HomeMy WebLinkAbout36 DP Olive Garden 04-19ul
0::
ro
Q..
• Cl
ID £ • Cl .., ro
B 1ij
·-::E: c e
~
.
II.I .
A. ... --cu ... .c QJ u c: ~~ 2:~ . .., -8 ..,
Spencer Thompson
City of College Station
Development Services
P .O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77840
RE: Olive Garden Drainage Requirements
Dear Spencer:
April6,2004
The purpose of this letter is to discuss the drainage infrastructure required for the
proposed Olive Garden restaurant to be located on Lot 1 OA of the Gateway
Subdivision. This property was previously designed as a Red Lobster restaurant, with
essentially the same drainage patterns as the new Olive Garden restaurant design .
Please see Exhibit 1 for the new drainage area map for Olive Garden and Exhibit 2 for
the Red Lobster drainage areas . Please refer to the drainage correspondence (attached)
dated 7 /28/03 and 9/9/03 for drainage analysis on this previous design .
Per the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPDS),
detention is required to store excess volumes of stormwater runoff and discharge it at a
rate equal to or less than the pre-development peak flow rate. As is the case with other
properties in the Gateway Subdivision, this detention requirement is fulfilled through
the use of a regional detention facility, located to the north of the College Station
Home Depot. While the runoff from the Olive Garden site will not discharge into the
detention pond, the pond design provides excess stormwater detention for those areas
that will leave undetained after development. The runoff from the Olive Garden site
discharges into two grate inlets and, subsequently, a 66" RCP storm sewer via two 18"
RCP laterals . The Olive Garden drainage infrastructure is detailed in Sheet 3 of the
Olive Garden construction drawings . Ultimately, the resultant flow will discharge into
Burton Creek.
The regional detention facility was designed and detailed in the Drainage/Detention
Report/or the Home Depot, prepared by Bury & Partners-SA, Inc. in August of2002.
Per the drainage report, the detention pond has been sized to include the future
development stormwater volumes of Lot 2R and Lot lOA & lOB . These calculat ions
include a post-development runoff coefficient of C=0.90, greater that that of the
proposed Olive Garden site that is currently in the final design phase. The Bury &
Partners-SA, Inc . report demonstrated that significant reductions of the peak flowrate
will occur in all studied rainfall events. As a result , the proposed Olive Garden site has
met the drainage objectives specified in the College Station DPDS .
If you have any questions or comments , please feel fre e to contact me .
cc : file
Attachments :
-""""'-"' --'1i~ OF 7'.\~ ,J!'",L I>-• • • • • • • • /2 J.. ,~, ··*··.1""{. "" ••• ••• cj\ ~*... · .. '· A'*. • • ~
f'vE'RONiCAI·s:-MoAct\Nit l:,o········-··············· .. ·······J \1;· .. ~ 77689 Q /4J~ -..,~"·"f.9./STE'r;.~·;§" ~ ·~.$'/ "•••••• ~V.1" "'~NAL ~J' +~
• Exhibit 1-0 live Garden Drainage Map
• Red Lobster Drainage Requirements Letter-7 /28 /03
• Red Lobster Drainage Design Comments-9/9/03
S :\Proj \0404-o livegarden\docs\og_ drainage_ letter .doc
w
0: .. c ... la (I) ~c ... ~ o~
:E Ol c a:i Ci . ,,,
I"'\ ~
la ::E u ·-c
0 ...
~ >
u.i . a. ... --cu ... .r:. Q)
~e
J:'. ~
"" -8 ,.,
Spencer Thompson
City of College Station
Development Services
P.O . Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77840
Re: Red Lobster Drainage Requirements
Dear Spencer,
(B l \
9.J.,b '
July 28 , 2003
The purpose of this letter is to discuss the drainage infrastructure required for the proposed
Red Lobster restaurant to be located on Lot 10 of the Gateway Subdivision. Per the City of
College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPDS), detention is required to store
excess volumes of stormwater runoff and discharge it at a rate equal to or less than the pre-
development peak flow rate. As is the case with other properties in the Gateway Subdivision,
this detention requirement is fulfilled through the use of a regional detention facility, located to
the north of the College Station Home Depot. While the runoff from the Red Lobster site will
not be discharge into the detention pond, the pond design provides excess stormwater detention
for the contributing areas that will compensate for the volume increase on the adjacent
properties after their respective development. Instead the runoff from the Red Lobster site will
discharge into two grate inlets and, subsequently, a 66" RCP conduit via two 18" RCP
connectors. The Red Lobster drainage infrastructure is detailed in Sheet 3 of the Red Lobster
construction drawings. Ultimately, the resultant flow will be discharged into Burton Creek.
The regional detention facility was designed and detailed in the Drainage/Detention Report for
the Home Depot, prepared by Bury & Partners-SA, Inc . in August of 2002. Per the drainage
report, the detention pond has been sized to include the future development stormwater
volwnes of Lot 2R and Lot 10 . These ca lculations include a post-development runoff
coefficient of C=0.90, greater that that of the proposed Red Lobster site that is currently in the
final design phase . The Bury & Partners-SA, Inc. report demonstrated that significant
reductions of the peak flowrate will occur in all studied rainfall events. As a result, the
proposed Red Lobster site has met the drainage objectives specified in the College Station
DPDS .
ve any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
Managi ng Partn er
Cc : file
Attachments: Exce rp ts fr om Bury & Partn ers, In c. Ho me De pot Drainage/Detentio n Report,
A ugus t 2002
POST DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE
Overall Drainage Plan
The developed Gateway subdivision will provide a detention facility within Lot 9 that will collect the
runoff from DA-2P (32 .5 Acres). This drainage area includes Lot 7 which is planned to be developed
by Wings & More. The site was designed by Mitchell & Morgan. Onsite detention was waived for
this site at the time of platting and plan submittal provided detention was provided in the future by the
developer of Lot IA. A storm drainage structure will be constructed to convey storm drainage runoff
from DA-IBP to a point north of DA-2P. The detention facility has been sized to account for the
future development of Lot 2R and Lot 10.
Public Storm Drainage
The rational formula was used to calculate the runoff for DA-IP (See Table 1). A proposed 60-inch
public storm sewer will be constructed within Lots 11 and 2R to intercept the flow from DA-IP and
convey the flow for the 2-1 OOyr storms though the site. A 6'x6' junction box will connect the
proposed 60" storm sewer to existing 48", 30", and 18" storm sewer pipes. The 60" storm sewer will
collect storm drain runoff from three additional .points. StormCAD was used to model the proposed
storm drainage system. Due to elevation coristraints the storm drainage pipe was placed at the
preferred frictional slope. (See Appendix 2 for StormCAD Pipe Report).
On-Site Storm Drainage System
The on-site post-development drainage areas were calculated using the rational method (See Table 1).
The On-site Drainage Master Plan consists of 18 separate drainage areas and two separate drainage
systems that convey the on-site drainage to the private detention pond (See Exhibit 3).
Western Private Storm Sewer
Only a portion of the western ,drainage system will presently be constructed with the development of
Lot 11. The western system was designed for 10-yr ultimate development and analyzed using
StormCAD (See Appendix 3). The system will stub out into Lot lA with area inlets. The remainder
of the western system will be built when Lot lA is developed. The future storm system will collect
the remainder of the storm water flow from Lot lA and a portion of the 60' private access easement
located along the western property line of Lot IA. Inlets are sized by drainage area collected at each
inlet based on Table 1 and inlet calculations (Appendix 3).
Eastern Private Storm Sewer
The eastern storm drainage system will be constructed within Lot 11. This eastern system was
designed for the 10-yr ultimate development and analyzed using StormCAD (See Appendix 3).
2
i___ _______________ BURY+PART NERS ---------------~
TABLE 1: Rational Formula Drainage Area Cl a cu at ons
~ ci ci
< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w a: 0 0 9 !;: ~ ~ 0:: :J: 0:: 0:: < I-..J ..J w I-w < tiS (/) z LL LL LL (.) ~~ ~~ w ::::> w c c co ..J
(.!) 0:: 0 LL 0 z z ~ irl
LL LL ~ (/) w CJ
< < ~ :s ~ :s 0:: :J: 0:: -:E ..J :E 0 I-
..J LL -~ t; w (,,) u z ~ ~~ 0:: (.!) 0:: ..J 0:: :>: I: 0 0:: 3: 0:: 0 cJ I-.·~ w 0
fl. ~z w ..J w (.!) ::::> z 5~ 00 0 ..J ..J w 0 .,, s 0 0 ~ :::>O >< ~~ I-..J t; ~ < (/) a .,, 0 .... .,, a ·~ 0 ..... . c · ;:§ 0:: (.) o~ 0 LL (.!) ~ (/) LL (.) ::::> £! !!? a ::: a £! a :::: a
No . Ac. % ft. ft . ft . ft/s ft . ft/s min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs
1E 37.5 65.0 0.60 335 1.0 2 .0 1700 2 .8 300 6.0 14.0 14 .0 5.4 121 .1 6.6 148.4 7.4 167.3 8.5 191.4 9 .6 216.8 10 .1 226 .2
2E 39.6 0 .0 0 .55 420 37 .0 4 .3 0 0 0 0 1.6 10 .0 6 .3 137.8 7.7 167.5 8 .6 188 .1 9 .9 214.8 11 .1 242 .8 11 .6 253 .5
2P 32.5 90.0 0 .90, 325 2 .0 1.0 400.0 4.8 1850 6.0 12 .0 12.0 5.8 170.3 7 .1 207 .9 8.0 233.9 9.1 267.4 10.3 302 .5 10 .8 315 .7
4E 5 8 0.55 750 3 2 0 0 0 0 6 .3 10 .0 6.3 17 .4 7 .7 21 .2 8.6 23.7 9.9 27'.1 11.1 30.7 11.6 32.0
SP 2 .3 10 0 .55 600 3 2 0 0 150 6 5 .4 10.0 6 .3 8.0 7.7 9.7 8 .6 10.9 9 .9 12.5 11 .1 14 .1 11 .6 14 .7
Storm Drainage Area Calculations
1 11 .0 90 0 .90 350 .4 5 510 3 1750 6 8 .9 ·10.0 6.3 62 .7 7.7 76.2 8 .6 85.6 9 .9 97.7 11 .1 110 .5 11 .6 115.3
2 6 .09 90 0 .90 300 14 13 360 13 0 Q 0 .8 10 .0 6 .3 34.7 7.7 42.2 8 .6 47.3 9 .9 54 .1 11 .1 61 .1 11 .6 63.8
3 0.45 100 0 .90 120 1.5 4 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6 .3 2 .6 7 .7 3 .1 8 .6 3.5 9.9 4.0 11 .1 4 .5 11 .6 4 .7
4 3.13 90 0 .90 50 1 2 600 8 0 0 1.7 10 .0 6.3 17.8 7.7 21.7 8.6 24 .3 9.9 27.8 11 .1 31.4 11 .6 32 .8
5 1 .87 90 0 .90 300 5 6 0 0 0 0 0.8 10.0 6 .3 10.6 7.7 12.9 8.6 14.5 9 .9 16 .6 11.1 18.8 11.6 19 .6
6 1 .05 90 0 .90 150 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6 .3 6 .0 7.7' 7.3 8.6 8.2 9.9 9.3 11.1 10.5 11 .6 11 .0
7 2 .5 85 0 .85 300 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 .8 10.0 6.3 13.4 7 .7 16.3 8.6 18.3 9 .9 21.0 11 .1 23 .7 11 .6 24 .7
8 0 .75 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 .7 10 .0 6 .3 4 .3 7 .7 5 .2 8 .6 5.8 9 .9 6.7 11 .1 7 .5 11 .6 7 .9
9 1.44 90 0 .90 140 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6 .3 8.2 7 .7 10.0 8.6 11 .2 9.9 12 .8 11 .1 14.4 11 .6 15 .1
10 1.05 90 0 .90 360 3.5 6 0 0 0 0 1 .0 10 .0 6 .3 6 .0 7.7 7 .3 8 .6 8.2 9.9 9 .3 11 .1 10 .5 11 .6 11 .0
11 0.49 90 0 .90 175 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10 .0 6 .3 2 .8 7.7 3.4 8.6 3.8 9 .9 4.3 11 .1 4 .9 11 .6 5 .1
12 0 .76 100 0 .90 200 1 .5 6 0 0 0 0 0.6 10 .0 6 .3 4 .3 7 .7 5.3 8.6 5.9 9 .9 6.7 11.1 7 .6 11 .6 8 .0
13 1.78 90 0 .90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 :1 10 .0 6 .3 10.1 7 .7 12 .3 8.6 13.8 9.9 15.8 1 1 .1 17.9 11 .6 18 .6
14 0.29 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 .7 10.0 6 .3 1.7 7 .7 2 .0 8 .6 2 .3 9.9 2 .6 11.1 2 .9 11 .6 3.0
15 0 .3 100 0.90 180 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10 .0 6 .3 1.7 7 .7 2 .1 8 .6 2.3 9.9 2 .7 11.1 3.0 11 .6 3 .1
16 0 .09 100 0 .90 80 1.5 6 0 0 0 0 0 .2 10 .0 6 .3 0 .5 7 .7 0 .6 8 .6 0 .7 9.9 0 .8 11.1 0 .9 11.6 0 .9
17 1 .18 100 0 .90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 .7 10 .0 6 .3 6 .7 7 .T 8 .2 8.6 9 .2 9 .9 10 .5 11 .1 11 .8 11 .6 12 .4
. ·····.1 '"
w
0.: . ... w c . ca L.. a. c::n 41 ...:-5€ 'ii L.. J: ~ .c Q)
• OI u c
a::I .E .... ~
-ro • OI J: a..
"" ll:J G ~ • "" -~ -c GI
0 0 ... "" GI >
Spencer Thompson
City of College Station
Development Services
P.O. Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77840
Re: Red Lobster Drainage Design Comments
Dear Spencer,
_ September 9, 2003
.·
This letter is in response to the Red Lobster Site Plan Engineering comments. Per the
Engineering comment number 6, dated August 18, 2003, a connection to the
stormwater line that goes into the regional detention pond should be provided as
opposed to one that bypasses the pond. In the Drainage/Detention Report for the
Home Depot, prepared by Bury & Partners, Inc. in August 2002, the entire Gateway
subdivision was analyzed and detention provided for the entire site through the use of
a regional detention pond. The calculations provided in the report specify that the Red
Lobster site (i.e. drainage areas 11 and 13) are not routed through the pond, but rather
discharge into the 66" RCP bypass pipe. The regional detention pond provides excess
detenti9n to account for the placement of the Red Lobster post-development
stormwater volume directly into Burton Creek. The following exhibits provide the
information necessary to substantiate bypassing the detention pond:
1. Exhibit 2 identifies the Red Lobster site as within proposed drainage area DA-
IP with a total area of 42.5 acres. Proposed drainage area DA-2P is shown as
encompassing 32.5 acres. ·
2. Exhibit 3 identifies the Red Lobster site and post-development drainage areas
11, 13 and 14 that are assigned to the site.
3. Table I includes the Rational Method calculations for the Gateway
Subdivision. The highlighted areas are the post-development drainage areas
identified in Exhibit 3.
4. Hydrograph report No. 2 had been included and shows that only DA-2P (32.5
ac) is routed through the regional detention pond
5. The pipe reports from the Bury & Partners drainage report show that the
previously mentioned drainage areas are included in the calculations for the
66" RCP (shown as 60" RCP in the report) storm sewer that bypasses the
regional detention pond. The areas provided in the 'Upstream Inlet Area'
column are identical to those provided in Table 1 included with this letter.
This information demonstrates that the drainage design performed by Bury & Partners, Inc .
for the Gateway Subdivision does not include the routing of stormwater from the Red
Lobster site to the regional detention pond. In addition we have providM a profile of the
storm sewer system as well as the 100-year Hydraulic Grade Line. This exhibit indicates that
there is ample capacity in the 66" RCP to carry the Red Lobster I 00-year flow without
backing up into the parking lots.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the Red Lobster D_rainage Design or the
Dr ·nage/Detention Report for Home Depot, please feel free to contact me.
Veronica J.
Managing Partner
Cc: file
Patty Gates, Foremark, Ltd.
Frank Mihalopoulos, Del Mar Realty Investors
John Keen, Darden Restaurants
Attachments: Excerpts from Bury & Partners, Inc. Home Depot Drainage/Detention Report,
August 2002
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Scenario: Base
Label Upstream Upstream
Inlet Inlet
Area CA
{acres) {acres)
P-1 37.50 22 .50
P-2 2 .50 2 .12
P-5 0.49 0.44
P-6 1 .78 1 .60
-P-4 0.29 ~ 0 .26
Title : HD-College Station
j :\048\030\publlc drain .stm
09/03/02 09 :30 :55 AM
Pipe Report
Upstream Calculated System Total Length Constructed Section Manning~ Full Upstream
System CA Intensity System {ft) Slope Size n Capacity Invert
(acres) (in/hr) Flow (ft/ft) (cfs) Elevation
{cfs) {ft)
22 .50 10 .05 228 .01 166.80 0.005036 601nch 0 .014 171 .61 265.29
24 .63 9 .97 247 .58 501 .00 0 .004990 60 inct 0 .014 170.83 264 .45
25 .07 9 .76 246.67 127 .72 0.005011 60 Inch 0 .014 171 .18 261 .95
26 .67 9 .71 261 .03 200 .30 0.004993 60lnch 0 .014 170.87 261)1
26 .93 9 .63 261.51 28 .00 0 .005000 601nch 0 .014 171 .00 260.31
100 .~fl. S forVV>
Bury & Partners
·~ Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666
Downstream
Invert
Elevation
{ft)
264 .45
261.95
261 .31
260 .31
260.17
Hydraulic
Grade
Line Out
(ft)
274 .18
268 .93
267 .60
265.26
264 .66
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(ft)
275.66
274 .18
268 .93
267 .60
265 .26
Project Engineer: BPI User
StormCAD v4.1.1 [4 .2014)
Page 1 of 1
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Scenario: Base
Label Upstream Upstream
Inlet Inlet
Area CA
(acres) (acres)
P-1 37 .50 22 .50
P-2 2 .50 2 .12
P-5 0 .49 0.44
P-6 1 .78 1 .60
P-4 0.29 J 0 .26
Title : HD-College Station
j :\048\030\public drain .stm
09/03/02 09 :27 :08 AM
Pipe Report
Upstream Calculated System Total Length Constructed Section Mannings Full Upstream
System CA Intensity System (ft) Slope Size n Capacity Invert
(acres) (in/hr) Flow (ftlft) (cfs) Elevation
(cfs) (ft)
22 .50 7.44 168.66 166 .80 0 .005036 601nch 0 .014 171 .61 265.29
24 .63 7 .36 182 .72 501 .00 0 .004990 601nch 0 .014 170.83 264 .45
25 .07 7.16 180.84 127 .72 0 .005011 601nch QQ14 171 .18 261 .95
26 .67 7 .11 191.05 200 .30 0.004993 60inch 0 .014 170.87 261 .3'1 ·
26 .93 7 .04 190.98 28 .00 0 .005000 601nch 0 .014 171.00 260 .31
/ 0 '/fZ. S 1orVV\
Bury & Partners
C Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1866
Downstream Hydraulic
Invert Grade
Elevation Line Out
(ft) (ft)
264 .45 268 .98
261 .95 266 .47
261 .31 265 .86
260 .31 264 .52
260 .17 264.12
Hydraulic
Grade
Line In
(ft)
269 .62
268 .98
266.47
265 .86
264 .52
Project Engineer: BPI User
StormCAD v4.1 .1 (4 .2014]
Page 1of1
• -j
it
it • ii • ' ' • • • • • ii • • • • • • • • • I
I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Hydrograph Report
Hyd. No. 2
Post Developed Conditions
Hydrograph type
Storm frequency
Drainage area
Intensity
1-0-F Curve
= Rational
= 5 yrs
= 32.5 ac = 7 .10 in
= Brazos.IDF
Hydrograph Discharge Table _
Time --Outflow
(min cfs)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
17.30
34.60
51 .90
69.20
86.50
103 .80
121 .10
138 .40
155 .69
172 .99
190 .29
207 .59 «
198 .94
190 .29
181 .64
172 .99
164 .34
155 .69
147 .05
·138 .40
129 .75
121 .10
112.45
103 .80
95 .15
86.50
77.85
69 .20
60.55
51 .90
43.25
34.60
Time --Outflow
(min cfs)
33 25 .95
34 17 .30
35 8 .65
... End
Page 1
Eng li s h
Peak discharge = 207 .59 cfs
Time interval = 1 min
Runoff coeff. = 0.9
Time of cone . (Tc)= 12 min
Reced . limb factor= 2
Total Volume = 224 ,200 cuft
- ----._ ---....... ~ ..... --- -- ---~ -- -------- -------------. ,--,.---..... -.. ·-··-· . -· ···-· .... ·;::,-.. ··-. ··-··-iti ci ci <( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 0::: 0 0 g~ ~ ~ a:: l: a:: 0::: <( ...J ...J . ~ I-LL. LL. LL. -w I-w <( (/) z 08 ~~ ~~ w ::> w c c (!) 0::: 0 LL. C3 z z z ...J LL. LL. ~ (/) ~ ~ <( < ~ :5 l: :5 :5 w a:: i= a:: -:E --I LL. -w (.) ~~ u z o~ a:: ~ a:: >: ~ (!) a:: (.) cJ I-~ <( w a:: ...J ~o o3 0 I-zw Wz w ...J w (!) 00 ...J w 0 It) 0 0 0 0 0. ::> 0 >w > <( ~~ ::> z ::> ...J .... ...J ~~ (3 (/) a It) 0 .... It) a 0 It) 0 .... c I-:::!: a:: u 0 ...J 0 LL. (!) ~ (!) ~ (/) LL. ::> ~ ~ a ::::: a ~ ~ a ::::: a No. Ac. % ft. ft. ft. ft/s ft. ft/s min min In/Hr cf s In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cts In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 1E 37.5 65.0 0.60 335 1.0 2.0 1700 2.8 300 6.0 14.0 14.0 5.4 121.1 6.6 148.4 7.4 161.3 8.5 191.4 9.6 216.8 10.1 226.2 2E 39.6 0.0 0.55 420 37.0 4.3 0 0 0 0 1.6 10.0 6.3 137.8 7.7 167.5 8.6 188.1 9.9 214.8 11.1 242.8 11.6 253.5 2P 32.5 90.0 0.90 325 2.0 1.0 400.0 4.8 1850 6.0 12.0 12.0 5.8 170.3 7.1 207.9 8.0 233.9 9.1 267.4 10.3 302.5 10.8 315.7 4E 5 8 0.55 750 3 2 0 0 0 0 6.3 10.0 6.3 17.4 7.7 21.2 8.6 23.7 9.9 27'.1 11.1 30.7 11.6 32.0 5P 2.3 10 0.55 600 3 2 0 0 150 6 5.4 10.0 6.3 8.0 7.7 9.7 8.6 10.9 9.9 12.5 11.1 14.1 11.6 14.7 Storm Drainage Area Calculations 1 11.0 90 0.90 350 .4 5 510 3 1750 6 8.9 ·10.0 6.3 62.7 7.7 76.2 8.6 85.6 9.9 97.7 11.1 110.5 11.6 115.3 2 6.09 90 0.90 300 14 13 360 13 0 0 0.8 10.0 6.3 34.7 7.7 42.2 8.6 47.3 9.9 54.1 11.1 61.1 11.6 63.8 3 0.45 100 0.90 120 1.5 4 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 2.6 7.7 3.1 8.6 3.5 9.9 4.0 11.1 4.5 11.6 4.7 4 3.13 90 0.90 50 1 2 600 8 0 0 1.7 10.0 6.3 17.8 7.7 21.7 8.6 24.3 9.9 27.8 11.1 31.4 11.6 32.8 5 1.87 90 0.90 300 5 6 0 0 0 0 0.8 10.0 6.3 10.6 7.7 12.9 8.6 14.5 9.9 16.6 11.1 18.8 11.6 19.6 6 1.05 90 0.90 150 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6.3 6.0 7.7 7.3 8.6 8.2 9.9 9.3 11.1 10.5 11.6 11.0 7 2.5 85 0.85 300 4 6 0 0 0 0 0.8 10.0 6.3 13.4 7.7 16.3 8.6 18.3 9.9 21.0 11.1 23.7 11.6 24.7 8 0.75 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10:0 6.3 4.3 7.7 5.2 8.6 5.8 9.9 6.7 11.1 7.5 11.6 7.9 9 1.44 90 0.90 140 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6.3 8.2 7.7 10.0 8.6 11.2 9.9 12.8 11.1 14.4 11.6 15.1 10 1.05 90 0.90 360 3.5 6 0 0 0 0 1.0 10.0 6.3 6.0 7.7 7.3 8.6 8.2 9.9 9.3 11.1 10.5 11.6 11.0 11 0.49 90 0.90 175 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 2.8 7.7 3.4 8.6 3.8 9.9 4.3 11.1 4.9 11.6 5.1 12 0.76 100 0.90 200 1.5 6 0 o. 0 0 0.6 10.0 6.3 4.3 7.7 5.3 8.6 5.9 9.9 6.7 11.1 7.6 11.6 8.0 13 1.78 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 ·10.1 7.7 12.3 8.6 13.8 9.9 15.8 11.1 17.9 11.6 18.6 14 0.29 90 0:90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 1.7 7.7 2.0 8.6 2.3 9.9 2.6 11.1 2.9 11.6 3.0 15 0.3 100 0.90 180 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 1.7 7.7 2.1 8.6 2.3 9.9 2.7 11.1 3.0 11.6 3.1 16 0.09 100 0.90 80 1.5 6 0 0 0 0 0.2 10.0 6.3 0.5 7.7 0.6 8.6 0.7 9.9 0.8 11.1 0.9 11.6 0.9 17 1.18 100 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 6.7 7.7 8.2 8.6 9.2 9.9 10.5 11.1 11.8 11.6 12.4 '--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..;....:......~BURY+PARTNERS~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..J .. . ·····.1 '"
w
0::
... c: c: Cl ~ .QI~ ~ ... 2IQ) c:
:I ~ ~ CV .QI .. ·-..... 2I .w -Cl ...
(ft ~ .s Vl
C ..... c: ... "Oc:C:~
0 ~ ..!2 .QI Cl u ... 0.. l(l .s
• Cl z,o c: c: ·-_.,,. c: lll ·c: = <iu ro .. ~:J CIC:
QI c: .... s c:
QI ·-~ c: 0 Cl c: ·-c c: ro .!!! ·-w --> en o a..·-c ·s; -{5 CV ::8
W O~ffi~
. ... w c 0:: ca ..... fl ~ ... -o ~ -QI ..... :E ~ .C CV
• Cl u c:
m .s .w ~
·-ro • Cl :E 0.. ,., ro
5 ~ . ,.,
·-::E: -c 8 e "" ~
Bridgette George
COCS-Development Services
P .O . Box 9960
College Station, TX 77840
Re: Olive Garden
Dear Bridgette,
April 13 , 2004
Attached please find ten sets of the landscape & irrigation plans and one set of
building elevations for the above referenced project. These plans are for your
review. We have also attached a single sheet from the development permit
application with the owner's signature. We previously submitted a development
application, which I signed and sealed . If you have any questions please don't
he · te to call.
Veronica J.B. rg
Managing Partner
Attachments
Cc: File
Mar 30 04 02:58p Linda D. Nunn 561 -595 -5433 fO. 2
~w
1na11r.r \11\HON
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
D $200.00 development permit fee .
D Drainage and erosion control plan, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each
D Notice of Intent (N .0 .1.) if disturbed area is greater than 5 acres
Date of *Required Preapplication Conference:,_..a.N~/..LA......_ _____________ _
•(Required for areas of special flood hazard)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ---'S"""""'ee-=""----"'Cy...___~........,--==---ed-=-=-·---------------
APPLICANTS INFORMATION {Primary Contact for the Project): ,
Name C:\MB\i\Nc. -c.John Keen E-Mail Jkeeo@..thrden.co(D
street Address "14-CcA Brok ev--°*'je Dr.
City 0 clo..ado State __.F ......... L_____ Zip, Code 3ZBOC\
Phone Number 4-o.-') -Z4'Q -4 Z9 '"l Fax Number 4-0'] -LAS -S 20. 3
PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION :
Name C::::iMR \ 1 \cc... -~'VI Y"\ Keeo E-Mail
StreetAddress ']4{c9 Bco\c..eLPJje Dr.
City 0 r\ o...ndo State ___ F_L____ Zip Code 3 ZBc:F1
Phone Number 9 V7 LY S --l/ l.J 1 Fax Number _,Lj,__,,O_J"---"'2;;....lf'--S'----5;....&,7 ....... , ~_3 __ _
ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION:
Name Gt HD Avc h, 'h:cfs-Affn : Rast &aJwi IJ E-Mail __.n'--'~.....,..._6J ........ c ...... v...._h "->'o ........ , _,..,.W:;._®.:.....r..---
street Address S&,' ff LO 0 /1 5 5LH1fh t 11 )f v-e t t
City 11..1 sf/ a State __.,,(,,....A_____ Zip Code 9z 7 Q D
Phone Number 7 I 1 -? 3 2--/ '8'.3> 4 Fax Number __ 7~/~4_3 __ 3~2--~~/-'-~'""-'/ o'-----
Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/wateiway alterations:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
I, __ , design engineer8'ereby acknowledge or affirm that:
The information and conclusions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the current
requirements of the City~CA e station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage Policy and
Design stan rds . :g_
1of2
----·---