The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFolderP&Z CASE NO.: DATE SUBMITTED: CITY O F COl.l.LCI'. s IAl"IO.\i FINAL PLAT APPLICATION (Check one) 0 Minor ($300.00) Is this plat in the ET J? 0 Yes 0 Amending ($300.00) ~No [B'Final ($400.00) 0 Vacating ($400.00) D Replat ($600.00)" 'Includes public hearing fee The following items must be submitted by an established filing deadline date for P&Z Commission consideration. ~ l\OD MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: _k'.'.'.:_ $300 -$600 Filing Fee (see above) NOTE: Multiple Sheets -$55.00 per additional sheet ..-. $100 Variance Request to Subdivision Regulations (if applicable) v $200 Development Permit Application Fee (if applicable). v $600.00 Infrastructure Inspection Fee (applicable if any public infrastructure is being constructed) v Application completed in full. --==-Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable). ~Fourteen (14) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after staff review) y Paid tax certificates from City of College Station, Brazos County and College Station l.S .D V A copy of the attached checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. Z Two (2) copies of public infrastructure plans associated with this plat (if applicable) _:::::::_ Parkland Dedication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board, please provide proof of approval (if applicable). Date of Preapplication Conference: ___ q+-. ---~/~?-~-~W~~o~s=~-------------- NAME oF suBD1v1s10N azr...e..lJ!l~ Wtti'r~..i Ce.n.te.v fkJctS.l 2..G SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED suBD1v1s10N (Lot & Bl~ck) Sft-4o/;,v£h1S Pr-Rd 1 Arri~vt /(c) . APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project) Name ·~r I/ I 1:,, Ve s~~ Street Address l I 0 ?.M<S.ltu' ""-5 bu !/\ w _, City Ca I 1-e ci e \.h'-1-'' D VJ State T'X Zip Code j Th4-o E-Mail Address :pa.}) vi 1; \/£ ds.ol i fJ ¥o.1oo CoVVl Phone Number '7 lo~ -G ~ D 'O Fax Number _7...._....<a~4.__-q~&,~o~I ______ _ PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (ALL owners must be identified. Pl ease attach an additional sheet for multiple owners): Name --1-=-;.~_,_.L.L!:-IJ..~-'-'-'""-"'-'~~~~~}'-'-:-~L~-~P~.~~~~-,--~~~~~~- / City Cof {f~e Sat°'--+·o a__ E-Mail Address --------··-·-·-. ---· -·-State -+l~X ___ Zip Code 1 " Phone Number _7~&~·4-~· --~l,......,f),,...0"-"'0 ____ _ Fax Number _7~<~v~if_-_C(__._..,f t?~O~I ___ _ J ,,j . Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? Yes __ No L_ Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so, please provide the Volume No and Page # __ _ Acreage -Total Property 3.-10 l tA.L Total #of Lots 0 R-0-W Acreage 3 , 1 DI ~ Existing Use: \[(J{ lLvt± Proposed Use Sir.te..f (?.O W d..uli rah evi Number of Lots By Zoning District ([) Average Acreage Of Each Residenti al Lot By Zoning District: 0 Floodplain Acreage ----'Q....,_ ___ _ A statement addressing any differences between the Final Plat and approved Master Plan and/or Preliminary Plat (if applicable): Requested Variances To Subdivision Regulations & Reason For Same YJCI'\(, {iv-{1iiS ptxtS ,__./ Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: 1-1-101 Streets Lt-Seo' Sidewalks Sanitary Sewer Lines lC(oO i Water Lines Channels Storm Sewers Bike Lanes I Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: ___ #of acres to be dedicated+$ ____ development fee ___ # of acres in fl oodplain # of acres in detention --- ___ # of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: ____ #of Single-Family Dwelling Units X $556 = $ ___ _ _______ (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true. correct, and complete. The undersigned hereby requests approval by the City of College Station of the above-identified fi I plat and aft sts that this request does not amend any covenants or restrictions associated with this plat. ~ 'd • SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT INFORMATION Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/waterway alterations i nfu2 Sfrl).Ljux.l t 0 tf17ir-u.c,fl o~" ACKNOWLEDGMENTS : 1, r l\_(" ifi·~l:. \f e.ssoJ ~ . design engineer/owner. hereby acknowledge or affirm that The information and conclusions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of t e City of College Station. Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage Policy and Design S ndards. As a onditio of approval of this permit application. I agree to construct the improvements proposed in this r ing to se:..documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City Code. wner(s) ~i'..V\,\ Contractor CERTIFICATIONS: (for proposed alterations within designated flood hazard areas.) 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. 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. Date Engineer Date 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 Ci ty of College Station shall apply. DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 07-45 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION P/.tJnning & Dewlopment Servius FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Greens Prairie Center Lot 1, Block 5 Phase 2A Lot 1, Block 3 Phase 3 DATE OF ISSUE: 02/26/08 OWNER: Brazos Texas Land Development, LP 110 Pershing Avenue College Station, Texas 77840 SITE ADDRESS: 950 William D Fitch Parkway DRAINAGE BASIN: Alum Creek VALID FOR 12 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's 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. Date ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. The required 100' ROW for rural collectors is shown on the Final Plat, but not reflected in the construction plans. Please rectify. 2. Coordination will be necessary with the County. 3. We would like to discuss alignment of proposed "Old Arrington Road". 4. Final Plat shows 3.7 acres, Drainage Report 3.4. Please clarify. 5. How did you arrive at runoff coefficient of .55? 6. Is there capacity in the existing bar ditch? You are discharging a 27" into an existing downstream 18" culvert. Verify capacity in bar ditch down to Primary receiving stream. County says there is a capacity issue and flooding problem. 7. Define/delineate conveyance pathway. 8. What is depth of water into and end treatment for Pipe 3? Will all the water from the existing ditch be routed through this pipe? 9. What is depth of water into culvert crossing Greens Prairie Road? Provide flowline all the way to flowline of existing pipe. 10. What is status of regional detention pond? 11 . Drainage checklist. ... Reviewed by: Carol Cotter Date: June 18, 2007 From: To: Date: Subject: Thanks, "Joe Schultz" <Joe@CDLBCS.com> "Alan Gibbs" <Agibbs@cstx.gov> 12/19/2006 1 :25 PM RE: Arrington Rd Ext (South) We will continue with the design Joe -----Original Message----- From : Alan Gibbs [mailto:Agibbs@cstx.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:53 AM To: Joe Schultz Subject: Arrington Rd Ext (South) Joe, We reviewed your preliminary layout. The alignment looks fine and we conceptually agree with the transition into the County section as you have depicted and noted. There will need to be ROW dedication (appears to be approximately 5 to 10 feet) along the old alignment to complete the 100 ft rural collector ROW width. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works College Station . Heart of the Research Valley. From: To: Date: Subject: CC: Bob, Alan Gibbs Mosley, Bob 1/9/2007 3:24 PM GreensPrairie Center -Detention Pond Cotter, Carol You asked about this pond inflow from existing culverts under the roadways. The culverts are a 3x3 and 4x4 RCBCs. Schultz indicates in his report, "a review of the drainage design data for these culverts indicated they were designed for developed conditions upstream of the culverts. The culverts appear to have adequate capacity to pass the post development runoff into the proposed detention pond. However, this should be verified when the land is developed." The outlet structure is a 42" RCP. Alan Gibbs, P.E. City of College Station Sr. Asst. City Engineer, Public Works * C1vIL DEVELOPMENT, Lta. * CIVIL ENGINEERING & DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES P.O. Box 11929 · College Station, Texas 77842 · Phone: 979-764-7743 · Fax: 979-764-7759 ARRINGTON ROAD EXTENSION Revised Engineer's Estimate of Construction Costs January 14, 2008 Item No. Description 1 Estimated J I --U-·-n-it ---.. -Unit Price . ·-suantit~ -- Streets ~ l ~~~~~;~~~~~:Ciion stakrllg ------; 414 - -~~ -1 · 2;:~~~ ~~; 3 Excavation/Grading (streets) : 10,355 I CY ! 6.00 4 Mixing&IncorporationofLime(8"depth) i 15,046 I SY I 2.75 , 5 Hydrated Lime j' 267 TN I' 135.001 ---~ --!:~~~a;:~~~~~;~:~:-----------------------r~~:~~~-~~ -----1~:~~: 8 Concrete Curb and Gutter (all types) ! 3,745 LF 10.00 : 9 ADA Ramp -comer 7 1 EA j 700.oo : Sidewalk -6' wide 24 856 1 SF ! 3.50 10 11 12 13 ;~::,c;~e e~fs~~~g-:~v~:.~ an~-=lve~ -... -----. + -'i,~82 1--i~ + 1 ,50~ ~~ Remove existing HMAC & Base 654 j SY 8.00 : Subtotal -Residential Streets ! Storm Drainage :~ 1 ~;~~~~~~~~~:~r~~;~~~~onp-onds1 ---~~o r-~~ T- 16 18" RCP, non-structural backfill 28 I LF i 17 24" HDPE, structural backfill 6 1 LF I 18 24" RCP, sturtural backfill 299 ! LF i ____ .J ____ .___ ---·--·------·-·--------... ------- . ! ------\---. 19 27" RCP, structural backfill 59 'I LF i 20 27" RCP, non-structural backfill 39 LF i 21 30" HDPE, non-structural backfill 187 I LF ; 22 4'x2' C850 RCBC, non-structural backfill 78 I LF 23 4'x2' C780 RCBC, non-structural backfill 83 1 LF I --24 -i.5'-Inlet---------------------------------·--------------1 --i--EA·--1-- 25 5' Recessed Inlet ! EA , 26 i 1 O' Recessed Inlet 1 EA l 27 I\ 15' Recessed Inlet 3 EA 28 Grate Inlet EA .... L ... ·-----·---------· --·-------------------·-··-·---·-· ------ 29 \North Detention Pond Outlet Structure 30 i South Detention Pond Outlet Structure I 31 !S.E.T. for 18" RCP, 6H:IV 32 S.E.T. for 24" HOPE, 4H : IV 33 S.E.T. fo r 27" RC'P, 41-1 : 1 \I Page 1 of 2 EA : EA LS LS LS 6.00 48.00 43 .00 : 45 .00 1 55 .00 70.00 : 63 .00 52.00 170.00 150.00 2,500.00 2,900.00 3,600.00 4,200.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 1 5,000.00 65 0.00 800.00 l)()() 00 Estimated Cost -25,000 22,000 62, 130 41,377 36,045 -······ ·---·-· 143,208 123,840 37,450 4,900 86,996 ·--------- 24,651 3,000 5,232 $615,829 ·-·-... 48,000 5,829 1,204 270 16,445 4,130 2,470 9,708 13 ,260 12,450 2,500 2,900 3,600 12,600 5,000 5,000 5,000 650 800 900 ARRINGTON ROAD EXTENSION Revised Engineer's Estimate of Construction Costs January 14, 2008 Item No. Description 34 35 S.E.T. for 30" HDPE, 4H:lV S.E.T. for 4'x2' RCBC, 6H: 1 V 36 Rock Rip-Rap 37 38 Inlet Protection Construction Exit ··--····-·--··-----------------· -··--··· 39 Hydromulch Seeding (sidewalk to ROW) 40 Hydromulch Seeding (detention ponds) 41 Silt Fence Rock Check Dam 42 43 Remove Headwall and E~~~iting ~E~~!?~-~~x 44 Reconstruct Junction Box I Grate Inlet 45 TV Inspection Water Estimated I U . Q . mt uant1ty ------1··-· -1 ·-Ls ____ - Unit Price ; Estimated Cost I 1,200.00 1 1,200 I LS 2,200.oO · 2,200 150 SY 60.00 · 9,000 6 I EA 150.00 900 ---~--J ___ EA ______ !,~Q_Q~Qi. ___ .J.~90Q 5,057 SY 0.65 1 3,287 13 ,100 SY 0.65 : 8,515 1,160 LF 3.oo! 3,480 1 EA 500.001 500 I EA 500.00! 500 7~~ r· ~~------4'0~~:~~-i ~:~~~ Subtotal -Storm Drainage! $196,692 --___ 4_6 ___ 1_2_" -W-a-te_r_P_V_C_C_L_2_0_0_(_C_9_0_9)----s-tru_c_t_ur-al·-b-ac_k_fi_dl ____ ----i --M I LF I -----36-.0~ -----2-,3-04 12" Water PVC CL200 (C909) -non-structural backfill I 1,084 I LF 30.00: 32,520 47 48 6" Water PVC CL200 (C909) -structural backfill I 66 i LF 24.00 1,584 49 6"WaterPVCCL200(C909)-non-structuralbackfill . 1,078 ! LF 20.00 j 21,560 _____ 5_0_ 12" M.J. Gate Valve _____________ ]_ __ 3 ----~ ____ E_A_,__ 1,500.00 i---____ 4,500_ 51 6" M.J. Gate Valve I 3 ! EA 750.00 t 2,250 52 12"x 45° M.J. Bend i 6 ! EA 500.00 '. 3,000 I 53 12"x 11.25° M.J. Bend J 4 i EA 500.00 l 2,000 54 6"x 45° M.J. Bend i 6 1 EA 300.oo: 1,800 ___ 55__ 6"x 11.25° M.J. Bend ____ ____ __ __ ___ ____ _j_ ___ _j ____ j_EA_--+----300.00_1 ______ h200 56 Connect to existing water line 1 1 . 4 ! EA 500.00 ! 2,000 57 20"SteelCasing 160 I LF 130.00 i 20,800 58 14" Steel Casing I 80 I LF 100.00I 8,000 59 12" M.J. Cap (on existing waterline) 2 1 EA 250.00 \ 500 I 60 6" M.J. Cap (on existing waterline) 2 1 EA 100.00 i 200 Subtotal -Water! $104,218 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST; $916,738 Page 2 of 2 1::f C1vIL DEVELOPMENT, Lta. 1::f CIVIL ENGINEERING & DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES P.O. Box 11929 · College Station, Texas 77842 · Phone: 979-764-7743 · Fax: 979-764-7759 ARRINGTON ROAD EXTENSION Revised Engineer's Estimate of Construction Costs January 14, 2008 Item -~~: J __ --Description I : EQstimated l Unu·1t j Un. it Price Estimated Cost uant1ty ·------------ Streets -1 -lMobITization/Construction Staking ----- 2 I Clearing & Grubbing ---i--------, ~-i-· --I 1 LS 25,000.00 I 4.4 AC 5,000.00 1 -25,000 22,000 3 Excavation/Grading (streets) ' 10,355 CY 6.00 62, 130 4 Mixing & Incorporation of Lime (811 depth) i~~6 SY I 2.75 41,377 5 Hydrated Lime 7 TN 135.00 , 36,045 ·-· ---6 Base Material -8" depth 11,934 SY 12.00 1 143,208 7 Asphalt Paving -211 depth 13,760 SY 9.00 1 123,840 8 Concrete Curb and Gutter (all types) 3,745 LF 10.00 37,450 9 ADA Ramp -comer I 7 EA 700.00 i 4,900 10 Sidewalk -6' wide i 24,856 I SF 3.50 86,996 --r4 ,482 ------- 11 Concrete Apron -6" Depth SF 5.50 24,651 I I 12 Remove existing driveway and culvert I 2 EA 1,500.00 3,000 13 Remove existing HMAC & Base I 654 SY 8.oo l 5,232 Subtotal -Residential Streets l $615,829 Storm Drainage -14 -!Excavation/Grading (detention ponds) 15 18 11 RCP, structural backfill 16 1811 RCP, non-structural backfill 17 2411 HDPE, structural backfi ll 18 24 11 RCP, sturtural backfill 19 2711 RCP, structural backfill 20 27" RCP, non-structural backfill 21 3011 HDPE, non-structural backfill 22 4'x2' C850 RCBC, non-structural backfill -;! I ~: ~~·1~7~0 RCBC, Ill)n-struo:~ural bat'kfi II ___ _ 25 5' Recessed Inlet 26 1 IO' Recessed Inlet 27 I 15' Recessed Inlet 28 Grate Inlet 29 jNo~th-Detentwn Pond Outlet Stru~ture South Detention Pond Outlet Structure 31 1S.E.T. for 1811 RCP, 6H:lV 30 32 S.E.T. for 24" HOPE, 4H : IV 33 S. E.T. for 27" RCP, 4 1-1: IV Page 1 of 2 -1 8,000 1--CY I 121 I LF ., 28 'I LF 6 LF I 299 ! LF I l ;~ I ~~ I . 187 I LF I 78 I LF 83 ~-LF I EA 1 3 EA EA EA EA EA EA LS LS LS 6.00 48 .00 43 .00 45.001 55 .00 70.00: 63 .00 52 .00 . 170.00 150.00 2,500.00 2,900.00 3,600.00 4,200.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 650.00 800.00 l)()(). ()() 48,000 5,829 1,204 270 16,445 4,130 2,470 9,708 13 ,260 12,450 2,500 2,900 3,600 12,600 5,000 5,000 5,000 650 800 900 ARRINGTON ROAD EXTENSION Revised Engineer's Estimate of Construction Costs January 14, 2008 Item No. Description ----f-----·---·----------34 S.E.T. for 30" HDPE, 4H: 1 V 35 S.E.T. for 4'x2' RCBC, 6H: 1 V 36 Rock Rip-Rap 37 Inlet Protection 38 Construction Exit 39 Hydromulch Seeding (sidewalk to ROW) 40 Hydromulch Seeding (detention ponds) 41 Silt Fence 42 Rock Check Dam 43 Remove Headwall and Exisiting Junction B~x __ _ 44 Reconstruct Junction Box I Grate Inlet 45 TV Inspection 46 47 48 49 50 Water 12" Water PVC CL200 (C909) -structural backfill 12" Water PVC CL200 (C909) -non-structural backfill 6" Water PVC CL200 (C909) -structural backfill 6" Water PVC CL200 (C909) -non-structural backfill 12" M.J. Gate Valve Estimated I U . Q . mt Unit Price uantlty Estimated Cost ----1---I-i s _____ --(2oo~oo l 1 LS 2,200.00 I 150 SY 60.00 6 EA 150.00 2 EA -1 -5,05 7___ SY -_!_,~00.0Q_~_ -- 0.65 1 13,100 SY 1,160 LF 1 EA 0.65 , 3.oo l 500.ool EA 500.00 --1 ---------------__ J ---1 EA 4,000.00. I 739 LF 10.00[ Subtotal -Storm Drainagej 64 LF 36.001 1,084 LF 3o.oo i I -66 LF 24.00 1 1,078 LF 20.00 3 EA 1,500.00 1,200 2,200 9,000 900 3,000 ----3,287 8,515 3,480 500 500 4,000 7,393 $196,692 2,304 32,520 1,584 ----+--------------------+-----1------+-------<--- 21,560 4,500 2,250 3,000 2,000 1,800 1,200 51 6" M.J. Gate Valve 52 12"x 45° M.J. Bend 53 12"x 11.25° M.J. Bend 54 6"x 45° M.J. Bend 55 6"x 11.25° M.J. Bend -----+------------------------56 Connect to existing water line 57 20" Steel Casing 58 14" Steel Casing 59 12" M.J. Cap (on existing waterline) 60 6" M.J. Cap (on existing waterline) 3 EA 750.00 1 6 EA 500.00 1 4 EA 500.00 I 6 EA 300.oo : _l __ __i_-+-_E_A--+----300.00 I 4 EA 500.00 1. 160 LF 130.00 80 I LF 100.00 2 · EA 250.00 2 ! EA 100.00 ----2,000 20,800 8,000 500 200 Subtotal -Water! $104,218 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST, $916,738 Page 2 of 2 Response to STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS NO. 2 Project: GREENS PRAIRIE CENTER PH.2C (FP) -07-00500131 ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 1. Provide slopes of design grades (Profile-Old Arrington Road) The slopes have been added to the plans. 2. Provide design curve data for vertical curve around Stat 3+00 (Profile-Old Arrington Road). The curve data has been added to the plans. 3. K value is below minimum for crest at Stat 1 +50 (Profile-Old Arrington Road). The curve length has been lengthened to increase the K value. 4. Provide design curve data for vertical cure around Stat 1 +00 (Profile-Old Arrington Road spur). Cun1e data has been added. Due to the very low traffic volume on this segment of street, the K value for a minor collector was used as the design minimum. 5. Vertical curve data is missing from Arrington Road after Station 10+00. The curve data has been added to the plans. 6. Open ditch slope is 4: 1 maximum for rural collector. The detail has been changed to 4: 1 slopes in th e ditches. 7. Show hydraulic grade lines in profile view. HGL lines have been added to the drainage plans. 8. Your Reference Statement on Page 3 of Drainage Report is not complete. The Reference Statement has been completed. 9. Construction will need to be coordinated with the County. I have not had any comments back from Gary. The Brazos County Road and Bridge Division generally does not provide written comments to construction plans. We have met with Commissioner Wasserman, Richard Vance, Gmy Arnold and John Jones to go over the plans. They are attempting to set a meeting with City officials to revisit the issue of maintenance and control over the segment of Arrington Road being affected by this project. ote: The owner of the Greens Prairie Center property has decided to revert back to the original concept of a detention pond on the north side of Greens Prairie Road. This is part of contrach1al obligations he has with the owners of the First ational Bank site to provide detention that allows for fu11 development of their site. This pond has already been reviewed and approved. Contract documents are being drawn up and construction is anticipated soon. The construction of this original pond will negate the need for the North Detention Pond shown in the plans. As a result, the orth Detention Pond has been deleted from the plans and the storm drain system altered to flow into the original pond. These changes are noted in Addendum #1 to the Drainage Report. Drainage Report for Arrington Road Extension (Greens Prairie Center, Ph 2A & 3) College Station, Texas June 1, 2007 R evised 1111108 I ncluding Addendum #1 Dated 2115108 Developer: Texas Hotel Management, L.P. 110 Pershing . College Station, Texas 77840 (979) 764-6806 Engineer: Civil Development, Ltd. 2033 Harvey Mitchell Parkway South College Station , 1 exas 77840 (979) 764-7743 ADDENDUM #1 to Executive Summary Report Arrington Road Extension College Station, Texas February 15, 2008 Addendum #1 is provided to explain all significant changes to the construction plans and the drainage report that have been made since the previous review. 1. The owner of the Greens Prairie Center development has chosen to revert back to the previous scenario of providing detention on the north side of Greens Prairie Road, immediately east of New Arrington Road. This decision was made in order to meet contractual obligations he has with the owners of the First National Bank site (Greens Prairie Center, Ph 1) that allows the bank property to develop without on-site detention. This detention pond was previously submitted for review to the City of College Station and approved for construction. Construction on that project will begin within the next 30 days and should be completed before the Arrington Road Extension Project. As a result of this decision by the owner, the North Pond described in this drainage report becomes unnecessary. It has been removed from the plans, and the storm sewer system that drained to it has been redirected to flow into the existing culvert under Greens Prairie Road. That system will flow into the new pond on the north side of the roadway. Please disregard all references to the North Detention Pond and its appurtenances in the Drainage Report. 2. The sizes of Pipes 9 and 10 have changed. These two pipes serve inlets on the north end of the Arrington Road Project. The original size called for in the plans was 27", however the bids have indicated that 30" pipes are less expensive to purchase and install. As a result, the large pipes are now shown in the plans and in the analysis. 3. The outfall pipes from the South Detention Pond (Pipes 1 & 2) have been added to the Pipe Analysis in Exhibit B in order to demonstrate that the 10 yr HGL meets the City requirements of staying at least 0 .5 feet below the surface. The HGL lines are shown in the profile drawings. These two pipes are designed to carry 100-yr flows from the detention pond, thus minimizing the potential for flows through the emergency spillway that could damage the pavement structure of Arrington Road. The tail water at the end of the pipe in the Arrington Road ROW is assumed to be at the soffit of the 4'x 2' box culvert. ENGINEER OWNER/DEVELOPER GENERAL LOCATION Executive Summary Report Arrington Road Extension College Station, Texas June 4, 2007 Revised January 11, 2008 Civil Development, Ltd. -Kent Laza, P.E. (klaza@cdlbcs.com) P.O. Box 11929 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone: (979) 764-7743 Fax: (979) 764-7759 Texas Hotel Management, L.P. c/o Salim Ismail 110 Pershing College Station, Texas 77840 Phone: (979) 764-6806 This roadway project consists of approximately 5 acres that will include the extension of New Arrington Road from it current terminus to Old Arrington Road near its' intersection with South Oaks Drive. The majority of the project lies within the city limits of College Station, but the tie in to Old Arrington Road is outside the city limits. Old Arrington Road is owned and maintained by Brazos County. In addition to the street extension, segments of two water lines owned by Wellborn Special Utility District will be relocated along the new street right of way. There are two lots being platted with this project. This project is located south of William Fitch Parkway between the ex1stmg section of New Arrington Road and Old Arrington Road in South College Station. It is part of the Greens Prairie Center Development. HYDROLOGIC CHARACTERISTICS The existing land cover is densely wooded with heavy brush. The proposed roadway alignment has been underbrushed to allow for surveying and testing, but the adjoining property has not been changed. Geotechnical tests indicate that the surface soil consists of non-plastic si lty fine sand . GENERAL STORMWATER PLAN This project does not involve the development of any land except for the street right-of-way and associated appurtenances. However, in order to mitigate any adverse runoff impacts from the new street into the drainage pathways of the existing roadways, detention ponds will be provided on both ends of the project. Runoff from the nevv street and it s adjoining ROW will be captured in curb inlets and conveyed into the ponds. A key assumption for this system is that as property Page' 2 of -I adjacent to the roadway develops, studies will be conducted to determine if additional on-site detention is needed and measures will be taken to provide it if necessary. The detention ponds included in this design are not intended to serve the developable property outside of the ROW. The outfall for these ponds are as follows: North Pond -existing 3 'x 3' box culvert under Greens Prairie Road that flows into a natural channel northward under SH 40. South Pond -existing roadside ditch on Old Arrington Road that flows southward to a natural channel near South Oaks Drive. STORM DRAIN DESIGN INFORMATION Tc Methodology: TR55 Tc Minimum Design Storm Event: Pipe Materials: Manning's n Value: Runoff Coefficient: Design Constraints: 10 minutes 10-year Reinforced concrete pipe & HDPE pipe 0.013 0.90 (for road ROW) 0.55 (for common area at the intersection with Old Arrington) Max. water depth in curb= top of curb (6") & 12 ft wide clear lane of travel Min. flow velocity= 2.5 fps Max. flow velocity = 15 fps 100-yr storm runoff maintained within the ROW (3 inches above curb) Design Software: Haestad Methods StormCAD v 4.1 This software computes the rainfall and runoff using TR-55 and the Rational Method. It computes inlet capture efficiencies using the orifice equation as described in HEC 22. Flows through the pipes are computed using Manning's Equation. StormCAD routes water down the curb, checks flow depth at the curb, determines bypass flows for inlets on slope, computes pipe capacity, flowrate and velocity through each pipe, and determines hydraulic grade line elevations at each inlet or junction box. Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit A -StormCAD Inlet Analysis (10-yr & 100-yr storms) Exhibit B -StormCAD Pipe Analysis (10-yr & 100-yr stroms) Exhibit C -Drainage Area Map (storm drain system) DETENTION POND DESIGN INFORMATION Design Software: Methodology: Design Storms: North Pond Design: Size at Top of Berm: Outlet Structure: Base Outlet Flowlin e: Outlet Pipe: Emerg. Spill way: HEC-HMS Version 3.0.1 SCS Unit Hydrograph 2, I 0, 25 , 50, 100-yr 0.60 acres 5 'x 2.5' box with multi-staged outlets 294.50 30" HDPE Trapezoid al Channel 15 ft. width 4: I side s lopes Manning's N = 0 .0 15 (short grass) l'agc _, or.:1 South Pond Design: Size at Top of Berm: 1.0 I acres Outlet Structure: 6'x 3' box with multi-staged outlets 281.50 Base Outlet Flowline: Outlet Pipe: 4 'x 2' RCBC Trapezoidal Channel 35 ft. width Emerg. Spillway: 4: I side slopes Manning's N = 0.015 (short grass) SUMMARY OF DETENTION POND ANALYSIS Design Storm (yr) 2 10 25 50 100 NORTH POND Pre-Dev Post Dev Flowrate Flowrate (cfs) (cfs) 16.06 10.86 34 .66 14.99 41.30 19.24 54.60 36.50 Max. WSEL (ft) 298.14 58 .69 ! 40.32 i 299.07 ·-·--···-·········----··'--·--····-·--·-------------L-------··-··------·-t----------·-·- Spillway Elevation = I Top of Berm Elevation = ! Max WSEL if outlet structure is blocked = ! SOUTH POND Design Pre-Dev Post Dev Storm Flowrate Flowrate (yr) (cfs) (cfs) 2 19.33 16.56 10 42.80 23.76 25 51.18 i 25.73 50 68.00 i 49.30 299.50 301.00 300.07 Max. WSEL (ft) 285.74 ___ _ __ !_QQ ___ .... L .. _. ____ 22:.Q ____ J _______ ?_?..::!9-_____ J 286.93 287.00 288.00 287.49 Spillway Elevation = i Top of Berm Elevation = ! Max WSEL if outlet structure is blocked = I Applicable Exhibits: Exhibit D -Drainage Area Map (existing conditions) Exhibit E -Drainage Area Map (post-development conditions) Exhibit F -HEC-HMS Summary Reports for North Pond Exhibit G -HEC-HMS Summary Report for South Pond Exhibit H -Outlet Control Structure design for North Pond Exhibit I -Outlet Control Structure design for South Pond COORDINATION & STORMWATER PERMITTING REFERENCE STATEMENT The total disturbed area of this project will be approximately 5 acres, so an NOI wi ll be required from TCEQ. The fo llowing items comprise this drainage report for thi s project: One 67-page drainage report dated Feb. 11 , 2008 One set or construction drawings ( 15 sheets) dnted Feb. 11 , 2008 No speciricati ons with thi s submittnl Label Pipe 1 Pipe 2 Pipe 4 Pipe 5 Pipe 6 Pipe 7 Pipe 8 Pipe 9 Pipe 10 Label US Node DS Node Grate Inlet 1 rr. Ditch Outf< S. Pond Outlet Grate Inlet 1 Inlet 1 S. Det Pond Inlet 2 Inlet 1 Hdwall A Inlet 2 Inlet 3 Hdwall A Inlet 4 Inlet 3 Inlet 5 Outfa ll Inlet 6 Inlet 5 us Node OS Node Pipe 1 Grate Inlet 1 rr. Ditch Outf< Pipe 2 S. Pond Outlet Grate Inlet 1 Pipe 4 Inlet 1 S. Det Pond Pipe 5 Inlet 2 Pipe 6 Hdwall A Pipe 7 Inlet 3 Pipe 8 Inlet 4 Pipe 9 Inlet 5 Pipe 10 Inlet 6 Inlet 1 Inlet 2 Hdwall A Inlet 3 Outfall Inlet 5 Length ft 78 83 89 299 6 81 69 47 59 Length ft 78 83 89 299 6 81 69 47 59 #of Pipes #of Pipes Dia. in 4 x 2 ft 4 x 2 ft 30 inch 24 (-25%) 24 (-25%) 18(-25%) 18 (-25%) 30 inch 30 inch Dia. in 4 x 2 ft 4 x 2 ft 30 inch 24 (-25%) 24 (-25%) 18 (-25%) 18 (-25%) 30 inch 30inch Exhibit B Arrington Road Extension PIPE ANALYSIS February 12, 2008 10-yr Analysis US Invert i El 1 ope ann1ngs n Q 1 1 Design I US Ground Capacity Elev. HGL In 'OS Ground 1 , Elev. I HGL Out Vel. Out ~-El~v. 1 OS Invert ~I M . Computed I ev. I ------ 279.5 I 281.4 282.55 I 287 289.1 290.9 291.75 295.34 295.92 ft I ft/ft cfs cfs 279.11 I 0.005 0.013 23. 76 , 49.22 279.6 0.022 0.013 I 23. 76 102.95 281.94 I 0.007 0.013 20.58 33.94 282.65 I 0.015 0.013 I 13.55 18.59 288.6 0.083 0.013 7.20 44.50 290.09 1 0.010 0.013 4.65 7.15 291 i 0.011 0.013 I 4.69 7.48 295.06 ' 0.006 0.013 15.68 31 .66 295.37 0.009 0.013 9.65 39.60 100-yr Analysis ft 282.50 286.50 286.52 291 ,95 291 .52 I 295.50 296.oo I 300.50 300.50 Elev. Elev. Slope ann1ngs n Q Design l US Ground I ft 281.11 281.99 285.96 288.1 289.57 291.66 292.5 297.56 297 .56 HGL In ! ft ft I 283.00 281.11 282.50 281.11 283.50 : 285.74 286.52 285.96 291 .95 ' 289.07 291.52 290.85 i 295.50 291 .75 I 302.00 297.56 300.50 297.56 OS Ground HGL Out Elev. US Invert I OS Invert ! M . II Computed I Capacity Elev. 1 --ft----L---ft _ _._ -ft/-ft--+----_J. __ c_f_s _-+---c-fs--'-i --ft---+j--ft ______ ft ___ _ ft 279.5 279.11 I 0.005 0.013 57.40 49.22 I 282.50 281 .64 283.00 281.4 279.6 0.022 0.013 57.40 102.95 286.50 282.48 282.50 i 282.55 281 .94 0.007 0.01 3 25.68 33.94 286.52 286.09 i 283.50 287 282.65 0.015 0.013 17.31 18.59 291 .95 289.86 286.52 , 289.1 288.6 0.083 0.013 9.71 44.50 291 .52 289.86 I 291.95 290.9 290.09 I 0.010 0.013 6.28 7.15 295.50 291 .84 291 .52 291 .75 291 0.011 0.013 6.32 7.48 296.00 292.67 295.50 295.34 295.06 0.006 0.013 18.87 31 .66 300.50 297.56 ' 302.00 295.92 295.37 I 0.009 0.013 11 .50 39.60 300.50 297.56 300.50 Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 281 .11 281 .64 285.74 286.09 289.86 291 .03 291 .92 297.56 297.56 ft/s 3.0 3.9 4.2 5.8 13.9 5.8 6.0 3.2 2.1 Vel. Out ft/s 7.2 7.2 5.2 7.4 5.3 6.1 6.3 3.8 2.5 Label Area Inlet C ·---·-------------ac Hdwall A 0.55 0.55 Inlet 1 1.65 0.9 Inlet 2 1.22 0.9 Inl et 4 0.98 0.55 Inlet 5 0.99 0.9 Inlet 6 1.96 0.9 Label Area Inlet C ac Hdwall A 0.55 0.55 Inlet 1 1.65 0.9 Inlet 2 1.22 0.9 Inlet 4 0.98 0.55 ' Inlet 5 0.99 0.9 Inlet 6 1.96 0.9 Exhibit A ARRINGTON ROAD EXTENSION REVISED INLET ANALYSIS January 1_1, 2008 10-yr Analysis I Opening ! Q Ground I I Gutter Tc Inlet Type Total Q Q into Inlet I Length i Bypassed Elev. ---------------+-i t--· HGL In HGL Out , ----l---___;----''-'---__;,_-----+------------~th - min I ft I cf s cfs cf s 10 Generic Default 100% 9 2.6 2.6 0.0 10 Curb BCS-less-10% 13.5 12.9 7.8 5.2 10 Curb BCS-less-10% 13.5 9.6 6.5 3.1 10 Curb BCS-less-10% 4.5 4.7 4.7 0.0 10 Curb BCS-less-10% 13.5 7.8 6.3 1.5 10 Curb BCS-less-10% 13.5 15.4 9.7 5.7 100-yr Analysis Tc Inlet Type min 10 ! Generic Default 100% 10 Curb BCS-less-10% 10 Curb BCS-less-10% 10 I Curb BCS-less-10% 10 i Curb BCS-less-10% 10 ! Curb BCS-less-10% ·1 Opening I ~ i Q \ L th Total Q Q into Inlet 1 8 d . i eng l 1 ypasse : I ft l-ctS--1 cfs -I cfs I I i 9 13.5 13.5 4.5 13.5 13.5 i I Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 3.6 17.4 12.9 6.3 10.5 20.7 3.6 i 0.0 9.2 8.2 7.7 5.2 6.3 0.0 7.6 2.8 11 .5 9.2 ft 291 .52 286.52 291 .95 296.00 300.50 300.50 ft 289.69 286.03 288.1 0 292.50 298.27 298.31 ft 289.69 286.03 288.10 292.50 298.27 298.31 in 0.0 4.4 3.9 4.0 4.1 5.3 Ground ! HGL In , HGL Out Gutter Elev. ; Depth ft :--ft----ft-----;n-- 291 .52 i 289.96 ' 289.96 0.0 I i 286.52 I 286.19 286.19 4.9 291 .95 289.96 ' 289.96 4.4 I 296.00 I 292.67 292.67 4.8 I I 300.50 I 298.33 298.33 4.6 300.50 298.38 298.38 5.9 i Label Pipe 4 Pipe 5 Pipe 6 Pipe 7 Pipe 8 Pipe 9 Pipe 10 Label Pipe 4 Pipe 5 Pipe 6 Pipe 7 Pipe 8 Pipe 9 Pipe 10 US Node Exhibit B ARRINGTON ROAD EXTENSION REVISED PIPE ANALYSIS January 11, 2008 10-yr Analysis v ' I I I I I OS Node ' L th # of I o· I us Invert i OS Invert . Computed I Design us Ground OS Ground v HGL Out Vel. Out eng Pipes : ia. i Elev. i Elev. Slope I Mannings n Q j Capacity I Elev. HGL In Elev. ·----·-------------·-;----+-----+! ___ +i-----t----f------+l----+-----+--------+----+------'-----;-----+---- 1 ft ! in I ft I ft tuft I cfs ! cfs ft ft ft ft tus Inlet 1 · S. Det Pond i 116 1 i 30 inch I 282.55 I 281 .94 0.0053 I 0.013 1 1 20.6 ! 29.8 286.52 H1~:~1~AA ,r\ :~:::; ~949 ~ i ;: ~~;;~:~11' ~:~~g i ~:~~~ gg;:~ I gg~; i 1,325 I ~~.~ ~~~ ;; JCL&.u / Hdwal!A \~81 1 18(-25%) 290.90 290.09 I 0.0100 I 0.013 I 4.7 7.2 295.50 lnlet4 -:1tt8ox-t"}~ 69 , 1 18(-25%)1 291.75 I 291 .00 1 0.0109 1 1 0.013 1 4.7 7.5 296.00 Inlet 5 N. Det Pond : 50 : 1 27 inch I 295.20 294.90 0.0060 0.013 15.8 24.0 300.50 Inlet 6 Inlet 5 ' 39 ' 1 ! 27 inch \ 295.20 I 294.97 0.0059 , 0.013 ! 9.7 23.7 300.50 US Node Inlet 1 Inlet 2 Hdwall A Jct Bo x 1 Inlet 4 Inlet 5 Inlet 6 i #of i OS Node , Length , p· i : 1pes , Dia. : I . -·-·-----·---· _...j.__ S . Det Pond Inlet 1 Inlet 2 Hdwall A ft 116 299 14 81 Jct Box 1 69 N. Det Pond i 50 Inlet 5 39 / in 30inch • 24 (-25%) i 24 (-25%) 1 i 18 (-25%) 1. i 18 (-25%) ; 27 inch : 27 inch 100-yr Analysis i ! I I ' . i US Invert I OS Invert 1 SI IM . Computed I ' · El ope annings n Q ~-E-l:_v_. ~--:-v_. --+I-tuft +-cfs 282.55 281 .94 I 0.0053 0.013 25.7 287.00 282.65 0.0145 0.013 17.3 289.10 288.60 0.0357 0.013 9.7 290.90 290.09 0.0100 0.013 6.3 291 .75 291 .00 0.0109 0.013 6.3 295.20 294.90 0.0060 0.013 19.0 295.20 294.97 0.0059 0.013 11 .5 Exhibit B Page 1 of 1 I I Design i US Ground ! Capacity I Elev. l cts I ft . 29.8 286.52 18.6 291 .95 29.1 291.52 7.2 295.50 7.5 296.00 24.0 300.50 23.7 300.50 286.03 288.10 289.69 291.66 -: 292.50 i i 298.27 ' 298.31 · 283.50 286.52 291 .95 285.74 286.03 289.19 i 290.85 291 .52 295.50 ! 302.00 300.50 I 291 .75 298.14 298.27 4.2 5.8 10.2 . 5.8 6.0 4.0 2.4 HGL In l OS Ground ! HGL Out ' Vel. Out Elev. ' ft 286.19 289.96 289.96 291 .84 292.67 298.33 ! 298.38 ft 283.50 286.52 291 .95 291.52 295.50 302.00 300.50 ft 285.74 286.19 289.96 291 .03 291.92 298.14 298.33 fUs 5.2 7.3 4.9 6.1 6.3 4.8 2.9 7 .--~, '--. t POST-DEVELOPMENT, DRAINAGE ARE A MAF t\l~Plf'JG I OtJ Hl)J\I ., I '<It f·J '.I.( •I; COLIL.GF_::;111..111HJ If . .; .... i ( '--. \ LEGEND 1 ·lk~~~· ~:t:-===~~~~.::~~- 1 ) " D ·.J { ' ··,, f._~/..-·-···......__l ,~ I / ~-®~·-, ... / / \ L/ l ____ \_ _____ ~---','"\_,,-~·· PRE -DF.VE LOP~ f.Jl·!l\/Nl\r ;f /\ r-·E 11 ' '' ·-l;ll\f' .. -.,.,\II r11 1r r Ill i '•f r . ~ I ; r 'r I I I ' ;, ' . \ \ ! I 't ,.. ··-··-' '· ·-· __ ,,. \ \ ' \ LEGEND -·--·--·····----~.-·· ~ NlOi I N102 SIOI Qi 95 75 75 ~ 95 0 0 Lg_g fime lmjo) 6 8 8 '· ... '·· -i '. ' ' E / ', l I . ' '.. . ../ ( ( I /' ·--.. !/ t../ r--·· POST-DEVE LOPfl.·lE~-- lllV\INl\GI' Ar~F I\ ~,1 1\P ,\1..11:11 . I•. h I·" ,,\I! I 'II f.J l lt 1·1 '!•l !i t,! ·,r \)1(1/J II•,\' \ I. LEGEND '.. ---- /.-- ( !j ---__ ~ydrolog;c Doto ------- --------- ~ ~ Ct! iLJn:ll1 Ijmc (mjo) N201 95 95 6 N202 77 0 8 N203 95 95 6 N204 77 0 6 5201 77 0 8 5202 95 95 6 5203 77 0 6 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Reports for North Pond Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run : North Arrington Ex 2 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 2-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 18:01: 17 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume -Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N101 0.0008 1.61 01Jun2004, 12:05 4.47 N102 0.0130 14.49 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.05 Total Runoff 0.0138 16.06 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.18 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: North Arrington Ex 10 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 10-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 18:01 :09 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration I Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume I Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N101 0.0008 2.66 01 Jun2004, 12:05 7.37 N102 0.0130 32.08 01Jun2004, 12:10 4.50 Total Runoff 0.0138 34.66 01Jun2004, 12:10 4.65 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run : North Arrington Ex 25 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 25-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 18:01 : 12 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration I Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) ' (IN) N101 0.0008 3.01 01Jun2004, 12:05 8.37 N102 0.0130 38 .37 01Jun2004, 12:10 5.40 Total Runoff 0.0138 41 .30 01Jun2004, 12:10 5.56 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: North Arrington Ex 50 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00 :05 Meteorologic Model : 50-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 18:01 :20 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) , (CFS) (IN) N101 0.0008 3.73 01 Jun2004, 12:05 10.36 N102 0.0130 50.98 01Jun2004, 12:10 7.23 Total Runoff 0.0138 54.60 01Jun2004, 12:10 7.40 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: North Arrington Ex 100 yr Start of Run: 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 100-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 17:59:11 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration I Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (M12) (CFS) (IN) N101 0.0008 3.95 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.97 N102 0.0130 54.85 01Jun2004 , 12:10 7.80 Total Runoff 0.0138 58 .69 01Jun2004, 12:10 7.98 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: North Arrington Post 2 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 2-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:54 :58 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N201 0.0010 2.19 01Jun2004, 12:05 4.47 N202 0.0088 12.31 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.70 N203 0.0021 4.50 01Jun2004, 12:05 4.47 N204 0.0019 2.75 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.70 North Det Pon m.0128 9.67 01 Jun2004, 12:25 2.98 Total Runoff 0.0138 10.86 01Jun2004, 12:15 3.09 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: North Arrington Post 10 yr Start of Run : 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 10-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:54 :50 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N201 0.0010 3.61 01 Jun2004, 12:05 7.37 N202 0.0088 24.02 01Jun2004, 12:10 5.27 N203 0.0021 7.41 01 Jun2004, 12:05 7.37 N204 0.0019 5.36 01 Jun2004, 12:05 5.27 North Det Pon ~0.0128 13.35 01Jun2004, 12:30 5.60 Total Runoff 0.0138 14.99 01Jun2004, 12:15 5.73 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: North Arrington Post 25 yr ·Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 25-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:54:53 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N201 0.0010 ' 4.10 01 Jun2004, 12:05 8.37 N202 0.0088 28.18 01Jun2004, 12:10 6.19 N203 0.0021 8.42 01 Jun2004, 12:05 8.37 N204 0.0019 6.30 01 Jun2004, 12:05 6.19 North Det Pon i0.0128 17.87 01 Jun2004, 12:30 6.53 Total Runoff 0.0138 19.24 01 Jun2004, 12:30 6.67 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run : North Arrington Post 50 yr Start of Run : 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 50-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:55:01 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N201 0.0010 5.07 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.36 N202 0.0088 36.54 01Jun2004, 12:10 8.06 N203 0.0021 10.41 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.36 N204 0.0019 8.18 01Jun2004, 12:05 8.06 North Det Pon m.0128 33.62 01 Jun2004, 12:20 8.42 Total Runoff 0.0138 36.50 01 Jun2004, 12:20 8.56 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: North Arrington Post 100 yr Start of Run: 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 100-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:54:45 Control Specifications: 24:...hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N201 0.0010 5.37 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.97 N202 0.0088 39.10 01Jun2004, 12:10 8.64 N203 0.0021 11 .02 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.97 N204 0.0019 8.76 01Jun2004, 12:05 8.64 North Det Pon j0.0128 37 .28 01Jun2004, 12:20 9.00 Total Runoff 0.0138 40 .32 01 Jun2004, 12:20 9.15 Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project : Arrington Rd Nortn Pond Simulation Run : North Arrington Post 10 yr Reservoir: North Del Pond Start of Run : 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model : Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 10-yr Storm Compute Time : 09Jan2008 , 13:54:50 Control Specifications : 24-hr Duration Volume Units : IN · Computed Results ·· Peak Inflow : 36.55 (CFS) Peak Outflow : 13.35 (CFS) Total Inflow : 5.61 (IN) Total Outflow : 5.60 (IN) DatefTime of Peak Inflow : 01Jun2004, 12:1.0 DatefTime of Peak Outflow : 01Jun2004, 12:30 Peak Storage : 0.96 (AC-FT) Peak Elevation : 298.14 (FT) Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project : Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run : North Arrington Post 100 yr Reservoir: North Det Pond Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model : Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 100-yr Storm Compute Time : 09Jan2008, 13:54 :45 Control Specifications : 24-hr Duration Volume Units : IN Computed Results ·· ·------···---··· ················· I Peak Inflow : 58.46 (CFS) I Dateffime of Peak Inflow : I Peak Outflow : 37.28 (CFS) I Total Inflow : 9.02 (IN) I ~~ta~ ~~~~~~---~~~-~-~~~~ Dateffime of Peak Outflow : Peak Storage : Peak Elevation : ' 01Jun2004, 12:10 01Jun2004, 12:20 1.38 (AC-FT) i 299.07 (FT) Exhibit F HEC-HMS Summary Report -North Pond Project: Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run: 100 yr Emergency Spillway Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Cond w Emi End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 100-yr Storm Compute Time: 10Jan2008, 14:23:42 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) N201 0.0010 5.37 01 Jun2004, 12:05 10.97 N202 0.0088 39.10 01Jun2004, 12:10 8.64 N203 0.0021 11 .02 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.97 N204 0.0019 8.76 01Jun2004, 12:05 8.64 North Det Pon ~0.0128 56 .64 01Jun2004, 12:10 9.02 Total Runoff 0.0138 61 .85 01Jun2004, 12:10 9.16 Exhibit F HEC-H MS Summary Report -North Pond Project : Arrington Rd North Pond Simulation Run : 100 yr Emergency Spillway Reservoir: North Det Pond Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model : Developed Cond w Emerg Spillwy End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 100-yr Storm Compute Time : 10Jan2008, 14:23:42 Control Specifications : 24-hr Duration Volume Units : IN ·Computed Results ·- Peak Inflow : 58.46 (CFS) Dateffime of Peak Inflow : 01Jun2004, 12:10 I Peak Outflow : 56.64 (CFS) Dateffime of Peak Outflow : 01Jun2004 , 12:10 Total Inflow : 9.02 (IN) Peak Storage : 1.1. 3 (AC-FT) I I Total Outflow : 9.02 (IN) Peak Elevation : 300.07 (FT) Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Reports for South Pond Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run : South Arrington Ex 2 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 2-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 17:06:31 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units : IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S101 0.0173 19.33 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.05 Total Runoff 0.0173 19.33 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.05 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run: South Arrington Ex 10 yr Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00 :00 Basin Model : Pre Developed Conditic End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 10-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 17:06:23 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S101 0.0173 42.80 01Jun2004, 12:10 4.50 Total Runoff 0.0173 42.80 01Jun2004, 12:10 4.50 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run: South Arrington Ex 25 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00 :00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 2.5-yr Storm Compute Time : 08Jan2008, 17 :06:28 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S101 0.0173 51 .18 01Jun2004 , 12:10 5.40 Total Runoff 0.0173 51 .18 01Jun2004, 12:10 5.40 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run : South Arrington Ex 50 yr Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 50-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 17:06:35 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (M12) (CFS) (IN) S101 0.0173 68.00 01Jun2004, 12:10 7.23 Total Runoff 0.0173 68.00 01Jun2004, 12:10 7.23 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run: South Arrington Ex 100 yr Start of Run : 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Pre Developed Conditic End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 100-yr Storm Compute Time: 08Jan2008, 17:03:46 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S101 0.0173 73.17 01Jun2004, 12:10 7.80 Total Runoff 0.0173 73.17 01Jun2004, 12:10 7.80 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run : South Arrington Post 2 yr Start of Run: 01Jun2004, 00 :00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00 :05 Meteorologic Model: 2-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:47:40 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S201 0.0168 23.48 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.70 S202 0.0050 10.71 01Jun2004, 12:05 4.47 S203 0.0014 1.81 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.21 South Det Pon f:D.0232 16.56 01 Jun2004, 12:30 3.04 Total Runoff 0.0232 16.56 01 Jun2004, 12:30 3.04 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run: South Arrington Post 10 yr Start of Run : 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run: 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 10-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:4 7:32 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S201 0.0168 45 .84 01 Jun2004, 12: 10 5.27 S202 0.0050 17.63 01 Jun2004, 12:05 7.37 S203 0.0014 3.83 01Jun2004, 12:10 4.72 South Det Pon to.0232 23.76 01Jun2004, 12:35 5.56 Total Runoff 0.0232 23.76 01Jun2004, 12:35 5.56 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run : South Arrington Post 25 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 25-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:47:36 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S201 0.0168 53.79 01Jun2004, 12:10 6.19 S202 0.0050 20.02 01 Jun2004, 12:05 8.37 S203 0.0014 4.54 01Jun2004, 12:10 5.64 South Det Por ~.0232 25.73 01Jun2004, 12:35 6.44 Total Runoff 0.0232 25.73 01Jun2004, 12:35 6.44 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run: South Arrington Post 50 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00 :00 Basin Model: Developed Cond ions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00 :05 Meteorologic Model: 50-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:4 7:44 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S201 0.0168 69.74 01Jun2004, 12:10 8.06 S202 0.0050 24.77 01 Jun2004, 12:05 10.36 S203 0.0014 5.99 01 Jun2004, 12:05 7.50 South Det Pon ~.0232 49.30 01Jun2004, 12:25 8.23 Total Runoff 0.0232 49.30 01Jun2004, 12:25 8.23 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run: South Arrington Post 100 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 100-yr Storm Compute Time: 09Jan2008, 13:44:23 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S201 0.0168 74.64 01Jun2004, 12:10 8.64 S202 0.0050 26.22 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.97 S203 0.0014 6.44 01Jun2004, 12:05 8.08 South Det Pon cD.0232 57.40 01Jun2004, 12:25 8.79 Total Runoff 0.0232 57.40 01Jun2004, 12:25 8.79 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project : Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run : South Arrington Post 1 O yr Reservoir: South Det Pond Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model : Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 10-yr Storm Compute Time : 09Jan2008, 13:47:32 Control Specifications : 24-hr Duration Volume Units : IN Computed Results ----· ··· ---· ··· Peak Inflow : Peak Outflow : Total Inflow : Total Outflow : 66.79 (CFS) 23.76 (CFS) 5.68 (IN) 5.56 (IN) ... ·----· .. · 1 Date/Time of Peak Inflow: 01Jun2004, 1 :10 Date/Time of Peak Outflow : 01Jun2004, 1 :35 Peak Storage : 2.22 (AC-FT) Peak Elevation : 285.74 (FT) Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project : Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run : South Arrington Post 100 yr Reservoir: South Det Pond Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model : Developed Condions End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 100-yr Storm Compute Time : 09Jan2008, 13:44:23 Control Specifications : 24-hr Duration Volume Units : IN Computed Results --------------------·-···-·--·-· Peak Inflow : 106.48 (CFS) Dateffime of Peak Inflow : 01Jun2004, 12:10 Peak Outflow : 57.40 (CFS} Dateffime of Peak Outflow : 01Jun2004, 12:25 Total Inflow : 9.10(1N) Peak Storage : 3.26 (AC-FT) i Total Outflow : 8.79 (IN) Peak Elevation : 286.93 (FT) Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project: Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run: Emerg Spillway 100 yr Start of Run: 01 Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model: Emerg Spillway End of Run : 02Jun2004, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 100-yr Storm Compute Time: 10Jan2008, 15:01 : 13 Control Specifications: 24-hr Duration Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) S201 0.0168 74.64 01Jun2004, 12:10 8.64 S202 0.0050 26.22 01Jun2004, 12:05 10.97 S203 0.0014 6.25 01Jun2004, 12:05 7.81 South Det Pon cD.0232 104.14 01 Jun2004, 12: 10 9.07 Total Runoff . 0.0232 104.14 01 Jun2004, 12: 10 9.07 Exhibit G HEC-HMS Summary Report -South Pond Project : Arrington Road South Pond Simulation Run : Emerg Spillway 100 yr Reservoir: South Det Pond Start of Run : 01Jun2004, 00:00 Basin Model : Emerg Spillway End of Run : 02Jun2004 , 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 100-yr Storm Compute Time : 10Jan2008, 15:01: 13 Control Specifications : 24-hr Duration Computed Results · Peak Inflow : Peak Outflow : Total Inflow : Total Outflow : Volume Units : IN 106.32 (CFS) 104.14 (CFS) 9.09 (IN) 9.07 (IN) DatefTime of Peak Inflow : DatefTime of Peak Outflow : Peak Storage : Peak Elevation : 01Jun2004, 12:10 i 01Jun2004, 12:10 2.16 (AC-FT) ! 287.49 (FT) Water Surface Elevation 294.5 295.0 295.5 296.0 296.5 297.0 297.5 298.0 298.5 299.0 299.51 300.0 j 300.5 11 301 .0 301.5 Exhibit H Outlet Control Structure Design -North Pond Concrete Box with Circular Orifices and Open Top Flowline Elevation = 294.5 J Flowrate from Individual Orifices or Weirs Total Outflow 1 I 0.001 0.001 3.78 4.63. 9.13 10.61 11 .89 13.05 14.11 35.54 1 44_93! 52.30 58 .61 64.23 69.35 orifi~e 1 · r .. o~ifi~~-2 · r orifi~~ 3 . i (in.) I (in.) ! (in.) ·12··. !· 12 1 Orifice 4 . I orific~S (in.) I (in.) ··;-+- i 0.00 1· 3.78 , 0.00 4.63 1 l 5.351 3.78 1 5.98 4.63 1 6.5511 5.35 1 7.07 5.98 1 I I 7.56 1 6.55 1 8.02 1 7.07 1 8.45 1 7.56 1 8.87 ! 8.02 : 9.26 1 8.45 i 9.64 . 8.87 ! 10.oo l 9.26 ! 0.00 20.45 28.92 35.42 40.90 45.73 50.09 Exhibit I Outlet Control Structure Design -South Pond Concrete Box with Circular Orifices and Open Top Flowline Elevation = 281.5 Flowrate from Individual Orifices or Weirs Water -----· -··-··-------~~r----i---------i--------··J ---·-------. Total Orifice 1 Orifi ce 2 Orifice 3 Orifice 4 Orifice 5 Top of Box Surface Outflow ____ Ji_nJ -(in.) (in.) t (in.) I (in.) (inside dim.) Elevation .. ···-----··-····-·, ·------·-··· ··+--------· -·-1-···-····---·-----··· ....... 8 12 i 18 / I I 5'x 2· 281 .5 0.00 0.000 I I 282.0 1.19 1.189 I 282.5 1.68 1.682 I 283.0 2.06 2.060 0.000 0.000 283.5 2.38 2.378 284.0 14.94 2.6591 3.780 8.505 284.5 17.96 2.9131 4.630 10.417 285.0 20.52 3.146 , 5.346 12.028 285.5 22.79 3.363 5.978 13.448 286.0 24.85 3.567 6.547 14.732 286.5 26.74 3.760 7.072 15.912 0.00 287.0 62.60 3.944 7.560 17.011 34.08 287.5 78.38 4.119 8.019 18.043 48.20 288.0 90.79 4.287 8.452 19.018 59.03 288.5 101.43 4.4491 8.865 19.948 68.17 289.0 110.91 1 4.606 9.259 20.834/ 76.21 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction C,., I !Jevef~m>,,f LiA City: __Q_ Bryan Po. Box I J 'i CJ 0 College Station Date of Submittal: Co/ft>~ t> SJa/,/J11 /;. 778l/2 Lead E'lhgineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: fen-f La 24 /f::, '-/-77'-/3 Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Phone and e-mail : Developer I A~li~a/J;Name and Address: "/€ 'f.05 H" el , a;.~j.-,,.1 • Y-LfJ 76 l/-lfJ&l 'Sq!/,,,,., T :P"Yl&o<fl I //0 /JPrsh/.,,,,, f'S 77gl.{f} Property Owner(s} if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Project Identification Development Name:/Jrn~·f,,,,, ~rJoJ f-'v/.,.,n s;-,',,..,_ !Grre,1-r Ir-a,/.,~ c.;, J,., Is subject property a site prnject, a single-phase subdivision, or),art of a multi-phase subdivision? ""' 1 J.I, · .Aha .1" P If multi-phase, subject property is phaJ.lte4--3 of f Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II, Paragraph B-3a) If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all earlier phases. For mos~ recent earlier phase Include submitt4d review dates. /: fh J. wa ~ f /4ffed ul'ul l'ev1 #"°-cl or J <S<f. /l)c;J. 911 .. / 8-11 '. (JD mf know re. vt~..v .../,.fc s·) General Location of Project Area, or subject property (phase): Green.> 11-C{t 'r I ·~ ~oucl In City Limits? Bryan: acres. College Station: s-acres. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 o-f /Uev /),r,;'j /PI/ ./r7.ooc/ Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan: College Station Acreage Outside ET J: Page 3 of 26 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 prope~ . . Greens rC(i.-1 e l<oad developments: O/J /)rri ·l/j f 0,1 ;f i!/eid Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): flJ uJ/Yl Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat Fi le# Final Plat File #: Date: Name: G~re .. ,,.,5 ;1..q , ',-, e Ce,,.-ft>r Statu s and Vol/Pg: If two plats, second name: File#: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code: Case Date Status: Zoning Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code: Case Date Status: Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Partic ipants Preliminary Report Required? Submittal Date Review Date Review Comments Addressed? Yes --No --In Writing? 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 EHecti ve February 2007 Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ---- SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.3) Coordinati on 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 Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? V Yes __ No __ Coordination with S~mmarize nr.d(s) & action_s taken (include contactst dates): I ' Brazos County L oordtYJ«-'""' . rez.v1 _,,,cf 1cj qn-/,,,,S h e C.Jnne.:-ro,. Needed? bac/c {.. 0 /J /(Jro-,,,r,/o,, tf00J_ jJ/qn<; wdl b<' ge., f Yes V No --J:., f ho·-revt'l't.U Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No v ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): T AMUS Needed? Yes No v ---- 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 Permitted or Approved ? US Army Crops of Engineers No~ Yes_ US Environmental Protection Agency No ....k:::: Yes_ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality No v Yes ---- Brazos River Authority No v Yes --- STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Status of Actions (include dates) Page 5 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ___ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert~ Characteristics I Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for Jve,ment cy/intly ~d, including extent of impervious cover? Der>5e/lf '<./ot!J P . 5, 't -·~ e s;cr;.;/ so,/> Site __ Redevelopment of one platted lot, or two or more adjoining platted lots. Development __ Building on a single platted lot of undeveloped land. Project __ Building on two or more platted adjoining lots of undeveloped land. (select all __ Building on a single lot, or adjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form applicable) a new street (but may include ROW dedication to existing streets). __ Other (explain): Subdivision __ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. Development __ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more proposed lots on Project lands represented by pending plats. 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 easemen~ or ROW.fl. J.l /.Pn J / 5t/ ../.J. w i"dn Size of Sf.reef ()n f -r;;roy. /§So -I Pro~osed Bo · Row Project Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: or on land for which platting is not pending? ___..::::._ No --Yes FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I No V Yes (Section 11, Paragraph B 1) or a tributary thereof? -- Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No~ Yes Rate Map area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? -- Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): __ Building site(s) __ Road crossing(s) into Floodplain areas planned? __ Utility crossing(s) __ Other (explain): No v -- Yes -- 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. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 6 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -ProQerty 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 CJ No D If not, explain how it differs. Ny If subject property is not part of multi-phase project, describe stormwater management plan for the property in Part 4. If property~ 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 t/j..ewith. h e S acJJ.~a."-f /o/('r /f dPvP ~~5 1 J-wtlf rer t.,l/rP ~ f.r> ;r :?v1c/.e tJn -S1 f ,, cAe fe,,f10,-,. w~er• ne:. .Pd . . Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? 02r No L_J Yes Describe them (include approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). Any known drainage or floodin{, problft; .in ~reas near subjec.t ,~pert;/,,; [ =-~ No _qz:L Yes, Identify. Erazo$ Gu,,, r . ~ I Cu:,,/~ ho~e tvl (<'IA""" f. ~.f-fa~,-/,/,(': dou.h1s·lr ~ ...... ne.,r Svuth Oa k~ /()1,v.:.. Clre $ vn r/,..,,. .. ~ I J/1-',.,/ul-. cf,,,~, ·/I t\ /" Nj e r&,,:..., [ /; e v < .... ./-~. Based or< location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed? (see Table 8-1 in Appendix 8) __ Detention is required. I i Need must be evaluated. c:J Detention not required . ~hat~cis~on has !ten reach~? sz~om;, I . 1e ·.-c,st1P1' f'NVt ., e -,-,,.. 10~ '<./4! ,,,...c,,,f~ lo rn, ·.II ''J ,j<:_ If the need for /;. ~ l /,,,.,,..., .. ,f,· c/,._,, __ f,-.--.,L I/it" ,., l"•J .I .:rfre.c., Type 1 Detention How was detc+mination made? must be evaluated: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~erty Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? I I No .JJZ(Yes If yes, describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desiqn concept for han dlinq this. Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acrea ge _<)/)ri 'n r. CrPP k 2 ().' J ff.JYYi Crp,..,.k 3 Above-Project Areas(Section II, Paragraph 83-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? D2f No .DYes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated , recognizable concentrated section(s), 7'/11 creek_ (non-Agulator.y)' regulatory Watercourse or tribut~r~; Conce11 frc,J~.J J()w ; tr. f e S reef Jvflt"r-S . Ve;/ h I/. e II/no/'/ Co ty) Q~·., a,,f-;;rr p,-!'l Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumption s: ~rm runoff dra in from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? __ No c:::J Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: Are chanqes in runoff characteristics su bject to chanqe in future ? Explain ~es. f?v,,l)f~ {r.:JM Cv rre11 f /'1 vhJev('/'f'p./ prc;~r-1-y ,,._,,JI he di"vi:-rft>d f& ~/1--s)e cl@/.r-h/,~,, p on dJ Or.> f'dr c e/5 6-e51 '.. -/_. d.ev.-la,, Conveyance Pathways (Section 11 , Paragraph C2) r Must runoff from study propertr dB/iacross lo,er r operties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? No Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies). STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ___ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert~ Characteristics l Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) 11114 Do drainage If yes, for what part of length? % Created by? D plat, or easements D instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions. exist for any part of pathway(s)? C_J No r::::J Yes Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway Areas Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts, bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). Nearby Drainage Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design?· C=:J No c:::J Yes If yes, explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ___ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) From Upland Are a(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. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section 11, Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? __ No -UYes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring --__ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies)? 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. If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used, has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? documentation. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 No Page 10 of 26 --Yes Explain and provide 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 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: Will project result in shifting runoff between Basins or between What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased ru noff Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? ~o LJ Yes How will runoff from Project 1. D With facility(ies) involving other development projects. Area be mitigated to pre-2. D Establishing features to serve overall Project Area. development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, 3. c::J 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# ) 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Are aquatic echosystems proposed? CJ No CJ Yes In which phase(s) or project(s)? C'· -0 Q) IJ) c Q) c >-Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? ~D D No CJ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: c .Q'l IJ) Q) 0 0 z l ~ If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. CJ Detention elements CJ Conduit elements CJ Channel features Q) 4: LJ Swales CJ Ditches L~ Inlets --Valley gutters r Outfalls r Culvert features _I ___ Bridges Other -- STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11 of 26 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 4.3) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued) ~ Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? V No __ Yes Identify type and general size and In which phase(s). If detention/retention serves (will servej overall Project Area, describe how it relates to su bject phase or site project (physical location, conveyance pathway(s), construction sequence): Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area , is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? __ Yes No, then summarize the difference(s): Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included, extent of use, and general characteristics. Typical shape? I Surfaces? C'· "O Q) <J) Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: <J) :::J Q) <J) >- Q) I ..r::: Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway: . .g "O (Attached Exhibit # ) Q) typical greatest "O 0 ·u; z 11 Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? Yes No , then explain: <( <J) At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? -e Q) V No __ Yes If yes explain: :::J C'· >- U"O f ..r::: Q) -<J) ·3 : Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? <J) Q) -~ V' No __ Yes Explain: (number of locations?) Q) :::J 0 ~ rnz u; "O I ~ c (1J <( STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 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 O*Bo "lo Usual Greatest 2, t0 3 Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? r:tZf'" Yes D No If "no", identify where and why. bvmbv Will inlets capture 10-year d~stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? __ Yes I . I No If no, explain where and why not. C'-· -0 Q) (/) Will inlet size and placement prevent excee~allowable water spread for 10-year :::::i 2 design storm throughout site (or phase)? __ Yes D No If no, explain. ::; Ol -o ~ c -0 oz'( No ro a> Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? D Yes Are inlets and ..0 ~ '-·-conduit sized ~event 1 OD-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? :::::i -u c D Yes __ No Explain "no" answers. 0 .r. u ~-~ (/) Q) ~ u; Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be contained ·n combination of ROW and buried conduit on ~ whole length of all streets? _ Yes r:=1 No If no, describe where and why. Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? DZr" Yes D No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. Are any 12-inch laterals used? []2f No D Yes Identify length(s) and where used. ('-· -0 Pipe runs between system 2-'l'i Q) I Typical Longest (/) (/) :::::i Q) access points (feet): E >-~8' ,.....Are junction boxes used at each bend? rtZf" Yes Cl No If not, explain where and why. (1n let 5 I n of J vM f,·0,1 L =>f'."') (/) c ·-0 ~z iol Are do~am soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic (/) (/) Yes r:r::2 No Cl If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line -(system-wide) b" STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 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) (j) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below Q) (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). u c 1) Water;;our~e 1,r sy~mJ ve;J.Gj.Y h ant angle? cf f" ~ · +) ro v; Old. rnr o..-. OU I c SouJJ1 f?rt . "' !'' j .-c. c {)uf-(.:/1 e> 5ouf~ I).). ~no/ {5-e .. f~.t Lr ) ~ ~o -g E 2) "".~tercourse (or system)' velGty, and angle? . . lhortJ. enc/,,( ::i L.. :S'../.t>rn> /JrC<.'... U n er ree ,1 s f'rC11r 1e c 0 ·--c . proJ·e d ) 4) 0 .2 (4 ,,1 ~-~ Ov~f..// Pl !V4r1h /Je/ ~Jt) S'p (' E «> .!!!,.. «> E 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, an d angle? -ro <ii ~If) -If) <lJ ::; c ~ 0 ·-> ro o -0 a_ E-For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of L.. Q) 0 Q) receiving and all facilities at juncture? -..c Cf) If) Q) 1) ~ ro D.. 2) Q) If) 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'· If) Q) ~If) -<lJ Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): If) >- !01 -g 0 rn z Outfall characteristics for each (ve locity, convergent angle, & end treatment). ::i j ~ If) ~ <( Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage ROW in all instances? r Yes D No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of 26 APPE NDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) IJn/{,f +<D re,,. ... ,,.,,,ecf ). Are roadside ditches used? No __ Yes If so, provide the following: '!i fJ) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No Q) ..c --_.g Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes --No 0 Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No Q) ----:2 For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: fJ) "O Cll 0 a::: If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length: fJ) Q) >- 1~ Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? --Yes --No If "no" explain: c 0 Cll :r~ Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum .Q and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: -C'-· "O fJ) "O Q) Cll c >-Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): c Cll c ..c Cll (.) ..__ c .E Q) c a. 0 0 :;::::; Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): -Cll 0 § :::J -~ .E -c c ·- Q) "O E Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length: Q) fJ) Cll :::J fJ) fJ) Q) c "O 0 "> Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No ~ e ---- c a. If "no" explain: :.0 Q) E Q) 0 ..c Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width (.) fJ) ·-B Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum :::J ~ "O and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: c Cll 0 a. (.) Q) }! fJ) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): Cll c ~ ~ fJ) Q) 4: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 15 of 26 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 ~ E ~ 0 w ~ If "yes" provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: :g cn Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly c ~ within drainage ROW? ·Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: .; I t------------------------------------1 ~ Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: ,__ 0 ;z 1\ .}1------------------------------------l ~ v I Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing: Q) .L: C'-· :::J U) ..0 c :5 Q) o E £ ~ .3: ro Q) U) ,__ ~ 0 ~ s U) 0 ~~ C'-· ..0 :::J a. "fil c cn ro 0 a. a. x e w a. ~ ~ ~ >- I I a. E ~ 11 0 Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: Instance 3, 4, etc. If swales are used in more than two instances, attach sheet providing all above information for each instance. "New" channels: Will any area(s) of concentrated flow be channelized (deepened, widened, or straightened) or otherwise altered? __ No __ Yes If only slightly shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks, provide information below. Will design repl icate natural channel? __ Yes __ 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 of 26 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 4.8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels {small creeks): Are these used? --No --Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes 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, descri be section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. 'O QJ ::I c c Watercourses {and tributaries): Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Explain below. ~ --en c Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address QJ existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E QJ length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > e and data. Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain: c.. -- E - Q3 c c ro A ll Proposed Channel Work : For all proposed channel work, provide information £ u 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 free board? --Yes --No If not, identify location and explain: Are ROW I easements sized to contain channel and required maintenance space? --Yes --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 ConceQt and Design Parameters I 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 /!)ortJ.. Facility 2 Soul-) Acres served & design volume + 10% 8. Bt. 0.60 i4. Cf 7 I. 0 I 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged /, 3 B /. 90 3.2 b 3.7& Design discharge ( 10 yr & 25 yr)'";,,'!, / 3 l/. b t, 41.30 '-12. go 5 /. IB Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? · '~ I Vt yes O no Lid-yes O no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? Lkryes O no 02 yes O no Explain any "no" answers: (/) <ll >- DI For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? 0 Facility1: 4f .3D p re. 11.1.4 f'osf z DI Facility 2: S-/. I 8 r'r e 2 5'. 7 3 po sf Do outlets and spillways di scharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? C'· Facility 1: M Yes No Facility 2: D2[Yes 0 No 'O <ll If "no" explain: (/) 0 c. e 0.. (/) For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? /l)etl-J1er <ll ·0 Facility1 : SCf2.. & () Facility2: 0.'J,'f & Q t'hru sf' ro Are energy dissipation measures used? .r::1 No Ci:2J Yes Describe type and 2 LL c location: -fo, A/ld. .Q !Uone !Vorfh c <ll /.?oc K o-! Souf/, /Jond uul -t/I a; r1f' -rc-f 0 <ll .;x: For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe: Facility 1: J Sbor-f :;015<; .ori . j "°j' w,:.th r llCfa ''/ --rcri Facility 2: Of/ f },e h a c /c 5 /°;CJ e For each, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: J /{o ck Facility 2: r·r raf If berms are used give heights, slopes and surface treatments of sides/a Facility1 : 30/.oo w! l{:/ 5J~;e->1 31055 Sur oce Facility2: 2..88 . 00 4) I 4 :/ s lc;.o("/5, ~ r as> 511/ .. .;;ce STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ---- p on J J_1sch"'¥rj'°<. II S' Wo1 tri 'tr eve,.,f SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt 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 8-CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": Facility 1; '-( e $ IJ) (!) +J ~'O ro <lJ LL :J c Facility 2: Yes c +; 0 c ~ 0 c (.) (!)~ Q) For additional facilities provide all same information g.n a separate sheet. 0 Are parking areas to be used for detention? L'J2[ No D Yes What is maximum depth due to required design storm? Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches? 0 No 0 Yes If "yes", provide information in next two boxes. Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? _L.J_ Yes ..b=1_ No Without causing flowing or standing water on public roadway? _D_ Yes 0 No Designs & materials comply with 8-CS Technical Specifications? _D_ Yes Q No Explain any "no" answers: C'-· IJ) Ol c ·-IJ) Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? L::::J Yes .r:::J... No Explain: IJ) 0 u IJ) (!) 2 >- !DI Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage ro wj ys Tat serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? " 0 ' No CJ Yes If "yes" provide information below. (!) z ~El How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. (!) Location 1: .2: :J (.) (!) Location 2: ~ 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 shee t. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 19 of 26 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 Pro perty (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulatort Watercourses {&Tri butaries}: Are culverts proposed on these facilities? No __ Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria, analysis, com puter programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", explain: ~ Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways? w Ql No Yes How many instances? For each identify the .!: in ---- 2 location and provide the information below. in ro Instance 1: Ql ~ >-~ I~ Instance 2: Instance 3: c .Q a rn Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 ' 3 0! Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Spread of headwater with in ROW or easement? E C'· ro Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? in in g1-o Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c ~ ro 0 c ~ 0 u '..;3 >-ro ro u ~ _Q -0 Ql ro .o Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? 0 ·-~ ~ u u No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-in -Ql -----g -0 location and provide the information below: D.. Ql -D.. Instance 1: ro c -0 >-Instance 2: Ql c ~ ro -Instance 3: in 0 tin Ql Ql ..2'. u For each instance enter value, or "yes " I "no" for: 1 2 3 ::i c u ro Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Ql u; ~ c <{ ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? ~ 0 Product of velocity {fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E ~ g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? Explain any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of 26 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 4.12) 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? --Yes --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? __ No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s}, describe change(s), and justification: Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification: 'O Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? Q) ::l No Yes If "yes" identify location(s}, describe outfall design treatment(s): c ----~ 0 ~ rn t Q) .2'. ::l Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural 0 components, and surfacing at culvert ends? __ Yes __ No If "no" Identify locations and provide justification(s): Will 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW, and/or drainage easements/ ROW? __ Yes --No if not, why not? Do appreciable hydraulic effects of any culvert extend downstream or upstream to neighboring land(s) not encompassed in subject property? --No --Yes If "yes" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech. Specifications? --Yes --No If not, explain in Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Pa rt 4 -Drainage Conce~t 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? V No --Yes If "yes" provide the following information. Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? ::0: Q) OJ "O ·;:: 11) 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 Yes No provided? ----If "no" explain: Is a Stormwater Provide a g en~ral descrizyion of.planned techn iqu~s: . £ Pollution Prevention Ccn.sfr•xf1s),1 e Xt 5, /+ -Fe,.,,ce1 I /I fr:f--Plan (SW3P) I Cl] pro-f~ c./-t't111 . ::i a established for ..... project construction? Q) ro VYes s No -- Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland-type detention, natural stream re~n, 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 of 26 No If "no" explain: APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ____ _ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Contin.ued (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. [_] Detention elements _D_ Drain system elements r::J.. Channel features r:J Culvert features _ Swales .D_ Ditches Inlets Outfalls _D_ Valley gutters ..CJ. Bridges (explain in bridge report) In table below briefly identify specific efement, 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? [j:2[ Yes _LJ_ No What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? /. Cf(:, acres Location (or identifier): STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ---- SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce(2t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? CJ No .D_ Yes In ap proximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? % As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows, were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? r! 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 Storm drain system for local streets Open channels Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel Swales Roadside ditches and culverts serving them Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) Detention facilities : volume when outlet plugged Culverts serving private drives or streets Culverts serving public roadways Bridges: provide in bridge report. Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) ID.2 Lowest (feet per second) 2. '-/ Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For conduit type(s) Cot'}C ,-('I e STORMWATER DE SIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 For street gutters: If{)!'~ Page 24 of 26 .OL3 Coefficients: D/3 .!J/J 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 4.16) Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following, are ~mptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? £:\2'.'. No L J Yes Head and friction losses I 'k'rNo [ J Yes Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? L J Yes 0 No Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junctibn boxes? M Yes 0 No Explain any "no" answers: / Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? .IE::J. Yes Q No For 100-year flow conditions? I vr Yes L _J No Explain any "no" answers: What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain: -Ir> he c::-r .... , I -f,, -1J ~ 10-1r ws£L /4,ftva-1-~r W a 5 q5~t.ll"Jed I A eCJ ck dt/fe~,'p~ fond. Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5.a? D. Yes LJ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? .D Yes r:::J 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 GUIDELI NES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ___ _ 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 v. L/.I 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. "This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of College Station Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the proP,. and permits required by any and all state and federal regulatory age drainage ents have_ been issued or fall under applicable ge State of Texas PE No. 6512 5 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 (Affi Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised ___ _