The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 St Thomas Episcopal CLS DP 00-500044 906 George Bush~-W' COLLlGl STATION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 500044 DP-ST THOMAS EPISCOPAL CLSRM FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DATE OF ISSUE: June 13 , 2000 OWNER: ST THOMAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH 906 GEORGE BUSH DR COLLEGE ST A TION, TX 77840 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: SITE ADDRESS: 906 GEORGE BUSH DR DRAINAGE BASIN: MAIN BEE CREEK VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: FULL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans . 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. 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. Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any operations of this permit can begin . 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 outside 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 na d project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply . ~ /13/oo Date Date REVIEWED FOR COl\APL ! "f\ICE JUN 6 2000 3# St. Thomas Episcopal Church COLLEGL. ,_ .. A'-J DRAINAGE ANALYSIS March 2000 By /lfITCHELL&/lfORGAN, LLP Engineers & Constructors 511 University Drive, Suite 204 College Station, Texas 77840 Office ( 409) 260-6963 Fax ( 409) 260-3564 ENGINEERING CERTIFICATION I hereby ce rti fy th at thi s report for the drainage design of the St. Thomas Episcopal Church was prepared und er my supervi sion in accordance with the provisions of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards for the owners thereof _,,,,,,,, --'"\€. OF 7"~ \\ -~t-······· "'..f: ' l't:o .•. •*•• .. "fd\tL , .. .. .., '* .·· ··.*'Ii '-•· .. ~ .................................... ~ .Y.~~ ... ~.19~.~:.~;.MQB§~~.I 1~· ·~r.: 'it··~ 77689 Q /It} f1~··f.91STE~~··· ~., , 8.s ••••••·• ~~., \\.,.~ONAL ~--,,~., INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND St. Thomas Episcopal Church is located on George Bush Drive just east of the intersection of George Bush and Newton Alley. The property consists of2.86 acres , which is currently developed with a sanctuary, student center, parish hall , early learning center school buildings and associated parking lot. In 1992 , the church submitted to the City of College Station a master plan to upgrade the facilities onsite. The master plan submitted and approved by the City depicted new development that would be constructed in several phases. The first phase consisted of the demolition of the "White House" which was replaced with a new sanctuary, a new classroom building , upgrades to the existing parking lot and construction of a detention facility. The completion of this first phase is what exists onsite today. HISTORY A drainage report prepared by Garrett Engineering was submitted with the 1992 master plan to show the design of the detention pond and site grading. According to the Garrett report, the increased impervious cover for the site was 40 ,946 square feet , the difference between the 1.52 acres of impervious cover in the post-development scenario and the .58 acres of impervious cover in the pre-development scenario. These improvements included a new sanctuary, new parish hall and new classroom buildings which were to be phased in over a several year period. The first phase of this multi-phase improvement plan has been completed and the second phase is what is being considered in this report. POSTDEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE Because this report is being used to supplement an earlier drainage report for this site , the discussion contained herein will refer to the assumptions made in the original report to assure the project is in compliance with the original assumptions. In addition, this report will size several new pipes to assure sufficient capacity of these new drainage structures. Detention Facilities The building footprints of the second phase buildings have changed since the initial Garrett report. Originally there was to be an "L" shaped classroom building , which has now been reduced in size. Along with that decrease there was an increase in the size of the new Parish Hall improvements. Given all the changes that have occurred, the impervious area has been reduced by approximately 600 square feet from the initial Garrett report, which sized the detention facilities. The detention volume provided was 5,502 cubic feet based upon a peak post-development inflow of23.2 cfs. (See Appendix A for a partial copy of the Garrett report) Although the drainage area that was considered "free flow" in the Garrett report (which bypassed the detention pond) has been reduced with this new layout , the decrease in impervious cover has compensated for this increase in drainage area to the detention facility. The post-development inflow to the pond from the Phase 2 improvements matches this previous inflow at 23 .3 cfs as shown in Exhibit C-1. Therefore the detention facility is still adequate to handle the runoff from the site . New Facilities Kindergarten Classrooms With the construction of the new Kindergarten classrooms there will be a swale (open channel) constructed to carry flow from around the building to the detention pond. This swale is depicted on Exhibit D -Drainage Area Map. This swale will assure that the post- developed runoff enters the detention pond rather than bypassing that facility . Parish Hall With the construction of the new Parish Hall facilities there will be a swale along the eastern side of the building, which will capture the flow from offsite and a small amount from onsite and channel it between the existing 1 st grade classroom and the Parish Hall (again depicted on Exhibit D -Drainage Area Map). In an effort to be sensitive to the adjacent properties, all roof drainage along the eastern building face will be piped underground and outfall in the swale between the 1 st grade classroom and the Parish Hall. The eastern swale will enter a pipe, which will channel the flow under the sidewalk and then to the parking lot. Along the western side of the Parish Hall, the overland drainage and roof drains will enter a pipe, which will channel the flow under the sidewalk and then to the parking lot. The parking lot currently drains all flow to the detention pond. The drainag e areas, which contribute to these two pipe systems, are shown on Exhibit E -Drainage Area Map. The runoff and pipe sizing calculations for these two pipe systems are shown in Exhibits C-2 & C-3. The construction plan sheets, which illustrate these two pipe systems, are included in Appendix B. CONCLUSION The post-development runoff from the subject site conforms to the original assumptions as outlined in the 1992 Garrett report. The site is graded such that the increased runoff will enter the existing detention facility. The project as designed will not adversely impact the downstream system. ~ ;: c 0 a:: w ..J ..J <( <( Q. <( LL. w 0 I-0 w a:: i== 2 <( 2 (!) ..J <( w 2 w (.) ~~ <( w ..J > ::!: ..J 2 <( w <( c w <( a:: (!) ~ (i) I-cw > I-W;z 0 z a:: w <( 0 >w 0 I-::::> <( a:: Q. I-0 ..J NO. AC . 0.4 0.55 0.9 ft. 1 2 .78 1.28 0 .00 1.50 1.86 400 .0 ;: 0 ..J LL. 0 2 ~ a:: ..J w ..J > <( 0 LL. ft. EXHIBIT C-1 Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations St. Thomas Episcopal Church ;: ;: 0 0 ..J ..J LL. LL. ~ a:: ::t: a:: C3 u w I-w I-u I-(!) I-..J 0 I-ti I-2 I-..J ..J w ::::> w ::::> <( w iij en (j It) (!) ..J (!) LL. > (.) ::::> ~ ~ 0 ft. ft. ft/s min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 6 .0 0 .0 0.1 0 .9 7 .7 10 .0 6 .3 11 .8 7.7 14 .3 - 0 It) 0 .... It) N .... 0 ~ 0 - In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 8 .6 16 .1 9.9 18.4 ~ In/Hr 11 .1 0 s 0 0 0 .... 0 !: 0 cfs In/Hr cfs 20 .8 12 .5 23 .3 9926-pre-post Exhibit C-1 ~ ;: c 0 a:: w ..J ..J <( ~ ll.. <( IJ. w 0 j::: I-0 (.!) a:: ..J 2 <( 2 <( w z w u :5 ::c <( w ..J > ~ ..J 2 c a:: I-~ <( w <( Ci) w <( w (.!) I-cw > I-0 z a:: w <( 0 >2 0 I-::::> <( a:: ll.. I-o~ NO. AC. 0.4 0.55 0.9 ft. 1 0.18 0.13 0.00 0.05 0.10 135.0 2 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.09 210.0 3 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.08 100.0 EXHIBIT C-2 Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations St. Thomas Episcopal Church ;: 0 ;: ;: ..J IJ. 0 0 c ..J ..J 2 IJ. IJ. >-:5 a:: ::c a:: I-C3 CJ w I-w I-CJ I-a:: ..J I-(.!) I-..J 0 u w ..J I-2 I-_J ..J w > <( ::::> w ::::> <( w iii fl) a It') 0 IJ. (.!) ..J (.!) IJ. > (.) ::::> ~ !!? 0 ft. ft. ft. ft/s min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 2.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 2.6 5.0 8.22 0.8 9.9 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 4.1 5.0 8.22 0.8 9.9 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.7 2.2 5.0 8.22 0.7 9.9 0.8 0 It') 0 ... It') N :!: 0 ~ 0 In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 11.0 1.1 12.5 1.2 11.0 1.0 12.5 1.2 11.0 0.9 12.5 1.0 ~ In/Hr 14.1 14.1 14.1 0 ~ 8 0 ... 0 :!: 0 cfs In/Hr cfs 1.4 15.8 1.3 15.8 1.1 15.8 9926-dra Exhibit C-2 1.5 1.5 1.3 e < 0 ~ ... u 0 z ~ -00. ~ ~ ~ ~ < = ~ ~ Cl> ~ ·~ 0 0 ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ Q # # Ac. min yr 1 2 0.1 5.0 10 2HW 0.2 6.1 10 3HW 0.1 5.0 10 *Includes 25% Fla.v Increase for pipe sizes <27" dia. EXHIBIT C-3 PIPE SIZE CALCULATIONS St. Thomas Episcopal Church = Cl> ·~ = « Q.I Cl> « Q ·-~ ~ I'll Q. Q. ~ "O Q I'll ~ 0 Q.I ~ --"O Q. ... 00. I'll ·-= ~ ~ ~ = . ..., --~ .5? I'll « "O ~ .:.. ~ 0 ~ -= 0 CJ "C 0 ~ 0 •t: = -<fi: -~~ z ~ ~ cfs cfs # cfs % 1.1 1.3 1 1.3 0.16 2.0 2.5 1 2.5 0.55 0.9 1.1 1 1.1 0.94 -See Plan & Profile for pipe slope used (Pipe slope >or= Friction slope) ~ .J t:3 ~ 00. " fps 12 1.7 12 3.1 8 3.1 I = ~ ~ z ~ ~ 110 95 50 9926-dra Exhibit C-3 APPENDIX A EXCERPT FROM ST. THOMAS EPICOPAL CHURCH DRAINAGE COMPUTATIONS BY: GARRETT ENGINEERING (DECEMBER 1992) t •• 1 Tributary Area (•A•): 0.46 Acres (Free-Flow From Site -Area ·s·) .. Pervious Area : 0.46 Acres C= 0.40 ; Impervious Area : 0.00 Acres C= 0 .98 Run-Off Coefficient ("Cwn: 0.40 Time Of Concentration ("T/c"): Woodlands: Low Elevation: 0.00 High Elevation: 0.00 Distance (Feet): 0.00 Slope (% Grade): 0.00 .. Velocity ("Vw"): 0.00 Feet I Second ,,:1 Time : 0.00 Minutes Pastures: Low Elevation : 0.00 High Elevation : 0.00 Distance (Feet): 0.00 Slope (% Grade): 0.00 Velocity ("Vp"): 0.00 Feet I Second Time : 10.00 Minutes Pavements: Low Elevation : 0.00 High Elevation : 0.00 Distance (Feet): 0 .00 Slope (% Grade): 0.00 Velocity ("Vpave"): 0.00 Feet I Second Time : 0.00 Minutes Total Travel Time: 10.00 Minutes (Assumed) Hourly Intensity Rates ("I"): 2-Year: 5.20 Inches I Hour 5-Year: 7 .69 Inches I Hour 10-Year: 8.63 Inches I Hour 25-Year: 9.86 Inches I Hour 50-Year: 11:15 Inches I Hour 100-Year: 12.60 Inches I Hour Peak Discharge Rate ("Q"): 2-Year: 0.96 Cubic Feet I Second 5-Year: 1.42 Cubic Feet I Second 10 -Year: 1.59 Cubic Feet I Second 25 -Year: 1.81 Cubic Feet I Second 50-Year: 2.05 Cubic Feet I Second 100-Year: 2.32 Cubic Feet I Second Page2 ·:·., ..... t.·.-:. Tributary Area ("A"): 2.40 Acres Pervious Area : 0.88 Acres C= 0.40 Impervious Area : 1.52 Acres C= 0.98 Run-Off Coefficient ("Cwt"): 0.77 Time Of Concentration ("T/c"): 1 O Minutes (Min) Hourly Intensity Rates ("!"): 2-Year: 5.20 Inches I Hour 5-Year: 7.70 Inches I Hour 10-Year: 8.60 Inches I Hour 25-Year: 9.90 Inches I Hour 50-Year: 11 .20 Inches I Hour 100-Year: 12.60 Inches I Hour Peak Discharge Rate ("Q"): 2-Year: 9.58 Cubic Feet I Second 2-Year: 5-Year: 10-Year: 25-Year: 50-Year: 100-Year: 5-Year: 14.18 Cubic Feet I Second 10-Year: 15.84 Cubic Feet I Second 25-Year: 18 .23 Cubic Feet I Second 50-Year: 20 .63 Cubic Feet I Second 100-Year: 23 .20 Cubic Feet I Second Predevelopment Post-Development 2-Year: 6.74 Ft3/sec 9.58 Ft3 /sec 5-Year: 9 .97 Ft3/sec 14.18 Ft3/sec 10-Year: 11 .19 Ft3/sec 15.84 Ft3/sec 25-Year: 12 .78 Ft3/sec 18.23 Ft3/sec 50-Year: 14.45 Ft3/sec 20 .63 Ft3/sec 100-Year: 16.33 Ft3/sec 23 .20 Ft3/sec 2 .84 Ft3/sec x 4 .21 Ft3/sec x 4 .64 Ft3/sec x 5.45 Ft3/sec x 6.17 Ft3/sec x 6.87 Ft3/sec x (2 6.7 Min . x 60 Sec . I 2 ) = (26 .7 Min . x 60 Sec . I 2 ) = (26 .7 Min . x 60 Sec . I 2 ) = (26 .7 Min . x 60 Sec. I 2 ) = (26 .7 Min . x 60 Sec . I 2 ) = (26.7 Min . x 60 Sec . I 2 ) = Page3 Increase 2 .84 Ft3/sec 4 .21 Ft3/sec 4.64 Ft3/sec 5.45 Ft3/sec 6 .17 Ft3/sec 6 .87 Ft3/sec 2,271 Cubic 3,370 Cubic 3,720 Cub ic 4,363 Cubic 4 ,945 Cubic 5,502 Cubic Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Elevation Depth Volume ' ' {Feet} {Ft3} '"' .·. : 383 .00 0.00 0 383.20 0.20 33 383 .30 0.30 109 _,, 383.40 0.40 327 ;:f,1 ·,' 383 .70 0.70 1,425 384 .50 1.50 5,463 Detention Pond Depth Vs. Volume 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 --Cl> Cl> u.. ;; 0.80 -Q. Cl> a 0.60 0.40 0 .20 0 .00 0 l ,000 2 ,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Detention Pond Volume (Cubic Feet) Page4 ' ' Weir Length(L): 2 .96 Elevation Depth Discharge (Feet) Ft3/Sec 383 .00 0 .00 0.00 383 .20 0.20 0.82 383.30 0.30 1.50 383.40 0.40 2.31 383.70 0.70 5.35 384.50 1.50 16.79 Rating Curve For Outlet Control Structure Depth Vs. c~::.: Volume 1.60 1.40 1.20 l.00 ........ -Q) G> "-....... 0 .80 .I:. -Q. Q) 0 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 ~ / / v ~/ 'rfl"" / v / ,, /~ ·/ , I 0.00 2.00 4 .00 6.00 8.00 10 .00 12 .00 14.00 16 .00 18.00 Discharge (Cubic Feet Per Second) Page 5 Depth Storage Discharge 2s/t 2s/t+O (Feet) (Ft3) (Ft3/Sec) (Ft3/Sec) (Ft3/Sec) 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 .00 ·-·."'!. 0.20 33 0.82 1.10 1.92 0.30 109 1.50 3 .63 5 .13 0.40 327 2.31 10.90 13.21 0.70 1,425 5.35 47.50 52.85 1.50 5,463 16.79 182.10 198.89 Storage Indication Curve 18 .00 16 .00 ........ 14 .00 "O c 0 0 Q) 12 .00 (/) ... Q) Q.. -Q) 10 .00 Q) LL. 0 :0 8 .00 j () -Q) O> 6 .00 0 ..c. 0 UI 0 4 .00 2 .00 0 .00 0 .00 50.00 100 .00 150.00 200 .00 2s/t+O (Cubic Feet Per Second) Page 6 Inflow I Outflow Simulation 1 00-Year Storm Event Time Inflow 11+ 12 2s/t-0 2s/t+O Outflow Depth Elevation Velocity . , (Minutes) (Ft3/Sec) (Ft3/Sec) (Feet) (FVSec) 0 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 383.00 0.00 1 2.32 2.32 0.51 2 .32 0.90 0.21 383.21 1.43 ... 2 4.64 6 .96 4.00 7.48 1.74 0.33 383.33 1.77 3 6 .96 11 .60 10.61 15.61 2 .50 0.42 383.42 2.00 _...:.\ 4 9.28 16.24 20 .14 26.86 3 .36 0.51 383.51 2.21 5 11.60 20.88 32.14 41 .03 4.44 0.62 383.62 2.43 6 13.92 25.52 46.20 57.66 5.73 0.73 383.73 2 .64 7 16.24 30.17 61.98 76.37 7.19 0.85 383.85 2.85 8 18.56 34.81 79.21 96.79 8.79 0 .97 383.97 3 .05 9 20.88 39.45 97.64 118.65 10.50 1.10 384.10 3.23 10 23.20 44.09 117.11 141.73 12.31 1.22 384.22 3.41 11 21 .81 45.02 134.31 162.13 13.91 1 .32 384.32 3.55 12 20.43 42.24 146.48 176.55 15.04 1 .39 384.39 3.64 13 19.04 39.46 154.39 185.94 15.77 1 .44 384.44 3.70 14 17.65 36.68 158.72 191 .07 16.17 1.46 384.46 3 .73 15 16.26 33.90 160.03 192.63 16.30 1.47 384.47 3 .74 16 14.87 31 .12 158.80 191 .16 16.18 1.46 384.46 3 .73 17 13.48 28.35 155.41 187.14 15.87 1.44 384.44 3.71 18 12.09 25.57 150.20 180.97 15.38 1.42 384.42 3.67 19 10.70 22.79 143.47 172.99 14.76 1.38 384.38 3.62 20 9.31 20.01 135.45 163.48 14.01 1.33 384.33 3.56 21 7.92 17.23 126.35 152.68 13.17 1 .28 384.28 3.49 22 6.53 14.45 116.32 140.80 12.24 1.22 384.22 3.40 23 5 .14 11 .67 105 .52 127.99 11.24 1 .15 384.15 3 .31 24 3 .7q 8.89 94.07 114.41 10.17 1.07 384.07 3 .20 25 2 .36 6 .11 82.07 100.18 9.06 0.99 383.99 3 .08 26 0 .97 3 .33 69.60 85.40 7.90 0 .91 383.91 2.94 27 0 .00 0.97 57 .10 70 .57 6 .74 0 .82 383.82 2.79 28 0 .00 0 .00 45 .73 57.10 5 .68 0.73 383.73 2 .64 ! 29 0 .00 0.00 36.12 45.73 4 .81 0.65 383.65 2.49 30 0 .00 0.00 27 .98 36.12 4 .07 0 .58 383.58 2.36 Page 19 Appendix B 'Bridgette George -st. thomas episcopal From: To: Date: Subject: Sabine Kuenzel Bridgette George ; Natalie Ruiz 6/6/00 4:43PM st. thomas episcopal the s ite plan is ok - i did not find the building elevations in plans check . the new parish hall needs to be 35' maximum overall height. CC: Carl Warren Page 1 I ' ~ ()()~ 5 OOQ 4-i 5 -30-00 Io A:w1 SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INFORMATION t\pplication is hereby made for the following development specific waterway alterations : ~ AC I, ~r/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: The information and conclusio ntained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of ity of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage Policy and Design Standards. condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvements proposed in this application according to docume d requirements of Chapte~ 13 of the College Station City Code. Contractor alterations within designated flood hazard areas.) A. I,-----+--<>--<>-+-------~ certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100 year storm. Engineer Date B. I, ____ __...,,.........._,__-+-+-----~ certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor, including any basement, of any reside e, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established in the 1\Cltest Federal Insurance 'A ·on Flood Haz.ard Study and maps , as amended . Engineer JA Date C . I, , certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood~ of the waternay adjoining or crossing this permitted site and that such alrerations or development are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerning encroachmen ts of flood ways and of floodway fringes . Engineer Date D . L ----+-><-++-""'-~=-------'do certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year flood above elevation in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Haz.ard Study. Engineer Date 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 All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply . SITE PLAN APPLICATION SITEAPP.DOC 03/25/99 3 of3 .... __ .... SITE PLAN APPLICATION MINIMmf SUB1\1ITTAL REQUIREMENTS ~ site plan application comp letcd in full . $100 .00 Application Fee. --7'-SlOQ .00 Development Permit Application Fee. . $ $300.00 Public Infrastructure Inspection Fee if applicable. (Ibis fee is payable if construction of a public ./ waterline, sewerl.ine, sidewalk, street or drainage facilities is involved .) -1-Ten (10) folded copies of site plan. _./_ A copy of the atta.chcd site plan chcclclist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not checked off. APPLICATION DATA NAMEOFPROJECT St . Th omas Epi sco p al Church Classroom No. 2 & Par i sh Hall ADDRESS 906 George Bush Dri ve , Co ll ege Stat i o n, Texas LEGALDESCRIPTION 2 .8 56 Acres , J.E . Scott Lea qu e -50, Coll ege Station, Te xas APP LI CANT (Primary Coo tact for the Project): Name ______ C~h~a~r~t~i~e~r_..:..:.N~e~w~to~n-'------------------------- St.rcet Address --~5~1 ~nw~o~o~d~C~i~r~c~l~e ______ _ City Au stin Te xas State Te x as Zip Code _7_8_74_6 __ _ E-Mail Address chart i er @o n r.com Phone Nwnber 5 1 2 -3 2 7 -3 1 9 5 FaxNumber 512-327-3244 .. PROPER1Y OWNER'S INFOR1-fA TION: Name The Pr o t e stant Episcopal Church Council of the D iocese of Te xas Street Address -~3._2_0 ..... 3_W_e --s ..-t _A-'--1 a_b_a_m_a ________ City _H_o_u_s_t_o_n _________ _ State Te x as Zip Code ___,_7...._7-=-0 9""'8"-----E-Mail Address ------------- Phone Number 713-52 o -6444 Fax Number ________________ _ ~R ENGINfER'S INFORMATION: Name Chartier Newton & Associates Street Address -~S~l~n-w_o o~d~C~·~, r~c~l~e _________ City Au st i n State Te xas ZipCode 78746 E-MailAddress chartier @o n r .c om Ph.one Number -~5 ~1 2_-_3_2 ~7 -~3~1~9~5 ____ Fax Number 5 1 2 -3 2 7 -3 2 4 4 OTHER CONTACTS (Please specify type of contact, i .e. project manager, potential bu)'er,~etc .) Name Dav i d Woodcock FA I A StrcctAddress 1511 Wlf Run City Colle ge Station State Texas Zip Code 77 840-3134 E-Mail Address woodcock@ ta z. tamu. edu Phooe Number 9 79 -8 4 5 -7 8 5 0 ( 0) Fax Number ----'-9..;...7_9-_6_9_3_-4_6_6_5 _________ _ .. .....__.SITE PlA.~ APPLICATION l cL3 srrE.APr .ooc OJ!l5m I • CURRENT ZONING Rl (c o nditi o nal us e p erm it) PRESENT USE OF PROPER1Y Church wi th da y s c hool ___ __,.PROPOSED USE OF PROPERTY Church with day school VARIANCE(S) REQUESTED AND REASON(S) (v a ri en c e for hei gh t a nd ac c ess of to~ Je t fi xt ur e s a nd d r in k ing f ounta ins g ra n te d 5-22 -0 0) #OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED NI A # OF P ARK.JNG SPACES PROVIDED _N~/~A~- Par k i ng prov ided i n p rev i o u s s ite pl a n. No add ition a l pa r kin g r eq uir e d . See S ite Plan Al .1 date d Dec 15, 1999 0 MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENTIAL Total Acreage ___ _ Floodplain Acreage __ _ Housing Units ___ _ # of I Bedroom Units # of 2 Bedroom Units # of 3 Bedroom Units # of 4 Bedroom Units FOR 2 BEDROOM UNITS ONLY __ #Bedrooms ~ 132 sq . ft. __ #Bedrooms< 132 sq . ft . GI COMMERciAL Total Acreage 2.856 BuildingSquareFeet 30,502 otal (14,140 Floodplain Acreage th i s phase) The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true and correct Signature of Owner, Agent or Applicant \____. · SITE PLAN APfUCATION SITEAPP .DOC OJ/°l-'/99 Date May 26, 2000 2ol3