HomeMy WebLinkAbout143-83 RESOLUTION•
RESOLUTION NO. 143 - 83
A RESOLUTION;ADOPTING A MASTER SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE
PLAN FOR A PORTION OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE LOCATED
ADJACENT TO ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 16 WEST.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the Board of Directors hereby adopts the master
sewerage and drainage plan attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A",
and made a part hereof for a portion of the City of Fayetteville
located adjacent to Arkansas Highway 16 West.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of December, 1983.
APPROVED:
Mayor
'°-a
1
1
1
1
1
1•
EVALUATION OF STORMWATER
DRAINAGE FACILITIES -
t 14? :mio
HIGHWAY 16 WEST
FOR
CITY:OF FAYETTEVILLE
•
•
I •
.. k ">`Li
August, 1983
83-119
‘-Prepared by •
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■
EVALUATION OF STORMWATER
DRAINAGE FACILITIES
HIGHWAY .16 WEST
FOR
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
August, 1983
83-119
Prepared by
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.
I Introduction 1
II Description of Project Area 2
III Description of Drainage Basin 3
IV Evaluation of Existing Streets and Roads 4 - 5
V Evaluation of Existing Drainage Facilities 6 - 8
VI Description of Known Flooding 9 - 11
VII Projected Stormwat'er Flows and Recommended 12 - 14
Culverts and Bridges
VIII Discussion of Recommended Culverts and Bridges 15 - 17
IX Recommended Storm Sewers 18 - 19
X Discussion of Recommended Storm Sewers 20 - 21
XI Estimated Costs for Recommended Drainage Facilities 22 - 27
XII Channel Improvements 28 - 31
XIII Implementation of Recommended Drainage Facilities 32 - 33
XIV Municipal Participation in Drainage Facilities Costs 34
XV Conclusions 35
XVI Storm Drainage Design Criteria 36 - 37
SECTION
XVII Appendices
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
1
2
3
4A
46
5
6A
Figure No. 6B
Figure No. 7A
Figure No. 7B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Planning Area Map
Flood Hazard Boundary Map
SCS Hydrologic Soil Groups
Existing Drainage Facilities, East Map
Existing Drainage Facilities, West Map
General Land Use Plan
Recommended Culverts and Bridges,
East Map
Recommended Culverts and Bridges,
West Map
Recommended Storm Sewers, East Map
Recommended Storm Sewers, West Map
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
NO. NO.
1 Characteristics of Existing Streets and Roads 5
2 Characteristics of Existing Drainage Facilities 8
3 Stormwater Flows and Recommended Drainage 14
Structure Sizes
4 Recommended Storm Sewer Facilities 19
5 Modification of Culvert Sizes If Storm Sewers are 21
Installed
6 Estimated Costs of Recommended Culverts and Bridges 23 - 24
7 Estimated Total Costs for Municipally Funded 25
Culverts and Bridges
8 Estimated Costs of Storm Sewers by Street
Classification
26
9 Unit Costs Used for Drainage Pipe 27
INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
In November, 1982, approximately 910 acres were annexed to the City of
Fayetteville. This area is located along Highway 16 West (Wedington Drive)
west of the Highway 71 bypass. At the time of the annexation, several
subdivisions were in various planning phases under the Washington County
subdivision regulations. Upon annexation to the City of Fayetteville, the
Fayetteville Planning Commission has been approached by some of these
potential developers concerning rezoning and/or development of portions of
this annexed area. Other property owners have notified City officials of
existing and potential stormwater drainage and sanitary sewerage problems.
As a result of these somewhat opposing factions, and in an effort to
determine a picture of the true consequences of development on these aspects
of the annexed area, and contiguous areas influenced by, or exerting an
influence on, the annexed area, the Fayetteville Planning Commission
recommended to the Board of Directors that comprehensive engineering studies
of drainage and sewerage needs be completed.
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. was employed by the City of
Fayetteville on May 16, 1983, to complete these two studies. This document
addresses the stormwater drainage needs for the project area, with a
corresponding document addressing sewerage needs for the project area.
Reviewers and users of these documents are cautioned to remember that
these two subjects, only, are addressed. While the project area also needs
street construction work, water distribution system improvements, fire
hydrant installations, and related municipal facilities, these needs are not
addressed in these documents.
— 1
•
1
1
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
The project area about which this stormwater drainage study has been
prepared consists of approximately 910 acres which were annexed to the City
of Fayetteville in November, 1982. The area is located on each side of
Wedington Drive (Highway 16 West), west of the Highway 71 bypass. Figure
No. 1 illustrates the limits of the project area. Land use in this area is
primarily agricultural with some low density residential areas located in
the western half of the project area.
Agricultural land uses in the area include small grain production,
pasture, hay crops and poultry production. Areas that are cultivated, such
as the small grain crops, tend to have higher stormwater runoff rates, as
compared to non cultivated hay and pasture land uses.
The eastern portion of the project area is relatively flat, with some
rolling land existing in the western portion of the area. The overall
drainage basin slope from the Owl Creek drainage divide southeast of the
Ozarks Electric property to the Double Springs Road bridge is approximately
0.56 percent. Segments of Owl Creek near County Road 650 N are flatter than
this average slope, tending to create wider flood plain areas.
Relative to flood plains, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development has published a Flood Hazard Boundary Map for Washington County.
This map includes the project area and is reproduced on Figure No. 2.
Approximately 55 acres of the project area are included in the Zone A flood
hazard area designated on this map. The exact limits and/or location of the
flood hazard boundary and flood water elevation cannot be determined from
this map. It is expected that a detailed flood study, such as those
completed on several streams within Fayetteville's previous corporate
limits, has not been completed for Owl Creek.
•
DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE BASIN
III. DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE BASIN
In addition to most of the 910 acres within the project area, drainage
structures in the area are influenced by stormwater runoff from adjacent
portions of the drainage basin. The Double Springs Road bridge serves the
largest drainage area of any of the structures evaluated. It receives
runoff from approximately 1715 acres, the limits of which are illustrated on
Figure No. 1.
Land use in the balance of the drainage basin is basically
agricultural, with less residential development as compared to the project
area. A wooded hill exists in the southeast corner of the drainage basin.
With the exception of this hill, the balance of the basin is flat to rolling
in topography.
Soil characteristics in a drainage basin greatly influence the amount
and rate of stormwater runoff. The Soil Conservation Service includes in
its county Soil Survey booklets information on the hydrologic soil
classification for the various soil types in that county. These
classifications range from Soil Group A with a low runoff potential to Soil
Group D, with a high runoff potential. Figure No. 3 illustrates the
drainage basin and the various soil group classifications. As indicated by
this figure, much of the eastern portion of the drainage basin has soil
types that have high or moderately -high runoff potentials.
These are basically the same soil types that have severe limitations
for septic tank leaching fields as discussed in the corresponding sewerage
study. The reasons for these septic tank limitations and high runoff
potentials include slow infiltration rates, high water tables, clay layers
and/or rock layers. The Group D, high runoff potential soils, have a high
clay content. Group C soils have slow infiltration rates due to moderately
fine or fine textures.
Group B soils cover the majority of the western portion of the drainage
basin, with some Group C and D soils mixed in. Group B soils are moderately
well drained to well drained soils, as a result of moderately fine to
moderately coarse textures. Consequently, infiltration into these soils is
higher than for Groups C and D soils and the resulting stormwater runoff is
less. Only a very small area of Group A soils exist in the drainage basin,
and this area is downstream from the drainage structures evaluated.
EVALUATION OF EXISTING STREETS AND ROADS
IV. EVALUATION OF EXISTING STREETS AND ROADS
Although the scope of work under this project did not include any
requirement for reviewing the current road situation in the project area,
some awareness of the existing condition of these streets and roads is
necessary, _in order to better understand the stormwater drainage needs.
Table No. 1 summarizes the existing road conditions. County road numbers
have been used where applicable. In some cases a direction designation has
been added to the road numbers to delineate segments of the various roads.
Figures 1, 4A and 4B illustrate the road locations, and projected
right-of-ways are shown on Figures 6A and 6B. The projected right-of-ways
are based on the street classifications discussed hereinafter. In some
cases, these right-of-ways differ from those shown on City plat maps. With
the exception of a few platted subdivisions, most of the streets are
unplated and are expected not to be dedicated streets.
As can be seen from the notes in Table No.1, and by careful review of
the figures, most of the roads in the project area are narrow. Many have
inadequate drainage ditches. Surfaces range from good asphalt to gravel to
rocks to dirt. Many of the roads are dead ended. Part of these dead end
roads serve several property owners, while othersserve rows of duplexes,
which are apparently rental units. In almost every case, the roads and
streets in the project area have one or more inadequate drainage structures.
The remainder of this report addresses existing and needed drainage
facilities. Recommended drainage facilities have been broken into two
categories; culverts and bridges for the existing and proposed streets, and
storm sewers with curb and gutter inlets for streets upgraded to City Street
Standards. This second category of structures is proposed based upon the
assumption that new streets illustrated on the Master Street Plan will be
built in accordance with the street standards, and that existing streets
will eventually be upgraded to the City Street Standards, thereby requiring
installation of storm sewers. Some of the recommended storm sewers are for
existing residential and private streets that may never be upgraded.
Consequently, the interrelationship of street upgrading and drainage
structure installations must be remembered.
TABLE NO. 1
Y
O
Narrow for a major highway
II
c
O V 0
L
L
c
N
c C a 0
O 0 L L
U U
4-1 Y Y Y
• a a -CI
C C
O O 0 O
O 0 C C
a
U 3 3
A 0a 0a
4- L C L C
L L a L a 0
= N N C
N Ca Ca 3 0)
co r0 0
o is i13 S- - q
O a a '0 a
0• > > z 0
a
Y 0
1..
a
C Y •nN
0 • L 0 3
V V 0
a r0 L
V a L
N Y - 10
tF Y rt1Ip C
L i > > 5-
• 0 O r J
N j L Y
d.-
0
O a 0
q V
O a
CL C N L
R T
• N ry
a N
O 0 N
L V
L 4-I
W
(0' X
0 w
Good condition,
Good condition, narrow
Good condition, narrow
Some ditch work needed
Fair surface
Narrow, dead end
9
C
A
0)
x 0
0) Y
r '0
J r
0.
4-
0
0 N
Y
• Y
0
O 0)
L 0
4- L
C C 0
C C C
a a N
Ln
U Y 0
N r0 L S-
o
a 0) m 0
o O d
Dead end, no ditches
0 v
> >
4-1 N 0 !.0- rti 0 r0 r
L L r0 rci
CU r0 L I0 a CD 0 0) a
Y L Y H N
V J 0
W L
h£ Y Y Y Y YC • Y C Y
_ _ q
• 0
CI
0 m m m 0 ▪ a m a a L L L L > • L > > > 0. c > >0 d d d VI r ill
teLO LN • i L S. i Q Q • 6 Q 0 0
< 0 • 0 CD V CO 0 6 0 0
YL� O r0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
Q' R ti V 10 tO V IO 10 0 CO 0 U)
a Y tO 10 10 10 IO t0ID 10 OI t0 ID 0 1O CO 0 p
N
L C 1-' f7 V • .. • • N. •
Y a-. N N N V N N N 'y
VI J .y
>1 "•••••-
4-.1
Y NL •
C 3 Y Y
OI 1 .-0 4-
-r- SI -
CC
C 03
c
O
O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 1 O 1 1 O
CO OJ N CO LD tO 10 tD 1D ID ID ID IO LD
1
R
Y
C
OJ
V
0.1
C
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
0)
10
I
Y >
CU a C'.- a
Y Y a L Y
N ' T -0 0_ .O
> > >
N 0
L L a C S-
0-
d O. C 0 0-
C
Y 0
a
CD Y
5- CO
Y C U L L 1.. L
111 ^ .- ft,.- r r •--
V- d fp q q ^ Y Y Y U
S- d'� 0 V V U
a -N L L L L L L i 0 a a N
Y NC
C a O a 0 a O a 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I
N ^ Y C Y 0 Y C Y 1-.- r - r - r
'p L L r L L .r i
£ 0 dQ £Q £Q £Q 0 0 0 U
L ▪ Z
O
Y • O
CD a 0 C q
CU L r0 Z 3 Y C
Y Z L 01
N 0 ID C 0 LO
~ 0 0.03
3 3 C
= L)
S� K...
Rupple Road S.
in
O
C
L
c.N
a— 3
3 Z N H
N. O 0 n 0 O CO 01 10 n n
10
L] N 10 n CO n n 10 10 CO
0 ID 10 co fp 10 tD co co 10 LO t0 LO b
V
O V C C C C C C
pv 0 V V U 0 V U 0 V V V 0 V V V U
- 5 -
•
Clevenger Drive
Michael Cole Drive
Brook Drive
EVALUATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
V. EVALUATION OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Existing stormwater drainage facilities in the project area range from
a reasonably sized bridge over Owl Creek on Double Springs Road to 15 inch
culverts. Drainage structures included in this evaluation included all
located structures under the previously listed public and private streets.
Culverts under individual driveways were not included in this evaluation.
Table No. 2 lists the characteristics and locations of these structures.
Notes concerning the structure condition and any clogging are also listed.
Each of the structures has been assigned a structure number. Figures 4A and
4B show the locations of these structures by number.
Specific comments concerning some of these structures are as follows:
Structure
No. Comment
1 The Double Springs Road bridge appears
structurally sound, however, a structural
analysis of this or any other drainage structure
has not been made. Wingwalls and guard rails
are needed on the bridge. Some erosion of the
road embankment is occurring due to the fact
that there are no wingwalls.
2 & 3 These bridges are hydraulically and structurally
inadequate.
4. This bridge is located immediately outside the
project area, however, flows through the bridge
will be influenced by the project area. The
bridge appears relatively new and structurally
sound. It is on the route of a proposed minor
arterial street, as indicated by the Master
Street Plan.
5
This culvert is fed by two driveway culverts to
effect a "T" shaped structure. The driveway
culverts include approximately 23 feet of 30
inch CMP and 27 feet of 18"X30" arch pipe. This
installation has failed to pass stormwater
flows, resulting in flood waters running across
the street.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Structure
No.
6 thru 11
Comment
Many of the culverts under Highway 16 are
combinations of concrete pipe, corrugated metal
pipe and/or box culvert. Apparently as the
highway was upgraded, culverts were extended by
segments.
17, 22, 23, 26 These culverts are under roads that may be
27, 28, & 29 determined to be private drives. Structure 27
is a new low water bridge.
20 This structure consists of a concrete slab over
a pile of rocks. Some flow passes through the
rocks with the balance flowing over the slab in
the nature of a low water bridge.
TABLE NO. 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING DRAINAGE FACILITIES
Present
Structure Street Name Existing Structure Open Length
No. or No. Structure Size Condition % (ft.)
1 Double Springs Road 237 S.F. Bridge . Good 100 20
2 CR650N 54 S.F. Bridge Poor 100 14.5
3 CR650W 44 S.F. Bridge Poor 80 17.8
4 - CR648 - 112 S.F. Bridge Good 90 26
5 CR650S 7.8 S.F. RCB Good 100 28.6
6 Hwy 16 24" CMP Fair 80 37
7 Hwy 16 24" RCP & CMP Good 50 37
8 Hwy 16 24" CMP & RCB Good 80 ' 49
9 Hwy 16 36" RCP Good 100 39
10 Hwy 16 18" RCP & CMP Fair 50 28
11 Hwy 16 24" CMP & 2'X4' RCB Poor 100 37
12 Carriage Way 24" CMP Good 100 77
13 Carlsbad Trace 24" CMP Good 75 75
14 CR877 18" CMP Fair 5 34
15 CR878 36" CMP Good 50 40
16 Michael Cole Drive 18" RCP Good 100 29
17 Brook Drive 18" RCP Good 75 24
18 CR650W 14"X20" CMPA New 100 33
19 CR667 18" RCP Good 100 28
20 CR667 Conc. Slab - -
No Opening
21 CR667 5'X3' RCB Good 100 12
22 Clevenger Road 24" RCP Good 75 26
23 Clevenger Road 15" RCP Good 100 20
24 Michael Cole Drive 24" RCP Good 100 66
'25 Michael Cole Drive 15" CMP Good 100 37
26 Michael Cole Drive 18" RCP Good 100 33
27 Michael Cole Drive 24" RCP and Low Good 95 15
Water Bridge
28 CR638 15" RCP Good 50 29
29 Michael Cole Drive 18" RCP Good 100 38
Abbreviations:
RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe
RCB Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
CMPA Corrugated Metal Arch Pipe
S.F. Square foot opening size
DESCRIPTION OF KNOWN -FLOODING