Final Design Report

Greenmore Gardens

Port Matilda, PA

Project Developer: CCJB Associates

Carren Stika

Chris Lazration

Jay Mekik

Brady Alford

2

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

development’s 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

3

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.

4

Table of Contents

I. Introduction___________________________________________________ 5

II. 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. Cost Analysis_____________________________________________13

IV. 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

5

I 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. Maloney’s 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/US-

220S 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,

6

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 ridge’s 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

7

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.

3

8

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.

Maloney’s 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

9

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

10

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-

11

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 pre-

development 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

12

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 area’s 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 weren’t any pipelines there weren’t 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

13

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.

14

XI Appendix:

Appendix A Site Location Map:

Appendix B Drawings:

Please see attached plan set for drawings

Sheets 1-12: Site Geometry / Lot Locations

Sheets 13-27: Roadway Plan / Profiles

Sheets 28-39: Grading & Drainage Plan

Sheet 40: Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

Sheets 41-42: Utility Plan

Pro

jec

t

Pro

per

ty

15

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

16

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

=

OK

n = 0.009 for PVC/SDR

Slope = 5.63%

=

R =

OK

17

Appendix E Cost Estimation:

Category Unit Type Unit Cost Number Total

Manholes Ea. $3,733 23 $85,859

8" PVC SDR linear ft $12.09 3615.41 $43,710.31

$129,569

Potable Water System

Pipe linear ft $18.00 10362.39 $186,532.02

Fire Hydrant Ea. $2,036.15 26 $52,939.90

$239,471.92

Roadway Items

Road linear ft $117.27 10362.39 $1,215,197

Sidewalks ft2 $4.30 82899.12 $356,466.22

Lighting Ea. $850.00 27 $22,950.00

Box Culverts Ea. $100,000.00 3 $300,000.00

$1,894,614

Site Work

Cleaning/Grubbing acre $4,125.00 119 $490,875

Excavation yd3 Estimation from Dr. B $3,000,000.00

Import/Export Fill yd3

Coniferous Trees (4-5') Ea. $59.00 37 $2,183.00

$3,493,058

E&S Conrol

Construction Entrances Ea. $2,200.00 2 $4,400.00

Compost Filter Sock linear ft $2.75 9539 $26,232.25

Disturbed Area Acre $400 + $65/ACRE

119 $8,135.00

$38,767.25

Storm Sewer System

Inlets Ea. $2,275.00 61 $138,775.00

12" PVC linear ft $22.64 5117.257 $115,854.70

Headwalls Ea. $5,000.00 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 Road

$585.30

18

Appendix F Drainage area:

19

Appendix G Stormwater Piping:

20

Appendix H West Pond:

(Front View for West Pond)

(Section View for West Pond)

21

Appendix I East Pond:

(Front View For East Pond)

(Section View for West Pond)