Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFolderCITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS [8J $200.00 development permit fee. D Drainage and erosion control plan, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each D Notice of Intent (N .0 .1.) if disturbed area is greater than 5 acres Date of *Required Preapplication Conference: ___________________ _ *(Required for areas of special flood hazard) LEGAL DESCRIPTION --------=S=u"""m.:.:..m"""i"'""t -=C..:...;ro=s=s=in..:.;;g ...... .;._P..:...:h=a=se~O;..:_n=e ___________ _ APPLICANT'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name ------'-R"""a=b"""o"'""n-'-M""'"e"""'t'""'"ca=l"""f-'-P-'-.=E"""". _____ E-Mail ---'r-=a=b-=-on"""@"""""-rm'-'-=e""""ng..._i"""n-=-e=er""'".c"""'o'-'-m"'-'-__ Street Address P.O. Box 9253 -----------------'--'--"-"'-=~--=~------------ City ___ C~o""""l-'le_.g~e-'S~t~at~io~n ______ State TX Zip Code 77842 Phone Number ---~<9~7_9~) _69_0_-_03_2_9 ___ _ Fax Number (979) 690-0329 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name ____ T~h~e~S~um~m-'-it~C~ro"""s-=-s~in~g~,L=L~C"--___ _ E-Mail __ m_ik-'-e-'-d~a_vi~s@ __ s_u_d_de_n_l_in_k_.n_e_t __ Street Address ------------------'4-=-0=02=-=-A=s=pe=n;..:_-=:;D...:...;ri'-'-ve=-------------- City _____ B_rv~an ______ State ____ T_X ___ _ Zip Code ----'-7-'-7-=-80""'"1.;...._ __ _ Phone Number (979) 777-2846 Fax Number ____________ _ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name ______ S_a_m_e_a_s_A~P~P_lic_a_n_t _____ _ E-Mail-------------- Street Address-------------------------------- City ____________ State _______ _ Zip Code ________ _ Phone Number -------------Fax Number ____________ _ Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/waterway alterations: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: I, Rabon A. Metcalf. P.E., design engineer/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: The information and conclusion contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of the Cit f College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage Policy · dards. .. ~As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvements proposed in this application according to these documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City Code Contractor CERTIFICATIONS: A. I, __ , certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designated to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm. N/A Engineer Date B. I, __ , certify that the finished floor elevation of the 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 Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps, as amended. N/A Engineer Date C. I, Rabon A. Metcalf. P.E., certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood-carrying capacity of the waterway adjoining or crossing this permitted site and that such alterations or develop ent are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerni encroachments of floodways and of floodways fringes. Engineer I t Date D. I, Rabon A. Metcalf. P.E., do certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year flood above elevation e ablished in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study. Engineer Date I Conditions or comments as part of approval: ----------------------- 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. All 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 College Station shall apply. CITY OF CoUEGE STATION Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM February 18, 2008 TO: Rabon Metcalf, via email rabon@rmengineer.com FROM: Lindsay Boyer, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: SUMMIT CROSSING PH 1 (FP) -Final Plat Staff reviewed the above-mentioned final plat as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. If all comments have been addressed and the following information submitted by Monday, February 25th, 10:00 a.m., your project will be placed on ~he next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for, Thursday, March 20th, 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 1101 Texas Avenue. / [) 1 ·2 1 (; ~ _v_ One (1) 24"x36" copy of the revised final plat; O/G 'Y ~ \ V _L Nineteen ( 19) 11 "x17" copies of the revised final plat; 1... 6~ Parkland Development Fee in the amount of $45, 108 must be submitted prior to the filing of the final plat; One (1) Mylar original of the revised final plat (required after P&Z approval); and One (1) copy of the digital file of the final plat on diskette or e-mail to mtrevino@cstx.gov. ( 5.>~r11lt0 A?tf:.ft--P+z. ~f>Pl2WP'IL) Upon receipt of the required documents for the Planning & Zoning meeting, your project will be considered formally filed with the City of College Station. Please note that if all comments have not been addressed your project will not be scheduled for a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Your project may be placed on a future agenda once all the revisions have been made and the appropriate fees paid. Once your item has been scheduled for the P&Z meeting , the agenda and staff report can be accessed at the following web site on Monday the week of the P&Z meeting. http://www.cstx.gov/home/index.asp?page=2481 Please note that a Mylar original of the revised final plat will be required after P&Z approval and prior to the filing of the plat. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments cc: Mike Davis, 3060 Development, via email mikedavis@suddenlink.net Case file #08-00500026 NOTE: 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 ........................... --· ..... ___ --=-•-...I ............. •k-r':.&.. •••• :11 ................. : .......... -----·-·-·· .................... :....... ... ,..& ") STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS N0.1 Project: SUMMIT CROSSING PH 1 (FP) -08-00500026 PLANNING The call for curve CS needs to be checked. No 'E..~<. 'h:>ur-lP 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 been made aware of will constitute a completely new review. The construction documents and reports are still under review and may affect the plat. Reviewed by: Lindsay Boyer Date: February 14, 2008 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 ~dditional easement appears to be needed in the areas where multiple utilities are located, as the BCS Guidelines requires 30-ft in these cases. Although some of these areas are located along ROW, this will only provide for approximately 22ft of workable ~ ~tility space. ..Sen ~·o Tu'<L o\l'2-?ttc::N'F-CoN"\/t=-~-~;1\~$ ~ Along SH 30 where there is 3 utilities proposed in one PUE and with the water m in ~xisting, will the 30-ft PUE provide for adequate utility spacing and workable space? P-'=:> JiT. Please make the PAE dedication note separate from the existing PUE metes and bounds along SH 30. ~he proposed utilities located adjacent to alleys appear to only have 11 feet once the proposed PUE and ROW area not covered by pavement is accounted for, please . ~ddress. S\lrf-\df=....M ~~ oua... ~r-l~ (.PNV~""t10..sS ~ Please add a note to the plat addressing the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the private common, drainage and access areas, much like note 5 on the preliminary plat. S~ 'F\~AL -Pc.A\ Ntf"t'E. if:.\~ Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: February 18, 2008 ELECTRICAL COMMENTS REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION 1. Developer provides temporary blanket easement for construction purposes. 2. Developer provides easements for electric infrastructure as installed for electric lines (including street lights). GENERAL ELECTRICAL COMMENTS 1. Developer installs conduit per City specs and design. 2. City will provide drawings for conduit installation. 3. Developer provides 30' of rigid or IMC conduit for each riser pole. City installs riser. 4. Developer pours transformer pad(s) per City specs and design. 5. Developer installs pull boxes and secondary pedestals as per City specs and design (pull boxes and secondary pedestals provided by the City). NOTE: 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 have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 2 of 3 6. Developer provides digital AutoCAD 2000 or later version of plat and/or site plan. Email to: sweido@cstx.gov. 7. Developer provides load data for project. 8. To discuss any of the above electrical comments please contact Sam Weido at 979.764.6314. Reviewed by: Sam Weido Date: 2-14-08 SANITATION p/sanitation is ok with this project. Reviewed by: Wally Urrutia Date: February 13, 2008 ADDRESSING /.Please change the Summit Pass street name, Summit already exists. Reviewed by: Mandi Alford Date: 2/11/08 NOTE: 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 have not been pointed out to the City, will constitute a completely new review. 3 of 3 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development SnviuJ SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Summit Crossing -Phase 1 DATE OF ISSUE: April 24, 2008 OWNER: The Summit Crossing, LLC 4002 Aspen Drive Bryan, Texas 77801 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 08-04 B FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE ADDRESS: SH 30 near 158 DRAINAGE BASIN: Carter's Creek VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: Full Development Permit 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 outside 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. Owner/ Agent/Contractor Date I ' ,, LETTER OF COMPLETION CITY ENGINEER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS DATE: 3 /;1 /; O I I RE: COMPLETION OF -------- bear Sir: s~MM'1 l± L126$S/-V5 7AA>e I 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 Dat:L~ \)t)..lf-cy s~Y\);(e.j and by their subcontractors as indicated by signatures below. WORK COMPLETED I I /fl{,.. -f?. . J / ;J r (,f? J Owner: 11/p~ V&eoc lell€zof..u&1r Contractor: ;...>?4 io 5 l/fr/~ ....)f ~ U/ Phone Number:W... 4lZ-U7'7 Phone Number: 9 7? -~ > _.J,....... -3 5 7 J Address: (! ~ I Ba y-) r 0 / {l h !bv1 T-ua.J -12ff/;b Signature: ~ ~ , /I evue&.e ->P'<1lC> I->, JX. 718tf0 I Signature: _ ___.,l_~"'---=lo~...-=· =---giZ20VAL - a;;/t ~/ ity Representative ~C "tE.~ ryngm9er -Z,/)/!v -5~ PLAT FILED "' Cf'/9 () 171-9 { A-OFFSITE ESllTS FILED . TEMP BLANKET ESMT FILED ~ NO OTHER ESMTS NEED~ J -z-h{' I~~ ~ \! k<-1/..; p'l)-/ Revised 1131107 ;• SOP: Filin of Final Plats -Letters of Com letio i' ID Engineering Inspector/Date: ~ -:r~ ( 3 (/ff fi t Project Engineer/Date: -:S-~l /\)y-4u.-.: / ~ ~~ 02/22/10 DP Number: ct, oc.{ Sv...-""', ~ ~.l -Inspectors shall acquire written (i.e. email) punc~st comments and subsequently written confirmation from the following contacts before forwarding Letter of Completion to development review engineer: ~ fJ~ f..rL:. ..S.rJ / , :7~ o Erosion/Drainage: Donni~Will1s (0: 764-6375, C: 229-7632) L"'" t> r CS Water Services -General: Charles "Butch" Willis (0: 764-3435, C: 777-1202) • Water -coordinate fire flow analyses (or the design engineer for non-city utilities) and confirm test results meets min requirements with the dev review engineer (specific hydrants to test, if simultaneous, and min allowable flow) • Sanitary ..-Ci WatE1 -5er olte = Uftstatio11. "uag vvallace (O. 7154-6333) ti"'CS Electric and Streetlights: Gilbert Martinez (0: 764-6255) <;l.a s 1 11 i!1tcc11e aha Stft!@rngms. 1rn11 "1211c ce. e21 '""3) John Fontinoe or Randy Trimble (0: 821-5728) Confirm with development review engineer that service agreement is in place with BTU o Non-City Utility Service Providers: (Wellborn Water SUD, Brushy Creek SUD, Wickson Creek SUD, etc) confirm with development review engineer that infrastructure is complete and for outstanding issues, /Record Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) 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 ~cord Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for Public Drainage Infrastructure including Private Detention Facilities with the following attestations: "I hereby attest that I am familiar with the app~oved 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 ~pectors to review Red-lined Record Drawings, upon acceptable confirmation of drawings, inspector to: o file one set of Record Drawings in Public Works files, and o forward one set of Record Drawings to Jeffery Speed (CSU) -~ectors should forward Letters of Completion to the development review engineer that reviewed and stamped the construction plans after confirming: o the date on the Letter of Completion Warranty should reflect the date when all associated punchlist items are completed, and o the Owner is shall be listed as the one affirming the one-year warranty Aevelopment review engineer to: o Add Dev Permit Number to Letter of Completion o 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 o initial and route the Final Plat mylar for filing. (Note if the developer provided surety the plat it may have been filed ahead of construction.) ~rah Grace-Rosier {Planning) to file the Final Plat utilizes a coversheet to confirm: o infrastructure is accepted by Letter of Completion -or-Surety is provided and acceptable, o signed and notarized mylar of final plat, o parkland dedication has been paid, o digital file of final plat is provided, o a current paid tax certificate has been submitted, and o the final plat closes to acceptable standards. ~lopment review engineer, upon the filing of Final Plat, 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. Carol (Sr. Asst. City Engineer) to: o enter the engineer's estimate and Letter of Completion date into Inspection List o 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 of the Letter of Completion in the associated Planning Final Plat file. .. Josh Norton -Re: Summit Crossing Ph. 1 From: To: Date: Subject: Charles Willis Alan Gibbs; Carol Cotter; Diane Broadhurst; Erika Bridges; Israel Ko ... 03/05/2010 11:34 AM Re: Summit Crossing Ph. 1 The blow-offs have been corrected and all is good . >>>Justin Tamplin 2/3/2010 12:16 PM >>> Page 1of1 We completed initial inspection of this project, found that both blowoffs need boxes and plugs. Everything else was good. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jnorton\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4B90EC60Cit... 03 /05/2010 .. . . ' . r/14( College Station Utilities \!!l!J Reliable,, Affvrdab/e, Community Owned Date Wednesday February 3, 2010 Time 9:30 A.M. Test completed by Vincent Rodriguez Witness Aaron Matthews Location Summit Crossing Ph. 1 Nozzle size 2.5 Flow hydrant G-139 Pitot reading 65 G.P.M. 1350 Static hydrant G-138 Static PSI 96 Residual PSI 88 Comments For Initial ,( ·,' ' I ' Josh Norton -Summit Crossing From: To: Date: Subject: Sam Weida Norton, Josh 03/11/2010 1:14 PM Summit Crossing Page 1 of 1 Per our phone conversation ... Summit Crossing has been completed and approved by our department. file://C:\Documents and Settings\jnorton\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B98ECB 1 Cit... 03/1112010 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning c!r Development Services SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Summit Crossing -Phase 1 Sanitary Sewer Line "S 1" Only DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 08-04 A FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE ADDRESS: SH 30 near 158 DRAINAGE BASIN: Carter's Creek DATE OF ISSUE: February 27, 2008 VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: OWNER: The Summit Crossing, LLC 4002 Aspen Drive Bryan, Texas 77801 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Sanitary Sewer Line "S1" Only 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 . Sanitary Sewer Line "S1" Only 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 respons ible 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 outside 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 I > 2-/z7fo-8 ~ j Owner/Agent/Contracto Date NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Engineer·'s Cost Estimate-Revision No. 4 SUMMIT CROSSING PHASE ONE SANlTARY SEWER LINE "Sl" COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST Mobilization, Staking, TV Inspection & Trench 1 LS $9,500.00 Safety (Sewer Line) 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D30:34) -Non 496 LF $20.00 Structural Backfill 8" DIP Sanitary Sewer (Class 250) w/ 6" (3/8" Thick) Steel Encasement (End Seals, ::;asing 36 LF $97.00 Spacers) 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D30 34) -144 LF $26.00 Structural Backfill 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D3034) -Non-1,040 LF $16.00 Structural Backfill 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, Class 160) -36 LF $40.00 Structural Backfill 4' Diameter Standard Manhole w/32" Opening (Ring 6 EA $2,800.00 & Cover) 4' Diameter Drop Manhole w/32" Oper1ing (Ring & 1 EA $5,300.00 Cover) Structural Bedding (Cement Stabilized Sand) 110 LF $15.00 Dual Sanitary Sewer Service (Long Side) 8 EA $700.00 Dual Sanitary Sewer Service (Short Side) 18 EA $400.00 Single Sanitary Sewer Service (Long <)ide) 1 EA $600.00 Single Sanitary Sewer Service (Short 3ide) 2 EA $300.00 Tie into Existing Sanitary Sewer Line 1 LS $500.00 SUB-TOTAL= 10% CONTINGENCY = ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST= This Engineer's Cost Estimate was prepared in our office, at the date shown, and is released for the purpose of public infrastructure cost projections. RME Consulting Engineers POST OFFICE BOX 9253 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS 77 ~-OFFIF AX: (979) 690-0329 E-mail: civil@rmengineer.com TOTAL COST $9,500.00 $9,920.00 $3,492.00 ' $3,744.00 $16,640.00 $1,440.00 $16,800.00 $5,300.00 $1 ,650.00 $5,600.00 $7,200.00 $600.00 $600.00 $500.00 $82,986.00 $8,298.60 $91,284.60 February 20, 2008 Josh Norton, E.I.T. Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station, TX 77842 P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 email: civil@rmengineer.com RE: Summit Crossing, Phase One -Acknowledgement of City Standards Sanitary Sewer Line "Sl" RME No. 227-0338 Josh Norton: The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the sanitary sewer improvements, for the above referenced project, to the best of my knowledge, do not deviate from the latest B/CS Design Guideline Manual. I also acknowledge, to the best of my knowledge that the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the B/CS Standard Details. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E. CDJ-227-0338-LOS Page 1of1 NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Engineer's Cost Estimate -Rev. No. 1 SUMMIT CROSSING, PHASE ONE PAVING, DRAINAGE, & UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS UNIT · DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST PAVING IMPROVEMENTS Mobilization, Construction Staking, All Required 1 LS $14,000.00 Testing by Contractor & Trench Safety SWPP Measures (Rock Rip-Rap, Seeding, Silt 1 LS $6,000.00 Fencing, Construction Entrance, Inlet Protection) Clearing & Grubbing (ROW & All Easements) 1 LS $7,500.00 (In Place) Earthwork Excavation (Roadway, Alleys, 4,697 CY $2.50 Drainage Channels, Sitework, etc ... ) (In Place) Earthwork Embankment (Roadway, 1,942 CY $3.00 Alleys, Sitework, etc .. ) (Excavated On-Site) (In Place} Earthwork Embankment Finsihing (Topsoil, Landscape 1,918 CY $4.00 Berms & Miscellaneous) (Excavated On-Site} 4" Thick Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk {Includes 12,814 SF $3.75 H/C Ramps) 6" Raised Concrete Curb (Monolithic) 3,633 LF $8.75 24" Laydown Concrete Gutter (Monolithic) 1,743 LF $8.25 6" Thick Reinforced Concrete Residential Streets & 11 ,850 SY $28.00 Alleys (Public) 6" Compacted Lime Stabilized Subgrade 13,738 SY $3.50 TOTAL COST $14,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,500.00 $11,742.50 $5,826.00 $7,672.00 $48,052.50 $31,788.75 $14,379.75 $331 ,800.00 $48,083.00 SUB-TOTAL= $526,844.50 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Mobilization, Construction Staking, All Required 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Testing by Contractor & Trench Safety Recessed Curb Inlet (5' Opening) 6 EA $3,000.00 $18,000.00 Recessed Curb Inlet (1 O' Opening) 6 EA $3,600.00 $21 ,600.00 Storm Sewer Junction Box 2 EA $3,000.00 $6,000.00 Storm Sewer Junction Box (Double Barrel) 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000.00 18" RCP (CL 3) Storm Sewer 202 LF $39.00 $7,878.00 24" RCP (CL 3) Storm Sewer 1198 LF $49.00 $58,702.00 30" RCP (CL 3) Storm Sewer 329 LF $61 .00 $20,069.00 CD1-227-0338-E06 1 of 4 Engineer's Cost Estimate -Rev. No. 1 9 30" ADS (N-12) Storm Sewer 361 LF $46.00 $16,606.00 10 36" ADS (N-12) Storm Sewer 172 LF $56.00 $9,632.00 11 Strucutral Bedding for 18" Storm Sewer (Cement 202 LF $12.00 $2,424.00 Stablized Sand) 12 Strucutral Bedding for 24" Storm Sewer (Cement 1198 LF $15.00 $17,970.00 Stablized Sand) 13 Strucutral Bedding for 30" Storm Sewer (Cement 690 LF $19.00 $13, 110.00 Stablized Sand) 14 Strucutral Bedding for 36" Storm Sewer (Cement 172 LF $23.00 $3,956.00 Stablized Sand) 15 Concrete Headwall w/Flared Wingwalls (30" Pipe) 1 EA $2,700.00 $2,700.00 16 Pond 1 -Discharge Outlet Structure, Pipe, & Apron 1 LS $4,900.00 $4,900.00 17 Pond 2 -Discharge Outlet Structure 1 LS $5,300.00 $5,300.00 SUB-TOTAL= $223,847.00 WATER IMPROVEMENTS 1 Mobilization, Staking, All Required Testing by 1 LS $7,500.00 $7,500.00 Contractor & Trench Safety (Water Line) 2 8" PVC Water Line (C909, CL 200) -Non Structural 778 LF $21 .00 $16,338.00 Backfill 3 8" PVC Water Line (C909, CL 200) -Structural 775 LF $25.00 $19,375.00 Backfill 4 6" PVC Water Line (C909, CL 200) -Non Structural 914 LF $18.00 $16,452.00 Backfill 5 6" PVC Water Line (C909, CL 200) -Structural 214 LF $22.00 $4,708.00 Backfill 6 Standard Fire Hydrant Assembly 3 EA $1,800.00 $5,400.00 7 12" (MJ) Gate Valve & Box 2 EA $975.00 $1 ,950.00 8 8" (MJ) Gate Valve & Box 9 EA $795.00 $7,155.00 9 6" (MJ) Gate Valve & Box 7 EA $585.00 $4,095.00 10 2" Blow-Off Valve & Riser 2 EA $575.00 $1 ,150.00 11 12"x 8" (MJ) Tee 2 EA $525.00 $1 ,050.00 12 8"x 6" (MJ) Tee 7 EA $325.00 $2,275.00 13 8" (MJ) Plug w/2" Tap 2 EA $125.00 $250.00 CD1 -227-0338-E06 2 of 4 Engineer's Cost Estimate -Rev. No. 1 14 8" (MJ) 45 deg Bend 1 EA $210.00 $210.00 15 8" (MJ) 11 1/4 deg Bend 2 EA $185.00 $370.00 16 6" (MJ) 11 1/4 deg Bend 6 EA $180.00 $1 ,080.00 17 Air Release Valve 1 EA $1,750.00 $1 ,750.00 18 16" PVC Sleeving (C905, DR18, CL235) w/Casing 140 LF $30.00 $4,200.00 Spacers & End Seals (Open Cut) 19 Structural Bedding (Cement Stabilized Sand) 80 LF $15.00 $1 ,200.00 20 Dual Water Service (Long Side) 15 EA $800.00 $12,000.00 21 Dual Water Service (Short Side) 45 EA $400.00 $18,000.00 22 Single Water Service (Long Side) 1 EA $600.00 $600.00 23 Single Water Service (Short Side} 8 EA $300.00 $2,400.00 SUB-TOTAL= $129,508.00 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Mobilization.Staking, Trench Safety & TV Inspection 1 1 LS $7,000.00 Cf 7 ooo-1llJ ,; (Sewer Line) 2 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D3034) -Non 1,464 LF $16.00 $23,424.00 Structural Backfill 3 6" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, D3034) -116 LF $26.00 $3,016.00 Structural Backfill 4 4' Diameter Standard Manhole w/32" Opening (Ring 4 EA $2,800.00 $11 ,200.00 & Cover) 5 Structural Bedding (Cement Stabilized Sand) 40 LF $15.00 $600.00 6 Dual Sanitary Sewer Service (long Side} 15 EA $700.00 $10,500.00 7 Dual Sanitary Sewer Service (Short Side) 26 EA $400.00 $10,400.00 8 Single Sanitary Sewer Service (Long Side) 1 EA $600.00 $600.00 9 Single Sanitary Sewer Service (Short Side) 2 EA $300.00 $600.00 SUB-TOTAL= $67,340.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST= $947,539.50 10% CONTINGENCY= $94,753.95 GRAND TOTAL= $1,042,293.45 CD1-227-0338-E06 3 of4 • Engineer's Cost Estimate -Rev. No. 1 This Engineer's Cost Estimate was prepared in our office, at the date shown, and is released for the purpose of public infrastructure cost projections. CD1-227-0338-E06 RME Consulting Engineers POST OFFICE BOX 9253 COLLEGE ST A TION, TEXAS 77842 OFF/FAX: (979) 690-0329 E-mail: civil@rmengineer.com 4 of4 NO. 1 2 3 4 5 Engineer's Cost Estimate-Revision No. 5 SUMMIT CROSSING PHASE ONE SANITARY SEWER LINE "SS" COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS UNIT DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST Mobilization, Staking, TV Inspection & Trench 1 LS $500.00 Safety (Sewer Line) 8" PVC Sanitary Sewer (SDR-26, 03034) -108 LF $25.00 Structural Backfill 4' Diameter Standard Manhole w/32" Opening (Ring 1 EA $2,800.00 & Cover) Standard Sanitary Sewer Cleanout 1 EA $800.00 Tie into Existing Sanitary Sewer Line & Adjust 1 LS $750.00 Existing Manhole Rim SUB-TOTAL= 10% CONTINGENCY = ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST = TOTAL COST $500.00 $2,700.00 $2,800.00 $800.00 $750.00 $7,550.00 $755.00 $8,305.00 RME CONSULTING ENGINEERS TEXAS FIRM REG ISTRATION No. F-4695 public infrastructure cost projections. 7607 EASTMARK DR .. STE. 252A <77840> POST OFFICE BOX 9253 CD1-227-0338-E08.xlsx COLLEGE STATION. TEXAS 77842 OFF/FAX: (979l 764-0704 E-MAlL: CIVlL@RMENGJNEER.COM 1 of 1 stmOutput WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 4/3/2008 12:49:06 PM PROJECT NAME : 227 JOB NUMBER 0338 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: Summit Crossing-Line "Sl" ~'f>'f>L.eft'\e.~-rAL. ~. ~AL-'1~4S 2 Years 5 Years ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 2 Years =========================================== Runoff Computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= ID C Value Sl-1 0.0 Sl-2 0.0 Sl-3 0.0 Sl-4 0.0 Sl-5 0.0 Sl-6 0.0 Sl-7 0.0 Area (acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tc (min) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Cumulative Junction Discharge re Used (min) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Com:;mtations Intensity (in/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.183 0.026 0.021 0.010 0.051 Total Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.183 0.026 0.021 0.010 0.051 =================================·================================================ Node Node Weighted Cumulat. •:::umulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.53 5.10 2.906 0.00 2.906 EX-MHl CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.53 5.10 2.906 0.00 2.906 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.47 5.11 2.906 0.00 2.906 Sl-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11.65 5.90 0.296 0.00 0.296 Sl-3 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11.18 6.01 0.291 0.00 0.291 Sl-4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.108 0.00 0.108 Sl-5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0 .082 0.00 0.082 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.061 0.00 0 .061 Sl-7 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.051 0.00 0.051 Conveyance Configuration Data =================================:================================================= Page 1 stmOutput Run# Node I.D. Flow line Elev. us OS us DS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value (ft) (ft ) (ft) (ft) (ft) ( % ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273.38 272.78 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 100.79 0.60 0.013 2 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274.00 273.45 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 25.97 2.12 0.013 3 Sl-2 Sl-1 275.77 274.33 Circ 1 0.00 0.67 437.57 0.33 0.013 4 Sl-3 Sl-2 281.32 280 .05 Circ 1 0.00 0.67 89.34 1. 42 0.013 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283.89 281. 42 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 300.72 0.82 0.013 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286.48 283.99 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 311.13 0.80 0.013 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 289.87 287.02 Circ 1 0.00 0 .50 357.19 0.80 0.013 8 Sl-7 Sl-6 291. 98 289.97 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 250.81 0.80 0.013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tail water = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Grade line Depth Velocity June Run# us Elev OS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual Unif. Actual Q Cap Loss (ft) (ft) ( % ) (ft) (ft) (f/s) (f/s) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 274.26 273.66 0.665 0.88 0.88 3.99 3 .99 2.91 2 .75 0.000 2* 274.55 274.26 0.665 0.54 0.81 6.79 4.29 2.91 5.19 0.000 3 276.07 274.62 0.058 0.30 0.30 1. 91 1. 91 0.30 0.70 0.000 4* 281. 52 280.25 0.056 0.20 0.20 3.23 3.23 0.29 1. 46 0.000 5* 284.05 281.58 0.037 0.16 0.16 2.06 2.06 0.11 0.51 0.000 6* 286.62 284.13 0.021 0.14 0.14 1. 88 1. 88 0.08 0.50 0.000 7* 289.99 287.14 0.012 0.12 0.12 1. 72 1. 72 0.06 0.50 0.000 8* 292.09 290.08 0.008 0.11 0.11 1. 65 1. 65 0.05 0.50 0.000 =================================:================================================= OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQ 'JENCY of: 5 Years ============================================= Runoff Computation for Analysis F:cequency. =================================:============================================ ID C Value Sl-1 0.0 Sl-2 0.0 Sl-3 0.0 Sl-4 0.0 Sl-5 0.0 Sl-6 0.0 Sl-7 0.0 Area (acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tc (min) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 •re Used (min) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Intensity (in/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 2 Supply Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.183 0.026 0.021 0.010 0.051 Total Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.183 0.026 0.021 0.010 0.051 stmOutput . ' Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations ================================================================================= Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.53 6.26 2.906 0.00 2.906 EX-MHl CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.53 6.26 2.906 0.00 2.906 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.47 6.28 2.906 0.00 2.906 Sl-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11. 65 7.20 0.296 0.00 0.296 Sl-3 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11.18 7.33 0.291 0.00 0.291 Sl-4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0.108 0.00 0.108 Sl-5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0.082 0.00 0.082 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0.061 0.00 0.061 Sl-7 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.051 0.00 0.051 Conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. us DS us OS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) ( % ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273.38 272.78 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 100.79 0.60 0.013 2 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274.00 273.45 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 25.97 2.12 0.013 3 Sl-2 Sl-1 275.77 274.33 Circ 1 0.00 0. 67 437.57 0.33 0.013 4 Sl-3 Sl-2 281. 32 280.05 Circ 1 0.00 0.67 89.34 1. 42 0.013 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283.89 281. 42 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 300.72 0.82 0.013 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286.48 283.99 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 311.13 0.80 0.013 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 289.87 287.02 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 357.19 0.80 0.013 8 Sl-7 Sl-6 291.98 289.97 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 250.81 0.80 0.013 Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 1 274.26 273.66 0.665 0.88 0.88 2* 274.55 274.26 0.665 0.54 0.81 3 276.07 274.62 0.058 0.30 0.30 4* 281. 52 280.25 0.056 0.20 0.20 5* 284.05 281.58 0.037 0.16 0.16 6* 286.62 284.13 0.021 0.14 0.14 7* 289.99 287.14 0.012 0.12 0.12 8* 292.09 290.08 0.008 0.11 0.11 Velocity Unif. Actual (f/s) (f/s) 3.99 3.99 6.79 4.29 1. 91 1. 91 3.23 3.23 2.06 2.06 1. 88 1. 88 1. 72 1. 72 1. 65 1. 65 Q (cfs) 2.91 2.91 0.30 0.29 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 Cap (cfs) 2.75 5.19 0.70 1. 46 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 June Loss (ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ===================================END============================================ Page 3 stmOutput . . . . * Super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. Warning Messages for current pro:ect: Runoff Frequency of: 2 YE?ars Tailwater set to uniform depth e J.evation = 273.66(ft) Run# 1 Insufficient capacity. Drop flowline elevation. Downstre?am HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 4 Drop flowline elevation. DownstrE?am HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 7 Runoff Frequency of: 5 Ye:ars Tailwater set to uniform depth e J.evation = 273.66(ft) Run# 1 Insufficient capacity. Drop flowline elevation. Downstre:am HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 4 Drop flowline elevation. Downstre:am HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 7 Page 4 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2-Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals lnfonnation Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction RME Consulting Engineers City: 0 Bryan P.O. Box 9253 0 College Station College Station, TX 77842 Date of Submittal: March 17, 2008 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. -(979) 690-0329 ~ rabon@nnengineer.com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm{s): Other contacts: Develooer I Owner I Applicant lnfonnation Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail: 3060 Development, LLC (c/o Michael Davis) (979) 777-2846 4002 Aspen Dr. -Bryan, TX 77801 mikedavis@suddenlink.net Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Project Identification Development Name: Summit Crossing, Phase One Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision, or part of a multi-phase subdivision? Multi-phase subdivision If multi-phase, subject property is phase 1 of 3 Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II, Paragraph B-3a) Summit Crossing, Phase 1 -3 comprising of approximately 113.20 l 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. NIA General Location of Project Area, or subject property (phase): 113.20 I acres of land east of the Crescent Pointe subdivision and bounded roughly by SH 30, FM 60 and FM 158. In City Limits? Bryan: acres. College Station: 113.201 acres. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction {acreage): Bryan: College Station: Acreage Outside ET J: Page 3 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built subject property: developments: SH 30 -Harvey Road East Crescent Pointe FM 60 -University Drive East Central Baptist Church FM l58 Brazos Super Trac Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): Well defined unnamed tributary of Carters Creek Carters Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File#: Final Plat File #: Date: 2111108 Name: Summit Crossing Subdivision Status and Vol/Pg: Under Review -NIA If two plats, second name: File#: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: PDD Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: Case Date Status: Approved by both P&Z and City Council Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: Case Date Status: Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants: Preliminary Report Required? NIA Submittal Date Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes D No I . I In Writing? No When? Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach documentation explaining) any deviation(s) from provisions of Preliminary Drainage Report, if any. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 4of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ___ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built subject property: developments: SH 30 -Harvey Road East Crescent Pointe FM 60 -University Drive East Central Baptist Church FM 158 Brazos Super Trac .. Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): Well defined unnamed tributary of Carters Creek Carters Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File#: Final Plat File #: Date: 2111108 Name: Summit Crossing Subdivision •. Status and Vol/Pg: Under RC~ew -NIA If two plats, second name: File#: Status: Date: .. Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: PDD Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: Case Date Status: Approved by both -P&Z and CitY Council Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: Case Date Status: .. Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants: Preliminary Report Required? NIA Submittal Date ... .. Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes Cl No I ..... I In Writing? No When? Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach documentation explaining) any deviation(s) from provisions of Preliminary Drainage Report; if any . STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 .. Page 4 of26 .. , APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ___ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2-Project Administration I Continued (page 2.3) Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Note: For any Coordination _of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substantiating any agreements, understandings, contracts, or approvals. Coordination Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: With Other Parks Pete Vanecek Unknown Approval of detention pond in Parks Area Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) · Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No ,/ Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes D..No .CJ Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? TxDOT permitting for construction of and provided construction details, discharge flow Yes D._No O rates, velocity, and erosion control attenuating devices for detention pond outlet structures. Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes LJNo Permits 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 Pennltted or Approved? US Army Crops of Engineers NIA No 1Zl_ Yes D US Environmental Protection Agency. No I -1 l Yes NIA Texas Commission on Environrrlental Quality No _[Z]__ Yes O NIA Brazos River Authority No ,/ Yes NIA STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Status of Actions (include dates) Page 5 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Property Characteristics Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent'6f impervious cover?. The subject property is currently undeveloped and wholley used for agricultural purposes. Site Development Project (select all applicable) Subdivision Development Project c:J Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. c:J Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. I . I Building on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. Building on a single lot, or adjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form a new street (but may include ROW dedication to existing streets). Other (explain): Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. L2J Construction of streets and utflities to serve one or more proposed lots on lands represented by pending plats. Describe Nature and Size of Proposed Project Site projects: building use(s), approximate floor space, impervious cover ratio. Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and drainage easements or ROW. Summit Crossing, Phase One will comprise of the platting of 126 lots with the construction of approximately 2,535 L.F. of streets. Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: or on land for which platting is not pending? I -1 I No D Yes FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse No I -1 I Yes (Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property in floodplain area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? Rate Map _____ _ Encroachment(s) into Floodplain areas planned? Encroachment purpose(s): Building site(s) (=] Road crossing(s) I . I Utility crossing(s) D Other (explain): No Yes D 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. None. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 6 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent of impervious cover?. The subject property is currently undeveloped and wholley used for agric~tural ptirposes. Site D Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. Development CJ Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. Project I . I Building on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. (select all I I Building on a single lot, or ;:idjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form applicable) a new street (but may intlude ROW dedication to existing streets). D Other (explain): Subdivision ..D_ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. Development I .t I Construction of streets a~d utiHties to serve one or more proposed lots on Project lands represented by pending (;!lats. Site projects: building use(s), approximate floor space, impervious cover ratio. Describe Subdivisions: number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and Nature and drainage easements or ROW. · Size of Sw:iunit Crossing; Pbase·One will cciinprise of the platting of 126 lots With the construction of Pro(;!Osed approximately 2,535 L.F. of streets. Project Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: or on land for which platting is not pending? I .t I No D Yes .. FEMA·Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I No I .t I Yes D (Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property iri floodplain INo _D_ Yes r::l Rate Map area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): _D_ Building site(s) D Road crossing(s) into Floodplain areas planned? I .. l Utility crossing(s) I l Other (explain): No 1Z1 Yes D 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. None. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 '- Page 6 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised----- SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Proeert)l Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property? Yes Reference the study (&date) here, and attach copy if not already in City files. D Is the stormwater management plan for the property in substantial conformance with the earlier study? Yes r=J No CJ If not, explain how it differs. No 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 will comply therewith. Two detention facilities will be constructed with Summit Crossing, Phase One. Pond l is an isolated facility which will provide detention solely for Phase One. Pond 2 is more of a regional facility which will accommodate detention for portions of Phase One, Two & Three. As indicated in the Drainage Study other ponds will need to be constructed in Phase Three and upland areas off-site and beyond the ownership of this project's Developer. Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? ...t=L No _m_ Yes Describe them (include approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). There is a large existing stock pond on the NW comer of the Parkland Dedication area that could provided existing storage during small rainfall events. No considerations were taken though, for this stock pond, in the drainage study. Any known drainage or flooding problems in areas near subject property? J:ZJ_ No ....r:::L_ Yes Identify: Based on location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed? (see Table 8-1 in Appendix B) I ' I Detention is required. c::J Need must be evaluated. t=I Detention not required. What decision has been reached? Bv whom? Mandatory requirement in the Carters Creek watershed. No other option available.· If the need for Type 1 Detention How was determination made? must be evaluated: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -ProRertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? I J I No D Yes If yes, describe splits below. In Part 4 describe design concept for handling 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? .D. No .CJ. Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 190 2) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); At the point of contact with Summit Crossing, Phase One the flow characteristic is a small creek (non-regulatory) concentrated flow. Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: SCS-TR 20 used to evaluate hydrologic parameters. Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? Cl No I J _ j Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: Drainage structure under FM 158 discharges into the small creek upstream of the Summit Crossing subdivision. Are chani::ies in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain None known. Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study propej drain a.cross lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? No I J I Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies ). Runoff will be conveyed in the unnamed tributary of Carters Creek approximately 6,790 L.F. before it discharges into the regulatory watercourse. There are multiple ownerships of properties downstream. The major property owners are: Dudley Ranch Partnership, LTD. Residents of Harvey Hillsides along Vista Lane & Ranchero Road Residents of Heritage Townhomes STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? I .1 I No I I Yes If yes, describe splits below. In Part 4 describe design concept for handling this. Watershed or Basin Lar1:1er acreaQe Lesser acreage Above-Project Areas(Section II, Paragraph 83-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? CJ No r::zJ Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 190 2) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); At the point of contact with Summit Crossing, Phase One the flow characteristic is a small ere.ck (non-regulatory) concentrated flow. Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: SCS-TR 20 used to evaluate hydrologic parameters. Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? L .I No I . .1 ... I Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: ~~ge structure under FM 158 discharges into the small creek upstream of the Summit Crossing subdivision. Are chanQes in runoff characteristics subject to chanQe in future? Explain None known. Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study propeJ dra 1 in a.cross loier roperties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? No .1 Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies ). Runoff will be conveyed in the unnamed tributary of Carters Creek approximately 6, 790 L.F. before it discharges into the regulatory watercourse. There are multiple ownerships of properties downstream. The major property owners are: Dudley Ranch Partnership, LTD. Residents of Harvey Hillsides along Vista Lane & Ranchero Road Residents of Heritage Townhomes STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? I . I plat, or easements r::J instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions. exist for any part of pathway(s)? I J I No Cl Yes Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway Natural waterway with primarily rural residential development adjoining the creek with small scatters of commercial and multi-family residential development. Areas Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the propert}r (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). None known. Nearby Drainage Do any of these have r xdrl'ogic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? I J I No __ Yes If yes, explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) f!2m. 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. Runoff received from uplands areas is conveyed to this project by an unnamed tributary. It is unlikely that future development would be permitted to block the conveyance of its runoff. Discharge(s) IQ Lower Property(ies) (Section II, Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed·to become public via platting? cz:I No Cl Yes Separate Instrument? c:J No CJ Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will D Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring D Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies )? JJ I 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# ) 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. Discharged runoff from both Pond 1 & 2 will be detained to pre-development conditions and directly discharged into the TxDOT drainage systems. If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has p7~oj9d design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? D No ~ Yes Explain and provide documentation. Permitting through TxDOT. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1) Stonnwater Management Concept Discharge(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. Runoff received from uplands areas is conveyed to this project by an unnamed tributary. It is unlikely that future development would be permitted to block the conveyance of its runoff. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II, Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed· to become public via platting? t.1 I No D Yes Separate Instrument? D No D Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will I ·I Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring property(ies)? D Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) t71 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# ) 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. Discharged runoff from both Pond 1 & 2 will be detained to pre-development conditions and directly discharged into the Tx.DOT drainage systems. If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has prf..E2jed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? D No _.,_ Yes Explain and provide . documentation. Permitting through Tx.DOT. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: Will project result Drainage Area "Pl" slightly increased to pull runoff from Drainage Area "P2". in shifting runoff between Basins or between What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? LJ No Increased detention storage in Pond 1 (for DA "Pl"). I ,{ I Yes How will runoff from Project 1. CJ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. Area be mitigated to pre-2. I ,{ I Establishing features to serve overall Project Area. development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, 3. I ,{ I On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area. 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# ) Pond 2 will serve as a Regional Detention Facility for portions of Phase 1 and portions of future development areas in Phases 2 &3. 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Are aquatic echosystems proposed? I .t I No r::J Yes In which phase(s) or project(s)? ('-- -0 Q) Ill c: Q) Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? c: >-~D I .t I No CJ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: c: Cl ·u; Q) o~ }Bl If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of 8-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. CJ Detention elements CJ Conduit elements CJ Channel features Q) 4: CJ Swales Cl Ditches Cl Inlets Cl Valley gutters CJ Outfalls CJ Culvert features CJ Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.3) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued) Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? CJ No I ~ I Yes Identify type and general size and In which phase(s). Culvert crossing (size unknown at this time) for creek crossing of unnamed tributary which will be located in Summit Crossing, Phase 3. 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): Pond 2 is located at the lowest reach (within this Project Area) of the unnamed tributary. Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area, is di5igl in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? D Yes No, then summarize the difference(s): . NIA 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: I Usual front slopes: I Usual back slopes: Flow line slopes: least ____ _ Typical distance from travelway: typical greatest'------(Attached Exhibit # ) Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? D Yes CJ No, then explain: At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? cz:J No Cl Yes If yes explain: Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? I I No I ~ I Yes Explain: (number of locations?) Buena Vista & Silverthorne Lane Buena Vista & Blackhawk Lane Avon Drive & Blackhawk Lane STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.3) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued) Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? I -I No I " I Yes Identify type and general size and In which phase(s). Culvert crossing (size unknown at this time) for creek crossing of unnamed tributary which will be located iri Summit Crossing, Phase 3.. · 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): Porid 2.is located at the lowest reach (within this Project Area) of the unnamed tributarY. Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area, is djsigl in substantial confonnance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? I._ I Yes . No, then summarize the difference(s): . NIA 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: I Usual front slopes: I Usual back slopes: Flow line slopes: least ____ _ Typical distance from travelway: typical greatest. ___ _ (Attached Exhibit # ) Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? D Yes D No, then explain: . · ·· · . At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? CW No I . I Yes If yes explain: . Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? c::I No I . " I Yes Explain: (number of locations?) Buena Vista & Silverthorne Lane Buena Vista & Blackhawk Lane Avon Drive & Blackhawk Lane .. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.4) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes: Least 0.60 % Usual -l.25% Greatest 2.03% Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? CJ Yes I .I No If "no", identify where and why. NIA Will inlets capture 10-year desi n stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? __ Yes r::::J No If no, explain where and why not. <'· NIA -0 Q) II) Will inlet size and placement prevent exceedin allowable water spread for 10-year ::J .... design storm throughout site (or phase)? _;_Yes CJ No If no, explain. Q) =s Cl -o-c: -0 Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? I .t I Yes [:=I No Are inlets and 111 Q) ..0 ~ .... ·-conduit sized to revent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? ::J ..... 0 c: I .t 1 Yes No Explain "no" answers. .s8 --·--:;: II) 03 Q) .... ii) Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on .... <{ whole length of all streets? I ,/ I Yes c:J No If no, describe where and why. Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with 8-CS Technical Specifications? ~ Yes CJ No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? I .t I No CJ Yes Identify length(s) and where used. <'· -0 Pipe runs between system I Typical -250 400 ~II) Longest ::J Q) access points (feet): E >-Are junction boxes used at each bend? CT:! Yes Cl No If not, explain where ~Bl and why. II) c: ·-0 ~z 101 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic II) Yes I ,/ I No Cl If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line .!!!. (system-wide): l.30 ft -10 YR STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Ii) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below Q) (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). 0 c: 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? (IJ (ii .!: System "A" discharges into the outlet structure of Pond 1 at a 90 deg. angle with a 10-YR velocity Q) of7.41 fps. ._ -o -g E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ::I ._ c: 0 System "B" discharge into Detention Pond 2 at a 0 deg. angle with a 10-YR velocity of5.43 fps. ·--c:· 0 .E ~.5 -E Q) Ill Q) E :::-3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? -(IJ Jji U) U) ;;;-Q) ::I c: :-!;! 0 --> ~ 0 "O c.. E-For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of ._ Q) 0 Q) receiving and all facilities at juncture? -.t= (/) U) ~ 1) Discharges into the concrete weir structure of Pond l. ~ (IJ a. 2) Dissipater blocks and rock rip-rap. Q) U) c: 3) ~ Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? D No D Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (includinQ low-flow flumes if any): C'· U) a; ~ U) -Q) Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): U) >- !01 B -g 0 U) z ::I Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment). i BI U) Q) ._ Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage <( ROW in all instances? D Yes D No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5) Stonnwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Ii) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below Q) (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). (,) c: 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ro iii .£ System "A" discharges into the outlet structure of Pond 1ata90 deg, angle with a 10-YR velocity Q) of?.41 fps. ..... -o ~ E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ::i ..... c: 0 System "B" discharge into Detention Pond 2 at a 0 deg. angle with a IO~YR velocity of 5.43 fps. ·--"E · 0 .E ~.E E GJ ~ Q) E 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ..... ro Jg (/J (/J ii';' Q) ::i c: :!:! 0 ·-> ~ e "O c. E ..... For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of ..... Q) 0 Q) receiving and all facilities at juncture? ..... ..c: CJ) (/J ~ 1) Discharges into the concrete weir structure of Pond l. ~ ro c. 2) Dissipater blocks and rock rip-rap. Q) (/J c: 3) _£. ... Are swale{s) situated along property lines between properties? D No D Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (includinQ low-flow flumes if any}: ('-- (/J a; ~ (/J ..... Q) Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): (/J >- !oj .9 ~o <nZ Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment). ::i iBI (/J Q) ..... Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage ~ ROW in all instances? I .... 1 Yes I i No If "no" explain: ' STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce!;!t and Design Parameters J Continued (Page 4.6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Vl Are roadside ditches used? I ; I No r=J Yes If so, provide the following: Q) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? r=J Yes r:=I No ..r::. .B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? r:=l Yes r=I No Ci Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? r=J Yes r:=I No Q) "O For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: "iii "O 111 0 ll:'. If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length: Vl Q) >- DII Is 100-year design flow contained in conduiUswale combination? I ] Yes r:=.I No If "no" explain: c 0 111 Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW c:J Easement r:::::J z Ui Width Ell~ Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum 2 and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: C'-· :0 Vl "O di ro c >. Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): c ro c .i:: 111 0 .... c .2 Q) c a. 0 0 ~ Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): -ro 0 E ::I .... ~ .2 .!: .£ Q) "O E Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: Q) 111 Vl Vl ::I Vl Q) c "O .Q ·;;: Is 100-year design flow contained in conduiUswale combination? r:=.I Yes r:=.I No 0 iii .... If "no" explain: c a. :.0 Q) E Q) ROW c=J Easement r:::l 0 ..r::. Space for 100-year storm flow? Width 0 Vl ...... ~ Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum ·:; 111 "O .... and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: c 111 0 a. 0 Q) Qj Vl Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): iii c :;: ~ Vl ~ 4'. Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): STORMINATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 15 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.7) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) c "iii 0.. If "yes· provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: E >< ow .t= :g u; Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? Cl Yes CJ No Is swale wholly c ~ within drainage ROW? D Yes I I No Explain "no" answers: .;[], 1------------------------------------1 u Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: Cl> ..... 0 181 1--ln_s_ta_n_c_e_2_D_e_s_c_ri_b_e_g_e_n_e-ra_l_lo_c_a_r_1o_n_, -a-pp_r_o_x-im_a_t_e-le_n_g_t_h_, -su-rf~a-c-in_g_:--------1 Cl> ·c <'--:J Ul .0 c :; Cl> o E ..c Cl> j ~ Cl> Ul ..... Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? I . -11 Yes c::I No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? D Yes Cl No Explain "no" answers: ~ 0 ro !;: ~ 0 1--------------------,---------------i ~ ~ Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: J5 :J a. 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? ..c:!._ No D Yes If only slightly <'-· shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks, provide information below. "'O c l----'-------------~==----===--'-------------1 ~ ..!!! Will design replicate natural channel? Cl Yes C l No If "no", for each instance &. ~ describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year g_ w design flow, and amount of freeboard: !? ~ Instance 1: 101 a. Instance 2: .E ~ ]EJI Instance 3: () STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.7) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) .5 (I] a.. If "yes· provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: E x ,g w :g u; Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? Cl Yes C l No Is swale wholly c: ~ within drainage ROW? I .. I Yes I . I No Explain "no" answers: .;011----------·· __ _ ~ Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: ~ 0 1 D1 i.--ln_s_ta_n_c_e_2_D_e_s_c_ri_b_e_g_e_n_e_ra_l_lo_c_a;_ti_o_n_, a_p_p_r_o_x-im_a_t_e-le_n_g_t_h_, s_u_rf_a_c-in_g_:--------1 Q) ·c""" :::i Ill .0. "E :5 Q) o E £ Q) ·;:; ~ Q) Ill .... .!:! 0 (I]~ ~ 0 5 0:: ::> -~ <'-· :0 :::i a. -0 .5 ~ (I] &. a.. 0 x .... w a. Ill Ill -Cl) IOI a. -~ ~ ]EJI () Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? L .1 Yes CJ No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? I . I Yes I .I 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? Cl No t=l Yes If only slightly shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks, provide information below. Will design replicate natural channel? t I Yes I ... .I No If "no", for each instance describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow.· and amount of freeboard: Instance 1: Instance 2: Instance 3: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels (small creeks): Are these used? -'==L No r::::l Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? C=3 Yes C=3 No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location-: - 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. -"'C Q) ::::J c: ~ Watercourses (and tributaries): Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? r::::I No r::::I Yes Explain below. ~ UJ -Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address c: Q) existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E Q) length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > 0 and data. Is full report submitted? r:::::l Yes Cl No If "no" explain: ..... a. E Qi c: c: cu All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information ..r::. 0 requested in next three 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. Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? l=:I Yes I=:! No If not, identify location and explain: Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? r:::I Yes r::::I No If not, identify location(s) and explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters 1 ·Continued (Page 4.9) Stormwater Management Concept {continued) ' Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) {continued) How many facilities for subject property project? 2 For each provide info. below. For each dry-type facilitiy: Facility 1 Facility 2 Acres served & design volume+ 10% 6.28 30601 cuft 220 18.23 ac-ft 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged 26716 cuft 30601 cuft 16.22 ac-ft 18.23 ac-ft Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr) 12.42 cfs 14.69 cfs 494.28.cfs 596.86 cfs Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? I • I yes O no I • I yes t 4 no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? D yes I •. I no I • I yes O no Explain any "no" answers: Pond I will provide a freeborad of0.48' which is marginally below the required 6". UJ Q) >- DI For each facility what is 25-yr design Q , and design of outlet structure? 0 Facility 1: 14.69 cfs discharged through a 24" pipe z DI Facility 2: 596.86 cfs discharged through the irregular shaped weir .. Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? ~-Facility 1: Yes No f acility 2: Yes No -0 Q) If "no" explain: UJ 0 Cl. e a.. UJ For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at SQillwa~? Q) ~ Facility 1: & Facility 2: & "(3 aJ Are energy dissipation measures used? .r::J..No [ZJ Yes Describe type and LL c: location: R k . .Q oc np-rap c 2 Q) 0 ~ <( For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: Facility 1: Yes Facility 2: Yes For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving· facility? Facility 1: Rock rip-rap Facility 2: Rock rip-rap If berms are used give heights, slopes and surface treatments of si_des. Facility 1: None Facility 2: 5ft with 3: I grassed embankments STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 18 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.9) Stonnwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) How many facilities for subject property project? 2 · For each provide info. below. For each dry-type facilitiy: Facility 1 Facility 2 Acres served & design volume + 10% 6.28 30601 cuft 220 18.23 ac-ft 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged 26716 cuft 30601 cuft 16.22 ac-ft 18.23 ac-ft Design discharge (1 O yr & 25 yr) 12.42 cfs 14.69 cfs 494.28.cfs 596.86 cfs Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? ·I " I yes I I no l-' _I yes L l no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? CJ yes I -' ,j no I -' I yes J . i no Explain any "no" answers: Pond 1 will proVide a freeborad of 0.48' which is marginally below the required 6". Ill cu >- DI For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? 0 Facility 1: 14.69 cfs discharged through a 24" pipe z DI Facility 2: 596.86 cfs discharged through the irregularsh~pe? weir. ·. Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? ('-Facility 1: ffi Yes .D_No Facility 2: .IZ1 Yes QNo -0 cu If "no" explain: Ill 0 a. . , .. 0 .. .. .... a.. Ill For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? cu ~ Facility 1: & Facility 2: & ·5 co Are energy dissipation measures used? _r::J_ No ill Yes Describe type and LL c: location: R k . '· .. .Q oc np-rap 'E ·---. . .... . -·-cu .• Qi •. 0 cu .... For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: <( Facility 1: Yes Facility 2: Yes For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: Rock rip-rap Facility 2: Rock rip-rap . . . If berms are used give heights, slope.s and surface treatments of si_des. Facility 1: None Facility 2: 5ft with 3: I grassed embankments STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 18 of26 APPENDlX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with B-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": (/) Facility 1; Yes Q) +:> =~ ~ Q) Facility 2: Yes LL :J c: c ;::; 0 c: +:; 0 c: 0 Q) .._.. -For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. Q) 0 Are parking areas to be used for detention? 12]_ No _r::1_ Yes What is maximum depth due to required design storm? Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches? D No D Yes If "yes", provide information in next two boxes. Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? _D_ Yes ..D. No Without causing flowing or standing water on public roadway? Yes Q No Designs & materials comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? __D._ Yes 0.No Explain any "no" answers: C'-· (/) Cl c: ·u; Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? r::::I Yes ..c=L No Explain: (/) 0 ..... (/) 0 Q) Q) ->-!DI Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage <O wr s T at serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? -0 0 __ No Cl Yes If "yes" provide information below. Q) z (/) I :J How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. (/) t:: Q) Location 1: > "S 0 Q) Location 2: ..... 4: Location 3: For each location enter value for: 1 2 3 Design year passing without toping travelway? Water depth on travelway at 25-year flow? Water depth on travelway at 100-year flow? For more instances describe location and same information on separate sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 19 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulatoot: Watercourses {& Tributaries): Are culverts proposed on these facilities? ~No ..c:L Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, computer programs, and stud findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? Yes --No If "no", explain: ~ Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culvert~ serve these types of roadways? Cl) Cl) J:ZJ No I I Yes How many instances? For each identify the .i:::. Ul Cl) location and provide the information below. ui ro Instance 1: Cl) .... >-[ Cl) Instance 2: Ul c: 0 Instance 3: c: .Q Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 2 3 o ro 1 Z E .... Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? 0 -.!:: Cl) Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E C'-· <1J Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? Ul Ul g> "'C Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c: :z <1J 0 c: .... 0 u ;:: >. <1J <1J 0 ~ .Q "'C Cl) <1J ..0 Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? 0 --........ 0 0 D No lZJ. Yes How many instances? 2 for each identify the ·-Ul -Cl) -g "'C location and provide the information below: a. Cl) .... a. Instance 1: Buena Vista & SH 30 <1J ::- "'C >. Instance 2: Avon Drive & SH 30 Cl) c: Ul <1J ::i_ Instance 3: Ul 0 t:: Ul Cl) Cl) For each instance enter value, or "yes" I "no" for: 2 o 1 2 3 ::i c: OJ!! Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? No No No Cl) UJ .... c: ~--100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? No No No ~ 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft)=? E No No No .... g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? No No No Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? No No No Explain any "no" answers: No hydraulic analysis was performed for either instance since the proposed culverts are immediately downstream of a crest point and very little runoff will be conveyed through each pipe. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concei;!t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.11) Stonnwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulato!Jl Watercourses {&Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these facilities? JZJ_No ..cL Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, computer programs, and s1udylfindings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? _D.._ Yes __ No If "no", explain: ~ Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culvert~ serve these types of roadways? Q) m No D Yes How many instances? For each identify the ..r::. Ill Q) location and provide the information below. Ill iii Instance 1: Q) ...... >-[ E1~ Instance 2: Instance 3: c: .Q 0 iii Yes or No for the 1 OD-year design flow: 1 2 3 z E q~ Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? c--E Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? Ill Ill Ol Ill c: -c Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c: ::: Ill 0 c: ...... 0 0 +: >.Ill Ill 0 .. ,. ~ ..Q -c Q) Ill .D Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? 0 --............ 0 0 0No 1Z]_ Yes How many instances? 2 for each identify the ·-Ill -Q) .g -c location and provide the information below: c.. Q) ...... c.. Instance 1: Buena Vista & SH 30 Ill 1::--c >. Instance 2 : Avon Drive & SH 30 Q) c: .. ·. Ill Ill ::J.,_ Instance 3: Ill 0 t:: Ill Q) Q) For each instance enter value, or "yes" I "no" for: ~o 1 2 3 ::J c: 0 Ill Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Q) iii No No No ...... c: <{ ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? No No No Q) 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft)=? E No No No ...... g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11)? No No No Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? No No No Explain any "no" answers: No hydraulic analysis was performed for either instance sirice the proposed culverts are immediately downstream. of a crest point and very little rilnoff.will be conveyed through each pipe . .. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (P~ge 4.12) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roadside ditch intersects) provide information requested in next eight boxes . Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? .Cl. Yes _D.No If not, identify location(s) and intersect angle(s), and justify the design(s): Does drainage way alignment change within or near limits of culvert and surfaced approaches thereto? .D No CJ Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? _o_ No ..D.. Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: :0 Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? Q) CJ No D Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): :::J c: 'E 0 ~ "' t:: Q) > :5 Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure Ion term stability of culvert structural () components, and surfacing at culvert ends? ___ Yes Cl 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? CJ Yes CJ 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? CJ No Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech. Specifications? _CL_ Yes .r:::l No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMVVATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? rzJ No CJ Yes If "yes" provide the following information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? Ci) Gr Cl -0 ·;:: Ill A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany ~his summary report. Is the report provided? CJ Yes No If "no" explain: Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: ~ Pollution Prevention Silt fencing along downstream perimeter of construction site with rock filter n; Plan (SW3P) dams and rock rip-rap placed at discharge structures. Phase 2 inlet siltation :::J 0 established for devices installed at all curb inlets . .... project construction? Cl> ~ 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? STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Yes Page 22 of26 No If "no" explain: APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ----- Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-040 TX-Brazos County 2-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=5.19 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company narne here} Page 1 HydroCAD® 7.10 sin 003394 © 2005 Hydn)CAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 Inflow Area= Inflow = Outflow = Primary = Pond 1 P: Pond 1 6.280 ac, Inflow De~th = 1.18" 19.92 cfs @ 0.25 hm, Volume= 8.79 cfs@ 0.53 hrc;, Volume= 8.79 cfs@ 0.53 hrn, Volume= for 2-Year event 0.617 af 0.615 af, Atten= 56%, Lag= 16.7 min 0.615 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 0.00-3.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 288.66'@ 0.53 hrs Surf.Area= 6,878 sf Storage= 14,664 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 28.3 min calculated for 0.613 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 28.5 min ( 48.~5 -20.0 ) _v_ol_u_m_e ___ ln_v_ert __ A_v_a_il._S_to_ra ...... g.._e_!3torage Description #1 285.60' 29,722 cf Gustom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation (feet) 285.60 286.00 287.00 288.00 289.00 290.00 290.50 Device Routing #1 Primary Surf.Area (sq-ft) 0 3,733 4,804 6,003 7,330 8,788 9,524 Inc.Store (cubic-feet) 0 747 4,269 5,404 6,667 8,059 4,578 Invert Outlet De!vices Cum.Store (cubic-feet) 0 747 5,015 10,419 17,085 25,144 29,722 285.60' Custom Weir/Orifice, C= 2.62 Head (fe1~t) 0.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 Width (feet) 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Primary OutFlow Max=8. 79 cfs @ 0.53 11rs HW=288.66' (Free Discharge) L1=Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Controls 8.79 cfs@ 5.6 fps) Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-040 TX-Brazos County 2-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=5.19 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company narne here} Page 2 HydroCAD® 7 .1 O s/n 003394 © 2005 Hydri)CAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 ~ 13 i 12 3: 11 0 10 u: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 0 290 289 c .g 288 ~ ~ w 287 19.92 cfs Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Hydrograph Inflow Area=6."280 ac Peak Elev=288.66' Storage=14,664 cf 2 Time (hours) Pond 1 P: Pond 1 St ige-Area-Storage Surfa ;e/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) -Inflow -Primary 3 o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 -Surface -storage 286 ~.::;lei'fi:iiliiiiiiiilii:::::::=:~~__,--,......,.... ............. .._..,.......,._ __ ....,......,..--......,.__,--,......,......~ 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Storage (cubic-feet) 20,000 25,000 Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-040 TX-Brazos County 5-Year Duration=15 min, /nten=6.38 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company narne here} Page 3 HydroCAD® 7.10 sin 003394 © 2005 Hydr:>CAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 Inflow Area= Inflow = Outflow = Primary = Pond 1 P: Pond 1 6.280 ac, Inflow De~·th = 1.45" 24.46 cfs @ 0.25 hrn, Volume= 11 .22 cfs @ 0.52 hrn, Volume= 11.22 cfs @ 0.52 hrn, Volume= for 5-Year event 0.757 af 0.755 af, Atten= 54%, Lag= 16.1 min 0.755 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 0.00-3.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 289.09'@ 0.52 hrs Surf.Area= 7,457 sf Storage= 17,729 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 27.5 min calc lated for 0.752 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 27.8 min ( 47.B -20.0) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 285.60' 29, 722 cf Gustom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation (feet) Surf.Area (sq-ft) Inc.Store (cubic-feet) Cum.Store (cubic-feet) 285.60 286.00 287.00 288.00 289.00 290.00 290.50 Device Routing #1 Primary 0 3,733 4,804 6,003 7,330 8,788 9,524 0 747 4,269 E,404 E,667 e,o59 4,578 Invert Outlet Deivices 0 747 5,015 10,419 17,085 25,144 29,722 285.60' Custom Weir/Orifice, C= 2.62 Head (fei~t) 0.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 Width (feet) 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Primary OutFlow Max=11.22 cfs @ 0.5~'. hrs HW=289.09' (Free Discharge) L1 =Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Centro s 11.22 cfs @ 5.6 fps) Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-040 TX-Brazos County 5-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=6.38 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4 HydroCAD® 7 .1 O sin 003394 © 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20· 19 18 17 . ~ 16 -t 15 -14 ~ 13 ii: 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Hydrograph Inflow Area=6.280 ac Peak Elev=289.09' Storage=17, 729 cf -Inflow -Primary 6~~~--~--l...~-.-~·..-----~.::==::::::;:==::;:::==:===;::=-----l 0 290 289 c: .2 288 ftj ~ iii 287 2 3 Time (hours) Pond 1P: Pond 1 Stage-Area-Storage Surfa :e/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) O 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,~00 -Surface -Storage 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Storage (cubic-feet) 20,000 25,000 Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-04 1X-Brazos County 10-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=l.19 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5 HydroCAD® 7.10 sin 003394 © 2005 HydmCAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 Inflow Area= Inflow = Outflow = Primary = Pond 1 P: Pond 1 6.280 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.63" 27.60 cfs@ 0.25 hrn, Volume= 12.96 cfs@ 0.52 hrn, Volume= 12.96 cfs@ 0.52 hrn, Volume= for 10-Year event 0.855 af 0.851 af, Atten= 53%, Lag= 15.8 min 0.851 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 0.00-3.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 289.35'@ 0.52 hrs Surf.Area= 7,842 sf Storage= 19,747 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 27.3 min calculated for 0.851 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 27.2 min ( 472 -20.0) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 285.60' 29,722 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation (feet) Surf.Area (sq-ft) Inc.Store (cubic-feet) Cum.Store (cubic-feet) 285.60 286.00 287.00 288.00 289.00 290.00 290.50 Device Routing #1 Primary 0 3,733 4,804 6,003 7,330 8,788 9,524 0 747 4,269 5,404 6,667 8,059 4,578 Invert Outlet De!vices 0 747 5,015 10,419 17,085 25,144 29,722 285.60' Custom Weir/Orifice, C= 2.62 Head (feHt) 0.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 Width (feet) 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Primary OutFlow Max=12.96 cfs@ 0.5~: hrs HW=289.35' (Free Discharge) L1=Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Controls 12.96 cfs@ 5.8 fps) Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-04 IX-Brazos County 10-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=l.19 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6 HydroCAD® 7.10 s/n 003394 © 2005 Hydr:>CAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 30 28 26 24 22 20 ~ 18 ~ ~ 16 ~ 0 14 ii: 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 290 289 c g 288 "' > G> iii 287 27.60 cfs Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Hydrograph ·In flow Area=6.280 ac Peak Elev=289.35' Storage=19,747 cf 2 Time (hours) Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Stage-Area-Storage Surf a ;e/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) -Inflow -Primary 3 o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 -Surface 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Storage (cubic-feet) -storage 20,000 25,000 Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-04 1X-Brazos County 25-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=B.23 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7 HydroCAD® 7.10 s/n 003394 © 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 Inflow Area= Inflow = Outflow = Primary = Pond 1 P: Pond 1 6.280 ac, Inflow Depth = 1.87'' 31.58 cfs @ 0.25 hm, Volume= 15.19 cfs@ 0.51 hm, Volume= 15.19 cfs@ 0.51 hm, Volume= for 25-Year event 0.978 af 0.974 af, Atten= 52%, Lag= 15.5 min 0.974 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 0.00-3.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 289.66' @ 0.51 hrs Surf.Are1a= 8,294 sf Storage= 22,248 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 26.6 min calculated for 0.974 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 26.5 min ( 46.!5 -20.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage :Storage Description #1 285.60' 29,722 cf 1:;ustom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.more Cum.Store {feet} {sg-ft} {cubic-feet} {cubic-feet} 285.60 0 0 0 286.00 3,733 747 747 287.00 4,804 4·,269 5,015 288.00 6,003 ~i,404 10,419 289.00 7,330 Ei,667 17,085 290.00 8,788 E:,059 25, 144 290.50 9,524 4.,578 29,722 Device Routing Invert Outlet DHvices #1 Primary 285.60' Custom Weir/Orifice, C= 2.62 Head (fe1~t) 0.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 Width (feet) 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Primary Outflow Max=15.19 cfs@ 0.5'1 hrs HW=289.66' (Free Discharge) L1=Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Controls 15.19 cfs@5.9 fps) Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-04 TX-Brazos County 25-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=B.23 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page a HydroCAD® 7.10 sin 003394 © 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 ~ 20 " -18 ~ 0 16 u:: 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 290 289 c ~ 288 ~ iii 287 31.58 cfs Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Hydrograph Inflow Area=6.280 ac Peak Elev=289.66' · Storage=22,248 cf 2 Time (hours) Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) -Inflow -Primary 3 o 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,501) 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 -Surface 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Storage (cubic-feet) -Storage 20,000 25,000 Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-04 i X-Brazos County 50-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=9.33 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9 HydroCAD® 7.10 sin 003394 © 2005 Hydr::>CAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 Inflow Area= Inflow = Outflow = Primary = Pond 1 P: Pond 1 6.280 ac, Inflow Depth= 2.12" 35. 78 cfs @ 0.25 hm, Volume= 17.54 cfs@ 0.50 hm, Volume= 17.54 cfs@ 0.50 hm, Volume= for 50-Year event 1.108 af 1.104 af, Atten= 51%, Lag= 15.2 min 1.104 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 0.00-3.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 289.96'@ 0.50 hrs Surf.Are!a= 8,736 sf Storage= 24,832 cf Plug.:.Flow detention time= 26.0 min calcL lated for 1.104 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 25.9 min ( 45.!~ -20.0 ) ..;..V..::..o=lu....;.m;..:;.e __ .....:ln.....:v....;;.e....;.rt_.....:A.....:v.;....:;a=il.;....:;.S..:;..to;;;..;.r=agiiL:e'---Storage Description #1 285.60' 29,722 cf Gustom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.more Cum.Store {feet} {sg-ft} {cubic-feet} {cubic-feet} 285.60 0 0 0 286.00 3,733 747 747 287.00 4,804 4,269 5,015 288.00 6,003 ~·.404 10,419 289.00 7,330 6,667 17,085 290.00 8,788 f .,059 25,144 290.50 9,524 4,578 29,722 Device Routing Invert Outlet DE!vices #1 Primary 285.60' Custom 'llVeir/Orifice, C= 2.62 Head (fei~t) 0.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 Width (feet) 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Primary OutFlow Max=17.54 cfs@0.50 hrs HW=289.96' (Free Discharge) 't._1=Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Controls 17.54 cfs @6.1 fps) Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-04 iX-Brazos County 50-Year Duration=15 min, lnten=9.33 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10 HydroCAD® 7.10 s/n 003394 © 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Hydrograph 40...-~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 ~ 22 u -; 20 £ 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Inflow Area=6.280 ac Peak Elev=289.96' Storage=24,832 cf ~~~~--~--~~--~-....-----=::=:::::::;::==:;:::::::;====;:;i------l 0 2 3 Time (hours) Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Stage-Area-Storage Surf2 ce/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) -Inflow -Primary O 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 -Surface 290 289 c .2 288 iii ~ iii 287 286 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Storage (cubic-feet) -Storage 20,000 25,000 ' . Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-0 TX-Brazos County 100-Year Duration= 15 min, lnten=9. 73 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company narne here} Page 11 HydroCAD® 7.1 O s/n 003394 © 2005 Hydr·)CAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 Inflow Area = Inflow = Outflow = Primary = Pond 1 P: Pond 1 6.280 ac, Inflow De~·th = 2.21" 37.33 cfs @ 0.25 hm, Volume= 18.41 cfs @ 0.50 hm, Volume= 18.41 cfs @ 0.50 hm, Volume= for 100-Year event 1.156 af 1.152 af, Atten= 51%, Lag= 15.1 min 1.152 af Routing by Stor-lnd method, Time Span= 0.00-3.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 290.07'@ 0.50 hrs Surf.Are !a= 8,894 sf Storage= 25,778 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 25.8 min calcL lated for 1.152 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 25.7 min ( 45.7 -20.0) Volume Invert Avail.Storage ::>torage Description #1 285.60' 29,722 cf Gustom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.more Cum.Store {feet} {sg-ft} {cubic-feet} {cubic-feet} 285.60 0 0 0 286.00 3,733 747 747 287.00 4,804 .:i.,269 5,015 288.00 6,003 E;,404 10,419 289.00 7,330 €i,667 17,085 290.00 8,788 E•,059 25,144 290.50 9,524 .:i .. 578 29,722 Device Routing Invert Outlet Dovices #1 Primary 285.60' Custom Weir/Orifice, C= 2.62 Head (fe,3t) 0.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 Width (feet) 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 Primary OutFlow Max=18.41 cfs@ 0.50 hrs HW=290.07' (Free Discharge) L1=Custom Weir/Orifice (Weir Controls 18.41 cfs@ 6.2 fps) Summit Crossing, Ph 1-Pond 1-Supplemental Summit Crossing-Rational C-0 TX-Brazos County 100-Year Duration= 15 min, lnten=9. 73 in/hr Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12 HydroCAD® 7 .1 O sin 003394 © 2005 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC 4/4/2008 40 38 36 34 · 32 30 28 26 :f 24 .e 22 ~ 20 u: 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Hydrograph Inflow Area=6.280 ac Peak Elev:::::290.01·. Storage=25; 7J8 cf -Inflow -Primary 2 o~~----~---a.--~---~~--___:::::::::::::;;:::::::;:===:;:::===;ia------J 0 290 289 c .2 288 7ii > .. iii 287 2 Time (hours) Pond 1 P: Pond 1 Stage-Area-Storage Surface/Horizontal/Wetted Area (sq-ft) 3 O 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,50t)4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000 7,500 8,000 8,500 9,000 9,500 -Surface 0 5,000 10,000 1 -Storage 15,000 Storage (cubic-feet) 20,000 25,000 Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. From: Sent: To: kelli.w.mcmahon@exxonmobil.com Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11 :47 AM rabon@rmengineer.com Subject: Summit Crossing, Brazos County, Texas Mr. Metcalf: It appears that you designed the l O" PVC sanitary sewer line approx. 48" below our 12" Mobil pipeline as shown on drawing no. S-01 , sheet 3 of 5. We offer no objection regarding this line only. Please make the following changes on dwg. no. ST-06, sheet 11 of20: Submit an answer as to why you can't meet our 24" minimum clearance requirement for the 30" storm sewer. Subdivision lot lines will not be allowed to cross over our easement. Stop the back lot lines at the edge of our easement. All references to the pipeline should be 12" Mobil Pipe Line Co. instead of ExxonMobil The easement is not 25' but appears to be 60' at this location. We will be in Brazos County tomorrow afternoon if you would like to discuss further. KWM Kelli W. McMahon, SR/WA Right-of-Way and Claims Agent ExxonMobil Pipeline Company 281-591-3710 office 281-591-3733 fax 281-386-7535 cell 1 CnY o.r COLLEGE s·1A:l'JON Plmming & Dc11elopmmt Servit:t:J 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Te..xas 77842 Phone 979. 764.3570 I Fax 979. 764.3496 MEMORANDUM February 18, 2008 TO : Rabon Metcalf, P.E., via fax 690.0329 FROM: Bridgette George, Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Engineering Document Comments for Summit Crossing Ph. 1 DP J?age 1 o.t z Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information for further staff review and approval of the plans: _j_ One (1) sets of revised construction documents. 5f-.E-"R.YV1E. Ct>'>fe£.. La..-r-r~ If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Josh Norton or myself at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments pc: Mike Davis, Summit Crossing, LLC, via mikedavis@suddenlink.net Case File No. 08-0100004 .. Page 2 of 2 ENGINEERING COMMENTS -Sanitary Sewer Line "S1" ~Please submit letter of acknowledgement. A-rrA<-fff:;,r:::' ~ . Th~ construction documents for the remaining Phase 1 Infrastructure are still under review. Y.Please verify that the gas company is allowing and is comfortable with the proposed crossing details. ,A77,ACt+E.o l? YYlAt L. C0/'4 Fl rl..wt/l(IW FYI -Utilities has expressed some concern regarding the water and waste-water ma ins being located on the same side of the street. Please verify that all TCEQ separation requirements have been met, specifically concerning the proximity to paralle l and crossing water and waste water mains as well as the P.roximity of sanitary sewer manholes adjacent to water mains.f('E.~l-V~ ~ ~f'IE. Clt-1V~71v.f Please provide a steel encasement with capped and sealed ends and cement stabilized sand, as described on page 6 & 8 of the BCS Sanitary Sewer Guidelines. instead of the proposed concrete encasement for the below grade crossing of the creek. ~Please provide all appropriate BCS Construction Details when submitting for stamping. Reviewed by : Josh Norton Date: February 18, 2008 r ' ' February 25, 2008 Louis Heron III, P .E. Texas Commission of Environmental Quality Plans & Specification Review MC 148 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 RE: Chapter 317 Summary Transmittal Letter Permittee: City of College Station P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 email: civil@rmengineer.com Permit Number: Lick Creek WWTP: WQ0010024-006 Project Name: Summit Crossing, Phase One-College Station, TX Sanitary Sewer Line "S l" County: Brazos County Grant No.: NIA Mr. Louis Heron: The purpose of this letter is to provide the TCEQ with the information necessary to comply with the requirements of Chapter 317.l(a)(3)(D) of the TCEQ's rules entitled, Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems. The necessary information includes: 1. Engineering Firm: RME Consulting Engineers 1391 Seamist Lane <77845> P.O. Box 9253 College Station, TX 77842 2. Design Engineer: Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E. Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 3. Operator: City of College Station 4. Variances from Chapter 317: Design and construction of these improvements are in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Unified Water & Sewer Specifications, Design Guidelines Manual, and Chapter 317 of the TCEQ Rules & Regulations. This sanitary sewer improvement project will be constructed with the City of College Station performing a technical review as specified in ~ Chapter 317(a)(3)(A). Therefore, an exception for plan review is being requested for this project and its sanitary sewer improvements. Nl oD ~ r! ,-,,-,., ~~ ... """""" T "' • • r\(.}-1 OJ Di~ n_r~~~O or 1<9··~ .,, Summit Crossing, Phase One -Sanitary Sewer Line "Sl" TCEQ Chap 317 Summary Transmittal Letter February 25, 2008 5. Innovative and/or Nonconforming Technologies: NIA 6. Certification: The plans and specifications which describe the project identified in this letter are in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Chapter 317. 7. Project Scope: The above referenced project will install the following sanitary sewer improvements within the CCN of the City of College Station (CoCS): •!• Approximately 1, 7 51 linear feet of gravity sewer: o 1,751L.F. of 10" PVC (SDR 26, D3034), (SDR 26, Class 160), & (DIP, Class 250); •!• Applicable manholes, cleanouts, and service leads; If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Mr. Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. (Off/Fax: 979.690.0329 or rabon@rmengineer.com). Sincerely, Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E. rabon@rmengineer.com xc: Josh Norton, E.I.T. Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station 110 l Texas A venue South College Station, TX 77840 CDl-227-0338-L06 Page 2 of2 March 3, 2008 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 I Fax 979.764.3496 MEMORANDUM Rabon Metcalf, P.E., via fax 690.0329 Lindsay Boyer, Senior Planner Engineering Document Comments for Summit Crossing Ph. 1 DP Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The following page is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comments and submit the following information for further staff review and approval of the plans: One (1) sets of revised construction documents. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Josh Norton or myself at 979. 764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments pc: Mike Davis, Summit Crossing, LLC , via mikedavis@suddenlink.net Case File No. 08-0100004 7 ENGINEERING COMMENTS -Phase 1 ~ it possible to adjust the alignment of sidewalk along SH 30 as to avoid being on top of the _ _;isting water main? Tu.~Eo -r~ ~ '2.~.uJ. L1...lE. tfitl"T It appears in several locations that the proposed drainage inlet boxes are extremely close to the proposed water main. Please adjust to provide as much clearance as possible. /{\A"'. t:.1.9t.r.~a;. ~Summit Pass" is mislabeled on some sheets.~~s:o c~rt'l.f'l.l::r?~"f ~rc>s;o .. ~The waterline is bending to go under the storm in a few places without fittings. A 2 degree angle on a 20-ft joint of pipe gives you 8-in of deflection. So you have to go over 20-ft for every drop or rise of 8-in. plus 1 20-ft joint to lay flat between negative slope and positive --=· slope. Is there enough room to do this? Or do fittings need to be used? Aro-~~ F-.o /'t-~ N~'t ~_z;::.~•lease verify that cement stabilized is being used for HOPE throughout. Please remove all HOPE located under pavement. See below: ~.ft.PK£. ~/RcP In light of the recent discussions on HOPE pipe deflecting out of round, we should require RCP under public pavement. Where storm sewer is not under pavement, HOPE with cement stabilized sand as in the structural trench requirements per detail 03-02 is always utilized is the minimum acceptable. Note that design engineers are to specifically design and seal the HOPE detail specific to each set of plans and site. In general we require structural trenching within 5 ft of public back of curbs or under public sidewalks. HOPE is acceptable under sidewalks and if the pipe is completely behind the curb. Use this guidance on the interim. We can about this further in our BCS discussions to memorialize it in the guidelines . . / -Alan Gibbs, P.E, City Engineer ~ Please submit an illustration of all private alleys for rear access. This will also need to be amended on the preliminary and final plats. 5££ BHEF.fT GP-I "'-..£..j~"CAlease submit letter of acknowledgement. W\t..(_ eE A'i1A<.-~ ~~fl\ \1 Se-""lS . Please address the gas company concerns related to the rear lot lines adjacent to their . _jiipeline easement. ~-r-r;..c..~EJC> ~lease illustrate the no parking requirement for the public alleys, as well as how this will be ~~gned. *€.. ~'EQ"t 6'-1-b \ ....;.. ~lilflA\.-c~~~vc-r LnJ Nne. 1t ~ lJ;l • ~ave the off-site drainage structures related to the detention facilities been addressed by TxDOT? kr-r1tu+'ICP jz.~ase verify that appropriate erosion control measures at critical outlet locations. ~~lease verify that 6-in of freeboard have been provided in both detention ponds. I~ 1}8 Qt=-p ~. • ~ Parks aware of the proposed detention facility and imP-rovement on the proposed Park d Dedication area?~P-Arr~'FJC C..~~ Pt,A..J ase submit technical design summary. AllAt-'H E..O ere is some concern regarding the future extension of Summit Pass thru to the adjacent development off SH 60. It appears there will be a transition from a residential street section to a collector street section, as well as a direct connection from a commercial area thru a residential area. Please address the transition as well as the traffic from the ommercial . ~a using the residential street to get back and from SH 30. ~ UJ UN\\/'e'l51'1"f ~f iJ'. FYI -Utilities has expressed some concern regarding the water and waste-water mains being located on the same side of the street. Please verify that all TCEQ separation requirements have been met, specifically concerning the proximity to parallel and crossing water and waste water mains as well as the proximity of sanitary sewer manholes adjacent . ~o water mains. A\..\-U'1\l..-l'1\fi..b l--\1-..'-lF-~_N 'JE.~\\-l~ '"t'o ~~-r LC.iC.-G( 6~~Please include BCS Construction Details when submitting for stamping. Reviewed by: Josh Norton (\) Sa: ~O~W\ SF»JV'Z-No-ti:. jt-1 of1 ·~..NC.to\ l>inAL. {-z.) SF..£. ~-TA\\..~ C>~ bt.\&I& Gf?-l + V¥.D - 0 \ • Date: March 3, 2008 oN Sf-\-£01 fV\o -o'Z. . Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Rabon, Josh Norton [Jnorton@cstx.gov] Wednesday, March 05, 2008 8:54 AM Rabon Metcalf Carol Cotter Summit Crossing -Additional Comments Here are some additional comments from the utilities regarding the sanitary sewer report: 1) Table 1 shows a total Q of 3.72 ds for the entire area 0.21 ds comes off of 6.4 acres of high density residential in table 2 the max Q is 0.21 ds in the winstorm analysis the Q used is 0.21 ds and it appears the line capacity is 2.75 ds crossing SH 30? 2) Nowhere do I see an analysis of downstream/ what's already going through the line/ and what's being put through the line especially from the FM 60 area? Please address these comments with your next submittal. Thanks -Josh College Station. Heart of the Research Valley. 1 January 30, 2008 RE: Summit Crossing, Phase One -TCEQ NOi Packet College Station, TX RME No. 227-0338 Jimmy Easterly: P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 email: civil@rmengineer.com Please find attached two (2) copies (11 xl 7) of the referenced SWPPP and a copy of its associated Construction Site Notice, NOI , and the Payment Submittal Form. Please provide one copy of the SWPPP, signed Construction Site Notice, and NOi to the TCEQ, and retain the other copies for your records. The TCEQ requires that the permit documents and the payment for the application fee be mailed to different locations. At the top of page one of the NOI, please complete the area requesting the check/money order number and name on the check/money order. Next, proceed to Section G and sign where indicated for certification. (Please note: The individual who signs in Section G is considered the Site Operator and is solely liable for all inspection reports and maintenance required by TCEQ, unless a Letter of Delegation is issued to the Site Operator's Representative responsible for all inspection reports and maintenance of the SWPPP). Mail a signed copy of the NOI and Construction Site Notice with the SWPPP to: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Storm Water & Pretreatment Team, MC-228 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Complete the Payment Submittal Form as directed, staple the check/money order for the $100.00 application fee where indicated and mail to: Texas Commission on Environmental QuaHty Financial Administration Division Cashier's Office, MC-214 P.O. Box 13088 Austin, Texas 78711-3088 Finally, be sure to post a laminated copy of the SWPPP, signed NOI, and Construction Site Notice at the construction site, at a location visible from the Right-of-Way. Once the project has been completed and the site is stabilized, send a completed Notice of Termination (NOT) to the TCEQ as directed on the form. Please contact us should you have any questions. rabon@rmengineer.com SW3P Cover Letter Page I of I ' -·-Notice of Intent (NOi) for Storm Water f ' TCEQ Office Use Only Discharges Associated with Construction TPDES Permit Number: TXR15l_l_l_l_I •• Activity under the TPDES General Perm it GIN Number: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 IF* Fee Receipt No. TCEQ CMPORTANT: •Use the attached INSTRUCTIONS when completing this form. •After completing th is form, use the attached CUSTOMER CRECKLIST to make certain all items are complete and accurate. •Missing, illegible, or inaccurate items may delay final acknowledgment or coverage under the general pem1it. Application Fee: You must submit the$ I 00 NO! Application Fee to TCEQ under separate cover (see instruclions) using the attached Application Fee submittal form. (DO NOT SEND A COPY OF THE NOi WlTH THE APPLICATION FEE SUBMITTAL FORM) Tell us how you paid for this fee: Check/Money Order No.: Name Printed on Check: A. OPERATOR 1. TCEQ Issued Customer Number (CN) (if available): 2. Legal Name (spelled exactly as filed with the Texas Secretary of State, County, or legal document that was used in forming the entity): 3060 Development, LLC c/o Jimmy Easterly 3. Mailing Address: 4002 Aspen Drive Suite No./Bldg.No.: City: Bryan State: Texas I ZfP Code: 77801 4. Phone No.: ( 979 ) 777-2846 Extension: 5. FAXNo. E-mail Address: mikedavis@suddenlink.net 6. Type of Operator: D lndividual D Sole Proprietorship-D.B.A. D Partnership l!J Corporation LI Federal Government D State Goverrunent D County Government D City Government Dother: 7. lndependent Operator: l!J Yes 0No (ff governmental entity or a subsidiary or part of a larger corporation, check ''NO") 8. Number of Employees: [!J 0-20; 0 2 1-100; D 101-250; D 251-500; or D 50 I or higher 9. Business Tax and Filing Numbers (not applicable to individuals, Government, General Partnerships, and Sole Proprietorship-D.B.A): State Franchise Tax ID Number: Federal Tax ID: 26-1857256 TX SOS Charter (filing) Number: DUNS Number: (I f known) B. BILLING ADDRESS (The Operator is responsible for paying the annual fee.) 0 Same As Operator (check if address is the same, then proceed with Seclion C.) I. Billing Mailing Address: Suite No./Bldg.No.: City: State: I ZIP Code: 2. Billing Contact (Attn or C/0 ): 3. Country Mailing [nformation (if outside USA) Territory: Country Code: Postal Code: 4. Phone No.: ( ) -Extension: 5. FAXNo. E-mail Address: TCEQ-20022 (07/1 212004) Page I of3 c. APPLICATION CONTACT (lfTCEQ needs additional information regarding this application, who should be contacted? I. Name: Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. Title: Graduate Civil Engineer Company: RME Consulting Engineers 2. Phone No.: ( 979 ) 690-0329 Extension: 3. FAX No. (979) 690-0329 E-mail Address: rabon@rmengineer.com D. REGULATED ENTITY {RE) INFORMATION ON PROJECT OR SITE I. TCEQ Issued RE Reference Number (RN) (if available): 2. Name of Project or Site: Summit Crossing, Phase One 3. Physical Address of Project or Site: (enter in spaces below) Street Number: Street Nan1e: S.H. 30 -Harvey Road East City (nearest to the site): ZIP Code (nearest to the site): County (Counties if> I): College Station 77840 Brazos 4. If no physical address (Street Number & Street Name), provide a written location access description that can be used for locating the site: (Ex.: 2 miles west from intersection of Hwy 290 & 1H35 on Hwy 290 South) On the north side of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) approximately 0.6 miles southwest of its intersection with FM 158. 5. Latitude: 30.65042 N Longitude: 96.28482 w 6. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code: 1541 7. Describe the activity related to the need for this authorization at this site (do not repeat the SIC and NA/CS code): Construction of a urban residential development 8. ls the project/site located on Lndian Country Lands? Dves I!] No If Yes, you must obtain authorization through EPA, Region VI. E. SrTE MAILING ADDRESS (address for receiving mail at the site) 0 Same As Operator (check if address is the same, U1en proceed with Section F.) Mailing Address: Suite NoJBidg.No.: City: State: ZIP Code: F. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS I. Has a Pollution Prevention Plan been prepared as required in the general pennit? !!Ives DNo If No coverage may be denied as the PPP is required at the time the NOi is submitted lo TCEQ. 2. Provide the estimated area of land disturbed (to the nearest acre): 23 Acres 3. Provide the name of the receiving water body (local stream, lake, drainage ditch), MS4 Operator (if applicable) and the segment number where stonn water runoff will flow from the construction site. MS4 Operator: College Station Receiving Water Body: Carters Creek Segment: NIA TCEQ-20022 (07/1212004) Page 2 of3 G. CERTIFICATION 1, Jimmy Easterly Mannaging Partner Typed or printed name Title (Required) certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief: true, accurate, and complete. 1 am aware there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. I further 4 rti th I am authorized under 30 Texas Administrative Code §305.44 to sign and submit this document., and can provide documentation in proof of such autho zation u~~i-J:li:QJtest:--- 1 oate: __ tf_f_~_dP_o _CO __ TCEQ-20022 (0711212004) Page3 of3 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality General Permit Payment Submittal Form Use this form to submit your Application Fee. •Complete items 1 through 4 below: •Staple your check in the space provided at the bottom of this document. ·Do not mail th.is form with your NOi form . ·Do not mail this form to the same address as your NOi. lnstead, mail this form and your check lo: BY REGULAR U.S. MAIL BY OVERNIGHT/EXPRESS MAIL Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Comm.ission on Environmental Quality Financial Administration Division Financial Administration Division Cashier's Office, MC-214 Cashier's Office, MC-214 P.O. Box 13088 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, TX 78711-3088 Austin, TX 78753 To confirm receipt of payment, call the Cashier's office at 51 2/239-0357 or 239-0187. Fee Code: GPA General Permit: TXRJSOOOO I. Check/ Money Order No: 2. Amount of Check/Money Order: 3. Date of Check or Money Order: 4. Name on Check or Money Order: 5. NOi INFORMATION lf the check is for more than one NOi, list each Project/Site (RE) Name and Physical Address exactly as provided on the NOi. DO NOT SUBMlT A COPY OF THE NOi WITH TffiS FORM AS IT COULD CAUSE DUPLICATE PERMlT ENTRIES. 0 See Attached List of Sites (If more space is needed, you may a/lach a list.} Project/Site (RE) Name: Summit Crossing, Phase One Project/Site (RE) Physical Address: On the north side of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) approximately 0.6 miles southwest of its intersection with FM 158. Staple Check In This Space TCEQ-20134 (0711212004) Page I of I ' " ,. ---... ---...._ ----... ·~--:~.: -~-~--.. -~ CONSTRUCTION SITE NOTICE FOR THE Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Storm Water Program TPDES GENERAL PERMIT TXR150000 The following information is posted in compliance with Part 11.D.1. of the TCEQ General Permit Number TXR.150000 for discharges of storm water runoff from construction sites. Additional information regarding the TCEQ storm water permit program may be found on the internet at: www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/waterperm/wwperm/tpdestorm Contact Name and Phone Number: 3060 Development, LLC c/o Jimmy Easterly (979) 777-2846 Project Description: Summit Crossing, Phase One (Physical address or description of the site's On the north side of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) approximately 0.6 miles location, estimated start date and projected end southwest of its intersection with FM 158. date, or date that disturbed soils will be stabilized) For Construction Sites Authorized Under Part 11.D.1. the following certification must be completed: I Jimmy Easterly (Typed or Printed Name Person Completing This Certification) certify under penalty of law that I have read and understand the eligibility requirements for claiming an authorization by waiver under Part 11.D. l. of TPDES General Permit TXR 150000 and agree to comply with the terms of this permit. Construction activities at this site shall occur within a time period listed in Appendix A of the TPDES general permit for this county, that period beginning on March 1. 2008 and ending on September 1. 2008 • I understand that if construction activities continue past this period, all storm water runoff must be authorized under a separate provisi n f this general permit. A copy of this signed notice is supplied to the operator of the MS4 if discharges enter a S4 system. I a aware there are significant penalties for providing false information or for conducting unaut o ized · s, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. L(1 ¥e& o~ Date April 7, 2008 David Loflin Texas Commission of Environmental Quality Water Supply Division MC 153 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711 P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 email: civil@rmengineer.com RE: Summit Crossing, Phase One -Water Distribution Improvements TCEQ Exception Letter RME No. 227-0338 Mr. David Loflin: The above referenced project will install the following improvements within the distribution system of the City of College Statior. (CoCS): •!• Approximately 2,681 linear foet of 8" & 6" PVC (C-909, Class 200) water line; •!• Applicable fire hydrants, sen·ices, valves & fittings. Design and construction of these improvements will be in accordance with the latest Bryan/College Station Unified Wate r & Sewer Design Guideline Manual, Standard Details, and Specifications and Chapter 290 of the TCEQ Rules & Regulations. This quantity of water line is less than 10% of the total length C1f water line within the City's current distribution system. Therefore, an exception for plan reYiew is being requested for this project and its water system improvements. Please call should you have any que~;tions or require assistance. Sincerely, Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E. rabon@rmengineer.com xc: Josh Norton, E.I.T. Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas A venue South College Station, TX 77842 CD 1-227-0338-L 11 Page I of I Date: April 7, 2008 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW SUBMITTAL FORM (Complete and Attach to Submittal Package) TCEQ PWS Identification No.*: _02_1_0_0_02 ______ CCN No. or Application No. **:-=-1=-01.:....::6:;.;:9..__ _____ _ Water System Name: City of College Station Water System Owner: City of College Station Address: North side of Harvey Road (SH 30) Official: John Woody ________ Type of Entity: Municipality Phone: (979) 764-3660 Title: Director of Public Utilities Responsible County (system location): Brazos County Subdivision Sec., Phase, Unit, etc. Summit Crossing, Phase One _________________ .hllechanism & Source of Financing:_P_ri_v._at .... e _______ _ Engineer: Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. l~egistration Number:_8._8~5~8 .... 3 ______________ _ Firm Name: Rabon Metcalf Engineering Phone: (979) 690-0329 Firm Address: P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Fax: (979) 690-0329 * If no PWS Number exists, the owner must submit a business plan, if required, in accordance with §290.39(f) and (g). -If a required CCN number does not exist, an acceptable application to obtain a CCN number must be made before a project submittal can be technically reviewed. In addition, if a submittal is for a project located outside the CCN area, a CCN amendment application must be submitted before a project may be reviewed for construction approval. Please refer to 30 TAC Chapter 291 for additional information regarding CCNs. If this is a new (proposed) system, you must attc:1ch the following with this submittal: NOT APPLICABLE D Attach a list of all water utilities within Yz mile of the proposed service area boundaries D Copies of formal applications for service from each of the following D any municipality if the system is within its ET J; D any district or other political subdivision whose corporate boundaries are within Yz mile of the proposed service area boundaries D any other water service provider whose certificated service area boundary is within Yz mile of the proposed service area boundaries D Documentation that all application requi ·ements including payment of fees were complied with. D Copies of written responses from each of the entities listed above. D Business plan, if required by 30 TAC W0.39(f) & (g). The business plan financial requirements for non-community water systems must confirm capital availability to construct the system according to TCEQ requirements. This would consist of a balance sheet that shows liabilities as well as assets, not just a bank confirmation of a deposit account. Alternatively, if the project is being constructed with loan funds, then a loan commitment letter from the lender specific to that project will suffice. D Justification for constructing a separate system (unless none of the entities listed above exist) D Plans and specifications with an engine 3ring report all sealed by design engineer. Type of Project (please check the appropriate b)xes): ./ Distribution System Modifications D Well completion data on previously app ·oved well D Pressure Maintenance Facilities Modifications D Disinfection Facilities or Other Modifications D Preliminary Engineering Report w/o plans D Modification of Surface Water Treatment Plant D D D D D D D Storage Capacity Modifications Water Well Construction, Proposed Proposed Innovative Process Study Ground Water Treatment Plant, New Surface Water Treatment Plant, New Tex. Water Dev. Board Proj. No. _____ _ Other(PleaseExplain) ________________________________ _ IF THIS SUBMITTAL IS A REVISION OF PRE\'IOUSL Y SUBMITTED PLANS, PLEASE ENTER THE ASSIGNED TCEQ LOG NUMBER: . Ple<ise call (512) 239-6960 if you have questions regarding this form. Your cooperation will help us provide better service. Additional helpful information and rules are available at our website: Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. Printed Engineer's Name Revised 9/12102 April 7, 2008 Date April 7, 2008 Louis Heron III, P .E. Texas Commission of Environmental Quality Plans & Specification Review MC 148 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 RE: Chapter 317 Summary Tra1rasmittal Letter Permittee: City of College Station P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 email: civil@rmengineer.com Permit Number: Lick Creek WWTP: WQ0010024-006 Project Name: Summ.t Crossing, Phase One -College Station, TX Sanitruy Sewer Improvements County: Brazos County Grant No.: NIA Mr. Louis Heron: The purpose of this letter is to provide the TCEQ with the information necessary to comply with the requirements of Chapter 317.l(:i.)(3)(D) of the TCEQ's rules entitled, Design Criteria for Sewerage Systems. The necessary information includes: 1. Engineering Firm: RME Consulting Engineers 1391 Searnist Lane <77845> P.O. Box 9253 College Station, TX 77842 2. Design Engineer: Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E. Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 3. Operator: City of College Station 4. Variances from Chapter 317: Design and construction of these improvements are in accordance with the Bryan/College Station Unified Water & Sewer Specifications, Design Guidelines Manual, and Chapter 317 of the TCEQ Rules & R1~gulations. This sanitary sewer improvement project will be constructed with the City of College Station performing a technical review as specified in Chapter 317(a)(3)(A). Therefore, an exception for plan review is being requested for this project and its sanitary sewer improvements. CDl-227-0338-LlO Page I of2 . ... . Summit Crossing, Phase One -Sanitary Sewer Improvements TCEQ Chap 317 Summary Transmittal Letter April 7, 2008 5. Innovative and/or Nonconforming Technologies: NIA 6. Certification: The plans and specificatiorn; which describe the project identified in this letter are in substantial compliance with all the requirements of Chapter 317. 7. Project Scope: The above referenced project will install the following sanitary sewer improvements within the CCN of the City of College Station (CoCS): •!• Approximately 3,072 linear feet of gravity sewer: o 532 L.F. of 8" PVC (SOR 26, 03034) & (DIP, Class 250); o 2,540 L.F. of 6" PVC (SOR 26, 03034) & (SOR 26, Class 160); •!• Applicable manholes, cleanouts, and service leads; If you have any questions regardin.g this project, please contact Mr. Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. (Off/Fax: 979.690.0329 or rabon@nnengineer.com). Sincerely, Rabon A. Metcalf, P .E. rabon@rmengineer.com xc: Josh Norton, E.I.T. Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station l 101 Texas Avenue South College Station, TX 77840 CDl-227-0338-LlO ···~················ )~··~8~83 ..-~ 'f-j;~ IC ~~~;~~ ·~ ~ NAL~~~ ,, .. ~~...,, Page 2 of2 April 3, 2008 TO : FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979. 764.3570 / Fax 979. 764.3496 MEMORANDUM Rabon Metcalf, P.E., via fax 690.0329/ Nicole Padilla, Staff Assistant Engineering Document Comments for Summit Crossing Ph. 1 DP Staff reviewed the above-mentioned engineering documents as requested. The following is a list of staff review comments detailing items that need to be addressed. Please address the comm ents and submit the following information for further staff review and approval of the plans: One ( 1) sets of revised construction documents. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Josh Norton at 979.764.3570. Attachments: Staff review comments pc: Mike Davis, Summit Crossing, LLC, via mikedavis@suddenlink.net V Case File No. 08-0100004 ENGI NEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 -Phase 1 1. It appears that some of the drainage facilities are utilizing a 3:1 slope and not a 4:1 slope as required. 2. Plea se verify that cement stabilized is being used for HOPE throughout. 3. Please submit letter of acknowledgement. 4. Have the off-site drainage structures related to the detention facilities been addressed by TxDOT? The attachment was not found . Reviewed by: Josh Norton Date: April 3, 2008 Home of Texas A & M University 4/3/20mD Nico e Padilla -Fax sent From: To: Date: Subject: Attachments: "Gwfax" <Gwfax@[10.1.0.38]> <Npadilla@cstx.gov> 4/3/2008 1 :43 PM Fax sent Fax Output File.tif GWFax successfully delivered your fax to Rabon Metcalf, P.E .. Fax number: 690-0329 Subject: Summit Crossing -Engineering Comments 3 Status: (success) Completed: 12:38:56 PM, Thursday, April 03 , 2008 Sent pages : 2 of 2 Duration: 0:00:51 Cost: 25 Account: 67051 # ID: *no cid* Received CSID: Page 1 Josh Norton -Fw: Sunoco Contact From: <rabon@rmengineer.com> To: "Josh Norton" <jnorton@cstx.gov> Date: 9/28/2009 11 :52 AM Subject: Fw: Sunoco Contact Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: "CHAPARRO, WILLIAM" Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:28:34 -0400 To: Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E.<rabon@rmengineer.com> Subject: RE: Sunoco Contact Rabon, Page 1of3 We have reviewed the drawings for the proposed dual 30" storm sewer installation underneath our 12" MagTex liquids pipeline at SH 30 in College Station, TX and have no objections. Please make sure you and/or contractor contact Andy Reichenbach, Sunoco's Area Supervisor, at 713-702-8970 to schedule a pipeline inspector to witness the job around our facilities. Temporary vehicular or equipment crossings of the pipeline easement must be limited to a single location properly protected with steel plates or timber mats and approved by the Sunoco pipeline inspector. William I. Chaparro, P.E. Project Manager Pipeline Relocations Office: 281 .637.6467 Fax: 866.429.1106 Sunoco Logistics One Fluor Daniel Dr. Building A, Level 3 Sugar Land , TX 77478-5095 www.sunocologistics.com From: Rabon A. Metcalf, P.E. [mailto:rabon@rmengineer.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:59 PM To: CHAPARRO, WILLIAM Cc: 'Josh Norton'; 'andres vela'; 'Mike K. Davis' Subject: RE: Sunoco Contact William -Please find attached a PDF of the revised storm sewer crossing with the former Exxon-Mobil gas pipeline. This crossing is per our phone conversation yesterday. The best clearance I could provide was 12" (the minimum you stated). Please let me know how to proceed. Josh -With 12" of clearance between the gas line the best clearance that could be provided with the 1 O" file ://C:\Documents and Settings\jnorton\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4ACOA371 City ... 9/28 /2009 April 7, 2008 Josh Norton, E.I.T. Graduate Civil Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue South College Station, TX 77842 P.O. Box 9253, College Station, TX 77842 Off/Fax: (979) 690-0329 email: civil@rmengineer.com RE: Summit Crossing, Phase One -Acknowledgement of City Standards RME No. 227-0338 Josh Norton: The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the construction plans for the paving, drainage, and utility improvements, for the above referenced project, to the best of my knowledge, do not deviate from the latest B/CS Design Guideline Manual. I also acknowledge, to the best of my knowledge that the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the B/CS Standard Details. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, rabon@rmengineer.com CD l-227-0338-L09 Page 1 of I SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.17) 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, bE;!ing sure to identify the sottWare name and version, the date of the version, any applicable patches and the publisher · 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 concluding information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Desi n Summa Draina e Re ort b si nin and sealin below. State of Texas PE No. ~'d S B".5 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 26 of26 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.17) 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 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 concluding information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Desi n Summa Draina e Re ort b si nin and sealin below. State of Texas PE No. ~'dSB~ STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Page 26 of26 Effective February 2007 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Continued (Page 4.16) Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? No 0 Yes Head and friction losses l:ZJ No Yes Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? Explain any "no" answers: Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? No For 100-year flow conditions? Yes D No Explain any "no" answers: No No What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain: Storm Sewer System "A": JO yrTW=Pond 2 (5 yr Pool Elevation) & 100 yrTW=Pond 2 (25 yr Pool Elevation) Storm Sewer System "B": 10 yrTW=Pond I (10 yr Pool Elevation) & 100 yrTW-Pond I (100 yr Pool Elevation) Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5.a? .D. Yes No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? 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? Entrance, friction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX . APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters ~ j Continued (Page 4.15) Design Parameters "(continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? D No lZ1 Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? 100 % As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows, were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? J:Z]_ No r::l.Yes If "yes" identify type of data, source(s}, and where applied: .. . . For each of the stormwater management features fisted below identify the storm return frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked}, and that used as the basis for design. Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets NIA NIA Storm drain system for local streets 100 10 Open channels NIA NIA Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel NIA NIA Swales NIA NIA Roadside ditches and culverts serving them NIA NIA Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall 100 100 Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) 100 25 Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged 100 100 Culverts serving private drives or streets NIA NIA Culverts serving public roadways NIA NIA Bridges: provide in bridge report NIA NIA Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) 5.05 10.64 NIA NIA NIA Lowest (feet per second) i .71 2.69 NIA NIA NIA Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For conduit type(s) ADS STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 For street gutters: RCP .· Page 24 of26 0.012 Coefficients: 0.012 0.013 APPENDIX.. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ \ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.1 5) Design Parameters (continued) - Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? D No m Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? 100 % As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows, were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? 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 basis for design. Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets NIA NIA Storm drain system for local streets 100 10 Open channels NIA NIA Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel NIA NIA Swales NIA NIA Roadside ditches and culverts serving them NIA NIA Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall 100 100 Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) 100 25 Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged 100 100 Culverts serving private drives or streets NIA NIA Culverts serving public roadways NIA NIA Bridges: provide in bridge report. NIA NIA Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) 5.05 10.64 NIA NIA NIA Lowest (feet per second) 2.71 2.69 NIA NIA NIA Streets and Stonn Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For conduit type(s) ADS STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 For street gutters: RCP Page 24 of26 0.012 Coefficients: 0.012 0.013 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs -Deviation From 8-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. _D_ Detention elements _D_ Drain system elements r::::J. Channel features _Ci_ Culvert features r::::J. Swales ..D_ Ditches ..D_ Inlets D.outtalls r::J. Valley gutters _D_ 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? lLJ Yes CJ No Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: The Rational Formula was used for D.A. "Pl" and "P2" since they are less than 50 acres in size. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 6.28 acres STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Location (or identifier): D.A. "Pl" Page 23 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameter5 I Continued (Page 4.13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? 1ZJ No CJ Yes If "yes" provide the following information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? en .. Q) Cl 32 .n 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? D Yes .D. No If "no" explain: Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: ~ Pollution Prevention Silt fencing 8.Iong downstream perimeter of construction site with rock filter ro Plan (SW3P) ::J dams and rock rip-rap placed at discharge structures. Phase 2 inlet siltation 0 established for devices installed at all curb inlets . .... project construction? cu ~ LJ No I l 1 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? 1ZJ.No .D. 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 storrnwater management objectives will not be compromised, and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution(s). Is report provided? _D_ Yes _CL_ No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 22 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ \ Sanitary Sewer Study Line ''Sl" FOR Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas January 28, 2008 Prepared For: 30-60 Development, LLC 4002 Aspen Drive Bryan, TX 77801 Prepared By: RME Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 9253 College Station, TX 77845 RME No. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study Line ''Sl'' FOR Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas January 28, 2008 Prepared For: 30-60 Development, LLC 4002 Aspen Drive Bryan, TX 77801 Prepared By: RME Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 9253 College Station, TX 77845 RME No. 227-0338 " Sanitary Sewer Study-Line "Sl" Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS: PAGE 1.0 General Information ...................................................................................................................................... 1 I. I Scope of Report and Proposed Development .......................................................................................... I I .2 Site and General Location ....................................................................................................................... I 1.3 Description of Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System ............................................................................................ 2 2.0 Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations ................................................................................................................ 2 3.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System ............................................................................................... 3 3.1 Collection System Configuration ............................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Hydraulic Modeling & Methodology ...................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Conclusions ...............................................................•..................................................................................... 4 ATTACHMENTS: Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Plan Sewer Service Area Map CoCS Land Use Plan CoCS Zoning Map Vicinity Map East Side Interceptor Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System Schematic Hydraulic Analysis 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study-Line SI Page -i Sanitary Sewer Study -Line "Sl" Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Scope of Report and Proposed Development: This report addresses the sanitary sewer improvements for a main collection line, called Sanitary Sewer Line "SI", contained with the Summit Crossing subdivision (Phase One) and the project sanitary sewer improvements for the master planned development of Summit Crossing and contributing areas contained within the same service area. This master planned subdivision, Summit Crossing, is approximately a 113-acre development located within the city limits of College Station, Texas. The entire master planned subdivision will consist of high density single family residential (89.64 acres), light commercial/retail use (7.3 7 acres), and the remainder consisting of open space and parkland dedication. The detail usage and layout of the Summit Crossing development is more fully illustrated on the Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Pl~ which is contained in the "Attachment" section of this report. The proposed development's sanitary sewer improvements are analyzed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the "B/CS Unified Technical Specifications and Design Guidelines" (UTSDS) manual of the City of College Station (CoCS) and Chapter 3 I 7 of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Rules & Regulations. 1.2 Site and General Location: The proposed subdivision has access to SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and FM 158 (Boonville Road) along its north and east property lines. Adjacent existing developments generally consist of the Crescent Pointe development to the south and the Brazos Super Trac convenience center to the northeast. All of these developments are in the College Station sewer service area and are provided utility service by CoCS. Land adjacent to this development to the southwest is currently owned by the same development group (The Summit Crossing, LLC) and is anticipated to experience development of commercial, retail, office, and residential improvements in the near future. All other areas adjacent to this property, and within the sewer service area of the proposed sanitary sewer line "SI", will be analyzed utilizing the current CoCS Land Use Plan or Zoning Map which are contained within the "Attachment" section of this report. A Vicinity Map, for this project site, is provided and is located in the "Attachment" portion of this manual. This map is being provided as an aid in locating the site. Drawings describing the work and its specific locations are contained in the Construction Drawings prepared by RME Consulting Engineers, College Station, Brazos County, TX. These Construction Drawings are included as part of this Sanitary Sewer Report by reference. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study-Line Sl Page -1 Summit Crossing, Phase One Sanitary Sewer Study -Line "S l" 1.3 Description of Existing Conditions: RME Consulting Engineers January 28, 2008 The 113-acre development is a moderately well sloping (approximately 1 %) undeveloped tract of land. The master planned subdivision is bisected by an unnamed tributary of Carters Creek that traverses generally from west to east. The upper reach of this unnamed tributary migrates into the property approximately at its northern third, but is semi-poorly defined at this point. At approximately the middle point of the subdivision the creek is more undefined with a definite creek cross-section. Land-cover generally consists of open grassy areas and scattered trees, and thick brush, weeds, and trees along the creek banks. Elevations on this site range from approximately 280' Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 326' MSL. 1.4 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System: The proposed subdivision will be served by the existing sanitary sewer collection line called the East Side Interceptor. The plan/profile construction drawing of this sewer line is contained in the "Attachment" section of this study. The proposed sanitary sewer collection system will discharge into this line which is a 12" VCT located on the same side of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and just south of the Pamela Lane intersection. 2.0 SANITARY SEWER FLOW CALCULATIONS The sanitary sewer requirements, for the master planned development of Summit Crossing - Sanitary Sewer Line "Sl", were derived by Method 2 -"Land Use Determination" of the UTSDS and thus a Sewer Service Area Map was developed (see "Attachment" portion of report). Land use coverage was assigned to the this portion subdivision, and surrounding areas, based on the Master Development Plan, CoCS Land Use Pl@. and the CoCS Zoning Map (see "Attachment" portion of report). Average sanitary sewer flow values were calculated and the results are summarized in Table #1 -"Sanitary Sewer Flows" which are shown below. As considered, the ultimate Average Daily Flow (ADF) for the fully developed sewer service area of Line "S 1" is estimated to be 178,909 gpd and a 2-Hour Peak Flow (PF) at 1.11 cfs. TABLE #1 -SANITARY SEWER FLOWS Average Average 2-Hour Service Daily Flow Area Daily Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Area Land Use (gpd/cap) (acres) (gpd) (gph) (cfs) Commericial 100 26.2 78,600 13,100 0.49 SI Office 100 2.5 7,500 1,250 0.05 High-Res 100 6.4 34,176 5,696 0.21 Med-Res 100 24.4 58,633 9,772 0.36 Service Area No. 1 Exoected Flows = 178,909 29,818 1.11 Commericial 100 78.4 235,200 39,200 1.46 S2 Office 100 0.0 0 0 0.00 High-Res 100 23.0 122,820 20,470 0.76 Med-Res 100 26.4 63,439 10,573 0.39 Service Area No. 1 Exoected Flows = 421,459 70,243 2.61 TOT AL EXPECTED FLOWS= 600,368 100,061 3.72 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study -Line Sl Page -2 Summit Crossing, Phase One Sanitary Sewer Study -Line "SI" Flow Determination Notes: I. Residential density is at 2.67 capita/Dwelling Unit; 2. Commercial uses were estimated at 30 capita/acre; RME Consulting Engineers January 28, 2008 3. Average Daily flows, for each use, were assigned per Table III-"Average Wastewater Generations" per the UTSDS; 4. Peaking factor of 4.0 was applied to the Average Daily Flows to determine the Peak Flow which is used for line sizing; 3.0 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 3.1 Collection System Configuration: The proposed sanitary sewer collection system, Line "S 1 ", will consist of various line sizes from 1 O" to 6" in size. This collection system will convey sewer in a generally southeasterly direction to the existing 12" VCT sanitary sewer line located near the northeast comer of Phase One of the Summit Crossing subdivision. The Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System Schematic is included in the "Attachment" portion of this report and more fully details the proposed sanitary sewer collection system improvements. The proposed sanitary sewer lines, and appurtenances, will be constructed and installed in accordance with the UTSDG. Unless specifically identified on the Construction Drawings, the proposed sanitary sewer lines will be of type PVC SDR-26, ASTM D3034 sewer line pipe. Public utility lines will be installed in existing public utility easements or placed in proposed public utility easements which will be dedicated by plat or by separate instruments. 3.2 Hydraulic Modeling & Methodology: Using the calculated sewer flows and applying these flows to the proposed sanitary sewer improvements, line sizing could be accomplished and pipe velocities checked. As allowed in the UTSDS, a hydraulic computer model was used to determined flow characteristics for the proposed sanitary sewer collection system. The hydraulic analysis and corresponding results were determined by using the WINSTORM hydraulic program, for storm water modeling. Though this TxDOT program's typical use is for modeling gravity stormwater systems it can easily be applied for hydraulic modeling of gravity sanitary sewer systems. Peak sanitary sewer flows were directly inputted at manholes in lieu of flows being generated by hydrological equations at logical locations along the proposed sewer lines. Therefore a Hydraulic Analysis was conducted and the following flow/velocity values shown in Table #2 -"Sanitary Sewer Collection System" were determined. This hydraulic analysis is also contained under the same "Attachment" section of the report. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study -Line SI Page -3 Summit Crossing, Phase One Sanitary Sewer Study -Line "S 1" TABLE#2 RME Consulting Engineers January 28, 2008 SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM Upstream Downstream Lme Pipe Size Slope Q Capacity Velocity Element Element No. (in) (%) (cfs) (cfs) (fps) EX-MH2 EX-MHI I 12 0.60 3.72 2.75 4.74 MH-1 EX-MH2 2 12 2.12 3.72 5.19 7.18 MH-2 MH-1 3 IO 0.30 1.11 1.19 2.49 ~ ~ MH-3 MH-2 4 10 0.72 1.10 1.84 3.55 Q) MH-4 MH-3 5 IO 0.72 0.96 1.84 3.44 c ::::i MH-5 MH-4 6 IO 0.72 0.93 1.84 3.43 MH-6 MH-5 7 IO 0.72 0.91 1.84 3.40 MH-7 MH-6 8 10 0.72 0.90 1.84 3.38 Hydraulic Analysis Notes: I. A roughness coefficient of0.013 was used; 2. Peak flows where applied at reasonable location, at manholes, along the trunk line at respective development areas; As reported in Table #2 above the existing 12" VCT sanitary sewer line, crossing under S.H. 30, is insufficient in size to convey the proposed entire sewer service area at full development as currently modeled. However, the current proposed development of Summit Crossing, Phase One, and upstream developments in Sewer Services Area "S l" will only contribute a total PF of 1.11 cfs which is well below the calculated capacity of this existing sewer line. It is recommended that as this sewer service area develops that more precise flows (calculated from Site Plans and plats) be inputted into this model thus determining the limit of development of the region. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS As demonstrated above, the proposed sanitary sewer system will be sufficient and meet the requirements of the UTSDS and the TCEQ Rules & Regulations. It should be noted that when development actually occurs, within the proposed service areas, new sanitary sewer studies should be performed to illustrate adequate ability of this sewer system to accommodate the expected sewer loadings. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study -Line SI Page -4 SUMMIT CROSSING SUBDIVISION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWER SERVICE AREA MAP CoCS LAND USE PLAN / .1' I ; i I I f l I .. i _/ CoCS ZONING MAP ' .... .... VICINITY MAP SUMMIT CROSSING: PHASE ONE ) BRAZ COUNT EAST SIDE INTERCEPTOR Sanitary Sewer Study Line ''Sl'' FOR Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas Jan nary 28, 2008 Revision 1 -March 17, 2008 Prepared For: 30-60 Development, LLC 4002 Aspen Drive Bryan, TX 77801 Prepared By: RME Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 9253 College Station, TX 77845 RME No. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study Line ''Sl'' FOR Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas January 28, 2008 Revision 1 -March 17, 2008 Prepared For: 30-60 Development, LLC 4002 Aspen Drive Bryan, TX 77801 Prepared By: RME Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 9253 College Station, TX 77845 RME No. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study-Line "Sl" -Revision No. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas PAGE 1.0 General Information ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope of Report and Proposed Development .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Site and General Location ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Description of Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System ............................................................................................ 2 2.0 Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations ..........................•..................................................................................... 2 3.0 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System ....................................................•.......................................... 3 3.1 Collection System Configuration ............................................................................................................ 3 3.2 Hydraulic Modeling & Methodology ...................................................................................................... 3 4.0 Conclusions ..................•.................................................................................................................................. 4 ATTACHMENTS: Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Plan Sewer Service Area Map CoCS Land Use Plan CoCS Zoning Map Vicinity Map East Side Interceptor Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System Schematic Hydraulic Analysis 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study -Line Sl-Revl Page -i Sanitary Sewer Study-Line "Sl" -Revision No. 1 Summit Crossing -.Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Scope of Report and Proposed Development: This report addresses the sanitary sewer improvements for a main collection line, called Sanitary Sewer Line "SI", contained with the Summit Crossing subdivision (Phase One) and the project sanitary sewer improvements for the master planned development of Summit Crossing and contributing areas contained within the same service area. This master planned subdivision, Summit Crossing, is approximately a 113-acre development located within the city limits of College Station, Texas. The entire master planned subdivision will consist of high density single family residential (89.64 acres), light commercial/retail use (7.3 7 acres), and the remainder consisting of open space and parkland dedication. The detail usage and layout of the Summit Crossing development is more fully illustrated on the Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Plan, which is contained in the "Attachment" section of this report. The proposed development's sanitary sewer improvements are analyzed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the "B/CS Unified Technical Specifications and Design Guidelines" (UTSDS) manual of the City of College Station (CoCS) and Chapter 317 of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Rules & Regulations. 1.2 Site and General Location: The proposed subdivision has access to SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and FM 158 (Boonville Road) along its north and east property lines. Adjacent existing developments generally consist of the Crescent Pointe development to the south and the Brazos Super Trac convenience center to the northeast. All of these developments are in the College Station sewer service area and are provided utility service by CoCS. Land adjacent to this development to the southwest is currently owned by the same development group (The Summit Crossing, LLC) and is anticipated to experience development of commercial, retail, office, and residential improvements in the near future. All other areas adjacent to this property, and within the sewer service area of the proposed sanitary sewer line "S 1 ", will be analyzed utilizing the current CoCS Land Use Plan or Zoning Map which is contained within the "Attachment" section of this report. A Vicinity Map, for this project site, is provided and is located in the "Attachment" portion of this manual. This map is being provided as an aid in locating the site. Drawings describing the work and its specific locations are contained in the Construction Drawings prepared by RME Consulting Engineers, College Station, Brazos County, TX. These Construction Drawings are included as part of this Sanitary Sewer Report by reference. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study-Line Sl-Revl Page -1 Summit Crossing, Phase One Sanitary Sewer Study -Line "S l" -Rev. l 1.3 Description of Existing Conditions: RME Consulting Engineers March 17, 2008 The 113-acre development is a moderately well sloping (approximately 1 %) undeveloped tract of land. The master planned subdivision is bisected by an unnamed tributary of Carters Creek that traverses generally from west to east. The upper reach of this unnamed tributary migrates into the property approximately at its northern third, but is semi-poorly defined at this point. At approximately the middle point of the subdivision the creek is more undefined with a definite creek cross-section. Land-cover generally consists of open grassy areas and scattered trees, and thick brush, weeds, and trees along the creek banks. Elevations on this site range from approximately 280' Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 326' MSL. 1.4 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System: The proposed subdivision will be served by the existing sanitary sewer collection line called the East Side Interceptor. The plan/profile construction drawing of this sewer line is contained in the "Attachment" section of this study. The proposed sanitary sewer collection system will discharge into this line which is a 12" VCT located on the same side of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and just south of the Pamela Lane intersection. 2.0 SANITARY SEWER FLOW CALCULATIONS The sanitary sewer requirements, for the master planned development of Summit Crossing - Sanitary Sewer Line "SI", were derived by Method 2 -"Land Use Determination" of the UTSDS and thus a Sewer Service Area Map was developed (see "Attachment" portion of report). Land use coverage was assigned to the master planned subdivision based on the Master Development Plan, CoCS Land Use Plan, and the CoCS Zoning Map (see "Attachment" portion of report). Average sanitary sewer flow values were calculated and the results are summarized in Table #1 -"Sanitary Sewer Flows" which are shown below. As considered, the ultimate Average Daily Flow (ADF) for the fully developed sewer service area of Line "S l" is estimated to be 50,223 gpd and a 2-Hour Peak Flow (PF) at 0.31 cfs. TABLE #1 -SANITARY SEWER FLOWS Average Average 2-Hour Service Daily Flow Area Daily Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Area Land Use (gpd/cap) (acres) (gpd) (gph) (cfs) Commericial 100 0.0 0 0 0.00 SI Office 100 0.0 0 0 0.00 High-Res 100 0.0 0 0 0.00 Med-Res 100 20.9 50,223 8,370 0.31 Service Area No. I Exnected Flows = 50,223 8,370 0.31 Commericial 100 78.4 235,200 39,200 1.46 S2 Office 100 0.0 0 0 0.00 High-Res 100 23.0 122,820 20,470 0.76 Med-Res 100 26.4 63,439 10,573 0.39 Service Area No. 1 Expected Flows = 421 ,459 70,243 2.61 TOTAL EXPECTED FLOWS= 471,682 78,614 2.92 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study-Line Sl-Revl Page-2 Summit Crossing, Phase One Sanitary Sewer Study -Line "S l" -Rev. 1 Flow Determination Notes: l. Residential density is at 2.67 capita/Dwelling Unit; 2. Commercial uses were estimated at 30 capita/acre; RME Consulting Engineers March 17, 2008 3. Average Daily flows, for each use, were assigned per Table ill-"Average Wastewater Generations" per the UTSDS; 4. Peaking factor of 4.0 was applied to the Average Daily Flows to determine the Peak Flow which is used for line sizing; 3.0 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM 3.1 Collection System Configuration: The proposed sanitary sewer collection system, Line "S 1 ", will consist of various line sizes from 6" to 8" in size. This collection system will convey sewer in a generally southeasterly direction to the existing 12" VCT sanitary sewer line located near the northeast comer of Phase One of the Summit Crossing subdivision. The Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System Schematic is included in the "Attachment" portion of this report and more fully details the proposed sanitary sewer collection system improvements. The proposed sanitary sewer lines, and appurtenances, will be constructed and installed in accordance with the UTSDG. Unless specifically identified on the Construction Drawings, the proposed sanitary sewer lines will be of type PVC SDR-26, ASTM D3034 sewer line pipe. Public utility lines will be installed in existing public utility easements or placed in proposed public utility easements which will be dedicated by plat or by separate instruments. 3.2 Hydraulic Modeling & Methodology: Using the calculated sewer flows and applying these flows to the proposed sanitary sewer improvements, line sizing could be accomplished and pipe velocities checked. As allowed in the UTSDS, a hydraulic computer model was used to determined flow characteristics for the proposed sanitary sewer collection system. The hydraulic analysis and corresponding results were determined by using the WINSTORM hydraulic program, for stormwater modeling. Though this TxDOT program's typical use is for modeling gravity stormwater systems it can easily be applied for hydraulic modeling of gravity sanitary sewer systems. Peak sanitary sewer flows were directly inputted at manholes in lieu of flows being generated by hydrological equations at logical locations along the proposed sewer lines. Therefore a Hydraulic Analysis was conducted and the following flow/velocity values shown in Table #2 -"Sanitary Sewer Collection System" were determined. This hydraulic analysis is also contained under the same "Attachment" section of the report. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study-Line Sl-Revl Page -3 Summit Crossing, Phase One Sanitary Sewer Study -Line "S 1" -Rev. I TABLE#2 RME Consulting Engineers March 17, 2008 SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM Upstream Downstream Lme Pipe Size Slope (,.1 capacity Velocity Element Element No. (in) (%) (cfs) (cfs) (fps) EX-MH2 EX-MHI l 12 0.60 2.91 2.75 3.99 MH-1 EX-MH2 2 12 2.12 2.91 5.19 4.29 MH-2 MH-1 3 8 1.26 0.30 1.38 3.12 .,.... r' MH-3 MH-2 4 8 1.42 0.29 1.46 3.23 Q) MH-4 MH-3 5 6 0.82 0.11 0.51 2.06 c: :::i MH-5 MH-4 6 6 0.80 0.08 0.50 1.88 MH-6 MH-5 7 6 0.80 0.06 0.50 1.72 MH-7 MH-6 8 6 0.80 0.05 0.50 1.65 Hydraulic Analysis Notes: I. A roughness coefficient of 0.013 was used; 2. Peak flows where applied at reasonable location, at manholes, along the trunk line at respective development areas; As reported in Table #2 above the existing 12" VCT sanitary sewer line, crossing under S.H. 30, is insufficient in size to convey the proposed entire sewer service area at ultimate development conditions (this model makes several broad assumptions on how areas outside the master planned community will actually develop). However, the current proposed development of Summit Crossing, Phase One will only contribute a total PF of 0.31 cfs which is well below the calculated capacity of this existing sewer line. It is recommended that as this sewer service area develops that more precise flows (calculated from Site Plans and plats) be inputted into this model thus determining the limit of development of the region. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS As demonstrated above, the proposed sanitary sewer system will be sufficient and meet the requirements of the UTSDS and the TCEQ Rules & Regulations. It should be noted that when development actually occurs, within the proposed service areas, new sanitary sewer studies should be performed to illustrate adequate ability of this sewer system to accommodate the expected sewer loadings. 227-0338 Sanitary Sewer Study-Line Sl-Revl Page -4 SUMMIT CROSSING SUBDIVISION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWER SERVICE AREA MAP CoCS LAND USE PLAN CoCS ZONING MAP VICINITY MAP SUMMIT CROSSING: PHASE ONE J ~ ·OTTO -~ALE BRAZ COUNT ICINITY M EAST SIDE INTERCEPTOR PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM SCHEMATIC SUM MIT CROSSING-PHASE TWO ALLEY w_ ~ >-ii' I I I I I I I I I frwd 0 8 I I I I B l.J.OOK1 lJ.._ z .., a:: 'i. ::;) 0 KEYSTONE LANE tr 0- ....l .ro_ I I I I I I I SH 30 ,..., HARVEY ROAD EAST I I I I I I I I I I I I I I > < 0 z 0 <'l ;;; TBM #2 ~ELEV.=288.07' MH S. \__ SEWER • KEY MAP --~ SUMMIT CROSSING ,, 1 PHASE THREE I I L _____ _J I I I PARKLAND DEDICATION I I SANITARY ( SEWER LINE "S1" (SEE SHEETS S-01 thru S-03) MH 51.1 / /// /,/ ('.~ ,' ~w SCALE: I" a 120' 240 I ,. .. t.., • . ' HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS stmOutput WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN ) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 3/17/2008 3:52:25 PM PROJECT NAME : 227 JOB NUMBER 0338 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Summit Crossing-Line "Sl" DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: 2 Years 5 Years ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 2 Years =========================================== Runoff Computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= I D C Value Area (acre) Tc (min) Sl-1 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-2 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-3 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-4 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-5 0.0 0.00 10.00 1-6 0.0 0.00 10.00 -7 0.0 0.00 10.00 Cumulative Junction Discharge Tc Used (min) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Computations Intensity (in/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply Q (cfs) 2 .610 0.005 0.183 0.026 0.021 0.010 0.051 Total Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0 .183 0 .026 0.021 0.010 0.051 ================================================================================= Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 14.05 5.37 2.906 0.00 2.906 EX-MHl CircMh 0.000 0.00 14.05 5.37 2 .906 0.00 2.906 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 13.98 5.38 2.906 0.00 2.906 Sl-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11. 65 5.90 0.296 0.00 0.296 Sl-3 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11.18 6.01 0.291 0.00 0.291 Sl-4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.108 0.00 0.108 Sl-5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.082 0.00 0.082 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.061 0.00 0.061 Sl-7 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.051 0.00 0.051 Conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== P:>rro 1 Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US DS US DS (ft) (ft) 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273.38 272.78 2 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274.00 273.45 3 Sl-2 Sl-1 279.95 274.43 4 Sl-3 Sl-2 281. 32 280.05 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283.89 281.42 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286.48 283.99 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 289 .87 287.02 8 Sl-7 Sl-6 2 91. 98 289.97 stmOutput Shape # Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Span (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rise (ft) 1. 00 1. 00 0.67 0.67 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Length (ft) 100.79 25.97 437.57 89.34 300.72 311.13 357.19 250.81 Slope ( % ) 0.60 2.12 1. 26 1. 42 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.80 n value 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tail water = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 1 274.26 273.66 0.665 0.88 0.88 2* 274.55 274.26 0.665 0.54 0.81 3* 280.16 274.64 0.058 0.21 0.21 4* 281. 52 280.25 0.056 0.20 0.20 5* 284.05 281. 58 0.037 0.16 0.16 286.62 284.13 0.021 0.14 0.14 289.99 287.1 4 0.012 0.12 0.12 292.09 290.08 0.008 0.11 0.11 Velocity Unif. Actual (f/s) (f/s) 3.99 3.99 6.79 4.29 3.12 3.12 3.23 3.23 2.06 2.06 1. 88 1. 88 1. 72 1. 72 1. 65 1. 65 Q (cfs) 2.91 2.91 0.30 0.29 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 Cap (cfs) 2.75 5.19 1. 38 1. 46 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 June Loss (ft ) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 5 Years Runoff Computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID C Value Sl-1 0.0 Sl-2 0.0 Sl-3 0.0 Sl-4 0.0 Sl -5 0.0 Sl-6 0.0 Sl-7 0.0 Area (acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tc (min) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Tc Used (min) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Intensity (in/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 2 Supply Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.183 0.026 0.021 0.010 0.051 Total Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.183 0.026 0.021 0.010 0.051 stmOutput ulative Junction Discharge Computations -=============================================================================== Node Node Weighted Cumulat . Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 14.05 6 .59 2.906 0.00 2.906 EX-MHl CircMh 0.000 0.00 14.05 6 .59 2.906 0 .00 2.906 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 13.98 6 .60 2.906 0.00 2.906 Sl-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11.65 7 .20 0.296 0.00 0.296 Sl-3 CircMh 0.000 0.00 11.18 7 .33 0 .291 0 .00 0.291 Sl-4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0 .108 0.00 0.108 Sl-5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0 .082 0.00 0 .082 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7 .69 0.061 0 .00 0.061 Sl-7 CircMh 0 .000 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.051 0 .00 0.051 Conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. us DS us OS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) ( % ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273.38 272.78 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 100.79 0.60 0.013 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274 .00 273.45 Circ 1 0 .00 1. 00 25.97 2 .12 0.013 Sl-2 Sl-1 279 .95 2 7 4.43 Circ 1 0 .00 0.67 437.57 1. 26 0.013 Sl-3 Sl-2 281.32 280.05 Circ 1 0 .00 0 .67 89.34 1. 42 0.013 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283 .89 281.42 Circ 1 0.00 0 .50 300.72 0.82 0.013 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286 .48 283 .99 Circ 1 0 .00 0 .50 311.13 0.80 0.013 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 289 .87 287 .02 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 357.19 0.80 0.013 8 Sl-7 Sl-6 291. 98 289.97 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 250 .81 0.80 0 .013 Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft) ~ =================================================================-=v================ Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Velocity June Run# US Elev OS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual Unif. Actual Cap Loss (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (f/s) (f/s) (cfs) (ft) 1 274 .26 273.66 0.665 0.88 0.88 3.99 3.99 2.75 0 .000 2* 274.55 274 .26 0 .665 0.54 0.81 6 .79 4.29 5.19 0.000 3* 280.16 274.64 0 .058 0.21 0.21 3.12 3 .12 1. 38 0.000 4* 281.52 280.25 0 .056 0.20 0.20 3.23 3 .23 . 9 1. 46 0.000 5* 284.05 281.58 0.037 0.16 0.16 2 .06 2.06 0.11 0.51 0 .000 6* 286.62 284 .13 0.021 0.14 0.14 1. 88 1. 88 0.08 0.50 0.000 7* 289.99 287.14 0 .012 0.12 0.12 1. 72 1. 72 0 .06 0.50 0.000 8* 292.09 290.08 0 .008 0.11 0.11 1. 65 1. 65 0 .05 0.50 0.000 ===================================END============================================ Page 3 stmOutput critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. Warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 2 Years Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation = 273.66(ft) Run# 1 Insufficient capacity. Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 7 Runoff Frequency of: 5 Years Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation = 273.66(ft) Run# 1 Insufficient capacity. Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 7 Page 4 .. ..,.,, .. ···'• ... ·. PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM SCHEMATIC SUMMIT CROSSING-PHASE TWO BLACKHAWK LANE w_ ~ :? _ 0: I I I I I 0 h-wd iL.. 8 BU.OOK1 ~ ,. ~-"' < :::> 0 0 KEYSTONE LANE z tr c 0-~ .i .m_ I I I I I \___ SEWER • KEY MAP - -~ SUMMIT CROSSING --~ -----1 - -__.JI __ __j ----1 I ---1 ''I PHASE THREE I I --:j --I -llJ---i -~=:j SUMMIT ~g~ CROSSING -~-\ PHASE ONE :!L-J ~g:j JI I __ ___, PARKLAND --SANitARY SEWER --L-INE-',"S2" --~ -----1 --____i, SANITARY L _____ _J DED ICATION I I I I I / /// -:-... --.................. ""' ... ojiiiii ....... !!1!11'1 ...................... __ ....:M::_H ~-1~-3--j MH 51.5 __j ( SEWER LINE "S1" (SEE SHEETS S-01 thru S-03) /,/ ~'m ,' ~ I SCALE: I"• 120' ---, MH 51.1 I I I I I I I I H SH 30 N HARVEY ROAD EAST TBM #2 ~ELEV.-288.07' 240 I HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS stmOutput WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 1/25/2008 3:34:45 PM PROJECT NAME : 227 JOB NUMBER 0338 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Summit Crossing-Line "Sl" DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: 2 Years 5 Years ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of : 2 Years =========================================== Runoff Computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= ID C Value Sl-1 0.0 Sl-2 0.0 Sl-3 0 .0 Sl-4 0.0 Sl-5 0.0 Sl-6 0.0 7 0.0 Area (acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tc (min) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Cumulative Junction Discharge Tc Used (min) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Computations Intensity (in/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.145 0.030 0.019 0.015 0.895 Total Q (cfs) 2.610 0 .005 0.145 0.030 0.019 0.015 0.895 ================================================================================= Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 3.719 0.00 3.719 EX-MHl CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 3.719 0.00 3.719 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 3.719 0.00 3.719 Sl-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 1.109 0.00 1.109 Sl-3 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 1.104 0.00 1.104 Sl-4 CircMh 0 .000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.959 0.00 0.959 Sl-5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.929 0.00 0.929 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.910 0.00 0.910 Sl-7 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.895 0.00 0.895 Conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Page 1 stmOutput Run# Node I. D. Flow line Elev. us DS us DS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) ( % ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273.38 272.78 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 100.79 0.60 0.013 2 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274.00 273.45 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 25.97 2.12 0.013 3 Sl-2 Sl-1 275.56 274.25 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 437.12 0.30 0.013 4 Sl-3 Sl-2 281. 61 280.93 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 94.35 0.72 0.013 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283.89 281.71 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 300.72 0.72 0.013 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286.25 283.99 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 311.13 0.73 0.013 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 288.93 286.35 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 357 .19 0.72 0.013 8 Sl-7 Sl-6 290.85 289.03 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 250.81 0.73 0.013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tail water = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Velocity June Run# us Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual Unif. Actual Q Cap Loss (ft) (ft) ( % ) (ft) (ft) (f/s) (f/s) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 274.88 273.78 1. 089 1. 00 1. 00 4.74 4.74 3.72 2.75 0 .000 2* 275.16 274.88 1. 089 0.63 1. 00 7.18 4.74 3.72 5.19 0.000 3 276.23 275.16 0.262 0.64 0.83 2.49 2.05 1.11 1.19 0.000 4* 282.07 281.39 0.259 0.46 0.46 3.55 3.55 1.10 1. 84 0.000 5* 284.31 282.13 0.196 0.42 0.42 3.44 3.44 0.96 1. 85 0.000 286.67 284.41 0.184 0.42 0.42 3.43 3.43 0.93 1. 85 0.000 289.34 286.76 0.176 0.41 0.41 3.40 3.40 0.91 1. 84 0.000 291.26 289.44 0.170 0.41 0.41 3.38 3.38 0.90 1. 85 0.000 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 5 Years ============================================= Runoff Computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID C Value Sl-1 0.0 Sl-2 0.0 Sl-3 0.0 Sl-4 0.0 Sl-5 0.0 Sl-6 0.0 Sl-7 0.0 Area (acre) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tc (min) 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 Tc Used (min) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Intensity (in/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 2 Supply Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.145 0.030 0.019 0.015 0.895 Total Q (cfs) 2.610 0.005 0.145 0.030 0.019 0.015 0.895 stmOutput mulative Junction Discharge Computations =============================================================================== Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 3.719 0.00 3.719 EX-MHl CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 3.719 0.00 3.719 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 3.719 0.00 3.719 Sl-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 1.109 0.00 1.109 Sl-3 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 1.104 0.00 1.104 Sl-4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0.959 0.00 0.959 Sl-5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0.929 0.00 0.9 29 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 7.69 0.910 0.00 0.910 Sl-7 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.895 0.00 0.895 Conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I. D. Flow line Elev. us DS us DS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) ( % ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273.38 272.78 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 100.79 0.60 0.01 3 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274.00 273.45 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 25.97 2.12 0.013 Sl-2 Sl-1 275.56 274.25 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 437.12 0.30 0.013 Sl-3 Sl-2 281. 61 280.93 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 94.35 0.72 0.013 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283.89 281.71 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 300.72 0.72 0.013 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286.25 283.99 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 311.13 0.73 0.013 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 288.93 286.35 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 357.19 0.72 0.013 8 Sl-7 Sl-6 290.85 289.03 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 250.81 0.73 0.013 Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# US Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 1 274.88 273.78 1.089 1. 00 1. 00 2* 275.16 274.88 1. 089 0.63 1. 00 3 276.23 275.16 0. 262 0.64 0.83 4* 282.07 281.39 0.259 0.46 0.46 5* 284.31 282.13 0.196 0.42 0.42 6* 286.67 284.41 0.184 0.42 0.42 7* 289.34 286.76 0.176 0.41 0.41 8* 291.26 289.44 0.170 0.41 0.41 Velocity Unif. Actual (f/s) (f/s) 4.74 4.74 7.18 4.74 2.49 2.05 3.55 3.55 3.44 3.44 3.43 3.43 3.40 3.40 3.38 3.38 Q (cfs) 3.72 3.72 1.11 1.10 0.96 0.93 0.91 0.90 Cap (cfs) 2.75 5.19 1.19 1. 84 1. 85 1. 85 1. 84 1. 85 June Loss (ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ===================================END============================================ Page 3 stmOutput Super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM . Warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 2 Years Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation= 273.78(ft) Run# 1 Insufficient capacity. Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 4 Runoff Frequency of: 5 Years Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation= 273.78(ft) Run# 1 Insufficient capacity. Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 4 Page 4 , '\l'o. (.; .t ._ .. ,.,r' ...... .- Water & Sanitary Sewer Report FOR Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas February 4, 2008 Prepared For: 3060 Development, LLC 4002 Aspen Drive Bryan, TX 77801 Prepared By: RME Consulting Engineers P.O. Box 9253 College Station, TX 77845 RME No. 227-0338 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Water & Sanitary Sewer Report Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas PAGE 1.0 General Information ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope of Report and Proposed Development .......................................................................................... I 1.2 Site and General Location ....................................................................................................................... I 1.3 Description of Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Existing Water Distribution System ........................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System ............................................................................................ 2 2.0 Water System Improvements ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Proposed Water System Configuration .................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Domestic Water Supply Requirements .................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Fire Flow Requirements .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.4 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3 2.5 Modeling Results & Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 4 3.0 Sanitary Sewer Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Configuration .................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations ........................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology .......................................................................................................... 5 3.4 Modeling Results & Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 6 ATTACHMENTS: Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Plan Vicinity Map Harvey Road Waterline Flow Test Report East Side Interceptor Proposed Water System Distribution Schematic KYPIPE Hydraulic Analysis Data Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection System Schematic Sewer Service Area Map WINSTORM Hydraulic Analysis Data 227-0338 Water-Sewer Report Page-i Water & Sanitary Sewer Report Summit Crossing -Phase One College Station Brazos County, Texas 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Scope of Report and Proposed Development: This report addresses the water and sanitary sewer improvements for the Summit Crossing subdivision, Phase One (22.809 acres). This master planned subdivision, Summit Crossing, is approximately a 113-acre development located within the city limits of College Station, Texas. The entire master planned subdivision will consist of high density single family residential (89.64 acres), light commercial/retail use (7.37 acres), and the remainder consisting of open space and parkland dedication. The detail usage and layout of the Summit Crossing development is more fully illustrated on the Summit Crossing Subdivision -Master Development Plan, which is contained in the "Attachment" section of this report. The proposed development's sanitary sewer improvements are analyzed in accordance with the criteria outlined in the "B/CS Unified Technical Specifications and Design Guidelines" (UTSDS) manual of the City of College Station (CoCS) and Chapter 317 of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Rules & Regulations. 1.2 Site and General Location: The proposed development, Summit Crossing, Phase One, consists of 22.809 acre tract of land wholly contained within a 89.64 acre parent tract of the master planned subdivision. The proposed subdivision has access to SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and FM 158 (Boonville Road) along its north and east property lines. Adjacent existing developments generally consist of the Crescent Pointe development to the south and the Brazos Super Trac convenience center to the northeast. All of these developments are in the College Station sewer service area and are provided utility service by CoCS. Land adjacent to this development to the southwest is currently owned by the same development group (The Summit Crossing, LLC) and is anticipated to experience development of commercial, retail, office, and residential improvements in the near future. A Vicinity Map, for this project site, is provided and is located in the "Attachment" portion of this manual. This map is being provided as an aid in locating the site. Drawings describing the work and its specific locations are contained in the Construction Drawings prepared by RME Consulting Engineers, College Station, Brazos County, TX. These Construction Drawings are included as part of this Sanitary Sewer Report by reference. 227-0338 Water-Sewer Report Page -1 Summit Crossing, Phase One Water & Sanitary Sewer Report 1.3 Description of Existing Conditions: RME Consulting Engineers February 4, 2008 The 113-acre development is a moderately well sloping (approximately 1 %) undeveloped tract of land. The master planned subdivision is bisected by an unnamed tributary of Carters Creek that traverses generally from west to east. The upper reach of this unnamed tributary migrates into the property approximately at its northern third, but is semi-poorly defined at this point. At approximately the middle point of the subdivision the creek is more undefined with a definite creek cross-section. Land-cover generally consists of open grassy areas and scattered trees, and thick brush, weeds, and trees along the creek banks. Elevations on this site range from approximately 280' Mean Sea Level (MSL) to approximately 326' MSL. 1.4 Existing Water Distribution System: The proposed subdivision is moderately well served by an existing distribution line called the Harvey Road Waterline. The plan/profile construction drawing of this water line is contained in the "Attachment" section of this study. The proposed water distribution system will connect to this line, which is a 12" DIP located on the same side of SH 30 (Harvey Road East), at two locations. The first connection is at the proposed intersection of Frisco Drive and the second at the proposed intersection of Avon Drive. Flow tests were obtained from the CoCS Utilities Department from a fire hydrant existing on a 12" stub-out from the 12" DIP Harvey Road waterline and is located on the southeast comer of the intersection of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and Pamela Lane. This flow test was conducted on January 16, 2008 by CoCS by Mr. Matthew Matcek and witnessed by Mr. Sergio Vasquez. The Flow Test Report is contained in the "Attachment" section of this report and the resulting data is summarized below in Table #1 -Flow Test Data. TABLE#l FLOW TEST DATA Flow Pilot Static Fire Static Residual Hydrant Reading Flow Hydrant Pressure Pressure No. Location (psi) (gpm) No. (psi) (psi) G-068 Pamela Ln @ Harvey Rd. 75 1455 G-013 108 104 Note: The reported flow is from the 2.5" nozzle of the identified flow hydrant; 1.5 Existing Sanitary Sewer Collection System: The proposed subdivision will be served by the existing sanitary sewer collection line called the East Side Interceptor. The plan/profile construction drawing ofthis sewer line is contained in the "Attachment" section of this study. The proposed sanitary sewer collection system will discharge into this line which is a 12" VCT located on the same side of SH 30 (Harvey Road East) and just south of the Pamela Lane intersection. 227-0338 Water-Sewer Report Page -2 Summit Crossing, Phase One Water & Sanitary Sewer Report 2.0 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Proposed Water System Configuration: RME Consulting Engineers February 4, 2008 For the Summit Crossing, Phase One development and its associated domestic and fire flow requirements, a combination of an 8" and 6" water lines will be installed. All 6" water lines with a maximum length of 1500 feet, or less, will connect at each end to an 8" water line or larger. These 6" water lines shall have no more than two fire hydrants or flushing points. Water lines, 6" in size, which do not loop into another waterline, shall not exceed a maximum length of eight hundred (800') and will terminate with a fire hydrant or blow-off assembly. Fire hydrants will be installed so that no residence is greater than five hundred (500') from a hydrant. Each fire hydrant will be analyzed to provide a fire flow of 1,000 gpm. As mentioned earlier the water distribution system will provide fire protection and domestic water service. The Proposed Water System Distribution Schematic is included in the "Attachment" portion of this report and more fully details the proposed water system improvements. The proposed water lines, and appurtenances, will be constructed and installed in accordance with the UTSDG. Unless specifically identified on the Construction Drawings, the proposed water lines will be of type PVC A WW A C909 DRl 4 water line pipe. Public utility lines will be installed in existing public utility easements or placed in proposed public utility easements which will be dedicated by plat or by separate instruments. 2.2 Domestic Water Supply Requirements: An average daily water consumption of 1.5 gpm per connection or dwelling unit will be utilized for analysis of the proposed water distribution system at normal conditions. During static conditions a minimum 35 psi pressure rating will be maintained. 2.3 Fire Flow Requirements: The fire flow demand, for the proposed development, will require that each residence can be protected by a minimum 1,000 gpm. During fire flow conditions the minimum static pressure shall not be less than 20 psi. 2.4 Hydraulic Modeling Methodology: As allowed in the UTSDG a water distribution computer model was used to determine pressure and flow results for the proposed water system. The hydraulic analysis and corresponding results were determined by using the KYPIPE hydraulic program, for water systems. Using the calculated domestic water demand and fire flow requirements, the proposed water system was analyzed, with KYPIPE, to determine if it met the minimum design criteria set forth in the UTSDG. These minimum criteria are summarized as follows. 227-0338 Water-Sewer Report Page -3 Summit Crossing, Phase One Water & Sanitary Sewer Report RME Consulting Engineers February 4, 2008 Since the irrigation is relatively small in comparison to other flows, and infrequent in use, it was not considered in the analysis. 1. Under normal flow conditions the residual pressures in the area, serviced by the proposed system, must meet TCEQ requirements at all times thus providing a minimum static pressure of 35 psi; 2. During fire flow conditions, the proposed system and adjacent infrastructure must provide the required fire flow with a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi; 3. At all analyzed conditions, no water line shall have a velocity greater than 12 fps in both existing and proposed mains; 2.5 Modeling Results & Conclusions: Utilizing the KYPIPE model program water demands and fire flow requirements, for the proposed water system improvements of Summit Crossing, Phase One, and adjacent infrastructure, was determined to adequately meet or positively exceed the minimum design standards. KYPIPE Hydraulic Analysis Data, resulting from both domestic water demands and all fire flow conditions are contained in this report in the "Attachment" portion. Resulting summary information for both conditions are illustrated below in Table #2 -Water System Summary and identify the ''worse-case" location in the proposed distribution system (lowest pressure node or highest velocity in pipe). The entire water system model, for each scenario is fully contained with the KYPIPE Hydraulic Analysis Data. TABLE#2 WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY PIPE DATE NODE DATA Residual Fire Flow KYPIPE Plan Pipe Size Velocity Node Pressure Scenerio Name Identifier (in) ( s) Name ( si) DOMESTIC FLOW CONDITION P-1 Ex I2" I2 196.50 0.56 J-7 95.72 FIRE FLOW CONDITIONS P-4 "WI" 8 750.I9 4.79 FH-2 94.49 2 P-10 WI" 8 I000.00 6.38 FH-2 91.50 3 P-6 "W2" 8 804.36 5.13 J-7 93.1 I Fire Flow Scenarios: 1. 1,000 gpm from FH-1; 2. 1,000 gpm from FH-2; 3. 1,000 gpm from FH-3; 3.0 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 3.1 Proposed Sanitary Sewer Configuration: The proposed sanitary sewer collection system will consist of various line sizes from 1 O" to 6" in size. This collection system will convey sewer in a generally southeasterly direction to the existing 12" VCT sanitary sewer line located near the northeast comer of Phase One of the Summit Crossing subdivision. The Proposed Sanitary Sewer Collection 227-0338 Water-Sewer Report Page -4 Summit Crossing, Phase One Water & Sanitary Sewer Report RME Consulting Engineers February 4, 2008 System Schematic is included in the "Attachment" portion of this report and more full y details the proposed sanitary sewer collection system improvements. The proposed sanitary sewer lines, and appurtenances, will be constructed and installed in accordance with the UTSDG. Unless specifically identified on the Construction Drawings, the proposed sanitary sewer lines will be of type PVC SDR-26, ASTM D3034 sewer line pipe. Public utility lines will be installed in existing public utility easements or placed in proposed public utility easements which will be dedicated by plat or by separate instruments. 3.2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Calculations: The sanitary sewer requirements, for the master planned development of Summit Crossing were derived by Method 2 -"Land Use Determination" of the UTSDS and thus a Sewer Service Area Map was developed (see "Attachment" portion of report). Land use coverage was assigned to this subdivision, and surrounding areas, based on the Master Development Plan (see "Attachment" portion of report). Average sanitary sewer flow values were calculated, at ultimate development conditions, and the results are summarized in Table #3 -"Sanitary Sewer Flows" reported below. Extrapolated from this table is the sewer flows for Phase One of Summit Crossing which yield an Average Daily Flow (ADF) of 33 ,642 gpd and a 2-Hour Peak Flow (PF) at 0.21 cfs. TABLE #1 -SANITARY SEWER FLOWS Average Average L-Hour Service Daily Flow Area Daily Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow Area Land Use (gpd/cap) (acres) (gpd) (gph) (cfs) Commericial 100 26.2 78,600 13,100 0.49 SI Office 100 2.5 7,500 1,250 0.05 High-Res 100 6.4 34,176 5,696 0.21 Med-Res 100 24.4 58,633 9,772 0.36 Service Area No. 1 Expected Flows = 178,909 29,818 1.11 Commericial 100 78.4 235,200 39,200 1.46 S2 Office 100 0.0 0 0 0.00 High-Res 100 23.0 122,820 20,470 0.76 Med-Res 100 26.4 63,439 10,573 0.39 Service Area No. 1 Expected Flows = 421 ,459 70,243 2.61 TOTAL EXPECTED FLOWS= 600,368 100,061 3.72 Flow Determination Notes: 1. Residential density is at 2.67 capita/Dwelling Unit; 2. Commercial uses were estimated at 30 capita/acre; 3. Average Daily flows, for each use, were assigned per Table III-"Average Wastewater Generations" per the UTSDS; 4. Peaking factor of 4.0 was applied to the Average Daily Flows to determine the Peak Flow which is used for line sizing; 3.3 Hydraulic Modeling & Methodology: As allowed in the UTSDG, a hydraulic computer model was used to determined flow results for the proposed sanitary sewer collection lines. The hydraulic analysis and corresponding results were determined by using the WINSTORM hydraulic program, for 227-0338 Water-Sewer Report Page -5 Summit Crossing, Phase One Water & Sanitary Sewer Report RME Consulting Engineers February 4, 2008 storm water modeling. Though this TxDOT program's typical use is for modeling gravity stormwater systems it can easily be applied for hydraulic modeling of gravity sewer systems. Peak sewer flows were directly inputted at manholes in lieu of flows being generated by hydrological equations at logical locations along the proposed sewer lines. 3.4 Modeling Results & Conclusions: Using the WINSTORM model for the current development of Summit Crossing, Phase One, sanitary sewer flows were input into the proposed sewer system and it was determine that the proposed sanitary sewer collection system, and adjacent downstream major trunk line, has adequate capacity. WINSTORM Hydraulic Analysis Data, resulting from sanitary sewer analysis is contained in this report in the "Attachment" portion. Resulting summary information is illustrated below in Table #4 -Sanitary Sewer Summary. TABLE#2 SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM Upstream Downstream Lme Pipe Size Slope Q Capacity Velocity Element Element No. (in) (%) (cfs) (cfs) (fPs) EX-MH2 EX-MHl 1 12 0.60 0.21 2.75 2.07 MH-1 EX-MH2 2 12 2.12 0.21 5.19 3.20 = MH-2 MH-1 3 10 0.30 0.21 1.19 1.64 ..... ~ MH-3 MH-2 4 10 0.72 0.21 1.84 2.26 Q) MH-4 MH-3 5 10 0.72 0.12 1.84 1.90 c :::i MH-5 MH-4 6 10 0.72 0.09 1.84 1.75 MH-6 MH-5 7 10 0.72 0.06 1.84 1.55 MH-7 MH-6 8 10 0.72 0.04 1.84 1.34 "5211 MH-8 MH-3 9 6 1.40 0.09 0.66 2.34 MH-9 MH-8 10 6 1.88 0.02 0.77 1.63 "S3" MH-10 MH-7 11 6 0.80 0.03 0.50 1.35 115411 MH-11 MH-8 12 6 0.80 0.05 0.50 1.65 Hydraulic Analysis Notes: I. A roughness coefficient of0.013 was used; 2. Peak flows where applied at reasonable location, at manholes, along the trunk line at respective development areas; As demonstrated above, the proposed sanitary sewer system will be sufficient and meet the requirements of the UTSDS and the TCEQ Rules & Regulations with one exception. This exception is that sanitary sewer lines labeled Line No. 3-12 (exclude Lines 4 & 9) experience a "flushing" velocity of less than 2.0 fps at peak flow events. However, Lines No. 1-10 shall experience increased flows with future develops such that at those future developments the peak flows will increase above the minimum velocity requirement. It should be noted that as future development actually occurs, within the proposed service areas, new sanitary sewer studies should be performed to illustrate adequate ability of the existing sanitary sewer system to accommodate the expected sewer loadings. 227-0338 Water-Sewer Report Page -6 SUMMIT CROSSING SUBDIVISION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN VICINITY MAP SUMMIT CROSSING: PHASE ONE ) HARVEY ROAD WATER LINE FLOW TEST REPORT College Station Utilities Reliable, Affordable, Community Owned Date Wednesday, January 16, 2008 Time 9:09AM Test completed by Matthew Matcek Witness Sergio Vasguez Location Pamela Ln@ Harvey Rd. Nozzle size 2.5 Flow hydrant G-068 Pitot reading 75 G.P.M. 1455 Static hydrant G-013 Static PSI 108 RP.sirlu::1l PSI 104 EAST SIDE INTERCEPTOR PROPOSED WATER SYSTEM DISTRIBUTION SCHEMATIC MAP WATER U SEE SHEE W-)_ (_ ~ a: 0 0 lil e: ALLEY I I I I I h-wd B lJ.OOK 1 SILVERTHORNE LANE SH 30 ,... HARVEY ROAD EAST > § L WATER· KEY MAP --~ SUMMIT CROSSING ........ PHASE THREE _.....,.. \ ' I -----i --:j --I -W--i -i=-=:j SUMMIT ~8~ CROSSING -~-i PHASE ONE _J\___.JI ' ' L _____ _J I I I ~g:j PARKLAND DEDICATION I I )) I -----i ---1 --__.l I --~LINE •W2• -:(SEE-\SHEET W-02) __ __ii ~~~ I I __ _, I / /,'/ /~/ ~' "' ,' ~w SCALE: 1" = 120' 240 I KYPIPE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS DATA * * * * * * * * * * * * * * University * * K y p of Kentucky Copyrighted Version 3 I P E 4 * * * * * * * * * * * Network Modeling Software * * by KYPIPE LLC * -11/01/2005 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Date & Time : Fri Feb 01 14:52:25 2008 INPUT DATA FILENAME --------------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338WlRA.DT2 TABULATED OUTPUT FILENAME --------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338W1RA.OT2 POSTPROCESSOR RESULTS FILENAME ---C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338W1RA.RS2 ************************************************ S U M M A R Y 0 F 0 R I G I N A L DAT A ************************************************ U N I T S S P E C I F I E D FLOWRATE ........... . HEAD (HGL) ......... . PRESSURE ........... . P I P E L I N E D A T A gallons/minute feet psig STATUS CODE : XX -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE P I P E N A M E NODE NAMES LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR E N D P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 N 0 D E NODE NAME FH-1 FH-2 FH-3 J -1 J-2 J-3 J-4 J-5 J-6 #1 Jf2 J-1 J-2 J-1 J-2 FH-1 J-3 FH-3 J-5 J-4 J-6 J-4 J-6 DAT A NODE TITLE R-1 J-1 J-3 FH-1 J-4 FH-3 J-5 J-7 J-6 FH-2 J-3 J-5 EXTERNAL DEMAND (gpm) 6.00 0 .00 18.00 30.00 13.50 33.00 36.00 18.00 37.50 (ft) (in) COEFF. LOSS COEFF. 480.00 12.00 602.00 12.00 263.00 142.00 120.00 181. 00 124.00 210.00 304.00 191. 00 578.00 550.00 JUNCTION ELEVATION (ft) 293.50 300 .00 296.50 288.50 290.50 294.00 295.50 297 .00 298.00 8.00 8.00 8 .00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8 .00 8.00 6.00 6.00 130.0000 130.0000 140 .0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140 .0000 140.0000 140.0000 EXTERNAL GRADE (ft) 0 .00 0 .00 0.74 0.74 0.57 0.57 0.57 0 .57 0.57 0 .57 0.34 0 .34 0 -C! ct ' ~ J-7 R-1 0 U T P U T FH=G013 OPTION 4.50 DAT A 301. 00 282.00 522.00 OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT S Y S T E M C 0 N F I G U R A T I 0 N NUMBER OF PIPES ................... (p) 12 NUMBER OF END NODES ............... (j) 10 NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ........... (1) 2 NUMBER OF SUPPLY NODES ............ (f) 1 NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ............ (z) 1 Case: 0 RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER 7 TRIALS: ACCURACY 0.00000 S I M U L A T I 0 N D E S C R I P T I 0 N (L A B E L) M.D.W. Centre -Phase One p I P E L I N E R E S U L T S STATUS CODE: xx -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE p I p E NODE NUMBERS FLOWRATE HEAD MINOR LINE N A M E #1 #2 LOSS LOSS VELO . (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) HL+ML/ HL/ 1000 1000 (ft/ft) (ft/ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-1 R-1 J-1 196.50 0.06 0.00 0 .56 0.12 0.12 P-2 J-1 J-2 83.75 0.02 0.00 0.24 0.03 0.03 P-3 J-1 J-3 82 .75 0.04 0.00 0.53 0.17 0.16 P-4 J-2 FH-1 70.25 0.02 0.00 0 .45 0.13 0.12 P-5 FH-1 J-4 64 .25 0.01 0 .00 0.41 0.11 0.10 P-6 J-3 FH-3 43.69 0 .01 0.00 0 .28 0.05 0.05 P-7 FH-3 J-5 25.69 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.02 P-8 J-5 J-7 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 P-9 J-4 J-6 34 .31 0.01 0.00 0.22 0.03 0.03 P-10 J-6 FH-2 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 P-11 J-3 J-4 6.06 0 .00 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.01 P-12 J-5 J-6 3.19 0.00 0 .00 0.04 0.00 0.00 EN D N 0 D E R E S u L T s NODE NODE EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC NODE PRESSURE NODE NAME TITLE DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FH-1 6.00 521. 91 293.50 228.41 98.98 FH-2 0.00 521. 88 300.00 221. 88 96.15 FH-3 18.00 521. 89 296.50 225 .39 97. 67 J-1 30.00 521. 94 288 .50 233.44 101.16 J-2 13.50 521. 92 290.50 231.42 100.28 J-3 33.00 521. 90 294.00 227.90 98 .75 J-4 36.00 521. 89 295.50 226.39 98 .10 J-5 18.00 521.88 297 .00 224.88 97.45 J-6 J-7 R-1 FH=G013 37.50 4.50 521.88 521. 88 522.00 298.00 301.00 282 .00 S U M M A R Y 0 F I N F L 0 W S A N D 0 U T F L 0 W S (+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES NODE NAME R-1 NET SYSTEM INFLOW NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW NET SYSTEM DEMAND FLOW RATE (gpm) 196.50 196 .50 0.00 196.50 NODE TITLE FH=G013 ***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED ***** 223.88 220.88 240.00 97.02 95 .72 104.00 * * * * * * * * * * K y p * * University of Kentucky * * Copyrighted * Version 3 * I p E 4 * * * Network Modeling by KYPIPE LLC -11/01/2005 * * * * * Software * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Date & Time: Fri Feb 01 14 :51:23 2008 INPUT DATA FILENAME --------------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338WlRA.DT2 TABULATED OUTPUT FILENAME --------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338WlRA.OT2 POSTPROCESSOR RESULTS FILENAME ---C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338WlRA.RS2 ************************************************ S U M M A R Y 0 F 0 R I G I N A L DAT A ************************************************ U N I T S S P E C I F I E D FLOWRATE ........... . HEAD (HGL) ......... . PRESSURE ........... . P I P E L I N E DAT A gallons/minute feet psig STATUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PI PE CV -CHECK VALVE P I P E N A M E NODE NAMES LENGTH (ft) DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR EN D P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 N 0 D E NODE NAME FH-1 FH-2 FH-3 J-1 J -2 J-3 J-4 J-5 J -6 #1 #2 J-1 J -2 J -1 J -2 FH-1 J-3 FH-3 J-5 J-4 J-6 J-4 J-6 D A T A NODE TITLE R-1 J-1 J-3 FH-1 J-4 FH-3 J-5 J -7 J-6 FH-2 J -3 J-5 EXTERNAL DEMAND (gpm) 1006.00 0 .00 18 .00 30 .00 13 .50 33 .00 36.00 18.00 37 .50 (i n) COEFF. LOSS COEFF. 480 .00 12 .00 602.00 12.00 2 63.00 142 .00 120 .00 181.00 124.00 210.00 304.00 191. 00 578 .00 550.00 JUNCTION ELEVATION (ft) 293.50 300.00 296.50 288 .50 290.50 294.00 295.50 297 .00 298 .00 8.00 8 .00 8.00 8.00 8 .00 8.00 8 .00 8 .00 6.00 6.00 130.0000 130.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140 .0000 140.0000 EXTERNAL GRADE (ft) 0 .00 0 .00 0 .74 0.74 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0 .3 4 0.34 J-7 R-1 FH=G013 0 U T P U T 0 P T I 0 N 4 .50 D A T A 301. 00 282 .00 522.00 OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT S Y S T E M C 0 N F I G U R A T I 0 N NUMBER OF PIPES ................... (p) 12 NUMBER OF END NODES ............... (j) 10 NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ........... (1) 2 NUMBER OF SUPPLY NODES ............ (f) 1 NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ............ (z) 1 Case : 0 RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER 5 TRIALS: ACCURACY 0.00000 S I M 0 L A T I 0 N D E S C R I P T I 0 N (L A B E L) M.D.W. Centre -Phase One p I P E L I N E R E S U L T S STATUS CODE: xx -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE p I p E NODE NUMBERS FLOWRATE HEAD MINOR LINE NAME #1 #2 LOSS LOSS VELO . (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) HL+ML/ HL/ 1000 1000 (ft/ft) (ft/ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-1 R-1 J-1 1196.50 1. 70 0.00 3.39 3.54 3.54 P-2 J-1 J-2 763 .69 0.93 0.00 2 .17 1. 54 1.54 P-3 J-1 J-3 402 .81 0.78 0.08 2.57 3.24 2 .96 P-4 J-2 FH-1 750.19 1.33 0.26 4.79 11.21 9.35 P-5 J-4 FH-1 255.81 0 .15 0.02 1. 63 1. 47 1.28 P-6 J-3 FH-3 195 .69 0.14 0 .01 1.25 0.85 0.78 P-7 FH-3 J-5 177.69 0.08 0.01 1.13 0.74 0.65 P-8 J-5 J-7 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 P-9 J-6 J-4 117 .69 0.09 0.00 0.75 0.32 0 .30 P-10 J-6 FH-2 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 P-11 J-3 J-4 174.12 1. 47 0.02 1.98 2.57 2.54 P-12 J-5 J-6 155.19 1.13 0.02 1. 76 2.08 2.05 E N D N 0 D E R E S U L T s NODE NODE EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC NODE PRESSURE NODE NAME TITLE DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FH-1 1006.00 517 .79 293.50 224.29 97.19 FH-2 0.00 518.06 300.00 218.06 94.49 FH-3 18.00 519 .30 296.50 222 .80 96.54 J-1 30.00 520.30 288 .50 231.80 100.45 J-2 13.50 519 .38 290.50 228 .88 99.18 J-3 33.00 519.45 294.00 225.45 97 .69 J-4 36.00 517.96 295.50 222.46 96.40 J-5 18.00 519 .20 297.00 222.20 96.29 J-6 J-7 R-1 FH=G013 37.50 4.50 518.06 519.20 522.00 298.00 301.00 282.00 S U M M A R Y 0 F I N F L 0 W S A N D 0 U T F L 0 W S (+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES NODE NAME R-1 NET SYSTEM INFLOW NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW NET SYSTEM DEMAND FLOWRATE (gpm) 1196.50 1196.50 0.00 1196.50 NODE TITLE FH=G013 ***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED ***** 220.06 218.20 240.00 95.36 94 .55 104.00 * * * * * * * * * * K Y P I P E 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * University of Kentucky Network Modeling Software Copyrighted by KYPIPE LLC Version 3 -11/01/2005 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Date & Time: Fri Feb 01 14:49:46 2008 INPUT DATA FILENAME--------------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338W1RA.DT2 TABULATED OUTPUT FILENAME --------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338W1RA.OT2 POSTPROCESSOR RESULTS FILENAME ---C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338WlRA.RS2 ************************************************ S U M M A R Y 0 F 0 R I G I N A L DAT A ************************************************ U N I T S S P E C I F I E D FLOWRATE ........... . HEAD (HGL) ......... . PRESSURE ........... . P I P E L I N E D A T A gallons/minute feet psig STATUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE P I P E N A M E NODE NAMES LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR Ill #2 (ft) (in) COEFF. LOSS COEFF. P-1 J-1 R-1 480.00 12.00 130.0000 0.00 P-2 J-2 J-1 602.00 12.00 130.0000 0.00 P-3 J-1 J-3 263.00 8.00 140.0000 0.74 P-4 J-2 FH-1 142.00 8.00 140.0000 0.74 P-5 FH-1 J-4 120.00 8.00 140.0000 0.57 P-6 J-3 FH-3 181. 00 8.00 140.0000 0.57 P-7 FH-3 J-5 124.00 8.00 140.0000 0.57 P-8 J-5 J-7 210.00 8.00 140.0000 0.57 P-9 J-4 J-6 304.00 8.00 140.0000 0.57 P-10 J-6 FH-2 191.00 8.00 140.0000 0.57 P-11 J-4 J-3 578 .00 6.00 140.0000 0.34 P-12 J-6 J-5 550 .00 6.00 140.0000 0.34 E N D N 0 D E D A T A NODE NODE EXTERNAL JUNCTION EXTERNAL NAME TITLE DEMAND ELEVATION GRADE (gpm) (ft) (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------FH-1 6.00 293.50 FH-2 1000.00 300.00 FH-3 18.00 296.50 J-1 30.00 288.50 J-2 13.50 290.50 J-3 33.00 294.00 J-4 36.00 295 .50 J-5 18.00 297.00 J-6 37.50 298 .00 J-7 R-1 FH=G013 0 U T P U T 0 P T I 0 N 4.50 D A T A 301. 00 282 .00 522.00 OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT S Y S T E M C 0 N F I G U R A T I 0 N NUMBER OF PIPES ................... (p) 12 NUMBER OF END NODES ............... (j) 10 NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ........... (1) 2 NUMBER OF SUPPLY NODES ............ (f) 1 NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ............ (z) 1 Case: O RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER 4 TRIALS : ACCURACY 0 .00005 S I M U L A T I 0 N D E S C R I P T I 0 N (L A B E L) M.D.W. Centre -Phase One p I P E L I N E R E S U L T s STATUS CODE: xx -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE p I p E NODE NUMBERS FLOWRATE HEAD MINOR LINE NAME #1 #2 LOSS LOSS VELO. (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) HL+ML/ HL/ 1000 1000 (ft/ft) (ft/ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-1 R-1 J-1 1196.50 1. 70 0.00 3.39 3.54 3.54 P-2 J-1 J-2 639.40 0.67 0.00 1.81 1.11 1.11 P-3 J-1 J-3 527.10 1.28 0.13 3.36 5 .36 4.86 P-4 J-2 FH-1 625.90 0.95 0.18 3.99 7.98 6.69 P-5 FH-1 J-4 619.90 0.79 0 .14 3.96 7. 72 6.57 P-6 J-3 FH-3 331.06 0.37 0.04 2.11 2.27 2.06 P-7 FH-3 J-5 313.06 0.23 0 .04 2.00 2.14 1. 85 P-8 J-5 J-7 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.03 0 .00 0.00 P-9 J-4 J-6 746.94 2.82 0.20 4.77 9.94 9.28 P-10 J-6 FH-2 1000.00 3 .04 0 .36 6.38 17.81 15.93 P-11 J-3 J-4 163.04 1.30 0.02 1. 85 2.28 2.25 P-12 J-5 J-6 290.56 3.60 0.06 3.30 6.66 6.55 EN D N 0 D E RE s u L T S NODE NODE EXTERNAL HYDRAUL IC NODE PRESSURE NODE NAME TITLE DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FH-1 6.00 518.50 293.50 225.00 97 .50 FH-2 1000.00 511.15 300.00 211.15 91. 50 FH-3 18.00 518.48 296.50 221. 98 96.19 J-1 30.00 520.30 288.50 231.80 100.45 J-2 13.50 519.64 290.50 229 .14 99.29 J-3 33.00 518.89 294.00 224 .89 97.45 J-4 36.00 517 .58 295.50 222 .08 96.23 J-5 18.00 518.22 297.00 221.22 95.86 J-6 J-7 R-1 FH=G013 37 .50 4.50 514.56 518 .22 522.00 298 .00 301.00 282 .00 S U M M A R Y 0 F INFLOWS A N D 0 U T F L 0 W S (+) INFLOWS I NTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES NODE NAME R-1 NET SYSTEM INFLOW NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW NET SYSTEM DEMAND FLOWRATE (gpm) 1196. so 1196.50 0.00 1196.50 NODE TITLE FH=G013 ***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED ***** 216.56 217.22 240.00 93 .84 94 .13 104.00 * * * * * * * * * * K Y P I P E 4 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * University of Kentucky Network Modeling Software Copyrighted by KYPIPE LLC Version 3 -11/01/2005 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Date & Time: Fri Feb 01 14:46:24 2008 INPUT DATA FILENAME --------------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338W1RA.DT2 TABULATED OUTPUT FILENAME --------C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338W1RA.OT2 POSTPROCESSOR RESULTS FILENAME ---C:\Users\user\RME\Projects\0338W1RA.RS2 ************************************************ S U M M A R Y 0 F 0 R I G I N A L D A T A ************************************************ U N I T S S P E C I F I E D FLOWRATE ........... . HEAD (HGL) ......... . PRESSURE ........... . P I P E L I N E D A T A gallons/minute feet psig STATUS CODE: XX -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE P I P E N A M E NODE NAMES LENGTH DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR E N D P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 P-11 P-12 N 0 D E NODE NAME FH-1 FH-2 FH-3 J-1 J-2 J-3 J-4 J -5 J-6 #1 #2 J-1 J-2 J-1 J-2 FH-1 J-3 FH-3 J-5 J-4 J-6 J-4 J-6 D A T A NODE TITLE R-1 J-1 J-3 FH-1 J-4 FH-3 J-5 J-7 J-6 FH-2 J-3 J-5 EXTERNAL DEMAND (gpm) 6.00 0.00 1018.00 30.00 13 .50 33.00 36.00 18.00 37 .50 (ft) (in) COEFF. LOSS COEFF. 480.00 12.00 602.00 12.00 263.00 142.00 120.00 181. 00 124.00 210.00 304 .00 191. 00 578.00 550.00 JUNCTION ELEVATION (ft) 293.50 300.00 296.50 288.50 290.50 294.00 295.50 297.00 298.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8 .00 6.00 6.00 130.0000 130. 0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 140.0000 EXTERNAL GRADE (ft) 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.34 0 .3 4 J-7 R-1 4.50 FH=G013 0 U T P U T 0 P T I 0 N D A T A 301. 00 282.00 522.00 OUTPUT SELECTION : ALL RESULTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE TABULATED OUTPUT S Y S T E M C 0 N F I G U R A T I 0 N NUMBER OF PIPES ................... (p) 12 NUMBER OF END NODES ............... (j) 10 NUMBER OF PRIMARY LOOPS ........... (1) 2 NUMBER OF SUPPLY NODES ............ (f) 1 NUMBER OF SUPPLY ZONES ............ (z) 1 Case: 0 RESULTS OBTAINED AFTER 4 TRIALS: ACCURACY 0.00005 S I M U L A T I 0 N D E S C R I P T I 0 N (L A B E L) M.D.W. Centre -Phase One p I P E L I N E R E s U L T S STATUS CODE: xx -CLOSED PIPE CV -CHECK VALVE p I p E NODE NUMBERS FLOWRATE HEAD MINOR LINE N A M E u 4t2 LOSS LOSS VELO . (gpm) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) HL+ML/ HL/ 1000 1000 (ft/ft) (ft/ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-1 R-1 J-1 1196.50 1. 70 0.00 3.39 3.54 3.54 P-2 J-1 J-2 464.23 0.37 0.00 1.32 0.61 0.61 P-3 J-1 J-3 702.27 2.18 0.23 4.48 9.15 8.28 P-4 J-2 FH-1 450 .73 0 .52 0 .10 2.88 4.31 3.64 P-5 FH-1 J-4 444.73 0.43 0 .07 2 .84 4.15 3.55 P-6 J-3 FH-3 804.36 1. 93 0.23 5.13 11.93 10.64 P-7 J-5 FH-3 213.64 0.11 0 .02 1.36 1. 05 0.91 P-8 J-5 J-7 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 P-9 J-4 J-6 273.64 0.44 0 .03 1. 75 1.53 1. 44 P-10 J-6 FH-2 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 P-11 J-4 J-3 135 .09 0 .92 0 .01 1.53 1. 61 1. 59 P-12 J-6 J-5 236.14 2 .45 0 .04 2.68 4.53 4.46 E N D N 0 D E R E S u L T s NODE NODE EXTERNAL HYDRAULIC NODE PRESSURE NODE NAME TITLE DEMAND GRADE ELEVATION HEAD PRESSURE (gprn) (ft) (ft) (ft) (psi) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FH-1 6 .00 519.32 293.50 225.82 97.86 FH-2 0 .00 518.36 300.00 218.36 94. 62 FH-3 1018 .00 515.74 296.50 219.24 95 .00 J-1 30 .00 520.30 288.50 231. 80 100.45 J-2 13.50 519.93 290.50 229.43 99.42 J-3 33.00 517. 90 294 .00 223.90 97.02 J-4 36.00 518.83 295.50 223.33 96.77 J-5 18.00 515.87 297.00 218.87 94 .84 J-6 J-7 R-1 FH=G013 37.50 4 .50 518.36 515.87 522.00 298.00 301. 00 282.00 S U M M A R Y 0 F I N F L 0 W S A N D 0 U T F L 0 W S (+) INFLOWS INTO THE SYSTEM FROM SUPPLY NODES (-) OUTFLOWS FROM THE SYSTEM INTO SUPPLY NODES NODE NAME R-1 NET SYSTEM INFLOW NET SYSTEM OUTFLOW NET SYSTEM DEMAND FLOWRATE (gpm) 1196. 50 1196.50 0 .00 1196. 50 NODE TITLE FH=G013 ***** HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS COMPLETED ***** 220.36 214.87 240.00 95.49 93.11 104.00 PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM SCHEMATIC MAP SEWER SERVICE AREA MAP -~- SUMMIT CROSSING-PHASE TWO MH 54.1 BLACKHA'M< LANE I I I I I L.J. I Bl.J.OOK1 fTWO SIL VERlHORNE LANE ALLEY 18 1LOG:K1 0 I I I I I I I SH 30 ,.,. HARVEY ROAD EAST MH 52 · 2 I L--SEWER • KEY MAP ==~~·~ ~ SUMMIT CROSSING --~ s-01) ...... PHASE THREE __ , :: I "\ I -----i I I --:j I --I • _____ _J -6)---i L--~g~~~~~~TNG -~-i PHASE ONE -JL--..\ I I I ~g=1 PARKLAND DEDICATION I I JI I -----i --sANftARY ~ -=tfNE-l•s2• (SEE ~~ S-01) . - -____.JI MH ~~~ I __ __!I I / /"/ 1" -(''"' ,' HwJ-W SCALE: l " = 120' 240 I WINSTORM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS DATA stmOutput WinStorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 2/1/2008 12:10:12 PM PROJECT NAME : 227 JOB NUMBER 0338 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : Summit Crossing, Phase One DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: 2 Years 5 Years ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 2 Years =========================================== Runoff Computation for Design Frequency. ID C Value Area (acre) Tc (min) Sl-3 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-4 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-5 0.0 0.00 10.00 S2-1 0.0 0.00 10.00 S2-2 0.0 0.00 10.00 -1 0.0 0.00 10.00 -1 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-6 0.0 0.00 10.00 Sl-7 0.0 0.00 10.00 Cumulative Junction Discharge Tc Used (min) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Computations Intensity (in/hr) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supply Q (cfs) 0.005 0.028 0.030 0.018 0.018 0.025 0.053 0.020 0.012 Total Q (cfs) 0.005 0.028 0.030 0.018 0.018 0.025 0 .053 0.020 0.012 ================================================================================= Node Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 23.49 4.03 0.209 0.00 0.209 EX-MHl CircMh 0.000 0.00 23.49 4.03 0.209 0.00 0.209 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 23.35 4.04 0.209 0.00 0.209 Sl-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 18.92 4.57 0.209 0.00 0.209 Sl-3 CircMh 0.000 0.00 18.22 4. 67 0.209 0.00 0.209 Sl-4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.59 5.09 0.115 0.00 0.115 Sl-5 CircMh 0.000 0.00 12.63 5.67 0.087 0.00 0.087 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.057 0.00 0.057 Sl-7 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.037 0.00 0.037 S2-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 10.00 6.33 0.089 0.00 0.089 S2-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.018 0.00 0.018 S3-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.025 0.00 0.025 Page 1 stmOutput S4-1 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.053 0.00 0.053 Conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I. D. Flowline Elev. us DS us DS Shape # Span Rise Length Slope n value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) ( % ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273.38 272.78 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 100.79 0.60 0.013 2 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274.00 273.45 Circ 1 0.00 1. 00 25.97 2.12 0.013 3 Sl-2 Sl-1 275.56 274.25 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 437.12 0.30 0.013 4 Sl-3 Sl-2 281.61 280.93 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 94.35 0.72 0.013 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283.89 281.71 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 300.72 0.72 0.013 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286.25 283.99 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 311.13 0.73 0.013 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 288.93 286.35 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 357.19 0.72 0.013 8 Sl-7 Sl-6 290.85 289.03 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 250.81 0.73 0.013 9 S2-1 Sl-3 287.80 283.53 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 305.26 1. 40 0.013 10 S2-2 S2-1 294.08 287.90 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 327.75 1. 89 0.013 11 S3-1 Sl-7 295.74 292.08 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 458.46 0.80 0.013 12 S4-1 S2-1 291.81 287.90 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 488.82 0.80 0.013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tail water = 0.000 (ft) -================================================================================= Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Velocity June Run# us Elev DS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual Unif. Actual Q Cap Loss (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (f/s) (f/s) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1* 273.57 272.97 0.003 0.19 0.19 2.07 2.07 0.21 2.75 0.000 2* 274.14 273.59 0.003 0.14 0.14 3.20 3.20 0.21 5.19 0.000 3 275.80 274.35 0.009 0.24 0.24 1. 64 1. 64 0.21 1.19 0.000 4 281.80 281.03 0.009 0.19 0.19 2.26 2.26 0.21 1. 84 0.000 5* 284.03 281.85 0.003 0.14 0.14 1. 90 1. 90 0.12 1. 85 0.000 6* 286.37 284.11 0.002 0.12 0.12 1. 75 1. 75 0.09 1. 85 0.000 7* 289.03 286.45 0.001 0.10 0.10 1. 55 1. 55 0.06 1. 84 0.000 8* 290.93 289.11 0.000 0.08 0.08 1. 34 1. 34 0.04 1. 85 0.000 9* 287.92 283.65 0.025 0.12 0.12 2.34 2.34 0.09 0.66 0.000 10* 294.13 287.95 0.001 0.05 0.05 1. 63 1. 63 0.02 0.77 0.000 11* 295.82 292.16 0.002 0.08 0.08 1. 35 1. 35 0.03 0.50 0.000 12* 291.92 288.01 0.009 0.11 0.11 1. 65 1. 65 0.05 0.50 0.000 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 5 Years ============================================= Page 2 stmOutput Runoff Computation for Analysis Frequency . ========================================================================== C Value Area (acre) Tc (min) Sl-3 0.0 0 .00 10.00 Sl-4 0 .0 0.00 10.00 Sl-5 0.0 0.00 10 .00 S2-l 0 .0 0 .00 10.00 S2-2 0.0 0.00 10.00 S3-l 0.0 0.00 10.00 S4-l 0.0 0 .00 10 .00 Sl-6 0.0 0 .00 10 .00 Sl-7 0.0 0 .00 10 .00 Cumulative Junction Discharge Tc Used (min) 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Computations Intensity (in/hr) 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.00 Supply Q (cfs) 0.005 0.028 0 .030 0 .018 0.018 0 .025 0.053 0 .020 0.012 Total Q (cfs) 0.005 0.028 0.030 0.018 0 .018 0 .025 0.053 0.020 0.012 ================================================================================= Node Node Weighted Cumulat . Cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total I. D. Type C-Value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs ) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EX-MH2 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 23.49 5 .00 0.209 0.00 0 .209 EX-MHl CircMh 0 .000 0.00 23.49 5.00 0.209 0.00 0.209 Sl-1 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 23.35 5.02 0.209 0 .00 0.209 1-2 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 18.92 5.65 0.209 0 .00 0.209 -3 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 18.22 5.76 0.209 0 .00 0.209 1-4 CircMh 0.000 0.00 15.59 6.25 0 .115 0 .00 0.115 Sl-5 CircMh 0 .000 0.00 12.63 6.93 0.087 0 .00 0.087 Sl-6 CircMh 0.000 0 .00 10.00 7.69 0 .057 0.00 0.057 Sl-7 CircMh 0 .000 0 .00 10.00 7.69 0.037 0.00 0.037 S2-l CircMh 0 .000 0.00 10 .00 7.69 0 .089 0.00 0.089 S2-2 CircMh 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.018 0.00 0 .018 S3-l CircMh 0.000 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.025 0.00 0 .025 S4-l CircMh 0.000 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 0.053 0 .00 0.053 Conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US OS US OS (ft) (ft) 1 EX-MHl EX-MH2 273 .38 272.78 2 Sl-1 EX-MHl 274.00 273.45 3 Sl-2 Sl-1 275 .56 274.25 4 Sl-3 Sl-2 281 .61 280 .93 5 Sl-4 Sl-3 283.89 281 .71 6 Sl-5 Sl-4 286 .25 283.99 Shape # Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Circ 1 Page 3 Span (ft) 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0 .00 Rise (ft) 1. 00 1. 00 0.83 0 .83 0 .83 0.83 Length (ft) 100 .79 25 .97 437.12 94 .35 300.72 311.13 Slope (%) 0 .60 2.12 0.30 0.72 0.72 0.73 n value 0.013 0 .013 0.013 0.013 0 .013 0.013 stmOutput 7 Sl-6 Sl-5 288.93 286.35 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 357.19 0.72 0.013 Sl-7 Sl-6 290.85 289.03 Circ 1 0.00 0.83 250.81 0.73 0.013 S2-l Sl-3 287.80 283.53 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 305.26 1. 40 0.013 10 S2-2 S2-1 294.08 287.90 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 327.75 1. 89 0.013 11 S3-1 Sl-7 295.74 292.08 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 458.46 0.80 0.013 12 S4-l S2-l 291.81 287.90 Circ 1 0.00 0.50 488.82 0.80 0.013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# US Elev OS Elev Fr.Slope Unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) l* 273.57 272 .97 0.003 0.19 0.19 2* 274 .14 273.59 0.003 0.14 0.14 3 275 .80 274.35 0.009 0.24 0.24 4 281.80 281. 03 0.009 0.19 0.19 5* 284.03 281. 85 0.003 0.14 0.14 6* 286.37 284.11 0.002 0.12 0.12 7* 289.03 286.45 0.001 0.10 0.10 8* 290.93 289.11 0.000 0.08 0.08 9* 287.92 283.65 0.025 0.12 0.12 10* 294.13 287.95 0.001 0.05 0.05 11* 295 .82 292.16 0.002 0.08 0.08 2* 291.92 288.01 0.009 0.11 0.11 Velocity Unif. Actual (f/s) (f/s) 2.07 2.07 3.20 3.20 1. 64 1. 64 2.26 2.26 1. 90 1. 90 1. 75 1. 75 1. 55 1. 55 1. 34 1. 34 2.34 2.34 1. 63 1. 63 1. 35 1. 35 1. 65 1. 65 Q (cfs) 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.05 Cap (cfs) 2.75 5.19 1.19 1. 84 1. 85 1. 85 1. 84 1. 85 0.66 0.77 0.50 0.50 June Loss (ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 =================================END============================================ * Super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. Warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 2 Years Tail water set to uniform depth elevation = 272.97(ft) Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 4 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 9 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 8 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 11 Runoff Frequency of: 5 Years Tail water set to uniform depth elevation = 272.97(ft) Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 4 Drop flow line elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 9 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 8 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 11 Page 4