Loading...
Satff Comments CITY OF COLLEGE STATION C ° DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 COLLEGE STATION Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM June 22, 2004 TO: Phyllis Hobson, Nantucket, Ltd., Via fax 846.0652 FROM: Bridgette George, Assistant Development Manager SUBJECT: SOUTH HAMPTON PH 3 (FP- REPLAT) - 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, June 21, 10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for, July 1, 2004, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. Two (2) 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 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 Spencer Thompson at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Joe Schultz, P.E., Texcon, Via fax 979.764.7759 Case file #04- 00500125 Home of Texas A&M University STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1 Project: SOUTH HAMPTON PH 3 (FP- REPLAT) - 04- 00500125 These comments are in regard to the plat, only. Comments regarding construction documents and utility reports will be returned at a later date. ENGINEERING 1. Why is Lot 2 of Nantucket being replatted as Lot 2A and 2B? If it is done this way it will involve extension of utilities to each lot. If it is replatted simply as 2R then utilities will not be an issue. 2. It is uncertain from the drainage report that the open channel flow regimen has been designed according to the Drainage Policy and Design Standards. Additional drainage easement width may be required. 3. I do not see any need to change the plat that was submitted for this to go to P &Z on 7/01/04. I will include comments with my Staff report and the plat can be approved with conditions accordingly. 4. If the intention is to abandon the existing electrical easements please initiate the process ASAP. It appears poles and lines will need to be relocated and it would be most beneficial if the easements did not appear on subsequent plats. Reviewed by: Spencer Thompson Date: June 22, 2004 ELECTRICAL 1. Developer installs conduit per city specs and design. 2. Developer provides 30' of rigid conduit for riser poles. Developer installs first 10'. City installs remainder. 3. Developer pours transformer pad(s) per city specs and design. 4. Developer installs pull boxes as per city specs and design (pull boxes provided by the city). 5. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 version of plat and /or site plan. Email to tmichals @cstx.gov 6. Developer provides load data for project. 7. Developer installs street lighting as per city specs and design. 8. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes. 9. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines (including street lights). Reviewed by: Ronnie Bolin Date: 5 -12 -04 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. Page 2 of 2 Response to Engineering Review Comments No. 1 Dated 07/01/04 South Hampton Ph 3 (FP- Replat) — Construction Documents 1. The sidewalk is shown on the plans to be 6 ft wide as it crosses the inlet and a note was also added to Sheet 2. 2. The double two -way ramp is used to match the other ramps in the Subdivision. 3. The proposed open channel design has been eliminated and storm sewer piping and a junction box will be used to convey the storm runoff from Cranberry to Windrift. 4. The 24" RCP stub and headwall at the existing inlet will be removed and the proposed storm sewer piping will connect to the inlet. The existing storm sewer out of the inlet is 2 — 30" RCP. 5. The manhole will be used because the use of a cleanout would require extending the line to make the service connections to the line instead of the manhole. 6. The backfill has been changed to structural where the line is within 5 ft of the street. 7. The laydown curb detail has been removed. The proposed streets will have standard curb. 8. The note has been added to the plans and the restrained joint connections shown in the profile.