrians to access the
greenway? If not, these areas should be labeled as private drainage easements.
6. Please state on the plat that Common Areas No. 1 and 2 will be landscaped.
Reviewed by: Molly Hitchcock Date: March 26, 2003
ELECTRICAL
1. Developer installs conduit per city specs and design.
2. Developer provides 30' of #4 rigid conduit for riser pole(s). Developer installs first
10'. City installs remainder.
3. Developer pours transformer pad(s) per city specs and design.
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your
next transmittal letter and"bubbled"on your plans.Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out
to the City,will constitute a completely new review.
2 of 3
4. Developer installs pull boxes as per city specs and design. (pull boxes provided by
City).
5. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000i version of plat and/or site plan. Email to
rbolin(a�ci.college-station.tx.us.
6. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes.
7. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines
(including street lighting.
8. Developer installs street lighting per city specs and design.
Reviewed by: Ronnie Bolin Date: 3-27-03
SANITATION
1. PDD, but single structures with side setbacks. Sanitation is OK with this project for
70 gallon services.
Reviewed by: Pete Caler Date: March 26, 2003
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Carlisle Court, Farleigh Loop and Belsay Court need to all be renamed to one street
name. Farleigh can not be used.
2. Hadleigh Lane needs to be renamed.
3. Carisbrooke Circle needs to be renamed to Carisbrooke Loop. (not definition of
Circle)
4. 2 Side streets that currently have no name designation will need to share the same
names as the streets across Victoria.
Reviewed by: Melissa Rogers
5. To preserve intersection sight distance, the develop must be limited from building
any site improvements in the NW corner of the northern-most intersection of
Victoria Avenue and Middleham Loop. This would include limiting HOA landscaping
and wooden fences within a 45-foot sight triangle of the intersection. THIS IS
IMPORTANT to maintain safety in the vicinity of the SH 40 / Victoria Avenue
intersection.
Reviewed by: Dale Picha
NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your
next transmittal letter and"bubbled"on your plans.Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out
to the City,will constitute a completely new review.
3o(3
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2
Project: CASTLEGATE SUBDIVISION-SEC 11,12&13(MPP) - 03-077
ENGINEERING
1 . Please note that in order to final plat, this project must submit a hydraulic
model of Spring Creek incorporating the effects of the upstream pond and fill
of the proposed lots in the floodplain. Floodplains that do not have floodways
mapped on the FIRM must demonstrate the effect of fill or encroachment.
Please see Chapter 13, Section 5, G, 4. (4) When a regulatory floodway has
not been designated, no new construction, substantial improvements, or
other development, including fill, shall be permitted within zones designated
Al-A30 and AE on the community's FIRM, unless it is demonstrated that the
cumulative effect of the proposed development, when combined with all other
existing and anticipated development, will not increase the water surface
elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point within the
community.
2. The approved CLOMR shows a proposed, inline detention area, Detention
Area 1. You will need to show that this is no longer needed, taking into
account that the volume of the existing detention area (Detention Area 2) is
being reduced with the construction of Oxburg.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: April 8, 2003
PLANNING
1. Common Areas 5 and 7 could be valuable access points into a possible
future greenway trail system. These areas need to be made inviting for
pedestrians to access the greenway.
Reviewed by: Molly Hitchcock Date: April 8, 2003
5. The water report submitted for this project ensuring fire flow capacity is not accepted.
Therefore, water main sizes to the building cannot be assured at this time.
We have been notified that the Fire Marshall's fire flow requirements have been amended to
more closely match what was modeled in our water report. Accordingly, we have updated
the report.
6. The Drainage Report does not provide sufficient information to review for compliance. Use
either the SCS Method or the Rational Method but not both to compare pre and post flows.
Show calculations, flow lines for time of concentration, etc. The report does not correspond
to the submitted plans for the ponds. Drainage areas do not agree with the report and the
exhibits. Please explain why there is a storm drain line that bypasses Pond #1. Please
arrange the report in a fashion that is more explanative. Compliance with the DPDS is clearly
evident. Please see page 94 of the DPDS for Report compliance. Provide sample
calculations. Spreadsheets are not sample calculations. Show weir and orifice calculations.
The follow-up report may be reviewed by an outside source due to shortage of City staff.
The more readable and clarifying the report is the quicker the report can be approved.
Following two meetings for clarification, it our understanding the drainage report has been
accepted.
Additional Comments:
1. An e-mail message from Spencer Thompson was received on December 1, 2003
stating:
I did not see a detail for the vault required on the
domestic water line. Are you specifying to the contractor
the City vault or something different?
The City specifies the vault and water meter assembly. This information was relayed to Mr.
Thompson and he requested that a note stating this information be added to the site plan, and if a
different meter and vault is being used it is to be detailed The standard city meter and vault is
being used and a note will be added to the site plan.
Westfield Village,Preliminary Plat,Phase 2&3 Final Plats Page 2
City Review Response
FIRST AMERICAN PLAZA
Staff Review No. 2 Response
The following is a response to the city review comment letter dated November 17, 2003 for First
American Plaza Construction Documents:
ENGINEERING
1. A TxDOT Permit was not submitted with this project. The driveway to FM 60 cannot be
approved without one.
Permit applications were submitted on Nov. 17.
2. It has been conveyed to Staff that the storm sewer shown in the PUE along First American
Boulevard will be accepted as public infrastructure within the PUE. As public infrastructure
the storm sewer must comply with City requirements as all infrastructure does. The
following comments are to ensure compliance and acceptability as City infrastructure. If the
designer wishes to make the storm sewer private it should be relocated out of the PUE and
thus not required to meet City requirements. Numerous comments already sent back appear
to have not been addressed.
This storm drain has always been intended to be a public system. At the Nov. 25 meeting
with the City it was agreed that the City and TAC Realty, Inc. would continue to consider
other alternatives. We were assured this would not delay acceptance of the plans.
3. The storm sewer crossing Copperfield Pkwy is at a 2.5% slope. This project connects to that
line at a different slope. A junction box is required.
Storm drain pipe connecting to the Copperfield Parkway system has been adjusted to a slope
of 2.5%, and the proposed junction box 45.1 has been moved closer to the property line to
account for this comment. Sheet number C2 in the First American Boulevard plans has been
adjusted to show this revision.
4. Storm sewer along First American Blvd. shows insufficient cover. Pavement section,
embedment detail, pipe type and storm sewer profiles appear to be incompatible in not
allowing enough space between the pavement section and stabilized sand and pipe type
specified. See previously returned Staff Comments #1 and#2 concerning this issue.
During our meeting with the City to discuss these comments, it was determined that there are
only two areas in question: the 27" RCP crossing from inlet 34 to junction box 35.1 and the
27" RCP from inlet 42 to junction box 42.1. The required cover per the detail on sheet C18
is 6" of select material between the bottom of the pavement to the top of pipe in structural
areas. The pipe from inlet 35 to j/box 35.1 has been adjusted to provide the minimum amount
of cover. The pipe from inlet 42 to j/box 42.1 has been found to have a minimum of 5"where
the street paver section begins. Due to the small length of pipe (approximately 3) that is
placed at this amount of cover, we have deemed this situation acceptable during our internal
review of the plans.
Westfield Village,Preliminary Plat,Phase 2&3 Final Plats Page 1
City Review Response