Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Folder
,, ~ I SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INFORMATION ~~~ Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/waterway alterations: Construction o~ street and utility infrastructure for a 55 lot single family subdivision. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: L ___ D_e_a_n __ fi_c_h_i_e_f_:i:_e_r _____ _. design engineer/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: The · o ·on and co~clusions contained in the above plans and supportin*va~ents comply with the current requirements of the Ci o College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated ~ge Policy and Design Standards. As a ndi ·on of proval of this permit application, I agree to construct imprpvements proposed in this application according to these ents the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City dode.l l., (, r ----- Property Owner(s) CERTIFICATIONS: (for proposed alterations within designated flood ha7.ard areas.) A L certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designated to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100 year storm. Engineer Date B. I, De bb j e ye a tin <J , certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor, including any basement, of any residential structure, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established in the .atest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps, as amended. ~"--~ 0" ~ ~~ 5 .~.~, -E~ngi ___ n_ee_r----'-~_..::..._~\:=:S-~------Date C. L certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the waterway adjoining or crossing this permitted site and that such alterations or development are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerning encroachments of floodways and of floodway fringes. Engineer Date D. I, , do certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year flood above elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study. Engineer Date Conditions or comments as part of approval: ----------------------------- In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris ;rom construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. 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. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FNLPAPP.IX>C 312~/99 3 ofJ FOR OFFICE USE ONL '\ CASE NO.: 0 l-~Lf ATESUBMITTED: =7-o I FINAL PLAT APPLICATION (Check one) Minor __ Amending ./ Final __ Vacating __ Replat The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P & Z Commissions consideration. MINIMUM SUBMITI'AL REQUJREMENTS _:!_ Filing Fee of $200.00 _:!_Development Permit Application Fee of$100.00 (if applicable) _:!_Infrastructure Inspection Fee of$300.00 (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed.). • _:!_ Application completed in full. _:!_Thirteen (13) folded copies of plat. (A signed Mylar original must be submitted after staff review.) __ One (1) copy of the approved Preliminary Plat and/or one (1) Master Plan (if applicable). _:!_A copy of the attached check.list with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. _:!_Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable). APPLICATION DATA NAME OF SUBDMSION Emerald Forest Phase 11-A SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Appomattox Drive, south of Phase 10 and east of Phase 8 ADDRESS_--'N~o=t~A-=-v~a=il=ab=l=e------------------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION 19.11 Acres out ofa 300.00 acre tract recorded in Volume 394, Page 766 of Morgan Rector League APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Mark Carrabba c/o Highland Interest. Inc. I Schieffer Corporation Street Address -~4.:..10=-4'-'H=wy""-'---=2.:..1 =Ea=st'--___________ City Bryan State Texas Zip Code 77806 E-Mail Address ---~N~/"'"'A~---------- Phone Number -""(9-'-7"'""'9)._7'""'"7-=-8-""""8-=-85"""'0'-------Fax Number -~<~9~79~)~7-'-7-=-8--"8-'-8~02~---------- PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name Allen Swaboda c/o Haldec. Inc. Street Address ---'8'""'4-=-l=-5 ~A~p=po=m=a=tt=o=x'-=D"""'n=·v-'--'e'--_________ City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77840 E-Mail Address ___ .:..N-"-'/A,_,,__ __________ _ Phone Number -~<~9_79~)_6_9~3--'-3_22~3~---Fax Number (979) 696-2046 ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name Urban Design Group StreetAddress_-=27'-'0'-=0-"Ear=="""'IR~u=d=d=e=-r=-Frwy'-'-'-'~·=S=te~4=3~0-=-0 ______ City __ ~C~o=ll~eg~e~S=ta=u=·o=n,__ _____ _ State __ T=-e~x=as~_ Zip Code __ 7~78~4~5 __ E-Mail Address --=dk=ea=ti=ng""®=u=dg=c=s=.c=om'-"'--------- Phone Number _~(_97_9~)_6_96_-_96_5_3 ____ Fax Number _~<~9~79~)~6~9-=-6-~9-'-7=52"-----------~ FINAL PLAT APPLICATION I of2 TOTAL ACRES OF SUBDIVISION: ----'6"""".1""'8'---'a=c,___R-0-W ACREAGE 1.062 ac TOTAL# OF LOTS __ -=1=8 NUMBER OF LOTS BY ZONING DISTRICT: 18 I RIA AVERAGE ACREAGE OF EACH RESIDENTIAL LOT BY ZONING DISTRICT: -~9=0~00~sf~- FLOODPLAIN ACREAGE 0.001 PARKLAND DEDICATION BY ACREAGE OR FEE? NIA A STATEMENT ADDRESSING ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FINAL PLAT AND APPROVED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND/OR MASTER PRELIMINARY PLAT (IF APPLICABLE): REQUESTED VARIANCES TO SUBDMSION REGULATIONS & REASON FOR SAME NONE REQUESTED OVERSIZE PARTICIPATION NONE TOT AL LINEAR FOOTAGE OF PROPOSED: 860 STREETS 785 SIDEWALKS 940 SANlT ARY SEWER LINES 770 WATER LINES _____ CHANNELS 365 STORM SEWERS BIKE LANES/PATHS ---- NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT (IF APPLICABLE) MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. s prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct e undecby requests approval by the CUy of C;e;;;; above-identified final plot. FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FNLPAPP.DOC 3125199 Title Date 2 of2 SUBMIT APPLICATION AND TI LIST CHECKED OFF WITH FOLDED COPIES OF PLAT FOil llEVll 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.) 1. Drawn on 24" x 36" sheet to scale of 100' per inch or larger. 2. 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. 3. Title Block with the following information: D Name and address of subdivider, recorded owner, planner, engineer and surveyor. D Proposed name of subdivision. (Subdivision name & street names will be approved through Brazos County 911.) (Rep lats need to retain original subdivision name.) D Date of preparation. D Engineer's scale in feet. D Total area intended to be developed. 4. North Arrow. 5. Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines. If more than l 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. D D D D D D 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 Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval (ETJ Plats only) 8. Paid tax certificates. 9. If submitting a rep lat where there are existing improvements, submit a survey of the subject property showing the improvements to ensure that no encroachments will be created. 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 21.004 of the Texas Water Code. 11. Location of the l 00 Year Floodplain and floodway, if applicable, according to the most recent available data. 12. Lot comer markers and survey monuments (by symbol) and clearly tied to basic survey data. FINAL PLAT CHECKLIST FNLPCK.DOC 03/25199 I of2 ·r/. • 13. Matches the approved preliminary plat and/or master development plan. D 14. 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, a! well as, those within the subdivision). Existing D D D D D D D Prowsed [if Streets. Continuous or end in a cul-de-sac, stubbed out streets must end into a temp. tum around unless they are shorter than 100 feet. D Public and private RO.W . locations and widths. (All existing and proposed RO.W.'s sufficient 1 meet Thoroughfare Plan.) Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance. Alleys. Easements. A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block. Greenbelt area/park linkages/parkland dedication ( All proposed dedications must be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Board prior to P & Z Commission consideration.) D 15. 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). GJ 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.) IB 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.) Gl 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. IS!I/ Detailed cost estimates for all public infrastructure listed above sealed by Texas P.E. [!f/ Drainage Report. llT Erosion Control Plan (must be included in construction plans). D 16. 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 filed prior or concurrently with Final Plat. D 17. Are there impact fees associated with this development? 0 Yes p(No Impact fees for R-1, R-2, & R-3 zoned final plats, must be paid prior to filing. D 18. Will any construction occur in TexDOT rights-of-way? 0 Yes JQNo If yes, TexDOT permit must be submitted along with the construction documents. NOTE: l . We will be requesting the corrected Final Plat to be submitted in digital form if available prior to filing the plat at the Courthouse. 2. If the construction area is greater than 5 acres, EPA Notice of Intent (NOD must be submitted prior to issuance of a development permit. FINAL PLAT CHECKLIST 2 of2 EME RALD FOREST PHASE 11-A PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Paving & Site Improvements NO. DESCRI PTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 Excavation CY 2750 $ 3.50 $ 9,625.00 2 2" H.M.A.C SY 2710 $ 5.00 $ 13,550.00 3 6" Flexible Base SY 3250 $ 8.00 $ 26,000.00 4 Lime Treatment (6" depth) SY 3250 $ 3.00 $ 9,750.00 5 Type 3 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter SF 1850 $ 7.00 $ 12,950.00 6 4" Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk SF 3070 $ 3.00 $ 9,210.00 7 Reinf. Concrete Handicap Ramp EA 3 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 8 Sawcut, tie and repair street EA 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Valley Gutter SF 225 $ 4.00 $ 900.00 10 Silt Fencing (Erosion Control) LF 1550 $ 1.25 $ 1,937.50 TOTAL PAVING & SITE COST $ 87,422.50 Alternate Paving & Site Improvements NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 Excavation (6" depth) CY 3050 $ 3.50 $ 10,675.00 2 5" H.M.A.C (Txdot item 340) SY 3250 $ 12.50 $ 40,625.00 3 6" Lime Stabilized subgrade SY 3250 $ 3.00 $ 9,750.00 5 Type 3 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 1850 $ 7.00 $ 12,950.00 6 4" Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk SF 3070 $ 3.00 $ 9,210.00 7 Reinf. Concrete Handicap Ramp EA 3 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 8 Sawcut, tie and repair street EA 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Valley Gutter SF 225 $ 4.00 $ 900.00 10 Silt Fencing (Erosion Control) LF 1000 $ 1.25 $ 1,250.00 TOTAL PAVING & SITE COST $ 88,860.00 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST 11 Earthwork (Grading) LS 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 12 Standard 10' Inlet (Radius) EA 2 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 13 18" RCP (structural) LF 95 $ 55.00 $ 5,225.00 14 24" RCP (non structural) LF 95 $ 60.00 $ 5,700.00 15 24" RCP (structural) LF 85 $ 65.00 $ 5,525.00 16 36" RCP (non structural) LF 120 $ 110.00 $ 13,200.00 17 TxDOT Reinf. Concrete Headwall w/ Wingwall EA 1 $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 TOT AL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS COST $37,650.00 ProbCost 11-A REVIEWED FOR COl\np•_ I .. f\JCE AUG 0 3 2001 COLLEGE S P .. f 101\J ENGINEERING ~/i} 7. ,2.o . c:::> f \!,I• ~' -.. :~:' ...J ___ .. ,_ __ EM ERALD FOREST PHASE 11-A PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST WATER IMPROVEMENTS NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST 22 6" PVC C900 Non-Structural Fill LF 775 $ 14.00 23 6" PVC C900 Structural Fill LF 20 $ 19.00 24 Std. Fire Hydrant Assembly EA 1 $ 2,500.00 25 6" M.J. Gate Valve & Box EA 1 $ 1,200.00 26 6" MJ Plug EA 1 $ 250.00 27 6" -22.5° Bend EA 1 $ 250.00 28 6" -45° Bend EA 2 $400 29 2" Blowoff Assembly EA 1 $ 1,000.00 30 Water Service LF 1204 $ 5.00 31 8" Tapping Sleeve w/ Valve EA 1 $ 1,500.00 TOTAL COST $ 10,850.00 $ 380.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 $ 800.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6,020.00 $ 1,500.00 TOTAL WATER IMPROVEMENTS COST $ 24,750.00 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST 32 6" PVC (D3034 SOR 26) non-structural LF 540 $ 50.00 $ 27,000.00 33 6" PVC (03034 SOR 26) structural LF 515 $ 55.00 $ 28,325.00 34 4" Sewer Service EA 16 $ 500.00 $ 8,000.00 35 Standard Manhole W/ Locking Cover EA 2 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 36 Drop Manhole EA 2 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 37 Standard Cleanout EA 2 $800 $ 1,600.00 TOTAL SEWER IMPROVEMENTS COST $ 76,925.00 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 228,185.00 Contigency (15%) $ 34,227.75 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 262,412.75 NOTES CONCERNING OPINIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Urban Design Group's (UDG) opinions of probable construction cost provided for herein are made on the basis of our experience and qualifications and represent our best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineering firm generally familiar with the construction industry and applicable development regulations. However, since UDG has not obtained approval from the appropriate jurisdiction and UDG has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive ProbCost 11-A Re e~ rOR ,ANCE AUr-tJ l 2001 COL ~cGE s .-A.nON '-~NGINEEF f\JG 2 ~~ ,·· ~-~ COLUGl STATION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMITNO. 100033 DP-EMERALD FOREST 11-A FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1-11 , BLK. 19 LOTS 1-7, BLK. 20 EMERALD FOREST PHASE 11-A DATE OF ISSUE: AUGUST 8, 2001 OWNER: MARK J.CARRABBA C/O HIGHLAND INTEREST, INC./ SCHIEFFER CORPORATION 4104 HWY. 21 , EAST BRYAN, TEXAS 77806 SITE ADDRESS: 8415 APPOMATTOX DR DRAINAGE BASIN: BEE CREEK VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: FULL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees must be barricaded, as shown on plans, prior to any construction. Any trees not barricaded will not count towards landscaping points. Barricades must be l ' per caliper inch of the tree diameter. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work. Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any operations of this permit can begin. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. Date Owner/ Agent/Contractor Date ' ~-~ COLllGl STATION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMITNO. 100033 DP-EMERALD FOREST 11-A FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1-11 , BLK. 19 LOTS 1-7, BLK. 20 EMERALD FOREST PHASE 11-A DATE OF ISSUE: AUGUST 8, 2001 OWNER: MARK J.CARRABBA C/O IDGHLAND INTEREST, INC./ SCIDEFFER CORPORATION 4104 HWY. 21 , EAST BRYAN, TEXAS 77806 SITE ADDRESS: 8415 APPOMATTOX DR DRAINAGE BASIN: BEE CREEK VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: FULL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees must be barricaded, as shown on plans, prior to any construction. Any trees not barricaded will not count towards landscaping points. Barricades must be l ' per caliper inch of the tree diameter. The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work. Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any operations of this permit can begin. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. Date Owner/ Agent/Contractor Date t EMERALD FOREST PH 11-A PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Paving & Site Improvements NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. 1 Excavation CY 2750 , 2 2" H.M.A.C SY 2710" 3 6" Flexible Base SY 3250/ 4 Lime Treatment (6" depth) SY 3250v' 5 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 18501/ 6 4" Thick Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk SF 3070 ,_/ 7 Reinf. Concrete Handicap Ramp (per ADA) EA 3 i/ 8 Sawcut, tie and repair street EA 1 i/, 9 Reinforced Concrete Valley Gutter SF 225 ,/ 10 Silt Fencing (Erosion Control) I\// fD'O LF 1000 ~ j ' UNIT COST TOTAL COST r $ 3.50 " ,..$ 9,625.00 $ 5.00 ' $ 13,550.00 $ 8.00&i $ 26,000.00 $ 3.oo ~ )£ 9,750.00 $ 7.001 ,~ 12,950.00 $ ~ •. 00\. "_$ 9,210.00 $ 500~00 $ 1,500.00 $ ,....,z;ooo.o,o $ 2,000.00 $,/ 1 '\4.00( $ 900.00 $ .r1 ~ .251 $ 1,250.00 1 I_ TOT AG PA ING & SITE COST $ 86 735 00 ,~r1 ,,\\I"\ ' Alternate Paving & Site Improvements I ~ NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST / , I l f IJ ~ I ' , 1 Excavation A CY1 1! 3050 $ l v 3.50 $ 10,675.00 2 5" H.M.A.C (Txdot item 340) (' ' SY h 3250 $/ 12.50 $ 40,625.00 3 6" Lime Stabilized subgrade /l i t I S¥1 ! 3250 l /$ 3.00 $ 9,750.00 5 Type 3 Reinforced Concrete Curb ~& Gutter ! LF I 1850 $ 7.00 $ 12,950.00 6 4" Thick Reinforced Concret~ Sidewall< u '' I SF l ' 3070 $ 3.00 $ 9,210.00 7 Reinf. Concrete Handic,ap Ramp ~· il 1 i EA I v 3 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 8 Sawcut, tie and repc;iir street I ~ ~ I i E('. ./ 1 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Valley Gutter p ! !SF 225 $ 4.00 $ 900.00 10 Silt Fencing (Erosion ControlY ' I LF 1000 $ 1.25 $ 1,250.00 ' t ' ' .&:),1 11 I v ~ ALTERNATE PAVING & SITE COST $ 88,860.00 DRAINAG M OVEMENiTS A ) NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST r I) • i f\ ,,! 11 Ea,rthwork I( Grading) / LS 1 .I $ 2,000.00.-,$ 2,000.00 12 Standard 10'li n'let,(Radius) EA 2 " $ 1 ,500.oo ~ $ 3,000.00 13 181' RCP (str~ctural) LF 95 1 $ 55.00 t.. ',$ 5,225.00 14 241' RCP (00n structural) LF 95 .I $ 60.00" ')£ 5,700.00 15 241' RCP (structural) LF 85 "" $ 65.00 " $ 5,525.00 16 36~ ,RCP (non structural) LF 120 il' $ 110.00 1$ 13,200.00 17 TxDOT Reinf.Concrete Headwall w/ Wingwal EA $ 3,000.00 $ - I 1 I TOTAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS COST $ 34 ,650.00 v ProbCost 11-A 1 EMERALD FOREST PH 11-A PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST WATER IMPROVEMENTS NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST I (J 22 6" PVC C900 Non-Structural Fill LF 775 ti $ ~ 14.00 I $ 10,850.00 23 6" PVC C900 Structural Fill LF 20 1' $ ( 1 1 9.,oo ~ $ 380.00 24 Std. Fire Hydrant Assembly EA 1 ./ $"" \ 2 ,500!001 $ 2,500.00 25 6" MJ Gate Valve & Box EA 1 v / "$ 1 1,200'.00" $ 1,200.00 26 6" MJ Plug EA 1 I $~ \ 250.00 . $ 250.00 27 22.5 deg MJ Bend EA )'\ f $I 1250.00 .. $ 250.00 28 6" -45° MJ Bend EA / 2 ~ t ~ } j $400.00,i $ 800.00 34 1" Water Service LF 1204 I $ J • 5.0011 $ 6,020.00 35 8" Tapping Sleeve w/ Valve EA I f 1 i{ ' $ \ 1 ,500.00 ~ $ 1,500.00 i ' /. 5 // W/fi ..Svc-. ? ( \ I j fl I j $ 23,750.00 , ;_'' ISL~ (Jf(s ~ UNIT COST TOTAL COST 36 $50.00 37 $55.00 38 $500.00 39 $2,000.00 40 $4,000.00 41 $800.00 $ ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ Contigency ( 15%) $ I I\ / TOTAL PROJECT COST $ NOTES CONCiRNl ~j OR NIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Urban Design Gr?up's (µOG)~pinions of probable construction cost provided for herein are made on the basis of our experience an qualificatiohs and represent our best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineering firm generally familiar wjt~ the construction industry and applicable development regulations. However, since UDG has not obtained a proval from the appropriate jurisdiction and UDG has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or 01111'!~~ bidding or market conditions, UDG cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual will not vary from opinions of probable construction cost prepared by UDG. ProbCost 11-A 2 f.//.O} 27,000.00 28,325.00 8,000.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 1,600.00 76,925.00 224,185.00 33,627.75 257 ,812.75 l.ID P.O. Box 10153 College Station, Texas 77842 Ph: (409)-696-9653 Fax: (409)-696-9752 TRANSMITTAL LETTER TO: TedMayo FROM: City of College Station Urban Design Group City Engineering Development 909 Southwest Parkway East, Suite E PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840 College Station, Texas 77842-9960 Re: Water Design Analysis Date: July 9, 2001 please find : ~ attached D as requested D original sent via mail D for your information D plans D for your files D specifications D for your approval D other w for your review COMMENTS: Please find attached a water design analysis supporting the installation of a 6" waterline for Emerald Forrest 11 . The model suggests that a 6" line is more than adequate with current pressures in the development. C:office/transmit.doc Title: Emerald Forrest untitled.wed 07/03J01 02:12:41 PM Scenario: Base }> 1l 1l 0 ;:::: }> -i -i P-37 0 x 0 :u Urban Design Group «;> Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Project Engineer: Deborah L. Keating Cybernet v3.1 (071c] Page 1of1 .... Node Elevation Label (ft) J-1 254.00 J-2 256.00 J-3 256.00 J-4 256.00 J-5 245.00 J-6 253.00 J-7 256.00 J-8 260.50 J-9 260.50 J-10 246.00 J-11 248.00 J-12 246.00 J-13 259.00 J-14 260.00 J-15 247.00 J-16 261 .00 J-17 248.00 J-18 246.00 J-19 246.00 J-20 253.00 J-21 252.00 J-22 254.00 J-23 250.00 J-24 244.00 J-25 244.00 J-26 248.00 J-27 248.00 J-28 253.50 J-29 253.50 J-30 250.00 J-31 250.00 Title: Emerald Forrest untitled.wed Demand Demand Demand Type (gpm) Pattern Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 1,500.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed 07,{)3,{)1 02:11 :54 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Junction Report Calculated Calculated Pressure Demand Hydraulic (psi) (gpm) Grade (ft) 0.00 422.74 72.97 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 419.52 75.47 0.00 422.74 73.40 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 : 70.16 0.00 422.74 70.16 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 75.56 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 70.81 0.00 422.74 70.38 0.00 422.74 76.00 0.00 422.74 69.94 0.00 422.74 75.56 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 414.22 69.72 0.00 415.91 70.88 0.00 416.58 70.30 0.00 418.09 72.69 0.00 404.59 69.44 0.00 419.52 75.90 0.00 398.75 65.19 1,500.00 397.54 64.67 0.00 .416.24 70.37 0.00 416.24 70.37 0.00 417.76 72.55 0.00 417.76 72.55 Urban Design Group 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06700 USA Project Engineer: Deborah L. Keating Cybemet v3.1 [071 c) (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 ' Node Elevation Label (ft) J-1 254.00 J-2 256.00 J-3 256.00 J-4 256.00 J-5 245.00 J-6 253.00 J-7 256.00 J-8 260.50 J-9 260.50 J-10 246.00 J-11 248.00 J-12 246.00 J-13 259.00 J-14 260.00 J-15 247.00 J-16 261 .00 J-17 248.00 J-18 246.00 J-19 246.00 J-20 253.00 J-21 252.00 J-22 254.00 J-23 250.00 J-24 244.00 J-25 244.00 J-26 248.00 J-27 248.00 J-28 253.50 J-29 253.50 . J-30 250.00 J-31 250.00 Title: Emerald Forrest untitled.wed Demand Demand Demand Type (gpm) Pattern Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 1,500.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Demand 0.00 Fixed Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Junction Report Calculated Calculated Pressure Demand Hydraulic (psi) (gpm) Grade (ft) 0.00 422.74 72.97 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 421 .86 76.48 0.00 422.74 73.40 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 .• 70.16 0.00 422.74 70.16 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 75.56 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 70.81 0.00 422.74 70.38 0.00 422.74 76.00 0.00 422.74 69.94 0.00 422.74 75.56 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 408.63 67.30 0.00 392.35 60.69 0.00 393.14 60.17 0.00 410.48 69.40 0.00 413.33 73.22 0.00 421 .86 76.91 0.00 416.18 72.72 0.00 416.18 72.72 0.00 389.18 58.67 1,500.00 387.00 57.73 0.00 410.32 69.33 0.00 410.32 69.33 Urban Design Group 07AJ3.{)1 02:10:18 PM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06700 USA Project Engineer: Deborah L. Keating Cybemet v3.1 [071 c) (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 .. ' Node Elevation Label (ft) J-1 254.00 J-2 256.00 J-3 256.00 J-4 256.00 J-5 245.00 J-6 253.00 J-7 256.00 J-8 260.50 J-9 260.50 J-10 246.00 J-11 248.00 J-12 246.00 J-13 259.00 J-14 260.00 J-15 247.00 J-16 261 .00 J-17 248.00 J-18 246.00 J-19 246.00 J-20 253.00 J-21 252.00 J-22 254.00 J-23 250.00 J-24 244.00 J-25 244.00 J-26 248.00 J-27 248.00 J-28 253.50 J-29 253.50 J-30 250.00 J-31 250.00 Title: Emerald Forrest untitled.wed Demand Demand Type (gpm) Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 0.00 Demand 1,500.00 Demand Pattern Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Scenario: Base Steady State Analysis Junction Report Calculated Calculated Pressure Demand Hydraulic (psi) (gpm) Grade (ft) 0.00 422.74 72.97 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 421 .96 76.52 0.00 422.74 73.40 0.00 422.74 72.10 0.00 422.74 70.16 0.00 422.74 70.16 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 75.56 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 70.81 0.00 422.74 70.38 0.00 422.74 76.00 0.00 422.74 69.94 0.00 422.74 75.56 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 422.74 76.43 0.00 410.24 68.00 0.00 410.09 68.36 0.00 410.03 67.47 0.00 409.89 69.14 0.00 414.40 73.69 0.00 421 .96 76.96 0.00 416.92 73.05 0.00 416.92 73.05 0.00 410.06 67.70 0.00 410.06 67.70 0.00 407.80 68.24 1,500.00 404.89 66.98 Urban Design Group 07..u3.Q1 02:11 :06 PM ~ Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06700 USA Project Engineer: Deborah L. Keating Cybemet v3.1 [071 c) (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 EMERALD FOREST PH 11-A PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Paving & Site Improvements NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST 1 Excavation CY 2750 $ 3.50 2 2" H.M.A.C SY 2710 $ 5.00 3 6" Flexible Base SY 3250 $ 8.00 4 Lime Treatment (6" depth) SY 3250 $ 3.00 5 Reinforced Concrete Curb & Gutter LF 1850 $ 7.00_,. 6 4" Thick Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk SF 3070 $ ~.OQ 7 Reinf. Concrete Handicap Ramp per ADA) EA 3 $ 500~0!1> 8 Sawcut, tie and repair street EA 1 $ fi:000.0,0 9 Reinforced Concrete Valley Gutter SF 225 $("' \4.001 10 Silt Fencing (Erosion Control) LF 1000 .... $ ... ,7\ 1.25/ i 1 '-I .l 1 ' ( ~Trn ~~G r:Trr Alternate Paving & Site Improvements NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST ,I I I I I ' 1) l I ; / 1 Excavation "' CIY \I 3050 $ I V'"" 3.50 2 5" H.M.A.C (Txdot item 340) I' ~ Sl'r' " 3250 ,..., $/ 12.50 3 6" Lime Stabilized subgrade /I Sl'r' I. 3250 ~ 3.00 5 Type 3 Reinforced Concrete Curb 1& Gutte ' Lf l I 1135,0 $ 7.00 6 4" Thick Reinforced Concr~t~ Sidewall< n I SF I \ 3!0"70 $ 3.00 7 Reinf. Concrete Handic,a~ ~amp n EA l y 3 $ 500.00 8 Sawcut, tie and rep9i(str$~t I II EA .V" 1 $ 2,000.00 9 Reinforced Concrete Vqlley G,utterl I ~F 225 $ 4.00 10 Silt Fencing (.Efosiqn Control) I ., LF 1000 $ 1.25 , .( u~ / ALTERNATE PAVING & SITE COST DRAINAG~ INJPROVEMl;tNrT ..-1 v ~ NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST UI " ) 11 Ea;rthwqrk I< c; radi~1 ~/ LS 1 $ 2,000.00 12 Stanga1rd 1 o· lrl!eti Radius) EA 2 $ 1,500.00 13 18" RCP (stnuctural LF 95 $ 55.00 14 24 ' RCP (r\icrn structural) LF 95 $ 60.00 15 24 ' RCP (structural LF 85 $ 65.00 16 36 'J:{CP (non structural) LF 120 $ 110.00 17 TxDOT Reinf.Concrete Headwall w/ Wingwal EA $ 3,000.00 TOTAL COST $ 9,625.00 $ 13,550.00 $ 26,000.00 $ 9,750.00 11$ 12,950.00 f $ 9,210.00 1$ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 86,735.00 TOTAL COST $ 10,675.00 $ 40,625.00 $ 9,750.00 $ 12,950.00 $ 9,210.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 88,860.00 TOTAL COST $ 2,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 5,225.00 $ 5,700.00 $ 5,525.00 $ 13,200.00 $ - TOTAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS COST $ 34,650.00 ProbCost 11-A 1 EMERALD FOREST PH 11-A PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST WATER IMPROVEMENTS NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST f 1 22 6" PVC C900 Non-Structural Fill LF 775 $ A 1}4.PO $ 10,850.00 23 6" PVC C900 Structural Fill LF 20 $ f ~ 19;00 $ 380 .00 24 Std. Fire Hydrant Assembly EA 1 $"'' ~.q©0100 $ 2,500.00 25 6" MJ Gate Valve & Box EA 1 /'$ ~.200.00 $ 1,200.00 26 6" MJ Plug EA 1 $,.. \25Q.OO $ 250.00 27 22.5 deg MJ Bend EA 11 $I \250.00 $ 250.00 28 6" -45° MJ Bend EA t 2 l I J i $400.00 $ 800.00 34 1" Water Service LF / 1204 $ I I 5.oo $ 6,020.00 35 8" Tapping Sleeve w/ Valve EA I 1 j $ \ 1,(500.00 $ 1,500.00 TOT f'& llTb l t I ~nRb~T~OST $ 23 ,750.00 ,1 ~ n ~~ SEWER IMPROVEMENTS I (\/ NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QTY. UNIT COST TOTAL COST A n I !I \. v 36 6" PVC D3034 SDR 26 , mo~-stnfic~u ra! 0 'I UF \,If 540 $50.00 $ 37 6" PVC D3034 SDR 26 I Structural I lJ.F 515 $55.00 $ 38 4" Sewer Service / EEA 16 $500.00 $ 39 Standard Manhole w/ Loe !<in g Cover ,1 EA 2 $2,000.00 $ 40 Drop Manhole"'\ ( EA 2 $4,000.00 $ 41 Standard Sewer Oleapo Jt ' EA 2 $800.00 $ v /n J v bl TOTAL SEWER IMPROVEMENTS COST $ .;. v ?" / ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ Contigency (15%) $ LI TOTAL PROJECT COST $ NOTES GONCE NllNj OP. .NIONS OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST Urban Design Gro(p's ( DG) o nions of probable construction cost provided for herein are made on the basis of our experience and q alifications and represent our best judgment as an experienced and qualified professional engineering firm generally a iliar witti the construction industry and applicable development regulations. However, since UDG has not obtained a p oval from the appropriate jurisdiction and UDG has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or e ices furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or man<et conditions, UDG cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual construction cost will not vary from opinions of probable construction cost prepared by UDG. ProbCost 11-A 2 27,000.00 28,325.00 8,000.00 4,000.00 8,000.00 1,600.00 76,925.00 224,185.00 33,627.75 257,812.75 s.1.01 Emerald Forest Phase 11 Drainage Report page I DREPORTI EMERALD FOREST, PHASE 11 Drainage Report Prepared By: Urban Design Group Crystal Park Plaza 2700 Earl Rudder Frwy S. Ste 4300 College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 696-9653 ph (979) 696-9752 fax dkeating@udgcs.com Mark J. Carrabba Highland Interests, Inc. 4104 Highway 21 East Bryan, Texas 77806 (979) 788-8802 Prepared for: May 2001 Dean Schieffer Schieffer Corporation PO Box 70 Kurten, Texas 77862 (979) 268-8403 REVIEWED FOR co~~PI IANCE AU G 1 3 2001 COLLEGE STAflON ENGINEERING Emerald Forest Phase 11 Drainage Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Certification II. General Location and Description Ill. Drainage Basins IV. Drainage Design Criteria V. Drainage Facility Design Figure 1. Location Map Figure 2. Overall Drainage Area Map Figure 3. Map of Proposed Storm Sewer Figure 4. Developed Drainage Patterns APPENDIX FEMA Firm Map Drainage Calculations Street Drainage Calculations page 2 Emerald Forest Phase 11 Drainage Report page 3 I. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this report for the drainage design of improvements for EMERALD FOREST, PHASE 11 , was prepared by me in accordance with the provisions of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards, for the owners thereof. Registered Professional Engineer State of Texas No. 68243 TOR -JJ 00-1 <;Q Emerald Forest Phase 11 Drainage Report page 4 11. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location This development lies within the Bee Creek drainage system. The location of the project is shown on the map included in this report. Surrounding developments include the existing Emerald Forest Phase 8 to the southwest and Emerald Forest Phase 1 O to the northwest, a vacant tract to the northwest, and Bee Creek to the southeast. This development is not located within any known overlay districts. Existing drainage systems include an existing 18" storm sewer to the south constructed with Phase 8. This site drains primarily to the east into a tributary of Bee Creek. B. Description of Property The acreage of the site is 19.11 acres. The existing land cover is dense vegetation with some large trees on the northwestern half of property and mostly grassland on the southeast half. No secondary systems are currently on the subject tract. The primary system includes the drainage and floodplain area south of the property. Because of the proximity of the primary system, no detention is proposed. Construction of previous drainage improvements including the bridge and channel allow development without increasing flood elevation more than one foot. The project consists of single family housing with associated streets, drainage, and utility improvements. Ill. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS A. Drainage Basins The subject tract is located in FIRM # 48041C0163C, and is partially within the limits of the 100 year floodplain as determined using the flood elevations by FEMA. The proposed pathway to the primary system is via storm sewer, streets, and surface runoff into existing floodplain area. Emerald Forest Phase 11 Drainage Report page 5 IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA I DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN We are not aware of any deviations from the requirements in the DPDS . Previous drainage studies on this property include the bridge and channel improvements and approved CLOMR (Phase 8). Hydrologic Criteria The Rational Method was used to determine the runoff rates. 'C' values were determined using Table 111-1 of the DPDS. A minimum time of concentration of ten minutes was used in the calculations. The developed flows are included in the appendix. Return periods used in the analysis include the 10, 25 and 100 year storm events. Hydraulic Criteria Storm Sewer Public storm sewer is proposed within a portion of the project. The storm sewer was designed to handle the 1 O year storm as per DPDS. Drainage inlet #1 (see attached map) drains an area of 3.27 acres and takes in 14.63 cfs during the 1 O year storm. The pipe exiting the inlet is a 24" RCP at a 0.42% slope. Drainage inlet #2 drains an area of 1.58 acres and takes in 7.08 cfs during the 1 O year storm. For the purpose of this report, inlet #2 is the combination of inlet 2A and 28. The pipe exiting the inlet is a 24" RCP at a 1.0% slope. Drainage inlet #4 drains an area of 2.12 acres and takes in 9.41 cfs during the 1 O year storm. The pipe exiting inlet #4 is an 18" RCP at a 2.0% slope. Drainage inlet #3 receives from both inlet# 4 and inlet #2 and drains an area of 1.29 acres and takes in 36. 93 cfs total during the 1 O year storm. The pipe exiting inlet #3 is a 36" RCP at a . 7% slope. This 36" RCP exiting inlet #4 empties iAto the Be Creek tributary. he rest of the property flows directly to the Bee Creek, or onto the adjacent properties via sheet flow and along proposed roads and does not need to be routed through a storm sewer. Street Flow For flows up to the 100 year storm, some flow will be contained in one side of the streets except at the down stream end of the storm sewer system where a 36" RCP and inlet are calculated to handle the 100 year flow exiting the system. TOR -Jl 00.1'\Q Emerald Forest Phase 11 Drainage Report page 6 Analysis of street flows Street capacity Storm capacity 0100 Ostreet Inlet #1 9.26 cfs 14.81cfs 21 .75cfs 6.94 cfs Inlet #2 9.26 cfs 23.12 cfs 32.27cfs 9.15 cfs Inlet #3 10.15 cfs 54.89 cfs 56.59 cfs o cfs Inlet #4 9.26 cfs 14.07 cfs 14.85 cfs O cf s Erosion Control During the construction, temporary erosion control measures include placement of silt fencing around the perimeter of the downstream end of the property to prevent erosion until permanent structures have been constructed and sufficient vegetation has been established. CONLUSIONS The proposed discharges will be controlled with storm sewer and released into the existing floodplain and primary system Bee Creek. ------.,. - --------: _ _:: _::.:.:.;..~.-:-._ -.-., -----------.·"'- ----~· .:; ,·, ·-·-\ \ \ --· ---~ \ \ ' ---\ \ I ' I \ ; I ,. ' " i \ \ ' '-- EMERALD I FOREST ~HASE . 1.0. ------· ___ _Y.OL-· 2379 PG 333 ~i> ... : : ; -··----- --~ ' ! _\ I I I \ --' \ -· -L... --1 ~ I . \ \ r >-:--- i I I ! ~RALD -FoRES'F· -L_ PHASE 8 VOL 1581 PG 768 \ ----l. -·---------;·--· ·--·---·-·· ' ' ' ' i i __ l------_L.,---- ... \99-359\drainagelNLETSsaved.dgn 04/26/01 04:20:36 PM i -1 ' ' i I I ! --- :; /: ·•"" . jJ I· ,I I • NI F ,.· .' HAL-DEC INC,. , l VOL '394._ P.G · 768:' ,. ,' ~· !;~ · N!F ,- ,' ··~ / . ·. ~ . .' NOT TO SSM'.E -.-.·.-- ,--:: ' .. :. •lil -•• ---.... ,. ,_ ,· !00 YEAR FLOODPLAIN , ' HALDEC INC . . VOL 394 PG 768 PROPO SED DRAINAGE AREA MAP :·, / ; _....._. _______ - _, I I I I <I ! .\ I I \ \ ,' --•-. ·1 ------- i \ \ ----' .-- .>----- _ .. ,------- \ \ z:\99-359\drainage map.dgn 04/25l01 11 :35:23 AM ' \ i \ I EM'ERALD '"FORES'J' PHASE 8 VOL 1581 PG 768 r----------. - \ ' i I ! __ __ L __ l--.-- 1 I ' ----~------ \ I -1 <1 • N/F ·' I HAU>EC INC/ :' VOL-"394·.-P_G/'/68:' ""' ,,' •' i' .t i:L··-·::_:·---~---~"·~..:--1" ii -· _, ----- -, " " .. ' ~ : .$ : ' ' ,' .- --~ .· 100 iEAR FLOOJ)PLAIN :/ NIF / HALDEC INC. :'VOL 394 PG 768 .• PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP .. ZONE X Rl'll·r 1rJ tht.' flo-..)(_l ln'>urJnct· R.ltf> 'td;J Er.("{11\e date ">ho .. ,n on this map to df'lermint• .. , hen anu.ir1jt rat~ Jpph to '>tructurt."\ in the zones where elevation~ Of oeptho; h.t\l" t:>N"·n t."\tdbl1.,hed To determine 1t tlood ino;urance ,., a .. ail.lblC' in this community, contad your 1murancc agent or call the '-at1onal Flood lmurance Program at 16001 633-6620. APPROXIMATE SCALE 500 0 500FEET E3E==3"::=:EE-3=:::r:::::::::EE-3::3~~~~~~:::::JI -NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRA; FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 163 OF 250 (SEE MAP IN DEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY COLLEGE STATION. CITY OF UNINCORPORATED AREAS 480083 0163 4811 95 0163 c c Notice to User: The MAP NUMBER shown below should be uset when placing map orders; the COMMUNITY NUMBER showt above should be used on insurance applications for the subjec community. MAP NUMBER 48041 C0163 C EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 2, 1992 Federal Emergency Management Agency \ j' / LIMIT OF STUDY ZON E X 10 Year Storm Calculations ------------------Beginning Calculation Cycle ------------------- Discharge: 14.63 cfs at node I-1 Discharge: 21.71 cfs at node I-2 Discharge: 9.47 cfs at node I-4 Discharge: 36.93 cfs at node I-3 Discharge: 36.93 cfs at node Outlet Beginning iteration 1 Discharge: 14.63 cfs at node I-1 Discharge: 21.71 cfs at node I-2 Discharge: 9.47 cfs at node I-4 Discharge: 36.93 cfs at node I-3 Discharge: 36.93 cfs at node Outlet Discharge Convergence Achieved in 1 iterations: relative error: 0.0 ** Warning: Design constraints not met. Warning: Outlet Assumption of critical depth free discharge not valid for steep pipes. (Normal depth recommended) Violation: P-3 does not meet minimum cover constraint at downstream end. Violation: P-1 does not meet minimum cover constraint at upstream end. ---------------------Calculations Complete ---------------------- ** Analysis Options ** Friction method: Manning's Formula HGL Convergence Test: 0.001000 Maximum Network Traversals: 5 Number of Flow Profile Steps: 5 Discharge Convergence Test: 0.001000 Maximum Design Passes: 3 -----------------Network Quick View ------------------------ q)C I Hydraulic Grade Label Length I Size Discharge I Upstream I Downstream P-2 P-1 P-3 P-4 Label I-2 I-1 I-3 Outlet I-4 495.00 539.00 125.00 93.00 Q10 I Discharge I 21. 71 14.63 36.93 36.93 9.47 24 24 36 18 inch inch inch inch Ground I 249.81 248.28 242.94 237.00 244.00 Elapsed: 0 minute(s) 0 second(s) 21. 71 245.14 240.36 14.63 247.40 245.23 36.93 240.28 239.38 9.47 241.55 240.36 Elevations ----------------I Upstream HGL I Downstream HGL I 245.23 245.14 247.44 247.40 240.36 240.28 239.38 239.38 241.61 241.55 I I Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04126/01 09:43:25 AM URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Pipe Upstream Downstream Node Node P-4 1-4 1-3 P-1 1-1 1-2 P-2 1-2 1-3 P-3 1-3 Outlet Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04126/01 09:43:37 AM Inlet Area (acres) 2.12 3.27 1.58 1.29 Pipe Report Weighted Inlet Total System Discharge Capacity Length Constructed Section Roughness Upstream Downstream Upstream Roughness CA CA Intensity (cfs) (cfs) (ft) Slope Size Invert Invert Ground Coefficient (acres) (acres) (in/hr) (ftlft) Elevation Elevation Elevation (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.60 1.27 1.27 7.40 9.47 14.85 93.00 0.020000 18 inch 0.013 240.36 238.50 244.00 0.60 1.96 1.96 7.40 14.63 14.81 539.00 0.004286 24inch 0.013 245.78 243.47 248.28 0.60 0.95 2.91 7.40 21 .71 23.12 495.00 0.010444 24inch 0.013 243.47 238.30 249.81 0.60 0.77 4.95 7.40 36.93 56.59 125.00 0.007200 36inch 0.013 238.30 237.40 242.94 Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Inlet Weighted Area Roughness (acres) Coefficient 1-4 2.12 0.60 1-1 3.27 0.60 1-2 1.58 0.60 1-3 1.29 0.60 Outlet NIA NIA Project Title: Emerald Forest c :\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04126101 09:43:51 AM Inlet External CA CA (acres) (acres) 1.27 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.77 0.00 NIA NIA Node Report Total Inlet External Upstream System System Total Additional Carryover Known Total Discharge Ground CA TC TC Flow Flow Intensity Watershed Flow (cfs) Flow Upstream (cfs) Elevation (acres) (min) (min) Time Time (in/hr) (CIA) (cfs) (cfs) Added (ft) (min) (min) (cfs) (cfs) 1.27 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 7.40 9.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.47 244.00 1.96 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 7.40 14.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.63 248.28 2.91 10.00 0.00 11.73 11 .73 7.40 21 .71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 .71 249.81 4.95 10.00 0.00 12.86 12.86 7.40 36.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.93 242.94 4.95 NIA 0.00 13.14 13.14 7.40 36.93 NIA NIA NIA 0.00 NIA 237.00 Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 25 Year Storm Calculations ------------------Beginning Calculation Cycle ------------------- Discharge: 17.40 cfs at node I-1 Discharge: 25.81 cfs at node I-2 Discharge: 11.26 cfs at node I-4 Discharge: 43.91 cfs at node I-3 Discharge: 43.91 cfs at node Outlet Beginning iteration 1 Discharge: 17.40 cfs at node I-1 Discharge: 25.81 cfs at node I-2 Discharge: 11.26 cfs at node I-4 Discharge: 43.91 cfs at node I-3 Discharge: 43.91 cfs at node Outlet Discharge Convergence Achieved in 1 iterations: relative error: 0.0 ••Warning: Design constraints not met. ** Problem: Flooding in system Warning: Outlet Assumption of critical depth free discharge not valid for steep pipes. (Normal depth recommended) Violation: P-3 does not meet minimum cover constraint at downstream end. Information: P-2 Surcharged condition Information: P-1 Surcharged condition Violation: P-1 does not meet minimum cover constraint at upstream end. Information: I-1 The hydraulic grade exceeds the Rim/Ground elevation Information: I-1 Flooding condition. ---------------------Calculations Complete ---------------------- •• Analysis Options ** Friction method: Manning's Formula HGL Convergence Test: 0.001000 Maximum Network Traversals: 5 Number of Flow Profile Steps: 5 Discharge Convergence Test: 0.001000 Maximum Design Passes: 3 -----------------Network Quick View ------------------------ I Hydraulic Grade Label Length I Size Discharge I Upstream I Downstream P-2 495.00 24 inch 25.81 247.01 240.56 P-1 539.00 24 inch 17.40 250.30 247.11 P-3 125.00 36 inch 43.91 240.46 239.56 P-4 93.00 18 inch 11. 26 241. 64 240.56 I -----------Elevations ----------------I Label Discharge I Ground I Upstream HGL I Downstream HGL I I -2 25.81 249.81 24 7. 11 247.01 I -1 17.40 248.28 248.78 248.78 I-3 43.91 242.94 240.56 240.46 Outlet 43.91 237.00 239.56 239.56 I-4 11. 26 244.00 241. 72 241. 64 Elapsed: 0 minute(s) 1 second(s) I I Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04126/01 09:44:03 AM URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Inlet Weighted Area Roughness (acres) Coefficient 1-4 2.12 0.60 1-1 3.27 0.60 1-2 1.58 0.60 1-3 1.29 0.60 Outlet NIA NIA Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04/26/01 09:44:10 AM Inlet External CA CA (acres) (acres) 1.27 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.77 0.00 NIA NIA Node Report Total Inlet External Upstream System System Total Additional Carryover Known Total Discharge Ground CA TC TC Flow Flow Intensity Watershed Flow (cfs) Flow Upstream (cfs) Elevation (acres) (min) (min) Time Time (in/hr) (CIA) (cfs) (cfs) Added (ft) (min) (min) (cfs) (cfs) 1.27 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 8.80 11.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.26 244.00 1.96 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 8.80 17.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.40 248.28 2.91 10.00 0.00 11.62 11.62 8.80 25.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.81 249.81 4.95 10.00 0.00 12.63 12.63 8.80 43.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.91 242.94 4.95 NIA 0.00 12.88 12.88 8.80 43.91 NIA NIA NIA 0.00 NIA 237.00 Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Pipe Upstream Downstream Node Node P-4 1-4 1-3 P-1 1-1 1-2 P-2 1-2 1-3 P-3 1-3 Outlet Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04/26/01 09:44:18 AM Inlet Area (acres) 2.12 3.27 1.58 1.29 Pipe Report Weighted Inlet Total System Discharge Capacity Length Constructed Section Roughness Upstream Downstream Upstream Roughness CA CA Intensity (cfs) (cfs) (ft) Slope Size Invert Invert Ground Coefficient (acres) (acres) (in/hr) (ft/ft) Elevation Elevation Elevation (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.60 1.27 1.27 8.80 11 .26 14.85 93.00 0.020000 18 inch 0.013 240.36 238.50 244.00 0.60 1.96 1.96 8.80 17.40 14.81 539.00 0.004286 24inch 0.013 245.78 243.47 248.28 0.60 0.95 2.91 8.80 25.81 23.12 495.00 0.010444 24inch 0.013 243.47 238.30 249.81 0.60 0.77 4.95 8.80 43.91 56.59 125.00 0.007200 36inch 0.013 238.30 237.40 242.94 Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 100 Year Storm Calculations ------------------Beginning Calculation Cycle ------------------- Discharge: 21.75 cfs at node I-1 Discharge: 32.27 cfs at node I-2 Discharge: 14.07 cfs at node I-4 Discharge: 54.89 cfs at node I-3 Discharge: 54.89 cfs at node Outlet Beginning iteration 1 Discharge: 21.75 cfs at node I-1 Discharge: 32.27 cfs at node I-2 Discharge: 14.07 cfs at node I-4 Discharge: 54.89 cfs at node I-3 Discharge: 54.89 cfs at node Outlet Discharge Convergence Achieved in 1 iterations: relative error: 0.0 **Warning: Design constraints not met. ** Problem: Flooding in system Warning: Outlet Assumption of critical depth free discharge not valid for steep pipes. (Normal depth recommended) Violation: P-3 does not meet minimum cover constraint at downstream end. Information: P-2 Surcharged condition Information: P-4 Surcharged condition Information: I-2 The hydraulic grade exceeds the Rim/Ground elevation Information: I-2 Flooding condition. Information: P-1 Surcharged condition Violation: P-1 does not meet minimum cover constraint at upstream end. Information: I-1 The hydraulic grade exceeds the Rim/Ground elevation Information: I-1 Flooding condition. ---------------------Calculations Complete ---------------------- ** Analysis Options ** Friction method: Manning's Formula HGL Convergence Test: 0.001000 Maximum Network Traversals: 5 Number of Flow Profile Steps: 5 Discharge Convergence Test: 0.001000 Maximum Design Passes: 3 -----------------Network Quick View I Hydraulic Grade I Label Length I Size Discharge I Upstream I Downstream I P-2 P-1 P-3 P-4 Label I-2 I-1 I-3 Outlet I-4 495.00 539.00 125.00 93.00 I Discharge I 32.27 21. 75 54.89 54.89 14.07 24 inch 24 36 18 inch inch inch Ground I 249.81 248.28 242.94 237.00 244.00 32.27 250.90 240.83 21. 75 255.29 250.31 54.89 240.70 239.80 14.07 242.50 240.83 Elevations ----------------I Upstream HGL I Downstream HGL I 250.31 250.31 250.31 250.31 240.83 240.70 239.80 239.80 242.60 242.50 Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04/26/01 09:42:26 AM URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 2 Pipe Upstream Downstream Node Node P-4 1-4 1-3 P-1 1-1 1-2 P-2 1-2 1-3 P-3 1-3 Outlet Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm Inlet Weighted Area Roughness (acres} Coefficient 2.12 0.60 3.27 0.60 1.58 0.60 1.29 0.60 04/26/01 09:41 :23 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. Pipe Report Inlet Total System Discharge Capacity Length Constructed Section Roughness CA CA Intensity (cfs) (cfs) (ft) Slope Size (acres} (acres} (in/hr} (ft/ft} 1.27 1.27 11 .00 14.07 14.85 93.00 0.020000 18 inch 0.013 1.96 1.96 11.00 21 .75 14.81 539.00 0.004286 24inch 0.013 0.95 2.91 11 .00 32.27 23.12 495.00 0.010444 24inch 0.013 0.77 4.95 11 .00 54.89 56.59 125.00 0.007200 36inch 0.013 Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Node Inlet Weighted Area Roughness (acres) Coefficient 1-4 2.12 0.60 1-1 3.27 0.60 1-2 1.58 0.60 1-3 1.29 0.60 Outlet N/A N/A Project Title: Emerald Forest c:\haestad\stmc\emerald .stm 04/26/01 09:42:08 AM Inlet External CA CA (acres) (acres) 1.27 0.00 1.96 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.77 0.00 NIA NIA Node Report Total Inlet External Upstream System System Total Additional Carryover Known Total Discharge Ground CA TC TC Flow Flow Intensity Watershed Flow (cfs) Flow Upstream (cfs) Elevation (acres) (min) (min) Time Time (in/hr) (CIA) (cfs) (cfs) Added (ft) (min) (min) (cfs) (cfs) 1.27 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 11 .00 14.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.07 244.00 1.96 10.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 11 .00 21.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 .75 248.28 2.91 10.00 0.00 11 .30 11.30 11 .00 32.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.27 249.81 4.95 10.00 0.00 12.10 12.10 11 .00 54.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 54.89 242.94 4.95 NIA 0.00 12.33 12.33 11 .00 54.89 NIA N/A NIA 0.00 N/A 237.00 Project Engineer: URBAN DESIGN GROUP CS URBAN DESIGN GROUP StormCAD v1 .0 © Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Triangular Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel -Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Emerald Forest Comment: Street Capacities Sta 4-7.44, 11+47-21+42 Solve For Discharge Given Input Data: Left Side Slope .. Right Side Slope. Manning's n ..... . Channel Slope ... . Depth ........... . Computed Results: Discharge ....... . Velocity ........ . Flow Area ....... . Flow Top Width .. . Wetted Perimeter. Critical Depth .. . Critical Slope .. . Froude Number ... . 0.00:1 (H:V) 28.00:1 (H:V) 0.012 0.0100 ft/ft 0.40 ft 9.26 cfs 4.14 fps 2.24 sf 11.20 ft 11.61 ft 0.49 ft 0.0035 ft/ft 1.63 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.2 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708 Triangular Channel Analysis & Design Open Channel -Uniform flow Worksheet Name: Emerald Forest Comment: Street Capacities Station 7+44-14+42 Solve For Discharge Given Input Data: Left Side Slope .. Right Side Slope. Manning's n ..... . Channel Slope ... . Depth ........... . Computed Results: Discharge ....... . Velocity ........ . Flow Area ....... . Flow Top Width .. . Wetted Perimeter. Critical Depth .. . Critical Slope .. . Froude Number ... . 0.00:1 (H:V) 28.00:1 (H:V) 0.012 0.0120 ft/ft 0.40 ft 10.15 cfs 4.53 fps 2.24 sf 11.20 ft 11.61 ft 0.50 ft 0.0035 ft/ft 1.79 (flow is Supercritical) Open Channel Flow Module, Version 3.2 (c) 1990 Haestad Methods, Inc. * 37 Brookside Rd * Waterbury, Ct 06708