Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
17 Castlegate Buss. Center 03-90
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you . • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on !he front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: ..Q_~~\ \.....\..-{(__ A. Signature x /..//-/ v 0 t J l. _, ir--· 0 Agent 0 Addressee B. Received by (Printed Name) C . Qate of Delivery (/:J /?..~/~ ' .., b D. Is delivery address different from item 1? D Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: D No ~'-\ <:i~,~~ ~~~~~;::_\~ ~3=.~=,~ic=e~=~=========== Jil Certified Mail 0 Express Mail \ \~ S 0 Registered }(Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 2. Article Nu 1 (rransferfi 7004 1160 0006 8855 1828 PS Form 3811 , August 2001 Domestic Return Receipt 0 Yes 102595-02-M-1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE I First-Cla~s Matt Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No . G-10 • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box • 60-DG CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77142 cQ ru cQ .-=t U1 U1 cQ cQ ..LI Cl Cl Cl Cl ..LI .-=t .-=t .::r U.S. Postal Service rn CERTI FIED MAILM RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) 1 1•1 -1111 111 -• , .. .. . . I. . OFFICIAL USE ~= $ Postmark (Endoraernent Required) Here Restricted Delivery Fee (Endonlement Required) Total Postage & Fees $ ~ .,.,_._'.~-~A~·-'3B~lliD.~-h~~---····-······-········-······ f'-,,,,,,..,, "P~ No.; or PO Box No. Cit)i;"Siiii9;:zip;;;·--·······································-··············-···~---· 380 Jun e 2002 See Reverse for Instruc ti ons I Certified Mail Provides: • A mailing receipt 1 (BSJ91181:J) c:ooc: eunr ·oosJ WJ0.::1 Sd • A unique Identifier for your mailpiece • A record of delivery kept by the Postal Service for two years lmRortant Reminders: • Certified Mail mav n"u v ._,. __ .. ,_ -J II Q~t-¢>~~==:1-~ ~{l'{==-~- z ~ -ATNEY BOWES ~2 1M $ oo.ooo 0004227425 JAN 15 2010 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 7 7 8 40 _____ .,,.-~ "'"""''" p1easel)18sent the artl-v,.,-.., .ne-post onrce for postmarking. If a postmark on the Certified Mail receipt is not needed, detach and affix label with postage and mail. IMPORTANT: Save this receipt and present It when making an Inquiry. Internet access to delivery Information Is not available on mail addressed to APOs and FPOs. CITY OF C otLEGE STATION H ome o/Texas A6M University * CERTIFIED MAIL: 7004 1160 0006 8855 1828 January 14, 2010 Veerani , L.L.C. 4444 Spring Meadows Drive College Station, Texas 77845-1944 Re: Castlegate Business Center, Lot 1, Block 1 Located at 1900 Greens Prairie Road Unauthorized Tree Clearing To whom it may concern: It has come to our attention that tree clearing on the above referenced site has recently been performed without a development permit. Chapter 12 : Unified Development Ordinance of the College Station Code of Ordinances , Article 3, Section 3 .8 states , "A development permit shall be required prior to any development, as defined in Article 11, Definitions to ensure conformance to the provisions and requirements of this UDO." Article 11 , Section 11 .2 further defines: "Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate that requires a permit or approval from an agency of the City or county, including , but not limited to, buildings or other structurees, mining , dredging , filling, grading, pav ing , excavation , clearing , drilling operations , storage of materials , or the subdivision of property." An application for a development permit has not been submitted to the City in this regard : therefore the site in non-compliance. Please note additionally that trees which have be en cut down and left on site pose a health and safety concern as a fire hazard as the wood dri es. It is critical for you to proceed with a plan and permit request to properly mulch the felled trees or remo ve them from site. Any mulch or soil disturbance will require an erosion control plan as well. • r I You will need to contact my office within 7 days ofreceipt of this Jetter at (979)764-3570 or in writing of your plan for corrective action . The trees should be removed or mulched within 30 days of receipt of this Jetter. Failure to act within the specified times will enforced in accordance with Article 10 of the subject code. Regards , ~~ Alan Gibbs, P.E. City Engineer Cc : Eric Hurt -CS Fire Marshall Parviz Vessali (Via email: parvizvessali @ yahoo.com) .. abs subdv -- addr_city addr_linel addr_line2 addr fine3 addr_state addr_zip class cd deed bookl deed_book_ deed dt 184210 COLLEGE STATION 4444 SPRING MEADOWS DR TX 77845-1944 187 5793 12/29/2003 Entities C2, CAD, Gl, S2, ZRFND FID 41588 file_as_na VEERANI LLC geo_id 184210-0001-0010 hood_cd 23000.C imprv_unit lmprv_Val land_acres land_sqft land unit Land_ Val legal_desc living_ are ls_tableSPECIAL 0 0 3.61 157252 6 .5 1022140 CASTLEGATE BUSINESS CENTER, BLOCK 1, LOT 1, ACRES 3 .61 0 market 1022140 MULTIPLE_C OBJECTID 44811 R116676 PROP ID PROP _IDl 116676 prop_id_l 116676 Shape Polygon situs_num 1900 situs_st_l GREENS PRAIRIE situs st 2 RD W situs_stre situs_ unit sl dt <null> sl_priceO sl_ratio 0 sl_type_cd PLAT state_cd C2 XREF _ID yr_blt 0 May 21, 2009 Weingarten Realty Attn : Eric Strauss 2600 Citadel Plaza Drive, Suite 125 Houston, Texas 77008 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Re: Weingarten Tract(s) adjacent to North-East intersection of SH 6 and Rock Prairie Road Unauthorized Tree Clearing Mr. Strauss: It has come to our attention that significant tree clearing on the above referenced site has recently been performed without a Development Permit. Chapter 12: Unified Development Ordinance of the College Station Code of Ordinances, Article 3, Section 3 .8 states, "A development permit shall be required prior to any development, as defined in Article 11, Definitions, to ensure conformance to the provisions and requirements of this UDO." Article 11, Section 11.2 defines: "Development: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate that requires a permit or approval from an agency of the City or County, including, but not limited to, buildings or other st ructures , mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation , clearing, drilling op erations, storage of materials , or the subdivision of property ." An application for a development permit has not been submitted to the City in this regard; therefore the site is is in non-compliance. If you have any questions in this regard please contact my office at (979)764-3570. Sincerely, ' ~~ Alan Gibbs, P.E. City Engineer Cc : Bob Cowell, Director of Planning and Development Services Harvey Cargill, City Attorney the heart of the Research Valley Mark Smith , Director of Public Works r.o . Box 9960 I LOI T EXAS AVENUE C OLLEGE STATION •TEXAS • 77842 97 9 .7 64.3 5 10 www.cstx.gov Via Facsimile 214-758-8376 Mr. K. Brock Bailey Bracewell & Giuliani LLP 1445 Ross Ave., Suite 3800 Dallas , TX 75202-2711 June 9, 2009 Re: City of College Station (the "City"); certain tracts of real property owned by Weingarten Realty Investors ("Weingarten") and located adjacent to the northeast intersection of SH 6 and Rock Prairie Road (the "Site"); Tree Clearing. Dear Mr. Bailey: This letter is directed to you in response to your correspondence of June 1, 2009. On May 18 , 2009, Donnie Willis , an inspector for the City of College Station, traveled to the Site . Upon arrival at the Site , he determined that Weingarten had cut virtually all the trees on the Site . Also at that time , Weingarten was cutting brush along the fence and shredding the Site. At no time , did Mr. Willis speak to anyone regarding permitting or possible violation at the Site. Prior to traveling to the Site , Mr. Willis endeavored to contact Weingarten. He belie ves he left a message for Eric Strauss . Later on the date of May 18 , 2009 , Mr. Strauss returned Mr. Willis ' phone call. Mr. Willis asked what was going on at the Site. Mr. Strauss indicated that Weingarten was cutting the trees but asserted Weingarten was not performing any clearing or grading. Mr. Willis did not state nor did he conclude that the felling of trees at the Site did not constitute grading or clearing , nor did he conclude that no development permit was required. In fact , Mr. Strauss inquired as to this matter and stated that he did not have a development permit at the time. Mr. Willis stated to Mr. Strauss that he was not certain whether it was a violation of the UDO to perform the activities witnessed on May 18 , 2009, but that the City would get back to Weingarten. Thereupon, Mr. Willis discussed this matter with me, and I instructed him not to further orally communicate to Weingarten in this regard. In response to Mr. Strauss ' inquiries on May 18 , 2009, I wrote my letter of May 21 , 2009 wherein the City noted that the Site was in non- compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance of College Station Code of Ordinances ("UDO "), Art. 3, § 3.8 as a result of the unauthorized tree clearing. It is the City's understanding that Weingarten has yet to obtain a development permit for the Site. As it stands now, the Site and Weingarten are not in compliance with the UDO. If Weingarten wishes to bring the Site into compliance , it should proceed to obtain a development permit and pay the fee associated therewith. The City would respectfully request that Weingarten bring the Site into compliance with the UDO so that this non-compliance with the UDO can be resolved. Mr. K. Brock Bailey Bracewell & Giuliani LLP June 9 , 2009 Page 2 Thank y ou for your consideration of the foregoing. Sincerel y, Allen Gibbs , P .E . cc : Mr. Harv e y Cargill , Jr. City Attorney , City of College Station Mr. Eric Strauss Weingarten Realty Investors Mr. Glenn Ballard Bracewell & Giuliani LLP -Houston Mr. Daniel F . Shank Coats I Rose • ' . Item No . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE -REVISED WATER & SANITARY SEWER CASTLEGATE BUSINESS CENTER - COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS Description Site Preparatio n Mobilization I Layout Clearing I Site Prep (30' width) Silt fence Tree Protection Fencing Construction Exit Seeding Sanitary Sewer Lines 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth <8' 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 8-10' 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 10-12' 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 12-14' 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 14-16' 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 16-18' 12" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -struct; avg depth 14-16' 12" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non -str; avg depth 16-18' 12" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 18-20' 12" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 20-22' 8" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct ; avg depth 12-14' 8" Ductile Iron , Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct ; avg depth 14-16' 8" Ductile Iron , Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct; avg depth 16-18' 8" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct; avg depth 18-20' 12" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct; avg depth 18-20' 12" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct; avg depth 20-22' 16" Steel casing w/ spacers -Open Cut 20" Steel casing w/ spacers -Open Cut Manholes -avg depth 14-16' Manholes -avg depth 16-18' Manholes -avg depth 18-20' Manholes -avg depth 20-22' Manhole drops Tie into Existing Manhole E099-E ngin ee rs-cos t-es tim a te xis Pa ge 1 Estimated Quantity 1 4 .0 4 ,870 1,720 1 4 .0 83 12 9 11 217 271 63 1,229 755 86 54 31 89 137 9 409 140 393 5 4 23-Dec-03 Unit Estimated Price Cost LS $10 ,000 .00 $10 ,000 AC $4 ,000 .00 $16 ,000 LF $3 .00 $14 ,610 LF $2 .50 $4 ,300 EA $1 ,200 .00 $1 ,200 AC $1 ,500 .00 $6 ,000 Subtotal $52,110 LF $20 .00 $1 ,660 LF $23 .00 $276 LF $26 .00 $234 LF $28 .00 $308 LF $32 .00 $6 ,944 LF $36 .00 $9 ,756 LF $46 .00 $2 ,898 LF $40 .00 $49 ,160 LF $44 .00 $33 ,220 LF $48 .00 $4 , 128 LF $40 .00 $2 , 160 LF $44 .00 $1 ,364 LF $48 .00 $4 ,272 LF $52 .00 $7 ,124 LF $58.00 $522 LF $62 .00 $25 ,358 LF $80 .00 $11 ,200 LF $95.00 $37 ,364 EA $2,500 .00 $2 ,500 EA $2 ,900 .00 $14 ,500 EA $3 ,200 .00 $3 ,2 00 EA $3,500 .00 $14 ,000 EA $800 .00 $800 EA $500 .00 $500 Subtotal $233,448 31 32 33 34 35 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Water Lines 8" PVC CL200 (C900) Non-Structural 8" 0 .1. Pipe CL350 Non-Structural 12" 0 .1. Pipe CL350 TxOOT Structural 20" Steel casing w/ spacers 16" Steel casing w/ spacers 8" Anchor Coupling 12" Anchor Coupling Gate Valves -8" Gate Valves -12" M .J . Tees -8" M .J. Tees -8" X 6" M .J . Tees -12" M.J . Bends -8" -11 .25 deg . M.J . Bends -8" -22 .5 deg. M.J . Bends -12" -45 deg . M .J . Bends -12" -90 deg . M .J . Reducer 12" x 8" M.J . Reducer 8" x 6" Fire Hydrant Assembly Connect to existing line 806 70 414 410 60 4 3 4 1 2 2 2 LF $24 .00 $19 ,344 LF $30 .00 $2 ,100 LF $40 .00 $16 ,560 LF $95.00 $38 ,950 LF $80 .00 $4,800 EA $150 .00 $600 EA $200 .00 $600 EA $600 .00 $2,400 EA $1 ,600 .00 $1,600 EA $275 .00 $275 EA $275 .00 $275 EA $550 .00 $550 EA $275.00 $550 EA $275 .00 $550 EA $550 .00 $550 EA $550 .00 $550 EA $550 .00 $550 EA $275 .00 $275 EA $2,400 .00 $4,800 EA $500 .00 $500 Subtotal $96,379 Site Preparation $52, 110 Sanitary Sewer $233,448 Water $96,379 SUBTOTAL $381,937 Engineering and Surveying $35,500 Contingency $36,304.00 Finance Charge for Construction $15,400 Finance Charge for Engineering and Surveying..--__ $_1'"-,4_50_, TOTAL! $470,591 I Note : No rock excavation included in these unit prices . E 099. Eng in ee rs-cos l -es ti ma le . x Is P<1g e2 ~-~ DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 03-90 Project: CASTLEGATE BUSINESS CENTER C.OlllGl STATION FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Castlegate Business Center Lots 1 and 2 DATE OF ISSUE: 12/29/03 OWNER: Tim Crowley 1301 McKinney, Suite 3500 Houston, Texas 77010 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: SITE ADDRESS: 2270 Greens Prairie Road DRAINAGE BASIN: Spring Creek VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: Full Development Permit -Water and Sewer Line Construction All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited . Erosion Control per the approved plans must be in place for the duration of the project. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition , placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. Date Date --...._ - -_.. ----.-.. .... CONSTRUCTION SITE NOTICE FOR THE Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Storm Water Program TPDES GENERAL PERMIT TXR150000 The following information is posted in compliance with Part 11.D.2. of the TCEQ General Permit Number TXR150000 for discharges of storm water runoff from construction sites. Additional information regarding the TCEQ storm water permit program may be found on the internet at: www. tnrcc .state. tx. us/permi tting/waterperm/wwperm/tpdestorm Contact Name and Phone Number: Project Description: (Physical address or description of the site's location , estimated start date and projected end date, or date that distu rbed soils will be stabilized ) Location of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan : For Construction Sites Authorized Under Part 11.D .2. (Obtaining Authorization to Discharge) the following certification must be completed: .Jo~ ~ clv.. \.:\-z._ (Typed or Printed Name Person Completing This Certi fi cation) certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand the eligibility requirements for claiming an authorization under Part 11 .D .2. of TPDES General Permit TXR150000 and agree to comply with the terms of this permit. A storm water pollution prevention plan has been developed and implemented according to permit requirements. A copy of thi s s ig ned notice is supp li ed to the operator of the MS4 if discharges enter an MS4 system . l am aware there are significant penalties for providin g false information or for conducting unauthori zed disch arges, including the pos s ibilit y of fin e and it priso e nt or nowing vio lation s. Date ENGINEER'S CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 08 -Dec-03 SANITARY SEWER LINE S-2 CROWLEY TRACT COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Item Estimated Unit Estimated No . Description Quantity Price Cost Site Preparation 1 Mobilization I Layout 1 LS $2,500 .00 $2,500 2 Clearing I Site Prep (30' width) 0 .5 AC $4,000 .00 $2,000 3 Silt fence 700 LF $3 .00 $2,100 4 Construction Exit 1 EA $1,000 .00 $1 ,000 5 Seeding 0.5 AC $1 ,500.00 $750 Subtotal $8,350 Sanitary Sewer Lines 6 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 16-18' 129 LF $34 .00 $4 ,386 7 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 18 -20' 196 LF $38 .00 $7,448 8 8" PVC SOR 26 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 20-22' 58 LF $42 .00 $2,436 9 8" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct ; avg depth 18-20' 81 LF $52 .00 $4,212 10 8" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -TxDot struct ; avg depth 20-22' 75 LF $56.00 $4,200 11 8" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 16-18' 120 LF $42 .00 $5,040 12 8" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 18 -20' 114 LF $46 .00 $5 ,244 13 8" Ductile Iron, Class 350 Pipe -non-str; avg depth 20-22' 49 LF $50 .00 $2,450 14 16" Steel casing w/ spacers -Open Cut 155 LF $80.00 $12,400 15 16" Steel casing w/ spacers -Bore 55 LF $80 .00 $4,400 16 Bore Greens Praire Road LS $20,000.00 $20,000 17 Manholes -avg depth 18-20' 1 EA $3 ,200 .00 $3 ,200 18 Manholes -avg depth 20-22' 2 EA $3 ,500 .00 $7 ,000 Subtotal $82,416 Site Preparation $8,350 Sanitary Sewer $82,416 SUBTOTAL $90,766 Engineering and Survey $8,000 Contingency@ 10% $9,076.60 Finance Charge for Construction $3,650.00 Finance Charge for Engineering and Survey~ __ $_3_50_._00~ TOTAL! $111,8431 Note : No rock excavation included in these unit prices . E099 -Engin ec rs-1Jid-co st-estimale .xts Date: To: From: Subject: Remarks: TEX CON TRANSMITTAL Decemb er 29, 2003 Bridgette George Assistant Development Manager City of Co ll ege Station Joe Schultz, P .E. Texcon General Contractors 1707 Graham Road College Station, Texas 77845 Phone: (979) 764-7743 Revised Construction Documents Castlegate Business Center College Station, Texas ~ \~-zq-03 t)'.DD 'A1ri o~-~d.3 Attached are five copies of the revised co nstruction documents , two copies of the revised Engineer's Cost Estimate and a copy of the TCEQ Construction Site Notice for the water and sanitary sewer lin e proposed to serve the Castlegate Business Center. Less than 5 acres wi ll be disturbed during construction , so a Notice of Intent is not needed. Let me know if yo u need anything else or h ave any questions . Design Report Proposed Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements for Castlegate Business Center College Station, Texas November 2003 Revised December 2003 Prepared By: TEXCON General Contractors 1707 Graham Road College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 764-7743 1.0 INTRODUCTION & DESCRIPTION The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed with the Castlegate Busittess Cettter , and to provide the criteria used in the design of this sanitary sewer system. The project will include the construction of approximately 4,340 feet of sanitary sewer line. The line will service the proposed development of the Castlegate Business Center, as well as the future development of the Crowley property south of Greens Prairie Road . Lot 2 of the Castlegate Business Center is proposed to be an elementary school. 2.0 SANITARY SEWER -Design Flow and Pipe Size Calculations The proposed sewer line is to be constructed of 8" and 12" diameter SDR-26, PVC pipe, which meet the requirements of ASTM-D3034, and ductile iron, Class 350 pipe . The proposed manholes are 4' diameter manholes, and vary from 16' to 22 ' in depth, with sewer line slopes ranging from 0 .35% to 0 . 70%. The maximum distance between manholes is less than 500 feet, as required by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and 450 feet, as required by the City of College Station Design Manual. Per TCEQ requirements, the minimum allowable slope for 8" and 12" pipe is 0 .33% and 0 .20%, respectively. All construction shall meet the current City of College Station Standard Specifications for Sanitary Sewer Construction. The sewer line information is summarized in Table 1. 3.0 DETERMINATION OF PEAK FLOW VALUES The peak flows for residential areas were based on using 100 gallons per day (gpd) per person with 2 .7 persons per dwelling unit (DU) and 3 DUs per acre. Values used for commercial areas are 50 gpd per person and 30 persons per acre, and values used for school are 35 gpd per person. The College Station Independent School District (CSISD) staff projected that the maximum occupancy of the school would be 730 persons. The gallons per day values are converted into gallons per minute. These design flow values are from the Design Guideline Manual for Sanitary Sewer that is proposed to be used by the Cities of Bryan and College Station . The average daily flow values in gallons per day are converted to average daily flow in gallons per minute (gpm) and cubic feet per second (cfs). The peak flow is determined by multiplying the average daily flow by 4 . Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) of 10% is calculated and added to the peak flow to result in the total peak flow for each line . This data can be found in Table 1. A review of the Final Engineering Report, dated February 11 , 2000, for the existing sanitary sewer trunk line was done for comparison to the anticipated wastewater flows shown in Table 1. A second analysis was done and the results are shown in Table 3 . This analysis used the same design assumptions for flows used by LJA in the Final Engineering Report, but with the current projected la nd uses shown on Exhibit A. The desi g n ass umptions used b y LJ A are as follow s: M e dium Den s it y Residential 4.0 Dwelling Units/ Acre 2.7 Persons/ Dwelling Unit I 00 g pd / Person = 108 0 gp d /Acre Commercial Institutional Park Floodplain 10.0 Dwelling Units/ Acre <1> 250 gpd/ Dwelling Unit <2> = 2500 gpd /Acre I 000 gpd/ Acre 200 gpd/ Acre 0 .0 gpd/ Acre <1> See Impact Fee Sanitary Sewer Service Area "97-01 "; City of College Station Development Services Department; October, 1997 ; Page 14 <2> Assume 250 gpd/ Dwelling Unit for Commercial The total peak flow for the existing 15" line is anticipated to be 1.80 cfs and 2.48 cfs based on the analysis shown in Tables 1 and 3, respectively. Each of these values is less than the 2.54 cfs peak flow shown in the LJA Final Engineering Report. The 2.54 cfs peak flow is from Table 3 of the Final Engineering Report. A copy of this table is attached to this report. The velocities for the lines were calculated using Manning's Equation. According to the TCEQ, the minimum velocity for sewer systems flowing full is 2.0 feet per second. As shown in Table 2, the velocities for the pipes at 100% full meet this requirement. The velocities at 100% full range from 2.1 to 2.9 fps. The TCEQ requires that the maximum velocity for sewer systems flowing full not exceed 10 feet per second. The values in Tables 2 and 4 are well below this maximum velocity. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS It is our determination based on the criteria and data developed that the proposed sewer line will provide sufficient capacity for the anticipated wastewater flows generated by this development and the future development of the Crowley property south of Greens Prairie Road. Also, the existing 15" sewer line, which flows into the 27" sewer trunk line, has adequate capacity for the anticipated wastewater flows. 2 Castlegate Business Center -Sewer Analysis Table 1 --Line MH No. Pipe Distance No. to Size between MH's MH No. (in) (ft) E14 S203 -S132 15 -E13 S201 -S203 15 -1 S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Table 2 Line MH No. Pipe Distance to Size between MH's No. MH No. (in) (ft) E14 S203 -S132 15 -E13 S201 -S203 15 1 S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Refer to Exhibit A for manhole locations. n = 0.013 Slope Drainage Areas (%) No. Acres 0.16 10 13.13 0.16 9 44.68 0.35 8 6.09 0.35 0.40 0.35 7 13.32 0.35 6 11.19 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.50 5 3.62 0.50 4 30.37 0.50 3 17.02 0.70 2 16.13 0.40 0.40 1 53.34 Slope Total Peak Percent Flow Full (%) (cfs) (%) 0.16 1.80 61.4 0.16 1.78 61.0 0.35 1.32 57.3 0.35 1.26 55.7 0.40 1.26 53.5 0.35 1.26 55.7 0.35 1.13 52.1 0.35 1.01 48.8 0.40 1.01 46.9 0.50 0.38 46.7 0.50 0.38 46.7 0.50 0.34 43.9 0.50 0.17 30.2 0.70 0.63 57.2 0.60 0.54 54.5 0.60 0.54 54.5 Average Type Dwelling Units Persons Flow (gpd) Part< 0 -2,626 Commercial 0 1340 67,020 ComrMrcial 0 183 9,135 Commercial 0 400 19,980 Commercial -0 336 16,785 Commercial 0 109 5,430 Residential 91 246 24,600 Schoo< -730 25,550 Residenlill 48 131 13,065 Commercial 0 1600 80,010 Restdent1al ,. 2. 7 persons/OU Commercial ., 30 personslac Velocity Pipe Velocity at Capacity 100% Full (fps) (cfs) (fps) 2.3 2.58 2.1 2.3 2.58 2.1 2.8 2.11 2.7 2.8 2.11 2.7 2.9 2.25 2.9 2.8 2.11 2.7 2.7 2.11 2.7 2.7 2.11 2.7 2.8 2.25 2.9 2.4 0.85 2.4 2.4 0.85 2.4 2.3 0.85 2.4 1.9 0.85 2.4 3.1 1.01 2.9 2.8 0.94 2.7 2.8 0.94 2.7 Cumulative Avera11e Dally Flow Gallons per Day gpd. 0.0006"4 laoml 264,201 183.47 261,575 181.65 194,555 135.11 185,420 128.76 165,440 114.89 148,655 103.23 55,580 38.60 50, 150 34.83 25,550 17.74 93,075 64.64 80,010 55.56 Residential• 100 gpd/persan (•27~pd/OU) Commercial • 50 gpdlperson School • 35 gpd/person Park• 200 gpd/acre gpm • 0.0022283 lcfsl 0.4088 0.4048 0.3011 0.2869 0.2560 0.2300 0.0860 0.0776 0.0395 0.1440 0.1238 Peak Flow l&I Total Peak cfs' 4.0 10% Flow (cfsl (cfsl lcfs) 1.64 0.16 1.80 1.62 0.16 1.78 1.20 0.12 1.32 1.15 0.11 1.26 1.02 0.10 1.13 0.92 0.09 1.01 0.34 0.03 0.38 0.31 0.03 0.34 0.16 0.02 0.17 0.58 0.06 0.63 0.50 0.05 0.54 ' Castlegate Business Center -Sewer Analysis: LJA Engineering Design Assumptions Table 3 Line MH No. Pipe Distance to Size between MH's No. MH No. (in) (ft) E14 5203 -5132 15 -E13 5201 . 5203 15 -1 S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Table 4 Line MH No. Pipe Distance to Size between MH's No. MH No. (in) (ft) E14 5203 -5132 15 -E13 5201 -5203 15 -1 S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Refer to Exhibit A for manhole locations. n=0.013 Slope (%) 0.16 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.40 0.40 Slope (%) 0.16 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.60 0.60 Drainage Areas Average Type Dwelling Persons Flow Units No. Acres (gpd) 10 13.13 p.,, 0 -2,626 9 44.68 Commercial 0 -111,700 8 6.09 Commercial 0 -15,225 7 13.32 Commercial 0 -33,300 6 11.19 Commercial 0 -27,975 5 3.62 Commercial 0 9,050 4 30.37 Residential 121 328 32,800 3 17.02 School/lnsl. --17,020 2 16.13 Residential 65 174 17,420 1 53.34 Commercial 0 -133,350 Medium Density Reslden11al • 2. 7 persons/OU Total Peak Percent Velocity Pipe Velocity at Flow Full Capacity 100% Full (cfs) (%) (fps) (cfs) (fps) 2.48 78.6 2.4 2.58 2.1 2.46 78.0 2.4 2.58 2.1 1.77 70.2 3.0 2.11 2.7 1.68 67.5 3.0 2.11 2.7 1.68 64.3 3.1 2.25 2.9 1.68 67.5 3.0 2.11 2.7 1.47 61.5 2.9 2.11 2.7 1.30 56.8 2.8 2.11 2.7 1.30 54.5 3.0 2.25 2.9 0.36 45.3 2.3 0.85 2.4 0.36 45.3 2.3 0.85 2.4 0.31 41.7 2.3 0.85 2.4 0.11 24.2 1.7 0.85 2.4 0.93 75.6 3.3 1.01 2.9 0.83 73.3 3.0 0.94 2.7 0.83 73.3 3.0 0.94 2.7 Cumulative Average Dally Flow Gallons per Day gpd • 0.000694 la nm) 400,466 278.10 397,840 276.28 286, 140 198.71 270,915 188.14 237,615 165.01 209,640 145.58 58,870 40.88 49,820 34.60 17,020 11.82 150,770 104.70 133,350 92.60 Restdenli91 • 100 gpd/person (•270gpd/OU) Commercl•I • 2500 gpd/acre School/lnstilulional • 1000 gpd/acre Park • 200 gpd/acre gpm • 0.0022283 Ccfsl 0.6197 0.6156 0.4428 0.4192 0.3677 0.3244 0.0911 0.0771 0.0263 0.2333 0.2063 Peak Flow Total Peak cfs • 4.0 Flow Ccfsl (cfsl 2.48 2.48 2.46 2.46 1.77 1.77 1.68 1.68 1.47 1.47 1.30 1.30 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.83 >. FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOR PHASE II SANITARY SEWER TRUNKLINE TO SERVE SPRING CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS JANUARY, 2000 JOB NO. 4591-0101-007 LJA ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. 2929 BRIARPARK DRIVE, SUITE 500 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042-3703 (~ ~ OF~\\\ •••••••• .£:¥ ~ \\ ···*··.~-r.. .. . . ..,-. , ~· . . J'*l ····~·'1 11•: •• ., ~····························: ... 1 ~ WAU.ACE E. TROCHESSET ~ 1:···:··················· .......... , l . . ~ .~... 83421 ..-~6' t O'• (. <:> ··<ff., a,~,i;.~.~CENS'f.·;:~.:" · '\~,oiJK\.ffl·~~"'.:--. ''"' z,..-11 ~ 5) CONCLUSION Using the Peak Flows generated from Table 2, a range of proposed pipe sizes 12 "-27" were designed to serve the Phase II Sanitary Sewer Service Area "97-01 ". Figure 3 "Phase II Sanitary Sewer Collection System" shows the location and size of each line within the Phase II service area. Table 3 "Proposed Collection System Sizing" gives detail information on each line designation. Material selection for the sanitary sewer pipe is as follows: Sanitary Sewer Pipes 12" thru 15" Sanitary Sewer Pipes 18" thru 27" ASTM D 3034; SOR 26 ASTM F 679 (T-1); SOR 35 Table 4 shows a summary of Percent Deflection for the PVC Pipe selected. The pipe deflection calculations are based on "Chapter VII -Design of Buried PVC Pipe" from the Handbook of PVC Pipe by . Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association . TABLE 3 PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM SIZING LINE SIZE SLOPE DISCHARGE DESIGN (in) (%) VELOCITY CAPACITY CAPACITY (ft/sec) (cfs) (cfs) LINE I IO 0 .30 2.5I l.18 1.20 LINE2 I5 O.I5 2 .32 2.36 2.50 LINE3 I8 O. I I 2.25 3.42 3.48 LINE4 I8 O. I5 2.62 4 .03 4 .07 LINE5 I2 0.20 2.30 1.45 1.59 LINE6 IO 0.26 2.33 l.12 l.12 LINE7 I2 0.20 2.30 1.47 1.59 LINE8 I5 0 .30 3.29 3.50 3.54 LINE9 I8 0.38 3.90 4.22 6.47 LINE IO 2I 0 .39 3.95 4 .22 9 .89 LINE I I 2I 0.39 4.60 8.25 9.89 LINE I2 2I 0.44 4.96 9.70 I0.5I LINE 13 I5 O.I6 2.38 2.27 2.58 ' ~ 15 0 .16 2.40 CTI1> 2.58 ' LINE 15 27 0.18 3.75 12.24 13.14 LINE I6 27 0 .19 3.87 13.36 13.50 6 W :ILAN0\4S91\SANIT AR Y\Phuclll-«po<t _JanOO .doc Design Report Proposed Sanitary Sewer Line Improvements for Castlegate Business Center College Station, Texas November 2003 Revised December 2003 Prepared By: TEXCON General Contractors 1707 Graham Road College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 764-7743 1.0 INTRODUCTION & DESCRIPTION The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the proposed sanitary sewer to be constructed with the Castlegate Business Center , and to provide the criteria used in the design of this sanitary sewer system . The project will include the construction of approximately 4 ,340 feet of sanitary sewer line . The line will service the proposed development of the Castlegate Business Center, as well as the future development of the Crowley property south of Greens Prairie Road . Lot 2 of the Castlegate Business Center is proposed to be an elementary school. 2.0 SANITARY SEWER -Design Flow and Pipe Size Calculations The proposed sewer line is to be constructed of 8" and 12" diameter SDR-26 , PVC pipe , which meet the requirements of ASTM-D3034, and ductile iron, Class 350 pipe . The proposed manholes are 4' diameter manholes, and vary from 16' to 22' in depth, with sewer line slopes ranging from 0 .35% to 0. 70%. The maximum distance between manholes is less than 500 feet, as required by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and 450 feet, as required by the City of College Station Design Manual. Per TCEQ requirements, the minimum allowable slope for 8" and 12" pipe is 0.33% and 0.20%, respectively. All construction shall meet the current City of College Station Standard Specifications for Sanitary Sewer Construction. The sewer line information is summarized in Table 1. 3.0 DETERMINATION OF PEAK FLOW VALUES The peak flows for residential areas were based on using 100 gallons per day (gpd) per person with 2.7 persons per dwelling unit (DU) and 3 DUs per acre. Values used for commercial areas are 50 gpd per person and 30 persons per acre, and values used for school are 35 gpd per person . The College Station Independent School District (CSISD) staff projected that the maximum occupancy of the school would be 730 persons. The gallons per day values are converted into gallons per minute. These design flow values are from the Design Guideline Manual for Sanitary Sewer that is proposed to be used by the Cities of Bryan and College Station. The average daily flow values in gallons per day are converted to average daily flow in gallons per minute (gpm) and cubic feet per second (cfs). The peak flow is determined by multiplying the average daily flow by 4 . Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) of 10% is calculated and added to the peak flow to result in the total peak flow for each line . This data can be found in Table 1. A review of the Final Engineering Report, dated Febrnary 11, 2000, for the existing sanitary sewer trunk line was done for comparison to the anticipated wastewater flows shown in Table l. A second analysis was done and the results are shown in Table 3. This a nalysis used the same desi gn assumptions for flo ws used by LIA in the Final Eng in ee rin g Report, but with the current project ed land uses shown on Exhibit A. The de s ign ass umptions used by LJA are as follows : M e dium Den s ity Re s idential 4 .0 Dwelling Units / Acre 2.7 Pe rso n s/ Dwe lling Unit 1 00 g pd/ Pe rs on = 1080 g pd / Acre Commercial Institutional Park Floodplain 10.0 Dwelling Units/ Acre <1> 250 gpd/ Dwelling Unit <2> = 2500 gpd /Acre 1000 gpd/ Acre 200 gpd/ Acre 0 .0 gpd/ Acre (IJ See Impact Fee Sanitary Sewer Servic e Area "97-01 "; Ci ty of Co ll ege Station Development Services Department; October, 1997 ; Pa ge 14 <2> Assume 250 gpd/ Dwelling U nit for Comme rc ial The total peak flow for the existing 15" line is anticipated to be 1.80 cfs and 2.48 cfs based on the analysis shown in Tables 1 and 3, respectively. Each of these values is less than the 2.54 cfs peak flow shown in the LJA Final Engineering Report . The 2.54 cfs peak flow is from Table 3 of the Final Engineering Report. A copy of this table is attached to this report. The velocities for the lines were calculated using Manning 's Equation. According to the TCEQ, the minimum velocity for sewer systems flowing full is 2.0 feet per second. As shown in Table 2, the velocities for the pipes at 100% full meet this requirement. The velocities at 100% full range from 2.1 to 2 .9 fps . The TCEQ requires that the maximum velocity for sewer systems flowing full not exceed 10 feet per second. The values in Tables 2 and 4 are well below this maximum velocity . 4.0 CONCLUSIONS It is our determination based on the criteria and data developed that the propos ed sewer line will provide sufficient capacity for the anticipated wastewater flows generated by this development and the future development of the Crowley property south of Greens Prairie Road . Also , the existing 15" sewer line, which flows into the 27" sewer trunk line , has adequate capacity for the anticipated wastewater flows. 2 Castlegate Business Center -Sewer Analysis Table 1 Line MH No. Pipe Distance No. to Size between MH's MH No. (in) (ft) E14 $203. $132 15 -E13 $201. $203 15 -1 S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Table 2 Line MH No. Pipe Distance to Size between MH's No. MH No. (in) (ft) E14 $203 -$132 15 -E13 $201 . $203 15 1 S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Refer to Exhibit A for manhole locations. n=0.013 Slope Drainage Areas (%) No. Acres 0.16 10 13.13 0.16 9 44.68 0.35 8 6.09 0.35 0.40 0.35 7 13.32 0.35 6 11.19 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.50 5 3.62 0.50 4 30.37 0.50 3 17.02 0.70 2 16.13 0.40 0.40 1 53.34 Slope Total Peak Percent Flow Full (%) (cfs) (%) 0.16 . 1.80 61.4 0.16 1.78 61.0 0.35 1.32 57.3 0.35 1.26 55.7 0.40 1.26 53.5 0.35 1.26 55.7 0.35 1.13 52.1 0.35 1.01 48.8 0.40 1.01 46.9 0.50 0.38 46.7 0.50 0.38 46.7 0.50 0.34 43.9 0.50 0.17 30.2 0.70 0.63 57.2 0.60 0.54 54.5 0.60 0.54 54.5 Type Dwelling Units Po 0 Commercial 0 Commercial 0 Commercial 0 Commercial 0 Commercial 0 Residenlial 91 SchOo< -Residenlial 48 Commercial 0 Velocity Pipe Capacity (fps) (cfs) 2.3 2.58 2.3 2.58 2.8 2.11 2.8 2.11 2.9 2.25 2.8 2.11 2.7 2.11 2.7 2.11 2.8 2.25 2.4 0.85 2.4 0.85 2.3 0.85 1.9 0.85 3.1 1.01 2.8 0.94 2.8 0.94 Average Persons Flow (gpd) -2,626 1340 67,020 183 9,135 400 19,980 336 16,785 109 5,430 246 24,600 730 25,550 131 13,065 1600 80,010 Residenllal • 2.7 persons/OU Commercial • 30 personslac. Velocity at 100"/o Full (fpsl 2.1 2.1 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.7 Cumulative Average Dallv Flow Gallons per Day gpd • 0.000694 la om) 264,201 183.47 261,575 181.65 194,555 135.11 185,420 128.76 165,440 114.89 148,655 103.23 55,580 38.60 50,150 34.83 25,550 17.74 93,075 64.64 80,010 55.56 Residential • 100 gpd/person (•270gpd/OU) Commercial • 50 gpd/person School • 35 gpd/person Pant• 200 gpd/acre gpm • 0.0022283 (cfs) 0.4088 0.4048 0.3011 0.2869 0.2560 0.2300 0.0860 0.0776 0.0395 0.1440 0.1238 Peak Flow l&I Total Peak els· 4.0 10% Flow lcfsl lcfsl lcfsl 1.64 0.16 1.80 1.62 0.16 1.78 1.20 0.12 1.32 1.15 0.11 1.26 1.02 0.10 1.13 0.92 0.09 1.01 0.34 0.03 0.38 0.31 0.03 0.34 0.16 0.02 0.17 0.58 0.06 0.63 0.50 0.05 0.54 Castlegate Business Center -Sewer Analysis: LJA Engineering Design Assumptions Table 3 Line MH No. Pipe Distance No. to Size between MH's MH No. (in) (ft) E14 $203. $132 15 -E13 $201. $203 15 1 S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Table 4 Line MH No. Pipe Distance to Size between MH"s No. MH No. (in) (ft) E14 $203. $132 15 -E13 $201 . $203 15 -I S-201 12 447.6 2 1-2 12 446.3 3 2-3 12 165.0 4 3-4 12 418.1 5 4-5 12 324.4 6 5-6 12 331.4 7 6-7 12 417.4 8 7-8 8 311.5 9 8-9 8 264.1 10 9-10 8 192.1 11 10-11 8 147.4 12 11-12 8 197.9 13 12-13 8 381.4 14 13-14 8 241.7 Refer 10 Exhibit A for manhole locations. n = 0.013 Slope (%) 0.16 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.40 0.40 Slope (%) 0.16 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.70 0.60 0.60 Drainage Areas Average Type Dwelling Flow Units Persons No. Acres (gpd) 10 13.13 p.,., 0 -2,626 9 44.68 Commercial 0 -111.700 8 6.09 Commerclel 0 -15,225 7 13.32 Commercial 0 -33,300 6 11.19 Commerci.t 0 -27,975 5 3.62 CommMC1al 0 -9,050 4 30.37 Residential 121 328 32,800 3 17.02 SchOol/lnst. --17,020 2 16.13 Restdentlal 65 174 17,420 1 53.34 Commercial 0 -133,350 Medium Density Residenllal • 2. 7 persons/OU Total Peak Percent Velocity Pipe Velocity at Flow Full Capacity 100"/, Full (cfs) (%) (fps) (cfsl (fps) 2.48 78.6 2.4 2.58 2.1 2.46 78.0 2.4 2.58 2.1 1.77 70.2 3.0 2.11 2.7 1.68 67.5 3.0 2.11 2.7 1.68 64.3 3.1 2.25 2.9 1.68 67.5 3.0 2.11 2.7 1.47 61.5 2.9 2.11 2.7 1.30 56.8 2.8 2.11 2.7 1.30 54.5 3.0 2.25 2.9 0.36 45.3 2.3 0.85 2.4 0.36 45.3 2.3 0.85 2.4 0.31 41.7 2.3 0.85 2.4 0.11 24.2 1.7 0.85 2.4 0.93 75.6 3.3 1.01 2.9 0.83 73.3 3.0 0.94 2.7 0.83 73.3 3.0 0.94 2.7 Cumulative Average Dally Flow Gallons per Day gpd • 0.000094 (gpm) 400,466 278.10 397,840 276.28 286, 140 198.71 270,915 188.14 237,615 165.01 209,640 145.58 58,870 40.88 49,820 34.60 17,020 11.82 150,770 104.70 133,350 92.60 Residenllel • 100 gpd/penon (•270gpd/OU) Commercial • 2500 gpd/acre SchooVlnslilullonal"' 1000 gpd/acre Park • 200 gpd/acre gpm • 0.0022283 (cfs) 0.6197 0.6156 0.4428 0.4192 0.3677 0.3244 0.0911 0.0771 0.0263 0.2333 0.2063 Peak Flow Total Peak cfs • 4.0 Flow (cfs) (cfs) 2.48 2.48 2.46 2.46 1.77 1.77 1.68 1.68 1.47 1.4 7 1.30 1.30 0.36 0.36 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.93 0.93 0.83 0.83 >. FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOR PHASE II SANITARY SEWER TRUNKLINE TO SERVE SPRING CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS JANUARY, 2000 JOB NO . 4591-0101-007 LJA ENGINEERING & SURVEYING, INC. 2929 BRIARPARK DRIVE, SUITE 500 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77042-3703 £~ ~ OF~\\\ ••••••••• £:¥ ~ ,, ······.~-". .. ··"'-. /' .. J'*l ···~·'1 L•: ••I ~····························: ••• "J ~ W~E E. TROCHESSET ~ 1···:·····························~ ~ . . ~ ,,.~... 83421 ..-~6' • o·· < Q ··4f,,, a,~,i~~.~CENS~.;:~~ \us(·······~\.\'->J ,,,ONAyP ,,~ z ... 11 .... 5) CONCLUSIO N Using the Peak Flows generated from Table 2, a range of proposed pipe sizes 12"-27 " were designed to serve the Phase II Sanitary Sewer Service Area "97-01 ". Figure 3 "Phase II Sanitary Sewer Collection System" shows the location and size of each line within the Phase II service area. Table 3 "Proposed Collection System Sizing" gives detail information on each line designation. Material selection for the sanitary sewer pipe is as follows: Sanitary Sewer Pipes 12" thru 15" Sanitary Sewer Pipes 18" thru 27" ASTM D 3034; SOR 26 ASTM F 679 (T-1); SOR 35 Table 4 shows a swnmary of Percent Deflection for the PVC Pipe selected. The pipe deflection calculations are based on "Chapter VII -Design of Buried PVC Pipe" from the Handbook of PVC Pipe by Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association. TABLE 3 PROP O SED C O LLECTIO N SYSTEM SIZING LINE SIZE SLOPE DISCHARGE DESIGN (in) (%) VELOCITY CAPACITY CAPACITY (fUsec) (cfs) (cfs) LINE 1 10 0.30 2.51 1.18 1.20 LINE2 15 0 .15 2.32 2.36 2.5 0 LINE3 · 18 0 .11 2.25 3.42 3.48 LINE4 18 0 .15 2.62 4.03 4.0 7 LINES 12 0 .20 2.30 1.45 1.59 LINE6 10 0 .26 2.33 1.12 1.12 LINE7 12 0 .20 2.30 1.47 1.59 LINES 15 0 .30 3 .29 3 .50 3.54 LINE9 18 0.38 3.90 4.22 6.47 LINE 10 21 0.39 3.95 4.22 9.89 LINE 11 21 0.39 4.60 8.25 9.89 LINE 12 21 0.44 4.96 9 .70 10.51 LINE 13 15 0 .16 2.38 2.27 2.58 ' ~ 15 0 .16 2.40 CTIY 2.58 ' LlNE 15 27 0 .18 3.75 12 .24 13.14 LlNE 16 27 0.19 3.87 13.36 13.5 0 6 W :\l.AND\4591\SANITAR Y\Phuclll-repon_J •nOO doe FOR OFFICE USE C:~L Y q ~ 4-f3 i4m, P&Z Case No .: Q,3 -J zq~ 01J4 Date Submitted : / /-) 8-03 FINAL PLAT APPLICATION (Check one) 0 Amending ($300 .00) Final ($400 .00) 0 Vacating ($400 .00) D Replat ($600 .00)* *In c lu des publi c hearing fee The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P&,z Commission consideration. MINIMUM SUBMllTAL REQUIREMENTS: 0" Filing Fee (see above) NOTE : Multiple Sheets -$55 .00 per additional sheet f[J.c Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations -$100 (if applicable) ~ Development Permit Application Fee of $200 .00 (if applicable). [0" Infrastructure Inspection Fee of $600.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed) 0 Appl ication completed in full. 0 Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review .) [fl One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable). Gj" Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station l.S.D . CB'" A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. 0 Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable). ~ Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board , please provide proof of approval (if applicable). ~ ()'\ 131.t. w1fh.fht/ '~ NAME OF SUBDIVISION Cas-f(~tv fu$a'ries5 G'v 1+er . . SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION (Lot & Block) tJ . of 6--~n~ PrtZin'e KJ £.of APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): ca4Gd~fi_f'>r. Name Jira C:ow fry E-Mail __________ _ Street Address /30/ Wlq;Ki'nnry,. $w, fe.. 35"°00 _____________ _ City Hous-fvn State TI Zip Code 770 I 0 Phone Number (1 ( ~) la5 I -( 77 I Fax Number _..,._(7_t_3~)-~~~~/_-_/~7~7~5 __ _ CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION : (All owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet, if necessary) Name flm &owl:2=f _ E-Mail ___________ _ Street Address J 30 I m;;K, 'r1 VI ry I ~ fc 3S-OD:::.=_ _____________ _ City thus~ State TX Zip Code 7 70 I 0 Phone Number (1t3) {p S" I -11] I Fax Number __,(..._~_.__/,_.3..::....),_,_fo~5-'--/----'-/7_7...:._=_) __ _ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION : Name ( Joe &Jiu.ff :i, / PJ=: . -le). con Street Address '11ol brnha.Wl RJ. City Co lletje SftL-A 'en state JY,. Phone Number (jJCJ)J/JI---JJ'f 3 1-Aug -02 Zip Code t 1<64-~ Fax Number {J11) 7JA--77-:;cz 1 o f 5 Ac reage Total Property ZQ . lP 3 Total# Of Lots 2-R-0 -W Acreage __ o ____ _ Existing Use: \la(anf _______ _ Proposed Use: c'.!amttter-Qa..( Number Of Lots By Zoning District _k_ I _fJ_ I Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zon ing District: ~'~-'--__ ,__ --'-- Floodplain Acreage 0 .;?2.$ acx-es A Statement Addressing Any Differences Between T he Final Plat And Approved Master Development Plan And/Or Preliminary Plat (If Ap.plicable): Ylo str.uJ ( !> WYctn.-Y, ~o~& h.dv.rew Gzs&~de >I.uh 'cm J 1-ifu5 p~ Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason ·For Same: __._OO'Y]....._._...,,.,e.."----------- Requested Oversize Participation: ....4Xl.l'-lt:n~~;;..._---------------------- Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: Streets Sidewalks 4 ,3 J. c Sanitary Sewer Lines I 11. q :J Water Lines - Channels Storm Sewers Bike Lanes I Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat ACREAGE : # of acres to be dedicated + $__ development fee __ #of acres in Hoodplain # of acres in detention __ # of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: #of Single-Family Dwelling Un i ts X $556 ::: $ __ {date) Approved by Parks & ReCfeat ion Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMIITED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated h9rein and exhibits attached hereto are trve. correct and complete. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of College Station of the above-identified final plat and attests that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated w;th this plat. Sign re and Title 'f 1 "' Cro.,oJ \ ~ 'f -Dale ~0-~--- I. flt ~) Total# Of Lots 0 A c reage T o ta l Property 'J._!). (o 3 -----R-0 -W Acre a g e ------- E xisting U se:_~\l~<A.._(-"'-(l--'-n~t~----- Number Of Lots By Zoning District _2=_ I __f:_l_ Propos e d Use : -~~D_Wl_Wl--'-e_r_Ci_cy~· _______ _ I I -- Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: ~!~_ I I Floodpla in Acrea g e 0 . S 2-5 o..ore S A State m e nt Addressi ng Any _Differences Between The Fin a l Plat And Approved Master D eve lopm e nt Pl a n And/Or Prel iminary Pl a t (If Appl icable): r\o stc~.J t-~ wv-( en~ yzmpos.ed k-iw-em C©&j qje ~+i 'en l ~ :ffu s p~ Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason-For Same : ~YJ~M~~e_,~--------- Reques~d Overai ze Pa~cipation :~n~~~-~------------------------ Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: Streets Sidewalks 4 13 A.'.) Sanitary Sewer Lines \ 1 2 Cf 0 Water Lines Channels Storm Sewers Bike Lanes I Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE : __ # of acres to be dedicated + $ __ __ # of acres in floodplain # of acres in detention __ # of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND : development fee #of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $ __ __ (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING . The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true , correct and complete . The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of Colleg e Station of the above -identified final plat and attests that this request does not am end any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. Sign a tu re a nd T i tle Date l ; W\ C.r ov.; \ e "/ 1-A u g -0 2 2 o f 5