Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFolderDate Submitted CITY OF COLLEGE STATION /)/,11mi11g & De11r/apmm1 Savias DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS $200 development permit fee. t:~ $600 Public Infrastructu re Inspection Fee if applicable. (This fee is payable if constru cti on of a public waterlin e, sewerline, sid ewalk, street or drain age facilities is involved .) Drainage and erosion control plan , with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each Notice of Intent (N.0.1.) if di sturbed area is greater than 5 acres Date of *Required Preapplication Conference:_M_a"-y_6_, _2_0_0_8 ________________ _ *(Required for areas of special flood hazard) LEGAL DESCRIPTION _Z_Sl~'8-~(i~c.._ll_t._'£_""_~{A_t~2~~~--~-"--l~------1 APPLI CANT'S INFORMATIO N (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Chris Harris, P . E. E-Mail chris . harris@kiml ey-horn .com StreetAddress Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc ., 111 University Dri ve East, Su ite 105 City College Station Phone Number 979 -846 -8401 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name Ryan Griffis State _T_x _______ _ Zip Code _77_8_4_o ______ _ Fax Number 979 -846-8450 E-Mail rgriffis@placeproperties.com StreetAddress Place Acquisition s , L .L.C ., 5215 N. O'Connor Bl vd ., Suite 200 City Irving State _T_x _______ _ Zip Code _7_5_o 3_9 _______ _ Phone Number 972 -868-9193 Fax Number 972-868-9001 --------------- ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S IN FORMATION Name Chris Harris E-Mail chris . harris@k imley-ho rn .com Street Addres s Kiml ey-Horn and Associates, Inc ., 111 University Drive East, Suite 105 City College Station State _T_x _______ _ Zip Code _7_7_84_o _______ _ Ph one Number 979 -846 -8401 Fax Number 979 -846-845 0 --------------- Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/waterway alterations ACKNOWLEDGMENTS : .::r: Ch"'.ei'S ,l/.J..l',e'/.S, ?. E. I, __ , design engin eer,Lewner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: Th e information and concl usions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with th e current requirements of th e City of College Stati on, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drai nage Policy and Design Standards. ~~'"' Of~~ Page 1 of 2 ~ . -.. As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvements proposed in th is application according to th ese documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City Code Contractor CERTIFICATIONS: ~ &fls$,rz,e15) ?.E. A. I, · __ , certify that any nonres id ential st ructure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designated to prevent damage to th e structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm. Date ..[. Ol.i?/.5//1(-QISJ?..€. B. I, __ , certify that the finished floor elevation of th e lowest floor, including any basement, of any residential structure, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established in the latest Federal In surance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps, as amend ed. keer " Date ::[. t!/1~5 /1~15, RC. C I, __ , certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the fl ood- carryin g capacity of the waterway adjoining or crossing this permitted site and that such alterati ons or development are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 co ncerning encroachments of fl oodways and of floodways frin ges. Date .:r O/Rl.5 .l/;f'-RRIS I P.E. D. I, __ , do certify that th e proposed alterations do not raise the level of th e 100 year flood above elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study Date / Conditions or comments as part of approval _______________________ _ In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordin ances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shal l not be deposited in ci ty streets , or existing drainage facilities. Al l development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of Coll ege Station shall apply Page 2 of 2 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 08-32 C CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning cY D~vtlopment Suvius FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 2818 Place Subdivision Lot 2, Block 1 (2818 Place Properties Apartments -Phase 2) DATE OF ISSUE: October 21, 2008 OWNER: Place Acquisitions, LLC (Ryan Griffis) 5215 N. O'Connor Blvd , Suite 200 Irving, Texas 75039 SITE ADDRESS: 1300 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South DRAINAGE BASIN: White Creek VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Un ified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not lim ited to, paint, oil , solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited . **TCEQ Phase II Rules In Effect** 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 . If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements. 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. 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 sed imentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside 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 Date DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 08-32 B CnY OF C oll.EGE STATION P"nnint cf Development Sa-vices FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 2818 Place Subdivision Lot 2, Block 1 (2818 Place Properties Apartments -Phase 2) DATE OF ISSUE: September 30, 2008 OWNER: Place Acquisitions, LLC (Ryan Griffis) 5215 N. O'Connor Blvd, Suite 200 Irving, Texas 75039 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: *Utility Work Only SITE ADDRESS: 1300 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South DRAINAGE BASIN: White Creek VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: * No Work in TxDOT ROW or on Storm Line "A" SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited. **TCEQ Phase II Rules In Effect** 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. If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements . 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. 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 inside 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. ~ator/Representative ~~- / Owner/Agent/Contractor '/ / Date DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 08-32 CITY OF C OLLEGE STATION Planning & Developme111 Sn-victs FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 2818 Place Subdivision Lot 2, Block 1 (2818 Place Properties Apartments) f /.+ L. DATE OF ISSUE: August 12, 2008 OWNER: Place Acquisitions, LLC (Ryan Griffis) 5215 N. O'Connor Blvd, Suite 200 Irving, Texas 75039 SITE ADDRESS: 1300 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South DRAINAGE BASIN: White Creek VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Clearing and Grading Permit SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this perm it. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to , paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited. **_TCEQ Phase II Rules In Effect** **No Work in TxDOT ROW without TXDOT Approval** **No Clearing or Grading in the AO Zoned Areas** 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. If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to reta in all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements. 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 . 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 inside 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 7 Date LETTER OF COMPLETION CITY ENGINEER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Dear Sir: DATE: l<!2-"Z..1....-01 RE COMPLETION OF :~~'Ci ~, ¥~ 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 subcontracts 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 referenced project. The one-year warranty is hereby affirmed and agreed to by C... F. -S.C9'\~ and by their subcontractors as indicated by signatures below. WORK COMPLETED Owner: ]>/aa )wp«Jt~ Phone Number: flZ-8°b8 _tf1ir Address :~S~Z_t_S_Af~ert~±/{~-- 0' · cf $kl{;o /Rv1 . 1 City Representative ,~ziftA Revised 1131/07 WARRANTY DATE \ 0-2 7....-0"\ Contractor: (,, \Z--~~ - Phone Number: B.\4,-~l{q-Jqvo Address :C'.!~~C\ l-26RR,.,«uOJ2.e_ ~· ~ c&Qc%/ 11· I S-c?. ~ 3 Signature: (b. V f>7t..I -:rf}! l'LAT Fil.ID f u1 .:; --p-;:r-l)tl61 -> ~ OffSllE ESllTS Fii.iD f/:>1 v~•i ~ TIMP BLANKET ESllT FIL.ID f1i ..)~NO OTHER ESMTS NEEDED SOP: Filing of Final Plats -Letters of Completion 7/07/09 Inspectors shall confirm the following and include associated comments on the punchlist as necessary before forwarding Letter of Completion to development review engineer: hntact Donnie Willis (0: 764-6375, C: 229-7632) for outstanding Erosion/Drainage issues, /contact Gilbert Martinez (0: 764-6255) for outstanding CS Electric and Streetlights, /coordinate fire flow analyses with CS Water Services (or the design engineer for non-city utilities) and confirm test results meets minimum requ irements with the development ;view engineer, ./for BTU service area, contact Tom Brent at : 821 -5773 for outstanding BTU Electric and Streetlights. In Tom's absence, John Fontinoe or their supervisor Randy Trimble can be ..>Pntacted at 0: 821-5728. ,-for BTU service area, confirm with development review engineer that service agreement is /place with BTU, /' tor other non-city utility service areas (Wellborn Water SUD, Brushy Creek SUD, Wickson Creek SUD, etc) confirm with development review engineer that infrastructure is complete ~d for outstanding issues, / require that 2 copies of Red -lined Record Drawings be provided for all Public Infrastructure with the following attestation : "I, General Contractor for development, certify that the improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are shown substantially hereon. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any are stated correctly hereon." General Contractor /require that 2 copies of Red -lined Record Drawings be provided for all Public Drainage Infrastructure including Private Detention Facilities with the following attestations: "I hereby attest that I am familiar with the approved drainage plan and associated construction drawings and furthermore, attest that the drainage facilities have been constructed within dimensional tolerances prescribed by the Bryan & College station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines and in accordance with the approved construction plans or amendments thereto approved by the City of College Station." (affix seal) Licensed Professional Engineer State of Texas No. ___ _ "I certify that the subdivision improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are substantially as shown hereon. I further certify, to the best of niy knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any, are stated correctly hereon." General Contractor , . ~spectors to review Red-lined Record Drawings, upon acceptable confirmation of drawings, inspector to: 4.--e one set of Record Drawings in Public Works files, and ,/ forward one set of Record Drawings to Jeffery Speed (CSU) Aspectors should forward Letters of Completion to the development review engineer that reviewed and stamped the construction plans after confirming: / the date on the Letter of Completion Warranty should reflect the date when all associated punchlist items are completed, and /'the Owner is shall be listed as the one affirming the one-year warranty /The development review engineer to: /stamp the Letter of Completion to confirm by initialing that the final plat is filed (or mylar is ready to be filed), all necessary easements (including offsite) have been filed, and blanket easement issues are resolved, and yi'nitial and route the Final Plat mylar for filing. (Note if the developer provided surety the plat it may have been filed ahead of construction.) Ji7L I (ZS~ Deborah Grace-Rosier (Planning) to file the Final Plat utilizes a coversheet to confirm: ~nfrastructure is accepted by Letter of Completion -or-Surety is provided and acceptable, /"};igned and notarized mylar of final plat, Oarkland dedication has been paid, 1/1 z f zs.AJ ;,t!' 9igital file of final plat is provided, I)~ ' ( fi-. current paid tax certificate has been submitted, and .;I!"" the final plat closes to acceptable standards. ~n the filing of Final Plat, the development review engineer should stamp the Letter of Completion with the new stamp and verify-initial-n/a the Final Plat was filed, offsite easements have been filed, we have all necessary easements, etc -and then forward the Letter of Completion to Alan Gibbs (City Engineer) for final signature. Alan to forward hard original of finalized Letter of Completion to Shelia Douglas (Public Works). Shelia to: verify o signatures on the Letter of Completion, o forward scanned copy of Letter of Completion to the owner, developer, contractor, Terry Boriskie (Building), Ben McCarty (Building), Samuel Deal (Accounting), Jeffery Speed (CSU), Stephen Maldonado Sr. (CSU), Diane Broadhurst (CSU), Charles "Butch" Willis (CSU), Sue Holcomb (CSU), Carol Cotter (Engineering), Alan Gibbs (Engineering) and Deborah Grace-Rosier (Planning), o mail copies to the owner and contractor, and o place the original in Public Works Development file. Deborah to place a hard copy ot the Letter of Completion in the associated Planning Final Plat file. SOP: Filing of Final Plats -Letters of Completion 7/0J/09 Inspectors sl:Jall confirm the following and include associated comments on the punchlist as necessary before forwarding Letter of Completion to development review engineer: ~ontact Donnie Willis (0: 764-6375, C: 229-7632) for outstanding Erosion/Drainage issues, g./ contact Gilbert Martinez (0: 764-6255) for outstanding CS Electric and Streetlights, ~oordinate fire flow analyses with CS Water Services (or the design engineer for non-city utilities) and confirm test results meets minimum requirements with the develepment ~eview engineer, o for BTU service area, contact Tom Brent at : 821 -5773 for outstanding BTU Electric and Streetlights. In Tom's absence, John Fontinoe or their supervisor Randy Trimble can be contacted at O: 821-5728. vfur BTU service area, confirm with development review engineer that service agreement is in place with BTU, o for other non-city utility service areas (Wellborn Water SUD, Brushy Creek SUD, Wickson Creek SUD, etc) confirm with development review engineer that infrastructure is complete and for outstanding issues, o--require that 2 copies of Red-lined Record Drawings be provided for all Public Infrastructure 1 with the following attestation: "I, General Contractor for development, certify that the improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are shown substantially hereon. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any are stated correctly hereon." General Contractor ci,-require that 2 copies of Red-lined Record Drawings be provided for all Public Drainage Infrastructure including Private Detention Facilities with the following attestations: "I hereby attest that I am familiar with the approved drainage plan and associated construction drawings and furthermore, attest that the drainage facilities have been constructed within dimensional tolerances prescribed by the Bryan & College station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines and in accordance with the approved construction plans or amendments thereto approved by the City of College Station." (affix seal) Licensed Professional Engineer State of Texas No. ___ _ "I certify that the subdivision improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are substantially as shown hereon. I further certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any, -are stated correctly hereon ." General Contractor Public Utility -Water Line Cost Estimate Preliminary Water Line Opinion of Probable Construction Cost Project Information Name: Limits: City: Public Utility Water Line for 2818 Place Student Housing -Phase II 10"Water Line -From Exisiting 18" Water Line to Exisiting 10" Water Line College Station Construction Cost Projection Item Description Notes: Quantity 10" C909 PVC WATERLINE 10" C909 PVC WATERLINE w/ STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 6" C909 PVC WATERLINE w/ STRUCTURAL BACKFILL FIRE HYDRANT WITH LEAD 10" TAPPING SLEEVE AND VALVE FITTINGS (1 ton/500 L.F.) 6" GATE VALVE 10" GATE VALVE 2" DOMESTIC METER 2 1/2" DOMESTIC METER STEEL ENCASEMENT CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERLINE Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Project Construction Subtotal: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. 480 2620 660 11 1 4 28 11 14 3 40 2 Kimley-Horn and Associate>, . updated: 7/18/2008 Unit Unit Price Item Cost If $ 25.00 $ 12,000 If $ 90.00 $ 235,800 If $ 75.00 $ 49,500 ea $ 2,300.00 $ 25,300 ea $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000 ton $ 3,500.00 $ 13,153 ea $ 1,000.00 $ 28,000 ea $ 1,500.00 $ 16,500 ea $ 2,150.00 $ 30,100 ea $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500 If $ 500.00 $ 20,000 ea $ 1,550.00 $ 3,100 Pre-Allowance Subtotal: $ 443,953 Item Cost $ 443,953 Total Project Cost: $ 443,953 Oi· IDbD~d-. 1 D<)( 111""1-r,. Kimley-Horn Public Utility -Water Line Cost Estimate Water and Sanitary Sewer Line Estimation of Cost Project Information Name: Limits: City: Public Utility Water Line for 2818 Place Student Housing -Phase 11 Water and Sanitary Sewer Line Related to Box Culvert 'B' Installation . College Station Construction Cost Projection Item Description Notes: Quantity REMOVE 8" SANITARY SEWER LINE 10" DUCTILE IRON SANITARY SEWER LINE 8" C909 PVC WATERLINE w/ STRUCTURAL BACKFILL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERLINE 8" GATE VALVE CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY LINE Project Cost Summary Item Description Notes: Project Construction Subtotal: The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or over the Contractor's methods of determining prices or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinions of probable costs. I rt ") ' O lillo...J-i and Associates,. •. '3 ifD updated: 12/16/2008 Y8 Unit Unit Price Item Cost 185 LF 12 $ 2,220 203 LF 100 $ 20 ,300 193 LF 85 $ 16,405 3 EA 3500 $ 10,500 2 EA 1550 $ 3,100 1 EA 1250 $ 1,250 2 EA 1550 $ 3,100 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Pre-Allowance Subtotal: $ 56,875 Item Cost $ 56,875 Total Project Cost: $ 56,875 .. .... ' ' ' ' ' .. ' SP·7 .. .... ' OB-30', ' 08-29, .. SP-5 .. SP·A . 08-29 ' #" ii:\\. . 08-27 ()8.~, C\.29 ' EB.22 •. ' 08-23, 08-22 08-18 . 06-17 08-1' egend Offsite Boring Locations '"Approximate Excavated Area .. .... "' Excavation Sidewall Confirmation Sample e Excavation Floor Confirmation Samples .. Stockpile Samples Pipeline Re laced Section 10 20 40 F .. t . OEl-0 OB-7 1 inch equals 40 feet Terracon No. 92097010 o ... , ' ' o,}.' ' o... ' 08A . OB-2 N t Stockpile ' SCALE: AS SHOVv'N DATE: 1/1-4/2009 2~l 8 Pf cue Figure 1 Confirmation Sample Locations Explorer Pipeline· Colleges Station Texas Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: July 2 1, 2008 Josh No11on Cit y of College Station l 101 Texas Ave S. Col lege Station, TX 77840 Subject: Drainage Certification Letter The dra inage design of 2818 Place Student Housing -Phase II was prepared by me in accord ance with provisions of the Bryan/College Station Unifi ed Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the properiy. All licenses and permits required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the proposed drainage improvements have been issued. Kimley-Hom and Associates, In c. • TEL 979 846 8401 FAX 979 846 8450 ~,,, OFT'' •••••• ~Jr..,'\ *··· .. u-•. ,•..-· · ..•. '* :' ·~·, •• : ......................... 1 ••• 1 ~':!.~1~.!!!'!.'iJ • 94,;. c,q i · ~~s~9 .. ~~~-·····r:..~0..,. ~- • Suite 105 111 University Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date: July 2 1, 2008 Josh No1ion City of College Station 11 01 Texas Ave S. Coll ege Station, TX 77840 RE: LETTER ACKNOWLEDGING CITY ST AND ARDS 28 18 PLACE -PHASE II, COLLEGE ST ATIO , TX The purpose of thi s letter is to acknowledge that th e constraction pl ans for the water, sanitary sewer, streets and drainage for th e above-reference project, to th e best of my knowledge, do not deviate from the B/CS Design Guidelines Manual. I also acknowledge, to the best of my knowledge, that the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Standard Details. Sincerely, Kiml ey-Horn and Associates, Inc . • TEL 979 846 8401 FAX 979 846 8450 • Suite 105 111 University Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 DODSON Our Mission: & ASSOCIATES, INC. Hydrologists and Civil Engineers The Best in Water Resources Engineering November 21, 2007 Mr. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station City Engineer P.O. Box 9960 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, Texas 77842 RE: Optional Detention Facilities for 2818 Place Properties Site Dear Mr. Gibbs: DAI Job No. 1726.1 The purpose of this letter is to request that the 2818 Place development located south of FM 2818 and west of Holleman Drive not be subject to the stormwater detention requirements described in the Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines for the Cities of College Station and Bryan. The following paragraphs provide justification for the request and the required certification as shown in Section 2.C.3.b of the guidelines. The drainage report entitled Floodplain Analysis for a Proposed Student Housing Complex and Letter of Map Revision Request was submitted to the City of College Station on April 3, 2007 by Dodson & Associates, Inc. (Dodson) and Mitchell & Morgan, LLP (M&M). The drainage report presents a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for an unnamed tributary to White Creek and three tributaries to the unnamed tributary to White Creek. The results of the hydrologic analysis indicate that due to the proposed project, small increases in peak flowrates occur. Table 1 on the following page shows the difference from the existing to proposed conditions for the watersheds and stream junctions in the study area. A similar table is located in Appendix A of the drainage report. The drainage area map exhibit (Exhibit 4 in the drainage report) is attached for reference. As shown in Table 1, at the mouth of the unnamed tributary to White Creek (HEC-HMS Junction J-FTC&BP9 on exhibit), the peak flow increase during the 100-year storm is less than one cfs. Due to this relatively small increase in peak flows that reach White Creek and by also noting that the area downstream of the 2818 Place development is undeveloped, I believe that the proposed project will not increase existing flood hazards. A peak flow timing analysis was performed as part of the hydrologic analysis. The timing analysis consisted of comparing the time to peak for runoff hydrographs between existing and proposed conditions. Table 2 on the following page shows the results of the analysis. A similar table is located in Appendix A of the drainage report. As shown in the table, the timing of the peak for the runoff hydrographs changed very little, if at all. These results also support the conclusion that detention storage should not be required for this development. Another general observation concerning the unnamed tributary to White Creek is that the channel topography shows that the tributary cross section is a deeply in cised channel with steep banks that eventually broaden to a flat overbank area. Channels with this type of shape 5629 F.M. 1960 West, Suite 314 Houston, TX 77069-4216 (281) 440-3787 -FAX (281) 440-4742 www.dodson-hydro.com generally do not have increased flood plai n wid ths until th e channel is completely flowing full and water spi lls to the surrounding areas. Typically, small increases in peak flows are not enough to cause large in creases in the width of the flood plain in these types of cha nnels. Table 1. Peak Flowrate Comparison ···'· ·._>· Pe<]k Flowrates Comparison (Proposed -Existing) "(Cfs) .,.,, .· Annual Exceedance Probability Basin SO% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.20% BPl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BP2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BP3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 BP4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BPS 3.2 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.1 BP6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 BP7 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.6 6.9 BP8 5.8 5.8 6.3 6.9 7.2 7.6 29.9 BP9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 BPlO 5.4 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.3 4.3 9.1 .... .:.:,-~, .. ~ ....,, .. ~~ ..... "'"'...__ ........ ..._. 4 ,, ~.,.. ·---· •• # .-,..,~ ,~ ......... -• ~·· ""'_;, • ' --.< ,.. .. U • .S.· .,,_.,._,. •• ~. ~ ~ •••"<:... ""-• _,.., ....,_,, ...... ' ................ ....,~-,e-,,,...·,;Jof-..· .... ,_ - Junctions SO% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.20% J-BPl &BP2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J-BP2&BP1 BPS 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 - J-BP4&BPS 2.6 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.9 J-BP7&BP10 9.4 8.1 7.6 7.5 7.3 6.9 9.3 J-BP8 7.2 6.1 3.8 2.9 2.4 0.4 -12.9 J-FTC&BP9 6.4 4. l 3.1 2.0 0.6 0.1 -11 .5 Table 2. Time to Peak Comparison :~,~~'.',l:~: ,~frt~.~M~iifl.ri)e~f9 e.~J§"~QIDRQii$@f_(Pf9i?Qs~ti~!tiiT9K<roinl;(~~{,~J;:,,~;~~i&;~ Annual Exceedance Probability Basin SO% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.20% BPl 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 BP2 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 BP3 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 BP4 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 BPS 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 BP6 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 BP7 0:04 0:04 0:04 0:04 0:04 0:04 0:02 BP8 0:00 0:02 0:02 0:02 0:02 0:02 0:02 BP9 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 BPlO 0:02 0:02 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 .. . -.· ". ...:,. ... · .· . ..... ., .: .... .. ·• Junctions SO% 20% 10% 4% 2% 1% 0.20% J-BPl &BP2 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 J-BP2&BPl BPS 0:02 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 - J-BP4&BP5 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 J-BP7&BPl 0 0:02 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 J-BP8 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 J-BP9 0:00 0:02 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 0:00 ) . Lastly, the required certification is provided below. Please feel free to contact me with any comments or questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Matthew K. Zeve, P.E., CFM Project Manager Dodson & Associates, Inc. Engineer's Certification (Section 2. C.3.b) I have conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the existing and proposed flow patterns for stormwater runoff from the 2818 Place development to the main stem of the unnamed tributary to White Creek and the three tributaries to the unnamed tributary to White Creek. At build-out conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat note, the stormwater flows from the subject site project will not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of existing building structures, including basement areas, for storms of magnitude up through the 100-year event. • Executive Summary Report Contact Information Owner Pl ace Acquisitions LLC 5215 N. O'Conner Blvd, Su ite 200 Irving, TX 75039 972-868-9193 Contact: Ryan Griffis Identification Engineer Kimley-Horn and Ass ociates, In c. 111 University Drive East, Suite 105 College Station, TX 77840 979-846-8401 Contact: Chris Harris, P.E. The 2818 Place Student Housing -Phase 2 is a 20.25 acre tract located at 1300 Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM2818) on the South side of the road north west of Holleman Drive. Th e subject site is the second phase of a two part multi-family ph ase d development. Th e preliminary pl at was submitted by Bury+ Partners and has been approved by the City of College Station. Th e fina l plat approval is contingent on the completion of Ph ase 1 co nstruction. Th e final plat will include the subdivision of Pha se 1 and Ph ase 2. A rea djustment of zoning line R-4 and A-0 with zero net change in both districts was approved by the City of College Station on May 6, 2008. Location The subject site lies within the White Creek watershed and is split by an unnamed tributary to White Creek, reference the Zo ning Exhibit in Appendix B. Tract A is 5.996 acre tract located north of the unnamed tributary and Tract Dis 7.053 acres located south of the unnamed tributary. Tract A and Tract D are currently both undeveloped an d heavily wooded. Tract A slopes from the north to the south with an avera ge slope of 5.4% and Tract D slopes from the south to the north with an average slope of 5.6%, both tracts currently sheet flow to the existing tributary. Based on the Floodplain Analysis for the unnamed tributary of White Creek, prepared by Dodson & Associates, Inc. dated April 3, 2007 and the detention timing study titled "Optional Detention Facilities for 2818 Place Properties Site" by Dodson & Associates, Inc. dated November 21, 2007 previously approved by the City of College Station, detention for the subject site is not required beca use the addition of developed conditions on the subject tract causes a negligible increase in regulatory flows. Th e subject site is located inside the City of College Station city limits. A portion of the subject site is located within the 100 year floodplain based on the revised FIRM (Flood Insurance Rate Map) Panel Map for Brazoria County, Map No . 480410181 & 480410182 included in Appendix A. A LOMR (Letter of Map Revi sion) was previously prepared and approved by FEMA to alter the existing 100 year floodplain limit between Phase 1 & Phase 2, Case No. 07-06-1353P. Hydrologic Characteristics The 2818 Place Student Housing -Phase 2 property falls within the White Creek watershed. Information about the basin was obtained from Figure B-19 of the City of College Station Drainage Manual. All drainage facilities within this site were designed using the criteria set out in the City of College Station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines Dated February 2008. The adjacent properties to the east and south of the subject site currently sheet flow onto the property and ultimately discharge to a tributary to the unnamed tributary to White Creek. These areas will continue to sheet flow onto the subject site in propose d conditions where they will be intercepted by the onsite storm sewer system. The adjacent property to the west flows towards the unnamed tributary to White Creek downstream from the subject site. Flows north of Harvey Mitchell Parkway that are currently draining through a 30 inch culvert pipe to the site will be conveyed in a underground pipe system and ultimately outfall into the tributary to White Creek. • Hydraulic Criteria As designed, the runoff from the site will flow over the curb and onto the concrete paved parking area where it wi ll be conveyed by underground storm sewer piping or intercepted by landsca pe drains and discharged into the existing drainage way. The drainage areas will include the offsite undeveloped flow from the adjacent properties to the north, east and south. Tract A will have 3 outfalls into the existing ditch, a 27 inch and two 24 inch pipes. Tract D will have 2 outfalls into the existing ditch, a 30 inch and a 24 inch. Th e outlet structures were designed for the 100 year storm event. The drai nage system is designed to collect, convey and release runoff from the 2818 Place Student Housing-Phase 2. Coordination and Perm itting • TxDOT coordination will be needed for the driveway permit and row grading permit for intercepting the existing TxDOT culvert discharge . • United Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) coordination may be required for th e outfalls and culvert crossings. • LOMR/CLOMR coordination may be required for the culvert crossings. Included by Reference • LOMR by Dodson & Associates, Inc. Case No. 07-06-1353P • Timing Analysis by Dodson & Associates, Inc. Dated April 2007 • Zoning Board of Adjustment Approval by the City of College Station Dated May 6, 2008 • Zero Ri se Study by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. Dated June 13, 2008 • 2818 Place Properties Houston -Phase 2, Civil Engi neering Plan s by Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. APPENDIX A FEMA FIRM Maps ZONEX ' City of College Station 480083 LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY City of College Station 480083 LIMITOF DETAILED FM . STUDY Tribmary3 -,..,"TE LIMITS coRPO!"V' LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY Brazos County Unincorporated Areas 481195 ZONEX 2818 Legend r.~ ,,:r/· 1 % annual chance (100-Year) Floodplain ~ 1% annual chance · (100-Year) Floodway 0.2% annual chance (500-Year) Floodplain APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 0 --i=;·--··-· -·-· ---500 , \ NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAMj '=====~.~~./-cc=··==___j=' I FIRM ! FLOOD INSURANCE RA TE MAP ! BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS AND I NCO RPO RA TED AREAS PANEL 182 OF 250 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) .l!Oilfll 0182 TEOAREAS 4$1195 01112 Net.Ce 10 !Jo'A: The ~AP tUtSER ~ t'dcw lJlCIJd bt i.:xd ...t1en ~ m11> ~; r"C COL'.'~ITY NlJ.IBER ~ abo...ettnldbe~Cl'l~~jwb!Nk.ti,ec:t """""""· MAP NUMBER 48041C0182 C EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 2, 1992 federal Emergency Management Agency City of CoJlege Station 480083 ZONEX ZONE AE Brazos County 1Unincorporatcd Areas 481195 CITY OF BRAZOS COLLEGE --...+I-COUNTY STATION N co ;; ...J w ~ a.. (/) z Q ~-~REVISED TO Legend 1 % annual chance (100-Year) Floodplain r/ L~ 1 % annual chance (100-Year) Floodway 0.2% annual chance (500-Year) Floodplain APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET ~""-=···=;,~:: ·---:--...:-_. -~. :··. ·: .:~·: .. ::·=·-" ·~ TIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP " , •BRAZOS COUNTY, '.TEXAS A.i"ID I l'.'ICORPORATED A.REAS PANEL 181 OF 250 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) i CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX COIJ.£G£STATICN.CiTYOF 48006) 0181 ZONE A REFLECT LOMR EFFECTIVE MAY 2 2 2008 !;:.;! !i' ' ! I lll!NCORPORATEO AREAS 4!11'5 0~61 Brazos County Unincorporated ,~reas 481195 EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 2, 1992 , .1. Fcd~nl Emergency Management Agenc)' APPENDIX B Zoning Exhibit POO Pl.ANN ED CEVELOf'MENT ii ,11: I!. A...¢ t.\ULTl-FAMILY AESIOEH'T\A.L TLS PROFERTIES, LTD. REMAINDER OF CAillO 1340.UACRES VOlUME 3022, PAGE 187 O.RB.C. w-t• s :;RAPHIC SC.U.Z !ii • • ~ ;+;;;1 I~ , .... Tl R~Mll.ll.fJ.Ml.YIESCEtl'TW.. IOA.OAGA:OJ\.ll.IRAl.-oPEN ,t..O~T\JRAL-OPEHTO R.4 ....... Tl.fAMl.YAE$1CENT1Al. -· · -• -PROPCEEOK:Nt«illOONCWn' - - - -PROPERTYao..NliO.AY -------EXISTINGUTLITYEASEl.tENT -------PRCPOSEOUTLITYfASEl.llENT 43.633 ACRE TRACT CRAWFORD BURNETT SURVEY A-7 COLLEGE STATION BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ! I! I I 1 illl ii Uil!L ______________________________________ _J_ __________________ ~--~ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction City: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Bryan 111 University Drive East, Suite 105 x College Station College Station, TX 77840 Date of Submittal: June 13, 2008 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): 0-ther: Chris Harris, P. E. Phone (979)846-8401 Fax (979) 846-8450 chris. harris@.kimley-horn.com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: Ryan Griffis (979) 868-9193 Place Properties rgriffis@placeproperties.com 5215 N. O'Conner Blvd., Suite 200 Irving, TX 75039 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Project Identification Development Name: 2818 Place Student Housing-Phase 2 Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi-phase subdivision? Yes If multi-phase, subject property is phase 2 of 2. Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II , Paragraph B-3a) Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, of 2818 Place 43.63 acres If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all earlier phases. For most recent earlier phase Include submittal and review dates. Phase 1 -In construction General Location of Project Area, or subject property (phase): South side of Harvey Mitchell Parkway west of Holleman 1300 Harvey Mitchell In City Limits? Yes Bryan : acres. College Station: 20. 25 (PH2) acres. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): NIA Bryan : College Station: Acreage Outside ET J: AP PENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area Abutting tracts, platted land , or built developments: or subject property: Vacant, unplatted land on 3 sides Harvey Mitchell Parkway Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Tributary Basin( s ): Watershed(s): NIA Tributary to White Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File#: Name: Final Plat File #: Date: Status and Vol/Pg: If two plats , second name: File#: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: R-4 and A-0 Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: Case Date Status: Zonin g Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code: Case Date Statu s: Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants: May 6, 2008 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Preliminary Report Required? No Submittal Date Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes --No --In Writing? When? Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach docum entation explaining) any deviation(s) from provisions of Preliminary Drainage Report, if any. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective Fe bruary 2007 Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Pha se) Note: For any Coord ination of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substantiating any agreements, understandings, contracts, or approvals. Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: Coordination With Other Departments of Juris diction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes -No _K_ Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes -No _K_ Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Driveway permit and row grading permit needed for intercepting TxDOT Yes _K_ No -culvert discharge. Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes -No _K_ PerlYlits For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) As to stormwater management, are permits required for the proposed work from any of the entities listed below? If so , summarize status of efforts toward that objective in spaces below. Entity Permitted or Approved? US Army Corps of Engineers NIA No _x_ Yes -- US Environmental Protection Agency NIA No _x_ Yes -- Texas Commission on Environmental Quality NIA No --Yes _x_ Brazos River Authority NIA No _x_ Yes -- STORMWATER DESIGN GUI LDLI NES Effective February 2007 Status of Actions (include dates) NO/ and SWPPP included in submittal. Page 5 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SU MMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -ProRert:'.ll Characteristics I Start Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing : Land proposed for development currentl y used, including extent of impervious cover? Undeveloped wooded tract. __ Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. Site ___){___Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. Development __ Bu ilding on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. Project __ Building on a single lot, or adjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form (select all a new street (but may include ROW dedication to existing streets). applicable) __ Other (explain): Subdivision __ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. Development ___){___ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more proposed lots on Project lands represented by pending plats . Describe Site projects : building use(s), approximate floor space, impervious cover ratio. Nature and Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and Size of drainage easements or ROW. Pro[!osed Multi-Family/Student Housing, 199,000 GSF floor area, 57% impervious cover. Project Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: or on land for which platting is not pending? _){___ No --Yes FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I No __ Yes _.K__ (Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No __ Yes _.K__ Rate Map 48041C0181C area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): into Floodplain __ Building site(s) areas planned? _.K__ Road crossing(s) No --__ Utility crossing(s) Yes --__ Other (explain): If floodplain areas not shown on Rate Maps, has work been done toward amending the FEMA- approved Flood Study to define allowable encroachments in proposed areas? Explain. Flood plain updated per LOMR case No. 07-06-1353P, effective date May 22, 2008. STORMWATER DES IGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 6 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~erty Characteristics I Conti nued Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property? Yes _x_ No Reference the study (&date) here, and attach copy if not already in City files. See timing analysis letter by Dodson and Associates date November 21 , 2007. See "Floodplain Analysis for a Proposed Student Housing Complex and Letter of Map Revision Request" by Dodson and Associates dated April 3, 2007. Is the stormwater management plan for the property in substantial conformance with the earlier study? Yes ___JS__ No __ If not, explain how it differs. If subject property is not part of multi-phase project, describe stormwater management plan for the property in Part 4. If property is part of multi-phase project, provide overview of stormwater management plan for Project Area here. In Part 4 describe how plan for subject property wi ll comply therewith. Original analysis anticipated developed conditions for Phase II and identified detention was to required. On-site storm drainage will be intercepted and discharged into tributary to White Creek. Yes Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? _){___No --Describe them (i nclude approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). Any known drainage or flooding problems in areas near subject property? _){___ No --Yes Identify: Based on location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed? (see Table B-1 in Appendix B) __ Detention is required . _){___Need must be evaluated. __ Detention not required. What decision has been reached? By whom? No detention required. See approved timing analysis by Dodson and If the need for Type 1 Associates. Detention must be How was determ ination made? evaluated: Hydro-graph timing analysis. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SU MMARY As Revised Februa ry 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro12ert~ Characteristics I Continued Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? __x_ No __ Yes If yes, describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desiqn concept for handlin~ this. Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage Above-Project Areas (Section II , Paragraph 83-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? __ No x Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) BP4 76.8 2) BP2 12.8 3) BP1 76.8 4) BP3 19.2 Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); BP-4 -Discharge from TxDOT culvert BP1, 2, 3 -Received via regulatory watercourse Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: HEC-HMS Musk-cunge and point Sub critical (6/07Rev) Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? --No __x_ Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: 2 culverts under FM 2818 drain [areas BP4 and BP2] into tributary to White Creek. Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain Some off site areas are undeveloped and may change with future development. Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? x No Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies ). Property drains directly into tributary to White Creek. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -P ro~erty Characteristics I Continued Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage easements exist for an y part of pathway( s )? No __K_ Yes -- If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat, or __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions. Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Ea sement or Consent acquired?) NIA Pathway Areas Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). Exist 30" TxDOT culvert to the north. Exist culverts on Whites Branch in Phase I. Nearby Drainage Do any of these have hydrolog ic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? No __K_ Yes If yes, explain: --Flow from exist TxDOT culvert is proposed to be intercepted by on-site drainage system. STORMWATER DESIGN GU ILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Start Stormwater Management Concept Discharg e(s) From Upland Area(s) If runoff is to be received from upland areas, what design drainage features will be used to accommodate it and insure it is not blocked by future development? Describe for each area, flow section, or discharge point. Off-site areas sheet slowing to the property have been accounted for in the design of the on-site system. Alterations/improvements to the regulatory water course have been designed per FEMA and city guidelines. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II, Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? _){_ No --Yes Separate Instrument?_){_ No --Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will runoff __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) be discharged to neighboring property(ies)? ___){__ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) Combination of the two Scenarios -- Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed, and provide status of actions on each. (Attached Exhibit# ) Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development conditions (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc.). (Attached Exhibit# ) See detention timing study by Dodson and Associates (11107). All releases will be discharged into the regulatory water course prior to leaving the property. Combination: If combination is proposed, explain how discharge will differ from pre- development conditions at the property line for each area (or point) of release. If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? _X_ No __ Yes Explain and provide documentation. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Will project result in shifting runoff between Basins or between watersheds? -3_ No --Yes Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff from g-aining basin or watershed? How will runoff from Project 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. Area be mitigated to pre-2. __ Establi shing features to serve overall Project Area . development cond itions? 3. -3_ On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. Select any or all of 1, 2, and/or 3, and explain below. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit # ) 2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit# ) 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Are aquatic echosystems proposed? __x_ No __ Yes In which phase(s) or project(s)? Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? --No Are __){_Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: Special Riprap and vegetation in flood plains per city specs. Designs Planned? -3_ No If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical --Yes Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. Detention elements Conduit elements Channel features ------ --Swales __ Ditches __ Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls --Culvert features __ Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 11of26 APPE NDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Re vised Februa ry 2008 I I SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued) Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? No --_K_ Yes Identify type and general size and In wh ich phase(s). Reinforced concrete boxes 3-1 O'xl' on tributary to White Creek on Tributary 1. If detention/retention serves (will serve) overall Project Area, describe how it relates to subject phase or site project (physical location, conveyance pathway(s), construction sequence): N/A Withi n Or Serving Subject Propert y (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area, is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? __ Yes No, then summarize the difference(s): Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use, and general characteristics. Typical shape? I Surfaces? Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: Are roadside Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: ditches typical greatest (Attached Exhibit# ) used? L No --Yes Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? Yes No, then explain: At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? No __ Yes If yes explain: Are streets with curb and Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? gutter No __ Yes Explain: (number of locations?) used? _){__ No Yes -- STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 ( I SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Stormwater Management Concept (contin ued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phas e, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes: Least 0.005 ft/ft Usual 0. 01 ft/ft Greatest 0. Olftlft Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? --Yes L No If "no", identify where and why. All curb inlets are flush in parking areas. Will inlets capture 10-year design stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)?__){__ Yes __ No If no, explain where and why not. Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year design storm throughout site (or phase)? ___K__ Yes __ No If no, explain. Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? __){__ Yes --No Are inlets and conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? __x_ Yes --No Explain "no" answers. Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on whole length of all streets? __x_ Yes __ No If no, describe where and why. Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? __x_ Yes --No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? __){__No __ Yes Identify length(s) and where used. Pipe runs between system Typical Longest access points (feet): Are junction boxes used at each bend? __){__Yes --No If not, explain Is storm drain where and why. system used? No --_x__ Yes Are downstream soffits at or below upstream Least amount that hydraulic soffits? Yes __){__ No __ If not, explain grade line is below gutter line where and why: (system-wide): STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SU MMARY As Revised February 2008 f ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Conti nued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) (on separate sheet provide same info for Outfall(s) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? Rip Rap (stone) & sheet flow to existing channel 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of receiving and all facilities at juncture? 1) Rip Rap 2) 3) Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? _K_ No --Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low-flow flumes if any): Are Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): swales used to drain streets? Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment). _K__ No Yes -- Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement( s) or platted drainage ROW in al l instances? --Yes --No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of 26 APPEND IX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Pa rt 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Ph ase, or Site) (continued) Are roadside ditches used? _.K_ No __ Yes If so, provide the following: Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? Yes No ---- Roadside Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? Yes No Ditches ----Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain : If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length : Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale com bi nation? --Yes __ No If "no" explain: Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width Swale Surface type, minimum and Conduit Type and size, minimum and Are maximum slopes: maximum slopes, design storm: swale/condu it combinations Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): used in lieu of open channels? Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): K_ No Yes -- Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: (on separate sheet provide same Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? information --Yes __ No If "no" explain: for any additional Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width instances) Swale Surface type, minimum and Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum slopes : maximum slopes, design storm : Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH. DESIGN SU MMARY As Revised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Will swales without If "yes" provide the following information for each instance: buried conduit? Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: __x__ No Yes Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? --Yes --No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: Access Describe how maintenance access is provide : Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? --Yes __ No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? --Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: Instance 3, 4, etc. If swales are used in more than two instances, attach sheet providing all above information for each instance. "New" channels: Will any area(s) of concentrated flow be channelized (deepened, widened , or straightened) or otherwise altered? __ No __ Yes If only slightly shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks, provide information below. Will design replicate natural channel? --Yes --No If "no", for each instance describe section shape & area, flow lin e slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow, and amount of freeboard: Channel improvements Instance 1: proposed? _K_ No --Yes Instance 2: Explain Instance 3: STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUM MARY As Re vised February 2008 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Channel Improvements (continued) Existing channels (small creeks): Are these used? X No Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains ~emain undisturbed? __ Yes _L__ No How many disturbance instances? _2_ Identify each planned location: I Continued 1. Southeast portion of site, small existing drainage way to tributary 1 will be filled including floodplain fringe. 2. North portion of site, outfall channel from exist TxDOT current will be filled. Flow will be directed to underqround storm svstem. For each location, describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location, describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100- year design flow. Watercourses (and tributaries): Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No _L__ Yes Explain below. Construction of 2 culvert crossinq locations. Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures and data. Is full report submitted? ,___X_ Yes __ No If "no" explain: All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information requested in next th ree boxes. If design is to replicate natural channel, identify location and length here, and describe design in Special Design section of this Part of Report. NIA Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? _L__ Yes location and explain : __ No If not, identify Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? __ Yes _L__No If not, identify location(s) and explain: Culverts for private access drives only. No easement required owner owns both sides of channel. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 I I SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SU MMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters Continued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Si te) (continued) Are Detention Facilities Proposed? __ Yes L No How many facilities for subject property project? For each provide info. below. For each dry-type facility: Facility 1 Facility 2 Acres served & design volume+ 10% 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr) Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? __ yes --no __ yes --no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? __ yes --no __ yes --no Explain any "no" answers: For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: Facility 2: Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: --Yes --No Facility 2: --Yes --No If "no" explain: For each , what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? Facility 1: & Facility 2: & Are energy dissipation measures used? --No __ Yes Describe type and location: For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: Facility 1: Facility 2: For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: Facility 2: If berms are used give heights, slopes and surface treatments of sides. Facility 1: Facility 2: STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUM MARY As Revised February 2008 . , ) . SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SU MMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Con tinued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Detention Facilities(continued) Do structures comply with B-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": Facility 1: Facility 2: For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. Are parking areas to be used for detention? __){_ No __ Yes What is maximum depth due to required design storm? Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches? --No __){__ Yes If "yes", provide information in next two boxes. Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? _K_ Yes __ No Without causing flowing or standing water on public roadway?__){_ Yes __ No Designs & materials comply with B-CS Technical Specifications?__){_ Yes __ No Explain any "no" answers: Are Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __){_Yes __ No Explain: culverts used at Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage private ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? crossings? No __x_ Yes If "yes" provide information below. No ---- K___ Yes How many instances? _2_ Describe location and provide information below. Location 1: Culvert crossing on main stem White Creek at northwest corner. Location 2: Culvert crossing on tributary 1 at driveway connection to phase 1. Location 3: For each location enter value for: 1 2 3 Design year passing without toping travelway? 100 100 Water depth on travelway at 25-year flow? 0 0 Water depth on travelway at 100-year flow? 0 0 For more instances describe location and same information on separate sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 19 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIG N SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 t ( \ ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Co ntinued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Are culverts used at public roadway? --Yes _x_ No Named Regulatory Watercourses (&Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these facilities? --No __x_ Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? _x_ Yes -No If "no", explain: Arterial or Major Collector Streets : W ill culverts serve these types of roadways? _x_ No --Yes How many instances? For each identify the location and provide the information below. Instance 1: Instance 2: Instance 3: Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C- 11 )? Explain any "no" answer(s): Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? _x_ No __ Yes How many instances? the information below: Instance 1: Instance 2: Instance 3: For each instance enter value, or "yes" I 1 "no" for: Design yr. headwater W SE 1 ft. below curb top? 100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Prod uct of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) =? Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C- 11 )? Limit of downstream analysis (feet)? Explain any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of 26 for each identify the location and provide 2 3 APP END IX. D: TE CH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 / ) . SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Dra inage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (contin ued) Culverts (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (e xcept driveway/roadside ditch intersects) provide information requested in next eight boxes. Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? __){___ Yes --No If not, identify location(s) and intersect angle(s), and justify the design(s): Does drainage way al ignment change within or near limits of cu lvert and surfaced approaches thereto? __){___No __ Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No _x_ Yes If yes , identify location(s) and provide justification: Culvert crossing on main stem White Creek at northwest corner. Culvert crossing on Tributary 1 at driveway connection to Phase 1 Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? __){___ No __ Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __){___Yes __ No If "no" Identify locations and provide justification( s ): Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? __){___ Yes --No if not, why not? Do appreciable hydraulic effects of any culvert extend downstream or upstream to neighboring land(s) not encompassed in subject property? __){___No __ Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech. Specifications? __){___ Yes --No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 21of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUM MARY As Revised February 2008 . ( ' ... SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Con tinued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Bridge(s) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? ___){__No __ Yes If "yes" provide the followinq information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report. Is the report provided? --Yes --No If "no" explain: Water Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: Quality Pollution Prevention Storm water pollution control measures during construction will Plan (SW3P) include silt fence, inlet protection, rock check dams, established for construction entrances, and other best management practices project construction? as required. --No ___){__ Yes Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland-type detention, natural stream replication, BMPs for water quality, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project? __){__ No --Yes If "yes" list general type and location below. Provide full report about the proposed special design(s) including rationale for use and expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stormwater management objectives will not be compromised, and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution(s). Is report provided? --Yes --No If "no" explain: NIA STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 22 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Re vised February 2008 I ' ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Desi gns -Devi ation From B-CS Technical Specifications If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain by specific detail element. Detention elements __ Drain system elements Channel features ---- Culvert features Swales Ditches Inlets Outfalls ----------__ Valley gutters Bridges (explain in bridge report) In table below briefly identify specific element, justification for deviation(s). Specific Detail Element Justification for Deviation (attach additional sheets if needed) 1 ) 2) 3) 4) 5) Have elements been coordinated with the City Engineer or her/his designee? For each item above provide "yes" or "no", action date, and staff name: 1 ) 2) 3) 4) 5) Design Parameters Hydrology Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? x Yes --No Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Utilized for all on site drainage areas. Intensities and "c" factors per Bryan/College Station design guidelines with a minimum 10 minute TC. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 1.20 acres Location (or identifier): Southwest corner of drainage area map. STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUM MARY As Revised February 2008 • 1 J • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Contin ued Design Pa rameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration , was segment analysis used? _K_ No __ Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? % As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows, were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? _K_ No --Yes If "yes" identify type of data, source(s), and where applied: For each of the stormwater management features listed below identify the storm return frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the ba sis for design. Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets Storm drain system for local streets Open channels Swale/buried condu it combination in lieu of channel Swales Roadside ditches and culverts serving them Detenti on facilit ies: spillway crest and its outfall Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged Culverts serving private dri ves or streets 100 100 Culverts serving public roadways Bridges: provide in bridge report. Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Chann els Highest {feet per second) -13.90 15.00 - - Lowest {feet per second) -2.66 2.50 - - Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlin ed below: Roughness coefficients used : __ For cond uit type(s) RCP HOPE STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 For street gutters: NIA Coefficients: Page 24 of 26 0.013 0.008 AP PE NDIX. D: TECH. DES IG N SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 ( ( > • SECTION IX APPEND IX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drai nage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? _x_ No --Yes Head and friction losses _x_ No __ Yes Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is ve locity generally increased in the downstream direction? _x_ Yes --No Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? _x_ Yes __ No Explain any "no" answers: Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? _x_ Yes --No For 100-year flow conditions? _x_ Yes __ No Explain any "no" answers: What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain: Tai/waters tale from approved floodplain report for tributary to White Creek at each location. Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5 .a? __ Yes __ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? __ Yes __ No If "no" list locations and explain: Culverts If plan sheets do not provide the following for each culvert, describe it here. For each design discharge, will operation be outlet (barrel) control or inlet control? See attached culvert computations. Entrance, friction and exit losses: See attached culvert computations. Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2008 ' ( ,. . SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued Design Parameters (continued) Computer Software What computer software has been used in the analysis and assessment of stormwater management needs and/or the development of facility designs proposed for subject property project? List them below, being sure to identify the software name and version, the date of the version, any applicable patches and the publisher Com an excel s readsheet for the storm sewer i e calculations. Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Design Summary Report. See Section Ill, Paragraph C3 . Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any conclud ing information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Design Summary Drainage Report by signing and sealing below. "This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part 8 was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of the Bryan/College Station Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the property. A/I licenses and permits required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the proposed drainage improvements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits." (Affix Se al) Licensed Profe ssional Engineer State of Texas PE No. 91"8.S-? STORMWATER DESIGN GUILDLINES Effective Feb ruary 2007 Page 26 of 26 As Revised February 2008 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Jason Schubert From: Chris Harris Subject: 2818 Place Student Housing -Phase II Response to City Comments Date: July 21, 2008 2818 Place Phase II -College Station, Texas This memorandum is to address the City of College Station staffs comments on the above mentioned project as received by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. on June 27, 2008. The following information has been included in this submittal for your review. • One set of revised construction documents with site plan and landscape plans • One revised site plan • One set of landscape plans • Detail sheet for proposed parking canopies • Letter of Acknowledgement • Drainage Certification Letter • Updated Drainage Technical Design Summary • Detention analysis by Dodson & Associates , November 21 , 2007 • Sanitary Sewer Technical Design Summary • Engineer's Cost Estimate of Public Utilities Please find the written responses to staffs comments on the following pages. The original city comment is listed followed by our response in bold print. Page 1of7 KHA Job No. 064311009 K:\CIVIL\643 11009-Place_2818\Documents\Response to Review Comments I .DOC Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2818 Place Phase II -College Station, Texas PLANNING 1. Please note that the Final Plat for the subject property will need to be filed for record before the site plan can be approved and development or building permits issued. 2. Please note that the floodway encroachment variance must be granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment before the site plan can be approved and development or building permits issued. A variance for these encroachments has been submitted. Responses to comments rela ted to the variance are addressed under separate cover. 3. Please note that Parkland Dedication fees will be due at the time of building permit. No action taken at this time. 4. If the intent is to develop phase 2 in multiple sub-phases by obtaining certificates of occupancies separately, please phase the site plan and landscape plan accordingly. Each phase must be able to stand along to meet ordinance requirements independently. Comment addressed. 5. At the scale used, it is difficult to clearly distinguish all of the items and features shown on the site plan . Please use the site plan as an index sheet and provide it in multiple sheets. Please note that additional comments beyond those listed here may be identified when the site is provided at a more legible scale. Multiple sheets at an increased scale have been provided. See sheets C-04 through C-07. 6. Remove "Preliminary" from site plan in the title block. Comment Addressed 7. Correct the duplicate numbering of the General Notes. Comment Addressed 8. The symbol for proposed retaining walls in the Legend and the illustration of retaining walls on the site plan is inconsistent. Please revise. Comment Addressed 9. It appears that the proposed cl ubhouse is within the side setback. Please revise . Clubhouse has been adjusted to remove building walls from side setback. See sheet C-05. 10. Provide volume and page of existing easements . Comment Addressed. See sheets C-04 through C-07 11. Provide the finished floor elevations on the site plan. Comment Addressed 12. For the standard depth of a parking space to be reduced from 20 feet to 18 feet, it must be adjacent to a 6- foot sidewalk or 4-foot landscape area. There appears to be number of spaces that do not meet either standard . Please revise. Parking has been revised to meet noted standard. Page 2 of 7 KHA Job No. 064311009 K:ICIVI L\64311 009-Place_ 2818\Documents\Response to Review Comments I .DOC Kimley-Horn and Associates , Inc. 2818 Place Phase II-College Station, Texas 13. The proposed driveway to Harvey Mitchell Parkway has two 15-foot drive lanes separated by a 5-foot median. To meet fire lane standards, the drive lanes must be 20-foot wide or the median must be mountable with lay-down curbs. Please revise and provide details. Driveway has been modified to a single 30 foot drive with no median. 14. If the development is proposed to be gated, please show the gates and provide the Geometric Design Guidelines as found in Section 8.W.3 of the City of College Station Subdivision Regulations. Development is not proposed to be gated. 15. Please show the College Station Utilities (CSU) I Bryan Texas Utilities (BTU) service bounda ry for electrical service . The portion of the property annexed prior to 2000 is within the CSU service area, the portion annexed in 2002 is within the BTU service area. Comment addressed 16. Please provide the details of the proposed carport canopies. These are necessary to determi ne if they will interfere with fire lanes and fire access to buildings. If not provided , the carports will need to be removed from the site plan and will need site plan approval if proposed in the future. A detail sheet of the proposed carport is included with this submittal. 17. Please note that any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that the City has not be made of aware of will constitute a completel y new review. LANDSCAPING/STREETSCAPING/BUFFER 1. Harvey Mitchell Parkway (FM 2818) is classified as a highway on the Thoroughfare Plan in this area. For this type of frontage, one streetscape tree is required for every 25 feet. Please revise the calculations and plantings that have been based on one every 32 feet. 2. Three of the streetscape (frontage) trees provided are more than 50 feet from the front property line. Please revise to be within 50 feet. 3. There appears to be 5 canopy trees near the front driveway and 2 canopy trees near the northern property line that are planted in close proximity to the existing water lines. Please relocate these trees so as not to be in conflict with the water lines. Comments addressed. See sheets L 1 -LS ~~EERING COMMENTS NO. 1 V-~~ease remove all private storm mains from PUEs. It is appropriate for the private storm to cross thru a PUE, but they may not run parallel in the PU Es. Private storm mains running parallel in PUEs have been removed. See sheets C-18 through C-21. /Please clearly label all sanitary sewer runs as public or private. Public runs must be in PUEs , and Private runs must not be in PUEs. All proposed sanitary is proposed to be private. All private sanitary is located outside the PUE's with the exception of crossings. See sheets C-24 through C-26. Page 3 of 7 KHA Job No. 064311009 K:\CIVI L\6431 I 009-Placc_28 I 8\Documents\Response to Review Comments I. DOC Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2818 Place Phase II -College Sta tion, Texas Aase verify that there is not any covered parking being proposed in utility easements. No covered parking is proposed in utility easments rith exception of the 18-in sanitary sewer main which provides both tracts with sewer service , the other proposed sanitary sewer infrastructure can be private and built to building code standard. Combinations of these options were used in Phase 1. Future subdividing above the existing 2 lots wou ld require public sanitary sewer and water to each lot. It is not the intent to subdivide beyond the current two lots . All proposed sanitary sewer for phase II will be private. /it utilities are buried deeper than 6-ft the PUE must be at least 20-ft wide, if deeper than 14-ft the PUE must be at least 30-ft wide, if multiple utilities are located within an easement the easement must be 30-ft wide. Comment addressed /.Please label all existing and proposed PU Es throughout. This label did not show up on Sheet C-19. Comment addressed /utilities located under structural areas must meet the City's "Structural Backfill Area" Detail, please label accordingly. Comment addressed-See sheets C-31 through C-32. Detail sheet W4-04. /iease verify that all sanitary sewer mains have at least 3.5-ft of cover. Any areas with less than 3.5-ft of cover req uire ductile iron pipe and cement stabilized backfill. Comment addressed-See sheet C-27. ~ease label all drop man holes for flow line difference 30-in and greater. Manholes with flow line differences greater than 30-in have been eliminated. See sheet C-27. /P1ease illustrate any adju stments required for existing manholes due to ti e in and grading changes. Rim elevation adjustments have been noted on sheets C-24 through C-26. ~ease verify that a minimum cover of 4-ft is achieved above water main throughout. Comment addressed-See sheets C-31 through C-32. ~ease include plan and profile for all fire hydranUisolation valve/meter runs that are longer than one joint of pipe. Comment addressed -See sheets C-33 through C-34. µ:ase label water main material ty pe . ment addressed-See sheets C-31 through C-32. se provide water demands for each building or each building type as to appropriately size the water ers. Water demands in fixture units and GPM are provided in the water study previously submitted. A table identifying water demands by building type has been added to the water plan. See sheet C-28. Page 4 of 7 KHA Job No. 064311009 K:\CIVIL\6431 1009-Place_2818\Documents\Response to Review Comments I .DOC 11111""1-n Kimley-Horn lllli....J-LJ and Associates , Inc. 2818 Place Phase II -College Station, Texas ~ verify that each Tee on the water main has 2 valves. Please verify that each Cross has 3 valves. There are couple locations where it may be more efficient to place a Cross instead of a TEE. Based on conversations with Josh Norton, we have provided main line valves after each fire hydrant tee and at the branching of main lines. Main line valves have not been provided at each building service tee. This will allow fewer valves and reduced maintena-nce while allowing the line to be shut down with the loss of service for only one fire hydrant at a time. See sheets C-28 through C-30 for revised valve layout. 1 ~es not appear that TCEQ minimum separation requirements for San itary Sewer I Water Conflicts are ? ~e~~g met in some locations , please revise. (IE. material type, separation , etc.) Comment addressed-See sheet C-27. A"the fire suppression line , an isolation valve is required just inside the PUE. Also note on the plans that fire suppression lines shall have a lockable lid on the isolation valve. The lockable lid shall, at a minimum supply protection as the AMP or USA, LL562 Locking Lid. Alternate lockable lids shall be approved by College Station Utilities Director or hi s designee . Comment addressed-See sheets C-28 through C-30. /r'iease verify that all isolation valves are located at least 15-ft away from buildings. Please modify accordingly. Comment addressed-See sheets C-28 through C-30. ~tates above the isolation valves, as well as all meters shall be located within a PUE . The meter shall be placed before or just inside the isolation valve. All water lines located after the isolation valve are considered private. Comment addressed-See sheets C-28 through C-30. ~lease clearly identify the FDC connection on each building, as each FDC must be within 150-ft of a public fire hydrant. Comment addressed-See sheets C-28 through C-30. ~ase submit letter of acknowledgement, which can be found at www.bcsunited.net Comment addressed -letter attached _A;ease provide drainage certification which can be found in Section 2, Page 11 of the Unified Storm Water Design Guidelines. Comment addressed -letter attached ~lease sign the last page of the Drainag e Technical Design Summary. Comment addressed-updated Drainage Technical Design Summary attached As this project is not proposing detention, please certify that the development is utilizing rapid conveyance to the primary channel, verifying that the sites discharge hydrograph and peak is ahead of the main channels hydrograph is such a manor that it does not create a new resulting peak greater than the main channels existing peak, so that there are no negative impacts . A detention analysis was performed by Dodson & Associates, Inc. for both Phase I and II and submitted to the City in November 2007. This analysis contains the hydrograph and routing Page 5 of 7 KHA Job No. 064311009 K:\CIVIL\64311009-Place_2818\Documents\Response to Review Comments I .DOC ' . Kimley-Horn and Associates , Inc. 2818 Place Phase II -College Station, Texas information, as well as the certification you have requested. Phase II of this project has been designed in accordance with the original detention analysis. A copy of the analysis letter has been attached for your convenience. ?~Sheet C-17 and C-18) On Phase 1 we were able to get the utilities inside of the headwa ll as to provide v · ~dditional protection for the utilities during heavy rains, is this a possibility for these crossings? The water line crossing on sheet C-22 has been relocated inside the headwall for the culvert crossing. The existing sanitary line from phase I (Sheet C-23) has remained outside the headwall due to inadequate separation on the utilities. Aheet C-18) Please label the existing sanitary sewer crossing on the profile detail. Comment addressed-See sheet C-23. V7'The Drainage Report, Zero Rise Study and Box Culvert Design are under still under review. Additional comments will fol low once the review is complete. Refer to separate comment response letter regarding these comments. ~ease verify that in the areas where the 24-ft fire lane has been proposed, that the structures adjacent to those fire lanes do not sit more than 30-ft above the adjacent fire lane. No structures above 30-ft are located adjacent to the 24-ft fire lanes. "~ease submit details for the proposed retain ing walls . The retaining walls wi ll need to be signed and sea led ~· ~~an engineer. Engineered retaining wall plans will be submitted to the Building department for review with the building permit application package. /within the last year the City adopted the 2006 Building Codes which require a standalone Building Permit and inspection for all retaining walls greater than 2 feet above grade -and need to be sealed by an engineer. This application is the standard Building Permit application which is reviewed and inspected by Bu ilding. Engineered retaining wall plans will be submitted to the Building department for review with the building permit application package. P1ease remove any retaining walls which encroach utility easements . All retaining walls have been removed from utility easements. P1ease submit engineer's cost estimate. Engineer's opinion of construction cost for public utilities has been attached. A:ease provide sanitary sewer report as to verify appropriate sizing of proposed sanitary mains. All proposed sanitary sewer will be private service. A sanitary sewer report for these lines was included in the original submittal. An additional copy has been included with this letter for your convenience. The sizing of the existing 18" sanitary main was performed as part of the design of phase I. Please reference the phase I plans I report for sizing information on that line. hon submitting for stamping please include the BCS Construction Details. Detail sheets have been included. Page 6of 7 KHA Job No. 064311009 K:\CIVIL\64311009-Place_2818\Documents\Response to Review Comments I .DOC Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2818 Place Phase II -College Station, Texas ~some of the dumpsters are located on easements and above water mains, please add a note to the plans that states that if utilities need to be accessed within the easement and the dumpster enclosure needs to be removed, that it will be the owner's responsibility to repair or replace the structure . (UDO Section 7.7.C.1). No dumpster enclosures are located within utility easements. ~dition to the following standard comments, if more than 5 acres will be disturbed during construction of this project a NOi must be filed with the state and a cop y provided to the CoCS. Storm water management requirements are as follows , any questions may be directed to Donnie Willis, CoCS Drainage Inspector, at 979-764-6375: An NO/ will be filed prior to construction. An SWPPP plan is currently being prepared for the project. Page 7 of 7 KHA Job No. 064311009 K:\CIVIL\64311009-Place_2818\Documen1s\Response to Review Comments I .DOC ' . 111""1--" Kirnley-Hom 11111....J LJ and Associates, Inc. Technical Memorandum To: City of College Station From: John R. Atkins, P.E. Date: June 12, 2008 Subject: 2818 Place Student Housing Water System Analysis-Phase 2 KHA Project No. 064311010 Purpose _, ........ ,,,,. _ .... ~OF r \\ ~\.?--~ ........... ~..\-~'' ""?··· * ···.IS'&a ;11' .. •• v ;'•./ \1161 '*: .. ..,'6 ,. .............................. : .... / ~ JOHN R. ATKINS : r···:, ......................... , ... ~ ,,--;l..... 85376d-/ ~ t-?o •• < •• ~.,...~··.! .. NS~~ ... :\-., JJ.'<~, .•.••. .., j~~~ ·v ~,. 1~·08 2818 Place is a new student housing development located near 1300 Harvey Mitchell Parkway in College Station, Texas. The proposed development consists of multi-unit buildings on approximately 44 acres. This technical memorandum is limited to presenting results of the water system analysis for Phase 2 of the development. This memorandum is divided into the following sections: • References and Design Criteria • Results • Conclusion References and Design Criteria References Water distribution mains throughout Phase 2 of the development were sized by creating a hydraulic model of the system, using WaterCAD version 7.0 by Bentley Systems. The following data and references were used for creation of the model: • Fire flow Lc::sls performed for College Station Utilities by Central Fire Proteclion, Inc. on September 27, 2007 near the proposed development site. • Su~e 105 111 Univeisity Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 .. 2818 Place Student Housin g Water System Analysis -Phase 2 June 12,2008 Page 2 • 281 8 Place Phase I -"S ummary of Water Main etwork Model Results" prepared by Bury.& Partners on July 31, 2007. o The water distribution mains located in Phase I of the development were re-created for this analysis using water model results from Phase I. Design Cri teria Water distribution mains were sized based on design criteria listed in th e 2008 Bryan I College Station Unified Design Guidel ines for Domestic Water. Design criteria used for this analysis includes: • Normal Flow Conditions o Provide mjnimum pressure of 35 pounds per square inch (psi) • Fire Flow Conditions o Provide the required fire flow at the mos t hydrau li call y remote pairings of 2 adjacent fire hydrants in th e system improvement in addition to the peak hourly flow. o A residual pressure of 20 psi is required o Velocity shall not exceed 12 feet per second (fps) The Unified Design Guidelines allow fo r multiple methods for calculation of flow for a development. For this analysis, Method 1 -Fixture Count Determjnation was used. A summa ry of the demand calculation is included as Appendix A of this memorandum. Res ults Normal Flow Condition Normal flow conditions are considered to be municipal demand as determjned fro m fixture counts show in Appendix A. During normal flow conditions, system pressures throughout the development are greater than the required 35 psi. Resulting pressures range from 85 psi to 95 psi. WaterCAD resu lts of the normal flow scenario are included as Appe ndix B of this memorandum. Fire Flow Conditions Based on the analysis performed for Phase 1 of the development, it is assumed that the required fire flow for the development is 3,000 gallons per minute (gpm). The fire flo w demand added to normal flow and distributed at the most hydra ulically remote and highest elevation building in Phase 2, represented by ' . 28 18 Place Studen t Housin g Water System Analysis -Phase 2 June 12, 2008 Page 3 Junction J-60. A building fire fl ow of 500 gp m was p laced at this junction, and 1,250 gpm was placed at two adjacent fire hydrants. Res ults of the fire flow scenari o show that residual p ressures ra nge from 69 psi to 87 psi. P ipe velocities are all less than the maximum 12 fps, with the exception of the two fire hydrant leads where the 1,250 gpm fire fl ow is placed, where velocities are approximately 14 fps. We consider thjs velocity to be acceptable in this case given that the res idual pressures are all hi gher than 68 psi, which comfortably exceeds the minimum 20 psi requirement. Conclusion In conclusion, the water distribution mains proposed for the development exceed the minimum requirements as described memorandum. ' . Appendix A Demand Calculation Summary Appendix B Normal Flow Model Results Label Elevation (ft) J-7 302.00 J-32 303.50 J-41 309.00 J-42 311 .00 J-43 306.50 J-44 312.25 J-45 313.00 J-46 313.00 J-47 303.25 J-48 294.00 J-49 294.50 J-50 295.75 J-51 296.25 J-52 297.50 J-53 299.75 J-54 300.75 J-55 305.25 J-56 305.25 J-57 310.96 J-58 314.86 J-59 307.91 J-60 315.09 J-61 311 .93 J-62 311 .94 J-63 303 07 J-64 292.00 J-65 291.75 J-66 295.00 J-67 295.72 J-68 295.40 J-69 297.66 J-70 294.50 J-71 298.07 J-72 300.25 J-73 303.00 J-74 302.00 J-75 302.50 J-76 303.00 J-116 299.00 J-178 299.00 J-181 302.00 J-284 303.50 J-288 305.00 J-292 304.50 J-293 304.00 J-298 300.50 J-302 308.50 J-303 307.50 J-304 311 .50 J-305 311 .50 J-308 314.50 J-310 296.50 J-313 304.00 J-314 309.00 Title: College Station Phase II Scenario: NORMAL FLOW Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Calculated (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (gpm) (ft) 30.00 515.12 0.00 513.30 0.00 513.22 52.50 513.21 000 513.19 0.00 513.18 0.00 513.19 0.00 513.19 000 513.23 0 00 513.52 0.00 513.56 000 513.75 000 513.80 0.00 514.23 000 514.45 000 514.52 0.00 513.18 0.00 513.18 52.50 513.18 52.50 513.17 63.00 513.16 52.50 513.18 63.00 513.17 52.50 513.18 52.50 513.22 63.00 513.47 52.50 513.55 0 00 513.54 52.50 513.53 52.50 513.53 52.50 513.73 52.50 513.78 63.00 514.20 23.30 514.45 000 513.18 000 513.18 000 513.27 000 513.27 100.00 513.35 0.00 513.36 0.00 515.14 0.00 513.58 30.00 513.55 30.00 513.64 000 513.65 0.00 513.61 0.00 513.62 30.00 513.61 30.00 513.64 0.00 513.66 30.00 514.04 0.00 51 3.69 0.00 51 3.56 30.00 514.04 k:\ ... \06431101 O\eng\collegestationph2_v2.wcd Kimley-Horn and Associates Pressure (psi) 92.21 90.77 88.36 87.49 89.43 86.93 86.61 86.61 90.85 94.98 94.78 94.32 94.12 93.77 92.89 92.49 89.96 89.96 87.49 85.80 88.80 85.70 87.07 8707 90.92 95.82 95.96 94.55 94.24 94.38 93.48 94.87 93.51 92.67 90.94 91.37 91.19 90.97 92.74 92.74 92.22 90.89 90.23 90.48 90.71 92.20 88.75 89.17 87.46 87.47 86.33 93.97 90.67 88.71 06/12/08 08:28:45 AM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA Project Engineer: KHA WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.048.00] + 1-203-7 55-1666 Page 1 of 2 Label Elevation (ft) J-315 308.00 J-316 298.50 J-317 298.00 J-318 301.00 J-319 300.50 J-320 300.50 J-321 300.00 J-323 301 00 J-324 300.00 J-325 303.00 J-326 302.00 J-327 313.50 J-328 312.50 J-329 297.00 J-332 312.00 J-333 311.50 J-334 308.00 J-335 308.00 J-339 304.50 J-399 297.00 Title: College Station Phase II Scenario: NORMAL FLOW Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Calculated (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (gpm) (ft) 0.00 514 05 30.00 513.68 0.00 513.70 30.00 514.02 000 514 03 30.00 513.68 0.00 513.69 30.00 514.12 0.00 514.13 30.00 513.59 0.00 513.59 30.00 513.78 0.00 513.79 30.00 513.59 30.00 514.05 0.00 514.06 30.00 514.40 0.00 514.41 0.00 514.44 30.00 513.68 k:\ ... \064311 01 O\eng\collegestationph2_v2.wcd Kimley-Horn and Associates Pressure (psi) 89.15 93.10 93.32 92.16 92.38 92.23 92.45 92.21 92.64 91.11 91.55 86.65 87 09 93.71 87.42 87.64 89.30 89.30 90.83 93.75 06/12/08 08:28:45 AM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA Project Engineer: KHA WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.048.00] + 1-203-7 55-1666 Page 2 of 2 Label Diameter Length (in) (ft) P-1 48.0 P-2 12.0 P-4 12.0 P-9 10.0 P-1 1 10.0 P-12 10.0 P-15 10.0 P-16 10.0 P-17 8.0 P-1 8 8.0 P-21 8.0 P-26 8.0 P-29 8.0 P-30 8.0 P-32 6.0 P-33 10.0 P-36 10.0 P-38 6.0 P-39 6.0 P-40 6.0 P-41 6.0 P-42 6.0 P-43 6.0 P-44 6.0 P-45 6.0 P-46 10.0 P-47 10.0 P-48 6.0 P-49 6.0 P-50 6.0 P-51 10.0 P-52 6.0 P-53 6.0 P-54 8.0 P-55 6.0 P-56 6.0 P-57 6.0 P-58 6.0 P-59 6.0 P-61 10.0 P-62 6.0 P-63 6.0 P-64 10.0 P-66 10.0 P-67 10.0 P-68 10.0 P-70 10.0 P-71 10.0 P-72 10.0 P-73 10.0 P-74 10.0 P-75 10.0 P-76 10.0 P-77 10.0 Title: College Station Phase II Scenario: NORMAL FLOW Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Hazen-Discharge Williams (gpm) c 37.00 150.0 834.94 138.00 150.0 834.94 540.00 150.0 804.94 290.00 150.0 416.12 155.00 150.0 386.12 19.00 150.0 354.94 354.00 150.0 324.94 169.00 150.0 224.94 210.00 150.0 -58.82 129.00 150.0 -88.82 292.00 150.0 -118.82 418.00 150.0 -208.82 108.00 150.0 -238.82 248.00 150.0 -268.82 201.00 150.0 30.00 259.00 150.0 506.12 20.00 150.0 536.12 11 4.00 150.0 30.00 41 .00 150.0 60.00 141 .00 150.0 30.00 104.00 150.0 30.00 43.00 150.0 60.00 145.00 150.0 30.00 103.00 150.0 30.00 122.00 150.0 30.00 77.00 150.0 326.12 85.00 150.0 296.12 130.00 150.0 30.00 169.00 150.0 30.00 84.00 150.0 30.00 20.00 150.0 100.00 235.00 150.0 30.00 117.00 150.0 30.00 28.00 150.0 -148.82 38.00 150.0 60.00 144.00 150.0 30.00 92.00 150.0 30.00 80.00 150.0 30.00 92.00 150.0 30.00 294.00 150.0 224.94 41 .00 150.0 52.50 70.00 150.0 30.00 139.00 150.0 172.44 45.00 150.0 -48.06 3.00 150.0 -111 .06 267.00 150.0 -163.56 102.00 150.0 -279.06 178.00 150.0 -436.56 42.00 150.0 -489.06 282.00 150.0 -541 .56 120.00 150.0 -604.56 37.00 150.0 -627.86 75.00 150.0 119.94 9.00 150.0 67.44 k:\ ... \06431101 O\eng\collegestationph2_v2.wcd Kimley-Horn and Associates Velocity (ft/s) 06/11/08 05:39:59 PM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA 0.15 2.37 2.28 1.70 1.58 1.45 1.33 0.92 0.38 0.57 0.76 1.33 1.52 1.72 0.34 2.07 2.19 0.34 0.68 0.34 0.34 0.68 0.34 0.34 0.34 1.33 1.21 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.34 0.34 0.95 0.68 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.92 0.60 0.34 0.70 0.20 0.45 0.67 1.14 1.78 2.00 2.21 2.47 2.56 0.49 0.28 Head loss Gradient (ft/1000ft) 0.00 1.39 1.30 0.93 0.81 0.69 0.59 0.30 0.07 0.16 0.27 0.77 0.99 1.23 0.09 1.34 1.49 0.09 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.59 0.50 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.41 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.30 0.24 0.09 0.18 0.02 0.08 0.17 0.44 1.02 1.26 1.52 1.86 2.00 0.09 0.03 Project Engineer: KHA WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.048.00] +1 -203-755-1666 Page 1 of2 .· Label Diameter (in) P-79 6.0 P-80 6.0 P-81 6.0 P-82 6.0 P-83 6.0 P-84 6.0 P-85 6.0 P-86 6.0 P-87 6.0 P-88 6.0 P-89 6.0 P-90 6.0 P-91 6.0 P-92 6.0 P-93 6.0 P-94 6.0 P-95 48.0 P-96 12.0 P-97 10.0 P-98 10.0 P-99 6.0 P-100 6.0 P-101 10.0 P-102 6.0 Title: College Station Phase II Length (ft) Scenario: NORMAL FLOW Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Hazen-Discharge Williams (gpm) c 28.00 150.0 52.50 73.00 150.0 52.50 82.00 150.0 63.00 34.00 150.0 52.50 57.00 150.0 63.00 11 .00 130.0 52.50 46.00 150.0 52.50 132.00 150.0 63.00 50.00 150.0 52.50 24.00 150.0 105.00 53.00 150.0 52.50 48.00 150.0 52.50 59.00 150.0 52.50 93.00 150.0 52.50 90.00 150.0 63.00 46.00 150.0 23.30 41 .00 150.0 627.86 76.00 150.0 627.86 314.00 150.0 4.44 190.00 150.0 4.44 23.00 150.0 0.00 12.00 150.0 -216.06 901 .00 150.0 -216.06 10.00 130.0 0.00 k:\ ... \06431101 Olenglcollegestationph2_v2.wcd Kimley-Horn and Associates Velocity (fVs) 06/11/08 05:39:59 PM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA 0.60 0.60 0.71 0.60 0.71 0.60 0.60 0.71 0.60 1.19 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.71 0.26 0.11 1.78 0.02 0.02 0.00 2.45 0.88 0.00 Head loss Gradient (fV1000ft) 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.24 0.34 0.32 0.24 0.34 0.24 0.87 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.05 000 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.33 0.28 0.00 Project Engineer: KHA WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.048.00) +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Appendix C Fire Flow Model Results Label Elevation (ft) J-7 302.00 J-32 303.50 J-41 309.00 J-42 311.00 J-43 306.50 J-44 312.25 J-45 313.00 J-46 313.00 J-47 303.25 J-48 294.00 J-49 294.50 J-50 295.75 J-51 296.25 J-52 297.50 J-53 299.75 J-54 300.75 J-55 305.25 J-56 305.25 J-57 310.96 J-58 314.86 J-59 307.91 J-60 315 09 J-61 311 .93 J-62 311 .94 J-63 303.07 J-64 292.00 J-65 291.75 J-66 295.00 J-67 295.72 J-68 295.40 J-69 297.66 J-70 294.50 J-71 298.07 J-72 300.25 J-73 303.00 J-74 302.00 J-75 302.50 J-76 303.00 J-116 299.00 J-1 78 299.00 J-1 81 302.00 J-284 303.50 J-288 305.00 J-292 304.50 J-293 304.00 J-298 300.50 J-302 308.50 J-303 307.50 J-304 311 .50 J-305 311 .50 J-308 314.50 J-310 296.50 J-313 304.00 J-314 309.00 Title: College Station Phase II Scenario: FIRE FLOW Steady State Analysis Junction Report Demand Calculated (Calculated) Hydraulic Grade (gpm) (ft) 30.00 502.35 000 483.07 0.00 479.62 52.50 479.61 0.00 478.08 000 474.36 000 474.40 000 474.40 0.00 474.76 0.00 487.72 0.00 489.26 0.00 492.37 0.00 493.14 0.00 498.55 0.00 500.99 0.00 501.75 0.00 477.30 000 477.21 52.50 478.07 52.50 477.28 63.00 477.19 552.50 473.72 63.00 474.38 52.50 474.40 52.50 474.75 63.00 487.68 52.50 489.24 0.00 489.23 52.50 489.22 52.50 489.22 52.50 492.35 52.50 493.12 63.00 498.52 23.30 500.98 0.00 474.40 1,250.00 472.42 0.00 474.99 1,250.00 473.87 100.00 485.05 0.00 485.05 0.00 502.37 0.00 489.95 30.00 489.68 30.00 491.15 0.00 491 .17 0.00 491 .26 0.00 490.58 30.00 490.57 30.00 491.16 0.00 491 .18 30.00 495.01 0.00 492.60 0.00 489.69 30.00 495.01 k:\ ... \06431101 O\eng\collegestationph2_v2.wcd Kimley-Horn and Associates Pressure (psi) 86.68 77.69 73.82 72.95 74.24 70.14 69.83 69.83 74.20 83.81 84.26 85.07 85.18 86.99 87.07 86.96 74.44 74.40 72.30 70.27 73.24 68.63 70.29 70.29 74.28 84.66 85.45 84.04 83.72 83.86 84.24 85.93 86.73 86.85 74.15 73.73 74.63 73.93 80.50 80.50 86.69 80.67 79.90 80.76 80.98 82.53 78.78 79.21 77.73 77.74 78.10 84.84 80.34 80.48 06/12/08 08:44:40 AM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA Project Engineer: KHA WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.048.00] +1-203-755-1666 Page 1of2 Label Elevation Demand (ft) (Calculated) (gpm) J-315 308.00 J-316 298.50 J-317 298.00 J-318 301.00 J-319 300.50 J-320 300.50 J-321 300.00 J-323 301.00 J-324 300.00 J-325 303.00 J-326 302.00 J-327 313.50 J-328 312.50 J-329 297.00 J-332 312.00 J-333 311 .50 J-334 308.00 J-335 308.00 J-339 304.50 J-399 297.00 Title: College Station Phase II Scenario: FIRE FLOW Steady State Analysis Junction Report Calculated Hydraulic Grade (ft) 000 495.02 30.00 492.73 0.00 492.75 30.00 495.28 0.00 495.29 30.00 492.72 000 492.73 30.00 496.00 0.00 496 01 30.00 490.72 0.00 490.73 30.00 492.47 0.00 492.49 30.00 491.24 30.00 495.03 0.00 495.03 30.00 497.58 000 497.59 0.00 497.79 30.00 492.59 k:\ ... \064311010\eng\collegestationph2_v2.wcd Kimley-Horn and Associates Pressure (psi) 80.91 84.03 84.26 84.06 84.28 83.16 83.39 84.37 84.80 81.22 81 .65 77.43 77.87 8404 79.19 79.41 82.02 82.02 83.63 84.62 06/12/08 08:44:40 AM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA Project Engineer: KHA WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.048.00] +1-203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 I : Label Diameter Length (in) (ft) P-1 48.0 P-2 12.0 P-4 12.0 P-9 10.0 P-11 10.0 P-1 2 10.0 P-1 5 10.0 P-16 10.0 P-17 8.0 P-1 8 8.0 P-21 8.0 P-26 8.0 P-29 8.0 P-30 8.0 P-32 6.0 P-33 10.0 P-36 10.0 P-38 6.0 P-39 6.0 P-40 6.0 P-41 6.0 P-42 6.0 P-43 6.0 P-44 6.0 P-45 6.0 P-46 10.0 P-47 10.0 P-48 6.0 P-49 6.0 P-50 6.0 P-51 10.0 P-52 6.0 P-53 6.0 P-54 8.0 P-55 6.0 P-56 6.0 P-57 6.0 P-58 6.0 P-59 6.0 P-61 10.0 P-62 6.0 P-63 6.0 P-64 10.0 P-66 10.0 P-67 10.0 P-68 10.0 P-70 10.0 P-71 10.0 P-72 10.0 P-73 10.0 P-74 10.0 P-75 10.0 P-76 10.0 P-77 10.0 Title: College Station Phase II Scenario: FIRE FLOW Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Hazen-Discharge Williams (gpm) c 37.00 150.0 2,244 58 138.00 150.0 2,244.58 540.00 150.0 2,214.58 290.00 150.0 1,397.04 155 .00 150.0 1,367.04 19.00 150.0 1,764 58 354.00 150.0 1,734.58 169.00 150.0 1,634 58 210.00 150.0 -487.53 129.00 150.0 -517.53 292.00 150.0 -547.53 41 8.00 150.0 -637.53 108.00 150.0 -667.53 248.00 150.0 -697.53 201 .00 150.0 30.00 259.00 150.0 1.487.04 20.00 150.0 1,517.04 114.00 150.0 30.00 41.00 150.0 60.00 141 .00 150.0 30.00 104.00 150.0 30.00 43.00 150.0 60.00 145.00 150.0 30.00 103.00 150.0 30.00 122.00 150.0 30.00 77.00 150.0 1,307.04 85.00 150.0 1,277.04 130.00 150.0 30.00 169.00 150.0 30.00 84.00 150.0 30.00 20.00 150.0 100.00 235.00 150.0 30.00 117.00 150.0 30.00 28.00 150.0 -577.53 38.00 150.0 60.00 144.00 150.0 30.00 92.00 150.0 30.00 80.00 150.0 30.00 92.00 150.0 30.00 294.00 150.0 1,634.58 41 .00 150.0 52.50 70.00 150.0 30.00 139.00 150.0 1,582.08 45.00 150.0 -388.42 3.00 150.0 -451.42 267.00 150.0 -503.92 102.00 150.0 -1 ,869.42 178.00 150.0 -2,026.92 42.00 150.0 -2,079.42 282.00 150.0 -2,131 .92 120.00 150.0 -2,194.92 37.00 150.0 -2,218.22 75.00 150.0 1,529.58 9.00 150.0 1.477.08 k:\ ... 1064311010\englcollegestationph2_v2.wcd Kimley-Horn and Associates Velocity (!Us) 06/12/08 08:45:19 AM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA 0.40 6.37 6.28 5.71 5.58 7.21 7.09 6.68 3.11 3.30 3.49 4.07 4.26 4.45 0.34 6.07 6.20 0.34 0.68 0.34 0.34 0.68 0.34 0.34 0.34 5.34 5.22 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.34 0.34 3.69 0.68 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 6.68 0.60 0.34 6.46 1.59 1.84 2.06 7.64 8.28 8.49 8.71 8.97 9.06 6.25 6.03 Head loss Gradient (fU1000ft) 0.01 8.69 8.48 8.78 8.43 13.53 13.11 11 .74 3.70 4.14 4.59 6.09 6.63 7.19 0.09 9.85 10.22 0.09 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.09 7.76 7.43 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.09 5.07 0.31 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 11 .74 0.24 0.09 11 .05 0.82 1.09 1.33 15.06 17.49 18.34 19.20 20.27 20.67 10.38 9.73 Project Engineer: KHA WaterCAD v7.0 (07.00.048.00] + 1-203-7 55-1666 Page 1 of 2 ' l . . Label Diameter (in) P-79 6.0 P-80 6.0 P-81 6.0 P-82 6.0 P-83 6.0 P-84 6.0 P-85 6.0 P-86 6.0 P-87 6.0 P-88 6.0 P-89 6.0 P-90 6.0 P-91 6.0 P-92 6.0 P-93 6.0 P-94 6.0 P-95 48.0 P-96 12.0 P-97 10.0 P-98 10.0 P-99 6.0 P-100 6.0 P-101 100 P-102 6.0 Title: College Station Phase II k:\ ... \06431101 O\eng\collegestationph2_v2.wcd 06/12/08 08:45:19 AM© Bentley Systems, Inc. Scenario: FIRE FLOW Steady State Analysis Pipe Report Length Hazen-Discharge (ft) Williams (gpm) c 28.00 150.0 52.50 7300 150.0 52.50 82.00 150.0 63.00 34.00 150.0 552.50 57.00 150.0 63.00 11 .00 130.0 52.50 46.00 150.0 52.50 132.00 150.0 63.00 50.00 150.0 52.50 24.00 150.0 105.00 53.00 150.0 52.50 48.00 150.0 52.50 59.00 150.0 52.50 93.00 150.0 52.50 90.00 150.0 63.00 46.00 150.0 23.30 41 .00 150.0 2,218.22 76.00 150.0 2,218.22 314.00 150.0 1,414.08 190.00 150.0 164 08 23.00 150.0 1,250.00 12.00 150.0 -556.42 901 .00 150.0 -1,806.42 1000 130.0 1,250.00 Velocity Head loss (ft/s) Gradient (ft/1000ft) 0.60 0.24 0.60 0.24 0.71 0.34 6.27 18.96 0.71 0.34 0.60 0.32 0.60 0.24 0.71 0.34 0.60 0.24 1.19 0.88 0.60 0.24 0.60 0.24 0.60 0.24 0.60 0.24 0.71 0.34 0.26 0.05 0.39 0.01 6.29 8.50 5.78 8.98 0.67 0.17 14.18 8602 6.31 19.21 7.38 14.13 14.18 112.12 Project Engineer: KHA Kimley-Horn and Associates WaterCAD v7.0 [07.00.048.00) Haestad Methods Solution Center Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1 -203-755-1666 Page 2 of 2 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Technical Memorandum To: City o f College Station From: J. Chris Han-is, P .E. Date: June l 3, 2008 Subject: 2818 Place Student Housing -Phase II Sanita1·y Sewer Analysis KHA Project No. 0643 11 010 2818 Place is a new student housing development 1 ated near 1300 Harvey Mitchel l Parkway in College Station, Texas. This proposed development is the second of two phases, located on approximately 23 acres. This technical memorandum addresses sanitary sewer capacity for the proposed sanitary sewer mains for the second phase of this development. Analysis of phase 1 sanitary sewer mains is not included in this analysis. Des ign Criteria There are three sanitary sewer mains proposed on the subject site. All sanitary sewer mains have been designed in accord ance with the BCS Unified Design Guidelines and C ity of College Station standard specifications. Flow calculations were perfonned using Method 1 -Fixture Count Determjnation as provided by the M echani cal/Electri cal/Plumbing engineer for the development. An exhibit showing demands at each building is attached to this memorandum. Capacities of the sanitary lines were detennined using Maru1i ngs fomrnla for each segement between connections. Res ults The att<1c hed spreadsheet shows the results of the capacit y calculations fo r each segement o f the three proposed lines. This analysis indicates that all pipe sizes exceed the capacit y requirements [or the fl ow in each segem ent. The mi 111mum excess capacity in all three systems is 0 187 MGD and occurs in Line C All segements are at or above minimum slopes as outlined in the design criteri a. Conclusion The sanitary sewer mains for the proposed development exceed the minimum requirements as described herein . • TEL 979 846 8401 FAX 979 846 8450 • Suite 105 111 University Drive East College Station, Texas 77840 Project Name: _______ 2_8_1 _8_P_la_c_e_S_tu_d_e_n_t H_o_u_s_in~g~-_P_h_a_se_ll ______ _ Project No: ____________ 6_4_31_1_0_0_9_.0 __________ _ Prepared By: ___ J_C_H___ Date: _______ 6_/1_3_/2_0_0_8 _____ _ Checked By: ___ M_J_M___ Date: _______ 6_/1_3_/2_0_0_8 _____ _ SANITARY SEWER CALCULATIONS Building Existing/ Existing/ Pipe Building Peak Cumulative Cumulative Excess Beginning Point Ending Point Served Cumulative Buildings Pro"posed Proposed Capacity Drainage Building Peak Demand Peak Flow Capacity (No. I Type) Served Slope [ft/ft] Diameter (MGD) Fixture Demand GPM GPM (MGD) (MGD) lftl Units Sanitary Line A 12+40.23 13+67.84 CH CH 0.01 0.50 0.364 33 8.25 8.3 0.012 0.352 11+55.73 12+40.23 -CH 0.004 0.67 0.495 0 8.3 0.012 0.483 10+87.37 11 +55.73 1 I VI CH,1 0.004 0.67 0.495 244 61 69.3 0.100 0.396 10+10.78 10+87.37 -CH,1 0.004 0.67 0.495 0 69.3 0.100 0.396 8+93.28 10+10.78 2 I IV CH,1,2 0.004 0.67 0.495 192 48 117.3 0.169 0.326 8+36.78 8+93.28 4 /V CH, 1,2,4 0.004 0.67 0.495 192 48 165.3 0.238 0.257 7+77.57 8+36.78 3 I IV CH,1,2,3,4 0.004 0.67 0.495 192 48 213.3 0.307 0.188 6+82.37 7+77.57 -CH,1,2,3,4 0.004 0.67 0.495 0 213.3 0.307 0.188 5+80.09 6+82.37 5 I IV.Line B CH, 1,2,3,4,5,6 0.003 0.83 0.778 384 96 309.3 0.445 0.332 5+01.45 5+80.09 7 I VI CH,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 0.003 0.83 0.778 244 61 370.3 0.533 0.245 2+33.45 5+01.45 -CH,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 0.003 0.83 0.778 0 370.3 0.533 0.245 1 +27.83 2+33.45 -CH,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 0.003 0.83 0.778 0 370.3 0.533 0.245 0+24.50 1+27.83 -CH,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 0.003 0.83 0.778 0 370 .3 0.533 0.245 0+00 0+24.50 -CH, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 0.003 0.83 0.778 0 370.3 0.533 0.245 Sanitary Line B 0+00 0+75.60 6 / IV 6 0.004 0.67 0.495 192 48 48.0 0.069 0.426 Sanitary Line C 2+19.52 3+74.54 12 I IV 12 0.008 0.50 0.325 192 48 48.0 0.069 0.256 1+50.56 2+19.52 11 I IV 11 , 12 0.008 0.50 0.325 192 48 96.0 0.138 0.187 0+33.81 1 +50.56 -11 , 12 0.04 0.50 0.727 0 96.0 0.138 0.589 0+00 0+33.81 -11 , 12 0.04 0.50 0.727 0 96.0 0.138 0.589