Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous (2)3~z/GS ~J l ~cQ'.~~C~ ~~ ~ -ems ~/~ ~~~s ~~~~~ G~GC~ dire , ~ 7 G d s I~'~~1 z.~f~s3., ~~ ~~ ~~ Q ~G~ ~ ~~ U'G~wc,l u~d ~ !D `%i¢wr Y~ D~~~ ~~ 'Iq/I'~/~/Jj~J/ Y LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc. L~~ 2929 Briarpark Drive Phone 713.953:5200 Suite 500 Fax 713.953.5026 Houston, Texas 77042-3703 January 7, 1998 Ms. Shirley J. Vdlk Development Coordinator City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Submittal of Preliminary Plat Dear Ms. Volk: We are submitting to the City of College Station a revised preliminary plat for Rock Prairie Plaza, an 8 acre commercial development, located in the southeast corner of the intersection between the East Frontage Road of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. 'These revisions are to address comments made by the Staff Review Report. The following information is being submitted: 1. Revised Application 2. Twelve (12) folded copies of our plat, plus one reproducible with Staffs comments addressed. 3. Revised oversize participation request with. Engineers Seal. 4. Layout of driveway locations with dimensions. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 953-5300. V/ery~truly yours, Wallace E. Trochesset Assistant Project Manager Attachments id LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc. L~,~ 2929 Briarpark Drive Phone 713.953.5200 Suite 500 Fax .713.953.5026 Houston, Texas 77042-3703 December 22, 1997 Ms. Shirley J. Volk Development Coordinator City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Submittal of Preliminary Plat Dear Ms. Volk: We are submitting to the City of College Station a preliminary plat for Rock Prairie Plaza, an 8 acre commercial development, located in the southeast corner of the intersection between the East Frontage Road of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. The following. information is being submitted: 1. Filing fee of $200.00 2. Application 3. Fourteen (14) folded copies of our plat plus one reproducible. 4. Master Development Plat 5. Traffic Impact Analysis 6. Oversize participation request 7. Variance request on driveway locations 8. Deeds of parent tract back to 1970. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 953-5300. Very truly John Phillips, ASLA Manager, Planning Servi Attachments i",i 9~ ~i Suc~aria~lSoil Mechanics, ir~c. ' Consulting Engin®®rs . Bryan, T®$as 206 Nanh Sims, 77803/P.O. Bos 6?a, 77806/(409) 822.8767 9gAStcOr J. 8uchan~, PB. 4903dD8~ Edsm! 7. eualmra~ F5. June 30, 1994 Brett McCully CITY OF COLLEGE Post Office Bax College Station, STATION 9960 Texas 77$42-9960 Reference: Rock Prairie Road Eastern .Alignment Study College Station, Texas B/SMi Pro,}ect No. 941241 Dear Mr. McCui7y: This letter reports our results the of Rock Prairie Road feasibility study for the area east of State Highway 6 frontage Raad to Greens Prairie Road, an approximate length of 15,540 ft. This study was done in accordance with contract number 94-62E dated April 15, 1994. in accordance with~the provisions of the referenced contract, a study was made of the rights-of-way and road section requirements for Rock Prairie Road between the State Highway 6 east frontage and Greens Prairie Roads. The study coordinated information from all utilities in the area and from planning, traffic, electrical, and wastewater personnel with the City of College Station. The Thoroughfare and Transportation Improvement Plan of the City of College Station, as revised in April 1994, indicates that the Rock Prairie Road segment between Wellborn Road and, the East Bypass (State Highway 6} is a major arterial way. The segment of Rack Prairie Road to the east of State Highway 6 and continuing to Greens Prairie Road is indicated as a minor arterial way, The Rock Prairie Road segment east of State Highway 6 is the only present roadway in a north-south direction currently. servicing this area. The Thoroughfare and Transportation Improvement Plan inciudes as a minor arterial way, an extension of Poxfire Road, however that road is not currently in place. Following the history of the development pf the area, any new development will likely take place along the existing Rock Prairie Road rather than any new minor arterial way which might be developed. The Stonybrook development is in existence now, and planning is already in place far fur her development on the west side of Rock Prairie Road. With these considerations in mind, a rights-of-way requirement was developed. .- !. Rock Prairie Road Eastern Alignment Study College Station, Texas B/SM1 Project No. 941241 Page 2 Generals Brazos County has a general requirement of 100 ft wide rights-of-way for subdivistons located outside the extraterritorial jurisdiction of a city which contains .lots less than one acre. Also, designated thoroughfares shall have a minimum right-of-way of 100 ft. If a two lane roadway is envisioned with bicycle lanes in the outer lanes, and a turning lane in the center, and if 11 ft wide shoulders are incorporated into the rights-of-way with. lanes that are to be 13 ft wide for traffic and 14 ft wide in the .outer lane for traffic plus bicycles, this. will generate a total roadway right-of-way width of 95 ft considering; a 2 ft width for the curbs (Figured ). Electrical: Currently the City of Bryan has a trunk line which passes down the east side of Rock Prairie Raad, and the City of College Station has an aerial transmission line which passes down the west side of Rock Pralrie Road but which is offset from the existing 70 ft roadway widtfi by approximately 35 ft. ]dater Sewage and Stormwater: As far as water and wastewater considerations are concerned, there is currently a water treatment plant south of Rock Prairie and Greens Prairie Roads. The lines required for stormwater, sewage and force .main .lines, with .further development., would be collectors for this facility. Gas nes (Lone Star Gas Companvi; Lone Star Gas Company was_ contacted, and Mr. Mike Brune indicated that Lone Star Gas has no current plans .concerning Rock Prairie Road. However, aline is being finstalled at the intersection of Greens Prairie Road and Rock Pralrie Road which was indicated to be a gas line. T.Y. Cable (TCA Cable The T.W. cable, indicated by Mr. Mike Lavender, TCA representative, is being located on power poles whenever possfble'. Therefore T.V. cable lines should not require additional rights-of-way a,thew than what is required for .the electrical power lines. Telephone lines (G.T.E.I• The G.T.E. representative, hlr. Qanny Pate, .indicated that their cable is a buried cable and is usually put in the utility easement. The telephone cable is usually buried. at depths of IS-inches. A list is attached which includes the utilities and each person contacted in pursuit of the rights-of-gray development. Meetings were held with City staff members and the Utility Company representatives in order to ascertain their various requirements and concerns. The requirement set for discussion was the criteria of future requirements over the next 20 years. The demographics of the area as obtained from the Bryan.-College Station Chamber of Commerce indicate that the anticipated. growth of the area for the period 1990 to 2000 is approximately 2 percent per year. In reviewing the population growth from a period between 1980 to- 1990, the average growth was also 2 percent per year. According to a United States Census Report, the Bryan-College Station area has grown approximately 35 percent in the 1980 to 1990 decade. The area consistently ranks among the top. growth communities in the nation (Fourth Fastest Growth Communities in a 1994 Kiplinger Report), . t Rock Pralrie Road Eastern Alignment Study College Station, Texas B/SMI Project No. 941241 Page 2 based on these statistics, it is anticipated that the Rack Prairie Road will be upgraded from a minor arterial way to a mayor arterial way within the next few years, thus requiring the two lane divided roadway with turning lane. In order or accommodate this along with all utilities, a 100 ft wide right-of-way is anticipated as a requirement. A conceptual cross-section of the envisioned 100 ft right-of-way is included as Figure 1, We appreciate the opportunity to perform this service in reviewing the rights- of-way requirement far the City of College Station. If any questions arise, we will be glad to address them. Sincerely, BUCNANAN/SOIL MECHANICS, INC. r ~ .-.. P c n, Ph.D., P.E. /rc ,~. ~ti Ot .TF~ ~~~'~~~~ ~ k4 • ~ ~ ~~ PNILfP N. 8 HA~.~' .:...... ~ Ib~l ' as i~ ~;,~ .QOM AL 4 ' W O ~~ ~ a. ~ W ~ v ~ r-I ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~I Q} v ~` ~ ~' a w ~ `~ H ~ N a H N s q ry U .~ i~ v ~ i`a ~ ~ ~ ~ H ~ ~ U r~-r t!f b ~~ ~«I ~ N r~l ,~ p - - -~ 0 0 ~, 0 a i isi Z o ti rd V? ~ ~ .-~ C/~ W 0.1 Qi W ~ ~ C i i1 S. •r p7 .J e0 •~ ...1 ~ L~ c. a ¢ v e rr N ~ ~ O ~ ~y o~ i ~~ ~ N ~ ~ r-r W V 4 ~x N m ~ f ~illllllllllil~ "' ~~ ~~ M ~o nn ~ ~ II111U1 Illlll~l fl ``IJIIf~~lll~~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~m .rn fflfllllllllJlll ~ ~~ _ ~ ~<~ ~~N m m ~~lulll~~l'1~1~ d I ` 0 ~m a ~ ~ ~~,., ~~ . ~ .. 1111 IIII ~ X ~~ ff ii I~IIIilIIIIIII~I ~ ~ J~ ~ ZO ~a ., LJA Engineering & .Surveying, Inc. `~,~ 2929 Briarpark Drive Phone 713.953.5200 Suite 500 Fax 713.953.5026 Houston, Texas 77042-3703 www.fjaengineering.com January 4, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Rock Prairie Plaza- Master Preliminary Plat LJA No. 1426-9803 Dear Conunission: On behalf of the developer I am requesting a six month time extension, of approval, for the master preliminary plat of Rock Prairie Plaza. This master preliminary plat was approved on February 12, 1998. The reason for this extension is to provide additional time for the final plat submittal. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 953-5232. Si/ncerely, /~~ Wallace E. Trochesset, P. E. Project Manager WET/pc c: ..David Scarmardo iv 0:\ARCI-IIVEU.AND\1426\14269803\PREPLAT.EXT From: To: Date: Subject: Veronica Morgan. Edwin Hard, Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, 10/27/98 2:47PM~r~ rock prairie plaznd the rock prairie r~ 1. his construction plans. need to be for the 74' pavement. section with a median and bike lanes.(per subdivision ordinance) 2. his plans. can then show that only'/Z of this section will be constructed now with this contract. my understanding from jim is thaf the city will at some future date come back and construct the other'/2 of the road. 3. the storm sewer and inlets need to be designed for the whole street section and anything that has to be stubbed across to the median and plugged should be done with this contract. 4. the 18"waterline should be continued along the sh6 frontage and down this portion of rock prairie road that will be constructed. 5.there does not need to be a turnaround at the end of the roadway (rock prairie road) for two reasons: a.) the subdiv. ord. states that dead-ends shall be prohibited except short stubs to permit extension.(this would be a short stub) and b.) because their driveway-would be at the end and vehicles can use that entrance to turn around if necessary. office max/g. bush drive east is a good example of this. i think that is all we discussed. bob- you will probably want to keep a tight hand on these plans when they get to you cuz you'll need them in 5-10 yearn when you build the other half of the street. v CC: Bill Riley, Bob Mosley, Mark Smith, Tony MichaL.. i talked with Wallace trochesset today with Ija engineers regarding the above development. he has been asking what size street will he have to build with this development. i told him the following after conferring with jim and ed on the matter. WA Engineering & Su 2929 Briarpark Drive Phone 713.953.5200 Suite 500 Fax 713.953.5026 Houston, Texas 77042-3703 January 7, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Inc. Re: Preliminary Request for Oversize Participation Dear Commission: Our client is proposing a commercial development of an 8 acre tract of land located in the southeast corner of the intersection between the East Frontage Road of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. We are requesting oversize participation on the extension of Rock Prairie Road. This extension is needed for access to the commercial development for traffic arriving off of Rock Prairie Road. This tract will frontage approximately 3001inear feet along Rock Prairie Road, refer to the attached layout. As shown in our Traffic Impact Analysis, by Kimley-Horn and Associates, the traffic generated by the proposed site will only require a collector street cross section to adequately handle the projected traffic. The City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan (1997) indicates that an extension of Rock Prairie will be a minor. arterial: The differences in the construction costs of these two different cross sections is what is being requested for oversize participation. The engineer's probable construction costs for the collector cross section is estimated to be $57,055.00. The probable construction costs for the minor arterial cross section is estimated to be $102,625.00, refer to the attached cost summary table. This difference of $45,570.00 is the request for oversize participation. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 953-5232. Very truly your f,'-_" Calvin T. Ladner, P.E: President Attachments iii fi 0 RS Q ~L yd L a L ___ C r C = I 3 O L .~ a ~ V d O U 0 __ C O / W ' O L U .L a ~ o ~ Y ~ o ~ /~ /N y a ~ 0 ~'' ~..~ N ~ Q. ~ ~ •_V ~ ' ~ O ~ L ~- a ~ ^ '' V• L ~ L r ~ 0. N ~ d N ~ N C O ~ ,, w W •~ V m o w O O O O O O O O ~ ti O ~ O O Lf> N M O ~{} ~- O EA ~ O O M Cp O f~ O ~ N O O O O O O O O ~ M O N N ~ O ~ C~ to 64 E!? ~ O ~_ Q J fA 0 0 0 O WT W3 ri Ef} rn C ~ ~ ~ L L c~ -~ ~ .~ C (~ ~, c ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ (6 U U n. .-. O ~ ~ O O f6 L ,0 O ~ Q. Q 0 Q N O N N N O ~~> ~ ~ U a~+ •~ X (6 -~ U ~ 7 ~ U U U .N •~ c rn o ~~ ~ ~ U N 'Q ~• L O ..+~.. ~ ~_ ~ O C f0 '~ N rn ~ E c ~L Q UVa ° $ r o d '~ o d- °. ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~,d `s'o ~~ y ~J Jp d J M LJJ m ~m ~m ~° o^ Z ~ ~ --;~ z w Q z 0 Q H U F-+ I- ~ ~ ~ ~ w w J m N m '~' U ~ ~ ~~ ~ w (N~ > N v O _~ • ~c • .(-~ ~rr ~.1 O Jq~ c,0 ~~Py ~OP~I ~ZG E5~' P~~ `PGG 5~ :.Shirley. Volk -_Re: Rock Prairie. Road. extension . .... ...: .:........._ ..:.__,.:: ._ _ _ Page.1._; 'From: Mark Smith To: Brett. McCully, SVOLK~CITY OF COLLEGE STATION.CITY... Dater 7/23/9811:42AM Subject: Re: Rock Prairie Road extension Funds have not been allocated and the project has not been scheduled. Council decided to wait & see how the CIP Committee rankedthe project. The way it is looking, it will'be part of the next bond program. I can tell you that it is-not scheduled for fy 99. »> Shirley Volk 07/23/9810:55AM »> had a call from Wallace'at LJA engineers in Houston regarding the extension of Rock Arairie Road. David Scarmardo has told them. that there are -bond funds available and the schedule has been set for construciton, and'he would like to know what it isl I wanted to send. a copy of this to Bob, also, but I can't find him on the address book, so would you please share this with him, Brett.. I would like to know the answer to these questions, also, because we always have questions about it. Thanks. :2/18/97 14:00 $409 779 7979 BRAZOS CO ABST 0 001/007 4 Brazos County Abstract Company "Over 125 Years of Title Service" 418 Tarrow (409) 260-9728 P.O. Box 4704 College Station, Te:as 77840 Telecopy (409) 779-7979 Bryan, Texas 77805 FACSIMILE .TRANSMITTAL LETTER CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:. THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING TH1S TELECOPY TRANSMISSION CONTAIN: CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH IS .LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE RECIPIENT NAMED BELOW. lF YOU HAVE F(ECEIVED THIS TELECOPY IN ERROR, PLEASE- IMMEDIATELY. NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE TO ARRANGE FOR RETURN OF THE DOCUMENTS TO US AT NO COST TO YOU. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY .DISCLOSURE, .COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, OR THE TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN REIJANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS TELECOPIED INFORMATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. DATE.: December 18, 1997 FROM: Susan. Gaston TIME: ~•~~ TO: Wallace FIRM: LJA`Engineering FAX: 713/953-5026 FILE NO.: SUBJECT: David Scarmardo COMMENTS: ,Deeds recorded in Vot.482, pg 806 & Vol. 167, pg 632. I hope you can read these. This .goes back to 19fi5. TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS TRANSMITTAL COVER LETTER: 7 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES OR HAVE. DIFFICULTY READING TRANSMITTAL, PLEASE CALL SUSAN AT (409) 2B0-9728. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (409) 779-7879 Plaza ....--:Page.: ~.: Shirle Volk Rock Prairie y From: Shirley Volk ~~c~'~ To: Paul Kaspar, PLANNING, Veronica Morgan Date: 9/11/98 4:06PM Subject: .Rock Prairie Plaza I had a call from Wallace T. at LJA Engineers yesterday afternoon asking what he needs to do next with this Scarmardo property. My answer would be, simply put, "design the infrastructure construeion dots and submit them with the final plat . However, I wanted to let all of you know that the question has been asked, because there is the distinct possibility that this will become active again, and I know there's a lot of items which must be considered; for instance, the oversize dollar amounts to be determined for the (1)street, and possibly even (2) water and (3) wastewater! These items were mentioned as not having been determined at the time the staff report was written for the preliminary plat. Also, access thru the church's property was discussed, and we'll need to decide how to handle that, if indeed, that comes to :pass. If there's anything I missed, please let me know. I've told him the simple answer when his second call came. just now, but told him I'm sending this note and will. get back with him about the middle of next week with the responses I get from you. Is there anything else I need to tell him that needs to be done? Prelim Plat for Rock Prairie Plaza TXDOT was aware Ghat the street was as going to be extended .but they. still put the signal where they did. They sail t~,at in order for them to have put the signal anywhere else they would have < to have a design schematic for the extension...which we don'' have. ~'~~e- ~ ~-~ ~ ~-j When the signal was' under construction we saw where it was being .placed and we tryed toget TXDOT to put thepole in a different,place before it went up, but they said they could 't d lay the co tracto or ak afield change to the plans. Since we knew that they knew that the street was going through, it never occurred to us that they would put the signal where they .did.. Staff did look at the signal plans but we focused on the west side since its much more complicated with all of the utilities.,. and also focus more on the hardware and materials being used. TXDOT's signal plans are somewhat .generic. They are not as detailed.. as our signal plans. They don't show.. any overhead or underground utilities and they didn't do any utility.locates prior to design. the signal The City is still going to have to go in and do signal work anyway when the street is extended. A signal .pole and conduit will: need to be installed for traffic'coming .from the east. The relocaction of the TXDOT pole could be done as partof this work which will make it less expensive. The developer could then just reimburse the .City oi- TXDOT for this work. ~_ ~ CT.2©.9.998 4~49PM LJA ENGINEERING & SURVEYING N0..375 P.c ~, ~~ ~P . ~ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FORM ix :1,000} ~ PROJECT N1~1NE: Rock Prairie East Re-alignment PROJ1rCT BUDGET: Y 800 PROJECT #: ° PROJECT MANAGER: ° FUNDING SOURCE(S): This project is a reduced scope _ and is recommend yy the committee RECOMMENDED ~_ PROJECT DE5CR1PTiOH1JG1STIFICAi'ION: ~' This protect is the re-alt nmRnt of Rcck Prairie Road from east side of Hwy 6 to fain the existing roadway near Weer its interseotion with Stonebrook in the Woodcreek Subdivision.. The streak would be 39 fleet wide with a median end walks on both sides in a 100 foot wide RQW. Thrr length is 1,700 feet. This roadwsy wautd rsQuire modifioatidns to the existing traffic signal where Rock Prairie intersects with the east firantage rorsd of HwY 6. The street is designated as a minor tree planting zonE irti the Clty's $treetsca a fan. It may also be necessary to extend an 18" water line along with the con~tru~tian of this_street, The pro act is needed for several reasons. The o#fset 1iltersection wRh Rock Prairie at Hw 6 is difificult and confiisin Addod to that, high volumes of arbage trucks acca~sing the landfill rn~ke this is a bast'. intersectian. Rock :Prairie Rosd also has a dangerous curve that needs to be re-aligned. This project will impfove propert .values to adlacent land and will be a good candidate for developer partici alien either by ROW donation or assessmerrt. It maY else be an dttrsotivs Prefect for a developer to implemer-t with the City Participating financially. PROJECT CALENDAR OF EXPENDITURES BY FISCAL YEAR w~n~~eTo Rnicr_ DRO.I. TOTAL r r Prior Years ..~.~... S S - - - - - - ~ - ~ - $ . .1996.97 _ 1997-98 '1998.99: _ 1999-00 195 12d b65 800 20Q0-01 2001.02 ~ - TOTA~L 3 195 $ 120 3 ' 4135 S - S 800 ,A. NNt1At OPERATING GD57S r_aror_nar ~sr F_'Y_ MINUAL P~sannel S S Su plie2 Services Capital TOTAL 9 _ g Page 10 ~CT.20.1998 4~49PM LJA ENGINEERING ~ SURVEYING N0.375 P.1 LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc. Facsunile Cover Sheet Total Pages Sent: ~ Date:. ld ~ ~~ ~ 9~ .--~.. ~/ rider: (~al~~CG 1 ra~1 GSSC~ JoU #~ Se Attention To: Gra'~t~• ~' Company: o~ ~ l/roc S~ Fax Number: Comnu.ents: `~js ~s ~~A~ .~` r~cc~~t~ ~~ ~lGS . ~/C4-st G~.~f j ~ s~ ~a~C a ~ ~ y G.ori~t-, i'S . ~.r~ Signature (Yf applicable (713} 953-500 off ce • fax (713) 953-5026 2929 Briarpark .Drive,. Suite 500 Houston, TX 77042-3703 10/09/01 13:06 ^0979 846 8252 KLING ENGINEERIN -~~-~ COCS MORGAN ETAL L~IJ002 ~~~'~ T 1 ° KLING ENGIT~TEERING & SURVEYING Consulting Engineers • Land Surveyors 4103 Teas Avenue, Suite 212 Post Office Bo:4234 Bryaa, Ted 77802 Brysrn, Tee 77$05 Telephone 979/84b-6212 Faz 979/846-8252 B.J KIing, P.E., R.P.L.s. S.NL Kling, RP.L.S. October 9, 2001 TO: David Scarmardo FRpM: S.IN. Klin ,~ , RE: Driveway Access for Property at Rock Prairie and By-Pass .Stacy spoke with Natalie Ruiz at the Gity of Gollege Station today regarding the driveway access for your property located at Rack Prairie Nand the By-Pass. • Natalie made several comments regarding the driveway access based. on her recollection of the project.. However, she plans to verify her initialthoughts and: to let Stacy know the results of her investigation, .either Friday or Monday. I have included below for your review the issues to be verified. 1) whether or not the preliminary plat has expired 2} whether or not the driveway. variance expires with the preliminary plat 3} whetheror nat the Gity wilt grant a "Permit to Construct Access Driveway Facilities on Gity of College Station Right-of way" without a site plan {driveway permits are usually granted with development} 4) whetheror not the Gity may change the driveway location with site. review even if a driveway permit has been issued 5) the-expiration. of the driveway permit {she thinks that it is 1 ~ months or will be) Another issue to consider is TxDot approval. Stacy askedNatalie if TxDot had been consulted regarding the location of the driveways. Natalie said she remembers that Ed Hard worked with TxDot when putting #ogether the conditions of the driveway variance. However, she also reminded Stacy that TxDot has had quite a bit of turn over sincethen and that without a TxDot permit they have na legal obligation to allow driveway'access on to the frontage if any of their rules for driveway access are violated. If you have any questions, please call Stacy or myself. ~eY ~G~~ ~h C{~c~~-- ~ cif u ~ ~ ~ _ of 10/09/01 13:06 ^d 979 846 8252 KLING ENGINEERIN ~-~-~ COCS MORGAN ETAL tQj001_ ~~ ~.dl~l ~JL~~ ~31C. ~'V 1l`~~~ 4103 Texas Ave., Suite 212 Bryan, TX 77802 •Phane: (409')846-6212 •Fax: t409~845.8252 •Email: kling@mail.tca.net FAX OVER SHEET DATE: 6cJE c~b~,_~r ~ . ZOO ~ Please deliver the following. pages to: NAME: ~c~.~c~~~e ~v~~ F1RM: FAX NUMBER: FROM:.., \\ We are .transmitting. ~.. page(s1, including this .cover letter from our fax number listed above.' If any pages are .missing or incomplete, please contact sander: Regarding:. ~~U\~~e - ~~Ce~...~x~.~~ casket r~,~_ ~-~ Wr~~-~ Da~1„]c~ r.a ~~~~ G Rock Prairie Plaza College Station,.Texas ;~; Prepared for: LJA Engineering. & Surveying, Inc. Prepared by: Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Qecember 1997 ~~~ Kimley-Hom ~ and Associates, Inc. 6 W H j ~ SH 6 Ezzon ~~ 1 ,~ - 507E BANK 1 CURRY PLUMBING ~~ , ~~ 5~+ Q V bRLVEWAYS A 8 B. RIGHT IN/ RLGHT OUT :PERCENTAGE QF POTENTIAL SITE USERS ORIG.IN'ATI:NG FROM A PARTLCULAR AREA... TOX of t 15+50+10) 500 - 260 30X of (15+50+10) 500 115 50Xt260) 50X(260 ) 15d 307Lt 500 ) i .fie / ~~ 14° h ~~C ~~ o° o ° ROCK PRAIRIE. ~ ~~ ~ ~1~°0 107E "' ~ 150 ~ T Q ~.-- ~ J~ 25 ~ -- ~ ~ :~ , I ,~, o N ~.{ ~ O 511 ~ O ~' SCARMARDO TRACT ~` 500 TRIR ENDS D (TWO-WAY VOL.) W C zH O C W N C W f~ ~D RDq( NORTH `~ ,~ .... in ~n ~ ~~ 0 0 ~~~ ~~ °~ N ~ N ~~ ~ K 1' ~~ t ol i~ FIGURE 7. SITE. GENERATEIl TRAFFIC FULL DEVELOPMENT 15x order to determine the number of trips generated by the site, the ITE Trip Generation Manual consulted.. Land Use: 820 Shopping Center was referenced in order to obtain. a suitable trip generation rate to reflect the predicted activity for the development. As within the proposed development, many shopping centers include outparcels (i.e., peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points). The Manual indicates that Shopping Center. trip generation rates do reflect the-effect of the peripheral buildings. Recognizing that traffic would be heaviest on the surrounding network during the PM peak hour, the trip generation rate for the PM peak hour was used. The trips generated by the development of Phase 1 only are approximately 300 trip :ends due to the nature of the development. At full buildout, 8..06 trip ends are generated per 60,000 square feet gross leasable area during the PM peak hour. This rate translates into approximately 500 trip ends during the peak hour. The distribution of these.projections are reflected in Figures 6 and 7, assuming reasonable allocations of directional distributions of traffic flow into and out of the proposed development. Discussion of Site Plan Upon visiting with the City of College Station and the Texas Department of Transportation (Bryan District), much information pertaining to the development of the proposed site was obtained. The City of College Station requires the submission of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for any development requesting oversized participation. The City ofCollege Station's Comprehensive Plan (1997) indicates that an extension of Rock Prairie will be a minor arterial; therefor, the construction of a minor arterial cross section (i.e., either with or without a bikeway, according to the City's discretion) will be required. The developer will only be required to fund. the construction of the cross section warranted by the traffic generated by the. proposed site. Upon further review of Figures 6 and 7, the traffic generated by the proposed site will only require a collector street cross section to adequately handle the projected traffic. Therefore, the City will fund the difference in cost required to upgrade to a minor arterial cross section in order to ensure compatibility with the City's long term transportation plans. The City of College Station Transportation Planner expressed some concern with the following issues. He is concerned about on- and off-site circulation given the two-lane, two-way frontage access and configuration of Phase 1 development at the north portion of the site. If the majority of accessing traffic will be entering along the extension of Rock Prairie, consideration should be given as to how to allow traffic to flow more efficiently between Phase 1 and Phase 2. The City indicated hesitancy in creating a median cut across from the eastern most driveway along the extension of Rock Prairie as depicted in the original layout. Basically, the City would prefer to move the easternmost driveway farther east before allowing a median cut so as not to inhibit the flow of traffic along Rock Prairie with vehicles making turning movements so close to a signalized intersection. The City must prepare. for future development along. both sides of the extension of Rock Prairie. The City prefers only`one. driveway along the extension of Rock ^~^ Kimley-Horn ~ and Associates, Inc. R:UchaU,JAGScam~ardo TIA.doc Page I S ~, Prairie Road (i.e. the driveway at least 300 feet from the intersection, located at the northeastern to ensure that ueues do not form that mi ht inhibit smooth traffic flow at the orner of the site g c ) q signalized intersection. The City would encourage a joint private access easement between I, adjacent lots (i.e., the church and the Scarmardo Tract) fronting on arterial and collector streets in order to facilitate traffic flow between lots. Likewise, private cross access easements may be required across any lot fronting on an arterial or collector street in order to minimize the number of access points and facilitate access between and. across individual lots. The location and dimension of these easements shall be determined by the City Engineer. Several successful examples of shared internal circulators are found throughout the College Station. community. If the requirements cannot be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access driveways or cross access easements have been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach may be located closer to the corner than 100 feet on minor arterials. and 120 feet for major arterials as stated in the College Station Driveway Access Location and Design Policy. The City expressed a willingness to consider certain modifications along the extension of Rock Prairie. since the opposing development would be relatively light. Rather than committing to a median cut closer to the intersection than they would prefer, the. City may consider the development of a flush median and channelization through striping. This will allow modification of the median (i.e., moving the opening further east away from the signalized intersection) when future development is initiated in the area and shared access easements can be negotiated. Also stated within the Design Policy is the fact that driveways shall not be closer than 250 feet from an exit ramp as measured form the striped. gore of the exit ramp to the centerline. of the drive. The City requires that a variance be submitted to request approval for a driveway location which does not satisfy the above requirements. This may be required to ensure approval of the northern most driveway along the frontage due to its close proximity to both the signalized intersection and the exit ramp. The City ultimately recommends driveway locations to TxDOT for approval since, according to the.Bryan District, TxDOT has not purchased access rights for this area; therefore, TxDOT will probably not deny the construction of this driveway. Concerning the close proximity of the northern most driveway along the frontage to the intersection, the State will react according to the City's recommendation as to whether or not to allow a variance in the standard Driveway Access Design Policy. Exceptions to guidelines on design policy must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The City recognizes that a variance may be warranted at the northern driveway; however, the City would prefer that the southern driveway along the frontage be moved as far south as possible to reduce the potential for traffic to form a queue along the SH 6 exit ramp. The City is awaiting another bond election because presently there is no money available to put towards the construction of the extension of Rock Prairie Road.. Furthermore, the money is available on a first-come, first-served basis when it is available. Initial. steps toward requesting funds involves the submission. of a letter requesting the expenditure attached to an engineer's estimate of the cost to build the cross section. The City staff is available to meet for pre- development meetings on Monday and Tuesday afternoons. Shirley J. Volk is the Development Coordinator and will facilitate the meetings. ~~^ Kimley-Horn Page 16 ~ and Associates, Inc. R:UchaU.JAGScarniardo TIA.doc The State indicates that the existing two-way frontage: sections are not likely to change to one- way sections within the next ten years. The State presently has no plans to adjust the location of any of the ramps near the site to improve access to properties developed along the frontage road. Presently, the next grade separated overpass south of the proposed site is at Greens Prairie Road which is two miles south of Rock Prairie Road. Although the City indicated that the State had plans to construct a grade separated overpass of Barron Road (one mile south of the proposed site), the State indicated that these plans would probably not take place for fifteen to twenty plus years. Upon the extension of Rock Prairie Road to the east, consideration will need to be given to the location of the mast arm, signal poles at the intersection of the East Frontage Road and Rock Prairie Road. The signal poles have been installed recently and the southern most pole is not located far. enough south to allow for such an extension of the roadway.. Apparently, the State installed the signal after receiving approval on the layout from the City. The pole will either need tote relocated or sheltered within an island upon the construction of the new extension. Summary of Findings The following section summarizes the findings and provides recommendations for the proposed development. The traffic generated by the proposed development warrants the construction of a collector street. Since the City of College Station's. Comprehensive Plan (1997) indicates that an eastern extension of Rock Prairie Road. will be constructed as a minor arterial cross section, the City should fund the difference in construction cost between a collector street cross section and a minor arterial cross section. Regarding driveways along the extension of Rock Prairie Road, the following recommendations are made which satisfy the needs, of a majority of the accessing traffic without compromising the City's desire to maintain efficient traffic movement at signalized intersections. The western most driveway should be constructed as a right-in/i•ight-out access point, allowing for uninhibited right turn access to the development without introducing the potentially.conflicting movement of left turns close to the signalized intersection. The eastern most driveway should be constructed as a full access driveway but should belocated as close to the eastern most property line as possible. Negotiations for a shared access point with the owner of the property bordering the east of the Scarmardo tract should be pursued. As an intermediate measure since the area is not yet fully developed, the proposition could be made to omit the construction of a Mull median when constructing the minor arterial cross section. This would allow the City and land developers to negotiate at a later date shared access and median cuts. Regarding driveways along the East Frontage Road, the following recommendations are made. The City is likely to accept a variance for the location of the northern most driveway provided that the driveway is located at least 250 feet from the exit ramp and no closer than 160 feet from the signalized intersection. This driveway should be constructed as a right-in/right-out access point to remove the potential queuing problem presented by those wishing to turn left into the development. The southern most driveway should be located as close to the Curry Plumbing ^~^: Kimley-Horn Page 17 ~ and Associates, Ino. R:Ucha\LJA\Scarmardo TIA.doc Company property line as possible to avoid potential problems with traffic queuing on the ramp. This. driveway should allow full. access to the development. Regarding the driveways along Old Rock Prairie, full access should be provided at both driveways. Although traffic generated by the site will be adequately serviced by the collector street (i.e., Old Rock Prairie. Road), consideration should be given to the- potential for delivery trucks to maneuver in and out of the. site atthe eastern most driveway.. Upon the design of the. extension of Rock Prairie Road, the location of the mast arms at the signalized intersection should be further analyzed: The. present location will require either relocating or sheltering (in an island) the southern most mast arm. Because the mast arm is positioned directly in the line of travel of the shoulder along the overpass, the safest alternative is to relocate the signal pole.: Sheltering'tlie pole inside a median would result in a channelized right- turn lane. In order to satisfy the City's corner clearance design policy, two driveways would be eliminated with the development of'a channelized right-turn lane (i.e., the northern most driveway along the frontage and the western most driveway along Rock Frairie Road). Projected northbound frontage traffic turning right onto 1Zock Prairie Road will not warrant the construction of a channelized right turn lane to facilitate trai~ic movement at the signalized intersection. Relocation of the southern most mast arm/pole should be pursued. ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page 1s ~ and Associates, Inc. (~~Ken Fogle- TxDDi update cn Scarmado development _ ~ Page 3 From: Dale Picha To: Fogle, Ken Date: 11 /21 /01 9:14AM Subject: TxDOT update on Scarmado development Ken...l spoke to Catherine this morning....Mr. Traweek's preference is to move the driveway as far south as possilble (ie, property line) where it will meet long-term-operational concerns. He was the one that ultimately granted the driveway at Exxon on the NW quadrant, after Pat Williams and Catherine. fought it for many years....he is operating under the assumption. that TxDOT cannot deny access unless they bought it. Also, he doesn't see any merit to building the driveway twice. bottom line: TxDOT's preference is to have the driveway as close to the property line as possible and still grant right-turn access from the NB exit ramp.- Stop bars and Yield signs. could help with NB and SB traffic on the frontage road. Catherine had no particular comments at this time on one-way operations between the ramp and Rock Prairie. dp From: Edwin Hard To: VMORGAN, JKEE, SVOLK, SHESTER Date: 3/20/98 10:45AM Subject: RP Extension, Driveways et al Yall cross your fingers...there's a possibility that access between 3 key landowners along the RP Road extension may actually be worked out. Since the PRC driveway variance for the David's driveways off of the Rock Priaire extension, David has approached the church about sharing a driveway with fiis site. The site layout David is pursuing pushes the driveway further from the intersection and has it wholly on the churches property. In our meeting with the Church reps a couple weeks ago, they were favorable to this because 1) their property on both sides of the road has access to the median opening, and 2) David will build everything and leave them a stub out. They were willing to agree to that then, but I wouldn't at that time b/c I wanted to meet with owners of the property across from Scamardo...Kleerekoper. I met with Mr. and 'Mrs. Kleerekoper this morning and I think they viewed the whole layout as favorable if 1) they get cross access from the Church's property on the north side of RP so they too will have access to the median opening and 2) they get a curb cut on the Frontage Road. The driveway they want on the Frontage Road Will not meet the ordinance, but it's one we might be able to approve at the staff evel in order to get this all worked out. I haven't looked at it closely yet, but if allowing his driveway means they'll agree to the whole concept of coordinated access points and easements between these 3 property owners, then it might be worth the trade-off. V/Jane/Scott let's look at it and see what yaltthink. Scott took David's new~xsite concept and incorporated it into a schematic of the RP road extension. It shows the median and how the median opening relates to David's, the Church's, and the Kleerekoper tract. David wants me to meet with him again with the Church folks. If we feel comfortable giving the Kleerekopers access on the Frontage. Road, then everything is about worked out. As it is now, when I meet with David and the Church,l'm going to tell them that we approve of thee. concept, with .the condition that the .Church provide a cross access easement on the north-side property for the Kleerekoper tract. ed CC: JCALLAWAY, Police Department.MSMITH Kati Q,~'`` ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~(e~z~ ~o~ ~~ Form 1284A (Rev. 10/93) ------- Design.-------=--- ~'XDOT county ----------------- ---------- . Date ------------------ HWy ------------------------ C-S-J --------- -------------- Ck Dsn ----------- DESIGN Design for __--!~i__!~~E1Y__aQEMoY9~~C~w~st!~cC7!_u1~----°--------------- - Date ------------------ -------------------------- DIVISION ------------- Sheet ____-- of ____-- ~_ ~~ .T _ _ . ~__ .~~~,.. fl~/~ ~ /--~CSCQI~T~Q~_:- UNIT ~'yN~T . ul, nrry 76TAL /v_4~ -D,$/L ~~nu)/~ ~'bratG~~iG_~~k'tVE~ - . _ . '5_l~ ~, e4 ,~23 ~ I, 871n. ~0 __ lo.~-o~~~ ~'~MOV~ S7~w~.B6~w~ ~'~L2,~"~ ._. sY 3.~4 2z5 73/, So ..I~4..031.3., _I~CMOyE.CANC.e~~~,~~~e3~'G~~rrE,e~....._>~F.. 2,sS.... ,m., 1~0 .. ~}D$.Q7 /p4-O5/7 ~~row£ CQrC~'e7E ~D~c~f~ !sL~ 5Y 8.©O_e !03 SO~• /5o-tiSo3 ._ _ '. b'fAUIN_G- ... _. NR _. . 75.00.. ' Z l,~O.DD ~vRN`P/,.QCE..Taos~lc (C~ =1 fn "~_ .... SX _ ~GO.'054.2 _r ' . I • CIS.... ` ~8~v 3 0~ , ~Co _../70 -300/ E 1~P2/G,47/oN .SYsr~,~I ~7iE-iiv ~ _.. ~.5 ' 5cn• 0 1 _500 , t nw~~,~.. ~....._ _ _e. .. ~£~i40~/D,E~ ~IAN7/~G ~~~,4RC', ,~~ ~ .. s~ SGP~ ~. ~...~ SOG..M e._ . _ _._ __ _, . S~~ra~ ~_ ~ ~, ooGZ,u~__. . J7,EM /11b, ~E~c~ir~toti! ~.. _ ~ UNir ~ .(~k~T QutY ~_ . ~TTi4.C...- ~ - _ f00 -0.51$ _ ,...~~~~. RG~ ~Gir~.Sic€~T f ~r~ ~ 2000 - _ m~ d3 ... _ e__ ~, ~.dD..G~. .. ) LF,..~ 5z9T.~5o2 _. ~~`rc. ~~~e ~~~n~~ ~rz2 g.40 /f~0 ._. _ 11,504.,00 . _ . ll $3D - 0,5q~ .£ . _. C.~+PBI'EbVA,_Y ~Cor~'c~'ET~/ ~ ~ l ...~ ~ _ .~,~ ~ ~~..~ F7/ &.~.% _. 5 3~ - v5o3 _...._ Concc~~~ _ p~~~cT/a~q.L - ~stAu YJ SY 4P, ~?-_ Cr ~ ~ S. 217.40 _- ~._- f E E S~~Y~~ w ~ I4, Sao __ .. _ ; ..~ _ v ~. k _ . _ _ : __. /~I o.(J/,411A7fOr1/~t~R~}''~f C L oNT~'Q L l 'f0'f , . ~jw ~~L~ ...~ _ ' . _.m _ - ~_ -- __; ~Ti4 L ~ ~ 2 3, 400` _; ........_o s : ~ Form 1284A (Rev. 10/93) ~i ~~ ~- ,-r ~f~ • ~ ~ ROCK ROAQ~ i R 1 E ' - `v G ~ 19 - pROPOSEb .R. .W. --.^ . Gq~ LAG ~ ~ ' ter. ~' ,i - 1 ~ __ . ~~i• ~ .~• i 1. t ~1, .q ~ x z ~.p~ n c 'r ~ ~~ - ~% - - -o ''~ I _ ~- ~ ~ O~ ;. .d, .~ 1 - - 1 R `~^ 1 ..~ / -•-~ ~ k/~/ t ,',~ . ~ /~• ~ 1\• . ~.. ~+•` .L• 1 1 •~. .. s .~ ` ~.{ -•i, , C~~ .~ .. ~ II ~-; K e R NG F2 a •~ '' ~-- ~2 I~~ ~ ~ l 1 =~~ - OCJ~~~c~r~ L~~.~4 ~ L~~~ l.a~l C -~t~ ~I ETO (~1 SOAS d.Aid~d0'I3AdQ 966E 69L 6L6$. 86 ~ ZT TO/TZ/TT ;~ i ~` ~j A I ~ ~Z .~ 4 ~~ 3 _ ; s n._ c~,~,~- _ ,.~ __ _~ ~ fi ~ ~+l {{~~{{±±`~J~J a} `'{r ~ }5i{ -mot) ~~k^ 0> *Wis4_..~. G'aa/ .. 1 ~~~ j ~ .. Pf ^ ~ o a. L ~, ~~ ,. ,~ .~ __ G~-- ~, j, . _ ~ ~ ~ i , ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ ~~la~t.C-`~t~~--~ ,, ~ ~ ~~ } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~. ,. l ~ ~ ~ -~, ~ ,_ _ ~ ~~~~- -mss "~ ,. a a ~ ~~ __ From: Veronica Morgan To: Edwin Hard, Jane Kee, Jim Callaway, Natalie Rui... Date: 10/27/98 2:47PM Subject: rock prairie'plaza and the rock prairie road extension i talked with Wallace trochesset today with Ija engineers regarding the above development. he has been asking. what size street will he have to build with this development. i told him the following after conferring with jim and ed on the matter. 1. his construction plans need to be for the 74' pavement section with a median and bike lanes.(per subdivision. ordinance) 2. his plans can then show that only yc~ of this section will be constructed now with this contract. my understanding from jim is that the city wilt at some future. date come back and construct the other ~~ of the road. 3. the storm sewer and inlets need to be designed for the whole street section and anything that has to be stubbed across to the median and plugged should be done with this contract: 4. the 18" waterline should be continued along the sh6 frontage and down this portion of rock prairie road that will be constructed. 5.there does not need to be a turnaround at the end of the roadway (rock prairie road) for two reasons: a.) the subdiv. orci. states that dead-ends shall be prohibited except short stubs to permit extension.(this would be a shortstub) and b.) because their drivewaywould be at the end and vehicles can use that entrance to turn around if necessary. office max/g. bush drive east is a good example of this. i think that is all we discussed. bob- you will probably .want to keep a tight hand on these plans when they get to you cuz you'll need them in 5-10 years when you build the other half of the street. v CC: Bill Riley, Bob Mosley, Mark Smith, Tony Michal... R„aF, Fy( m. ~ o.,,.~. E/ Page 1 - ~~ Shirley. Volk - RP Extension, Driveways et.al-:::....... ..::...:::::::.„.,,,,.::..v,,.:,,,,,:~.-:::...~ .,~ ::.::....::x :::::::...,.::::::......, From: Edwin Hard To: VMORGAN, JKEE, SVOLK, SHESTER Date: 3/20/98 10:45AM Subject: RP Extension, Driveways et al Yall cross your fingers...there's a possibility that access between 3 key landowners along the RP Road extension may actually be worked out. Since the PRC driveway variance for the David's driveways off of the Rock Priaire extension, David has approached the church about sharing a driveway with his site. The site layout David is pursuing pushes the driveway further from the intersection and has it wholly on the churches property. In our meeting with the Church reps a couple weeks ago, they were favorable to this because 1) their property on both sides of the road has access to the median opening, and 2) David will build everything and leave them a stub out. They were. willing to agree to that then, but I wouldn't at that time b/c 1 wanted to meet with owners of the property across from Scamardo...Kleerekoper. I met with Mr. and Mrs. Kleerekoper this rooming and I think they viewed the whole layout as favorable if 1) they get cross access from the Church's property on the north side of RP so they too will have access to the median opening. and 2) they get a curb cut on the Frontage Road. The driveway they want on the Frontage Road will .not meet the ordinance, but it's one we might be able to approve at the staff level in order to get thisall worked out. l haven't looked at it closely yet, but if allowing his driveway means they'll agree to the whole concept of coordinated access points and easements between these 3 property owners, then it :might be worth the trade-off. V/Jane/Scott let's look at it and see what gall think. Scott took David's new site concept and incorporated it into a schematic of the RP road extension. It shows the median and how the median .opening relates to David's, the Church's, and the Kleerekoper tract. David wants me to meet with him again with the Church folks. If we feel comfortable giving the Kleerekopers access on the Frontage Road, then everything is about worked out. As it is.now, when I meet with David and the Church, I'm going to tell. them that we approve of the concept, with the condition that the Church provide a cross access easement on the north-side property for the Kleerekoper tract. ed CC: JCALLAVNAY, Police Department.MSMITH .'C`!~'," N n dN' /\~i ~~ 4~_ Q~` 4 A i., LJA Engineering & Surveying, Inc. L,l~ 2929 Briarpark Drive Phone 713.953.5200 Suite 500 .Fax 713.953.5026 Houston, Texas 77042-3703 December 19, 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Preliminary Request for Oversize Participation Dear Commission: Our client is proposing a commercial development of an 8 acre tract of land located in the southeast corner of the intersection between the East Frontage Road of State Highway 6 and Rock Prairie Road. We are requesting oversize .participation on the extension of Rock Prairie Road. This extension is needed for access to the commercial development for traffic arriving off of Rock Prairie Road. This tract will frontage approximately 3001inear feet along Rock Prairie Road, refer to the attached layout. As shown in our Traffic Impact Analysis, by Kimley-Horn c~nd Associates, the traffic generated by the proposed site will only require a collector street cross section to adequately handle the projected traffic. The City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan (1997) indicates that an extension of Rock Prairie will be a minor arterial. The differences in the construction costs of these two different cross sections is what is being requested for oversize participation. The engineer's probable construction costs for the collector cross section is estimated to be $48,670.00. The probable construction costs for the minor arterial cross section is estimated to be $87,570.00, refer to the attached cost summary table. This difference of $38,900.00 is the request for oversize participation. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 953-5232. Very truly your, (./G C Wallace E. Trochesset Assistant Project Engineer Attachments i"J ~~~~ ~~~ Q H' m a D H. Z a~ 55~?~9Z~ ~a~ %Q q n ~' CU ~• ~. fD CU N ct,> z w ~, ~ r ~~ m 0 ~. D V O m m ~ ~ D m rn. D r moo. ~-, ~ ~o -o ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~' !:r^' ~^. V' ( }. s 9 Q J ~~ -~ -~ ~ m o ~° Ca ~~ a ~ ~ ~ o _ . m Q ~. ~ a~ ~ ~ ~D N '0 ~ R ~ ~F ~ tQ `~ G} ~ (~ ~ ~~ C C ~. ~'- ~ .~ ~ ~• A ~. ~ r ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ i U X ~" ~ Q C ~ `"~ ~1 t " CQ O O Q ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ^~ ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ ~ U1 tU ~ ~: as ~ ~ ~' ~'' 'G fp :tl "'S N Q. ~ p, C y ~- '` D o cD ~ o ~ ~ _ * * p ~ ~ 0 0 0 io o 0 a 0 o A n~ c ~ ~ ~ ' w: . ~ p D °D ' a ' ~ ~ ~` - .i ,t o co ,o ao o: ~ o a io o a 0 e ~ Y,~ ~' ~f. _~-~ ! - _ RACK PRA I R t E ~ READ, \~ .~ SON' 3 ~ ~" -( PROPOSED R.O.W.) - ~ ~- _ - ',~ ::,F~---s't ~` ~~~- t . ; _ ';a; ., -- ;. 4~; \ ~. ~~ j ~ ~~ ~ s . z ~ _ R ~ . ~T 1+~~ - ~ 1 ~1 ~_ ~ , ' .fin y' '~ ~..'` ~~. ,_ _ ~} ,_ ~^ 1 T 1 ~. I ' _ _~: 'i '1` ~ ~' ~` ~ ~ 1 ---' s ~; - ~ ~-- -- ~, _ - ~~ _ y G - _ 9~ - - ~_ y. I .. '~ - _ ~- -~~. - . - I ~ '~. - ~ " _ _ j _I ~: ~ 1 ~~4 - \ - A ~ ,, - :f_ .~, p I ~~~. - . _ -- £ y ~' ~. ~" ~ - ''~ 1 - ._ ., I., s - , 1 I i ,. , I i -C _ - J ~ ~ - y \ ~~. t \ s - ~ i1 W ~ y •W 3as- - _ O k" ~ ;y, 2a_ £ ~ 24.40 ~ ~ 3' -y C, G -~ r. -a ,4 ~ ' Q ~~ ~Q~ N s ~ G'G ~9 ~~~9 q3y / ~~ ~cG ~ ~ G~ ~* L - . ti~ ~ ~.W.~ o P .. R R• P G j I j/ ~ ~ OCK~2~4 ~~~ ~~~~~u~~ ''~ ~ - .~ ~ p°~ NiAR, 2.1998 7:56AM THE WOODLANDS CORP 713 377 6363 F~ .~ ~ rt .~ -~ ;; , ~•y s /-s „ .~ z ,~ ~. ~ ~~, ,:- ~ ~ ~~ b ~ ~ ~~', ~- =~ ,,.0 ~ ~ ,~ NO, 7528' P, 1 .~ ~ l / ` / I // ~ ~ o ~~ ~ l;'. ~ ~ , \~ ~ , ~~ (%'' ~~ , °_ .~ ~~ ~ // ~~ .1i,~\ .~ ~. ~~ ?~ //~` \~r- ~, ss/ ~ ~' i ~ ~~ s~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sue/ ~~ ~ .~ E STATICJN OLLEG C P. O. Box 9960 .1101 Texas Avenue College.Station, TX 77342 Tel: 409 764.3500 IIIIEMORANDUM TO : Project Review Committee (PRC) FROM : Ed Hard, Transportation Planner DATE : January 14, 1998 RE: Driveway Variances for Rock Prairie Plaza, Case 98-301 This item is for PRC's consideration of four driveway variances for the Rock Prairie Plaza, a proposed 8.217 acre commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of the intersection of the SH 6 East Frontage Road and the future extension of Rock Prairie Road. The .preliminary plat for this site is scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 15, 1998. The applicant is LJA Engineering on behalf of the owner, David W. Scamardo. Their letter of request for driveway variances is . attached. It should be noted this site, as with most major corner sites along the SH 6 Bypass in the B-CS area, is particularly difficult to :.provide access to. This is because the entry and. exit ramps.. along the: Bypass are: located in relative. close proximity to the intersections which limits safe and acceptable locations for access at the corners. Staff has worked vvith the applicant over the .past several months on this site. We expressed our general. concerns for- traffic .early on and provided indication .that the driveways would not meet the City's driveway ordinance and probably not gain the approval Texas Department of Trarisportation's (TXDOT). This- notwithstanding, the applicant has elected to pursue all of the variances. The attached conceptual site plan illustrates the four driveways proposed. by the applicant. Driveway "B" and "r" are proposed on the future extension of Rock Prairie Road and driveways "A" and "D"-are. proposed on the East Frontage Road. Under the proposed layout, none of the driveways meet the City's driveway ordinance. Staff has forwarded the applicant's request for driveway's A and D to the TXDOT. They have denied the request for driveway D. See attached letter. Home of Texas A&M University PRC Memo, Page 2 ~ Staff is primarily concerned with driveways B and D. The variance request, ordinance requirement(s), and staff recommendation for each driveway are discussed in the I, following paragraphs. ~ DRIVEWAY. A. This proposed right-in right-out driveway is located on the SH 6 ~~ Frontage Road positioned about midway between the Rock Prairie intersection .and SH 6 exit ramp. It is 200 feet south of Rock Prairie Road and 230 feet north of the exit ramp. The City's ,driveway ordinance calls for it to be 275 feet from Rock Prairie and 250' north of the exit ramp. There is not enough distance in between the exit ramp and '~ Rock Prairie intersection for a driveway to meet the ordinance requirements in this area. However, to deny an access point in this area would seriously limit the developability of this tract. Staff recommends approval of a right-in right-out driveway in this area but that its exact location should be determined with` the site plan. The TXDOT has indicated that Driveway A is acceptable provided that. is located as far north from the ramp as possible without .violating other driveway requirements. Staff agrees that Driveway A should moved slightly. closer to the intersection and farther away from the ramp. Staff will work' with the a licant and TXDOT to workout the final location for Driveway A. pp j DRIVEWAY B. This right-in .right-out driveway is proposed on the future Rock Prairie Road extension 130 east. of the. Frontage Road. By ordinance it should be 230 .feet from fhe Frontage Road. As part of the justification for this variance, the applicant sites a section in the driveway ordinance which allows driveways to be located closer to the intersection when the property has a lack of frontage. This section is not applicable in this case since the property has 300 feet of frontage on the future Rock Prairie extension and therefore by ordinance one access point would be allowed (i.e. Driveway C). Staff recommends denial of Driveway B. The close proximity of this driveway to the intersection will be problematic and impact the efficiency of the signal. The primary u ers into and out of the drivewa .While the oncerns stems from the left turn mane v c Y ~ triangular island proposed in the driveway will be helpful, it will not fully. eliminate left- s turning traffic from using this driveway. Staff could recommend approval of a driveway at this location without the right-in right-out restriction if a median is included in the Rock Prairie Road extension. i DRIVEWAY C. This full service driveway is located on Rock Prairie Road approximately 160 feet east of Driveway B. By ordinance the distance between j driveways B and C should be 230 feet. The applicant again incorrectly sites the section of the driveway ordinance which allows a reduced spacing distance for corner properties which would be denied access due to a .lack of frontage. This section does not a I since the site has about 300 feet of fronts a on Rock Prairie Road. pP Y g With Driveway B removed from Rock Prairie Road, Driveway C would meet ordinance .1~ 1 PRC Memo, Page 3 requirements since the distance between it and Frontage Road is greater than the required 230 feet. Staff recommends approval of briveway C with the condition that it be moved ~' slightly west in order that its curb return does not extend into the right-of-way which in front of the tract immediately east of the site. '~ DRIVEWAY D. This driveway is located on the Frontage Road positioned directly across from the SH 6 Exit Ramp. Under City ®rdinance and TXDOT policy, driveways on the Frontage Road mustbe located at least 250 feet away from an exit ramp. The TXDOT has indicated that Driveway D is not acceptableat its present location and that an access point at the site's southern property corner would be acceptable. The proposed .location of D across from the exit ramp could not be legally "signed" to provide for safe and proper traffic control. Such a driveway would create a "4-way" intersection with the exit ramp. Under state law, vehicles exiting from freeway ..ramps have the right-of-way. If Driveway D were in place, vehicles exiting .from SH 6 would be able to '.continue across the frontage road and into the site without stopping. This, in turn, could require placing stop signs on the Frontage Road which is clearly not appropriate at a private driveway. The proposed. location of Driveway D is also potentially hazardous. Some vehicles exiting from SH 6 desiring to enter the cite would stop on the ramp. and potentially cause high speed rear end accidents. It is also possible there that a disoriented individual could exit briveway D from the site and proceed down the SH6 exit ramp i going the wrong way. Staff recommends denial of Driveway D. The TXDOT. has the ultimate. approval or denial authority for access onto state rights-of-way. .Even if this driveway .were approved by the City, it does not appear. likely TXDOT would approve a permit for construction of Driveway D. DRIVEWAYS E and F. These are the two driveways shown on the site concept taking access to the existing Rock Prairie Road east. Staff recommends approval. of only one driveway on to Rock Prairie east. The applicant has not requested a variance for .either of these driveways.. In making a decision regarding access points, we must not only consider how they may impact traffic conditions today but also 5 to 15 years from now. With the City's continued growth to the south, the Rock Prairie Road interchange has potential to be one of the City's busiest intersections in the future. ~~ l ROCK - PRA I R I E READ. ON a' (PROPOSED,R.O.W.~) ~j I ~~ -~ ~ t ~'; Concc~ ~ ov~ ~~ 11~~ ~ ~ ,. ~~ -- ry -r~ G~ ~~ s ~ _ - ~ _. ao ~ ,. ~, a-` _ _ - s ~ ~ ~} s ~ ~ ~: - _ .a p a __ `~ ~ ~ + -~ ~. ~ ~ ~ R _- '" - i ~ ~ . a ~ _ Lam. _.-- _K . ~ C'y t G ~ - - K p~S ~ - _ _ !, ` _ -. 4__ - i __ _ _. ,.. ~. - - i ~~ i ~. \ ~~~ a-- ' S '. _ ' 1 j;'~ /' . ' /~Y _ .. 1 T/// _ ~ 1 ~T.:. ~ _ ~ '•~ _ ~ ~~ _ = ~ _ .. ~ .C ~ _ y .. _ ~ y. f ~ ~` s ~ ~ _ \~~ k " .W ~ag_t. yam. ~ C ~_a8'~3. ~ ~ ~ F RE q39 . .~ . // p ~ G~ G~, FL y~ PRP G R'D W / Oy I 1~ ~/ Texas Department of Transportation 1300 N. TEXAS AVE. • BRYAN, TEXAS 77803-2760 • (409) 778-2165 January 13, 1998 Mr. Edwin Hard, AICP Transportation Planner City of College Station P_ Q._Box 9900 College Station, Texas 77842-9960 Dear IVIr. Hard: Afl_er reviewing the praposedl~ock ~'rairie_Plaza Iocatecl=at the southeast corner of the SH 6 East Frontage Road and Rock Prairie Road, I offer the following comments: • Driveway_ Ais acceptable pravidn~it_ is_ located as far_northfromthe. ramp as possible without violating other driveway requirements. • Driveway II i~ unacceptable at its present location directly across-from the SH 6 Exit Ramp. An acceptable location is to the south at the southerly property. corner. Sincerely, ~~~~,.~- Patrick T. Williams, P. E. Area Engineer PTWIb~a An Equal Opportunity Employer WA E~ 2929 Bdarpark Drive Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77042-3703 December 19, 1997 8~ Phone 713.953.5200 Fax 713.953.5026 Inc. Planning and Zoning Commission Cityof College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Requests for Driveway Location Variances Dear Commission: Our client is proposing a commercial development of an 8 acre tract of land located in the southeast corner of the intersection between the East Frontage Road of State Highway 6 (SH6) and Rock Prairie Road. This development will be constructed in two phases. The first phase will be located in the most northern section of the tract and will frontage approximately 300 linear feet along Rock Prairie Road to the north and approximately 2501inear feet along the eastfrontage road to the west. The proposed development for this first phase consists of a 6,500 square feet convenience center consisting of a six bay gas service retailstore, adrop- off laundry (no plant facilities) and two fast food drive-thru outlets. The second phase consists of 50,000 square feet for mixed use retail and 2,500 square feet for a fast food restaurant. The attached figure. shows the tract with proposed phasing, locations of the proposed commercial facilities, -and driveway locations. Obviously access to this site, particularly the convenience center, is very critical to the to the viability of the development. We have had. two meetings with the Staff primarily to discuss the. access issues and believe we have a good understanding of the issues. We are. proposing shared entrances from both the proposed Rock Prairie Road as well as the Highway 6 frontage road, similar to the convenience center located across. the interchange from our site. Our T.LA. has indicated thatthe majority of the near fixture traffic will be accessing our site from new Rock Prairie.. Staff suggested "modified Right-in, Right-out" access points (indicated as Driveway "A" and Driveway "B" in this variance request) for the main access points to the :convenience center, as is shown on Figure 3 again not unlike that,of the convenience. center. across the interchange from our site. Because ofthis, Driveway"A" access will be limited to traffic from the Highway 6 off-ramp and the frontage road.. Traffic turning right at the new Rock Prairie/Highway 6 frontage,Road would not be allowed to make (legally) a left hand turn from the Highway 6 frontage Road. TXDOT has stated to us that his segment of frontage road will become "one-way" at some point in the future (most likely within the next ten years) which would also eliminate any possibility of access to traffic heading north on new Rock Prairie. Because ofthis Driveway "C" becomes a critical access point for the new Rock Prairie traffic wanting to access the convenience center. Without Driveway "B" new Rock Prairie traffic would. be force to drive past the center and use the shared access Driveway "C" which we believe would greatly impaired easy access to the convenience center. Denying easy access to the convenience we believe would have a negative; impact on the potential viability of the center. We'have laid the convenience center site plan out with several different variations and the layout shown: on Figure 3 appears to make the most sense for the overall development. These centers typically are located at major intersections and we believe the layout shown on Figure 3 is the best solution forthe overall site. ~s Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 1997 Page 2 The entire 8 acre site has a total of six driveway connections. Two connections .are along new Rock Prairie Road (driveways B and C), two connections are along the east frontage road {driveways A and D), and two connections are along Old Rock Prairie Road. (driveways E and F). .Variances: are being requested for driveways A, B, C, and D. The following are requests for variances on an individual basis for each driveway location. Variance request for the location of Driveway A: Driveway A is the northern most driveway located along the east frontage road. Driveway A is the main entrance to the phase one development along the east frontage road. Variances being requested; 1) the reduction of the adjacent drive spacing for major arterials, section 3(h), Table 2, of the Driveway Access Location .and Design Policy, (DALDP) between Rock Prairie Road and driveway A, from the minimum spacing of 275 feet to a distance of 200 feet and 2) he reduction of Freeway Frontage Road Access and Location Requirements, section 3 (i) i of the DALDP, for the distance between the exit. ramp gore along the east .frontage road: and driveway.A from 250 feet to 230 feet. Variance justifications: Driveway A does meet the requirements of section 4 (c) of the DALDP stating that when the requirements of Tables 1 and 2 can not be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access driveways or cross access easements have. been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach maybe located closer to the corner than 120. feet. for. a major arterial Driveway A is located 200 feet from this intersection. m Driveway A is being designed as a right in and right out driveway to eliminate vehicles pursuing a left turn into the development offofthe east frontage road and causing congestion close to the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and the east frontage road. This right in and right out driveway configuration;would produce a smooth entrance and exit maneuver offofthe east frontage road. ® The location of driveway A is positioned such that it is maximizing the distance from Rock Prairie Road by locating itself as far south as possible along the east frontage road and still providing access to phase one, while encroaching only 20 feet into the 250 foot requirements of section 3(i)i of the DALDP. As shown in our Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), by Kimley-Horn and Associates, 40% of all traffic generated for the phase one development arrives along the east frontage road of SH6. This driveway A access is .needed along the east frontage road to produce easily accessible and successful commercial development. Denying this access would cause more congestion and longer delay times closer to the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and SH6. Without this driveway. vehicles may even refuse to use the commercial development. With these variance justifications and the need for supplying easy access for 40% of the total users. of the phase one development we request Commission's approval of this variance for the location for driveway A. Variance request for the location of Driveway B: Driveway B is the western most driveway located along Rock Prairie Road . Driveway B is the main entrance into the phase one development along Rock Prairie Road. The variance being requested, is for the reduction Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 1997 Page 3 of the adjacent drive spacing for minor arterials, section 3(h) Table 2, of the DALDP, between the east frontage road and driveway B, from the minimum spacing of 230 feet to a distance of 130 feet. Variance iustifications: • Driveway B does meetthe requirements of section 4(c) of the DALDP stating that when the requirements of Tables 1 and 2 can not be met due to iack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access driveways or cross access easements have been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach may be located closer to the corner than 100 feet for a minor arterial. Driveway B is located 130 feet from this intersection. • Driveway B is being designed as a right in and right out driveway to eliminate vehicles pursuing a left turn into the development off of Rock Prairie Road and causing congestion close to the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and the east frontage road. • As shown in our TIA, 60% of all traffic generated for the phase one development arrives along Rock Prairie Road with 80% of this traffic entering driveway B. This driveway B access is needed.along Rock Prairie,Road to produce easy access and successful commercial development. With these variance justifications and the need for supplying easy access for almost 50% of the total users of the phase one development we request Commission's approval of this variance for the location for driveway B. Variance request for the location of Driveway C: Driveway C is located along Rock Prairie Road in the most easterly corner of the development. Driveway C is the main entrance into both phase one and phase two developments along Rock Prairie Road. The variance being requested, is for the reduction of the adjacent drive spacing for minor arterials, section 3(h) Table 2, of the DALDP, between driveway B and driveway C, from the minimum spacing of 230 feet to a distance of 160 feet. Variance justifications: • Driveway G does meet the requirements of section 4(c) of the DALDP stating that when the requirements of Tables 1 and 2 can not be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access driveways or cross access easements have been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach. maybe located closer to the corner than 100 feet for a minor arterial. Driveway C is located 160 feet from outer edge of driveway B. e Driveway C is being located as close as possible to the eastern most property line to maximize the distance between the two driveways. Driveway C is being designed as a full access driveway and provides access to the phase one and phase two development. There are two_main needs for driveways C; 1) to allow access to phase two without forcing vehicles to maneuver thru the phase one gas station and 2) to allow egress from phase one and phase two for vehicles wanting to travel west along Rock Prairie Road. Planning and Zoning. Commission December 19, 1997 Page 4 • As shown in our TIA at full development, 25% of all traffic generated for the phase. one and two development arrives thru driveway C. With these variance justifications and the need for supplying access and egress for both phase one and phase two developments separately, we request Commission's approval ofthis variance for the location for driveway C. Variance request for the location of Driveway D: Driveway D is the southern most driveway located along the east frontage road. Driveway D is the main entrance to the phase two development along the east frontage road. The variance being requested is for the reduction of Freeway Frontage Road Access and Location Requirements, section 3(i)i of the DALDP, for the distance between the exit ramp gore along the east frontage road and driveway D from 250 feet. to 160 feet. Variance justifications: • Driveway D,does meet the requirements of section 3(h) Table 2 of the DALDP between old Rock Prairie Road and driveway A. • Driveway D is located as far south as possible along the east frontage road while still',providing room far the future commercial growth of a fast food restaurant. • As shown in our TIA, approximately 30% of all traffic generated for the full phase development arrives at driveway D. This driveway D access is needed along the east frontage road to provide a main'entrance into phase two, that is easily accessible and helps promote a successful commercial development. Denying this access would undermine the commercial development of phase two, With these variance justifications and the need for positive commercial development in phase two, we request Commission's approval ofthis variance for the location for driveway D. These four variance requests are being asked to help make this development function another developments located in College <Station area, with ease of access and an opportunity to be a successful commercial development. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 9',53-5232. Very truly yours, s ~--- Wallace E. Trochesset Assistant Project Engineer Attachment. - ~ P ~ Traffl`iic trnpac~ Ana~~ss Rock Prairie Plaza College ~#atan, Texas Prepared for: L7A Engineering & Surveying.Inc. Prepared .try:. Kimley-Horn and Associates,. Inc. Qecember 1997 ~O~ KimleyHom and Associates, Inc. r 1 n y Table of Contents Introduction .................................................... .......... .........:.......................................................:......1 2 : Existing Zoning and Development ...............: ................................................. ......:......................... 2 : . . . .......................... .................. ........ . Existing Transportation Network ........................................... 4 . : ........................................ .... Proposed Development .........................:............................................ . 6 : : .................. ............... .........................:................................................. Traffic Volumes ................ . 11 : : ......... Operational Analysis ......: .................... .......................... ........ ............................................ Assessment of Traffic Impact .................................:............................:.........................................12 : Pl f Sit i :: 15 . . ....... an .: ..............:..... e on o Discuss .............. . . ............................................................. Summary of Findings ...:...: ........................... ...............................:.................................................17 List of Figures Figure L Site Location...: .......................:...................................:....:..................................... l Figure 2. .Existing Lane Configuration ................................::....:...............:.......................... 3 Figure 3. Proposed Development.: ......................................................................................:. 5 Figure 4. Existing Background Traffic - PM Peak Hour .........................:....:......:............... 9 Figure 5. Projected Background Traffic - PM Peak Hour..........: ....:.................................. 10 Figure 6. Site Generated Traffic -Phase 1 ......................................................................... 13 Figure 7. Site Generated Traffic -Full Buildout ....................:..............:............................ 14 List of Tables Table 1. AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ...............:.....................:..................................... 7 Table 2. PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..: ....................................:................:................... 8 Table 3. Level of Service Definition for Signalized Intersections :......: ............................11 Table 4. Level of Service Definition for Unsignalized Intersections ................................12 ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page i ~ and Associates, Inc. R:\khaU..JA\Scarmudo TIA.doc Y ~` Introduction The purpose of thisstudy is to evaluate the traffic impact of a proposed development in College Station, Texas. The proposed development is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 6 (SH 6) and Rock Prairie Road. The site location is shown in Figure 1. This study analyzes the impact of the. traffic generated by the proposed development on the surrounding. transportation network. Specifically, this analysis .will involve an evaluation of the existing traffic patterns and. access conditions in the vicinity of the proposed development, an evaluation of the traffic generation by the proposed development, an evaluation of the intersection of the East Frontage Road and Rock Prairie Road, and a discussion of issues surrounding the proposed site development. ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page 1 ~ and Associates, Inc. \\HAL9000\PROPOSALUchaU.JA\Scarmardo T'fA.doc 7 j N~ 2 m ~~ • 4ti~1 ~QO~, PRQJECT 'LOCATKNI s~ ~, 9 `21 P1 ~ ~, Z~NE~ C-~' Q~ P`~`,~1G fly POOH 9~ 6' ~ OC' ~ a ~-O Q;©P ~~~~~~ C?QP~~~ ~~ OJ P~1~G~P~ 0~' FIGURE 1. SITE. LOCATION Existing Zoning and Development The City of College Station's,Planning and Zoning Commission has designated the land between Rock Prairie Road and Old Rock Prairie Road to the east of SH 6 as District C-l. The "General Commercial" designation allows for general commercial and retail uses which serve .the entire community and its visitors. Examples of permitted uses include auto repair, bank, bookstore, car wash, childcare, gas station, hardware store, motel, etc. Rock Prairie Road is heavily developed to the west of SH 6 with residential, hospital, retail, and park properties. Within the last three years, a bank, small office complex, and gas station have. been developed to the west. of SH 6 at Rock Prairie Road. There are. presently. no developments to the east of SH 6 at Rock Prairie Road. Sparse residential development exists to the south of the proposed site. Existing Transportation Network SH 6 is a four lane highway. The .highway splits into either Business 6 or the East Loop Bypass directly north of the proposed development. Business 6 serves as the primary thoroughfare for north-south mobility in the Bryan/College Station community. The East Loop provides high- speed mobility and access to the regional mall. (among other sites), approximately two miles north of the proposed development.. A grade separated; diamond interchange is located at the intersection of Rock Prairie Road (a major arterial) and SH 6. Figure 2 depicts the lane configuration of the diamond interchange intersections.. Presently, Rock Prairie Road intersects the East Frontage Road in a T formation. The interchange. may be referred to as a "tight diamond" in that the SH 6 exit ramps are located within 400 feet of the intersections,. limiting the potential for main lane access to properties developed along the frontage. between the ramp-and Rock Prairie Road. Frontage road access is presently two-way except for the'East Frontage Road north of Rock Prairie .Road which is one-way (i.e., northbound). The Bryan District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) predicts that the frontage roads will remain in this. configuration for at least the next ten years. The. City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan (1997) indicates an east extension of Rock Prairie Road. at SH 6 to more efficiently connect -the eastern most Rock Prairie Road (a.k.a. Old Rock Prairie Road). The plan designates this extension as a rrunor arterial. ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page 2 ~ and Associates, Inc. \\HAL9000\PROPOSAUkha\IJA\Scarmardo TIAdoc 7 ~ 6 Lt. C 4. W NORTW a I+I,j 5~6 SI~I~I EXXON ~ ---~ ~ I 1 f I -- ~.~ ~ ~' 1 I ~ I ROCK. PRAIRIE BAkK ~ } s /,. a FIGURE 2. EXISTING LAND CONFIGURATION (S . SM`OIJLDER } DCD RDCK PRAIRIE i ~ Proposed Development The proposed development will consist of approximately SO,000 square feet of mixed retail (i.e., florist, Chinese buffet, anchor store, boutique, barber, etc.); 6,500 square feet of a mixed use gas and retail (i.e., gas, food, car wash, dry cleaner); and 2,500 square feet of a fast food restaurant facility. The. site occupies approximately 6 acres, with 820 feet along frontage of SH 6, 300 feet on the northern most portion of the property, and 250 feet beyond the presently developed site of ~' Curry Plumbing Company at the south end of the site. A church borders the property along the eastern most side. Figure 3 depicts the proposed layout for the development. f~ ~' ^®^ Kimley-Horn Page4 ~ and Associates,inc. UHAL9000\PROPOSAUkha\LIA\Scarmardo 1TA.doc ,~ v ~ t ~ , ~ . . s ~ ry ~ z ~ w ~-~~ N ~: ~ , ~. ~. . A I.n JJ~++ ~p r' ~ -.. , , _.. ` ~ m ~_" } ,~ .. ~, ~ _.. .... ~ it - ~ ~ V r1 1~ S - A , _, ` _,- , ~~ ~ ~ _~ i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ n I ~ ~ ~_.._ L~ i i Traffic Volumes 1 1 Recent development along the western side of SH 6 warranted that new traffic counts be performed in order to accurately estimate the background traffic volumes. Turning movement counts were conducted. at the intersections of Rock Prairie Road with each frontage road as well as at the northbound SH 6 exit ramp south of Rock Prairie Road. Presently, the intersections operate as four way, stop controlled. Signals have recently been installed but are not yet operational. Traffic counts were taken during the morning and evening, from 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM, respectively, Tables 1 and 2 provide the data collected during both the AM and PM peaks on Tuesday, December 2, 1997. The peak hours for the morning and evening were 7:15- 8:15 AM and 5:00-6:00 PM, respectively. Since most retail establishments do not open before 10:00 AM, the surrounding transportation network would be most impacted by the proposed site development during the evening peak. Therefore, the PM peak hour traffic was used to estimate the background raffic. To assess the impact of future background traffic, projections were made to the year .2000 assuming a growth rate of 6% per year.. Figures 4, and 5 depict the existing and projected background traffic. I ~ Kimley-Horn Page 6 ^~^ and associates, Inc. \\HAL9000\PROPOSAL\khaV,JA\Scarmazdo 1TA.doc t i l6 C O . d ': . ~ ` ~ ~ a ~ ~ O ~ ~ N r ~ ~ = 7 O ~ ~ U N rn rn rn f6 r ~ ~ d v c ~ ~ ~ V- ~ .r O ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ W O LL ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ N a ~z~ a ° '°~ _ .~ (~ d d ~ d Q W ~ a . ~ ~°a~ J ~ T r ~ M O r M N. O . N W J O W O M O O r M r r ~ M a J ~ ~ ~ 0 0 r r N 0 0 0 'd' L O d '~ ~lC L a v a S C C •i O s c c a t W J rpm ~ Q ~. O n F .' ~ 0. O ~ r ~ N ~ c~ M c~ v N ~ r ~ ~ r d' O M M r ~ W 0 H > J Q F- ~ N O a0 O M d' M O a0 O M N N M 0 M 0 M ~ 0 O O r r N N r r ~ r N OD p N Z O U N N M N N O r N n M O O ~ ~ r O Q W r W O r CD r O N N f0 N r 0 0 ~ 0 N I~ p J J ~ 0 0 W O 0 M V l 0 0., ~ f 0 M M ~ ' M ~ Q ~ c V r M p Z C~ Q' O. N d' N O ~ d' O ~ Off. ~ ~ ~ ~ r 0 ~' Z' ' M M f~O ~ ~ N n N ~ C~O'. N ~ W. J C7 O ~ r o M .o V o O ~ r o M ~ ~ o O J c ~ ~ W 1~ n n co oD aD W cji Q om = LL t H ' Y ~ r ~ ~ M ~ ~ .. N ~ O ~ O do do do o '' ~ d r~ n a a 1 S i 3 t l i u 1 ~ tl '-' ~ u m 7 'D j ~ O (n y (9 7 -~ 7 ~ O i ~ i ~ O ~ i f6 ~ ~ 1 °_ O N u L ~L ~ ~ ~ y y~ U N p o f6 ~ ~ N ~ ~ ' ~ ~o .~ V w a`ao Y W .+ v U a e ~a~ J W Q~ O O V' V ~ W ~ OrD ~ (~O O O O N M V ~ V N N N N st O p 1-' > J ~ M M ~ ~ st' M O N O n r N n p M O F H 2 r tp r N N r N r M r N CO O r Z U O~ C0 o H ~ ~ = N M ~ ~ M N r ~ ~ N n. 0 f- W M O st ~ O O r st VO' E N O J O J n 0 ~. ~ ~ O M W ~ W. W r tN p H O W N ar0 ~ N N ~ ~ O O N a0 T ~ ~ ~ 0 H ~ ~ W= ~ a0 N N O r ~ ~ n N ~ 0 '. ~ o LL W r O r N O r 0 0 b N M W M I . 1 ' O J O ~ N N '. M CO 0 0 ~ ~ M ~ ~' r O r to r N ~ Z = C O 7 N M to r ~ O M N f0 M ~ f~ M ~ ~ lOC> O M W N ~,. ~ _ ~ . iy r r ~ m S ~, ~~ N O M CO V' r f0 r f0 f~ M ~O M N M M n O 0 ~ i~~ M N O W ~ M et N M N M M N N ~ r ~ J . J ~ ~ ~ N N r O ~ V'. Q ~ ~ C O [~ ~ CO r et O F .; ` D Z ~ ~ Cfl U N N CO tp f0 I~ M sF r d' Cfl M O d' ~ M n V N ~ _ O ~ m ' ~ i Z = to r O W 00 a0 f0 '~1' ~ °~ N O H L ~ L f0 W r CO M a N M t~ N ~ O d' r O ~ N M. O ~ ~ p J r ~n o M ~n V o O ~ O M to V O O J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r; ~ ao co ao ci F ~ _ _ O ~ ~ O ~ M O Y N d i~ , ~ r- V ti c0 co . co ~ co f 6 d D. d R N C O ` ~ a Y N v ~ ~+ ~ C it ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ V N ~ N d A (jj ~ p ~ O I ~ ~ ~ li F' ~ ~. ~ O 10 2 ~ p ~ W ~; ~ (~ N ~ a ~z a ~~ ~ d ^^L I.L W Y 0. O ~ o 1 ~aV J F o rn ti o ~n ~ ao n 0 W ~ J p ~- W m rn ~n o ~n o eo n d J ~ q CL F- ~ .- O N O O O O O M _ d' J W F ~ 00 I~ ~ ~ ~ . Q O N N N N c N ~ N . T N r'i N a 0 r O m N M O M p H > J H r ~ r N V.. OOi ~ ~ N O N ~ W 0 .- .- N N E ~ N M p F Z 0 =. C~ O N N ~ M ~ ~ W N M N V M M N V ~ O ~ ~ ~ g u LL M V N N ~ ~ ~ O O n M fO ifi ~ V' tl' O M W . - N . - ~ ~ N ~ O J J ~ _ a0 O 0 V' ~ V' M. V' V M V' M M ~ Z m Q' r N N r O N ~ 00. ~ ~ ~ pOp ~ . O Z LL ap N O M V' M N N d' M c0 N c0 N M N N N N ~ (My W J . N E O M ~fJ V O O ~ 0 M'. to V O O ~ ', J C .~. O ~ v v ~ ui ~ii vi io io ~ ~ _ _ ~"' `6 ° v ° ~' ° v ° ~ m t6 a v r i v v o Sri ui r ~ i iri o io H m 0 u a _ 'O O d ~~ a` v a Z C 4 .~ 'n n C N N M C C C N ~ O i LL S y u W O u O U N m m O ~ ~ N N (0 Q N a ' ~ U (n d' ~ V1 M t ~ O ~ (OV. ~ ~ ~ f ~ >. ~ '- t p. E N Q f++6 N O ~ O ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~. N U N ~' N N N O N O O N \° (O N d ~ N ~ ~ O F' F ~.. 7 N N ~ Z ~ ~. ~ = Y C ° '~ ~ ~ N • - ~ Y m ~- Q O ° ` ~ a 3 « o N a : ~n.U J W 0 M N 1- J p t0 M ~ M 0 ( M ~ 7 V V ~ v m c'~ LO M ~` M N V ~ ~ W O O J F M f~ N (O O t0 O N V N r CO N C prj O M N M N N N N ~ ~ N ~ ZC7 ~ ~ O N O O N O (O O V O A 0 ~ O m = M N M N N N ~ N O N oND G H W J N « N V' N ~ ~ r N ~ ~? J H N O M ~ M N O O W 0 0 VO' O O O 0 `- ~ O H ~ = Z C f~ 9 N M N f~ M M M V' M V' V M M R M ~ N ~ 7 ~ ~ W ~ 0 ~ 00 H ~ O M ~ M O ~ O O M O ~ (O N ~ ~ . O _ . e., r ~ ~ P ~ O W ~ d' ~ M ~ N r ~ ~ N h W M J O J Q F O V' M ACS tY ~ O GO V O N N (O O T OD N O N N f~ N T Q ~ ~ N N N E . ~ N aD p H ~ Z M O cp N M N N N O M O r W M ~ ~ ~ ~ f0 r ~ oD N O 0 m S ' ~ = V VO' ~Mf7 (MO ~ r f~O f~ ~ r N 0 i F 0 W V' ~' V t^O tN0 f00 ~ ~ o ~ t00 ao N ~ J O J F 0 V' 1n I~ ap M O 1~ O N W N ~ R W N N ~ N ~ F d. N E p Z ~ = U' M M 'cr O N O (O M ~' M M M V M O M ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~m Z = d' V ~t h ~ M (O M M M ~ d' N LL R W ~ eD N V' ~ V' N . I~ N N O ~ O ~ ~ ~ N 01 M ~ J ~ O M N V O O ~ O M u) V O O ~ J C ~ = O _ ~ v v iri iii ip ~n td io ~ ~ ~ _ H v v v i~ ~; ui ui i~ ~ d ~ o O U _G N" N m O h Q a cco O Z N Y N X .,N. O U C N O O1 c .` H O f0 .~ a U 0 1 ~H 6 mom ~: ~. N N N EXXON 4. ~- ® 85 ~ i2 --a- 3:89 - T34 144 BANK ~~~ i~ tat ROCK. PRAIRIE ~o o~ SH 6 51 Q ro y~+~~ , NORTH FIGURE 4. EXISTING BACKGROUND TRAFFLC PM PEAK H`OU'R (5-6 PM ~.O R~K PRAIRII i N 4. W SH 6 N Ir! !/! M! Nt EXXaN ~5 ® t01' _.~ 463 ~ 44 8T4 172 BANK O N,0~1 ~ r 156 RDCK PRAIRIE. N r' } 61 3, ._-' to y~.+ti~ i SH 6 NORTH FIGURE 5. PROJECTED BACKGRQUND TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR t5-6 PM) 6% GROWTH PER: YEAR'. OLD RDCK PRAIRIE 1 f ^ ^ L Anal. sis rationa Oe p Y When evaluating traffic volumes, whether link volumes or turning movement volumes, it is common to compare levels of service to ascertain the impact. of additional traffic volumes on a roadway network.- Before discussing the various analyses performed in this study, it is important to understand what is meant by level of service (LOS). Level of service for signalized. intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the. average stopped delay per vehicle. fora 15-minute analysis period.. Table 3 shows the definitions of level of service for signalized intersections. Table 3. Level of Service Definition for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Operating Conditions Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, Le., less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the A green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low dela . Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0'seconds per vehicle. B This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. Level of Service C describes. operations with. delay in the 7ange of 15.1 #0 25.0 seconds per C vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many till pass through the intersection without stopping. Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 seconds per D vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable congestion, longer: cycle lengths, antl high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportiorrof vehicles not stopping declines. Level of Service E describes operations with delay,in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 seconds per E vehicle. This is'considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, longer cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Indivtlual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over saturation, I.e., F when arrival rates. exceed the capacity of the intersection. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. source: tilgnway GapaClry Manual, special nepon z~a, i ransponnuun naseaiu i ouam, ~ saw. ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page 11 ~ and Associates, Inc. \\HAI.9000\PROPOSAUkhaU.JA\Scarmardo T'IA.doc. Level of service for unsignalized intersections is also defined in terms of delay,. but the .criteria used is somewhat different than that for signalized intersections. The primary reason for this difference is that drivers expect different levels of performance from different types of facilities. Signalized intersections are expected to carry higher traffic volumes than unsignalized intersections. Also, the level of delay at an unsignalized: intersection is subject to a much higher degree of variability than at a signalized intersection, and a driver must remain attentive throughoutthe delay in order to identify suitable gaps in traffic. For these reasons, the total delay threshold for any. given level of service is less for an unsignalized intersection than for a signalized intersection. Table 4 shows the definition of level of service. for unsignalized intersections. Table 4. Level of Service Definition for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Average Total Delay A Less than 5.0 seconds per vehicle. B Between 5.1 and 10.0 seconds per vehicle. C Between 10.1 and 20.0 seconds per vehicle. D Between 20.1'.. and 30.0 seconds per vehicle. E Between 30.1' and 45A seconds per vehicle. F More than 45A seconds per vehicle... Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1994. The projected volumes were entered into Synchro to analyze the level of service assuming the intersection was signalized.: A cycle length of 80 seconds was assumed for analysis purposes. The results of the LOS analysis are consistent with conditions observed in the field. The northbound and southboundtraffic along the West Frontage Road are. the only movements presently operating at an unacceptable level of service (i.e., LOS F). This is primarily because the West Frontage Road is a two lane roadway with two-way traffic. This significantly reduces the throughput at the intersection because all traffic is in .one lane. Assessment of Traffic Impact Initially, percentages were assigned to the potential market area to reflect where trips would originate.. To further analyze the. impact of site generated traffic, scenarios were considered during the process of distributing trips along the surrounding transportation network. For each scenario, percentages were determined to identify where potential. site users would access the site based on the location of the driveways. The first scenario depicts the percentages of potential site .users that would access. each driveway if only Phase 1 was .developed. The Phase 1 development involves only the 6,500 square feet mixed use,. gas and retail mini-center. The second scenario depicts the percentages of potential site users that would access'each driveway after full buildout of Phasel and Phase 2. The various scenarios and percentages associated with each are depicted in Figures 6 and 7. ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page 12 ~ and Associates, Inc. \\JIAL9000\PROPOSAL\khaU,JA\Scarmardo TIA.doc ~ t ,~ Wig.. C3 I.a.. F- W as s~+ W 6 Fr- 4. Ls1 NORTH f~ . t aax of f t a-t-~a-~-t fx ~x ~ 1 sf -~ 4t)x ~ 8,0'Xt 4 80) 2QXf tgQ a c~ ROCK PRAIRIE ~ ~ ~, ~~ ~~ BANK ,tax.::. ~' ~; ~~ o 0 --~ '~ ran ~- 120 0 ~ N SH 6 Q SCARMARDQ ~ ~ TRACT ~~~`' ~~+~ CURRY PLUMBING DRIVEWAYS A $ B RIGHT IN/ •. .- , RIGHT QUT' ~D R~K PRA :PERCENTAGE QF POTENTIAL SITE USERS ORIGINATING.:: FRAM A PARTICULAR AREA. PHASE t 30Q TRIP ENDS tTWO-WAY VOL...a 2OX FIGURE 6 SITE GENERATEQ TRAFFIC PHASE ~` r ~ ~Ci 4 F-~ ~' W F- t/'! } SN 6 EXXON +sx ~ I f ---~ 50iL ~^ ~/ r~~~ ~ Q 41 F- 2 Q I.L 1-.- t/t C W I~ NORTH 7OX of (t 5-f50+1 D) 500. ---~- 26Q 3OX of r t 5+50+10 3: 50Q t t 5 50X(260 } 50Xr 264`3 ~B ; ~~C o° R~ PRAIRIE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ 107L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~„y ~ fl r ~- ~ J 3~ ~ ~ N cc[~[ cc n J~; ~7 0 x SCARMARDO ~' TRACT 500 TRIP ENDS h D (TWO-WAY VOL,) DRLVEWAYS A 8 B: RIGHT IN/' RIGHT OUT :PER'CENTAGE OF POTENTIAL SITE USERS ORIGINATING FROM A PARTICULAR AREA. >~ _~ K CURRY PtU1~8INC DLD R(1CK PRAIRIE tp .I.i. ~ Kn in ~I II o ~ ~~~: ~ tV N ~- ~- 1 r! +1` ~~ t E o~ ~~ ~< ~ 5x FIGURE 7.: SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC FUEL DEVELQRMENT In order to determine the number of trips generated by the site, the ITE Trip Generation Manual was consulted. Land Use: 820 Shopping Center was referenced in order to obtain a suitable trip generation rate to reflect the predicted activity for the development. As within the proposed development,. many shopping centers include outparcels (i.e., peripheral buildings or pads located on the perimeter of the center adjacent to the streets and major access points). The Manual indicates that Shopping Center trip generation rates do reflect the effect of the peripheral buildings. Recognizing that traffic would be heaviest on the surrounding network. during the PM peakhour, the trip.. generation-rate for the PM peak hour was used. The trips. generated. bythe development of Phase 1 only are approximately 300 trip ends due. to the nature of the development. At full buildout, 8.06 rip ends are generated per 60,000 square feet. gross leasable area during the PM peak hour. This rate translates into approximately 500 trip ends., during the peak hour. The distribution of these projections are reflected in Figures 6 and 7, assuming: reasonable allocations of directional distributions of traffic flow into and out of the proposed development. Discussion. of Site Plan Upon visiting with the City. ofCollege Station and the. Texas Department of Transportation (Bryan District), much information pertaining to the development of the proposed site was obtained. The City of College Station requires the submission of a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for any development requesting oversized participation. The City'of College Station's Comprehensive Plan (1997) indicates that an extension of Rock Prairie will be a minor arterial; therefor, the construction of a minor arterial cross section (i.e., .either with or without a bikeway, according to the City's discretion) will be required. fihe developer-will .only be required to fund the construction of the cross section warranted by the traffic generated by the proposed site. Upon further review of Figures 6 and 7, the traffic generated by the proposed site will only require a collector street cross section to adequately handle the projected traffic. ,Therefore, the City will fund the difference in cost required to upgrade. to a minor arterial cross ..section in order to ensure compatibility with the City's long term transportation plans. The City of College Station Transportation Planner expressed some concern with the following issues. He is concerned about on- and off-site circulation given the two-lane, two-way frontage access and configuration of Phase 1 development at the north portion of the site. If the majority of accessing traffic will be entering along the extension of Rock Prairie, consideration should be given as to how to allow traffic to flow more efficiently between Phase 1 and Phase. 2. The City indicated hesitancy in creating a median cut across from the eastern most driveway along the extension of Rock Prairie. as depicted. in,the original layout. Basically,'the City would prefer to move the eastern most driveway farthef east before allowing a median cut so as not to inhibit the flow of traffic along Rock Prairie with vehicles making turning movements so close to a signalized intersection. The City must prepare for future development along both sides of the extension of Rock Prairie. The City prefers only one driveway along the extension of Rock ^~^ Kimley-Horn. Page 15 ~ and Associates, Inc. R:UchaV,JA\Scarmardo TIA.doc s Prairie Road (i.e. the driveway at least 300 feet from the intersection, located at the northeastern corner of the site) to ensure that queues do not form that might inhibit smooth traffic flow at the signalized intersection. The City would encourage a joint private access easement between adjacent lots (i.e., the church and the Scarmardo Tract) fronting on arterial and collector streets in order to facilitate traffic flow between lots. Likewise, private cross access easements may be required across any lot fronting on an arterial or collector street in order to minimize the number of access. points and facilitate access between and across individual lots. The location and dimension of these easements shall be determined by the City Engineer. Several successful-examples of shared internal circulators are found - throughout the College .Station community. If the requirements cannot be .met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire. shared access driveways or cross access easements. have been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach may be located closer to the corner than 100 feet on minor arterials and 120 feet for'major arterials as stated in the College Station Driveway Access Location and Design Policy. The. City' expressed a willingness to consider certain modifications along the extension of Rock Prairie since the opposing development would be relatively light. Rather than committing to; a median cut closer to the intersection than they wouldprefer,'the City may consider the development of a flush median' and channelization through striping. This will allow modification of the median (i.e., moving the opening further east away from the signalized intersection). when future development is initiated in the area and. shared access easements can' be negotiated. Also stated within the Design Policy is the fact that driveways shall not be closer than 250 'feet from an exit ramp as measured form the striped gore of the exit ramp to the centerline of the drive. The City requires that a variance be submitted to request approval for a driveway... location which does not satisfy the above requirements. This may be required to ensure approval' of the northern most driveway along the frontage due to its close proximity to both the signalized intersection and the exit ramp. The City ultimately recommends driveway locations to TxDQT for approval since, .according to the Bryan District, TxDOT has not: purchased access rights for this area; therefore, TxDOT will probably not. deny the construction of this driveway. Concerning the close proximity of the northern most driveway along the frontage to the intersection, the State will react.according to the City's recommendation as to whether or not to allow a variance in the standard:Driveway Access Design Policy. Exceptions to guidelines on design policy must be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission: The City recognizes that a variance may be warranted at the northern driveway; however, the City wouldprefer that the southern driveway. along the' frontage be moved as far south as possible to reduce the potential for traffic to form a queue along the SH 6 exit ramp. The City is awaiting another bond election because presently there is no money available to put towards the construction of the extension of Rock Prairie Road. Furthermore, the money is available on a first-come, first-served basis when it is available. Initial. steps toward requesting funds involves the submission of a letter requesting the expenditure attached to an engineer's estimate of the cost to build the cross section. The City staff is available to meet for pre development meetings on Monday and Tuesday afternoons: Shirley J. Volk is the Development Coordinator and will facilitate the' meetings. ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page 16 ~ and Associates, Inc. R:\khaU.JA\Scarmardo TlA.doc i ~ The State indicates that the .existing.two-way frontage sections are not likely to change to one- way sections within. the next ten years.. The State presently has no plans to adjust the location of any of the ramps near the site to improve access to properties developed along the frontage road. Presently, the next grade separated overpass south of the proposed site is at Greens Prairie Road which is two miles south of Rock Prairie Road. Although the City indicated that the State had plans to construct a grade separated overpass at Barron Road (one mile south of the proposed site), the State .indicated that these plans would probably not take place for fifteen to twenty plus years. Upon the extension of Rock Prairie Road to the east, consideration will need to be given to the location of the mast arm, signal poles at the intersection of the East Frontage. Road and Rock Prairie Road. The signaTpoles have been installed recently and the southern most pole is not located far enough south to allow for such an extension of the roadway. Apparently, the: State installed the signal after receiving approval on the layout fromthe City. The pole will either need to be relocated or sheltered within an island upon the .construction of the new extension. Summary of Findings The following section summarizes the findings and provides recommendations for the proposed development. The traffic generated by the proposed development warrants the construction of a collector street. Since the City of College Station's Comprehensive Plan(1997) indicates that an eastern extension of Rock Prairie Road will be constructed. as a minor arterial cross section, the City should fund the difference in construction cost between a collector street cross section and a minor arterial cross. section. Regarding .driveways along the extension of Rock Prairie Road, the following recommendations are made which satisfy the needs of a majority of the accessing traffic without compromising the City's desire to maintain efficient traffic movement at signalized intersections. The western most driveway should be constructed as a right-in/right-out access. point, allowing for., uninhibited right turn access to the development without introducing the potentially conflicting movement of left turns close to the signalized intersection. The eastern most drivewayshould be constructed as a full access driveway but should be located as close to the eastern most property line as possible. Negotiations for a shared access point with the owner of the property bordering the east of the Scarmardo tract should be pursued. As an intermediate measure since the area is not yet fully developed, the proposition could be made to omit the construction of a full median when constructing the minor arterial cross section. This would allow the City and land" developers to negotiate at a later date shared access and median cuts. Regarding driveways along the East Frontage Road, the. following recommendations are made. The City is .likely to accept a variance for the location of the northern most driveway provided that the driveway is located at least 250 feet from the exit ramp and no closer than 160 feet from the signalized intersection. This driveway should be constructed as aright-in/right-out access point to remove the potential queuing problem presented by those wishing to turn left into the development. The southern most driveway should be located as close to the Curry Plumbing ^~^ Kimley-Horn Page 17 ~ and Associates, Inca R:\kha\LJA\Scarmardo TIA.doc Company property line as possible to avoid potential problems with traffic queuing on the ramp. This driveway should allow full access to the development. Regarding the driveways along Old Rock Prairie, full access should be provided at both driveways. Although traffic generated by the. site will be adequately serviced by the collector street (i.e., Old Rock Prairie Road),. consideration: should be given to the potential for delivery trucks to maneuver in and out of the site at the eastern most driveway. Upon the design of the extension. of Rock Prairie Road, the location of the mast arms at the signalized intersection should be further analyzed. The present location will require either relocating or .sheltering (in an island} the. southern most mast arm. Because the mast arm is positioned directly in the line oftravel ofthe shoulder along the overpass, the,safest alternative is to relocate the signal pole. Sheltering the pole inside a median would. result. in a channelized right- tumlane. In :order to satisfy the City's corner clearance design policy, two driveways would be eliminated with the development of a ehannelized right-turn lane (i.e., the northern most driveway along the frontage and the western most drivet~vay along Rock Prairie Road). Projected northbound frontage traffic turning right onto. Rock Prairie Road will not warrant the construction of a channelized right turn lane to facilitate traffic movement at the signalizedntersection. Relocation of the southern most mast. armlpole should be pursued. /'~~~ IGmley-Horn Page 18 -.I~ and Assaeiates,lnc: TI LLEGE STA ON co P. O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College.Station, TX 77842 Tel: 409 764 3500 MEMORANDUM TO : Project Review Committee (PRC) FROM : Ed Hard, Transportation Planner DATE : January 14, 1998 RE: Driveway Variances for Rock Prairie Plaza, Case. 98-301 This item is for PRC's consideration, of four driveway variances for the Rock Prairie Plaza, a proposed 8.247 acre commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of the intersection of the SH 6 East Frortage Road and the future extension of Rock Prairie Road. The preliminary plat for this cite is scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 15, 1998. The applicant is LJA Engineering on behalf of the owner,' David W. Scarnardo. Their letter of request .for driveway variances is attached. It should be noted this site., as with most major corner sites along the SH 6 Bypass in the B-CS area, is particularly difficult to provide access to. This is because the entry and: exit ramps along `the Bypass are located in relative close proximity to the intersections which limits safe and acceptable locations for access at the. corners. Staff has worked with the applicant over the past several months on this site. We expressed our general, concerns for traffic .early on and.. provided indication .that the driveways would not meet the City's driveway ordinance and probably not gain the approval Texas Department of Transportation's (TXDOT). This .notwithstanding,. the applicant has elected to pursue all of the variances. The attached conceptual site ..plan illustrates the four driveways proposed by the applicant. Driveway °B" .and °~" are proposed. on the future extension of Rock Prairie Road. and driveways °A" and "D" are proposed on the East Frontage Road. Under the proposed layout, .none of the driveways meet the City's driveway ordinance. Staff has forwarded the applicant's- request for driveway's A and D to the. TXDOT. They have denied the request for driveway D. See attached letter. Home of Texas A&M University PRC Memo, Page 2 Staff is primarily concerned with driveways B and D. The variance request, ordinance requirement(s), and staff recommendation for each driveway .are discussed in the following paragraphs. DRIVEWAY: A. This proposed .right-in right-out driveway is located on .the SH 6 Frontage Road positioned about midway between the Rock Prairie intersection and SH 6 exit. ramp.. It is 200. feet south of Rock Prairie Road and 230 feet north of the. exit .ramp. The City's driveway.. ordinance calls for it to be 275 feet from Rock Prairie and 250' north of the exit ramp. There is not enough. distance. in between the exit ramp and. Rock Prairie intersection for a driveway to meet the ordinance requirements in this area. However, to deny an access point in this .area would seriously.. Limit the developability of this tract..., Staff recommends approval of a right-in right-out driveway in this area but that its exact ocation should be determined with the site ,plan. The TXDOT has indicated that Driveway A is acceptable provided that is located as-#ar .north from the ramp as ,possible without violating other driveway requirements. Staff agrees that Driveway A should moved slightly closer to the intersection and farther away. from the ramp. Staff will work with the applicant and TXDOT to workout the final location for Driveway A. DRIVEWAY B. This right-in 'right-out driveway is proposed on the future Rock Prairie Road extension 130 east of the Frontage Road. By ordinance it .should be 230 feet from the Frontage Road. As .part of the justification- for this variance, the applicant sites a section'in the tlriveway ordinance which'' allows driveways. to be located closer to the intersection when the property has a lack of frontage. This .section is not applicable in this case since the property has 300 feet of frontage on the future Rock Prairie extension and.. therefore by ordinance one'access point would be allowed (i.e. Driveway C). Staff recommends denial of Driveway B. The close proximity of this. driveway to the intersection will be problematic and impact the efficiency_bf the signal. The primary concerns stems from the left turn maneuvers into and out,of the driveway. While the triangular island proposed in the driveway will be helpful, it will not fully eliminate left- turning traffic from using this driveway. Staff could recommend approval of a driveway at this location.. without the right-in right-out. restriction if a median is included in the Rock Prairie Road extension. DRIVEWAY C. This full service driveway- is located on Rock Prairie Road approximately 1:60 feet east of Driveway B. By ordinance the .distance between driveways B and C should be 230 feet. The applicant again incorrectly sites the section of the driveway ordinance which allows a reduced spacing distance for corner ,properties which would be denied access due 'to a lack of frontage. This section does not apply since the site has about 300 feet of frontage on Rock Prairie Road. With ,Driveway B'rernoved from Rock Prairie Road, Driveway C would meet ordinance PRC Memo, Page 3 requirements since the distance between it and Frontage Road is greater than the required 230 feet. Staff recommends approval of Driveway C with. the condition that it be moved slightly west in order that its curb return does.. not extend into the right-of-way which in front of the tract immediately east ofthe site. DRIVEWAY D. This driveway is located on the Frontage Road positioned directly across from the SH 6 Exit.Ramp, Under City Ordinance and TXDOT policy, driveways on the. Frontage Road must be ocated at least 250 feet away from an exit ramp. The TXDOT has indicated that Driveway D is not acceptable at its present location. and that an access point at the site's southern property. corner would be acceptable. The proposed location of D .across from the exit ramp .could not be legally "signed" to provide '.for safe and proper traffic control. Such. a driveway would create a "4-way" intersection with the exit ramp: Under state law, vehicles .exiting .from. freeway ramps have the right-of-way. If Driveway D were in place, vehicles exiting from SH 6 would be able to continue'.. across the frontage: road and into the site without stopping:. This, in turn, could require placing stop signs on the Frontage Road which is clearly not appropriate at a private driveway. The proposed location of Driveway D is also potentially hazardous. Some' vehicles exiting from SH 6 desiring to enter the site would stop on the ramp .and potentially .cause high. speed rear end accidents. It is also possible there than a disoriented individual. could exit Driveway D from the site and proceed down the SH6' exit ramp going the wrong way. Staff recommends. denial of Driveway D. The TXDOT has the ultimate approval or denial authority for access onto state rights-of-way.. Even if this driveway ':were approved by the City, it does not appear .likely TXDOT would approve a permit for construction of Driveway D. DRIVEWAYS E and F. These are the two.. driveways shown on the site concept taking access to the existing Rock Prairie Road east. Staff recommends approval of only one driveway on to Rock Prairie east. The. applicant has not requested a variance for either of these driveways. In making a decision regarding access points, we must not only consider how they may impact traffic. conditions today. but also 5 to 15 years from now. With the City's continued growth to the south, the Rock Prairie Road interchange has potential to be one of the City's busiest intersections in the future. -- -_ ~~ ~~'! ROCK PRA 1 R 1 E ON . ROAD (PROPOSED:R.O.W:1 \t GO~'~ GE . A . ~- ~- ~- _ - '~ ~~° ; , `, _ _ ., ~~- ~~ - ,. ~ ., Conc~~ ~C.a-P f-aY ov`-~- ~~ ~ ,. `° ~, ~~ _ _ ~~ ~ l~~~ s ~ G+l.d~l,tl ~ ~ ~- _~ + o 1 ~ ~f' F 7 .k s • ~ ~ .`' _... ` ` 'P y •+ _ _-- ~ + 1 i ~.. ~ ~~ -i j~ _ ~. _ . - ~ .~ _'_ ~ { ~'~ .-- __ ~~ - - " _---- K _i .- - ti G K p ~If ~ti --- ,, __- . __ _ i4.. ~ _ "_. II` "' ~ ~1, ~ _ 1 ~ ~ ~ ,~~ -~ I ' ' ~ -~ ~C - ~ . . t ~• ~ '~k~ ;. ~ ~i 1 _ ~ \~~ . ~ .~ ., ~ ~ _ . ~ - Z .. ~ /%. . ~ f. 1 ~ _ s - ~ ~' _ i.~°•-.... 49.t. ~ yam. _ $ 'J R a3 / , / ~/ CGS, FG y~ I / F .p ~ ~.w•' /~ yoy ~~. L / P a a~~ \ J~ ~N j ~ ~ l / ~/ ~ / Texas Department of Transportation 1300 N. TEXAS AVE. • BRYAN, TEXAS 77803-2760 • (409) 778-2165. January 13, 1998 Mr. Edwin Hard, AICP Transportation Planner City of College Station P_ Q. Box 9960` College Station, Texas 77842-9960 Dear Mr. Hard: After reviewing the proposed Rock Prairie_ Plaza lacateeL at the southeast corner of the SH 6 East Frontage Road and Rock Prairie Road, I .offer the following comments: • Drive~vvay A_is acceptable prouidin~ it is located as,far. nQrtlifrom_the ramp as possible without violating other driveway requirements. • Driveway II is unacceptable at its present location directly aEross-from the SH 6 Exit Ramp. An acceptable location is to the. south at the southerly property corner. Sincerely, Patrick T. Williams, P. E. Area Engineer PTW/bja M Equal Opportunity Empbyer WA Engineering 8~ Surveying, Inc.- ~~,~ 2929. Briarparic Drive Suite 500 Houston, Texas 77042-3703 December 19, 1997 Phone 713.953.5200 Fax 713.953.5026 Planning and Zoning Commission City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Requests for Driveway Location Variances Dear Commission: Our client is proposing a commercial development of an 8 acre tract of land located in the southeast corner of the intersection between the East Frontage Road of State Highway 6 (SH6) and Rock Prairie Road. This development will be constructed: in two phases. 'The first phase will be located in the most northern section of the tract and will frontage. approximately 300 linear feet along Rock .Prairie .Road to the north and approximately 2501inear feet along the east frontage road to the west. The proposed development for this first phase consists of a 6,500 square feet convenience center consisting of a six bay gas service retail store, adrop- off laundry (no plant facilities) and two fast. food drive-thru outlets.. The second phase consists of 50,000 square feet for mixed use retail and 2,500 square feet for a fast food restaurant. The attached figure shows the tract with proposed :phasing, locations of the proposed commercial facilities, and driveway locations. Obviously access to this site, particularly the convenience center, is very critical to the to the viability of the development. We have had two meetings with the Staff primarily to discuss the access issues and believe we have a good understandingof the issues. We areproposing shared entrances from both the proposed Rock Prairie Road as well"as the Highway 6 frontageroad, similar to the convenience center locatedacross the interchange from our site. Our T.I.A. has indicated that the majority of the near future traffic will be accessing our site from new Rock Prairie. Staff suggested "modified. Right-in, Right-out" access points (indicated as Driveway "A" and .Driveway. "B" in this variance request) for the main=access points to the convenience center, as is shown on Figure 3; again not unlike that of the convenience center across the interchange from our site. Because of this, Driveway."A" access will be limited to traffic from the Highway 6 off-ramp and the frontage road. Traffic turning.. right at the new Rock.. Prairie/Highway 6 frontage Road would not be allowed to make (legally) a left hand turn from the Highway 6 frontage Road. TXDOT has stated to us that this segment of frontage road wilLbecome "one-way" at'soine point in'the future (..most likely withinthe next ten years) which would also: eliminate' any possibility'of access to traffic heading north on new Rock Prairie. Because of this Driveway "C" becomes a critical access point for the new Rock Prairie traffic wanting to: access the convenience center. Without Driveway "B" new Rock Prairie traffic would be force to drive past the center and use the shared. access Driveway "C" which we believe would greatly impaired easy access to the convenience center. Denying easy access to the convenience we believe would have a negative impact on the potential viability of the center. We have laid the convenience center site plan out with several different variations and the layoutshown on-Figure 3 appears to' make the most sense for the overall development. These centers typically are located at major intersections and we believe the layout shown on Figure 3 is the best solution for the overall site. ~~ Planning and Zoning Commission December 19, 1997 Page 2 The entire 8 acre site has a dotal of six driveway connections.. Two connections are along new Rock Prairie Road (driveways B and C), two connections are along the east frontage road (driveways A and D), and two connections are along Old' Rock Prairie Road (driveways E and F). Variances. are `being requested for driveways A, B, C, and D. The following are requests for variances on an individual basis for each driveway location. Variance request for the location of Driveway A: Driveway A is the northern most driveway located along the east frontage road. Driveway A is the main entrance to the.: phase one :development along the ,.east.. frontage road: Variances being requested; 1) the reduction.. of the adjacent drive spacing for major. arterials, section 3(h), Table 2, of the Driveway Access Location and Design Policy, (DALDP) between Rock Prairie Road and driveway A, from the minimum spacing of 275 feet o a distance of 200 feet and 2) the reduction of Freeway Frontage Road Access and Location Requirements, section 3 (i) i of the` DALDP, for the distance between the exit ramp gore along the east frontage road and driveway A from 250 feet to 230 feet. Variance justifications: Driveway A does meet the requirements of section 4 (c) of the DALDP stating that when the requirements of Tables 1 and 2 can not be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access. driveways or cross access easements have been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach maybe located closer to the corner than 120 feet for a major arterial. Driveway A is located 200 feet from this intersection.. Driveway A is being designed as a right. in and right out driveway to eliminate vehicles pursuing a left turn into the development off of the eastfrontage road and causing congestion close to the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and the east frontage road. This right in and right out driveway configuration would produce a smooth entrance and exit maneuver off of the east frontage road. • The location of driveway A is positioned such that it is maximizing the distance from Rock Prairie Road by locating itself as far south as possible along the east frontage road and still providing access to phase one, while encroaching only 20 feet into the 250 foot requirements of section 3(i)i of the DALDP. • As shown in our Traffic Impact Analysis.(TIA), by Kimley-Horn and Associates, 40% of all traffic generated for the phase one development arrives along the east frontage road of SH6. This driveway A access is needed alongthe east frontage road to produce easily accessible and successful commercial development. Denying this access would cause more congestion and longer delay times closer to the intersection of Rock Prairie Road and SH6. Without this driveway vehicles may even refuse to use the .commercial development. With these variance justifications and the need for. supplying easy access for 40% of the total users of the phase one development we request Commission's approval of this variance for the location for driveway A. Variance request-for the location of Driveway Bc Driveway B is the western most driveway located along Rock Prairie. Road . Driveway B is the main entrance into the phase one development along Rock Prairie Road. The variance being requested, is for the reduction Planning and Zoning. Commission December 19, 1997 Page 3 of the adj acent drive spacing for minor arterials, section 3(h) Table 2, of the DALDP, between the east frontage road and. driveway B, from the minimum spacing of 230 feet to a distance of 130 feet. Variance justifications: Driveway B does meet the requirements of section 4(c) of the DALDP stating that when the requirements of Tables 1 and 2 can not be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access driveways or cross accesseasements have been exhausted„no commercialdriveway approach may be located closer to the corner than 100 feet for a minor arterial. Driveway B is located 130 feet from this intersection. Driveway B is being designed as a right in and right out driveway to eliminate vehicles pursuing a left turn into the development off of Rock Prairie Road and causing congestion close to the intersection of Rock Prairie: Road and the east frontage road. • As shown in our TIA,60% of all traffic generated for the phase one development arrives along Rock Prairie Road with 80% of this traffic entering driveway B. This driveway B access is needed along Rock Prairie Road to produce:easy access and. successful commercial development. With these variance justifications and the need for supplying easy access for almost 50% of the total users of the phase one development we request Commission's approval of this variance.. for the location for driveway B. Variance request for the location of Driveway C: Driveway C is located along Rock Prairie Road in the most easterly corner of the development.. Driveway C is the main entrance .into both phase one and phase two developments along Rock Prairie Road. The variance being requested, is for the reduction of the adjacent drive spacingfor minor arterials, section 3(h) Table 2, of the DALDP, between driveway B and driveway C, from. the minimum spacing of 230 feet to a distance of 160 feet. Variance justifications: • Driveway C does meet the requirements of section 4(c) of the DALDP stating that when the requirements of Tables 1 and 2 cannot be met due to lack of frontage and all means to acquire shared access driveways or cross access easements have been exhausted, no commercial driveway approach maybe located closer to the corner than :100 feet for a minor arterial. Driveway C is located :160 feet from outer edge of driveway B. Driveway C is being located as close as possible to the easternmost properly line to maximize the distance between the two driveways. Driveway C is being designed. as a full access driveway and provides access to the phase. one and phase two development. There are two main needs for driveways C; 1) to allow access to phase two without forcing vehicles to maneuver thru the phase one gas station and 2) to allow egress from phase one and phase two for vehicles wanting to travel west along Rock Prairie Road. Planning and Zoning Commission December 1.9,.1997 Page 4 • As shown in our TIA at full development, 25% of all traffic generated for the phase .one and two development arrives thru driveway C. - With these variance justifications and the need for supplying access and egress for both phase one and phase two developments separately, we request Commission's approval of this variance for the location for driveway C. Variance request for the location of Driveway D: Driveway D is the southern. most driveway located along the east frontage road. Driveway D is the main entrance to the phase two development along the east frontage road. The variance being requested is for the reduction of Freeway Frontage Road Access and Location Requirements, section 3(i)i of the DALDP, for the distance between the exit ramp'gore along the east frontage road and driveway D from 250 feet to 160 feet. Variance justifications: • Driveway D does meet the requirements of section 3(h) Table 2 of the DALDP between old Rock Prairie Road and driveway A. • Driveway D is located as far south as possible along the east frontage road while still providing room far the future commercial growth of a fast food restaurant. • As shown in our TIA,. approximately 30% of all traffic generated for the full phase development arrives at driveway D. This driveway. D access is needed along the east frontage road to provide a main entrance into phase two, that is easily accessible and helps promote a successful commercial development. Denying this access would undermine the commercial development of phase two. With these variance justifications andthe need for positive commercial development in phase two, we request Commission's approval of this variance for the location fof driveway D. These four variance requests arebeing asked to help make this development function as-other developments located in College Station area, with ease of access and an opportunity to be a successful commercial development. If you have any questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at (713) 953-5232. Very truly yours,. Wallace E. Trochesset Assistant Project Engineer Attachment r! ` /-~--° '~.. vhf f~ '`~+: ,_.1 F._.J~ O tA00,~~ ...~. ., ~ ® ~c ~ f~ a ~ D Il 1 r. _.. ._.; E ~ ~ j V M N , `„ ,. ® ~ ~ ?~ s- I ~® [ ~ ~ ,\ ,' II ;,.... q ~ Yr..~ I' ~ ®® j ~ ~ i •..,.. `~ \ _ _ _ Q ~ ~ 1 i r i i ~ ~ `j ~ p p ~ < _ . 1 r.. .. ~ ._ O rr .~ 9 r~. ~ ~ i' ,> M ' ® ~ ~ } '' / r a~ ~ ~ ~ / ` , `, ~ ~ ~ _. i ` ` _` f,, ,,.,-"' ,,, ~It .... I `J /f, 0 1 ;- / .., ' ... 1i ~. i ® `,, O d' N ~ d mar/ ~-'~; ~`ti,; I ~ r y r' ,~ .. O ;;/~ ~ Q. Q o ~ 'p ~ ~, ~~' ~~ _ ~ O C ~ ~ p~ ~e O h ',~Z N ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ` Oe<%~ 9~~i r'f r ~~ ~ r e` _ r' ,. ~. Y I Nif $~ ~ r ~~ _, 1 O N o0 M ~, c •j~~ ~,~ ,,'~ ,r'~~ Q~ L ~. ~ i ~ 0 ~ ~ M \ ~ \ l /'Arr. `~ ^ I~ C ,` a ~~~ ~ V- o ,~ ~ ~a _ --' o ,, ~ "a ~" ,~ ~ + C to /\{n~ O V r ..z.>fl C .. ~ ,~ ~ ' 2 STONEBROOK DR u ~ 98433 L0EL92i 1 N J N a R98434 0ti0-0000-00L899 S3a9d b ' L R98435 JN I ,lllti32i; 9d1 ~ < R98436 .~. a9SA31 •k Pq~ __ ____~ t. ~ ~_ ' r N AA0 _____ .. ~ e Bq8 ~ ~ m P -- --- ~4 ' C1y6~6d - 1 ' r ' ' ~~~b~~p ~~ o i___~__ 5 _.__ !~/ ' J~ ~0 ~~~~ ~f/~9 ~~i~~~ J~P~~~ ~~ ~~ m~ s~. e E ,,~ e~ 1 ~~ J~' ( ,. ~•' '~ .''',. ~'; e e ~ Obb~y eke "lb8 ~~ 1~, l~ 6 ~,~J t Bpe bin 'J~ \~b JP L~ `5 PQ 5 m0 ~~y ~~Q 0a ti QPP`P~0 00 ~`~ mO~Q Q ti°°1 > ~~ ~ "~ ~J 0660 q ~`;. /~ ~~ ~` ~~~~ ~~ ~ P~ ~~~ ' C, < m,' ~.y ~ ~ ~~`'~~ 6 r :E" ~C~ ~ 'y ~L~ 09. ~ ~ ~m 9f, 9e fb _ _ _ ~ l~ I ' ^ u J M N ~5 P P ~ 0 ~ Q e P~' M ~° m~ A 61 ' y 0` X p ~~~ Q, M/ 1/1 M ti ti ti N N N A i 81 RA i 1/1 M i M ti N ti N ~ N ~~ ~ O 0 0 ~ ~O ('.. ~ J N N N ~ ~ ~ ' wJ v ~P4 ~ I R ~ N ~ \ ~~~ ~0 ~ \ ' ~P~ „1 a I ` ~~~ P ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , Q~ ~~ Wx. = o ~ W$ `' °Jm ~ ~ 4w L^ z tt ~e ~ 2 6e ~ ~ ~oa~ ~ 8 f~b \ ~ m u, ., ANN ~ ~/ S o ~6w `bee (f' ~~ 6 ~~d~ ~e~ ~ \ b dy ~ ~b S '~ e \ ~ J ~ d 0 F 4 ,~~, aeee e9 6 e ~spae ej O~~b a b ~~B SB A 9 Ddb ~ o, --- /~ °, Q~dj9 li 1,(7„6ge 6 N ~ J ~a a`'s saa g9~ ~6 ~B e ie~ ea $„ ce sQe m' °s °~i ~_N iJO6S s~b~ '3~dJS 03HS I'18f1d S1 I ld S02ldONtl1S AJFfLiflOJti ddW ~HNO IldN 133W lON 5300 ddW' S IH1 '3'1tiJS 031NIad 3H1 ld AlNO ONti J,lNO 53SOdafld NOI1tiJOJ 7dki3N3D 2i0d 1Nti3W 3ab NMOHS S3NIJ A1H3dOHd 3H1 1d 15; ;1HIJi~dG ~N N4 ON 1~i~1 i~ ldSId2iddd AlNf10J SOZti2i9 3H1 d0 3Sf1 3H1 ~J9d 03NHaaHa N338 SGH HHW S?Hl /Q~ I E ,o 0 /i/ / l ~ 0 II ~- i`~. s c 0 +~ ~^ +~ ~ ~~ / ~~ ~~ -o U~ W ~__`r_ O U m 1n s a a r n rn o a ~v p o n ~_ ~~ ~ ° ¢ m Z o r Om U cn O v m ° © m V 0 m M r_ . ~~- ~' ~- ~- ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~. ~. ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~' v ~ t- -~ ~ ~ (~1--- ~ ~_ ~ ` ~ ~, rte, ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ,- - ~_ _ . ~: ~ ~ r 1 i ~~ ~;~ ~ ~! ,r > ~" ~.~,$ _~ ~~ ~~ ~~ .~-~' ~ ~ ~ ~ > > ~ ll v' = e r Q ~ £ ~ -~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ o ca ... ~~ -, Z~