Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout34 DP Discount Tire 05-60 2321 Texas Ave.CITY OF C OLLEGE STATI ON Plann ing Cr Dewlopment Services SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: HF Krenek #2 Lot4R DATE OF ISSUE: 05/09/06 OWNER: Halle-von Voigtlander 20225 N Scottsdale Road Scottsdale, AZ 85255 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO . 05-60 FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE ADDRESS: 2321 Texas Avenue South DRAINAGE BASIN: Main Bee Creek VALID FOR 9 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: Full Development Permit All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited. ****TCEQ PHASE II RULES IN EFFECT**** The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria. If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements. The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state . The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties , city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion , siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work . In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities . I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. 05-Dq -()(p Administrator/Representative Date Owner/ Agent/Contractor Date DATE, TIME FAX NO ./NAME DURATION PA GE (S) RESULT MODE TRANSMISSION VERIFICA TI ON REPOR T TIME : 04 /27 /2005 21 :03 NAME : COCS DEVELOPMENT SER FA X : 9797543495 TEL : 9797543570 SER .# : BROE2J341073 04 /27 21:02 917132120010--23590 00:00:29 02 OK STANDARD ECM . . . .· . . . :. . . • • I ' • • • ' . . : i. ~ . : ~ ::: ~··;;; .. '. ': ~·;'l::t·!·.~:: '· .. : en:,~~~,~=~~,, 1101. Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station1 Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: Ot.! -2'3-0<o #of pages including cover: ~ If you did not receive a complete fax, please call our office immediately for a new transmittal. COMPANY: °Su...v~ T ~--\--nR...(S, l{E: D~~-~+-l\r-f..., FROM: Gro \ C@w FAX: Jr3"2J'2..,·COtO COMP ANY:_~ __ _:C~i~tyLo~f~C~o~ll~e~ge:::....:· S::::..:t=-ati:::.;' O:::..:::n..::.._ _____ _ CITY OF COLLEGE STATION Planning & Devdopment Services 1101 Texas Avenue South, PO Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Phone 979.764.3570 / Fax 979.764.3496 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: OLl -26 -V<o #of pages including cover: ;)__ If you did not receive a complete fax, please call our office immediately for a new transmittal. COMPANY: 'E>u.-v~ T :Pc.ur~rs RE: D\~.\--~;.---{_; FROM: [o..,ro \ ~ COMP ANY: _____ C_ity---o_f _C_o_lle_g_e_S_t_ati_· o_n _______ _ REMARKS: 0 Urgent ¢ror your review 0 Reply ASAP 0 FYI ~ s-\cM?f Q~l~~~·-ts c~\~~3) LDh\CJo 13'tr\A-:::,~,;\_ .\:;ie_ \ec_-e,~0~ b~ fu/ ~· l . r- I I ' I t l I . I I I A 12" c-c both ways . ALL MATERIALS SHA · . J COLLEGE STATION · LL CONFORM TO 11 SPECIFICATION N~TfiNDARO SPECIFICATIONS B A • • .. I . 0 .0.+ 1' I (5 Min.) 6 .. 6" I ----·· • • • • • • 2" I • • __, • • • • SECTION A-A \ I I :II I ! I SECTION 8-8 STANDARD JUNCTION BOX .. J> Bury Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS Letter of Transmittal To: Lindsay Boyer I Planning & Development Company: City of College Station Address: 1101 Texas Avenue College Station , TX 77842 R e: Discount Tire -College Station Existing Store D Delivery D Overnight D Pick-Up Description of Item(s) 1 Set of revised Civil arxl landscape Plans 1 Response Letter 1 Drainage Calculations -Notes - Lirxlsay, Dr--C5 -(Q_O ~ l ~01 I '2-'. uv lW 05-Z.,O) Lt liolol< ti..uJ~ Project No.: 70017 -011 Date : 4/19 /06 CC: D Courier Bury+ Partners-Houston , In c. 100 1 West Loo p South , Sui te 200 Houston , Texas 77027 (713 ) 2 12-00 11 -Phone (7 13) 212-00 10 -Fax D Other Please see the attachxl docwrents for your review. Please verify that you have my correct fax number on record. It is 713.212.0010. Please call if you have any questiorn. Thanks. Prepa,red By: Kenneth Chang I p Bury+ Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS April 19, 2006 City of College Station Planning Department Plan Examining Corrections Re .: 0.277 acre Parking Lot Expansion for Discount Tire 2321 Texas Avenue College Station Texas 77840 SP-05-00500200 Engineering Response: Engineering Comments: Project 70017-011 1. There is an existing sanitary sewer line that extends from Texas A venue to a manhole located on the southwest corner of the proposed parking lot. This line and manhole needs to be shown on the site plan and conflicts with the proposed storm sewer addressed. -Existing sanitary sewer manhole has been added to sheet C2 at southwest corner of proposed parking lot. Manhole is not in conflict with proposed development. 2. Discharge from the detention pond is limited to pre-development discharge rates up to the 10-year storm event. You need to design the detention pond large enough that it will hold necessary volume required to restrict flow to the 10-year event for all design storms including the 25-year. Emergency overflow allowed for the 50- and 100-year storms, but need to show where this flows and how it ends up in storm system-The pond has been designed to meet the criteria above. Please see the attached Drainage Report prepared by Dodson and Associates, report no. 1621. The pond has been designed to restrict a 10-year predevelopment flow up to a 25-year event. Extreme event drainage arrows have been added to illustrate the emergency overflow path to the existing storm sewer inlet within the 60-foot easement. 3. Provide detention pond routing to show that discharge is limited to 2-, 5-, and 10- year storm events-Please see the attached Drainage Report by Dodson and Associates, report no. 1621. The report includes the existing and proposed 5, 10, 15, and 25-year hydrographs and supporting documents. 4. Please see drainage policy and design standards manual for required design of low flow gutter concrete trickle channel-Per conversation with Ms. Carol Cotter, we do not have to provide the low flow trickle channel. Austin • Dallas • Houston • San Antonio • Temple, Texas Fairfax • Warrenton • Williamsburg , Virginia BURY +PARTNERS-HOUSTON, INC. l 00 l West Loop South, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77027 PHONE (713) 212-0011 FAX (713) 212-0010 www.burypartners.com Bury+ Partners ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS 5. Catch basins 1 and 2 described in storm sewer notes are the reverse of that shown in plan view. The Catch basin located over the existing 36" storm sewer should be a junction box-Storm sewer note one has been revised. City's storm sewer detail has also been added to sheet C2. 6. The irrigation line is a private service and cannot be located within a PUE.-We have revised the irrigation location to tie into the existing 8-inch water line located in the 60-foot access, drainage, and utility easement. Sincerely, ~?~- Kevin Polasek , P .E . - ...... _ DODSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Hydrolog ist s and Ci v il En g in ee rs April 13 , 2006 Bury+Partners-Houston , Inc . 1001 West Loop South , Suite 200 Houston , Texas 77027 Attn : Mr. Kevin Polasek, P .E. RE : Discount Tire -College Station , Texas Dear Mr. Polasek : Our Mission: Th e B es t in Water R es ources Eng inee ring -- Tel.: (713) 212 -001 1 The purpose of this letter is to summarize our drainage and detention rout ing analys is regard ing proposed improvements to the referenced project site . The following sections provide a br ief summary of the project s ite , method of analysis , assumptions , and results . Background Information The proj ect site is about 0 .277 acres and is located in the southern portion of College Station , Texas , at 2321 Texas Avenue South . The proposed improvements to the site will be to add an addit ional parking area , or approximately 7 ,587 square feet of additional impervious area . An on-site m it igat ion basin will be provided to offset the anticipated increase in peak runoff rates . Method of Analysis Peak runoff hydrographs were created for the project site to represent ex isting and proposed conditions . Criteria set forth in the Design Policy and Design Standards Manual (DPDSM) for the City of College Station were used for this analysis . The SCS Dimensionless Unit hydrograph method was used to create peak runoff hydrographs in the hydrologic modeling software HEC-HMS (Version 2 .2 .2). Modeling Parameters & Results Rainfall depths for the 24-hour storm duration were taken from Table 111-3 within the DPDSM . A Type II ra infall d istribution was used , and rainfall loses were accounted for us ing the SCS curve method . An average runoff curve number of 77 was computed for this project site . A percent impervious cover of 7.6% and 62 .9% are used to describe existing and proposed conditions . The SCS Lag time used was 6 minutes for existing and proposed conditions due to the short flow segments and subsequent time of concentration for each modeled condition. The following table summarizes the computed peak runoff rates for the 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25-year storm events . 5629 F.M. 1960 West, Suite 314 Houston, TX 77069-4216 (281) 440-3787 -FAX (281) 440-4742 www.dods on-hydro.com Table 1: Summa of HEC-HMS Out ut Parameter 2-Year (cfs 0.96 1.20 Detention Routing Analysis & Results 5-Year cfs) 1.47 1.71 10-Year cf s 1.84 2.08 25-Year (cfs) 2.27 2.51 The hydrologic impacts illustrated in Table 1 will be mitigated with an on-site mitigation basin. The proposed on-site basin will be located in the northeastern portion of the project site. The proposed layout of the mitigation basin was provided by Bury+Partners-Houston , Inc. The target 25-year basin elevation was 295.0 feet, or about 0.5-foot below the natural ground elevations surrounding the proposed basin location . The outfall structure will consist of a catch basin having a grate elevation of 293.50 feet, and a flow line elevation of 291 .00 feet. Outfalling from the catch basin will be a 12-inch HOPE with an upstream invert elevation of about 291 .00 feet and a downstream invert elevation of about 290 .29 feet for a slope of 0.44%. The 12-inch HOPE will tie into an existing 36 -inch storm sewer. At the point of tie-in, the flow line of the 36-inch storm sewer is approximately 289.34 feet. Also at this location , the 12-inch HOPE will be restricted to a 6.5-inch diameter orifice . At a basin elevation of 295 .5 feet, approximately 2 , 128 cubic-feet of detention volume will be provided in the proposed mitigation basin, with a basin area of approximately 1, 720 square feet. Please note, 126 cubic feet of volume was included in the total detention volume to account for storage in the 12-inch HOPE . The volume-elevation rating curve of the basin was estimated assuming a pilot channel having a 0 .35% slope , and 3 :1 side slopes . Detention routing for the proposed mitigation basin was completed by using the level-pool reservoir routing option available in HEC-HMS . This reservoir routing procedure accounts for changes in detention storage as storm water enters and leaves the basin . Input data for this routing procedure included the basin geometry described above, and hydraulic parameters for the outfall control structure . A combined rating curve for the basin geometry and control structure was produced by utilizing a spreadsheet. Tailwater conditions on the control structure were assumed to be a hydraulic grade line equal to the top of the receiving 36-i nch storm sewer pipe, or 292.34 feet. Discharge through the outfall control structure was calculated using a form of the Orifice equation. Due to the complex geometry of the system , the elements producing head-loss through the system were expressed in terms of a loss coefficient , K (entrance loss into catch basin, transition loss into 12-inch HOPE, friction loss in 12-inch HOPE , and transition loss at 6.5-inch restrictor). The orifice coefficient for the outlet is then estimated by the following equation : C = (1 /LKi)"0.5 Routing data for the proposed mitigation basin is provided in Table 2. Support data may be found i n Appendix A. Table 2: Routing Data for Mitigation Basin Basin Elevation Volume (cu-ft) Discharge (cfs) 290.29 0 0 293 .5 126 0.01 294.0 342.4 0.74 294.5 937.7 0.85 295 .0 1533.0 0.94 295.5 2128.3 1.03 The results of the detention routing analysis for the proposed on-site mitigation basin are illustrated in Table 3 . Hydrograph comparisons created from the HEC-HMS model output may be found in Appendix A. Table 3: Detention Routin Results for Pro sed On-Site Miti ation Basin Parameter 2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year Peak Inflow to Basin cf s 1.20 1.71 2 .08 2.51 Peak Dischar e from Detention Basin cfs 0 .75 0 .83 0 .89 0.95 Maximum Water Surface in Detention Basin feet 294 .06 294.42 294 .71 295 .06 Maximum Stora e Volume in Detention Basin cubic-feet 414 842 1188 1604 As shown in Table 3 , the proposed detention facility mitigates the hydrologic impacts associates with the proposed improvements to the project site, and restricts post-development flows to at or below the peak runoff rate (1 .84 cfs) calculated for 10-year existing conditions. From the mitigated conditions HEC-HMS model , the computed 25-year pond elevation for the mitigation basin was 295 .06 feet , which is lower than the surrounding natural ground elevations . Closing In conclusion, if the site is developed in accordance with the assumptions and other information included in this report , we anticipate that the proposed parking area expansion will cause no adverse impacts to flooding conditions for storms up to and including the 25-year event noted in this report. Sincerely, Kevin T . Vogel , P.E ., CFM Project Manager Dodson & Associates, Inc. ATTACHMENTS Appendix A: Back-Up Data for Detention Routing & Runoff Hydrograph Comparison 2-Year Hydrograph Comparison-Discount Tire College Station 1-2-Year Existing -2-Year Proposed -2-Year Mitigated - - -10-Year Existing Peak Flow I ~ ------ --------------------------------------------1.8 -1-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--l 1.6 1.4 1.2 -rn -~ 1 ~ .2 u. 0.8 l 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 I I I I I I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time (minutes) 5-Year Hydrograph Comparison-Discount Tire College Station 1-5-Yea r Exi sti ng -5-Ye a r Pro posed -5-Yea r Miti gated - - -10-Yea r Exi stin g Pe ak Fl ow I 2 1.8 ~ -------------------------------------------------- 1.6 1.4 1.2 .:;:-,,,, ~ 1 3'; 0 u:: 0.8 .. I ' 0.6 0.4 0.2 \ ~ ~ ----0 -- I I I I I I 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14 00 T ime (min u tes) 10-Year Hydrograph Comparison-Discount Tire College Station l -10-Year Existing --:--10-Year Proposed -10-Year Mitigated - - -10-Year Existing Peak Flow I 2.5 2 . ------------------------- ------------------------ 1.5 ~ -~ ~ .2 LL 1 10, 0.5 ~ ~..__ ---------- I I I I I I 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time (minutes) 3 2 .5 2 ~ () ; 1.5 .52 u. 1 0 .5 0 . - 0 25-Year Hydrograph Comparison-Discount Tire College Station 1-25 -Year E xi s ti~ -25 -Yea r Proposed -25 -Yea r Miti ga ted - - -10-Yea r Exi st in g Peak Flow I -• -.. .. -.. ----------------- ------------------------ I l\ ~ \ ~ -_, -----~ -------- I I I I I I 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time (minutes) Basin olume and Discharge Rating Curve • Low Level Outlet 12 inch HOPE 6 .5 inch restrictor 0 .017 roughness 161 ft length 290 .29 OS FL 291 US FL 290 .56 Centroid Elevation 1.84 cfs maximum outflow rate 289 .34 FL of 36" SS 292 .34 TOP of 36" tie-in K 1.17 Ai -Area of Drop Inlet (ft,...2) 0 .785398 Ac -Area of Conduit (ft,...2) 0 .230438 Ar-Area of Restictor 14 .6 di assumed diamter for drop inlet 1.216667 d2/d1 2 .34 V2 Veloc ity in smaller pipe 1.85 d2/d1 7.98 V2 Velocity in smaller pipe 3.141593 wetted perimeter of conduit 0 .25 hydraulic radius of conduit 1.25 Entrance loss taken from Table Vl-1 in College Station Drainage Criteria Manual 0 .07 Transit ion Losses (Using Hydraul ic Tables in reference book) 8 .57 Friction losses 0 .34 Transition Losse Due to Restrictor (Using Hydraulic Tables in reference book } 10 .23 sum Ki 's 0.31 c Elevat ion Head 290 .29 291 291 .5 292 292 .5 293 293 .5 294 294 .5 295 295.5 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .16 0 .66 1.16 1.66 2.16 2 .66 3 .16 Flow 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 0 .23 0.47 0 .62 0 .74 0.85 0.94 1.03 Elevation Volume (ac-ft ) Flow 290 .29 0 291 0.000639788 291 .5 0 .001090343 292 0 .001540898 292 .5 0 .001991452 293 0 .002442007 293 .5 0 .002892562 294 0 .007861 294 .5 0 .021527189 295 0 .035193377 295 .5 0 .048859565 0 0 .00 0.00 0 .00 0 .23 0.47 0 .62 0 .74 0.85 0 .94 1.03 Discount Tire -College ::station Basin Basin Elevation Volume (ft ,...3) 290 .29 0 293 .5 126 .0 293 .9 223.4 295 .5 2128 .3 CHAPTER 8 . Reservoir and Detention Basin Analysis KK : Reservoir Identifier KM: Message (Optional) RS : Storage Routing Data S_: Reservoir Storage Data SS : Spillway Discharge Data (Optional) SL : Low-Level Outlet Discharge Data SC : Trapezoidal or Ogee Spillway Discharge Data (Required Onl y if Tailwater i s Considered ) SQ : Flow Rates for Tailwater Rating Curve (Requ i red Only if Ta i lwater is Considered) SE : Elevations for Tailwater Rating Curve (Required Onl y if Tailwater is Considered) A low-level outlet may be (and generally is) present along with a conventional, trapezoidal, or ogee spillway . As indicated in Figure 8 .12, the SL record must precede the SG record, if present. If the SG record is not used, the optional SQ and SE records may follow the SL record to define the tailwater rating curve. The orifice opening illustrated in Figure 8.11 is very simple . in the real world, however, the geometry of a low-level outlet may be quite complex. Figure 8.13 illustrates a low-level outlet which includes the following elements: 1. A drop-inlet of height L 1 which is open at the top. When the water surface elevation in the reservoir reaches the top elevation of the drop inlet, the low-level outlet will begin to discharge . In Figure 8.13, the drop inlet is represented as a rectangle. Other shapes are also possible. , 2. A conduit conveying the flow from the upstream to the downstream side of the dam. This conduit may be of any length and shape, and it may have bends. 3. A vertical riser on the downstream side. Such an arrangement may be used to dissipate energy at the outlet. Each of these elements affects the discharge capacity of the outlet. These effects should be considered in the computation of the orifice flow coefficient for the outlet. ?' + 2..., r .. Ll ~ l I I Lz J z z, . To demonstrate the computation of an orifice flow coefficient which considers the geometry of the low-level outlet, the energy equation is written between points 1 and 2 : H1 =Hi +Hi 1 ... 2 In which: H 1 , H2 refer to the total head (energy) at points 1 and 2 HL 1 ~, is the head loss (energy loss) between points 1 and 2 Page 8-11 FIGURE 8.12 Computing Reservoir Discharge by Low- Level Outlet Computation of Orifice Flow Coefficient for Low- Leve/ Outlet FIGURE 8.13 Schematic for Flow through the Low Level Outlet 8 .18 Hands-On HEC -1 Copyright© Dodson & Associates, Inc . All Rights Reserved . June 1995 Page 8-12 8 .19 8.20 8 .21 Entrance Loss Friction Losses 8.22 8 .23 8.24 June 1995 CHAPTER 8 . Reservoir and Detention Basin Analysis Defining .the difference in elevation between the headwater and tailwater to be h, and recognizing that the head loss term can be expressed in terms of the velocity head: v2 (Q )2 I h= 'L,K;-= --'L,K; ; 2g A 2g ; Then: The value of the orifice coefficient for the SL record is C=Ri 'I, K; i In which: K; is the loss coefficient for each of several different types of losses. For the configuration shown in Figure 8.13, the head losses will includjng the following: 1. Entrance Loss 2. Friction Loss in the drop inlet 3. Transition Loss from the drop inlet to the conduit(s) 4. Friction Loss in the conduit 5 . Bend Loss or Transition loss from the conduit to the riser 6. Friction Loss in the vertical riser 7. Exit Loss If the entrance to the drop inlet is treated as a reentrant tube, an entrance loss coefficient of 1.5 is appropriate. Other values may be selected for other types of entrances . The Manning equation can be rewritten as a friction loss equation: ( ) i ( )2 n . 2 n vi vi HL = L V = L(2g) -= K- l.49R ?) 1.49R % 2g 2g In which: K = 2gL n ( ) 2 1.49R% The friction loss in the drop inlet, expressed in terms of V0 the velocity in the conduit(s), is In which: Copyright© Dodson & Associates. Inc . A ll Rights Re served . Hands-On HEC-1 CHAPTER 8 . Reservo ir and Detention Basin Analys is Ac is the area of the conduit(s) A01 is the area of the drop inlet. The transition loss will depend on the number of conduits and the entrance conditions to those conduits . Hl 1ra11sirion y2 -K c -transition 2g In a similar manner, each loss is expressed in terms of the velocity head in the conduit(s). Pumping plants may be simulated for interior flooding problems where runoff ponds in low areas or behind levees, flood walls, etc. Multiple pumps may be used, each with different start and stop elevations. The program checks the reservoir stage at the beginning of each time period. If the stage exceeds the pump start elevation the pump is turned on and .the pump output is included as an additional outflow term in the routing equation. When the reservoir stage drops below the stop elevation, the pump is turned off. Up to five (5) pumps with different start and stop elevations may be used. Each pump .discharges at a constant rate. It is either on or off. There is no variation of discharge with head. The average discharge for a time period is set to the pump capacity, so it is assumed that the pump is turned on immediately after the end of the previous period. Water may not be pumped from any point except a reservoir; however, a dummy reservoir with negligible storage can serve as the forebay to a pump. The data values required to analyze a pump are entered on the WP record, as illustrated in Figure 8.14. As ~eady noted, up to five (5) WP records may be used to simulate several different pumping units operating on the same reservoir. KK : Re s ervoir Identifi er KM : Me s sage (Opt i onal) RS: Storage Routing Da t a S_: Reservoir Storage Data S_: Sp i llway or Low-Level Outlet Discharge Data (Opt i onal) WP : Pump Discharge Data WP : Add i tional Pump Discharge Data (Opt i onal) WP : ..• Water pumped from a reservoir forms a pump diversion hydrograph, which is treated in much the same way as a stream flow diversion hydrograph (See Chapter 7). An identifier for the pump diversion hydrograph may \)e specified on the WP record(s) for each reservoir. It is important to note that HEC-1 does not separate the pump diversion hydrographs for each pumping unit, but stores only a single pump diversion h ydrograph for the reservoir. This h ydrograph contains the total of all of the separate pump d iversion h ydrographs for the individual pumping units . Therefore , the identifier specified for all of the WP records at a particular reservoir must be identical, if the pump diversion is to be retained for later use . The w ater removed through pumping can be returned t o the sy stem using a WR record . The h ydrograph retrieval is signaled Page 8-13 8.25 Diversion of Flow By Pumping FIGURE 8.14 Computing Reservoir Discharge by Pumps Return of Pump Diversion Hydrograph Hands-On HEC -1 Copyright © Dodso n & Assoc iates, In c . All Rights Re se rved . Ju ne 19 95 4. HYDRAULICS OF STORM SEWERS TABLE 4.14 Values of K3 for Determining Loss of Head Due to Sudden Contraction from the Formula H3 = K3(V22/2g) 1 lll d 2 /d 1 =ratio of larger to smaller diameter V2 =velocity in smaller pipe dz Velocity, V2, in feet per second di 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 15 20 30 40 1.1 .03. .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .04 .05 .05 .06 1.2 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .07 .08 .08 .08 .09 .10 .II 1.4 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .17 .18 .18 .18 .18 .19 .20 1.6 .26 .26 .26 .26 .26 .26 .26 .26 .26 .25 .25 .25 .24 1.8 .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .34 .33 .33 .32 .32 .31 .29 .27 2.0 .38 .38 .37 .37 .37 .37 .36 .36 .35 .34 .33 .31 .29 2.2 .40 .40 .40 .39 .39 .39 .39 .38 .37 .37 .35 .33 .30 2.5 .42 .42 .42 .41 .41 .41 .40 .40 .39 .38 .37 .34 .31 3.0 .44 .44 .44 .43 .43 .43 .42 .42 .41 .40 .39 .36 .33 4.0 .47 .46 .46 .46 .45 .45 .45 .44 .43 .42 .41 .37 .34 5.0 .48 .48 .47 .47 .47 .46 .46 .45 .45 .44 .42 .38 .35 10 .0 .49 .48 .48 .48 .48 .47 .47 .46 .46 .45 .43 .40 .36 00 .49 .49 .48 .48 .48 .47 .47 .47 .46 .45 .44 .41 .38 Entrance Losses TABLE 4.15 Entrance Loss Coefficients for Corrugated Steel Pipe or Pipe-Arch Inlet End of Culvert Projecting from fill (no headwall) Headwall , or headwall and wingwalls square ·edge Mitered (beveled) to conform to fill slope 'End -Section conforming to fill slope Headwall , rounded edge Beveled Ring 'End Sections available from manufacturers . Manhole Losses Coefficient I\ 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.25 Manhole losses in many cases comprise a significant percentage of the over- all losses within a sewer system. Consequently, if these losses are ignored , or underestimated, the sewer system may surcharge leading to basement flood - ing or sewer overflows. Losses at sew~r junctions are dependent upon flow characteristics , junction geometry and relative sewer diameters . General prob- lems with respect to flow through junctions have been discus sed by Chow 8 who concluded that the losses could be best estimated by experimental anal- ysis as opposed to analytical procedures. CA TCHBASIN --------, TRAFFIC DUTY ~---JUNCTION BOX CAST IRON GRATE PARK EQUIPMENT CO 800-256-8041 MODEL CB VARIES c:: SKID-RESISTANT STEEL PEDESTRIAN DUTY STD . [TRAFFIC-DUTY OPTIONAL] PARK EQUIPMENT CO 800-256-8041 MODEL JB ~ ----OPTIONAL EXTENSION H1 6 " or 12" PRECAST CONCRETE BASIN . SECTION OUTLET PIPING TO STORM SEWER ...._+----1--THIN WALL KNOCKOUT ON W1 MODEL # DIMENSIONS ALL 4 SIDES , SEE KO DIMENSION FOR MAXIMUM . PIPE O.D. T1 r-i ~, .... 6" or 12" .. .,~ . CATCH JUNCTION Wl W2 Hl H2 Tl MAX GRATE OPEN AREA WEIGHT LBS " ... o ·~· ~ :·. BASIN BOX 2 PIPE SIZE cs12 1 JB12 15" 1,()" 2.r 18" 2" 10" 12"x·1-:i1''x1'' C81S .. 30" 4• lf 18''x18"x11h" JB,18 24" 16" 34" cs~·o JB20 26" 18" 34" 30" 4• 17" 20"x20"x11h" CB2.4 JB24 32" 22" 41" 36" 5" 22'.'. 24"x24"x2" CB27 ~27 37" 25" 42" 36" 6" 2f' 27"x27"x2" CB30 ~~q 42 " 30" 42" 36" 6 " 3,0 " 32"x32"x2" C836 JB 6 48" 36" 42" 36". 6" 3:2" 38"x38"x2" 1. CB12 CATCHBASIN IS RATED FOR PEDESTRIAN LOADING:-·ALL OTHERS ARE ffi.~[FJ.C DUTY. 2. ALL JUNCTION BOXES ARE STANDARD PEDESTRIAN DUTY OR OPTIONAL TRAFflC DUTY. SPEC IFICATI ONS CONCRETE : Closs 1" concrete with of design strength of 4500 PS I at 28 days. Unit is of monolithic construction at floor and first stage of wall with sectional riser to required dep t h . REINFORCEMENT: Grode qO reinforced . Steel rebor conforming to AS!M A61~ on required centers or equal. C.I. CAS TINGS : Cost iron 'frames and grates ore manufactured of grey cost iron conforming to ASTM A48-76 Closs 30. (s in 9 0 168 170 268 350 490 693 '180 1,000 1,335 2 ,245 2,875 3,675 4,585 : ' · . .. ·=· . H2 .. , .. • • 4 : ·" •4 ... ~ . ~c. .. . .. ... . . •1-4 .__ __ ""' . :• . ~-., · .• .a . T1 :: : . ~: ... PART IAL SE CT ION ©Pork .2002 800 -2 5 6 -8041 www.p ark-USA .com "Expec t t h e B est" CA TC HBASIN MOD EL CB -12" T HRU 3 6" JUNCTION BOX MOD EL JB -12" THRU 36" SCALE NONE DWG . NO . REV. DATE 01/02. CBJB36 A - c -~EGE srnr:a STG~EP RECEIPT * * Type: C .r we.: R~coi•t no: j91 1 D-scr1 t1or ltJant1t~ Amount ~b05 10 060 I PL DU\f' I "' A D ZONING T a s .ate: 1.0 2tJ0. IRES 3~11 $200.00 200.00 $200.05 Ti "'= 9:02:J0 ----'fl CITY O F C OL.LEG E STATION Pla11 11ing & De11elop mmt Services ~ (jOR OFFICE us~ ONL y ~~~&~se-rqano.: 05' l.LO DATE SUBMITTED: SITE PLAN APPLICATION ,, MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS _,,,,_ Site plan application completed in full. _.1_ $200 .00 Application Fee . _:!._ $200 .00 Development Permit Application Fee . ~ $600.00 Public Infrastructure Inspection Fee if applicable . (This fee is payable if construction of a public waterline, sewerline, sidewalk, street or drainage facilities is involved .) _v_ Eleven (11) folded copies of site plan _,,_One (1) folded copy of the landscape plan . J::tlB.. One (1) copy of building elevation for all bu ildings. 1JIP. A list of build ing materials for all facades and screening for non-residential buildings . .HLB.. Color samples for all non-residential buildings . ~Traffi c Impact Analysis (if applicable for non-residential buildings). ~A copy of the attached site plan checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not checked off. "-!IA Parkland Ded ication requirement approved by the Parks & Recreation Board , please provide proof of approval (if appl icable). Date of Preapplication Conference: ________________________ _ NAME OF PROJECT E"t-\S.i\~ ~i';>~:\ \\~.:._ ~-t~c. -~~\'...;.~ \..c.-t E~~\s::.Q ADDRESS ~~~\ "Iey,.a.<;, Avlf"'->e.. • L.o \\e,.o.e.. '::r\o."'t.,qo , \X '"'i~<o'-\O ..> LEGAL DESCRIPTION------------------------------- APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name \)enn c.-t'rl ~ho..~°J · ~u~~. ~ ~o.~-\~S Street Address \OC>\ W L~ Sou~ '5-\e.. ';)()() City \-\c\.>'!>-\<::ir\ State \)'.. Zip Code 'l'\C:>':>"l E-Ma il Address k'no.."~ @> b.>~'::\.s--o.~"'\r\e..~s-CC>C"-) Phone Number '!\"':> ':::>\-;;, ~\\ ~ \ \C. Fax Number ""'\ \ ">.:> ~''::I C><::>\ \ PROPERTY OWNER 'S INFORMATION : Name _ ~ 1 \-W\<. • \loC'"'). \f<:::.; c~~\QOOC..C Street Address ~~'d5 N. Sc..o~";>Oo..\e... ~ City ~Cc>"'t°'~C.~c:..- State B2 Zip Code ~~~'55 E-Ma il Address-------------- Phone Number 1-\<Qo t:.<Yi ';:{'\lo':> Fax Number L\'OC> l::>Cb '-\":::r'\C> ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER 'S INFORMATION : Name ~"':\ • ?cx'Yr><...S"":> Street Address \CC)\ W ~ °::> ' '5)0;:) City \-\ou~-\"CQ State ])<... Zip Code "l'"\Q ~ \ Phone Number 'l\~ ~\') 00\\ E-Ma il Address '¥..c:.."""'9.£"'\~@> 't:N(" 't\:>S>S"~S . C!..O Fax Number '\ \';2 ':;)\ ~ <X:> \C> 6/1 3/03 l of6