HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 DP Courtyard By Marriott 00-0500054 3939 SH6 SDRAINAGE REPORT FOR
RE·VI w-
1 COMPLIANC
Nov 11 zooa l
COLLEGE STATIC
ENGINEERING
COURTYARD MARRIOTT AT
WOODCREEK DEVELOPMENT
CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES
STATE HIGHWAY 6 ACCESS ROAD AT
WOODCREEK DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Prepared for
R . L. Payne & Associates, Architects
1509 Emerald Parkway, Suite I 04
College Station, Texas 77845
Submitted to
City of College Station
P .O . Box 1000
College Station , Texas
Prepared by
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc .
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan , Texas 77808
June 26, 2000
_ ............. ,,,
--\:.OFT \\ -.. ~\ ........ E'..r~ \
;'<:;,>·· ····:!& ''• ""' . .. ,.. ... ··. •'1. , . . ~ "*: . · .• ,. ..• : .•••••••..•....•.••.••••• :.. \&>
~ ... :~:f.:.~~'.~~~t
,,~... 44481~ ./};,,
to·· '9~ <>···~., t,~~ .. G/STE~<J.-;..~~ '\"'Si .. "·····~~v.,:\,ONA\. --'''''""'
•' ,,
DRAINAGE REPORT FOR
COURTYARD MARRIOTT AT
WOODCREEK DEVELOPMENT
CORNERSTONE PROPERTIES
STATE HIGHWAY 6 ACCESS ROAD AT
WOODCREEK DRIVE
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Prepared for
R. L. Payne & Associ ates, A rc hi tects
1509 E merald Park way, Su ite 10 4
Co ll ege Stat io n, Texas 7784 5
Submitted to
C ity of Co ll ege Statio n
P .O. Box 100 0
Co ll ege St a tion , Texas
Prepared by
CSC E ng in eerin g & E nv ironm e nta l Co nsulta nts , In c .
3407 Tabor R oad
B ryan, Texa s 77808
Jun e 2 6, 2 000
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSE D DEVELOPMENT .............................. 1
2.0 PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS .......... l
3.0 SCOPE OF REPORT AND DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ................................................... 2
4 .0 STORM WATER RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS .......................................................................... 2
4.1 USE OF THE RA TI ON AL FORMULA .............................................................................. 2
4.2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (C) ............................................................................................ 3
4.3 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc) .................................................................................... 4
4.4 RAINFALL INTENSITY (I) ................................................................................................ 5
4.5 AREA OF SITE (A) ............................................................................................................. 5
4.6 STORM WATER RUNOFF QUANTITIES ........................................................................ 5
5 .0 STORM WATER DETENTION COMPUTATION S .................................................................... 6
5 .1 REQUIRED MINIMUM DETENTION STORAGE VOLUME ......................................... 6
5.2 DETENTION STORAGE AREAS ...................................................................................... 7
5.3 DETENTION BASIN OUTLET STRUCTURE .................................................................. 7
6.0 FLOOD ROUTING CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................... 8
6.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................................ 8
6.2 COMPUTATIONAL METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 8
6.3 ROUTING COMPUTATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 9
7.0 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ............................................................................................. 10
7.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATJONS ........................................................................................ 10
8.0 CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 10
9 .0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... I I
Table 1.
Table 2 .
Table 3.
Figure l.
Figure 2 .
Figure 3.
Figure 4
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Determination of Run off Coeffic ient (C) Values for Post-Development
Co ndition s for E nt ire Site .................................................................................................... .
Computed Rain fa ll Inte nsity Values for Defined Storm R eturn Period .............................. .
Calcul at ion of Pre-and Post-Development Storm Water Runoff Quantities Using the
Ratio nal Method ·'itm:~·;;;;::-············································································
LIST OF FIGURES
General Site Locat ion
Subj ect Property and Adjacent Propeities
General Site Development Scheme
Carter Creek Drainage Basin
ll
4
5
6
csc
Figure 5 .
Figure 6 .
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9~
Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
Proposed Generalized Grading Plan, Drainage Areas, and Detention Basin Area
Types of Site Cover Materials
Pre-and Post-Development Hydrographs for 25-year and 100-year Events
Schematic Diagram Used to Determine Detention Basin Volumes
Schematic Erosion Control Plan
~le.~~ / Oi. s ~~ C0 rv-L 8f--
~ fa'lrrr-~ Cu1v-c cf.
Ill
CSC Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
l.O GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The site that is the subject of this drainage report is located on the eastern side of the State
Highway 6 access road , immediately south of the intersection with Woodcreek Drive in College Station,
Texas. The general location of the site is illustrated on Figure 1 of this report . The subject property and
the adjacent properties are illustrated on Figure 2 . The property that is the subject of this report consists
only of ~ot 2A. The adjacent lots , 2B and 2C , are not being developed as part of t he present project.
As can be seen in Figure 2, the site is shaped like a "T " with the base of the "T " fronting the
Highway 6 access road. Lot 2A is approximately 4.328 acres in size and is currently undeveloped.
Surface cover currently present across the site consists of large trees and tal l grass. The site is currently
bordered on the no1thwest by a small office building, to the n01theast and east by the residences of the
Woodcreek Subdivision , to the south by the vacant properties , and to the west and northwest by
Woodcreek Drive and vacant lots beyond .
The s it e is proposed for development of the Marriott Courtyard at Woodcreek (Marriott). As can
be seen from Figure 3, the Marriott development wi ll consist of the following major e lements: a three
story, wood frame , hotel structure with a footpri nt area of approximate ly 22 ,000 ft2 (0.5 acres);
surrounding Portland cement concrete (PCC) parking and drive areas ; and two PCC access roadways
from Woodcreek Drive and the State Highway 6 access roadway .
2.0 PRE-DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE PATTERNS AND MAJOR
DRAINAGE BASINS
The 4.328-acre site is located in the Carters Creek drainage basin , near the drainage divide with
the Lick Creek drainage basin to the south as illustrated on Figure 4.
As can be seen from Figure 4, ground su1face elevat ions across the site drop a distance of
approximate ly 11 ft from the top of a small hill located at El. 320 in the northwestern portion of the site to
a low poi nt of approximately El. 309 in the southeastern corner of the site . The change in elevation occurs
over a distance of approximate ly 650 ft and thus , the existing surface grade across the site is
approximatel y 1.7 percent.
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
There are no distinct drainage channels across the ex isting site . The major portion of the storm
water runoff from the site appears to be by sheet-flow in a southwesterly to southeasterly direction toward
the highway ditch along the western and southern boundary of the property . No portion of the site appears
to lie within the 100-year floodplain of Carters Creek.
3.0 SCOPE OF REPORT AND DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
This report addresses the need for retention of drainage from the subject site following the
planned development of the Marriott. The site and proposed development were evaluated in accordance
with the criteria outlined in the "Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPDS)" manual of the City of
College Station , Texas. The DPDS manual is undated but contains a chapter on "Flood Hazard
Protection" that has a revision date of October l , 1990. This report also discusses specific drainage
control structures related to the detention of storm water runoff from the new facility and general erosion
control measures .
4.0 STORM WATER RUNOFF COMPUTATIONS
4.1 USE OF THE RATIONAL FORMULA
The Rational Formula was used to compute the storm water runoff and assess the quantity of
storm water which was required to be detained to "offset" the increased runoff associated with the new
development. The generalized grading plan for the proposed development, the approximate botmdaries of
the drainage areas across the site, and the area of the proposed detention basin are illustrated on the
accompanying Figure 5.
Use of the Rational Formula is reasonable for this project since the contributo1y area of runoff is
less than 50 acres , an area sometimes referenced in the literature as an upper limit for use of the Rational
Formula: In addition , the subject site is located within a Secondary Drainage System and not within a
Primary Drainage System. The Rational Formula is not recommended for use within a Primary Drainage
System. Therefore, the Rational Formula was used to determine the peak discharge for both pre-and post-
development conditions.
2
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
The general equation for the Rational Formula is well known :
Q =CIA
where
Q =discharge of storm water in units of cubic feet per second (cfs)
C = coefficient that represents the average runoff characteristics of the land cover within the
drainage area of interest, i.e ., the runoff coefficient, which is dimensionless
I = rainfall intensity in units of inches per hour (in/hr), and
A = area of the site that contributes to the storm water runoff in units of acres
The numbers for each of the values used to compute the storm water runoff at the subject site are
discus sed in the fol lowing sections .
4.2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (C)
The runoff coefficients or "C " values were computed for both pre-and post-development
conditions . Coefficients for the different types of surface covers were determined from Table 111-1 of the
DPDS manual.
The coefficient for the pre-development condition was determined based upon the land cover
category listed in Table ITI-1 as a combination of "Natural Woodlands" and "Natural Grasslands " for
slopes in the range of 1 % to 3.5%. A range of C-values of 0 .18 to 0.25 was listed in the referenced table
for the "Natural Woodlands" and a range of C-values of 0 .35 to 0.45 was given for "Natural Grasslands "
for the cited topographic conditions. Therefore, a conservative value of 0.3 was selected for use for pre-
development cover of the entire 4.328-acre site.
The post-development C-values were determined from the referenced table for the specific types
of site cover and were applied to the specific areas of the post-developed site overlaid by the specifically
named cover materials . Specific types of post-development cover materials across the site are illustrated
in Figure 6 and the corresponding C-values from Table Ill-1 of the DPDS manual and used in the analysis
are listed in Table I. Jn general , a C-value of 0 .9 was used for building roof and concrete covered
pavements and sidewalks and a C-value of 0.35 was used for the landscaped or grassed areas.
3
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
Table 1. Summary of Determination of Runoff Coefficient (C) Values for Post-Development
Conditions for Entire Site
Type of Ground Cover
Concrete (sidewalks , streets, etc.)
Building roof
Grassed or landscaped areas
Summation
Area of Coverage,
Square Feet
85,813
25,700
77,015
188,528
Typical
C-Values
0.90
0.90
0.35
Extended Multiplication of
C-Values X Area
77 ,232
23 ,130
26,955
127,317
Therefore, the average C-value across the site can be determined by dividing the summation of
the individual areas times the respective C-values by the overall area:
Average C-value = 127 ,317 C-square feet/188,528 square feet = 0.68
4.3 TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc)
The time of concentration at a site is used to determine the intensity of the rainfall event used for
computing storm water flows and required detention volumes. The time of concentration is defined as
"the time required for the runoff to be established and flow from the most remote part of the drainage area
to the point under design ." For pre-development conditions the time of concentration for the subject site
was calculated based upon the elevation difference and the flow distance from the higher elevations in the
northwestern portion of the property to the lower elevations where the storm water detention basin outlet
structure was to be located. The referenced change in elevation is 10 ft and the referenced distance is
approximately 500 ft. The slope or grade of the site for pre-development conditions was determined from
the topographic survey of the site, and slope for post-development conditions was determined from the
proposed site grading plan and drainage patterns as illustrated in Figure 5 . The surface slopes or grades
and the velocities presented in Table III-2 of the DPDS manual were utilized to determine the appropriate
storm water runoff velocity .
For overland or sheet-flow over land with slopes in the range of 0 to 3 percent, such as at the
subject site, velocities of runoff flow are listed to be in the range of 0 to 1 .5 feet per second (fps) for
natural woodlands and in the range of 0 to 2.5 fps for natural grasslands. An average velocity of 1 fps was
conservatively selected for pre-development conditions. Thus, time of travel between the location of the
higher elevations of the site and the proposed detention basin outlet structure location was calculated to be
4
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
approximately 500 seconds (500 ft distance/! fps velocity) or approximately 8.3 minutes for pre-
development conditions . The post-development time of concentration was calculated over the paved areas
of the s ite without consideration of any detention and was determined to be a sho1ter time period.
Therefore, a minimum time of concentration of I 0 minutes was used in the calculations for both pre-and
post-development conditions .
4.4 RAINFALL INTENSITY (I)
The rainfall intensity values were computed for the minimum 10-minute time of concentration
previousl y discussed using the intensity-duration-frequency curves developed by the Texas Department of
Transportation . The computed intensities calculated for storm events with "return periods " of 5 , 10 , 25,
50 , and I 00 years are indicated in Table 2 .
Table 2 . Computed Rainfall Intensity Values for Defined Storm Return Period
Storm Return Period
(Years)
4.5 AREA OF SITE (A)
5
10
25
50
100
Rainfall Intensity
(Inches/Hour)
7.69
8 .63
9.86
11.15
1] .64
The area of the site used in the computation of storm water runoff was the original site area of
4 .328 acres .
4.6 STORM WATER RUNOFF QUANTITIES
Storm water runoff quantities were calculated using the Rational Formula. Runoff quantities were
calculated for both pre-and post-development conditions for the 4.328-acre site and are presented in
Table 3 .
5
Tab le 3. Calculation of Pre-and Po st-Dev e lopment Stormwater Runoff Quantitie s Using th e Rational Method
Storm
Event Area_ Pre Area_p051 Cpre-development a Cp os t3
{year} {acres} {acres} {dlessb} {dlessb}
5 4.328 4.328 0.30 0 .68
10 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
25 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
50 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
100 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
Notes a nd Abbreviations:
a -Average va lu es ofC were obtain ed from Tab le 111 -1 of the DPDS Manual
b -dless = dimen sionless
c -Values obtained from Table 2 of drainage report
d -Difference between pre-development and post development flows
e -Same va lu es as predeve lop ment flow s
Intensityc Qp redevelopment Qp os t-dev elopment
{inches/hr} {cfs} {cfs}
7.69 9.98 22.6
8.36 10.9 24.6
9 .86 12.8 29.0
11.15 14 .5 32.8
11.64 15.1 34.3
Q1 0 be detained d Q1hat cail be releasesd e
{cfs} {cfs}
12.6 9.98
13.7 10.9
16 .2 12.8
18 .3 14.5
19 .0 ] 5 .1
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
Calculation of Pre-and Post-Development Storm Water Runoff Quantities Using t
ethod
Storm
Event Area.Pre
ear acres
5 4.328
10 4.328
25 0.30 0.68
50 4.328 0.30 0 .68
4.328 0.30 0.68
•Average valu es of C were o bt ained fr om Table lll-1 of th e DPDS Manual
b dle ss =d imensionle ss
<values obtained from Ta ble 2 of thi s report
9 .86
11.15
l] .64
Qpre
cfs
9 .98
10.9
14.5
15 .1
Qpost
cfs
22 .6
24.6
29.0
.8
34.3
5.0 STORM WATER DETENTION COMPUTATIONS
5.1 REQUIRED MINIMUM DETENTION STORAGE VOLUME
Qo
cfs
12.6
13.7
16.2
18.3
] 9.0
The storage volume of the detention basin was calculated such that the peak discharge of the
ultimate development hydrographs for the 25-year design storm was limited to a discharge less than a
defined target discharge. The defined target discharge was defined by the DPDS manual to be the peak
discharge of the pre-development hydrograph for the 25-year storm event. Since the entire 4.328-acre site
is being developed at the present time, the current developed condition and the ultimate developed
condition were assumed to be the same.
The required detention storage volume was determined as the difference in area between the pre-
and post-development hydrographs, as depjcted on Figures 7 A and 7B. The Triangular Approximation
method was used to determine the hydrographs . The hydrographs were constructed by assuming that the
peak discharge, as calculated from the Rational Formula, occurs at a time equal to the time of
concentration and that one-third of the flow volume occurs before the peak discharge is reached and two-
thirds occur following the peak discharge. The Triangular Approximation method of developing
hydrographs is generally considered to be acceptable for analysis of Secondary Drainage Systems with an
area of less than 50 acres, which is applicable to the drainage basin addressed in this report.
6
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
The difference in area between the two hydrograph s, or the required minimum volume of the
detention storage area, was cal cu lated to be approximately 14,5 80 ft 3 for the 25-year event and 17 ,280 ft3
for the I 00-year event.
5.2 DETENTION STORAGE AREA
We propose to utilize the large detention basin depicted in Figure 5 on the so utheast side of the
site for the required detention storage of storm water.
Storage volumes in the detention basin areas were determined using computer graphics software
and were based upon the planned site grading scheme as illustrated on Figure 5. The three-dimensional
schematic used in the graphical determination of storage volumes for the detention basin is presented on
Figure 8 . Although the top of the earthen berms comprising the detention basin structure is at El 313, the
upper elevation of detention basin storage was assumed to be at El. 312, which is the elevation of the
bottom of the emergency overflow weir that is part of the detention basin outlet structure. Based upon an
assumed outflow elevation of El. 312, the calculated capacity of the detention basin was determined to be
approximately 20,200 ft3. This volume should contain the runoff from the 25-year event and still have a
minimum freeboard elevation of approximately 0.5 ft. below the top of the basin embankment.
5.3 DETENTION BASIN OUTLET STRUCTURE
The outlet structure for the detention bas in are composed of both a 12 in. diameter RCP outlet
pipe that drains to the highway ditch along State Highway 6 for "normal" discharges and a 10-ft-wide
concrete weir structure that is cut into the detention basin slope to provide for "emergency overflow"
discharges. The size and slope of the RCP outlet pipe were largely pre-determined by the route to the
high way ditch along the existing utility easement. Any other practical route to the highway ditch would
have involved crossing properties owned by others. Also , a larger di ameter outlet pipe was considered
but was not judged to be practical since the top of a larger pipe would have been exposed above the
present s urface grade in the easement or would have entailed re-grading within the easement area.
The emergency overflow weir was sized to convey the outflow from a I 00-year event. The length
of the spi llway opening was calculated based upon the Francis formula for weirs:
Q = 3.33 (L -0.2 H) H 1 5
where
7
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
Q =flow rate through rectangular weir opening in cfs
L =length of rectangular opening in feet
H =head of water at a defined distance behind the wall in feet
6.0 FLOOD ROUTING CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 GENERAL
The flood routing through the detention basin was determined for the following storm event
return periods: 5-year; 1 0-year ; 25-year; 50-year; and 100-year. In accordance with applicable criteria of
the DPDS manual , the detention basin was sized to completely detain the 25-year storm event. The
specific flood routing computations performed for the detention basin and its outlet structure considered
only the area of the site actually contributing runoff to the basin (approximately 2 .5 acres) since other
areas of the site were draining to either existing undeveloped pmtions of the site or to adjacent streets.
6.2 COMPUTATIONAL METHODOLOGY
The detention basin on the south side of the site was analyzed for flow routing through the basin
for the previously mentioned design storm events. The purpose of the routing analysis was to simulate the
performance of the detention basins in the form of inflow and outflow hydrographs .
The storage-routing analysis was performed based upon a modification of the Puls Method as
incorporated in the HEC-1 hydrologic computer modeling program . The Puls Method is a procedure for
graphically solving the continuity equation for storage reservoirs using the characteristic height-storage
and height-discharge curves. As previously discussed , the equivalent of the height-storage curve was
developed graphically from the final grading plan for the detention basin. The routing time interval was
selected to ensure that the numerical averaging procedures of the Puls Method do not diminish the impact
of the peak flow.
8
CSC Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
-
6.3 ROUTING COMPUTATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Routing analysis was performed for the five previ ous ly referenced storm return frequencies.
However, attention was particularly directed toward the performance of the detention basin for the 25-
year event, which represented the design storm , and the 100-year event, which was specified in the DPDS
manual for the "most severe loading" condition. The re sults of the routing analyses are presented
numerically in the form of output from the HEC-1 model in an attachment to this report. As can be seen
from a review of the output values, the detention basin has the capacity to detain the sto rm flows for the
25-year event without overtopping the emergency weir. Therefore, the detention basis has the capacity to
store the excess volume of stormwater associated with the planned development of the s ite and di sc harge
the stored water at a rate that is "eq ual to or less than the peak discharges of the pre-development
hydro grap hs for the design [25-year] storm" as called for in the DPDS manual. In addition , the results of
the routing analysis for the 100-year event illustrate that the higher flows associated with this event will
flow over the top of weir only to a depth of approximately 1 in . and shou Id not have a significant impact
downstream of the discharge structure.
9
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
7.0 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES
7.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The erosion control measures proposed at the site will consist of a combination of silt fences , hay
bale barriers, and sedimentation traps. The locations of the proposed erosion control measures are
depicted on Figure 9.
8.0 CERTIFICATION
"T hereby certify that this report for drainage design of the storm water detention basins at the 4.328-acre
site of the proposed Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek located near the northeastern corner of Woodcreek
Drive and the eastern access road of State Highway 6 in College Station , Texas, was prepared under my
supervision in accordance with the previsions of the City of College Station "Drainage Policy and Design
Standards ( 1990)" for the owners thereof."
10
csc Drainage Report for Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
9.0 REFERENCES
Chow, Ven T ., Maidment, David R ., and Mays, Larry W . 1988 . Applied Hydrology. McGraw-Hill Book
Company. New York, NY. 1988.
City of College Station, Texas . 1990 . "Drainage Policy and Design Standards," part of the Stormwater
Management Plan for the City of College Station. October, 1, 1990 .
~
Davis, Victor D ., and Sorensen , Kenneth E. 1969. Handbook of Applied Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill Book
Company. New York, NY . 1969 .
Hann , C. T., Barfield , B . J., and Hayes, C. J . 1994 . Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small
Catchments. Academic Press , Inc. San Diego, CA. 1994.
Mason , John M. and Rhombrerg, Edward L. 1980. On-Site Detention. Prepared for Texas Engineering
Extension Service , Texas A& M University. College Station , TX . 1980. Publication No. PWP: 03355-01.
McCuen , Richard H . A Guide to Hydrologic Analysis Using SCS Methods. Prentice-Hall , Inc.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1982.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1975. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Technical
Release No. 55. Engineering Division, Soils Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
January 1975.
Wanielista, Martin P. 1978. Stormwater Management Quantity and Quality. Ann Arbor Science. Ann
Arbor, MI. 1978.
Westaway, C.R. and Loomis , A. W. 1979. Cameron Hydraulic Data. (16111 Edition). Ingersoll-Rand.
Woodcliff Lake, NJ. 1979 .
11
FIGURES
c s c
(/)
'<-
(.J
0
w
(.'.)
0:::
<{
I u
(f)
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Engineering & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
Q ost = 34 .3 cfs
5 10
~0£\/ELOPMENl
HYDROGRAPH
15
TlME, minutes
MARRIOTT
REQUIRED VOLUME OF DETENTION STORAGE FOR 100 YEAR EVENT
~---= DIFFERENCE IN AREA
20
POST-DEVELOPMENT
HYDROGRAPH
25
I
ii
0
I"")
~1
30
PRE-AND POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROGRAPH FOR 100-YEAR STORM EVENT
1-'-'PR=O=JE-=CT..:....: -------!FIGURE:
78 DATE :
SCAL£:
DRAWN :
APPR\/D:
0.Q
8
~--
8 "G" -
Schematic Diagram Used to Determine
Detention Basin Volumes
Figure 8
40000 I
35000 ~ ----r--
-II::! A 30000
w
::::E
~ 25000
~ 20000
:::>
::::E
::::E 15000
6
10000
+ _J
l
0 ---~-------'------[ -+-
0
(EL. 308)
1
(EL. 309)
c
s
c
2 3 4 5
(EL. 310) (EL. 311) (EL. 312) (EL . 313)
DEPTH OF STORAGE (ft.)
Enginssring & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
DETENTION POND VOLUME vs > POND DEPTH
MARRIOTI HOTEL PROJECT
MARRIOTT HOTEL APPR: MFC REV . DATE:
40
35 ~
30
ff
0
25 L ~ ....
LL
~ 20
0
15
10
5
0
0
(EL. 308)
1
+
+
r
1
(E L. 309)
c
s
c
t
[
2 3
(EL. 310) (E L. 311)
HEIGHT ABOVE PIPE INVERT, FT.
Engineering & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
r
I
Vl z
(3
w
ID
0::
ijj
~
~-
5
0
>-(.) z w
<.!>
0:: w
::Ii w
0::
!$!
0
4 5
(EL. 312) (EL. 313)
POND OUTLET FLOW
MARRIOTI HOTEL PROJECT
LOCATION : COLLEGE STATION TEXAS
MARRIOTT HOTEL APPR: MFC REV. DATE:
I PROJECT: LOWS
FLOOD ROUTING CALCULATIONS
(HEC-1 OUTPUT)
HEC1 S/N; 1333000371 flMVersion: 6.40 Data Fil@: Mll265.Hl
•***~···~******************************
* ...
* FLOOO HYOROGRAPH PACICAGE (HEC·1> *
* SEPTEMBER 1990 *
* VERS!ON 4.0 *
* *
w RUN DATE 06/25/2000 TIME 1~:40:52 *
x )( XKKX)()()( XXXXX )(
)( x x x x )()(
)( )( )( x x
XXXXXX)( )()()()( )( )()()(XX )(
)( x x )( x
)( )( x x x )(
)( )( )()()()()()()( XXXXK xxx
: : ::: r i:::~ :::: :::::: ::;: ::: ~:: :::::~:!:: ::
: : : : : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : : t : : ; : ? : ~ : : : : : : : : : : : ': : :
: II
Full ~icro~omput@r Implementation
by
Hae,tad M~thods, Inc.
: : : : : : : .: : : : : : : : : : : : : : ; : ; : : : : : : : : : : : : ; : : ; : : :
: : i : : ~ : : : : : : : : : : r. : : : ' : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ; ; :
*
*
*
..
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
HYDROLOCIC ENGINEERING CENTER
609 SECOND STREET
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616
{916) 756 · 1104
J7 ~rook,idc Road* Waterbury, Connecticut 06708 • C203) 755·1666
THIS PROGRAM REPLACe~ ALL PREVIOUS VERS.tONS OF HEC·1 KNO~N AS HEC1 (JAN 73>, HEC1GS, HEC1DB , AND H!ClKW.
THE DfFIHITIONS OF VARIABLES ·RTI MP· AND ·R110R• HAVE CHANGED FROM THOst! USED ~!TH THE t973·STVLE INPUT STRUCTURE .
THE OcFINirION OF ·AMSKK· ON RM·CARO WAS CHANCED wrrH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS !$ THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NE\J OPTl~S: OAMBREAK "OUifLOW SUBMERGENCE ' SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATIO~. oss~URJTE STAGE ~REQU~NCY ,
DSS:R ~AD TIME SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION [NTERVAL LOSS RA TE:GREEN ANO AMPT !Nf!LTRATION
KIN~MATIC YAVE: NE W FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
..
• ,.
* .. ..
LINE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Z5 Hl!C·1 TMPLIT . TD.",.,. 1 ....... z .... , .. 3 .....•• 4 ....... 5 ....... 6 •.•.•.• 7 ......• S ....... 9 ...... 10 IO 1D ID ID ID 10 IO IO ID (0 ll 10 KK KN PH tA uo LS K~ KM RS SA SQ SE zz courtyard Marriott et College Station, Texos 06/Z4/00 Fil~ Ml1265 JNH Oetet"ltion Pond Des.ign 5-Year/6·Hour Storm Poct·Oeve\opt11ent Conditions OrDinage '-r~a ,. 2.50 Ac:res, TC " 10 minute'>, SCS RCN "' 8$ Outl"t Pli:>e is :S1Z LF of 12" RC!' ~ 0.35~ wt IE 308.0' m!i<l at Pond Out\et Weir is 20' 8W. 0:1 SS, 1.01 Depth W/ Crest El. 312.0' msl Top of Ell'bankment 31:5.01 msl SCS METHOOOlOGY z 300 5 1 SU8AREA 1 SUBAREA HYOROG~APH COMPUTATION ro~ SUBAREA 1 zo 0 0.60 1.32 2.68 3.30 3.70 4.40 .003~ 0.100 0 BB 1 ROUTE THROUGH DETENTfOM FACILITY KYDROGRAPH ROUTING FOR SUBAREA 1 IH DETENflON FACILITY 1 STOR o.o 0,0775 0.152 o. 11!8 0.224 ·O.Z64 0 1.9 :Z.4 2.7 3.3 65.8 308.0 309.0 310.0 :511. 0 31Z.O 313.0 "AGE 1
HEC1 S/N: 133300Q371 HMVl!rSion: 6.40 Data File: Nl1265.H1
* FLOOO HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) *
* · SEPTEMBER 1990 "
* VERSION 4.0 •
'it
* RUN DATE 06/25/ZOOO TIME 12 :40:52 *
• *
••*******•··~······~·····················
C~urtyard Morrlott at college Stetion, Ttxas
06/24/00 File MI1265 JNH
Detention Pond Design
S·Yeer/6-Hour Storm
Post -01tv1tlopment CoriQitlons
Orainagt Area ~ 2.50 Acres, TC ~ 10 minutes, SCS ~CN : 88
.,.. ....... 'l'.WWW-1it••+••tt•flt••"11t•eaft* ...... ******•1r**f'
• .. U.S. ARHY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 'it
• HYORDLOGIC ENGIN!eRING CENTER ..
609 SECOMD STREET ..
• DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * .. (916) 756 -1 104 *
* ..
••*********··-· ....... ··•*•············ .......
Outlet Pfpe is j 12 Lf of 12" RCP ii 0,35X w/ IE :soe.o• msl 11t Pond
Outlet Weir is 20 1 BW, 0:1 SS, 1.0• Depth W/ Crest EL. 312.0 1 m1l
Top of Emhankm1tnt 313.0• msl
12 10
IT
SCS Ml!THOOOLOGY
OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES
.IPRHY 5 PRINT CONTROL
IPlOT 0 PLOT COUTROL
QSCAL 0. HYOROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
HYDROGRAPH TIME OATA
NHIN z
0
0000
300
0
~!MUTES IN COt-lPUTATION I NTERVAL
STARTING DATE !DATE
IT I ME
llCI
NDOATE
NDTIME
ICEIH
0958
19
START ING TIMI'
NUMBER OF HYDROGRAP" OROINAT~S
ENDING PATE
END ING TIME
CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
TOT AL Tl Me BASE
.03 HOURS
9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DR.Al NACE AR.EA
PRECIPITATION DePTH
LENG T ~, ~LeVATION
FLOW
STORAGE VOLUHE
SURF .A.Ce AREA
Te"1 PERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
FEET
CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
ACRE·FEET
ACRES
D!G~EES FAHR~NHEIT
OPERATJOW STATION
HYDltOGRAPH AT
RO\JiED TO
*** NORMAL END Of HEC -1 ***
NORMAL END OF H~C -1
PEAK
FlOIJ
11 .
3.
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOU IN . CIJBJC FEET PER SECON'
TIM E IN HOURS, AREA IN SQUARE MIL ES
TIME OF AVERAGE FLOW FOi\ M~XJMUM PERIOO
PEAK 6·HOUR 24 -HOUR TZ·HOUR
3 .13 1. 1 . 1.
3 ,57' 1 . 1. 'l.
BASIN MAXIMUM TIME OF
AREA STAGE MA X STA GE
.00
.00 310 .!>7 3.60
HEC1 S/N! 13l3000371 HMVarsion: 6.40 Otta File: Ml12610.H1
•••••••t****t**********•***************
* FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1)
* SfPTEMBER 1990
-VERSION 4.0
*
..
*
* * RUN DATE Ob/25/2000 TIME 12:41:51 •
.. ,.
t ,.
* ,.
,.
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS •
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTE~ *
609 SfCOND STR EET ,.
DAVIS. CALIFORNIA 95616 * (916) 756-1104 * ..
~******·fr" ****'*****""****•••••...-**•**'*''ll!'Wfr
)( )( )()()()()()()( xxxxx )(
x x x x )( )(X
){ )( x )( )(
XXXKXXX xx xx x )()()()()( )(
)( )( x )( )(
)( x )( x )( x
x x XXXXlCXX xxxxx xxx
............................. , ............... . .............................................. ., ... .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ", ..................... . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . . .. .. . .. . .. .. . . .. .. ,,. ...
F~ll Microcomputer Jmplementaticn
by
llau.tod Methods, In c •
t:t
:::
.................................................. • • • .. .. • • .. .. • • • .. .. • • .. • • .. "'¥ ....................... ..
! : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : as;:: i:::::::::::::::::::::
37 Brookside Road w Watl!rbury, eonnecti•vt 06708 • C203) 7S5 -1666
lHIS PROGRAM REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIO~S OF HEC-1 KNOUN AS HEC1 CJAN 73), HEC1GS, HE C1DB , ANO MEC1KIJ.
TH~ DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTI"P-ANO ·RTIOR· HAVE CHANGED ~ROM THOSE USEO W!T H THE 1973-STYlE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINI TION OF ·AMSKK· ON RM-CARD WAS CHANCED WITH REVISIONS OATED 28 SEP 81 . THIS!$ THE FORTRAN77 VERSION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOU SUllME~GE~CE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, DSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUENCY,
DSS;READ i!ME SERIES AT OESIREO CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE :GREEN AND AMPT INFI LTRATICN
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DIFFERENCE ALGORITHM
LINE
1
2
3
t.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1Z
13
14
\5
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
2;1
24
25
HEC•1 INPUT
ro ....... 1 ....... 2 •••••.. 3 ••..... 4 ..•.... 5 ....... 6 ....... 7 ....... s ....... 9 ...... 10
IO
10
IO
ID
IC
ID
IO
JD
JD
ro
IT
10
KK
KM
PH
9A
uo
LS
KK
KM
RS
SA
SQ
s~
zz
courty~rd Marriott at College Station, Tex.as
06/24/00 file Ml12610 JNH
Detention Pond Oe,fgn
10-Ye&r/6-Hour Stor~
Po•t·Oevelopnent Conditions
Drainage Area = 2.50 Acres, TC ~ 10 minutes. scs RCN = 88
outlet Pipe ·is 312 LF of 12" RCP ii 0.35X w/ IE 308.0' msl et Pond
outlet Weir is ZO' BW, 0!1 ss, 1.0 1 Depth W/ Crest El. l12.0 ' msl
Top of Embltl'lkment 313.0 1 msl
SCS METHODOLOGY
2 300
5
SUBAREA 1
SUIAREA HYDROGRAPH COM~UTATION FOR SUBAR!:A 1
10 0 0.66 1.4S 3 .02 3.90 4.30 5.20
.00~9
0 .100
0 SS
ROUTE THROUGH OETENTlON FACILITY
HYOROGRAPH ROUTING FOR SUBARfA IN DETENTION FACI L!TY , STOR
o.o 0.0775 0.152 0.188 0.224 O.Zt.4
0 , .9 2.4 2.7 3.3 65 .R
308.0 309.0 310.0 311.0 312 .0 313,0
PAGE 1
"EC1 S/N: 1333000371 HMVcrsion: 6.40 Data File: MJ12610.H1
**•*********••••••~•••••••••w••••••••••
FLOOD ~YDROGRAPH PACKAGE ( H!c'-n "'
* SEPTEMBER 1990 *
* VERSION 4 .0 *
.. *
* RVN DA TE 06/25/2000 TIME 12:41!51 *
• •
·····~············•*••••••*****•·········
courtyard Ma r riott at r.ollege Station, Texas
06/24/00 File Ml12610 JNH
Detention Pond Design
10-Y•~r/6 -Hour Storm
PO$t•Development conditions
Orainege Area = Z.50 Acres, lC • 10 minutes, SCS RCN : 88
..
•
* .. .. .. ..
Ou t let l'i~ is 312 LF of 121' RCP iii 0.35X w/ IE 308,0' mi>l at .Pond
Outlet Weir is 20 1 81J, 0:1 SS, 1.0' C>epth . w/ Cr egt El.. 312.0 1 msl
Top of Embanlcment 313 ,0• ~st
14! I O
IT
SCS METHOC>OLOGY
OU TPUT CON TROL VARl~iLES
!PRUT 5 PRINT CONTROL
!PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL
QSCAL 0 . HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCAlE
HYOROGRAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVA L
0 $TAlmNG DATE I DATE
ITIME
NQ
NODA TE
NDT!ME
!CENT
0000 STARTING T!Me:
300 NUMBER OF KYOROGRAPH ORDINATES
0 ENDING DATE
0958 ENDING TIME
19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
TOTAL TIME BASE
.03 HOURS
9.97 HOURS
ENGLIS H UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ELEVAT I ON
l'LOW
STORAG!; VOLUME
SUP.FACE AREA
TEMPERA TUR!
SQUARE MILES
tNCHl!S
FEET
CUBIC FEE T PER SECONO
ACRE-FEE T
ACRES
DEGREES FAHREN~EIT
..
U.S. ARMY CORPS 0~ ENGlMEERS * HYOROLOGIC ~NGIN!~RING CEN TE R ..
609 SECOND STREET
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 * (916) 756-1104 * •
OPERATIO N STAT ION
HrDROGRAPH AT
ROUTED TO
~·• NOR~AL ENO OF HEC -1 w•w
NORMAL Em> OF HEC -1
PEAK
FLOW
13.
l.
RUNOFF SUMM~.RY
f~OW lN CUBIC FEET P~R SECONO
TIME IN HOURS, ArU~A IW $0UAIH MIL!!
T lt~E Of AVERAGE FLCJl.I FOR MAXIMUM PERIOO
PeAK 6•HOUR 2't·HOUR 72 -HOUR
:S.13 2. 1. L
3.63 2. 1. 1 .
BASIN MAX IMUM TIME OF
AREA S'TAG£ MAX STAGE
.00
.00 311.16 3 .67
HEC1 S/N: 1333000371 HMVersion; 6.40 Ditft Fil@: Hl12625.H1 ~··········~···~···~·········******•***** ~••••••~••••••w*•********•*~~••*••••••• .. * ~ FLOOO HYOROQRAPH PACKAGE (HEC·1) * * SEPTEMBER 1990 * • VERSION 4.0 • * • * • • • • • .. U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS • HV~ROLOCIC ENCINEERING CENTER * 609 SECOND STREET • DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 w (916) 756-1104 * w * RUN OATf 06/25/2000 TIME 12;42:30 • • * ••**..,.....****w••••••••••••••••••*•••***•*** •www#•******••***•**•--•••••~•*•******* x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x )( )( x )( x xx )( x x x )( xxxxxxx xx xx x xxxxx x x x x )( x x l( x x )( x x )( xxxxxxx )C)()C)()( xxx ......................... it•••···· ............ .. .................................... ................. . .............................................. • .. • • • • • • • • • • .. .. • • • • ' • t t ' .............. ~ ........ ~ Full Microcomputer 111plementatio~ by Haested Methods, Irie. ::: : : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : s : : : : : e f ! : : : : : : : : : = : I 'e • • O 0 • • • • • 9 • • o • 9 J • "• f O O •••Io• 9 • O • 'f • • o •" • O . ". " ........................................ ~ ........ . 37 Brookside Road * Waterbury, Conn~eticut 06708 • (~03> 755·1666 THIS PROGRAM REPLACES All PREVIOUS VERSIONS CF HEC-1 KNOWN AS ~~C1 (JAN 73), HEC1Gs, H~C1DI, ANO HEC1KW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES -RTIMP-ANO ·RTJOR· HAVE CHANGED FROM THOSE USEO ~!Tit THE 1973-STVLE INPUT ST~UCTURE. THE DEFtNITION OF -AMSKK· ON RM-CARO WAS CHANGED WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 81. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBME~GENCE , SINGLE EVENT DAMAGE CALCULATION, OSS:~RITE STAGE FREQUeNCY, DSS:READ TIMe SERIES AT DESl~ED CALCULATION INT£RVAL L099 RATE:GR~EN AWO AMrT INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW Fl~lfE OIFFE~ENCE AL~OR!THM
LINE 1 .z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Z4 25 HEC· 1 INPUT ID ••••••• 1 .•.••.• 2 .••••.• 3 ••.•••• 4, ..•.•. 5 .•••••• 6 •.•••.• 7 ....... 8 •.•.••• 9 .••••• 10 [Q ID 10 ID ID ID ID ID IO ID IT co ICK ICM PH llA UD LS KK KM RS SA SQ SE zz courtyard Marriott at College Station. TeKa& 06/24/00 File Ml12625 JNH Oet~ntion Pond Design 25·Year/6·Hour Storm Post·Oevelopment Conditions Drainage Ar@a • 2.50 Acres, TC ~ 10 minutes, SCS RCN ; 88 Outlet Pip~ i& 312 LF of 12" RCP Q 0.35X w/ re 30!.0• ms! at Pond OVtltt loleir is 201 8~, 0:1 ss, 1.0' Depth w/ Crest El. 312.01 ~sl Top of Emb3nkment 313.0' msl SCS METHOOOLOGY 2 300 5 4 .0039 0. 100 0 1 SUBA~EA 1 SUSA~EA HYDROGrtAPH COMPUTATION FOR SUBAREA 1 0 0.74 1.6~ 3.52 4.60 5.10 88 ROUTE THROLJC~ DETENTION FACILITY 6.20 HYOROGRAPH ROUTING FOR SUBAREA 1 IN DET~NTION FACILITY 1 sroR o.o o.om 0.152 0. 188 o.224 0.264 0 1.9 2.4 2.1 3.3 65.8 308.0 309.0 310.0 311.0 312.0 313.0 PACE 1
HEC1 S/N: '1333000371 HMVersion: 6.40 Oats File: M!1Z625.H1
··········-·········~·············*···~··
* • ********************••••·········•***""'*
* •
'" FLOOD HYl>ROGRAPH PACKAGE CHEC·.1) •
* SEPTEMBER 1990
'" VERSION 4 .0
*
*
* RUN DATE 06/25/2000 TIME 12:4Z:38 *
* *
•***************••••••••~****W***•*••••••
Cou r tyard Harriott at College Stat i on, Tex''
06/24/00 Fil t HI12625 JNH
Detention Pond Oes i gn
2S -Y ear/6·Hour Storm
Post-DeYeL<;>pm4nt cond i tions
Drainage Area ~ Z,50 Acres, TC • 10 minute&, scs RCN ~ SS
..
•
"
* ..
*
out l et Pipe is 312 LF of 12 11 RCP il 0.35" W/ IE 308.0' msl et Po hd
Outlet Weir !1 20 ' BW, 0:1 $$, 1,0' Depth w/ Crest El . 3 12.0' mGl
Top of Embankm~t 313 .0' msl
1Z ro
IT
$CS lilETHOOOLOGY
OUTPUT Cet!TRO~ VARIABLES
IPRN T S PRIN T CONTROL
!PLOT 0 PLOl CONTROL
QSCAI. 0. HYDROGRAPH PLOT SCALE
HYOROGAAPH TIME DATA
NMIN 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL
IO ATE 0 START IllG DATE
!TIME 0000 STARTING TIME
Ntl 300 NUMBF-R OF HYOROGRAPH OROINAT!S
NDOAT!i 0 ENDING DATE
llOTIME 095~ ENtllNG TIME
!CENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
TOTAL TIMI: BASE
.03 HOURS
9.97 HOURS
ENGLISH UNITS
DRAINAGE AREA
PREC IPITATION DEPTH
L!NGTH, ELEVATIOH
FL041
STO!tAGE VOLUME
SURFACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
F!!ET
cuerc FEET PER StCOllO
ACRE-FEET
AC~ES
~ECREES FAHRENHEIT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS •
HYDROLOGJC ENGIW~ERING CENT~R ..
609 SECONI> STREET *
DAVIS, CALIF~NTA 95616 1t
(916) 7S6-1104 * •
or;ERAT!ON STATION
HYDROGRAPH AT
ROUTED TO
*** NORMAL EMO OF HEC -1 *•*
NORMAl eNO OF HEC·1
PEAK
FLO\/
16.
!\.
IH,INOF F SUMHAllY
FlOW IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
Tl~E IN 110UR$, AREA IW SCUA~~ MtLI!
TIME OF AVERAGe FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
PeAIC 6-H OUR 24·HOUR 72 -HOUR
3 .13 2. 1. 1.
3.70 2. 1. 1.
BASHI '4AX l111UM T!ME OF
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
.00
.00 .311.69 3.70
HEC1 S/N: 1333000371 HMVersion: 6.40 Dete File: Ml12650.H1 ....... *****•••••••***•*•**'*""••·····....,..·-··~-*************••························ * • * FLOOO HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE (HEC-1) * .. U.S. ~Rl'IY CORPS OF ENGINEERS * * S£PTENS!R 19~0 * HYDROLOGIC ENGtNi~RING CENT!~ • * VERSION 4.0 * .. 609 SECOND STREl:T * .. • • DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 9S616 " * ~UN OAT~ 06/2S/ZOOO TJM~ 12:43:18 * • (916) 7'56· 1104 * " • " * ••www•...,.••••••••••••••*•*•••••*W**••w•••• ~-·······················*··~·-···~·· .. x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x x )( x x x xx x )( x )( x )()(XXXXX xx xx )( xxxxx )( x x )( x x x )( )( )( x x )( )( xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx ., ................... , .................. , ....... .. ... ........... , ................................... .. :::::::::;::::::::::::::'::::;:;;;;:;::::::: Full Microcomputer Implementation by Haestad Methods, Inc. r:: : : : : ! : : : : : ; : : ; ; : ~ ! ! : : : : : : ! : : % f : : :: : ! : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : t::::::::::;;;:: ! : : t ! : : : : : : : : : : : 37 Brookside Road* Yaterbury, Conn~eticut 06708 * (203) 7~5-1666 Tttrs PROGRAM R~PLACES ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HF.C·1 KNOWN AS HEC1 (JAN 73), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, ANO HEC1KW. THE DEFINITIONS OF VARIABLES ·RTIMP· AND •RTIO!t-HAVE CHAMG!O FROM THOSE USED WITH THE 1973·STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE. THE DEFINITION OF -AMSKK• ON RM-CARD ~AS CHANCED WIT~ REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP S1. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VERSION NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE I SINGLE EVENT DAMAG: CALCULATION, oss:~ITE STAG~ ~R~QUENCY, OSS;READ TIME SERIES AT OESIREO CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS ~ATE:GREEN ANO AMPl INFILTRATION KINEMATIC WAVE: NE~ FINITE OlfFERE~CE ALGORITHM
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Hi
17
18
19
20
2·1 .
22
2:S
24
2S
HEC -1 I NPU T
JO ••••••• 1. .•.••• z,, ..... 3 ....... 4 ••••••• 5 .•.• , •. 6 ••••••• 7 ....... 8 ••••••• 9 •.•.•• 10
IO
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
ID
JD
ID
ID
IT
10
1(1(
KM
PH
Qi\
UD
LS
KK
KM
RS
SA
SQ
SE
zz
Covrtyard Marriott bt college St4t1on, Tex8s
06/Z4/00 ,ile MI1Z650 JNH
Detention Pond DCISi~n ·
50·Year/6 ·Hour Storm
Po,t ·Dtvelo~e n t Conditions
Dr~i nage Area P. 2.50 A~res, TC : 10 minutes , SCS RCN s BS
outlet Pipe is 312 LF of 1i!11 RCP " 0.35X W/ IE 308.0' msl at Pond
outlet Weir i~ 20 1 BW, 0:1 SS, 1.0 1 Depth W/ Crest El . 312.0• ms l
Top of Embankment 31~.o· msl
$CS METliOOOLOGY
2 300
5
SUBAReA 1
SU8AREA HYOROCRAPH CDf*'UiATION FOR SUBAREA 1
2 0 O.S1 1.80 3.91 5.10 5.70 7.00
.0039
0. 100
0 !!&
ROU TE THROUGH DETENTION FACILI TY
flYORO(';RAP!I ~OUTING fOR SUBAREA I N DETENTION FAC!LITY
1 STOR
0.0 0.0775 . 0.152 0. 188 0.224 0.264
0 1.9 2.4 2.7 3.3 65.8
308.0 :S09 .0 :510.0 311.0 312.0 313.0
PAGE 1
HEC1 S/N: 1333000371 HMVersion: 6.40 ..... .,, ............... " .. **"""*•*••,.. .... -............................... . * * * FLOOD HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE CHEC•1) * • SEPTEMBER 1990 * • VERSION 4.0 * • • • RUN DATE 06/25/2000 TIME 12:43:18 * w ••••****•*•••~~•••••••••~•••••••••w•••••• Dote File: Ml12650.Hl Courty•~d N~rr i ott at" College Station. Tax.is 06/24/00 File Ml1Z650 JNH Detention Pond Design 50-Yee~/6·kour Storm Post-Oevtlopmtnt condft1ons DrRlnag~ Area : 2.50 Acres, TC ; 10 minutes, scs ~CN : ~ -················~****••••••••••w..t••••• • * U.S. ~RMY CORPS OF ENGIKE~RS * * HYOROLOGIC ENGINEERING tENTE~ * * 609 SECOND STREET * * DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 • * (916) 756·1104 * * w••••••••+www•w•~••••~••****•••••••-••• Outlet Pipe is 312 LF of 12" RCP Oi 0.35X w/ IE 308.0' m.'ll at Pond outlet Weir is 20' 8W, 0:1 ss, 1.01 Depth ~/ crest El. 312.01 msl Top of Emb~nlcm.nt 313.0' mcl 12 IO IT SCS METHOOOLOG"r' OUTPUT CONTROL VARIABLES IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL !PLOT 0 PLOT CONTROL QSCAl 0. HYOROGRAPH PLOT SCALE HYDRO<iRAPH Tr~e OATA NMJN lDAl"I!' ITIME f.10 HOOATE NOT!ME !CENT 2 MINUTES IN COMPUTATION INTERVAL 0 STAltTING DATE 0000 STARTING TIME 300 Nl>IBER O~ NYOROGRAPH ORDINATES 0 ENDING DAl'E 09'8 ENDING TIMI 19 CENTURY MARK COMPUTATICJI INTERVAL TOTAL TIME BAS~ .03 HOURS 9.91 HOUR$ ENGL! SI! UN ITS DRAINAGE AREA PRECtPITATlON DEPTH lEWGTH, ELEVATION FLOW STORAGE VOLUME SUR!'ACE Al<EA TEMPERATURE SQUARE MILES INCHES FEET CUBIC FEET P!R SECOND ACRE·-FEET ACRES DEGREES ~AHRENHEIT
OPERATION STA Tl ON
HYDROGRAPH AT
ROUTED TO
**~ NORMAL END OF KEC-1 ***
NORMAL ENO OF HEC-1
PEAK
FLOIJ
18.
5.
RUNOFF SUMMARY
FLOU IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
TIME IN HOURS, AREA JN SQUARE MIL!$
TIME OF AVF.RAQE FLOW FOR MAXIMUM PERIOD
PEAIC 6·HOUR Z4·HOUR 72.-HOUR
3.13 z. , l ,,
3.57 2 . 1. 1.
BASIN J!IA,)(JMUM TIME OF
AREA STAGE MAX STAGE
.oo
.00 312 .0Z 3,57
HEC1 S/N: 1333000371 HMVersion: 6 .40 Data Fil&: Ml126 100,H1
*
*
*
* •
* •
• * * FLOOJ HYOROG~APH ?ACKAGE (HEC ·1J • • U.S. ARMY CORPS O• ENGINEERS * SEPrEHBER 199¢ * * HYOROLOG!C ENGINF.ER!NG CENTER •
VERSION 4.0 • • 609 SECOND STREET •
* • DAVIS, CA~IFOR"IA 95616 * RUN OATE 06/25(2000 TIME 12:43;53 • • (916> 756-1104 ~
*
x x xxxxxxx xxxxx x
x x x x x xx x x x x x
xxxxxxx xx xx x xxxxx x
x x x x x
x x x x x x
x x xx~xxxx xxxxx xxx
: : : t : : : : : : : : : : ! : : : : : : : : ; : : ~ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
......... # •• ~ ................................. . ....................... .................. , ... ..
:::
rull Mierocomputer lmpltmentotlon
by
H1estad Methods, Inc.
;::
':::::::::::::::: ! : : ! : : : : : : ; ! : : : : ! : : : : : : : : :
::: :: :;;::: ~:: :: ::;:: f!: :: :: :: : ::: :: :: :::::
*
WW••~••********WWW•~···•**••••••••+W***
37 Brookside Road* ~aterbury , Connecticut 06708 • c203> 755·1666
THIS PROGRAM REP LA CE$ ALL PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HEC -1 KNOW~ AS HF.C1 (JAN 7'.3), HEC1GS, HEC1DB, AND HEClK\I,
THE DEFINITIONS Of VARfA6LES -RT!MP· A~O •RTIOR · HAVE CHANGED F~OM THOSE USED ~!TH THE 1973·STYLE INPUT STRUCTURE.
THE DEFINITION OF -A~SKK· ON RM -CARO WAS CHANGEO WITH REVISIONS DATED 28 SEP 61. THIS IS THE FORTRAN77 VER~ION
NEW OPTIONS: DAMBREAK OUTFLOW SUBMERGENCE I srHGlE EVENT OAl'IAQE CALCULATION, OSS:WRITE STAGE FREQUeNCY,
OSS:READ TIHE SERIES AT DESIRED CALCULATION INTERVAL LOSS RATE:GREEN AND AMPT INFILTRATION
KINEMATIC WAVE: NEW FINITE DlFFERENCt ALGO~ITHM
LillE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 :?5 HEC· 1 INPUT IQ,' ... ,, 1. ...... i! .•.•... 3 ••••••• 4 .•••.•• 5 ••••••• 6 .••.••• 7 ..•.... 8 ....... 9 •.•••. 10 10 ID ID IO ID 10 IO ID ID ID IT IO KIC IG"I PH courtyurd Merriott at College Station, Texas 06/24/00 Fi(e MI126100 JUH Detention Pond Dl!Sisn 100·Year/6-Hour Storm Post·Develoi:iment Conditions Oraina9e Area = 2.50 Acre1, TC = 10 minutes, SCS RCN ; 1'8 outlat Pipe is 312 LF of 12" RC~ s.o.35X w/ re 308.0' m'l at Pond Ovtlet ~eir i' 20' BW, 0:1 ss, 1.0' Depth w/ Crest El. 312.0' msl Top of Emb1nkrn.nt 313.0' m$l SCS HETHOOOLOGY z 300 5 SUBAR~A 1 SU9All~A HYDROGRAPtl COMPUrATION f'OR SUBARU .1 o o.ee 1.95 4.3o s.7o 6.Jo 7.90 llA .0039 lX) 0.100 LS 0 sa KK 1 ROUTE THROUGH OETENTION.FACILlTY KM HYDROGRAPH lOUTING FOR SUBAREA 1 IN DETENTION FACILITY RS 1 STOR SA o.o o.om 0. f5Z o. 158 0.224 0.264 SQ 0 1.9 2.4 , .. ., 3.3 65.8 SE 301!1.0 309.0 310.0 311.0 312.0 313.0 zz PAG~ 1
HEC1 S/N; 1333000371 HHVtrsion: 6,40 Data File: ~~~O.H1
TW#WWW**·~~··•••••******~•••••........,_*•***•
• •
• FLOOO HYDROGRAPH PACKAGE CHEC·1) ....
* * SEPTEMBER 1990
* V~RSION 4.0
• w
* RUN DATE 06/25/2000 TJME 12:43:53 "
• • .,.. •• ******••·~··•******•······~*···~·····
Courtyard Marriott at College Station, Te~a$
06/2~/00 File H1126100 JNH
Deteption ~ond De5ign
100 -Y••~/6·Hour Stor~
Po&t-oevelopm•nt conditions
Dra;nase Ar~ : 2.50 Acres, TC : 10 minutes, SCS RCH ~ 88
"
*
* •
•
•
OUtli!t Pipe is 312 LF of 12" RCP il 0.35% w/ IE 308.0' msl at P<md
outlet Weir is 20' BW, 0:1 SS, 1.0 1 Depth w/ cre~t El. 312.0' msl
Top of Enobankment 313.0' ~'\
12 10
IT
SCS METHODOLOGY
ClJTPUl CONTROL VARIABLES
IPRNT 5 PRINT CONTROL
!PLOT 0 Ptor CONTROL
QSCAL 0. HYOROGRAPH PLOT SCAL~
HYDROGRAPH TIME DATA
NM!H z MINUTES JN COMPUTAiION INTERVAL
lP,ATE 0 SlARTING DATE
ITIH! 0000 STARTING TIME
NO 300 N~~SER OF HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES
HDDATE 0 ENDING DATE
HDTIME 0958 ENDING TIME
!CENT 19 CENTURY MARK
COMPUTATION INTERVAL
TOTAL TIME SASE
.03 HOURS
9.97 HOORS
ENGL! SH UM rrs
DRAINAGE AREA
PRECIPITATION DEPTH
LENGTH, ~LEVATfON
FLO\ol
STORAGE VOLUME
SUR FACE AREA
TEMPERATURE
SQUARE MILES
INCHES
f'El~T
CUBIC FEET PER S~CONO
ACR!!·FEET
ACRES
DEGREES FAHRENHEIT
* U.S . ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS " HYOROLOG!C ENGIN~eRING CENT~R *
609 SECOt.IO STREET .,,
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95616 •
{916) 756 -1104 •
•
OPElllTIOO
HYOROGRAPll AT
ROUTED TO
••• NORKAL ENO OF HEC·1
NCRHA L END OF HEC·1
PEAK
STA TI ~ FLOIJ
20.
9.
.....
RUNOFF SUMl'IARY
FLOW tU CUSIC FEET P£R SECO~O
TIME IN HOURS, AR~A rN SQUARE Mll~~
TIME OF AV!RAGE FLOW FOR HAKIMUM PERIOD
PEAK · 6-HOUR 24·HOUR 7G·HOU R
:5.13 3 . 2. z.
3.40 3. z. z.
BASIN MAXIMUl'I Til'C~ 01"
AREA STACI! MAX STAGE
.00
.00 31Z.09 3 .40
en LL
0
~ _,
LL
~
0
40 ---1
I
35 >-
(/) z
30 I
a
CD
Cl::
[iJ
3:
25 5-I-::::i
0
>-(.)
20 z_
w
<!l
Cl::
i
w
:::Ii w
15 L-
10 '
5
0 9-=""-~~~~~-'--~~~~~~~~~~~--~-'--~~~~~~-'--~~~~~--'
0
(EL. 308)
1
(EL. 309)
c
s
c
2 3
(EL. 310) (EL. 311)
HEIGHT ABOVE PIPE INVERT, FT.
Engineering & Envlronmen'tal
Consultants, Inc.
4
(EL. 312)
5
(EL. 313)
POND OUTLET FLOW
MARRIOTI HOTEL PROJECT
PROJECT: FLOWS
LOCATION: COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS
MARRIOTT HOTEL APPR: MFC REV. DATE:
DRAWN BY: BWD SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DATE: 11/16/2000 FIGURE NO .: 2
5 .----
0
0
(EL. 308)
1
(EL. 309)
c
s
c
2 3
(EL. 310) (EL. 311)
HEIGHT ABOVE PIPE INVERT, FT.
EnglnBBrlng & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
PffiPBred For.
MARRIOTT HOTEL
4
{EL. 312)
5
{EL. 313)
POND OUTLET FL OW
MARRIOTI HOTEL PROJECT
40000
35000
-c:!
! 3 0 000
w
:::::E :::> 25000 _, g
~ I
2000 0 I
~ r
:::>
:::::E
:::::E 15000
:::>
0
10000
5000
0
(EL. 308)
1
(El. 309)
' --t--
2 3
(El. 310) (El. 311)
DEPTH OF STORAGE (ft .)
4
(El. 312)
i
I
-1
5
(El. 313)
Englnssring & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
DETENTION POND VOLUME vs > POND DEPTH
MARRIOTI HOTEL PROJECT
For. PROJECT: OLUME
LOCATION : COLLEGE STAT ION TEXAS
MARRIOTT HOTEL APPR: MFC REV. DATE:
DRAWN BY: BWD SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DATE: 11/16/2 000 FIGURE NO .: 1
-II:!
i
w
2 ::>
...J g
~ ::>
2
2 ::>
0
40000
3 5000
30000
250 00
200 00 i--
I
I
I
I
15000
I
i
5000 ---+----1
OF-~~~~~~-'--~~~~~~-'--~~~-~~~J_-~~~~~--~~~~~~--'
0
(EL . 308)
1
(EL. 309)
c
s
c
2 3
(EL. 31 0) (EL. 311)
DEPTH OF STORAGE (ft .)
4
(EL. 312)
5
(EL. 313)
Enginssring & EnvlronmsntaJ
Consultants, Inc.
DETENTION PON D VOLUM E vs> POND DEPTH
MAR RIOTI HOTEL PR OJ EC T
For. PROJECT: OLUME
LOCATION: COLLEGE STAT ION TEXAS
MARRIOTT HOTEL APPR: MFC REV. DATE:
DRAWN BY: BWD SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DATE : 11/1612000 FIGURE NO.: 1
Table 3 . C alculation of Pre-a nd Post-Development Storm water Runoff Quantities Using the Ration a l Method
Storm
Event Area_ Pre Area_ Po st Cpre-development a Cp os i3
{year} {acres} {acres} {dlessb} {dlessb}
5 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
10 4.328 4.328 0.30 0 .68
2 5 4 .328 4.328 0 .30 0.68
50 4.328 4.3 2 8 0 .30 0.68
100 4.328 4.328 0.30 0 .68
Notes and Abbreviations :
a -Average va lu es o f C we re o btai ne d fro m Tabl e III-I o f the DPDS Man ua l
b -dl ess =dimen sionl ess
c - Va lues obta ined fr o m Table 2 of drainage report
d -Difference between pre-development and po st dev e lopment flow s
e -Same valu es as predevel o pm e nt flow s
Intensityc Qpredevelopment Qpost-development
{inches/hr) {cfs) {cfs)
7.69 9.98 22.6
8.36 10 .9 24 .6
9 .86 12.8 2 9 .0
11.15 14.5 32 .8
11.64 15. l 34.3
Qio be detain ed d Qthat cam b0e releasesd e
{cfs} {cfs} ·
12.6 9 .98
13.7 10 .9
16 .2 12 .8
18.3 ~---
19 .0 15 . l
Table 3. Calculation of Pre-and Post-Development Storm water Runoff Quantities Using the Rational Method
Storm
Event Area_ Pre Area_p 051 Cpre-development a Cposi3
{year} {acres} {acres} {dlessb} {dlessb}
5 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
10 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
25 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
50 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
100 4.328 4.328 0.30 0.68
Notes and Abbreviations:
a -Average values ofC were obtained from Table III-I of the DPDS Manu al
b -dless =dimensionless
c -Values obtained from Table 2 of drainage report
d -Difference between pre-development and post development flows
e -Same values as predevelopment flows
Intensityc Qpred eve lopment Qp ost-development
{inches/hr} {cfs} {cfs}
7 .69 9.98 22.6
8.36 10 .9 24.6
9 .86 12 .8 29.0
11.15 14.5 32.8
11 .64 15. l 34.3
Qio be detained d Qtiiat cam be releasesd e
{cfs} {cfs} ·
12.6 9.98
13.7 10.9
16 .2 12.8 -----------· 18.3 14.5
19 .0 15. l
c s c
(/)
'+-u
w
(.)
0:::
<{
I
(_)
(J)
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Engineering & Environmental
Consuftants, Inc.
0 st = 29.0 cfs
5 10
PRE-DEVELOPMENT
HYDROGRAPH
15
TJME. minutes
PlfPNfD RJlt
MARRIOTT
REQUIRED VOLUME OF DETENTION STORAGE FOR 25 YEAR EVENT
,-----= DIFFERENCE IN AREA
/ POST-DEVELOPMENT
/ HYDROGRAPH
20 25
I
ii
0
~I
30
PRE-AND POST-DEVELOPMENT HYDROGRAPH
FOR 25-YEAR STORM EVENT
1-'-PR==O=.£=-CT;.:...: ---------lFIGURE:
7A DATE :
SCALE :
DRAWN :
APPRVO :
I
((~
COLllGl STATION
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PERMIT NO. 60
MARRIOTT-COURTYARD (SP)
FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE
SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DATE OF ISSUE: November 20 , 2000
OWNER:
VILLAGE HOTEL PARTNERS
1509 EMERALD PKWY STE 105
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
SITE ADDRESS:
3939 SH 6 S
DRAINAGE BASIN:
LICK CREEK
VALID FOR 12 MONTHS
CONTRACTOR:
FULL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans
All trees must be barricaded, as shown on plans, prior to any construction. Any trees not barricaded will not count
towards landscaping points. Barricades must be 1' per caliper inch of the tree diameter.
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site
in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design
Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation
occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor
shall also in sure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition , placement and state. The Owner
and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy
machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work.
Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any
operations of this permit can begin.
In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure
that debris from construction , erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage
facilities.
I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in
accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit
application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply.
ir/;;;;,o /eb
Date ( {
//-J(j r {)Q
Date
({~
COLLlGl STATION
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PERMIT NO. 60
MARRIOTT -COURTYARD (SP)
FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE
SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DATE OF ISSUE: November 16 , 2000
OWNER:
VILLAGE HOTEL PARTNERS
1509 EMERALD PKWY STE 105
,COLLEGE ST A TION TX 77845
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
SITE ADDRESS:
3939 SH 6 S
DRAINAGE BASIN :
Lick Creek
VALID FOR 12 MONTHS
CONTRACTOR:
Peters Contracting
2960 Fairview Drive
Owensboro, KY 42302
UTILITY DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
This development permit is for the construction of the utilities only .
All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans
The drainage report must be approved by the City prior to issuance of a full building permit.
All trees must be barricaded, as shown on plans, prior to any construction . Any trees not barricaded will not count
towards land scaping points . Barricades must be l' per caliper inch of the tree diameter.
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site
in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design
Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation
occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor
shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner
and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy
machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion , siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work.
Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any
operations of this permit can begin .
In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure
that debris from construction, erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or existing drainage
facilities.
I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in
accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit
application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply .
Date
1l)1u(o
11 -1~ -()Cf
Date
Cf~
COLll(;l STATION
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
PERMIT NO . 500054
DP-COURTYARD MARRIOTT
FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE
SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DATE OF ISSUE: October 5, 2000
OWNER:
VILLAGE HOTEL PARTNERS
1509 EMERALD PKWY STE 105
COLLEGE STATION TX 77845
TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT:
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
SITE ADDRESS:
3939 SH 6 S
DRAINAGE BASIN:
LICK CREEK
VALID FOR 3 MONTHS
CONTRACTOR:
CLEARING & GRUBBING ONLY
All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans
All trees must be barricaded, as shown on plans, prior to any construction . Any trees not barricaded will not count
towards landscaping points. Barricades must be 1' per caliper inch of the tree diameter.
The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site
in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design
Criteria. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation
occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor
shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner
and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy
machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work.
Any trees required to be protected by ordinance or as part of the landscape plan must be completely fenced before any
operations of this permit can begin.
In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure
that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage
facilities. '
I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area . All development shall be in
accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit
application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply.
Date I (
to (sf~
Owner/ Agent/ Contractor
~\\~/D
• c
s
c
Engineering & Environmental
Consultants; Inc. · : . ' ""' ,, .. ~· ~. ~ ;
November 27, 2000
Robert L. Payne & Associates
1509 Emerald Parkway, Suite 104
College Station, TX 77845
Attention : Mr. Robert L. Payne , AJA
Re: Exterior Sanitary Sewer Line
Courtyard Marriott at Wood Creek Project
Wood Creek Drive at State Highway 6 in College Station , Texas
Dear Mr. Payne:
This letter documents telephone conversations of the past several days between CSC Engineering &
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) and Messrs. Dennis Sullens of Quality Enterprises, Paul
Swoboda, P.E . of Swoboda Engineering, and Spencer Thomp son and Lance Simms of the City of College
Station concerning the size and location of the exterior sanitary sewer line for the proposed Marriott
Courtyard at Wood Creek Development in College Station, Texas .
The exterior sanitary sewer line as originally designed for the referenced project was 6" inches in
diameter. However, it was later revised to 8" diameter to accommodate an 8" diameter "stub-out" line
shown on the plumbing plans for the southern wing of the hotel. Conversations with the mechanical
engineer for the project, Mr. Paul M . Swoboda, P.E. of Swoboda Engineering, indicate that the 8"
diameter line for the internal (inside of building) drain pipe was chosen assuming that a minimum slope
would have to be used to tie-into the exterior sanitary sewer line . It now appears that a steeper slope can
be used for the internal line and that the 8" diameter line size can be changed to the originally planned
smaller 6"diameter pipe. Use of a smaller 6 " diameter line at a steeper slope will produce the flow
capacity · necessary to handle the flows for the southern portion of the building. As described in the
following paragraph, the 6" diameter line size can also accommodate the calculated sanitary sewer flows
for the entire building.
The sanitary sewer flows for the entire building were calculated by CSC based upon the design criteria
outlined in the draft joint Bryan/College Station Design Manual for Str eets and Alleys, Storm Drainage ,
Dom estic Water , and Sanitary Sewer (revised 1/29/98), hereinafter referenced as Joint Design Manual.
The flows were initially calculated based upon Method 2 -Land Use Determination (PageS-8). The Land
U se Method assumes a 150 gallons per capita per day flow for hotels. Also, each hotel room is
considered as a "dwelling unit" and a 2.67 persons per dwelling unit population factor was used for the
hotel as recommended in Method 2. Based upon the stated assumptions, a "normal " daily flow of
approximately 50 ,000 gallons per day (or 35 gallons per minute (gpm)) was calculated for the 125 room
hotel. The corresponding maximum or adjusted daily flow was calculated to be approximately 53 gpm
(normal daily flow times 1.5) and the peak hourly flow was calculated to be approximately 158 gpm
(maximum daily flow times 3). Calculating the peak demand using the Method l -Fixture Count
3407 Tabor Road
Brya n, Texas 77808
Phone (979) 778-2810
Fax(979)778-0820
..
Mr. Robert L. Payne, AIA
Sanitary Sewer Line for Courtyard Marriott at Wood Creek
November 27, 2000
Determination would produce a s li ghtly larger quantity of flow . For the total fixture units (fu) count of
1,350 for the building, a peak demand flow of 275 gpm was determined from Table II (Page 5-7) of the
referenced Joint D esign Manual . A 6 " diameter gravity sewer pipe laid at a 1 % slope would have a flow
capacity of approximately 0.81 cubic feet per second, or approximately 364 gallons per minute, a flow
capacity which is approximately 2.3 times the anticipated maximum flows determined from the land use
method and 1.3 times the peak flows determined from the fixture unit method. Thus, the flow capacity of
the 6" diameter sewer line laid at the anticipated slope is in excess of the calculated maximum hourly
flows determined from either of the two described computational methods . In addition , the flow
velocities in the 6" diameter line at the 1 % slope would be approximately 4 feet per second (fps) for 50%
flow depth and approximately 5 fps at 80% depth , value s that are within the recommended minimum and
maximum velocities of 2 .5 fps and 8 fps , respectively .
Another issue that has arisen concerning the sanitary sewer line is the location of the lin e within the 20'
wide public utility easement (PUE). The City of College Station would prefer that the sanitary sewer line
be located outside of the PUE. This preference can be accomplished in either of two ways . First, since a
blanket utility easement has been granted for the site, the final location of the PUE on the "as-built" plans
can be adjusted (moved) to assure that the sanitary sewer is outside of the PUE boundaries . The second
option invo lve s physical relocation of the sewer line. Since the sanitary sewer is currently shown on the
plans to be located 1 ft inside of the PUE boundary, the alignment of the sanitary sewer can be moved 2 ft
to assure that it is outside of the PUE boundary as presently drawn . This second option should be
undertaken only if no additional construction cost is involved, since the first option involving plan
adjustment of the PUE boundaries following completion of construction would be relatively easy and
inexpensive to implement.
In summary, based upon the previously described information and computations, it is our opinion that a
6" diameter exterior sanitary sewer line laid at a minimum grade of 1 % can use used in lieu of the 8" line
shown on the plans .
Please do not hesitate to contact us should any questions arise or if we might be able to provide additional
information.
Kindest Regards ,
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
in.~~~
M . Frederick Conlin , Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
MFC :mf
Via Hand Delivery
2
'
c
s
c
Mr. Robert L. Payne, AIA
Sanitary Sewer Line for Courtyard Marriott at Wood Creek
November 27, 2000
cc: Mr. Spencer G . Thompson, Jr., Graduate Civil Engineer
City of College Station
Development Services Department
P .O . Box 9960
1 10 L Texas A venue
College Station , TX 77842
Via Hand Delivery
Peters Construction Company
2960 Fairview Drive
P. 0. Box 99
Owensboro, KY 42302
Attention: Mr. Dennis Bates, Project Manager
Mr. Chris McCarthy
Via Hand Delivery
Quality Enterprises
P . 0 . Box 9962
College Station, Texas 77842
Attention: Mr. Dennis A . Sullens, President
Via U .S. Mail
3
Mr. Lance Simms, CBO, Building Official
City of College Station ,
Development Services Department
P . 0 . Box 9960
I 160 Texas A venue
College Station, TX 77842
Via Hand Delivery
Swoboda Engineering
7010 Coyote Run
Bryan , TX . 77808
Attention: Mr. Paul M. Swoboda, P.E.
Via: U .S . Mail
02 /06 /01 TUE 10:30 FAX .J 09 862 10~8
.... OO •O ••O M ' •••••+•OMO .. -•--••••-· -o •o "' ' 0
AG ED SPECIAL PROGRAMS
DA TE: _ _..Ji""'J-il~p l~OL...L-1 -----
TIME: __ ~_~'~-----~--
FAX TRANS MITT AL FORM
Please give to the named person(s) at your location.
Total number of pages , including cover sheet are ____ 3, ________ _
TO:
FROM:
Message:
Dr. Manuel Pina, Jr.
Associate Professor and Special Projects Director
Department of Agricultural Education
2116TAMU
College Station, Texas 77843-2116
979-862-1978
979-862-1058 -fa.x
If you have any problems receiving th1s fax or do not receive all pages please call Alma Molina
at 979-862-1979.
141001
02 /06 /01 TUE lO :JO FAX 409 862 1058 AG ED SPECI AL PROGR AM S
Key Areas of Concfrn and Questions for Owners/Builders of the Hotel
1. Safety
Will existent fences be l~ft as they are to serve as boundary between our homes/lots and
the hotel?
Are there any provisions qy the builder to build a fence that provides greater safety and
security? More specific, ~ car jumping the parking lot curb will not be slowed down or
stopped by the current feppes that are owned by the homeowners.
If yes, where would the ~pee be built, just inside their property at the same level as the
present fences or at the top of the slope?
A brick fence of the type behind the engineering building would be preferred, and at the
maximum level allowed, i.e., if at the bottom of the slope it must be eight feet tall or
higher, if at the top of th~ ~lope, six feet would probably suffice.
2. Drainage
What will be done to prevent erosion into our lots, given the difference in elevation
between the bottom offence and the top of where parking lot wiJJ be?
In which direction will tq.~ water from the sloped area flow? (The Russel and Noel
families already have wa r/ · g flowing across their back yards and into
Amberwood Court.) · Lo 4-~ / 3
3. Lighting
What plans are there to avoid nuisance produced by lights from cars beaming into our
homes as they are parkinf?
What kind of lighting will the hotel have, i.e ., will light from the hotel shine into our
homes? Will it have indirect lighting that illuminates the hotel, i .e ., produces a glow?
How much of this light ~ill reflect from the building into our homes?
What plans are there to aypjd nuisance produced by lights from the hotel?
4. Noise
What plans are th.ere to avoid nuisance produced by noise from cars as they are parking?
What plans are there to avpid nuisance produced by noise from the hotel, e .g., swimming
pool. that will carry into pur homes?
'
(4)002
02 /06 /01 TUE 10 :30 FAX 409 862 1058 AG ED SPECIAL PROGRAMS
S. Odon
What plans are there to avoid nuisance produced by exhaust emissions from cars as they
are parking?
What plans are there to avpid nuisance produced by odors from the hotel, e.g., swimming
pool, restaurant, and oth~rs , that will carry into our homes?
6. Privacy
What is difference in eley~tion between bottom of fence and top of where parking lot will
b ? '' e .
At the mid-point of the ~agget lot?
At the mid-point of the Fina lot?
At the mid-point of the~ lot?
At the mid-point of the Joel lot?
What are the landscapin~ plans for the area between the fence and parking lot? Will
there be some sort of"gr~en belt"?
What types of vegetatioq, i .e., trees and shrubs will be used? What height will these be
expected to be at the timr pf planting? Where will shrubs or trees be planted, at the
bottom of the slope or at .itjle top?
141003
~
Q I\ 8' CfJ ~; (\' J'ra?)
~S~'f
.._ .
c
s
c
Engineering & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
December 11, 2000
Mr. Spencer G. Thompson, Jr., Graduate Civil Engineer
City of College Station
Development Services Department
P .O. Box 9960
1101 Texas A venue
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Revi sed Domestic Water Demand Quantities
Courtyard Marriott at Wood Creek Project
Wood Creek Drive at State Highway 6 in College Station, Texas
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This letter documents changes in the domestic water demands estimated by CSC Engineering &
Environnrnntal Consultants, Inc . (CSC) for the proposed Marriott Courtyard at Wood Creek Development
in College Station, Texas.
ln a telephone conversation of December I , 2000 , the project architect, Mr. Robert L. Payne, AIA of R. L.
Payne & Associates, telephoned to inform us that some of the domestic water flows estimated by CSC for
the above-referenced project should be revised based upon newly developed information . Those water
flow s were est imated for both "normal " domestic demand and for irrigation flow. The estimated flow s
were presented in tabular form on Sheet C-1 of the site drawings that have already been submitted to the
City of Co ll ege Station for review.
Basically, the revi sed estimates in th e water d e mand are required because more extensive design work has
been performed to better define the water dem a nds for the projec t. For example, at the time that the site
drawings were s ubmitted for review, no deta iled design of the irrigation water system had been
performed. Therefore, CSC based the estimate of maximum irrigation water demand on similarly sized
previou s projects . A maximum irrigation water demand of 27 .8 gallons per minute (gpm) was estimated.
Howeve r, as Mr. Pay ne has informed us _, a more extensive landscape des ign for the project has since been
undertaken . Analyses performed as part of the new design indicated that a larger maximum irrigation
water demand water would be appropriate. The new increased irrigation water demand was determined to
be approximately 75 gpm.
Similarly, the nom1al domestic water demands should be revised. The normal domestic water demands
computed by CSC were based upon the land use determination method outlined in the draft joint
Bryan/Co llege Station Design Manuul for Stre ets and Alleys, Storm Drainage, Domestic Water , and
Sanitm y Sewer (revised 1/29/98), here inafter referenced as Joint Design Manual (Method 2 -Land Use
Determination [Page 4-8]). However, as pointed out by Mr. Payne, the mechanical/plumbing engineer for
the project, Mr. Paul M. Swoboda, P.E. of Swoboda Engineering, also calculated the water demand for
the proposed building using the Fixture Count Determination (Method 1 -Fixture Count Determination
of the Joint D esign Manual). As you are aware, the Fixture Count Determination method is based upon a
specific count of the plumbing fixture s in a building and should produce a more accurate determination of
water demand than the more general Land Use Method . Mr. Swoboda computed that the maximum
domestic water demand would be 25 1 gpm , as s ummarized along with other water demands in tabular
form on drawing P3 .4 .
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, Texas 77808
Phone (979) 778-2810
Fax (979) 778-0820
Mr. Spencer G. Thompson, Jr.
Page 2
December 11, 2000
Therefore, based upon the previously outlined discussion , we respectfully request that the water demand
tables on Sheet C-1 of the CSC drawings be modified to the following tables.
DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
Minimum Daily Flow
gpm
0
IRRIGATION WATER
Average Daily Flow
gpm
3 .13
Maximum Daily Flow
gpm
251
Peak Fire Flow
gpm
2 ,970
Minimum Daily Flow
gpm
Average Daily Flow
gpm
Maxim um Daily Flow
gpm
0 32 75
Please do not hesitate to contact us should any questions arise or if we might be able to provide additional
information .
Kindest Regards,
"1#~~~·
M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
MFC:mf
Via Hand Delivery
Robert L. Payne & Associates
1509 Emerald Parkway, Suite l 04
College Station , TX 77845
Attention: Mr. Robert L. Payne, AJA
Via: U.S . Mail
Peters Construction Company
2960 Fairview Drive
P.O. Box 99
Owensboro, KY 42302
Attention: Mr. Dennis Bates, Project Manager
Mr. Chris McCarthy
Via: U.S. Mail
Swoboda Engineering
7010 Coyote Run
Bryan , TX 77808
Attention: Mr. Paul M. Swoboda, P.E.
Via: U .S. Mail
c
s
c
Engmeermg & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
December 23, 1999
Mr. Jeff Tondre, P.E.
Acting Assistant City Engineer
City of College Station
Development Services Department
P.O. Box 9960
1101 Texas Avenue
CoJiege Station, TX 77842
Re: Request for "Oversized Participation by the City of College Station In Connection With the
Construction of a Water Supply Line Associated With the Development of the
Proposed Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek Development for Cornerstone Properties
Woodcreek Drive at State Highway 6 in College Station, Texas
Dear Mr. Tondre:
This letter presents a request for oversized participation by the City of College Station for construction of
a water supply line in connection with the proposed development referenced herein as the Marriott
Courtyard at Woodcreek. The proposed development is being undertaken by Cornerstone Properties and
will be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Woodcreek Drive and the eastern or
northbound access road of State Highway 6 in College Station , Texas.
Introduction
This letter, the attached construction cost estimates, and the related drawings are being submitted as pai1
of the proposed replatting of the property on which the referenced development will be located . Mr.
Curtis Strong, R.P .L.S., of Strong Surveying, Inc., has submitted a request for replatting of the property
that was previously described as Lot 2, Block One of the Amending Plat of Cornerstone Commercial
Section One . The proposed replatting involves the division of the miginal lot into three separate parcels
designated as Lot 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C.
The attached cost estimates are presented in fulfillment of the City of College Station 's (City's)
prerequisite for documentation of the increased costs associated with the City's requirement for
"oversizing" of the water supply line for the project along the State Highway 6 access road . Project design
calculations for the water supply line or "through line" along State Highway 6 indicate that a 12-inch
diameter water line would be adequate for the project water demands, but the City has indicated that it
prefers to use an 18-inch diameter water line to meet general water system requirements.
Presentation of Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were developed for construction of the two sizes ( 12" 0 and 18" 0) of "through" water
line along State Highway 6 and the "looped" water line around the project site . Those cost estimates are
presented in tabular fonn in Attachment A of this letter . The following cost tables are contained in
Attachment A.
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, Texas 77808
Phone (979) 778-2810
Fax (979) 778-0820
Mr. JeffTondre, P.E.
Page2
December 23 , 1999
Table A. List of Cost Tables Presented in Attachment A
Table Description Of Site Feature
Number For Which Construction Costs Were Developed
Estimate of Construction Costs for Installatiou of 12" 0 DIP "Through" Water Line Along
State Highway 6 Access Road and 12 '' 0 DIP/8" 0 DlP "Looped" Project Water Line
2 Estimate of "Oversized Line" Constrnction Costs for installation of 18 " 0 DIP "Through "
Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road and 12 '' 0 DIP /8" 0 DIP "Looped" Project
Water Line
Discussion of Cost Estimates
As can be seen from a comparison of the costs presented in Tables l and 2, the increase in cost between
the 12" 0 DIP "through" water line and the 18" 0 DrP "through" water line is the difference between the
construction costs presented in Tables 1 and 2 , as summruized in Table B .
Table B . Difference fn Estimated Constrnction Cost Between Required Water Line and "Oversized"
Line
Table
Number
2
Description Of Site Feature
For Which Construction Costs Were Developed
Estimate of Construction Costs for Installation of 12" 0 DIP "Through"
Water Line AJong State Highway 6 Access Road and 12 '' 0 DIP /8" 0
DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Estimate of Construction Costs for Installation of 18 " 0 DIP "Tiuough"
Water Line AJong State Highway 6 Access Road ru1d 12 " 0 DrP /8" 0
DTP "Looped" Project Water Line
Difference In Water Line Construction Costs Subject To
"Oversized" Participation By The City
Construction
Costs
$89 ,988.80
$115 ,232.70
$25,243.90
We also understand that the total amount of "oversized participation'' cannot exceed 30 percent of the
overall project water line construction costs. Thitty percent (30%) of the total water line construction
costs for installation of the 18 '' 0 DlP "tluough" water line along the State Highway 6 Access Road and
the 12" 0 DIP /8" 0 DIP "looped" project water line was computed to be approximately $34 ,569.81 (0.30
x $115 ,232 .70), which is more than the oversized cost differential of approximately $25,243 .90.
Therefore, we anticipate that the City will be able to contribute $25 ,243 .90 as part of the construction of
the oversized 18" 0 DIP water line.
MT. JeffTondre, P .E.
Page 3
December 23 , 1999
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or if we might be able to provide
additional information .
Kindest Regards,
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
7h.<Jr~~~-
M . Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
MFC :mf
Via Hand Delive1y
cc: C. F . Jordan Commercial, L.P .
Attention : Mr. Teddy Peinado, Vice President
Via U.S . Mail
Robe1t L. Payne & Associates
Attention: Mr. Robert L. Payne, AIA
Via U.S . Mail
W.R. Cullen, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
ATTACHMENT A
Constrnction Cost Estimate Tables
Table 1. Estimate of Constmction Costs for Installation of 12 " 0 DIP Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road
and 12 " 0 DIP/8" 0 DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Description of
Item
12" Wate r L ine A long S tate Highw a y 6
Installation of 12 " 0 DIP along
Highway 6 Access Road
18 " 0 by 12 " 0 Reducer
12 " 0 DIP 45 ° Bend
12 " 0 DIP 11 \l.i 0 Bend
12 " 0 by 12" 0 x 12 " 0 Tee & Plug
12 " 0 DIP Gate Valve
16" 0 Steel Encasement Pipe
Fire Hydrant Assembly
2" Blow-off Riser
Estimated
Quantity
728LF
1 EA
2EA
1 EA
1 EA
1 EA
36 LF
1 EA
1 EA
Estimated
Unit C os t
($/u ni t)
32/LF
400/EA
450/EA
425/EA
1,000/EA
2,000/EA
30/EA
2,000/EA
300/EA
Su btotal
Extend ed
C os t
($)
23,296
400
900
425
1,000
2,000
1,080
2,000
300
$31,401
Com m ent
Assumes only a small portion of the line will require structural
backfill . Includes tie-in to existing 18"0 line . Assmnes
minimal clearing and gmbbing required .
For looped proj ect water line service.
Includes piping, valves, etc.
Table 1. Continued
Description of
Item
Estimated
Quantity
12" 0 DIP/ 8" 0 DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Portion of 12" 0 DIP Water Line from
State Highway 6 to Beginning of
Loop Around Building
8" 0 DIP Water Line Loop Around
Building
12" 0 by 8" 0 by 8" 0 DIP Tee
8" 0 DIP 90 ° Bend
Fire Hydrants
8" 0 DIP Gate Valves
206LF
1,180 LF
1 EA
4EA
3 EA
4EA
Estimated
Unit Cost
($/unit)
32/LF
28/LF
375/EA
300/EA
2,000/EA
800/EA
Subtotal
Summary of Subtotal Costs
Plus
10 % Contingency
GRAND TOTAL FOR 12" 0 "THROUGH" LINE AND
"LOOPED" PROJECT LINE
Extended
Cost
($)
6 ,592
33 ,040
375
1,200
6,000
3,200
$50,407
$81,808.00
+
$8,180.80
$89,988.80
Comment
Assumes mostly structural backfill . Includes cost for clearing
and grubbing of bushes and tress.
Assumes mostly structural backfill . Includes cost for clearing
and grubbing of bushes and tress .
Includes piping, valves, etc.
Table 2 . Estimate of "Oversized Line" Construction Costs for Installation of 18 " 0 DIP "Through" Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road
and 12 " 0 DIP/ 8" 0 DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Estimated Extended
Description of Estimated Unit Cost Cost
Item Quantity ($/unit) ($) Comment
18" 0 DIP Water Line Along State Highway 6
Installation of new 18 " 0 DIP along 728LF 55/LF 40 ,040 Assumes only a small portion of the line will require structural
Highway 6 Access Road backfill. Includes tie-in to existing 18"0 line . Assumes
minimal clearing and grubbing required .
18 " 0 DIP 45 ° Bend 2EA 800/EA 1,600
18 " 0 DIP 11 Yi 0 Bend 1 EA 850/EA 850
18 " 0 by 18 " 0 x 12 " 0 Tee & Plug 1 EA 1,800 /EA 1,800 For looped project water line service .
18 " 0 DIP Gate Valve 1 EA 6,500/EA 6,500
24 " 0 Steel Encasement Pipe 36LF 35/LF 1,260
Fire Hydrant Assembly 1 EA 2,000/EA 2,000 Includes piping, valves, etc.
2 " Blow-off Riser 1 EA 300/EA 300
Subtotal $54,350
Table 2. Continued
D esc ription of
I tem
Es timated
Quantity
12" 0 DIP/ 8" 0 DIP "Looped " P r oject Wate r L ine
Portion of 12 " 0 DIP Water Line from
State Highway 6 to Beginning of
Loop Around Building
8" 0 DIP Water Line Loop Around
Building
12 " 0 by 8" 0 by 8" 0 DIP Tee
8" 0 DIP 90 ° Bend
Fire Hydrants
8" 0 DIP Gate Valves
206 LF
1,180 LF
1 EA
4 EA
3 EA
4 EA
Estimated
Unit C ost
($/u nit)
32/LF
2 8/LF
3 75 /EA
300/EA
2 ,000/EA
800/EA
Subtotal
Summary of Subtotal Costs
Plu s
10% Contingency
GRAND T O TAL F OR 18" 0 "THRO UGH" LINE AND
"LOOPED" P ROJECT LINE
Ex te n d ed
C ost
($)
6 ,592
33 ,040
3 75
1,200
6,000
3 ,200
$50,407
$104,757
+
$10,475. 70
$115,232. 70
C omment
Assumes mostly structural backfill. Includes cost for clearing
and grubbing of bushes and tress.
Assumes mostly structural backfill . Includes cost fo r clearing
and gtubbing of bushes and tress .
Includes piping, valves , etc .
·-
c
s
c
Engineering & Environmental
Consultants, Inc,
December 23, 1999
Mr. Jeff Tondre, P .E.
Acting Assistant City Engineer
City of College Station
Development Services Department
P.O. Box 9960
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station , TX 77842
Re: Request for "Oversized Participation by the City of College Station In Connection With the
Construction of a Water Supply Line Associated With the Development of the
Proposed Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek Development for Cornerstone Properties
Woodcreek Drive at State Highway 6 in College Station , Texas
Dear Mr. Tondre:
This letter presents a request for oversized participation by the City of College Station for construction of
a water supply line in connection with the proposed development referenced herein as the Marriott
Couityard at Woodcreek. The proposed development is being undertaken by Cornerstone Properties and
will be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Woodcreek Drive and the eastern or
northbound access road of State Highway 6 in College Station , Texas .
Introduction
This letter, the attached construction cost estimates , and the related drawings are being submitted as patt
of the proposed replatting of the property on which the referenced development will be located. Mr.
Curtis Strong, R.P .L.S ., of Strong Surveying, Inc., has submitted a request for replatting of the property
that was previously described as Lot 2, Block One of the Amending Plat of Cornerstone Commercial
Section One. The proposed replatting involves the division of the original iot into three separate parcels
designated as Lot 2-A, 2-B , and 2-C.
The attached cost estimates are presented in fulfillment of the City of College Station's (City 's)
prerequisite for documentation of the increased costs associated with the City 's requirement for
"oversizing" of the water supply line for the project along the State Highway 6 access road. Project design
calculations for the water supply line or "through line" a long State Highway 6 indicate that a 12-inch
diameter water line wou ld be adequate for the project water demands, but the City has indicated that it
prefers to use an 18-inch diameter water line to meet general water system requirements.
Presentation of Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were developed for construction of the two sizes ( 12 " 0 and 18" 0) of "through" water
line along State Highway 6 and the "looped" water line around the project site. Those cost estimates are
presented in tabular form in Attachment A of this letter. The following cost tables are contained in
Attachment A .
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan , Texas 7789 8
Ph one (979 ) 77 8-28 1 O
Fax(979)778-0820
Mr. Jeff Tondre, P.E.
Page 2
December 23, 1999
Table A. List of Cost Tables Presented in Attachment A
Table Description Of Site Feature
Number For Which Construction Costs Were Developed
Estimate of Construction Costs for Installation of 12" 0 DIP "Through " Water Line Along
State Highway 6 Access Road and 12 " 0 DIP/8 " 0 DIP "Looped " Project Water Line
2 Estimate of "Oversized Line" Construction Costs for Installation of 18 " 0 DIP "Through "
Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road and 12 " 0 DIP/8 " 0 DIP "Loo ped " Project
Water Line
Discussion of Cost Estimates
As can be seen from a comparison of the costs presented in Tables 1 and 2, the increase in cost between
the 12 " 0 DIP "through " water line and the 18 " 0 DIP "through " water line is the difference between the
construction costs presented in Tables I and 2 , as summarized in Table B.
Table B. Difference In Estimated Construction Cost Between Required Water Line and "Oversized"
Line
Table
Number
2
Description Of Site Feature
For Which Construction Costs Were Developed
Estimate of Construction Costs for Installation of 12" 0 DIP "Through "
Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road and 12 " 0 DIP/8" 0
DIP "Looped " Project Water Line
Estimate of Construction Costs for Installation of 18" 0 DIP "Through "
Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road and 12 " 0 DIP/8" 0
DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Difference In Water Line Construction Costs Subject To
"Oversized" Participation By The City
Construction
Costs
$89,988.80
$115 ,232.70
$25,243.90
We also understand that the total amount of "oversized participation " cannot exceed 30 percent of the
overall project water line construction costs. Thirty percent (30%) of the total water line construction
costs for installation of the 18" 0 DIP "thro ugh " water line along the State Highway 6 Access Road and
the 12 " 0 DTP/8 " 0 DIP "looped " project water line was computed to be approximately $34 ,569.81 (0.30
x $115,232. 70), which is more than the oversized cost differential of approximately $25 ,243 .90.
Therefore, we anticipate that the City will be able to contribute $25,243.90 as part of the construction of
the oversized 18 " 0 DIP water line.
Mr. Jeff Tondre, P.E.
Page 3
December 23, 1 999
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or if we might be able to provide
additional information.
Kindest Regards,
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
rn.a~~~
M. Frederick Conlin , Jr., P.E . "/ •
Senior Engi neer
MFC:mf
Via Hand Delivery
cc: C. F. Jordan Commercial, L.P.
Attention: Mr. Teddy Peinado, Vice President
Via U.S . Mail
Robert L. Payne & Associates
Attention: Mr. Robert L. Payne, AIA
Via U.S . Mail
_,, ........ ,,
--f. OFT \\ _,, i:-.! .•.•..•. .f...r.d'
;~>· * "<"!.$' ,., ; ..... · ·· ... •'1
f•:' 'a .,. ............................... .
~ ... :~:~:.~~'.~~~.
'•"°... 444811'\ "' 11ld·· ~ <>· ~; '•;;c-i-~~91srE~~-;:~.:" \\"SI ····•"'E~VJ \,ONA\. ..,,.-
"''"'"'
W. R. Cullen , Jr., P .E.
Senior Engineer
ATTACHMENT A
Construction Cost Estimate Tables
Table 1. Estimate of Construction Costs for Installation of 12 " 0 DIP Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road
and 12" 0 DIP/8 " 0 DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Description of
Item
12" Water Line Along State Highway 6
Installation of 12 " 0 DIP along
Highway 6 Access Road
18" 0 by 12 " 0 Reducer
12" 0 DIP 45 ° Bend
12 " 0 DIP l l 1/.i 0 Bend
12 " 0 by 12 " 0 x 12 " 0 Tee & Plug
12 " 0 DIP Gate Valve
16 " 0 Steel Encasement Pipe
Fire Hydrant Assembly
2" Blow-off Riser
Estimated
Quantity
728 LF
1 EA
2EA
1 EA
lEA
1 EA
36 LF
1 EA
l EA
Estimated
Unit Cost
($/unit)
32/LF
400/EA
450/EA
425/EA
l,OOOfEA
2 ,000/EA
30/EA
2 ,000/EA
300/EA
Subtotal
Extended
Cost
($)
23 ,296
400
900
425
1,000
2 ,000
1,080
2 ,000
300
$31,401
Comment
Assumes only a small portion of the line will require structural
backfill. Includes tie-in to existing 18 "0 line. Assumes
minimal clearing and grubbing required.
For looped project water line service.
Includes piping, valves, etc.
Table 1. Continued
Description of
Item
Estimated
Quantity
12" 0 DIP/ 8" 0 DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Portion of 12 " 0 DIP Water Line from
State Highway 6 to Beginning of
Loop Around Building
8" 0 DIP Water Line Loop Around
Building
12 " 0 by 8" 0 by 8" 0 DIP Tee
8" 0 DIP 90 ° Bend
Fire Hydrants
8" 0 DIP Gate Valves
206 LF
1,180 LF
l EA
4EA
3 EA
4 EA
Estimated
Unit Cost
($/unit)
32/LF
28/LF
375/EA
300/EA
2,000/EA
800/EA
Subtotal
Summary of Subtotal Costs
Plus
10 % Contingency
GRAND TOTAL FOR 12" 0 "THROUGH" LINE AND
"LOOPED" PROJECT LINE
Extended
Cost
($)
6,592
33 ,040
375
1,200
6,000
3,2 00
$50,407
$81,808.00
+
$8,180.80
$89,988.80
Comment
Assumes mostly structural backfill. Includes cost for clearing
and grubbing of bushes and tress .
Assumes mostly structural backfill. Includes cost for clearing
and grubbing of bushes and tress .
Includes piping, valves, etc.
. .
Table 2. Estimate of"Oversized Line" Construction Costs for In stallation of 18 " 0 DIP "Through" Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road
and 12 " 0 DIP( 8" 0 DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Estimated Extended
Description of Estimated Unit Cost Cost
Item Quantity ($/unit) ($) Comment
18" 0 DIP Water Line Along State Highway 6
Installation of new 18 " 0 DIP along 728 LF 55/LF 40,040 Assumes only a small portion of the line will require structural
Highway 6 Access Road backfill. Includes tie-in to existing 18 "0 line . Assumes
minimal clearing and grubbing required.
18 " 0 DIP 45° Bend 2 EA 800/EA 1,600
18" 0 DIP 11114° Bend 1 EA 850/EA 850
18 " 0 by 18 " 0 x 12 " 0 Tee & Plug l EA 1,800/EA 1,800 For looped project water line serv ice .
18 " 0 DIP Gate Valve 1 EA 6,500/EA 6,500
24" 0 Steel Encasement Pipe 36 LF 35/LF 1,2 60
Fire Hydrant Assembly l EA 2,000/EA 2,000 Includes piping, valves, etc.
2" Blow-off Riser lEA 300/EA 300
Subtotal $54,350
•'
Table 2. Continued
Description of
Item
Estimated
Quantity
12" 0 DIP/ 8" 0 DIP "Looped" Project Water Line
Portion of 12 " 0 DIP Water Line from
State Highway 6 to Beginning of
Loop Around Building
8" 0 DIP Water Line Loop Around
Building
12 " 0 by 8" 0 by 8" 0 DIP Tee
8" 0 DIP 90° Bend
Fire Hydrants
8" 0 DIP Gate Valves
206 LF
l ,180 LF
1 EA
4 EA
3 EA
4 EA
Estimated
Unit Cost
($/unit)
32/LF
2 8/LF
375/EA
3 00/EA
2 ,000/EA
800/EA
Subtotal
Summary of Subtotal Costs
Plus
10 % Contingency
GRAND TOTAL FOR 18" 0 "THROUGH" LINE AND
"LOOPED" PROJECT LINE
Extended
Cost
($)
6 ,592
33,040
375
l ,2 00
6 ,000
3,200
$50,407
$104,757
+
$10,475.70
$115,232. 70
Comment
Assumes mostly structural backfill. Includes cost for clearing
and grubbing of bushes and tress.
Assumes mostly structural backfill. Includes cost for clearing
and grubbing of bushes and tress.
Includes piping, valves, etc.
. . -
••
\,---
J
c
s
c
Engineering & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
January 18, 2001
Mr. Spencer G. Thompson , Jr., Graduate Civil Engineer
City of College Station
Development Services Department
P.O . Box 9960
110 I Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Submittal of Calculations in Support of Revised Domestic Water Demand Quantities
Courtyard Marriott at Wood Creek Project
Wood Creek Drive at State Highway 6 in College Station , Texas
Dear Mr. Thompson:
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) had earlier submitted a letter to the City of
College Station (City) revising the domestic water demand quantities for the proposed Marriott Courtyard
at Wood Creek Development in College Station , Texas. A copy of that earlier letter dated December 11 ,
2000 is attached to this letter for ease of reference . In subsequent telephone conversations you indicated
that the City would like to have supporting documentation for the fixture unit calculations cited in the
referenced letter. This letter transmits t he requested calculations.
Attached is a letter dated January 18 , 2 001 from Mr. Matthew Hicks of Swoboda Engineering, the
mechanical/plumbing consultant for the project. Mr. Hicks ' letter contains a table summarizing the types
and number of fixture units (FU) employed in the calculation of the total FU count of 1,343 FUs. That
total FU count was used to detennine the peak domesti<.: water flow in gallons per minute (gpm) for the
proposed hotel development. The peak domestic water flow was determined using the total FU count
along with Table II -WATER DEMAND BASED ON FIXTURE UNITS (Page 4-7) of the draft joint
Bry an /College Station Design Manual for Str ee ts and A lleys , Storm Drainage, Dom estic Wat er, and
Sanitary Sew er (revised 1/29/98), and was also determined using a similar Figure Fl02 in the Standard
Building Code. A peak domestic water flow o f 251 gpm was calculated and is indicated both in Mr.
Hicks letter and the CSC letter of December 11 , 2000.
We tru st that this presentation and explanation of the calculations used to determine the peak domestic
water flow meets the City's requirements . Please do not hesitate to contact us should any questions arise
or if additional supporting documentation is nec essary.
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan , Texas 77808
Phone (979) 778-2810
Fax (979) 778-0820
I c
s
c I
Mr. Spencer G . Thompson, Jr.
Page 2
January 18, 2001
CSC appreciates the opportunity to work with the City 's development staff on this project.
let us know if any additional information is required .
Again , please _ ......... ,,,,
--~'C OFT£.\\~
Kindest Regards, A)'r.··*··· ·······"t"1.n."'
.:t' •• ·~-•
l · L ~ _n _' --~ ;'t1:" ···•'1. rn.. 'qi~ ~(Jl.•11•! ~.1 . JI··························... .. M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E. ~ M.F. CONLIN, JR.
Senior Engineer ,. .. :···················· • •
MFC:mf 1t1~". A 44481 "\'<\· -~~,., 'O ··.'T: o.·· _,
Via: Fax and U.S. Mail e,~,(C'~~~ISTt~~.;.:-~~
\"St ...... ·c~v--
\, ONAL «---,,,,, ...
Robert L. Payne & Associates
1509 Emerald Parkway, Suite 104
College Station , TX 77845
Attention: Mr. Robert L. Payne, AIA
Via: Fax and U.S. Mail
Peters Construction Company
2960 Fairview Drive
P.O. Box 99
Owensboro, KY 42302
Attention: Mr. Dennis Bates, Project Manager
Mr. Chris McCarthy
Via: U.S. Mail
2
Swoboda Engineering
7010 Coyote Run
Bryan , TX 77808
Attention: Mr. Matthew Hicks , P.E .
Via: U.S. Mail
~e rn tiy; ; ~/':J /,jJ l'.)UlJ;
January l 8, 2001
Mr. Frederick Conlin
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, TX 77808
Re: Courtyard Marriott Plumbing Load
Mr. Conlin,
t-'age L /".J
Attached is a summary of fixture unit calculations used for the Courtyard Marriot project per
your request. The swnmary details the nun1ber of fixtures used and the load values assigned to
each fixture. I used public installation load values for this building . If the City of College
Station believes we should consider this as a private installatim1, the second column of figures in
the Extended Calculation of Water Supply Fixture Unitli column should be used to determine the
peak load for the building .
Sincerely,
4~µ
Matthew Hicks
D .\W flH'l<:~\Ml -11.0!ll!ll.T tAYNY.\M•rrW.tWrttcr1!04 .wµ<J
O t:l il. oy. ' 'l:J I 'l:J I .J I I ;)U U j .Ja n -l tl Ul 1 U:4 /A \1 j r'age 3 /3
l
TYFE
OF
FIXTURE
WATER
CLOSET
LAV ATORY
BATH
WHIRLPOOL
HATH
WAT ER
CLOSET
LAVATORY
TRJPLF. SINK
PREWASH
SlNK
CA N WASH
DISHWASHER
HAND
LAVATORY
SERVICE SINK
60 LB WASHER
SOLB WASHER
DOMESTlC
WASHER
f----•·· SER VICE SINK
LAUNDRY
SINK
SUMMARY :
SUMMARY OF FIXTURE UNI1' CALCULATIONS
F O R DE Tl:RM.INA TION OF WATER D EMAND
COUR TYARD MARRIOTT AT W OOD C REEK
COLL EGE ~"TATIO N, TEXAS
2 3 4 ~
TYPE NtJMDER OF LOAD VAUIES Pf.~R
Oil FJXTURES TYPE
OCCU J'ANCV su r nY IN PROJEC1' OF FIXTURE IN
CONTR Oi, BUil.Di NG WAH:RSUPrLY
fo'LXTURE UNITS
(P UBLICJPJUVi\TF:)
PUBLJC/ FLUSH 125 J /2.2
P R IVA'l'E TANK
PUBLIC/ -·-·-·· I 25 ......... __ 2/0 .7
PRIVATE -·-..
PUBUC/ 125 4/1.4
PRI VATE -PUBLIC/ 6 4/1.4
PRIVATE
PUBLIC FLUSH 8 I Of-
VALVE ----· PUBLIC 4 21-·----· Kl TC HEN l 4/----Kl TC HEN 1 4/-
... .... , ...
K1 TCHEN I 41-
KlTCf-fEN ·-··-· --10/-1 -Kl TC HEN 5 2/-
KITCHEN I 41-
LALJNURY·-1 3Qi:-. ---LAUNDRY I 30/-____ .. -PUBLIC I 4/-
·-· --· -LAUN ORY 1 4/-
LAUN DRY ~--2i--· l
T OTAL
PUBLIC fNSTALLATION · 1343 FU -25 J GPM PEAK DEMAND
PRTVATEJNSTAU.ATION -740 FU= 161 GPM PEAK DEMAND
6
EXTENDED
CALCULAT10N OF
WA TEA SUPPLY
FIXTU RE UNITS
(PUBLIC/PRJV A TE)
375/2 75
250181 .5
500/175 ,_
24/8.4
80/-
·-8/-
4/-
4/-
·-4/---.... ·-10!-...... -·-101.
4/-
30/--· 30/:--·~-··--
41-
4/---.. ·--2r:·---
1343/740
• c
s c:.
December 11, 2000
Mr. Spencer G. Thompson, Jr., Graduate Civil Engineer
City of College Station
Development Services Department
P .O . Box 9960
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77842
Re: Revised Domestic Water Demand Quantities
Courtyard Marriott at Wood Creek Project
Wood Creek Drive at State Highway 6 in College Station, Texas
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This letter documents changes in the domestic water demands estimated by CSC Engineering &
Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CSC) for the proposed Marriott Courtyard at Wood Creek Development
in College Station, Texas.
In a telephone conversation of December 1, 2000, the project architect, Mr. Robert L. Payne, AIA ofR. L.
Payne & Associates, telephoned to inform us that some of the domestic water flows estimated by CSC for
the above-referenced project should be revised based upon newly developed information. Those water
flows were estimated for both "normal" domestic demand and for irrigation flow . The estimated flows
were presented in tabular form on Sheet C-1 of the site drawings that have already been submitted to the
City of College Station for review .
Basically, the revised estimates in the water demand are required because more extensive design work has
been performed to better define the water demands for the project. For example, at the time that the site
drawings were submitted for review, no detailed design of the irrigation water system had been
performed . Therefore, CSC based the estimate of maximum irrigation water demand on similarly sized
previous projects . A maximum irrigation water demand of 27.8 gallons per minute (gpm) was estimated.
However, as Mr. Payne has infonned us, a more extensive landscape design for the project has since been
unde1iaken. Analyses performed as part of the new design indicated that a larger maximum irrigation
water demand water would be appropriate. The new increased irrigation water demand was determined to
be approximately 75 gpm.
Similarly, the normal domestic water demands should be revised. The norma l domestic water demands
computed by CSC were based upon the land use determination method outlined in the draft joint
Bryan/College Station Design Manual for Streets and Alleys, Storm Drainage, Domestic Water , and
Sanitary Sewer (revised 1/29/98), hereinafter referenced as Joint Design Manual (Method 2 -Land Use
Determination [Page 4-8]). However, as pointed out by Mr. Payne, the mechanical/plumbing engineer for
the project, Mr. Paul M. Swoboda, P.E. of Swoboda Engineering, also calculated the water demand for
the proposed building using the Fixture Count Determination (Method 1 -Fixture Count Determination
of the Joint Design Manual). As you are aware, the Fixture Count Determination method is based upon a
specific count of the plumbing fixtures in a building and should produce a more accurate determination of
water demand than the more general Land Use Method . Mr. Swoboda computed that the maximum
domestic water demand would be 251 gpm, as summarized along with other water demands in tabular
form on drawing P3 .4.
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, Texas 77808
Phone (979) 778-2810
Fax(979)778-0820
c
s
c I
Mr. Spencer G. Thompson, Jr.
Page2
December 11, 2000
Therefore, based upon the previously outlined discussion, we respectfully request that the water demand
tables on Sheet C-1 of the CSC drawings be modified to the following tables.
DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND
Minimum D~ily Flow
gpm
0
IRRIGATION WATER
Average Daily Flow
gpm
3.13
Maximum Daily Flow
gpm
251
Peak Fire Flow
gpm
2,970
Minimum Daily Flow
gpm
Average Daily Flow
gpm
Maximum Daily Flow
gpm
0 32 75
Please do not hesitate to contact us should any questions arise or if we might be able to provide additional
. information .
Kindest Regards,
<trt ~~~·
M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P.E.
Senior Engineer
MFC :mf
Via Hand Delivery
Robert L. Payne & Associates
1509 Emerald Parkway, Suite 104
College Station, TX 77845
Attention : Mr. ~bert L. Payne, AIA
Via: U.S. Mail .·
Peters Construction Company
2960 Fairview Drive
P.O. Box 99
Owensboro, KY 42302
Attention : Mr. Dennis Bates, Project Manager
Mr. Chris McCarthy
Via: U.S . Mail
Swoboda Engineering
7010 Coyote Run
Bryan, TX 77808
Attention: Mr. Paul M. Swoboda, P.E.
Via: U.S. Mail
Fax
To: Mike Gentry
Fax: 979-694-8000
Voice: 979-696-6612
Re: Cost Estimates/ Marriott
D Urgent D For Review
•Comments:
From: Spencer Thompson
Date: 08125100
C of CS Fax : 979-764-3496
Contact Tel : 979-764-3570
Pages: 10
(incl cover)
CC:
D Please Comment D Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
The public infrastructure for which a bond would need to be posted includes the costs associated with
the following :
18" waterline along HWY 6 Frontage
12" waterline along HWY 6 Frontage
12" and 8" waterline loop, onsite
6" sewerline along Woodcreek Drive
Please feel free to call if you have any questions .
Spencer
Spencer G. Thompson, Jr.
Graduate Civil Engineer
City of College Station
Development Services
Engineering
c
s
c
Engineermg & Environmental
Consultants, Inc.
December 23, 1999
Mr. JeffTondre, P .E.
City of College Station
Development Services Department
P .O. Box 9960
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, TX 77842
Re : Engineer's Estimate of Construction Cost for Proposed Public Utilities
(Including Estimate of Oversize Line Construction Costs for City of College Station Participation)
Proposed Marriott Courtyard at Woodcreek Development for Cornerstone Properties
Woodcreek Drive at State Highway 6 in College Station, Texas
Dear Mr. Tondre:
This letter presents the engineer's cost estimates for the construction of the proposed public utilities
associated with the proposed development referenced to herein as Marriott Courtyard at Woodcreek
which is being undertaken by Cornerstone Properties . The proposed development will be located at the
southeast comer of the intersection of Woodcreek Drive and the eastern or northbound access road of
State Highway 6 in College Station, Texas .
Introduction
These cost estimates and related drawings are required as part of the proposed replatting of the property
on which the subject development will be located . Mr. Curtis Strong, R.P .L.S ., of Strong Surveying, Inc .,
has submitted a request for replatting of the property which was previously described as Lot 2, Block One
of the Amending Plat of Cornerstone Commercial Section One. The proposed replatting involves the
division of the original lot into three separate parcels designated as Lot 2-A, 2-B, and 2-C .
The cost estimates are presented both in fulfillment of the City of College Station's (City's) prerequisite
for construction drawing submittal and to document the increased costs associated with the City's
requirement for "oversizing" of the supply water line along the State Highway 6 access road . The
requirement for the 18-inch diameter water line along State Highway 6 was discussed by the City in
project development meetings conducted during November 1999 .
Description of Proposed Public Utilities
An overall illustration of the proposed project development is indicated on Figure C-1 (Attachment A).
As can be seen from a review of Figure C-1, the existing utilities and the proposed new utilities provide
"to and through" utility access to each of the three new lots . Sanitary sewer service is accessible to Lots 2-
A and 2-C from the existing 12-inch diameter sanitary sewer line along the southern boundary of the
property . Sanitary sewer access to Lot 2-B and water service to all three lots will be provided by proposed
new utilities which consist of two major items : (1) a new sanitary sewer line in the northeastern comer of
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan , Texas 77808
Phone(409)778-2810
Fax (409) 778-0820
Mr. Jeff Tondre, P.E.
Page2
December 23, 1999
the proposed development; and (2) a new water line along the Highway 6 access road adjacent to the
western boundary of the property. The new sanitary sewer line will provide service to Lot 2-B, and the
new water line (along with the "private line" which is planned for the central portion of the property) will
provide water service for all three lots .
~ As previously mentioned, the City has required that the proposed water line consist of an 18-inch
diameter ductile iron pipe (DIP). The maximum size of the water line required for the proposed
development of the property was calculated to be 12 inches in diameter. Therefore, we understand that the
City will contribute funds for the construction of the "oversized" portion of this line. This letter presents a
series of cost tables to communicate the necessary costs of the utility project and compute the City's
estimated contribution .
Presentation of Cost Estimates
Cost estimates were developed for construction of the public and "private" utilities expected for the
proposed development . Those cost estimates are presented in tabular form in Attachment A of this letter.
The following cost tables are contained in Attachment A.
Table A. List of Cost Tables Presented in Attachment A
Table
Number
Public Utilities
Description Of Site Feature
For Which Construction Costs Were Developed
1 Construction Costs for Installation of 12 " 0 DIP Water Line Along State Highway 6
Access Road
2 Alternate "Oversized Line" Construction Costs for Installation of 18 " 0 DIP Water Line
Along State Highway 6 Access Road
3 Construction Costs for Installation of 6" 0 PVC Sanitary Sewer Line Along Woodcreek
Drive
"Private" Utilities
4 Construction Costs for Installation of New 8" 0 and 12 " 0 DIP Water Lines From State
Highway 6 Access Road to Loop Around Proposed Hotel Structure
5 Construction of New 6" 0 PVC Sanitary Sewer Line Along Back (East) Side of Proposed
Hotel and Connection to Existing 12" 0 Sanitary Sewer Line
Mr. Jeff Tondre, P .E .
Page 3
December 23, 1999
Discussion of Cost Estimates
As can be seen from a comparison of the costs presented in Tables 1 and 2, the increase in cost between
the 12" 0 DIP water line and the 18" 0 DIP water line is the difference between the construction costs
presented in Tables 1 and 2 .
Table B. Differential Cost Difference Between Required Water Line and "Oversized" Line
Table Description Of Site Feature
Number For Which Construction Costs Were Developed
1 Construction Costs for Installation of 12" 0 DIP Water Line Along
State Highway 6 Access Road
2 Construction Costs for Installation of 18" 0 DIP Water Line Along
State Highway 6 Access Road
Difference In Water Line Construction Costs Subject To
"Oversized" Participation By The City
Construction
Costs
$31,401 .
$54,350
$22,949
We also understand that the total amount of "oversized participation" cannot exceed 30 percent of the
7 overall project utility costs . Therefore, we have computed the additional project utility construction costs
and both the public and private utilities in Tables 3 (public sanitary sewer), 4 (private water line), and 5
(private sanitary sewer), as summarized below .
Table C . Cost of Construction of Project Private and Public Utilities
Table Description Of Site Feature
Number For Which Construction Costs Were Developed
1 Construction Costs for Installation of 12" 0 DIP Water Line
Along State Highway 6 Access Road
3 Construction Costs for Installation of 6" 0 PVC Sanitary Sewer
Line Along Woodcreek Drive
4 Construction Costs for Installation of New 8" 0 and 12" 0 DIP
Water Lines From State Highway 6 Access Road to Loop Around
Proposed Hotel Structure
5 Construction of New 6" 0 PVC Sanitary Sewer Line Along Back
(East) Side of Proposed Hotel and Connection to Existing 12" 0
Sanitary Sewer Line
Summary Of Total Utility Costs For The Project
Construction
Costs
$31,401
$7,000
$50,407
$18,920
$107,728
Mr. JeffTondre, P .E .
Page4
December 23, 1999
Thirty percent (30%) of the total utility costs for the project was computed to be approximately $32,318
(0 .30 x $107,728), which is more than the oversized cost differential of approximately $22,949 .
Therefore, we anticipate that the City will be able to contribute $22,949 as part of the constmction of the
oversized 18" 0 DIP water line .
Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or if we might be able to provide
additional information .
Kindest Regards,
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
in,a.~~<tP·
M . Frederick Conlin, Jr., P .E.
Senior Engineer
MFC :mf
Via Hand Delivery
cc : C . F . Jordan Commercial, L.P .
Attention: Mr. Teddy Peinado, Vice President
Via U.S . Mail
Robert L. Payne & Associates
Attention : Mr. Robert L . Payne, AlA
Via U.S . Mail
W . R Cullen, Jr., P .E .
Senior Engineer
Table 1. Construction Costs for Installation of 12" 0 DIP Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road
Description of
Item
12" Water Line Along State Highway 6
Installation of 12" 0 DIP along
Highway 6 Access Road
18" 0 by 12" 0 Reducer
12" 0 DIP 45° Bend
12" 0 DIP 11 'l'4° Bend
12" 0 by 12" 0 x 12" 0 Tee & Plug
12" 0 DIP Gate Valve
16" 0 Steel Encasement Pipe
Fire Hydrant Assembly
2" Blow-off Riser
Estimated
Quantity
~28LF
EA
EA
/1EA
/1 EA.
Ji EA
/3 6LF
( 1 EA
(l EA
Estimated
Unit Cost
$32/LF
$400/EA
$450/EA
$425/EA
$1,000/EA
$2,000/EA
$30/EA
$2,000/EA
$300/EA
Subtotal
Extended
Cost
$23 ,296
$400
$900
$425
$1,000
$2,000
$1 ,080
$2 ,000
$300
Comment
Assumes only a small portion of the line will require structural
back.fill . Includes tie-in to existing 18 "0 line. Assumes minimal
clearing and grubbing required.
For private water line service.
Includes piping, valves , etc .
$31,401.00 7
Table 2. Construction Costs for Installation of 18" 0 DIP Water Line Along State Highway 6 Access Road
Description of Estimated Estimated Extended
Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost Comment
18" Water Line Alon1:; State Hi1:;hway 6
Installation of new 18" 0 DIP along /728 LF $55/LF $40,040 / Assumes only a small portion of the line will require structural
Highway 6 Access Road backfill. Includes tie-in to existing 18 "0 line . Assumes minimal
clearing and grubbing required
18 " 0 DIP 45° Bend /2EA $800/EA $1 ,600
18" 0 DIP 11 Y-i 0 Bend /1 EA $850/EA $850
l~ I~
12" 0 by )Z' 0 x 12" 0 Tee & Plug 1 EA. $1,800/EA $1 ,800 For private water line service .
18" 0 DIP Gate Valve v'l EA $6,500/EA $6 ,500
24" 0 Steel Encasement Pipe ~6LF $35/LF $1,260
Fire Hydrant Assembly v l EA $2,000/EA $2 ,000 Includes piping, valves , etc .
2" Blow-off Riser /lEA $300/EA $300
Subtotal $54 ,350 /
T ab le 3. Construction Costs for Installation of 6" 0 PVC Sanitary Sewer Line Along Woodcreek Drive
Description of Estimated Estimated Extended Comment
Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost
In stall 140 LF of 6" 0 PVC (ASTM 140LF $25/LF $3,500 Includes cost for clearing and grubbing of bushes and tress .
D-3034) Sanitary Sewer, Non-
Structural Backfill
Ins tall 30 LF of 6" 0 PVC Sanitary 30 LF $30/LF $900
Sewer, Structural Backfill
Installation of new manhole, 6-8 ft 1 EA $1 ,600/EA $1,600
deep
T ie -in of new sewer line to existing 1 EA $1,000/EA $1,000
manhole over existing line
S ubtotal of Sanitary Sewer Portion (North Line) of Development Costs $7 ,000
T a b l e 5. Construction Costs for Installation of New 6" 0 PVC Sanitary Sewer Line Along Back (East) Side of Proposed Hotel and
Connection to Existing 12" 0 Sanitary Sewer Line
Description of Estimated Estimated Extended
Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost Comment
Insta ll 334 LF of 6" 0 PVC SDR-26 334 LF $30/LF $l0,02 cl Assumes mostly structural backfill . Includes cost for clearing and
(ASTM D-3034) Sanitary Sewer grubbing of bushes and tress .
Line, Structural Backfill
Insta llation of new manhole, 4-10 ft 1 EA $1 ,600/EA $1 ,600
deep
In stallation of new drop manhole, 4-1 EA $2 ,000/EA $2 ,000
10 ft deep
Insta llation of new drop manhole, 10-1 EA $3 ,600/EA $3 ,60Q
20 ft deep
Insta llation of cleanout 2EA $350/EA $700
T ie -in of new sewer line to existing 1 EA $1,000/EA $1,000
manhole over existing line
S ub t otal of Sanitary Sewer Portion (North Line) of Development Costs $18,920 I
Table 4. Construction Costs for Installation of New 8" 0 and 12" 0 DIP Water Lines From State Highway 6 Access Road to Loop
Around Proposed Hotel Structure
Description of Estimated Estimated Extended
Item Quantity Unit Cost Cost Comment
Portion of 12" 0 DIP Water Line from 206 LF $32/LF $6 ,592 / Assumes mostly structural backfill. Includes cost for clearing and
State Highway 6 to Beginning of grubbing of bushes and tress .
Loop Around Building
8" 0 DIP Water Line Loop Around 1,180 LF $28/LF $33 ,040 / Assumes mostl y structural backfill . Includes cost for clearing and
Building grubbing of bushes and tress .
12" 0 by 8" 0 by 8" 0 DIP Tee 1 EA $375/EA $375 /
8" 0 DIP 90° Bend 4EA $300/EA $1,200 J
Fire Hydrants 3 EA $2,000/EA $6,000 / Includes piping, valves , etc .
8" 0 DIP Gate Valves 4EA $800/EA I $3,200 t:
Subtotal $50,407 I
Review Date: eJ/-lo-Z~t:>
Reviewer:.,._A"?
Public Water Infrastructure
General
it Overall utility layout sheet -showing easements (platted or by separate instrument) ?
., 0 If instrument easements are needed -do not approve lll;ltil we get them recorded
permits
~
B' ,.,Pipe material
~Pipe sizes (allowable .... 6,8,12,16,18 -note no 10" approved)
'lia Depth (4'+) (min,max)
~Separation distances (I'NRCC)
~/ All utilities in plan & profile w/sizes and type
liY Private vs. Public line distinction
0 Wyes not past property line (so meter can be within ROW/easement) ~ waL ,,.,....,,_L n,,J .:>"".....,..,
?
liJ'° Max # of connections for size waterline (fNRCC)
Pipe deflection (noted as o/o, degrees, radius -with begin/end curve, not atjt ) , ., Al ..4-
Grades -existing and proposed (centerline, right and left) shown in profile
Full TNRCC compliance
~ Conflicts with other utilities shown
Labels on all major items in plan & profile (~ings)
19,... Size/Location sufficient for overall City needs/masterplan i/t..tr.~
Minimiu dead-end lines
~/ Lines located in PUFJROW
~/ Stationing on all fittings and taps
Valves
Valve spacing (500')
ig/ Valves -system isolation
IM"' Valves -at hydrant * 0 Bacldlow preventers/ and check valves uses as necessary (@irrigation/fire sprinkler/pools/hazards)
Blowoffs (FH ok too) @ end of dead end lines
0 Air release valves at all major high points Hfa
Fire Hydrants
Q7 Fire hydrant spacing (Coverage)
? _/Fire hydrant location (relative to curb)
llf' Fire hydrant -detail/type specified
Fire flow calculations provided
Service Lines °' 0 Service lines -materials and size specified from main to meter
0 Services provided to all lots to a point beyond sidewalks on both sides of street
o:\devc _ scr\forms\engr\chldst.doc 3f2S/99 l of 12
Review Date:_--=0 """/_.7''""""'0"---z,_v0 _____ _
Public Water Infrastructure(cont.)
Details
i07Ttandard Details noted or included (referenced as city of CS Standard Details)
D Details for all non-standard items (included/ok) (not on CS Std. detail sheet) ~ All MJ valves and fittings / J oV Thrust blocking _s-.-. ,,:/,.,..,cl-:/ d,I.,, ~ 1.J-7
!#" Easement width adequate
WJ mbedment details (specify option)
ill Trench safety if deeper than S'
'}( D Erosion control notes
The following items are variances to the College Station public waterline standards:
o:\dcve _ scr\fonm\engr\chklst.doc 3fl'5/99 2ofl2
?
'
Public Wastewater Infrastructure
General
/ 0 Overall utility layout sheet -showin easements (platted or by separate instrument) Alo 4 °""'" __) s~
0 If separate instrument easements are needed -do not approve until we get them recorded ~
0 TXDOT permits needed?
1)]1 Sealed and Signed
liJ . Engineers Estimates
Lines
ff" Pipe material
iµ/ Pipe sizes (allowable .... 6,8,10,12,15,18)
Depth (min cover)
0 Depth (excessive)
~ Separation distances (fNRCC)
All utilities in plan & profile w/sizes and type
Private vs. Public line distinction
g / Wyes not past property line
~ Grades -existing and proposed (centerline, right and left) shown in profile
UY' /Flowlines (specified/labeled)
? £Y Full TNRCC compliance
!l( Conflicts with other utilities shown (min. I 'clear I except water -see TNRCC)
Labels on all major items in plan & profile (croWngs)
or' Size/Location sufficient for overall City needs/masterplan
'f 0 Lines located in PUFJROW
Stationing on all manholes and services
Manholes
ffLines end inMH
19"" Manhole spacing (max 500') t-·
Manhole diameter based on depth and line si7.e (4'vs.5' diam.)
0 Manhole covers -"watertight" cover if in floodplain
? 0 Manholes accessible from public ROW/easement -0 Manholes at change of alignment, grade or size
0 Drops through manhole (fNRCC)
Service Lines
0 Service lines -materials and size specified from main to end
0 Services provided to all lots to a point beyond sidewalks on both sides
0 Services ::::_ 6" enter at manholes
o :\dcvc _ scAfonns\cngr\diklst.doc 3/2 S/99 3 ofl2
Review Date: {)J-/()-~
Public Wastewater Infrastructure( cont.)
Details
~tandard Details noted or included (referenced as city of CS Standard Details)
0 Details for all non-standard items (include/ok) (not on CS Std. detail sheet)
~ 0 Easement width ade.quate ~ Embedment details (specify option)
Trench safety if deeper than 5'
X 0 Erosion control notes
The following items are variances to the College Station public wastewater standards:
o:\dcve _ sertonns\engr\chldst.doc J fJ.S /99 4ofl2
c
s
c
£17al!)eer111g & Environmental
Consultants , Inc.
Decemb er 23 , 1999
Mr. Jeff Tondre , P .E .
City of Coll eg e Station
Dev elopm ent Servic es D epartm ent
P.O . Bo x 9960
1101 T exa s Avenu e
Coll eg e Station, TX 7784 2
R e: Transmittal of Documents for Proposed Courtyard Marriott at Woodcree k Proj ect in Conn ection
With Replatting of Lot 2 Block One of the Am ending Plat of Corn erston e Comm ercial Section On e
For Cornerstone Properties
Woodcreek Drive at State Highway 6 in Colleg e Station, Texas
Dear Mr. Tondre:
This letter transmits the items required as part of the replatting request for th e abov e-ref er enc ed proj ect.
The three it ems are as follows :
• Construction drawings for th e propos ed public utilities including plan and profil e shee t s
(Drawings U-1 through U-8)
• Water and Sanitary Se we r D esign Report
• Engin ee rin g estimate of construction costs for th e public utiliti es
Pl eas e do not hesitate to contact us should you have any qu estions or if we might be ab le to provid e
additional information .
Kind est R egards ,
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
tn..'<h~~~·
M. Frederick Conlin, Jr., P .E .
Senior Eng ine er
MFC :rnf
Via Hand D eliv ery
cc : C. F . Jordan Commercial , L.P.
Attention : Mr. T edd y P einado , Vic e President
Via U.S . Mail
Rob ert I:. Payne & Associates
Attention : Mr. Rob ert L. Payn e, AIA
Via U.S . Mail
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan , Texas 77808
W. R . Cullen , Jr ., P .E .
Senior Engin ee r
Phone (409) 778-28 10
Fax (409) 778-0820
RE.\J\E.'J'JE.0._~g: coMPL'~'~
1c J i\l~ 1 .g tOOt}
DESIGN REPORT E,NG\N
c::GE. S1A1\0N cot.t.:~ f:J
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER AND
WATERLINE IMPROVEMENTS
Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek
Cornerstone Development
Woodcreek Drive at State Highway 6
College Station, Texas
Prepared by
CSC Engineering & Environmental Consultants , Inc .
3407 Tabor Road
Bryan, Texas 77808
(409) 778-2810
December 1999
__ , ........ ,,,
--.... €.OF TE \\ _,, i>-!.········ .. ..r.A '
""'<?'·· * ·:"'& • ..t' .. ·· ··.. ., ,.. : ·.*I "*: .. ,. '*' ·~ , ... : .......................... ~~ ~ ... [.~:~:.?.~.~~'.~·.~f' ~.~·. 444a1°""~ .,'?:, •-r.· .. -9, Q.··~ 1 tf-<-i··~~/ST~~~·~~ \ Ss( ...... ~~ -
\\,ONAL --,,,,._.-
I. INTRODUCTION
A. General
This report presents a description of the proposed utilities to be constructed to serve the proposed
Cornerstone Development located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Woodcreek Drive and
the eastern (northbound) access road to State Highway 6 in College Station, Texas . An illustration of the
site is presented on Figure 1 in Attachment A to this report.
This report is being prepared as part of a general request to replat the property on which the
project is located. The existing single lot is proposed to be replatted to three lots, namely Lots 2-A, 2-B ,
and 2-C . The proposed utilities associated with the replat will consist of waterline and sanitary sewer
extensions of existing lines which will provide water and sewer service to all three lots .
This report presents the computations performed to determine the required design size of the
proposed waterline and sanitary sewer to support the proposed development. More specifically, the report
presents the flow rates , pressure, and velocity computations used to size the proposed pressure waterline
and the flow capacity and velocity computations used to size the proposed gravity sanitary sewer. The
report also discusses the criteria used in the design .
B. Project Description
Structures. The proposed development will consist of a hotel and two outlying structures , as
indicated in Figure 1. The function, type, and size of the two outlying structures are not known at the
present time since they will be developed by other parties. However, the two outlying structures will
probably consist of the following: (1) a restaurant and (2) a combination gasoline service station and fast
food restaurant. Current plans call for the hotel to be situated on Lot 2-A , the restaurant on Lot 2-B , and
the combination service station/fast food restaurant on Lot 2-C.
The new hotel planned for Lot 2-A is named the Courtyard Marriott at Woodcreek. The hotel will
be a three-story structure with a first floor "footprint" area of approximatel y 24 ,066 ft2
. The structural
system for the new hotel is expected to consist of a combination of wood frame and wood stud bearing
wall. The new hotel is designed to accommodate approximately 129 people . No specific details
concerning the exact size or the material construction details for the proposed outlying restaurant and the
combination service station/fast food restaurant are known at the present time , but each of the two
facilities is expected to accommodate approximately 92 people .
Utilities. In general , both public and private utilities are planned for the proposed developm ent.
The public utility portion of the proposed project will consist of approximatel y 728 lin ear feet of
csc Design Report -Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Improvement
waterline and 170 linear feet of sanitary sewer line . The waterline will be located along the western
boundaries of the three lots and will provide service to all three lots . Sanitary sewer service is already
available to Lots 2-A and 2-C from an existing 12-inch sanitary sewer which is situated in a public utility
easement along the southern boundaries of both lots . A new sanitary sewer line is proposed along the
northern boundaries of Lots 2-B and 2-A to provide sanitary sewer service to Lot 2-B .
The proposed public water and sewer lines and the planned private water and sewer lines are
discussed in greater detail in the following sections of this report .
11. SANITARY SEWER
A. Public Sewer Line
1. Design Characteristics
The alignment of the proposed sanitary sewer line is shown on Figure 1, and in related full-size
drawings submitted along with this report: Sheet U-1, Site Plan ; and Sheet U-4, the sanitary sewer plan
and profile drawing .
As can be seen from the drawings , the proposed sewer consists of a single length of line along
Woodcreek Drive . More specifically, the proposed sewer consists of one "terminal " manhole in Lot 2-B
immediately southwest of the proposed new entrance drive to the development, with one segment or
"run " of pipe between the terminal manhole and the existing manhole along Woodcreek Drive near the
existing "Engineering Center Building ." The existing manhole to which the new sewer will be connected
has an 8-inch diameter outlet sewer line which flows to the northeast into the Woodcreek Subdivision and
ultimately to the Carter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The proposed sewer line is approximately 170 ft in length . The line has a proposed slope of 0 .5
percent with a corresponding drop of approximately 1 ft in elevation over its length . The sewer has a
burial depth in the order of 7 to 8 ft. The sewer line is proposed to be constructed of 6-inch diameter,
SDR-26 , PVC pipe which meets the requirements of ASTM D3034 . The proposed new manhole has a
diameter of 4 ft with a depth of approximately 7 .38 ft.
All construction shall meet the current City of College Station 's Standard Specifications for
Sewer Construction .
2. Design Flow
As previousl y stated , the proposed sewer lin e is a terminal line and therefore is planned to servic e
onl y Lot 2-B of th e site . However , it is possible that future development will occur on th e property across
Woodcreek Drive from Lot 2-B .
2
csc Design Report -Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Improvement
Design peak flows were calculated for the anticipated short-term development of Lot 2-B since
only that area will be serviced by the proposed sanitary sewer line on the southern side of Woodcreek
Drive and for the future development of the single lot across Woodcreek Drive , opposite of Lot 2-B . The
determination of the design peak flows are as follows .
a. Lot 2-B Development (Restaurant)
The peak design flow for Lot 2-B was determined by the Land Use Determination Method
presented in the Draft Uniform Design Manual for the Cities of College Station and Bryan (hereinafter
referenced as Draft Design Manual). The maximum estimated occupancy of the restaurant is 92 people .
The average daily flow per capita is not specifically listed for a restaurant, so the value of 150 gallons per
day per capita (gpd/cap) listed for "Hotel/Motel " was used (Table III , page 5-8 of Draft Design Manual).
The calculation for the peak flow for the lot is as follows :
We know from the Draft Design Manual that ...
Adjusted Dail y Flow= Av erage Dail y Flow * 1.5
and that ...
Peak Hourly Flow= Adj . Dail y Flow* 3 .0
or substituting for Adjusted Dail y Flow yields ...
Peak Hourly Flow= Averag e Dail y Flow* 1.5 * 3.0
Substituting the assumed population for the restaurant and th e average dail y flow per capita det erm in ed
from th e referenc ed Table III yields ...
Peak Flow= 92 people* 150gpd/cap*1.5 * 3.0
= 62 ,100 gpd
considering infiltration ...
Peak Flow with infiltration= 62,100 gpd + 5% Infiltration of 62 ,100 gpd (or 3,105 gpd)
= 65 ,205 gpd
converting the flo w to cubic feet per second ...
Peak Flow with inflation= 65,205 gpd , or* 1 day/ 24 hrs* l hour/60 min/hr
= 45 gallons per minute (gpm), or* 0 .1337 cubic foot/I gallon *
l minute/60 seconds
= 0 .10 cfs
3
csc Design Report -Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Improvement
b. Future Development of Lot Across Woodcreek Drive
The peak design flow for the future development area was assumed to be the same as for Lot 2-B .
c. Total Design Flow for New Sewer Line
Therefore, the peak flow to be accommodated by the new sewer lines was determined by
doubling the computed flow for Lot 2-B as indicated below:
Total Peak Flow= Peak flow for Lot 2-B * 2
=0.10cfs*2
= 0 .20 cfs
3. Pipe Size and Velocity Determinations
The size of pipe required to carry the design flow of 0 .20 cfs (-90 gpm) was determined from a
nomographic solution of the Manning Equation:
Q =AV= (1.49/n) (R213 * Si n)
Where
Q =flow capacity of pipe in cubic feet per second (cfs)
A = area of pipe in square feet (fi:2)
V =velocity in feet per second (fps)
n = roughness factor, feet 116
R = hydraulic radius, feet
S =slope, dimensionless (feet/feet)
Based upon the nomographic solution, a pipe size of between 4 inches diameter and 6 inches
diameter would be required to handle the design flow . Therefore, a line size of 6 inches was chosen for
the sewer. The capacity of the 6-inch diameter line is approximately 0.4 cfs . Therefore, the maximum
design flow is only approximately 50 percent of the maximum capacity of the proposed line .
The flow velocities were also determined for the 6-inch diameter sewer line under three different
flow conditions : maximum possible flow or capacity flow ; 50 percent of maximum flow ; and 80 percent
of maximum flow . Using the Manning Equation and solving for the flow velocities :
V = (1.49/n) (R213 * S 1n )
Where all of the terms are as previously defined .
Substituting the assumed n value of 0 .013 , the known values of R for the different design conditions, and
the slope of 0 .5 percent from the drawings , yields the velocity values presented in Table 1.
4
csc Design Report -Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Improvement
Table 1. Calculation of Flow Velocities in Sewer Line Segments
Maximum Design Velocity at ...
Sewer Slope Flow Peak Flow as% Maximum 50% of Full 80% of Full
Segment Pipe of Capacity Design of Max. Flow Flow, Flow,
Number Diameter Pipe of Pipe Flow Flow Cap. (Full) Minimum Maximum
Number Inches Percent Cf s cfs Percent fps fps fps
1 6" 0.5 0.40 0 .20 50% 2 .0 2.0 2.3
Note:
Line 1 is from proposed new MH # 1 to the existing line/manhole.
As illustrated in Table 1, the minimum and maximum anticipated flow velocities for the proposed
sewer lines are within acceptable limits of 2.0 fps for minimum velocity and 10 .0 fps for maximum
velocity .
B. Private Sewer Line
The private sewer line will be located on the eastern side of the proposed hotel structure as
depicted on Figure 1. The sewer will also consist of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe and will tie-in to the
existing 12-inch diameter sanitary sewer line situated in the existing utility easement along the southern
boundary of Lots 2-A and 2-C. Calculations for the private sewer line are not included in this report .
C. Conclusions
Based on our computations and the stated design criteria, the proposed public sewer line will
provide sufficient capacity for the anticipated wastewater flows generated by developm ent on Lot 2-B and
the future development of the lot across Woodcreek Drive .
III. WATERLINE
A. Design Char.acteristics for Public and Private Waterlines
The configuration and alignment of the proposed public and "private" waterlines associated with
the development are shown on the Proposed Utility Plan , Figure 1 of this report . The related plan and
profile drawings , Sheets U-2 and U-3, also show more detai led information concerning the public
waterlines.
The public waterline will consist of the extension of the existing 18-inch diameter ductile iron
pipe waterline , the end of which is currently situated on the south side of Woodcreek Drive, immediatel y
east of the intersection with the State Highway 6 Access Road. This public waterline will be extended a
distanc e of approximatel y 728 ft in a southward direction to within 2 ft inside of the southern boundary of
the subject property . The proposed waterline will be located within a proposed new 20-ft wide utility
5
cs c
d W ate rline Improv ement d s · tary Sew e r an D esign Report -Propose aru
· . ll th alignment of the . ro erty More spec1fica y , e
th tern boundary of the subj ec t P P · d ill b e approximat e ly 5 ft ~ement along . e ~es rallel to the western boundary of the prop erty an . w e 1ocaccd ,..,. tl • P ihh
proposed waterline win be pa d A ew flr o hydrant ~1\1 o ~~ t\
in s id e " or to the east of the western property boun ary . n . \\\ . ~\\\ ~
line near the proposed roadway entrance to the new hotel. The propose<\ wa\! ~\me ~
protection and domestic water as well as landscape irrigation water service for the three replatted lots .
A "private" waterline to service the proposed hotel will "tee-off'' of the public waterline . A gate
valve will be located immediately "downstream" of the tee connection to pe rmit future extension of tht" -----
public lrne without disruption of water service to the hotel. The "private" waterline will be located in ... --~~;;:J=~
proposed 20-ft wide utility easement on Lot 2-A which will loop around the proposed hote l building.
Three fire hydrants will be situated on the loop to provide fire protection for the proposed structure .
The waterlines are proposed to be constructed of ductile iron pip e (DIP). The 18-inch diamet er
public waterline will consist of Pressure Class 250 DIP pipe and the 8-inch to 12-inch private DIP lines
will consist of Pressure Class 350 DIP . All pipe shall meet the requirements of current AWWA Cl51
(ANSI A21.5 l) standards . As previously stated, the public waterline will b e 18 inches in diameter since it
is a continuation of the existing public waterline of the same size . The private waterline s ervicing th e
hotel will consist of both 8-inch diameter pipe and 12-inch diameter pipe . The sections of pipe from the
main line s to the fire hydrants will be constructed of 6-inch diameter pipe .
The public waterline wi ll be constructed w ith a minimum of 5 ft of cover and the smaller private
waterlines will have a minimum of 4 ft of cover. The trenches will be backfilled with compacte d soils in
all landscaped areas not proposed for deve lopment and with cement stabilize d mate rial or compacted
native soils with a chemically stabilized subgrade laye r in areas of roadway crossing s . All construction
shall m eet the current edition of the Standard Sp ecifications for Water and Sanitary Se wer Con s tru ction
of the City of College Station Engineering Department (April 1985).
B. Design Flow Determination for Proposed Public Line
The planned uses of water for the propose d three-story hotel project include domestic water for
the building, fire suppression sy stem water for the building, irrigation water for landscap e areas, and fir e
hydrant water for fires which cannot b e handled by the fire suppression system within th e building .
1. Domestic Wat er Us e
The peak de sign flow for domestic water us e for the planned hotel was calculate d based upon th e
Land Us e Determination method outlined on page 4-8 of th e Draft Design Manual . Table III of th e Draft
Des ig n M anual contains th e normal flow demand pe r capita to be exp ecte d for a vari et y of land uses ,
including hote ls . The a ve rage water demand in Table III for "Hotel/Mote l" is liste d as 15 0 g pd/cap. Sinc e,
a s prev iousl y stated, approximate ly 129 peopl e a re exp ected for th e hote l, th e a ve rage wat er dema nd
6
csc Design Report -Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Improvement
would be 19,350 gallons per day ( = 129 people * 150 gpd/cap), or approximately 13.4 gpm (= 19 ,350
gpd * 1 day/24 hours * 1 hour/60 minutes). Also as previously stated, the Peak Hourly Flow= Average
Daily Flow* 1.5 * 3 .0, or Average Daily Flow* 4 .5 . The Peak Hourly Flow would thus be 13.44 gpm *
4 .5 = 60 gpm.
2. Irrigation Water Use
Irrigation flow demands are not known at the present time , but are expected to be relatively small
and can be considered to be included in the domestic water flows .
3. Fire Flows
The fire flows were analyzed for the proposed buildings at the site . Although specific details were
not known for the two restaurant-type buildings , they are expected to be single-story structures with a
significantly smaller floor area than the large three-story hotel structure with a first floor area of
approximately 24 ,000 ft:2 . Therefore, the fire demand for the hotel structure is expected to be the largest
flow required for the development and will determine the size of the public line and the private line for
the hotel. Consequently, the following discussion for the fire flows relates to the proposed hotel structure .
The peak design flow for the automatic fire suppression system which is anticipated for the hotel
structure will be specifically determined by the fire sprinkler designer, but the flow is estimated to be in
the order of 500 gpm .
The fire hydrant flows for fully involved building fires were determined by the Insurance Service
Office formula for the three-story , wood frame building . This flow was determined to be 2,970 gpm . The
calculatioll'of this flow is presented in Attachment B .
Consequently, for purposes of design of the public water system, as well as the piping network to
and around the proposed hotel for the private water system , a maximum design flow equal to the
computed fire flow of 2,970 gpm was selected .
C. Pipe System Flow Characteristics
As permitted by the Draft Design Manual , a water distribution computer model was utilized to
determine the pressure and flow requirements for the proposed waterline improvements . The computer
model utilized is the WaterCAD Pressure Network Analysis Software developed by Haestad Methods
(hereinafter Water CAD).
The system modeled in WaterCAD conforms to the previous assumed configurations which are
outlined in the previously referenced Figure 1 in Attachment A. Figure 1 depicts the public and private
water distribution system which consists of an 18-inch diameter pipe along State Highway 6 , a 12-inch
diam eter pipe suppl y line which "tees-off ' from the 18-inch diameter waterline along State Highway 6,
7
csc Design Report-Proposed Sanitary Sewer and Waterline Improvement
with the 12-inch diameter supply line joining an 8-inch diameter looped pipe system located around the
hotel structure for fire protection.
The model was run assuming that at the point of the extension of the existing 18-inch diameter
waterline near Woodcreek Drive and State Highway 6 access road , there would be sufficient water flow
and pressure available for the fire demands at the project site . A water pressure of 60 pounds per square
inch (psi) was assumed to be "normal" in the existing water system at the point of connection. This
"supply " pressure was simulated as a reservoir in the model, as recommended by the creators of the
model. The pipe network modeling of the new waterlines was performed to determine flows , velocities ,
and residual pressures which could be expected for the design fire flow at various locations in the
proposed pipe system . The fire flow used in the analysis was the 2,970 gpm value calculated as
previously described . It was assumed that the required fire flow could be divided at any pairing of two
adjacent fire hydrants as provided for in Section 4 .2.2 .3 .2 Design Criteria (page 4-10) of the Draft Design
Manual . The fire flow was assumed to be present for a three-hour period, and the model was run using an
extended period analysis. Other system evaluation criteria were a minimum 20 psi residual pressure at the
hydrant locations and a maximum velocity of 12 fps during fue flow conditions .
The results of the system analyses using WaterCAD are presented in Attachment C. Presented
first in Attachment Care the four pages of the "Analysis Result Report (ARR)." The ARR indicates some
of the basic input information, such as the number of pipes and nodes in the network and the demand
flows . The ARR also indicates the basic output information, such as flows , pressures , and velocities in
various pipe segments. Following the ARR are pipe, junction, and reservoir reports which indicate more
detailed input values for these network elements .
An examination of the results indicates that the flows , pressures , and velocities for the proposed
network under full fire flow conditions are all within the previously discussed design criteria values. The
required fire flows can be routed to two adjacent hydrants . The residual pressures at these hydrants are in
the range of 4 7 .51 psi to 49. 07 psi, well above the accepted minimum of 20 psi or the desired pressure of
30 psi . The velocities in all pipes are below the 12 fps maximum , although the flows for the two pipes
leading the first hy drant (pipes P-3 and P-4) are at 11.91 fps . All other pipes exhibited velocities less than
10 fps .
D. Conclusions
Based upon the previously discussed analysis and design criteria, we beli eve that the proposed
waterline will function adequately for the proposed use of the project.
8
ATTACHMENT A
Figures
ATTACHMENTB
Fire Flow Calculations
DETERMINATION OF FIRE FLOWS
PROPOSED MARRIOTT COURTYARD PROJECT
(INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE [ISO] FORMULA)
"
I. General Equation for Determination of Basic Fire Flow
Fire Flow = F = 18 * C * *A in gallons per minute (gpm)
Where
C = Coefficient related to the type of construction, with typical values of ...
/1.5 for wood frame construction
1. 0 for ordinary construction
0.9 for heavy timber construction
0 .8 for noncombustible construction
0.6 for fire-resistive building
Since the proposed building will be wood frame , use a C = 1.5.
A= Total floor area of building in square feet (ft2)
The proposed building will be a footprint area of approximately 20 ,000 ft2
, so that the total area
of all three floors will be 3 * 24 ,066 ft2 = 72 ,198 ft2 /
Substituting the known values into the general equation yields ...
F "." 18 * 1.5 * *72,198 ft:2
or "'?
I
F = 7 ,255 gpm ~
Or rounding up or down in increments of250 gpm as recommended yields ...
F =7,250 gpm
II. Reductions or Increases In Fire Flow Based Upon Building Occupancy and Automatic
Sprinkler Protection
The ISO allows for either a reduction or an increase of the required building fire flow based upon the
following factors :
(1) The fire flow may be reduced by 25% for occupancies having a low fire hazard or may be
increased by up to 25% for occupancies having a high fire hazard.
/
The building will be used as a hotel and therefore qualifies for a low fir e hazard reduction (Sidney 0 .
Dweberry . 1996 . Land Planning Handbook. McGraw-Hill Company ; New York, N .Y. pg . 466).
F (with occupancy factor)= 7 ,250 gpm -25% of7,250 gpm = 7,250 gpm -1,812 .5 gpm
F (with occupancy factor)= 5,438 gpm
(2) The fire flow may be reduced by up to 50% for complete automatic sprinkler protection
throughout the building .
The building is expected to have an automatic sprinkler protection system and would qualify for an
additional reduction :
F (with automatic sprinkler)= F(with occupancy factor) -50% ofF(with occupancy factor)
F (with automatic sprinkler)= 5,438 gpm -50% of 5.438 gpm = 5,438 gpm-2,719 gpm
F (with automatic sprinkler)= 2,719 gpm '
Thus , rounding down to the nearest 100 gpm, the Reduced F (F(reduced)) = 2,700 gpm
III. Exposure Protection Value
The valu e of fire flow after any reduction or increase should have an exposure protection value added to
it. The percentag e for any one side should not exceed the following limits for the indicated separations
from adjacent structures , other features , or prop erty boundaries .
Segaration Distance Percentage
OtolOft 25%
l l to 30 ft 20 %
3 1 to 60 ft 15 %
6 1 to 100 ft 10 %
101 to 150 ft 5%
The total percentage shall b e th e sum of th e perc entages of all four sides , but shall not exc eed 75 %.
Application of exposure valu e rul e:
North side of building -160 ft to existing building in lot to the northeast -0 %
East sid e of building -80 ft to prop erty lin e -10 %
South sid e of building -Av erage distance to prop erty lin es is 150 ft -0%
W est side of building -360 ft to public street-0%
Total Ex posure Protection -0% + 10 % + 0% + 0% = 10 %
F adjusted for Ex po s ure Protection ...
Final F = F(reduced) + (Total Exposure Protection Factor * F(reduc ed))
F inal F = 2,700 gpm + (10 % * 2,700 gpm)
F ina l F = 2, 700 gpm + 270 gpm
F inal F = 2,970 gpm /
ATTACHMENTC
Pipe Network Computer Analysis Results
PIPE NETWORK SCHEMATIC MARRIOTT HOTEL PROJECT
P -9
8"¢-32'
. R 1
J -7 P-7 J-6 p 6 ~8;"¢~15~9'~-ir----~~--J-5
8"¢-160'
CD 0
l{)
I N
Q_ I
:"S
CX)
J-8 Ogpm
P-10
J-9 8"¢-148'
P -1
18"¢-327'
1485gpm
L[) f"..
N I N
Q_ I
:"S
CX)
1485gpm
J-4
P-3 P-4
8"¢-32' J-2 8"¢-172' J-3
J-1
c
s
c
PROJECT: MARRIOTT HOT EL
LOCATION: COLLEGE _STATION TX
DRAWN BY: AKS SCALE: 1 : 1 00
DATE : 12-23-99 FIGURE:
Analysis Results
Extended Period Analysis
Project Title :
Project Engineer:
Project Date:
Comments:
Marriott
William R. Cullen
12123199
Hydraulic Analysis Summary
Analysis Extended Period
Friction Method Hazen-Williams Formula
Trials 40
Hydraulic Time Step 1.00
Liquid Characteristics
Liquid Water at 20C(68F)
Kinematic Viscosity 0.108e-4
Network Inventory
Demand Scenario
Accuracy
Start Time
hr Duration
Specific Gravity
ft2/s
Number of Pipes 10 Number of Reservoirs
Number of Junctions 9 Number of Tanks
Number of Pumps 0 Number of Valves
-Constant Power: 0 -FCV's:
-One Point (Design Point): 0 -PBV's:
-Standard (3 Point): 0 -PRV's:
-Standard Extended : 0 -PSV's:
-Custom Extended : 0 -TCV's:
Junctions @ 0.00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Pressure Demand Pressure
(mgll) Grade (psi) (gpm) Head
(ft) (ft)
J-1 0 .0 438.46 60.24 0 .00 139.31
J-2 0 .0 434 .52 53 .06 0 .00 122.69
J-3 0 .0 424 .56 50 .00 0 .00 115.63
J-4 0 .0 422.70 49.07 1 ,485 .00 113.47
J-5 0 .0 422 .00 48 .07 0 .00 111 .17
J-6 0 .0 421 .51 47 .51 1 ,485 .00 109.88
J-7 0 .0 425 .02 49 .21 0 .00 113.79
J-8 0 .0 430 .55 50 .64 0.00 117.12
J-9 0 .0 431 .25 50 .95 0 .00 117.82
Reservoirs @ 0.00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Reservoir Reservoir
(mg/I) Grade Inflow Outflow
(ft) (gpm) (gpm)
R-1 0 .0 440 .00 NIA 2 ,970 .00
Pipes @ 0.00 hr
Label Status Constituent
(mg/I)
Flow
(gpm)
Velocity From To Friction
P-1
P-2
Open
Open
0 .0 2 ,970 .00
0 .0 2 ,970 .00
(ftls) Grade
(ft)
4 .74 440 .00
8 .43 438 .46
Grade Loss
(ft) (ft)
438.46 1 .54
434.52 3 .94
Minor
Loss
(ft)
0 .00
0 .00
Default-Peak Hour
0 .001000
Total Headless
Headloss Gradient
(ft) (ftl1 OOOft)
1 .54
3 .94
4 .71
19.12
0 .00 hr
3 .00 hr
1 .00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Project Engineer: William R. Cullen
WaterCAD v1 .0 [034)
Pag e 1 of 4
Analysis Results
Extended Period Analysis
Pipes @ 0.00 hr
Label Status Constituent Flow Velocity From To Friction Minor Total
(mg/I) (gpm) (ft/s) Grade Grade Loss Loss Headloss
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-3 Open 0 .0 1 ,865.38 11 .91 434.52 424.56 9 .96 0 .00 9 .96
P-4 Open 0 .0 1 ,865 .38 11 .91 424 .56 422.70 1 .86 0 .00 1 .86
P-5 Open 0 .0 380 .38 2.43 422 .70 422.00 0 .70 0 .00 0 .70
P-6 Open 0 .0 380 .38 2 .43 422 .00 421 .51 0.49 0 .00 0 .49
P-7 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 421.51 425 .02 3 .51 0 .00 3 .51
P-8 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 425.02 430.55 5 .52 0 .00 5 .52
P-9 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7.05 430.55 431.25 0.71 0 .00 0 .71
P-10 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 431 .25 434.52 3.27 0 .00 3 .27
Junctions @ 1.00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Pressure Demand Pressure
(mg/I ) Grade (psi) (gpm) Head
(ft) (ft)
J-1 0 .0 438.46 60 .24 0 .00 139.31
J-2 0 .0 434 .52 53 .06 0 .00 122.69
J-3 0 .0 424.56 50 .00 0 .00 115.63
J-4 0 .0 422.70 49 .07 1 ,485 .00 113.47
J-5 0 .0 422.00 48 .07 0 .00 111 .17
J-6 0 .0 421 .51 47 .51 1 ,485 .00 109.88
J-7 0 .0 425 .02 49.21 0 .00 113.79
J-8 0 .0 430.55 50 .64 0 .00 117.12
J-9 0 .0 431 .25 50 .95 0 .00 117.82
Reservoirs @ 1 .00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Reservoir Reservoir
(mg/I) Grade Inflow Outflow
(ft) (gpm) (gpm)
R-1 0 .0 440 .00 N/A 2 ,970 .00
Pipes @ 1.00 hr
Label Status Constituent Flow Velocity From To Friction Minor Total
(mg/I) (gpm) (ft/s) Grade Grade Loss Loss Headloss
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 Open 0 .0 2 ,970 .00 4 .74 440.00 438.46 1 .54 0 .00 1.54
P-2 Open 0 .0 2 ,970 .00 8 .43 438.46 434 .52 3 .94 0 .00 3 .94
P-3 Open 0 .0 1 ,865 .38 11 .91 434.52 424 .56 9 .96 0 .00 9 .96
P-4 Open 0 .0 1 ,865.38 11 .91 424 .56 422.70 1 .86 0 .00 1 .86
P-5 Open 0 .0 380 .38 2.43 422 .70 422.00 0 .70 0 .00 0 .70
P-6 Open 0 .0 380 .38 2.43 422.00 421 .51 0 .49 0 .00 0 .49
P-7 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7.05 421 .51 425.02 3 .51 0 .00 3 .51
P-8 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 425.02 430 .55 5 .52 0 .00 5.52
P-9 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 430.55 431 .25 0 .71 0 .00 0 .71
P-10 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 431 .25 434 .52 3 .27 0 .00 3.27
Proj e ct Title : M <>r •!ott
Headloss
Gradient
(ft/1 OOOft)
58 .25
58.25
3 .07
3 .07
22.10
22.10
22.10
22 .10
Headloss
Gradient
(ft/1 OOOft)
4 .71
19.12
58 .25
. 58.25
3 .07
3 .07
22.10
22.10
22.10
22.10
Project Engineer : William R. Cullen
WaterCAD v1 .0 (034]
P a g e 2 of 4
Analysis Results
Extended Period Analysis
Junctions @ 2.00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Pressure Demand Pressure
(mg/I) Grade (psi) (gpm) Head
(ft) (ft)
J-1 0 .0 438 .46 60.24 0 .00 139.31
J-2 0 .0 434.52 53 .06 0 .00 122.69
J-3 0 .0 424.56 50 .00 0 .00 115.63
J-4 0 .0 422.70 49 .07 1,485.00 113.47
J-5 0 .0 422.00 48 .07 0 .00 111 .17
J-0 0 .0 421 .51 47 .51 1 ,485 .00 109.88
J-7 0 .0 425.02 49 .21 0 .00 113.79
J-8 0 .0 430.55 50 .64 0 .00 117.12
J-9 0 .0 431.25 50.95 0 .00 117.82
Reservoirs @ 2.00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Reservoir Reservoir
(mg/I) Grade Inflow Outflow
(ft) (gpm) (gpm)
R-1 0 .0 440 .00 N/A 2 ,970 .00
Pipes @ 2.00 hr
Label Status Constituent Flow Velocity From To Friction Minor Total
(mg/I) (gpm) (ft/s) Grade Grade Loss Loss Headloss
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 Open 0 .0 2 ,970 .00 4 .74 440 .00 438.46 1.54 0 .00 1 .54
P-2 Open 0 .0 2 ,970 .00 8 .43 438 .46 434 .52 3 .94 0 .00 3 .94
P-3 Open 0 .0 1 ,865 .38 11 .91 434 .52 424.56 9 .96 0 .00 9 .96
P-4 Open 0 .0 1 ,865.38 11 .91 424 .56 422.70 1 .86 0 .00 1 .86
P-5 Open 0 .0 380 .38 2.43 422 .70 422 .00 0 .70 0 .00 0 .70
P-0 Open 0 .0 380.38 2 .43 422.00 421 .51 0 .49 0 .00 0.49
P-7 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 421 .51 425.02 3 .51 0 .00 3 .51
P-8 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 425.02 430 .55 5 .52 0 .00 5 .52
P-9 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 430.55 431.25 0 .71 0.00 0 .71
P-10 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7 .05 431 .25 434 .52 3 .27 0 .00 3 .27
Junctions @ 3.00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Pressure Demand Pressure
(mg/l) Grade (psi) (gpm) Head
(ft) (ft)
J-1 0 .0 438.46 60 .24 0 .00 139.31
J-2 0 .0 434 .52 53 .06 0 .00 122.69
J-3 0 .0 424 .56 50 .00 0 .00 115.63
J-4 0.0 422.70 49 .07 1 ,485 .00 113.47
J-5 0 .0 422.00 48 .07 0 .00 111 .17
J-0 0 .0 421 .51 47 .51 1 ,485 .00 109.88
J-7 0 .0 425 .02 49 .21 0 .00 113.79
J-8 0 .0 430 .55 50 .64 0 .00 117.12
J-9 0 .0 431 .25 50 .95 0 .00 117.82
Prniect Title : Marriott
Headloss
Gradient
(ft/1 OOOft)
4 .71
19.12
58 .25
58 .25
3 .07
3 .07
22.10
22.10
22.10
22.10
Project Engineer: William R . Culle n
WaterCAD v1 .0 (034)
Pag e 3 of 4
Analysis Results
Extended Period Analysis
Reservoirs @ 3.00 hr
Label Constituent Hydraulic Reservoir Reservoir
(mg/I) Grade Inflow Outflow
(ft) (gpm) (gpm)
R-1 0 .0 440.00 NIA 2 ,970.00
Pipes @ 3.00 hr
Label Status Constituent Flow Velocity From To Friction Minor Total
(mg/I) (gpm) (ft/s) Grade Grade Loss Loss Headless
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
P-1 Open 0 .0 2 ,970 .00 4 .74 440.00 438.46 1 .54 0 .00 1.54
P-2 Open 0 .0 2,970 .00 8 .43 438.46 434.52 3 .94 0 .00 3 .94
P-3 Open 0.0 1 ,865 .38 11 .91 434.52 424.56 9.96 0 .00 9 .96
P-4 Open 0 .0 1,865.38 11 .91 424.56 422.70 1.86 0 .00 1.86
P-5 Open 0 .0 380 .38 2 .43 422.70 422 .00 0 .70 0 .00 0 .70
P-6 Open 0 .0 380.38 2 .43 422 .00 421 .51 0.49 0 .00 0 .49
P-7 Open 0 .0 -1 ,104.62 7.05 421 .51 425.02 3 .51 0 .00 3 .51
P-8 Open 0 .0 -1,104.62 7 .05 425 .02 430.55 5 .52 0 .00 5 .52
P-9 Open 0 .0 -1,104.62 7.05 430 .55 431 .25 0 .71 0 .00 0 .71
P-10 Open 0 .0 -1 , 104.62 7 .05 431.25 434.52 3.27 0 .00 3.27
Project Title : Marriott
Headless
Gradient
(ft/1 OOOft)
4 .71
19.12
58.25
58.25
3 .07
3.07
22.10
22 .10
22.10
22.10
P roject Engineer: William R . Cullen
WaterCAD v1 .0 (034)
Page 4 of 4
Link Length D iameter Material
Label (ft) (in)
P -1 327.00 16 Ductile Iron
P -2 206 .00 12 Ductile Iron
P -3 171 .00 8 Ductile Iron
P-4 32.00 8 Ductile Iron
P-5 227.00 8 Ductile Iron
P-6 160.00 8 Ductile Iron
·p _7 159.00 8 Ductile Iron
P -8 250.00 8 Ductile Iron
P -9 32.00 8 Ductile Iron
P -10 148.00 8 Ductile Iron
Extended Period Analysis: 0.0 hr I 3.0 hr
Pipe Report
Roughness Minor Loss Initial Current Discharge Start
Status Status (gpm) Hydraulic
Grade
(ft)
130.0 0.00 Open Open 2 ,970 .00 440 .00
130.0 0 .00 Open Open 2,970 .00 438.46
130.0 0 .00 Open Open 1 ,865 .38 434 .52
130.0 0 .00 Open Open 1 ,865.38 424.56
130.0 0 .00 Open Open 380.38 422.70
130.0 0 .00 Open Open 380.38 422.00
130.0 0 .00 Open Open -1 ,104.62 421 .51
130.0 0 .00 Open Open -1 ,104.62 425.02
130.0 0 .00 Open Open -1,104 .62 430.55
130.0 0 .00 Open Open -1,104.62 431 .25
End Headloss Friction
Hydraulic (ft) Slope
Grade (ft/1 OOOft)
(ft)
438.46 1 .54 4 .71
434.52 3 .94 19.12
424.56 9 .96 58.25
422.70 1 .86 58.25
422.00 0 .70 3 .07
421 .51 0 .49 3 .07
425.02 3 .51 22.10
430.55 5 .52 22.10
431.25 0 .71 22.10
434.52 3 .27 22.10
P r oj ect E n ginee r : William R. Cullen
Wate rCAD v 1 .0 [034)
Page 1 of 1
Node Elevation Demand Demand
Label (ft) Type (gpm)
J -1 299.15 Demand 0 .00
J -2 311.83 Demand 0 .00
J-3 308.93 Demand 0 .00
J-4 309.23 Demand 1 ,485.00
J -5 310.83 Demand 0.00
J-6 311 .63 Demand 1 ,485.00
J-7 311 .23 Demand 0 .00
J-8 313.43 Demand 0 .00
J-9 313.43 Demand 0 .00
Extended Period Analysis: 0.0 hr I 3.0 hr
Junction Report
Demand Calculated Hydraulic Pressure
Pattern Demand Grade (psi)
(gpm) (ft)
Fixed 0 .00 438.46 60 .24
Fixed 0 .00 434.52 53 .06
Fixed 0.00 424.56 50.00
Fixed 1 ,485.00 422.70 49.07
Fixed 0 .00 422.00 48.07
Fixed 1 ,485.00 421 .51 47.51
Fixed 0 .00 425.02 49.21
Fixed 0 .00 430.55 50.64
Fixed 0 .00 431.25 50 .95
Project Engineer: William R . Cullen
WaterCAD v1 .0 (034]
Page 1 of 1
Node Reservoir
Label Surface
Elevation
(ft)
R-1 440.00
Reservoir
Inflow
(gpm)
-2 ,970 .00
Extended Period Analysis: 0.0 hr I 3.0 hr
Reservoir Report
Hydraulic
Grade
(ft)
440.00
P roje ct Engin e er: William R . Culle n
Wate rCAD v1 .0 (034)
Page 1 of 1
HYDRAULI C STATIJ S :
Hy drauli c s tatu s at 0 .00 hr
Balanced
Flow Supplied
Flow Demanded
Flow Stored
R-1
Trial s = 3, Accuracy = 0.000141
2,970.00 gpm
2 ,970 .00 gpm
0.00 gpm
Re senroir : Emptying
Hydraulic s tatus at 1 .00 hr
Balanced
Flow Supplied
Flow Demanded
Flow Stored
R-1
Trials = 1, Accuracy = 0 .0
2 ,970 .00 gpm
2 ,970 .00 gpm
0 .00 gpm
Reservoir: Emptying
Hydraulic status at 2 .00 hr
Balanced Trials = L Accuracy = 0 .0
Flow Supplied 2 ,970 .00 gpm
Flow Demanded 2 ,970 .00 gpm
Flow Stored 0.00 gpm
R-1 Resenroir: Empty ing
Hydraulic status at 3.00 hr
Balanced
Flow Supplied
Flow Demanded
Flow S tored
R-1
Trials = 1, Accuracy = 0.0
2 ,970.00 gpm
2 ,9 70 .00 gpm
0 .00 gpm
Re s enroir: Empty in g
Proj ect Eng in ee r : William R. Cullen
Wate rCAD v1 .0 [034]
Pag e 1 o f 1
OPEN GRADED ROUNDED
STONE 3' TO 5' DIAMETER
OCT
COLLEGE STATI
ENGINEERING --------50'-0" MIN . --r-------<~
GRADE TO PREVENT RUNOFF
FROM LEAVING SITE
PROFILE
N.T.8.
ROADWAY
r-so·-o· MIN .
I ......
JI -".X ~ J ~
"" ,..,,
JI ~ .K1 ~ J
"" ""
:;f :;f :;f 'd
:;f :;f :;f :;f
~
············ . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
TRANSITION
TO ROADWAY
_/
~R .o.w.--i
PLAN VIEW
N.T.8.
c
s
c
EnglnflBl'lng &EnWonmsntal
ConM/ltsnts, Inc.
or.
t:mES;
1. DRAINAGE-ENTRANCE MUST BE PROPERLY
GRAD ED TO PREV ENT RUNOFF FROM LEAVING
THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
2 . CLEANING-WH EELS Of CONSTRUCTION
VEHICLES SHALL BE CLEANED WHEN
NECESSARY TO REMOVE SEDIMENT PRIOR TO
ENTRANCE ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAY. WASHING
MAY BE REQUIRED AN D SHALL BE DONE ON
AN AREA STABILIZ ED WITH CRUSHED STON E
WHICH DRAINS INTO AN APPROVED TRAP OR
SEDIMENT BASIN . ALL SEDIMENT SHALL BE
PREVENTED FROM ENTERING ANY STORM
DRAIN. DITCH, OR WAT ERCOURSE USING
APPROVED METHODS .
3. MAJNlENANCE-THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE
MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL
PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING Of SEDIMENT
ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS . THIS MAY REQUIRE
PERIODIC TOP DR ESSING WITH ADDITIONAL
STONE AS CONDITIONS DEMAND , AND REPAIR
AND/OR CLEANOUT Of ANY MEASURES USED
TO TRAP SEDIMENT . ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED.
DROPPED , WASHED OR TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC
ROADWAY MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE
PROJECT: 299002·120
LOCATION: COLLEGE STATION TEXAS
APPR: llFC REV. DATE:
DRAWN BY: JBF SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
DATE: 10/4/00 FIGURE NO .:
:;woo 0s-~oo 409-770-0020 CSC ENG & ENV PAGE 02
~-w FOil On'I~ unr~!!LY
CAB& "O.;, :)OXJ
DAU SUBMJ'I"RD:
( O\t tt t "'it lJfO"
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
MINIMUM SUBMITl'ALREQUIREMENTS ~QQ _QQ QIMl_Qpment Pennit Applioation Fee.
t>raioag_e and erosion control plan., with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each.
--NQtice of Intent (?-1.0.I.} if disturbed area is greatef than S acres .
LBGALDESCRimON _. far± of. Lt 2. 1 f?loc..f::... I Lort\~i"Sf~
-~~erc...ia.1 S12di~l APPLICANT (Primal)' Contaot .fot the Project):
Name RL. ~ _i.8~-:.oci o....+e. S I \ Yl-(... •
StreetAddtcu j5i)ie~;Jd Plf!:j· ~e. Joti City Col IL6e.-shf11Y"\
State ""IA . Zip Code :ZJ 'f)j6 E-Mail Address ~---------
419 -Le 9~-1Z1'2-FaxNumbel'. '119 -u~~ -?:>114
ON:
Name o e... \
Street Address \ ~ City c::.& /] <Z..jL 3 +~.Ji M
State. IX Zip Code. J 1 f.? l'5 E-Mail Address --~--~----
Phone Number 91'\-(p 'f l'1-o5DO Fax Numbe:f-_9._1,,,_'i._-_(p_'f_(.p_-_o_(.;_O_) _______ _
ARCHIT.BCT OR BNGINEBR•s INfORMA TJON:
Name g.L. ~As~oLio....te.-~ 1j_vic.. .
StreetAddre3s jl50j~d. PIL.tv<j .~· iQ!J City C&!l~e., ~h-ti¢h
State TX ZipCode 11'b1~ H·MailAddress ~---------
Pbonc.Numher j1°}· e;qCP · J'ZJ2 Fax Number 9J°t · Ce9[p · E°>I 14
Application is her~y made for the fullowing delieJopment specific site/waterway alterations:
G o:hhfi...:u.c. t:i M o t & N2M-> · Cou..r ~ovv cl ~ M t\x r i ofl:; CL.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
I. f2?'\oy} P~ . ~gn ongineerlowner; her~ acknowledge or affirm that-
The-iofofmatiOft Md oooof.usioos OOflt&incd in the aoovo-plans and $~j{\g ~ ~y with thee wmmt
requircmcats of the City o! College Stat~ Texas City Code, ChapU:.r 13. and its associated Diainag.c Policy arid Desip.
Standards.
k a condit~ of ap o. f this. permit ap.plieati.on. I agree. to. constmct the. impro.vements. prop.os.ed. in this. application.
'\ccotdingt.,.. .,.,,,.'T" <U~~ts. and the. requirements. of Chapt~r 13 o.f t~ College Statfon City Cod.~<
•
409-778-0620 CSG E~ & EN\! PAGE 03
CERTIFICATIONS: (for~ alterations within odesi$oated flood huard areu.)
A. I. h\t ~ SW'i;,'& Conl\b . certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to. be on this site-• part
Q.f thil appli~t.iQn. il d~i~t«J. ~ prev~.ot ~-~8.'C'l tQ th~ ~roctu ~ Qf it£ ctQnt.«iJs. as. a. r:Gult of 11.ooding !ro.m the. 100. year
stonn.
B. I, 1'1>. .. F-r:ec\.~ Co~n. certify that the finished floor elmatioo of the lowest floor, including any
basement. of any rAidcntial stru~tuni, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood· et.vatioo established
in the latest Fedenl Insurance Adm.in!stratfon Ftood Hazard Study and maps, as ameoded.
7n.'al~~.
Bagineer Date
C. I, !\\., EfeAe;tic.'6, Cm l~n ~that the altecatioo.3 w ~~by-this permit shall Mt
ditninlsh the. tlood-<:arcying capacity of the. waterway adjoining or cros.siqg this. p.ermltted me and that such. al~ or
~l~t ~~@l'.l.li.mtrt. ~ ~q_i_~i. Qf ~ City Q{ C..QU.* S.ta.ti.QO. City Co.de., Chapter 13. umcemittg
encroachments of floodways and of floodway fringes.
Date
D. I, °t'J\, FreJ...ecic.\;. Co~. do certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year
flood above elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance AdministratiQn Flood Huard Study.
m.C\J~e~.
Engineer
O(p/Z.3/00
Date •
Conditions o.-COMmentS as part of approval:-----~~-~--------------
llt_ ~~QCdall_~ wjth ~pter 13 of~ Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station._ measures shall be taken to in.u~
tbM_ d~~ {J:Qm_ ~<?TI .. erosion .. and ~imentatioo shalt not be deposited in city street!t or existing drain• facilities.
All d~lopment shall be in accordance with the pttu\$ and specifications submitted to and approved by the City &gincer
for the ~ named project. AH of the a~licable (;()Cfes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply .
•
""'JU" , --
""TV-> 1 1 •...> vv --'
SITE PLAN APPLICATION-
l'wQNIMUM SUBMITTAL RE -
_ Site plill --i: . . QUIREMENTS
-.U00.00-~~ oomplct.od Ul fi.tll.
$lOO ~onFeo. ~ -_,QQ Devdopment-Permit A-•!-~-
--, $300.00 :t>uhlklnfi-~ ~~ F~. waterliM. NWerl~ 8 Impcct.iOfl F~ if ~plicable. ~ fi:!c. • _ -rm (IO) folded "'Ill {..~°' dnUnogo faciliti"" is Utwl-i payablo U' ~of• pubfic
-copy of the ~ eite pl= checldillt . . chock.t::d off. with all J.Jans chccbxt o ff OC' a boo ,.ynl .. ..:.ti ----~~ oo as to why they are not
AP~LIC ATI ON DATA
NAME OF PROJBCT ,,,kot>r±-ua..vcl ~ M~r-ioif:
AD DRESS JC:A-..., ~ ~-:; Ptz;-"'::> s J Co 11 ~ ~i
LEGAL DESCIUPTION I ~ ~ <!"YI
APP LICANT-(Prirtwy Caltact for b Proje(;t):
Name • L. v...L. ~ A~c:."c,_;a.,,--f-~s StreetAddtt.s~ 50 ~rM.d P w ~e.. It> City C.o 11 a... S-l-dicn--
Staie I)(_ Zip Code 1/'t/f'6 E-MailAddms-~~?J~~~~~--
P~l'lumbu ~19 .Cp'i(p ·12«72.: Fax Num ber .91"l · (R '\ ~ · f:> 114
PROPER1Y oWNER·s INFORMATION :
Name '-Ii \ \ °1j~ t.\-o±~\ Pa-r~rS s~~ !SOj s.,,_u.Ucl fiyu,. sw .10'5 Ci t}< lo I\~._ Sto...+i!Y'-
State T)C Zip Code ]1f+2L-\6 £..Mail Address -------~-
Phone Nwnber 'j1C\ ·leC\(Q · [£,_cb Fax Num ber qeiq · Lo9lR · cxPC>l
ARCHITECT OR.ENGINEER'S INFORMATION :
Nime tz . ! ,,,. ~ ~ A.sC-;JoCi de S
Stt«t Mdf.s, ~,-o..l d fkw ~$tf.. l o4 c ey ..Co lie~'--SW•""'
Sta~ ])( Zip Code ]1'(2:f6 . E-~Mail Add.res3 ----------
Pilon<: N umber jJ'J (o'.J(2 · J?.1 Z. F.xN.:mber '3 1 "I ·c.'l(p · ~-------
OTtiER CONTACTS (Pkase ,poci fy ty po of cent¢. i.e. proioct ma.nag«, PQ><n.~o! i,.,,cr, local cootact. etc.)
Name ~~----~-----~-----~-~----~-----~-~
S
.. .id ~----------~~-,,...,..,,,....---C ity -----------
~AU re$S _ S~ Z ip Co&e -----E-Mail A_d_~s _____ ___,.,------~--
Phone Number: f ;uc Number--------~-~-~--
~LAN Afl'UCA.1101'1
'~DOC. Q.l/'U-'"
• 05/2 2j 2000 08~0 8 405-778-082 0 CSC EN(;; ::le t:..NV
CURRENT ZONING G -I
PRESENT lJSB OF PRO.PBRTY Va.. c.~+-__.;...;..._~_;_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--,~.
PROPOSED USB OF PROPERTY
V ARIANCE(S) REQUESTED AND kEASON(S}
II OF PARKING SPACES ~QlJIBED \ 'ZF3
Ll MULTI-F.AMILY R.Jr,SIDENTTAL
Total Acreage ___ _
Floodplaia A~--
Hotaina Units. ___ _
, of 1 Bedroom Units
# of 2 Bedroocn Uniu
#of 3 Bedroom uw
# of 4 Bedroom UniU
FOR l BEDROOM UNITS ONLY
--"Bedrooms~ 132 sq. ft .
# ~ < 132 sq. ft .
#OF FAR.KING SPACES PROVIDED J "30
~ COMMERCTAL
Total kt-cag_e
Building Square Feet ]2.1 14bsf..
Floodplain Aercag_e.__,,(j __ _
is plication and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attach ed
Sm! Pt.AN Al'PLl<;A TION
iITEAPP-.DOC 03 •'lS l'99-
l ofl
•
06/22/2000 00~ 00 4013--178-0020 csc EN6 & ENV
SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INFORMATION
~ .. ~ ........ lowUtil ~qiedfic ~aftetatioftl·
N cm.e. 'Bef)•A~ .
~
CQTDICAUONSa (f«PlOP*Cf lllDndioM witbia ~Aooclhazud--)
A. . • I, ~ ,~\.c'f, ~'DL\n . ~that aay AOJUmidcnlj•l ~OD (If PfOPO'Cd ~ ~ ~ dlll_ upart
of thiupplicattcn ii .sa.ipated-10 ~damage to Che lttUctu~ or Us contents u a R8Ult of floodi ng born the 100 year .corm.
~;ai~~~& "P.f _o __.rc/.__z.-=-3/i'-=oo_~--
gmeer Date .
.8. J, r\\.~'C\c.~ Co~n . ~tbattbcfinisMclfloorelevatioo.oC the IO'ft'eltfloof, in&ludin&UIY
basement, of any-Mdential ~ propoaed as part ottha ~lication is at or above the base flood dcvation qtabliahed hl tlke
btmt Federal hiirunulee A~ P1ood Huard Study arut maps, a& ~.ncted.
'm:a~:-~~~· o~fz.3/oo
Bn(SMel' Date
C. f, N\, rreJ..e.'£\c.'f, ~\ '<\. , certify that tho alterations or development oovered by this pemUt sball not
dimini-1\ the flood-c:anyin& capacity of the 1"1ltm\'a.>' adjoining or crossing this pcnnitted site an4 mat IUCh altuatiool or ~aw~ with-requirem.el.\tl of the City-of College Station Gty Code. Chaptct' U conocrnlnl encroach.ments or
~and of tlooctwar frinp-
ll\. ~~~'
Engima I
D. t )'(\, FrnJ ex,'ok Co@l()ffe, ~ c:e.rtify that the piopo.sied atterattons do not raise the kvd ofthc 100 year
fiood above ctevation establiJbed in the lateSt FedeW ~ A.<hninistntiotl ~ Hannt Study.
T1\.Jho~ ~~· ow/23/tJD ~~ ~ ,
Conditions orwmmcnta• putofappto\'U: ....---------~-------------
•
R. L. Payne and Associates, Inc.
Architecture, Planning, Interior Design, & Graphics
Project: Marriott Courtyard
Woodcreek East Bypass
College Station, Texas
To: College Station Planning & Zoning
Department
College Station
Attn:
WE TRANSMIT :
( x ) Herewith ( ) Under separate cover via
( ) In accordance with your request
FOR YOUR :
( ) Approval
( ) Review & comment
( )
THE FOLLOWING :
COPIES
1
1
( x ) Drawings
( ) Specifications
( ) Change Order
DATE REV . NO
Jun-00
Distribution to parties
Record
( ) Shop Drawings Prints
( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles
( x )
DESCRIPTION
Development Permit Aoolication
Check for $100 Aool ication Fee
Transmittal Letter
Architect's
Project No: 98.09ND
Date : 717100
IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS NOTED ,
PLEASE NOTIFY OUR OFFICE
IF CHECKED BELOW , PLEASE
( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures
( ) Return enclosures to us
( ) Information
( x ) Use
) Samples
) Product Literature
ACTION
CODE
10 Jun-00 Sets of Site Plans, Civil Plans and Landscape Plan
ACTION
CODE
REMARKS :
COPIES TO :
A . Action ind icated on item transmitted D. For signature & f orward ing as noted under REMARKS
B . No acti on required E . See REMARKS be low
C . For s ignature and return to this office
Anita Fawaz
1509 Emerald Parkway , Suite 104 , College Station , Texas 77845 (409) 696-7272 Fax (409) 69 6-8114
R. L. Payne and Associates, Inc.
Architecture, Planning, Interior Design, & Graphics
Project: Marriott Courtyard
(name , address)
To:
Attn :
Development Services
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station , TX 77842
Heather
WE TRANSMIT :
FOR YOUR:
( X) Herewith ( ) Under separate cover via
( ) In accordance with your request
( ) Approval
( X) Review & comment
( )
) Distribution to part ies
) Record
THE FOLLOWING :
( ) Drawings
( ) Specifications
( ) Change Order
COPIES DATE REV . NO
1 Jul-00
1 Jul-00
1 Jul-00
( ) Shop Drawings Prints
( ) Shop Drawing Reproducibles
( x ) Application
DESCRIPTION
$100 additional aoolication fee
Sioned Utility Sheets
Site Plan Checklist
Transmittal Letter
Architect's
Project No : 98.09ND
Date: 7/2 5 /00
IF ENCLOSURES AR E NOT AS NOTED ,
PLEASE NOTIFY OUR OFFICE
IF CHECKED BELOW , PLEASE
( ) Acknowledge receipt of enclosures
( ) Return enclosures to us
( X) Information
( X) Use
) Samples
) Product Literature
ACTION
CODE
ACTION
CODE
A . Action indicated on item transmitted D. For signature & forwarding as noted under REMARKS
B . No action required E . See REMARKS below
C . For s ignature and return to th is office
REMARKS : It seemed to us that the second sheet on the Utility application needs to be signed by
TxDot. I did not see where the owner/engineer/contractor would sign.
COPIES TO : Antia Fawaz
1509 Emerald Parkway , Suite 104 , College Station, Texas 77845 (409) 696-7272 Fax (409) 696-8114
R. L. Payne and Associates, Inc.
Architecture, Planning, Interior Design , & Graphic
Project: Marriott Courtyard
(name , address)
Development Services
To: City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station , TX 77842
Attn : Heather
WE TRANSMIT :
5
( X) Herewith ( ) Under separate co ver via
( ) In accordance w ith your request
FOR YOUR :
( ) Approval Distribution to part ies
( X) Revi ew & comment
( )
THE FOLLOWING :
( ) Drawings
( ) Specifications
( ) Change Order
COPIES DATE REV. NO
2 Jun-00
Re cord
( ) Shop Drawings Pr
( ) Shop Drawing Re
(x )Reports
ints
producibles
DESC RI PT ION
orts
Transmittal Letter
Architect's
Proj ect No: 98.09ND
Date : 7126 100
IF ENCLOSUR ES AR E NO T AS NOTED ,
PL EASE NOTIF Y OUR OFFI CE
IF CHECKED BELOW , PL EASE
( ) Acknow ledge receipt of en closu re s
( ) Re turn enclosures to us
( X ) Inform at ion
( X ) Use
( ) Samples
( ) Product Li terature
ACTION
CODE
ACTION A . Act ion ind ica ted on ite m tra nsmitted D. For signat ure & forwa rding as noted un de r REMA RKS
CODE B. No ac ti on requ ired E . See REMARKS below
C. For signature and ret urn to th is office
REMARKS : Please attach these reports to the site plans su bm itted under separate cover.
Thank OU.
COPIES TO: Antia Fawaz
1509 Emerald Par1<way , Suite 104 , College Station , Texa s 77845 (409) 696-7272 Fa x (409) 696-8114
-
CITY OF COLLEGE STATION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960
College Station, Texas 77842
Phone (979) 764 -3570 I Fax (979) 764-3496
MEMORANDUM
August 4, 2000
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CSC Engineering, & Environmental Consultants Inc., Vi:J_x~7:-0820
Bridgette George, Assistant Development Coordinator WT
DP -COURTYARD MARRIOTT (0 -500054)
' •I
I
Staff is still reviewing the above-mentioned project as requested, but I am forwarding
the engineering comments on the drainage report. Please address the attached
comments and submit the following for further staff review:
Two (2) copies of the revised drainage report.
Three (3) sets of plans to be attached to the TxDOT. applications for
Utilities and Access (these were missing from the original submittal)
Please call Spencer Thompson if you have any questions.
CC: R. L. Payne & Associates, Inc., Via fax 696-8114
Home of Texas A&M University
ENGINEERING REVIEW
COMMENTS No. 1
Project: Courtyard by Marriott
This review addresses only the Drainage Report
Comments:
1 . Please refer to the City of College Station Drainage Basin delineation map for
correct drainage basin . Include this information in your report. Current data
shows the proposed pond outlet works discharging to the Lick Creek
drainage basin (LCN IV). This should not affect the design requirements for
this project.
2. Please include in your report a pond stage-storage curve or table.
3. Please include in your report a pond outlet elevation-discharge curve or table.
4. Please include in your report a table contrasting Q(i)peak ,predevelopment ,
and Q(i)peak, des ign . Please ensure that Q(i)peak, design is less than or
equal to Q(i)peak, predevelopment for the design storm.
5. TXDOT will not allow an increase in run-off to their right-of-way. Please
consider this in your design . They will also require some type of riprap in
their ROW at the outfall.
Reviewed by: Spencer Thompson Date : 08/03/00
08 1 04 1 00 17:19 'B979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS
TRANSMISSION OK
TX /RX NO.
CONNECTION TEL
CONNECTION ID
START TIME
USAGE TIME
PAGES
RESULT
*************************** *** ACTIVITY REPORT ***
***************************
3450
08 1 04 17:16
02 '17
3
OK
97780820
~001
08 1 04 1 00 17:22 ti'979 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO.
CONNECTION TEL
CON ECTION ID
START TIME
USAGE TIME
PAGES
RESULT
*************************** *** ACTIVITY REPORT ***
***************************
3451
08 1 04 17:21
01 '11
3
OK
96968114
~001
MAY-25-2000 THU 02:37 PM C. S. PUBLIC WORKS FAX NO. 409 764 3489 ~' P. 01
LETTER OF COMPLETION ~ ~
CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF COLLEGE STA'l'ION
COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS
Dear Sir:
DATE: s--~ f.) -9 9
RE: COMPLETION OF_.~
~N.L &c.E-. 5t..11T:~L.
The purpose of our letter is to request that the following listed improvements be approved
and accepted as being constructed under city inspection and completed according to plans
and specifications as approved and required by the City of College Station, Texas. This
approval and acceptance by the City is requested in order that we may finalize any sub-
contracls and to affirm their warranty on the work. This approval and acceptance by the
City of the improvements listed below does hereby void the letter of guarantee for the
listed improvements on the above reference project.
The one year warranty is herby affi.rmed and agreed to by ~/.-L-: ... J/t LZ......$ and
by their sub-contractors as indicated by signatures below .
~Q.B.K COMPLETED
,I :. '' k f/o/,-J.:-, .,--{u?dL
·W-A= /~IL· ~-L 1JL<i
3-T.e>~pt '
Owner; /!em ftll ~Po& I([/ I) f'\./
Address:10~0-~ /J.~~'%o
;k fl? 13 '-E ~.$ 77 3.3 g,
Signatur~/fJX ~
ACCEPTANCE & APPROVAL
DATE ~
7~ ;;;e--97
7~~-9?
"' 7£-~ -517-:
Contract~r:k-£ -fJt J.;J-5'
Address:!t/.3 o,fjt?'J.t. IJ.1/3. L=-13 Jl•·P~ 0
ll~~TO>V 7 /iiA-5 270 -;_,J-