Overall Contest

Update 1: A PowerPoint file to guide development of your submittal has been linked to the rules page.  You can also download it by clicking here.

Question 1: On page 29 of the Kick off meeting presentation, the minimum requirements list irrigation and landscape plans. Is the jury looking for full plans (as if from a construction document set) or more diagrammatic information on these subjects?

Answer 1: We are not expecting construction documents from any of the sites. However, the plans need to be specific enough to evaluate hydrologic-related low impact development and water reuse claims for the proposed designs.

Site 1: Mixed Use Development

Question 1: On the Elm Ridge Site, I’m trying to figure out the limits of the project. On the zoning map, the orange area or Area A/level3 already has a PUD plan set for development. I’m assuming that area is not part of the project? The level 4 (red) area looks like it’s intended to be more of a commercial development area. Is the intent to have teams only deal with the level 2 (yellow) residential/mixed use areas?

Answer 1: The shaded orange area (Area A, Level 3) already has a PUD and approved set of plans for it. An apartment complex is already under construction there. That area is not intended for part of the contest design. The contest teams should provide LID designs for both the yellow (level 2) areas and the red (level 4) areas shown on the map.

Question 2: Without a target for the number of homes or square footage of commercial property that the developer is hoping to achieve, it will be difficult to judge the design. For instance, I can do a really nice LID subdivision with huge lots and not many homes, but if I need to get 100 homes in to make the property profitable, that is a bigger challenge. Has the developer/property owner done any development studies that would help give teams a target for development square footage?

Answer 2: Teams need to produce a schematic level conventional design and a schematic level LID design for the commercial (red) and residential (yellow) areas of the site. You are required to plot the schematic for the entire subdivision, but are only required to provide detailed designs for a single ‘pod’ of homes or a portion of the commercial development. You may use the data from each representative pod to extrapolate storm water values for the entire site, based on their percentage of the site. The following requirements must be met:

• Utilize roadway design provided in Elm Place Extension plans - Reference Crown Village at Elm Ridge design for orange area, however, this is not part of competition design area.
• Restrict design on southwest side of Elm Place in the residential area (yellow) to community amenities, trails, etc. Home lots will not be required in this area due to steep slopes and remnant forest.
• Average lot size is between ½ and ¼ acre for conventional designs (target lot yield is 110-120 homes or equivalent value).
• The LID design must have at least as many lots as the conventional design.  For example, if the conventional design has 116 lots, the LID design must have at least 116 lots (these lots do not need to be the same size).
• Target area for commercial space is approximately 195,000 square feet.
• The design cannot require a change to the City of Broken Arrow’s Comprehensive Plan.

Question 3: I’ve downloaded the contour map from the GCLID page for the Elm Ridge site.  It’s a cad file with contours.  It has an aerial photo that should be attached, but it was not.

Answer 3: The appropriate files have been added to the supporting documentation page. The GIS and Autocad people from the City of Broken Arrow tell us that to view the aerial photo ECW (Enhanced Compression Wavelength) file within Autocad, required making adjustments may be required in Autocad to be able to drop that type of photo file in. An object enabler is required to be downloaded to support this type of file. Unfortunately it is beyond our capabilities to provide further tech support on this issue.

Site 2: Commercial Green Street

Update 1: Supporting materials have been added for this site, including aerial photos, CAD contour drawings, DTM data, PDF atlas pages and Record Drawings.

Question 1: Can we assume that the east basin shown in section 6 of the Pearl St. document will be built in the future as shown on the conceptual designs (concept 2 in particular)?

Answer 1: Yes, the east basin will be constructed at some future date. The scope has been edited to better reflect this.

Question 2: Is the intent that the teams look at the concrete conveyance below ground or only at the treatment of surface runoff in the project area?

Answer 2: The LID design could include at either above-ground or below-ground features, or both.  The scope has been updated to state this more explicitly.

Question 3: Is the intent that the project area extend to 5th Street on the Rockford portion of the road? It seems like it should include Rockford from 6th to 8th versus 5th to 8th.

Answer 3: There was a typo in the 3rd paragraph. It should read “Rockford Ave. between 6th Street and 7th Street.” NOT 5th Street. The scope has been updated to reflect this.

Question 4: On page 29 of the Kick off meeting presentation, the minimum requirements list irrigation and landscape plans. Is the jury looking for full plans (as if from a construction document set) or more diagrammatic information on these subjects?

Answer 4: We are not expecting construction documents from any of the sites. However, the plans need to be specific enough to evaluate hydrologic-related low impact development and water reuse claims for the proposed designs.

Site 3: Urban Residential Redevelopment

Question 1: A question was asked to confirm the site dimensions.

Answer 1: The site dimensions were confirmed and an updated plat has been added as a supporting document.

Update 1: Supporting materials have been added for this site, including aerial photos, CAD contour drawings, DTM data, PDF atlas pages and Record Drawings.