Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHolleman Dr. South\~\l~!A-t~S~ . - • Schoot, piiojt.d -P 0{£cd_,I~ .. . . (I\~~~~ ()r ~ ~~(~· . . ' t~9 ... . -~ ~'-cMt· -~~(...-1~t ~ ~I'~~, o~s-3~~ - r -:ill (rt)/CJ - lP3 -s -~s-II I - .... - -. --.. -- ~ --- Venessa Garza From: Jason Schubert Sent: Tuesday, April 11 , 2017 3:02 PM Susan Monnat To: Cc: Subject: Venessa Ga rza; Alan Gibbs Holleman Drive South plans Susan, In viewing the Pershing Point Villas construction documents last week (TRAKiT project #FP2017-000004), I took a look at the 60% Holleman Drive South plans to see how the two projects would tie together at Deacon . I ended up looking through them to see what was planned and saw a couple of items that I wanted to pass them on in case they were not already identified in the review process: • The proposed apron for "Cain Road" on the west side of Holleman appears to be to the width of a public street (plan pages 42 & 78). The Brazos Centerlines GIS layer labels the west side as Cain Road though it is not a public or private street and is not anticipated to become one in the future. In 2015, the property was rezoned to R-4 Multi-Family for a future project and a developer proposed Thoroughfare Plan amendment to remove the Cain Road extension on the west side of Holleman was also approved. My recommendation would be treat that apron like other minor, private driveway aprons by reducing its width and removing the sidewalk ramps, crosswalk markings, stop sign and stop bar. When the property redevelops for multi-family use in the future, the apron will likely be removed and the property will receive driveway access at an appropriate location(s) that meets driveway spacing requirements. • The multi-use path on the east side jogs several feet on the northeast corner of Holleman and Rock Prairie (page 32). As a multi-use facility with bicycles, I'd recommend to lengthen out the transition to 20 or 30 feet so there is not a tight jog in the path. • The Deacon Drive connection is shown on page 39. I would anticipate that the intersection of Holleman and Deacon would become signalized in the future. Given existing development already approved in the area, I doubt they'll be the opportunity for a private project to be required to install the signal. Would it be prudent to install conduit at this point and/or verify that the design of the intersection is set up to more easily install the signal without modification? This may also be true for the Holleman/Rock Prairie intersection. • The apron for General Parkway is shown on page 52. The plans show other driveways being modified to meet the proposed apron and wanted to verify that this apron ties in cleanly to the recently constructed General Parkway with the Aspen Heights development. • On page 75, a 45 MPH speed limit sign is provided for the northbound lanes. I didn't scale the plans but wondered if the sign was outside the 2-foot clear zone requirement for multi-use paths. The UDO states when a multi-use path is in a ROW, there should be a minimum of 5 feet separating it from the roadway. I don't know all the reasons but probably having separation to allow room for signage is one. With the school going in, they'll likely be other school zone signs/lights going in as well we'd need to account for. I hope these comments have been helpful. Let me know if you have any questions and I've copied Venessa and Alan to see if there is anything I stated incorrectly. Thanks, Jason Jason Schubert, AICP Transportation Planning Coordinator Planning & Development Services City of College Station 1