HomeMy WebLinkAboutFolder - CopyFOR OFFICE USE ON'iYA
Case No. Q-\-(._l-\
Date Submitted
CITY OF C OLLEGE STATION
Planning & Development Services
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
200 development permit fee.
$600 Public Infrastructure Inspection Fee if applicable. (This fee is payable if construction of a public
waterline, sewerline, sidewalk, street or drainage facilities is involved.)
~ Drainage and erosion control plan, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each
ONA Notice of Intent (N .0 .1.) if disturbed area is greater than 5 acres
Date of *Required Pre application Confere nee : ____ __;;3'=-::u;.;..:111~e_"2._9-_,_.,.,.__...2-=o""""""o"-x~------
*(Req uired for areas of special flood hazard)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 15 R-1, Block B, Eastmark Phase Ill Resubdivision . .
APPLICANT'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project):
Name Municipal Development Group/Lenwood Adams E-Mail __ ___,:,m,,..:.,d=g:i..:c=s=tx=@=-i..va=h""'o::..;:o::..:... c=o::..:.m"-'------
Street Address 2551 Texas Ave South Ste.A ---------------~~~~-~~~~~-------
City ___ C_o_l_le_g~e_S_t_a_tio_n ____ State Texas Zip Code 77840
Phone Number ---~(_97_9~)6_9_3_-5_3_5_9 ___ _ Fax Number (979)693-4343
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION:
Name ___ ---"-C~h=ar~le=s'-=La=n~g~in~g~h~a~m'-'--"-c/~o~J~M~C"'----E-Mail ----"-c=la"""n""'"in.,,g~h=a~m"""@_,_j"-'m"""c'---~m ... g-'-"m""'t'""'. c-""o~m __
Street Address 13140 Coit Rd. Ste. 220-LB22 ------------------'-"""-'-~~"-'--'-~-"'-'~==-"'-==-==-------
City Dallas State Texas Zip Code 75240
Phone Number ____ ~(9~7_2~)2_3_4_-1_5~5~0____ Fax Number (972)234-1580
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name ____ M~u~ni~c~ip~a~l~D~ev~e~lo~p~m~en~t'--G~ro~u~p ___ _ E-Mail ------'-m""'"d=g"""'c::..;:s=tx""""@~va=h"'"'o::....:o::..:...c""'o::..:.m~---
Street Address 2551 Texas Ave South Ste.A --------------~~~~~~~~~~'--'-'--'-------
City Bryan State Texas Zip Code 77840
Phone Number (979) 693-5359 Fax Number (979) 693-4243
Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/waterway alterations:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
I, ~'7/f-, design engin~/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that:
The information and conclusions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the
current requirements of the City of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage
Policy and Design Standards.
~~~--
Property Owner(s)
Page 1 of 2
As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvements proposed in this
application according to these documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City
Code
Contractor
CERTIFICATIONS:
A. I, ~ 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, L-5 A, 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 latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps, as amended.
Engineer Date
C. I, ~J fr:' 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 floodways fringes.
Engineer Date
D. I, ~o 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.
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 from 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.
Page 2 of 2
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
Planning & Devdopmml Servicn
SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Eastmark Phase 111 Subdivision
Lot 15 R-1, Block B
University Commons Phase Ill
DATE OF ISSUE: 02/11/08
OWNER:
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PERMIT NO. 07-79A
FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE
SITE ADDRESS:
950 Colgate Drive
DRAINAGE BASIN:
Wolf Pen Creek
VALID FOR 3 MONTHS
CONTRACTOR:
Full Development Permit
All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans
All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section
7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of
this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and
required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents,
asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also
prohibited.
***UTILITY AND GRADING ONLY***NO RETAINING WALL UNTIL ORB APPROVAL****
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site
in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design
Criteria. If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite, it is the
contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements. The Owner and/or
Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any
silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any
disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be
responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment
as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work.
In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure
that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage
facilities.
I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in
accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit
application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply.
A(4rlj(Jr: Date ~===-=-0 2-1/-08
Owner/ Agent/Contractor Date
7
·I
... . . ;;. .. ~
SANITARY SEWER REPORT
FOR
UNIVERSITY COMMONS PHASE III
MDG JOB NO. 000076-3957
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
OCTOBER 2007
Ofc: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: mdgcstx@yahoo.com
Project Scope and Description:
The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether there is adequate capacity in the proposed
sewer' line to provide service for The University Commons Phase III of College Station
Development. The project site is located near the intersection of Southwest Parkway and State
Highway 6. lt lies just east of the existing University Commons Apartments and just northwest of
the existing Wolf Pen Creek Bowling Center.
Analysis of Proposed Sewer Flow:
The University Commons Phase III of College Station is classified for residential land use.
There are 48 units in Phase III. Using the 2007 Bryan/College Station Uniform Design
Guidelines, the flow for the proposed site was estimated. The peak flow was calculated by
multiplying the Average Daily Flow by 4.0. The estimated total peak flow with infiltration for
the University Commons Phase III of College Station Development is 15,270 total gpd.
Results:
The 6" line has an overall capacity of 0.252 ft 3/s and 0.201 ft3/s at 80% capacity, and the total
peak with infiltration is 0.024 ft3 !.s. Therefore the proposed 6" sanitary sewer line is more than
adequate.
Attachments:
• Flow calculations
Sewer Size Calculations
Daily Wastewater Flow per lot
Total Number of Units
Average Daily Wastewater Flow
Peaking Factor
Peak Daily Wastewater Flow
lnflitration
Total Wastewater Flow
Total Wastewater Flow
Total Wastewater Flow
Slope at Collection Point
Diameter
Manning's n
Capacity
Capacity (80% Full)
Total Wastewater Flow
Capacity> Total Flow
References:
OK
60 gal/day/lot
48 units
2880 gal/day
4
11520 gal/day
3750 gal/day
15270 gal/day
10.60 gal/min
0.024 ft3/s
0.008 ft/ft
6 in
0.013
0.252 ft3/s
0.201 ft3/s
0.024 ft3/s
1. Unified Design Guidelines, City of Bryan/College Station (2007)
Infiltration 750 gal/acre
5 acres
3750 gal/day
FLOODPLAIN EVALUATION REPORT
FOR
UNIVERSITY COMMONS APARTMENTS
1.52 ACRE TRACT
MDG JOB NO. 000076-3957
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
JUNE 2007
2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, TX 77840
Ofc: 979.693 .5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: mdgcstx@yahoo.com
Project Scope:
This report outlines the floodplain evaluation that was conducted for Jamespoint Management
Company in conjunction with a site plan for the possible development of a 1.52 acre tract. The
floodplain evaluation began by review of the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Then, the existing FEMA hydraulic model of Wolf Pen
Creek was obtained from the City of College Station as well as the topographic map from which the
model was constructed. Next, using current topography from the MDG surveying crew, the
hydraulic model was updated and the current floodplain was determined. Even with the most
updated to ographic information, the current floodplain/floodway boundaries have not chan ed from
the FIRM. Fma y, the mo e was up a e to e ermme w at impact p acmg fill on the site would
have on the base flood elevation of Wolf Pen Creek.
General Location and Description:
The project site is located near the intersection of Southwest Parkway and State Highway 6. It is
comprised of a 1.52 acre tract that lies just east of the existing University Commons Apartments and
just northwest of the existing Wolf Pen Creek Bowling Center. The site is separated by Wolf Pen
Creek by a strip of land that varies from 100 feet to 300 feet wide that was previously dedicated to
the City of College Station Parks Department. Approximately half of the site is wooded with dense
underbrush characteristic of backwater floodplain. The remainder of the site is an open, grassy area
that appears to be regularly maintained. The site generally slopes from southwest to northeast
(towards Wolf Pen Creek) with elevations ranging from 263.0 ft to 257.0 ft.
Existing FEMA Hydraulic Model:
The existing hydraulic model for Wolf Pen Creek was obtained from Mr. Donnie Willis, Drainage
Inspector for the City of College Station. The model was originally constructed in the Army Corps
of Engineers' HEC-2 modeling software. For review, the HEC-2 input files were exported to HEC-
RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center -River Analysis System). HEC-RAS is the Army Corps of
Engineers successor to HEC-2 and is considered the standard modeling software for floodplain
applications.
After review, the floodplain model is consistent with the physical characteristics of Wolf Pen Creek
near the site; no major deficiencies were found. Two of the cross sections in the model cross the site.
The topographic map that was used to construct this model was also obtained from the City of
College Station. The topographic map and the results of the FEMA hydraulic model are shown in
Exhibit 1. As shown in Exhibit 1, the entire site is located within the 100-yr floodplain which has an
elevation of approximately 263.3 ft. Additionally, approximately half of the site lies within the
regulatory floodway. The floodway is the land most severely affected by flooding and must be
able to carry and discharge floodwaters. No development is allowed in this area.
Updated Hydraulic Model:
The FEMA hydraulic model was updated to include the current topography. A recent field survey
conducted by the MDG surveying crew produced more detailed topographic data near cross sections
77.70, 80.80, and 83 .60. These cross sections were updated using the current topographic data. The
model was run again, and the base flood elevation remained the same. The base flood elevation did
not change because the site is located within a backwater floodplain that is created when water backs
up at the box culverts that cross Highway 6. The current topographic data and the results from the
updated hydraulic model are shown in Exhibit 2.
Impact of Fill on the Base Flood Elevation:
The City of College Station has a policy in place that only allows filling in the floodplain if it
produces a 0.0 ft rise in the base flood elevation. Thus, the model was adjusted to reflect the
placement of fill on the site under proposed development conditions and analyzed to determine the
effect of fill on the base flood elevation. For the analysis, it was assumed that the portion of the site
not located within the floodway would be filled to elevation 264.0 ft. The base flood elevation in this
area is roughly 263.3 ft. Cross sections 80.80 and 83.60 were revised to reflect the placement of fill.
The placement of fill as described would result in 0.0 ft rise in the base flood elevation, so the
criterion set forth by the City of College Station is satisfied.
Conclusions:
After a thorough analysis, it was determined that only 0.84 acres of the 1.52 acres may be filled for
development. This would require roughly 4,000 cubic yards of fill to be placed to elevate this
portion of the site out of the 100-yr floodplain. The remaining 0.68 acres of the site is located within
the regulatory floodway and may not be developed. The included exhibits depict the area of the site
that may be developed. The entire HEC-RAS project files (Existing, Updated, and Fill) are attached
on CD for review.
References:
1. HEC-RAS 3.1.3
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/hecras-download.html
2. HEC-RAS Users Manual. USACE, November 2002.
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/hecras-document.html
3. HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. USACE, November 2002.
http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-ras/hecras-document.html
\
~ ~:~(}JN~~ ~ ~ ~ Page I of!
Carol Cotter -Temporary Certificate of Occupancy University~~ \ V1;, o'B
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
CC:
Carol,
"Charles Laningham" <claningham@jmc-mgmt.com>
<c.cotter@cstx.gov>, <ccotter@cstx.gov>
10/10/2008 3:39 PM
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy University Commons
"Dawn Michalewicz" <dmichalewicz@jamespoint.com>, "Erica Freeman"
<ericaf@jamespoint.com>, "Ron Laningham" <rlaningham@jmc-mgmt.com>, "Gregory K.
Taggart" <mdgcstx@yahoo.com>
This memo is provided to confirm our earlier phone conversation regarding issuance of a temporary CO for the
new building at University Commons.
I am President of Charlan Commons, Inc., the corporate general partner of College Station Commons Ltd, the
owner of University Commons Apartments and in that capacity am authorized to execute documents and make
binding agreements on behalf of the property. Your legal department has copies of the partnership documents,
which were provided for the water easement completed earlier this year.
We will promptly execute and deliver to your office such documents, as your legal department requires and
prepares to grant a blanket easement for electrical service by the City of College Station to the new building at
University Commons.
30 days should be sufficient time to prepare the documents, update the title policy, secure the needed signatures
and return the documents to your office. I request that you contact Lee Adams of Adams & Taggart, Engineers to
coordinate getting any questions answered or assistance as needed.
We ask that the City issue a temporary certificate of occupancy today, subject to getting the easement
documentation prepared by the city legal department, delivered to me and returned to your office within 30 days.
We need the certificate today please, as we have a number of residents in temporary quarters, including A&M
Galveston transferees, who need to move this weekend.
Thanks for your assistance. Please call should any additional language be needed in this memo.
I will fax you a signed copy of this memo.
Charles Laningham
President
Charlan Commons, Inc.
General Partner
College Station Commons, Ltd.
972/234-1551
I am using the Free version of SP AMfighter for Personal use.
SP AMfighter has removed 207 of my spam emails to date.
Try SP AMfi hter for free now!
The Trial and Professional version does not have this message in the email
file://C:\Documents and Settings\ccotter\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48EF771FCity ... 11111 /2008
Carol Cotter -University Commons Phase III
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Lee-
carol Cotter
Adams and Taggart Assoc
10/15/2008 3:03 PM
University Commons Phase III
Page 1 of 1
Electrical has informed me that the drawing submitted for the PUE dedication is correct. You can submit
the Easement Dedication Sheet and supporting documents when you are ready.
carol
file://C:\Documents and Settings\ccotter\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\48F6064ACity ... 11/11/2008
CollegeStation
Commons, Ltd.
October 10, 2008
Ms. Carol Cotter PE
Development Engineer
City of College Station, Public Works
College Station, Texas 77840
13140 Coit Rd. Suite 220
Dallas, TX 75240
Ph<>~e: 972/234-1551
Fax: 9721234-1 580
E-mail: claningham@jmc-mgmlcom
Re : Utility Easement, University Commons Apartments
Dear Ms. Cotter,
This letter is provided to confirm our earlier phone conversation regarding issuance of a temporary
certificate of occupancy for the new building at University Commons Apartments.
I am the President of Charlan Commons, Inc., the corporate general partner of College Station
Commons, Ltd, the owner of University Commons Apartments and in that capacity I am authorized to
execute documents and make binding agreements on behalf of the property. Your legal department
has copies of the partnership documents, which were provided for the water easement completed
earlier this year.
We will execute and deliver to your office such documents prepared by your legal department as
needed to grant a blanket easement for elecirical service to the new building at University Commons by
the City of College Station .
Thirty days should be sufficient time to prepare the documents , update the title policy, secure the
needed signatures and return the documents to your office. I request that you contact Lee Adams of
Adams & Taggart, Engineers for any assistance needed in getting the easement documentation
prepared.
We ask that the City issue a temporary certificate of occupancy today, subject to having the city legal
department prepare the easement documentation, forward to me for execution and returned to your
office within 30 days.
We need the certificate today please, as we have a number of residents in temporary quarters,
including A&M Galveston transferees, who need to move this weekend.
Thanks for your assistance. Please call should any further information be needed.
Charles Laningham
President
Charlan-Commons, Inc.
General Partner
luewefleuew lU!odsewer
NO:
1
2
3
4 ,
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11
12
13
.. .I
Engineer's Cost Estimate
for
' Public lnfras,ructure
University Commons, Phase Ill
Public Water and Sanitary
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT PRICE
MOBILIZATION 1 LS ' $1,500.00
6" SDR26 D3034 (STRUCTURAL) 126 LF •· $62.00
8" RESTRAINED JOINT DIP 190 LF $73.00
16" STEEL CASIN~ ' 150 LF $95.00
4' DIAMETER MANHOLE (0-8') DEEP 2 EA $2 ,500.00
REMOVE EX SANITARY SEWER LINE 190 LF $11.50
REMOVE EX SAN SWR MANHOLE 2 EA $400.00
CONNECT EX SERVIE TO PROP MH 1 EA $500.00
STD CLEAN OUT ASSEMBLY 1 EA $350.00
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER
8" C909 CL200 (STRUCTURAL) 240 LF $72 .00
8" MJ GATE VALVE 3 EA $800.00
8" MJ 45 BEND 13 EA $240.00
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY (0-6')BURY 1 ' EA $2,550.00
TOTAL WATER
TOTAL COST
AMOUNT
$1,500.00
$7,812.00
$13,870.00
$14,250.00
< $5,000.00
$2,185.00
$800.00
$500.00
$350.00
$46,267.00
$17,280.00
$2,400.00
$3,1°20.00
$2,550 .00
$25,350.00
$71,617.00
.,·
NO:
1
2
3
4 ,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Engineer's Cost Estimate
for ,
Public Infrastructure
University Commons, Phase Ill
Public Water and Sanitary
•• .I
DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT UNIT PRICE
MOBILIZATION 1 LS ' $1,500.00
6" SDR26 D3034 (STRUCTURAL) 126 LF l $62.00
8" RESTRAINED JOINT DIP 190 LF $73.00
16" STEEL CASING ' ' 150 LF $95.00
4' DIAMETER MANHOLE (0-8') DEEP 2 EA $2,500.00
REMOVE EX SANITARY SEWER LINE 190 LF $11 .50
REMOVE EX SAN SWR MANHOLE 2 EA $400.00
CONNECT EX SERVIE TO PROP MH 1 EA $500.00
STD CLEANOUT ASSEMBLY 1 EA $350.00
TOTAL SANITARY SEWER
8" C909 CL200 (STRUCTURAL) 240 LF $72.00
8" MJ GATE VALVE 3 EA $800.00
8" MJ 45 BEND 13 EA $240.00
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY (0-6')BURY 1 EA $2,550.00
TOTAL WATER
TOTAL COST
AMOUNT
$1 ,500.00
$7,812.00
$13,870.00
$14 ,250.00
$5 ,000.00
$2 ,185.00
$800.00
$500.00
$350.00
$46,267.00
$17,280.00
$2,400.00
$3,f20.00
$2 ,550.00
$25,350.00
$71,617.00
.,
·. ,.("\ .. d-& \f\ J ~ 'V. (\' ~{)~
.' . · .. r ~ ___ _:__ ____ __;,,t_a_0_<J_~ a---=--~~~; ..:"\\;;] 2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, TX 77840 \ ,\ (A\
"'~~~<,, Ofc: 979.693.5359 ~ax: 979 .693.4243 Email: mdgcstxd@y{lhoo.com
~R"~ ~~~·
~.
January 21, 2008
Development Services
City of College Station
. 1101 Texas Ave.
College Station, Texas 77842
Subject:. . University Commons Phase III
Dear Development Staff:
The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the public water,
· sanitary sewer, paved areas and streets for the subject project, to the best of my knowledge,
do not deviate from the B/CS Design Guideline Manual. Any alternate design or
construction methodology that was used is listed below:
. ·1. Retaining walls are a proprietary design by Reinforce Earth Company.
J , ,
I also acknowledge, to the best of my knowledge, that the details provided in the construction
plans are in accordance with the Bryan/ College Station Standard Details.
Sincerely,
Municipal Development Group
~~--:-
. ' n wood S. Adams, P.E.
Managing Principal·
'f
ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 3
1. Provide written response to staff comments, addressing all comments.
2. Submit revised metes and bounds for PUE dedication.
3. You should be connecting water line on other side of existing valve Sta 2+57.46, otherwise
you will have top be shutting down additional water lines in the complex which may be
needed for fire protection.
4. You need to revise your tap off the public main. The required isolation valve makes the fire
suppression line private. Your meters need to be off a public line with the meters located in
a PUE.
5. Note the required isolation valve.
6. Each tee requires two valves.
7. Regarding previous comment, all the proposed valves have to be on horizontal pipe for
valve stems to be plumb and usable.
8. Show limits of structural fill.
9. Clearly indicate the proposed sanitary sewer line serving the building is private and remove
from PUE. As a private line you do not need a manhole, but can end in cleanout. TCEQ
crossing separation requirements also don't apply. Ensure that it meets plumbing code.
10. Remove invert information from water line profile. It is not applicable.
11. Show existing sewer line conflict near Sta 0+15. Indicate TCEQ crossing requirements.
12. Show storm sewer conflict with water line (Sta 0+50).
13. Provide "Letter Acknowledging City Standards".
14. The manhole at Sta 1+08.92 is not needed.
15. Bolted and gasketed manhole lids are required.
Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: December 20 , 2007
FIRE FLOW AND WATER REPORT
FOR
UNIVERSITY COMMONS PHASE III
MDG JOB NO. 000076-3957
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECEMBER 2007
-*:~o~~F~'\ .i-:~E-,~ ' ~~ .... ·····~:+ '• ':7* '~:,, , ................ -...... -1.!\, · I-l EH\i'OOD S. ADM~S 1"' -.l ...... ~.,,., \ ................. 1 ... 1! \~ •• ~~ 63357 L .. ~··"' . . .
2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, TX 77840
Ofc: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: mdgcstx@yahoo.com
The project site is located near the intersection of Southwest Parkway and State Highway 6.
lt lies just east of the existin g University Commons Apartments and just northwest of the
existing Wolf Pen Creek Bowling Center. The site will be service by one existing 8" water
ma ms.
A fire flow analysis was conducted in conjunction with EPANet for the proposed fire hydrant at
University commons apartment. The domestic water section of the Bryan/College Station Unified
Design Guideline Manual was used to determine the required flow rates and pressures for the
proposed hydrant. T his manual states that fire hydrants must provide a minimum of 1,000 gallons
per minute in residential areas while holding a minimum pressure of 20 psi. Additionally, the
TCEQ guidelines dictate that systems provide minimum system pressures of 35 psi during normal
operation as well as residual pressures of 20 psi during fire flow scenarios.
Flow data for the existing hydrants in the Col lege Station Water system was obtained from
College Station Utilities-Water Services Department. The fire flow tests repo1t the static,
residual, and pitot pressures. The elevation was estimated from topographic maps, and the total
head was calculated using the energy equation. Flow data for the existing fire hydrant located at
230 l EastMark hydrant was used. Flow data for the existing hydrant (E-125) located on the
eastern side of the development at University Commons apartment was obtained from the City of
College Station Uti lities. The information is as fo llows:
Static Pressure: 112 psi
Residual Pressure: 108 psi
Flow Rate: 1500 gpm
From the gathered data on the two existing hydrants, the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) for the
hydrant was determined using the equation:
HGL =z + P/d
Where
HGL =>Hydraulic Grade Line (ft)
z => Elevation (ft)
P => Pressure (psi)
d => Density (62.4 lbs/ct)
Knowing the HGL for the hydrants, the HGL for every node in the network was obtained using
the calculation:
HGL2 = HGL1 -KQ2
Where
K => Head loss coefficient
Q => Flow rate (cfs)
HGL2 =>Downstream HGL (ft)
HGL1 =>Upstream HGL (ft)
For this calculation, it is important to start at a known HGL, and move down the network
computing the HGL in order from upstream to downstream. However, if the known HGL is
located downstream and upstream 1-IGLs need to be determined, the calculation can be reversed
to accommodate the situation. The equation for this instance is as follows:
HGL1 = HGL2 + KQ2
The head loss coefficient (K) for each pipe section is calculated using:
K = (fL)/(2*DA2g)
Where
f => Friction factor
L => Length of pipe (ft)
D => Diameter of pipe (ft)
A => Area of pipe (ft)
g => Grav ity (32.2 ft/s2)
The HGL for the proposed fire l~ydrant was determined using this method. The pressure at the
hydrant was determined by rearranging the above equation that solved for the HGL. Knowing the
pressure, the flow rate of the hydrant can be determined using the following equation:
Q = 29.83cD112*sqrt(P)
Where
Q => Flow Rate (gpm)
c => Friction Coefficient (0.7-0.9)
D => Diameter of Outlet (in)
P => Pressure (psi)
A model was built in the hydraulic simulation software EPANet 2.0. The model consists of links
and nodes that represent the physical arrangement of the pipe network as well as hydraulic
characteristics like pipe diameter, roughness, and nodal elevations. The connections to existing
water mains were modeled as reservoirs with constant heads as previously calculated. The
Hazen-Williams equation is used to model friction losses within the pipe network.
In EPA.Net, the model was simulated using the initial base demands, and all resulting pressures
are hi gher than the required 35 psi. Then a fire demand of I 024 gpm including domestic water
and fire flow was assigned to each node sequentially in different scenarios. During each scenario,
the model was queried to determine if any nodes had pressures below the required 20 psi; none
were found. The water distribution line meets the fire flow criteria outlined in the Unified Design
Guideline Manual. Several reports are attached showing the results from the static system
response and response from each hydrant in operation.
After completion of the analysis, it was determined that the proposed fire hydrants for The
University Commons will supply flow rates ranging from 1372.7 to 1500 gpm. The hydrants can
provide a total of 2872. 7 gpm while staying above the minimum pressure requirement of 20 psi.
Because this water distribution line meets the fire flow criteria outl ined in the Unified Design
Guideline Manual, it will sufficiently suppl y The University Commons Apartment Development
with domestic water.
An attached table indicates the total fire flow requirements for each building, and the coverage by
the fire hydrants. The required flow for each building was compared to the supplied flow, as
indicated on the table. Also, tables are included that indicate fire flow req uirements in
accordance with Appendix C of the 2003 In ternational Fire Code (tables B105.1 and Cl05.1).
The building type fo r a minimum required fire flow and flow duration for buildings is Type V-A.
Hydrant Report
University Commons.-3957
Hydrant Static Flow
Node Elevation Pressure lllmnl
EX-E-125 268.5 108.9 1500.0
FH-1 264.0 110.6 1372.7
Fire Flow Requirements and Supply
Area Since Spinklered Hydrant
Building Height* (sq. ft.) NFF1 reduce 50% Supply Spacing3 Dist3
(a om) (gpm)
AE 33' 22q83 27 50 1375 2872.7 500 250
*NFF' : The Needed Fire Flow (gpm) according of to Table 8105.1 of the International Fire Code (at 2 hr. duration)
*Spacing': Average spacing (feet) between hydrants according to table C105.1 of the International Fire Code
*Dist' : Maximum Distance (feet) from any point on street or road frontage to a hydrant according to table C105.1
*Num : Minimum number of Hydrants of Table C105.1 of the International Fire Code
Height* : Maximum building height for construction type IV is 65 feet according to the 2006 IBC (table 503)
References:
1. City of Bryan/College Station Unified Design (2007).
2. EPANet 2 .0 Users Manual. Environmental Protection Agency (2002).
3. TCEQ, Water Utilities Division "Rules and Regulations for Public Water System."
Junction
E125
J1
FH1
J2
J3
f =>
L =>
D =>
A =>
Q =>
Elevation (ft) HGL(ft)
268.50 519.73
266.70 519.73
264.00 519.29
264.20 519.29
266.30 519.29
Friction factor
Length of pipe (ft)
Diameter of pipe (ft)
Area of pipe (ft)
Gravity (32.2 tus ')
HGL2 = HGL1 -KQ '
K => Headless coefficient
Q => Flowrate (els)
HGL2 => Downstream HGL (ft)
HGL, => Upstream HGL (ft)
University Commons.
Job # 000076-3957
P (psi) Q(gpm)
108.87 1500.0
109.65
110.63 1372.7
110.54
109.63
Pipe Dia. (ft) Length (ft)
A 0.67 53
B 0.67 49
c 0.67 43
D 0.67 76
E 0.67 29
HGL = z + P/d
HGL => Hydraulic Grade Line (ft)
z => Elevatio~ (ft)
P => Pressure (psi)
d => Densitv (lbs/cf)
Q = 29.83cD•2•sqrt(P)
Q => -Flow Rate (gpm)
c => Friction Coefficient (.7-.9)
D => Diameter of Outlet (in)
P => Pressure (psi)
K
0.091
0.084
0.074
0.131
0.050
Fire Flow Analysis
Q(gpm) V(ft/s)
0 0.00
1000 6.38
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
Fire Hydrant Number: E-125
Static Pressure: 112 psi
Residual Pressure: 108 psi
Flowrate: 1500 gpm
3.342 els
HGL: 517.73 ft
" ( , ~
D __ J2
c
• B FH-1
J1
E-125
EPANET2 Page 1
·~ ( ' "
BASE'
Page 1 12/10/2007 11:47:17 AM
**********************************************************************
.,,
~··
E P A N E T
Hydraulic and Water Quality
Analysis for Pipe Networks
version 2.0 **********************************************************************
Input File: FIREFLOW.NET
Link -Node Table:
Link
ID
A
B c
D
E
Node
Node
ID
Jl
FHl
J2
J3
E-125
Results:
Link Results:
Link
ID
A
B c
D
E
Start
Node
E-125
Jl
FHl
J2
J3
Demand
GPM
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
-96. 00
End
Node
Jl
FHl
J2
J3
E-125
Head Pres$ure
ft psi
519.72 109.64
519.72 110.81
519.72 110.72
519.73 109.81
519.73 0.00
Flow velocityunit Headloss
GPM fps ft/Kft
45. 21
21.21
-2.79
-26.79
-50.79
0.29
0.14
0.02
0.17
0.32
0.10
0.02
0.00
0.04
0.12
Page 1
Length Diameter
ft in
53 8
49 8 43 8
76 8
29 8
Quality
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 Reservoir
Status
Open
open
open
open
open
.. t
DlOOO
Page 1 12/10/2007 11:46:35 AM **********************************************************************
.... ·:
E P A N E T
Hydraulic and Water Quality
Analysis for Pipe Networks
version 2.0
;':
**********************************************************************
Input File: FIREFLOW.NET
Link -Node Table:
Link
ID
A
B
c
D
E
Node
Node
ID
J1
FHl
J2
J3
E-125
Results:
Link Results:
Start
Node
E-125
Jl
FHl
J2
J3
Demand
GPM
24.00
1024.00
24.00
24.00
-1096.00
End
Node
J1
FHl
J2
J3
E-125
Head Pressure
ft psi
519.13 109.38
518. 62 110.33
518.91 : 110.37
519.49 109. 71
519.73 0.00
Link
ID
Flow velocityunit Headloss
A
B
c
D
E
GPM fps ft/Kft
593. 71
569.71
-454.29
-478.29
-502.29
3.79
3.64
2.90
3.05
3.21
11. 31
10.47
6.89
7.58
8.29
Page 1
Length Diameter
ft in
53 8
49 8
43 8
76 8
29 8
Quality
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 Reservoir
Status
open
open
Open
open
Open
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
CC:
Lee,
Alan Gibbs
Municipal Development Group
7/3/2007 7:17 PM
Fwd: University Commons Ph 3 -Water
Fire Line_ 4a.doc
Cotter, Carol
Also, in order to accommodate future looping, extend a PUE from the eastern end of the proposed waterline to the eastern
boundary of the plat.
Alan Gibbs, P.E.
City of College Station
Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works
>>>Alan Gibbs 7/3/2007 7:15 PM >>>
Lee,
See the attached general guidance for fire lines for sprinkled projects. We will need a fire flow report looking at the building
size and construction type to determine the flow and number of hydrants. Sprinkling will reduce the flow requirement by
50%.
General suggestions: Fire Department would like to see the FDC on West end of the building. Hopefully an 8inch dead end
is adequate -your report should look at pressures and velocities as well as flows. If the 8 is adequate, you may simply
replace the bend (by the closest existing hydrant) with an 8x8x8 tee, reconnect the FH, subout for the fire line (PUE ending
at a valve), and a master meter on the east end of the building. If only a single additional FH is needed and spacing is
adequate, it could be located near the middle of the building.
Alan Gibbs, P.E.
City of College Station
Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works
..
I
, .
~·
·" • . . ' . '·. ' . ~ . .
Appendix D
Technical Des·ign
Summary
Unified
Stormwater
Design Guidelines
City of College Station
City of Bryan
February 2007
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these
Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section Ill (Administration) requires
submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan)
proposed in connection with land development projects, both site projects and subdivisions.
That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps,
graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a "Technical Design Summary". The
format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the
description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the
questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the
"Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix.
The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts
as listed below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable. In
addition to the requirements ·for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several
pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be
completed. These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and
digitized. In addition, electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City.
Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report
as detailed in Section Ill of these Guidelines.
Note: Part 1 -Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report
required to be provided in connection with any land development project,
regardless of the format chosen for said report.
Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the forms provided in this
Appendix. Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested,
but additional information should be attached as necessary.
Part 1 -Executive Summary Report
Part 2 -Project Administration
Part 3 -Project Characteristics
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters
Part 5 -Plans and Specifications
Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT
Part 1 -Executive Summary
This is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below.
Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item.
1. Name, address, and contact information of the engineer submitting the report, and
of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The
date of submittal should also be included.
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 1 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
2. Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any
proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to
applications that are in process with either City: plat(s), site plans, zoning requests,
or clearing/grading permits, as well as reference to any application numbers or
codes assigned by the City to such request.
3. The location of the project should be described. This should identify the Named
Regulatory Watershed(s) in which it is located, how the entire project area is
situated therein, whether the property straddles a watershed or basin divide, the
approximate acreage in each basin, and whether its position in the Watershed
dictates use of detention design. The approximate proportion of the property in the
city limits and within the ET J is to be identified, including whether the property
straddles city jurisdictional lines. If any portion of the property is in floodplains as
described in Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA that should be
disclosed.
4. The hydrologic characteristics of the property are to be described in broad terms:
existing land cover; how and where stormwater drains to and from neighboring
properties; ponds or wetland areas that tend to detain or store stormwater; existing
creeks, channels, and swales crossing or serving the property; all existing drainage
easements (or ROW) on the property, or on neighboring properties if they service
runoff to or from the property.
5. The general plan for managing stormwater in the entire project area must be
outlined to include the approximate size, and extent of use, of any of the following
features: storm drains coupled with streets; detention I retention facilities; buried
conveyance conduit independent of streets; swales or channels; bridges or culverts;
outfalls to principal watercourses or their tributaries; and treatment(s) of existing
watercourses. Also, any plans for reclaiming land within floodplain areas must be
outlined.
6. Coordination and permitting of stormwater matters must be addressed. This is to
include any specialized coordination that has occurred or is planned with other
entities (local, state, or federal). This may include agencies such as Brazos County
government, the Brazos River Authority, the Texas A&M University System, the
Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Commission for Environmental
Quality, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Environmental Protection Agency,
et al. Mention must be made of any permits, agreements, or understandings that
pertain to the project.
7. Reference is to be made to the full drainage report (or the Technical Design
Summary Report) which the executive summary represents. The principal
elements of the main report (and its length), including any maps, drawings or
construction documents, should be itemized. An example statement might be:
"One __ -page drainage report dated one set of
construction drawings ( __ sheets) dated ____ , and a
___ -page specifications document dated ____ comprise
the drainage report for this project."
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 2 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTIO N 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
MiAvi;lipttl beveAop~t11l-bro~f City: Bryan
2-GS-I Ttxa) A\Jl, SotA-fh Sfe..A '/.. College Station
C 6 /I e1t 9-Kfi avi Ti. 7 7 t 40 Date of Submittal:
Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Un tf 5 ft P, t/I~ -'53?1 woo · AaMS, .e. to1~-4i.43t::~
Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts:
Developer I Owner I Applicant Information
Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail:
Lhttrll5 LAviJ~~ttlV1 e-;o JM~ Jne-.
i ~J4P cw-R. s +-t-220 -Ll5 il atlas '75'24-o
1.7 t) 234--15'70 .
cltt111'Y11flt1m Djn-ic..,-~1rnf-. ne
Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&·address): Phone and e-mail:
Project Identification
Development Name: Unlve,v>;~ Co>'Vl mo11s PhttsL-11f
Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi-phase subdivision?
~ 11lfi -e nase-If multi-phase, subject property is phase 3 of 3
Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area:
(see Section II , Paragraph B-3a) __ B
J . ~ ~ ,t v (< b\1 N Jltd_er o P Loi-10 -R 11 f6 Li= 8
SttstvtAtu1'!::. R_e,~tA!?tli111~/4YJ P~)e.Jr
If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all
earlier phases. For most recent earlier phase Include submittal and review dates.
ErAdiv p~ttSlS-1 q "le !fl/ co t11plef-(., ait i. ivi scv-v /ce
ltpr-; l 14q ~ S:t\bt'\11 :ll J ~ff rovttl
General Location of Project Area, or subject property (phase):
Pht11sl1[
In City Limits? Extra~erritorial Jurisdiction (acreage):
Bryan: ['J /Ir acres. Bryan: tJ/k College Station: ~JA-I I
College Station: I ·uK acres. Acreage Outside ET J: NLA-
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
t
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: w;lr~~~s:& uJ=
8t0hMV'~J)V'\ V'L Uvllveirs,~ Co1tt1wt5rzs frpAr/-rntnb
Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s):
WolP Pevi Cre6=-
Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
Preliminary Plat File#: Final Plat File#: 1'?7 /53 ~ Date: j
Name: Status and Vol/Pg:
If two plats, second name: File#:
Status: Date:
Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
Zoning Type: \NP(,, ~or Proposed? Case Code:
Case Date Status:
Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code:
Case Date Status: rJAc-
Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase)
Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants: Chtlv ! C> La Yi; Ill J lti.t\ Vii
2.,7 TtAVlL 1-0Ul Co.vo \ CJJ ~eVl Wvt lj\)()6 "r)__ /t-Jtf. Vl15
G v~ T tt 9.~ a. Y't
f\)D "' Preliminary Report Required? Submittal Date Review Date
Review Comments Addressed? Yes --No ('10 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.
N/A:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
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 IS-i .. :titio"' RaJ,,,, .. H7H'(;S 1/ n /07 I Nai10111 o~ Dutv-OS~T
Departments of Slu:\-..-10 I ~r1d11.vtJOPMW ~fJnterma-Jurisdiction
City (Bryan or r1rt-\><lAUUoPYl'IW Co11-Pr.r1•.,1,1a-College Station) D"''tlq On1a1.+ (' ,V'; ~ U-(,\ ('tl D(t.vttwJ, PMll+ Ch~CL-
Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates):
Non-jurisdiction
City Needed? V
Yes __ No __
Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates):
Brazos County
Needed?
No V Yes --
Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates):
TxDOT Needed?
Yes No V --
Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates):
T AMUS Needed?
Yes No v -- --
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 spaces below.
Entity Permitted or
Approved?
US Army Crops of
Engineers
No V Yes -
US Environmental
Protection Agency
No V Yes -
Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality
No V Yes --
Brazos River
Authoy
Yes No __ -
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Status of Actions (include dates)
..
Page 5 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -Pro~ert:x: Characteristics I Start (Page 3.1)
Nature and Scope of Proposed Work
Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent of impervious cover?
\. tpg at:1e> 0 ~ 4. t:;t;; Ctt.xes . o . tl r dMJ tJ prnevi r V'~ihw fi~tt~
Site __ Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots.
Development _L 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 __ 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
drainage easements or ROW. , Nature and J!-Jd;.,_1 " ?-s/JJr'!t24~fnunf bwfi/,,'J />IL f'Momfj Size of
Pro~osed fAJ.1.devdrJd tJ!tt Id f3u.//dJ11p ~lzt!-15 42-~nL halrom1
Project un/ts 1 '3 s ftJiJ.it.S
Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain:
or on land for which platting is not pending?
i__No --Yes
FEMA Floodplains
Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I N y .:j.__
(Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? 0 --es
Is any part of subject property in floodplain
!No_ Yes_lL_ Rate Map 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.
Flo Pel phi11 E t11Jlu11fi11J1 t:t!lzulJ d_ mod() !U .ffdud C4J~ No. oo-o~-l'i'p3f
dAfol MAP-ch /J.1 i.00 /. £~tfl/Utth~n 5"}/Pv0 o. o If Y'JSe, ;.,_ f;{l~ wift.
Hood f'l?!Jrl hi/.
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 6 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -Pro~erty 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?
Y{f
Reference the study (&date) here, and attach copy if not already in City files.
lt~acYie.l LoM~ Mavd-i 131 lOOI
Is the stormwater maJement plan for the property in substantial conformance with the
earlier study? Yes 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? ~No --Yes
Describe them (include approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc).
Any ~nown draina~e or foding problems in areas .near subject property? __ No ~Yes l de~tify:fl-fovhaYi ~. fht-fYiu-1-..1 w;J/ b6 'hllut ~,bov& ~
w1 lhou e levt:di~ fh L (~. ThL vewv./nde.,v-,~ pa~!-tJ ltze
ttcJ~d@'f a.11.d LA.JJ ~/ b!-a111t./stu""6d.
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. 2\.__ Detention not required. --
What decision has been reached? By whom?
If the need for ~ ttl,V'tl1.nA-<1j~ /tt11uu_d
Type 1 Detention How was determi nation made?
must be evaluated:
!Ht1J1 61bbS-PY&iew:lo1 111.ai 1-fJ)/)rey~//J~
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -Pro12ert~ Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.3)
Hydrologic 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 desiqn concept for handling this.
Watershed or Basin Larqer acreaqe Lesser acreaqe
Wol FP~ {Y'eek \J~vf ttlou~ fb Cavfev CtuJ--ft-//
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) l. & 2) 3) 4)
Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable
concentrated section(s), small hek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary);
OVt-f/'wJ.. <;hel--f fto~ Cu lvtrl-UYld(!Y' (Jt?Jja.f fD Oi<..fhtll
a.f /oodWAy. DtAV'Jvt1 PiooL ovev-.ft ow w l 11 fy-Ave,l dow1-i
reJtV-'1.-tl ~ wA11/rwn.tou1:lvds oe~~luvt~ w~ll i11 Al1 e.tisf1Vll eA~t.JWMt ~ t'.N'J> •
Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: ~ -A
MfloV\£\1 Mdtiotl w/Tj.b6T G;uff:. o.v-J., lfytif(Ot:tt/c.. pipe o0
Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? --:f..-No --Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW:
Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain
f']Cl
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 pathwa~s). Include ownership of property(ie~OY\ s:+-e. f'IAY'I dff lt> '1V\~tu( LrowV) ~.or.~V\iV1ilf
ft.NL ~d~ r"lfl.~I'\ ;~o w~ II . S<'!~ plttt-1.S fov-V'de>d:h-J iss.4y;A.to . oft-~Jte,, dV'tl;M.dt.-CclV..lS fr. Y"e,f-tJ.JVtl~o IA){/} aM. f\o~ "ll-\.dtvft..e.
~ If& ~ Ao o#c t)JA~ tlMJl c~l:-
STORMWATER DESIGN GU IDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 3 -Pro~ert~ Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.4)
Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued)
Conveyance Pathways (continued)
Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat, or
easements
exist for any
__ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions.
part of
pathway(s)? Nk No --
Yes --
Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower
property(ies). (Existing y;atercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?)
Pathway
Areas
Nk
Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts,
bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc).
No V\l-
Nearby
Drainage Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? --No --Yes If yes , explain:
tJ /rt
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1)
Stormwater 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.
\. ~ Prv Fvu~ Vtl~ tA-plA~) c;U~~{H"g~ ~vu 24-'' sfvv-'1A I ;hl-
o . 8 K II & fmvi d (Jfe,lo P /l1f,11t -;; it.t-I d ~ Jv.r ' "' fJ fAtter k
ttll dva 1MJ0 h ftootfiPa11 tH~ (~
Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II , Paragraph E1)
Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via
platting? .J:,._ No --Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes
Per Guidelines reference above, how will __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring
property(ies )? __ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2)
Combination of the two Scenarios --
Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed, and provide status of actions
on each. (Attached Exhibit# )
t'1k
Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development
conditions (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc.). (Attached Exhibit# )
(',0'1C~cdio11 f/OvV ./,, d iss; p ttfvy-. ~/Aw -w crt-el:-
alV'OS> aoJ vJ'Ar ·
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.
NoV\i
If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has proposed design been coordinated with
owner(s) of receiving property(ies)?
documentation.
NA-
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
No
Page 10 of 26
--Yes Explain and provide
APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.2)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project
Will project result
in shifting runoff
between Basins or
Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting:
NA
between 1--W-h_a_t_d-es-i-gn~a-nd~m-it-ig-a-ti_o_n-is_u_s_e_d_t_o_c_o_m_p_e_n_sa_t_e_fo_r_i_n-cr_e_a-se-d~ru_n_o_ff~---1
wzsheds? from gaining basin or watershed?
--~:s NA
How will runoff from Project
Area be mitigated to pre-
development conditions?
Select any or all of 1, 2,
and/or 3, and explain below.
1. ~With facility(ies) involving other development projects.
2. ~ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area.
3. ~On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area.
1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of
Project Area): (Attached Exhibit# )
2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit# )
3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in
subsequent questions of this Part. N k
<'-· -c
Q) VJ c Q) fii >-
0::
VJ c
.Ql
VJ
Q) 0 Oz
Jxl
Q)
~
Are aquatic echosystems proposed? __ No __ Yes In which phase(s) or
project(s)? Nk
Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed?
L_;i l f f:u (J, Aw~~·~ s;~~};::Jfi,~01 ~~zo;~'k_ f f~f tc/lon
If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical
Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions.
Detention elements Conduit elements Channel features
=Swales __ Ditches_ Inlets __ Valley gutters L Outfalls
__ Culvert features __ Bridges Other
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 11 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concegt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.3)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued)
Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? __ No ..lL_ Yes Identify type and
general size and In which phase(s).
f(p -2-4'1 I Y1 0 V1 lL-t Pha~
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):
'
NA-
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? __ Yes No, then summarize the difference(s):
. NA:-
Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use,
and general characteristics.
Typical shape? I Surfaces?
C'-·
"'O <ll CJ) Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: CJ)
:::J <ll
CJ) >-
<ll
I
..i:::: Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: ~ "'O typical (Attached Exhibit # )
<ll 0 greatest
"'O 'iii z
]1'1 Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications?
Yes No, then explain: <(
CJ) At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets?
.n <ll No Yes If yes explain: ::; C'-· >---U"'O
I ..i:::: <ll
-CJ) ·-:::J 5: ..... Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? CJ) <ll -::::: <ll :::J 0 No Yes Explain: (number of locations?) ~ oiz -- --
]~01
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.4)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Gutter line slopes: Least 0.. (pt;'/, Usual 0 .(p:;'L· Greatest I .t;<;"'{
Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? --Yes --No If "no",
identify where and why. Nk
Will inlets capture 10-year design stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial
with arterial or collector)? --Yes --No _If no, explain where and why not.
C'· N~ "O Q) ; VI Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year :J .__
Q) design storm throughout site (or phase)? Yes No If no, explain. :::::: -- --:J Nk Cl
"O ~ c "O ro w Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? Yes No Are inlets and .c ~ -- --.__ ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? :J ...... u c Yes No Explain "no" answers. 0 ..c u ----~-~
VI \'\A: Qi
Q) .__ v;
Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on .__
<{ whole length of all streets? Yes No If no, describe where and why. ----
NI\-
Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications?
Yes --No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification.
t'1 A. !
Are any 12-inch laterals used? _!::,__No --Yes Identify length(s) and where
used.
C'·
"O Pipe runs between system j Typical QJ VI Longest VI QJ access points (feet): :J >-
!1 Are junction boxes used at each bend? --Yes --No If not, explain where
and why.
VI
c NP< ·-0 ~z
"O
I E .__
Least amount that hydraulic 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? v;
..!!! Yes No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line --(system-wide):
Nk Nk
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 13 of 26 . APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Ul Q) u c C1l Vi c
Q) ..... ~a "fil E
:J ..... . !: .2 c .
0 .2 ~.!:
~ ~ ....... C1l ~VI
VI Q) c :g
'[ij Ei .a Ci
§w 0 Q) ....... .c
Cf) VI
Q) ~
C1l 0.. Q)
VI
c ~
i I VI
Q)
~
Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below
(include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines).
1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle?
2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle?
3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle?
For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of
receiving and all facilities at juncture?
1)
2) N k
3)
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):
l ~ v lYiul Cro vJ Y1
o ·lfc:J/. -I.~/.
Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum):
Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment).
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 GUIDj::LINES
Effective February 2007
Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.6)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
rn Are roadside ditches used? k, No __ Yes If so , provide the following:
a.> Is 25-year flow contained with inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes __ No .c .B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes No 0 --
a.> Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? --Yes --No
32 For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: rn -0 Cll 0k 0 0:::
If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance).
Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length:
rn a.> >-I~ Is 100-year design flow contained in conduiUswale combination? ..2!:::,._ Yes --No
If "no" explain:
c
0 Cll z v; Space for 1 OD-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width I~ Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum
0 and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm:
·.;:::; tJk 24'1 RCP.:> £18L t:: C'-· 'O .!!2 -0 a.> Cll c >. Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): c Cll c
.c Cll I I (.) '-r::~V\ll open ptairit-c .2
a.> c D.. 0 0 ; Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): -Cll 0 E :::i NA .!!! .2 c c a.>
-0 E Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: a.> Cll rn rn N~ :::i
rn a.>
c -0
0 ·5 Is 1 OD-year design flow co ntained in conduiUswale combination? Yes No ~ 0 -- --'-If "no" explain: c D..
:.0 Qi E a.>
0 .c Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width (.) rn ..... a.> Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum :::i ~ -0 and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: c Cll 0 D.. ~ a.> rn ~ c Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): Cll .s. 5: rn
a.> -< Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit):
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ____ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4. 7)
Stormwater Management Concept (col)tinued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
.!'.; ro a. E x ow ..:=
If "yes" provide the f.ollowing information for each instance:
Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing:
15 VI Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly
c a> within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: .; ~I !---------------------------------~ u Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: ~ 0 ;z
1><1 >-------------------------------< ~ Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length, su rfacing:
Q)
·;::: C'-·
:l VI
.0 c
::; Q) o E £ ~ .3: ro
Q)
VI '-Q) 0 ~s
VI Q
~~
.0 :l c.
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 channelized (deepened,
widened, or straightened) or otherwise altered? __ No __ Yes If only slightly
c---shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks, provide information below.
"O c ~ ro Will design replicate natural channel? __ Yes __ No If "no", for each instance
g_ ~ describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces , and 100-year
[ w design flow, and amount of freeboard :
VI VI c Q)
Q) >-l I .s ~
1~1
0
Instance 1:
Instance 2:
Instance 3:
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ____ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.8)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Existing channels {small creeks}: Are these used? ~ No --Yes
If "yes" provide the information below.
Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes l_No How
many disturbancp instances? Identify each planned location:
f="looclplo.i11 ;lld per ttthd\eL f:"/OJt stud~
I-tho F1llel f6 2/A-. o (?v" 0.i~ltv Bt=b 2.U~ .3
For each location, describe length and general.type of proposed improvement
(including floodplain changes):
p,·u; WO -floodplttiVl ptodJA(L~ o.o ('l~C. 11-\. gr&:
For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min . & max.),
surfaces, and 100-year design flow.
'O CIJ ::J c ~ Watercourses {and tributaries): Aside~om fringe changes, are Regulatory
0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No __ Yes Explain below. ~
en c Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regu latory Watercourses. Address
CIJ existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E CIJ length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > e and data. Is full report submitted? Yes --No If "no" explain: 0..
E
a:; Nit c c ro All Pro12osed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information ..c
0 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.
N/-i
Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of free board? --Yes --No If
not, identify location and explain:
NA
Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space?
--Yes --No If not, identify location(s) and explain:
tJA:-
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.10)
Stormwater 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":
rn Facility 1;
Q)
Nf>c :;::: =::o (.) Q) ro :::i Facility 2: LL c c +::;
0 c '.+= 0 c (.) Q) ~ a; For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. 0
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?
-.:z!::,._ 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 co mply with B-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No
Explain any "no" answers:
C'· rn Ol .~ rn Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: rn 0 --t; rn
Q) Q) NA-{ii >-
> I ·;:: Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage 0..
{ii ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW?
"O 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. Q) z ----~Al How many instances? Describe location and provide information below.
Q) Location 1: -2! :::i (.)
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 1 OD-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 ____ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.11)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Named Regulator~ Watercourses {&Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these
facilities? _:f:::__ 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)
<J.l No Yes How many instances? For each identify the ..c
(/) ----
<J.l location and provide the information below. (/) ro Instance 1: <J.l .... >-~ I~ Instance 2:
Instance 3: c 0 o~ Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 z E
~1~ Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top?
Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E ~-C1l Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? (/) (/)
gi-o Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c ~ C1l
0 c ..... 0 u ·->-ro C1l u ~ ..Q
-0 <J.l
C1l .0 Minor Collector or Local Streets: W ill culverts serve these types of streets? 0 ·-.......... u u No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-(/) -<J.l ----.g -0 location and provide the information below:
Cl. <J.l
-Cl. Instance 1: rn~
-0 >-Instance 2: <J.l c (/) C1l
:J '+-Instance 3: (/) 0 t (/)
<J.l <J.l ..::: u For each instance enter value, or "yes" /"no" for: 1 2 3 :J c u C1l Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? <J.l u; ..... c <( ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? ~ 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E ..... 0 Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? :t:..
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 ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.1 2)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued) .,
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facil ities (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):
NI\-
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:
'O Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? Q) ~No __ Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): ::::i c ~ 0 ~
rn t
Q) > :5 Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural u components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __:i:,,__ Yes __ No If "no" Identify
locations and provide justification(s):
\) ;S$l ptt-\tiY' ~())( I
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?
NA:
Do appreciable hydraulic effects of any culvert extend downstream or upstream to
neighboring land(s) not encompassed in subject property? .J__ No __ Yes If
"yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures:
Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with 8-CS Tech. Specifications?
~Yes __ No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part.
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.13)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? ::;,..__No --Yes
If "yes" provide the following information .
Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)?
What drainage way(s) is to be crossed?
~
Q)
CJ)
-0 ·;:: ro
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 Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques:
~ Pollution Prevention No !'101 " LU£ thtWL t:i ft&-. ro Plan (SW3P) :J w i'!l p 10 vlk {.{ lr~, tl~tl /vi ler a established for .... project construction? Q) ro s LNo --Yes pmt-u t \m ·
Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods
Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland-type detention, natural stream
replication, BMPs for water quality, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project?
~No --Yes If "yes" list general ~ype and location below.
Provide fu ll report about the proposed special design(s) including rationale for use and
expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stormwater management objectives will not
be compromised, and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design
solution(s). Is report provided?
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Yes -- --
NA
Page 22 of 26
No If "no" explain:
APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.1 4)
Stormwater Management Concept (continued)
Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued)
Special Designs -Deviation From 8-CS Technical Specifications
If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of
B-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)
r.\
3) N 'K
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
No Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? ~Yes --Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula:
Prd~opm°'t tttAtt peb-t JeveJ~t~u-ct -Row
What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula
has been applied? l, ·fa acres Location (or identifier): off'--sjfe,
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.1 5)
Design Parameters (continued)
Hydrology (continued)
In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? L No Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? %
As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows, were any
criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? ..:i:__ No __ Yes If "yes "
identify type of data, source(s), and where applied:
For each of the stormwater management features listed below identify the storm return
frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design.
Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year
Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets
Storm drain system for local streets
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)
Lowest (feet per second)
Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below:
Roughness coefficients used:
For conduit type(s) R. c_,()
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
For street gutters:
C.0:2-I Coefficients: .g I .
Page 24 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.16)
Design Parameters (continued)
Hydraulics (continued)
Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued)
For the following, are assumptions other than allowable per Gu idelines?
Inlet coefficients? No Yes Head and friction losses No Yes -- -- ----
Explain any "yes" answer: NA-
In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? --Yes --No
Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? --Yes --No
Explain any "no" answers:
•'
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:
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:
NA
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:
Bridges Provide all in bridge report
STORMWATER DES IGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007
Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
SECTION IX
APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY
Pa.rt 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I 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? List them below, being sure to identify the software name and version, the date of the
version, any applicable patches and the publisher
\tyJv&lc ~ydwuli~ -aMa_lyz.itAj chttvi~Js avv\_
Odvwts · bodso.i,,, 3/Jr:sSocJt:<.fC-> jv,.c,,.
' )
Part 5 -Plans and SQecifications
Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a
Technical Design Summary Report. See Section Ill , Paragraph C3.
Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation
Conclusions
Add any concluding information here:
Nw.l
Ar).P.vtC£
Attestation
Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical
Desiqn Summary Drainage Report by signing and sealing below.
"T/1is 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
Unffied Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners ~y All licenses and permits
required by any and all state and federal regulatory ~ proposed drainage
improvements have been issued or fall under app/i~:lx * ~di'
~ r·-~MM_\il LENWOOD S. ADAMS ~
Licensed Professional Engineer :;\-··-··•········ .. ;-··f ~~\?~ 63357 <.v¢.···~J
State of Te xas PE No. 62~5~
STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES
Effective February 2007 .
~~;'t/STfffi.··~~ \~~V,tj~·· 't~-o;,, _, ~
Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY
As Revised ___ _
1. Select your county. 2. Enter the time of concentration
, ) :"~ebt'inty '§l;\~'Coefficient~ '' 2-yearii : ''5-year"' r'lO~year
Brazos "};fr.''. e.(in) ,., ,.. 0.806 ' 0.785 0.763
..... .~ b ~ '.1'~ ' 65 76 80 '·'
~ d (mins) ;.l!ltJ. 8:0 8.5 ' 8.5
Intensity (in/hr)* 6.3 7.7 8.6
Coefficient 2-year-;,'· 5-year 1
" 10-year
... '!;~'!: e (mm) .• ~· --,:i4!f1,~" b lJ,
; ~·i,l ' d (mins)':'~.· ..
Intensity (mm/hr)*
* for time of Concentration =
Q=CIA
DA1
DA2
(1 .6 AC)
(0.88 AC)
10.21 cfs
5.61 cfs
0.806 0.785 0.763
1651 ' 1930 ' 2032
8.0 8.5 8.5
160.7 195.4 219.3
10 mins
"•45fyear '50\i'( ' . ;;year 100" ·""' i'X , -... Y.e~r
0.754 0.745 0.730
89 98 96
8.5 8.5 8.0
9.9 11 .1 11 .6
25-year SO~)rear 100-y,,ear
0.754 '' .. 0.745 0.730
; ~: ''[ 2261 , .2489 2438
8.5 .... ,8.5 8~0
250.5 283.2 295.6
..
DRAINAGE AREA MAP
0 JOO 200 --------SCALE; J" =JOO'
~
~--------~
-w -w -w -
w _J
D.A. 1
Q =C I A (lOOyr)
= 0.55 * 11.6 * 1.6
= 10.208 (cfs)
E.lle 2,tructures YJew Qptions t!elp
Culvert Diameter: ft :2
__ Pipe Culv_'.'.'.' ::._C'._ulvert Performance Curv~.
Starting Flow Rate: §0.21 .... cfs :J Chatt Number: ,
Scale Number: 3
Manning's N Value: 0.021
Entrance Loss Coef: 0.1
Culvert Length: 98
Downstream Elev: 259
Upstream Elev: 261.85
Flow Rate I Tail water !
(ch) 1 Depth (ft) :
1 io.21 -·r -o--·
Select
Select
Select
ft
ft
ft
l.ncremental Flow Rate: 0 cfs
Number of Increments: 0 :
Stmting T ailwater:
Incremental T ailwale1: 1-l~-----11 ::
I H\tl Outlet I Normal •1' Critical Depth at Outlet Vet
, Ctrl (It) Depth (ft) , Depth (It) Outlet (It) (fps)
1.14 0.91
.. . '
Gutter Flow Calculations
Q=(0.56/n) (Sx"(5/3)) (S"0.5) (T"(8/3))
Q=
n=
Sx=
S=
T=
Gutter flow rate ( cfs)
Manning's N
Pavement cross slope (tuft)
Longitudinal slope (tuft)
width of flow or spread (ft)
Q= CIA
Flow Depth
D=
0.55*11 .6*0.88
5.61 cfs
0.27 ft
Ref. City of Bryan Drainage Design Guidelines
Result
5.61
0.014
0.03
0.0065
8.86
-
. -. ";.'
-, .-
" .
-,
1 ' .,
'
~~ !~ ~.fJ . '
l '
FIRE FLOW AND WATER REPORT
FOR
UNIVERSITY COMMONS PHASE III
MDG JOB NO. 000076-3957
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
OCTOBER 2007
2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College Station, TX 77840
Ofc: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: mdgcstx@yahoo.com
The project site is located near the intersection of Southwest Parkway and State Highway 6.
It lies just east of the existing University Commons Apartments and just northwest of the
existing Wolf Pen Creek Bowling Center. The site will be service by one existing 8" water
mams.
A fire flow analysis was conducted in conjunction with EPANet for the proposed fire hydrant at
University commons apa11ment. The domestic water section of the Bryan/College Station Unified
Design Guideline Manual was used to determine the required flow rates and pressures for the
proposed hydrant. This manual states that fire hydrants must provide a minimum of 1,000 gallons
per minute in residential areas while holding a minimum pressure of 20 psi. Additionally, the
TCEQ guidelines dictate that systems provide min imum system pressures of 35 psi during normal
operation as well as residual pressures of 20 psi during fire flow scenarios.
Flow data for the existing hydrants in the College Station Water system was obtained from
College Station Utili ties-Water Services Department. The fire flow tests report the static,
residual, and pitot pressures. The elevation was estimated from topographic maps, and the total
head was calculated using the energy equation. Flow data for the existing fire hydrant located at
2301 EastMark hydrant was used. Flow data for the existing hydrant (E-125) located on the
eastern side of the development at University Commons apartment was obtained from the City of
College Station Utilities. The information is as follows:
Static Pressure: l 12 psi
Residual Pressure: l 08 psi
Flow Rate: 1500 gpm
From the gathered data on the two existing hydrants, the Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL) for the
hydrant was determined using the equation:
HGL = z + P/d
Where
HGL =>Hydraulic Grade Line (ft)
z => Elevation (ft)
P => Pressure (psi)
d => Density (62.4 lbs/cf)
Knowing the HGL for the hydrants, the HGL for every node in the network was obtained using
the calculation:
Where
K=>
Q =>
Head loss coefficient
Flow rate ( cfs)
HGL2 =>Downstream HGL (ft)
HGL1 =>Upstream HGL (ft)
For this calculation, it is important to start at a known HGL, and move down the network
computing the HGL in order from upstream to downstream. However, if the known HGL is
located downstream and upstream HGLs need to be determined, the calculation can be reversed
to accommodate the situation. The equation for this instance is as follows:
HGL1 = HGL2 + KQ2
The head loss coefficient (K) for each pipe section is calculated usin g:
K = (tL)/(2*DA2g)
Where
f => Friction factor
L => Length of pipe (ft)
D => Diameter of pipe (ft)
A => Area of pipe (ft)
g => Gravity (32.2 ft/s2)
The HGL for the proposed fire hydrant was determined using this method. The pressure at the
hydrant was determined by rearranging the above equation that solved for the HGL. Knowing the
pressure, the flow rate of the hydrant can be determined using the following equation:
Q = 29.83c0"2*sqrt(P)
Where
Q => Flow Rate (gpm)
c => Friction Coefficient (0 .7-0.9)
D => Diameter of Outlet (in)
P => Pressure (psi)
A model was built in the hydrauli c s imulation software EPANet 2 .0. The mode l consists of links
and nodes that represent the physical arrangement of the pipe network as well as hydraulic
characteristics like pipe diameter, roughness, and nodal elevations. The connections to existing
water mains were modeled as reservoirs with constant heads as previously cakulated. The
Hazen-Williams equation is used to model friction losses within the pipe network.
In EPANet, the model was simulated using the initial base demands, and all resulting pressures
are higher than the required 35 psi. Then a fire demand of 1024 gpm including domestic water
and fire flow was assigned to each node sequentially in different scenarios. During each scenario,
the model was queried to determine if any nodes had pressures below the required 20 psi; none
were found. The water distribution line meets the fire flow criteria outlined in the Unified Design
Guideline Manual. Several reports are attached showing the results from the static system
response and response from each hydrant in operation.
After completion of the analysis, it was determined that the proposed fire hydrants for The
University Commons wi ll supply flow rates ranging from 1365 to 1500 gpm. The hydrants can
provide a total of 423 1.5 gpm whil e staying above the minimum pressure requirement of 20 psi.
Because this water distri bution line meets th e fire flow criteria outlined in the Unified Design
Guideline Manual, it wi ll sufficiently supply The University Commons Apartment Development
w ith domestic water.
An attached table indicates th e total fire fl ow requirements fo r each buildin g, and the coverage by
the fi re hydrants. The req uired flow for each building was compared to the supplied flow, as
indicated on the table. Also, tables are includ ed that indicate fire flow requirements in
accordance with Appendix C of th e 2003 International Fire Code (tables B 105 .1 and C 105 .1 ).
The building type for a mi nimum req ui red fire flow and fl ow du ration fo r buildi ngs is Type V-A.
Hydrant Report
University Commons.-3957
H~drant Static Flow
Node Elevation Pressure i9.illnl
EX-E-125 270.5 108.0 1500.0
FH-1 266.5 109.41 1365 .1
FH-2 264.0 109.62 1366.4
Fire Flow Requirements and Supply
Buildin Area s . ft.) NFF1 H 3 Dist3 Num
AE 22683 2750 225 3
*NFF' : The Needed Fire Flow (gpm) according of to Table 8105.1 of the International Fire Code (at 2 hr. duration)
*Spacing•: Average spacing (feet) between hydrants according to table C105.1 of the International Fire Code
*Dist' : Maxi mum Distance (feet) from any point on street or road frontage to a hydrant according to table C105.1
*Num : Minimum number of Hydrants of Table C105.1 of the International Fire Code
Height* : Maximum building height for construction type IV is 65 feet according to the 2006 IBC (table 503)
References:
1. City of Bryan/College Station Unified Design (200 7).
2. EPANet 2.0 Users Manual. Environmental Protection Agency (2002).
3. TCEQ, Water Ut ilities Division "Rul es and Regul ations fo r Publi c Water System."
Junction Elevation (ft) HGL(ft)
E1 25 270.50 519.73
FH1 266.50 518.99
FH2 264.00 516.98
J1 263.20 516.98
J2 262.30 516.98
K = (fl)/(2.DA2 g)
f =>
L =>
D =>
A=>
a=>
Friction factor
Length of pipe (ft)
Diameter of pipe (ft)
Area of pipe (ft)
Gravity (32.2 ft/s 2)
HGL2 = HGL, -KQ
K => Headless coefficient
Q =>
HGL2 =>
HGL, =>
Flowrate (ds)
Downstream HGL (fl)
Upstream HGL (ft) <
University Commons.
Job # 000076-3957
P (psi) Q(gpm)
108.00 1500.0
109.41 1365.1
109.62 1366.4
109.97
110.36
Pipe Dia. (ft) Length (ft)
A 0.67 82.45
B 0.67 225.09 c 0.67 59.32
D 0.67 87.69
HGL = z + P/d
HGL => Hydraulic Grade Line (ft)
z => Elevation (ft)
P => Pressure (psi)
d => Density Obs/cf)
Q = 29.83cD•2•sqrt(P)
Q =>
c =>
D =>
p =>
Flow Rate (gpm)
Friction Coefficient (.7-.9)
Diameter of Outlet (in)
Pressure (psi)
Fire Flow Analysis
K Q(gpm) V(ft/s)
0.142 1000 6.38
0.387 1000 6.38
0.102 0 0.00
0.1 51 0 0.00
Fire Hydrant Number: E-125
Static Pressure: 112 psi
Residual Pressure: 108 psi
Flowrate: 1500 gpm
3.342 ds
HGL: 519.73 ft
Day 1, 12:00'
EPANET2 Page 1
FIREFLOW_base
Page 1 8/13/2007 2:24:10 PM
**********************************************************************
E P A N E T
Hydraulic and water Quality
Analysis for Pipe Networks
version 2.0
i<
**********************************************************************
Input File: FIREFLOW.NET
Link -Node Table:
Link
ID
A
B c
D
Node Results:
Node
ID
FH-1
FH -2
Jl
J2
E-125
Link Results:
Link
ID
A
B c
D
start
Node
E-125
FH -1
FH -2
Jl
Demand
GPM
24.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
-96.00
End
Node
FH -1
FH -2
Jl
J2
Head Pressure
ft psi
535.80 116.69
535.78 117.76
535.78 118.11
535.77 118.50
535.82 0.00
Flow velocityUnit Headloss
GPM fps ft/Kft
96.00
72.00
48.00
24.00
0.61
0.46
0.31
0.15
0.19
0.11
0.05
0.02
Page 1
Length Diameter
ft in
82.45
225. 09
59.32
87 .69
Quality
0 .00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8
8
8
8
Reservoir
status
Open
open
open
Open
(
FH -1
Page 1 8/13/2007 2:25:02 PM
**********************************************************************
J. E p A N E T .... ,
-:: Hydraulic and water Quality ir
·!: Analysis for Pipe Networks "/:
-:: version 2.0 i<
**********************************************************************
Input File: FIREFLOW.NET
Link -Node Table:
Link
ID
A
B
c
D
Node Results:
Node
ID
FH-1
FH-2
Jl
J2
E-125
Link Results:
Link
ID
A
B
c
D
start
Node
E-125
FH-1
FH-2
Jl
Demand
GPM
1024.00
24.00
24.00
24.00
-1096.00
Flow
GPM
1096. 00
72.00
48.00
24.00
End
Node
FH-1
FH-2
Jl
J2
Length Diameter
ft in
82.45
225. 09
59.32
87.69
8
8
8
8
Head Pressure .Quality
ft psi
534.36 116.06
534.34 117.14
534.33 117.48
534.33 117.87
. 535.82 0.00
velocityUnit Headloss
fps ft/Kft
7.00
0.46
0.31
0.15
17.68
0 .11
0.05
0.02
Page 1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 Reservoir
Status
open
Open
open
open
FH-2
Page 1 8/13/2007 2:25:26 PM
**********************************************************************
E P A N E T
Hydraulic and water Quality
Analysis for Pipe Networks
version 2.0
"'.':
**********************************************************************
Input File: FIREFLOW.NET
Link -Node Table:
Link
ID
A
B c
D
Node
Node
ID
FH-1
FH -2
Jl
J2
E-125
Results:
Link Results:
'
start
Node
E-125
FH -1
FH-2
Jl
Demand
GPM
24.00
1024.00
24.00
24.00
-1096.00
End
Node
FH-1
FH-2
Jl
J2
Head Pressure
ft psi
534.36 116.06
530.54 115.49
530.54 115.84
530.54 116.23
535.82 0.00
Link
ID
Flow velocityUnit Headloss
A
B c
D
GPM fps ft/Kft
1096.00
1072.00
48.00
24.00
7.00
6.84
0.31
0.15
17.68
16.97
0.05
0.01
Page 1
Length Diameter
ft in
82.45 8
225. 09 8
59.32 8
87.69 8
Quality
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 Reservoir
Status
open
open
open
open
(c
FIRE HYO RAN T-300'
;.-
'--•' < / ~--:: /: -___
~ ---/
RADIUS
0 IOO 200 -----SCALE.: I "= IOO'
; ,t
~: . ) , .
.,, ~
. ,! , ;.
• " ..
. .I . , .
:,
i
.• .,
;~
l .... ',
· . .; . ~ ,. i
'.!. ~ .... ·' ~
FLOODPLAIN EVALUATION REPORT
FOR
UNIVERSITY COMMONS APARTMENTS
1.52 ACRE TRACT
MDG JOB NO. 000076-3957
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS
JUNE 2007
2551 Texas Ave. South, Ste. A, College S~ation, TX 77840
Ofc: 979.693.5359 Fax: 979.693.4243 Email: rndgcstx@yahoo.com
Project Scope:
This report outlines the floodplain evaluation that was conducted for Jamespoint Management
Company in conjunction with a site plan for the possible development of a 1.52 acre tract. The
floodplain evaluation began by review of the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Then, the existing FEMA hydraulic model of Wolf Pen
Creek was obtained from the City of College Station as well as the topographic map from which the
model was constructed. Next, using current topography from the MDG surveying crew, the
hydraulic model was updated and the current floodplain was determined. Even with the most
updated topographic information, the current floodplain/floodway boundaries have not changed from
the FIRM. Finally, the model was updated to determine what impact placing fill on the site would
have on the base flood elevation of Wolf Pen Creek.
General Location and Description:
The project site is located near the intersection of Southwest Parkway and State Highway 6. It is
comprised of a 1.52 acre tract that lies just east of the existing University Commons Apartments and
just northwest of the existing Wolf Pen Creek Bowling Center. The site is separated by Wolf Pen
Creek by a strip of land that varies from I 00 feet to 300 feet wide that was previously dedicated to
the City of College Station Parks Department. Approximately half of the site is wooded with dense
underbrush characteristic of backwater floodplain. The remainder of the site is an open, grassy area
that appears to be regularly maintained. The site generally slopes from southwest to northeast
(towards Wolf Pen Creek) with elevations ranging from 263.0 ft to 257.0 ft.
Existing FEMA Hydraulic Model:
The existing hydraulic model for Wolf Pen Creek was obtained from Mr. Donnie Willis, Drainage
Inspector for the City of College Station. The model was originally constructed in the Army Corps
of Engineers' HEC-2 modeling software. For review, the HEC-2 input files were exported to HEC-
RAS (Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System). HEC-RAS is the Army Corps of
Engineers successor to HEC-2 and is considered the standard modeling software for floodplain
applications.
After review, the floodplain model is consistent with the physical characteristics of Wolf Pen Creek
near the site; no major deficiencies were found. Two of the cross sections in the model cross the site.
The topographic map that was used to construct this model was also obtained from the City of
College Station. The topographic map and the results of the FEMA hydraulic model are shown in
Exhibit 1. As shown in Exhibit I, the entire site is located within the 100-yr floodplain which has an
elevation of approximately 263.3 ft. Additionally, approximately half of the site lies within the
regulatory floodway. The floodway is the land most severely affected by flooding and must be
able to carry and discharge floodwaters. No development is allowed in this area.
Updated Hydraulic Model:
The FEMA hydraulic model was updated to include the current topography. A recent field survey
conducted by the MDG surveying crew produced more detailed topographic data'near cross sections
77 .70, 80.80, and 83.60. These cross sections were updated using the current topographic data. The·
model was run again, and the base flood elevation remained the same. The base flood elevation did
not change because the site is located within a backwater floodplain that is created when water backs
up at the box culverts that cross Highway 6. The current topographic data and the results from the
updated hydraulic model are shown in Exhibit 2.
Impact of Fill on the Base Flood Elevation:
The City of College Station has a policy in place that only allows filling in the floodplain if it
produces a 0.0 ft rise in the base flood elevation. Thus, the model was adjusted to reflect the
placement of fill on the site under proposed development conditions and analyzed to determine the
effect of fill on the base flood elevation. For the analysis, it was assumed that the portion of the site
not located within the floodway would be filled to elevation 264.0 ft. The base flood elevation in this
area is roughly 263.3 ft. Cross sections 80.80 and 83.60 were revised to reflect the placement of fill.
The placement of fill as described would result in 0.0 ft rise in the base flood elevation, so the
criterion set forth by the City of College Station is satisfied.
Conclusions:
After a thorough analysis, it was determined that only 0.84 acres of the 1.52 acres may be filled for
development. This would require roughly 4,000 cubic yards of fill to be placed to elevate this
portion of the site out of the I 00-yr floodplain. The remaining 0.68 acres of the site is located within
the regulatory floodway and may not be developed. The included exhibits depict the area of the site
that may be developed. The entire HEC-RAS project files (Existing, Updated, and Fill) are attached
on CD for review.
References:
I. HEC-RAS 3.1.3
http://www.hec.usace.army .mi I/so ftware/hec-ras/hecras-down load .htm I
2. HEC-RAS Users Manual. USACE, November 2002.
http://www.hec.usace.army.111 i I/so ftware/hec-ras/hecras-document.htm 1
3. HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual. USACE, November 2002.
http://www. hec. us ace .army.mi II software/hec-ras/hecras-docu men t .html
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
The Honorable Lynn Mcllhaney
Mayor, City of College Station
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, TX 77842-0960
Dear Mayor Mcllhaney:
MAR 132001
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Case Number:
Community Name:
Community Number:
Map Panel Number:
Effective Date of
this Revision:
102-D
00-06-l 803P
City of College Station,
Brazos County, Texas
480083
48041C0144C
MAR 132001
The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of College
Station, Texas, is revised by this Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) to reflect data submitted in
protest of the floodway delineated in a LOMi.. (case number 00-06-l 75P) issued July 10, 2000.
This LOMR revises the floodway boundary delineation along Wolf Pen Creek from just
upstream of Highway 6 to approximately 1,300 feet upstream of West Frontage Road and revises
the base flood elevation (BFE) for Wolf Pen Creek Tributary A immediately upstream of Harvey
Road to be consistent with the flood profile, as shown on the enclosed annotated FIRM panel and
Floodway Data Tables. This revision was initiated b. j ] , Assistant City
Engineer, City of College Station, in a letter dated August 22, 2000.
We received a revised hydraulic model to reflect revisions of floodway encroachment of
Wolf Pen Creek, a revised hydraulic model to reflect revisions of cross-sectional data of
Wolf Pen Creek Tributary A,' and an annotated FIRM showing the revised floodway boundary
delineation of the flood having a 1 % annual chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given
year (base flood) of Wolf Peri Creek, prepared by Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc.,
in support of this revision. All data necessary to complete this LOMR were received by
December 12, 2000.
Based on our review of the submitted data, we are issuing this LOMR to reflect modifications to
the hydraulic model data and floodway boundary. This LOMR revises the floodway boundary
delineation along Wolf Pen Creek from just upstream of Highway 6 to approximately 1,300 feet
upstream of West Frontage Road and r~vises the BFE for Wolf Pen Creek Tributary A
immediately upstream of Harvey Road to be consistent with the flood profile, as shown on the
enclosed annotated FIRM panel <µld Floodway Data Tables. As a result of the modifications, the
BFE along Wolf Pen Creek will not change .and the change in BFE along Wolf Pen Creek
Tributary A are not significant enough to cause a change to the nearest whole foot, therefore, no
changed BFEs will be published. · ·
2
This revision is effective as of the date ofthis letter. Any requests to review or alter this
determination should be made within 30 days and must be based on scientific or technical data.
We based this determination on the 1 % annual chance discharges published in the FIS for your
community. We have not considered changes in watershed conditions that may have occurred
since the publication of the FIS and that may have increased discharges. Additionally, future
development of projects upstream of the subject area could change watershed conditions and
increase discharges. A comprehensive restudy of your community's flood hazards would
consider any changes to flood hazard conditions subsequent to the publication of the FIS for your
community, and the flood hazards shown in the FIS and FIRM could be increased.
This LOMR is based on minimum floodplain management criteria established under the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Your community is responsible for approving all floodplain
development and for ensuring all necessary permits required by Federal or State law have been
received. State, county, and community officials, based on knowledge of local conditions and in
the interest of safety, may set higher standards for construction in the Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA). If the State, county, or community has adopted more restrictive or comprehensive
floodplain management criteria, these criteria take precedence over the minimum NFIP criteria.
We provide the floodway designation to your community as a tool to regulate floodplain
development. Therefore, the floodway revision we have described in this letter, while acceptable
to us, must also be acceptable to your community and adopted by appropriate community action,
as specified in Paragraph 60.3(d) of the NFIP regulations.
We will not print and distribute this LOMR to primary users, such as local insurance agents or
mortgage lenders; instead, the community will serve as a repository for the new data. We
encourage you to disseminate the information in this LOMR by preparing, for publication in
your community's newspaper, a news release that describes the revision and explains how your
community will provide the data and help interpret the NFIP maps. In that way, interested
persons, such as property owners, insurance agents, and mortgage lenders, can benefit from the
information.
' Use the map panel listed above and revised by this letter for flood insurance policies and
renewals issued in your community.
We have enclosed an updated version of a document titled List of Current Flood Insurance Stu(iy
Data, which includes this letter, to help your community maintain all information for floodplain
management and flood insurance. If any of the items in that document are not filed in your
community's map repository, please contact the Fed((ral Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Map Assistance Center at the number listed below for information on how to obtain
those items.
We have made this determination pursuant to Section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (P.L. 93-234) and in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as
amended (Title Xill of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, P.L. 90-448),
42 U.S.C. 4001-4128, and 44 CFR Part 65. Pursuant to Section 1361 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, communities participating in the NFIP are required to adopt
3
and enforce floodplain management ordinances that meet or exceed minimum NFIP criteria.
These criteria, including adoption of the FIS, FIRM and the modifications made by this LOMR,
are the minimum requirements for continued NFIP participation and do not supersede more
stringent State or local requirements to which the regulations apply.
If you have questions regarding this LOMR, please contact the FEMA Map Assistance Center,
toll free, at 1-877-FEMA MAP (1-877-336-2627).
Sincerely,
Katie Paulson, Program Specialist
Hazards Study Branch
Mitigation Directorate
Enclosures
For: Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief
Hazards Study Branch ·
Mitigation Directorate
cc: Ms. Veronica Morgan, Floodplain Administrator, City of College Station
Mr. Teddy D. Mayo, P .E., Assistant City Engineer, City of College Station
Mr. Mark Roberts, P.E., Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc.
LIST OF CURRENT FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY DATA
This list is provided to document all information currently effective for your conununity for
insurance and floodplain management. '
Date: MAR 1 3 2001
Conununity: City of College Station, Brazos County, Texas
Conununity Number: 480083
Page Number: 1 of2
CURRENT EFFECTIVE FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY DATE: February 9, 2000
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
Map Index
48041CINDO
Panel Numbers
0141C,0142C,0143C,0144C
0161C,0181C,0182C,0200C
0163D, 0201D, 0205D
LETTERS OF MAP REVISION
Panel Numbers
0142C
0143C
0144C
0163D
0181C
Effective Date
February 9, 2000
Effective Date
. July 2, 1992
February 9, 2000
Effective Date
September 19, 2000
I
March 21, 2000
May 31, 1999
October 14, 1999
July 10, 2000
MAR 132001
July 10, 2000
July 21, 2000
LETTERS OF MAP AMENDMENT AND MAP REVISION BASED ON FILL
Panel Numbers
0142C
0144C
0161C
BEST AVAILABLE DATA LETTERS
None
Effective Date
January 30, 1995
August 15, 1995
January 9, 1997
January 16, 1998
February 26, 1999
May 25, 1995
October 20, 1995
July 29, 1996
December 2, 1996
May 27, 1999
February 23, 1995
2
ZONE X
APPAOXIMA TE SCALE IN FEET
iOO 0 ~00 1+3 = E3 ====-==i
NATIONAi IUJOO INSURANCE PROIWI . l
IW' MUMl!R .\ID41C014'4 C
EFIICTM DArr:
JULY 2, 1992
ZONE X
City of College Station
480083
REVISED AREA
ZONE X
AREA REVISED BY LOMR
DATED JULY 10, 2000
·--------------·------·-------------------------'
BASE FLOOD
FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NGVD)
SECTION MEAN
CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY WITHOUT WITH INCREASE (FEET) (SQUARE (FEET PER FLOODWAY FLOODWAY
FEET\ SECOND\
Wolf Pen Creek
Tributary A
THESE DATA WERE REVISED BY LOMR .........
D~TED JULY 10, 2000
A 5701 I 205 987 1.4 275.7 276.0 276.0 0.3
B 7751 163 717 1.9 275.8 276.1 276.1 0.3 -c 1,0751 386 1,251 n 279.4 279.4 279.4 0.0
D 1,2601 314 1,047 1.3 279.4 279.4 279.4 0.0
E 1,6501 198 488 2.8 279.7 279.7 279.7 0.0
F 1,790 186 479 2.8 279.9 279.9 279.9 0.0
G 1 Cl1~ ,j ')(IQ ·?1':0 ~ () ?AA Cl ?MJl ?A~.1 . (I ?
H 2,400 100 678 2.0 285.7 285.7 286.3 0.6
I 2,730 17 99 13.7 285.8 285.8 285.8 0.0
J 2,90 104 698 1.9 289.7 289.7 289.7 0.0
I Wolf Pen Creek I I I ·I I l I I I Tributary B
THESE DA~ WERE _REVISED BY LOMR ·THESE DATA WERE REVISED BY LOMR
DATED . AR 3 2001 . T 11.'T'ED Mll,Y ~l
A 230 70 331 .9 2.4 284.0 ..--284.02 284.0 0.0
B 730 155 484.2 2.1 289.2 289.2 289.2 00
c 1,055 89 250.3 3.9 289.6 289.6 289.6 0.0
D 1,355 51 180.3 4.4 290.5 290.5 290.5 0.0
E 1,605 46 161.5 5.0 291 .4 291.4 291.4 0.0
1Feet above confluence with Wolf Pen Creek
2Elevation computed without con-sideration of backwater effects from Wolf Pen Creek
-t FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
)> FLOODWAY DATA
OJ BRAZOS COUNTY, TX r-AND INCORPORATED AREAS m WOLF PEN CREEK TRI BUT ARY A -WOLF PEN CREEK TRIBUTARY B
~
BASE FLOOD
FLOODING SOURCE -FLOODWAY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NGVD)
SECTION MEAN
CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH AREA VELOCITY REGULATORY WITHOUT WITH INCREASE (FEET) (SQUARE (FEET PER FLQODWAY FLOODWAY
FEET) SECOND)
Wolf Pen Creek
Tributary C
A 60 92 669.0 3.9 292.1 292.8 0.7 0.7
B 170 75 560.0 4.7 292.2 292.8 0.6 0.6
c 320 131 448.0 5.9 292.4 293.1 0.7 0.7
D 485 200 ... 698.0 3.8 293.6 293.9 0.3 0.3
E 660 90 444.0 5.9 293.9 294.1 0.2 0.2
F 1,270 140 617.0 4.3 296.3 296.3 0.0 0.0
G 1,530 483 2,521 .0 1.0 297.4 297.4 0.0 0.0
-'""':\ ~r··.1·"· rr.fn:--1y'i) ir·Jr! () ,-~uc., '\'-) u ,..C.·\] ii'.~ .:. 'l l ' . 'fl ae.·,_.·~~ •. _. ~1.-_.jJ .
-c; ·lcnqT T-l ir1•ir' l . · U~-.~.t.l ..:..:_.Jl\-..i ·:._.../ ~ 10]~fit .
--JAJ'ED MA~ 13 2001 .
-I FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
)> FLOODWAY DATA OJ BRAZOS COUNTY,TX r m AND INCORPORATED AREAS
.s::i.. Wolf Pen Creek Tributary C
-i )>
CJ r m
.i::i.
, . ..FLOODHJG SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
Wolf Pen Creek
(continued)
D
c· ~E _
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
uISTANCE
REVISED DATA
6I1001
8,0801
. 8,8151
9 1901
10, 6101
ll, 5531
16 I 5431
17,8601
18 t 2701
18,8801
FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD
WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
MEAN WIDTH
(FEET)
SECTION AREA
(SQUARE FEET)
VELOCITY REGULATORY WITHOUT WITH
FLOODWAY FLOODWAY (FEET PER
SECOND)
403 l,8·-19 3.0
349 3,553 1.6
250 2,125 2.6
233 1,974 2.8
243 2,170 2.6
1~2 l,302
235 1,59.S
223 1,448
177 1,145
65 530
THESE DATA WERE REVISED BY
LOMR DATED MAY 31, 11199
(
(FEET NGVD)
252.0 252.0 252.8
263 .3 ' ---263.3 264.i
263.7 263.7 264.4
264.0 264.0 264.7
264.9 264.9 265.7
269.4 269.4 270.1
280.7 280.7 281.5
286. 3" 286.3 287.2
287.2 287.2 287.9
288.9 289.6
INCREASE
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
jid6'
)tfJO ~
..
1Feet above confluence with Carters Creek
2Feet above confluence with Wolf Pen Creek REVISED TO
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
BRAZOS COUNTY, TX
AND INCORPORATED AREAS
. t:)~ £_ -t::>CJ -CJ -I 7 !) ,P REFLECT
FLOODWAY DATA DATEDJUL 1 0 2000
WOLF PEN CREEK -WOLF PEN CREEK TRIBUTARY A