You are on page 1of 40

Final Design Report Greenmore Gardens Port Matilda, PA

Project Developer: CCJB Associates Carren Stika Chris Lazration Jay Mekik Brady Alford

Executive Summary

A sustainable residential subdivision concept design has been developed by CCJB Associates within the property perimeter owned by Mark Maloney. The design has been developed through the conservation design process. This conservation design process rearranges the traditional development design so that a minimum of 50% of land is set aside as open space, encouraging communities, preserving farmland and natural features. The property is located in Port Matilda in Patton Township in Centre County, Pennsylvania. The main feature of the project site consists of an organic Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm called Greenmore Gardens. The proposed development takes advantage of the surrounding land, maximizing its views of the existing farm and the Tussey Mountain Ridge out in the distance.

The topography of the site caused massive amounts of grading, which caused great amounts of cut and fill work to be done. The north side of the site is 4000 feet higher than the south side. It is very steep coming down the forested ridge, close to 30% downhill grade. Storm water runoff from the northern steep part of the property will be captured in swales and stormwater systems, and will ultimately be directed to the stormwater detention basins. The site will be accessed by SR 550, also known as Buffalo Run Road and Halfmoon Valley Road. There will be three different access points to the property from SR 550. Public transportation is available to the site through the Centre Area Transportation Authority (CATA). Three CATA bus stops are located within a half mile of the proposed property entrances. The developments sanitary system will connect to the existing sanitary main running along SR 550. The potable water system will be accessed from an existing offsite storage facility that is located off the eastern boundary of the property. Both systems will be dedicated to their respected authorities upon completion of the development.

According to the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory Environmental Review Tool (PNDI ER Tool), there are no impacts to game, fish or wildlife, but there is a potential impact to some natural resources. CCJB Associates took consideration of these natural resources while developing the design. Due to this consideration, it has been determined that these natural resources will not suffer from such impacts. On site, there are two existing ponds; one on the southeast side and a larger one on the southwest side. To accommodate for increased impervious areas, CCJB Associates has proposed two

new stormwater detention systems and one infiltration basin; one directly south of the farm buildings, one directly to the west of the cemetery, and the infiltration basin is proposed to lie between the proposed Apple Road and Cherry Road. There are also two existing streams; one on the east side of Eagle Field Road that starts at the northeast side of the site and drains perpendicular to, and under Buffalo Run Road. The other stream runs on the western side of the property along the north-south aligned access road. The swale on the west side of Eagle Field Road is considered a wetland by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and will be mitigated properly once the new roadway structure is developed.

The design will be in accordance with Patton Township and its Zoning Ordinances, the Rural Preservation Design Standards, and the Subdivision and Land Development criteria. The yield plan for the max number of dwellings was developed based on the traditional methods of these zoning ordinances. To include a variety of lot sizes for different income levels and to preserve more conservation areas, the 75 house lots on this property is substantially lower than the number of lots determined from the maximum yield calculations. There are four roads proposed to running through the property, Apple Road, Cherry Road, Orange Road, and Eagle Field Road. Three of these roads will provide access to SR 550; Apple Road, Cherry Road, and Eagle Field Road. Also, the design includes a park / recreational area located between Apple and Cherry Roads, adjacent to where these roads intersect.

Table of Contents

I. II.

Introduction___________________________________________________ 5 Final Design Process a. Site Assessment ____________________________________________ 5-8 b. Conservsation Design Approach ______________________________ 8-9 c. Potable Water System ______________________________________ 9-10 d. Sanitary Sewer Treatment ____________________________________ 10 e. Stormwater Management __________________________________ 10-13

III. IV.

Cost Analysis_____________________________________________13 Appendix ______________________________________________________ a. Appendix A: Site Location Map _______________________________ 14 b. Appendix B: Drawings/Sheets_________________________________ 15 c. Appendix C: Potable Water Calculations _______________________ 16 d. Appendix D: Sanitary Sewer Calculations _______________________ 17 e. Appendix E: Cost Estimate ___________________________________ 18 f. Appendix F: Drainage Area _________________________________ _19 g. Appendix G: Stormwater Piping________________________________20 h. Appendix H: West Pond_______________________________________21 i. Appendix I: East Pond________________________________________22

Introduction

The purpose of the proposed project is to design a residential subdivision for our client, Mr. Mark Maloney. Mr. Maloney came to CCJB Associates asking for a design that is different than typical developments. He did not want to use the traditional method of designing subdivisions; his desire was to come up with a practical design using the conservative design approach. He did not want to just line his property with a grid of homes and roadways, he wanted to maintain maximum yield while conserving part of his land. To do so, the proposed design conserved as much as possible, and obtained an open space percentage of 50%. Along with those requests, he wanted to maintain his current farming operation that takes place on the property, and he also wanted to make sure that the existing structures on the property stay impact. CCJB Associates followed Mr. Maloneys desires and requests, and have proposed to him a design that incorporates all these items.

II

Final Design Process

A.

Site Assessment

Site Location: This site is located in the Township of Patton, Centre County, PA. The site is bound on the south by Buffalo Run Road (SR 550). Driving directions from downtown State College to this site are as follows: (http://www.greenmooregardens.com/our-farm/location/) Head NW on North Atherton St, go straight through the Valley Vista intersection and take the I-99/US-322W/US220S ramp, take the ramp towards Grays Woods/Waddle/Rt 550, take the ramp toward Rt 550/Waddle, stay straight to go onto Skytop Mountain Rd, turn left at Rt 550 (Unimart on the left, blinking yellow traffic light), after 1.6 miles, turn right onto Eagle Field Rd (Greenmoore Gardens sign), turn left at the mailboxes (also signposted). A location map has been attached in Appendix A.

Site Description: Currently this property is used as an organic Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farm. Some unique features of this site include existing farmhouses, barns, greenhouses, farmland,
5

houses, ponds, and a wide variety of trees and shrubbery. The topography of this site requires grading. Utility access on this site is obtained by local utilities running along SR 550, and the water tower adjacent to the eastern side of the property. There is a cemetery adjacent to the property which was taken into consideration when designing the development. The site also includes natural and manmade wetlands that must be mitigated if disturbed. The layout of the lots on the site provides houses with views of the Tussey Mountain Ridge, State College and the Nittany Valley, or a view of the local agriculture land.

Access: Access to the site will be provided by State Route 550, locally named Buffalo Run Road, coming from the State College area heading towards Stormstown. Based on observations over a time period of about ten minutes while at the site visit, it has been determined that the housing development will not result in the need for new traffic control configurations. Traffic flow on State Route 550, Buffalo Run Road is not expected to be disturbed due to the new housing subdivision. Since there will be no new traffic controls, the only permit needed from PennDOT is a highway occupancy permit for the new housing development. The designed development has (3) proposed access points from SR 550; one on the eastern side of the cemetery, one to the right of the existing drive on the western side of the property, and the existing access to Eagle Field Road . Also, this site contains two access roads that allow neighbors access to their properties; and these access roads were either left as is or upgraded as part of the development. This property also has access to public transportation through the CATA bus system, which allows residents through public transportation throughout the greater State College region.

Natural drainage: The north side of the site is 4,000 feet higher the south side of the site. The 25 30% slopes along the ridges steepest sections cause some drainage problems for the lots below. To decrease the impact of this drainage, the area around the development will be properly graded to direct drainage away from the homes. The original site had two existing ponds; one on the southwest side of the site and a smaller one on the southeast side of the site. The pond on the southeast side of the site is currently being pumped to irrigate the crops on the farm. The proposed development includes adding three more detention ponds to combat the increase in runoff created by the
6

development. One will be located to the south of the existing farmhouses on the property, another to the west of the cemetery, and a smaller one will be located between sections of housing, also on the western side of the property. There is also a manmade swale located on the west side of Eagle Field Road.

Waterways: As previously mentioned, there were two existing ponds on the site; and three detention basins being added by the development. Other than the ponds, there are two streams; one on the east side of Eagle Field Road that starts at the northeast side of the site and drains perpendicular to, and under Buffalo Run Road. The other stream runs on the western side of the property along the north-south aligned access road. The stream starts on the eastern side of the access road and crosses to the western side of the access road just north of the existing pond. Both streams are classified by the PA DEP as high quality streams, and neither pond was directly affected by the development.

Wetlands: The manmade swale on the west side of Eagle Field Road has been determined to be a protected wetland by the USACE. This wetland has been mitigated approximately 30 feet to the left to account for the development of the road. The wetland on the western side of the property has also been mitigated south to account for part of the development affecting its northmost section.

Environmental Hazards: On the day of the site visit and inventory, there was no physical evidence of environmental hazards present on the project location site. A PNDI search for the site indicated that there were no known impacts and that no further review is necessary from the following agencies: PA Game Commission, PA Fish and Boat Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, the search did obtain a hit from the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources as a project that has potential impact on the Scrub Oak Shrubland, which is classified as a Special Concern Resource. Due to the placement of the design, further review of this project by the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources was not necessary to for this development.

Site Constraints: The site is located in Agricultural zoning district, so the lots must be between 11,000 sq. ft. (~0.25 acres) and 33,000 sq. ft. (~0.758 acres). The design follows the Criteria and Standards for the Rural Preservation Design Standards in accordance with the Agriculture (A-1) District as well as the design standards for Subdivision and Land Development. The overall density does not exceed 1.6 dwelling units per acre. There are specific regulations for the Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) on the property, which must be a minimum of 10 acres in size. At least 35% of the open land must be utilized to grow the consumer produce that residents purchase through the membership agreement. For the designed development within the Regional Growth Boundary/Sewer Service Area using public sewer and water, the front setbacks are 30 feet, side are 10 feet, and the rear setbacks are 25 feet. Since the designed development needs access from SR 550, a PennDOT highway occupancy permit will need to be obtained before any development on the site begins.

B.

Conservation Design Approach

Conservation Areas: To begin the design process, the first step was to identify what are the areas to conserve as open space on the property. The next step was to prioritize the objectives of the design. For Mr. Maloneys site, the objective was to balance the development with conserving green space and incorporating community spaces. For this objective, priority for inclusion in the designated open space included wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, the cemetery, the historic homes, and the historic farm buildings. These were identified as priorities as they are environmentally sensitive areas, legally unbuildable according to the ordinances, or unbuildable simply out of common sense. For this design, secondary conservation areas included the forestland, farmland, and special concern species of natural resources.

Site Design: The finalized design plan sheet, which can be found in Appendix B, shows the proposed design for roads, house lots, parks, and setbacks. The placement locations were decided using the conservation design approach. The 75 house lots on the property range from 11,000 square feet
8

to just over one acre. The smaller, more affordable house lots are located off of the cul-de-sac on the western side of Cherry Road. The larger, high income house lots are located on Orange Road, both on the north side as well as the east. The middle income homes are spread throughout the development. There are four main roads running through the property are Apple Road, Cherry Road, Orange Road, and Eagle Field Road. Three of these roads have access to Buffalo Run Road: Apple Road, Cherry Road, and Eagle Field Road. In the proposed design, there is one centrally located park and two additional smaller ones; one on the west side and one on the northeast side. The largest park is located at the intersection of Apple and Cherry Road. The park was placed on the property to both counts towards conservation area and as recreational area for the residents.

C.

Potable Water System

The potable water system for this community will be comprised of a public system that pulls water from an existing water storage facility located off of the eastern boundary of the project site. Once the development is complete, the system will be dedicated and ultimately turned over to the local public water authority for maintenance and supervision. Since the system will be turned over to the local water, the system has been designed using the authorities max demand /day of 165 gpd/person. The peak hourly demand for the development is set by (3) times the authorities max; therefore the peak hourly demand is 495 gpd/person. When designing a public water system, it is crucial to include a calculation to determine a required flow rate for fire protection. To do so, Equation 1 for required fire protection flow was used, and is shown as follows;

(1)

where C is a coefficient corresponding to the type of construction that is being done, and A is the total floor area of all stories in the structure excluding the basement. The potable water system was designed as a grid or looped system. The reasoning behind this type of design is because of the many advantages that come along when using this type of system. A grid or looped system improves pipe hydraulics by allowing the system to have two directional flows. This system
9

allows for minimal disruption during repairs, and it improves the overall water quality by eliminating dead ends in the system. The total potable water calculations for average daily demand, peak hourly demand, and fire flow demand for the entire development can be found in Appendix C.

D.

Sanitary Sewer Treatment

The sanitary sewer system for the proposed community will be comprised of a gravity fed public system that will connect to an existing public system running down the centerline of SR 550 (Buffalo Run Road). For this stage in design, the system has been designed for Phase 1 of the project only. Phase 1 of the development is comprised of a total of (25) homes, and the system includes (2) connection points to the existing public system. For all of the homes in Phase 1 to be included in a gravity fed system, a 50 utility easement had to be added between Apple and Cherry Roads. This easement catches the homes that are two low to flow into the system on Cherry Road, and carries flows from the system on Cherry Road down to Apple Road. The system was designed using a standard of 400 gpd/home from the PADEP for single family homes comprised of (3) bedrooms or less. In addition, a peaking factor of 2.5 for mains and trunks was used when determining the peak hour flow. An 8 PVC SDR pipe was used for the design of this system, and was used to find its corresponding flow and velocity. For a system to be sufficient, the flow of a full pipe must exceed the peak hour flow, and the flow velocity must be greater than 2 ft/s but less than 15 ft/s. The total calculations for how the sanitary system was designed for the Phase 1 of this project can be found in Appendix D.

E.

Stormwater Management

For the Hydroflow calculations the land was divided into 3 separate drainage areas (Refer to appendix F). For each of these three areas the existing runoff (pre-development) was calculated. Then a conceptual Post-development storm water plan was developed. Then runoff for the post development was calculated. Any possible flooding was attempted to control, meaning to control the Peak Flow rate (Qk) for 2, 10, 50, 100 year design events. In order to reduce the post-

10

development peak flow rate to the pre-development value, stormwater management facilities were used s to detain the water and release it slowly at the pre-development flow rate.

(Peak flow rate comparison) During the process infiltration volume was also calculated, the difference between predevelopment 2-year runoff post-development 2-year runoff. After the calculations, the size/location of the structures was determined accordingly.

(2yr event Infiltration Volume) For this project initially two detention basins (ponds) as well as one infiltration basin was designed. For the phase 1 area, a pipeline for stormwater that connected to the basins was constructed. Pipes were built near the sides of the roads were the grade would allow for a natural flow of water. There were inlets on either side of the road since the road was a crowned road, which connected to the pipe, to collect the stormwater. 12 PVC pipes were used for the stormwater system. Water collected from the north part of Cherry road and Orange road were transmitted to the infiltration basin, and the rest via the pipes located below apple road were dumped to the pond located west of the cemetery. For the water collected on the east of cherry

11

road, the water was dumped into the eastern pond, located west of eagle field road. (Refer to Appendix G) When calculating the hydroflow data, the whole area was used rather than the area specified in phase 1. After dividing the land into 3 separate areas the pre-development values for each area was calculated. Since the post development peak flow rate was greater than the pre-development peak flow rate, in order to lower the peak flow rate basins were used. For the design it is considered that drainage area A was uses the western pond. Drainage area B and C are combined and use the eastern pond. After doing the calculations for the post development the values for peak flow rate and volume were significantly higher than the values for the pre-development. To control these values a detention pond located on the west was used. Then the post development was recalculated, the new peak flow rate was lower than the pre-development flow rate, which what is desired. For the pre-development areas a Curve Number (CN) of 70 was used, and since there werent any pipelines there werent any channel flows used in the calculations. For the post development calculations CN values of 81-82-83 were used respectively. This is due to the fact that works done on the land (housing, roads, park, less forests etc.). After the calculations for post development B and C were completed the values obtained were greater than the pre development values. So they were combined and the eastern pond was used for the calculations. The peak flow rate for post development was lower than the pre development rate. For the west pond the inflow came from post development A, and the basins were designed accordingly. The bottom elevation was 1458ft and its depth was 9ft. The available storage for the west pond was 492,170 cuft. For the outlet design, there were 3 inverts and 3 weirs. The outlet dimensions were fairly large. (Refer to Appendix H) For the east pond the inflow came from post development B and C combined, and the basins were designed accordingly. The bottom elevation was 1435ft and its depth was 6ft. The available storage for the west pond was 449,920 cuft. For the outlet design, there were 3 inverts and 2 weirs. The outlet dimensions were fairly large for the west pond as well. (refer to Appendix I) Based on these calculations, it could be concluded that for the hydroflow analysis the values obtained were very high. Although the calculations are accurate, from an engineering perspective they are not pragmatic to apply to a project. The main reason for this is that the drainage areas
12

are separated into 3 main areas. If multiple drainage areas were to be created, hydroflow data could be recalculated using the correct CN numbers corresponding to the area. For simplification an average for each area was used, which resulted in huge volumes. A possible way to mitigate the effects of the large volumes is to build more basins. For this project it would be more effective to begin working on the hydroflow analysis at earlier stages of the project, to adjust the design and calculations with greater ease.

III

Cost Estimate

For the proposed development, a cost estimation breakdown was conducted to determine the costs of the development, the cost per lot, and the cost per linear feet of roadway. To do these cost estimation breakdowns, RS Means was used to determine the unit cost for the particular items. To be able to use RS Means, the quantities of the materials needed to be computed. For the developments cost estimation, the following categories were considered: sanitary sewer, potable water system, roadway components, site work, E&S control, and the storm water system. The costs for the sanitary system and the storm water system are only computed using the values for Phase 1 of the development, whereas the rest of the quantities were computed using the values for the entire development. To be an entirely accurate cost estimate for Phase 1 of the development, all the values computed would have to be from the designated area of the Phase 1 only. For the cost estimation, that was not a requirement and the values for earthwork, roadway, and E&S control were taken from the entire development. Earthwork and construction the roadway items were the biggest costs from the development, although an accurate earthwork number could not be obtained due to AutoCAD failures. An estimate was therefore taken for the developments earthwork, and earthwork turned out to be our most costly item of the project. The final development price came out to be $6, 065, 0109.88, breaking down into a cost per lot (75 lots) of $80,868.13, and a cost per linear feet of roadway (10362.39 ft.) of $585.30. A total cost breakdown of the items used in determining the final costs can be found in Appendix E.

13

XI

Appendix:

Appendix A

Site Location Map:

Pro jec t Pro per ty

Appendix B

Drawings:

Please see attached plan set for drawings

Sheets 1-12: Sheets 13-27: Sheets 28-39: Sheet 40: Sheets 41-42:

Site Geometry / Lot Locations Roadway Plan / Profiles Grading & Drainage Plan Erosion & Sediment Control Plan Utility Plan

14

Appendix C

Potable Water Calculations:

# Homes = 75 -Average # of persons/home = 3 -Assume 2 stories per home -Assume 16 hour days -Total # of people = 225 -Local Water Authority set cap at 165 gpd/cap

C = 1.5 for wood frame construction A = 2000 ft2/ story

15

Appendix D

Sanitary Sewer Calculations:

# Homes = 25 PA DEP Single Family Home of 3 Bedrooms or Less -Assume 400 gpd/home -Assume peaking factor of 2.5 (mains & trunks) -Assume 16 hour days -Assume an 8 SDR pipe

n = 0.009 for PVC/SDR Slope = 5.63% = = R= OK

OK

16

Appendix E

Cost Estimation:

Category Manholes 8" PVC SDR Potable Water System Pipe Fire Hydrant Roadway Items Road Sidewalks Lighting Box Culverts Site Work Cleaning/Grubbing Excavation Import/Export Fill Coniferous Trees (4-5') E&S Conrol Construction Entrances Compost Filter Sock Disturbed Area Storm Sewer System Inlets 12" PVC Headwalls

Unit Type Ea. linear ft

Unit Cost $3,733 $12.09

Number 23 3615.41

Total $85,859 $43,710.31 $129,569

linear ft Ea.

$18.00 $2,036.15

10362.39 $186,532.02 26 $52,939.90 $239,471.92 10362.39 82899.12 27 3 $1,215,197 $356,466.22 $22,950.00 $300,000.00 $1,894,614 $490,875 $3,000,000.00 $2,183.00 $3,493,058

linear ft ft2 Ea. Ea.

$117.27 $4.30 $850.00 $100,000.00

acre yd3 yd3 Ea.

$4,125.00

119

Estimation from Dr. B $59.00 37

Ea. linear ft Acre

$2,200.00 $2.75 $400 $65/ACRE

2 9539 + 119

$4,400.00 $26,232.25 $8,135.00 $38,767.25

Ea. linear ft Ea.

$2,275.00 $22.64 $5,000.00

61 $138,775.00 5117.257 $115,854.70 3 $15,000.00 $269,629.70

Total Price $6,065,109.88 Total Price Per Lot $80,868.13 Total Price Per L.F. of $585.30 Road

17

Appendix F

Drainage area:

18

Appendix G

Stormwater Piping:

19

Appendix H

West Pond:

(Front View for West Pond)

(Section View for West Pond)

20

Appendix I

East Pond:

(Front View For East Pond)

(Section View for West Pond)

21