HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-237FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO .: I y -731
DATE susMITIED: 00i loa I\ L-\
TIME : q :L\ Q
CITY or C ou..EGE STATION
Home o/Texas A&M University•
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
STAFF : f\::f
(Check one) D Minor
($700)
D Amending
($700)
[?:$] Final
($932)
D Vacating
($932)
0Replat
($932)
Is this plat in the ET J? D Yes [8] No Is this plat Commercial D or Residential ~
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
[8] $700-$932 Final Plat Application Fee (see above).
D $233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable).
[8] $600 (minimum) Development Permit Application I Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee. Fee is
1 % of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure , $600 minimum (if fee is> $600 , the balance is
due prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit).
[8] Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and
may not be adjusted or altered . Please attach pages if additional information is provided .
[8] Six (6) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.)
[8] Two (2) copies of the grading , drainage , and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report.
D Two (2) copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents (if applicable).
D Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
[8] Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate
current within ninety (90) days . The report must include applicable information such as ownership , liens,
encumbrances , etc.
[8] Paid tax certificates from City of College Station , Brazos County and College Station l.S.D.
[8] The attached Final Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
NOTE: A mylar of the approved preliminary plan must be on file before a final plat application will be considered
complete . If the mylar is submitted with the final plat application , it shall be considered a submittal for the
preliminary plan project and processed and reviewed as such. Until the mylar has been confirmed by staff
to be correct , the final plat application will be considered incomplete.
Date of Optional Preappl ication or Stormwater Management Conference __ N"-'/'A-'----------------
NAME OF PROJECT Summit Crossing, Phase 28
ADDRESS
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT:
Located off of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) immediately east of the Crescent Pointe Subdivision
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name RME Consulting Engineers (c/o Rabon Metcalf) E-mail rabon@rmengineer.com
---'----___::_------------~
Street Address PO Box 9253 -----------------------------------
City College Station State TX Zip Code 77842 ------
Phone Number (979) 764-0704 Fax Number (979) 764-0704
---------------~
Revised 4/14 Page 1 of 9
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified . Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name The Summit Crossing, LLC (clo Jim Easterly) E-mail jimeasterfy@gmail.com -------------------
Street Address 809 University Drive East, Suite 1018
City College Station Zip Code _7_78_4_0 ___ _
Phone Number (979) 218-6775 Fax Number -----------------
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION :
Name Same As Applicant E-mail
Street Address
City State Zip Code
Phone Number Fax Number --------------
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? 0 Yes [gJ No
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so , please prov ide the Volume ____ and Page No . __ _
Total Acreage _4 _. 7_7_3 _______ _ Total No. of Lots _3_4 ____ _ R-0-W Acreage _1_.0_5_2 ____ _
Existing Use _V_a_ca_n_t ___________ _ Proposed Use _i _ow_nh_o_m_es ___________ _
Number of Lots By Zoning District 34 I POD
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
0.096 I POD
Floodplain Acreage _o_.o _________________________________ _
Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? I Yes fX No
T his information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to
help determ i ne if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance . Notwithstanding any assertion made ,
vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Loca l Government Code or other applicable law.
Is this applicat ion a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the
application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable?
I Ye s
I No
If yes, prov ide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide
additional sheets if necessary):
Project Name: Summ it Crossing -Master Plan
City Project Number (if known):
Date I Timeframe when subm itted :
Revised 4/14 Page 2 of 9
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and Preliminary Plan (if applicable): rot Applicable
ulations and reason for same {if a licable):
Regarding the waiver request , explain how:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the
subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land.
2. The wa iver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. [I Applicable
3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health , safety , or welfare, or injurious to other
property in the area , or to the City in administering subdivision regulations . [I Applicable
4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area i n
accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. [I Applicable
Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable):
1 . I An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way ;
2 . I The presence of unique or unusual topographic , vegetative , or other natural conditions exist so that strict
adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feas ible or is not in keeping w ith the
purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan ;
3. I A capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk. Imminent shall
mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months ;
4. I Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate I
rural context ;
5. I When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle , Pedestrian , and
Greenways Master Plan ;
Revised 4/14 Page 3 of9
6. I The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and
Replatting w ithin Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO ; or
7 . I The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6 ,
Thoroughfare P lan -Functional Classification, in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Deta iled explanation of condition identified above:
!Not Appl icable
NOTE : A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of s idewalk construction shall not be considered at the
same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission .
Requested Oversize ParticipaLion _N_o_t A_P_P_l_ica_bl_e ________________________ _
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Public:
_.:E!!_ Streets
903 Sidewalks
....!!!!_Sanitary Sewer Lines
958 Water Lines
Channels
~Storm Sewers
Bike Lanes I Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE:
___ No. of acres to be dedicated + $ ____ development fee
___ No. of acres in floodplain
___ No. of acres in detention
___ No. of acres in greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
__ No. of SF Dwelling Units X $ = $ --------
(date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Advisory Board ----
NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITIED PRIOR TO FILING.
The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attachecf hereto are
true, correct, and complete. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more
than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. ff the owner is a company, the application
must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN
HOLDERS identified in the titre report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as
descnbed above.
Sign Date
Revised 4/14 Page4 of 9
G69G89G6L6 5u1ssoJ8 +1wwns
CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT
Owner Certification:
1. No work of any kind may start until a permit is issued.
2.· The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein.
3 . If revoked . all work must cease until permit is re-issued.
4. Development shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
5. The permit will expire if no significant work is progressin g within 24 months of issuance.
6. Other permits may be required to fulfi ll local, state, and federal requirements. OwnerwiH obtain or show
compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits prior to construction including NOi and SWPPP.
7. If required, Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-
pour) and post construction.
8. Owner hereby gives consent to City representatives to make reasonable inspections required to verify
compliance .
9 . If. stormwater m itigation is required, induding detention ponds proposed as part of this project, it shall be
designed and constructed first in the construction sequence of the project.
10 . In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shaU be taken
to insure that all debris from construction, erosion. and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or
existing dra inage facil ities . 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 .
11. The information and conclusions conta ined in the attached plans and supporting documents will comply w ith the
current requirements of the City of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified
Design Guidelines Technical Specifications , and Standard Details. All development has been designed in
accordance with al! applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal
Regu lations.
12. Release of plans to (name or firm) is authorized for bidding purposes
only. I understand that final approval and release of p lans and development for construction is contingent on
contractor signature on approved Development Permit.
13. I , THE OWNER , AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN, ANO IN ATTACHMENTS FOR
THE DEV LO,.PM PERMIT APPLICATION, ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE , TRUE, AND
ACCURA E .
Pro Date
Engineer Certification:
1. The project has been designed to ensure that stormwater mitigation , including detention ponds, proposed as part
of the project wi ll be constructed first in the construction sequence.
2 . I w il l obtain or can show compliance with a ll necessary Local, State and Federal Pell11its prior to construction
including NOi and SWPPP. Design will not preclude compliance with TPDES : i.e., projects over 1 O acres may
require a sedimentation basin.
3. The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents comply with the
current requirements of the City of College Station , Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified
Design Guidelines. All deve lopment has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances
of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations.
4 . I , THE ENGINEER, AGREE T ND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN, AND IN ATIACHMENTS
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT P MIT APPLICATION, ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE , TRUE, AND
ACCURA I /
_er~--~~_.__\ j_...__ __ _
Date
Revised 4114 Page 5 of9
G69G99l6l6
' ' n
The following CERTIFICATIONS apply to development in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, Fill / Grading Permits, and Clearing Only
Permits:*
A. I, Not Applicable certify , as demonstrated in the attached drainage study , that the
alterations or development covered by this permit, shall not:
(i) increase the Base Flood elevation ;
(ii) create additional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area ;
(iii) decrease the conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is not in the floodway
and where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second. This area can
also be approximated to be either areas within 100 feet of the boundary of the regulatory floodway or
areas where the depth of from the BFE to natural ground is 18 inches or greater;
(iv) reduce the Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is beyond
the floodway and conveyance area where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than
one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth in the City of College Station Code of
Ordinances , Chapter 13 concerning encroachment into the Special Flood Hazard Area ; nor
(v) increase Base Flood velocities .
beyond those areas exempted by ordinance in Section 5.11 .3a of Chapter 13 Code of Ordinances .
Eng ineer Date
Initial
D * If a platting-status exemption to this requirement is asserted , provide written justification under separate
letter in lieu of certification.
Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, and Fill/ Grading Permits:
B. I , Not Applicable , certify to the following :
(i) that any nonresidential or multi-family structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is
designed to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm .
Engineer Date
Additional certification for Floodway Encroachments:
C. I , Not Applicable , certify that the construction , improvement, or fill covered by this
permit shall not increase the base flood elevation. I will apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Adjustments .
Engineer Date
Revised 4/14 Page 6 of 9
' '
Required for all projects proposing structures in Special Flood Hazard Area (Elevation Certificate
required).
Residential Structures:
D. I, Not Applicable , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor , including all utilities, ductwork and any basement, at an
elevation at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with
elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction.
Engineer I Surveyor Date
Commercial Structures:
E. I, Not Applicable , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any commercial , industrial, or other non-residential structure are designed to have the lowest floor, including all
utilities, ductwork and basements, elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation
Engineer I Surveyor Date
OR
I, Not Applicable , certify that the structure with its attendant utility , ductwork,
basement and sanitary facilities is designed to be flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities , ductwork ,
basement and sanitary facilities are designed to be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all
areas below the Base Flood Elevation, and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions.
Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-
pour) and post construction .
Engineer I Surveyor Date
Conditions or comments as part of approval :
Revised 4/14 Page 7 of9
Existing
[g]
FINAL PLAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET)
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
(Requirements based on field survey and marked by monuments and markers.)
[g] Drawn on 24" x 36" sheet to scale of 100' per inch .
[g] Vicinity map which includes enough of surrounding area to show general location of subject property in
relationship to College Station and its City Limits. No scale required but include north arrow.
[g] Title Block with the following information :
[g] Name and address of subdivider, recorded owner, planner, eng ineer and surveyor.
0 Proposed name of subdivision. (Subdivision name & street names will be approved through Brazos
County 911 .)
[g] Date of preparation.
[g] Engineer's scale in feet.
[g] Total area intended to be developed.
[g] North Arrow.
[g] Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines.
0 If more than 1 sheet , an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch or
larger.
[g] All applicable certifications based on the type of final plat.
[g] Ownership and Dedication
O Surveyor and/or Engineer
[g] City Engineer (and City Planner , if a minor plat)
[g] Plann ing and Zoning Commission (delete if minor plat)
[g] Brazos County Clerk
O Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval (ET J Plats only)
0 If submitting a replat where there are existing improvements , submit a survey of the subject property
showing the improvements to ensure that no encroachments will be created.
0 If using pr ivate septic systems , add a general note on the plat that no private sewage facility may be
installed on any lot in this subdivision without the issuance of a license by the Brazos County
Health Un it under the provis ions of the private facility regulations adopted by the Commiss ioner's
Court of Brazos County , pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.084 of the Texas Water Code .
[8] Location of the 100-Year Floodplain and floodway , if applicable , according to the most recent available
data.
[8] Lot corner markers and survey monuments (by symbol) and clearly tied to basic survey data .
[8] Matches the approved preliminary plan or qualifies as minor amendments (UDO Section 3.3.E.2).
The location and description with accurate dimensions , bearings or deflection angles and radi i, area , center
angle , degree of curvature , tangent distance and length of all curves for all of the
following : (Show ex isting items that are intersecting or contiguous with the boundary of or form ing a
boundary with the subdivision , as well as , those within the subdivis ion).
Proposed
[g] Streets. Continuous or end in a cul-de-sac , stubbed out streets must end into a temp
turn around unless they are shorter than 100 feet.
Public and private R.O .W. locations and widths . (All existing and proposed R.O .W.'s
sufficient to meet Thoroughfare Plan.)
Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance .
Revised 4 /14 Pag e 8 of 9
Existing
~
~
~
~
Proposed
D
~
~
D
Alleys .
Easements.
A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block (numbered sequentially).
Parkland dedication/greenbelt area/park linkages. All proposed dedications must be
reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and documentation of their
recommendation provided prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration .
~ Construction documents for all public infrastructure drawn on 24" x 36" sheets and properly
sealed by a Licensed Texas Professional Engineer that include the following :
~ Street , alley and sidewalk plans, profiles and sections . One sheet must show the overall
street , alley and/or sidewalk layout of the subdivision . (may be combined with other
utilities).
~ Sewer Design Report.
~ Sanitary sewer plan and profile showing depth and grades . One sheet must show the
overall sewer layout of the subdivision . (Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility
master plan and any future growth areas.)
~ Water Design Report and/or Fire Flow Report.
~ Water line plan showing fire hydrants , valves , etc. with plan and profile lines showing
depth and grades. One sheet must show the overall water layout of the subdivision.
(Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth
areas.)
~ Storm drainage system plan with contours, street profile , inlets , storm sewer and
drainage channels , with profiles and sections. Drainage and runoff areas , and runoff
based on 5, 10 , 25 , 50 and 100 year rain intensity. Detailed drainage structure design,
channel lining design & detention if used . One sheet must show the overall drainage
layout of the subdivision.
~ Detailed cost estimates for all public infrastructure listed above sealed by Texas P.E.
~ Letter of completion for public infrastructure or guarantee I surety in accordance with UDO
Section 8.6 .
D Drainage Report with a Technical Design Summary .
D Erosion Control Plan (must be included in construction plans).
D All off-site easements necessary for infrastructure construction must be shown on the final plat with a
volume and page listed to indicate where the separate instrument easements were filed.
Separate instrument easements must be provided in recordable form to the City prior to being scheduled
for P&Z Commission consideration.
~ Are there impact fees associated with this development? D Yes ~ No
Impact fees must be paid prior to building permit.
~ Will any construction occur in TxDOT rights-of-way? D Yes ~ No
If yes , TxDOT permit must be submitted along with the construction documents.
NOTE: 1. We will be requesting the corrected Final Plat to be submitted i n digital form if available prior to filing
Revised 4/14
the plat at the Courthouse .
2. If the construction area is greater than 5 acres , EPA Notice of Intent (NOi) must be submitted prior to
issuance of a development permit.
Print Form
Page 9 of9
The Summit Crossing. LLC COMPANY RESOLUTION
STATE OF TEXAS:
COUNTY OF BRAZOS:
I, the undersigned, being the Assistant Secretary of The Summit Crossing, LLC , a
Texas Limited Liability Company herein after referred to as Summit Crossing, do hereby certify
that by unanimous consent of the Managing Members of said Company, on the 22nc1 day of May
2007, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted and are recorded in the Minute Book
of said company kept by the Secretary of the company, and are in accord with and pursuant to
the Regulations of The Summit Crossing , LLC and are now in full force and effect:
RESOLVED, that the company, acting by and through its duly authorized managing
member· Jimmy Easterly, Managing Member, is hereby authorized and empowered to sign all
documents required to zone and plat in logical phases the 25+ acre tract for townhouses
(including duplexes per College Station UDO definition with each unit on a separate lot) on a
25+ acre tract of land along State Highway 30 (Harvey Road) in College Station. Brazos
County Texas plus such additional land as required for parkland as shown in attached
addendum "A" which is made a part hereof ..
RESOLVED, FURTHER, that the said Jimmy Easterly is authorized and directed to
take such other action to execute and deliver any and all instruments in the name of and on
bet'!alf of this company as may be necessary to effectuate said zoning and plat, or otherwise to
do all such further acts and things that the said Managing Member of this company shall deem
necessary and proper in order to effectively perform all of the obligations and agreements
expressed to be kept and performed by this company pursuant to the provisions of said
instruments evidencing the plat and zoning on the properties referred to above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and by order of the
Managing Members of The Summit Crossing, LLC to be effective as of the 22nc1 of May 2007.
da-n,k/·§~J~
Sandra Fisher, Assistant Secretary
The Summit Crossing, LLC
RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS WRITTEN
CONSENT OF DIRECTORS IN LIEU OF REGULAR MEETING
OF
DWS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
We, DAVID W. SCARMARDO, GREG SCARMARDO AND MARK
SCARMARDO, the only members of the Board of Directors of DWS DEVELOPMENT,
INC., a corporation organized under the Texas Business Corporation Act , being the only
members of such Board as presently constituted, do by this writing consent to take the
following actions and adopt the following resolutions:
The following individuals are elected as Officers of the Corporation to serve for one
year and until their successors are elected and qualified:
DAVID W. SCARMARDO President
GREG SCARMARDO Vice-President/Secretary
MARK SCARMARDO Vice-Presidentffreasurer
TI1e next annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held on June 30, 2015.
I direct that this consent be filed with the minutes of the proceedings of the Board of
Directors of the Corporation.
This consent is executed pursuant to Article 9.lO(B) of the Texas Business
Corporation Act and Article VII, Section 1.of the Bylaws of this Corporation which authorize
the taking of action by the Board of Directors by unanimous written consent without a
meeting.
Dated June 30, 2014
MARK SCARMARDO, Director
Through Tax Year
2013
Issued By:
TAX CERTIFICATE
KRISTEEN ROE , CTA PH# (979) 361-4470 Property Information
Certificate #
40270
BRAZOS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR COLLECTOR
300 E. WM . J BRYAN PKWY
Property ID : 13514 Geo ID : 004901 -0029-0000
Legal Acres : 75.3930
BRYAN , TX 77803 Legal Desc:
Situs :
A004901 , J W SCOTT (ICL), TRACT 29 , 75.393 ACRES
1906 FM 158 ,
OBA :
Exem lions :
Owner ID: 424002 100 .00%
THE SUMMIT CROSSING LLC
809 UNIVERSITY DR E
For Entities
BRAZOS COUN TY
BRYANI SD
Value Information
Improvement HS : 0
0
0
0
STE 101 B
COLLEGE STATION , TX 77840-2173
CITY OF COL L. STAT.
Z REFUND ENTITY
Current/Delinquent Taxes
Improvement NHS :
Land HS :
Land NHS :
Productiv ity Market:
Productivity Use :
Assessed Value
1,507 ,860
11,460
11 ,460
This is to certify that, after a careful check of the tax records of this office, the following delinquent taxes, penalties, interes
and any known costs and expenses as provided by Tax Code §33.48, are due on the described property for the following
taxing unit(s):
Year Entity
Totals :
Effective Date : 09/03/2014
Tax Certificate Issued for:
CITY OF COLL. STAT.
BRAZOS COUNTY
BRYAN ISO
Taxable Tax Due
0.00
Disc./P&I
0.00
Attorney Fee
0.00
Total Due if paid by : 09/30/2014
Th is certificate is issued on real
estate only. It does not include
minerals and/or personal property.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST ON
THIS ACCOUNT, SEE BELOW
Taxes Paid in 2013
48 .81
55 .87
147 .83
Total Due
0.00
0 .00
If applicable, the above-described property has/is receiving special appraisal based on its use, and additional rollback taxes may become
due based on the provisions of the special appraisal (Comptroller Rule 9.3040) or property omitted from the appraisal roll as described
under Tax Code Section 25 .21 is not included in this certificate [Tax Code Section 31 .0B(b)].
Pursuant to Tax Code Section 31 .08, if a person transfers property accompanied by a tax certificate that erroneously indicates that no
delinquent taxes , penalties or interest are due a taxing unit on the property or that fails to include property because of its omission from an
appraisal roll, the unit's tax lien on the property is extinguished and the purchaser of the property is absolved of liability to the unit for
delinquent taxes, penalties or interest on the property or for taxes based on omitted property. The person who was liable for the tax for the
ear the tax was im osed or the ro e was omitted remains ersonall liable for the tax and for an enalties or interest.
A tax certificate issued through fraud or collusion is void .
This certificate does not clear abuse of granted exemptions as defined in Section 11.43 Paragraph(1) of the Texas Property Tax Code.
/..""-'~~~e:-jerct.t,,,..to ~ ff Sult ;s Pend;ng
Signature of Authorized Officer of Collecting Office
Date of Issue :
Requested By :
Fee Amount:
Reference #:
09/03/2014
RME CONSUL TING ENGINEERS
10.00
Pa ge: 1OF1
True Automation , Inc .
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE T-7
ISSUED BY
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
SCHEDULE A
Effective Date: July 21, 2014, 7:00 am
Commitment No.----------' issued August 1, 2014, 11:05 am
1. The policy or policies to be issued are:
a. OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (Form T-1)
(Not applicable for improved one-to-four family residential real estate)
Policy Amount: $574,992.00
PROPOSED INSURED: DWS Development and I or assigns
b. TEXAS RESIDENTIAL OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
ONE-TO-FOUR FAMILY RESIDENCES (Form T-lR)
Policy Amount:
PROPOSED INSURED:
c. LOAN POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (Form T-2)
Policy Amount:
PROPOSED INSURED :
Proposed Borrower:
d. TEXAS SHORT FORM RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (Form T-2R)
Policy Amount:
PROPOSED INSURED:
Proposed Borrower:
e. LOAN TITLE POLiCY BINDER ON INTERIM CONSTRUCTION LOAN (Form T-13)
Binder Amount:
PROPOSED INSURED:
Proposed Borrower:
f. OTHER
Policy Amount :
PROPOSED INSURED:
2. The interest in the land covered by this Commitment is : Fee Simple
3. Record title to the land on the Effective Date appears to be vested in:
The Summit Crossing, LLC
4. Legal description of land :
SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A"
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance
GFNo. 32195
Page 1
Continuation of Schedule A GFNo. 32195
EXHIBIT "A"
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND LYING AND BEING
SITUATED IN THE J. W. SCOTT SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 49, COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.
SAID TRACT BEING A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF A CALLED 98.202 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A
DEED TO SUMMIT CROSSING, LLC RECORDED IN VOLUME 7541, PAGE 214 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC
RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.
SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A 1/2 INCH IRON ROD FOUND ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF LOT 2R, BLOCK 3,
CRESCENTPOINTE,PHASE4,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED INVOLUME9490,PAGE 1150FTHE
OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, MARKING THE SOUTH CORNER OF SAID
REMAINDER OF 98.202 ACRE TRACT AND THE WEST CORNER OF COMMON AREA "F", SUMMIT
CROSSING, PHASE 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 9490, PAGE 296 OF THE OFFICIAL
PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS;
THENCE: N 47° 03' 20" W ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 98.202 ACRE TRACT AND SAID
LOT 2R FOR A DISTANCE OF 405.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT;
THENCE: N 47° 03' 20" W CONTINUING ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 98.202 ACRE
TRACT AND SAID LOT 2R FOR A DISTANCE OF 235.58 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING THE
WEST CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF98.202 ACRE TRACT AND THE SOUTH CORNER OF A CALLED 31.978
ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO THE SUMMIT CROSSING, LLC RECORDED IN VOLUME 7675,
PAGE 1790F THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS;
THENCE: N 41° 39' 43" E ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 98.202 ACRE TRACT AND SAID
31.978 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 724. 71 FEET TO THE NORTH CORNER OF THIS HEREIN DESCRIBED
TRACT;
THENCE: THROUGH SAID REMAINDER OF 98.202 ACRE TRACT FOR THE FOLLOWING CALLS:
S 52° 15' 19" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 317.17 FEET;
S 37° 44' 41" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 119.19 FEET TO THE EXTENSION OF THE NORTHEAST LINE OF
LONE TREE DRIVE (50' R.O.W.);
N 52°15' 19"W FORA DISTANCE OF59.72 FEET;
S37°44'40" WFORA DISTANCE OF50.00FEETTOTHEBEGINNING OF A CLOCKWISE CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET;
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF95° 12' 00" FORAN ARC DISTANCE OF 41.54 FEET
(CHORD BEARS: S 04° 39' 19" E -36.92 FEET) TO THE END OF SAID CURVE;
S 42° 56' 40" W FORA DISTANCE OF 364.47 FEET; TO THE BEGINNING OF A CLOCKWISE CURVE HAVING A
RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET;
ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90° 00' 00" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.27 FEET
(CHORD BEARS: S 87° 56' 43" W -35.36 FEET) TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; N 47° 03' 20" W FOR A DISTANCE OF
22.19 FEET;
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance Page 2
Continu ation of Schedul e A GFNo. 32195
S42°56'40" W FORA DISTANCE OF 165.00FEETTOTHEPOINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 4.773ACRES
OF LA ND, MORE OR LESS.
NOTE: The above described tract ofland also being known as SUMMIT CROSSING, PHASE 28, an addition to the City of
College Station, Brazos County, Texas.
Note: The Company is prohibited from insuring the area or quantity of the land described herein. Any statement in the above
legal description of the area of land is not a representation that such area or quantity is correct, but is made only for
informational and/or identification purposes and does not override Item No. 2 of Schedule B.
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance Page 3
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE T-7
ISSUED BY
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
SCHEDULEB
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
In addition to the Exclusions and Conditions and Stipulations, your Policy will not cover loss, costs, attorney's fees , an:d expenses
resulting from :
1. 'flte followh1g 1estrictive covenants-of 1eco1d itemized~-musreittre1 i11se1t specific 1ecordi11g data-01 delete this
exception).
2 . Any discrepancies, conflicts, or shortages in area or boundary lines, or any encroachments or protrusions, or any overlapping
of improvements . Company has approved the current land title survey and upon request, and payment of any
promulgated premium, this item will be amended in the policy(ies) to be issued to read: 'shortages in area'.
3. Homestead or community property or survivorship rights, if any of any spouse of any insured . (Applies to the Owner's
Policy only.)
4 . Any titles or rights asserted by anyone, including, but not limited to , persons, the public, corporations, governments or other
entities,
a . to tidelands, or lands comprising the shores or beds of navigable or perennial rivers and streams, lakes, bay s, gulfs or
oceans, or
b. to lands beyond the line of the harbor or bulkhead lines as established or changed by any government, or
c . to filled-in lands, or artificial islands, or
d. to statutory water rights, including riparian rights, or
e . to the area extending from the line of mean low tide to the line of vegetation, or the rights of access to that area or
easement along and across that area.
(Applies to the Owner's Policy only .)
5 . Standby fees , taxes and assessments by any taxing authority for the year 2014 , and subsequent years; and subsequent taxes
and assessments by any taxing authority for prior years due to change in land usage or ownership, but not those taxes or
assessments for prior years because of an exemption granted to a previous owner of the property under Section 11 .13 , Texas
Tax Code, or because of improvements not assessed for a previous tax year. (If Texas Short Form Residential Loan Policy of
Title Insurance (T-2R) is issued, that policy will substitute "which become due and payable subsequent to Date of Policy" in
lieu of "for the year __ and subsequent years .")
6 . The terms and conditions of the documents creating your interest in the land.
7 . Materials furnished or labor performed in connection with planned construction before signing and delivering the lien
document described in Schedule A, if the land is part of the homestead of the owner. (Applies to the Loan Title Policy Binder
on Interim Construction Loan only , and may be deleted if satisfactory evidence is furnished to us before a binder is issued.)
8 . Liens and leases that affect the title to the land, but that are subordinate to the lien of the insured mortgage. (Applies to Loan
Policy {T-2) only .)
9. The Exceptions from Coverage and Express Insurance in Schedule B of the Texas Short Form Residential Loan Policy of
Title Insurance (T-2R). (Applies to Texas Short Form Residential Loan Policy of Title Insurance (T-2R) only .) Separate
exceptions l through 8 of this Schedule B do not apply to the Texas Short Form Residential Loan Policy of Title Insurance
(T-2R).
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance Page 4
Continuation of Schedule B GFNo. 32195
IO . The following matters and all terms of the documents creating or offering evidence of the matters (We must insert matters or
delete this exception .):
a. Blanket Easement granted to the City of Bryan by E. U. Peters, et ux as set out in instrument acknowledged
May 1, 1937, recorded in Volume 98, Page 90 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, noted on the
survey prepared by or under the supervision of Brad Kerr, R.P.L.S. No. 4502, dated March 2014 (survey
date) and July 22, 2014 (plat date).
b. Blanket Easement granted to the City of Bryan by Chester A. Jones, et ux as set out in instrument dated April
2, 1937, recorded in Volume 98, Page 184 of the Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas, noted on the survey
prepared by or under the supervision of Brad Kerr, R.P.L.S. No. 4502, dated March 2014 (survey date) and
July 22, 2014 (plat date).
c. Portion of a Sixty foot (60') easement granted to Magnolia Pipe Line Company by E. U. Peters as set out in
instrument dated October 20, 1946, recorded in Volume 127, Page 411 of the Deed Records of Brazos County,
Texas. Said easement defined and partially released in Agreement dated July 11, 1980, recorded in Volume
108, Page 175 of the Release Records of Brazos County, Texas, as shown and/or noted on the survey prepared
by or under the supervision of Brad Kerr, R.P.L.S. No. 4502, dated March 2014 (survey date) and July 22,
2014 (plat date).
d. Portion of a Seventy foot (70') easement granted to Texas Municipal Power Agency by Lieven J. Van Riet,
Trustee, et al as set out in instrument dated October 26, 1979, recorded in Volume 439, Page 301 of the Deed
Records of Brazos County, Texas, as shown and/or noted on the survey prepared by or under the supervision
of Brad Kerr, R.P.L.S. No. 4502, dated March 2014 (survey date) and July 22, 2014 (plat date).
e. Mineral Reservation as set out in correction deed dated March 20, 1981 from Lieven J. Van Riet, individually
and as trustee to L & N Land Corp., recorded in Volume 488, page 584, Deed Records of Brazos County,
Texas. Title to this interest not investigated subsequent to date of said instrument.
f. Mineral Reservation as set out in deed dated March 20, 1981 from Robert Van Riet and wife, Mireille Van
Riet to L & N Land Corp., recorded in Volume 476, page 770, Deed Records of Brazos County, Texas. Title
to this interest not investigated subsequent to date of said instrument.
g. Mineral Reservation as set out in deed dated August 17, 2006 from Jimmy Easterly to The Summit Crossing,
LLC, recorded in Volume 7541, page 214, Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas. Title to this
interest not investigated subsequent to date of said instrument.
h. Estate created by oil, gas and mineral lease granted to The Great Texas Petroleum Co., Inc. by Lieven J. Van
Riet, et al by instrument dated February 22, 1991, recorded in Volume 1239, Page 769 of the Official Public
Records of Brazos County, Texas, and all terms, conditions and stipulations contained therein. Title to this
lease has not been investigated subsequent to date thereof.
i. Memorandum of Oil and Gas Lease dated August 6, 1991, from Carrara Partnership to Baker Exploration
Company, recorded in Volume 1323, page 221 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas, and all
terms, conditions and stipulations contained in said lease. Title to this interest has not been investigated
subsequent to date of said instrument.
j. Memorandum of Oil and Gas Lease granted to Carr Resources, Inc. by Jimmy E. Easterly by instrument
dated March 18, 2013, recorded in Volume 11231, Page 186 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County,
Texas, and all terms, conditions and stipulations contained therein. Title to this lease has not been
investigated subsequent to date thereof.
k. Memorandum of Oil and Gas Lease granted to Carr Resources, Inc. by Parviz Vessali by instrument dated
March 18, 2013, recorded in Volume 11231, Page 188 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County, Texas,
and all terms, conditions and stipulations contained therein. Title to this lease has not been investigated
subsequent to date thereof.
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance Page 5
Conti nu ation of Schedule B GFNo. 32195
I. Memorandum of Oil and Gas Lease granted to Carr Resources, Inc. by Michael K. Davis by instrument
dated March 18, 2013, recorded in Volume 11231 , Page 190 of the Official Public Records of Brazos County,
Texas, and all terms, conditions and stipulations contained therein. Title to this lease bas not been
investigated subsequent to date thereof.
m. Memorandum of Oil and Gas Lease granted to Carr Resources, Inc. by Lieven J. Van Riet, Trustee by
instrument dated March 5, 2013, recorded in Volume 11231, Page 192 of the Official Public Records of
Brazos County, Texas, and all terms, conditions and stipulations contained therein. Title to this lease has not
been investigated subsequent to date thereof.
n. Rights of parties in possession .
Form T-7: Commitment for Title lnsurance Page 6
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE T-7
ISSUED BY
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
SCBEDULEC
Your Policy will not cover loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from the following requirements that will appear as
Exceptions in Schedule B of the Policy , unless you dispose of these matters to our satisfaction, before the date the Policy is issued :
1. Documents creating your title or interest must be approved by us and must be signed, notarized and filed for record .
2 . Satisfactory evidence must be provided that:
a. no person occupying the land claims any interest in that land against the persons named in paragraph 3 of Schedule
A,
b. all standby fees , taxes, assessments and charges against the property have been paid,
c. all improvements or repairs to the property are completed and accepted by the owner, and that all contractors, sub-
contractors, laborers and suppliers have been full y paid, and that no mechanic's, laborer's or materialmen's liens have
attached to the property ,
d. there is legal right of access to and from the land,
e. (on a Loan Policy only) restrictions have not been and will not be violated that affect the validity and priority of the
insured mortgage.
3 . You must pay the seller or borrower the agreed amount for your property or interest.
4. Any defect, lien or other matter that may affect title to the land or interest insured, that arises or is filed after the effective date
of this Commitment.
5. We reserve the right to search Buyer(s) name in the real property records and make additional requirements if any in
the event that the contract for sale is assigned.
Countersigned
Aggieland Title Company
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance Page 7
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE T-7
SCHEDULED
GFNo. 32195 Effective Date: July 21, 2014, 7:00 am
Pursuant to the requirements of Rule P-21 , Basic Manual of Rules, Rates and Forms for the writing of Title Insurance in the State of
Texas, the following disclosures are made:
1. The following individuals are directors and/or officers, as indicated, of the Title Insurance Company issuing this Commitment
The following individuals are Officers and/or Directors of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska
corporation
Officers:
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer-Raymond Randall Quirk
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer-Anthony John Park
Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Secretary-Micheal Louis Gravelle
Senior Vice President and Treasurer-Daniel Kennedy Murphy
Directors:
Theodore L. Kessner
Ericka Meinhardt
Raymond Randall Quirk
Roger Scott Jewkes
Anthony John Park
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. owns 100% ofFNTG Holdings, Inc., which owns 100% of Fidelity National Title Group, Inc.,
which owns 100% of Chicago Title Insurance Company which owns 100% of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance
Company.
2. The following disclosures are made by the Title Insurance Agent issuing this Commitment: Aggieland Title Company
Owners Directors Officers
Page D. Thornton Page D. Thornton Page D. Thornton, President, Secretary , Treasurer
J. Fred Bayliss Page D . Thornton , Office Manager
Tebbi S . Mayes, Office Co-Manager
3 . You are entitled to receive advance disclosure of settlement charges in connection with the proposed transaction to which this
commitment relates. Upon your request, such disclosure will be made to you. Additionally , the name of any person , firm or
corporation receiving a portion of the premium from the settlement of this transaction will be disclosed on the closing or
settlement statement.
You are further advised that the estimated title premium• is:
Owner's Policy $3,506.00
Loan Policy $0.00
Endorsement Charges
Other
Total
$0.00
$0.00
$3,506.00
Of this total amount: 15% will be paid to the policy issuing Title Insurance Company: 85% will be retained by the issuing Title
Insurance Agent; and the remainder of the estimated premium will be paid to other parties as follows:
Amount To Whom For Services
·The estimated premium is based upon information furnished to us as of the date of this Commitment for Title Insurance. Final
determination of the amount of the premium will be made at closing in accordance with the Rules and Regulations adopted by the
Commissioner of Insurance ."
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance Page 8
DELETION OF ARBITRATION PROVISION
(Not applicable to the Texas Residential Owner's Policy)
ARBITRATION is a common form of alternative dispute resolution. It can be a quicker and cheaper means to settle a dispute
with your Title Insurance Company. However, if you agree to arbitrate, you give up your right to take the Title Insurance
Company to court and your rights to discovery of evidence may be limited in the arbitration process. In addition , you cannot
usually appeal an arbitrator's award.
Your policy contains an arbitration provision (shown below). It allows you or the Company to require arbitration if the
amount of insurance is $2,000,000 or less. If you want to retain your right to sue the Company in case of a dispute over a
claim, you must request deletion of the arbitration provision before the policy is issued. You can do this by signing this form
and returning it to the Company at or before the closing of your real estate transaction or by writing to the Company.
The arbitration provision in the Policy is as follows:
"Either the Company or the Insured may demand that the claim or controversy shall be submitted to arbitration pursuant to the
Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American Land Title Association ("Rules"). Except as provided in the Rules, there
shall be no joinder or consolidation with claims or controversies of other persons. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not
limited to , any controversy or claim between the Company and the Insured arising out of or relating to this policy , any service
in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision , or to any other controversy or claim arising out of the
transaction giving rise to this policy. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000 ,000 or less shall be
arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured, unless the Insured is an individual person (as distinguished
from an Entity). All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess of $2 ,000 ,000 shall be arbitrated only
when agreed to by both the Company and the Insured . Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the Rules shall be
binding upon the parties . Judgment upon the award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court of competent
jurisdiction."
SIGNATURE DATE
Form T-7: Commitment for Title Insurance Page 9
Premium Amount
1
$3,506.00
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
Rate Rules
2
1000
Property
Type
3
30
County
Code
4
41
Liability at
Reissue Rate
5 6 7 8
n
POD
R-4
BLOCK 3
Zoning Districts
R-4 Multi-Famliy BPI Business Park Industrial POD Planned Development District
R Rural R-6 High Density Multi-Family NAP Natural Areas Protected WPC Wo lf Pen Creek Dev. Corridor
E Estate MHP Manufactured Home Park C-3 Light Commercial NG-1 Core Northgate
RS Restricted Suburban 0 Office M -1 Light Industrial NG-2 Transitional Northgate
GS General Suburban SC Suburban Commercial M -2 Heavy Industrial NG-3 Residential Northgate
R -1B Single Family Residential GC General Commercial C -U College and University ov Corridor Overlay
D Duplex Cl Commercial-Industrial R&D Research and Development ROD Redevelopment District
T Townhouse BP Business Park P-MUD Planned Mixed-Use Development KO Krenek Tap Overlay
vr SUMMIT CRO SS IN G PH 28 Case: FINAL PLAT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-237
N
I . '\-....~+·::#
Scale : 1 Inch= 150 Feet
Area : 4 .773 Acres (207,914.40 Square Feet)
14 -237
FINAL PLAT
SUMMIT CROSSING PH 2B
BLK 4 LTS 34-36 ; BLK 5 LTS 32-46 ; BLK 6 LTS 13-24 ; BLK 7 L TS 1-3
ACRES 4.773
34 LOTS
Area: 4 .773 Acres (207,914.40 Square Feet)
Perimeter: 2138.841 Feet
Gap= 0.005
1. N47°03'20"W 235.58' 5. N52 °15'19"W 59 .72' 9. S87°56'43"W Ch35 .36' Rad25 .00' R
2 . N41°39'43"E 724.7 1' 6. S37 °44'40"W 50 .00' 10 . N47 °03'20"W 22 .19'
3. s52°15 '19"E 317.17' 7. S04°39'19"E Ch36.92' Rad25 .00 ' Rl. S42 °56'40"W 165 .00'
4. S37°44'4l"W 119.19' 8. S42 °56 '40"W 364.47'
GAP error cannot be greater than 0.10 (See SOP for Exceptions)
CLOSED
9-11-2014
BR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~"'fllill; .......... ___________ ~C:I TY OF C OLL.EGE S TAT IO N: _______________ lll_•,.,,,·-
Home of Texas A &M University • ,,,_ -!li l tm Jt
MEMORANDUM
DATE : September 26 , 2014
TO: Rabon Metcalf, RME Consulting Engineers , via ; rabon@rmengineer.com
FROM : Mark Bombek , Staff Planner
SUBJECT : SUMMIT CROSSING PHASE 28 (FP)
Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat as requested . The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed . Please address the comments and
submit the following information for further staff review and to be scheduled for a future Planning
& Zoning Commission meeting:
One (1) 24 "x36 " copy of the revised final plat ;
One (1) 24 "x36 " grading and erosion control plan ;
Thirteen (13) 11 "x17" cop ies of the revised final plat ;
Parkland Dedication in the amount of $12 , 172 must be submitted prior to the
filing of the final plat ;
One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P&Z approval); and
One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to :
pdsdigitalsubmittal@cstx.gov .
Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting , your project will be
considered formally filed with the City of College Station . Please note that this application will
expire in 90 days from the date of this memo , if the applicant has not provided written response
comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review
comments contained herein . If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be
schedu led for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting . Your project may be placed on a
future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid . Once your
item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting , the agenda and staff report can be accessed at
the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting .
http ://www .cstx .gov/pz
Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P&Z approval and
prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information , please call
me at 979 .764 .3570 .
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
PC : Jim Easterly , The Summit Crossing , LLC , via ; jimeasterly@gmail.com
P&DS Project No . 14-00900237
Planning & Development Services
P.O. BOX 9960 • t JOJ TEXAS AVENUE · COLLEGE STATION • T"EXAS • 77842
TEL 979.764.3570 ·FAX. 979.764.3496
cstx.e:ov/devservices
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: Summit Crossing Phase 2b (FP) (14-00900237)
PLANNING
1. Please move the surveyor certificate over with to the other certificates .
2. Please show temporary turnaround line work at the end of Lonetree Drive.
3 . Please revise General Note 5 to say , "All utility easements must be cleared of all brush and
trees . No landscaping or permanent structures within the utility easement will be allowed .
4 . Please remove note 7 from General Notes .
5 . Please provide the volume and page for General Note 10 or state that the volume and page
will be as amended . So that it doesn 't reference potentially old HOA documentation.
6. Please remove General note 11 .
7 . Please provide a note stating that all lots within Block 6 shall only have access from the
alley ROW.
8 . Please remove the lot lines for the future lots adjacent to Block 4 .
9 . Parkland dedication in the amount of $12 , 172 will be due at or prior to the filing of the Final
Plat. This amount was determined at a rate of $358 .00 per dwelling unit with a total of 34
dwelling units for this plat.
10. Please note that any changes made to the plans , not requested by the City of College
Station , must be explained in your next transmittal letter. Any additional changes on these
plans that the City has not been made aware of will constitute a completely new review .
11 . Please note that you may be required to submit pa id tax certificates if they are not current
prior to the filing of your plat.
12 . The construction documents and reports are still under review and may affect the plat.
Reviewed by : Mark Bombek Date : 09-22-2014
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Please provide a Letter of Acknowledgment and City Standard Details .
2. FYI. .. The DP Fee Balance is $3,626 .00 based on the current cost estimate and
will be due prior to issuance of the Development Permit. Please do not pay this
fee until the plans are ready for approval, as revisions to the plans may effect this
balance.
3 . Plat -On the west side of Buena Vista , the 15-ft PUE is labeled as 20-ft.
4 . Sh.2 -We typically request that only street signs be shown and all regulatory
signage be removed from the plans .
5. Sh.2 -A street sign is needed at the northwest corner of Lonetree Dr. & Buena
Vista. Please show and add block numbers per Robin Krause 's comments.
6 . Sh.2 -Are 2 mailbox clusters needed for this section? Have you received
comments from USPS regarding the locations? It seems like the corner of the
intersection may encumber the visibility triangle with cars parking in that location .
7. Sh .5 -The concrete washout should be outside the detention pond .
8 . Sh .5 -Should additional erosion control be added at the pond discharge?
9. Sh.6 -Please add directional arrows indicating how the lots should be graded.
How is cross-lot drainage proposed to be handled?
..
_:___;_ _____________ __cl._• ._ .• h .":' l • • l' 'I, , .. '\i ( .t .. ,
10 . Sh .6 -Please provide additional spot elevations where tying into existing
pavement , along some rear lot lines , and around the pond .
11 . Sh .8 -It appears that the temporary asphalt turnaround crosses the sidewalk. Is
the sidewalk sufficient to carry the loadings from a fire truck?
12 . Sh .8 -TCEQ Ch .290 requires that the waterline be at least 2-ft above the
sanitary sewer and separated 4 -ft horizontally (9-ft where possible). It appears
that this spacing may not be met in a few spots . Is it possible to move the
waterline to the other side of the street?
13 . Sh.10 -Please center the sanitary sewer in the 20-ft PUE at the rear of the lots
on the north side of Buena Vista . Until the adjacent property develops and
dedicates an easement , we will not have enough room for a trench to maintain
the line if it were to remain as shown .
14 . FYI. .. The Summ it Crossing Ph .2A infrastructure needs to be constructed and
accepted prior to the infrastructure in this phase.
Reviewed by : Erika Bridges Date: 9/25/14
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. SITE PLAN/PLAT: Developer will provide CSU with a digital , AutoCAD dwg format ,
version of plat and I or site plan as soon as it is available . Email to :
sweido@cstx .gov .
2. LOAD DATA: The developer will provide load data to CSU as soon as it is available .
Th is information is critical for CSU to accurately determine the size and number of
transformers , and other equipment , required to provide service to the project. Failure
to provide load data will result in construction delays and, due to clearance
requirements , could affect the final building footprint. Delivery time for transformers
and other equipment not in stock is approximate 26 weeks.
3. EASEMENTS: All easements on site are shown on final plat (14-237). Electric
facilities will be designed within easements as shown on final plat (14-237).
4 . EASEMENTS: If additional easements are required by CSU electrical design , the
Developer will be contacted to provide descriptive easements by separate
instrument.
5 . If easements are existing, the developer will be responsible for locating easements
on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries .
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
3 . Developer provides 30 ' of rigid or IMC conduit for each riser conduit. CSU installs
riser .
4. Developer w ill intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing
devices and extend as required.
5 . If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices ,
developer will furnish and install condu it as shown on CSU electrical layout.
6 . Developer pours electric device pads or foot ings , i.e . transformers , pull boxes , or
other device , per CSU specs and des ign.
7 . Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design ,
Pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU.
8. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide
electrical service , i.e . transformers , pull boxes , or switchgears , all meter locations ,
and conduit routing as designed by CSU.
9 . To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Sam Weido at
979 .764 .6314 .
Reviewed by : Gilbert Martinez/Sam Weido Date: 9 .26 .2014
SANITATION
1. This project is ok with Sanitation.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date : September 12, 2014
ADDRESSING
1. Addresses for this project will be verified and distributed after the final plat has been
approved and filed at the Brazos County Courthouse .
2. The proposed stree t names have been prel iminarily approved and will be re -ver ified prio r
to filing any plats to ensure no duplicate street names are being created with in Brazos
County .
3 . Block Ranges :
1500 Buena Vista @ 1700 Lonetree Dr
1800 Lonetree Dr@ 1600 Buena Vista
Reviewed by: Robin Krause , Permit Technician Date : 9/15/2014
MEMORANDUM
DATE : September 11 , 2014
TO : Rabon Metcalf, RME Consulting Engineers , via ; rabon@rmengineer.com /
FROM : Mark Bombek, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: SUMMIT CROSSING PHASE 28 (FP)
Thank you for the submittal of your Final Plat -Residential application . Erika Bridges, Graduate
Civil Engineer, and I have been assigned to review this project. It is anticipated that the review
will be completed and any staff comments returned to you on or before Thursday , September
25 , 2014 . If you have questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact us .
PC : Jim Easterly, The Summit Crossing, LLC, via ; jimeasterly@gmail.com /
P&DS Project No . 14-00900237
Pla11ni11g & D evelopment Services
P.O. BOX 9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE · COLLEGE STAT ION · TEXAS • 77842
TEL. 979 764.35 7 0 ·FAX. 979.764.3496
csb<.gov/devservices
City of College Station
Administrative Approval for Required Parkland Dedications of Less than Five Acres
1. Applicant Name: __________ ~_-'--R""'M""'"'E=-=C-=o-'-'n-=-su=l=ti'""'"ng..._:E=n=g-'-'-in=e=e-'-'rs'----------------
Address: __________ ~P~O~B~o=x~92~5~3~C~o~lle~g~e~S-'-'ta~ti=o~n~. T~e=x~a~s~7~7~8~4-=2'-------------
Phone: ____ ~9~7~9~-7~6~4--0~7~0~4 _____ _ E-Mail: _____ ~ra=b~o~n~@=r~m~e=n"""'g""'"in'-'-e"""'e~r~.c-=o-'-'m~-----
2. Development Name: __________ S~u~m_m~it~C~r~o~s~si~n~g~P_h~a~s~e~2=B __ Project#: FP2014-900237
Development Location: ______ ~1~7~5~8~L~o~n'"--g~t~re~e~D~ri~v~e~C~o~l~le....,g~e_S~t=a~ti~o~n..._, T~e=x=a=s'"-'-77~8""""4"'""'5'---------
3. Dwelling Units: M_ Single Family -~0-Multi-family Units , located in Neighborhood Park Zone __ 4-'---
~Single Family 0 Multi-family Units , located in Community Park Zone c
4. Development Fees and Dedication Requirements:
a. Land Dedication or Fee in Lieu of Land (Choose One):
Neighborhood Community Total
Single Family : One (1) acre per 117 DU 's 0 ac One (1) acre per 128 DU 's 0 ac = 0 ac
Multi-family : One (1) acre per 117 DU 's 0 ac One (1) acre per 128 DU 's 0 ac = 0 ac
TOTAL = 0 Acres
-OR-
Fee Paid in Lieu of Land Dedication
Neighborhood Community
Single Family : @ $274 .00 per DU $ __ ~O __ @ $250 .00 per DU $ __ ~0~-= $ ___ 0~--
Multi -family : @ $274.00 per DU $ --~o __ @ $250 .00 per DU $ __ ~0~-= $ ___ 0~--
TOTAL (Neighborhood and Community) = $ 0
b. Development Fee:
Neighborhood Community
Single Family 34@$358 .00 per DU$ 12172 Single Family@ $375 .00 per DU $ __ O~_ = $_~1~2~17~2~_
Multi-family @ $362 .00 per DU $ __ 0~--Multi-family @ $750 .00 per DU $ __ _ =$ ___ 0~---
TOTAL (Neighborhood and Community) = $ _ ___:1c.:2Cl.-'1:...:.7.=2 __ _
5. Comments: Neighborhood land dedication was given with Phase 1. Parkland fees are vested to 2002 Fee Rate ($358
for SF development fee). no Community Park fee rate was applicable at that time .
The City of College Station agrees to accept:
GRAND TOTAL (Neighborhood and Community) 34 Units x $358.00 = $ 12 172 -------'=>-::....:...='--------
Land Dedication _N~o~ne-'--------
/
IC,.
Name Date
ORDINANCE NO . 2668
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 12, "UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE,"
SECTION 4.2, "OFFICIAL ZONING MAP," OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES AFFECTING CERTAIN PROPERTIES AS DESCRIBED BELOW;
DECLARING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION,
TEXAS:
PART 1:
PART2 :
That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 4.2, "Official
Zoning Map," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, be
amended as set out in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this
ordinance for all purposes .
That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof
shall be punishable by a fine of not less than Twenty-five Dollars ($25.00) nor
more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00). Each day such violation shall
continue or be permitted to continue, shall be deemed a separate offense. Said
Ordinance, being a penal ordinance, becomes effective ten (10) days after its date
of passage by the City Council, as provided by Section 35 of the Charter of the
City of College Station.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 23rd day of SeptPl!!ber '2003.
~~Mayor
AL~
Connie Hooks, City Secretary
APPROVED :
PAGE 2 of7
EXHIBIT "A"
That Chapter 12, "Unified Development Ordinance," Section 4.2, "Official Zoning Map," of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, Texas, is hereby amended as follows:
The following property is rezoned from A-0 Agricultural Open to PDD Planned
Development District.
TRACT A
105 .834 ACRES
BEING ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, LYING AND
BEING SITUATED IN THE J.W . SCOTT LEAGUE, ABSTRACT NO. 49,
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. SAID TRACT BEING A
PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF A CALLED 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AS
DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO CARRARA PARTNERSHIP RECORDED IN
VOLUME 586, PAGE 488 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY,
TEXAS, ALL OF A CALLED 2 .00 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO
EDWARD H . HARTE OR HOUSTON H . HARTE OR JOANNE BENNETT
RECORDED IN VOLUME 507, PAGE 563 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS
COUNTY, TEXAS, AND ALL OF A CALLED 2.00 ACRE TRACT AS DESRIBED
BY A DEED TO EDWARD H. HARTE OR HOUSTON H. HARTE OR JOANNE
BENNETT RECORDED IN VOLUME 507, PAGE 568 OF THE DEED RECORDS
OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS . SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B,"
AND SHOWN GRAPHICALLY IN EXHIBIT "D."
Land Uses Permitted : Duplex
Park-Public
Park-Private
Open Space
The following property is rezoned from A-0 Agricultural Open to C-1 General
Commercial .
TRACTB
7 .367 ACRES
BEING ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND, LYING AND
BEING SITUATED IN THE J .W. SCOTT LEAGUE, ABSTRACT NO. 49,
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS . SAID TRACT BEING A
PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF A CALLED 113.67 ACRE TRACT AS
DESCRIBED BY DEED TO CARRARA PARTNERSHIP RECORDED IN VOLUME
586, PAGE 488 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS . SAID
7.367 ACRES BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND
BOUNDS IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "C," AND SHOWN GRAPHICALLY IN
EXHIBIT "D".
\\CHI _NETW AREIVOLI \GROUP\Deve _ Ser\SusaoH\Ordinances\Ordinances, Amendments. Reports. Resolutions\2003\2003 Rczonings\03-195 .doc
ORDINANCE NO. 2668 EXHIBIT "B"
TRACT A
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
OFA
I 05.834 ACRE TRACT
J. W. SCOTT LEAGUE, A-49
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
PAGE30F7
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRJPTION OF ALL THA T CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF
LAND , LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN TH E J. W. SCOTT LEAGUE , ABSTRACT NO . 49 , COLLEGE
STATION , BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. SAID TRACT BEING A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF A
CALL ED 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO CARRARA PARTNERSHIP
RECORDED IN VOLUME 586 , PAGE 488 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY , TEXAS ,
ALL OF A CALLED 2.00 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO EDWARD H. HARTE OR
HOUS TONH .HARTEORJOANNEBENNETTRECORDEDINVOLUME507,PAGE5630FTHEDEED
RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND ALL OF A CALLED 2.00 ACRE TRACT AS
DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO EDWARD H. HARTE OR HOUSTON H. HARTE OR JOANNE BENNETT
RECORDED IN VOLUME 507 , PAGE 568 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY , TEXAS .
SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRJBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING: AT A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF STA TE HIGHWAY
NO . 30 (120 ' R.O .W.) MARKING THE SOUTH CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
TRACT AND THE EAST CORNER OF A CALLED 192 .64 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED AS EXHIBIT "A"
BY A DEED TO COLLEGE MAIN APARTMENTS , LTD ., RECORDED IN VOLUME 3687 , PAGE 258 OF
THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ;
THENCE: N 47 ° 03' 20" W ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF I 13 .67 ACRE
TRACT AND SAID 192 .64 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 1346.50 FEET TO A Yz INCH IRON ROD
FOUND MARKING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT
AND THE SOUTH CORNER OF A CALLED 46 .19 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO
DIANE PETERS , E. DUANE PETERS AND PATRICIA KAY PETERS RECORDED IN VOLUME 223 ,
PAGE 111 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ;
THENCE: N 41 ° 39' 43" E ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
TRACT ANDSAID46 .19 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 1146.61 FEET TO A YzINCHIRONROD
FOUND MARKING THE EAST CORNER OF SAID 46 .19 ACRE TRACT AND AN INTERIOR WEST
CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT ;
THENCE: N 45 ° 4 7' 51" W CONTINUING ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF
113.67 ACRE TRACT ANDSAID46 .19ACRE TRACT FORA DISTANCE OF 593.53FEETTOA YzINCH
IRON ROD FOUND MARKING THE SOUTH CORNER OF A CALLED 35 .91 ACRE TRACT AS
DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO ROBERT HENRY CONAWAY , JR., RECORDED IN VOLUME 2864 , PAGE
51 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS, SAID IRON ROD FOUND
MARKING THE WEST CORNER OF SAID SECOND 2.00 ACRE TRACT (507/568), SAME BEING THE
ORIGINAL MOST NORTHERLY WEST CORNER OF SAID 113 .67 ACRE TRACT ;
THENCE : N 42 ° 09' 39" E ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID 2.00 ACRE TRACTS (507 /568 AND
507/563), SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND SAID 35 .91 ACRE TRAC T FOR A
DISTA NCE OF 1282 .80 FEET TO A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING THE NORTH CORNER OF
SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND THE WEST CORNER OF THE REMAINDER OF A
CALLED 15.379 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO JOYCE PETERS BELL RECORDED IN
VOLUME 297 , PAGE 252 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY , TEXAS ;
THENCE : S 46 ° 10' 45" E ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
TRACT AND SAID REMAINDER OF 15 .379 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 1172.52 FEE T TO A
5/8 INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING AN .INTERlOR NORTH CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF
ORDINANCE NO. 2668 EXHIBIT "B" PAGE40F7
113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND THE SOUTH CORNER OF THE REMAINDER OF A CALLED 11.424 ACRE
TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO JOYCE A. DEVANEY , TRUSTEE, RECORDED IN VOLUME
2584 , PAGE 225 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY , TEXAS :
THENCE: N 41 ° 57' 03" E ALONG THE COMMON LlNE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113.67 ACRE
TRACT AND SAID REMAINDER OF 11 .424 ACRE TRACT , AT 602 .23 FEET PASS A Y2 INCH IRON
ROD FOUND MARKING A COMMON CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113.67 ACRE TRACT AND
SAID REMAINDER OF l l.424 ACRE TRACT , CONTlNUE ON FOR A TOT AL DISTANCE OF 680 .23
FEET TO A POINT IN SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT ;
THENCE: S 45 ° 23' 16" E THROUGH SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT FORA DISTANCE
OF 647 .00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE COMMON LlNE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
TRACT AND A CALLED 1.88 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED AS TRACT 2 BY A DEED TO BRAZOS
SUPER TRAC , INC. RECORDED IN VOLUME 3644 , PAGE 256 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS
OF BRAZOS COUNTY , TEXAS , FOR REFERENCE A Y2 INCH IRON ROD FOUND ON THE
SOUTHWEST LINE OF F.M. 158 (V ARlABLE WIDTH RO.W.) MARKING THE MOST EASTERLY
CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND THE NORTH CORNER OF A CALLED
1.21 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED AS TRACT A BY SAID DEED TO BRAZOS SUPER TRAC , INC.
(3644/256) BEARS : N 42 ° 05' 09" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 505.20 FEET ;
THENCE: S 42 ° 05' 09" W ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
TRACT AND SAID 1.88 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 98 .50 FEET TO A Yz INCH IRON ROD
FOUND MARKING THE WEST CORNER OF SAID 1.88 ACRE TRACT AND AN INTERIOR EAST
CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT ;
THENCE: S 64 ° 42' 03" E CONTINUING ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF
113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND SAID 1.88 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 215.32 FEET TO A YzINCH
IRON ROD FOUND ON THE NORTHWEST LINE OF STATE HIGHWAY NO . 30 MARKING THE
SOUTH CORNER OF SAID 1.88 ACRE TRACT AND THE MOST SOlITHERL YEAST CORNER OF SAID
REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT ;
THENCE: S 45 ° 18' 20" W ALONG THE NORTHWEST LINE OF STA TE HIGHWAY NO . 30 FOR A
DISTANCE OF 1071.60 FEET TO A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING THE BEGINNING OF A
CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 5789.58 FEET;
THENCE: ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02c 58' II" FOR AN ARC
DISTANCE OF 300 .07 FEET (CHORD BEARS : S 43 ° 49' 15" W -300.04 FEED TO A Yz INCH IRON ROD
FOUND MARKING THE ENDING POINT OF SAID CURVE;
THENCE: S42 °20' IO"WCONTINUINGALONGTHENORTHWESTLINEOFSTATEHIGHWAYNO .
30 FOR A DISTANCE OF 1681.59 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 105.834
ACRES OF LAND AS SURVEYED ON THE GROUND AUGUST , 2003. SEE PLAT PREPARED AUGUST ,
2003 , FOR MORE DESCRIPTNE INFORMATION . BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREIN IS BASED ON
GRID NORTH AS ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATION.
BRAD KERR
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR No . 4502
D:\work\03 -074 7 A.mab
ORDINANCE NO. 2668 EXHIBIT "C"
TRACT B
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
OFA
7 .367 ACRE TRACT
J. W. SCOIT LEAGUE, A-49
COLLEGESTATION,BRAZOSCOUNTY,TEXAS
PAGE50F7
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OF ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF
LAND , LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE J. W. SCOTT LEAGUE, ABSTRACT NO . 49, COLLEGE
ST A TION , BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS . SAID TRACT BEING A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER OF A
CALLED 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO CARRARA PARTNERSHIP
RECORD ED IN VOLUME 586 , PAGE 488 OF THE DEED RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS .
SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING: AT A BRASS RIGHT-OF-WAY MARKER FOUND ON THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF F.M.
158 (VARIABLE WIDTH R.O .W.) MARKING THE MOST EASTERLY NORTH CORNER OF SAID
REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND THE MOST NORTHERLY EAST CORNER OF THE
REMAINDER OF A CALLED 11.424 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO JOYCE A.
DEVANEY, TRUSTEE, RECORDED IN VOLUME 2584, PAGE 225 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC
RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS;
THENCE : ALONG THE SOUTHWEST LINE OF F.M . 158 FOR THE FOLLOWING CALLS :
S 78 ° 58' 02" E FORA DISTANCE OF 180 .05 FEET TOA BRASS RIGHT-OF-WAY MARKER
FOUND ;
S 73° 52' 00" E FORA DISTANCE OF 315 .77 FEET Tl A BRASS RIGHT -OF-WAY MARKER
FOUND ;
S 66 ° 54' 03" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 234 .90 FEET TO A CONCRETE RIGHT-OF-WAY
MARKER FOUND;
S 64 ° 15' 25" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 253 .06 FEET TO A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND
MARKING THE MOST NORTHERLY EAST CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
TRACT AND THE NORTH CORNER OF A CALLED 1.21 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED AS
TRACT 1 BY A DEED TO BRAZOS SUPER TRAC, INC. RECORDED IN VOLUME 3644, PAGE
256 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ;
THENCE : S 42 ° 05' 09" W ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
TRACT AND SAID 1.21 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 505.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE
COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND A CALLED 1.88 ACRE TRACT
DESCRIBED AS TRACT 2 BY SAID DEED TO BRAZOS SUPER TRAC, INC . (3644/256), FOR
REFERENCE A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING THE WEST CORNER OF SAID 1.88 ACRE
TRACT AND AN INTERIOR EAST CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE TRACT BEARS :
S 42 ° 05' 09" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 98.50 FEET ;
THENCE : N 45 °23 '16" WTHROUGH SAID REMAINDER OF 11 3.67 ACRE TRACT FORA DISTANCE
OF 647 .00 FEET TO A POINT MARKING AN INTERIOR SOUTH CORNER OF THIS HEREIN
DESCRIBED TRACT ;
THENCE: S 41 ° 57' 03" W CONTINUING THROUGH SAID REMAINDER OF 113.67 ACRE TRACT
FOR A DISTANCE OF 78 .00 FEET TO A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING THE MOST
SOUTHERLY EAST CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 11.424 ACRE TRACT ;
THENCE: N 72 c 47' 26" W ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF 113 .67 ACRE
ORDINANCE NO. 2668 EXHIBIT "C" PAGE 6 OF 7
TRACT AND SAID REMAINDER OF 11 .~24 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 220 . 45 FEET TO A Yi
INCH IRON ROD FOUND MARKING AN INTERJOR EAST CORNER OF SAID REMAINDER OF 11.424
ACRE TRACT ; .
THENCE: .N 30° 07' 18" E CONTINIBNG ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID REMAINDER OF
113 .67 ACRE TRACT AND SAID REMAINDER OF 11.424 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 274.69
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 7.367 ACRES OF LAND AS SURVEYED ON
THE GROUND AUGUST, 2003 . SEE PLAT PREPARED AUGUST, 2003, FOR MORE DESCRlPTNE
INFORMATION . BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREIN IS BASED ON GRID NORTH AS
ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATION .
BRAD KERR
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYOR No . 4502
D:\work\03-07 4 7B .mab
/
CITY OF Cour:.GE STATJON
Honu of Texas A&M University"
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO .: I Y-2.31
DATE SUBMITIED: \ 0 I Of? / l t-1'
TIME: 75220
STAFF : ~:::f
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TRANS MITT AL LETTER
Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal.
0 New Project Submittal
O Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application. Case No .:
;st' Existing Project Submittal. Case No .: l..tf-2-3 I
Project Name SuMro\t £roSS ihj ?YY6se a~
Contact Name Phone Number
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment (check all that apply):
O Comprehensive Plan Amendment
0 Rezoning Application
O Conditional Use Permit
O Preliminary Plan
~ Final Plat
0 Development Plat
O Site Plan
0 Special District Site Plan
O Special District Building I Sign
O Landscape Plan
INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS
D Non-Residential Architectural Standards
0 Irrigation Plan
0 Variance Request
D Development Permit
0 Development Exaction Appeal
0 FEMA CLOMNCLOMR/LOMNLOMR
0 Grading Plan
0 Other -Please specify below
All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set.
The following are included in the complete set:
0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 0 Waterline Construction Documents
D TxDOT Driveway Permit D Sewerline Construction Documents
D TxDOT Utility Permit D Street Construction Documents
0 Drainage Letter or Report D Easement Application
0 Fire Flow Analysis 0 Other -Please specify
Special Instructions:
10/10
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 26 , 2014
TO : Rabon Metcalf, RME Consulting Engineers , via ; rabon@rmengineer.com
FROM : Mark Bombek, Staff Planner
SUBJECT: SUMMIT CROSSING PHASE 28 (FP)
Staff rev iewed the above-mentioned final plat as requested . The following page is a list of staff
review comments detailing items that need to be addressed . Please address the comments and
submit the following information for further staff review and to be scheduled for a future Planning
& Zon ing Commission meeting:
___!__ One ( 1) 24"x36 " copy of the revised final plat;
___!__ One (1) 24"x36 " grading and erosion control plan ;
___!__ Thirteen (13) 11 "x17" copies of the revised final plat ;
Parkland Dedication in the amount of $12, 172 must be submitted prior to the
filing of the final plat ;
One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P&Z approval); and
One ( 1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on d iskette or e-mail to :
pdsdigitalsubmittal@cstx.gov.
Upon receipt of the required documents fo r the Planning & Zoning meeting , your project will be
considered formally filed with the City of College Station . Please note that this application will
expire in 90 days from the date of this memo , if the applicant has not provided written response
comments and revised documents to the Administrator that seek to address the staff review
comments contained here in. If all comments have not been addressed your project will not be
scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting . Your project may be placed on a
future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid . Once your
item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting , the agenda and staff report can be accessed at
the follow ing web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting .
http://www.cstx .gov/pz
Please note that a Mylar orig inal of the revised final plat will be required after P&Z approva l and
prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information , please call
me at 979 . 764.3570.
Attachments : Staff Review Comments
PC : Jim Easterly, The Summit Crossing, LLC , via ; jimeasterly@gmail.com
P&DS Project No . 14-00900237
Plan ni ng & Development Services
P.O. BOX9960 • 1101 TEXAS AVENUE · COLLEGE STATION · TEXAS• 77842
STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 1
Project: Summit Crossing Phase 2b (FP) (14-00900237)
PLANNING
"'4 . Please move the surveyor certificate over with to the other certificates . As we discussed
~.· on the phone (9/29/14) this will remain as is.
""'L.. Please show temporary turnaround line work at the end of Lonetree Drive. Deleted per
email (10/1/14). v3. Please revise General Note 5 to say, "All utility easements must be cleared of all brush and
trees . No landscaping or permanent structures within the utility easement will be allowed .
Revised accordingly.
v-4 . Please remove note 7 from General Notes. Ignored per email (9/30/14).
5. Please provide the volume and page for General Note 10 or state that the volume and page
will be as amended . So that it doesn 't reference potentially old HOA documentation.
Revised accordingly.
_.,., 6. Please remove General note 11 . Revised accordingly.
<J,e.-SEJ.Jt> 7. Please provide a note stating that all lots within Block 6 shall only have access from the
alley ROW. Revised accordingly.
~YV\~!~ 8. Please remove the lot lines for the future lots adjacent to Block 4 . As we discussed on the
phone (9/29/14) this will remain as is.
v 9. Parkland dedication in the amount of $12 , 172 will be due at or prior to the filing of the Final
Plat. This amount was determined at a rate of $358.00 per dwelling unit with a total of 34
dwelling units for this plat. Understood.
/10. Please note that any changes made to the plans, not requested by the City of College
Station , must be explained in your next transmittal letter. Any additional changes on these
plans that the City has not been made aware of will constitute a completely new review .
Understood.
/ 11 . Please note that you may be required to submit paid tax certificates if they are not current
prior to the filing of your plat. Understood .
../ 12 . The construction documents and reports are still under review and may affect the plat.
Understood.
Reviewed by: Mark Bombek Date: 09-22-2014
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1
1. Please provide a Letter of Acknowledgment and City Standard Details .
Attached.
2 . FYI. .. The DP Fee Balance is $3,626.00 based on the current cost estimate and
will be due prior to issuance of the Development Permit. Please do not pay this
fee until the plans are ready for approval, as revisions to the plans may effect this
balance. Understood.
3. Plat -On the west side of Buena Vista , the 15-ft PUE is labeled as 20 -ft.
Revised accordingly.
4 . Sh.2 -We typically request that only street signs be shown and all regulatory
signage be removed from the plans . Ignored per email (dated 9/30/14).
•
5. Sh.2 - A street sign is needed at the northwest corner of Lonetree Dr. & Buena
Vista. Please show and add block numbers per Robin Krause's comments.
Revised accordingly.
6. Sh.2 -Are 2 mailbox clusters needed for this section? Have you received
comments from USPS regarding the locations? It seems like the corner of the
intersection may encumber the visibility triangle with cars parking in that location.
Revised accordingly.
7. Sh.5 -The concrete washout should be outside the detention pond. Revised
accordingly.
8 . Sh.5 -Should additional erosion control be added at the pond discharge?
Revised accordingly.
9 . Sh .6 -Please add directional arrows indicating how the lots should be graded.
How is cross-lot drainage proposed to be handled? Revised accordingly.
10 . Sh.6 -Please provide additional spot elevations where tying into existing
pavement, along some rear lot lines, and around the pond. Revised accordingly.
11. Sh.8 -It appears that the temporary asphalt turnaround crosses the sidewalk. Is
the sidewalk sufficient to carry the loadings from a fire truck? Deleted per email
(10/1/14).
12 ~Sh.8 -TCEQ Ch .290 requires that the waterline be at least 2-ft above the
sanitary sewer and separated 4-ft horizontally (9-ft where possible). It appears
that this spacing may not be met in a few spots. Is it possible to move the
waterline to the other side of the street? Revised accordingly.
13. Sh.10 -Please center the sanitary sewer in the 20-ft PUE at the rear of the lots
on the north side of Buena Vista. Until the adjacent property develops and
dedicates an easement, we will not have enough room for a trench to maintain
the line if it were to remain as shown. Revised accordingly.
14 . FYI. .. The Summit Crossing Ph.2A infrastructure needs to be constructed and
accepted prior to the infrastructure in this phase . Understood.
Reviewed by: Erika Bridges Date: 9/25/14
ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION
1. SITE PLAN/PLAT: Developer will provide CSU with a digital, AutoCAD dwg format ,
version of plat and I or site plan as soon as it is available . Email to:
sweido@cstx.gov .
2. LOAD DAT A: The developer will provide load data to CSU as soon as it is available.
This information is critical for CSU to accurately determine the size and number of
transformers, and other equipment, required to provide service to the project. Failure
to provide load data will result in construction delays and, due to clearance
requirements, could affect the final building footprint. Delivery time for transformers
and other equipment not in stock is approximate 26 weeks .
3. EASEMENTS: All easements on site are shown on final plat (14-237). Electric
facilities will be designed within easements as shown on final plat (14-237).
4. EASEMENTS: If additional easements are required by CSU electrical design, the
Developer will be contacted to provide descriptive easements by separate
instrument.
5. If easements are existing, the developer will be responsible for locating easements
on site to insure that electrical infrastructure is installed within easement boundaries .
GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS
1. Developer installs conduit per CSU specs and design.
2. CSU will provide drawings for electrical installation.
3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for each riser conduit. CSU installs
riser.
4. Developer will intercept existing conduit at designated transformers or other existing
devices and extend as required.
5. If conduit does not exist at designated transformer or other existing devices,
developer will furnish and install conduit as shown on CSU electrical layout.
6. Developer pours electric device pads or footings, i.e. transformers , pull boxes , or
other device, per CSU specs and design.
7. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals per CSU specs and design,
Pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by CSU.
8. Final site plan must show all proposed electrical facilities necessary to provide
electrical service, i.e. transformers, pull boxes, or switchgears, all meter locations ,
and conduit routing as designed by CSU .
9. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Sam Weido at
979 .764 .6314.
Reviewed by: Gilbert Martinez/Sam Weido Date: 9.26.2014
SANITATION
1. This project is ok with Sanitation.
Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: September 12, 2014
ADDRESSING
1. Addresses for this project will be verified and distributed after the final plat has been
approved and filed at the Brazos County Courthouse .
2. The proposed street names have been preliminarily approved and will be re-verified prior
to filing any plats to ensure no duplicate street names are being created within Brazos
County.
3. Block Ranges: Revised accordingly.
1500 Buena Vista @ 1700 Lonetree Dr
1800 Lonetree Dr @ 1600 Buena Vista
Reviewed by: Robin Krause, Permit Technician Date: 9/15/2014
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
CASE NO.: ~ 222\
DATE SUB MITTED :CB 166 / 1 q
TIME : g ·.LjQ
CITY OF C OLLEGE STATION
Home o/Texas A&M Univmity 0 STAF F: -+A-40''""--------
FINAL PLAT APPLICATION
(Check one) 0 Minor
($700 )
0 Amending
($700)
[Z] Final
($932 )
0 Vacating
($932)
0Replat
($932 )
Is this plat in the ET J? O Yes ~ No Is this plat Commercial D or Residential ~
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS:
~ $700-$932 Final Plat Application Fee (see above).
D $233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable).
~ $600 (minimum) Development Permit Application I Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee. Fee is
1 % of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure , $600 minimum (i f fee is > $600 , the balance is
due p ri or to the issuance of any plans or development permit).
~ Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and
may not be adjusted or altered . Please attach pages if additiona l information is provided .
~ Six (6) folded cop ies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.)
~ Two (2) copies of the grading , drainage , and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report .
~ Two (2) copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents (i f applicable).
0 Copy of original deed restrict ions/covenants for replats (if applicable).
~ Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate
current within ninety (90) days. The report must include applicable information such as ownership , liens ,
encumbrances , etc.
~ Paid tax certificates from City of College Station , Brazos County and College Station l.S.D.
~ The attached Final Plat checkl ist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not.
NOTE: A mylar of the approved preliminary plan must be on file before a final plat application will be considered
complete. If the mylar is submitted with the final plat application , it shall be conside red a submittal for the
prel iminary plan project and processed and reviewed as such. Until the mylar has been confirmed by staff
to be correct , the final plat application will be considered incomplete .
Date of Optional Preappl ication or Stormwater Management Conference .:....:N..::.o"'-t A_.pc..Lp'-11-'-·c"-ab"'-l-"-e __________ _
NAME OF PROJECT Summit Crossing, Phase 28
ADDRESS
SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT:
Located off of SH 30 (HaNey Road East) immediately east of the Crescent Pointe subdivision
APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project):
Name RME Consulting Engineers (clo Rabon Metcalf) E-mail rabon@rmengineer.com
----=-----------------~
Street Address PO Box 9253 -----------------------------------
City College Station, TX State TX Zip Code _7_78_4_2 __ _
Phone Number (979) 764-0704 Fax Number (979) 764 -0704
---------------~
Revis ed 4/14 Page 1 of 9
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified. Please attach an additional sheet for multiple
owners):
Name DWS Development, Inc. (clo David Scarmardo) E-mail david@dwsdevelopment.com
Street Address PO Box 4508 ------------------------------------
City Bryan State TX Zip Code _7_78_0_3 ___ _
Phone Number (979) 229-5118 Fax Number
----------------~
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION :
Name Same As Applicant E-mail
Street Address
City State Zip Code
Phone Number
Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? D Yes [8J No
Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so , please provide the Volume ____ and Page No. __ _
Total Acreage 4. 773
---------~
Total No . of Lots 34 ------R-0-W Acreage _1_.0_5_2 ____ _
Existing Use _v_a_ca_n_t ___________ _ Proposed Use POD
---------------~
Number of Lots By Zoning District 34 I POD I
Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District:
0.096 I POD
Floodplain Acreage 0. 00 -----------------------------------
1 s there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? I Yes IX No
This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to
help determine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance. Notwithstanding any assertion made ,
vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law.
Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the
application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable?
IX Yes
I No
If yes, provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide
additional sheets if necessary):
Project Name: Summit Crossing -Master Plan
City Project Number (if known):
Date I Timeframe when submitted :
Revised 4/14 Page 2 of 9
' .
A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and Preliminary Plan (if applicable):
tot Applicable
Requested waiver to subdivision reQulations and reason for same (if appl icable):
Not Applicable
Regarding the waiver request , explain how:
1. There a re special circumstances or cond it ions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the
subdivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. f ot Applicable
2 . The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the appl icant.
tot Applicable
3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety , or welfare , or injurious to other
property in the area , or to the City in administering subdivis ion regulations.
tot Applicable
4 . The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in
accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance .
tot Applicable
Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable):
1 . I An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way;
2. I The presence of unique or unusual topographic , vegetative , or other natural conditions exist so that strict
adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the
purposes and goa ls of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan ;
3 . I A capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk . Imminent shall
mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months ;
4 . I Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate I
rural context;
5. I VVhen a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian , and
Greenways Master Plan ;
Revised 4/14 Page 3 of9
..
6. I The proposed development Is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria In Platting and
Replattlng within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or
7. I The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6,
Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification, In the City's Comprehensive Plan .
Detailed explanation of condition Identified above :
Not Applicable
NOTE : A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee In lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be cons idered at the
same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Requested Oversize PartlcipatlonNot Applicable
----------------------------------~
Total Linear Footage of
Proposed Publlc:
~Streets
~Sidewalks
837 Sanitary Sewer Lines
~Water Lines
__ Channels
~Storm Sewers
Bike Lanes I Paths
Parkland Dedication due prior to fifing the Final Plat:
ACREAGE :
___ No . of acres to be dedicated +$ ____ development fee
___ No. of acres In floodplain
___ No. of acres in detention
___ No. of acres In greenways
OR
FEE IN LIEU OF LAND:
__ No. of SF Dwelling Units X $ = $ ---------
(date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Advisory 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. IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY, thfs application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there Is more
than one owner. all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application
must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf. LIEN
HOLDERS identified In the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as
described above.
Date
Revised 4114 Page4of9
I
-I
I
CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT
Owner Certification:
1. No work of any kind may start until a permit Is Issued.
2. The permit may be revoked If any false statements are made herein.
3. If revoked, all work must cease until permit Is re-Issued.
4. Development shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy Is Issued .
5. The permit will expire If no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance.
6. Other permits may be required to fulfill local, state, and federal requirements. Owner will obtain or show
compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits prior to construction Including NOi and SWPPP.
7. If required, Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-
pour) and post construction.
8. Owner hereby gives consent to City representatives to make reasonable Inspections required to verify
compliance.
9. If, stormwater mitigation Is required, Including detention ponds proposed as part of this project, It shall be
designed and constructed first In the construction sequence of the project.
10. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken
to Insure that all debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited In city streets, or
existing drainage facllltfes. 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.
11. The Information and conclusions contained In the attached plans and supporting documents will comply with the
current requirements of the City of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified
Design Guidelines Technical Specifications, and Standard Details . All development has been designed In
accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal
Regulations .
12. Release of plans to (name or firm) is authorized for bidding purposes
only. I understand that final approval and release of plans and development for construction Is contingent on
contractor signature on approved Development Permit.
13. I, THE OWNER, AGREE TO CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN, AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR
CU,AAT .
TH LOP NT PER l;J APLIC ION, ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TRUE, AND
I_,_ J,,. ::i6; ;;)..() ' '--(
Date
Engineer Certification:
1. The project has been designed to ensure that stormwater mitigation, Including detention ponds, proposed as part
of the project will be constructed first In the construction sequence .
2. I will obtain or can show compliance with all necessary Local , State and Federal Permits prior to construction
Including NOi and SWPPP. Design will not preclude compliance with TPDES: I.e., projects over 10 acres may
require a sedimentation basin.
3. The Information and conclusions contained In the attached plans and supporting documents comply with the
current requirements of the City of CoDege Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified
Design Guidelines. All development has been designed In accordance with all applfcable codes and ordinances
of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations .
4. I, THE ENGINEER, AGREE 0 AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN, AND IN ATTACHMENTS
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ERMIT APPLICATION, ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TRUE , AND
ACCURATE.
Date
Revised -4114 Page5of9
The following CERTIFICATIONS apply to development in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, Fill / Grading Permits, and Clearing Only
Permits:*
A. I , Not Applicable certify , as demonstrated in the attached drainage study , that the
alterations or development covered by this permit , shall not:
(i) increase the Base Flood elevation ;
(ii) create additional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area ;
(iii) decrease the conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is not in the floodway
and where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second. This area can
also be approximated to be either areas within 100 feet of the boundary of the regulatory floodway or
areas where the depth of from the BFE to natural ground is 18 inches or greater;
(iv) reduce the Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is beyond
the floodway and conveyance area where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than
one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth in the City of College Station Code of
Ord inances , Chapter 13 concerning encroachment into the Special Flood Hazard Area; nor
(v) increase Base Flood velocities.
beyond those areas exempted by ordinance in Section 5.11 .3a of Chapter 13 Code of Ordinances.
Engineer Date
Initial
D * If a platting-status exemption to this requirement is asserted , provide written justification under separate
letter in lieu of certification .
Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, and Fill/ Grading Permits:
B. I, Not Applicable , certify to the following :
(i) that any nonresidential or multi-family structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is
designed to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm.
Engineer Date
Additional certification for Floodway Encroachments:
C. I, Not Applicable , certify that the construction , improvement, or fill covered by this
permit shall not increase the base flood elevation . I will apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Adjustments.
Engineer Date
Revised 4/14 Page 6 of 9
..
Required for all projects proposing structures in Special Flood Hazard Area (Elevation Certificate
required).
Residential Structures:
D. I , Not Applicable , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor, including all utilities, ductwork and any basement, at an
elevation at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation. Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with
elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction.
Engineer I Surveyor Date
Commercial Structures:
E. I, Not Applicable , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement
of any commercial , industrial, or other non-residential structure are designed to have the lowest floor , including all
utilities , ductwork and basements, elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation
Engineer I Surveyor Date
OR
I, Not Applicable , certify that the structure with its attendant utility , ductwork,
basement and sanitary facilities is designed to be flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities, ductwork,
basement and sanitary facilities are designed to be watertight and impermeable to the intrusion of water in all
areas below the Base Flood Elevation , and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the
hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions.
Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-
pour) and post construction .
Engineer I Surveyor Date
Conditions or comments as part of approval :
Revised 4/14 Page 7 of 9
' .
Existing
~
FINAL PLAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET)
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
(Requirements based on field survey and marked by monuments and markers.)
~ Drawn on 24" x 36" sheet to scale of 100' per inch .
~ Vicinity map which includes enough of surrounding area to show general location of subject property in
relationship to College Station and its City Limits . No scale required but include north arrow.
~ Title Block w ith the following information :
~ Name and address of subdivider , recorded owner, planner, engineer and surveyor.
~ Proposed name of subdivision . (Subdivision name & street names will be approved through Brazos
County 911 .)
~ Date of preparation .
~ Engineer's scale in feet.
~ Total area intended to be developed .
~ North Arrow.
~ Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines.
D If more than 1 sheet , an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch or
larger.
~ All applicable certifications based on the type of final plat.
~ Ownership and Dedication
~ Surveyor and/or Engineer
~ City Engineer (and City Planner, if a minor plat)
~ Planning and Zoning Commission (delete if minor plat)
~ Brazos County Clerk
D Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval (ET J Plats only)
D If submitting a replat where there are existing improvements, submit a survey of the subject property
showing the improvements to ensure that no encroachments will be created.
D If using private septic systems, add a general note on the plat that no private sewage facility may be
installed on any lot in this subdivision without the issuance of a license by the Brazos County
Health Unit under the provisions of the private facility regulations adopted by the Commissioner's
Court of Brazos County , pursuant to the provisions of Section 21.084 of the Texas Water Code.
~ Location of the 100-Year Floodplain and floodway , if applicable , according to the most recent available
data .
~ Lot corner markers and survey monuments (by symbol) and clearly tied to basic survey data.
~ Matches the approved preliminary plan or qualifies as minor amendments (UDO Section 3.3.E.2).
~ The location and description with accurate dimensions , bearings or deflection angles and radii , area , center
angle , degree of curvature , tangent distance and length of all curves for all of the
following : (Show existing items that are intersecting or contiguous with the boundary of or forming a
boundary with the subdivision , as well as , those within the subdivision).
Proposed
~ Streets. Continuous or end in a cul-de-sac, stubbed out streets must end into a temp
turn around unless they are shorter than 100 feet.
Public and private R.O .W. locations and widths. (All existing and proposed R.O .W.'s
sufficient to meet Thoroughfare Plan.)
Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance .
Revised 4/14 Page 8 of9
..
Existing
[RI
[RI
[RI
[RI
Proposed
D
[RI
[RI
D
Alleys .
Easements.
A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block (numbered sequentially).
Parkland dedication/greenbelt area/park linkages. All proposed dedications must be
reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and documentation of their
recommendation provided prior to be ing scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration .
[RI Construction documents for all public infrastructure drawn on 24" x 36 " sheets and properly
sealed by a Licensed Texas Professional Engineer that include the following :
[RI Street , alley and sidewalk plans , profiles and sections. One sheet must show the overall
street , alley and/or sidewalk layout of the subdivision. (may be combined with other
utilities ).
Sewer Design Report.
Sanitary sewer plan and profile showing depth and grades.
overall sewer layout of the subdivis ion. (Utilities of sufficient
master plan and any future growth areas.)
Water Design Report and/or Fire Flow Report .
One sheet must show the
size/depth to meet the utility
Water line plan showing fire hydrants , valves , etc. with plan and profile lines showing
depth and grades . One sheet must show the overall water layout of the subdivision .
(Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth
areas .)
Storm drainage system plan with contours , street profile , inlets , storm sewer and
drainage channels , with profiles and sections. Drainage and runoff areas , and runoff
based on 5, 10 , 25 , 50 and 100 year rain intensity. Detailed drainage structure design ,
channel lining design & detention if used . One sheet must show the overall drainage
layout of the subdivision.
[RI Detailed cost estimates for all public infrastructure listed above sealed by Texas P.E.
[RI Letter of completion for publ ic infrastructure or guarantee I surety in accordance with UDO
Section 8.6 .
[RI Drainage Report with a Technical Design Summary .
[RI Erosion Control Plan (must be included in construction plans ).
D All off-site easements necessary for infrastructure construction must be shown on the final plat with a
volume and page listed to indicate where the separate instrument easements were filed .
Separate instrument easements must be provided in recordable form to the City prior to being scheduled
for P&Z Commission consideration .
[RI Are there impact fees associated with this development? D Yes [RI No
Impact fees must be paid prior to building permit.
[RI Will any construction occur in TxDOT rights-of-way? D Yes [RI No
If yes, TxDOT permit must be submitted along with the construction documents .
NOTE: 1. We will be requesting the corrected Final Plat to be submitted in digital form if available prior to filing
Revised 4/14
the plat at the Courthouse .
2. If the construction area is greate r than 5 acres , EPA Notice of Intent (NOi) must be submitted prior to
issuance of a development permit.
Print Form
Page 9 of9
Drainage Study
FOR
SUMMIT CROSSING SUBDIVISION
PHASE2B
College Station
Brazos County, Texas
September 5, 2014
Prepared For:
DWS Development, Inc.
PO Box4508
Bryan, TX 77803
Prepared By:
RME Consulting Engineers
Texas Firm Registration No. F-4695
P.O. Box 9253
College Station, TX 77845
RME No. 298-0542
Drainage Study
SUMMIT CROSSING SUBIDIVISION
PHASE2B
College Station
Brazos County, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE
1.0 General Information ....................................................................................•.....................•...........•........•.....• 1
1. 1 Scope of Report ....................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site and General Location ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Description of Existing Conditions and Drainage Pattern s ..................................................................... 2
1.4 FEMA Information .................................................................................................................................. 2
2.0 Watersheds & Drainage Areas ...•...•..............................•.....•.....................•................•...•.............................. 2
2.1 Sub-Drainage Basins for Storm Sewer Collection Sy stem ...................................................................... 2
3.0 Hydrologic Modeling ................................................................................................•........•.............•.....•....... 3
3.1 Rat ional Formula and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 3
3 .2 Storm water Runoff Quantities ................................................................................................................. 4
4.0 Storm Drainage System •...•...........•...........•.•..........•••....•...•...•..••.•.......•.•••....••.....•.•.......•..............•............•...• 4
4.1 Street Drainage ........................................................................................................................................ 4
4 .2 Storm Drain Inlets ................................................................................................................................... 5
4.3 Storm Drain Conduits .............................................................................................................................. 6
5.0 Certification ..•....•...•...•.....•.•.....•....................................•............•.......•..........•....•.•.•.•...•...•.............................. 8
298 -0542 Drainage Report .docx Page -i
LIST OF TABLES: PAGE
Section 4.0 -Storm Drainage System
Table #I: Street Drainage Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5
Table #2: Curb Inlet Summary ............................................................................................................................... 6
Table #3: Storm Drainage Summary ...................................................................................................................... 7
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page-ii
ATTACHMENTS:
Section 1.0 -General Information
Preliminary Plan
Final Plat
Vicinity Map
Section 2 .0 -Watersheds & Drainage Areas
Storm System Drainage Area Map
Section 4 .0 -Storm Drainage System
Winstorm -Hydraulic Computations -Storm Drainage System "C"
ST-01: Street & Drainage Plan/Profile
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page -iii
Drainage Study
SUMMIT CROSSING SUBIDIVISION
PHASE2B
College Station
Brazos County, Texas
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Scope of Report:
This report addresses the existing conditions and proposed drainage improvements for the
Summit Crossing Subdivision -Phase 2B. This development will consist of 34
townhome residential lots. This drainage study 's scope also comments on the existing
detention facilities , currently constructed and designed/reported (dated March 17 , 2008)
and the detention facility for Phase 2A & 2B (dated July 14 , 2014). In addition , this
drainage report outl.ines the street drainage and storm sewer system improvements design
and analysis for the subject development.
The proposed development and drainage improvements are designed and analyzed in
accordance with the criteria outlined in the "Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines"
(USDG) manual of the City of College Station (CoCS).
1.2 Site and General Location:
The proposed development, Summit Crossing, Phase 2B, consists of 4. 773 acre tract of
land wholly contained within the 89.64 acre parent tract of the master planned
subdivision. Summit Crossing, Phase 2B has direct access to Buena Vista and Lonetree
Drive and subsidiary access to SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and FM 158 (Boonville Road)
along its north and east property lines . Adjacent existing developments generally consist
of the Crescent Pointe development to the south and the Brazos Super Trac convenience
center to the northeast. All of these developments are in the College Station sewer
service area and are provided utility service by CoCS. Land adjacent to this development
to the southwest is currently owned by the same development group (The Summit
Crossing , LLC) and is anticipated to experience development of commercial, retail ,
office , and residential improvements in the near future. The existing, proposed , and
future surrounding developments and phases are depicted on the Preliminary Plan which
is provided in the "Attachment -Section 1.0" portion of this report. Also , the Final Plat
of Summit Crossing -Phase 2B is provided in the same location of this report.
A Vicinity Map , for this project site , is provided and is located in the "Attachment -
Section 1.0" portion of this manual. This map is being provided as an aid in locating the
site. Drawings describing the work and its specific locations are contained in the
Construction Drawings prepared by RME Consulting Engineers, College Station, Brazos
County, TX. These Construction Drawings are included as part of this Drainage Report
by reference.
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page -1
Summit Crossing, Phase 28
Drainage Study
1.3 Description of Existing Conditions and Drainage Patterns:
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
The 4.773-acre tract, which contains the proposed development of Summit Crossing,
Phase 2B, is primarily an unimproved area with moderately well sloping (approximately
1.0%) undeveloped site with natural drainage systems that convey runoff to the detention
facility constructed for Phase 2B. Existing land-cover general consists of open grassy
areas with some thick brush, weeds, and trees along the fence lines. Elevations range on
the site from approximately 298' Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 306' MSL.
The Brazos County soil maps, as reported on the NRCS Web Soil Survey web-based
program , indicates that the studied area is primarily comprised of Type C and D soils.
These soils generally consist of clays or silty clay/sand mixtures with low absorption
rates.
Detention for new impervious cover, within this development, was accounted for in this
Phase 2B detention facility. A more descriptive analysis and explanation of these
detention facilities are provided in the original Drainage Study (prepared by RME on July
14, 2014). Therefore, no additional detention will be required for this phase.
1.4 FEMA Information:
The entire master planned Summit Crossing Subdivision does not lie within mapped 100-
year floodplain as graphically depicted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) -Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community/Panel number 48041 C 0220E,
with an effective date of May 16 , 2012.
2.0 WATERSHEDS & DRAINAGE AREAS
2.1 Sub-drainage Basins for Storm Sewer Collection System:
For analysis of the internal storm drainage system, the original drainage area (called Pl in
the July 14 , 2014 report) was further broken into smaller sub-drainage areas so that
individual curb inlets, grate inlets, and conveyance elements could properly be designed
and analyzed. The Storm System "C" -Drainage Area Map , illustrates these sub-
drainage areas and is an expansion of the drainage studies for downstream collection
systems , and is located in the "Attachment -Section 2.0" portion of this Drainage Study.
The sub-drainage areas, per system, are briefly described below. Please note that when
sub-drainage areas abutted or received runoff from future phases the hydrologic model
reflected the worse-case scenario for that receiving node. Dependent upon location
dictated whether existing drainage conditions were modeled or future development
conditions were modeled. This is due to the fact that at future development conditions
some receiving system's node areas will be significantly decreased.
• System C -Majority of Phase 2B.
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page -2
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Drainage Study
3.0 HYDROLOGIC MODELING
3.1 Rational Formula and Methodology:
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
The Rational Method (Q=CIA) is one of the more frequently used methods to determine
the peak runoff from a watershed and is typically reliable for small watersheds ( < 50
acres). The Rational Method generates hydrologic data based on drainage area
geometrics, surface conditions, and rainfall intensities. The Rational Method will be
employed to determine these sizes of watershed's runoff values , for the sub-drainage
areas for the internal storm drain systems, and it is explained further as:
Q=CIA where ,
Q = peak runoff rate (cubic feet per second);
C = runoff coefficient -This represents the average runoff characteristics of the
land cover within the drainage area and is a dimensionless coefficient.
Runoff coefficients are interpolated from either Table C-2 or C-3 of the
USDG;
I = average rainfall intensity (in/hr);
A = area of land that contributes storm water runoff to the area of study (acres);
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C):
The runoff coefficient (C) for various sub-drainage basins was estimated from the USDG,
Table C-2 and C-3 by comparison of runoff surface types to percentage of land coverage
and total drainage area. Calculations for these weighted runoff coefficients are included
in the "Attachment-Section 4" section of this Drainage Study.
TIME OF CONCENTRATION "Tc":
The Time-of-Concentration (Tc) for each sub-drainage basin is used to determine the
intensity of the rainfall event for the corresponding drainage basin. Time-of-
Concentration is defined as the time required for the surface runoff to flow from the most
remote point in a watershed to the point of analysis. The Tc is the summation of the flow
time for shallow overland flow and/or concentrated flow to the lower reach of the
watershed. Overland sheet flow is a method developed by Overton and Meadows and is
typically used for flow distances of 300 feet or less. Concentrated flows are estimated by
velocities determined by use of the Manning 's Equation. The minimum Tc used for any
drainage area will 10.0 minutes.
RAINFALL INTENSITY (I):
Rainfall intensities (I) are the average rate of rainfall in inches per hour for a given
rainfall event. The duration of "I" is assumed to occur at the computed Time-of-
Concentration for each respective drainage basin. Rainfall intensities can be determined
by use of intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves or from intensity equations which are
provided in the TxDOT Hydraulic Manual.
298-0542 Drainage Report .docx Page-3
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Drainage Study
3.2 Stormwater Runoff Quantities:
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
Runoff values generated from the smaller sub-drainage areas, for purposes of modeling
the proposed internal storm sewer system and driveway culverts, are not summarized in
this section but are covered in the subsequent Section 4.0 -Storm Drainage System.
These hydrologic analyses utilized the Rational Method. Runoff values for the internal
storm sewer system were computed within the Winstorm hydraulic program (further
explained in Section 4.0).
4.0 STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
The "system criteria" listed below in the follow sub-sections are only the main highlights of
the CoCS -USDG. The proposed development and drainage improvements are designed
and analyzed in full accordance with the criteria outlined in this manual.
4.1 Street Drainage
SYSTEM CRITERIA:
1. The maximum velocity of street flow shall not exceed 10 fps. At "T" street
intersection the flow velocity will be checked on the stem of the "T'. The minimum
velocity shall be maintained by keeping a gutter slope of 0.60% or greater ;
2. The depth of flow shall be limited to the top of the curb for the design flow (10-year
rainfall event) and shall be contained within the right-of-way during the 100-year
rainfall event:
a. Local Streets -The design storm in local streets shall be limited to the top of
crown or the top of curb, whichever is less ;
b. Collector Streets -Design storm flow in collector streets shall be limited so that
one 12-foot wide are at the center of the street will remain clear of water;
3. Curb inlets shall be placed in a manner to ensure that the design storm flows are
intercepted along street legs in advance of the curb returns. For intersection types of
Collector to Local the curb inlets shall be placed along the local legs. For
intersection types of Local to Local it is preferred that the curb inlets be located along
two legs.
METHODOLGY & CONCLUSIONS:
The hydraulic analysis, for street drainage with straight crowns , and corresponding
results were determined by using the following equation for triangular channels.
Corresponding flows for the studied locations were extracted from the WINSTORM
hydraulic program, for storm water modeling. This TxDOT program's typical use is for
modeling gravity stormwater systems. The Winstorm data is summarized, for each
system, under the Winstorm -Hydraulic Computations (reference "Attachment -Section
4 .0" portion of the report).
Flow Depth, Y = {Qn I [(0.56z*S6"5)]}318 where ,
Y =depth of flow (ft);
Q = gutter discharge (cubic feet per second);
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page-4
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Drainage Study
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
z =reciprocal of the crown slope (ft/ft);
S = street or gutter slope (ft/ft);
n =Manning's roughness coefficient (typically 0.018);
Flow Velocity, V = [(1.49-:--n) * (R213 * S 112)] where,
V =velocity of flow (fps);
R =hydraulic radius (cross-sectional area/wetted perimeter);
S =street or gutter slope (ft/ft);
n =Manning's roughness coefficient (typically 0.018);
Street drainage depths, for the both the design storm and 100-year rainfall event, are
summarized below in Table #1 -"Street Drainage Summary".
TABLE#l
STREET DRAINAGE SUMMARY
10-YR 100-YR
10-YR 100-YR Gutter Flow Flow 10-YR 100-YR
RunoffQ RunoffQ Slope Depth Depth Velocity Velocity
Location (cfs) (cfs) (ft/ft) (ft) (ft) (fps) (fus)
Buena Vista -CJ. "CI" 6 .953 9 .373 0 .0204 0 .27 0 .31 3 .60 3 .88
Buena Vista -C.l . "C2 6 .228 8.396 0 .0204 0 .26 0 .29 3.51 3 .78
Street Drainage Notes:
1. Design calculations are with a n=0.018 and z=33.3 (cross-slope of3.00%);
2 . Runoff rates illustrated are from the Winstorm program. These Q's are the total runoff values being
conveyed in the gutter immediately upstream of the identified inlet. For curb inlets at grade, the
total runoff is input in lieu of that inlet 's intercept capacity;
3. Maximum allowable flow depth for Buena Vista & Lonetree Drive are D=0.42 ';
4. Flows from DA "Cl " & "C2" where reduced by 33% to emulate partial flows from either direction ;
4.2 Storm Drain Inlets
SYSTEM CRITERIA:
1. All curb inlets within this project are specified as recessed curb inlets with gutter
depressions. Curb inlets that are located on streets with less than a 1 % longitudinal
slope shall be analyzed as curb inlets at sumps;
2. At any developments scenario and analyzed rainfall event, up to the 100-year
frequency, the ponding depth at the inlet shall not exceed 24";
METHODOLGY & CONCLUSIONS:
The hydraulic analysis, for curb inlet sizing, and corresponding results were determined
by using the following equation from the USDG, Table C-8 of Appendix C.
Corresponding flows for the studied locations were extracted from the WINSTORM
hydraulic program, for stormwater modeling. This TxDOT program's typical use is for
modeling gravity stormwater systems. The Winstorm data is summarized, for each
system, under the Winstorm -Hydraulic Computations (reference "Attachment -Section
4.0" portion of the report).
Required Curb Length (on grade), L =Kc Q0•42 S03(1-:--(nSe))0•6 where,
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page -5
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Drainage Study
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
L =calculated curb length requirement (ft);
Se= Substitution for Sx which is the cross slope of the road (ft/ft);
Kc= 0.6 (coefficient);
S = street or gutter slope (ft/ft);
a= gutter depression depth (ft);
W =width of gutter depression (ft);
Eo = ratio of frontal flow to total gutter flow (estimated at 0.50);
Required Curb Length (at sag), L =QI (3.0*y1·5) where,
L =calculated curb length requirement (ft);
Q = gutter discharge (cubic feet per second);
y =total depth of water or head on the inlet (ft);
Curb inlet sizing, for the both the design storm and 100-year rainfall event, are
summarized below in Table #2 -"Curb Inlet Summary".
TABLE#2
CURB INLET SUMMARY
10-YR l -YR
10-YR 100-YR Gutter Required Required Provided
Curb Inlet RunoffQ RunoffQ Slope Length Length Length
Location -Curb Inlet I.D . T cfs cfs ft/ft ft ft (ft)
Buena Vista "CI" Sag 10.377 13.989 0.0204 10.87 14 .65 15
Buena Vista "C2" s 9.296 12.531 0.0204 9.74 13.13 15
Curb Inlet Notes:
1. Design calculations are with a standard gutter depression depth (a) of0.33' and standard depression
width (W) of2';
2. Design calculations are with a n=0.018 and a standard cross-sectional slope of3.0% (0.03 ft/ft);
3. Curb inlets analyzed at sags will utilize the depth (y) of6" unless otherwise noted;
4. Curb inlets at grade were allowed to be undersized so long as the downstream gutter section and
ultimate receiving sag inlet could accommodate conveyed flows;
5. lnlets at sags where reduced by 10% (opening) to account for clogging;
4.3 Storm Drain Conduits
SYSTEM CRITERIA:
1. Storm drainage systems are designed to convey the design storm and analyzed during
the 100-year rainfall event. An gravity over-flow route, contained within the right-of-
way or public drainage easement, has been provided so that conduits that are unable
to convey the 100-year storm can "spill" over into these over-flow systems so that
situations that are hazardous to life, property, or public infrastructure is prevented;
2. For the design storm the minimum flow velocity in a conveyance element shall not be
less than 2.5 fps and not greater than 15.0 fps;
3. Roughness coefficients for storm sewer pipes were assigned at 0.012 for smooth-lined
High Density Poly-Ethylene (HDPE) pipe and 0.013 for RCP;
4. Junction boxes were provided at all changes in conduit size and grade or alignment
changes. Where junction box spacing exceeded 300 feet for 54" diameter pipe, or
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page -6
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Drainage Study
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5 , 2014
smaller, and 500' for pipes exceeding 54" in diameter, additional manhole holes were
provided to maintain the desired spacing;
5. Storm sewer conduits with a diameter of 18" through 24" were hydraulically analyzed
with a 25% reduction in cross-sectional area to compensate for potential partial
blockage. Therefore 18" sized pipes were input as 1.30' diameter pipe and 24" sized
pipes were inputted as a 1. 73' diameter pipe;
6. Conveyance elements were sized so that the design storm's hydraulic grade line
would equal to or less than 12" below the respective curb inlet curb elevation;
7. Free-open area of all grate inlets were reduced by 25% to compensate for cloggage;
TAIL WATER CONSIDERATIONS:
(Tailwater data from Original Report)
Tailwater for the storm drainage system was set at a free-discharge condition equal to the
outlet pipe soffit elevation unless the downstream receiving system's tailwater surcharged
the pipe. In this case the tailwater was set to equal that of the downstream system.
Therefore the design storm, 10-year event, had a TW=296.93 ', and the analyzed storm,
100-year event, had a TW=298.57'.
METHODOLGY & CONCLUSIONS:
The hydraulic analysis , for storm drain conduits, and corresponding results were
determined by using the WINSTORM hydraulic program, for stormwater modeling. This
TxDOT program's typical use is for modeling gravity stormwater systems. The
Winstorm data is summarized, for each system, under the Winstorm -Hydraulic
Computations (reference "Attachment -Section 4.0" portion of the report). Also , for
graphical illustration purposes the hydraulic grade line (HGL), for the 10-year and 100-
year, are identified on ST-01 Street & Drainage Plan/Profile of the construction drawings
(see "Attachment-Section 4.0" portion of the report).
Storm drain conveyance elements and system, for the design storm (10-year rainfall
event) and analyzed storm (100-year rainfall event), are summarized below in Table #3 -
"Storm Drainage Summary". As illustrated the HGL of this system is contained within
the storm sewer pipe completely during both studied rainfall events.
TABLE#3
STORM DRAINAGE SUMMARY
Pipe Size 10-YR US Top of
US Node DS Node Diameter Velocity Capacity RunoffQ USHGL Curb Diff
ID ID (in) (fps) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) Elev. (ft) (ft)
SYSTEM "C" -10 YEAR DESIGN STORM
Cl OUTl 30 3 .99 34.21 19.59 297.18 300 .12 2.94
C2 C3 24 3.95 12.88 9.30 297.32 300 .12 2.80
SYSTEM "C " -100 YEAR DESIGN STORM
Cl OUTl 30 5 .38 34.21 26.41 299.03 300 .12 1.09
C2 C3 24 5.33 12 .88 12 .53 299.27 300.12 0.85
Storm Drainage System Notes:
1. All storm sewer system outfalls are specified with velocity dissipaters at the headwall with
additional rock rip-rap erosion control;
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx Page -7
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Drainage Study
5.0 CERTIFICATION
298-0542 Drainage Report.docx
Rabon Metcalf, P .E.
State of Texas P.E. No. 88583
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
Page -8
Section 1.0
GENERAL INFORMATION
Section 2.0
WATERSHEDS & DRAINAGE AREAS
Section 4.0
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
stmOutput.txt
WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN)
PROJECT NAME : 298
JOB NUMBER 0542
PROJECT DESCRIPTION : System C
DESIGN FREQUENCY
ANALYSYS FREQUENCY
MEASUREMENT UNITS:
10 Years
100 Years
ENGLISH
OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years
===========================================
Runoff Computation for Design Frequency.
Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002
Run @ 9/5/2014 1:03:27 PM
=============================================================================
ID
C-1
C-2
C Value
0.65
0.7
Area
(acre)
1. 85
1. 54
Tc
(min)
10.00
10.00
Sag Inlets Configuration Data.
Tc Used
(min)
10.00
10.00
Intensity
(in/hr)
8.63
8.63
Supply Q
(cfs)
0.000
0.000
Total Q
(cfs)
10.377
9.296
==================================================================================
Inlet
ID
C-1
C-2
Inlet Length/ Grate
Type Perim. Area
(ft) (sf)
Curb 10.00
Curb 10.00
n/a
n/a
Sag Inlets Computation Data.
Left-Slope
Long Trans
(%) (%)
0.70 3.50
0.70 3.50
Right-Slope
Long Trans
(%) (%)
Gutter
n DeprW
(ft)
2.00 3.50 0.014 1.50
2.00 3.50 0.014 1.50
Depth
Allowed
(ft)
0.50
0.50
Critic
Elev.
(ft)
300.12
300.12
================================================================================
Inlet Inlet
ID Type
C-1
C-2
Curb
Curb
Length Grate
Perim Area
(ft) (ft) (sf)
10.00
10.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total Q Inlet
Capacity
(cfs) (cfs)
10.377
9.296
10.327
10.327
Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations
Total
Head
(ft)
0.502
0.466
Ponded Width
Left Right
(ft) (ft)
9.54
9.19
7.85
7.55
=================================================================================
Node
I.D.
Node
Type
Weighted
C-Value
Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens.
Dr.Area
(acres)
Tc
(min) (in/hr)
Page 1
User
Supply Q
cfs)
Additional
Q in Node
(cfs)
Total
Disch.
(cfs)
C-1
C-2
OUT3
Curb
Curb
Outlt
0 .673
0.700
0 .673
3.39
1. 54
3.39
stmOutput .txt
10 .10
10.00
10.10
8 .60
8 .63
8 .60
0.000
0.000
0.000
0 .00
0.00
0.00
19 .590
9.296
19.590
Conveyance Configuration Data
==================================================================================
Run#
1
2
Node I.D .
US DS
C-1
C-2
OUT3
C-1
Flowline Elev .
US DS
(ft) (ft)
294 .63
295 .66
293 .86
295 .40
Shape # Span
(ft)
Rise
(ft)
Circ 1 0 .00 2.50
Circ 1 0.00 1.73
Length
(ft)
110 .70
37 .00
Slope
(%)
0 .70
0 .70
n value
0.013
0 .013
Conveyance Hydraulic Computations . Tailwater = 296 .930 (ft)
==================================================================================
Hydraulic Gradeline Depth
Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr .Slope Unif . Actual
Velocity
Unif. Actual
(f /s) (f/s)
Q
(cfs)
Cap
(cfs)
June
Loss
(ft)
l*
2*
(ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft )
297.18
297.32
296 .93 0.228
297.18 0 .366
1. 36
1. 09
2.50
1. 73
7.20
5 .97
3 .99 19.59 34.21 0 .000
3.95 9 .30 12.88 0 .000
==================================================================================
OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years
=============================================
Runoff Computation for Analysis Frequency.
=============================================================================
ID
C-1
C-2
C Value
0 .65
0.7
Area
(acre)
1. 85
1. 54
Tc
(min)
10 .00
10.00
Sag Inlets Configuration Data.
Tc Used
(min)
10 .00
10.00
Intensity
(in/hr)
11 .64
11. 64
Supply Q
(cfs)
0 .000
0.000
Total Q
(cfs)
13.989
12.531
==================================================================================
Inlet
ID
C-1
Inlet Le n gth/ Grate
Type Perim. Area
(ft) (sf)
Curb 10.00 n/a
Left-Slope
Long Trans
(%) (%)
0.70 3.50
Righ t-Slope
Long Trans
( % ) ( % )
Gutter
n DeprW
(ft)
2 .00 3.50 0 .014 1 .50
Page 2
Depth
Allowed
(ft)
0.50
Critic
Elev.
(ft)
300.12
. ' stmOutput.txt
C-2 Curb 10.00 n/a 0.70 3.50 2.00 3.50 0.014 1.50 0.50 300.12
Sag Inlets Computation Data.
================================================================================
Inlet Inlet
ID Type
C-1
C-2
Curb
Curb
Length Grate
Perim Area
(ft) (ft) (sf)
10.00
10.00
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Total Q Inlet
Capacity
(cfs) (cfs)
13.989
12.531
15.586
10.327
Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations
Total
Head
(ft)
0.491
0.569
Ponded Width
Left Right
(ft) (ft)
10.69
10.29
8.79
8.44
=================================================================================
Node
I.D.
C-1
C-2
OUT3
Node
Type
Curb
Curb
Outlt
Weighted
C-Value
0.673
0.700
0.673
Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens.
Dr.Area
(acres)
3.39
1. 54
3.39
Tc
(min)
10.10
10.00
10.10
(in/hr)
11. 59
11.64
11. 59
Conveyance Configuration Data
User
Supply Q
cfs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
Additional
Q in Node
(cfs)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total
Disch.
(cfs)
26.413
12.531
26.413
==================================================================================
Run#
1
2
Node I.D.
US OS
C-1
C-2
OUT3
C-1
Flowline Elev.
US OS
(ft) (ft)
294.63
295.66
293.86
295.40
Shape # Span
(ft)
Rise
(ft)
Circ 1 0.00 2.50
Circ 1 0.00 1.73
Length
(ft)
110.70
37.00
Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 298.570 (ft)
Slope
( % )
0.70
0.70
n value
0.013
0.013
==================================================================================
Hydraulic Gradeline Depth
Run# US Elev OS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual
l*
2
(ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft)
299.03
299.27
298.57 0.415
299.03 0.665
1. 64
1. 38
2.50
1. 73
Velocity
Unif. Actual
(f/s) (f/s)
Q
(cfs)
Cap
(cfs)
June
Loss
(ft)
7.74
6.24
5.38 26.41 34.21 0.000
5.33 12.53 12.88 0.000
===================================END============================================
* Super critical flow.
NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM.
Warning Messages for current project:
Page 3
.. stmOutput.txt
Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years
Capacity of sag inlet exceeded at inlet Id= C-1
Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years
Capacity of sag inlet exceeded at inlet Id= C-2
Page 4
. \ ',
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2 .1)
Engineering and Design Professionals Information
Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction
'f2.ME. G:>NS\)LT\~& ~~ City: Bryan
-p. Q . ~"><. <4 '2-S~ )C College Station
c ()L.\._P-C#-c;:::r7AI I\)~ I Tx. 776i '2.. Date of Submittal: °'-ls/ t'-t
Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone , e-mail , fax): Other:
~Q:c:....i ~. Me ::r C..~F-\ f'.~.
Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts:
Developer I Owner I APPiicant Information
Developer I Applicant Name and Address : Phone and e-mail :
t?u-JC:, ~ Sl..-Of f'l\.E:N"T t I NC,.
Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail :
Project Identification
Development Name : Vv(r\VV\Cf C ~CS2:> l r--1 t:, 1 f t-\-2. e::.
Is subject property a site project , a single-phase subdivision , or part of a multi -phase subdivision?
If multi-phase, subject property is phase 3 of .3
Lega l description of subject property (phase) or Project Area:
(see Section II , Paragraph B-3a)
If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all
earlier phases. For most recent eartier phase Include submittal and review dates.
rlttt:>-r. fZ.£. 'DF--V $L.t1-f fY\Tt>l7 C>F '.Sur<\MCT C ~Slr-IG--
General Locati on of Project Area, or subject property (phase):
;?H 3CJ -r-t~v'i>t \ZcA-t> ~I
In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage):
Bryan : acres . Bryan : College Station :
College Station : .t-f .-,..7~ acres. Acreage Outside ET J:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 3 of26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2 .2)
Project Identification (continued)
Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built
subject property : developments:
~e.NA '..J \ s-c f'.; ~SC~~ ~lN/
L-~1--1€.. -De.€.£. Sum'(Y\'~ C~tNGt-t Pt-t 21'
Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s):
Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
Preliminary Plat File #: Final Plat File#: Date:
Name: Status and Vol/Pg:
If two plats, second name: File#:
Status: ' Date: A
Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
Zoning Type: Pt>O Exjstjng or Proposed? Case Code : •
Case Date Status: ..
Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code: ..
Case Date Status:
Stonnwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants:
Preliminary Report Required? Submittal Date Review Date
Review Comments Addressed? Yes --No --In Writing? When?
Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach documentation
explaining) any deviation(s) from provisions of Preliminary Drainage Report, if any.
STORMWAT ER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page4 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
f .
''
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.3)
Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
Note: For any Coordination of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation
describing and substantiating any agreements, understandings, contracts, or approvals.
Coordination Dept. Contact: Date: Subject:
With Other
Departments of
Jurisdiction '
City (Bryan or
College Station)
Coordination With Summarize need{s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates):
Non-jurisdiction
City Needed? X
Yes __ No __
Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates):
Brazos County
Needed? x Yes No --
Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): ..
Coordination with
TxDOT Needed?
Yes No x --
Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates):
TAMUS Needed?
Yes No ')( --
Permits For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
As to stormwater management, are permits required for the proposed work from any of the entities
listed below? If so, summarize status of efforts toward that objective in soaces below.
Entity Permitted or
Approved?
US Army Crops of
Engineers
No _x_ Yes -
US Environmental
Protection Agency
No.::£.._ Yes_
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality ~ Yes X No --
Brazos River
Authority
No-A-Yes_
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Status of Actions (include dates)
Swf~
Page 5 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -ProQertv Characteristics I Start (Page 3 .1)
Nature and Scope of Proposed Work
Existing: Land proposed for development currently used , including extent of impervious cover?
Site __ Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots.
Development __ Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land.
Project __ Building on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land .
(select all __ Building on a single lot, or adjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form applicable) a new street (but may include ROW dedication to existing streets).
__ Other (explain):
Subdivision _x_ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots.
Development __ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more proposed lots on
Project lands represented by pending plats.
Site projects: building use(s), approximate floor space , impervious cover ratio .
Describe Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and
Nature and drainage easements or ROW.
Size of
Proeosed
Project
Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes , explain :
or on land f or which platting is not pending?
_x_No --Yes
FEMA Floodplains
Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse !No~ Yes __ (Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof?
Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No-X_ Yes Rate Map 22...o £..... area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? --
Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): __ Building site(s) __ Road crossing(s) into Floodplain
areas planned? __ Utility crossing(s) __ Other (explain):
No ...)(__
Yes --
If floodplain areas not shown on Rate Maps, has work been done toward amending the FEMA-
approved Flood Study to define allowable encroachments in proposed areas? Explain .
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 6 of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
''
''
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -Proeertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3 .2)
Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase)
Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property?
Yes Reference the study (&date) here, and attach copy if not already in City files.
.X-Sc.. oa.\e:,,,i-J~\... ~I''} os sc.. .. P2.8 Pt1"'1D
SC-fZA -Lo/ 1~ 7)\'-f /1""{
Is the stormwater management plan for the property in substantial conformance with the
earlier study? Yes X No If not , explain how it differs.
No If subject property is not part of multi-phase project , describe stormwater management
plan for the property in Part 4. --If property is part of multi-phase project, provide overview of stormwater management plan
for Project Area here . In Part 4 describe how plan for subject property will comply
therewith.
Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? _2'_ No --Yes
Describe them (include approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc).
Any known drainage or flooding problems in areas near subject property? _x._ No --Yes
Identify :
Based on location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed?
(see Table B-1 in Appendix B)
....::,;__ Detention is required. --Need must be evaluated. __ Detention not required.
What decision has been reached? By whom?
If the need for How was determination made?
Type 1 Detention
must be evaluated:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 7 of26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -Pro(!ertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3 .3)
Hydrologlc Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued)
Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? No --Yes If yes,
describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desion concept for handling this.
Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage
.,.
Above-Project Areas(Section II , Paragraph 83-a)
Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? __ No --Yes
Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4)
Flow Characteristics (each i nstance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable
concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary);
Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions:
Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property?
--No --Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW:
Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain
Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2)
Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory
Watercourse or tributary? No Yes
Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of
property(ies).
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -Pro~em Characteri!tics I Continue.d (Page 3 .4)
Hydrologlc Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued)
Conveyance Pathways (continued)
Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat , or
easements __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions.
exist for any
part of
pathway(s)?
No --
Yes --
Where runoff must cross lower properties , describe characteristics of abutting lower
property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?)
Pathway
Areas . -
Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts ,
bridges, li ned channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc).
Nearby
Drainage Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? --No --Yes If yes, explain:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 9 of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1)
Stonnwater Management Concept
Discharge(s) From Upland Area(s)
If runoff is to be received from upland areas, what design drainage features will be used to
accommodate it and insure it is not blocked by future development? Describe for each area,
flow section, or discharge point.
Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section 11 , Paragraph E1)
Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via
platting? --No --Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes
Per Guidelines reference above, how will __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring __ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies)? Combination of the two Scenarios , __
Scenario 1: If easements are proposed , describe where needed, and provide status of actions
on each . (Attached Exhibit # )
Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development
conditi ons (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc.). (Attached Exhibit# )
Combination: If combination is proposed, explain how discharge will differ from pre-
development conditions at the property line for each area (or point) of release.
If Scenario 2, or Combinati on are to be used , has proposed design been coordinated with
owner(s) of receiving property(ies)?
documentation.
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
No
Page 10 of 26
--Yes Explain and provide
APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.2)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Project Are!! Of Multi-Phase Project
Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting :
Will project result
in shifting runoff
between Basins or
between What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff
Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed?
No --
Yes --
How will runoff from Project 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects.
Area be mitigated to pre-2 . __ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area . development conditions?
Select any or all of 1, 2 , 3. __ On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area .
and/or 3 , and explain below.
1. Shared facility (type & location of facility ; design drainage area served ; relationship to size of
Project A rea): (Attached Exhibit# )
2. For Overall PrQject Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit # )
3. By phase (or site) project : Descri be planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in
subsequent questions of this Part.
Are aquatic echosystems proposed? __ No --Yes In which phase(s) or
project(s)?
C'· -c
Q). If) c: Q)
fij >-Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed?
a: No Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use :
If) ----
c:
C)
'ii) .
Q) 0 Oz ro I If design of any runoff-handling facil ities deviate from prov i sions of B-CS Techn ical ·u
Q) Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. a. en Detention elements Conduit elements Channel features ~ ------
<( Swales Ditches __ Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls ----
--Culvert features __ Bri dges Other
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 11of26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.3)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Pro ject Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued)
Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? __ No __ Yes Identify type and
general size and In which phase(s).
If detention/retention serves (will serve) overall Project Area, describe how it relates to subject
phase or site project (physical location, conveyance pathway(s). construction sequence):
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site)
If property part of larger Project Area, is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis
and report for larger area? _k Yes No , then summarize the difference(s}:
Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use,
and general characteristics.
Typical shape? J Surfaces?
C'-·
"O
Q) I/) Steepest side slopes: I Usual front slopes: I Usual back slopes: I/)
~ (I)
I/) >-
(I)
I .1:: Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: .B
'5 typical greatest (Attached Exhibit # )
Q)
"O 0 ·u; z
~><I Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications?
~ Yes No, then explain : <
I/) At intersection~ otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets?
.0 Q) X No Yes If yes explain: ~ >;; '"1 lt
I/) Q) Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection?
03§ 0 _A No Yes Explain : (number of locations?) ~ C>Z --
(i) "O
I Q) c ,_ ro
<
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters-_ I Continued (Page 4-4)
Storrnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Gutter line slopes: Least f\_ (oC) /. Usual 1.()()/. Greatest 2 .D~Z
Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? --Yes --No If "no",
identify where and why .
Will inlets capture 10-year design stormflow to prevent flood i ng of intersections (arterial
with arterial or collector}? __ Yes __ No If no , explain where and why not.
C'-· N/~ -c
Cl> "' Will i nlet size and placement prevent exceedi~ allowable water spread for 10-year :J ....
~ design storm throughout site (or phase}? Yes __ No If no , explain.
:J
Cl
-c ..-.. c: -0 _x_ Yes ro Cl> Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? No Are i nlets and ..0 :J --._-,5: ~t sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? :J -0 c: Yes __ No Explain "no" answers. · · :5 8 .§-
J!?
Cl>
iE u;
Cl> Will 100-yr stormflow be contained i n combinati on of ROW and buried conduit on .... < whole length of all streets? ~Yes __ No If no , describe where and why.
Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with 8-CS Technical Specifications? :A. Yes __ No If not , describe difference(s} and attach justification .
Are any 12-inch laterals used? _E:_ No --Yes Identify length(s} and where
used .
C'-· -c Pi pe runs between system I Typical .:67 lcO Cl>"' Longest
"' Cl> access points (feet}: :J >-~ A re junction boxes used at each bend? _k_ Yes --No If not, explain where
and why .
c: ·-0 ~z
i I Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic u;
!!!. Yes~ No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line
(system -wide}:
l-~O~
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective Feb ruary 2007
Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Iii'
Describe watercourse(s). or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below
~ (include design discharge velocity , and angle between converging flow lines).
c: 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle? <U
1i)
.!:: t..Nrn+ r\....uw Q) ....
......... 0
~E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle?
:J .... c: 0 ·--c:·
0 .E 0 c: -·-......... E w ~ 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? w E
-<U ro I/) I/) t ~ Q) :J
c: :'Q 0
·-> e! e
-0 a.
E Gi For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of
.... Cl) receiving and all facilities at juncture? B..c: en I/)
Q) 1) iii ....
<U 2) a.
Q)
I/)
c: 3) -2. '
Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? __ No --Yes
Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions.
Surface treatments (including low-flow flumes if any):
~-
I/) -Q)
l!:! I/)
1i) Q) Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum):
c: >-~ I
-0 0 $z Outfall characteristics for each (velocity , convergent angle, & end treatment). :J
~~ ~
Q) .... Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage <(
ROW in all instances? --Yes --No If "no" explain:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .6)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
I/)
Q) .r.
.B
i:5
Q)
-0 .iii
-0
C'O
0
0:::
I/)
~
Are roadside ditches used? No __ Yes If so, provide the following:
Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout ? __ Yes __ No
Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes __ No
Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? __ Yes __ No
For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain :
If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance).
Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length :
Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination?
If "no" explain:
Yes No
I~ c 1---------~-~~------------~--------1
0 co Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width z iii f-:.!...--:---:::--:,......:.-:----:-:----r--:::--=:=:==::--_.:....,-:,..-===::~--~===:======--t VI ~ Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum
f" :::: and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm:
0 ;e C:-·
I/) a;
c
-0 f-:--:---=--------:-:-:--'-:--:---:-o:--------,---:--:--:---:----:------1 ~ Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type):
c l:' Jg C'O
(.) ....
c .2
Q) c 1-,-----,,,,...----,::------,-,.------...,.----:-:--:-:----:--.,.----,-,...,------1 c. o Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit):
0 ~ ~ E ~ ~ 1-----------------~--~--~----------1 .!: Q) Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length :
-c E
Q) C'O ~ I/) l------~~~-~--0---0-:----:-:-:---:----:--:--:--:--=--=~-:-::---~-:-:--i ~ ~ Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? __ Yes __ No
0 ·o .... > If "no· explain : ~ c c.
~ m 1--S-pa_c_e_f_o_r_1_0-0--y-e-ar_s_t_o_rm_fl_ow? ___ R_O_W ____ E_a_se_m_e_n_t ____ W-idt-h------1
8 ~
~ ~ Swale Surface type, minimum
and maximum slopes:
Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum
slopes, design storm :
c C'O
0 c. l-----~--------'-----------------------1 ~ ~ Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type):
1~
~ 1-A-cce_ss __ D_e_sc-rib_e_h-ow_m_a....,.i-nt,_..e-n-an_c_e_a_cc_e_ss-..,..is_p_r_o_vi_,d_e_d....,.(t-o-s-w-a-:-le-,....,.in...,t-o-c-0-n....,.du...,ic-":"t)-: ----i
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .7)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within O r Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
c: ·n;
E~ .g w
~ ui
If "yes" prov ide the following information for each instance :
Instance 1 Describe general location , approximate length , surfacing :
Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly
within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: ~~I
-~ ~A~cc_e_ss~-D-e-sc~rib-e~ho-w~m-a-i-nt_e_n-an_c_e_a_cc~e-ss~is_p_r_o-vi_d_e_:~~~~~~~~~~--i
~ 0
i~, 1--~~~~-,--~~~~-.,...,.-----,~~~-.,.~~,----..,..~-.,..--..,..~~~~~~--i .... f\ Instance 2 Descri be general location , approximate length , surfacing :
Cl)
·;:: C'·
;:] l/J
.0 c
:; Cl)
o E .s::. Cl)
:;;; l/J
::>-lB
l/J ..... ~ 0
~~
l/J 0
5 0:::
> -~
C'·
J5
;:] a.
-0 .5 ~ ..!!!
0 a. a. x e w a.
l/J l/J c:~ Cl)
I I a.
.§ ~
VI
(.)
Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly
within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers:
Access Describe how maintenance access is provided :
Instance 3, 4, etc. If swales are used in more than two instances, attach sheet
providing all above information for each instance.
"New" channels: Will any area(s} of concentrated flow be channel ized (deepened,
widened, or straightened) or otherwise altered? __ No __ Yes If only slightly
shaped , see "Swa les" in this Part. If creating side banks , provide information below.
Will design replicate natural channel? __ Yes __ No If "no". for each instance
describe section shape & area , flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces , and 100-year
design flow, and amount of freeboard :
Instance 1:
Instance 2:
Instance 3:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.8)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Existing channels (small 5'r~eks): Are these used? --No --Yes
If "ves" provide the information below.
Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes No How
many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location-: -
For each location , describe length and general type of proposed improvement
(including floodplain changes):
.
For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.),
surfaces, and 100-year design f\ow.
'
~
::J c
'.;:::; Watercourses (and tributaries): Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory c:
0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Explain below. ,£, --
(/)
Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address c
Q) existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E
Q) length affected , and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures e and data . Is full report submitted? Yes --No If "no" explain:
Q.
.§
Q)
c: c: m All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information I .r:. u requested in next three boxes.
If design is to replicate natural channel, identify location and length here, and describe
design in Special Design section of this Part of Report.
Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? --Yes --No If
not, identify location and explain :
Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space?
--Yes --No If not, identify location(s) and explain :
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN .SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .9)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
How many facilities for subject property project? For each provide info. below.
For each dry-type facilitiy: Facility 1 Facility 2
Acres served & design volume + 10%
100-yr volume: free flow & plugged
Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr)
Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? __ yes --no __ yes --no
Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? __ yes --no __ yes --no
Explain any "no" answers:
(/)
Cl> >-
I For each facility what is 25-yr design Q , and design of outlet structure?
Facility 1:
0 z Facility 2 :
><I Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW?
Facility 1: __ Yes No Facility 2: Yes No -- ----C'· If "no" explain : -0
5!·
0 a.
0 .... a.. For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway?
(/)
~ Facility 1: & Facility 2 : &
·a Are energy dissipation measures used? No Yes Describe type and ro ----
LL. location:
c
0 :;::: c
Cl> .
G>
0
I!? For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe :
< Facility 1:
Facility 2 :
For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility?
Facility 1:
Facility 2 :
If berms are used give heights, slopes and surface treatments of sides.
Facility 1:
Facility 2 :
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Rev ised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .10)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Do structures comply with B-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no":
Ul
Facility 1;
~ =s-u Q)
Facility 2 : ca :::i
LL. c c·-
0 c: :.;::; 0 c u
Q) -Q) For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. Cl
Are parking areas to be used for detention? __ No --Yes What is
maximum depth due to required design storm?
Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches?
--No --Yes If "yes", provide information in next two boxes.
Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? --Yes --No
Without causing flowing or standing water on public roadway? --Yes --No
Designs & materials comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No
Explain any "no" answers:
C'-·
Ul
O> c
"ii)
Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: Ul
0 --..... Ul u
2 Q) >-ca I .2: ..... Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage a.
n; ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW?
"O 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. Q) z ----~XI How many instances? Describe location and provide information below.
Q) Location 1: > "'S u
Q) Location 2 : .....
<(
Location 3 :
For each location enter value for: 1 2 3
Design year passing without toping travelway?
Water depth on travelway at 25-year flow?
Water depth on travelway at 100-year flow?
For more instances describe location and same information on separate sheet.
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 19 of 26 • APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .11)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Named Regulatorit Watercourses (& Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these
facilities? No __ Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions,
criteria, analysis , computer programs, and study findings that support proposed
design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", explain :
~ Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways?
Q) No Yes How many instances? For each identify the ..c:
I/) ----
Q) location and provide the information below. -I/) t'O Instance 1: Q) .....
>-~
I~ Instance 2 :
Instance 3 : c .Q
Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 0 iii z E
~ .....
Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? .g
-~ Spread of headwater within ROW or easement?
E C'· t'O Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? I/) I/)
g> "O Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c ::! t'O
0 c ..... 0 o~
>. t'O t'O (.)
~..Q
"O Q)
t'O ..Q Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? e·5
.2 I/) --No --Yes How many instances? for each identify the
-Q) .g "O location and provide the information below: a. Q)
-a. t'O~ Instance 1:
"O >. Instance 2: Q) c
I/) t'O
:J -Instance 3 : I/) 0
t:: I/)
Q) Q)
For each instance enter value, or "yes" I "no" for: 1 2 3 ~ (.)
:J c (.) t'O Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Q) in ..... c
<( ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? ~
0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E .... g_ Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)?
Limit of down stream analysis (feet)?
Explain any "no" answers:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.12)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roadside
ditch intersects) provide information requested in next eight boxes.
Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? Yes No If not, ----identify location(s) and intersect angle(s), and justify the design(s):
Does drainage way alignment change within or near limits of culvert and surfaced
approaches thereto? __ No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe
change(s), and justification:
Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes,
identify location(s) and provide justification:
'S
Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends?
Ql --No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s):
::> c
E
0
~
I/)
t:'.
Ql Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural ~ ::> components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __ Yes __ No If "no" Identify u
locations and provide justification(s):
Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or
drainage easements/ ROW? __ Yes --No if not , why not?
Do appreciable hydraulic effects of any culvert extend downstream or upstream to
neighboring land(s) not encompassed in subject property? --No --Yes If
"yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures:
Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech . Specifications?
--Yes --No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part.
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 21of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DES IGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.13)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) .
Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? _.b.._ No --Yes
If "yes" provide the following infomiation .
Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)?
What drainage way(s) is to be crossed?
Ci) -Q)
O>
"O ·;:: co
A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical,
hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report . Is the report
provided? --Yes --No If "no" explain :
Is a Stomiwater Provide a general description of planned techniques:
~ Pollution Prevention ::;,1..--, Pr=-r-! C..\. r-J ~ 'a Plan (SW3P) :J lo~\:l(t.l.X..-rt ~ t;" ~-r«AN C..'£ 0 established for .... project construction? c~~L_ I Q) ~ \N l-'E--C ~ -X.Yes --No
Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods
Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland-type detention, natural stream
~cation, BMPs for water quality, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project?
No __ Yes If "yes" list general type and location below.
Provide full report about the proposed special design(s) including rationale for use and
expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stomiwater management objectives will not
be compromised, and that maintex cost will not exceed those of traditional design
solution(s). Is report provided? Yes __ No If "no" explain :
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 22 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
·'
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.14)
Stonnwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Special Designs -Deviation From B-CS Technical Specifications
If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of
8-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain by specific detail element.
--Detention elements __ Drain system elements --Channel features
--Culvert features --Swales --Ditches --Inlets __ Outfalls
__ Valley gutters __ Bridges (explain in bridge report)
In table below briefly identify specific element, justification for deviation(s).
Specific Detail Element Justification for Deviation (attach additional sheets if needed)
1)
• "
2)
3)
4)
5)
Have elements been coordinated with the City Engineer or her/his designee? For each item
above provide "yes" or "no", action date, and staff name:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Design Parameters
Hydrology '
Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? x Yes No
Briefly summarize the range of applications made, of the Rational Formula:
2.0 A~
> .
What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula
has been applied? GI acres Location (or identifier):
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4 .15)
Design Parameters (continued)
Hydrology (continued) '
In making detemiinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used?
No Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? %
As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for detemiining runoff flows , were any
criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? __ No __ Yes If "yes"
identify type of data , source(s), and where applied:
For each of the stomiwater management features listed below identify the stomi return
frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design .
Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year
Stomi drain system for arterial and collector streets
Stomi drain system for local streets lO lOO
Open channels
Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel
Swales
Roadside ditches and culverts serving them
Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall
Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s)
Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged
Culverts serving private drives or streets
Culverts serving public roadways
Bridges: provide in bridge report.
Hydraulics
What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below?
Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels
Highest (feet per second) 3~'C8 ~,°t'1
Lowest (feet per second) ~.(pQ 3.°r5
Streets and Stonn Drain Systems Provide the summary infomiation outlined below:
Roughness coefficients used:
For conduit type(s) 'R.Gf>
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
For street gutters:
Page 24 of 26
O·Ol~
Coefficients:O, C \ 3
APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised August 2012
'·
l . . '
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .1~)
Design Parameters (continued)
Hydraulics (continued)
Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued)
For the following , are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines?
Inlet coefficients? --2$.No __ Yes Head and friction losses X No __ Yes
Explain any "yes" answer:
In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? X. Yes
Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? _x Yes
Explain any "no" answers:
__ No
__ No
Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm?· ..)!;___Yes ...:__,..No
For 100-year flow conditions? .::£.__Yes __ No Explain any "no" answers:
What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point{s) of the storm drain system? Identify
each location and explain :
Tw ~ Dr-\e..tSll~ f>Ot--So ?6oL 'F-L-s){~-Cl~"-1
Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F .5.a? __ Yes __ No
Outside of straight sections , is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? __ Yes __ No
If "no " list locations and explain :
Culverts If plan sheets do not provide the following for each culvert , describe it here.
For each design discharge, will operation be outlet {barrel) control or inlet control?
Entrance , friction and exit losses:
,,,, ,1 . ' ,,,,,.,,,
.. • ''·".\' I l I --* . ,. ) :i-..... . ..... -... ~·· ,, ··. ...
Bridges • ftrb vide ·au i"ii'Jtl ge reP&t • •• • • ~ ~; r ~···· ··~···· . ·····~ '•.,. ~ I' )'f • • '
... . \. ······· . ' -~ • •• l 81'".' . • °",. •• • ' .. .· •••
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELIN~S .;
Effective February 2007
Page 25 of 26
.
APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY
As Rev ised August 2012
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4 .17)
Design Parameters (continued)
Computer Software
What computer software has been used in the analysis and assessment of stormwater
management needs and/or the development of facility designs proposed for subject property
project? Li st them below, being sure to identify the software name and version , the date of the
version, an y applicable patches and the publisher
W tN~:>T~vY\
Part 5 -Plans and Specifications
Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a
Techn ical Design Summary Report. See Section Ill , Paragraph C3.
Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation
Conclusions
Add any concluding information here:
Attestation
Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical
Desi n Summa Draina e Re ort b si nin and sealin below.
''This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepared
by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of the Bryan/College Station
Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the property. All licenses and p rmits
required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the proposed d inage
improvements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits. n
Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Te x as PE No . e ~56 ~
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
(Affix Seal)
.. . t
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
FOR
SUMMIT CROSSING SUBDIVISION
PHASE2B
College Station
Brazos County, Texas
September 5, 2014
Prepared For:
DWS Development, Inc.
P0Box4508
Bryan, TX 77803
Prepared By:
RME Consulting Engineers
Texas Firm Registration No. F-4695
P.O. Box 9253
College Station, TX 77845
RME No. 298-0542
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
SUMMIT CROSSING SUBIDIVISION
PHASE2B
College Station
Brazos County, Texas
TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE
1.0 General Information ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope of Report and Proposed Development .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Site and General Location ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Description of Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Existing Water Distribution System ........................................................................................................ 2
1.5 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System ............................................................................................ 3
2.0 Water System Improvements .............................................................•.......................................................... 3
2.1 Proposed Water System Configuration .................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Domestic Water Supply Requirements .................................................................................................... 4
2.3 Fire Flow Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.4 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology .......................................................................................................... 4
2.5 Modeling Results & Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 4
3.0 Sanitary Sewer Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Configuration .................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations ........................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology .......................................................................................................... 6
3.4 Modeling Results & Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 6
ATTACHMENTS:
Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Plan
Vicinity Map
Proposed Water System Map
KYPIPE Hydraulic Analysis Data
Proposed Sanitary Sewer System Map
WINSTORM Hydraulic Analysis Data
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B.docx Page -i
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
SUMMIT CROSSING SUBIDIVISION
PHASE2B
College Station
Brazos County, Texas
1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Scope of Report and Proposed Development:
This report addresses the water and sanitary sewer improvements for the Summit
Crossing, Phase 2B development conditions. This new development will consist of 34
lots (4.773 acres). This master planned subdivision which is approximately a 113-acre
development located within the city limits of College Station, Texas. The entire master
planned subdivision will consist of high density single family residential (-89 .64 acres),
light commercial/retail use (-7.37 acres), and the remainder consisting of open space and
parkland dedication. The detail usage and layout of the Summit Crossing development is
more fully illustrated on the Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Plan,
which is contained in the "Attachment" section of this report. Currently Phase One of the
subdivision is all that is improved.
The proposed development and correlating water and sanitary sewer improvements are
designed and analyzed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the "B/CS Unified
Technical Specifications and Design Guidelines" (UTSDS) manual of the City of College
Station (CoCS) and Chapters 290 & 317 of the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) Rules & Regulations.
1.2 Site and General Location:
The proposed development, Summit Crossing , Phase 2B , consists of 4.773 acre tract of
land wholly contained within the 89 .64 acre parent tract of the master planned
subdivision. The proposed subdivision has access to SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and
FM 158 (Boonville Road) along its north and east property lines. Adjacent existing
developments generally consist of the Crescent Pointe development to the south and the
Brazos Super Trac convenience center to the northeast. All of these developments are in
the College Station sewer service area and are provided utility service by CoCS. Land
adjacent to this development to the southwest is currently owned by the same
development group (The Summit Crossing, LLC) and is anticipated to experience
development of commercial , retail , office, and residential improvements in the near
future .
A Vicinity Map , for this project site , is provided and is located in the "Attachment"
portion of this manual. This map is being provided as an aid in locating the site.
Drawings describing the work and its specific locations are contained in the
Construction Drawings prepared by RME Consulting Engineers , College Station, Brazos
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B .docx Page -1
Summit Crossing, Phase 28
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
County, TX. These Construction Drawings are included as part of this Water & Sanitary
Sewer Report by reference.
1.3 Description of Existing Conditions:
The 113-acre parent tract, which contains the proposed development of Summit
Crossing Subdivision (Phase 2B), is a moderately well sloping (approximately 1.0%)
undeveloped site with natural and improved drainage systems that convey runoff to the
Harvey Hillsides Creek which is a tributary of Carters Creek. The proposed
development area is unimproved with land-cover general consists of open grassy areas
with some thick brush, weeds, and trees along the unnamed tributary. Elevations range
on the master planned subdivision from approximately 287' Mean Sea Level (MSL) to
approximately 342' MSL.
1.4 Existing Water Distribution System:
The project site is moderately well served by existing water lines. The utility provider,
for water service, will be the City of College Station. The existing water supply lines are
summarized as follows:
1. 12" DIP that is located on the north side of Harvey Road East (SH No. 30);
2. Two 8" PVC water lines that extend to the current terminus of Buena Vista and
Lonetree Drive (installed with the Phase One development and extended with Phase
2A);
ORIGINAL flow tests were obtained from the CoCS Public Utilities Department (CoCS-
PUD) from a fire hydrant existing on a 12" stub-out from the 12" DIP Harvey Road
waterline and is located on the southeast comer of the intersection of SH 30 and Pamela
Lane. This flow test was conducted on January 16, 2008 under the direction of Mr.
Matthew Matcek and witnessed by Mr. Sergio Vasquez. The flow data is summarized
below in Table #1 -Flow Test Data. The original KYPIPE model for the Phase One
development will be utilized and expanded to include these proposed water system
improvements.
TABLE#l
FLOW TEST DATA
Flow Pilot Static Fire Static Residual
Hydrant Reading Flow Hydrant Pressure Pressure
No. Location m No . si) J--~;.;__-+-~~-=;..;;..;.;.;.;;..;;.;;;;._,,~~~,,.,...;;..;L_~~~~~;_.;;,.;.~~.=.;~_._--=..;
G-068 Pamela Ln Harvey Rd. 1455 G-013 108 104
Note: The reported flow is from the 2 .5" nozzle of the identified flow hydrant;
1.5 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System:
The proposed subdivision will be served by the existing sanitary sewer collection lines
installed with Phase One of this development and extended with Phase 2A. The
proposed sanitary sewer collection system, for Phase 2B, will discharge into two (2)
separate collection system but all sewer will eventually discharge into the sewer main
interceptor located south and parallel with SH No. 30.
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B.docx Page -2
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
2.0 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
2.1 Proposed Water System Configuration:
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
Two (2) existing 8" water lines where installed and terminated with a blow-off valves at
the existing north end of Buena Vista and Lonetree Drive (Phase 2A). These terminuses
will be intended for the proposed water distribution and into/thru the subject
development.
The general requirements of the UTSDG for water line design layout are briefly listed as
follows:
• 4" water lines will be installed where the service length is less than or equal to
five hundred (500') feet;
• 6" water lines may be allowed up to a maximum of 1,500 feet in length and must
connect at each end to an 8 inch or larger main and shall have no more than 2 fire
hydrants or flushing points. Where it is not possible to meet this requirement, a 6-
inch main may be extended to a maximum of 800 feet in length and shall
terminate with a fire hydrant or blow-off assembly ;
• Fire hydrants will be installed so that no residence is greater than five hundred
(500 ') from a hydrant. Each fire hydrant will be analyzed to provide a fire flow
of 1,000 gpm.
As mentioned earlier the water distribution system will provide fire protection and
domestic water service. The Water System Map is included in the "Attachment" portion
of this report and more fully details the proposed water system improvements .
The proposed water lines, and appurtenances, will be constructed and installed in
accordance with the UTSDG and TCEQ Chapter 290. Unless specifically identified on
the Construction Drawings , the proposed water lines will be of type PVC A WW A C900
DR14 water line pipe. Public utility lines will be installed in existing public utility
easements or placed in proposed public utility easements which will be dedicated by plat
or by separate instruments.
2.2 Domestic Water Supply Requirements:
An average daily water consumption of 1.5 gpm per connection or dwelling unit will be
utilized for analysis of the proposed water distribution system at normal conditions .
During static conditions a minimum 35 psi pressure rating will be maintained.
2.3 Fire Flow Requirements:
The fire flow demand, for the proposed development, will require that each residence be
protected by a minimum 1,000 gpm. During fue flow conditions the minimum static
pressure shall not be less than 20 psi .
2.4 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology:
As allowed in the UTSDG a water distribution computer model was used to determine
pressure and flow results for the proposed water system. The hydraulic analysis and
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B.docx Page -3
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
corresponding results were determined by using the KYPIPE hydraulic program , for
water systems, and also utilized the original hydraulic model expanded to include these
proposed water distribution improvements.
Using the calculated domestic water demand and fire flow requirements, the proposed
water system was analyzed, with KYPIPE, to determine if it met the minimum design
criteria set forth in the UTSDG. These minimum criteria are summarized as follows.
Since the irrigation is relatively small in comparison to other flows, and infrequent in use,
it was not considered in the analysis.
1. Under normal flow conditions the residual pressures in the area, serviced by the
proposed system, must meet TCEQ requirements at all times thus providing a
minimum static pressure of 35 psi;
2. During fire flow conditions , the proposed system and adjacent infrastructure must
provide the required fire flow with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi;
3. At all analyzed conditions, no water line shall have a velocity greater than 12 fps in
both existing and proposed mains;
2.5 Modeling Results & Conclusions:
Utilizing the original KYPIPE model and expanding it to include Phase 2A water
demands, and fire flow requirements, for the proposed water system improvements, and
adjacent infrastructure, it was determined to adequately meet or positively exceed the
minimum design standards. KYPIPE Hydraulic Analysis Data, resulting from both
domestic water demands and all fire flow conditions are contained in this report in the
"Attachment" portion. Resulting summary information for both conditions are illustrated
below in Table #2 -Water System Summary and identify the "worse-case" location in
the proposed distribution system (lowest pressure node or highest velocity in pipe). The
entire water system model, for each scenario is fully contained with the KYPIPE
Hydraulic Analysis Data.
TABLE#2
WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY
PIPE DATE
Scenerio KYPIPE Section I Pipe Size Flow Velocity
Number Name Phase (in) ( !!OID) <fus)
DOMESTIC FLOW CONDITION
P-3 ONE 8 146 .73 0 .94
FIRE FLOW CONDITIONS
1 P-3 ONE 8 685.39 4.37
Domestic Flow Scenario:
1. Domestic design flows at completion of Phase 2B;
Fire Flow Scenario:
NODE DATA
Residual
Node Pressure
Name (osi)
-
J-9 93.27
FH-6 88.46
1. 1,000 gpm from FH-6-Intersection of Buena Vista and Lonetree;
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B.docx Page -4
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
3.0 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
3.1 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Configuration:
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
The proposed sanitary sewer collection system, for Summit Crossing, Phase 2B, will
consist of an 8" and 6" sanitary sewer line extension. These sanitary sewer line
extensions will be expansions of the existing Summit Crossing collection system which
conveys sewer in a generally southerly direction to the sewer main interceptor located
south and parallel with SH No. 30. The Sanitary Sewer System Map is included in the
"Attachment" portion of this report and more fully details the proposed sanitary sewer
system improvements. The sewer is conveyed to the main interceptor by two (2) means
as identified below:
(1) Extensions of the 6" sanitary sewer line (along Lonetree Dr.) conveys
wastewater to the 15 " VCT inceptor line located near the main detention
facility of Summit Crossing (near the intersection of SH 30 & Pamela Lane).
Per phone conversation with Ericka Bridges (CoCS P&DS) this inceptor line
has capacity to receive additional sewer flow from this development;
(2) Extension of the 8" sanitary sewer (rear of Block Five) conveys wastewater
through the Cresent Pointe development and eventually to the 18" VCT
inceptor line south of SH No. 30 and parallel to Harvey Hillsides Creek.
The proposed sanitary sewer lines, and appurtenances , will be constructed and installed in
accordance with the UTSDG. Unless specifically identified on the Construction
Drawings , the proposed sanitary sewer lines will be of type PVC SDR-26 , ASTM D3034
sewer line pipe. Public utility lines will be installed in existing public utility easements
or placed in proposed public utility easements which will be dedicated by plat or by
separate instruments.
3.2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations:
The sanitary sewer requirements, for the master planned development, were derived by
Method 2 -"Land Use Determination" of the UTSDS. Resulting average sanitary sewer
flow values were calculated, for all complete, permitted phases and/or proposed
developments, and the results are summarized in Table #3 -"Sanitary Sewer Flows "
shown below. As calculated, the ultimate Average Daily Flow (ADF) for this phase of
the Summit Crossing is 9,078 gpd and a 2-Hour Peak Flow (PF) at 0.06 cfs. Total
estimated flows, for the entire master planned development, and surrounding areas , were
reported in Section 3.2 (Table #1) of the original Water-Sewer Report for Summit
Crossing (dated February 4, 2008).
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B .docx Page -5
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
TABLE #3 -SANITARY SEWER FLOWS
Average Average L-Hour
Daily Flow Dwelling Daily Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow
Section/Phase (gpd/cap) Units (gpd) (gph) (cfs)
Phase One 100 114 30,438 5,073 0 .19
Phase2A 100 46 12 ,282 2 ,047 0 .08
Phase2B 100 34 9,078 1,513 0 .06
TOTAL EXPECTED FLOWS= 51,798 8,633 0.32
Flow Determination Notes:
1) Residential density is at 2.67 capita/Dwelling Unit;
2) Commercial uses were estimated at 30 capita/acre ;
3) Average Daily flows , for each use , were assigned per Table III-"Average
Wastewater Generations" per the UTSDS ;
4) Peaking factor of 4.0 was applied to the Average Daily Flows to determine
the Peak Flow which is used for line sizing;
3.3 Hydraulic Modeling & Methodology:
As allowed in the UTSDG , a hydraulic computer model was used to determined flow
results for the proposed sanitary sewer collection lines. The hydraulic analysis and
corresponding results were determined by using the WINSTORM hydraulic program, for
stormwater modeling. Though this TxDOT program's typical use is for modeling gravity
stormwater systems it can easily be applied for hydraulic modeling of gravity sewer
systems . Peale sewer flows were directly inputted at manholes in lieu of flows being
generated by hydrological equations at logical locations along the proposed sewer lines.
3.4 Modeling Results & Conclusions:
Using the original WINS TORM model , of Summit Crossing , and expanding it to include
Phase 2B , sanitary sewer flows were input into the proposed sewer system and it was
determined that the proposed expanded system has adequate capacity. WINSTORM
Hydraulic Analysis Data, as resulting from sanitary sewer analysis , is contained in this
report in the "Attachment" portion. Resulting summary information is illustrated below
in Table #4-Sanitary Sewer Summary .
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B .docx Page -6
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
Water & Sanitary Sewer Report
TABLE#4
RME Consulting Engineers
September 5, 2014
SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM
Upstream uownstream Lme Pipe Size Slope Q Capacity Velocity
Element Element No. (in) (%) (cfs) (cfs) (fps)
EX-MHl EX-MH2 1 12 0.60 0 .29 2 .75 2 .27
MH-1 EX-MHl 2 12 2.12 0.29 5.19 3.56
MH-2 MH-1 3 10 0.31 0.29 1.20 1.81
~
~ MH-3 MH-2 4 10 0.97 0.29 2.15 2.76
Q) MH-4 MH-3 5 10 0.76 0 .18 1.89 2 .19 c:
::J MH-5 MH-4 6 6 0.77 0 .15 0.46 2.07
MH-6 MH-5 7 6 0.80 0.12 0.50 2.09
MH-7 MH-6 8 6 0.80 0.10 0.50 1.97
"S2" MH-8 MH-3 9 6 1.57 0 .11 0.70 2.58
MH-9 MH-8 10 6 1.88 0.04 0.77 2.05
"$3" MH-10 MH-7 11 6 0 .80 0 .03 0.50 1.35
"S4 " MH-11 MH-8 12 6 0.80 0.05 0.50 1.65
PHASE 2A
"S1" MH-12 MH-7 13 6 1.00 0 .06 0.56 0.31
MH-13 MH-12 14 6 1.00 0.04 0.56 0.81
"S3" MH-14 MH-10 15 6 1.25 0.02 0.63 1.44
PHASE 28
"$2" MH-19 MH-14 16 6 1.25 0.01 0 .68 1.26
Sanitary Sewer Notes:
l) Velocities within a proposed pipe runs (highlighted) that are below the required 2.0 fps
meet or exceed the minimum required slope for a 6" sanitary sewer, but have so little Q
from the upstream lots that it is impractical to achieve the required 2.0 fps. This deviation
from the B/CS standards will be noted in the B /CS Acknowledgement Letter prepared by
this office ;
2) Manning's "N" utilized for PVC pipe is 0.013 ;
298-0542 Water-Sewer Report-SC-Ph2B .docx Page-7
SUMMIT CROSSING SUBDIVISION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
VICINITY MAP
WATER SYSTEM MAP
KYPIPE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS DATA
SUMMIT CROSSING, PH 28
DOMETIC FLOW CONDITION
* * * * * * * * * *
*
K Y P I P E 5 * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
Pi pe Network Modeling Software
Copyrighted by KYPIPE LLC
Version 5 -February 2010
*
*
*
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Date & Time: Fri Sep 05 10:38 :52 2014
Master File : c :\users\rabon metcalf\rme\projects\298-0542 dws-summit cross-
ph2b\enginee r ing\0542wlra.KYP\0542wlra .P2K
************************************************
S U M M A R Y 0 F 0 R I G I N A L D A T A
************************************************
U N I T S S P E C I F I E D
FLOWRATE ........... .
HEAD (HGL) ......... .
PRESSURE ........... .
P I P E L I N E DAT A
gallons/minute
feet
psig
STATUS CODE : XX -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE
P I P E
N A M E
NODE NAMES LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR
#1 ll2 (ft) (in) COEFF. LOSS COEFF .
P-1 J-1 R-1 480 .00 12.00 123 .7472 0 .00
P-2 J-2 J-1 602.00 12 .00 123.7472 0 .00
P-3 J-1 J-3 263.00 8 .00 136 .8736 0.74
P-4 J-2 FH-1 142.00 8.00 136 .8736 0 .74
P-5 FH-1 J-4 120.00 8.00 136.8736 0 .57
P-6 J-3 FH-3 181. 00 8.00 136 .8736 0 .57
P-7 FH-3 J-5 124.00 8.00 136.8736 0 .57
P-8 J-5 J-7 210.00 8.00 136.8736 0 .57
P-9 J-4 J-6 304.00 8.00 136.8736 0 .57
P-10 J-6 FH-2 191. 00 8.00 136 .8736 0.57
P-11 J-4 J-3 578.00 6.00 136.8736 0 .34
P-12 J-6 J-5 550 .00 6.00 136 .8736 0.34
P-13 FH-2 J-8 95.50 8 .00 139 .4518 0 .57
P-14 J-8 FH 4 232.69 8.00 139 . 4518 0.57
P-15 J-7 FH 5 95.64 8 .00 139.4518 0 .57
P-16 FH 5 FH 6 344.00 8 .00 139 .4518 0.57
P-17 J-8 FH 5 522.67 6.00 139 .4518 3.34
P-18 FH 4 FH 6 570.00 8.00 139.4518 2 .24
N 0 D E D A T A
NODE NODE EXTERNAL JUNCTION EXTERNAL
NAME TITLE DEMAND ELEVATION GRADE
(gpm) (ft) (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------
FH 4 24.00 300.00
FH 5 31.50 304.00
FH 6 37.50 306 .50
FH-1 6 .00 293.50
FH-2
FH-3
J-1
J-2
J-3
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
R-1
0 U T P U T
FH=G013
0 P T I 0 N
SUMMIT CROSSING, PH 28
.DOMETIC FLOW CONDITION
0.00
18.00
30.00
13.50
33 .00
36 .00
18 .00
37.50
4.50
25.50
DAT A
300.00
296.50
288.50
290.50
294.00
295.50
297.00
298.00
301.00
302.50
282.00 522.00
OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT
S Y S T E M C 0 N F I G U R A T I 0 N
NUMBER OF PIPES ................... (p) 18
NUMBER OF END NODES ............... (j) 14
NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ........... (1) 4
NUMBER OF SUPPLY NODES ............ (f) 1
NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ............ (z) 1
Case: 0
RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER 6 TRIALS: ACCURACY 0 .00002
S I M U L A T I 0 N D E S C R I P T I 0 N (L A B E L)
M.D.W. Centre -Phase One
P I P E L I N E
STATUS CODE:
P I P E
N A M E
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
P-11
P-12
P-13
P-14
P-15
P-16
P-17
P-18
R E S U L T S
XX -CLOSED PIPE
NODE NUMBERS
#1 #2
R-1 J-1
J-1 J-2
J-1 J-3
J-2 FH-1
FH-1 J-4
J-3 FH-3
FH-3 J-5
J-5 J-7
J-4 J-6
J-6 FH-2
J-3 J-4
J-5 J-6
FH-2 J-8
J-8 FH 4
J-7 FH 5
FR 5 FH 6
J-8 FH 5
FH 4 FH 6
CV -CHECK VALVE
FLOWRATE
gpm
315.00
138.27
146.73
124.77
118.77
103.10
85.10
62.47
93. 40
60.53
10.63
4. 62
60.53
32.71
57.97
28.79
2 .32
8.71
HEAD MINOR
LOSS LOSS
ft ft
0.16 0.00
0.04 0.00
0.12 0.01
0.05 0 .01
0 .04 0.01
0.04 0 .00
0 .02 0 .00
0.02 0.00
0.06 0.00
0.02 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00 0.00
LINE HL+ML/
VELO . 1000
ft/s ft/f
0.89 0.33
0.39 0.07
0.94 0 .51
0 .80 0.40
0.76 0.36
0 .66 0.27
0.54 0.19
0.40 0.10
0.60 0.22
0.39 0.10
0.12 0.02
0.05 0 .00
0.39 0.10
0.21 0 .03
0.37 0.09
0.18 0.02
0.03 0.00
0.06 0.00
HL/
1000
ft/f
0.33
0.07
0.47
0.35
0.32
0.25
0.17
0.10
0.21
0.09
0 .01
0 .00
0.09
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.00
0.00
N 0 D E R E S U L T S
SUMMIT CROSSING, PH 28
DOMETIC FLOW CONDITION
NODE
NAME
NODE
TITLE
EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC NODE PRESSURE NODE
DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE
gpm ft ft ft psi
FH 4 24.00 521.60 300.00
FH 5 31. 50 521 .60 304.00
FH 6 37.50 521.60 306.50
FH-1 6 .00 521.74 293.50
FH-2 0 .00 521 .61 300.00
FH-3 18.00 521. 66 296.50
J-1 30.00 521. 84 288.50
J-2 13.50 521. 80 290.50
J-3 33 .00 521. 71 294.00
J-4 36.00 521. 70 295 .50
J-5 18 .00 521. 64 297.00
J-6 37.50 521 .63 298 .00
J-7 4 .50 521. 61 301. 00
J-8 25.50 521. 60 302.50
R-1 FH=G013 522.00 282.00
s u MM ARY 0 F I N F L 0 W S A N D 0 U T F L 0 W S
(+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES
(-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES
NODE
NAME
R-1
NET SYSTEM INFLOW
NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW
NET SYSTEM DEMAND
FLOWRATE
gpm
315.00
315 .00
0 .00
315.00
NODE
TITLE
FH=G013
***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED *****
221.60 96.03
217 . 60 94.30
215.10 93 .21
228.24 98.91
221.61 96 .03
225.16 97.57
233.34 101.12
231.30 100.23
227. 71 98 .67
226.20 98 .02
224.64 97.34
223.63 96 .91
220 .61 95.60
219.10 94.95
240 .00 104.00
SUMMIT CROSSING, PHASE 28
FIRE FLOW SCENARIO #1
* * * * * * * * * *
*
K Y P I P E 5 * * * * * * * * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
Pipe Network Modeling Software
Copyrighted by KYPIPE LLC
Version 5 -February 2010
*
*
*
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Date & Time : Fri Sep 05 10 :42 :23 2014
Master File : c :\users\rabon metcalf\rme\projects\298-0542 d ws-summit cross-
ph2b\engineering\0542wlra .KYP\0542wlra.P2K
************************************************
S U M M A R Y 0 F 0 R I G I N A L D A T A
************************************************
U N I T S S P E C I F I E D
FLOWRATE ........... .
HEAD (HGL} ......... .
PRESSURE ........... .
P I P E L I N E D A T A
gallons/minu te
feet
psig
STATUS CODE : XX -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE
P I P E
N A M E
NODE NAMES LENGTH DIAMETER ROUG HNESS MI NOR
#1 #2 (ft} (in} COEFF . LO S S COEFF .
P-1 J-1 R-1 480 .00 12.00 123 .7 472 0 .00
P-2 J-2 J-1 602 .00 12 .00 123 .7472 0 .00
P-3 J -1 J-3 263 .00 8 .00 136 .8 7 36 0 .74
P-4 J-2 FH-1 142.00 8 .00 136 .8736 0 .74
P-5 FH-1 J-4 120.00 8 .00 136.8736 0 .57
P-6 J -3 FH-3 181.00 8 .00 136 .8736 0 .57
P-7 FH-3 J-5 1 24 .00 8 .00 136 .8736 0 .57
P -8 J-5 J-7 210 .00 8 .00 136 .8736 0.57
P-9 J-4 J-6 304 .00 8 .00 136 .8736 0.57
P-10 J-6 FH-2 1 91. 00 8.00 136.8736 0.57
P-11 J-4 J-3 578 .00 6 .00 136 .8736 0 .34
P-12 J-6 J-5 550.00 6.00 136.8736 0 .34
P-13 FH-2 J-8 95 .50 8 .00 139 .4518 0.57
P-14 J-8 FH 4 232 .69 8.00 139.4 518 0 .57
P-15 J-7 FH 5 95 .64 8 .00 139 .4 518 0 .57
P-16 FH 5 FH 6 344.00 8 .00 139 .4518 0.57
P-17 J-8 FH 5 522 .67 6.00 139 .4518 3 .34
P-18 FH 4 FH 6 570 .00 8 .00 139 .4518 2 .24
N 0 D E DAT A
NODE NODE EXTERNAL JUNCTION EXTERNAL
NAME TITLE DEMAND ELEVATION GRAD E
(gpm} (ft} (ft}
--------------------------------------------------------------
FH 4 24 .00 300.00
FH 5 31. 50 304 .00
FH 6 1037.50 306 .50
FH-1 6.00 293.50
FH-2
FH-3
J-1
J-2
J-3
J-4
J-5
J-6
J-7
J-8
R-1
0 U T P U T
FH=G013
0 P T I 0 N
SUMMIT CROSSING, PHASE 28
FIRE FLOW SCENARIO #1
0.00
18.00
30.00
13.50
33.00
36 .00
18.00
37.50
4 .50
25.50
D A T A
300.00
296.50
288.50
290 .5 0
294.00
295 .50
297.00
298 .00
301. 00
302 .50
282.00 522 .0 0
OUTPUT SELECTION : ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT
s y s T E M c 0 N F I G u RA T I 0 N
NUMBER OF PIPES ••••••••••••••••••• (p) 18
NUMBER OF END NODES ••••••••••••••• (j) = 14
NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ••••••••••• (1) 4
NUMBER OF SUPPLY NODES ............ (f) 1
NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ••••••• • •••• ( Z) 1
Case: 0
RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER 5 TRIALS: ACCURACY 0.00000
S I M U L A T I 0 N D E S C R I P T I 0 N (L A B E L)
M.D .W. Centre -Phase One
P I P E L I N E R E S U L T S
STATUS CODE :
P I P E
NAME
P -1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
P-11
P -12
P-13
P-14
P-15
P-16
P-17
P-18
XX -CLOSED PIPE
NODE NUMBERS
#1 jl2
R-1 J-1
J-1 J-2
J-1 J-3
J-2 FH-1
FH-1 J-4
J-3 FH-3
FH-3 J-5
J-5 J-7
J-4 J-6
J-6 FH-2
J-3 J-4
J-6 J-5
FH-2 J-8
J-8 FH 4
J-7 FH 5
FH 5 FH 6
J-8 FH 5
FH 4 FH 6
CV -CHECK VALVE
FLOWRATE
gpm
1315 .00
599 .61
685.39
586 .11
580.11
603 .90
585.90
582.18
592.60
540 .8 2
48 .48
14 .28
540.82
433.47
577.68
628 .03
81. 84
409 .47
HEAD MINOR
LOSS LOSS
ft ft
2 .21 0 .00
0 .65 0.00
2.17 0.22
0.88 0.16
0.73 0.12
1.18 0.13
0 .77 0.12
1.28 0.12
1. 92 0.13
1.02 0.11
0.14 0.00
0.01 0.00
0.49 0.11
0 .79 0.07
0 .56 0.12
2.33 0 .14
0.33 0.04
1. 75 0.24
LINE HL+ML/
VELO. 1000
ft/s ft/f
3.73 4.61
1. 70 1.08
4.37 9.08
3.74 7.31
3.70 7.07
3 .85 7 .25
3.74 7.17
3. 72 6.68
3.78 6. 72
3 .45 5 .87
0.55 0 .25
0.16 0.03
3.45 6.24
2 .77 3 .70
3 .69 7 .06
4 .01 7.19
0.93 o. 72
2 .61 3.49
HL/
1000
ft/f
4.61
1. 08
8.25
6 .17
6 .06
6 .53
6.17
6 .10
6 .30
5 .32
0 .25
0.03
5.14
3 .41
5 .81
6.78
0 .63
3.07
N 0 D E R E S U L T S
SUMMIT CROSSING, PHASE 28
FIRE FLOW SCENARIO #1
NOD E
NAME
NOD E
TITLE
EXTERNAL HYDRAU LI C NODE PRESSURE NODE
DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE
gpm ft ft ft psi
FH 4 24 .00 512 .63 300.00
FH 5 31. 50 513 .1 2 304 .00
FH 6 1037.50 510 .64 306.50
FH-1 6 .00 518 .1 0 293 .50
FH-2 0 .00 514 .09 300 .00
FH-3 18 .00 516 .08 296 .50
J -1 30 .00 519 .79 288 .50
J-2 13 .50 519 .14 290 .50
J-3 33.00 517 .40 294 .00
J-4 36 .00 517 .25 295 .50
J-5 18 .00 515.19 297 .00
J-6 37.50 515 .21 298 .00
J -7 4.50 513 .7 9 30 1. 00
J-8 25 .50 513 .49 302 .50
R-1 FH=G013 522 .00 282 .00
S U M M A R Y 0 F I N F L 0 W S A N D 0 U T F L 0 W S
(+) INFLOWS I NTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPP LY NODES
(-) OUTFLOWS F ROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES
NOD E
NAME
R-1
NET SYSTEM INFLOW
NET SYSTEM OU TFLOW
NET SYSTEM DEMAND
FLOWRATE
gpm
1315 .00
1315.00
0 .00
1315.00
NODE
T ITLE
FH=G013
***** HYDRAU LIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED *****
212 .63 92 .14
209 .12 90 .62
204.14 88. 4 6
224 .60 97 .33
214 .09 92 .77
219 .58 95.15
231.29 100.22
228 .64 99.08
223 .40 96. 81
221. 75 96.09
218 .19 94.55
217 .21 94 .12
212 .79 92 .21
210.99 91. 43
240 .00 104.00
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM MAP
WINSTORM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS DATA
stmOutput.txt
WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN)
PROJECT NAME : 298
JOB NUMBER 0542
PROJECT DESCRIP T ION : Summit Crossing , Phase 2B
DESIGN FREQUENCY
MEASUREMENT UNITS:
2 Years
ENGLISH
OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of : 2 Years
===========================================
Runoff Computation for Design Frequency.
Version 3 .05 , Jan . 25 , 2002
Run @ 9 /5/2014 10 :54 :51 AM
=============================================================================
ID c Value Area Tc Tc Used Intensity Supply Q Total Q
(acre) (min) (min) (in/hr ) (cfs) (cfs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MH 3 0.0 0.00 10 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .005 0 .005
MH 4 0.0 0.00 10 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .028 0.028
MH 5 0 .0 0 .00 10 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .030 0.030
MH 8 0 .0 0.00 10.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .018 0 .018
MH 9 0 .0 0 .00 10 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .018 0.018
MH 10 0 .0 0 .00 10 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .025 0.025
MH 11 0 .0 0 .00 10.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.053 0.053
MH 6 0.0 0.00 10 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .020 0.020
MH 7 0.0 0 .00 10 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .012 0.012
MH 12 0 .0 0 .00 10.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .020 0.020
MH 13 0 .0 0.00 10.00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .040 0 .040
MH 14 0.0 0 .00 10 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .020 0.020
MH 19 0.0 0 .00 10.00 0 .00 0.00 0.010 0 .010
Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations
=================================================================================
Node Node Weighted Cumulat . Cumulat. Intens . User Additional Total
I.D. Type C-Value Dr .Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch.
(acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 21. 53 4.25 0 .299 0 .00 0.299
EX-MHl CircMh 0 .000 0.00 21. 53 4 .25 0.299 0.00 0 .299
MH 1 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 21. 41 4 .26 0 .299 0.00 0.299
MH 2 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 17 .45 4.79 0 .299 0.00 0 .299
MH 3 CircMh 0 .000 0.00 16 .92 4.87 0.299 0.00 0 .299
MH 4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 14 .63 5.26 0.175 0 .00 0.175
MH 5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 12.13 5.78 0 .147 0.00 0 .147
MH 6 CircMh 0 .000 0.00 10 .00 6.33 0 .117 0.00 0 .117
MH 7 CircMh 0 .000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0 .097 0 .00 0 .097
MH 8 CircMh 0 .000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0 .119 0 .00 0.119
Page 1
stmOutput .txt
MH 9 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 10.00 6 .33 0 .048 0.00 0 .048
MH 10 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.025 0 .00 0.025
MH 11 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .053 0 .00 0 .053
MH 12 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 10 .00 6.33 0.060 0.00 0.060
MH 13 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .040 0 .00 0.040
MH 14 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 10 .00 6 .33 0 .030 0 .00 0.030
MH 19 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .010 0.00 0 .010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conveyance Configuration Data
==================================================================================
Run# Node I.D . Flow line Elev .
us OS us OS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value -{ft) {ft) {ft) {ft) {ft) {%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273 .38 272.78 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 100.79 0.60 0.013
2 MH 1 EX-MHl 274 .00 273 .45 Circ 1 0 .00 1. 00 25 .97 2.12 0.013
3 MH 2 MH 1 275.78 274 .43 Circ 1 0 .00 0.83 437 .57 0 .31 0.013
4 MH 3 MH 2 281. 66 280.78 Circ 1 0.00 0 .83 89 .34 0.99 0 .013
5 MH 4 MH 3 283.99 281.71 Circ 1 0.00 0 .83 300.72 0 .76 0.013
6 MH 5 MH 4 286 .16 284.09 Circ 1 0.00 0 .50 311 .13 0 .67 0.013
7 MH 6 MH 5 289.87 287.02 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 357.19 0 .80 0 .013
8 MH 7 MH 6 291 .98 289.97 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 250.81 0.80 0.013
9 MH 8 MH 3 287.80 283 .00 Circ 1 0 .00 0.50 305.26 1. 57 0.013
10 MH 9 MH 8 294 .08 287.90 Circ 1 0 .00 0 .50 327.75 1. 89 0.0 1 3
11 MH 10 MH 7 295.78 292 .08 Circ 1 0 .00 0 .50 463.50 0 .80 0.013
12 MH 11 MH 8 291.81 287 .90 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 488.82 0.80 0.013
13 MH 12 MH 7 293 .28 290 .22 Circ 1 0.00 0 .50 306.00 1. 00 0.013
14 MH 13 MH 12 297 .74 293.38 Circ 1 0.00 0 .50 435.16 1. 00 0.013
15 MH 14 MH 9 299 .69 294.37 Circ 1 0.00 0 .50 426.00 1. 25 0.013
16 MH 19 MH 14 301. 36 299 .77 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 127.85 1. 24 0.012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conveyance Hydra u lic Com putations . Tail water = 0 .00 0 {ft)
==================================================================================
Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Velocity June
Run# us Elev OS Elev Fr.Slope Unif . Actual Uni f . Actual Q Cap Loss
{ft) {ft) { % ) (ft) (ft) (f/s ) (f/s) (cfs) (cfs) (ft)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1* 273.60 273.00 0 .007 0 .22 0 .22 2 .29 2.29 0.30 2 .75 0 .000
2* 274.16 273.61 0.007 0.16 0.16 3 .59 3.59 0 .30 5 .19 0.000
3 276.06 274.68 0.019 0 .28 0 .28 1. 84 1. 84 0 .30 1. 20 0.000
4* 281. 87 280 .99 0 .019 0.21 0.21 2 .80 2.80 0.30 2.15 0.000
5* 284.16 281. 88 0 .007 0 .17 0 .17 2.19 2 .19 0 .18 1. 89 0.000
6* 286.36 284 .29 0.069 0 .20 0.20 2.0 7 2 .07 0.15 0 .46 0.000
7* 290.03 287.18 0.043 0 .16 0.16 2 .09 2 .09 0.12 0 .50 0.000
8* 292.13 290.12 0.030 0.15 0 .15 1. 97 1. 97 0 .10 0 .50 0.0 0 0
9* 287.94 283.14 0 .045 0 .14 0.14 2 .65 2 .65 0 .12 0 .70 0.000
10* 294.16 287.98 0.007 0.08 0 .08 2 .17 2 .17 0 .05 0 .77 0.000
Page 2
stmOutput.txt
11* 295.86 292.16 0.002 0.08 0.08 1. 35 1. 35 0.03 0.50 0.000
12* 291. 92 288 .01 0.009 0 .11 0.11 1. 65 1. 65 0.05 0.50 0.000
13* 293.53 292.13 0 .011 0 .11 0.50 1. 86 0 .31 0.06 0.56 0.000
14* 297.83 293.53 0.005 0 .09 0.15 1. 64 0.81 0.04 0.56 0.000
15* 299.77 294.45 0 .003 0 .08 0 .08 1. 62 1. 62 0 .03 0.63 0.000
16* 301. 40 299 .81 0 .000 0 .04 0.04 1. 26 1. 26 0 .01 0 .68 0.000
===================================END============================================
* Super critical flow.
NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM.
Warning Messages for current project:
Runoff Frequency of: 2 Years
Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation = 273.00(ft)
Drop flow line elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3
Drop flow line elevation. Down s tream HGL set to uniform dept h elevation at Run# 4
Drop flow line elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 9
Drop flow line elevation . Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 7
Drop flow line elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 15
Drop flow line elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 16
Page 3
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
LETTER OF COMPLETION
CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Re: Completion of (Subdivision/Project): .__I s_u_m_m_it_C_r_o_s_s _in_g_P_h_._2_B _________________ __,
P&DS Project No .: l~F_P_20_1_4_-_90_0_2_3_7 __________________________ ~
Dear Developer:
The purpose of our letter is to request that the following listed improvements be approved and accepted as being
constructed under city inspection and completed according to plans and specifications as approved and required by the
City of College Station, Texas . This approval and acceptance by the City is requested in order that we may finali ze any sub-
contracts and to affirm their warranty on the work. This approval and acceptance by the City of improvements listed below
does hereby void the letter of guarantee for the listed improvements on the above referenced project. The one year
warranty is hereby affirmed and agreed to by the owner, contractor, and by their sub-contractors as indicated by s ignatures
below. The one year warranty begins at Dedication Date, as indicated below.
INFRASTRUCTURE COMPLETED DEDICATION DATE
jstreets 13/10/16
jstorm Sewer 13/10/16
jwater 13/10/16
jsanitary Sewer 13/10/16
Company: DWS Development Company: Phillips Utility & Road Construction
Address : P.O. Box 4508 Address: 4490 Castlegate Drive
Bryan, TX 77805 College Station, TX 77845
E-mail : david @dwsdevelopment.com E-mail : arnoldclint28 @gmail.com
Phone No.: (979)220-2099
Signatur :
Name: r{)!hJtl/ /1)
Signature ~135-
Name ci;;
Title : Pn<P5 1 @1/ Title :
For Office Use Only
ACCEPTANCE & APPROVAL '~"'>
/ · y Engineer City Inspector
'if) Plat Filed
~IAJ Temporary Blanket Easement Filed
(lV,jj Off-site Easements Filed
~ No Other Easements Needed
Print Form
SOP: Filin of Final Plats -Lett rs o om letion 10/14/2015
Engineering Inspector/Date: ~ 3 -/S---; /~
Project Engineer/Date: £,.ct~ l){l ~ ~f \1 /lf.f;
DP Number: ff .zo 14 -£1c(}2.-"31
Inspectors shall acquire written (i.e . email) punchlist comments and subsequently written
confirmation from the following contacts before forwarding Letter of Completion to development
revi~w ~gineer: y _lrosion/Drainage: Donnie Willis (0: 764 -6375)
v cs Water Services -General: Charles "Butch " Willis (0: 764-3435, C: 777-1202)
• Water -coordinate fire flow analyses (or the design engineer for non-city utilities)
and confirm test results meets min requirements with the dev review engineer
(specific hydrants to test, if simultaneous, and min allowable flow)
• Sanitary
flJ!:,,,£.S Water Service -Liftstation: Doug Wallace (0: 764-6333)
q/ _CS Electric and Streetlights: Gilbert Martinez (0: 764-6255) ~CS Public Works -Traffic Signs/Markings): Lee Robinson (0: 764-3695) Vilt BTU Electric and Streetlights: Sonia Creda (0: 821-5770)
I/ John Fontinoe or Randy Trimble (0: 821-5728)
Confirm with development review engineer that service agreement is in place with BTU
(\if Non-City Utility Service Providers: (Wellborn Water SUD, Brushy Creek SUD, Wickson
Creek SUD, etc) confirm with development review engineer that infrastructure is complete
and for outstanding issues,
()/( !)igital Constrution Pictures: From contractor on CD-R, Inspector to confirm and file
~Record Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Cop ies) for all Public Infrastructure with the
following attestation:
"I, General Contractor for development, certify that the
improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are
shown substantially hereon. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, that the
materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any are stated correctly
hereon."
General Contractor
/Record Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for Public Drainage Infrastructure including
Private Detention Facilities with the following attestations:
"I hereby attest that I am familiar with the approved drainage plan and associated
construction drawings and furthermore, attest that the drainage facilities have been
constructed within dimensional tolerances prescribed by the Bryan & College station
Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines and in accordance with the approved construction
plans or amendments thereto approved by the City of College Station."
(affix seal) Licensed Professional Engineer
State of Texas No. ___ _
"I certify that the subdivision improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and
that said improvements are substantially as shown hereon. I further certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any,
are stated correctly hereon ."
General Contractor
Inspectors to review Red-lined Record Drawings, upon acceptable confirmation of drawings,
inspector to :
/.Jiie one set of Record Drawings in Public Works files, and cV forward one set of Record Drawings to Jeffery Speed (CSU)
Inspectors should forward Letters of Completion to the development review engineer that
reviewed and stamped the construction plans after confirming:
~~e date on the Letter of Completion Warranty should reflect the date when all associated
punchlist items are completed, and
the Owner is shall be listed as the one affirming the one -year warranty
Development review engineer to:
o add Dev Permit Number to Letter of Completion
o stamp the Letter of Completion to confirm by initialing that the final plat is filed (or mylar
is ready to be filed), all necessary easements (including offsite) have been filed, and
blanket easement issues are resolved, and
o Initial and route the Final Plat Mylar for filing. (Note if the developer provided surety the
plat it may have been filed ahead of construction.)
Deborah Grace-Rosier (Planning) to file the Final Plat utilizes a coversheet to confirm:
o infrastructure is accepted by Letter of Completion -or-Surety is provided and acceptable,
o signed and notarized mylar of final plat,
o parkland dedication has been paid,
o digital file of final plat is provided,
o a current paid tax certificate has been submitted,
o sidewalk fee in lieu paid (if applicable), and
Development review engineer, upon the filing of Final Plat, stamp the Letter of Completion
w ith the new stamp and verify-initial-n/a the Final Plat was filed, offsite easements have been
filed , we have all necessary easements, etc -and then forward the Letter of Completion to Alan
Gibbs (City Engineer) for final signature.
Carol (Sr. Asst. City Engineer) to:
o enter the engineer's estimate and Letter of Completion date into Inspection List
o forward hard original of finalized Letter of Completion to Crystal (P&DS).
Crystal to: verify
o signatures on the Letter of Completion,
o forward scanned copy of Letter of Completion and associated Engineers Estimate to the
owner, developer, contractor, Terry Boriskie (Building), Ben McCarty (Building), Brian
Binford (Building), Carol Thompson (Accounting), Kristina Keller (Accounting), Courtney
Kennedy (Accounting), Jeffery Speed (CSU), Stephen Maldonado Sr. (CSU), Charles
"Butch" Willis (CSU), Carol Cotter (Engineering), Alan Gibbs (Engineering), Erika Bridges
(Engineering), Danielle Singh (Engineering), Gilbert Martinez (Electric) and Deborah Grace -
Rosier (Planning). Kristina Keller will forward to Diane Broadhurst (CSU) after her review.
o If don 't have email addresses, mail copies to the owner and contractor, and attach it to the
project in TRAKiT.
Deborah to place a hard copy of the Letter of Completion in the associated Planning Final Plat file.
( .
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Engineer's Cost Estimate
SUMMIT CROSSING, PHASE 2B
PAVING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT
PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
Mobilization, Construction Staking, All Required 1 LS Testing by Contractor & Trench Safety
SWPP Measures (Rock Rip-Rap, Seeding, Silt 1 LS Fencing , Construction Entrance , Inlet Protection)
Clearing & Grubbing (ROW & All Easements) 1 LS
In-Place Earthwork Excavation (Roadway, Alleys ,
Drainage Channels , Detention, etc ... ) (Does Not 1,050 CY
Include Building Pads)
In-Pace Earthwork Embankment (Roadway, Alleys ,
Sitework, etc .. ) (Excavated On-Site) (Does Not 550 CY
Include Building Pads)
In-Place Earthwork Embankment Finishing (Topsoil,
Landscape Berms & Miscellaneous) (Excavated On 550 CY
Site)
4" Th ick Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk (Includes 4 ,142 SF H/C Ramps)
24" Laydown Concrete Gutter 1,767 LF
6" Compacted Lime Stabilized Subgrade (Street & 3,390 SY Alley)
6" Concrete Paving (Residential Street) 2 ,965 SY
UNIT
COST
$4,000.00
$15 ,000 .00
$3 ,000.00
$4.00
$4 .00
$5.00
$4.00
$4 .00
$6 .50
$44 .00
TOTAL
COST
$4 ,000.00
$23,500 .00
$3 ,000 .00
$4,200.00
$2 ,200.00
$2 ,750 .00
$16 ,568 .00
$7 ,068.00
$22,035 .00
$130 ,460 .00
SUB-TOTAL= $215,781.00
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Mobilization, Construction Staking , All Required
1 Testing (Including TV) by Contractor & Trench 1 LS
Safety
2 Recessed Curb Inlet (15' Opening) 2 EA
3 24" RCP (CL 3) Storm Sewer w/Structural Backfill 37 LF
4 30" RCP (CL3) Storm Sewer w/Structural Backfill 111 LF
5 Concrete Sideslope Headwall 1 EA
WATER IMPROVEMENTS
1 Mobilization, Staking , All Required Testing by
Contractor & Trench Safety (Water Line) 1 LS
CD1-298-0542-E02 .xlsx
$3 ,500 .00 $3,500 .00
$5 ,500 .00 $11',000 .00
$85.00 $3,145 .00
$110.00 $12 ,210.00
$2 ,500.00 $2,500.00
SUB-TOTAL= $32,355.00
$4 ,000.00 $4 ,000.00
1of3
Engineer's Cost Estimate
2 8" PVC Water Line (C900, DR14) -Non Structural 751 LF $22.00 $16,522 .00 Backfill
3 8" PVC Water Line (C900 , DR14) -Structural 207 LF $24 .00 $4,968.00 Backfill
4 16" PVC Water Line Casing (C905, DR18) w/Casing 20 LF $50 .00 $1 ,000.00 Spacers & End Seals
5 Standard Fire Hydrant Assembly 1 EA $4 ,000.00 $4 ,000.00
6 Tie into Existing Water Line 2 EA $1 ,000.00 $2 ,000.00
7 8" (MJ) Gate Valve & Box 6 EA $1,200.00 $7 ,200.00
8 6" (MJ) Gate Valve & Box 1 EA $1 ,000.00 $1 ,000.00
9 2" Blow-Off Valve & Riser 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00
10 8" x 8" (MJ) Cross 1 EA $1 ,100.00 $1 , 100.00
11 8" x 6" (MJ) Tee 1 EA $700.00 $700.00
12 8" (MJ) 45 deg Bend 2 EA $650.00 $1,300.00
13 8" (MJ) Plug w/2" Tap 2 EA $500.00 $1 ,000.00
14 Dual Water Service (Long Side) 5 EA $1,800.00 $9,000 .00
15 Dual Water Service (Short Side) 10 EA $1 ,400.00 $14 ,000 .00
16 Single Water Service (Long Side) 3 EA $1,300.00 $3,900.00
17 Single Water Service (Short Side) 1 EA $1,100.00 $1 , 100.00
SUB-TOTAL= $74 ,790.00
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
1 Mobilization, Staking , Trench Safety & TV Inspection 1 LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 (Sewer Line)
2 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26 , 03034) -Non 192 LF $25.00 $4 ,800 .00 Structural Backfill
3 8" DIP Sanitary Sewer (CL 350) -Non Structural 20 LF $100.00 $2,000.00 Backfill w/Cement Stabilized Bedding
4 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D3034) -Non 592 LF $24.00 $14,208.00 Structural Backfill
5 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D2241) -20 LF $60 .00 $1,200.00 Structural Backfill
6 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26 , 03034) -9 LF $28.00 $252 .00 Structural Backfill
CD1 -298-0542-E02.xlsx 2 of 3
' . Engineer's Cost Estimate
7 4' Diameter Standard Manhole w/32" Opening (Ring
& Cover)
8 4' Diameter Standard Manhole w/32" Opening (Ring
& Cover) (Water-tight)
9 4' Diameter Standard Manhole w/32" Opening (Ring
& Cover) w/Drop Connection
10 Tie into Existing Sewer Line or Manhole
11 Structural Bedding (Cement Stabilized Sand)
12 Dual Sanitary Sewer Service (Short Side)
13 Single Sanitary Sewer Service (Short Side)
1 EA
1 EA
2 EA
2 EA
20 LF
9 EA
3 EA
$3 ,200.00
$4 ,000.00
$4 ,500.00
$800.00
$45.00
$900.00
$500 .00
SUB-TOTAL=
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST=
$3 ,200.00
$4 ,000 .00
$9,000 .00
$1,600.00
$900 .00
$8,100.00
$1 ,500 .00
$54 ,760 .00
$377,686.00
10 % CONTINGENCY= $37,768.60
,
GRAND TOTAL= $415,454.60
RME Consulting Engineers
TEXAS FIRM REGISTRATION No. F-4695
POST OFFICE BOX 9253
COLLEGE ST A TION, TEXAS 77842
OFF/FAX: (979) 764-0704
E-mail: civil@rmengineer.com
Estimates and projections prepared by RME Consulting Engineers relating to construction costs and schedules, operation and
maintenance costs, equipment characteristics and performance, and operating results are based on this office's experience,
qualifications and judgment as a design professional. Since RME has no control over weather, cost and availability oflabor,
material and equipment, labor productivity, construction contractor's procedures and methods, unavoidable delays,
construction contractor's methods of determining prices, economic conditions, competitive bidding or market conditions and
other factors affecting such estimates or projections, this office does not guarantee that actual rates, costs, performance,
schedules, etc., will not vary from estimates and projections prepared by the Engineer ofrecord.
CD1-298-0542-E02.xlsx 3 of 3
' '
October 1, 2014
Erika Bridges, E.l.T.
Graduate Civil Engineer
City of College Station
1101 Texas A venue South
College Station, TX 77842
RE: Summit Crossing, Phase 2B -College Station, TX
Acknowledgement of City Standards
RME No. 298-0542
Erika Bridges:
3800 SH No. 6 South, Ste. 108G <77845>
P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842
Off/Fax: (979) 764-0704
email: civil@rmengineer.com
The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the public
infrastructure improvements, for the above referenced project, to the best of my knowledge , do
not deviate from the latest B/CS Design Guideline Manual. With the exception of the following
items:
•!• All segments of sanitary sewer line installed for this phase of construction, do not meet
the minimum flow velocity of 2.0 ft/s at peak flow conditions. The design of these lines
comply with minimum size , type and slope (per TCEQ requirements), however, the low
number of dwelling units discharging to these lines prevent peak flows from reaching a
flow velocity of 2.0 ft/s ;
•!• Some segments of the water lines , for this phase of construction, exceeds the maximum
bury depth of five (5) feet. This occurs only at utility crossings with grade critical
elements, where the water line cannot cross above the grade critical element and still
meet minimum bury depth of four ( 4) feet;
I also acknowledge , to the best of my knowledge that the details provided in the construction
plans are in accordance with the B/CS Standard Details.
CD 1-298-0542-L02.docx Page 1 of2
..
I
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
CD 1-298-0542-L02.docx
3800 SH No. 6 South, Ste. 108G <77845>
P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842
Off/Fax: (979) 764-0704
email: civil@rmengineer.com
Page 2 of 2
4 •
f
October 1, 2014
David Loflin
Texas Commission of Environmental Quality
Water Supply Division, MC 153
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711
RE: Summit Crossing, Phase 2B -College Station, TX
TCEQ Exception Letter for Utility Improvements
RME No. 298-0542
Mr. David Loflin:
3800 SH No. 6 South, Ste. 108G <77845>
P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842
Off/Fax: (979) 764-0704
email: civil@rmengineer.com
The above referenced project will install the following improvements within the distribution
system of the City of College Station:
•!• Approximate water line installations as follows:
o 958 LF of 8" PVC (C-900 , DR 14) water line;
•!• Applicable fire hydrants , services, valves & fittings .
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B is located at the NW end of the existing subdivision which is on the
northwest side of Harvey Road East (SH No. 30) approximately 3,320 LF southwest of its
intersection with Boonville Road (FM 158).
Design and construction of these improvements will be in accordance with the latest
Bryan/College Station Unified Water & Sewer Design Guideline Manual, Standard Details , and
Specifications and Chapter 290 of the TCEQ Rules & Regulations. This quantity of water line is
less than 10% of the total length of water line within the City 's current distribution system.
Therefore, an ex ception for plan review is being requested for this project and its water system
improvements .
Please call should you have any questions or require assistance.
Sincerely,
Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E.
Texas Firm Registration No. F-4695
rabon@rmengineer.com
xc : Erika Bridges, E.I.T.
Graduate Civil Engineer
City of College Station
CD I-298-0542-L03 .docx Page 1of1
..
Date: October 1, 2014
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL FORM
(Complete and Attach to Submittal Package)
TCEQ PWS Identification No .*: .-02-.1 __ 0 ..... 0.-02-._ _____ CCN No. or Application No . **:_..10 .... 1"'"'6'""9 _________ _
Water System Name: City of College Station
Water System Owner: City of College Station
Address : North side of Harvey Road (SH 30)
Official : Dave Coleman
Type of Entity: Municipality
Phone: (979) 764-3660
Title : Director of Public Utilities
Responsible
County (system location): Brazos County Subdivision Sec., Phase, Unit, etc. Summit Crossing, Phase 2B
_________________ Mechanism & Source of Financing:_P......._.ri .... va .... t ... e __________ _
Engineer: Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. Registration Number:_8.._8._5....,8 .... 3 _______________ _
Firm Name: Rabon Metcalf Engineering Phone: (979) 764-0704
Firm Address : P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Fax: (979) 764-0704
* If no P-NS Number exists, the owner must submit a business plan , if required , in accordance with §290 .39(f) and (g).
-If a required CCN number does not exist, an acceptable application to obtain a CCN number must be made before a project submittal can be
technically reviewed . In addition , if a submittal is for a project located outside the CCN area, a CCN amendment application must be submitted before a
project may be reviewed for construction approval. Please refer to 30 TAC Chapter 291 for additional information regarding CCNs.
If this is a new (proposed) system, you must attach the following with this submittal : NOT APPLICABLE
O Attach a list of all water utilities within Y:i mile of the proposed service area boundaries
0 Copies of formal applications for service from each of the following
0 any municipality if the system is within its ET J ;
0 any district or other political subdivision whose corporate boundaries are within Y:i mile of the proposed
service area boundaries
0 any other water service provider whose certificated service area boundary is within Y:i mile of the proposed
service area boundaries
0 Documentation that all application requirements including payment of fees were complied with .
0 Copies of written responses from each of the entities listed above.
0 Business plan, if required by 30 TAC 290 .39(f) & (g). The business plan financial requirements for non-community
water systems must confirm capital availability to construct the system according to TCEQ requirements. This
would consist of a balance sheet that shows liabilities as well as assets, not just a bank confirmation of a deposit
account. Alternatively , if the project is being constructed with loan funds, then a loan commitment letter from the
lender specific to that project will suffice.
0 Justification for constructing a separate system (unless none of the entities listed above exist)
0 Plans and specifications with an engineering report all sealed by design engineer.
Type of Project (please check the appropriate boxes):
./ Distribution System Modifications
0 Well completion data on previously approved well
O Pressure Maintenance Facilities Modifications
O Disinfection Facilities or Other Modifications
0 Preliminary Engineering Report w/o plans
O Modification of Surface Water Treatment Plant
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Storage Capacity Modifications
Water Well Construction, Proposed
Proposed Innovative Process Study
Ground Water Treatment Plant, New
Surface Water Treatment Plant, New
Tex. Water Dev. Board Proj . No. _____ _
Other(PleaseExplain) _______________________________ _
IF THIS SUBMITTAL IS A REVISION OF PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PLANS, PLEASE ENTER THE ASSIGNED TCEQ
LOG NUMBER: . Please call (512) 239-6960 if you have questions regarding this form . Your
cooperation will help us provide better service. Additional helpful information and rules are available at our website :
Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E.
Printed Engineer's Name
October 1. 2014
Date
..
,.
October 1, 2014
Louis Heron III , P .E.
Texas Commission of Environmental Quality
Plans & Specification Review
MC 148
P .O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
RE: Chapter 217 Summary Transmittal Letter
Permittee: City of College Station
3800 SH No. 6 South, Ste. 108G <77845>
P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842
Off/Fax: (979) 764-0704
email: civil@rmengineer.com
Permit Number: Lick Creek WWTP: WQ0010024-006
Project Name: Summit Crossing, Phase 2B -College Station, TX
County: Brazos County
Grant No.: NIA
Mr. Louis Heron:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the TCEQ with the information necessary to comply with
the requirements of Chapter 217 .8(c) of the TCEQ 's rules entitled, Design Criteria for Sewerage
Systems. The necessary information includes:
1. Engineering Firm:
RME Consulting Engineers
3800 SH No. 6 South, Suite 108G <77845 >
P .O. Box 9253
College Station, TX 77842
2. Design Engineer:
Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E.
Off/Fax: (979) 764-0704
3. Location:
Brazos County, TX
4. Project Identifier:
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B-Paving, Drainage & Utility Improvements
5. Operator:
City of College Station
CD1-298-0542-L04 .docx Page I of 2
. '
I
6. Collection System:
City of College Station -Public Utilities Department
7. Plan & Specification Compliance:
3800 SH No. 6 South, Ste. 108G <77845>
P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842
Off/Fax: (979) 764-0704
email: civil@rmengineer.com
Design and construction of these improvements are in accordance with the Bryan/College
Station Unified Water & Sewer Specifications, Design Guidelines Manual , and Chapter
217 of the TCEQ Rules & Regulations. This sanitary sewer improvement project will be
constructed with the City of College Station performing a technical review.
The plans and specifications which describe the project identified in this letter are in
substantial compliance with all the requirements of Chapter 217.
8. Variances:
Some segments of sanitary sewer line installed for this phase of construction, do not meet
the minimum flow velocity of 2.0 ft/s at peak flow conditions. The design of these lines
comply with minimum size, type and slope, however, the low number of dwelling units
discharging to these lines prevent peak flows from reaching a flow velocity of 2.0 ft/s ;
9. Project Scope:
The above referenced project will install the following sanitary sewer improvements
within the CCN of the City of College Station (CoCS):
•!• Approximately 833 linear feet of gravity sewer:
o 8" & 6" PVC (SDR 26, D3034);
•!• Applicable manholes , cleanouts, and service leads;
If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Mr. Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E.
(Off/Fax: 979.764.0704 or rabon@rmengineer.com).
Sincerely,
I
Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E . No. 8858
Tex as Firm Registration No. F-4695
rabon @ rmengineer.com
xc: Erika Bridges, E .I.T.
Graduate Civil Eng ineer
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue South
College Station, TX 77840
CD 1-298-0542-L04.docx Page2 of2
Erika Bridges
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
ALL :
Rabon Metcalf <rabon@rmengineer.com>
Wednesday, October 01, 2014 8:56 AM
Raymond Olson ; Stephen Smith; Wally Urrutia
Erika Bridges; Mark Bombek; 'David Scarmardo '; 'Jacob Novicke '
Summit Crossing, Phase 2B -College Station, TX : Temporary Turn-Around
Thanks for your help and coordination on the matter and subdivision referenced above . Per my emails and phone
conversations with you all I'm deleting the temporary turn -around since it is not necessary.
Thanks,
Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E., C.F.M.
I -
I C:~£ing &llgj'nlll!lf!'r!S ---,
3800 SH No. 6, Suite 108G < 77845>
P.O. Box 9253
College Station, TX 77842
Off: (979) 764-0704
Fax: (979) 764-0704
1
Erika Bridges
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Wally Urrutia
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:14 PM
'Rabon Metcalf'
Erika Bridges; Rodney Harris
RE : Summit Crossing , Ph 2B -College Station , TX : Deletion of temp t urn -around
I amok with the deletion as long as we don't have to backup over 120 feet.
Thanks.
From: Rabon Metcalf [mailto :rabon@rmengineer.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:34 AM
To: Wally Urrut ia
Cc: Er ika Bridges
Subject: Summit Crossing, Ph 2B -College Station, TX: Deletion of temp turn-around
Wally :
Attached is a quick sketch of what you and I discussed . If you are ok with it then I'll delete the temporary turn-around
that is shown on the drawings.
Thanks ,
Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E., C.F.M .
,
I .......
3800 SH No. 6, Suite 108G < 77845>
P.O. Box 9253
College Station , TX 77842
Off: (979) 764-0704
Fax: (979) 764-0704
1
~----------------------------------········· ········--··-···------·-··············· ·····-··-·-··-···-
"G, PH 28
-
T /G~,307.0'
w; 1 n.Ml"\.v. rvF'.
EMERGENCY
' n.JRN-AROUND
3 REFLECTIVE
WARNING SIGNS
\
' '
\
Erika Bridges
From:
Sent:
Rabon Metcalf <rabon @rmengineer.com >
Wednesday, October 01 , 2014 9:04 AM
To:
Cc:
Raymond Olson ; Stephen Smith; Wally Urrutia; Stephen Smith
Erika Br idges; Mark Bombe k; 'David Scarmardo '; 'Jacob Novicke'
Subject: RE : Summit Crossing , Phas e 2B -College Station, TX : Temporary Turn -Around
Got it. I've also worked this out with Wally Urrutia.
Thanks,
Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E., C.F.M.
I
CiansUILi,ng &agH.eer.s .. .._ __ _
3800 SH No. 6 , Suite 108G <77845>
P.O. Box 9253
College Station, TX 77842
Off: (979) 764-0704
Fax: (979) 764-0704
The information transmitted, by RME Consulting Engineers (RME), for the above referenced project is considered by RME to be confidential. This material is intended
ONLY for the use of the recipie nt named above and permission is not granted to the recipient for distribution of these documents in any form or fashion. The recipient
understands and agrees to RME that upon release of these documents is no longer responsible for their use or modification. Th e user and recipient of the documents
accept full responsibility and liability for any consequences arising out of the use of these documents.
From: Raymond Olson [mailto:rolson@cstx.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 8:59 AM
To: 'Rabon Metcalf; Stephen Smith; Wally Urrutia; Stephen Smith
Cc: Erika Bridges; Mark Bombek; 'David Scarmardo'; 'Jacob Novicke'
Subject: RE: Summit Crossing, Phase 28 -College Station, TX: Temporary Turn-Around
Great, make sure no other city entity for example, sanitation has issues, do n't want to step on an y toes.
From: Rabon Metcalf [mailto :rabon@rmengineer.com)
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 8 :56 AM
To: Raymond Olson; Stephen Smith; Wally Urrutia
Cc: Erika Bridges; Mark Bombek; 'David Scarmardo'; 'Jacob Novicke '
Subject: Summit Crossing , Phase 2B -College Station, TX : Temporary Turn-Around
ALL :
Thanks for your help and coordination on the matter and subdivision referenced above. Per my emails and phone
conversations with you all I'm deleting the temporary turn -around since it is not necessary.
Thanks,
Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E., C.F.M.
1
Con:sulring Engineer.s ·----
I \
3800 SH No. 6, Suite 108G < 77845>
P.O. Box 9253
College Station, TX 77842
Off: (979) 764-0704
Fax : (979) 764-0704
City of College Station
Home of Texas A&M University ®
2