Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout46 DP The Barracks II Ph 100 11-109 3100STORM DRAIN SYSTEM REPORT FOR THE BARRACKS II SUBDIVISION, SECTION 100 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS July 2011 Prepared by: Phillips Engineering 4490 Castlegate Drive College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 TBPE Firm #13130 GENERAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND The Barracks II Subdivision is a 108-acre development located midway between Rock Prairie Road and Cain Road in south College Station . It is bounded on the west by Holleman Drive South and on the east by Old Wellborn Road . It is a multi-use development that has 426 residential lots and 6 commercial lot s under its current configuration. The first phase of development in the subdivision will be Phase 100 , which includes 18.4 acres located on the northwest comer of the tract adjacent to Holleman Drive . It involves the construction of all standard infrastructure associated with a residential subdivision. The Drainage Report that follows analyzes the storm drain system of Phase 100 . An accompanying report on the Detention System that will serve the 108-acre development has been prepared by Kirnley-Hom and Associates, Inc . KHA al so prepared construction plans for the detention pond system which is comprised of three ponds that are interconnected to act as a single pond . DRAINAGE SYSTEM RE PORT General Hydr aulic an d Hyd rolo gic Characteristics Phase 100 of the subdivision is located in a densely wooded portion of the 108 -acre site. There is no existing development on the site. The topography in this phase is gently sloping to the northeast and where it is drained by Tributary B .3 of Bee Creek. Sto rm Drain Design Parameters Street Design: Tc Methodology: Tc Minimum Design Storm Event: Pipe Materials : Manning's n Valu e: Runoff Coefficients: D esign Constraints: D es ign Software : Applicable Exhibits : • Standard cross-section (3% cross-slope) • Laydown curb , Standard Curb • Asphalt pavement • Standard recessed curb inlets TR55 10 minutes 10-year for most systems. A 100-year event was used for systems that drain adjoining undeveloped tracts, RCP , HDPE pipe and reinforced concrete box culverts 0 .013 (RCP and RCBC), 0 .0 12 (HDPE) 0.55 for residential development surrounding the site Max water depth: Laydown curb= 4.5 in. or 0 .38 ft. Standard curb= 6 in. or 0.5 ft Min flow velocity= 2.5 fps Max flow velocity = 15 fps 100-yr storm runoff maintained within the ROW (4 inches above curb) AutoCAD 2012 w/ Civil 3D Hydraflo w Storm Sewer Design Package Exhibit A.1 & A.2-Storm Sewer Drainage Area Map Exhibit B-Time of Concentration Calculation Worksheet Exhibit C-Gutter Depth Calculation Worksheet Exhibit D-Inlets on Grade Computation Worksheet Exhibit E-Inlets in Sump Computation Worksheet Exhibit F-Hydraflow Pipe Analysis Summary (10-yr storm) Exhibit G-Hydraflow Pipe Analysis Summary (100-yr storm) Appendix D-Technical Design Summary To th e City Enginee r for the City of College Station , Tex as : Re: The Barracks II Subdivision , Phase 100 Certifi cation Statement I have conducted a topographic review and.field investigation of the existing and proposed flow patterns for stormwater runoff from the Castlegate Subdivision, Sections I 00-201. At build-out conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat note, the stormwater flows from the subject subdivision or site project wi ll not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of existing building structures, including basement areas , for storms of magnitude up through the I 00-yr event. ro t;-72 3 Date Tx License No. EXHIBIT B POST DEVELOPMENT TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS The Barracks II Subdivision, Phase 100 0 .007(Ln)0•9 Tsheo< = P2 0:5 50A T.,,.. = time of concentration for sheet flow (hr} l = length (ft) n = Manning 's roughness P2 = 2-yr rainfall intensity (in/hr) for Bra zos Co. = 4.5 in/hr S = slope (ft/ft) TR-55 Method Ve one= 16. 1345(5) O.S v,~ =water velocity in ditch (fVsec) S = slope of ditch (fVft) Vguuor = 20 .3282(5)0.S V..,11., =water velocity in gutter (fVsec) S = slope of gutter (ft/ft) s iyst em 100 Drainage Sheet Flow Concentrated Flow Gutter Flow -1 Area# n Length Slope T.-Length Slope Velocity T ..,.._, Length Slope Velocity ft % min . ft % ft/sec min ft % ft/sec 101A 0 .24 35 1.5 6 44 1.5 2 0 141 1.57 3 1016 0 .24 32 1.5 5 48 1.5 2 0 128 1.14 2 102A 0.24 37 1.5 6 48 1.5 2 0 138 1.14 2 1026 0.24 55 1.5 8 43 1.5 2 0 467 1.14 2 110 0 .24 35 1.5 6 48 1.5 2 0 278 0.84 2 111 0.24 32 1.5 5 47 1.5 2 0 216 1.14 2 112 ,_p.24 33 1.5 6 4Z 1.5 2 0 217 1.14 ~ System 200 Drainage Sheet Flow Concentrat ed F low Gutter F low -1 Area# n Length Slope T,._ Length Slope Velocity T ~,.._, Length Slope Velocity ft % min. ft % ft/sec min ft % ft/sec 200 0 .24 22 1.5 4 1.5 2 0 402 1.4 2 201 0 .24 85 1.5 12 75 1.5 2 1 340 1.4 2 260 0 .24 35 1.5 6 56 1.5 2 0 330 0 .67 2 261 0.24 30 1.5 5 50 1.5 2 0 321 0.67 2 270 0 .24 38 1.5 6 55 1.5 2 0 308 0 .67 2 271 0.24 36 1.5 6 50 1.5 2 0 302 0 .67 2 280 0 .24 30 1.5 5 61 1.5 2 1 315 0 .67 2 281 0.24 300 2.33 27 1100 0 .5 1 16 0 .67 2 284 0 .24 32 1.5 5 50 1.5 2 0 185 0.83 2 285A 0 .24 40 1.5 6 36 1.5 2 0 137 0.67 2 2856 0.24 38 1.5 6 1.5 2 0 178 1.36 2 286A 0.24 33 •. 1.5 6 47 1.5 2 0 253 0.67 2 2866 0 .24 15 1.5 3 50 1.5 2 0 243 0 .83 2 291A 0 .24 30 1.5 5 50 1.5 2 0 132 0 .65 2 2916 0 .2 4 50 1.5 8 1.5 2 0 185 1.47 2 292A 0 .24 38 1.5 6 40 1.5 2 0 96 0.65 2 2926 0.24 32 1.5 5 46 1.5 2 0 183 1.47 2 293A 0 .24 20 1.5 4 1.5 2 0 170 0 .73 2 2936 0 .24 40 1.5 6 1.5 2 0 312 0 .78 2 294A 0 .24 165 1.8 19 475 0 .8 1 5 198 0 .73 2 2946 0 .24 145 1,5 18 500 . 0 .6 1 7 _J 50 ,.QJ8_ -6.. • T ,,._, min 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 T ,.._, min 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 Length ft 82 78 ,_ Length ft 112 L T=-60V T = travel time through ditch or gutter (min) L = length of travel path (ft) V =velocity (fVsec) Gutter Flow -2 T, Slope Velocity T ,.._, Total Design % ft/sec min min min 0 0 7 10 0 0 7 10 1.57 3 1 8 10 1.14 2 1 13 13 0 0 9 10 0 0 7 10 __ o 0 8 10 Gutter F lo w -2 T, Slope V elocity T ,.._, Total Desi g n % ft/sec min min min 0 0 7 10 0 0 15 15 0 0 10 10 0 0 9 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 9 10 0 0 9 10 0 0 43 43 0 0 7 10 0 0 8 10 0 0 7 10 0 0 9 10 1.36 2 1 6 10 0 0 7 10 0 0 9 10 0 0 8 10 0 0 7 10 0 0 5 10 0 0 g 10 0 0 26 26 -·- __ o_ 0 26 ~6 Gutter Location 101A 101B 102A 102B 110 111 112 200 201 260 261 270 271 280 281 284 285A 285B 286A 286B 291A 291B 292A 292B 293A 293B 294A 294B Parameters A Bypass from: (ac) 0.31 0.31 0.76 111, 112 1.77 1.08 0.51 0.51 0.41 1.36 0.84 0.78 0.86 0.80 1.09 6.88 0.73 0.37 0.25 1.08 1.05 0.33 0.33 0.24 0.43 0.17 0.35 2.49 2.00 Transverse (Crown) slope (ft/ft) 27' street= 0.0300 38' street= 0.0300 c Slope (ft/ft) 0.55 0.0157 10 0.55 0.0114 10 0.55 0.0157 10 0.55 0.0114 13 0.55 0.0084 10 0.55 0.0114 10 0.55 0.0114 10 0.55 0.0140 10 0.55 0.0140 15 0.55 0.0067 10 0.55 0.0067 10 0.55 0.0067 10 0.55 0.0067 10 0.55 0.0067 10 0.40 0.0067 43 0.55 0.0083 10 0.55 0.0067 10 0.55 0.0136 10 0.55 0.0067 10 0.55 0.0136 10 0.55 0.0065 10 0.55 0.0147 10 0.55 0.0065 10 0.55 0.0147 10 0.55 0.0073 10 0.55 0.0078 10 0.40 0.0073 26 0.40 0.0078 26 EXHIBIT C The Barracks II Phase 100 Gutter Depth Calculations Calculations 10-year storm 010 OevP-ADD I 01o-rorAL Y10-.ctu,ml 1100 (els) (els) I (els) (ttl I (in) (in/hr SYSTEM 100 DESIGN 8.635 1.47 1.47 0.19 2.2 11.639 8.635 1.47 1.47 0.20 2.4 11.639 8.635 3.61 3.61 0.26 3.1 11.639 7.730 7.53 0.57 8.09 0.37 4.5 10.441 8.635 5.13 5.13 0.33 4.0 11.639 8.635 2.42 2.42 0.24 2.9 11.639 8.635 2.42 2.42 0.24 2.9 11.639 -SYSTEM 200 DESIGN 8.635 1.95 1.95 0.21 2.5 11.639 7.225 5.40 5.40 0.31 3.7 9.773 8.635 3.99 0.46 4.45 0.33 4.0 11.639 8.635 3.70 0.67 4.37 0.33 3.9 11.639 8.635 4.08 0.68 4.76 0.34 4.1 11.639 8.635 3.80 1.50 5.30 0.35 4.2 11.639 8.635 5.18 5.18 0.35 4.2 11.639 3.935 10.83 10.83 0.46 5.5 5.418 8.635 3.47 3.47 0.29 3.5 11.639 8.635 1.76 1.76 0.23 2.8 11.639· 8.635 1.19 1.19 0.18 2.1 11.639 8.635 5.13 5.13 0.35 4.2 11.639 8.635 4.99 4.99 0.30 3.6 11.639 8.635 1.57 1.57 0.23 2.7 11.639 8.635 1.57 1.57 0.19 2.3 11.639 8.635 1.14 1.14 0.20 2.4 11.639 8.635 2.04 2.04 0.21 2.6 11.639 8.635 0.81 0.81 0.17 2.1 11.639 8.635 1.66 1.66 0.22 2.7 11.639 5.355 5.33 5.33 0.35 4.2 7.300 5.339 4.27 4.27 0.32 3.8 7.279 Q100 (els) 1.98 1.98 4.87 10.16 6.91 3.26 3.26 2.62 7.31 5.38 4.99 5.51 5.12 6.98 14.91 4.67 2.37 1.60 6.91 6.72 2.11 2.11 1.54 2.75 1.09 2.24 7.27 5.82 Straight Crown Flow (Solved to find actual depth of flow In gutter, yl: Q = 0.56 * (z/n) *Sy= (QI [0.56 * (z/n) * S112]}318 n =Roughness Co• 0.018 S = Street/Gutter Slope (fVft) y = Depth of flow at inlet (ft) z = Reciprocal of crown slope: 27' street= 38' street= 33 33 ' , ... 100-year storm OevP-ADD I 0100-rorAL Y100 (els) I (els) (ttl I (in) 1.98 0.21 2.5 j 1.98 0.22 2.7 4.87 0.29 3.5 10.16 0.41 4.9 ' 6.91 0.37 4.5 3.26 0.27 3.2 3.26 0.27 3.2 2.62 0.24 2.8 7.31 0.35 4.2 0.56 5.94 0.37 4.4 0.78 5.77 0.36 4.4 0.80 6.31 0.38 4.5 1.79 6.91 0.39 4.7 • 6.98 0.39 4.7 14.91 0.52 6.3 4.67 0.32 3.9 2.37 0.26 3.1 1.60 0.20 2.4 6.91 0.39 4.7 6.72 0.34 4.1 2.11 0.25 3.0 2.11 0.22 2.6 1.54 0.22 2.7 2.75 0.24 2.9 1.09 0.19 2.3 2.24 0.25 3.0 7.27 0.39 4.7 5.82 0.36 4.3 From Gutter De pth Table Inlet Gutter Q 10-TOTAL Q100-TOTAL Y10 Y100 SL # Location (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) ~ 5.13 6 .91 0 .335 0.374 0 .0084 111 2.42 3 .26 0 .238 0 .267 0 .0114 112 2.42, 3 .26 "' 0 .238 0 .267 0 .0114 200 1'"1.95 2 .62 ·0.211 0 .236 0 .01 40 201 7.31 7.31 0 .310 0.347 0.0140 260 5.94 5 .94 0 .331 0 .369 0 .0067 261 5.77 5.77 0 .329 0 .365 0 .0067 270 6 .31 6 .31 0.339 0 .377 0 .0067 271 6 .91 6 .91 0 .353 0 .390 0 .0067 280 6 .98 6 .98 ' 0.350 0 .392 0 .0067 281 14 .91 14.91 0.462 0 .521 0 .0067 284 4 .67 4 .67 0 .290 0 .324 0 .0083 -- Para mete rs n 0.018 Sw (ft/ft) 0.15 a (ft) 0 .33 w (ft) 2 s. (ft/ft) 0.03 EXHIBIT D The Barracks II Phase 100 Inlets-on-Grade Computation Worksheet Recesse d Inlets On Gra de 10 yr Calculat ion s 10 yr Des ign r ,. Eo s. LREQ LPROVIDED Eff10 Q 10-CAPTURED C10-BYPASS T100 (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 11 .15 0.410 0.0983 12.74 10.00 93.7% 4 .81 0 .32 12.48 7 .95 0 .539 0 .1197 9 .05 5 .00 76 .5% 1.85 0 .57 8.89 7.95 0 .539 0 .1197 9 .05 5 .00 76 .5% 1 .85 0 .57 8 .89 7 .05 0 .590 0 .1282 8.43 5.00 80.2% 1.56 0 .39 7 .88 10.34 0.437 0 .1027 16 .77 10.00 80.4% 5.88 1.43 11 .58 11 .03 0.414 0 .0989 12 .61 10.00 94 .1% 5.59 0 .35 12.30 10 .96 0 .416 0 .0993 12.43 10.00 94 .7% 5 .47 0.31 12.16 11 .32 0.405 0 .0974 13.05 10.00 92.7% 5 .85 0 .46 12.58 11 .78 0 .391 0 .0952 13.75 10.00 Q 90.4% 6 .24 0.67 13 .01 11 .68 0.394 0 .0957 13 .76 10.00 90 .3% 6 .30 0 .61,1 13 .06 15.40 0 .310 0 .0817 20 .82 15:00 89 .9% 13 .41 1.50 17 .36 9 .65 0.462 0 .1069 11.60 10.00 97 .2% 4 .54 0 .13 10.80 ·-·-·--- Formulas from BCS Gu i del i nes 100 yr Calc ulati ons Eo s. 0 .37 0 .0921 0 .49 0 .1122 0.49 0 .1122 0 .54 0 .1203 0.40 0 .0962 0 .38 0 .0929 0 .38 0 .0934 0 .37 0 .0916 0.36 0 .0899 0 .36 0 .0897 0 .28 0 .0764 0.42 0.1002 s -s -+-a E Ea= 1-[1-lTVJ2. 67 Q cAPTURED = Eff .. Q • -" w 0 rJ [ f. ]L" Eff = 1-1 -L ~ [ 1 ]U.b L =K Q OA2 5 o.:; -x c . L nSx T is defined here as top w idth upstream of in let in a normal triangular gutter W is defined as the loca l w idth of depressed section at recessed inlet a is defined here as 4" 7/7/2011 - 100 yr Ch eck LREQ Eff100 Q100-CAPTURED Q100-8YPASS (ft) (%) (cfs) (cfs) 15 .01 86.1% 5 .95 0 .96 10.66 68 .0% 2 .22 1.05 10 .66 68 .0% 2.22 1.05 9 .92 71 .7% 1.88 0 .74 ,. 17 .45 78 .4 % 5.73 1.58 13 .10 92 .5% 5 .50 0 .44 12 .89 93 .2% 5 .3 8 0 .39 13 .54 91 .1% 5.75 0 .56 14 .23 88 .7% 6.13 0 .78 14 .31 88 .5% 6 .17 0.80 _, 21 .67 88 .0% 13 .12 1.79 12 .07 95 .8% ,_ 4 .48 0 .19 7 0 EXHIBIT E The Barracks II Phase 100 Inlets-in-Sump Computation Worksheet Parameters 10 yr Design 100 yr Check Inlet# Contributing 010 0100 Gutter Loe . (cfs) (cfs) 102 101A 1.47 1.98 101B 1.47 1.98 102A ,, 3.61 103 4 .87 " 102B 8 .09 10.16 285 285A 1 .76 2.37 285B 1 .19 1 .60 286A 5.13 6 .91 286 286B 4.99 6.72 291A 1.57 2.11 291 291B 1.57 2 .11 292 292A 1.14 1.54 292B 2 .04 2.75 293 293A "0.81 1 .09, 293B 1 .66 2 .24 294 294A 5 .33 7.27 294B 4 .27 5 .82 Inlets in sumps, Weir Flow: L = QI (3 * y312 ) ~ y = (Q I 3L)213 L = Length of inlet opening (ft) Q =Flow at inlet (cfs) y = total depth of flow on inlet (ft) max y for inlet in sump = 7" = 0.583' 010+10% (cfs) 1.619 1.619 3.970 8.904 1.933 1.306 5 .642 5.485 1.724 1.724 1.254 2 .246 0.888 1.828 5.866 4 .698 OsuM L10-Req'd • L10-Provlded 0100+10% OsuM Y100-PROJECTEO (cfs) (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (in) 3 .239 2.43 5 2 .18 4 .366 5.270 2 .1 8 12 .874 9 .64 10 5 .35 16 .533 8.066 11 .18 3 .239 2.43 5 2 .6 1 4 .366 5.270 1 .76 7 .61 11 .127 8 .33 10 7.39 14 .999 7.559 3.448 2 .58 5 2 .32 2.32 4 .648 5.495 3.500 2 .62 5 1.69 4 .718 5.550 3 .03 2 .716 2 .03 5 1.20 3.662 4 .687 2.46 10.564 7 .91 10 8 .00 6.41 14 .4 03 7.358 ·-- ... 11 Ir 7 0 Line ID Size Invert Dn HGL Dn (in) {ft) (ft) 100 24 295.50 298.00 101 18 298.85 300.35 102 24 298.45 300.45 103 18 299.64 302.15 110 18 299.74 302.17 111 18 300.45 302.82 112 18 301.54 303.27 200 36 x 72 295.00 298.00 201 18 296.62 298.74 202 36 x 72 295.23 298.31 210 36 295.83 299.23 220 36 x 72 295.93 299.05 221 36 x 72 297.07 300.07 270 36 297.07 300.07 271 18 299.92 301.42 280 36 298.52 301.52 281 18 301.40 302.90 282 30 300.40 302.90 285 24 301.89 303.89 286 18 302.86 304.36 290 30 300.70 303.22 291 24 302.40 304.40 292 18 303.80 305.30 293 24 302.40 304.40 294 24 304.27 306.27 EXHIBIT F The Barracks II Phase 100 Hydraflow Pipe Results 10-year Storm -Rim Elev Dn Invert Up HGLUp Rim Elev Up (ft) (ft) {ft) (ft) 298.00 297.85 299.53 j 304.90 304.90 299.98 301.00 j 306.00 304.90 299.14 300.69 j 303.70 303.70 300.11 302.37 303.70 303.70 300.35 302.45 306.40 306.40 301.44 303.18 304.80 304.80 302.11 303.27 304.80 298.00 295.12 298.12 301.80 301.80 297.43 298.88 301.80 301.80 295.73 298.69 303.10 303.10 297.03 299.68 304.30 303.10 296.97 299.54 304.50 304.50 297.52 300.08 304.50 304.50 298.42 300.68 306.80 306.80 300.36 301.42 306.80 306.80 299.90 302.08 309.05 309.05 302.33 303.56 j 310.50 309.05 300.60 302.98 309.55 308.70 302.36 304.01 308.00 308.00 303.25 304.43 308.00 309.55 301.90 303.63 310.40 310.40 303.30 304.61 309.50 309.50 304.20 305.30 309.50 310.40 304.17 305.53 310.50 310.50 304.49 306.34 310.50 ... Flow Rate Capacity Vel Ave (cfs) {cfs) (ft/s) 25.12 48.22 6.15 7.17 11.61 4.82 18.96 23.90 6.66 8.81 12.92 4.98 8.63 12.64 4.89 4.35 7.18 2.46 2.52 14.37 1.57 114.48 118.21 6.36 5.76 13.50 3.28 111.70 112.05 6.25 26.85 41.33 3.93 92.00 113.63 5.54 61.59 157.39 4.46 30.22 41.96 4.78 3.88 13.12 3.10 28.85 42.41 4.66 10.34 14.47 6.27 21.14 30.66 4.35 8.58 14.99 2.91 5.84 10.06 3.61 14.42 24.19 3.46 6.27 13.19 2.43 3.18 12.55 2.05 11.14 14.65 4.23 9.64 15.16 3.12 Size Invert Dn line ID (in) (ft) 100 24 295.50 101 18 298.85 102 24 298.45 103 18 299.64 110 18 299.74 111 18 300.45 112 18 301.54 200 36 x 72 295.00 201 18 296.62 J 202 36 x 72 295.23 210 36 295.83 220 36 x 72 295.93 221 36 x 72 297.07 270 36 297.07 271 18 299.92 280 36 298.52 281 18 301.40 282 30 300.40 285 24 301.89 286 18 302.86 290 30 300.70 291 24 302.40 292 18 303.80 293 24 302.40 294 24 304.27 EXHIBIT G The Barracks II Phase 100 Hydraflow Pipe Results 100-year Storm -HGL Dn Rim Elev Dn Invert Up HGL Up Rim Elev Up (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 299.30 298.00 297.85 300.50 304.90 300.99 304.90 299.98 301.77 306.00 300.69 -304.90 299.14 301.50 303.70 303.19 303.70 300.11 303.59 303.70 303.20 303.70 300.35 303.73 306.40 304.43 306.40 301.44 305.09 304.80 305.25 304.80 302.11 305.28 304.80 299.30 298.00 295.12 299.54 301.80 300.78 301.80 297.43 301.05 301.80 299.91 301.80 295.73 300.89 303.10 301.92 303.10 297.03 302.89 304.30 301.56 303.10 296.97 302.89 304.50 303.36 304.50 297.52 303.49 304.50 303.33 304.50 298.42 304.68 306.80 305.36 306.80 300.36 305.36 306.80 304.87 306.80 299.90 306.08 309.05 306.21 309.05 302.33 307.11 310.50 306.21 309.05 300.60 306.39 309.55 307.72 308.70 302.36 308.00 308.00 308.06 308.00 303.25 308.30 308.00 306.84 309.55 301.90 307.66 310.40 307.99 310.40 303.30 308.36 309.50 308.47 309.50 304.20 308.51 309.50 307.85 310.40 304.17 309.76 310.50 309.85 310.50 304.49 310.01 310.50 Flow Rate Capacity VelAve (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s) 34.42 48.22 7.01 9.67 11.61 5.47 25.95 23.90 • 8.26 11.90 12.92 6.73 11.81 12.64 6.69 5.87 7.18 3.32 3.39 14.37 1.92 160.64 118.21 • 8.92 7.78 13.50 4.40 156.45 112.05. 8.69 37.14 41.33 5.25 128.31 113.63 • 7.13 86.77 157.39 5.78 41.92 41.96 5.93 3.25 11.38 2.41 39.80 42.41 5.63 14.26 14.47 8.07 29.54 30.66 6.02 11.61 14.99 3.70 7.88 10.06 4.46 19.92 24.19 4.06 8.45 13.19 2.69 4.29 12.55 2.43 15.21 14.65 • 4.84 13.14 15.16 4.18 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section Ill (Administration) requires submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan) proposed in connection with land development projects, both site projects and subdivisions . That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps, graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a "Technical Design Summary". The format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the 'Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix . The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts as listed .below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable. In addition to the requirements for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be completed. These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and digitized. In addition, electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City. Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report as detailed in Section Ill of these Guidelines. Note: Part 1 -Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report required to be provided in connection with any land development project, regardless of the format chosen for said report. Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the forms provided in this Appendix . Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested, but additional information should be attached as necessary. Part 1 -Executive Summary Report Part 2 -Project Administration Part 3 -Project Characteristics Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 -Executive Summary This is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below. Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item . 1. Name, address, and contact information of the engineer submitting the report, and of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The date of submittal should also be included. 2. Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to applications that are in process with either City: plat(s), site plans, zoning requests , STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1of26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY or clearing/grading permits, as well as reference to any application numbers or codes assigned by the City to such request. 3. The location of the project should be described. This should identify the Named Regulatory Watershed(s) in which it is located, how the entire project area is situated therein, whether the property straddles a watershed or basin divide, the approximate acreage in each basin, and whether its position in the Watershed dictates use of detention design . The approximate proportion of the property in the city limits and within the ET J is to be identified , including whether the property straddles city jurisdictional lines. If any portion of the property is in floodplains as described in Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA that should be disclosed. 4 . The hydrologic characteristics of the property are to be described in broad terms : existing land cover; how and where stormwater drains to and from neighboring properties; ponds or wetland areas that tend to detain or store stormwater; existing creeks, channels, and swales crossing or serving the property; all existing drainage easements (or ROW) on the property, or on neighboring properties if they service runoff to or from the property. 5. The general plan for managing stormwater in the entire project area must be outlined to include the approximate size, and extent of use, of any of the following features : storm drains coupled with streets ; detention I retention facilities; buried conveyance conduit independent of streets; swales or channels ; bridges or culverts ; outfalls to principal watercourses or their tributaries; and treatment(s) of existing watercourses . Also, any plans for reclaiming land within floodplain areas must be outlined. 6 . Coordination and permitting of stormwater matters must be addressed. This is to include any specialized coordination that has occurred or is planned with other entities (local, state , or federal). This may include agencies such as Brazos County government, the Brazos River Authority, the Texas A&M University System , the Texas Department of Transportation , the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality , the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Environmental Protection Agency , et al. Mention must be made of any permits , agreements , or understand ings that pertain to the project. 7. Reference is to be made to the full drainage report (or the Technical Des ign Summary Report) which the executive summary represents. The principal elements of the main report (and its length), including any maps , drawings or construction documents , should be itemized . An example statement might be : "One __ -page drainage report dated , one set of construction drawings ( __ sheets) dated , and a ___ -page specifications document dated comprise the drainage report for this project." STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 2 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Eng ineering Firm Name and Address: Jurisdiction PA,-lf:1 s En3 11neer-1'nc:t City: Bryan V College Station Date of Submittal : Lead v:,ineer's Name and Contact lnfo .(phone, e-mail, fax): Other: /en f L~z0t Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm( st. Other contacts : K,rr,/e Hor/'\ <t-!l-sspcr..ee -es-Chr~5 H~ur-•'s ; 1,£. Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I ~['ic/r/ Name and Address : {.ihone rd e-mail : ff H-ee<iA ,· ~> 'Inveslrn~nfs, A.LC q7q {,</ J-j°OO() i:> . /-/eafh fJA ,///;> >, Owner hee1+h-'5U! ert'or~-frv cfvre!. @ l/<:.ihoo . co W1 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: I &'ctme) Project Identification Development Name: The Aetrrctc k s I 5~ )t'v1 -~, P/'\ Is subject property a site project, a single-phase subdivision , or part of a multi-phase subdivision? />Jo JI,· ... b h(j S .e. :S: V'b d. If multi-phase, subject property is phase / of I 3 I Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see section 11. Pazraph B-3a) Craw 'o,) turn~ If League 1 1/-7 If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all earlier phases. For most recent earlier phase Include submittal and review dates . General Location of Project Areh or subja pr°Jrty (phase): 1i i Be-ftVeeri otJ Well Orr Oo Clt;Jd f ulel'Yl•r" /.),. 5' <f) ,,,.,_A I n~rfli e;/ !("ck A , , l()(lj't1 lti We-Jf ~,., ~ S' ()(.)f J "/ G1~ 1 ~ In City Limits? Bryan: acres . College Station : /80~ acres. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan : College Station: Acreage Outside ET J : Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 " SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or with in Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built so7J p 7i/~:// hor" ~~ developments: g , ~ .Me ,,gtflrrvc ~ 'i I ven;r \I ~1 /-/.o /le rn 61'1 ();: 5'ovfh 1~St5iJ 1 '3arJer Tra~f, .'/c.Jrrier ~ Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed (s): bee Creek Tributary Basin ( s ): Trt'b 1.3. ~ Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File#: Final Plat File #: Da te: Name: TJa~ IJarrack~ Jr. Status and Vol/Pg : If two plats , second name: File#: Status: Da te: Zoning Information For Project or,,Subject Property (or P~ase) Zoning Type : P/Jb ~r 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): Pa rticipants: 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 Effective February 2007 Page 4 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 -r • • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2 .3) Cc;>ordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Note: For any Coordination of stormwa ter ma tters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substantiati ng any agreements , understand ings , contracts , or approvals. Coordination W it h Other Departments of Jurisdiction City (Bryan o r Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: College Station)>-------+--------+----->--------------< Coordination With Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes __ No V Coordinat ion with Brazos County Needed? Yes __ No V Coord ination w ith TxDOT Needed? Yes __ No V Coordination w ith T AMUS Needed ? Yes __ No V Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Summarize need(s) & act ions taken (include contacts & dates): Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Permits For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) As to stormwater management, are permits required for the proposed work from any of the ent ities lis ted below ? If so , summarize status of efforts toward that objective in spaces below. Entity US Army Crops of Eng ineers No __ Yes V" US Environmental Protection Agency No v' Yes _ Texas Comm ission on Env ironmenta l Quality No Yes V Brazos River Au t h~ No __ Yes _ Permitted or Approved? STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Status of Actions (include dates) " ) J -...... l~~f Pr-1 Sv b "' , 'fTe d b '1..11 '-~ :J , t-n j . d/1 June .:::l7, 2..011. r+wctt '"1 ref/)011ee I Pa ge 5 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised Febru a ry 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -ProQert~ Characteristics I Start (Page 3 .1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work ' Existing: Land proposed for development currently used , including extent of impervious cover? 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 V 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 rat io. Describe Subdivisions : number of lots by general type of use, linear feet of streets and Nature and drainage easements or ROW. _ff o/-sfr<ile-1-s BJ ./ofs 1 l/b2 ~ Size of Pro~osed Project Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, ef.lain: fa or on land for which platting is not pending? o~~li I OJ'l :J~f'1~5 1-v ,./t e h No V Yes Cd rvf/-~ci ""1/ ,-,,,,J,'o/ f' <15c --b """ on ~re.lie-~ /)/'C O,, I Lt FEMA Floodplains I I , r .. Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I N ~ y (Section 11 , Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? 0 es -- Is any part of subject property in floodplain jNo ~ Yes __ Rate Map area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): __ Bui lding site(s) __ Road crossing(s) into Floodplain areas planned? __ Util ity crossing(s) __ Other (explain): No v- Yes -- If fl oodplain 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 February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert)l Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property? Yes Reference the study (& da_te) here, and attach copy if not already i n Cit11es. v !(,,.,fey -/{or,.. 5:/.,,,/1 {2010) -IJ,, • /,!".,,/ °'-",,sf,-••- f/ocgJ,·n j ;io/r?rif1'<A · Is the stormwater mana7nt plan for the property in substantial conformance with the earlier study? Yes No If not, explain how it d iffers . No If subject property is not part of multi-phase project , describe stormwater management plan for the property in Part 4. --If property is part of multi-phase project, provide overview of stormwater management plan for Project Area here . In Part 4 describe how plan for subject property will comply therewith . / Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? ~ No --Yes Describe them (include approximate size, volume , outfall , model , etc). Any known drainage or-flooding problems i~rers n~Jubject pro/ry? JeffJ. No ~es Identify: The. ctrea. Clrovt'ltA QtV? 1-0 We ],,)il~l'1. . Based on location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention (flood control} needed? (s~le B-1 in Appendix B) __ Detention is required . --Need must be evaluated. __ Detention not requ ired . What decision has been reached? By whom? If the need for How was determination made? Type 1 Detention must be evaluated : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro12ert~ Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? ____.lL'.'..' No --Yes If yes, describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desiqn concept for handlinq this . Watershed or Basin Laraer acreaae Lesser acreaQe Above-Project Areas(Section 11 , Paragraph B3-a) - Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? __ No V Yes Q Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) See , Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable .S1 (.) concentrated section(s), small c~eek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Flow determination : Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm ru~rain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? __ No __ Yes If yes , describe facilities in easement or ROW : Are changes in runoff charac~eristics rbjeclo ch~e in future? Expl~in ~// Ye~-/J-5 a~'o 1 ~,,,,J rac--> e,,nt0~ + '" ~ cl ~-e .,,:./, ~ - f()h.J $' rli~,-r d:litws-I.Ve Ji c.riP s s f~ .. $ l-rc.c/. Conveyance Pathways (Section 11, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties beJore reayhf,g a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? V No Yes Goes M " /;, · b t3 . 1 . 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 Februarv 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert)l Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject ~roperty (or Phase) (cont inued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes , for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat, or easements __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions . exist for any part of pathway(s)? No -- Yes -- Where runoff must cross lower properties , describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway £'y; ,'s /. ·,.,~ fJJ cJer cotJ <: e c ros ~ P s -f-he Jow" :r lre<i,., Areas (J '~j>8r tr ' f, See /(tr,,,, /~'f /-lorn slue!'/. Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts , bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales , detention ponds, etc). Rt< Ll'oss1r,j a"'1J cufverf uncl~r /,LJ.e //bPrn Road Nearby Drainage Do any of these have h~logic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? __ No __ Yes If yes, explain: S~e ·K,/n fei /-lorn SI-~ ol r- STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 I • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4 .1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) From Upland Area(s) If runoff is to be received from upland areas, what design drainage features will be used to accommodate it and insure it is not blocked by future development? Describe for each area, flow section , or discharge point. f<vnf/ fr"~ ~/q,,J 1reQ> wrl( rvLk(!Jfr f1?c,-'ffe,,,J $fPrl'Y1 dracvt 5vl~ ·v, 's:iort ~eve //1 5. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II , Paragraph E1) Does project include draina~features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? __ No _V_ Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above , how will runoff be discharged to neighboring property(ies )? __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) ~re-development Release (Scenario 2) __ Combination of the two Scenarios Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed, and provide status of actions on each. (Attached Exhibit# ) Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre -development conditions (detention, sheet flow , partially concentrated , etc.). (Attached Exhibit# ) !Jefenf rp;i /Jo/lj 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 use~has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? V No __ Yes Explain and provide documentation. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 I • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Will project result in shifting runoff between Basins or Identify gaining Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting: between f--W_h_a_t_d-es-i-gn_a_n_d_m_i-tig_a_t-io_n_i_s_u_se-d-to_c_o_m_pe_n_s_a-te_f_o_r_in-c-re_a_s_e_d_r_un_o_ff-~ Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? VNo __ Yes How will runoff from Project Area be mitigated to pre- development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2, and/or 3 , and explain below. 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. 2 . ~tablishing features to serve overall Project Area. 3 . __ On phase (or site) project basis within Project Area . 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 Exh ibit# ) /J.J/ fh ree Je/e'l ./ ~~ /:(?/>c/5 ' /1. /c,..,ne,/ -Cr f Ae Jevet/nt"'" I wdl b< hurl/ w1'1-h fhe ,,.,../1./ ;;h45e, 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. (°'· "'C Q) "' c Q) fij >- 0::: "' c Cl 'iii Q) 0 Oz ivt ~ <( Are aquatic echosystems proposed? V No project(s)? __ Yes In which phase(s) or Are other Best Ma!J99ement Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? __ No _V_ Y Ye es Summarize type of BMP and extent of use : · Sdf ..gncef Con ~ft.·vcl'on ew'/.r ro ck check dC/~5. I I If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications , check type facility(ies) and expla in in later questions . __ Detention elements __ Conduit elements __ Channel features __ Swales __ Ditches __ Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls __ Culvert features __ Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 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)? ~No __ Yes Identify type and general size and In which phase(s). If detention/retention serves (will serve) overall Project Area , describe how it relates to subject phase or site project (phys ical location , co~veyance pathway(s), construction se/,enc~)/ 1 n e te;7' ~,.-1 ,1-e f -e ivtJI J/I I' ();?cl 5 . '-v ( l l ~e. Ch I W t ~ fAe I"' f 1 c. { ,/J ho f-<! Q.f fA~ //'OJ e ct Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Projec~a , is des ign 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 dra inage features listed below are included , exten t of use, and general characteristics . Typical shape? I Surfaces? C'-· "O Q) I/) Steepest side slopes : Usual front slopes : Usual back slopes : I/) ::::I Q) I/) >- Q) I .c Flow line slopes : least Typ ical d istance from travelway : .B :0 typical greatest (Attached Exhibit # ) Q) 32 0 I/) z !t Are longitudin~rt ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? <( Yes No, then explain: I/) At intersections or otherwise , do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? .0 Q) V..-No __ Yes If yes explain : :; C'-· >-U-01 .c Q) +"' I/) -~ : A~lley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? I/) Q) Ci) 3 0 __ No __ Yes Explain : (number of locations?) ~ 01z u; -o I Q) c ..... ro <( STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 h 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. &>7/o Usual l~~~Q Greatest 2.0'I % Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? VVes --No If "no'', identify where and why. Will inlets capture 10-year de~ stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? __ Yes __ No If no, explain where and why not. C'-· "C Q) en Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year :J L.. design storm throughout site (or phase)? ~Yes No If no , explain . Q) :t:: -- :J OJ -c~ c "C ___LYes Ill Q) Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? No Are inlets and ..c ~ -- L.. ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? :J -u c ~Yes __ No Explain "no" answers. 0 .r:: u --"§ en a; ~ Vi Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be con~in combination of ROW and buried conduit on L.. <{ whole length of all streets? Yes __ No If no, desr;;ribe where and why. Do ~gns for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? Yes __ No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification . / Are any 12-inch laterals used? V No --Yes Identify length(s) and where used . C'-· "C Pipe runs between system I Typical Q) "' Longest ~ Q) access points (feet): E >-~Yes If not, explain where ~1 Are junction boxes used at each bend? --No and why. en c ·-0 ~z "C I E L.. Least amount that hydraulic 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Vi Yes V No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line .!!2 (system-wide): o.s ff STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Ul Q.) u c co iii c Q.) .... -o ~E ::i .... . ~E c . oE ~-~ E <l.l <l.l E -co ~ Vl Vl Q.) c :g ·-> ~ E "O c.. E a; 0 Q.) -.r::. Cl) Vl C'· Vl (ii 2 ~ co c.. Q.) Vl c -9- ~ Vl -Q.) Vl >- ~ I B ~o Vl z ::i ~vr Vl Q.) ~ Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) rece iv ing system discharge(s) below (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? Be.e Cree I( Tr .' L A. 3 @ D o I 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle? 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? For each outfall above , what measures are taken to p revent erosion or scour of receiving and all facilities at juncture? , I / .J / 1) /t.Jot'le /)e..ede ol ~-{ v e /o e.-• 't-i 'e .s e sf r/1 en-'\ :Z.. ff /s·e c. 2) 3) Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? V No __ Yes Number of instances : For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low-flow flumes if any): F low line slopes (m inimum and maximum): Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle , & end treatment). Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained w ithin easement(s) or platted drainage ROW in all instances? __ Yes __ No If "no" explain : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised Februarv 2009 ) . SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concegt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued)" . ·' " Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, 9r Site) (continued) <n Are roadside ditches used? _L_ No __ Yes If so , provide the following : Q) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout ? __ Yes --No .s:::. ~ Are top of banks separated from road shoulde rs 2 feet or more? __ Yes --No 0 Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No Cl) ----:g For any "no " answers provide location(s) and explain : <n -0 ro 0 0::: If conduit is beneath a swale , provide the follow ing information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location , approximate length : <n Cl) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combina ti on? Yes No >-----I~ If "no " explain : c Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width 0 ro z iii Swa le Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum Vf~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: 0 ('-· ~ -0 <n -0 a; ro Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains , inlets by type): c >. c ro c .s:::. ro (.) .... c .2 Cl) c Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale , into condu it): a. 0 0 :.;::; -ro 0 E :J 0 -~ -c c Instance 2 Describe general location , approximate length : Cl) -0 E Cl) ro <n <n :J Cl) Cl) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No c -0 ·:; ----0 If "no " explain : ~ 0 .... c a. :0 Qi Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E Cl) 0 .s:::. (.) <n Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum ..... Cl) ·5 ~ and maximum slopes : slopes , design storm : -0 c ro 0 a. (.) Cl) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type ): -. Cl) ~ c ro ~ :,: <n Cl) Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale , into condui t ): ~ STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effect ive February 2007 Page 15 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ) - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4. 7) ... .,,,,., Stormwater Management Concept (continued) ,} ~ . \' ' . Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase , or Site) (continued) If "yes " provide the following information for each insta nce : Instance 1 Describe general location , approximate leng th, surfacing: c "iii E 0.. x e UJ -:s:: ui Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? --Yes --No Is swale wholly 0 Q) within drainage ROW? Yes No Explain "n o " answers : c ,_I ::i ----.... Q) .;:: Q) Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: l) ~ 0 -z ::i ]1 Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length , surfacing: Q) ·.::: C'· ::i rn .0 c :5 Q) 0 E £ Q) rn Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? Yes No Is swale wholly ·3 lll \ ---- rn .... within drainage ROW? __ Yes --No Explain "n o" answers: Q) 0 iii s 3: rn 0 ~ a::: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided : -~ :0 ::i c.. 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. C'· " c Will design replicate natural channel? Yes No If "no ", for each instance Q) -----rn ..!:!! describe section shape & area, flow line slope (min. & max.), surfaces , and 100-year 0 c.. c.. x design flow, and amount of freeboard: e UJ c.. Instance 1: rn rn c Q) Q) >- E I Q) > Instance 2: 0 .... c.. E 0 z 1v1 Instance 3 : u STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .8) 01 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? __iL'"Yes No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location: For each location, describe length and general w:e of propr,sed imprfveft_ny (including floodpl}.n changes): The e y.i5 /~'J c.. cm n e ,+ ~4~, ot/ dr~o'n.> vls/··e"'m tr11orf1'q5 w,// /o.e.... n741,i '""' ~ t}i r t)(UIS), 't/.. e. £Iv r~ 1J 'ht:1 s e s-vn I. '/ f), ~ 't o/ eve / '/" . ,4f Ii ./-1mc :a fhQ. c#ignn~J w1 '/I h~ ,, vi 1'r1-k> ·o c.ol"lc/u, '/. For each location, describe section shape & area, flow fine slope (min . & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow . 'C Q) ::i c ~ Watercourses {and tributaries): Aside f~ringe changes, are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No __ Yes Explain below . ~ (/) c Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses . Address Q) existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E Q) length affected , and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures > 0 and data . Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" explain : .... --a. E - (ii c c Cll All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work , provide information .r:. 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 freeboard? --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 of26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ~ '~ ,, SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.9) Stormwater Management Concept (c:;ontinued) ,. ,., Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) How many facilities for subject property project? I For each provide info . below. For each dry-type facilitiy : Facility 1 Facility 2 Acres served & design volume+ 10% 100-yr volume : free flow & plugged Design discharge (10 yr & 25 yr) Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? __ yes --no __ yes --no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? __ yes --no __ yes --no Explain any "no " answers : rn r For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: 0 z Facility 2: I Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: __ Yes No Facility 2 : Yes No -- ----C'-· If "no" explain : "'C Q) rn 0 0.. 0 .... a.. For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? rn Q) Facility 1: & Facility 2: & E '(3 Are energy dissipation measures used? No Yes Describe type and Cll ----u.. location:. c 0 ~ Q) Q) 0 Q) For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe : .... <( Facility 1: Facility 2: For each , what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour at receiving facility? Facility 1: Facility 2: If berms are used give heights , slopes and surface treatments of sides . Facility 1: Facility 2 : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 S' e e. K,·,.,, /e1 J-/.,r-n /Je.. fe¥t t1'D l'l S-lvd'1 . ' ,I' • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.10) k" StormwaterManagement Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) ~ Do structures comply with B-CS Specifications? ~ no , and explain if "no ": Facility 1; "' Q) :;::: =s ~ Q) Facility 2 : u.. :::J c§ 0 c :..;:; 0 c (.) Q) ~ w For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. 0 Are parking areas to be used for detention? ~N o --Yes What is maximum depth due to required design storm? Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches? --No --Yes If "yes ", provide information in next two boxes . Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? --Yes --No Without causing flowing or standing water on public roadway? --Yes --No Designs & materials comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No Explain any "no " answers : C'-· "' O> c ·v.; Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: "' 0 --u "' Q) Q) (ii >- > I ·.:: Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage 0. (ii ways that serve Above -Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? -c 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. Q) z ----~ How many instances? Describe loca tion and prov ide information below. Q) Location 1: > :i (.) Q) 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 sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 19 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ( / " SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulato!Y Watercourses {& Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these facilities? --No __ Yes , then provide full report documenting assumptions , criteria , analysis , computer programs , and study fin dings that sup port proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", explain : -Arterial or Major Collector Streets : W ill culverts serve these types of roadways? Q) Q) No Yes How many insta nces? For each identify the .r: Vl -- Q) location and provide the information below. vi ro Instance 1: Q) ..._ >-~ I~ Instance 2 : Instance 3: c 0 o~ Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 z E ~ Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E C'· ro Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? Vl Vl g>"O Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c ~ ro 0 c ..._ 0 (.):;::; >-ro ro u :: ..Q "O Q) ro ..c Minor Collector or Local Streets : Will culverts serve these types of streets? 0 ·-..._ ..._ u u No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-Vl -----Q) -g "O location and provide the information below: c.. Q) ..... c.. Instance 1: ro ~ "O >-Instance 2 : Q) c vi ro :J -Instance 3: Vl 0 t:: Vl Q) Q) For each instance enter value, or "yes " I "no " for : 1 2 3 2: u :J c u ro Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Q) Vi ..._ c <( ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Q) a Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft)=? E a Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? ::::.. Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? Explain any "no " answers : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effecti ve February 2007 Page 20 of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev is ed Febru ary 2009 L ,:I' • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt 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 d itch 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 des ign(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 i nto 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? <D --No --Yes If "yes " identi f y location(s), describe outfall des ign treatment(s): :J c ~ 0 .s. en t:: <D Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural > "'S (.) components , and surfacing at culvert ends? __ Yes __ No If "no " Identify locations and provide justification(s): W ill 100-yr flow and spread of backwater be fully contained in street ROW , and/or dra inage easements/ ROW? __ Yes --No if not , why not? Do appreciable hydraulic effects of any culvert extend downstream or upstream to ne ighboring 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 Effecti ve February 2007 Page 21of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 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 subj ect property project? v No --Yes If "yes " provide the following informa ti on . Name(s) and functional classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? (j) Q) Ol -c ·;:: en A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural , geotechnical , hydrologic , and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report. Is the report provided? --Yes --No If "no " expla in: Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techn iques: ~ Pollution Prevention Sdt .kn c e 1 r&c/c. che c.k o/a,,.,,s 1 ro Plan (SW3R) ::J seeA1nj 1-p es/-QJj,~/, veg . c .ov ei-. a established for .... project construction? Q) iii __ No /Yes s Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems , wetland-type detention , natural stream re~tion , BMPs for water qual ity, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property proj ect? __ 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 w ill not be compromised , and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution( s ). Is report provided? --Yes --No If "no " explain : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effect ive February 2007 Page 22 of26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.14) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) ,,, Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs -Deviation From B-CS Technical Specifications If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain by specific detail element. --De tention elements __ Drain system elements --Channel features Culvert features Swales Ditches Inlets Ou tfalls ---------- __ Valley gutters __ Bridges (explain in bridge report) In table below briefly identify specific element, justification for deviation(s). Specific Detail Element Justification for Deviation (attach additional sheets if needed} 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Have elements been coordinated with the City Engineer or her/his designee? For each item ab ove 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? V Yes --No Briefly summarize the range of applications made of/:: Rational Formula : l?a../.1",;, ... ,.{ hrmv!IJI wq$ v>~~ ;;;.r sr'z..1 '"j ,..,,/~-f, ayivf sl~rM Jr()l1 'r.s_ What is the size and location of largest Des ign Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 6Q 168 acres Location (or identifier): (JIJ 2 B / STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.15) .. Design Parameters (continued) ' Hydrology (continued) In mak ing deVinations for time of concentration , was segment analysis used? No Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas ? l OO % As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for de~i ning runoff flows , were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? No __ Yes If "yes " identify type of data , source(s), and where applied : For each of the stormwater management features listed below identi fy the storm return frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design. Feature ·Analys is Year(s) Design Year Storm dra in system for arterial and collector streets /() l~O JO Storm drain system for local streets f //) /Oo l {) Open channels I Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel Swales Roadside d itches and culverts serving them Detention facilities : sp illway crest and its outfall Al/<JI 2~-S /?, /0.9 /oo Detention facilities : outlet and conveyance structure(s) f 2. t.:> z ~,S-& {O P /O p Detention facilities : volume when outlet plugged //)O l o o Culverts serving private drives or streets Culverts serving publ ic roadways Bridges : provide in bridge report . Hydraulics .. What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined be low? Design flow velocities ; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels Highest (feet per second) 3 8 Lowest (feet per second) 'Z .2. Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used : For street gutters : O. 2 l/ For condu it type(s) • 0 I 3 {l(c f') . 012. tJ.f~flE)coeffi ci ents : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 24 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.16) Design Parameters (continued) , Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued} For the follow ing , are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? V No Yes Head and friction losses VNo Yes ---- Explain any "yes " answer: In condu it is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? ~Yes --No Are elevat ion drops provided at inlets , manholes , and junction boxes? _0es --No Explain any "no " answers : Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? __ Yes __ No For 100-year flow conditions? /Yes __ No Explain any "no " answers : What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain : f ft e (Y) Cl. -y: ,' ;?1 v 11') e / e vcJ., 011 £,~ 100 'f r e ven -f 1 V\ del-en/1".o~1 ;Jor?ol s. Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized , does it follow Sec Vl.F.5 .a? __ Yes __ No Outside of straight sections , is flow regime w ithin limits of sub-critica l flow? __ Yes __ No If "no " list locations and explain : Culverts If plan sheets do not provide the following for each culve rt, describe it here . For each design discharge , will operation be outlet (barrel) control or inlet control? Entrance , friction and exit losses : Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised Febru ary 2009 ,, • 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 l-/'1drt)f ffo~ (Hufo C!ftJ 2 0 12. (_~,.v // 3D) Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Requirements for subm ittal 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 Add any concluding information here: State of Texas PE No. b S" Cf 23 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Conclusions Attestation Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised Februarv 2009 5 4 Scale= 1: 375 (Feet) 1 N 42 ° 14' 17" E 1504 .27 5 N42°14 '17"E90 2 S 47° 45' 43 " E 526 .17 6 N47°45'43"W441 .17 3 s 42 ° 14 ' 17" w 1594 .27 4 N47°45'43"W85 METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION OFA TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT 18.35ACRES CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE, A-7 COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPT ION OF A 50 .00 FOOT WIDE PIPELINE EASEMENT LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE , ABSTRACT NO . 7, COLLEGE STATION , BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS . SAID EASEMENT BEING A PORTION OF A CALLED 108 .88 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO HEATH PHILLIPS INVESTMENTS , LLC RECORDED IN VOLUME 9627 , PAGE 73 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS . SAID TRACT BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS : COMMENCING AT A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF HOLLEMAN DRIVE (FORMERLY I&GN ROAD) MARKING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID 108 .88 ACRE TRACT AND THE SOUTH CORNER OF A CALLED 29 .175 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO JOHN WHEELER BARGER, TRUSTEE , RECORDED IN VOLUME 7583 , PAGE 90 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS , FOR REFERENCE A Yz INCH IRON ROD FOUND ON THE NORTHEAST LINE OF HOLLEMAN DRIVE MARKING A COMMON CORNER OF SAID 108 .88 ACRE TRACT AND A CALLED 27 .017 ACRE TRACT AS DESCRIBED BY A DEED TO COLLEGE STATION ISD RECORDED IN VOLUME 9626 , PAGE 76 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS , BEARS : S 22° 02' 42 " E FORA DISTANCE OF 412 .84 FEET ; THENCE: N 42 ° 14' 17 " E ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID 108 .88 ACRE TRACT AND SAID 29 .175 ACRE TRACT FORA DISTANCE OF 1529 .21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT ; THENCE: N 42° 14' 17" E CONTINUING ALONG THE COMMON LINE OF SAID 108 .88 ACRE TRACT AND SAID 29 .175 ACRE TRACT FOR A DISTANCE OF 1504.27 FEET TO THE NORTH CORNER OF THIS HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT ; THENCE: THROUGH SAID 108.88 ACRE TRACT FOR THE FOLLOWING CALLS : S 47 ° 45' 43" E FORA DISTANCE OF 526 .17 FEET ; S 42 ° 14' 17" WFORA DISTANCE OF 1594.27 FEET ; N 47 ° 45' 43" W FORA DISTANCE OF 85 .00 FEET ; N 42 ° 14' 17" E FORA DISTANCE OF 90 .00 FEET ; N 47 ° 45' 43" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 441.17 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAlNlNG 18 .35 ACRES OF LAND , MORE OF LESS , AS SURVEYED ON THE GROUND . BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREIN IS BASED ON GRID NORTH AS ESTABLISHED FROM GPS OBSERVATION . SEE PLAT PREPARED AUGUST 2011 FOR MORE DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION . BRAD KERR REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR No . 4502 D:/WORK/MAB/11-464 .MAB 1 SCALE : 1" = 300' POINT OF BEGINNING / / N 47"45'43" W 85 .00' N/F HEATH PHILLIPS INVESTMENTS , LLC 108.88 ACRE TRACT 9627/73 BEARING SYSTEM SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON GRID NORTH AS ESTABLISHED FROM "' GPS OBSERVATION . SEE METES AND BOUNDS PREPARED AUGUST 2011 FOR MORE DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION . SURVEY PLAT OF A TEMPORARY DRAINAGE EASEMENT 18.35 ACRES CRAWFORD BURNETT LEAGUE, A-7 COLLEGE STATION , BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ~ SCALE : 1 INCH • 300 FEET V-f It SURVEY DATE: 03-09-10 All IA c PLAT DATE: 08-30-11 JOB NUMBER: 11-464 1----'---J CAD NAME: 11-464 CRS FILE : 10-024 PREPARED BY : KERR SURVEYING , LLC 409 N. TEXAS AVENUE BRYAN. TEXAS 77803 PHONE (979) 268-3195 ' Knnley -Horn and ftssociates, Inc. The Barracks Floodplain Analysis Technical Memorandum To: · Mr. Wallace Phillips -Heath Phillips Investments, LLC From : Mr . Clu·is Harris, P.E . -Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc, Date: October 4, 2010 Subj: The Barracks Preliminary Floodplain Analysis Heath Phillips Investment s, LLC is propo sing The Barracks, a mixed-use development to be located between Rock Prairie RQad and Cain Road on the southwest side of Wellborn Road in Co ll ege Station, Texas. Bee Creek Tributary B.3 originates within The Barracks property and flows to the north where it crosses Cain Road and Wellborn Road. The Bee Creek Tributary B.3 confluence with Bee Creek Tributaiy Bis approximately 8,500 feet downstream of The Barracks northwestern property boundary. Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc . (KHA) has prepared a preliminaiy hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to determine the existing condition 100-year floodplain ex tents of Tributary B.3 between the propetiy's northwest boundaiy and We ll born Road (the "subject i·each"). A description of the analysis, parameters, and res ults is included in the following technica l memorandum . Hydrology KHA delineated th e drainage area for Tributary B.3 using City of College Station 2-foot aerial topography, field ob se rvations, ai1d coord ination with design engineers for nearby developments . Approximately 641 acres drain to the existing Tributary 8.3 crossing of Wellborn Road. KHA created a hydrologic model of Tributary 8.3 us ing the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers HEC- HMS v.4.0 hydro logic modeling software .to determine 100-year peak flows along the subject reach. The hydro logic model input is based on the attached drainage area map and hydrologic parameters determined for each drainage area. The hydrologic analysis was performed in accordance with the Unified Stonnwater Design Guide lines for the Cities of Bryan and College Station (the "Drninage Manua l"). The following summarizes the methodo log ies used to detemline hydrologic parameters for this study. o Curve Numbers were detetmi ned using aerial photography and soil mapp ing for the watershed. The soils map was obtained from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey. The different land 11Ses and so il types were detemlined for each drainage area and a weighted Curve Number was assigned to each drainage area usi.11g methodology described in Teclmical Release SS (TR-55) (NRCS , 1986). e The time of concentration for each drainage area was detennined using methodology described in TR-55. Times of concentration are multiplied by a factor of 0.6 to calculate lag times. • Muskingum-Cunge methodology was used for reach rout ing. Reach geometry information was de termined using 2-foot aeria l topography and field observations. • The 100-year rainfall depth was obtain ed from the Drainage Manual. The hydrologic model assumes an NRCS Type llI rainfall distribution .. Copyright © 2010, Kimley-Horn a11d Associates, Inc . I • ' Kimley-Horn and A.,~ociates, Inc. The Barra cks Floodplain Analysis Technical Memorandum Table 1 summarizes the 100-year flows in Tributary B.3 that are used in the hydraulic analysis. The concentration points are shown on the attached drainage area map. J-A3 3,332 J-Bl 1,452 Hydraulics KHA prepared an existing condition hydraulic model for Tributary B.3 using the U.S . Army Corp s of Engineers HEC-RAS v.4.0 hydraulic modeling software Topo gr ap hic information for the project was obtained from the Client and City of Coll eg e Station. The vertical datum of the topographic information provided by the Client is unknown. Submittal s to the City of College Station or FEMA will require verification that the vertical datum is con sist ent with each review agency's requirements. The following topo graphic infonn ation wa s used as the basis for hydraulic modeling ofTiibutaiy B.3 : o Client-provided on-ground smvey points in the vicinity of the Tributary B.3 crossin g of Wellborn Road and along the bed and banks of Tribu1a1y B.3 between Cain Ro ad and the property 's southeastern boundaiy. o Client-provided 2-foot aerial topography . o City-provided 2-foot aerial topograph y. Hydraulic parameters used in the HEC-RAS model were determined using topographic information , aerial photography, and field observation . Manning's "n " values vary along the reach of Tributary B.3 and are based on veget ative ground coverage and Tab le 3· J of the HEC- RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual (USACE , 2008). Tlu·ee existing culve1t crossings and one existing bridge cro ssing were included in the hydraulic model. The existing culvert cros sing for Wellborn Road consi sts of 3-6'x8' box culverts. Immediately upstream of the Wellborn Road cro ssing is a railroad brid ge cro ssing that con sists of a 2-span bridge. Just upstream of the railroad bridge is the Old Wellborn Road crossing which consi sts of 3-3'x3 ' box culverts. The fourth crossing is a 36" CMP culvert beneath Cain Road. In existing conditions , all four crossings overtop during the 100-year event. Table 2 summarizes the JOO-year existin g condition water surface elevations detennined by the hydraulic model. See the atta ched Existing Condition 100-Year Floodplain Workmap for cros s section locations and an existing condition floodplain deline ation through the subject reach . Copyright ©2010, Ki111/ey-Homa11dAss oc iates, l11 c. 2 Kimley-Hom and A.~ociates, Inc. The Bal'l'acks Floodplain Analysis Technical Memorandum 53+00 289.63 54+00 289.72 54+31 290.79 56+46 291.89 56+67 291.97 57+14 293.51 57+50 294.38 58+00 294.39 60+00 294 .39 62+00 294.40 64+00 294.40 66+00 294.41 68 +00 294.42 68+96 294.43 69+83 294 .47 72+29 294.39 74+31 295.19 76+02 295.79 78+o6 296.35 79+93 297.05 83+20 298.26 Conclusion The results of th e preliminary hydra ul ic analysis indicate the exist ing cro ssings at Wellborn Road , the railroad bridge, Old Wellborn Road , and Cain Road are no t ade quat ely sized to convey the 100-year existing condition peak flow without ove1topping. These undersized crossings cause a backwater effect in 100·-year event to a point approximately 1,700 fee t upstream of th e Cain Road crossing of Tributary B.3. Attachments Ex isting Condit ion Drainage Area Map Existing Condit ion 10 0-Year Floodplain Workmap Copyright © 2010, Kimley-llom and Associates, In c. 3 HEC-R~S Plan: Ea: Ri...er.. Trib Rettctl: 8.~ Ptofile: 100·YR ----~ ~t.in Ch Elj · \v.s. E!av Ttie.'~idlh. __ Frc1,;~~ I Ree?~h Rlv.,S!a I Profile Q Tctal ·· CntW.S. E.G. EJov E.G. Sklpe Vel Chnl F:owAtea I (d•) I (fl) (fl) (ft) I (fl) I (fL'h) (!1/s) (sq ft) 1n·1 '6.3 83:'0 1100-YR. I 805.00 294.59 298.27 2%.%l 298.34 0.001557 2.30. 401.6& 415.47 o.,9 le.3 799J I lOO:YR f452.00 295.26: 297.05 2%.EO 297.15 0.008675 4.75, G35.83 684.24 -~ 6.3 7800 · 1100·YR 1452.001 294.03' 296.35 296.0G 256.47 _2.005!99 4.22' 711.85 8().1.48 J_EI ....--------· B.3 7€02 100-YR 1~2.00 292 02 • ... .. 295.79 295.f2 295.89 o.002m 3.2': 843.78 793.EB 0137 e.J ,7431 100-YR 1452.00 291.e"l 2~5.19 2~4.EE 295.23 0.001770 2.65 1200.23 1Z41.07 0.31 8.3 72<-J 100-YR 1452.00 209.79'. 2~NAI 294.j:.! 284.63 0.00709·1 .S.20 555.37 9g1.~s 0.59 B.3 16~83 1100.YR ! 1452.00 287.61; 2;.1,48 290.14 294.49 O.OC0038i 0.74 3E69.t5 1242.911 0.05 B.3 6£-.tll I i CUIVfrt I I B.3 ,;ag.; l1CO-YR 1452.00 213!iA01 2g4AJ1 291.fil 29~.'14 O.OC-01-04 0.95 2723 G7 1257.83 O.\lti 8.3 51\(;) I 100-YR I 1452.00 2&6.101 2;.f-'211 291.~0 2.94.42 O.OC-0097 o.s:: 3023.71 1tllt!i9 0.08 !1C0-YR 294 401 289ES 294.41 ·-~·_.:;.;.;:..::.. 8.3 5EOO 1452.00 285.Z:61 O.OC~34 0.60 41_?9.0<l 1€43.31 0.05 ~. e..100 '1CO·YR 1452.(-0 265.03 194.-$01 269.05 294.40 0.000024 -O.EG 4740.32 1571.82 ~.04 B.3 6200 1110.YR 1452.C-O 2!>l .. t9 294.40: 287.17 2911.40 O.Oll0017 0.5• 473$;M, 1t44,49 C.Q.I ·-29J.J9i ":-:-1"" •. Bl! GllOO 100-YR 145<.IJO 26395 289.19 ~439 0.0)0020 0.52 J8"'6.0B i 140d.02 a.fl< -----B.3 SS•)() 100-YR 1452.00 263.91 294.39 280.86 2114~9. , ___ ,_0.000013 0.47 52BG.OR . 1917.S!j O.Ql a.a 5775 Cul-1crt 7599.) ·-2056.Gl. B.3 ~760 100-YR 3332.00 2~3.19i 29q,;ia 289.59 294.39 O.flli0:147 1.04' 0.05 -/B.3 5rn fOO-YR I ~m.oo 2a2.sg1 293.50' 289.83 294.18 0.003~33 6.00 718.81 555.Q.I OA~ IB.3 559f Bridcc I ,!l]__ s-;67 W:l-YR. 3332.00, 282.101 291.95 (89.42 291.99 0.0001111 2.£)9 3:2_~3.s9 1"31.05 --~ ~----· B.3 S645 . 100-YR 3332.CO' 231.821 291.87 2&9.84 291.97 0.0002fO'. J..8:-2490.)2 1000.85 02; 8.3 5539 Cu!•1e-rt I I B.J !5-l31 1~_Y_R __ 3J32.00 280.95 290.79 2a9.~e1 291.22 0.000742; 6.73 rnv~L 631.05, 0.<4 B.3 !s.tCO 100.YR 333200 2ao.ssl 289.72 289.72 2l0.93 o.oowo5; __ --'-~~ 591.611 3:?4.70i 0.89 8.3 &'>CO 100-YR 3332.00 2~1.631 289.63 288.64 291J.04 0.0JSOOG 6.GJ ~22.&1 3~0.22i o.57i g c: 0 15 > .!!l UJ g ,g "' > ., [jJ The Barra cks Plan: Existing Conditio n 1/11/2011 River = Trio Reach = B.3 RS = 8320 ~-.06 -~.j . ~-.04+--.os ~ ~--:&-··-··--300 299 298 297 296 295 294 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 297.0 296.5 296.0 295.5 295.0 294.5- 294.0 Station (ft) The Ba rra cks Plan: Existing Cond it ion 1/11/201 1 River = Trib Reach = 9.3 RS = 7806 :-----.os ~. ~--.06 0 4 f< -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 Station (ft) Legend ······--·-··----· EG 100-YR WS 100-YR ·-···---~---·~-·-· Grit 100-YR Ground e Banksta Legend --····-·····- EG 100-YR WS100-YR --. --...... --·-·--·- Grit 100-YR Ground 0 Bank Sta g <: .Q -;;; > ., u:; g c: 0 "" "' > "' iil T he Barracks Plan : Existing Condition 1/11/2011 River= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 7993 -.06 298 .0 ---1 --.os 4 Legend 297.5 297.0 '"'l 296.0 295.51 295 .0 ' -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 Station (ft) The Barracks Plan: l;Xisting Condition 1/11 /201 1 River= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 7602 296 ~ ----.os +.04 +--.os-- 295 294 293 292+-~~~-,-~~~-.--r-~~.,......r-.-~-r-...-,··-~~-·-~·-, ...£00 . -400 -200 0 200 400 Station (ft) EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Grit 100-YR ·Ground .. Bank Sta Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Grit 100-YR Ground "' Bank Sta g r:: .Q '° > Q) jjJ The Barracks Plan: Existing Cond iti on 1/11/2011 River= Trib Reach= B.3 RS= 7431 01( .06--~ r .06 298 · 4 297 296 295 294 293 292 291-1--~-.--~--~-.--~---~~----.--~--.--, -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 296 ~ 294 ~ 292• 290 288 S tation (ft) The Barracks Plan: Existing Cond ition 1/11/2011 River= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 6983 ~---.os t.o4f--.os -- ~ 286 ~--,--~--~~--,---~~--,-----r-~--~-.--~ -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 S ta~on (ft) Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground 0 Bank Sta Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground "' Bank Sta g r:: 0 ~ "' UJ g c:: 0 .. ,, ~ "' UJ The Barracks Plan: Existing Condition 1/11 /2011 R iver= Trib Reach= B.3 RS= 7229 298 -----.06 +.04 +---.06 296 294 292- 290 200+-~-,-~-,-~--,--..---~-,--,--.-,-~-~,--~ -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 Station (ft) The Barracks Plan: Existin g Condition 1/1 1/2011 River= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 6940 Cu lv 296 "----.os +.o~---.os---• 294 292 290 288 286+--r--r--r---ir--r---r--r--r--r--..,.--r---.---,--~ -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 BOO Station (ft) Legend EG 100-YR WS 100"YR Crit 100-Y R -----Ground Q Bank Sta Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR ---Ground " Bank Sta 296] 294 g 292 _§ co ~ w 290 288 The Barracks Plan: Existing Condition River= Trib Reach= B.3 RS = 6940 !o<----.06 ·I . f--.06 0 4 1/11 /2011 Culv 286 4--~~-~~~~--~~-~~~--~~·-,..-, "°Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground f)J Bank Sta -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 ·1000 Station {ft) The Barracks Plan: Existing Condition River= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 6800 296 294 s 292 ~ .06 ·I . r-.-.os--~, .. _: __ ._.··· c: .Q co > "' 290 w 288 286 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 Station (ft) 1/11/2011 Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground ., Bank Sta 1000 g g "' > (!) w The Barracks Plan : Existing Condition 1/11/2011 River= Trib Reach= B.3 RS= 6896 296 --.05--1. f<--.06-->j 0 • 4 294 292 290- 288 286 +--~~---~~-~~---~~--~~-~ Legend EG 100-YR W S 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground "' Bank Sta -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 Station (rt) The Barracks Plan : Existing Cond ition 1/11/2011 River= Trib Reach= B.3 RS = 6600 296 ~---.05 +-.04-+-.05- 294 292 290 288 286 284 -1500 -1000 -5 00 0 500 Statio n (ft) EG 100-YR WS 100-YR 1000 Crlt 100-YR Ground lneff I) Bank Sta g c: 0 76 > Q) iii g c: 0 "" "' > QJ iii 296 294 292 290 288 286 ~ , The Barracks Plan: Existing Condition 1/11 /20 1 1 River= T rib Reach= B.3 RS= 6400 \:: __ : ___ --~~-,,--)1 284~:~.-...-~-,--,--.--,--,-.-,-...-..--,--.~-,.-.--.-,.--, -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 Station (rt) The Barracks Plan: Existing Conditio n 1/11 /2011 Rive r= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 6000 296 ~ .06 +.D4-f-.06 -~ 290 286 284 282- Legend ·····--······-·-· EG 100-YR WS 100-YR ····-·-·· ·+·-·-··--- Crit 100-YR Ground 0 B ank Sta Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crlt 100-YR Ground ---A-- lneff " Bank Sta -1 500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 Station (ft) g c: .Q "iii > Q) iii The Barracks P lan: Existing Conditio n River= T rib Re ach = B.3 RS = 6200 ----+ .04 -+ .06-1 .06 296 294 292 290 288 286 284 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 Station (ft) The Barracks Plan : Existing Condition River= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 5800 296 K---.06 1. r-.06 0 4 294 292 290 · 288 286 284 1/11/2011 Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground ---A-- lneff "' Bank Sta 1000 1/11/2011 Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground 0 Bank Sta 282 -+------·.-.-.-.~--,...,.-.--~-,-~-,--,-.,.-,-,--,-..--, -2000 -1500 ~ 1000 -500 Station (ft) 0 500 1000 c: 0 ~ iii iii 296 294 292 290 288 • 286 284 · The Barracks Pla n: Existing Condition 1/11/2011 RS = 5775 Culv l<'.---os--~J k-oe -J · 1 01 • ~ River= Trlb Reach= 6 .3 2s2 -1-~~~--~-r-~~~--,-~~~-~~-r-~~ Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR C rit 100-YR Ground IP Bank Sta -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 Station (ft) 0 500 1000 The Barracks Plan: Existi ng Cond iti on 1/11/2011 River= Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 5750 Legend ·--·-···-······· ~ .06 1r-.o6-~ 296 294 • ... ·. ---... ~. EG 100-YR WS 100-YR 292 --·---·--··----·· Crit 100-YR 290 Ground e 288 Bank Sta 1 286 1 284 282 ·r.-~~~.~-,-~-, ........ ~~...-.-~~~~~~~.,-,~~....,, -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 0 500 1000 Station (ft) §: c: .Q ;;; > Q) iii 296 294 292: 290 288 28Gj 284 ~ The Barracks Plan : Existing Condition 1/11 /2011 River= Trib Reach= 6.3 RS= 5775 Culv .06 v-.OG -1 282 ~~~~~.-~~-r-,.-.-~~-,-~~-r-,.~~~-r-~-.-~ Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR .. ---··-~··· -.... -· Crit 100-YR Ground !!:> Bank Sta -2000 -1500 -1000 -500 Station (ft) 0 500 1000 T he Barracks Pian: Existing Condition 1/11/2011 River= Trlb Reach= B.3 RS= 5714 296 294 292 t -.06-~~f<-.os- ~,, ---- 290 288 286 284 ! 282+-~-.-~-.~-~~~.-~-~-r~-~~~~ -1 000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 Station (ft) Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR .... ·--·--1-··· .. ···-- Crit 100-YR Ground t') Bank Sta Th e Barracks P lan: Existi ng Condition 1/11/20 1 1 River = Trib Reach= 8 .3 RS= 5691 BR 296 ><-----.06 .. f<---.05 ----- 0 4 294 292 $ 290 c: .Q co > Q) ill 266 2 64 282 -+-~~--,.----,-~~--,-.-~-.--.-,--~~-.-.-~--, -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 Station (fl) The Barracks P lan: Existing Condition 1/11/2 011 River= Trib Reach = 8.3 RS = 5667 292] 290 288 ----:+.02 +-.04-' 286 284 282 +--.--.---~-.--.----,-~--,,---,-...,..--,--,-~-.-.---, -1 ODO -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 60 0 Station (ft) Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR ---Ground ·~ Bank Sta Legend -····-······-·······- EG 100-YR W S 100-YR --·---·· i ··· C rit 100-YR Ground • Bank Sta $ c: .Q ~ w The Barracks Plan: Existing Condition 1/11 /2011 River= T rib Reach= B.3 RS= 5691 BR 296 ·. ><-----.04 +.02f-.04-1 294 282+-~-.-~-,-~-.-.--,-.~.,....~-.-~-y--,---, -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 4DO 600 S tation (ft) The Barrack s Plan: Existing Conditi on 1/11/2011 292 290 288- 286 284 282 280- -600 -400 -200 0 Stati on (fl ) RS= 5646 2 00 400 600 Lege nd EG 100-YR WS 100-YR ·-'-~-!---··---~ Cri t 100-YR Ground (J> Bank St.a Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground 0 Bank Sta g c 0 ~ > "' [iJ g c .Q -ro > "' [iJ The Barrac ks Plan: Existing Condition 1/11 /2011 '"j 290 288 286 284 282 280 -1-~~..--.-,--.--,-r-r--..--.~~,-,--,-~-,---..--.~~-r~ -600 -400 -200 0 2 00 400 600 Station (ft) The Barrac ks Plan: Existi ng Condition 1/11 /2011 292 290 - 288 286 284 282 280 -600 River = Trib Reach = B.3 RS = 5431 r-.04 -~iir .04 4 -4 00 ------------··---2---····-·--·-··----···-·--····-- -200 0 Station (ft) 200 400 600 L egend ·····----.. ···-· .... EG 100 -YR WS 100-YR .... ----~·----······ Crit 100-YR Ground '1l Bank Sta Legend EG 100-Y R WS 100-YR Crit 100-YR Ground 0 Bank Sta g c g "' > "' [iJ g c 0 ~ > "' [iJ The Barracks Plan: Exi sti n g Condition 1/1 1/2011 River = Trib Reach= B .3 RS= 5539 Culv 292 290 • 288 286 284 282 280 -j-,-r-r-.r-.,--,.-,-r-,.-,,--.--.--,-r-,--r-,.-,,-.,...-,.-,-r~rr-r-.-,--., -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 Station (ft) The Barracks Plan: Existing Cond ition 1/11/2011 River= Trib Reach= B .3 RS= 5400 292 r--.04 --4<ir -04 ---:1 =h ~'~-,yc~ 286-j .. ·~ 284 1~ 282- 280 I J • ~ -400 -200 0 200 400 600 Station (f t) Legend EG 100-YR WS 100-YR ··-····. -~-----······ Crit 100-YR Ground G Bank Sta L egend EG 100-YR WS 100-Y R Crit 100-YR Ground e Bank Sta ~ •• ~';.,=j,,~-=·DD ... "·UD-·U.•~·lln•f...._~.-·-·~~·ICIJ/I_..,. __ --L!:l....._._ .... ~--·fa ..... ,..ll'IWTMI__.._ J j ·, ' ' ., ' ' ' ' ·, " ' \, " ( -.. ~ , - i i ' I ,,/ ··-- ··, - ' I .. ' ~ ... ' 0 (/) 03 0 ·-' I ' .• ' .-~ / ,-·"' ' ' ''J I ' , ! ' l I I ' ' EXISTING CONDITION 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN WORKMAP ·-- 1! 1111 i ! I ' I id 11 ! ! ! IUWli I ! hU fl;f , I I i L i ' ' J ,' ( Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. ~!:t~J==:~ .. I •' ' I I I I I I 1 ~ I 'l! I 0 I I EXISTING CONDITION DRAINAGE AREA MAP TilE BARRACKS \ COLLEOB STATJON, TEXAS t ~;1· I I _ ~ > I !;j I 111"'1--" Klmley·Horn 9lii.J LJ and Associates, Inc. .. The Bank&Trust Bryan/College Station IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT DATE: February 23, 2012 TO B ENEFICIARY : City of College Station Attention: D irector of Development Services 110 I Texas A venue College Station, Texas 77840 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO.: 121264 ISSUE DATE : 12:00 Noon Central Standard Time, February 23, 2012 EXPIRATION DATE: 12:00 Noon Central Standard Time, May 23, 2012, or upon the completion and final payment to all contractors, whichever occurs first. L OCATION OF PROJECT: The Barracks II, Phase 100 AMO UNT: Two Hundred Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-four & 001100 Dollars ($214,334 .00) ACC O UNT OF: Heath Phillips Investments, LLC, (herein "DEVELOPER") GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS: The Issuing Bank set out above hereby issues its IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 121264 in favor of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, in accordan ce with CHAPTER 5, V .T .C.A. TEXAS BUSTNESS AND COMMERCE CODE and pursuant to the CODE OF ORDINANCES of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, CHAPTER 9: SUBDIVISIONS, fo r the Acco un t of DEVELOPER for an aggregate amount of up to Two Hundred Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty-four & 001100 Dollars ($214 ,334.00). This amount is available by your draft(s) payable at sight when accompanied by the fo llo wing : 1. Sworn Statement by a duly a uthorized representative of the City of Co ll ege Station, Texas, stating that Developer(s) has/ha ve defaulted and failed to complete the performance and construction of the improvements descri bed below in accordance with the CHAPTER 9 of the CODE OF ORDTNANCES of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, Texas, and that the proceeds from this Letter of Credit will either be utilized by the City of College Station, Texas, to complete such construction or w ill be returned by the City of College Station to the Issuing Bank. 1716 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 400 I PO Box 5847 I Bryan, TX 77805-5847 I www .banktbt.com 1979.260 .2100 Member FDIC - lB&r The Bank&Trust Bryan/College Station SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS: I . All banking fees/expenses/charges incurred are for the account of Developer . The City of College Station is not responsible for any charges in connection with a drawing under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit is iss.ued in conjunction with the development of Developer in the City of College Station, Texas, specifically for the following: To guarantee the payment and perfo1mance of the proposed construction improvements in the Barracks TI, Phase 100, a proposed addition to the City of College Station, Texas, for a period not to exceed one ( 1) year from the date hereof. 2. Disbursements pursuant to this Letter of Credit will never exceed the above-stated amount , less any amount released by the City of College Station, Texas. The amount of credit under this Letter of Credit may be reduced upon approval and acceptance by the City of College Station of completed improvements, which reduction may only be made with the written authorization of the Director of Planning and Development Servi ces of the City of College Station . 3. In accordance with SECTION 5.106 of the TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE, this Letter of Credit may be modified, upon the execution and delivery to Issuer of a sworn statement giving consent to modification by the Director of Planning and Development Services of the City of College Station. 4. The Issuer of this Letter of Credit has caused this Letter to be signed by the undersigned officer who has attached proof of his authorization to sign, together with attestation by Issuer's authorized attesting officer and sealed with the seal oflssuer. STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF BRAZOS This instrument was Acknowledg;d ~fore me on officer of 1h e f?o--n tL & i r()_sr ' Corporation and in the capacity stated. e APRIL MARIE LIND Notlty Public, State of Texas My Commission Expires JULY 11,2015 ISSUER: The Bank & Trust of Bryan/College Station BY: \,,,~ 61\..Q_lli.;,Grv ----- I van M. Olson, President .23 (e.h, 2012, by rva.,h Of ~o 8 , the authorized Issuer, a Texas Bank~ Corporation, on 7half of said Banking 4~ '-fl//~~ Notary Public -State of Texas 1716 Briarcrest Drive, Suite 400 \PO Box 5847 \Bryan, TX 77805-584 7 \ www.banktbt.com \ 979.260.2100 Member FDIC , . "' THE BARRACKS II, PHASE 100 ESTIMATED VALUE OF REMAINING WORK I Item ! ...... ~_<?_,__ _____ .... _ ........ _, __________ ........... .. Description Febtuary 17, 2012 ' Est. I .· ·-·----.--:----··-------.. · Umt Umt Pncc ; Total ........ : .... Q\!~fl!)!y _____ .. -2. ----·-·-__ ,,_ • : Streets and Sitcwork -·-----· · i~~ncre te Pavment-7" depili -~/;;;-b ____ .. ______________________________ 2"i5 SY 34 .oo ;--·---'l;JTo 2 Concrete Pavement, 6" depth w/curb 1,093 SY 30.00 ' 32,790 3 j4" Concrete Sidewalk 27,640 SP 2.50 69,100 4 'Holleman Drive Left Tum -Excavation/Earthwork/Sawcut : I LS 4,200.00 j 4,200 5 Jlfolleman Drive Left Tum ~.6 .... _!--}_~_(?-~-~~~---.... _____ _, ______ , ......... _ .... _ .. _ ~--_?-,_723 SY 1.75 , 4,765 6 ,Holleman Drive Left Turn -Hydrated Lime (27 lb/sy) · 37 TN 150 .00 1 ...... ----.. 5,550 7 !Holleman Dri ve Left Turn -8" Base 1,735 SY 12.50 ! 21,688 8 iHolleman Drive Lefi Turn -2" HMAC 2,017 SY 10.00 20 , 170 9 Holleman Drive Left Turn -10" Base for shoulders I 826 ! SY 9.50 ' 7,847 _______ 1_9 __ _!Holl~~!l!' Drive Left Turn -P11vement ~-~_pir.'._g _______ ,, _________ ~_J._ .... -~ _LS 5,000 .00 i. __ .. ___ .. \000 11 :Roadway signs 17 i EA 200.00 3,400 I ' 12 iEnd of Road Signs 13 EA 200.00 i 2,600 13 Pavement Striping LS I 0,000.00 10,000 14 , 11 'x 8' Junction Box 15 !Broadcnst Seeding (ROW & benns) 16 'TV Inspection Subtota l·-Streets j $194,420 ····-·--····----··-·-·-- LF 3,000 .00 20,000 SY , 0.25 i 3,376 LF i I .50i Subtotal -Storm Drainage D~t.".~liE_1!X~l!~_§y~~~~----·-----------... , . 3,000 5,000 5,064 $13 ,064 17 , Outlet Control Structure I LS 4,500 18 :sloped Headwall for 36 11 HDPE 1 EA 700.00 ! 700 4,500.00 19 ,RockRipRap 15 SY 4!.00 : 615 20 :TVm~~ec~ti_·o_n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9.o.~_.___L_F~~~-l_.5_0_;~~~-1-3S 21 Set Meter Boxes und ball valves Subtotal -Detention Pond ; $5,950 Water System ... 12 EA 75.00 900 Subtotai -Water ! $900 Wastewater Sy~~~-1!'. _, ......... _____ ........ ____ . _____ .. _ -· __ ........ . 2,034 LF ! 1.50 . Subtotal -Sewer 3051 $3,051 $214,334 ' ' ' ' I ' ... ,) ' ·, I ' I _,. ...... _ ~,\\ I I I ' I ' ,. -----" _ ..... '. , .. -' .... .....,.: --..... /--- '--.... __ .. ------ • -JO> - - I _,.. ........ ~ \ ' ' I \ I'' : ..... ' ... ' ';, /--··-~ I ' " .__,,. ( , ... ..,,, THE BARAACKS / .• --~-,,~-:::::-~-> I -..~I ~ ..._ I ' ,, " ' ' I ' I ,' ' ' I I I ' ' ' ·"' ' I '· /--, ........ :,\ ''.,Y ; '~ ........ -----1,'--'... ,..,."'I CSISD \ ' UOOTTOf"OOftol.PtllN"CIAJrolot.TIOM OSTMHEO ffKJM THE CUEHT 2..f'OOTTOPOOftAl'HCINl'OftMo\TIOH OSTNNEO l'ftCIM TH! an UISTINOIOO-Y!Ntl'\.OOCP\NH OWN>...--_.,,._ ' •. ' ., /"'., ' ' ' ' ' I nQh .t .i .t I. 1bl!! SHEET 1 I I i I II l GRAPffiC SCALE L-• ..Jo;;'W" i ,!!'~ .. WATERSHED INFORMATION DRAINAGE 100-YEAR AREA I v.<!QiTED I Tc I Fl.OW AREA/.AINCTIONI (AC.) 0<1 (MIN) (CFS) POtNT Al 94.!iJ 84.9 22.J 6J&6 ., 149.07 .... 45.5 759.0 Al 83.86 87.2 JJ.9 484.7 .. 104.37 84.0 J9.0 550.1 A5 117.08 82.5 29.0 694.4 Bl 135.!il5 84.6 48.J 660.5 B2 66.47 .... 42.5 "7.7 BJ ... '5 87.0 4-0.7 469.7 C1 45.13 .... 41.2 2Jl.8 J-AI --I J78J.9 J-A.2 --I J822.J J-Al 3331.8 J-A4 12:13.4 J-A4o --t 2658.9 J-A.5 --I 694.4 J-BI 1452.1 J-02 337.7 J-820 807.2 J-BJ 469.7 J-C1 231.8 LEGEND t gu --:. u c:flg -·-H 0 g .. :::!:= m ·-· 6>-ce "E-o 2~ !I~ ~~~~ II!!~ np! uJ~ ~ ,. ........ B~ ~~ ~~ ~"' ~~ 8 za.. o<t: i==:::; i.5 L1i ZQ::'. O<t; () w <!) <!) ~<{ f-z ~~ WO n i j !1 a \ ® --~ I 1 = , 11 I d H ! 'I iii· e .....,,.,.."""" . . •l!i I I H I i 11il '"2 -·------·--- ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 1. Please provide an updated grading plan for the stream section that is being altered with the mitigation plan . 2. The City does not intend to take ownership of the mitigation area . Does a revised mitigation plan need to be submitted to the Corps since this permit expresses a desire to convey ownership to the City? Reviewed by : Danielle Singh Date: 6/20/2012 ( ,~ Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, Commissioner Carlos Rubin stein, Commissioner Mark R. Vickery, P.G., Executive Director TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Protecting Texas by Reducing and Preventing Pollution July 14, 2011 Dear Applicant: Re: TPDES General Permit for Construction Storm Water Runoff Storm Water Notice of Intent Authorization Your Notice of Intent application for authorization under the general permit for discharge of storm water associated with construction activities has been received. Pursuant to authorization from the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Division Director of the Water Quality Division has issued the enclosed Certificate. Please refer to the attached certificate for the identification number that was assigned to your project/site and the effective date. Please use this number to reference this project/site for future communications with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Authorization under the Edwards Aquifer Protection Program is required before construction can begin where the site is located within the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, Contributing Zone, or Contributing Zone within the Transition Zone. See http ://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/field _ ops/eapp/program .htrnl for additional information. A Notice of Termination must be submitted when permit coverage is no longer needed. You may submit the Notice of Termination form electronically as well. It is the responsibility of the Operator to notify the TCEQ Storm Water Processing center of any change in address supplied on the original Notice of Intent by submitting a Notice of Change. For questions related to processing of forms you may contact the Storm Water Processing Center by email at SWPERMIT@tceq.state.tx.us or by telephone at (512) 239-3700. If you have any questions regarding coverage under this general permit or other technical issues, you may contact the storm water technical staff by email at SWGP@tceq.state .tx .us or by telephone at (512) 239-4671. Also, you may obtain information on the storm water web site at www.tceq.state.tx.us Sincerely, Charles W. Maguire, Director Water Quality Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P .O. Box 130 87 • Austin, Texas 78711-3087 • 512-239-1000 • www.tceq.state.tx.us How is our Customer Service? http ://www.tceq.state.tx.us/goto/customersurvey \ \-o~ ·1 -1tf II -o f TEXAS C OMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Construction General Permit The Notice of Intent (NOI) for the facility listed below was received on July 14, 2011. The intent to discharge storm water associated with construction activity under the terms and conditions imposed by the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) storm water construction general permit TXR150000 is acknowledged. Your facility's TPDES construction storm water general permit number is: TXR15Sl36 Coverage Effective : July 14, 2011 TCEQ's storm water construction general permit requires certain storm water pollution prevention and control measures, possible monitoring and reporting, and periodic inspections. Among the conditions and requirements of this permit, you must have prepared and implemented a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWP3) that is tailored to your construction site. As a facility authorized to discharge under the storm water construction general permit, all terms and conditions must be complied with to maintain coverage and avoid possible penalties. ProjecVSite Information: RN106178635 THE BARRACKS II SUBDIVISION 3100 HAUPT ROAD COLLEGE STATION, TX 77845 BRAZOS County Operator : CN603732991 HEATH PHILLIPS INVESTMENTS LLC 3302 GENERAL PKWY COLLEGE STATION , TX 77845 This permit expires on March 05, 2013, unless otherwise amended. For additional information, see the TCEQ web site at www .tceq.state .tx.us or contact the Storm Water Processing Team by telephone at (512) 239-3700 or e-mail at swpermit@tceq.state.tx .us . A copy ofthis document should be kept with your SWP3 . M~U, ISSUED : July 14, 2011 FOR THE COMMISSION .. DISCONNECT FH LEAD FRbM 8"X6" TEE AN~ SALVAGE FH ~SSEMBL Y . INSTALL 6" BLIND FLANGE . --=-1=-=r-=---- 30 15 0 3 ~SC LE !NW EET EXIST ING FIRE HYbRANT Ill "' ~ GUN E R TRAIL ~ / --- --_-_ -=-==-==-=-=----= --::__ -I / I I tJ::j I ! t'-f I I ~ 0 I I I I n ' I ----~I I ~I I I 1 FIRE HYDRANT RELOCATION EXBIT THE BARRACKS -PHASE 100 COLLEGE STATION , TEXAS PHILLIPS ENGINEERING 4490 Castlegate Drive Cotlege Station , Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 Fax: (979) 69().1041 TB PE Arm No. F-13130 I I I I _/__ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I c RESPONSE TO ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 A Plat) Planning has requested that the pending pipeline easement be labeled on the final plat. The pipeline easement has been labeled as pending. ~YI -Updated DP Balance: $12,834.09 Noted /.Fiease specify bore and casing standards for the Wellborn Water Main proposed to cross Holleman Drive . The bore has been added to the drawings. Due to limited clearance below the roadside ditches, the 12" line and casing has been offset horizontally from the rest of the line to facilitate removal in the future. A'ase submit off-site drainage easement. The easement will be granted to the HOA prior to approval of the final plat. At present time, the HOA for this subdivision has not been set up. /How is the Emergency Access Road proposed to be gated? It is not gated. Gates to all access points may be added at a later date. When that occurs, a standard Knox Box will be provided on the Emergency Access Roadway. /P'1ease verify that end of road markers have been provided for all stubs and dead ends. Markers are provided and shown on the plans. ,/'"-:Jase provide specifications and heights for all proposed street lights. ~ote with these details has been added to the plans. ~ease submit PIP application for proposed dumpster locations. <..:..-{"~e application is included with this submittal. a-;)lease provide a sheet for the overall striping plan for all thoroughfares -Deacon and Towers . l/i-his striping plan should include bike lanes, center two way left turn lanes , etc . for the entire stretch of these roadways. A striping plan has been added to the plan set. riheet 1) Please modify the residential driveway deta il per our previous conversation and clearly label the requ i red joint on either side of the proposed sidewalk. The detail has been modified to show pavers between the sidewalk and curb as discussed. @ sheet 1) Please provide a note and specify which lots the driveway detail perta ins to . A note has been added. ~)IC fvtJq li/oc..~S--ck 0~ ~.~ ~(Sheet 1) Please illustrate the proposed dumpster locations on the overall shee t. L/ Anticipated dumpster locations have been shown, however it is possible that some may change as the subdivision is developed. These pads will not be built with the public infrastructure in the subdivision, but instead will be added as the townhomes are built. .Nh.., 13. (S eet 3) Major Collector cross sections require 8 inches of concrete or a geotechnical report for phalt design . A geotechnical design was conducted f this street. A copy of that report is included with this submittal. Both pavement op · ns are shown in the plans to allow for construction of the least expensive option. SL.eek-J t!r~ ~eet 5) The Towers Parkway detail is not correct as it illustrates a 48 ' cross section , please revise. However, see comment 17 below, as Towers Parkway on either side of Deacon must be flared to accommodate the left turn movement onto Deacon and maintain the required bike lane . The intersection design has been modified to accommodate the left turn movement onto Deacon and maintain the bike lane. ~heet 8) Please provide traffic control plan for all proposed work adjacent to Holleman. A stripping plan has been incorporated into the drawings. The traffic control plan for work on Holleman will be submitted at a later date. ~heet 8) As stated in the approved POD zoning and Preliminary Plat left turn movements shall be provided at the intersection of all thoroughfares, which includes Holleman. Rather than providing an acceleration lane on Holleman, please provide for the left turn movement off Holleman and onto Deacon . The Holleman/Deacon intersection has been redesigned to provide a left turn lane on Holleman. ~heet 9) Towers Parkway on either side of Deacon must be flared to accommodate the left turn movement onto Deacon and maintain the required bike lane . Public access easement could be added to either side of Towers to accommodate the sidewalks in this section of flared pavement. The intersection design has been modified to accommodate the left turn movement onto Deacon and maintain the bike lane. ~orm Sheets) Just to clarify, is the 5 foot horizontal separation from other utilities being met? To the best of our knowledge, a 5 foot separation is maintained between the storm drain and other utilities. ~rainage Report) Please provide velocities at detention outfall . A revised Detention Report is provided showing calculated velocities in the outfall channel for each design storm. All velocities are below 2 fps. Sheet 18 of Appendix D - Technical Design Summary has been revised to show correct volumes for the detention pond in acre-feet instead of inches as shown on the HEC-HMS output sheets. Also, the outlet flowrates from the pond were corrected to show the outflow from the pond only, not from the entire drainage basin at Study Point A adjacent to Cain Road. --<inage Report) There appears to be a need for additional erosion control at the outfall and or .,. ~~~<:ultimate site outfall , as the proposed flow will have to convey with the existing channel before leaving the site. It is our opinion that the anticipated velocities in the outfall channel (<2 fps) is low enough that erosion control measures are not needed except at the pipe discharge point coming out of the detention pond. Rock rip-rap is provided at that location. This outfall channel will be removed when the other two detention facilities are constructed. ~inage still under review and will be returned as soon as possible . Noted. I RESPONSE TO ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 2 (Modified Drainage Design) ~The construction document title block states Phase 200 . The title block has been changed. 21 /(sheet~ Check sanitary sewer and storm sewer conflict profile at Sta . 18+ 78. 71 , please revise . The sanitary sewer conflict has been corrected. /As the detention outlet for this pond has been re-located from its original des ign location where it connected to the larger pond ; The previously proposed location was more in- line with the existing natural swells and further away from the neighboring property, in the event of erosion issues the original location may be more ideal. The location of the outlet pipe was chosen to facilitate construction of the future ponds. By routing the outflow around the future pond location, there will be less potential for runoff passing through the excavation zone and delaying excavation efforts. The previous design called for all three ponds to be excavated at the same time, but since that is no longer the case, the temporary outflow channel was purposely planned to direct water around the future ponds. A pe 222 , as described in the report could not be located . Pipe 222 is a future storm pipe, and was inadvertently included in this drainage report. /ouring a 100-yr event the retention facility will back-up into the proposed storm sewer system ; did you perform a backwater analysis using the tailwater conditions to verify the system will function properly once the system is inundated by the subject storm events? Yes. ~he section of storm pipe that is below the normal water surface eleva t ion needs to be constructed with water tight joints . This line will be privately-owned and maintained. It does not cross public easements or right-of-way. We are unaware of such a requirement for these lines. ~ -If the normal water surface elevation of the proposed retention facility may increase in the future than add itional sections of the storm system upstream should be constructed with water tight joints . With our current design for a three-pond system, the water surface elevation in ~ond will be lowered approximately 1 foot when the future ponds are added. ~ ~~!h~~gh your report illu~trates a post developme~t. ~ecrease in flows at Stu~y Po int A (at Cain Road), as a portion of the proposed subd1v1s1on free flows from the site , please verify that the adjacent downstream Tracts (Barger , Kemp , Kessler, Sparkman) are not rece iving any additional flows in any part icular area than they were receiving pre - developmen t. With the exception of runoff from Commercial Tract 1 and small segments of street adjoining the Barger tract, all other runoff from this site is routed through the Phase 100 detention pond and released at a reduced rate from pre- development conditions. Runoff from Commercial Tract 1 could also be routed though the detention pond by making minor changes to the outlet control \\-IC{1 C\-0-.1 · ,, 2).41 ~ , structure and the top of berm. However, the development of Commercial Tract 1 is not expected to occur quickly and will likely happen after the remaining two detention ponds are installed for ultimate development of the site. When those ponds are installed, the current pond will be modified and the outlet control structure removed, so there is little benefit in making those changes at this time. If development of Commercial Tract 1 occurs before the other ponds are constructed, the developer will have the option of providing on-site detention or king the required changes to the detention pond. t appears as flows leave the site from various locations (Gunner Trail , Towers Parkway, Commando Trail, etc) the existing sheet flow condition is being changes to a point discharge condition , please quantify and document these proposed point discharges . Any amount of run-off not considered insignificant will require an off-site drainage easement through the adjacent and downstream tracts. The difference between the pre and post-development runoff rate for the three short street segments varies between 0.27 and 0.45 cfs in a 10-yr storm event. Sheet flow from the back yards increases between 0.69 and 0.97 cfs. These rates are all below 1 cfs, which is beyond the accuracy that can be reasonably assumed from Rational Method calculations. They can be considered insignificant. ~n it be assumed that Commercial Tract 1 will provide its own detention or storm water mitigation , as it is currently proposed to be graded to drain to the Barger Tract? Although you have illustrated a decrease at downstream Study Point A, you cannot create an increase at any given point to downstream property owners . In addition as the proposed underground storm system is not being extended to the lower portion of Commercial Tract 1, post development discharge or point discharges will require an off- site easement. See #8 above. Depending on how the site is used, post-development runoff can be directed to either the Deacon Drive system or the roadside ditch of Holleman Drive by grading the site accordingly. If on-site detention is implemented, the outfall would be directed to the Holleman Drive ditch. No other off-site easement ·11 be needed. 11. , ased on the fin ished product of the original Barracks , there is a significant amount of impervious cover, do the assumptions in your design (storm system and detention design) take into account the significant amount of impervious cover within these post development (Townhome) drainage areas. In other words the proposed small lot sizes and proposed private paving within the "Townhome " designated areas exceed the amount of impervious cover that is accounted for in our standard run-off coeffic ient for single family residential lots . Yes. This is accounted for in the selection of hydrologic coefficients. 12 . R lated to your storm system design and assumptions please provide the run-off oefficients assumed for each drainage area, some could be gathered from other tables but Areas 370 , 372 , 373 , 374 & 378 could not be found. Please document how these run-off coefficients were derived as they appear to be low in the "Townhome " areas which include a significant amount of impervious cover. When changes to the drainage system were being made, the drainage areas noted above were automatically assigned a name by AutoCAD and the new names were not caught before the Drainage Area Map was printed. That is why they did not show up elsewhere in the report. Drainage areas are generally given the same • name as the inlet into which they drain. The error has been corrected in the _._..."'U"""inage Area Map. ~. ~I ough your report states that assumptions from the Kimley-Horn Report were used to -vtay consistent , this was one of the concerns with the Kimley-Horn report as well. Please document why the curve numbers in all the drainage areas are assumed to be the same , as they would likely increase in areas with more impervious cover, especially from pre to post developed area (Reference BCS Section 9, Table 2-7 and TR-55 Table 2-2A). Section V.B.2.b.(2) of the BCS Guidelines stipulates that the engineer is to use a runoff coefficient based on the soil type only. The impervious cover is to be adjusted to account for changes in development. This is what we have done for portio s of the drainage basin that are being developed with Phase 100 . . As extensive grading on the larger tract has already taken place, please update these plans with existing and/or proposed conditions for these areas . Although a grading plan was submitted for the overall site , it appears the current scope of work has been modified and the interim condition may be in place longer than originally anticipated . The primary concern is the preservation of the existing on -site drainage ways/swells and verifying that these are capable of carrying the same flows and in the same manner as before this area was disturbed, as well as erosion control for all areas where run-off and silt may be leaving the site. Please provide an excerpt in your drainage report explaining this interim condition and grading that has taken place thus far. Extensive grading on the larger tract has not taken place since the submittal of the previous grading plan. In fact, very little grading has been performed at all. The grading plan that was approved for use on the larger tract was developed following a survey of the fill that is presently on the site, and it includes the existing drainage way and swells. None of those drainage systems have been filled or modified, and no impervious cover has been added that would alter their ability to carry runoff from the site. The work planned for Phase 100 is well back from any of the fill previously placed on the site. The grading plan for Phase 100 is clearly shown on the plans. Any excess spoils from the construction of Phase 100 will be placed on the undeveloped portions of the site in accordance with the previously approved plan. loo It . ' \ {LO f1 /o I ft lo f (:) 111 // 1...- Z,1tJ t, '1 ( L~ i~ ( lr5" A- 'LE~ ~ z,gb~ i&~ ~ Z,~(~ £., ,, () i ~z. A-- -i r; z. (j -z-~3 ~ 2-'11 {) z:;Y A ?.. ,,_, i) ' several surcharging line segments in the 2011 HDR Sanitary Sewer Collection System Master Plan Update. The City is currently in the process of initializing a capital improvement project entitled the 'Bee Creek Relief Line ' that will install a larger diameter gravity line to increase the system capacity of the overall sub-basin in order to accept the ultimate build-out demand anticipated in this respective area. This trunk line capacity increase is necessary to proactively prevent surcharge events, possible fines from TCEQ, and customer service disruptions . Preliminary analysis of this area has identified that the existing sanitary sewer capacity can support the increased sanitary sewer demand from the proposed development; however, future demands in this respective sub-basin will need to be evaluated as development occurs. Noted. ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 (Infrastructure and Streets) Aese comments are preliminary in nature and only reflect the review of street and utilities , any additional comments related to the reports, Kimley-Hom 's plans and report, and the overall drainage system will be returned as soon as they are ready. /P1ease verify that all proposed storm boxes and inlets are proposed to be cast in-place. The storm boxes and inlets will all be cast-in-place. ~he proposed sidewalks adjacent to Holleman should likely be pulled back to the property line and away from the existing pavement section. The sidewalks have been moved to a point near the property line. In-the-field adjustments may still be necessary from the location shown on the plans. Pease address the applicability of the TCEQ Dam Safety Program regulations (TCEQ Chapter 299), due to detention pond height of the proposed berm and volume of storage capacity. The berm height for the revised detention pond and the volume of storage is much smaller than the definition of a dam in TCEQ Chapter 299. Aease submit related USACE correspondence as documented in your Technical Design Summary. The original PCN is included with this submittal. Subsequent discussions with the USACE have indicated that the project may require an Individual Permit for impacts to waters of the US. As a result, the large pond in the middle and the smaller dry pond to the east have been pulled from the construction plans. These are the two that impact waters of the US. The small pond to the west (Pond 3) is outside of all jurisdictional waters. It will be excavated with Phase 100 of The Barracks II Subdivision and serve as a temporary facility until permitting issues on the other two ponds are resolved. A revised detention report is being provided with this submittal. ~e provide sidewalks on both side of Deacon Drive . The sidewalk has been added on the CSISD side of Deacon Drive. ~se submit off-site private drainage easement for the proposed detention/retention facilities. T7sement is being prepared and will be submitted upon completion. ~YI -Future lots with extensive fill will require engineered slabs or proof of adequate compaction effort by Building Department at the building permit stage . Noted. ~e provide Street Lighting details and layout. The layout and details are provided in the plan set. ~discussing the lighting of Deacon with CSU Electric and our Traffic Department, Deacon should be adequately lit with appropriately spaced light poles from only one side of the street. Please verify that Deacon will be lit from the north side of the street only, therefore no requiring the school district to construct any future streets lights through this section of Deacon Drive . Noted. ~e provide BCS Construction Detail sheets . The construction details will be included with the final set that is submitted for signature and approval. They are not included in the review sets to minimize reproduction costs. ~ase provide dumpster pad and screening locations and details . Please submit PIP application . See attached e-mail correspondence. A detail showing the dumpster pad location is shown on the plans. A PIP application will follow if the detail is acceptable. Aase provide a detail for the proposed driveway design for the townhome lots that take access to a public street per Note 18 of the preliminary plat. A detail showing the proposed driveway layout for these lots is included in the plans. . lease provide striping plan fort oro-,..,.·---- A striping plan has been provided. ---2 Please provide.Jn.~ ction improvements for left turn movements at Deacon and Holleman per the approved PDD Zonin proval and notes from the preliminary plat. Deacon will be a ma ·o :o ector street with a center turning lane. Left turn movements will ---0 0 be. nec-essary at this location. 3. Please provide interse ti improvements for left turn movements at Deacon and Towers per the approved PDD Zoning Appr al and notes from the preliminary plat. A design was implemented or the left turn movement at Deacon and Towers, and is now ~--included1n-tlie plans. "~se verify confirmation regarding construction above or near the Explorer Pipeline. I/' ~1~= location of the Explorer Pipeline was obtained from the company's field representative and shown on the plans. A detail has been added showing a protective concrete slab between the back of curb and the right-of-way line as required by the pipeline company. ~et 3) Please provide typical roadway cross section for various street classifications . With the exception of Deacon Drive, all roadways will be built in accordance with the standard cross sections shown on the BCS Standard Detail Sheets. They will be asphalt streets. A detail for the cross-section of Deacon Drive is shown on the plans. Bids will be taken for both asphalt and concrete pavement on Deacon to determine the most cost effective construction method . .y.1'Sheet 4) Commando Trail is missing a sidewalk ramp to Old Ironside Drive . The ramp has been added. ~eet 5) Please identify proposed sidewalk width on either side of Towers Parkway. Please extend proposed sidewalk to terminus of Towers Parkway on both sides of the street on the south side of Deacon Drive. The extension and notation has been added. ~rm Sheets) Please verify that there is at least 5 feet horizontal separation from all storm pipe/storm boxes and any other utilities. There are locations with less than 5 feet horizontal separation. 29. (Sheet 12) Please illustrate the adjacent sanitary sewer main in profile view for Storm Pipe 210 & Storm Pipes 200 & 201. The sewer line has been added to the profile. ~eet 12) Please revise the proposed water main conflict at Sta . 2+55. The water line has been adjusted. ~t 13) Please revi se the proposed water main conflict at Sta . 3+50. The water line has been adjusted. ~ 14) Water main conflict missing at Sta. 0+50. The storm drain system has been redesigned to eliminate this conflict. .6'et 15) Water main conflict mislabeled at Sta. 0+50. The label has been corrected. ~ter Main) Where water and sanitary run parallel please verify there is 9 feet of horizontal separation between manholes to water mains. Lines have been moved to achieve the separation distance. ¢Sheet 16) Please illustrate storm pipe conflicts. The conflicts have been shown and adjustments made to miss the storm drain. ~eetAvaterline W-2 , structural backfill note missing. The backfill note has been added. rieet 18) Water Line W-3 , gate valve missing at Sta. 4+53.54. The valve has been added. ~hee~lta. 4+44.00 , there appears to be a drop needed , CoCS prefers the exterior drop . A drop structure has been added. Aheet 23 & 24) Future structural areas required structural backfill , please revise. Structural backfill has been added to these areas. fis'heet 23) In response to the Letter of Acknowledgement # 2, please maintain a .25% slope between MH 16 , 100 & 200 from an Operation & Maintenance perspective. The slope has been changed to 0.25%. / N1 Y.-C_She~t~ There appears to be a typo on the pipe slope between MH 400 & 500 , please revise as the slope appears to be greater than .23%. The note has been fixed to indicate a 0.25% slope . . ~ "'"' ,. ~heet ~ The casing for the 10 inch main should be an 18 inch steel casing, please revise. The casing size has been increased to 18". ~se provide Signage Plan and Details ; also please include a table of block numbers and list of each sign required. Here is a list of block numbers from Mandi Alford: a. Gunner Tri 4100 @ Deacon Dr W 600 b. Commando Tri 4500 @ Deacon Dr W 400 c. Towers Parkway 4200 @ Deacon Dr W 500 d. Towers Parkway 4200 @ Old Ironside Dr 2900 e. Towers Parkway 4200 @ Old Ironside Dr 3000 f . Deacon Dr W 700 @ Holleman Dr South 4200 g. Old Iron Side 2900 @ Gunner Tri 4200 h. Old Iron Side 3000 @ Towers Parkway 4300 i. Old Iron Side 3000 @ Commando Tri 4400 A table has been added. ~se pay outstanding Development Permit Fee of $14,985.35 with stamping set submittal. Note that the Engineer's Estimate has been reduced as a result of several changes to the drainage system. The new Development Permit Fee should be 1 % of $1,343,409 or $13,434.09. ~se contact Frank Borroni (frank.e .borroni @ usps.gov; 979-693-4152) with the United States Postal Service concerning mailboxes and provide correspondence. Mr. Borroni has provided input to the location of the mailbox pad. It is shown near the intersection of Gunner Trail and Old Ironsides Drive as he requested. r. addition to the following standard comments, if more than 5 acres will be disturbed during construction of this project a NOI must be filed with the state and a copy provided to the CoCS. Storm water management requirements are as follows, any questions may be directed to Donnie Willis , CoCS Drainage Inspector, at 979-764-6375: An NOi for the entire site has already been obtained and a copy provided to the COCS. It was necessary as part of the Grading Only permit that was recently granted on this project. Storm Water Discharges from Small Construction Activities The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has issued a general permit for construction activities under the Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System. The general permit (TXRl 50000) is for construction activities disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres or is part of a common plan of development disturbing at least 1 but less than 5 acres. You will need to follow these steps to discharge storm water from your construction site to the City of College Station's Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System CMS4): 1. Read the general permit (TXR150000) to make sure it applies to your situation. 2. Adhere to the requirements of the general permit (TXR150000). 3. Prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with Part III of the general permit (TXRl 50000). 4 . Sign and post a construction site notice. 5. At least 2 days before beginning construction, provide a copy of the site notice to the operator of any Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System (MS4) into which storm water will be discharged. A MS4s include streets, channels , gutters , ditches or anything else that is publicly owned, designed or used to collect or transport storm water. As long as you meet the conditions of this general permit, you are authorized to discharge storm water. No notice of intent (NOi), notice of termination (NOT), or fee is required under this option-as long as the requirements of this general permit are followed. This particular general permit will expire at midnight on March 5 , 2013. A copy of General Permit TXR150000 can be obtained from TCEQ at: http/www. tceq. state. tx. us/assets/public/permitting/waterquality/attachments /stormwater/txr 150000. pdf A copy of the construction site notice can be obtained from TCEQ at: http/www . tceq. state. tx. us / assets/public/permi tting/wa terquality I attachments/ stormwater/txr 15 2d2. pdf ENGINEERING COMMENTS NO. 1 (Design Reports and Drainage) .y!he title block in the construction documents are labeled Phase 200. The title block has been corrected. ~the plan to force the overall site and conveyance from upstream to the location of the proposed detention ponds? If so , please provide an overall grading plan for this interim state for the entire site . With the emergency access road proposed out to Old Wellborn, how will the effect the existing drainage pattern? How will drainage cross the emergency access road and get to the detention facilities? There appears to be the need for culverts crossing the emergency access road to avoid damaging the access road during storm events. As indicated in Engineering Comment #12 above, the original plan to install all three detention ponds has been changed to install only the smallest, westernmost pond (Pond 3) with Phase 100. A revised detention design and report is being submitted that describes the new plan. The emergency access road has been redrawn to take it to Cullen Street in the Buena Vida Subdivision so that no drainage channels will be crossed. /Have there been discussions with the School J.?istrict con.cerning its future stom:i ~ater mitigati?n needs , as The Barracks II project does not consider the build out of the School D1stnct property (1e. future conveyance and detention capacity)? Yes. A development agreement with CSISD has been signed that includes provisions to accommodate drainage from their site. The agreement says that the drainage system in The Barracks Il will be sized large enough to accept the 100-yr Pre-Development runoff rate from CSISD tract and allow it to pass through the detention system. When the school site is developed, the district will construct on-site detention pond(s) to accommodate Post- development runoff rates and release them at Pre-Development rates. Portions of the system included with Phase 100 have been designed accordingly to accept offsite runoff from the ~D tract as well as other surrounding tracts. ~heet 14) Storm Pipe 100 , please provide a junction box on at the end of the public easement to draw a clear distinction of where the public pipe ends and the private detention outfall begins. The junction box has been added. ~f the storm pipe ID 's in the drainage report exhibits do not match the storm pipe ID 's in the ~~~tion documents . The drainage report exhibits and construction documents have been changed to better match. rHow will Pipes 102 , 200 , 202 & 220 perform when they are beyond capacity in the 100-yr event ? Is this event contained within the right of way? All pipes are designed to carry runoff from the 10-yr event. Runoff from larger rainfall events run down street but do not exceed the spread requirements of the BCS Design Guidelines. FYI -he City has received complaints and concerns voiced by the downstream property owner -----~ re ated to the possibility of flooding conditions worsening as a result of this development. Noted. These flooding conditions are well known. As you are aware, we have undertaken a study to delineate the flood prone areas on our site as well as areas downstream. A copy of that report has been given to the City. The. study is based on flowrates coming from undeveloped conditions on our site and others upstream. While we cannot fix these flood prone areas, we can and will detain stormwater from our development such that it does not increase downstream water surface elevations. The following comments regarding the Kimley Horn & Associates plans and reports have not been addressed because the detention system they designed has been removed from this plan set. A new detention report for Pond 3 only is included with this submittal. 9 . (Kimley-Horn) Although post development Outfall Points 2 & 4 show a decrease in flow , the existing sheet flow condition is being changes to a point discharge condition, please revise or provide off-site drainage easement. 10 . (Kimley-Horn) Watershed Dl is mislabeled as D3 in the exhibit on Sheet 4. 11. (Kimley-Horn) Concerning the "Interim Conditions Statement"; Will the detention facility 's outfall structure mitigate or return the flows to pre development conditions for each incremental developed phase. 12 . (Kimley-Hom) Sheet 8, please provide a junction box on either side of the right of way to draw a clear distinction of where the public pipe ends and the private detention outfall begins . 13. (Kimley-Hom) Sheet 8, there does not appear to be enough cover above proposed Storm Pipe B to be able to properly construct the future General Parkway extension? In addition the 100 yr water surface elevation for Pond 1 & 2 will inundate the future roadway, please revise. If the future roadway will be constructed on future fill , how will this affect the design of these ponds and the finding of this report? Furthermore, the freeboard condition will allow the ponds to inundate each other. 14 . (Kimley-Hom) Sheet 8, please specify pipe classification concerning future traffic loading, cover, etc . 15 . (Kirnley-Hom) Sheet 8, the proposed storm pipe beneath the extension of General Parkway (collector) requires structural backfill. 16. (Kimley-Horn) Does Pond 2 & 3 have an emergency outfall and freeboard? 17 . (Kimley-Horn) Sheet 6, Pond 1 top of berm elevation (free board condition) is not maintained surrounding the entire facility. 18. (Kimley-Horn) Sheet 6, Pond 1 100-yr water surface elevation at the emergency outfall is not being met. 19. (Kimley-Horn) How will Pond 1 proposed emergency outfall effect the future General Parkway extension within this project and beyond to the adjacent project. 20. (Kimley-Horn) Pond 1 freeboard does not appear to be effective as the freeboard elevation is not maintained surrounding the facility . 21 . (Kimley-Horn) In modeling your pre-development conditions did it take into account the existing channel between Williamsgate & The Barracks PH 1 and the proposed outfall points? In other words was this area modeled as channel/concentrated flow as it exists today? 22. (Kimley-Horn) Based on the finished product of the original Barracks, there is a significant amount of impervious cover, do the assumptions in your design take into account this vast amount of impervious cover within post development drainage areas Pl, P2 & P3 . 23. (Kimley-Horn) The percent impervious within post development drainage areas Cl , C2 & Dl do not appear to represent post development conditions (ie . public streets, commercial development , etc). 24. (Kimley-Horn) In the drainage calculations throughout the construction documents and report there appears to be an error, as your calculations go back and forth between using a "percentage" to represent "% Impervious" to using an actual total area in "acreage "? 25 . (Kimley-Horn) Our records indicate that the 100-yr ultimate outfall from Al (The Barracks PH 1 & 2) is significantly greater than 87.68 cfs at 184.9 cfs , please revise . @(Kimley-Horn) In the larger storm events as the downstream channel begins to back up what is its effect on the proposed detention facilities outfall? Was the back water condition modeled ? 27. (Kimley-Horn) How will the timing of the discharge from the proposed detention facility affect the timing of downstream conveyance? 28 . (Kimley-Horn) The construction of the proposed detention facilities appear to place a significant amount of fill in the areas illustrates as flood plain in the October 4 , 2010 KHA study ; How will the effect the downstream flooding condition? 29 . (Kimley-Horn) We previously reviewed a Preliminary Flood Study that was submitted for the Barracks . A few comments were emailed concerning the report regarding discrepancies in culvert sizes crossing FM2 l 54 and 100-year flows. Did these get addressed and/or incorporated in the final flood study, as we did not receive a reply or copy of the final report; The previous comments were as follows: TxDOT record drawings (according to Jay Page) show 3-6'x9' boxes crossing Wellborn Road whereas report evaluated 3-6x8' box culverts? TxDOT utilized a 100-yr Q of 1,600 cfs whereas report utilized 3,300 cfs? 30 . (Kimley-Horn) Please provide technical design summary. 31 . (Kimley-Horn) Please address the applicability of the TCEQ Dam Safety Program regulations (TCEQ Chapter 299), due to detention pond height of the proposed berm and volume of storage capacity. 32. (Kimley-Horn) Please submit related USACE permitting documentation. 33 . (Kimley-Horn) FYI -The City has received complaints and concerns voiced by the downstream property owner related to the possibility of flooding conditions worsening as a result of this development. 34. (Kimley-Horn) As there is an existing flooding concern directly downstream of this proposed project, please provide certification that the resulting post development conditions will not adversely affect the downstream properties: "I have conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the existing and proposed flow patterns for storm water runoff from (name of subdivision or site project) to the main stem of (name of creek). At build-out conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant , or plat note , the storm water flows from the subject subdivision or site project will not cause any increase in .. flooding conditions to the interior of existing building structures, including basement areas , for storms of magnitude up through the 100-year event": • The Barracks Detention Facility Design City of College Station , Texas July 2011 Prepared for : Heath Phillips Investments , LLC . 4490 Castlega te Drive College Statio n, Te xas 77845 Prepared by : Kimley-Horn and Associates , Inc. 111 Un iversi ty Dri ve East Suite 105 College Statio n, Texas 77840 Te xas Reg istere d Firm F-928 (979) 846-84 01 ,........_n Kiml ey-H o rn ....._ _ r -, and As so ci at es, Inc. • The Barracks Detention Facility Design City of College Station , Texas July 2011 Prepared for: Heath Phillips Inves tments, LLC . 44 90 Castlegate Drive College Station , Te xa s 77845 Prepared by : Kimley-Horn and Assoc iates , Inc . 111 University Drive East Suite 105 College Station, Texas 77840 Texas Registered Firm F-928 (979 ) 846-84 01 ........--n Kimley-Horn llli..... _, ~ and Associates, Inc. \ I.I , I THE BARRACKS DETENTION FA CILITY DESIG N Table of Contents Execu tiv e Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Location 1.2 General Site Characteristics 1.3 Methodology 1.4 Field Survey and Land Plan Information 2.0 Approach 2.1 Hydrology 2.2 Hydraulics 3.0 Analysis 3.1 Existing Condition Model 3.2 Proposed Condition Model 3.3 Results 3.4 Results 4.0 References Table of Contents llll'i-n Kim ley-Hom llllo..J-LJ and Associates, Inc. K:\CIVIL\66077800\Docs\20t 104 t 5 DetentionFocilities.docx Copyright© 20t 1 Kimley-Horn end Associotes, Inc. JULY 2011 iv 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 5 6 7 8 .I , THE BARRACKS DETENTION FA CILITY DESIGN JULY 2011 List of Tables Table 1: Pre-Development Conditions .................................................................................................... 6 Table 2: Post-Development Conditions .................................................................................................. 7 Table 3: Downstream Cross Section Parameters .................................................................................. 8 Table 4: Existing Condition Peak Discharges ........................................................................................ 9 Table 5: Proposed Condition Detention Facility Performance ........................................................... 10 Table 6: 100 Year Event Pond Characteristics ..................................................................................... 10 Table 7: Discharge Comparison ............................................................................................................ 10 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein , as an in strument of services is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc . sh all be without liability to Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. Table of Contents lll""'i•n Kimley-Hom lllo..J•LJ and Associates, Inc. ii K:\CIVIL \66077800\Docs\20 1104 15 DetentionFocilities.docx Copynght © 20 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. ( THE BARRACKS DETE NTI ON FAC ILI TY DESIGN JULY 2011 Appendices Appendix A Appendix 8 Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Table of Contents Jll"'!•n Kimley·Hom lllo..J•LJ and Associates, Inc. General Vic inity Map Existing Condition Model Drainage Area Map SWMM Hydrologic Parameters Hydraul ic Cross Sections SWMM Output Proposed Condition Hydraulics Drainage Area Map SWMM Hydrologic Paramet ers Hyd raulic Cross Sections SWMM Output Proposed Detention Facility Pond Storage Curves Det ention Ponds Grading and Construction Plans Cited Reports Buena Vida Drainage Report , Prepared by Homeyer Engineering , Inc ., Dated : September 2010. The Barracks Subdivision Drainage and Detention Pond Analysis , Prepared by Civil Development , Ltd ., Dated: August 2008. The Barracks Subdiv ision -Phase 2 Detention Pond As-Built Summary , Prepared by Harle Engineering Company , Dated : March 2010. K:\CIVIL\66077800\Docs\201 t 0415 DelenlionFocililies.docx Copyright© 20 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates , Inc. iii f .. J THE BARRACKS DETENT IO N FACILI TY DESIGN JULY 2011 Executive Summary On behalf of Heath Phillips Investments , LLC , Kimley-Horn and Associates , Inc . (KHA) has completed site detention facility des ign for The Barracks Residential Subdivision , loca ted in south College Station , Texas . The site for the proposed subd ivisi on is located northeast of Rock Prairie Road , between Jones-Butler Road and FM 2154 (Wellborn Road). The 108.9 acre Barracks Development is situated on four separate drainage basins that are located on Tributary B.3 of Bee Creek . Another 132.4 acres up stream of The Barracks tract also contr ibute runoff flows . This area includes the Williamsgate , Buena Vida , earlier phases of The Barracks subdivisions and other open spaces . The detention facility , outlined in this report , was designed for the complete development of the 108 .9 acre Barracks land plan as shown in the Drainage Area Map in Appendix C, with the other aforementioned areas remaining in existing conditions . KHA developed a series of interconnected detention ponds and sized an outfall structure to attenuate the increased runoff discharges from the site in post-development conditions . The intent of this facility is to reduce rainfall excesses discharged from each of the four outfall points at or below the existing conditions for the 2, 10 , 25 , 50 , and 100 year recurrence interval storm events per the Bryan College Stat ion Unified Stormwater Design Gu idelines. This task was accomplished by developing an existing (pre-development) conditions model to establ ish the allowed peak discharges for each event. The existing condition model included the exiting detention fac ili ties for the upstream developments in accordance with their respective dra inage reports . A proposed (post-development) conditions model was then created with modified drainage basins and increased impervious areas . Discharge rates were then metered to existing conditions for each storm event and the requ ired detention area was provided to hold the detained volume . Detention requirements for each of the outfall points were met by providing a detention facility or by reducing the area contributing to the outfall point. This design prov ides a detailed analysis of the required post development detention volume and necessary facilities to detain excess post development discharges to existing levels. Details outlining the hydrologic and hydraul ic character istics used in the establishment of this design are outlined later in this report. Executive Summary lll"l•n Kimley-Hom 1111..J•LJ and Associates , Inc. K:\Cl vtl \66077800\Docs\201 I 0415 De l entionFocilities.d ocx Cop yrigh t © 20 11 Kimley-Ho rn ond Associ o les, Inc. iv ""' -_, THE BARRACKS DETENTION FACILITY DESIGN JULY 2011 1.0 Introduction 1 .1 Location The subject development is a 108 .9 acre tract located is located northeast of Rock Prairie Road , between Jones- Butler Road and Old Wellborn Road in College Station , Texas . The tract is bounded by the John Wheeler Barger Tract to the northeast and the Charles I. and Mary E. Turner Tract and the Williamsgate Subdivision to the southwest. See Appendix A for a general vicinity map of the property . 1.2 General Site Characteristics The land covering of the existing project area is comprised of a combination of grassland/prairie and medium to dense trees and brush . The proposed subject development of this study comprises approximately 108 .9 acres of the greater 241 acre area that discharges at four outfall points . The remaining 132.4 acres of the drainage basin includes the existing Buena Vida, Williamsgate , and The Barracks Subdivisions as well as other undeveloped areas . Discharges from the three aforementioned developments are released through two detention facilities . One pond serves the first phase of the Barracks development ; the second pond serves the Williamsgate and Buena Vida developments. These detention facilities were included the existing and proposed condition analyses for the subject facility in accordance with their respective drainage reports . The Buena Vida subdivision facil ity is character ized in the in the Buena Vida Drainage Report prepared by Homeyer Eng in eering , Inc ., and The Barrack 's -Phase 2 pond as characterized in the As-Built Summary prepared by Harle Engineering Company and the original Drainage and Detention Pond Analysis prepared by Civil Development, Ltd. These reports are inc luded for reference in the Appendix of this report. Slopes across the basin are mild , ranging from 2.5% in the upper part of the basin to around 1.0% in the lower portion . The subject basin comprises the upstream drainage area of the Bee Creek Tributary B.3 . The subject area currently discharges at four outfall points . While flows from the tract are divided by these four outfalls , the entire subject tract is within the Bee Creek Tributary B.3 watershed . All discharges eventually converge in Tributary B.3 at the location of its intersecti on with Old Wellborn Road . Outfall 1 is located at the intersection of Tributary B.3.1.2 and Tributary B.3 of Bee Creek , approximately 850 feet southeast of Ca in Road and approximately a quarter mile southwest of Wellborn Road. Runoff from the 158.04 acre basin defined by this outfall point is conveyed in concentrated flow through existing Tributary B.3 channel in a northwesterly direct ion were it crosses Cain Road and eventually intersects Wellborn Road . Outfall 2 defines a small , 6.86 acre , basin directly northeast of the Outfall 1 along the Barracks ' northwestern property boundary. Discharges from the basin are released the adjacent John Wheeler Barger property as sheet and shallow concentrated flow in existing conditions . Runoff from this basin drains north across the adjacent property where it crosses Cain Road and joins Tributary B.3 . The 44 .27 acres on the northern portion of the subject tract discharge to Outfall 3 located approximately one quarter mile southeast of the intersection of Cain and Old Wellborn Road . Discharges are released as shallow concentrated and sheet flow to the existing bar ditch along Old Wellborn Road . This drainage corridor conveys runoff to the northwest along Old Wellborn Road where it eventually discharges at the interaction of Tributary B.3. Outfall 4 includes the east northeast portion of the tract that sheet flows onto the adjacent John Wheeler Barger property . These 31 .86 acres eventually intersect the discharge from Outfall 1 on the adjacent property and follow the path previously defined . l .O Introduction Jll"""1•n Kimley-Hom llo.J•LJ and Associates , Inc. K:\CI VI L\67543002 \Docs\20081 t21 Flood Study.doc Copyright© 20 t 1 Kimley-Horn ond Associates , Inc. THE BARRACKS DETE NT ION FACILITY DESIGN JULY 2011 1.3 Methodology This study was completed using standard hydrologic and hydraulic methods . KHA utilized the Environmental Protection Agency 's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) version 5.0 for this project. EPA-SWMM is a dynamic rainfall-runoff simulation model that uses the Dynamic Wave Routing Technique , which solves the complete St. Venant equations of unsteady flow routing . These equations incorporate the conservation of mass and momentum producing the most theoretically accurate results and allowing for the simulation of channel storage , backwater effects , entrance/exit losses , flow reversal , and pressur ized flow while producing flow hydrographs and hydraulic character istics for each node and link in the system throughout the course of simulation period . Each basin is idealized as a rectangu lar drainage area and assigned specific hydrologic characteristics including average slope , width , curve number, percent of impervious area , depths of ponding on both impervious and pervious areas , and Mann ing 's roughness for sheet flow on impervious and pervious areas . This software allowed KHA to model the interaction of the interconnected ponds through each storm event. More details of the flow sources and methodologies are provided in the following sections. A pre-development drainage area map and SWMM model were generated to determine the existing flows entering and ex iting the site at the four outfall points. A post development drainage area map and SWMM model was generated using the proposed land plan , pond and outfall geometry , and storm sewer routing. This was compared to the pre-development model to ensure flows exitin g the each of the outfall points were equal or less than the pre- development flows for each of the 2, 10 , 25, 50 , and 100 year recurrence interval storm events per the Bryan College Station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines . 1.4 Field Survey and Land Plan Information Topographic survey and proposed land plan information used for the design of the detention facility were provided to KHA by the owner . The land plan used for design is include d in proposed condition Drainage Area Map in Appendix C of this rep ort . 1 .0 Introduction 1111""1-n Kimley-Hom ...i-L~ and Associates, Inc. K:\CIVIL\66077800\Docs\20110415 Detentionfacilities.docx Cop yright© 2011 Kimley-Horn and Associates. In c. 2 I ' .,_ ~ t THE BARRACKS DETENTION FACILITY DESIGN JULY 2011 2.0 Approach 2.1 Hydr ology Drainage area maps were developed for the on-site and the off-site areas di s pre-development and post-development conditions. The slope of each bas i average across the basin . The width of a particular bas in was determ ined charging to the subject property in both n was determined by taking a weighted by dividing the area of the basin by the average distance of sheet flow across the basin . The curve number for each basin was established by evaluat ing the Natura Survey of Brazos County , Texas . Soils in the area include the following : I Resource Conservation Service 's Soil • Boon ville Fine Sandy Loam 1-3% Slopes • Gredge Fine Sandy Loam 1-5% Slopes • Tabor Fine Sandy Loam 0-52% Slopes • Derly-Rader Complex 0-1 % Slopes • Zulch Fine Sandy Loam 1-3% Slopes drologic Soil Group C and assigned an Due to the hydrologic characteristics of these soils they were classified as Hy undeveloped Curve Number of 79 , per Table C-7a of the BCS Unified Stormw ater Design Guidelines. two upstream detention areas were ed in the Buena Vida Drainage Report In both pre-development and post-development cond itions modeling , the incorporated into the hydrologic models based on the characteristics describ prepared by Homeyer Engineering Company and The Barracks Subdivisio n prepared by Civil Development , Ltd . and the Detention Pond As-built Summ by Harle Engineering Company . No part of the existing detention ponds sto proposed development. The ponds were inc luded in order to ensure th Drainage and Detent ion Pond Ana lysis ary for The Barracks Phase 2 prepared rage volume was credited towards the e existing flow rates and timing were accurately accounted for in the modeling . The percent of impervious cover was applied in accordance with Table C-7b Guidel ines dependent on the future land use proposed . The characterist ics of the BCS Unified Stormwater Design of the existing and proposed basins are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively . Tabl e 1: Pre-Dev elopm ent Co ndit ion s Basin A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 B-1 C-1 C-2 D-1 E-1 E-2 2.0 Approach lllll"i-1"1 Kimley·Hom ~-LJ and Associates , Inc. Are a (ac re) 13 .74 6.92 11 .65 15 .32 20.45 44.27 6.86 31.86 28 .24 61 .72 K:\CIVIL \66077800\Docs\201 10415 Detentionfacili ties.docx Copyright© 2011 Kimley·Horn and Associates, Inc. Avg. Slope (%) 0 Yo Imperv io us 1.0 65 1.0 0 1.1 38 2.0 6 2.0 63 1.1 0 0.6 0 0.9 4 1.3 1 1.0 3 Base CN 75 75 75 75 75 79 79 79 79 79 3 ~ ' ~ ' THE BARRACKS DETE NTI ON FACILITY DESIGN JUL Y 2011 Table 2: Post Development Conditions Basin Area (acre) Avg. Slope(%) % Impervious Base CN A-1 13.74 1.0 65 75 A-2 6.92 1.0 0 75 A-3 11 .65 1.1 38 75 A-4 15 .32 2.0 6 75 B-1 20.45 2.0 63 75 C-1 22 .88 1.1 3 79 C-2 0.55 10.0 25 79 D-1 6.00 0.9 69 79 E-1 8.77 1.3 2 79 E-2 23 .67 1.0 7 79 P-1 91 .56 1.0 41 79 P-2 14.85 1.0 75 79 P-3 5.92 1.0 70 79 The other hydrologic characteristics are listed for their respective basin in the Appendix of this report . 2.2 Hydraulics The Dynamic Wave Routing techn ique also requires downstream boundary condit ions in order to account for the hydraul ic routing . KHA utilized two downstream cross-sections to establish a tai lwater for the model. This allowed KHA to model downstream backwater, channel storage , entrance and exit losses , and flow reversal over time . A th ird cross section was used in the existing conditions model to route the flows from the Buena Vida and Barracks Phase 2 ponds to Outfall 1. The hydraul ic parameters for the cross sections used in the model are presented in the Appendix of this report . The software was also used to size the hydraulic members of the facil ity . The outfall and emergency weirs for the ponds and the required pipe "interconnects " for the between Pond 1 and Pond 2, and Pond 1 and Pond 3 were sized with the SWMM model. Submerged pipes were model using the Hazen Williams formula since the conduits were subjected to pressurized flow. SWMM modeled the fr ictional and other minor losses for these conduits to account to flow reversal and the var ied head and tail water elevat ions in the ponds over the duration of the unsteady state model. 2 .0 Approach 111""'1-lrt Kimley-Hom llllo.J-LJ and Associates, Inc. K:\CIVIL \67543000\docs \2008t016 Flood Stu d y.doc Copyright© 2008 Kimley-Hom and Associ a tes , Inc. 4 I.. ' ' . THE BARRACKS DETE NTI ON FACILI TY DESIGN JUL Y 2011 3.0 Analysis 3.1 Exis ting Condition Mo del The ex isting condition model followed the procedures and methods outlined above to generate the existing condition discharges from the site. The hydrologic parameters used for the existing cond itions analysis can be viewed in Appendix B of this report . Tab le 3 presents the existing condition disc harges for each des ign event. These discharges were used as the peak allowable discharges in proposed conditions . Tabl e 3: Exist ing Co ndition Pea k Discharge s Peak Dis charge (cfs ) Rec urrence Int erv al OF -1 OF-2 OF-3 OF -4 2 Yr 197.03 7.04 64 .05 36 .52 10 Yr 394 .67 17 .6 9 142 .96 87.42 25 Yr 482 .89 21 .6 6 171.25 106 .2 50 Yr 607.18 27.3 6 211 .23 133 .12 100 Yr 712.30 32 .3 5 245 .64 256 .61 3.2 Prop osed Condit ion Model The proposed cond ition model incorporated the adjusted drainage areas and impervious cover for the post development cond itions . The drainage areas were based on the proposed land use plan and storm sewer layout for the Barracks development. The downstream cross sect ions remained the same as the existing cond iti on model to retain a similar boundary condition . There are four outfall points in the proposed condit ions correspond ing with the four outfall po ints in the exi st ing conditions . Three of these outfa lls discharge un-detained in proposed con dit ions . These drainage areas have been sized to reduce the deve loped flows to a level at or below existing condi tions . The remainder of the area has been direc ted toward the detention ponds. Table 4 summarizes the discharges of each outfall in proposed conditions . Table 4: Propo sed Condition P ea k Discharges Re currence Interval 3.0 Analysis 111""'1-n Kimley·Hom lllo..J-LJ and Associates, Inc. 2 Yr 10 Yr 25 Yr 50 Yr 100 Yr K:\CIVIL \66077800\Docs\201104 I 5 DetentionFocilities.docx Copyright© 2011 Kimley-Horn and Associates. Inc. OF -1 149 .15 384 .37 480 .81 601 .85 696 .27 Pea k Discharge (cfs) OF -2 OF-3 1.21 34 .30 2.20 75 .17 2.55 89.62 3.03 110 .29 31 .3 1 128 .10 OF-4 15 .01 25 .71 29.41 34 .60 39 .04 5 J.. l ... , THE BARRACKS DETEN TION FACILI TY DESIGN JUL Y 2011 A detention facility was designed and incorporated into the proposed condition model to hold excess runoff volume before discharging is below the peak existing discharges of Outfall 1 for the 2, 10 , 25, 50, and 100 year events . Detention volume was provided through the use of three interconnected ponds . The main pond located in the center of the three ponds receives the majority of the flow and also has a rectangular weir outfall control structure . The main pond and the west pond are wet ponds with constant water surface elevations of 295 . The detention volume is provided above this elevation. The main discharge point for the facility is located on Pond 1 which subsequently discharges to Outfall 1. Pond 2 is a dry pond which discharges to the main pond in the center . This pond has also been designed to provide the required 10% sedimentation volume as it fills to 86% of capacity in "plugged flow " conditions . The emergency overflow path (plugged interconnect) is designed to cross the future right-of-way , following the alignment of the interconnect, and discharging into Pond 1. Pond 3 is a wet pond that is connected to Pond 1 through a 24 " interconnect. The emergency overflow path flows the path of the interconnect and discharges into Pond 1. The requ ired sedimentation volume is incorporated below the water surface elevation of the wet ponds . The proposed stage vs . area curves for the ponds are presented in the Appendix of this report . Refer to Appendix D for grading and construction plans for the proposed facilities . 3.3 Results EPA-SWMM allowed the KHA to model the interaction of the ponds throughout the duration of each synthetic storm event. Due to the fact that the ponds shared one outfall structure , they did not act independently , but instead the flows between the ponds were dependent on the equ il ibrium of the hydraulic head in each pond . Through the analys is of the proposed condit ion model , KHA developed the pond grading , outfall structure , and interconnects that provided necessary detention volume to meter flows to the existing conditions . By compar ing the exi sting and proposed condition models , KHA determined that 43 .13 acre-feet of detention volume was requ ired. The model also allowed for the sizing to the two interconnection pipes between the ponds . The ponds were connected through the use of 24 " pipe between ponds 1 and 3 and a 36 " pipe between ponds 1 and 2. A 29 '-4 " wide weir at elevation 295 .0' provides the necessary control for the 2, 10 , 25 , and 50 year events . Pond 1 also has an additional 100-year outfall in the form of a 29 '-4 " wide , shallow weir that discharges to Outfall 2. The peak velocity through this weir remained below 2 fps , which is below the erosional threshold for grass . Berm elevations were set to provide the 0.5' of freeboard above the max water surface elevation for the "plugged flow " 100 year event. The elevation area curves and the grading and construction plans for the ponds are presented in Appendix D of th is report . Table 5 and 6 present the pertinent information for the performance of the fac ili ty for the design events . Table 7 shows a comparison of the pre-development and post-development flows at each outfall point for the trac t. 3.0 Analysis ~-n Kimley-Hom lllo..i-LJ and Associates , Inc. K:\CIVIL \66077800\Docs\201104 I 5 De tentionFacilities.docx Copyright© 201 I Kim ley-Horn and Associates. Inc. 6 I L t THE BA RRACK S DETE NTION FAC ILI TY DE SIGN JU LY 2011 Table 5: Proposed Condition Detention Facility Performance Qp WSEL WSEL WSEL Qp Vp Qp Vp System Pond 1 Pond2 Pond 3 Pipe 1-2 Pipe 1·2 Pipe 1-3 Pipe 1-3 Event (cfsl tcfs) (fP.S) (cfsl {!e!L 2Yr 149.15 297 .70 297 .75 297 .74 14.09 1.99 8.53 2.71 10Yr 384.37 298 .72 298.90 298 .82 24 .75 3.50 11 .23 3.58 25Yr 480 .81 299 .04 299 .23 299 .13 28 .79 4.07 12 .97 4.13 SO Yr 601 .85 299.42 299 .67 299 .52 33 .52 4.74 15 .22 4.85 100 Yr 696 .27 299 .71 300.00 _ 299.79 36.79 5.21 16 .52 5.26 f,~ Q).1., ~·i "?> \)\). 1.' Table 6: 100 Year Event Pond Characteristics Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Total Peak Detention Vol. (ac-ft) 33 .52 5.57 4.04 43 .13 Normal Pool WSEL 295 295 N/A Peak Plugged Flow WSEL 299 .80 300 .25 299 .7 9 Min. Freeboard (ft) 0.50 0.50 0.71 Table 7: Discharge Comparison Outfall 1 Outfall 2 Outfall 3 Outfall 4 Event QpEx Qp Pr Delta QoEx Qp Pr Delta Qp Ex Qp Pr Delta QoEx QoPr Delta 2 10 25 50 100 197 .03 149.15 -47 .9 7.04 1.21 -5.8 64 .05 34.30 -29 .8 36.52 15.01 -21 .5 394.67 384 .37 -10 .3 17.69 2.20 -15 .5 142 .96 75 .17 -67 .8 87.42 25 .71 -61 .7 482 .89 480 .81 -2.1 21.66 2.55 -19 .1 171.25 89 .62 -81.6 106.20 29.41 -7 6.8 607 .18 601 .85 ~ 27 .36 3.03 -24 .3 _ 211 .23 110 .29 -1 OD._9 -..... 133.12 34 .60 -98..5.. 712.30 696.27 ' I/ -16 .oV 32.35 31.31 V .1 .0 ll 245 .64 128 .10 f 117 .5 IJ156 .61 39.04 V 117 .6 L/ -,______..... - 3.4 Interim Conditions It is typ ical for deve lopments such as this to develop in phases. In the case of this project, the intent is to construct the full detention pond facility with the first phase of development . In this cond ition , where the ponds have been constructed and only a portion of the subject property is developed , flows from the pond outfa ll will be less than the designed discharge. In this interim condition , existing conditions flows from off site and on site will enter the pond combined with the increased discharge from the phase of development. Because these flows will be lower than the des igned inflow , the pond will not reach the designed water surface elevations due to the excess of volume provided compared to the developed acreage . Since the three ponds operate with a sing le weir outfall located in pond 1, the discharge rate is dependent on the water surface elevation in the pond to prov ide the hydraulic head necessary to discharge at the des igned rate . 3 .0 Analysis lll""l•n Kimley-Hom .....:•L_J and Associates, Inc. K:\CIVIL\66077800\Docs\201 10415 Delentionfacilities.docx Copyright © 20 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates , Inc. 7 ~ THE BARRACKS DETE NTIO N FAC ILITY DESIGN JULY 2011 4.0 References Rossman , Lewis A., Et. Al. Storm Water Management Model Application Manual. National Risk Management Research Laboratory , Office of Research and Development , U.S. EPA. Cincinnati , OH . 2009 . U.S . Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-SWMM, v.5.0, Build 5.0.021 (software package). COM , Inc. Cambridge , MA. City of College Station Stormwater Design Guidelines, Feb. 2009. 4 .0 References ....i•n Kimley·Hom 111...J•LJ and Associates, Inc. K:\CIVIL \66077800\Docs\201 10415 Detentionfacilities.docx Copyright© 201 1 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 8 EXHIBIT B POST DEVELOPMENT TIME OF CONCENTRATION COMPUTATIONS The Barracks II Subdivision, Phase 100 T. . . _ 0.007(Ln)o.e sr. .. t -P2 O.S S °'"' T aheet =time of concentration for sheet flow (hr) L = length (ft) n = Manning's roughness P2 = 2-yr rainfall intensity (in/hr) for Brazos Co. = 4.5 in/hr S = slope (ft/ft) TR-55 Method Vconc = 16.1345(5)0.S V conc =water velocity in ditch (ft/sec) S = slope of ditch (ft/ft) l';u cur = 20 .. 3282(5)05 Vgutter =water velocity in gutter (ft/sec) S = slope of gutter (ft/ft) System 100 Drainage Sheet Flow Concentrated Flow . Gutter Flow -1 Area# n Length Slope T.._, Length Slope Velocity T ...,.._, Length Slope Velocity ft % min. ft % ft/sec min ft % ft/sec 100A 0.24 37 1.!t 6 48 1.5 2 0 153 1.57 3 1008 0.24 36 1.5; 6 48 1.5 2 0 65 1.14 2 101A 0.24 30 1.5· 5 44 1.5 2 0 138 0.96 2 1018 0.24 36 1.5 6 43 1.5 2 0 467 0 .99 2 111 0.24 32 1.5' 5 38 1.5 2 0 216 0 .96 2 112 0.24 33 1.5 6 47 1.5 2 0 217 0 .96 2 s t 200 ,ys em Drainage Sheet Flow Concentrated Flow Gutter Flow - 1 Area# n Length Slope T.._ Length Slope Velocity T """""°" Length Slope Velocity ft % min . ft % ft/sec min ft % ft/sec 270 0.24 38 1.5,1' 6 55 1.5 2 0 308 0.67 2 271 0 .24 36 1.S: 6 50 1.5 2 0 302 0.67 2 280 0.24 30 1.5' 5 61 1.5 2 1 315 0.67 2 281 0.24 300 2.33 27 1100 0.5 1 16 0.67 2 285A 0.24 40 1.5 6 36 1.5 2 0 137 0.67 2 2858 0.24 38 1.5 6 1.5 2 0 178 1.36 2 286A 0.24 33 1.5 6 47 1.5 2 0 253 0.67 2 2868 0 .24 15 1.5 3 50 1.5 2 0 243 0.83 2 291A 0.24 30 1.5 5 50 1.5 2 0 132 0.65 2 2918 0 .24 50 1.5 8 1.5 2 0 185 1.47 2 292A 0.24 38 1.S, 6 40 1.5 2 0 96 0 .65 2 2928 0.24 32 1.5~ 5 46 1.5 2 0 183 1.47 2 29 3A 0.24 20 1.5~ 4 1.5 2 0 170 0.73 2 2938 0.24 40 1.S:! 6 1.5 2 0 312 0 .78 2 294A 0.24 165 1.8 19 475 0 .8 1 5 198 0.73 2 2948 0.24 145 1.5 18 500 0 .6 1 7 150 0.78 2 T ,_.. Length min ft 1 0 1 118 4 35 2 2 T "'"°" Length min ft 3 3 3 0 1 1 3 2 11 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 L T= 60V T =travel time through ditch or gutter (min) L = length of travel path (ft) V =velocity (fUsec) Gutter Flow - 2 Tc Slope Velocity T ,_.. Total Design % ft/sec min min min 0 8 10 0 7 10 0 .6 2 1 8 10 1.43 2 0 10 10 0 0 8 10 0 0 8 10 Gutter Flow - 2 Tc Slope Ve locity T "'""" Tota l Design % ft/sec min min min 0 0 10 10 0 0 9 10 ==++= 0 9 10 0 43 43 0 8 10 0 0 7 10 0 0 9 10 2 1 6 10 0 0 7 10 0 0 9 10 0 0 8 10 0 0 7 10 0 0 5 10 0 0 9 10 0 0 26 26 0 0 26 26 370 .s-1 > 7"1.. .l O> 17'1 1.ob ~1'/ /.oo :!>7C ,, .1i- ~ - Pa ram et ers Gutter I A Lo cation I Bypass from : I (ac) 100A 0 .33 1008 0.23 10 1A 0 .74 1018 111 , 112 1.75 111 0.46 112 0 .51 270 0 .86 271 L ~ 0 .80 280 .. i---1.09 281 .~ 6 .88 285A ' ~ 0 .37 285 8 .. -0 .25 286A 1.08 2868 1.05 291A 0 .33 2918 0 .33 292A 0 .24 2928 0 .43 293A ""'-0.17 2938 "'1! ~ 0 .35 - 294A ..,..-2.49 2948 -2.00 ' Transv e rs e !Cr own) slope (ft/ft) 27' street = 0 .0300 38' street = 0 .0300 I I Slope I tc c I I (ft/ft) I (min) 0 .0157 10 0.0114 10 0 .0157 10 0 .0114 10 0 .0114 10 0 .01 14 10 J f.J .9p 0 .0067 10 /o .55., 0 .0067 10 I o.55 \ 0 .0067 10 0 .40 ' 0 .0067 43 0 .55 0 .0067 10 0.55 0 .0136 10 0 .55 0.0067 10 0 .55 0 .0136 10 0 .55 0 .0065 10 0 .55 0 .0147 10 0 .55 0 .0065 10 0 .55 0 .0147 10 0 .55 I 0 .0073 10 0 .55 / 0.0078 10 0.4rf 0.0073 26 0 .4(! 0 .0078 26 v EXHIBIT C The Barracks II Phase 100 Gutter Depth Calculations 10-year storm Calculatio ns 1,. I o,. I OevP-ADD I 010-TOTAL I Y10-actual 1, •• (In/hr} I (cfs) I (cf s} I (cf s) I (ft) I (In} (I n /hr} SYSTEM 100 DESIGN 8 .635 1.57 1.57 0 .19 2 .3 11 .639 8 .635 1.09 1.09 0 .18 2.1 11 .639 8.6 35 3 .51 3.51 0 .26 3.1 11 .639 8 .498 8 .18 1.02 9.20 0.39 4 .7 11 .458 8 .635 2 .18 2 .18 0 .23 2.8 11.639 8 .6 35 2.42 2.42 0 .24 2 .9 11 .639 SYSTEM 200 DESIGN 8 .635 4 .08 0 .68 4 .76 0 .34 4 .1 11 .639 8 .635 3 .80 1.50 5 .30 0.35 4 .2 11.639 8.635 5 .18 5 .18 0 .35 4 .2 11 .639 3 .935 10 .83 10 .83 0.46 5.5 5.418 8 .635 1 .76 1.76 0 .23 2 .8 11 .639 8 .635 1.19 1.19 0.18 2.1 11 .639 8 .635 5 .13 5 .13 0 .35 4 .2 11 .639 8 .635 4 .99 4.99 0 .30 3.6 11 .639 8 .635 1.57 1.57 0 .23 2.7 ~ 11 .639 8 .635 1.57 1.57 0 .19 2 .3 11 .639 8 .635 1.14 1.14 0 .20 2 .4 11.639 8 .635 2 .04 2.04 0 .21 2.6 11 .639 8 .6 35 0 .81 0 .81 0.17 2 .1 11.639 8 .635 1 .66 1.66 0 .22 2 .7 11 .639 5 .355 5 .33 5.33 0 .35 4 .2 7.300 5 .339 4 .27 4 .27 0 .32 3.8 7.279 1 DO-ye ar storm I o, •• I OavP-ADD I 0100-TOTAL I I (cfs) I (cfs} I (cfs ) I 2 .11 2.11 1.47 1.47 4 .74 4 .74 11 .03 11.03 2.94 2 .94 3.26 3.26 5 .51 0 .80 6 .31 5.12 1.79 6 .91 6 .98 6 .98 14.91 14.91 2 .37 2 .37 1.60 1.60 6 .91 6 .91 6.72 6 .72 2.11 2.11 2 .11 2 .11 1.54 1.54 2 .75 2.75 1.09 1.09 2 .24 2.24 7.27 7.27 5.82 5 .82 St raight Crow n Flow (Solved to find actual depth of f low m g utter. y ): Q = 0.56 * (z/n) *S y= {Q I [0 .56 * (z/n) * S 112]}318 n =Roughness Co 1 0 .018 S = Street/Gutter Slope (ft/ft) y = Depth of flow at inlet (ft) z = Reciprocal of crown slope : 27' street= 38' street= 33 33 Y100 (ft} I (In} 0 .21 2 .6 0.20 2.4 0 .29 3.5 0.42 5 .1 0.26 3.1 0.27 3 .2 0 .38 4 .5 ' 0.39 4 .7 0 .39 4.1 I 0 .52 6 .3 t 0 .26 3 .1 0 .20 2.4 I 0.39 4 .7 0 .34 4.1 0 .25 1 " 3 .0 ' • 0.22 2 .6 I 0 .2 2 2.7 0 .24 2 .9 I 0 .19 2.3 , 0.25 3.0 0 .39 4 .7 0 .36 4 .3 From Gutter Depth Table Inlet# 01 0-TOTAL 0100 -TOTAl Y10 Y100 SL T1o (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) {ft/ft) {ft) 111 2.18 2.94 0 .229 0 .257 0 .0114 7.65 112 2.42 3 .26 0.238 0 .267 0 .0114 7.95 270 6 .31 6 .31 0 .339 0 .377 0 .0067 11 .32 271 6 .91 6 .91 0.353 0 .39P 0 .0067 11 .78 280 6.98 6 .98 0 .350 0 .392 0 .0067 11.68 281 14.91 14.91 . 0.462 0 .521 0 .0067 15.40 EXHIBIT D The Barracks II Phase 100 Inlets-on-Grade Computation Worksheet Recessed Inlets On Grade 10 yr Calculations 10 yr Design 100 yr Calculations Eo s. LREQ PROVIDI Eff10 0 10.CAPTUREC 010.SYPASS T100 Eo s. (ft) {ft) {%) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 0 .555 0.1224 '"I 79.4% 1.74 0 .45 8.55 0 .51 0 .1147 0.539 0 .1197 9.05 . 76.5% 1.85 0.57 8 .89 0 .49 0 .1122 0.405 0 .0974 13.05 92.7% 5.85 0 .46 12 .58 0 .37 0 .0916 0 .391 0 .0952 13 .75 90.4% 6 .24 0 .67 13 .01 0 .36 0 .0899 0 .394 0.0957 13 .76 90.3% 6.30 0 .68 13 .06 0 .36 0 .0897 0 .310 0 .0817 20.82 • 89.9% 13 .41 1.50 17 .36 0 .28 0 .0764 Formulas from BCS Guidelines LREQ (ft) 10.08 10 .66 13 .54 14 .23 14 .3 1 21 .67 a s,. = s.~ +· l>VEo w 7,J:f/ Bo= 1-[1-T] Q cAPTIJRf:D = Eff Q T is defined here as top width upstream of inlet in a normal triangular gutter W is defined as the local width of depressed section at reces sed in let a is defined here as 4" 9/1/2011 Eff = 1 -(1 -~:J L 8 L = K Q o.42 5 o.a [~]°"' x . c i.. nSx 100 yr Check Eff100 ~100.CAPTURE 01 00.SYPASS {%) (cfs) (cfs) 70 .9% 2.09 0.86 68 .0% 2.22 1.05 91 .1% 5 .75 0 .56 88 .7% 6 .13 0 .78 88 .5% 6 .17 0 .80 88 .0% 13 .12 1 .. 79 EXHIBIT E The Barracks II Phase 100 Inlets-in-Sump Computation Worksheet Parameters 10 yr Design 100 yr Check Inlet# Contributing Q10 Q100 Gutter Loe. (cfs) (cfs) 100 100A 1.57 2 .11 100B 1.09 1.47 101 102A 3 .51 4 .74 '4' 102B 9.20 11.03 285 285A 1.76 2 .37 285B 1.19 1.60 286A 5 .13 6.91 286 286B 4.99 6.72 291 291A 1.57 2 .11 291B 1.57 2.11 292 292A 1.14 1.54 292B 2.04 2.75 293 293A 0 .81 " 1.09 293B 1.66 2 .24 294 294A 5 .33 7.27 294B 4 .27 5 .82 Inlets in sClmps. Weir Flow: L = Q I (3 * y312 ) ~ y = (QI 3L)213 L = Length of inlet opening (ft) Q = Flow at inlet ( cfs) y = total depth of flow on inlet (ft) max y for inlet in sump = 7" = 0.583' Q10+10% QSUM (cfs) (cfs) 1.724 2 .925 . 1.201 3.866 13 .983 10 .117 1.933 3 .239 1.306 5.642 5.485 11.127 1.724 3.448 1.724 1.254 3 .500 2 .246 0.888 2 .716 1.828 5 .866 10 .564 4 .698 L10.Req'd • L10-Provlded Q100+10% QSUM Y100-PROJECTED (ft) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (in) 2 .19 5 2 .32 3 .943 4.925 1.62 10.47 15 5.21 17.342 6.355 12.13 2.43 5 2 .61 4.366 5.270 1.76 7 .61 8 .33 10 7.39 14 .999 7.559 2 .58 5 2 .32 2 .32 4 .648 5.495 2.62 10 1.69 4 .718 3.496 3 .03 2 .03 5 1.20 2.46 3.662 4.687 7 .91 10 8.00 6.41 14.403 7.358 • .. LinelD Size Invert Dn HGL Dn (in) (ft) (ft) 100A 30 296.00 298.50 1008 30 296..60 299.10 101 18 298.76 300.26 110 18 298.76 300.26 111 18 300.55 302.13 112 18 301.74 303.24 220 42(2b) 296.50 300.00 221 42(2b) 297.95 301.45 270 36 298.35 301.35 271 18 300.72 302.22 280 36 299.32 302.32 281 18 301.50 303.00 282 30 300.50 303.00 285 24 301.06 303.12 286 18 303.06 304.56 290 24 301.06 303.23 291 24 302.30 304.30 292 18 303.86 305.36 293 18 302.70 304.20 294 18 305.97 307.47 EXHIBIT F The Barracks II Phase 100 Hydraflow Pipe Results 10-year Storm Rim Elev Dn Invert Up HGL Up Rim Elev Up (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 298.50 296.50 298.50 302.60 302.60 297.80 299.39 304.18 304.18 299.31 300.56 304.18 304.18 300.45 301.63 304.72 304.72 301.64 302.68 305.60 305.60 302.21 303.23 305.60 300.00 297.85 300.02 304.00 304.00 298.22 301.50 304.50 304.00 299.22 301.81 306.10 306.10 301.86 302.60 306.80 306.10 300.00 302.70 308.30 308.30 302.63 303.86 j 310.50 308.30 300.56 303.05 308.90 308.90 302.56 303.98 308.00 308.00 303.65 304.86 307.27 308.90 302.20 303.89 311.05 311.05 303.36 304.54 308.90 308.90 304.30 305.35 308.61 311.05 305.97 306.83 310.40 310.40 306.49 307.47 310.50 • • Flow Rate Capacity Vel Ave (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s) 22.33 47.35 4.93 22.63 43.74 5.74 10.76 13.97 6.46 9.59 12.46 5.92 5.27 7.53 3.51 2.85 13.05 2.01 100.47 354.66 6.62 74.00 149.36 3.90 26.18 33.69 3.87 3.80 16.02 3.25 23.36 29.77 3.40 10.34 15.95 6.27 20.64 22.19 4.21 13.09 16.98 4.82 10.12 12.38 6.16 10.22 12.84 3.43 6.27 14.31 2.63 3.18 13.16 2.10 5.02 9.24 3.83 2.85 10.82 2.03 LinelO Size Invert On (in) (ft) 100A 30 296.00 1008 30 296.60 101 18 298.76 110 18 298.76 111 18 300.55 112 18 301.74 220 42(2b) 296.50 --42(2b) 297.95 ~ 22k ~ 42(2b) 298.32 270 36 298.35 271 18 300.72 280 36 299.32 28-1 18 301.50 ( 282 _..., 30 300.50 285 24 301.06 286 18 303.06 290 24 301.06 291 24 302.30 292 18 303.86 293 18 302.70 294 18 305.97 EXHIBIT G The Barracks II Phase 100 Hydraflow Pipe Results 100-year Storm HGLOn Rim Elev On Invert Up HGL Up Rim Elev Up (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 300.00 298.50 296.50 300.21 302.60 300.36 302.60 297.80 300.96 304.18 301.12 304.18 299.31 301.71 304.18 301.12 304.18 300.45 302.98 304.72 303.80 304.72 301.64 304.77 305.60 305.01 305.60 302.21 305.06 305.60 300.00 300.00 297.85 300.45 304.00 301.45 304.00 298.22 301.57 304.50 301.82 304.50 298.70 302.20 304.30 301.41 304.00 299.22 302.42 306.10 302.80 306.10 301.86 302.81 306.80 302.61 306.10 300.00. 303.41 308.30 303.49 308.30 302.63 304.39 310.50 303.49 308.30 300.56 303.59 308.90 303.78 308.90 302.56 305.41 308.00 305.53 308.00 303.65 306.25 307.27 303.96 308.90 302.20 305.35 311.05 305.63 311.05 303.36 306.00 308.90 306.05 308.90 304.30 306.10 308.61 305.51 311.05 305.97 307.21 310.40 307.47 310.40 306.49 307.48 310.50 • "' ii Flow Rate Capacity VelAve (cfs) (cfs) (ft/s) 30.65 47.35 6.24 30.95 43.74 6.31 14.53 13.97 8.22 13.10 ... 12.46 7.41 7.11 7.53 4.03 3.84 13.05 2.17 143.81 354.66 8.43 109.30 149.36 5.72 107.83 102.24 5.60 36.36 33.69 5.14 5.12 16.02 3.61 32.21 29.77 4.56 14.26 15.95 8.07 29.08 22.19 5.92 17.67 16.98 5.62 13.64 12.38 7.72 14.18 12.84 4.52 8.45 14.31 2.69 4.29 13.16 2.43 6.81 9.24 4.10 3.84 10.82 2.64 a • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY The Cities of Bryan and College Station both require storm drainage design to follow these Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines. Paragraph C2 of Section Ill {Administration) requires submittal of a drainage report in support of the drainage plan (stormwater management plan) proposed in connection with land development projects , both site projects and subdivisions. That report may be submitted as a traditional prose report, complete with applicable maps, graphs, tables and drawings, or it may take the form of a "Technical Design Summary". The format and content for such a summary report shall be in substantial conformance with the description in this Appendix to those Guidelines. In either format the report must answer the questions (affirmative or negative) and provide, at minimum, the information prescribed in the "Technical Design Summary" in this Appendix. The Stormwater Management Technical Design Summary Report shall include several parts as . listed below. The information called for in each part must be provided as applicable . In addition to the requirements for the Executive Summary, this Appendix includes several pages detailing the requirements for a Technical Design Summary Report as forms to be completed . These are provided so that they may be copied and completed or scanned and digitized. In addition, electronic versions of the report forms may be obtained from the City. Requirements for the means (medium) of submittal are the same as for a conventional report as detailed in Section Ill of these Guidelines. Note: Part 1 -Executive Summary must accompany any drainage report required to be provided in connection with any land development project, regardless of the format chosen for said report. Note: Parts 2 through 6 are to be provided via the forms provided in this Appendix. Brief statements should be included in the forms as requested, but additional information should be attached as necessary. Part 1 -Executive Summary Report Part 2 -Project Administration Part 3 -Project Characteristics Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY REPORT Part 1 -Executive Summary This is to be a brief prose report that must address each of the seven areas listed below. Ideally it will include one or more paragraphs about each item. 1. Name , address, and contact information of the engineer submitting the report, and of the land owner and developer (or applicant if not the owner or developer). The date of submittal should also be included. 2 . Identification of the size and general nature of the proposed project, including any proposed project phases. This paragraph should also include reference to applications that are in process with either City : plat(s), site plans, zoning requests, STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ~ . • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY or clearing/grading permits, as well as reference to any application numbers or codes assigned by the City to such request. 3. The location of the project should be described. This should identify the Named Regulatory Watershed(s) in which it is located, how the entire project area is situated therein, whether the property straddles a watershed or basin divide, the approximate acreage in each basin, and whether its position in the Watershed dictates use of detention design. The approximate proportion of the property in the city limits and within the ET J is to be identified, including whether the property straddles city jurisdictional lines. If any portion of the property is in floodplains as described in Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA that should be disclosed. 4. The hydrologic characteristics of the property are to be described in broad terms : existing land cover; how and where stormwater drains to and from neighboring properties; ponds or wetland areas that tend to detain or store stormwater; existing creeks, channels, and swales crossing or serving the property; all existing drainage easements (or ROW) on the. property, or on neighboring properties if they service runoff to or from the property. 5 . The general plan for managing stormwater in the entire project area must be outlined to include the approximate size, and extent of use, of any of the following features: storm drains coupled with streets; detention I retention facilities; buried conveyance conduit independent of streets; swales or channels; bridges or culverts ; outfalls to principal watercourses or their tributaries; and treatment(s) of existing watercourses. Also, any plans for reclaiming land within floodplain areas must be outlined. 6. Coordination and permitting of stormwater matters must be addressed. This is to include any specialized coordination that has occurred or is planned with other entities (local, state, or federal). This may include agencies such as Brazos County government, the Brazos River Authority, the Texas A&M University System, the Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Environmental Protection Agency, et al. Mention must be made of any permits, agreements, or understandings that pertain to the project. 7. Reference is to be made to the full drainage report (or the Technical Design Summary Report) which the executive summary represents. The principal elements of the main report (and its length), including any maps, drawings or construction documents, should be itemized. An example statement might be: "One __ -page drainage report dated , one set of construction drawings ( __ sheets) dated , and a ___ -page specifications document dated comprise the drainage report for this project." STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 2 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 , • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Start (Page 2.1) Jurisdiction City: Bryan V College Station Date of Submittal : Other: Lead 7Fineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-mail, fax): Ir en 1 L (';/, z Of · Other contacts: Developer I J\ppliCf¥1t Name and Address : -' J.hone 'nd e-mail : ff H~e.(-fA fJJ,,·n ~> 'Invedrnt:-nrsJ A.LC c.... q7Cf 6Cf 3-J()O() " · ff I I '/JI . I I 1 () heafh-'SU/ ert'or!;frtJcfure -fea-fh t-'!>1//1/)>1 wner @ ahoo.c Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: {!ctme) Is subject property .a site project, a single-phase subdivision , or part of a multi-phase subdivision? 1 ·... h~ S -e ..S: b . If multi-phase, subject property is phase / of I 3 Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section ll, Par~raph B-3a) Craw-/-~,j 8urn~ If League 1 1/-7 If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe general status of all earlier phases. For most recent earlier phase Include submittal and review dates . In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan : _____ acres . Bryan : College Station: ____ _ College Station: -~/~8...-o_c.{~-acres. Acreage Outside ET J: ____ _ STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land, or built subject pr~e~: / J) ?evelopments: / ,I) ,1 / , J {)/J Well borl'\ t(.) 71ie ,,g111rr()cf<:.<; J; ~Ven~ Voifttl II // () ~ J 'St'SiJ 1 '3ctr'jer /racf, ("Z,rri.er re~ef 1-folle/>'1 6fn r, .:Sovfh Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): bee Creek Tributary Basin(s): Tr/b ~. ~ t """"'~'.·. Jl Plat .lnformation.fi'or Project or Subject Pr:,operty (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File#: ___ _ Final Plat File#: ______ Date: ____ _ Name: TJ,-e. /Jarra~kJ :0:... Status and Vol/Pg : If two plats , second name: File#: ____ _ Status: Date: ___ _ Zoning lnformatid~ For Project or Subject P'r,operty (or Phase) Zoning Type: P/Jb ~r 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) ' ·~·; • • • 0 A Planning Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants: 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 Effective February 2007 Page 4of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.3) Coor dination 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 'r';es __ No __ Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (inclu de contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? ~ Yes __ No Coordination with Summarize need{s) & actions taken (incl ude contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No V -- Coordination with Summarize need{s) & actions taken (inclu de contacts & dates): T AMUS Needed? Yes __ NoL ' 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 Status of Actions (include dates) Approved? . , US Army Crops of f h Joo (Jef ~nel vfo~5 no T Engineers 1mf°'(/ f lV#fer-s ~+ U.S. No V Yes - US Environmental Protection Agency No VYes - Texas Commission on /{,,.-,, ·Jl.eJ Environmental Quality //)OJ i's su,,) /; r j , ... q oJ, ~J f e.r m /f. No Yes v -- Brazos River Authority No V Yes - STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 5 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro12ert~ Characteristics I Start (Page 3.1) 'i(? !\I Nature"'and Scope of Proposed Work ' Existing: Land proposed for development currently used, including extent of impervious cover? 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 easements or ROW . o/ sf re-efs. Size of 83 Jl)fs 1 4626 ff Proeosed Project , • I I Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain : Th9 f'A ti?~ de-"t'e,., T• ~"' or on land for which platting is not pending? po,,d a,.J ctn oi/-:r1 e ~ewer No ~Yes ex+-e.,,, '!01 o,,,. -- "' FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I No V Yes __ (Section II, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No V 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 L 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 February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro12ert)£ Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.2) ·,.;; ·tP,~'' ,: . t:fY~tologic AttJJ.butes of S',qbject ProREi(W,(OJ;; Pha1?.g)Ail •& -~~,F~~·. ,, Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property? Yes Reference the study (& d~te) here, and attach copy if not already in Cit:Jles. v !(,,,,. f 6r -f/or,, S'-1" .J J (zo 1 o) · -f1,, 4 17 .. .{ °"' "s f,, .. _ f/00J1·11 j f'o/e,,,{1'c. · Is the stormwater mana~nt plan for the property in substantial conformance with the earlier study? Yes No If not, explain how it differs. No If subject property is not part of multi-phase project , describe stormwater management plan for the property in Part 4. --If property is part of multi-phase project, provide overview of stormwater management plan for Project Area here. In Part 4 describe how plan for subject property will comply therewith . / Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? ~No --Yes Describe them (include approximate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). Any ~nown drainage OF flooding problems i~refs n~:rbject prof ry? 'Ji7fJ_ No ~es Identify: The. fitrea Clrov,i~ Q1V1 1-tJ We b"""l"l . Based on location of study property in a watershed, is Type 1 Detention {flood control) needed? (s~le B-1 in Appendix B) __ Detention is required . --Need must be evaluated . __ Detention not required. What decision has been reached? By whom? If the need for How was determination made? Type 1 Detention must be evaluated: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert)l Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.3) ~-~ ·"' ~~:~.~~~l;:lydro!o9!s: Attribyt~~ of&Subj~ct,ij1operty (g~J>hase) (cpnttF1!JedJ ' ~~k•c' c~ Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? ~No --Yes If yes , describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desiqn concept for handlinq this. Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage Above-Project Areas(Se.ction II , Paragraph 83-a) - VYes Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? __ No ~. Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) see Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated, recognizable g '(,) concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm ru~rain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? __ No __ Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW : Are changes in runoff charac~eristics rbjec:go ch~e in iture? Expl~in /.,// Ye:S"-/)..5 adu'o~:..."'J rac.-> ev~ %° +-'"' ~ . ol e-1-r!' .• J, ... - f"hti s, rli~,-r ;;:;a""'> I.Ve '/1 e.r~ s s f ~ .. $ ..f.rac/. Conveyance Pathways (Section II, Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before rea9hfcg a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? V No Yes Goe$ M o tr,·~ 1.3. 3. Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property(ies ). STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page Bot 26 ' APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert)l Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.4) ~~~: .. !; Hyd~9!0,9j~;At!ribut~"~ of ~ubj~ct m;frope(fy (9J~J;>hase) (co.~th1ued)." 'it Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes , for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat , or easements __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions . exist for any part of pathway(s)? No -- Yes -- Where runoff must cross lower properties, describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) Pathway £'y:1 •s/. ·,,~ f/Jc.Jercod~~ Cro,;,;,., -fhe Jow" :rlre•,..~ Areas (Jr~1ertr' f. See J0r,,,, k'f /-lorn ~1'"'r· ~ Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts , bridges, lined channels, buried conduit, swales, detention ponds, etc). R~ Lf'o.s-s1'1j a;l)J cvlverf urac/rr b.J.e // b Pr11. Roa).. Nearby Drainage Do any of these have h~ogic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater Facilities design? __ No __ Yes If yes, explain: Sf!e ·K,n. fe 1 /-lorn SI-~ cir - STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DES'IGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1) Discharge(s) From Upland Area(s) If runoff is to be received from upland areas , what design drainage features will be used to accommodate it and insure it is not blocked by future development? Describe for each area, flow section , or discharge point. f<vn~/ frPn" ?/4nJ t:treq s wrl( rvLke.Jfr 4?"'e-ie~ sfPr;?"l dracv1 ScJt~l"vt'st'o,, ~eve //1-5. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II, Paragraph E 1) Does project include draina~features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? __ No _V_Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will runoff be discharged to neighboring property(ies )? __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) ~re-development Release (Scenario 2) __ Combination of the two Scenarios Scenario 1: If easements are proposed, describe where needed , and provide status of actions on each . (Attached Exhibit # ) Scenario 2 : Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development conditions (detention , sheet flow, partially concentrated, etc .). (Attached Exhibit# ) fJefenf 1pn fb/lj 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 use~has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? V . No __ Yes Explain and provide documentation. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 , SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j 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 runoff Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? VNo Yes -- How will runoff from Project 1. __ With facility(ies) involving other development projects . Area be mitigated to pre-2. VEstablishing features to serve overall Project Area. development conditions? 3 . v'(;n phase (or site) project basis within Project Area . Select any or all of 1, 2, and/or 3 , and explain below. 1. Shared facility (type & location of facility; design drainage area served ; relationship to size of Project Area): (Attached Exhibit# ) 2 . For Overall Project AJ.ajtyp'J & location of facilities):.liAttasheJ~xh~it # ) fJ The. pJ1 . /oO, e ~n 1'Q11 l°l)f'ICJI. W I '/ 1111 •t;t; s ·e_rve h fO<D on "fl hv.J 11-wdl /./.e.-ke 10/.er <onr>e ef~ ,,,tfj, 2 ,/'., j., fPn 5 fh,,,-1 cKe;.f ./-,,Jefhe,... as c< .s1'tiy/-e 5r-s l-e:m . 3 . By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Are aquatic echosystems proposed? __ No --Yes In which phase(s) or project(s)? C'-· "O Q) Vl c Q) Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? fij >- a: --:;;:/,No V Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent% use :/i k J. Vl "51 ~ fcncef. con s-frvcft~,1 f:Y:,:/->1 r11c-c. c. iet. (' oms c .21 Vl s-eeol/nl q).j et'OftoYJ "10#1;15 . Q) 0 Oz 11 If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain in later questions. Q) --Detention elements --Conduit elements --Channel features .... <{ Swales Ditches Inlets __ Valley gutters __ Outfalls -- ---- --Culvert features __ Bridges Other STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 11of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.3) "\j< Stormwater Management Concept (continued) .ht ~ Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued) ._ Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? ~No __ Yes Identify type and general size and In which phase(s). If detention/retention serves (will serve) overall Project Area , describe how it relates to subject phase or si~ project (physical location , conveyance~thw/,y(s), con~ction sequttce): //., • -rJ>, f. 1&0 (JtJnd ,:s ~"e t:) +. r-e~ ,,,.;. w,· t ~ ~1 .1 S'er"'V<! fhe <!JVe<"'a JI /1-oJec.f fl.rea, 7he tJfher-fwo 1,A.11 '11 k• ,0 , slrv ~.J-,.) /"C< /e'"'''/1-,;,,J i s .{; •• /,z.~o/1 pr(• r /. Con$./ rv~J,•,.,.. ~ fvlvre fJ /u~se» o/ fhe .5v ~J,'v1 ~'~"'· Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase: or Site) If property part of larger Proje~a, 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'-· -0 Q) UI Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes : Usual back slopes : UI :::J Q) UI >- Q) I .s::: Flow line slopes : least Typical distance from travelway: .B 'C typical greatest (Attached Exhibit# ) Q) 0 32 UI z 11 Are long itudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? Yes No, then explain: <( UI At intersections or otherwise , do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? .n Q) VNo Yes If yes explain: ::; C'-· >---0-01' ..c Q) ....., UI .§ ~ Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? UI Q) ....., ::::: ~No __ Yes Explain: (number of locations?) Q) :::J 0 ~ C>Z ti -0 I Q) c .._ ro <( STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.4) ~ ~ <~)"~ ,,L" "'"" ·«.~tormwat~(tN!a"'r\igem~t' Co~cept#~~ntinued) ~ ~;r~.; "· :'~91"'; Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes: Least 0.&7/o Usual /, ;2. o/1,2 Greatest 2.09% Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? Vves --No If "no", identify where and why. Will inlets capture 10-year de~ stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? __ Yes __ No If no, explain where and why not. C'· "'C Q) Ill Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year ::J .... design storm throughout site (or phase)? ~Yes No If no, explain. Q) ;t:: -- ::J Cl "'C .--... c-c ~Yes Ill Q) Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? No Are inlets and ..c ~ --.... ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? ::J ..... (,) c ~Yes No Explain "no" answers. 0 .s:: u --..... ~ '§ Ill Qi Q) .... u; Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be con~in combination of ROW and buried conduit on .... <( whole length of all streets? Yes __ No If no, des~ribe where and why. Do ~gns for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with 8-CS Technical Specifications? Yes __ No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. / Are any 12-inch laterals used? V No --Yes Identify length(s) and where used. <'- "'C Pipe runs between system I Typical Q) Ill Longest Ill Q) access points (feet): ::J >- E ~Yes i1 Are junction boxes used at each bend? --No If not, explain where and why. (/) c ·-0 ~z "'C I E .... 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic u; !!!. Yes V No __ If not, explain where and why: grade line is below gutter line (system-wide): o.s ff STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.5) ·~ · w.~,.1,,stbrrn~atet Mtnag~m:~f'concftpt"{@'Ontinued) 'l!ltfi~;if: .-'%: ~ '¥~~~i ,\, .... ,.-,.. "'j; , .. ~ .. ., Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) U> Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below Q) (include design discharge velocity, and angle between converging flow lines). () c 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? m {) 0 iii Be.e Cree/£ ·-rr-,, L A.~ @ ··~ 2 -/;s c I -Q) L.. -o ~E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ::J L.. c 0 ·--c . 0 .E ~.f; E <I> ~ <I> E 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ..... m ~ (/) (/) ~ Q) ::J c :Q 0 ·-> mo L.. L.. "C a. E ..... For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of L.. Q) 0 Q) receiving and all facilities ;;uncture? Vfl/oe-• /-,•.,..s r-h~I'\ ..... ~ /es.s-CJ) (/) 1) !Vone /)e.ede . ~-/ Q) -m 2 ) :Z.. ff /s· ec. L.. m c. Q) Ill c 3) ~ Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? V No --Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low-flow flumes if any): C'-· Ill -Q) ~Ill -Q) Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): (/) >-c ~ I ~o l/)z Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle , & end treatment). ::J M (/) Q) L.. Will 100-year design storm runoff be contained within easement(s) or platted drainage <( ROW in all instances? --Yes --No If "no" explain : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 14 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.6) ,~~ .. ~~$>rmwa~~r~M~nagement ·~oncept\(~ontl~ued) ·~.~~s:·.1~~ ., "" " Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, 9r Site) (continued) Ul Are roadside ditches used? ~ No __ Yes If so , provide the following : Q) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No ..r:::. -- .B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes No i5 -- Q) Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? --Yes --No -0 For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: "iii -0 ro 0 Q:'. If conduit is beneath a swale, provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length : VI Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? >---Yes --No I! If "no" explain : c Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width 0 <IJ -z VI Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum Vf~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm : 0 C'-· :E -0 Ul -0 Q) <IJ Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): c >-c ro c ..r:::. <IJ 0 .... c $2 Q) c Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale, into conduit): a. 0 0 :;::; -<IJ 0 E ::::s ~ -~ c c Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate leng th: Q) -0 E Q) ro Ul Ul ::::s Ul Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No c -0 ·;;: ----.Q 0 If "no" explain : iii .... c a. :0 Q) Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E Q) 0 ..r:::. 0 Ul Swale Surface type, minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum -Q) ::::s iii and maximum slopes : slopes, design storm : -0 .... c ro 0 a. 0 Q) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): --Ul Q) ro c :: ~ Ul Q) 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 February 2009 ;r_ • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.7) u: <~,, a , " ~§Jorm1Nai!~'t.'~!1a9~,rne'1~~Con~~Pt.~Cl~"~!.nue£1) ,,.,,.; ;~~ , ,,;~¥ .• ,;;, Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) If "yes" provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length, surfacing : :g ui Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly c: >-Q) within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "n o" answers : .i I f--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ u Access Describe how maintenance access is provide: Q) ~~ ::::J J·.Af--~~,...-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ v I Instance 2 Describe general location, approximate length , surfacing: Q) ·;:: ::::J .0 C'-· .!!? c: "5 Q) o E £ ~ ·::: llJ Q) ti) ..... ~ 0 ~~ ti) 0 ~~ <'-· ::0 ::::J a. 'O c: ~ llJ g_ a. 0 x ..... w a. ti) ti) c Q) Q) >- I I a. .§ ~ 1"1 (.) Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no " answers: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided: Instance 3, 4, etc. If swales are used in more than two instances, attach sheet providing all above information for each instance. "New" channels: Will any area(s) of concentrated flow be channelized (deepened, widened, or straightened} or otherwise altered? __ No __ Yes If only slightly shaped, see "Swales" in this Part. If creating side banks , provide information below. Will design replicate natural channel? __ Yes __ No If "no", for each instance describe section shape & area, flow 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 February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) 'C Q) :J c: ~ 0 ~ I/) c Q) E Q) > 0 ..... 0. E a; c: c: C'O -1= 0 Existing channels (small creeks): Are these used? __ No Yes If " es" rovide 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 t~e of prop~sed impr9veri,en~ (includingfloodplajnchanges): The e~i'si-1~1J c.hannef .+1yz-~ o1 Jr~,.,,5 v1sf,'"ee1m />"1/t:;rh•,,.5 w, // /o.e-. n?Q1111-t1f,.-tJir~jA 'tie £1vr~ IJ 'Ii~~"$" V/11 Id fher. olev811'°· !lf n me f},Q. c pn'1 Wt'/ I J,e. vf t'rlb 'Cl C-'ndu, .. For each loca ion, describe section shape & area, flow ine slope (min . & max .), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. Watercourses (and tributaries): Aside fronyfringe changes , are Regulatory Watercourses proposed to be altered? _V_ I No __ Yes Explain below . Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address existing and proposed section size and shape, surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, length affected, and capacity, and provide full documentation of analysis procedures and data . Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no " explain : All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work, provide information requested in next three boxes . If design is to replicate natural channel, identify location and length here , and describe design in Special Design section of this Part of Report. Will 100-year flow be contained with one foot of freeboard? not, identify location and explain: Yes No If 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 February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceRt 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? I For each provide info . below. For each dry-type facilitiy: Facility 1 Facility 2 Acres served & design volume+ 10% /<(_, ~ * se.e riofe 100-yr volume: free flow & plugged '1. /Cf Cf, 'I 3 Design discharge ( 10 yr & 25 yr) 7 l)t, 2l/B Spillway crest at 100-yr WSE? V-yes --no __ yes --no Berms 6 inches above plugged WSE? ~yes --no __ yes --no Explain any "no" answers : /i >fc. fUo/e!--7h1Jj"."J w•' / have Q ~erl'Y\ena 7 ../ I' 0 0 J I/) 0 / w 111 fer:. /). "J,/,.q,,,./ v~fvl'YJe. "J:>r-sed,yrll);>f ,.s Q) t,rl.?vJP'd b 9 /.,w ./-he werl-er Seu /;,ce, >-vr 8e~W ws£L: 3.5 aclff /1/,~v~ W<;EL ~ 7.BS" OIC//l- For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: }.. 'I (3 e.../~ 0 z Facility 2: I Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: __ Yes VNo Facility2 · __ Yi __ No C'· If "no; e,r,pl'i}. ac.1t/~+ c/!"5 ch II r~ ~ $ l>I' ~ ernt . c it!01n e 1, "C Q) (,.t.JJ,,c.. o.vJ " ~ rr0ttl;rt:l l e-o,,,,#1. 7"i:mr e.. .,,,,,e I/) 0 0.. wt"ll b.e. I~ ""' eCHqn?QnT f.D Holl ~r mq,'f")/.,n,,.,. •<. 0 .... a. For each, what is locity of 25-yhdesign discharge at outlet? & at spillway? I/) Facility 1: ·~ l 2 ~ s & Q e. Facility 2: Q) & ~ Are energy dissipation measures used? V No __ Yes ·0 Describe type and ro LL location : c .Q c Q) Qi 0 Q) For each, is spillway surface treatment other than concrete? Yes or no, and describe : .... <( Facility1 : fes_ Cra:JS /,'t,ed. Facility 2 : For each , what measures are taken to prevent erosion;.r. seer at receiving fa~i~y? Facility 1: f<()cJ-r-1 ·;1 rol ,,..+ f 'f ~ '~c "''3~ ?"''" · Facility 2: If berms are used give heights, slopes an~ surfa/.e treat~ents .of ~ides . . ~ /"'/' e 51 Facility1 : Aerms Qre t:;t/frOXIW>•./., ~ l.J Ae,, I 4·1 l rt"S S Sc/ r ftt~-f' 5 Facility 2 : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 18 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.10) ~ .· ·"~ . .th(§!o~mw~~~,r,,~anagemp ':!,$t~~~pcept (~entin1;1ed) y~~·~v,~ll!~ .. " ,~ ,j~i~~:·~~., Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continueJ!) Do structures comply with 8 -CS Specifi cations ? ~ no, and exp lain if "n o": Facility 1; rn ~ ==c ~ Q) Fa c ility 2: u.. :J c:: .£; o E += 0 c:: u Q)- Qi For additiona l facili ti es prov ide all same informa ti on on a sep arate sheet. 0 A re parking areas to be used for de ten ti on? ~ No --Yes W hat is max imum depth due to requ ired design storm ? Roadside Ditches: Will cu lverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches ? --No --Yes If "yes", prov ide informati on in next two boxes . Will 25-yr. flow pa ss w ithout flow ing over drive w ay in all case s? --Yes --No W ithout caus ing flowing or standing water on public roadway? --Yes --No Des igns & ma ter ials compl y w ith 8 -CS Techn ical Spe ci ficati ons? __ Yes --No Ex pla in any "n o" answe rs: C'-· rn Cl .!: rn A re culverts parallel to publ ic roadwa y al ignme nt? __ Ye s No Exp lain : rn 0 --.... rn u Q) Q) ->-ca I > ·;::: Creeks at Private Drives: Do pri va te drivewa ys, drives , or stree ts cro ss dra inage a. iii ways that se rv e Above-Proj ect areas or are in publ ic easemen ts/ ROW ? "C 0 No Yes If "yes " provide informati on below . Q) z ----¥1 How many ins tances? Descri be location and provide inform ati on be lo w. Q) Location 1: > "S u Q) Loca ti on 2: .... <( Location 3: For each location en ter value for: 1 2 3 Des ign year pass ing w ithout toping travelway? Water depth on travelway at 25-year fl ow? Water depth on travelway at 100-year flow? For more ins tan ces desc ri be loca ti on and same in forma ti on on separa te sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GU ID ELINES Effecti ve Febru ary 2007 Page 19 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . D ESIGN SUMMARY As Revis ed February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .11) 1: • : i' tor~wate ~M anagem,,en~C oncept <~9'ntinued) :,a~,;~, ;,;,··:~ Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulato!)l Watercourses (&Tributaries}: Are culverts pro posed o n th ese fa ciliti es ? --No __ Yes , th en provide fu ll repo rt documen ti ng a ssum pti ons, crite ri a , ana lys is, computer progra ms , and stud y fi nd ings tha t support proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no ", explain : ~ Arterial or Major Collector Streets : Will cu lverts serve th ese types of roadways? Q) No Yes How many i nstances ? For each identi fy th e ..c (/) ---- Q) loca ti on and provide the informati on below. (/) iii Ins tance 1: Q) ... >-~ I~ Insta nce 2 : Insta nce 3: c:: .Q Yes or No fo r th e 100-year des ign fl ow: 1 2 3 0 iii ZE v1i Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Sp read of headwater wi th in ROW or easemen t? E ~-ro Is velocity limited per cond itions (Tab le C-1 1 )? (/) (/) gi "C Expla in any "no " answer(s): ·-c:: ::l ro 0 c:: ... 0 o+;j >-ro ro u :l: ..Q "C Q) ro .o e ·c Minor Collector or Local Streets : W ill culve rts serve these types of stre ets? u u No Yes How ma ny instances? for each iden ti fy the ·-(/) -----Q) -g "C lo cati on and p rovide the information below: c. Q) -c. In stance 1: nl .?;- "C >. Instance 2: Q) c:: rn ro :l -In stance 3: (/) 0 t:: (/) Q) Q) Fo r each instance en ter value , or "ye s " I "no" fo r: 1 2 3 ~ () :l c:: u ro Des ign yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top ? Q) iii ... c:: c{ ·-100 -yr. max. dept h at street crown 2 feet or le ss ? Q) ... 0 Product of velocity (fps) & dep th at crown (ft) = ? E ... Is ve locity lim ited pe r cond iti ons (T ab le C-11 )? 0 :=:. Lim it of down stream ana lys is (fee t)? Expla in any "no· answers: STO RM WATER DESIGN GUID ELIN ES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SU MMARY As Rev ised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters j Continued (Page 4.12) if ~~-#'f*i' =~~~:;§; · · !! A . "' · ,'%k!j'. «,; "" .at. ,,. torm,,wate,t .Maoagemen ~£ortc,gpt <s~ntinued) ··ill'~ .. ~. Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roads ide 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 j ustify 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) --No --Yes If "yes " iden ti fy location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): :J c :;:::; c 0 ~ "' t Q) Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural > :; u 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 21of26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 ,,. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .13) '~·$· {: . "' .,, &; ' . <;f,, ··a; ,..., ' "' ,,,+~-~~; .. -; •0.Stor~wates: MaJ1a,9eme .. r,t. C()_~cept <~entinued) -~ ,, '&;;;"' ~ 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? Ci) Q) Cl l:J ·;:: co A full report supporting all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural, geotechnical, hydrologic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report. Is the report provided? --Yes --No If "no" explain : Is a Stormwater Provide a general description of planned techniques: ~ Pollution Prevention S'//f ~nee 1 ri9c/c. chec.k o/a,.,-,:s 1 Iii Plan (SW3R) :::J .seeJ,;,,J fp es/-Q~/,~J. veg. c"'ver. 0 established for .... project construction? Q) ~ __ No /Yes Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland-type detention, natural stream re~tion , BMPs for water quality, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project? __ No __ Yes If "yes" list general type and location below. Provide full report about the proposed special design(s) including rationale for use and expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stormwater management objectives will not be compromised, and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution( s ). Is report provided? --Yes --No If "no" explain: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 22 of 26 . APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Special Designs -Deviation From B-CS Technical Specifications If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of 8-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain by specific detail element. Detention elements __ Drain system elements __ Channel features Culvert features Swales Ditches Inlets __ Outfalls __ Valley gutters __ Bridges (explain in bridge report) In table below briefly identify specific element, justification for deviation(s). Specific Detail Element Justification for Deviation (attach additional sheets if needed) 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Have elements been coordinated with the City Engineer or her/his designee? For each item above provide "yes" or "no", action date, and staff name: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Hydrology Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? Yes No B~efly summarize the range of appHcations made of th;; Rational Formula: /(ei.../.1'p,..'4-{ hrmv/111 wq~ V$"~/ f~r Sr'z..1'11j ,;,Je..f.> $' J~r,,,.. J r<111 '..--. S. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 6? 169 acres Location (or identifier): {JI} 2 B / STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.15) D ~-c; o "'>'IT i '• .~ p . "''t" ( f ~~) !~!9n aral'll!,,,!:S con mu"~;r · ;··~-~' : .. .. ..,,ifi;i,~ Hydrology (continued) In making deVinations for time of concentration, was segment analysis used? No Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? LOO % As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for de\:(Pining runoff flows, were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? No __ Yes If "yes " identify type of data, source(s), and where applied: ' For each of the stormwater management features listed below identify the storm return frequencies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design . Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets JO l&O /0 Storm drain system for local streets I //), /00 LO Open channels ' Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel Swales Roadside ditches and culverts serving them Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall ·A_ I /<J, 2 ~-st?, ( 0,9 too Detention facilities: outlet and conveyance structure(s) I ~ /{) 2~,S-& {Ot> /Op Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged //JO 100 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) 3 8 Lowest (feet per second) '2. .2. Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provide the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used: For street gutterso ~ For conduit type(s) ~ 013 {/(C fJ) . 0 J '2... {j-ltJ /J;? Coefficients: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 24 of26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? VNo Yes Head and friction losses V No Explain any "yes" answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? Yes Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? ___0es Explain any "no" answers : Yes No No Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? __ Yes __ No For 100-year flow conditions? ~Yes __ No Explain any "no" answers: What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall point(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain: (Y)IA~/rnvm efevtxh'on £,-/(JO 'fr even--f 1.., the o/el-en/1".tJ,.1 ;Jor>d s. Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized, does it follow Sec Vl.F.5.a? __ Yes __ No Outside of straight sections, is flow regime within limits of sub-critical flow? __ Yes __ No If "no" list locations and explain: Culverts If plan sheets do not provide the following for each culvert , describe it here. For each design discharge, will operation be outlet (barrel) control or inlet control? Entrance , friction and exit losses : Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised Februarv 2009 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 /-/1Jn:. flow {!fufo Cl/() /.012 C. vii 3 D) Part 5 -Plans and Specifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Des ign 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 supeNision) in accordance with provisions of the Bryan/College Station Unified Drainage Design Guidelines for the owners of the property. All licenses and permits required by any and all state and federal regulatory agencies for the proposed drainage improve ents have been issued or fall under applicable general pe~ (Affix se e.."\~~-~f.r~~~ ~-·*·~19 .. '*··· ··. • •.. . *' ·-~........ ~ .~ 11'1!•.... ........... ~ ··--:·~1.M-.~ .. / L'"Ot""J / •. 85823 ••:•• StateofTexasPENo. <o-J J~ •,~ • STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 26 of 26 ·~ .. APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised February 2009 .. DETENTION SYSTEM REPORT FOR THE BARRACKS II SUBDIVISION, PHASE 100 COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS September 2011 Prepared by: Phillips Engineering 4490 Castlegate Drive College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 .. • GENERAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND The Barracks II Subdivision is a 108-acre development located midway between Rock Prairie Road and Cain Road in south College Station. It is bounded on the west by Holleman Drive South and on the east by Old Wellborn Road. It is a multi-use development that has 426 residential lots and 6 commercial lots under its current configuration. The first phase of development in the subdivision will be Phase 100, which includes 18.4 acres located on the northwest corner of the tract adjacent to Holleman Drive. It involves the construction of all standard infrastructure associated with a residential subdivision. The initial plan to provide stormwater detention for Phase 100 involved constructing three interconnected ponds that would ultimately serve the entire 108-ac development. That plan was developed by Kimley-Horn and Associates (KHA) and has been initially reviewed by the city staff. Subsequent to our initial submittal, the plan has been revised to construct only the easternmost detention pond (Pond 3 in the initial submittal) that is situated immediately adjacent to Phase 100. The reason for this change is to allow time for the permitting process through the US Army Corps of Engineers to run its course. The pond now being proposed with Phase 100 is outside of the jurisdictional area of the USACE and does not require a permit for its construction. To scale back the detention facilities from the initial plan submitted by KHA to the current plan requires a separate analysis and an accompanying design of an outlet control structure. The report which follows is a summary of that analysis describing the methodology used and the results that were obtained. DETENTION SYSTEM REPORT The detention system for Phase 100 was analyzed using the HEC-HMS 3.3 computer model. The drainage area was delineated as shown in Exhibit A with the study point being a roadway crossing on Cain Road approximately 850 feet downstream of the site. This study point was chosen because it is the common point where runoff from all drainage sub-basins comes together under both pre-and post-development scenarios . Data from the KHA study regarding soil type and runoff coefficients were incorporated into this study so that results could be compared as closely as possible. A table of all input data is provided in Exhibit B. Hydrologic Analysis Design Software: Soil Group Design Hydrograph Storm Intervals Loss Method Routing Computation Interval Outlet Control Structure HEC-HMS 3.3 TypeC 24 hr, SCS Type III distribution 2, 10, 25, 50 & 100 year events SCS Curve Number SCS Lag Method 1 minute The size and shape of the detention pond was not changed from the original submittal by KHA and is shown on the accompanying construction plans. To accommodate this pond size, an outlet control structure was designed consisting of a concrete box with interior wall openings of 8' by 3'. The front of the box includes 3-15" orifices, one at the base (el 296.0) and two others higher up the wall face, both at elevation 299.0. Flow through these orifices at various water surface elevations was computed using the Bernoulli Equation for circular orifices with a coefficient of 0.6. The outfall for the structure consists of a 36" HDPE pipe that carries water through the berm of the detention pond where it outfalls into a grass-lined channel running parallel to the northern property line. This channel flows into one of the two un-named tributaries of Bee Creek that drain this property. Emergency Spillway The emergency spillway was designed and analyzed using the standard procedures required by the BCS Design Guidelines. The spillway is 300 feet long, which comprises almost the full length of the east side of the detention pond. It is a trapezoidal, grass-lined channel with 4 :1 side slopes and a bottom elevation set at 303.2 feet. Summary of Results The pre-and post-development flowrates were analyzed at Study Point A located about 850 feet downstream of the detention pond along Cain Road. Pre-Dev Post-Dev PondWSEL (cfs) (cfs) (ft) 2 yr 107 103 299 .5 lOyr 222 206 301.5 25 yr 262 248 302.1 SO yr 319 300 303.0 100 yr 368 345 303.3 100 yr w/ blocked outlet 422 303 .6 Note: The top of berm elevation is 304.2 feet. Emergency spillway elevation is 303 .3 feet. Conclusion From the results shown above, we conclude that the detention pond meets or exceeds the stipulations in the BCS Design Guidelines. Applicable Exhibits : Exhibit A -Drainage Area Map -Pre-Development Exhibit B -Drainage Area Map -Post-Development Exhibit C -Data Input Summary Exhibit D -Reach Lag Time Computations Appendix 1 -HEC-HMS Summary Output File -Pre-Development Appendix 2 -HEC-HMS Summary Output Files -Post-Development Appendix 3 -HEC-HMS Summary Output Files -Pond WSEL To the City Engineer for the City of College Station, Texas: Re: The Barracks II Subdivision, Phase 100 Certification Statement I have conducted a topographic review and field investigation of the existing and proposed flow patterns for stormwater runoff from The Barracks II Subdivision, Phase I 00. At build-out conditions allowable by zoning, restrictive covenant, or plat note, the stormwater flows from the subject subdivision or site project will not cause any increase in flooding conditions to the interior of ex isting building structures, including basem ent areas, for storms of magnitude up through the I 00-y r event. A Date Tx License No . Drainage Area# DAlO DA 11 DA20 DA 21 DA22 DA 23 DA24 DA25 Reach 21 Reach 22 Reach 23 Reach 24 EXHIBIT C The Barracks II Phase 100 HEC-HMS Data Input Summary Pre Development Conditions Area Lag Time Curve# (sq . mi.) (min) 0 .091632 4 72 0 .129594 3 73 Post Develop nt Co ditio 0 .05726 79 4 58 0.00709 85 19 0 .02706 79 65 5 0 .0145 79 4 30 0 .0892 4 58 0 .01386 4 32 Lag Time (min) 57 8 19 26 DETENTION POND -PAIRED DATA Storage-Discharge Relationship Elevation-Storage Relationship Little Bro Pond -Normal Little Bro Pond -Little Bro Pond -Normal Little Bro Pond - Conditions Blocked Outfall Conditions Blocked Outfall Ac-Ft CFS Ac-Ft CFS Elev . Ac-Ft Elev. Ac-Ft 0 0 6.807 0 296 0 303 .2 6 .807 0 .678 5 .91 7.454 133 297 0 .678 303 .7 7.454 1 .437 8.35 7 .853 291 298 1.437 304 7 .853 2.281 10.23 8.124 423 299 2 .281 304.2 8 .124 3 .213 11.81 300 3 .213 4 .236 27 .62 301 4 .236 5 .35 34.85 302 5.35 6 .555 40 .59 303 6 .555 7 .853 161.21 304 7 .853 L = t o.s (S+1)°"7 Exh1oit D Barracks II Phase 100 Drainage Area Lag Time Calculations The Lag Method s = 1000 -10 Tc= 5/3*(L) (19oo)yo.s h L · 1 h w ere: = tune ag, ours CN where : S = maximum retention CN = Curve Numb er where: L = time lag, hours Drainage Area DA10 DA 11 Drainage Area DA20 DA21 DA22 DA23 DA24 DA25 Drainage Area Re 21 Re22 Re23 Re24 t = hydraulic length, fe et S = maximum retention Y = slo e, ercent Area (ac) (sq mi) 58 .64 0 .09163 75 .51 0 .11798 0 .21 Area (ac) (sq mi) 36 .65 0.05726 4 .54 0 .00709 17.32 0 .02706 9 .28 0.01450 57.09 0 .08920 8 .87 0.01386 0 .21 Area (ac) (sq mi) Length (I) (feet) 4039 4281 Length (I) (feet) 2892 996 1881 1340 3171 1786 Length (I) (feet) 2845 413 1092 947 T 0 =time of conc entration, hours p D re-eve opment c d" on 1tions Max Elev Min Elev Elev. Slope (Y) Lag Lag CN Change s (feet) (feet) % (hrs) (min) 318 .0 290 .0 79.0 28.0 0 .69 2 .66 1.203 72 322 .0 290 .0 79.0 32.0 0.75 2 .66 1 .213 73 P t D OS -eve opmen t c d'ti on 1 ons Max Elev Min Elev Elev. Slope (Y) Lag Lag CN Change s (feet) (feet) % (hrs) (min) 308.0 290.0 79.0 18 .0 0 .62 2 .66 0 .972 58 311 .0 308.0 79.0 3 .0 1.50 2 .66 0 .267 16 312 .0 296 .0 79 .0 16.0 0 .85 2 .66 0 .589 35 319.0 310.0 79.0 9 .0 0 .67 2 .66 0.505 30 318.0 295 .0 79.0 23 .0 0 .73 2 .66 0.969 58 307 .0 290 .0 79 .0 17 .0 0 .95 2 .66 0.534 32 P t D OS -eve opment c dif on IOnS -R h Onl eac es ty Max Elev Min Elev Elev. Slope (Y) Lag Lag CN Change s (feet) (feet) % (hrs) (min) 308 .0 290.0 79.0 18 .0 0 .63 2 .66 0 .951 57 296 .0 295 .0 79 .0 1.0 1.50 2 .66 0.132 8 310 .0 296.0 79.0 14.0 1.28 2 .66 0 .311 19 295.0 290.0 79.0 5 .0 0 .53 2 .66 0.432 26 Tc (hrs) 2 .004 2 .022 Tc (hrs) 1.619 0.445 0 .982 0 .842 1.615 0 .890 Tc (hrs) 1.585 0.220 0 .518 0 .720 .. . Appendix A HEC,,;HMS Summary Output File-Pre Development Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: pre-2yr Start of Run : 01Jan2010, 00:00 End of Run: 02Jan2010 , 00:05 Compute Time : 31Aug2011, 15:02:41 Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Element (Ml2) DA 10 0.091632 DA 11 0 .129594 Study Pt A 0.221226 Basin Model : PreDev Meteorologic Model: 2yr Control Specifications: 24hr Peak Discharge Time of Peak (CFS) 45 01Jan2010, 13:19 62 01Jan2010, 13:21 107 01Jan2010, 13:20 Volume (IN) 2.41 2 .39 2.40 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: pre-1 Oyr Start of Run: 01Jan2010, 00:00 End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Compute Time: 31Aug2011 , 15 :02:49 Volume Units : IN Hydro logic Drainage Area Element (Ml2) DA10 0.091632 DA 11 0.129594 Study Pt A 0 .221226 Basin Model:. PreDev Meteorologic Model: 1 Oyr Control Specifications: 24hr Peak Discharge Time of Peak (CFS) 92 01Jan2010, 13 :17 129 01Jan2010, 13:19 222 01Jan2010 , 13:18 Volume (IN) 4.95 4.93 4 .94 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: pre-25yr Start of Run: 01Jan2010, 00:00 End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Compute Time: 31Aug2011, 15:02:45 Volume Units: IN Hydro logic Drainage Area Element (Ml2) DA10 0.091632 DA 11 0.129594 Study Pt A 0.221226 Basin Model: PreDev Meteorologic Model: 25yr Control Specifications: 24hr Peak Discharge Time of Peak (CFS) 109 01Jan2010, 13:17 153 01Jan2010, 13:18 26.2 01Jan2010, 13:18 Volume (IN) 5 .87 5.84 5.86 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: pre-50yr Start of Run: 01Jan2010 , 00:00 End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Compute Time: 31Aug2011 , 15:02:37 Volume Units: IN Hydro logic Drainage Area Element (Ml2) DA10 0.091632 DA 11 0 .129594 Study Pt A 0 .221226 Basin Model : PreDev Meteorologic Model: 50yr Control Specifications: 24hr Peak Discharge Time of Peak (CFS) 133 01Jan2010 , 13:17 186 01Jan2010 , 13 : 18 319 01Jan2010, 13:17 Volume (IN) 7.18 7 .15 7.16 ' . Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Ruri: pre-100yr Start of Run: 01Jan2010, 00:00 End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Compute Time: 31 Aug2011, 15:02:52 Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Element (Ml2) DA10 0.091632 DA 11 0.129594 Study Pt A 0.221226 Basin Model: PreDev Meteorologic Model: 1 OOyr Control Specifications: 24hr Peak Discharge Time of Peak (CFS) 153 01Jan2010, 13:16 214 01Jan2010, 13:17 368 01Jan2010, 13:17 Volume (IN) 8.31 8.28 8.29 ~ . , Appendix B HEC-HMS Summary Output File-Post Development .. , .... Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run : post-2yr Start of Run : 01Jan2010, 00:00 Basin Model: Post Dev w Ph 100 End of Run: 02Jan2010 , 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 2yr Compute Time: 31Aug2011, 15:10:32 Control Specifications: 24hr Volume Units: IN Hydro logic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) DA20 0.05726 32 01Jan2010, 13:04 2.42 DA21 0.00709 11 01 Jan2010, 12 :21 4.17 DA22 0.02706 29 01Jan2010 , 12 :38 3.73 DA23 0 .01450 12 01Jan2010, 12:34 2.44 DA24 0.08920 50 01Jan2010 , 13:04 2.42 DA25 0 .01386 11 01Jan2010, 12 :37 2.44 Jct 1 0.13076 60 01 Jan2010 , 13:06 2 .67 Little Bro Pond 0.04156 11 01Jan2010 , 13:46 3.21 Re 21 0 .00709 11 01Jan2010, 13:18 4.13 Re 22 0.04156 11 01Jan2010 , 13 :54 3.20 Re 23 0.01450 12 01Jan2010, 12:53 2.43 Re24 0.13076 60 01Jan2010 , 13 :32 2.65 Study Pt A 0.20897 103 01Jan2010, 13:20 2.62 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: post-1 Oyr Start of Run: 01Jan2010 , 00:00 Basin Model: Post Dev w Ph 100 End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 1 Oyr Compute Time: 31Aug2011 , 15 :10:19 Control Specifications: 24hr Volume Units: IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) DA20 0.05726 67 01Jan2010 , 13:03 4 .97 DA21 0 .00709 19 01Jan2010, 12:21 7 .01 DA22 0.02706 50 01Jan2010, 12 :37 6.50 DA23 0 .01450 25 01Jan2010 , 12:33 5.02 DA24 0.08920 104 01Jan2010, 13 :03 4.97 DA25 0.01386 23 01Jan2010 , 12 :35 5.01 Jct 1 0 .13076 131 01Jan20 10, 13 :08 5 .25 Little Bro Pond 0.04156 31 01Jan2010, 13 :26 5.84 Re 21 0 .00709 19 01Jan2010 , 13 :18 6.95 Re22 0.04156 31 01Jan2010 , 13 :34 5 .83 Re23 0 .01450 25 01Jan2010 , 12:52 5.00 Re 24 0 .13076 131 01Jan2010, 13 :34 5.21 Study Pt A 0 .20897 206 01Jan2010 , 13 :25 5 .19 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: post-25yr Start of Run: 01Jan2010 , 00:00 Basin Model: Post Dev w Ph 100 End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 25yr Compute Time: 31Aug2011 , 15:10:26 Control Specifications: 24hr Volume Units: IN Hydro logic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) DA20 0 .05726 79 01Jan2010 , 13 :02 5 .90 DA21 0.00709 21 01Jan2010, 12:20 8 .00 DA22 0.02706 58 01Jan2010, 12 :37 7.47 DA23 0.01450 29 01 Jan2010 , 12 :33 5.94 DA24 0 .08920 123 01Jan2010, 13:02 5 .90 DA25 0.01386 27 01Jan2010 , 12 :35 5 .94 Jct 1 0 .13076 154 01Jan2010 , 13 :06 6 .17 Little Bro Pond 0 .04156 36 01Jan2010 , 13 :26 6.77 Re 21 0.00709 21 01Jan2010, 13:17 7.92 Re22 0.04156 36 01Jan2010 , 13 :34 6.75 Re23 0.01450 29 01Jan2010, 12:52 5.92 Re 24 0.13076 154 01Jan2010 , 13 :32 6 .13 Study Pt A 0.20897 248 01 Jan2010 , 13 :23 6 .11 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: post-59yr Start of Run : 01Jan2010, 00:00 Basin Model: Post Dev w Ph 100 End of Run: 02Jan2010 , 00:05 Meteorologic Model: 50yr Compute Time: 31Aug2011, 15:10:38 Control Specifications: 24hr Volume Units: IN Hydro logic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) DA20 0.05726 96 01Jan2010, 13 :02 7.20 DA21 0.00709 25 01Jan2010 , 12:20 9.38 DA22 0.02706 68 01Jan2010, 12:37 8.83 DA23 0.01450 36 01Jan2010 , 12 :33 7.26 DA24 0.08920 149 01Jan2010, 13:02 7.20 DA25 0 .01386 33 01Jan2010 , 12 :35 7.26 Jct 1 0.13076 185 01Jan2010 , 13 :05 7.47 Little Bro Pond 0.04156 45 01Jan2010, 13:24 8.07 Re 21 0.00709 25 01Jan2010 , 13:17 9.30 Re22 0.04156 45 01 Jan2010, 13 :32 8.05 Re 23 0.01450 36 01Jan2010 , 12 :52 7.23 Re 24 0.13076 185 01Jan2010 , 13 :31 7.42 Study Pt A 0 .20897 300 01Jan2010 , 13 :20 7.42 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Ruri : post-1 OOyr Start of Run: 01Jan2010 , 00:00 Basin Model : Post Dev w Ph 100 End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 1 OOyr Compute Time : 31Aug2011 , 15 :10:04 Control Specifications: 24hr Volume Units: IN Hydro logic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) DA20 0.05726 110 01Jan2010 , 13:02 8 .34 DA21 0.00709 28 01 Jan2010 , 12 :20 10 .57 DA22 0.02706 77 01Jan2010 , 12:37 10 .01 DA23 0.01450 41 01Jan2010 , 12 :33 8.40 DA24 0.08920 172 01Jan2010 , 13:02 8.34 DA25 0.01386 38 01Jan2010, 12 :35 8.40 Jct 1 0.13076 236 01Jan2010 , 13:14 8.60 Little Bro Pond 0 .04156 74 01Jan2010 , 13 :09 9 .19 Re 21 0.00709 28 01Jan2010 , 13 :17 10.47 Re22 0.04156 74 01Jan2010 , 13:17 9 .16 Re 23 0.01450 41 01Jan2010 , 12 :52 8.37 Re24 0.13076 236 01Jan2010 , 13:40 8.54 Study Pt A 0.20897 345 01Jan2010 , 13:19 8.54 Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: post-1 OOyr blocked outlet Start of Run : 01Jan2010 , 00:00 Basin Model: . Post Dev Ph 100 Blkd Outlet End of Run: 02Jan2010 , 00:05 Meteorologic Model : 1 OOyr Compute Time: 31Aug2011 , 15 :17 :09 Control Specifications : 24hr Volume Units : IN Hydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharge Time of Peak Volume Element (Ml2) (CFS) (IN) DA20 0.05726 110 01Jan2010 , 13:02 8 .34 DA21 0 .00709 30 01Jan2010 , 12 :17 10 .58 DA22 0.02706 77 01Jan2010, 12:37 10 .01 DA23 0.01450 41 01Jan2010 , 12:33 8.40 DA24 0.08920 172 01Jan2010, 13:02 -8.34 DA25 0.01386 38 01Jan2010, 12:35 8.40 Jct 1 0.13076 282 01Jan2010 , 12 :58 8 .68 Little Bro Pond 0.04156 112 01Jan2010 , 12 :47 9.43 Re 21 0.00709 30 01Jan2010 , 13 :14 10.48 Re 22 0.04156 112 01Jan2010 , 12 :55 9.42 Re23 0 .01450 41 01Jan2010, 12:52 8.37 Re 24 0.13076 282 01Jan2010 , 13 :24 8 .64 Study Pt A 0.20897 422 01Jan2010 , 13 :18 8.60 Appendix C HEC-HMS Summary Output File-Pond WSEL Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run : post-2yr Reservoir: Little Bro Pond Start of Run : End of Run: 01Jan2010 , 00:00 02Jan2010 , 00 :05 Basin Model : Compute Time : 31 Aug2011 , 15:10 :32 Meteorologic Model ; . Control Specifications: Corrputed Results Peak Inflow : Peak Outflow : Total Inflow : Total Outflow : Volume Units: IN 39 (CFS) 11 (CFS) 3.28 (IN) 3.21 (IN) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : Date/Time of Peak Outflow : Peak Storage : Peak Elevation : Post Dev w Ph 100 2yr 24hr 01Jan2010 , 12 :44 01Jan2010 , 13:46 3 (AC-FT) 299 .5 (FT) Project: Barracks 11 Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run : post -1 Oy r Reservoir : Little Bro Pond Start of Run: 01Jan2010, 00 :00 Basin Model: End of Run : 02Jan2010 , 00 :05 Meteorologic Model: Compute Time : 31Aug2011 , 15:10 :19 Control Specifications : Volume Un its : IN Co111Juted Results Peak Inflow : 72 (CFS) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : Peak Outflow: 31 (CFS) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : Total Inflow : 5.97 (IN) Peak Storage : Total Outflow : 5.84 (IN) Peak Elevation : Post Dev w Ph 1 00 10yr 24hr 01Jan2010 , 12 :44 01Jan2010 , 13 :26 5 (AC-FT) 301 .5 (FT) Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run : post-25yr Reservoir: Little Bro Pond Start of Run : End of Run: Compute Time: 01Jan2010, 00:00 02Jan2010, 00:05 31Aug2011 , 15:10 :26 Basin Model : Meteorologic Model: Control Specifications: CoJll)uted Results Peak Inflow: Peak Outflow : Total Inflow: Total Outflow : Volume Units: IN 83 (CFS) 36 (CFS) 6 .93 (IN) 6 .77 (IN) Date/Time of Peak Inflow: Date/Time of Peak Outflow : Peak Storage : Peak Elevation : Post Dev w Ph 100 25yr 24hr 01Jan2010, 12 :44 01Jan2010, 13 :26 5 (AC-FD 302 .1 (FD ' Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run : post-50yr Reservoir: Little Bro Pond Start of Run: 01Jan2010 , 00:00 End of Run: 02Jan2010 , 00:05 Compute Time: 31 Aug2011 , 15:10:38 Volume Units: IN Basin Mode'i: Meteorologic Model: Control Specifications: Post Dev w Ph 1 00 50yr 24hr CorrputedResu~s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Peak Inflow : 99 (CFS) Peak Outflow : 45 (CFS) Total Inflow : 8 .27 (IN) Total Outflow : 8 .07 (IN) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : Date/Time of Peak Outflow : Peak Storage : Peak Elevation : 01Jan2010 , 12 :44 01Jan2010 , 13 :24 7 (AC-FT) 303 .0 (FT) Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond · Simulation Run: post-1 OOyr Reservoir: Little Bro Pond Start of Run: End of Run : Compute Time: 01Jan2010, 00:00 02Jan2010 , 00:05 31Aug2011, 15 :10 :04 Basin Model : Meteorologic Model : Control Specifications : Volume Units : IN Corrputed Results Peak Inflow : 113 (CFS) Date/Time of Peak Inflow: Peak Outflow : 74 (CFS) Date/Time of Peak Outflow : Total Inflow : 9.44 (IN) Peak Storage : Total Outflow : 9.19 (IN) Peak Elevation : Post Dev w Ph 100 100yr 24hr 01Jan2010 , 12 :44 01Jan2010 , 13:09 7 (AC-FT) 303.3 (FT) Project: Barracks II Ph 100 Det Pond Simulation Run: post-1 OOyr blocked outlet Reservoir: Little Bro Pond Start of Run: 01Jan2010, 00:00 Basin Model: End of Run: 02Jan2010, 00:05 Meteorologic Model: Compute Time: 31 Aug2011 , 15 :17 :09 Control Specifications: Volume Units: IN Corrputed Results Peak Inflow : Peak Outflow : Total Inflow: Total Outflow : 113 (CFS) 112 (CFS) 9.44 (IN) 9 .43 (IN) Date/Time of Peak Inflow : Date/Time of Peak Outflow : Peak Storage : Peak Elevation : Post Dev Ph 100 Blkd Outlet 100yr 24hr 01Jan2010 , 12 :44 01Jan2010, 12 :47 7 (AC-Fn 303.6 <Fn Phillips Engineernt g Providing Civil Enginee ring Services to Coll ege Station and Surrounding Communities 4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 TBPE Firm #13130 July 20, 2011 Josh Norton Development Services City of College Station P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 RE: LETTER ACKNOWLED GING CITY STANDARD S THE B ARRACKS SUBDIVIS ION, PHASE 100 COLLE GE STATIO N, TEXAS Dear Josh: The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge any deviations from the B/CS Design Guideline Manual during the design of The Barracks II Subdivision, Phase 100. The following deviations are hereby noted : 1. The Detention Pond Analysis conducted by Kirnley Hom & Associates made use of the SWMM Computer Model in order to properly ana lyze the three ponds and how they function together under high flow conditions . 2. The first two segments of 12" sanitary sewer line beginning at the existing system on Old Wellborn Road are designed with a slope of 0 .20%. This is less than the 0.25 % slope required in the BCS Design Guidelines, but still meets minimum slope required by TCEQ . The mathematics of the model used to analyze these lines was such that using the higher slope produced slightly less capacity, even though it seems to contradict what we would normally expect. This slight difference in capacity was enough to push the size requirement to the next higher diameter (18 ") which would be larger than the receiving pipe in the existing system. 3. While not a deviation from the Design Guidelines , the model used to analyze the water system showed that pressures under fire flow conditions drew pressures leve ls down to near the minimum allowed by TCEQ . The flowrates used in this modeling scenario were 2500 gpm in the commercial portions of the subdivision under fully developed conditions. Well born SUD is in the process of developing plans for upgrades to their system in this area and we anticipate pressures to improve as those upgrades are brought on-line. 4. The present design shows that the sidewalks and street lights along Deacon Drive on the CSISD side of the street have been left out of this design at the request of CSISD . Officials from the district plan to discuss their request with the city staff at a meeting in the near future . 5. The location of the sidewalks along Holleman Drive South are shown adjacent to the roadway, but their location wi ll need to be negotiated with the city staff to determine a safe location with consideration given to the traffic speed and the adjoining roadside ditch . I also acknowledge that, to the best of my knowledge , the details provided in the construction plans are in accordance with the B/CS Standard Details. sm/~L Kent Laza , P .E., ManagA' JI .) 1 ·l C ll q \S f'f'..;, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 11-109 Crn or COLLEGE S·n1T10N f>1.anr1in1, 6-Dt1rlo1mrnt .~n FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE : CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The Barracks II Subdivision Phase 100 SITE ADDRESS: 3100 Haupt Road DRAINAGE BASIN: Bee Creek Trib. "B" DATE OF ISSUE: October 3, 2011 VALID FOR 24 MONTHS OWNER: CONTRACTOR: Heath Phillips Investments, LLC (see below) 3302 General Parkway College Station, Texas 77845 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit CONDITIONS: 1. No work of any kind may start until a Development Permit is issued . 2. No work beyond limits covered in permit is authorized . 3. The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein . If revoked, all work must cease until permit is re- issued . 4. Development shall not be used or occupied until Certificate of Occupancy is issued. 5. The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance . 6 . If required , Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction . 7. Other permits may have been required to fulfill local, state and federal requirements . Construction will be in compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits. 8. Stormwater mitigation, including detention ponds will be constructed first in the construction sequence of the project. 9. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that all debris from construction, erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or existing drainage facilities . Construction Site Notice or Notice of Intent (NOi) along with Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWP3) will be kept and maintained on-site during construction as per TPDES permitting requirements . If it is determined that the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment on-site , it is the Contractor's responsibility to implement measures that will meet City , State , and Federal requirements . 10 . All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated prior to Letter of Completion or Certificate of Occupancy . 11 . All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with the Landscaping and Tree Protection Section 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. 12 . All construction shall be in accordance with the stamped approved plans and specifications for the above-named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station , as well as State and Federal Regulations that apply . Only those deviations from BCS Unified Design Guidelines , Specifications and Details specifically requested and approved will be allowed . 13. Special Conditions : **TCEQ Phase II Rules In Effect** 1, 7 £,..h' k/{ kP b/51h':f~fr~or, hereby agree to comply with all conditions herein . ~dl /;/L~ I hereby grant this permit for development. Contact --=~.L..!....~=-=--....:::::::.,~"'---.......L..----- lnsp signed to this proje 4 hours prior to beginnin ired Inspections . I/ Date FOR OFFICE USEJ.>N,1;:~ CJ CASE NO .: I L-c:::; UJ i O_i DATESUBMITIED:·j . ac · 11 CITY OF Coll.EGE STATION Ho= o/TCICllJ A&M Univmity" TIME : ~+,--&--=-----:~ _ STAFF : . ---'--t-~-----~ (Check one) D Minor ($700) FINAL PLAT APP LI CATION 0 Amending ($700) [8] Final ($932) 0 Vacating ($932) 0Replat ($932) Is this plat in the ET J? O Yes [g] No Is this plat Commercial ~ or Residential ~ MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: [g] $700-$932 Final Plat.Application Fee (see above). D $233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable). [g] $600 (minimum) Development Permit Application I Public Infrastructure Review and Inspection Fee . Fee is 1 % of acceptable Engineer's Estimate for public infrastructure , $600 minimum (if fee is > $600, the balance is due prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit). [g] Application completed in ful l. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and may not be adjusted or altered . Please attach pages if additional information is provided . [g] Fourteen (14) folded copies of plat. (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.) [g] Two (2) copies of the grad ing, drainage , and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report . [g] Two (2) copies of the Pub li c infrastructure plans and supporting documents (if applicable). O Copy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable). [g] Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompan ied by a Nothing Further Certificate current within ninety (90) days . The report must include applicable information such as ownership, liens, encumbrances, etc. IE] Paid tax certificates from City of College Station , Brazos County and College Station l.S .D. [g] The attached Final Plat checklist with all items checked off or a brief explanation as to why they are not. NOTE: A mylar of the approved preliminary plan must be on file before a final plat application will be considered complete . If the mylar is submitted with the final plat application, it shall be considered a submittal fo r the preliminary plan project and processed anp reviewed as such . Until the mylar has been confirmed by staff to be correct , the final plat application will be considered incomplete . Date of Optional Preapplication or Stormwater Management Conference NAME OF PROJECT The Barracks II Subdivision, Phase 100 ADDRESS 3100 Haupt Road SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT: East side of Holleman Drive South between Cain Road and Rock Prairie Road. APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name Heath Phillips E-mail heath_superiorstroctures@yahoo.com Street Address 3302 General Parkway City College Station state Texas Zip Code 77845 ------ Phone Number 979-693-5000 Fax Number 979 -703-7903 ---------------- 1/11 Page 1 of9 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified . Please attach an additi ona l sheet fo r multiple owners): Name Hea th Phillips Investments, LLC. E-mail Street Address (same as applicant) City State Z ip Code Phone Number Fax Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION : Name Kent Laza E-mail klaza@philfipsengineeringbcs.com Street Address 4490 Castlegate Drive City College Station State Te x as Zip Code _7_78_4_5 ____ _ Phone Number 979-690-3141 Fax Number 979-690-1041 ----------------- Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? D Yes IE] No Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so , please provide the Vol ume ____ and Page No . __ _ Total Acreage 18.4 Total No . of Lots 83 R-0-W Acreage ______ _ ---------- Existing Use agricultural Proposed Use comb ination of commercial and residen tial --------------- Number of Lots By Zon i ng District 18.4 POD I Average Acreage Of Each Res idential Lot By Zoning Dist ri ct: 0.15 I POD 0.7 I POD sr:-Ole"f"cheJ SF'· 7PuJ,.,hor»e ___ , __ _ Floodplain Acreage none ----------------- Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? I Yes [)$" No This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and w ill be used to help determ ine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ord inance . Notwithstand ing any assertion made , vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other appl icable law. Is this appl ication a continuation of a project that has rece ived prior City platt ing approval(s) and you a re request ing the application be reviewed under previous ord inance as appl icable? n Yes IX] No If yes, prov ide information regard ing the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (prov id e additional sheets if necessary): Project Name : City Project Number (in known): Date I T imeframe when submitted : 1/11 Page 2 of9 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified . Please attach an add itiona l sheet for multiple owners): Name College Station Independent School District E-mail cealy@csisd.org -------------- Street Add ress 1812 Welsh -------------------- City College Station State Texas Zip Code 77840 ------- Phone Number 979-764 -5476 (Clari< Ealy) Fax Number ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION : Name E-ma il Street Address City State Zip Code Phone Number Fax Number Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? D Yes D No Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so , please prov ide the Volume ____ a nd Page No . __ _ Total No . of Lots R-0 -W Acreage Total Acreage Existing Use Proposed Use Number of Lots By Zon ing District I Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning D istrict : ---'--- ------- I Floodplain Acreage ----------------------------------- Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? l: Yes I No This information is necessary to help staff identify the appropriate standards to review the application and will be used to help determine if the application qualifies for vesting to a previous ordinance . Notwithstanding any assertion made , vesting is limited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law. Is this app li cation a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the application be reviewed under previous ord inance as applicable? fJ Yes C No If yes, provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent appl ications (prov ide additional sheets if necessary): Project Name: City Project Number (in known): Date I Timeframe when submitted : 1/11 Page 2 of 9 Requested waiver to subdivision re ulations and reason for same if ap licable): ---'-------------~ Regarding the waiver request , explain how: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict appl ication of the subd ivision regulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use_o_f_h_i_s _la_n_d_·-----------~ I 3. The granting of the waiver wi ll not be detrimental t o the pub li c health , safety , or we lfare , or i njuri ous to ot her property in the area , or to the City in administering subdivision regulations . -----------------, 4. The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance w ith the provis ions of the Unified Development Ordinance . ---------------~ Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (i f applicab le): 1. C An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be prov ided outside the right-of-way ; 2. [1 The presence of unique or unusual topographic , vegetative , or other natural condit ions exist so that strict adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keep ing with the purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan ; 3. n A capital improvement project is imminent that w ill include construction of the requi red sidewalk. Imminent shall mean the project is funded or projected to commence with in twelve (12) months ; 4. [j Ex isting streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate I rural context ; 5. C When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi -use path is shown on the B icycle , Pedestrian , and Greenways Master Plan ; 1/11 Page 3 of 9 6 . n The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platti ng and Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO ; or 7. C: The proposed development contains frontage on a Freeway I Expressway as designated by Map 6.6, Thoroughfare Plan -Functional Classification , in the City's Comprehensive Plan . Detailed explanation of condition identified above : NOTE : A waiver to the sidewalk requirements and fee in lieu of sidewalk construction shall not be considered at the same time by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: 4807 Streets 5450 Sidewalks 5073 Sanitary Sewer Lines 3629 Water Lines Channels 3376 Storm Sewers 3300 Bike Lanes I Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE : 3. 83 No . of acres to be dedicated + $ see sheet development fee __ o __ No . of acres in floodplain __ o __ No . of acres in detention 0 No . of acres in greenways --- OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND : ~No. of SF Dwelling Units X $ 314 = $ 10,990 5110111 (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Advisory Board NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITIED 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 . IF THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, this application must be accompanied by a power of attorney statement from the owner. If there is more than one owner, all owners must sign the application or the power of attorney. If the owner is a company, the application must be accompanied by proof of authority for the company's representative to sign the application on its behalf LIEN HOLDERS identified in the title report are also considered owners and the appropriate signatures must be provided as described above. Signature and title Date I I 1/11 Page4 of9 CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT Owner Certification: 1. No work of any kind may start until a permit is issued . 2. The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein . 3. If revoked, all work must cease until permit is re-issued . 4. Development shall not be used or occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued . 5. The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance. 6 . Other permits may be required to fulfill local , state , and federal requirements . Owner w ill obtain or show compliance with all necessary State and Federal Permits prior to construction including NOi and SWPPP . 7. If required, Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre- pour) and post construction . 8. Owner hereby gives consent to City representatives to make reasonable inspections required to verify compliance . 9. If, stormwater mitigation is required, including detention ponds proposed as part of this project, it shall be designed and constructed first in the construction sequence of the project. 10. In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station , measures shall be taken to insure that all debris from construction, erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply. 11 . The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents will comply with the current requirements of the C ity of College Station , Texas City Code , Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified Design Guidelines Technical Specifications, and Standard Details . All development has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations . 12 . Release of plans to (name or firm) is authorized for bidd ing purposes only. I understand that final approval and release of plans and development for construction is contingent on contractor signature on approved Development Permit. 13 . I, THE OWNER. AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN, AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, ARE , TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, TRUE, AND ACCURA~"E. --" -,-/ _./) I '1 \ iA \l (bo.~ c~ L/£d4k 9f'D l ".), lO\, Property Owner(s) ~ o~ ' R:o""-Q-0 P~oE. "-1\ Engineer Certification: 1/11 1. The project has been designed to ensure that stormwater mitigation, including detention ponds, proposed as part of the project will be constructed first in the construction sequence . 2 . I w ill obtain or can show compliance with all necessary Local, State and Federal Permits prior to construction including NOi and SWPPP. Design will not preclude compliance with TPDES : i.e., projects over 10 acres may require a sedimentation basin . 3. The information and conclusions contained in the attached plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of the City of College Station, Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified Design Guidelines . All development has been designed in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station and State and Federal Regulations . 4. I , THE ENGINEER, AGREE TO AND CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS HEREIN , AND IN ATTACHMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION , ARE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE , TRUE , AND ACCURATE . ll± lµA Engineer 0 Date Page 5 of 9 The following CERTIFICATIONS apply to development in Special Flood Hazard Areas. Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, Fill/ Grading Permits, and Clearing Only Permits:* A. I, Kent Laza certify, as demonstrated in the attached drainage study , that the alterations or development covered by this pennit, shall not: {i) increase the Base Flood elevation ; (ii) create additional areas of Special Flood Hazard Area; (iii) decrease the conveyance capacity to that part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is not in the floodway and where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood event is greater than one foot per second . This area can also be approximated to be either areas within 100 feet of the boundary of the regulatory floodway or areas where the depth of from the BFE to natural ground is 18 inches or greater; (iv) reduce the Base Flood water storage volume to the part of the Special Flood Hazard Area that is beyond the floodway and conveyance area where the velocity of flow in the Base Flood is equal to and less than one foot per second without acceptable compensation as set forth in the City of College Station Code of Ordinances, Chapter 13 concerning encroachment into the Special Flood Hazard Area ; nor (v) increase Base Flood velocities. beyond those areas exempted by ordinance in Section 5 .11 .3a of Chapter 13 Code of Ordinances . £* L 7_,__µ~'--+-'-J~t ___ _ Engineer d Date Initial D *If a platting-status exemption to this requirement is asserted, provide written justification under separate letter in lieu of certification . Required for Site Plans, Final Plats, Construction Plans, and Fill/ Grading Permits: 8. I, Kent Laza , certify to the following : (i) that any nonresidential or multi-family structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designed to prevent damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm . Engin£&1 ~~ Date Additional certification for Floodway Encroachments: C . I, , certify that the construction , improvement, or fill covered by this ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- permit shall not increase the base flood elevation . I will apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Adjustments . Engineer Date 1/11 Page 6 of 9 --________________ __J Required for all projects proposing structures in Special Flood Hazard Area (Elevation Certificate required). Residential Structures: D. I, , certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement of any residential structure shall have the lowest floor , including all utilities , ductwork and any basement, at an elevation at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation . Required Elevat ion Certificates will be provided w ith elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction . Engineer I Surveyor Date Commercial Structures: E. I, ----------------, certify that all new construction or any substantial improvement of any commercia l, industrial , or other non-residential structure ar e designed to have the lowest floo r, including all utilities , ductwork and basements , elevated at least one foot above the Base Flood Elevation Engineer I Surveyor Date OR I, , certify that the structure with its attendant util ity , ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities is designed to be flood -proofed so that the structure and utilities , ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities are designed to be watertight and impermeab le to the intrusion of water in all areas below the Base Flood Elevation , and shall resist the structural loads and buoyancy effects from the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic conditions . Required Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during constructi on (forms at slab pre- pour) and post construction . Engineer I Surveyor Date Conditions or comments as part of approval : 1/1 1 Page 7 of 9 From: To: Date: Subject: Josh , "Kent Laza" <klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs .com> '"Josh Norton"' <Jnorton@cstx.gov> 09/14/2011 1 :52 PM FW: SWF-2011-00373-RE: Construction plans for Phase 100 (UNCLASSIFIED) I want to share the following e-mail with you from the US Corps of Engineers regarding construction of Phase 100 at The Barracks 11. I had sent Stan Walker a copy of the overall drawings from our most recent plan set that you are reviewing . I had discussed our plans with him over the phone but wanted to get something in writing as well. We still have some things to work out with them on future phases, but for now we are good to go on this phase . Kent -----Original Message----- From : Walker, Standridge MSWF[mailto:Stan.Walker@usace .army .mil] Sent: Wednesday , September 14, 2011 8:38 AM To: Kent Laza Cc : Walker, Standridge M SWF Subject: SWF-2011-00373-RE: Construction plans for Phase 100 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification : UNCLASSIFIED Caveats : NONE Kent, Thank you for the detailed drawing and description . I don't see any direct regulated impacts to potential waters of the U.S ., and you have previously stated the independent utility of the initial work. You may proceed with your plan . Thanks , Stan --- - I - Page 1 of 1 Carol Cotter -The Barracks II Phase 100 -Letter of Completion From: Josh Norton To: Phillips, Heath Date: 3/28/2012 2:20 PM Subject: The Barracks II Phase 100 -Letter of Completion CC: Cotter, Carol; Gibbs, Alan; Koite, Israel Heath, As I explained to you earlier you should be able to pull full building permits on The Barracks II Phase 100 as of this afternoon. However, the following items are still outstanding: *Complete Holleman Drive widening *Install all pavement markings *Install all street signage *Complete sidewalks along front load town home units The City will continue to hold the $214,334.00 Letter of Credit until these items are completed and accepted by the City. Once these items are completed you will need to submit a Letter of Completion for these outstanding items in order for the City to accept them. Thanks -Josh Norton Joshua D. Norton, P.E., CFM Assistant City Engineer Planning & Development Services City of College Station P. 0. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Ph: (979) 764-3570 Fx: (979) 764-3496 City of College Station Home of Tex as A&M Univ ersity ® file:/ IC :\Documents and Settings\ccotter\Local Settings\ Temp\XPgrpwise\4 F 731 E29City of Colleg... 4/5/2012 .' -.. LETTER OF COMPLETION CITY ENGINEER DATE: 3 /;_g k /j., 17 CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS RE: COMPLETION OF &&Aucs .f/A&sE 100 Dear Sir : The purpose of our letter is to request that the following listed improvements be approved and accepted as being constructed under City inspection and completed according to plans and specifications as approved and requ ired by the C ity of College Station, Texas . This approval and acceptance by the City is requested in order that we may finalize any subcontracts and to affirm their warranty on the work. This approval and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed below does hereby void the letter of guarantee tor the listed improvements on the above referenced yroject . The one -year warranty is hereby affirmed and agreed to by if lA'lll ~!>' k/Cl/",MtFA//5 and by their subcontractors as indicated by signatures below. WORK COMPLETED .. /ik;iz:s 2 (3dibdAtfl . SE;Jfi( Owner: l./EAr II /?A:!"~P S C;vl., Phone Numberro/-r} )zz/J-~lo& Address: $-?,OZ. (k.4l;f.t.4 l . (K.N)' ~d.(-,4/!. gl.4":t7t>N, '/,; Z WK ~ Signatur~ £'6=· Ci c~ Revtse e111'J 1/07 Contractor: .l/EATll .!'1¢74/J'. f,t'ol!E.sf.HE.41'1 P.hone Number: {mJ .tzf-Sf/j k Address: 55?>;;, fk.u.rf/Ut, g a<f'µ· (1,LLJ?J(... Y@h /) Zk PHILLIPS ENGINEERING 4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 TPBE # F-13130 THE BARRACKS II, PHASE 100 REVISED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE September 8, 2011 Item No. -----------------·------,,.··--···········-···-··-·-------· Description '. Est. ! Unit , Unit Price I' Total . .:..._Q1:1.antity ·--~--~--- Streets and Sitework .. ········-··-··-------···-···--···········-··-······-·····----·-.......... ·---···----··-····------------- Clearing & Grubbing 2.5 AC , 1,500.00 ' 3,750 2 Excavation/Grading Streets (10400 cy) 10,400 CY / 1.00 3 Mixing&CompactionofSubgrade-8"depth 10,196 SY ' 2.00 ' 20 ,392 10,400 4 Mixing&CompactionofSubgrade-6"depth 11 ,149 SY 1.75 19 ,511 ---~ _ _i.fI_x~ated Lime (6"@ 27 lb/sy ; 8''@ 36 lb /sy) 334 -~IQ~------~5-2:22L __ __22,_~2_? 6 Base Material -8" depth 10 ,054 .2 SY 12 .50 1 125,678 7 !Base Material -6" depth 4,213 SY 9.50 40 ,0 25 8 Base Material -611 depth for temporary access roadway 4,356 SY 9.50 41 ,382 9 Asphalt Paving, Type D -2" depth 14 ,006 SY 10 .00 1 140 ,060 10 !Asphalt Paving, Type C-3" J.~E.~------· ___ __._ __ 8,_05_5_ SY .~ ___ __!_3_.o_o l ____ }_0_4,7_1_5 11 · 12" Concrete Pavement 160.0 SY 46.00 I 7 ,360 12 ,Concrete Curb and Gutter (all types) 6,830 LF 10.00 68 ,300 13 !Concrete Alley -611 depth 1,067 SY 32.00 34,150 14 Concrete Apron-6" depth 9,267 SF 4.00 37 ,067 _1_5 _4_" _C_on_c_re_te __ S_id_e_w_al_k _______________ + -~-8 ,220 ~----_ 2.50 95 ,551 16 Roadway signs 18 1 EA 200 .00 3,600 17 EndofRoadSigns 12 I EA 200.00 1 2,400 Subtotal -Streets I $804 ,449 __ ~. ________________ ____ Storm Drainage System __ _ ----- 18 ! 18" RCP, Profile Gasket -Struct ural Backfi ll 19 f 24 11 RCP , Profile Gasket -Structural Backfill 20 30" RCP , Profile Gasket -Structural Backfill 21 36" RCP, Profile Gasket -Structural Backfill 22 42" RCP , Profile Gasket -Structural Backfill . ---·---·-----·· .. ···---- 23 18" HPDE Structural Backfill 24 , 30" HPDE Structural Backfill 25 36" HPDE Struchlral Backfill 26 11 'x 8' Junction Box 26 1 Standard Jll11.~~?11. Box 27 115 1 Recessed Inlet 28 10' Recessed Inlet 29 '5' Recessed Inlet 30 Safety End Treatment for 2-42" RCP 31 i Safety End Treatment for 30" HDPE 32 l safety -E~ci-i;~~t;~~t-fo~-i~;-fi.D:PE 33 'Construction Exit 34 I Rock Rip Rap 35 Inlet Pro tectio n 36 Silt Fence 1,014 857 LF I LF 27 LF 319 LF 219 LF 35.00 39.oo : 35 ,490 33 ,423 49.00 1,323 67.00 21,373 85.00 18,615 109 LF 24.00 2,616 172 LF 40.00 I 6,880 364 LF 50 .00 18 ,200 EA 3,000.00 3,000 4 EA 1,800 .00 I 7,200 . --·-·-··---·-·-·-----___,_ _____ .,.___ __ --··· -····--------··-----· l of3 2 EA 2,500.00 5,000 6 EA 2,200.00 13 ,200 6 EA 2,000 .00 1 12 ,000 EA 2,200.00 i 2,200 I EA 750.00 ! 750 ······-·----- 2 EA 500.00 1,000 1 EA 0 EA 14 1 EA ........... J1.3-5..2 ____ !:-Y ____ _ 1,000.00 550.00 1,000 0 90.00 1 i,260 1.50 ! ---2,025_ PHILLIPS ENGINEERING 4490 Castlegate Drive, College Station , Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 TPBE # F-13130 THE BARRACKS II, PHASE 100 REVISED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE September 8, 2011 Item No . Description Est. U · U · P · Total mt mt nee -_i_Q~a;gty;--SY t-1 --0-.2-5~1 ---200 ' 2,461 LF ' 1.50 1 3692 --+-------·-·-··--······-·-···-· ·-·--·--·----- 37 !Broadcast Seeding (ROW & berms) 38 TV Inspection Subtotal -Storm Drainage ! $190,447 Detention Pon~--~~~tem ---,---------............................................ _ .. 39 ;Excavation/Grading De tention Pond 0 0 CY 1.00 40 10utlet Contro l Stucture 0 41 142" HDPE, Non-Strnctural Back fill 0 0 L S 4,500 .00 1 0 LF 60 .00 42 !Rock Rip Rap 0 0 SY 41.00 i ...... ~~--~r.?.~~~~~~~~~~iI?~_@QW & berms). ·------0 SY 0_._25-;---....... ____ 0 ················· -------------0----r LF 1 1.50 , 44 TV Inspection 0 Subtotal -Detention Pond System $0 Water System .. ----------------------- 45 112" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Structural Backfill 1,643 LF 24.00 I 46 8" Water PVC CL200 (C900) CL200, Structural Backfill 969 LF 18 .00 47 8" Water PVC CL200 (C900), CL200 Non-Structural Backfill 42 LF 16 .00 48 6" Wate r PVC CL200 (C900), CL200, Structural Backfill 965 LF 16.00 49 i 18 " Steel Casing, w!_<::~~~~ spacers and end caps 62 70 .00 50 jFire Hydra nt Assem bly (incl. 12"x6" tee, va lve , bend & hydrant) 4 51 ;Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 8"x6" tee , valve , bend & hydrant) l 52 I Fire Hydrant Assembly (incl. 6"x6" tee , valve , bend & hydran t) 2 2,600.00 ! EA 2,400.oo l EA 2,200.00 ! 53 12" X 12" Tee (Cut in to existing 12" line) EA 750.00 ' 54 12" X 8" Tee 3 EA 450 .00 ---·-···--------··········-·· ..... ·---------------·-··----····--···-···+-···· --+- 55 8" X 6" Tee 2 EA 300.00 56 112 11 M.J. Gate Valve 57 18" M.J . Gate Val ve 58 .6" M.J . Gate Valve 5 EA 1,300.00 8 EA 900.00 1 1 3 EA 600.00 59 8" X 45° M.J. Bend 4 EA 225.00 --------·---···-··-··---····-······· ................................ -······-------····---··-··--······ 39 ,432 17 ,442 672 15,4 40 4,340 10 ,400 2,400 4,400 750 1,350 ------ 600 6,500 7,200 1,800 900 60 12" X 45° M.J. Bend 4 EA 300.00 1,200 61 4" Blowoff Valve 62 2 " Blowoff Valve 63 ! 111 Water Service , < 15 ft (avg length = 8 ft) 64 I 1" Water Service ,> 15 ft (avg l~~~!::::~?.~)_______ _ __ _ 65 1.5" Water Service ,< 15 ft (avg length= 8 ft) 66 1.5" Water Service ,> 15 ft (avg length = 47 ft) 2 of3 EA 1,600.00 1,600 3 EA 1,100.00 3,300 10 EA 450.00 4,500 6 EA 825.00 4,950 -r --2-o--+-E-A--'---45-0-.0-0 ~·--.. -...... _. ___ 9,-oo-o 13 EA 950 .00 12350 Su btota l -Water $150,526 • J PHILLIPS ENGINEERING 4490 CastlcgateDrive, College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 TPBE # F-13130 THE BARRACKS II, PHASE 100 REVISED ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE September 8, 2011 ...............•.•......• _ ........ , ....... ______ -,-__ Item No. Description ---'---------···-···----········ ......................................... ·····················-----··-········ Est. · Unit • Unit Price ... ..Qi!.anti~y __ L __ Total . W~~tewater Srs_te_m __ 67 J 12" Sewer SDR 26 D-3034 Strnctural Backfill 68 '12" Sewer SDR 26 D-2241 Structural Backfill 69 12" Sewer SDR 26 D-303 4 Mechanical Bore 70 I 10" Sewer SDR 26 D-3034 Structural Backfill 71 • 10 11 Sewer SDR 26 D-30 34 Non-Structural Backfill ---+-.-.................................................................................................. -... ----·------ 72 1 O" Sewer SDR 26 D-2241 Strnctural Backfill 73 8" Sewer SDR 26 D-3034 Structural Backfill 74 8" Sewer SDR 26 D-3034 Non-Structural Backfill 75 i8 " Sewer SDR 26 D-2241 Structural Backfill _7_6--+-l 6_" __ ~~~~~E-~!?.!3-2_6_D_-_30_3_4_S_tru_c_tu_r_al_B_a_ck_fi_1l_l ----·----........... ( .. 77 i6" Sewer SDR 26 D-2241 Structural Backfill 1 78 I 1611 Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 79 18 " Steel Casing Pipe, w/casing spacers and end caps 80 20'' Steel Casing Pip e, w /casing spacers and end caps ?L .. +~ M~ .. 1oles -O' -6.00' Depth 82 14' Manholes -6.01' -8 .00' Depth 83 14' Manholes -8.01' -10.00' Depth 84 4' Manholes -10.01' -12 .00' Depth ~-. ... 44,340 1,860 4,500 1,716 9,545 1,86 3 30,655 2,576 2,641 15 ,6 40 320 3,240 3,780 3,9 60 1,600 3,600 20 ,0 00 11,000 85 Connect to existing manhole 500 86 !4" Sewer Service,< 15 ft (Avg Length= 3') 10,150 --···-----.----·----~----~---······'-··----·--··---·-····-··················--·---·· 87 14" Sewer Service,> 15 ft (Avg Length= 47') 14,250 88 14" Sewer Service (tap & stack only-for future service) 2,700 89 i TV Inspection 7553 Subtotal -Sewer ! $197,988 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $1,343,409 3 of3 • • ,. -""lilil~---~ ...... ________ CITYOF C Ol .IJ3G!;STAT IO __________ _, ____ ....... Home o/To:as A&M Univmiry• DATE : 3/8/12 TO: Heath Phillips, Owner/Developer FROM: Israel Koite, City Engineering Inspector RE: Checklist for Final Inspection for: The Barracks II -Phase 100 The following items need to be repaired or replaced before a Letter of Completion on the above-mentioned project would be issued. 1 . Complete Holleman widening and connection to Deacon per approved plans 1. Install all signage according to plans 1. Install all pavement markings according to plans 1. Install end of road markers 1. Complete all sidewalk construction per approved plans • 1. Complete detention facility and all associated infrastructure, outlet structures and headwalls, grading, rock rip rap, erosion control and vegetative cover, including the downstream swell and discharge •i. Clean and reset all inlet erosion protection 1. Establish 70% vegetative coverage 1. Verify with Wellborn Water that they will accept the water system and that all service stubs and meter boxes are installed properly 1. Complete all 6 inch and 7 inch concrete street paving and associated curbing 1. Grout all storm sewer inlet boxes 1. Address drainage issues at the terminus of Gunner Trail, Towers Parkway and Commando Trail. These areas do not drain properly after a storm event. 1. Install warning signage for all sanitary sewer manholes beyond Deacon Drive paving (MH 100 thru MH 600) • 1. Perform and Submit TV inspection for all sanitary sewer lines 1. Mandrel test sanitary sewer mains • 1. Perform and Submit TV inspection for all storm sewer lines I Contractor I C ity =12~ ~ :r;~ ~' #?/~ ~~ Note: Punch list is being provided to aid in the acceptance process, however ultimate acceptance is based on compl iance with all BCS Guidelines, Details and Specificati ons. Punch list is subject to change if and when other issues arise that require correction . .... ___ !--..,-----•------a.'"--·=--- • • • .. ' • /• 1. 1. •1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Verify that the erosion control and temporary culverts for the fire access road are installed and functioning properly Complete all storm sewer infrastructure (ie. junction boxes) Complete grading/drainage work between Lot 9 & 10, Block 7 Pour valve boxes and set to grade Set all hydrants to grade Verify all utility service t-posts (water, sanitary and electrical) are installed and painted accordingly Submit two sets of signed sealed as-built drawings, including all field changes as well as any applicable updated reports Verify that all Bl1J electrical infrastructure is installed and energized Install all missing street Lights call CSU for initial inspection Note: Punch list is being provided to aid in the acceptance process, however ultimate acceptance is based on compliance with all BCS Guidelines, Details and Specifications. Punch list is subject to change if and when other issues arise that require correction. ""'•---~--0 ---·-·------'"" '"---t --- . • \ ... -- SOP: Filing of Final Plats -Letters of Completion Engineering Inspector/Date: ( ~~y\. ~l k_ 3/li.) ll-- Project Engineer/Date: --:::.....-~ ~ y ~ //7- DP Number: \:f ~ I l -)u l 10/07/10 Inspectors shall acquire written (i.e. email) punchlist comments and subsequently written confirmation from the following contacts before forwarding Letter of Completion to development review engineer: ~osion/Drainage: Donnie Willis (0: 764-6375, C: 229-7632) ~/\ ~S Water Services -General: Charles "Butch" Willis (0: 764-3435, C: 777-1202) f-1 I~-...__ Water -coordinate fire flow analyses (or the design engineer for non-city utilities) and confirm test results meets min requirements with the dev review engineer (specific hydrants to test, if simultaneous, and min allowable flow) • l]k ~Sanitary iv ff'J\"CS Water Service -Liftstation: Doug Wallace (0: 764-6333) ,Jd ;:s Electric and Streetlights: Gilbert Martinez (0: 764-6255) LfY' BTU Electric and Streetlights: Sonia Creda (0: 821-5770) John Fontinoe or Randy Trimble (0: 821-5728) .J:enfirm with development review engineer that service agreement is in place with BTU ~Non-City Utility Service Providers: (Wellborn Water SUD, Brushy Creek SUD, Wickson Creek SUD, etc) confirm with development review engineer that infrastructure is complete ~or outstanding issues, ~Digital Constrution Pictures: From contractor on CD-R, Inspector to confirm and file rd Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for all Public Infrastructure with the following attestation: "I, General Contractor for development, certify that the improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are shown substantially hereon. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any are stated correctly hereon." General Contractor -~ord Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for Public Drainage Infrastructure including ~ ;~~ate Detention Facilities with the following attestations: "I hereby attest that I am familiar with the approved drainage plan and associated construction drawings and furthermore, attest that the drainage facilities have been constructed within dimensional tolerances prescribed by the Bryan & College station Unified Stormwater Design Guidelines and in accordance with the approved construction plans or amendments thereto approved by the City of College Station." (affix seal) Licensed Professional Engineer State of Texas No. ___ _ "I certify that the subdivision improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are substantially as shown hereon. I further certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any, are stated correctly hereon." General Contractor .. ~rs to review Red-lined Record Drawings, upon acceptable confirmation of drawings, inspector to : o file one set of Record Drawings in Public Works files, and o forward one set of Record Drawings to Jeffery Speed (CSU) -~ors should forward Letters of Completion to the development review engineer that reviewed and stamped the construction plans after confirming: o the date on the Letter of Completion Warranty should reflect the date when all associated punchlist items are completed , and o the Owner is shall be listed as the one affirming the one-year warranty ~ment review engineer to: o Add Dev Permit Number to Letter of Completion o stamp the Letter of Completion to confirm by i nitialing that the final plat is filed (or mylar is ready to be filed), all necessary easements (including offsite) have been filed, and blanket easement issues are resolved, and o initial and route the Final Plat mylar for filing. (Note if the developer provided surety the y it may have been filed ahead of construction.) -.rah Grace-Rosier (Planning) to file the Final Plat utilizes a coversheet to confirm: o infrastructure is accepted by Letter of Completion -or-Surety is prov ided and acceptable, o signed and notarized mylar of final plat, o parkland dedication has been paid, o digital file of final plat is provided, o a current paid tax certificate has been submitted, o sidewalk fee in lieu paid (if applicable), and -~t review engineer, upon the filing of Final Plat, stamp the Letter of Completion w ith the new stamp and verify-i nitial-n/a the Final Plat was filed, offsite easements have been filed, we have all necessary easements, etc -and then forward the Letter of Completion to Alan Gibbs (City Engineer) for final signature . Carol (Sr . Asst. City Eng ineer) to: o enter the engineer's estimate and Letter of Completion date into Inspection List o forward hard original of finalized Letter of Completion to Mandi Alford (P&DS). Mandi to: ver ify o signatures on the Letter of Completion, o forward scanned copy of Letter of Completion and assoc iated Engineers Est imate to the owner, developer, contractor, Terry Boriskie (Building), Ben McCarty (Building), Christy Jurney (Accounting), Jeffery Speed (CSU), Stephen Maldonado Sr. (CSU), Charles "Butch" Willis (CSU), Carol Cotter (Engineering), Alan Gibbs (Engineering) and Deborah Grace - Rosier (Planning). Christy Jurney will forward to Diane Broadhurst (CSU) after her rev iew . o if don't have email addresses, mail copies to the owner and contractor, and o place the original in Development Permit file. Deborah to place a hard copy of the Letter of Completion in the associated Planning Final Plat file. • • Phillips Engineering 4490 Casllegalci Drive, College Station Tx 77845 • (979) 690 -3141 • TBPE Finn #13130 Water System Flow Test Report Date: January 27, 2012 Water System Owner: Wellborn SUD Development Project: The Barracks Tl, Phase 100 ---·-----··-·------- Flow Test Location: F'H 7 @ Old Ironsides & Co~_m_a_n_d_o_T_r_a_i_l _________ _ Nozzle size (in.): 2.5 Pitot Reading (psi): 54 Flowrate (gpm): 1233 -------computed Discharge Coef: (c): 0.9 ---- Flowrate formula: Q=29.84cd2p 112 c '0 ' discharge cocf. d == orifice size (in) p = pitot pressure (psi) Pressure Guagc Location: FH 4 on Deacon Drive between Lots 14 & 15, Block 6 Static (psi): 75 Residual (psi): 50 This flow t st was conducted in accordance with NFP A 29 1 , The system meels or exceeds esign standar and tlow rccqu ircmcnts of the City sn<l the State of Texas. Report prepared by: Kent Laza printed nom c Others present: Clcndon Adams , Wellborn SUD Britt Curless, Wellborn SUD Seth Samuelson, Phillips Engineering Carol Cotter -The Barracks II Phase 100 -Building Permit From: Josh Norton To: Boriskie, Terry; Haver, Chris; Simms, Lance Date: 3/28/2012 12:25 PM Subject: The Barracks II Phase 100 -Building Permit CC: Cotter, Carol; Gibbs, Alan; Koite, Israel All - I just reviewed the punch list with Israel and all items except the following have been addressed: *Complete Holleman Drive widening *Install all pavement markings *Install all street signage *Complete sidewalks along front load town home units Page 1of1 The City will continue to hold the $214,334.00 Letter of Credit until these items are completed and accepted by the City. Engineering is ok with the issuance of full building permits for the entire Phase 100 of The Barracks II if the Building Department agrees. Thanks -Josh Norton Joshua D. Norton, P.E., CFM Assistant City Engineer Planning & Development Services City of College Station P. 0. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Ph: (979) 764-3570 Fx: (979) 764-3496 City of College Station Home of Texas A&M University ® file://C:\Documents and Settings\ccotter\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F73034ECity of Colle... 3/28/2 012 • Josh Norton -Re: Front Load sidewalks From: Heath Phillips <heath_superiorstructures@yahoo.com> To: Josh Norton <Jnorton@ cstx .gov> Date: 03 /08/2012 3 :37 PM Subject: Re : Front Load sidewalks Sounds good , we will take care of it. T hanks From: Josh Norton <Jnorton@cstx .gov> To: Heath Phillips <Heath@barrackstownhomes.com> Cc: Kent Laza <klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs.com> Sent: Thursday , March 8 , 2012 3:02 PM Subject: Re : Front Load sidewalks Heath , Page 1 of 1 Once the punch list is completed including the work on Holleman , we will return the Letter of Credit to you and you can provide the City with a new surety at that time to cover the cost of the subject sidewalks. Kent -once the subject sidewalks are completed we will need as-builts for them . Thanks -Josh Joshua D . Norton , P .E ., CFM Assistant City Engineer Planning & Development Services City of College Station P . 0. Box 9960 College Station , Tex as 77842 Ph: (979) 764-3570 Fx: (979) 764-3496 C ity of Co ll ege Station Home of Te xas A&M Uni versity ® >>>Heath Phillips <heath _superiorstructures@yahoo .com> 03 /08 /2012 2:57 PM >>> Hey Josh , I got an email from Kent regarding the side walks for the front load townhomes. I have to have all of the townhomes .built by August 1st. So all of the sidewalks will be completed by this time . Even if we dont build all of the front load townhomes, I will either go ahead and complete the sidewalks or put up a financial guarantee. Hope this helps. Heath file://C :\Documents and Settings~norton\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F58D226City... 03 /09/2 012 Page 1 of 1 Josh Norton -Driveway Exhibit From: "Kent Laza" <klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs.com> To: "'Josh Norton"' <Jnorton@cstx.gov> Date: 03 /08 /2012 4:43 PM Subject: Driveway Exhibit Attachments: Phase 100 -Driveway Exhibit.pd[ Josh, I made this simple exhibit showing where the townhomes are located with front loading driveways. These are also the areas where the sidewalks will be left out for now, and be installed with the construction of the townhomes. Kent M. Laza, P.E., Manager Phillips Engineering PROVIDING CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES TO COLLEGE STA TJON, BRYAN AND SURROUNDING COMMUN ITIES 4490 Castlegate Drive College Station, Texas 77845 (979) 690-3141 office (979) 220-1957 cell (979) 690-1041 fax klaza@phillipsengineeringbcs.com file ://C:\Documents and Settings\jnorton\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F58ElBACit... 03 /09 /2012 I I I I .-----------------------------------"' / : // \ / ': ~ :'/ \. "" ~/ .// \ // \ : ~ // \ " ~ /~~> --=~===j D EACON ORJVE ~fl.BASpt.L\l:f Pnn -U'IO\\ .. 1 \ ' -----------------------------------------' \ I I I I i i i \ I I : : i \ _____ --------------------------------___ .: ALLEY 1 \-i ... Ii I ..... ! ! i 1-, "----b-+---1------l ---l---i---l--l---j I \ OLD IRON SIDES DRIVE DEACON DRIVE £il'~IL\Sl'IL\L1 P\"lo(f .13'.ltl'f. n'l!.8.\Sl'fll\J :f1'V~n .5fl'J.OW : f-- ' \ ________ ------~ THE BARRACKS 11 SUBDNISION PHASE 100 DRIVEWAY EXHlBIT TOWNHO~IE LOTS WITH FRO NT ORIVEW/\YS