HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
1M PACT STUDIES FOR
Sl':RIN(;13:R()().l(
~.....#!
~.... ......~
I. ~..~~~
ICIT. TO .SCt\LE
JANUARY,l99Z
Submitted by:
MeCLUREENGINEERING,.INC
l722 BroodrnoQf, Suite 21 0 c
Bryan, Texas, 77802
t
TABLE. OF CONTENTS
DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY
SANITARY SEWER IMPACT STUDY
WATER.....DISTRIBUTION...........SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY
ELECTRICAL IMPACT STUDY
TRAFFIC IMPACTS STUDY
SECTION NO..
1
2
3
4
5
SECTION 1
DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY
DRAINAGE ..IMPACTSTUDY
SPRINGBROOK
INTRODUCTION:
This drainage impactstudyforSpringbrookis conceptual in
nature; the parameters used for design and the existing conditions
on site are incorporated to show how the final drainage design 'will
accomplish the desired drainage objectives per the City of College
station Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPDS).
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject site is located in the southern portion of College
stat'ion. Barron Road extends along the southeastpropertyline~ and
the west frontage road of state Highway 6 forms the northeastern
edge. There are currently no existing streets within the site.
The south fork of Lick Creek flows through the site, entering
the propertyoni ts western corner and meandering across the
property to the eastern corner where itcrosfies state Highway 6 in
a triple loxlD-foot box culvert.
All property immediately adjacent to the si te is currently
undeveloped, but Shenandoah Phase I is approximately l,OOOfee!tto
the south.
The sixty--eightacre site is gently rolling with average
slopes of 2%. The areas nearest Lick Creek are wooded ,wi th sparse
growth farther away from the main channel. The most southern
portion of the site is covered wi thver:ysmall secondarygrowt.hof
oaks and elms. Offsitedrainage flows onto the site in existing
unimproved natural waterways, which carry the water to Lick Creek.
The site is currently used for pasture and .. willbedevelope,das
single-family homesites.The owner and developer of the stib,ject
property is Fountainhead Development Corp. The site ..is currently
zoned R-l(66.72 Acres) ,R-1A (8.71 Acres) andC-l (10 Acres); but
it is anticipated. that the property will be rezoned to R-1.
PRIMARY DRAINAGE .....BASINDESCRIPTION:
Lick Creek, wl'lichflows ..thrQugh the site, is part of the '
primarygrainage basin as outlined in the City of College station
stormwater Management Plan . The stormwater Management Plan
identifies existing base flood elevations for the entire length of
the site. This information is shown graphically on Exhibit ".A".
Furthermore, a portion of the site is designated as Zone "A" on the
FEMAFIRMCommunity Panel#48041-C--0205 (see Exhibit "B").
SECONDARY DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION:
Existing drainage patterns indicate that all stormwaterf,lows
from the site directly to Lick Creek.
DRAINAGE FACILITY ..DESIGN:
The proposed drainage patterns will not alter the exis.ting
condition. Offsite water traverses through the site in several
small waterways and in sheet flow. This condition will be alt.ered
somewhat by concentrating some of the sheet flow in earthenditc::hes
and conveying it to thecreek~ One of the existing small waterways
will be altered to allowtheoffsite flow to be carried ina
SEe .1 - 2
trapezoidal ditch .Onsite .flowswillbecaptured in curb inlets
and conveyed to the creek in storm drain pipes (see Exhibit "An).
Because the site is located along the primary drainage basin,
no detention is proposed. The lots adjacent to the creek will each
have a minimum slab elevation calculated-by adding three fee-tto
the base flood elevation as shown on Exhibit "A". The base flood
eleva t ion will be reevaluated forthefinaldrainagerepor1:by
using topographic i'nformation from cross sections and a H:EC-2
route. The recalculated base flood elevation plus three feet 'will
be shown on the final plat for each lot which adjoins the
floodplain. (Note, that this is a more restrictive condition -than
adding 0.5' to the ultimate development flood profile.)
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA:
All drainage design will be in accordance with the city
Drainage policy and Design. .Standards. The design . storm for .inlets
and storm drains will be the 10 year event. The design storm for
the drainage structure crossing Lick Creek will be the 25 year
event. Flow calculations for all drainage areas less than 50 Ac::res
will be based on the rational method. For larg~r areas, the Soil
. ...r
Conservation Service "TechnJ.calRelease No. 55" and the U .8. ~~rmy
Corps of EngineersHEC....1 Computer program will be utilized . A::; of
this writing, both of these methods have been used to verify the
existing base flOOd peak runoff (Q100= 1207) indicated in the
stormwater..Man.agement DrainageSystem....Analysis. Addit.ionally, The
SEC1 .... 3
HEC-2program has been utilized to confirm the flood profile
information.
CONCLUSION:
The subdivision as shown on the Master Preliminary Plat can
meet the requirements a.s stated in the ci tyofCollege station
Drainage Policy and Design Stalldard.s.
SECl -4
C)
,....",.
o
o
'x:
,....
Q)
o
()
(I)
---- ...) ..
PR.A~..IR.I Lk-....... .
=
l
~ ----,
~..- -- '" r;)
Q . ~...
11.11
EXHIBIT .B
SECTION 2
SANITARY SEWER IMPACT STUDY
SANITARY .SEWER..IHPACTSTUDY
SPRINGBROOK
INTRODUCTION:
The proposed development is an 86 oAcre site at the
northwestern corner of Barron Road and the state Highway 6 west
access road in> southern College sta.tion . Thes i tei.ssurrounde!d by
undeveloped tracts on alls.ides, but is located near Shenandoah
Subdivision (1,000 feet to the southeast ). The site will be
developed as single family residential, with roughly 100 units in
the first phase and 120 units in the later phases.
DESIGN PARAMETERS:
Design flows are based on 300 Gallons per day per residence.
Sewer mains withinthesubdi vision.aresi zed in accordance 'wi th
Texas Administrative Code Chapter 317 and ASCE "Design and
Construction of Sanitary and storm Sew.ers". Peaking factors and
infiltration (lO%)a.refromtheASCE reference Figure 6,p.35 (see
Exhibit "B"). The minimum sewer. main size is 6" and minimum
lateral size is 4".
EXISTING .SEWERLINES.AVAlLABLE:
Currently, thesi tehas only one location in which s.ewer
service can be connected to the existing system. This isanon:site
pump station built for the construction of Shenandoah Phase:[ in
1983. This line has two lift stations which have a maximum
capacity of 420gpm. Because this capacity is allocated ona first
come first serve basi s,the f.ollowingcalcula tionsarepresente!d to
prove this .system has adequate capacity for this development .
The following developments are serviced by this line:
Shenandoah Phase i 207D. U. X 300 gpd/du= 62,100 gpd
Sandstone Hospital 100 Beds X 200 gpdjbed= 20,000 gpd
ProposedSpringbrook 220D.U. X 300 gpd/du= 66,000 gpd
TOTAL = 148,~00 gpd
148,100gpd =.229cfs
.229cfsX 3 (pf per figure 6,p. 35, ASCE) =.687 cfs
.229 X 10% = .023 cfs
TOTAL = .710 cfs
These flows all join atLiftSt.ation No. Two per Shenan,doah
Phase I plans. This lift station has a FlygtModel #3127 'wi th
Impeller 434. The.forcemainbeyondthe lift station is 8" pvc
(c= 150) and 1,916' long with a vertical rise of 24'.
Ass.uming minor losses of ..onecheck valve and one gate v,alve
fully open , the totcilhead loss is 2.8' . This combination of . 710
CFS and 28' of head is well within the manufacturers pumpra'ting
curve for this lift station (see Exhibit "CI').
The sewage then gravity flows inadequate lines to :Lift
station No. Three.perShenandoah Phase I plans . Thisliftsta'tion
has a FlygtModel #3102 with Impeller 435. The force main beyond
SEC ..2- 2
the lift station is 10"pvc(c = 150) and 2,935' longwi'th a
vertical rise of 31'.
Assuming minor losses of one check valve andonegatev"al ve
fully open, the. total head loss is 33'. This combination of .710
CFS and 33' ofheadiswithinthemanufacturerspumpratingc~urve
for this lift station.
ONSITE.SEWERDEMAND:
The ultimate site peak flow is calculated by:
220 homes X3 00 gpd=6.6,000 gpd
66,000 gpd X 10% infiltration =6,600 gpd
66,000 gpd X 4 (p.f for minor sewers) =264,000 gpd
PEAK ..FLOW =..6,600+ 264,000 = 270,.600gpd
= .418 CFS
The sewer line required to sewer this site is (by manning n =.013)
a6" @0.60%.
OFFSITESEWER DEMAND:
The offsitesewer demand can be calculated by:
840 Acres (entire drainage area flowing through the site)
X 3 D.U. per.scres = 2 ,520D. U.
2,520 D.U. X300gpd = 756,000 gpd = 1.169 cfs
756,000 X 10%=75,600 gpd= .1169 cfs
756,000 X 2. 6.6(p. f. forl.16cfs) = 3.11 cfs
PEAK FLOW = 3.11 + .12 = 3.23 cis
SEe 2 -3
Trunk sewer lines through the site should be sized to carry
this flow. Use a 15" line@ .25% (manningn =0.13) (minimum slope
=.15%, per the Texas Administrative Code Ch 317).
NOTE: CITY PARTICIPATION IS REQUESTED IN THE COST OFOVERSIZING
THIS LINE THROUGH THE SITE.
Sewer connections for future developments are shown on Exhibit
"A".
CONCLUSION:
Conservative estimating techniques prove that thissanittary
sewer design adequately services the proposed development.
SEC2 .... 4
N
~
Z
o
~
~
(J)
9^VMH~lH 31'118
o
o
,,~
Q)
o
o
en
~
4
wo
4---
--1..~
a..
::x:. ... ()
ZI--
::::>Cl:f
0:::<(
......a
io~
"'-.0
........,."
t:
a:
o
La..
t--= w
Q.. ~
t--
:::>
u..
~)NliSIX3
en
w
~. R
~O O<(;!
o "
0::0::: I-- ...'--/
Z CD"-~
~ GfE
~ Z::I:
CD 0::. x 0:::
o..WW
en 3:
W
en
QUANTITY. OF. SANITARY . SEWAGE
o
U
.:!
.::I:
nJ
Q)
0..
4 I
~--.._= 3
FatJW'- i... .. ...
I
V/ 2
(,)
.// ~
Ci; 1..;Jl~
1 0-
f :=
...... I~ 0.88 .......
/z~"o 0.6 .~ 1./
/' ~ ... /'
/ 0 /
0.4.~
/ nJ V
Q)
0.30.. ~/
. 0.2 V
.... V,/
0.1
.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 /
Average flow, incuftpersec ...~ .
/
./
~~ .
/ ~~
. V
/"
..;Jl/ ~
..
/' .
1./ .. ......
... '/
IA
./ ....
/
4-......_ -- -.... ...
. -!..
- ---... ....
Factor ~- ------
I .... - - .. .... ' ..~
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
o
10
8
6
0 5
t) 4
~
.x
ca 3
0
Q.;
2
1 1
1 2 3 4 - 6 8 10 20 30 4060 80100 200 400600 1000
Average flow, in cuftper see
FIGURE 6.--RaliooC peakftow to average daUy:8ow in Los Angeles.
(Cfsxl.7=eu m/min.)
EXHIBIT"B"
35
4000
3000
2000
1000
800
600
500
400
300
200
(,)
Q)
'"
Ci;
100 0-
:=
80 ::J
(,)
60 .E
50 ~~
~
40 ..x.
nJ
30 Q)
0..
20
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
[
OVERALL PERFORMANCE RANGE
NON-CLOG WASTEWATER PUMPS
SUPE RSEDES ISSUED
6/81 9/83
SECor:] P;GE I
o
o
- ,...----- ----....-r----'---=...Tg~
(/') ~. LJ
!~~~ lo~
::::>c:t . I 0
~:l...:I: Z -t 0 .
U z
f~UJ B~ 10
~--u . ~ M
:~ ~ x-~
L.LJ:E: ~ ~" 0
Pt th ~ ~. ~""tO
"c:(~ ~ 5 I 8
~.~.~ ~ I_I N
5Ie t~. ~ ~ ct I
E5~ ~ I
~.~ 8 0
:::> I- - 0
v') ~ 0
~ - 0
L.. ,...
rr-..----- TTT.--~-'--TT
r r 1 I I
l 11
I !
~ I
I
f-
I I
r I
I '
l
I /"
f ./'
t J~
I I
~(I Sl
~.
I~'
I
I
I
II' !
l
I
I
I
l-
t ' -- - -- - -J
I ----I
r I
I-
:~ I
I
1- .....
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
) f
00 0-0......-0.0 0 0
o Lt) O.Lt) 0 .. CO .~ C\t
U:~M MN N"'''''''
I/)
/~l
I~ / ..
i... _____~ iJ... -----____....... ~ _____ ~....
~~ . ............. ----. ~
/~~ ~/c ~,
7' ~ 7!i I
.--_1/ ~/v .~ ._--.-0___
I.~ ~~ "' I I
t ~"".,. ~ Lt) N'
I / ....~ .... ~ ....~ .~.
'L~'M ... ~~ ~ \.r)./
)1 .CO /--------- V ~~ ~
I ..~" / 11. ",7'" ~
I~~ .. /1 ~/v ./'
'/--' ./ r
I ~ I v/~/.
1/' c ....~
~ fi- /
./ .~ ~
V T~~
V //.~ ~~
,I) /'
... -_. --)., / ' .
//
I J
/ I
I /:/
/ I-
11/ /7
l' IJ I
f /1 tl I
. J I I
;/ I
't
1~
L__
e:::
.0
1.1...
.000II\
r
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
10
.18
1M
I
18
I~
I
I
I
10
10
, 10
" _, I _.. . I ,....
/n. . .~..-.--:--:-., ---.~._....".~~ -....-r..-
..~\_ I
~r \ __~ I
/' ..~ 10
/ /' I g
k / ~
71 t~.. / "8 ~
:~ . I:~t~ .~~_/t'---~- JII !:g
,/"1.. ... J ~ J-- ~-LD.-. -- ".y ... .... . r.~ .~
/;?IV ~ /. ...,
/ .~ I // II CO I ------1-0
--
f ~' I'
10
~o~1 l~
I
I
I :
.. -- ........ - - ...
I
./
./'(
// J
~~~~
/'
C\J ../..-.-
...~ ~/
MY
.y"
/7
//
~r
(
>-
.....J
Z
o
\ j
0.0.... .' C ) . -:-0-----.0-- '--0
om co is- . (p. It)
....
-0-----
.t'I
o '0
v C9
o
,...
an
EXH~B~T He"
SECTION 3
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY
WATER DISTRIBUTION ...SYSTEM IMPACT STUDY
SPRINGBROOK
INTRODUCTION:
The proposed development is an 86 Acre site on the
northwestern corner of Barron Road and t'he state Highway 6 west
\
accesroad in. southern College station. The siteis$urrounded by
undeveloped tracts on all sides , but.. is located near Shenandoah
Subdivision (1,000 feet to the southeast).
The site will be
developed as single-family residential, with roughly 100 units in
the first phase and 120 units in the later phases.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Runningthroughthesi tealongState Highway 6 is a24n wa.ter
main which will be used to service the site (see Exhibit "~~n.)
This is the only water service availble near the site. Flow t43sts
will be conducted by the City of College station utilities
Department in order to verify that this line has adequatecapaci ty.
ANALYSIS:
The system shown on Exhibit "All has been analyzed as shc)wn.
This analysis shows that fire flows of 1,150 gpmatthe most relnote
hydrant locations can be acheivedwith a 31' loss of head. PIE~ase
note that this is in addition to domestic flows.
PIPE I FLOW DIAM VEL L Hl.p MINOR Hl.. m:'/1000'
GPM INCHES F/S FEET FEET LOSS C FEET FEET
1 907 18 1.14 960 0.12 2.20 0..04 0.12379
2 907 8 5.79 290 1.86 2.40 1.25 6.42423
3 524 12 1.49 900 0.46 2.80 0.10 0.51521
4 347 8 2.21 1020 2.51 2.80 0.21 2.45778
5 1233 8 7.87 175 1.53 2.40 2.31 8.73326
6 1192 6 13.53 450 15.42 3.00 8.52 34.2722
total head loss 31.0619
Domestic Flows
p:rPE
I
FLOW
GPM
DIAM
INCHES
VEL
F/S
L
FEET
H1P MINOR Hl.m HII/IOOO'
FEET LOSSC FEET FEET
1
2
3
4
5
6
106 18 0.13 960 0.01 2.20 0.00 0.01447
85 8 0..54 290 0.17 2.40 0.01 0.60205
182 12 0.52 900 0.16 2'.80 0.01 0..17895
5 8 0.03 1020 0.04 2.80 0.00 0.03541
83 8 0.53 175 0.10 2.40 0.01 0.58788
42 6 0.48 450 0.54 3.00 0.01 1.20758
total head loss 0.87614
* See ..attachedExhibit "A" for pipe numbers
where HIm =M*V 2 /2g . .. (M=losscoef. . for fittings)
and HlP ==4. 73*L*Q1.S52/C 1.852*D4.87 (c=150Hazen William~))
As shown in the calculations, domestic flows place no
substanialdemand on the system.
SEC3 -2
CONCLUSION:
This analysis shows that water service can be adequa'tely
provided as des.igned and shown on the attached Exhibi t. Future
connections (see Exhibit "A" )to thi.s.systemcreating larger l(oops
should improve .. service.
1
SEC 3 -3
'\x
o
o
t")
II
9A\fMH9IH31V1S
NI\fn .y~eNUSIX3
to
IUJ
tt/)
to
ltl..
o
l~
. .ttl..
o
<(
o
a::
z
o
a::
0:::
<(
CD
en
W
I--
::;
-
()
~
.~
O<.(Z
~I--Q
(I)-I--
e>(I)::>
Z:r:.fQ
-Xo:::
O:::WI--
c.. en
en -
o
0:::
W
~
3=
SECTION 4
ELECTRICAL IMPACT STUDY
ELECTRICAL . IMPACT STUDY
SPRINGBROOK
ELECTRICAL SERVICE:
Electrical power demandand<availability we.rediscl.lssed,,,ith
Mr. Tony Michalsky of the city ofCollegeUtilityserviceCen1l:er.
Mr Micha.lskyindicated that electrical service wasavailablE~on
site, and that the 96 lot configuration shown on the Ma~;ter
Preliminary Plat could be serviced with underground electr~ical
utilities. The easements Mr. Miohalsky indicated would be
necessary are ~hown on the Master Preliminary Plat.
SECTION 5
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
A......TRAFFle..IMPAeTANALVSIS. .
F()RTHE ,
SPRING...BROCll<iSUBDIVI.SIO N,
eOLLEGE STATION., TEXAS.
PREPARED .BV ..
TRANSPORTATION ..ENGINEERING. ANALYSTS
1122<BROADMOOR,SUITE..212
BRVAN,..Ti:XAS77802
A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
for .....the
SPRING. BROOK SUBDIVISION
COLLEGE. STATION,. TEXAS
Prepared for
Fountainhead . Development Corporation
707 Canterbury
College Station, Texas 77845
Prepared by
Transportation Engineering Analysts
1722 Broadmoor, Suite 212
Bryan, Texas .77802
January 1992/
""''''''''.
..-:,t 'OFTl . ,
I.....L. :r\....~. .....*.......... ........................ ....~. ~.. r.'''''. .'.....
..".~.. . ... v. W'A
T*,,'" . .~\ *~a
iI!*1 . I · '*-
,. . .... .... ... ..... ..~
1..Jp~~~ .0: ~.~!~~~ .
,1}..~ 42200 .~... ·
14.....~.~..":-..~..{iST..... ~.... ... . ..\.. .'01 'l t..
'..,U$/t.... .,," ,
\... ... ......
"'~ ~"fIj
TABLE OF.. CONTENTS
Page
l. INTRODUCTION. . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .
II. EXISTING LAND USE .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . .. .. . .. . .. . .
1
3
III. AN ALY S IS. . . . . .. ... .. . . . ... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
Traffic Projections....... ... .... .. .... . . . . ... . .. . .. .
Confontlancewith~ornprehensivePlan.. . · . . . . . · . ... . . .. . .
Suggested Alteration of theComprehell.sivePlan.. .. . . . . .. . ..
4
4
4
5
IV. CONCLUSIONS. . .. .. . .. . . . . ..~ .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..
12
1
I. INTRODUCTION
Spring Brook Subdivision is a proposed 86. 46-acre residential development that will be
located in southCollege.Station,Texasadjacenttothe northwest camerof the intersection of
State Highway6(S.H.6)and Barron Road. (See Figure l~)Thedevelopment will cOI1Lsist of
about 130.smaIIO.25-acrelotsand851arge O.50-acre lots.. ..Due to the presence. of a small. creek
'within...the . subdivision,.s~veral... acres. of land will be ..set ..aside. for. drainage .. .accommodati~Dn.
Currentdevelopl11entin.. the vicinity of the proposed subdivision site .is.sparse with
loccasional residentialhomesandfann land. The existing College StationComprehensiv'e Plan
includes the site of the proposed subdivision and has zoned . the area R~l. for low-density,.. single-
family residences.. This traffic impact analysis addresses . the.anticipated traffic impactass()ciated
'with this' development and explains how . the. proposed . subdivisioll<JayotltwiIlconform to the
city's Comprehensive Plan..
1
TAMU
~
HARVEY.ROAD
c
~
z
a:
~
..J
...J
W
~
I
SHENANDOAH :..... ........... ..cD.
SUBDIVISION .t--.I ~
: · ...... ... .. ...... ..l..
I "
i
LLI
~
.~
en
I VICINITY MAP t
FI(~URE1
II. EXISTING LAND. USE
As indicated previously, very little development has occurred in the vicinity of tJhe site
of the .proposed. Spring. Brook..Subdivision. . There . are. no .current structures on...thepr()posed
subdivision. site. TWQroadwayscurrentlyexist adjacent to the proposed site. . State . Highway. 6
(S.H~. 6) West Frontage Road extends along the east side of the proposed subdivision site and
Barron Road exists along the south side. of the .site. The.iFrontage..Road..is 24..feet...in..width and
permits two-way traffic . Ultimately ,the ... frontage. road.. will be converted. toone-way .. opt~ration
'but this will occur in the distant future. Barron Road is.8 20-feot-wide, two-way roadway with
80 feet of apparent right-of-way between existing fences . No roadways exist along the .n()rth or
'west . sides .ofthe subdivision site.
Very .... few residencescUlTently exist ..withinone . mile ... of. the ..proposedsubdivision. site.
,Shenandoah Subdivision,... which has · several residential units, .iis located .south. of the . proposed site
but this existing subdivision does not have access from Barron Road. The only access to the
ShenandoahpropertyisprovidedbyS.H.6. Due to theminimaldev~lopment in the vicinity
of the proposed subdivision site, very little traffic is found on the existing perimeter roa(lways.
3
III. ANALYSIS
TrafficProJectioDS
Fully developed , Spring 'Brook Subdivision would be expected to generate about .2,200
vehicle-trips. per . day . .(Bydef1I1ition, avehicle~trip ~ouldbeconsidereda.vehicle either . leaving
or returning to the subdivision. A resident who leaves the subdivision to go to work and returns
to . the subdivision in the . evening would .be responsible for two vehicle-trips .)The ... subdivision
would generate about 160. moming-peak-hourvehicle-tripsandab.out 215 evening-peak-hour
vehicle-trips: These estimates are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation tables published in 1991.
Because of the minimal traffic volumes that currently exist in the vicinity of the
subdivision site, collection and ana.lysis of existing traffic . volumes andtuming m<.)vement counts
are not necessary. The traffic volumes expected to be generated by the subdivisiol1lwhen
developed .. .to its . maximum .potential can . be accommodated . bythe~xistin& roadways and
intersections. There is no necessity for making major roadway improvements in conjuncti()n with
this... development.
Confonnance.With..Comprehensive . Plan
In regards to . this proposed development, . it is ..morei~pprtantat this early stage to. insure
that the development of the Spring Brook Subdivisionconformswitb the City of (:ollege
Station' sComprehensive Plan. This . Plan suggests the extension .. of various roadways to.. thle south
of Rock Prairie Road, including Longmire Drive as shown in Figure 1.
4
ThePlansuggeststheex.tensionofLongmireDrivesouthwardfromRockPrairie~ Road
to Barron Road with . . continued. extension of Longmire Drive . southward .. into the . Shenandoah
Subdivision. Altho~gh. this alignment of Longmire ..Drive is conceptual on the Comprehensive
Plan, the intent to align the roadway . withexisting.roadwayswithintheShellandoahSubdiivision
suggests that Longmire.Drive be aligned within the westemsegmentoftheproposed :Spring
Brook Subdivision.
Figure 2 illustrates a logical alignment of Longmire Drive within the pr()posed
subdivision. Phase lof the Spring Brook Subdivision will be platted very similartoth~~ solid
lines in Figure 2 which represent subdivision boundaries and streets. The dashed lines in:Figure
:2 illustrate future extension of. subdivision streets in conjunction with the proposed LOIlgmire
Drive. It is apparent tbatth~Phase I layout will be very compatible with the ultimate
development. of ..the....subdivision... and . with. the. .city' s. proposed alignment. . of Longmire ..Drive.
TheexistingS. H. 6 main lanes and West Frontage R08<iwillprovideadequate capacity
for .futuretrafficvolumes in the area. No additional right-of-way is required to provide the
ultimatecross-sectionofS .H.6 . Barron Road should be ultimately developed as an arterial
with a . 56-foot -wide ..cross-section, . comparable to the existing cross-section of Rock Prairie Road.
The apparent80-foot-wideright-of-wayshouldbemaintained for Barron Road.
Suggested Alteration of the Comprehensive Plan
The existing College Station Comprehensive. Plan does not include a recent addition to
the. .community' s roadway system. plan proposed. by ....the. . Texas Department .of ,Transportation
(DOT). . Currently, W ellbomRoad is aligned relatively parallel with T~xasA venue/S .H.~5. from
5
!Q.
~
lOll:
!q
~I
#1/
~.ll
v/./
.~....r. ...... .-----...,l... ...+.>... ----....------
, ../
..... /... >1" ..... .,
I... .-...........~................. .......... ....' ." ......',
] I ...... ..... ....,
I : II ......, ,"'~
I.. ....Y....l..... ~"". ........' ... . ..... - ~-..L_
1 I. \
I I
I I
1 /
I J
I I
I J
It.
.
.
"
..
BARRON ROAD
PRoPOseOSPAINGSROOKSUBOIVISION-PHASE1~ I
FIGURE 2
6
co
~
~
:t
~
:
U.I
~
~
en
... ~.
..
"
Villa Maria Road .inBryant6 .Graham Road in south · College... Station. South of Graham .Road,
Wellborn Road (also.knownas F. M.2154)extendsmore.to.the southwest. The. Texas DOT
plans to.. extend .WellbomRoadfrom . a . location.. immediately south of Graham Road toward. the
east in a curvilinearpathandintersectwithS. H .6ata point in the vicinity of the S .H.
6/GreensPrairie Road interchange.
The proposed Wellborn Road ..extension . will be a . freeway facility ,a . newmajorall1erial
for the community:. This proposed roadway extension necessitates achange.intheci ty of C~ollege
;Station's Comprehensive Plan because the existing plan isnotteally compatible with the
realigned Wellborn Road.
In addition, the proposed alignment of Longmire Drive as contained in the city's
Comprehensive Plan is not appropriate. Longmire Drive isa collector street, the function of
which is to provide access to some . adjacent property and distribute t,rafficfrom resideIlces to
arterial. streets. ..Longmire . Drive, as proposed .. in. the current Comprehensive Plan, willb'ecome
a very long collector roadway running parallelwithS.H.6 from F. M.2818 southward to at
least Greens Prairie Road. Any . roadwayhavin.g such a ..long lengthandpositionedparall~~l . with
a major arterial.(freeway} will begin to..functionlpore like an arterial street. In the distant
future, ...Longmire . Drive will . accommodate high . volumes of . traffic . (probably.ln the. 10,000 to
12,000 a day range) traveling at speeds higherthartdesirable (35 to 40 mph) for a collector
\
street.
A good example ofapoorly planned collector street is 29th Street in Bryan. This
roadway was never planned as an arterial. It had a 38-to40-foot-wide cross-section and
7
eventually handled 14,000 vehicles a day. ..The. city of Bryan had to widen. the roadway. to
laccommodate the high traffic demand that was generated overtime and minimize th.e high
accidentrate on the roadway. The city of College Station should profit from . the experit~nce of
their sister city and avoid the creation of a problem roadway. Therefore, it is suggestted that
Longmire Dnvenot be extended as a continuous street south of Gral1am Road.
Figure 3 contains a suggested alteration of the city ofCollegeStatioIl' sCompretlensive
Plan incorporating realigned.. arterial and collector streets. .. The altered plan. also. suggests a. grade
separation at the existing intersection of Barron Road andS.H.6. A grade separation at this
location .provides. an.. excellent spacing of S.. H..6ittterchangeswith.Rock.Prairie . Road, Barron
Road, .and Greens Prairie Road.
The proposed. interchange ...locationswill reduce. the importance of GrahamRoadaJnd will
reduce its function to collection and distribution. In other words, Graham.Roadwillbecome a
'"
major collector street.
The proposed comprehensive plan provides excellent spacing of arterial streetsandlmajor
collectors.. in .the area.bounded.by.Rock Prairie Road,.S. .H. 6, and the realigned Wellborn Road.
The .atea is then. divided .into . seven. sections by Graham Road (major collector) ,Barron. R()ad (an
arterial street) ,RioGrande(anart~rial street), and a collector street extending from Barro][l Road
southward through. Shenandoah Subdivision..to the realigned. Wellborn Road. Each. of. thte. seven
segments ..can be planned separately as> long as...access locations.into..eachofthe..seven. seJgments
are controlled by the city of College Station. The ultimate plan is a true "textbook " examj)le that
should provide extremely efficient and effective traffic flow conditions in South. College. S:tation.
8
TAMU
HARVEY.. ROAD
Q
~
a:
z
~
o
CD
..J
ED
~
l.
-"
PROPOSED CHANGES TO I
,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . ...
~FIGURE3
If the cityofCollegeStatioJldecides to alter its existing Comprehensive Plan to
incorporate. some or all of the suggestions . contained.. in this report, then changes to the proposed
Spring Brook Subdivision will be required. Longmire Drive wouldnotextendthroughtlJlewest
end of the subdivision . Roadways within the subdivision could be designed to "run "parallel
with the existing creek rather than across the <creek. This would result in less disruption of the
existing. environmental conditions and. allow for development to takeadvantageofthe.e:xisting
vegetativegrowthandtopograpqyinthe<area. It also would permit the residents of the
subdivision to enjoy a more quiet atmosphere desirable in a residential area.
Figure 4 illustrates a potential street plan for the Spring Brook Subdivision if LOllgmire
Drive does llQtextend through the subdivision. Note that the proposed Phase I street plan shown
in Figure 2 of this report has not changed. Hence, the proposed Spring Brook Phase I will be
compatible with either the exi~tingCollege. StationComprehensivePlan'or with the proposed new
comprehensive plan.
10
I
, I
I ,
I J
J I
I I Not. to Scale
" --' \
~. - _.....
11--- (--=...:".'-. .
~ ly'
I r r":',
, IQ. .~',
I , ~ "',
I I 0 . '.,
: r. . . ',',
t~.' _...-.~.. ..........."..... " ",
, ~ , (r--l 1) '" "
"..1.0=.".., 11...1 I :. " '..........................----
~ , I I . 10.'
12, I, I. \... .-"\ ~------
Ia:, II II :
:' II II "\ . .... - ,
I ! . ; I II .. ". c~t:1(
t- '---- I I .- -~/
1,-----, '.1 1 .~-x.
I I.' .l.. ... II . ..
I I I _-J I
I I '__---.--1
I I I
I I I
,
,
co
~
~
:t
CJ
3:
w
~
~
en
.~
.~.. ~... ....... ... . ..
.-. . . . ..,
"
.....~..
..
."
PROPOSEDSPRING....BAOOK..SlJBOIVISION -..PHASE t
WfTHPROPOSECALTEREDPLAN
FIGURE 4
11
IV. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed . development of Spring Brook Subdivision will not create any traffic
operational problems on the existing roadways in the vicinity of the subdivision. The traffic
expected to be generated by the low-density subdivision can be accommodated <by the street
system. proposed within tbedevelopment,. .by the . existing perimeter. roadways (Barron Road. and
the.S. .H. 6. West Frontage Road), and by the roadways. suggested by the city's Comprenlensive
Plan.
The cityofCollegeStatioll s~ouldconsideraltering its existing Comprehensive l?lan to
adjust to the realignment of We lIb om Road recentlypraposedby the. Texas DOT . . The revised
plan.wouldp~ovidea more effective and efficient traffic operational plan for the city and
eliminate Longmire Drive as a continuouscollectorstteet. If constructed as proposed in the
existing . Comprehensive Plan, LOl1gmireDrive . wOlIldattracta. significant volume of high--speed
traffic which is not appropriate or . desirable fora collector street.
Spring.Brook Phase I iscompatiblewithboththeexistingComprehensivePlan.aIJld with
the ... altered. comprehensive plan suggested ... in this report.
12