Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 Freebirds Gateway DP 05-30 700 Earl Rudder PkwyCITY OF COLLEGE STATI ON Plann ing d-Development &rviceJ SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Gateway Subdivision Block 1, Lot 2RD (Freebirds) DATE OF ISSUE: 10/17/05 OWNER: Bryan Danna 8705 Katy Freeway, Suite 408 Houston, Texas 77024 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 05-30 FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE : CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE ADDRESS: 700 Earl Rudder Freeway South DRAINAGE BASIN: Burton Creek VALID FOR 9 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: Full Development Permit All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E ., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited . The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt , concrete , mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also proh ibited . ****TCEQ PHASE II RULES IN EFFECT**** The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria . If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite , it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements . The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state. The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equj pment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work . In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or existing drainage facilities . I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. Date Date DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 05-30 CITY OF C OLLEGE STAT I ON Planning cf DrotWpmenl Servicts FOR AREAS INSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Gateway Subdivision Block 1, Lot 2RD (Freebirds) DATE OF ISSUE: 10/17/05 OWNER: D.C. Gateway, L.P. c/o Bryan Danna 8705 Katy Freeway, Suite 408 SITE ADDRESS: 700 Earl Rudder Freeway South DRAINAGE BASIN: Burton Creek VALID FOR 9 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: Houston, Texas 77024 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit SPECIAL CONDITIONS: All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5.E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited . The disposal of any waste material such as, but not limited to , paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete , mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited. ****TCEQ PHASE II RULES IN EFFECT**** The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria . If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements . The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition, placement and state . The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work . In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion , and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets , or existing drainage facilities . I hereby grant this permit for development of an area inside the special flood hazard area. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. /b-/q-{)j Date l0/20/06 Date Molly Hitchcock City of College Station Planning & Development P.O . Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 MITCHELL MM MORGAN June 24, 2005 RE: Freebirds (lot 2RD) at SH6 near University Road, College Station, Texas- Drainage letter Dear Molly : The purpose of this letter is to discuss the drainage infrastructure required for the proposed Freebirds Restaurant to be located on Lot 2RD of the Gateway Subdivision . The drainage design for this property was submitted as a master plan for Lots 2RB (Congleton Carwash), 2RE (Chicke n Express), and Lot 2RD (Proposed Freebirds). Please refer to the drainage correspondence (attached) dated 9/22/2003 for drainage analysis on these three lots . Detent ion for this property is provided through regional facilities located north of the College Station Home Depot. Analysis of this facility is detailed in the Bury &Partners-SA, Inc. 2002 Drainage/Detention Report for the Home Depot. Excerpts of this report are provided in the attached September 2003 Mitchell & Morgan drainage correspondence for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE. The proposed drainage patterns for the Freebirds site remains the same as those presented in the September 2003 drainage master plan. The Freebirds site is shown as drainage area PDA-1 B in the September 2003 Master Plan Mitchell & Morgan calculations Exhibit 2 . Two minor changes have been made to the previous drainage design . An additional inlet has been added to this drainage area to collect water from the north east portion of the Chicken Express and Freebirds Restaurants, discharging through a ten inch (1 O") pipe to a junction box in the northern entrance to the Freebirds site. This inlet has created a new drainage area, PDA-1 C. From the junction box stormwater drains through the existing fifteen inch (15 ") pipe to the north . The existing headwall that collects water from the SH6 TxDOT right-of-way will be removed, and replaced further east. Please see Freebirds Exhibit 2 for the updated proposed drainage areas . Drainage and pipe sizing calculations are provided for the new drainage area in Exhibits 3 and 4 . Please note that the pipe slopes for the proposed ten inch (1 O") and fifteen inch (15") lines are greater than the friction slopes of these pipes, 2 .5% and 0 .82% constructed slopes, respectively. 511 UNIVERSITY DRI VE EAST, SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION , TX 77840 • T 979.260.6963 • F 979.260.3564 CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS ' SUBDIVISIONS 1nfo@mitchellandmorgan .com • www.m 1tchellandmorgan .com Review of the September 2003 stormwater analysis for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE as well as the Bury &Partners-SA, Inc. 2002 Drainage/Detention Report for the Home Depot indicates that the drainage design for the proposed Freebirds Restaurant will meet the drainage objectives of the City of College Station Dra inage Policy and Des ign Standards . The peak flow rates have changed slightly from the September 2003 stormwater analysis for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE due to the addition of an inlet on the Freebirds site . The reduction in drainage area PDA -1 B, as originally described in the September 2003 stormwater analysi s for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE , has reduced peak flows into the Home depot detention pond . If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Rebecca Riggs, EIT Graduate Engineer cc: file Bryan Danna STM3 Architects Attachments: Mitchell & Morgan September 2003 drainage letter for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE Mitchell & Morgan Drainage Calculations S:\P roi\0518-Free Birds\docs\05 18 -dra inage_l etter0 50624 .doc . w . 0.. .. c ftS .... ~~ J:cf • OI l:D.5 • OI " ft) ftS c: u ft) ·-::E c e ~ . IU . A. ... --GI._ ~., ~€ -"' :s; 0.. . " -8 " Spencer Thompson City of College Station Development Services P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840 September 22, 2003 COf'{~tefl!Jl'f C,IJ-Rlrf A:SH Re: Drainage Requirements for G12t1rnd} SMtitJn, Chicken Express and Future Restaurant to be located on Lot 2RD Dear Spencer, The purpose of this letter is to discuss the drainage infrastructure required for the proposed Gateway Station, to be located on Lot 2RB, Chicken Express, to be located on Lot 2RE, and the future unnamed restaurant, to be located on Lot 2RD of the Gateway Subdivision. The proposed development will heretofore be referred to as the Congleton property. Per the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPD$), detention is required to store excess volumes of stormw~ter runoff and discharge it at a rate equal to or less than the pre-development peak flow rate. As is the case with other properties in the Gateway Subdivision, this detention requirement is fulfilled through the use of a regional detention facility, located to the north of the College Station Home Depot. While the runoff from the Congleton property sites will not be discharged into the detentioh pond, the pond design provides-excess stormwater detention for the contributing areas that will compensate for the volume increase on the adjacent properties after their respective development. The drainage calculations, pipe design, and detention pond routing calculations for the Gateway Center are detailed in the Drainage/Detention Report for the Home Depot (Bury & Partners-SA, Inc., 2002). These calculations include a post-development runoff co~fficient of C=0.85 for drainage sub-basin 7. The drainage design for the Congleton property has a few variations from the original report that have caused an increase in the peak flow for all of the relevant rainfall events. The first of these is that the estimated runoff coefficient used in the Bury & Partners report is C=0.85, lower than the majority of drainage b~sins within the Gateway subdivision. There is no indication in the report as to why this assumption was made. The actual runoff coefficient for the Congleton property is approximately C=0.88. In addition, an area calculation error was made for the Congleton property (drainage sub-basin 7) resulting in a difference of 0.27 acres . Finally, the Bury & Partners report used TxDOT IDF relationships for Rational Method calculations instead of City of College Station IDF relationships. At the direction of the City of College Station, the drainage design for the Congleton property employs the TxDOT IDF curves in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the Gateway Subdivision. These differences result in an estimated flow increase of approximately 3.6 cfs from the original Bury & Partners report . These increases were hot in the original design; however, the Bury & Partners-SA, Inc . report demonstrated that significant reductions for total peak runoff from the Gateway Subdivision will occur in all studi.ed rainfall events . This reouction is nearly 115 cfs for the 100-year rainfall event. This should more than offset the small increase resulting from variation in the estimated and actual drainage parameters. EXHIBIT 1 Exhibit 2 from the Bury & Partners drainage report shows Lot 2R (all included subdivisions) located within the post-development drainage basin DA-lP. Exhibit 3 further demonstrates that the lot is part of drainage sub-basin 7. ~addition to evidence presented within the report that only drainage basin DA-2P (32 .5 ac .) is routed through the detention pond, StormCAD outputs provide data indicating that drainage sub-basin 7 is included in the calculations for the public 66" RCP (specified as a 60" RCP in the report) storm sewer, which is designed to bypass the regional detention pond. As a result, the proposed Congleton property sites have met the detention requirement specified in the College Station DPDS . The storm water runoff from the proposed developments enters the 66" RCP via a 24" RCP connector. A grate inlet will be placed between Lots 2RB and 2RD and sized for the 100-year rainfall event. The water will then be carried through the 24" connector to a junction box at the northeast end of the development. From there it will be carried in a 24" RCP and tied into the existing 66" RCP storm sewer approximately 45 ft downstream of the nearest junction box. Ultimately, the resultant flow will be discharged into Burton Creek. In order to minimize disturbance to the existing storm sewer, no junction box will be placed at the proposed connection. While not standard practice, the 66" pipe provides adequate access to the proposed 24" RCP if maintenance is required. The carwash drainage infrastructure, including connection pipes and grate inlet sizes and locations, is detailed in Sheet 1 of the Gateway Station construction drawings. In addition, Hydraulic Grade Line calculations were performed for the 66" RCP storm sewer in order to assess the effects of the existing water surface on the proposed inlet. New calculations were performed because the Bury & Partners drainage report included the design of a 60" RCP storm sewer that has since been modified to a 66" RCP. The HGL at the proposed Congleton property inlet is approximately 272.02 ft, providing more than a foot of clearance between the water surface and the proposed top of grate. Drainage, pipe sizing, and hydraulic grade calculations have been provided as Appendices A-1, A-2 and A-3. Review of the stormwater analysis indicates that the drainage design presented in this report accounts for detention and will provide ample conveyance to meet the drainage objectives of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards. u have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Cc: File Drew Congleton, Owner Frank Mihalopoulos, Del Mar Realty Investors Attachments : Excerpts from Bury & Partners, Inc. Drainage/Detention Report for the Home Depot, August 2002 Mitchell & Morgan Drainage Calculations ·--·-·-----------·-····--·--··-···--···~···· -~ ----.. ------------------ ----<( ci ci ;: ~ ;: > > od'. w ..( od'. w 0::: 0 g~ ~ a::: J: a::: ct: <( ...I ...I s: w <( <( VJ I-LL LL LL -0 w I-3: w :::> z 0 0 0 (.) ...I ...I s: (.!) w ct: w zo LL LL ~ wz ~~ (.!) <( 0 LL U z z :5 ul rn w CJ <( 5 :5 J: :5 a::: J: a::: -::::E ...I ::::E (3 I-...I LL -w I-w (.) CJ z a::: 0 tt a::: t; 0:: ~ 0 I-~ <( w a::: ...I f: (.!) f: g a::: 3: 0:: 0 0 I-n. zw wz w ...I w (.!) :::> z 00 0 ...I ...I w 0 It) 0 0 0 0 :::> 0 >w > <( >> ::> w I-...I I-w <( rn N It) 0 .... It) N 0 It) 0 .... 0 I-~ a::: (.) 0 ...I 0 LL 0 <( (.!) ~ (.!) > VJ LL rn > (.) ::> ~ 0 !!:? 0 :::: 0 ~ 0 !!:? 0 :::: 0 No. Ac. % ft. ft. ft. ft/s ft. ft/s min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cf s In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 1E 37.5 65.0 0.60 335 1.0 2.0 1700 2.8 300 6.0 14.0 14.0 5.4 121.1 6.6 148.4 7.4 167.3 8.5 191.4 9.6 216.8 10.1 226.2 2E 39.6 0.0 0.55 420 37.0 4.3 0 0 0 0 1.6 10.0 6.3 137.8 7.7 167.5 8.6 188.1 9.9 214.8 11.1 242.8 11.6 253.5 2P 32.5 90.0 0.90 325 2.0 1.0 400.0 4.8 1850 6.0 12.0 12.0 5.8 170.3 7.1 207.9 8.0 233.9 9.1 267.4 10.3 302.5 10.8 315.7 4E 5 8 0.55 750 3 2 0 0 0 0 6.3 10.0 6.3 17.4 7.7 21.2 8.6 23.7 9.9 27~ 1 11.1 30.7 11.6 32.0 SP 2.3 10 0.55 600 3 2 0 0 150 6 5.4 10.0 6.3 8.0 7.7 9.7 8.6 10.9 9.9 12.5 11.1 14.1 11.6 14.7 Storm Drainage Area Calculations 1 11.0 90 0.90 350 .4 5 510 3 1750 6 8.9 10.0 6.3 . 62.7 7.7 76.2 8.6 85.6 9.9 97.7 11.1 110.5 11.6 115.3 2 6.09 90 0.90 300 14 13 360 13 0 0 0.8 10.0 6.3 34.7 7.7 42.2 8.6 47.3 9.9 54.1 11.1 61.1 11.6 63.8 3 0.45 100 0.90 120 1.5 4 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 2.6 7.7 3.1 8.6 3.5 9.9 4.0 11.1 4.5 11.6 4.7 4 3.13 90 0.90 50 1 2 600 8 0 0 1.7 10.0 6.3 17.8 7.7 21.7 8.6 24.3 9.9 27.8 11.1 31.4 11.6 32.8 5 1.87 90 0.90 300 5 6 0 0 0 0 0.8 10.0 6.3 10.6 7.7 12.9 8.6 14.5 9.9 16.6 11.1 18.8 11.6 19.6 6 1.05 90 0.90 150 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6.3 6.Q_ J.7 7.3 8.6 8.2 9.9 9.3 11.1 10.5 11.6 11.0 ( l.-.2.5_ _ :._:s.s: JI:~!i -aoo -4--6 -o .-o. -0 i-0 co();8L .io.u -e~-~~:-4~ ~1~-,.. -48 . .3-~8.B~ 3&.3L -~ '"'-2-4-.0... ..'1-L~ :a:r-LU::tl :.24,7 _ 8 0.75 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 4.3 7.7 5.2 8.6 5.8 9.9 6.7 11.1 7.5 11.6 : 7.9 9 1.44 90 0.90 140 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6.3 8.2 7.7 10.0 8.6 11.2 9.9 12.8 11.1 14.4 11.6 15.1 10 1.05 90 0.90 360 3.5 6 0 0 0 0 1.0 10.0 6.3 6.0 7.7 7.3 8.6 8.2 9.9 9.3 11.1 10.5 11.6 11.0 11 0.49 90 0.90 175 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 2.8 7.7 3.4 8.6 3.8 9.9 4.3 11.1 4.9 11.6 5.1 12 0.76 100 0.90 200 1.5 6 0 0 0 0 0.6 10.0 6.3 4.3 7.7 5.3 8.6 5.9 9.9 6.7 11.1 7.6 11.6 8.0 13 1.78 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 10.1 7.7 12.3 8.6 13.8 9.9 15.8 11.1 17.9 11.6 18.6 14 0.29 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 1.7 7.7 2.0 8.6 2.3 9.9 2.6 11.1 2.9 11.6 3.0 15 0.3 100 0.90 180 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 1.7 7.7 2.1 8.6 2.3 9.9 2.7 11.1 3.0 11.6 3.1 16 0.09 100 0.90 80 1.5 6 0 0 0 0 0.2 10.0 6.3 0.5 7.7 0.6 8.6 0.7 9.9 0.8 11.1 0.9 11.6 0.9 17 1.18 100 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 6.7 7.7 8.2 8.6 9.2 9.9 10.5 11.1 11.8 11.6 12.4 L.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'-~~BURY+PARTNERS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--J Label Upstre am Upstream Inle t Inlet Area C A (a cres) (a cres) P -1 3 7 .5 0 22 .50 t R-2 2.SO-~.t2 P -5 0.49 0.44 P -6 1 .78 1 .60 P -4 0 .29 0 .2 6 T it le : H D-C o llege Station j :\048\030\publ ic dra in .stm 09/03/02 09:30 :55 A M Scenario: Base Pipe Report Upstream Calcu lated System Total Length Constructed Section Mannings Full Upstream Downstream System CA Intensity System (ft ) Slope Size n Capacity Invert Invert (acres) (i n /hr) Flow (ft/ft) (cfs ) Elevation Elevation (cfs) (ft) (ft) 22.50 10.05 228.01 166.80 0 .005036 60inch 0.014 171 .61 265.29 264.45 2-t .@3 -9.97' 2<t7'.S8 lso~ .oo 9-004999 60 lncli -0 .914 ""1'7'0 .83 ~v4 .45 26-1 .95 25 .07 9.76 246.67 127.72 0 .005011 60inc h 0 .014 171 .18 261 .95 261 .31 26 .67 9 .7 1 26 1 .0 3 200 .30 0 .0 04993 60 1nc h 0 .014 17 0 .8 7 26 1.31 260.31 26 .93 9.63 261.51 28 .00 0 .005000 60 inch 0.014 171 .00 260.31 260.17 !Oo ~fl. s for-VV> Bury & Partners © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brooks ide Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA +1-203-7 55 -1 666 Hydrau lic Grade Line Out (ft) 274 .18 .-26.15-93 267 .60 265 .26 264 .66 Hydraulic Grade Line In (ft ) 275.66 ,_27-4 .J_ts_: 268 .9 3 267 .60 265 .26 Project E ng inee r : BPf User StormCAD v4 .1.1 [4 .2014] Page 1 of 1 Hydrograph R~port Hyd. No. 2 Post Developed Conditions Hydrograph type = Rational Storm frequency = 100 yrs rain area = 2.5a~ Intensity = 10.78 in 1-D-F Curve = Brazos .IDF Hydrograph Discharge Table Time --Outflow (min cfs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ····· 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 26.27 52 .54 78 .81 105 .08 131 .35 157 .62 183 .89 210.16 236 .43 262 .70 288 .97 315 .24 « 302 .11 288 .97 275.84 262 .70 249 .57 236.43 223 .30 210 .16 197 .03 183.89 170 .76 157.62 144.49 131 .35 118.22 105.08 91 .95 78 .81 65.68 52 .54 Time -Outflow (min cfs) 33 39.41 34 26 .27 35 13 .14 .. .End Page 1 English Peak discharge = 315 .24 cfs Time interval = 1 min Runoff coeff. = 0 .9 Time of cone. (Tc)= 12 min Reced . limb factor= 2 Total Volume= 340,462 cuft .,----·· ~ It It • • It • lt It • -• 1 • • • • • It • • • • • ' ' • ' • ' I • I • • • • t • • • t • • Hydrograph Report Hyd. No. 2 Hydrograph type Stonn frequency Inflow hyd. No . Max. Elevation = Reservoir = 100 yrs = 1 = 264 .74 ft Storage Indication method used . Hydrograph Discharge Table Time Inflow Elevation ClvA (hrs) cfs ft cfs 0.07 105 .08 261 .28 0 .57 0.08 131 .35 261.43 1.31 0.10 157 .62 261 .62 2 .28 0.12 183 .89 261.84 3 .79 0.13 210.16 262 .06 5.64 0.15 236.43 262 .25 6 .92 0.17 262 .70 262.46 8 .94 0.18 288 .97 262 .69 10 .68 .io .2 << 262.9 12 .53 0.22 302 .11 263 .15 14 .35 0.23 288 .97 263 .35 15 .70 0.25 275 .84 263 .54 16 .69 0.27 262 .70 263 .71 17 .51 0.28 . 249 .57 263 .88 17 .93 0 .30 236.43 264 .02 18 .64 0.32 223 .30 264 .14 22 .83 0 .33 210 .16 264.25 26 .00 0.35 197 .03 264 .35 28 .53 0.37 183 .89 264.43 30 .58 0.38 170.76 264 .50 32 .28 0.40 157 .62 264 .57 33 .64 0.42 144.49 264 .62 34 .76 0.43 131 .35 264 .66 35 .64 0.45 118.22 264 .70 36.32 0.47 105.08 264 .72 36 .80 0.48 91 .95 264 .74 37 .11 0.50 7S:.:S:"1 .1: . 2 0.52 65 .68 264 .74 37 .22 0 .53 52 .54 264 .73 37 .03 0 .55 39.4 1 264 .71 36 .69 0 .57 26 .27 264 .6 9 36 .18 0 .58 13 .14 264 .65 35 .50 0 .60 0.00 264 .61 34 .68 0 .62 0.00 264 .5 7 33.75 0 .63 0.00 264 .53 32 .83 0 .65 0.00 264.4 9 31 .91 ClvB Clv C Clv D cfs cfs cfs 0 .57 1.31 2 .28 3.79 5 .64 6 .92 8 .94 10 .68 t 2:::53' 14 .35 ----- 15 .70 ----- 16 .69 I 17.51 17 .93 18 .64 22.83 . 26 .00 28 .53 ----- 30 .58 32 .28 33 .64 34 .76 35 .64 36 .32 36 .80 37.11 7 . 37 .22 37 .03 36 .69 36 .18 35 .50 34 .68 33 .75 32 .83 31 .91 Peak discharge Time interval Reservoir name Max . Storage Page 1 English 74.49 cfs = 1 min =POND = 263,053 cuft Total Volume= 339 ,706 cuft WrA WrB WrC WrD Outflow cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 1.15 2 .62 4 .57 7 .59 11 .28 13 .83 17 .88 21 .36 25 .05 28 .69 31 .39 33 .37 35 .01 35 .86 37 .28 45 .65 52 .01 57.06 61 .17 64 .56 67.28 69 .52 71 .27 72 .65 73 .61 74 .21 << 74.43 74 .06 73 .37 72 .36 71 .01 69 .35 67.50 65 .65 63 .82 Co ntinu es on next page ... <( ~ ~ w 0 0 0 c:: w -' -' <( <( a.. u. u. w w 0 I-0 0 (!) c:: -' -' z <( z z <( <( w <( w () <( :I: :3 z -' > c:: ::!: -' -' I-<( w w w <( c:: (!) c:: -' < 0 I-z > I-Wz w -' c:: 0 z w <( 0 >w >< 0 I-::::> (!) a.. I-0 -' 0 u. NO. AC. 0.45 0.6 0.95 ft. ft. JB1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.0 JB2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.0 JB3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.0 EDA-1 1.90 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.0 0.0 EDA-2 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.0 0.0 EDA-3 2.09 0.00 0.22 1.87 1.91 0.0 0.0 PDA-1A 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.0 0.0 PDA-18 1.51 0.00 0.33 1.19 1.32 135.0 2.0 PDA-2 1.26 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.0 0.0 PDA-3 2.08 0.00 0.16 1.92 1.92 0.0 0.0 Exhibit A-1 Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations CONGLETON CARWASH ~ ~ 0 0 -' -' u. u. ~ c:: :I: c:: (.) w I-w (3 I-(.) ~ (!) ~ -' 0 I-0 ::::> z ::::> -' -' w w iU en N It) (!) ~ (!) ~ > () ::::> N 0 It) 0 ft. ft. ftls min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 10.0 6.33 0.0 7.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 10.0 6.33 0.0 7.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 10.0 6.33 0.0 7.7 0.0 389.0 8.5 2.9 2.2 10.0 6.33 5.4 7.7 6.6 315.5 9.0 3.3 1.6 10.0 6.33 3.7 7.7 4.5 850.5 24.0 3.3 4.3 10.0 6.33 12.1 7.7 14.7 265.5 11.0 4.0 1.1 10.0 6.33 1.2 7.7 1.4 120.0 3.3 1.3 3.2 10.0 6.33 8.4 7.7 10.2 315.5 9.0 3.3 1.6 10.0 6.33 3.6 7.7 4.4 850.5 24.0 3.3 4.3 10.0 6.33 12.1 7.7 14.8 0 0 .... It) ::!: 0 £:! In/Hr cfs In/Hr 8.6 0.0 9.9 8.6 0.0 9.9 8.6 0.0 9.9 8.6 7.4 9.9 8.6 5.0 9.9 8.6 16.5 9.9 8.6 1.6 9.9 8.6 11.4 9.9 8.6 4.9 9.9 8.6 16.6 9.9 0 It) 0 0 0 N 0 It) 0 .... 0 ~ 0 ::!: 0 cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 8.4 11.1 9.5 11.6 9.9 5.8 11.1 6.5 11.6 6.8 18.8 11.1 21.3 11.6 22.1 1.8 11.1 2.0 11.6 2.1 13.1 11.1 14.8 11.6 15.4 5.6 11.1 6.3 11.6 6.6 18.9 11.1 21.4 11.6 22.3 9/23/2003 CONGLETON-DRAIN-CALC.xls Exhibit A-1 e < 0 E-< i. u 0 z ~ ..... 00 E-< ...:I ...:I z < = ~ bll -E-< ...:I ·;; 0 0 z ~ ~ -E-< E-< E-< Q # # Ac. min yr JB1 STPT2 5.0 11.9 100 JB2 JB1 3.8 10.6 100 JB3 STPT2 1.3 10.2 100 EDA-1 STPT1 0.9 10.0 100 EDA-2 JB1 0.6 10.0 100 EDA-3 JB2 1.9 10.0 100 PDA-1A STPT1 0.2 10.0 100 PDA-18 JB3 1.3 10.0 100 PDA-2 JB1 0.6 10.0 100 PDA-3 JB2 1.9 10.0 100 *Includes 25% Flow Increase for pipe sizes <27" dia. Exhibit A-2 Pipe Size Calculations CONGLETON CARWASH = -I< bll -I< ·;; ~ ~ "O ~ ~ i:i.. i:i.. Q "J ·-0 ~ 0 ~ ~ -..... -i:i.. 00 "J ~ "O ·-i. .::., = ~ ~ ~ = ..... ~ 0 "O bll "J -I< .... ·-. ::., ~ 0 ~ ..... ~ ·-~ = ~ "O 0 0 0 ·--i. j;:J Q <S z ~ ~ <24" <24" cfs cfs # cfs % II 57.8 57.8 1 57.8 0.03 44.4 44.4 1 44.4 0.02 15.4 19.2 1 19.2 0.83 9.9 12.4 1 12.4 1.61 6.8 8.5 1 8.5 0.16 22.1 22.1 1 22.1 0.03 2.1 2.6 1 2.6 0.07 15.4 19.2 1 19.2 0.83 6.6 8.3 1 8.3 0.15 22.3 22.3 1 22.3 0.03 ••See Plan & Profile for pipe slope used (Pipe slope >or= Friction slope) -I< -C> .... ~ ~ ~ ~ N i:i.. ~ -~ 00 ;;> u fps cfs ' 66 2.4 57.8 66 1.9 44.4 24 6.1 19.2 18 7.0 12.4 24 2.7 8.5 48 1.8 22.1 18 1.5 2.6 24 6.1 19.2 24 2.6 8.2 48 1.8 22.3 ~ e t:I::: "O .... E-< = E-< ~ 0 -~ @) z .... ~ ~ i. ~ ...:I E-< E-< min min 40 0.27 12.19 152 1.35 11.92 65 0.18 10.42 67 0.16 10.16 9 0.05 10.05 60 0.57 10.57 67 0.75 10.75 87 0.24 10.24 9 0.05 10.05 60 0.56 10.56 9/23/2003 CONGLETON-DRAIN-CALC.xls Exhibit A-2 .. ~ ,.Q 8 = z ~ i:i. ~ I 8 .. 0 .... r.rJ c OJ) ·-C'.ll ~ Q ~ 0 s c OJ) ·-C'.ll ~ Q Q) • t::3 r.rJ Exhibit A-3 Hydraulic Grade Calculations CONGLETON CARWASH ,.Q bii = ~ ~ = C'.ll -OJ) c .... = = co: ~ -co: = 0 ·-.... u Q) r.rJ Q) co: i:i. ~ ·-.. ~< .~ = rl'l ~ = ...... "O "O ...... co: =~ c .... u 0 -Q) > = -l< 0 -l< ·-~ ti 0.. ·-0 .. -~ rJ'J C'.ll Q) C'.ll rl'l 0 ~ .. 0 = ~ u :-= = = -co: ~ .. "O "O co: ...... .. = C-' .... u = ~o co: ~ .. "O "O co: ........ = C-' P-4 I 100 I 265.11 I 66 I 28.0 I 0.014 I 23.76 I 1.38 I 11.16 I 0.00719 I 0.19 I 264.66 I 265.05 P-6 100 264.63 66 200.3 0.014 23.76 1.38 11.14 0.00716 0.0 265.05 266.49 I P-5 100 250.27 66 127.7 0.014 23.76 1.38 10.53 0.00641 0.0 266.49 267.31 I • P-2 100 251.18 66 501.0 0.014 23.76 1.38 10.57 0.00645 0.0 267.31 270.54 I P-1 I 100 I 228.01 I 66 I 166.8 I 0.014 I 23.76 I 1.38 I 9.60 I 0.00532 I o.o I 270.54 I 271.43 1___ HGL at the proposed connection 45 ft DIS !of nearest Junction Box .... ~ = -8 0 .. ~ T .... ~ = -0 E-4 JB3 STPT2 PDA-18 JB3 E 0 .... rJ'J = OJ) ·-rl'l ~ Q 100 100 ~ 0 s = OJ) ·;; ~ Q 19.23 19.20 * Includes 25% Flow Increase for pipe sizes <27" dia. ~ .t;:3 rJ'J 24 24 **See Plan & Profile for pipe slope used (Pipe slope >or= Friction slope) 456.0 ...= .... OJ) = ~ ~ 65.0 87.0 *** Design flow column includes the 3.6 cfs increase specified in the attached letter 2.014 = rl'l -OJ) = ·a = co: ~ 0.014 0.014 0.00 -co: = .s .... u ~ rJ'J ~ co: 0.. Q) ...... ~< 3.14 3.14 0.00 u .... = rl'l co: = ...... "O "O ...... co: =~ 0.50 0.50 10.57 I 0.00645 c .... u 0 -Q) > 6.12 6.11 = -l< 0 -l< .... ~ ti i:i. ·-0 .. -r:... rJ'J 0.00834 0.00831 0.0 rl'l ~ rl'l rl'l 0 ~ .. 0 = ~ 0.50 0.0 267.31 u :-= = =-co: ~ .. "O "O co: ........ = C-' 270.25 .... .~ = :;o co: ~ .. "O "O co: ...... .. = C-' 270.25 271.29 271.29 272.02 9/23/2003 CONGLETON-DRAIN-CALC.xls Exhibit A-3 < :: :: w c 0 0 a::: w ..J ..J < < a. LL LL w w 0 I-0 0 (!) a::: ..J ..J z < z z c( c( w ~ w 0 :3 i!= :3 ..J > :E ..J z ~ w w w c( a::: (!) IX'. ..J ~ 0 z · > I-Wz w ..J 0 z w c( 0 >w > c( c I-::::> (!) a. I-. 0 ..J 0 LL NO. AC. 0.45 0 .6 0 .95 ft . ft. PDA-1A 0.4 0 0 .4 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .18 0 .0 0 .0 PDA-18 1 .30 0 .09 0 .00 1.20 1.19 135.0 2 .0 PDA-1 C 0 .23 0 .02 0 .00 0 .22 0 .21 20 .3 0 .6 Exhibit 3 Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations FREEBIRDS . 1. :: :: 0 0 ..J ..J LL LL ~ 'IX'. ::c IX'. u w I-w 0 I-u I= (!) I= :I 0 I- c..i ::::> z ..J w ,,=>.c( ~ ii UJ N U) (!) ~ (!) LL 0 ::::> !::! a !!! a ft. ft . ft/s min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 265 .5 11.0 4 .0 1.1 10 6 .33 1.1 7 .7 1.4 120.0 3 .3 1.3 3.2 10 6 .33 7.5 7 .7 9.1 210.6 4 .1 2 .5 1.5 10 6.33 1.3 7.7 1.6 0 U) 0 .... U) N !: a !::! a In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 8 .6 1.6 9 .9 1.8 8 .6 10.2 9.9 11.7 8 .6 1.8 9 .9 2 .1 0 0 0 o · 0 U) 0 .... !!! a !: CJ In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 11.1 2 .0 11 .6 2 .1 11 .1 13.2 11 .6 13 .8 11.1 2.4 11 .6 2 .5 6/2 7/20 05 0518-D ra inag e-050627 .x is Ex hibit 3 I' " ~ 0 < ~ "O E-c u Q ~ z ~ .... .... -00 I'll~ ,....J ~ E-c .:, = ~ = ~ E-c bJl "O bJl ~ 'ii ~ ·-0 0 CJ c ~ -E-c E-c E-c ~ ~~ # # Ac. min yr cfs PDA-1A JBA 0 .18 10 .0 100 2 .1 PDA-18 JB3 1.19 10 .0 100 13 .8 PDA-1C JBA 0 .21 10 .0 100 2.5 *Includes 25% Flow Increase for pipe sizes <27 " dia . **See Plan & Profile for pipe slope used (Pipe slope >or= Friction slope) Exhibit 4 Pipe Size Calculations FREE BIRDS ., -IC ~ ~ "'L c. .... ~ ~ Q c. "O -~ .... '"' ~ ~ ~ Cl -IC .... = c..,. ~ 0 -IC I'll = .!:P 0 ~ '.::l Q,j '"""' ~ CJ c. "'C ~ Q 0 ·c 0 --<~ z ~ ~ 00 <24" <24" cfs # cfs O/o 2 .6 1 2 .6 0 .19 17 .2 1 17.2 0.67 3 .1 1 3.1 2.31 . , > E-c -IC -.0 u .... 0 CJ ~ ~ ~ N c. ~ ~ -00 u " fps cfs 15 2.1 2 .6 24 5 .5 17 .2 10 5 .7 3 .1 I> •· .. ~. -1 Q,j a = "O .... E-c = H ~ "" -Q,j z ~ @) ~ ... (,J ~ E-c E-c . ' min min 40 0 .31 10 .31 87 0.27 10.27 63 0.18 10 .18 612712005 0518-Drainage-050627 .xis Exhibit 4 ; C ITY OF C OLLEGE STATION Planning & Develop ment Services l l '. \l ~ DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Case No. O::f-3 v Date Submitted fo~1TtJS MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS jg! $200 .00 development permit fee . ~ Drainage and erosion control plan, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies each ~ Notice of Intent (N.0.1.) if disturbed area is greater than 5 acres Date of *Required Preapplication Conference:...:.A..:iip;.:n.:.:·1_4:.1.•-=2~0=05;::;...;3.:.:::0;.;:0~P~·~M:.:.:.·---------­ *(Required for areas of special flood hazard) LEGAL DESCRIPTION ----=Lo=t:..:::2:.:..R=D:....i...-=B=lo=c=k....:1_,_. -=G=a=te=w=a:..1-v...:::S=u=b=di:...:..v=is=ioc:...:n __________ _ APPLICANT'S INFORMATION (Primary Contact for the Project): Name Joel Mitchell _______ --.;:;...=..~=..;..=--------E-Mail _..J,j-=-oe=l.,..@"""m""'"i=tc=h=e=lla=n..:.::d=m=o=r ..... ga=n=·=co=m..:...:.-_ Street Address ----=5"-'1'-'1--'U=n..:..:.iv..:...;e::;..:.r=si:.=...tyc....;D=-n:...:..·v::...::e:.....;E=a=s=t,_. S=u=i=te'-'2=0,,_4'------------------ City ___ C~o_ll_e..,.ge"""--"'S ...... ta~t~io-'"-n ____ State ____ T.._,X...:.,._ __ _ Zip Code ___ 7!...,!7'""84:....:..:.0 __ _ Phone Number 260-6963 ---------'='""-''"-"""~'-----Fax Number 260-3564 -----===--==..::......:..----- PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name _______ ~B=~~a=n..:..=D=a~nn:..:..:a=------E-Mail -----'b=d=a::.:...n;;;.;n=a.,..@....,o:..:..m'""·n:..:..:c=.c=o=m!.!-__ _ Street Address --'""8'-'-7-=0=5_,_K=a=tv~Fr=-=e=e=w=a..,.;y,i....;S=u=it=e'-4.:..:0=8'---- City ----~H=-ou=s=to~n'-'------State ____ T""""X-'-----Zip Code ----=-7-=--70=2=-4-=------ Phone Number ___ __._,(7--'1""'3.._) 4....:..6::;.;:8;;....;-2=6:;...;:0~0____ Fax Number ------'-'(7-'1-=3.._) 4-=-6=8,,_-.:_77!....:7'-4,_. __ ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION: Name _____ ~S=a::.:...m=e:;...=.as:....:...;A=p~pl=ica=-=n~t ____ _ E-Mail ____________ _ Street Address ------------------------------- City ____________ State--------Zip Code--------- Phone Number ____________ _ Fax Number ___________ _ Application is hereby made for the following development specific site/waterway alterations: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS : I, Joel Mitchell , design engineer/owner, hereby acknowledge or affirm that: The information and conclusions contained in the above plans and supporting documents comply with the current requirements of the City of College Station , Texas City Code , Chapter 13 and its associated Drainage Policy and Design Standards . ;Jn47~· ' . ?$ .. ·-J -~( ., ' As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the improvements proposed in this application according to these documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City Code Contractor CERTIFICATIONS: A. I, , certify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is designated to pr ~.nt damage to the structure or its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year storm. r Engineer Date B. I, , certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor, including any basement, of any residential structure, proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps, as amended. Engineer Date C . I, __ , certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood- carrying capacity of the waterway adjoining or crossing this permitted site and that such alterations or development are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerning encroachments of floodways and of floodways fringes . Engineer t1[ ~ Date D. I, , do certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year flood above elevation establishN l ~latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study . Engineer I Date Conditions or comments as part of approval: ----------------------- In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply. FROM :ORR COMM FR X NO . :713468 7774 MIT CHELL ~d MORGAN Jun. 24 2005 01 :38PM P2 06 /24 /2005 13 :30 FA X Q792603564 rai 002 /004 Te!.Q ome. u.., Only ,, II Notice Of Intent (NOi) fOr Stonn Water Dlechargn Associated with Construction Acttvlty under the TPDES Gener11I Permit TPDES Parmll Nulllbl!r. 'TXR16l_1 -1-1-1 OIN Mt.mbar. i_j_i_j_l-1 -LI Fee R-ap1 No .---~---- IMPORTANT: ·U~ tb11 .ii.oiled INSTRU(..""tlONS whllll llOIJlflleling thi• foml. •A&r completins thi~ furm. use the 1111a9bed CUSTOMER CJIKOO,IST to ~ oeiuin all iteais 11'11 oonsphtc Nld acc:ume. •Miains, ille8iblc, QI"~ ~so. may delay fiml Klmowled~ or ooveraee ~ u. genanl permit. App&ation Fw1 YOll must submit the SlOO NOi AtJplicidion Foe 10 TCEQ llndcr impanilr; oover (aee lnatructiom:) 11q die an.ched AJlrolioation Foo fl!Jbmitt.1 fonn . (DO NOT SEND A COPY OP THE NOI WITH TIIE APPLICATION FEE STIBMmAL FORM) Tell m tuJW YCIQ paW tor tMs t~ A. Oft'.R.A.TOR. 2 , Lopl NlllllO (lp8lled o~tty M filed widi die T-Secn!1uy of Sim, COU!l!y, or h1pl document that-ua<ld in b'ming Iha antity): O.C . Gatl!way, L.,P. ~. Mailllii!i ~ 8705 Katy Fr819Way City : Houston 4 . :t>l\o~No.: (713 ) 468 -2600 S. FAXNo . (713)468-7774 6. Type of ()paniitor: C'l llldividual a Corporation CJ C.Oiurty Go:>vmimeat Stat11 : TX E.xtet1$io11 : 03 F~mail Addresa; [J IW!o Proprietorship-0 .B .A. Cl Fe<;hinll Government Clc11y C'JCVmuDllllt ZIPCode: 77024 m Putnenhi.p c SWo GoTD111111ont COiiier: 1 . lndepoadollt()porator. mv... CNo (Iliio~ emityottl~eryorp&nofa1M9et~.on, ebelll. "NO") 8 . Nnmbetol'Employcc~: m~.20; 021-100; [J 101-250 ; [J231-S00;« Cso1 orbilher 0 S••e M Opentor (obeok if adtin..s iM 11111.mc:, then~ with Section C.) Sun. No.lllldg.No .: City: S~: ZIPCodc: 2 . Billin1 C.Olllllot (Ann or C/O): 4 .~No .: S. FAXNo. &mail Addnm : ' FROM :ORR COMM 06 /24/2005 13 :31 FAX 9792603584 FAX NO. :7134687774 MITCHELJ.. and HORGAN Jun. 24 2005 0 1:38PM P3 "'1003 /004 1. N&me: Bryan Danna Ti1le : Manager Company: D.C. Gateway, L.P. 2. l>honeNo.: ( 713 ) 468 • 2600 D. JUtGULATKD !N1TrY (RE) INFORMA.TJO~ ON PROJEC'l' OR SITE l. TCEQ luued RE RJ!lf'-llea Numbet"(RN) ('tfavllit.blo): 2. Name of Plojeotot Sim : Fre&birds at G&teway 3 . l'bysi.cal Add!us of Projeot or Site: (enter in ttpaQeS below) StnetNumbcr; Slnoct:Name : No Address City (nGuutto tho~): COi o SIBtion ZIP Code (nearoft to tho iria: ): nMo Co1111ty (CounU.S if> I): Brazos 4. It' DO pbysloel ad~1 (Sneet NUmber ct Streef Nmno). prnvidti • wrilton location -.:cas dosoriplion tmt 01n be med ftlr !Oc:.tiJla the site: (Ex.; 2 mil• w....t W:im in1ene0tion of' Hwy 290 ct IH3~ on Hwy 290 ~uth) West of SH6 on Unlvernt Dr1ve, in the Gatewa Center :I . latihde; 96 31' 32" N L<nlgitude ; 30 64' 01 • 6 . Simdlird lndulttial ~D (SIC) QQdc:; U4l 8. Ia tho pro;e~hrita !0111ii:d oo Indl1111 Collll1ry Lmds7 [] Yea Ill No JrYes, you m\ISt oblain authori7.aiion tbroll811 EPA. Region VI . w 8ui1c No./BWgNo.: 1. I Iu a Pollll!ion Prevention Plui boon pseparcd .ii ~in Lbe senora! permit? m Y"" l:JNt> 1f No, coverag.e ns.Y be denied as tile PPP is ftlquirtd al IBc: time the NOI ia aubnlitlod to TCEQ. 3. Provido the 111m11 ofthc: ~Di \Wier body (I~ lllraf.ll. laU, ~l'I hh), MS4 Opmotor (if applicable) and the~ number whotc sronn water runoff will flow from the QOllll\nletian o. MS4 Operator: City Qf College St11tlon Reoeivill8 Waiar Body. _e_u_rto_n_c_l'Mk ______ _ TCJ3Q·20022 (07/12/:llllM) FROM :ORR COMM 06121/200~ \3:~2 FAX 9792603564 G. CERTIFICATION L Bryan Danna 1)tfMd 07prlnttd11..nc FAX NO. :7134687774 MITC'BELI. and MORGAN Manager Jun. 24 2005 01:39PM P4 la! 004 .'004 certify uttdt:r pculcy of l•w tMt this doon1Mot aod all 11.tacbmcntii wer11 prol)end under rny direodQD or npani1ion in ~ with• ll)'ll(om dosipd to lll8Ul'e that qu&lified peno1111ol prorerly g,111hcr 1111d avalll&tc ttu. infonution ~ubtillttod. Sued on my inquiry of tile pm<>Q or pGfllOD» who IDIQl .. O tho syetcm. or tlwltO ~ diteotly respoosible fnf gllherins the i11fonnali011, the ~oa submitted ls, to~ best of my bow1cdp and belief; true, 8CQ\ltate, Mid oomplote . 111111 aware tlMlro Vt> signifi01111t peml1i._ for :ubmitting false in.Wnn.bon. inchxliJJA the potaibillty c;>f fine Mid iiiipriaonmcut for knowina violciooa. l further oertify that I am •uthoriied 1111dor 30 TUIUI AdminifltJ:alivc; Code §305 .44 to !i11n and !Rlbmit Ibis dC'l<:11111eot, adc~ provide doclllllenbltion in proof of au<:h alrthorization requost. TCBQ-20022 (V7/l 1n004) l'•s• 3 nf3 ------------------'~ Molly Hitchcock City of College Station Planning & Development P.O. Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 MITCHELL M M MORGAN June 24, 2005 RE: Freebirds (lot 2RD) at SH6 near University Road, College Station, Texas- Drainage letter Dear Molly: The purpose of th is letter is to discuss the drainage infrastructure required for the proposed Freebirds Restaurant to be located on Lot 2RD of the Gateway Subdivision . The drainage design for this property was submitted as a master plan for Lots 2RB (Congleton Carwash), 2RE (Chicken Express), and Lot 2RD (Proposed Freebirds). Please refer to the drainage correspondence (attached) dated 9/22/2003 for drainage analysis on these three lots . Detention for this property is provided through regional facilities located north of the College Station Home Depot. Analysis of this facility is detailed in the Bury &Partners-SA, Inc. 2002 Drainage/Detention Report for the Home Depot. Excerpts of this report are provided in the attached September 2003 Mitchell & Morgan drainage correspondence for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE. The proposed drainage patterns for the Freebirds site remains the same as those presented in the September 2003 drainage master plan . The Freebirds site is shown as drainage area PDA-1 B in the September 2003 Master Plan Mitchell & Morgan calculations Exhibit 2. Two minor changes have been made to the previous drainage design. An additional inlet has been added to this drainage area to collect water from the north east port ion of the Chicken Express and Freebirds Restaurants, discharging through a ten inch (1 O") pipe to a junction box in the northern entrance to the Freebirds site . This inlet has created a new drainage area, PDA-1 C. From the junction box stormwater drains through the existing fifteen inch (15") pipe to the north. The existing headwall that collects water from the SH6 TxDOT right-of-way will be removed, and replaced further east. Please see Freebirds Exhibit 2 for the updated proposed drainage areas . Drainage and pipe sizing calculations are provided for the new drainage area in Exhibits 3 and 4 . Please note that the pipe slopes for the proposed ten inch (1 O") and fifteen inch (15 ") lines are greater than the friction slopes of these pipes, 2.5% and 0 .82% constructed slopes, respectively . 511 UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, SUITE 204 • COLLEGE STATION, TX 77840 • T 979 .260 .6963 • F 979 .260.3564 CIVIL ENGINEERING • HYDRAULICS • HYDROLOGY • UTILITIES • STREETS • SITE PLANS • SUBDIVISIONS info@mitchellan dmorgan .com • www.mitchellandmorgan .com Review of the September 2003 stormwater analysis for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE as well as the Bury &Partners-SA, Inc. 2002 Drainage/Detention Report for the Home Depot indicates that the drainage design for the proposed Freebirds Restaurant will meet the drainage objectives of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards . The peak flow rates have changed slightly from the September 2003 stormwater analysis for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE due to the addition of an inlet on the Freebirds site . The reduction in drainage area PDA-1 B, as originally described in the September 2003 stormwater analysis for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE, has reduced peak flows into the Home depot detention pond . If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, /;) Rebecca Riggs, EIT Graduate Engineer cc: file Bryan Danna STM3 Architects Attachments: Mitchell & Morgan September 2003 drainage letter for Lots 2RB, 2RD, and 2RE Mitchell & Morgan Drainage Calculat ions S:\Proj\0518-FreeBirds\docs\0518-drainage_letter050624.doc . w 0: ... c ftl .... G'~ J:.f • CJI CD .E • CJI P"\ ~ cac u~ ·-~ c e ~ . IU . D. ... --cu .... z: Cl l:I€ -IV Ea.. . P"\ -8 P"\ f/. September 22 , 2003 Spencer Thompson City of College Station Development Services P.O . Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77840 CCJV~tf CilfRlr( A :SH Re: Drainage Requirements/01 Ga~••tl} SMri~n , Chicken Express and Future Restauran.t to be located on Lot 2RD Dear Spencer, The purpose of this letter is to discuss the drainage infrastructure required for the proposed Gateway Station, to be located on Lot 2RB, Chicken Express, to be located on Lot 2RE, and the future unnamed restaurant, to be located on Lot 2RD of the Gateway Subdivision. The proposed development will heretofore be referred to as the Congleton property. Per the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards (DPDS), detention is required to store excess volumes of stormw~ter runoff and discharge it at a rate equal to or less than the pre-development peak flow rate . As is the case with other properties in the Gateway Subdivision, this detention requirement is fulfilled through the use of a regional detention facility, located to the north of the College Station Home Depot. While the runoff from the Congleton property sites will not be discharged into the detentioh pond, the pond design provides-excess stormwater detention for the contributing areas that will compensate for. the volume increase on the adjacent properties after their respective development. The drainage calculations, pipe design, and detention pond routing calculations for the Gateway Center are detailed in the Drainage/Detention Report for the Home Depot (Bury & Partners-SA, Inc ., 2002). These calculations include a post-development runoff c~fficient of C=0.85 for drainage sub-basin 7. The drainage design for the Congleton property has a few variations from the original report that have caused an increase in the peak flow for all of the relevant rainfall events. The first of these is that the estimated runoff coefficient used in the Bury & Partners report is C=0.85, lower than the majority of drainage b~ins within the Gateway subdivision . There is no indication in the report as to why this assumption was made . The actual runoff coefficient for the Congleton property is approximately C=0 .88 . In addition , an area calculation error was made for the Congleton property (drainage sub-basin 7) resulting in a difference of 0.27 acres . Finally, the Bury & Partners report used TxDOT IDF relationships for Rational Method calculations instead of City of College Station IDF relationships . At the direction of the City of College Station , the drainage design for the Congleton property employs the TxDOT IDF curves in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the Gateway Subdivis ion . These differences result in an estimated flow incre~se of approximately 3.6 cfs from the original Bury & Partners report. These increases were hot in the original design ; however, the Bury & Partners -SA , Inc . report demonstrated that significant reductions for total peak runoff from the Gateway Subdivision will occur in all studi.ed rainfall events . This reauction is nearly 115 cfs for the 100-year rainfall event. This should more than offset the small increase resulting from variation in the estimated and actual drainage parame ters . EXHIBIT 1 ,. ::-, Exhibit 2 from the Bury & Partners drainage report shows Lot 2R (all included subdivisions) located within the post-development drainage basin DA-IP. Exhibit 3 further demonstrates that the lot is part of drainage sub-basin 7 . ~addition to evidence presented within the report that only drainage basin DA-2P (32.5 ac .) is routed through the detention pond, StormCAD outputs provide data indicating that drainage sub-basin 7 is included in the calculations for the public 66" RCP (specified as a 60 " RCP in the report) storm sewer, which is designed to bypass the regional detention pond. As a result, the proposed Congleton property sites have met the detention requirement specified in the College Station DPDS. The stormwater runoff from the proposed developments enters the 66" RCP via a 24" RCP connector. A grate inlet will be placed between Lots 2RB and 2RD and sized for the 100-year rainfall event. The water will then be canied·thr.ough the 24" connector to a junction box at the northeast end of the development. From there it will be carried in a 24" RCP and tied into the existing 66" RCP storm sewer approximately 45 ft downstream of the nearest junction box. Ultimately, the resultant flow will be discharged into Burton Creek. In order to minimize disturbance to the existing storm sewer, no junction box will be placed at the proposed connection. While not standard practice, the 66" pipe provides adequate access to the proposed 24" RCP if maintenance is required. The carwash drainage infrastructure, including connection pipes and grate inlet sizes and locations, is detailed in Sheet 1 of the Gateway Station construction drawings . In addition, Hydraulic Grade Line calculations were performed for the 66" RCP storm sewer in order to assess the effects of the existing water surface on the proposed inlet. New calculations were performed because the Bury & Partners drainage report included the design of a 60" RCP storm sewer that has since been modified to a 66" RCP . The HGL at the proposed Congleton property inlet is approximately 272.02 ft , providing more than a foot of clearance between the water surface and the proposed top of grate . Drainage, pipe sizing, and hydraulic grade calculations have been provided as Appendices A-1, A-2 and A-3 . Review of the stormwater analysis indicates that the drainage design presented in this report accounts for detention and will provide ample conveyance to meet the drainage objectives of the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Standards. u have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me . i ! Veronica J.B. ManagingP Cc: -File D rew Congleton, Owner Frank Mihalopoulos , Del Mar Realty Investor s Attachments : Excerpts from Bury & Partners , Inc . Drainage/Detention Report for t he Hom e Depot, August 200 2 Mitchill & Morgan Drainage Calcu lations ································--·-··--·~~· ----------< l!) (j ;: ;: ;: ~ > < w < w 0:: 0 0 g~ 0:: :I: 0:: 0:: < ...J ...J ;: ~ w < < (/) I-LL LL LL -0 w I-~ w ::> z c c c (.) ...J ...J ~ (!) w 0:: w z9 LL LL~ wz ~~ (!) 0 LL U z z (/) w CJ < < > 5 :I: 5 5w 0:: :I: 0:: -:E ...J :E (3 I-LL -CJ z ...J 0:: 0 tt 0:: ~ 0:: >: w I-WU u I-~ < w 0:: ...J ~ (!) ~g 0:: ~ 0:: 0 0 I-0.. zw Wz w ...J w (!) ::> z oo 0 ...J ...J w 0 It) 0 0 0 0 ::> 0 >w ><t >> ::> w I-...J I-w < (/) N It) 0 ..... It) N 0 I() 0 ..... c I-~ 0:: (.) 0 ...J 0 LL O< (!) ~ (!)> (/) LL (/) > (.) ::> £:! 0 ~ 0 ::::: 0 £:! 0 ~ 0 ::::: 0 No. Ac. % ft. ft. ft. tus ft. tus min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 1E 37.5 65.0 0.60 335 1.0 2.0 1700 2.8 300 6.0 14.0 14.0 5.4 121.1 6.6 148.4 7.4 167.3 8.5 191.4 9.6 216.8 10.1 226.2 2E 39.6 0.0 0.55 420 37.0 4.3 0 0 0 0 1.6 10.0 6.3 137.8 7.7 167.5 8.6 188.1 9.9 214.8 11.1 242.8 11.6 253.5 2P 32.5 90.0 0.90 325 2.0 1.0 400.0 4.8 1850 6.0 12.0 12.0 5.8 170.3 7.1 207.9 8.0 233.9 9.1 267.4 10.3 302.5 10.8 315.7 4E 5 8 0.55 750 3 2 0 0 0 0 6.3 10.0 6.3 17.4 7.7 21.2 8.6 23.7 9.9 27: 1 11.1 30.7 11.6 32.0 5P 2.3 10 0.55 600 3 2 0 0 150 6 5.4 10.0 6.3 8.0 7.7 9.7 8.6 10.9 9.9 12.5 11.1 14.1 11.6 14.7 Storm Drainaqe Area Calculations 1 11.0 90 0.90 350 A 5 510 3 1750 6 8.9 ·10.0 6.3 . 62.7 7.7 76.2 8.6 85.6 9.9 97.7 11.1 110.5 11.6 115.3 2 6.09 90 0.90 300 14 13 360 13 0 0 0.8 10.0 6.3 34.7 7.7 42.2 8.6 47.3 9.9 54.1 11.1 61.1 11.6 63.8 3 0.45 100 0.90 120 1.5 4 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 2.6 7.7 3.1 8.6 3.5 9.9 4.0 11.1 4.5 11.6 4.7 4 3.13 90 0.90 50 1 2 600 8 0 0 1.7 10.0 6.3 17.8 7.7 21.7 8.6 24.3 9.9 27.8 11.1 31.4 11.6 32.8 5 1.87 90 0.90 300 5 6 0 0 0 0 0.8 10.0 6.3 10.6 7.7 12.9 8.6 14.5 9.9 16.6 11.1 18.8 11.6 19.6 6 1.05 90 0.90 150 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6.3 6.0 7.7 7.3 8.6 8.2 9.9 9.3 11.1 10.5 11.6 11.0 c z,_2,5 -.85 0.85 -300 4-6 -n -0 -o -0 --0.8~ .r.to.o ~6.3~ -13.•~ ~7_7_ _flu .. ""3;8J ftc.3 9.9~ ~2.-1-.0~ -U~-'1-~2tt :u~ '.'2J:7.::~ 8 0.75 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.Q 6.3 4.3 7.7 5.2 8.6 5.8 9.9 6.7 11.1 7.5 11.6 : 7.9 9 1.44 90 0.90 140 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.4 10.0 6.3 8.2 7.7 10.0 8.6 11.2 9.9 12.8 11.1 14.4 11.6 15.1 10 1.05 90 0.90 360 3.5 6 0 0 0 0 1.0 10.0 6.3 6.0 7.7 7.3 8.6 8.2 9.9 9.3 11.1 10.5 11.6 11.0 11 0.49 90 0.90 175 3 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 2.8 7.7 3.4 8.6 3.8 9.9 4.3 11.1 4.9 11.6 5.1 12 0.76 100 0.90 200 1.5 6 0 0 0 0 0.6 10.0 6.3 4.3 7.7 5.3 8.6 5.9 9.9 6.7 11.1 7.6 11.6 8.0 13 1.78 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 10.1 7.7 12.3 8.6 13.8 9.9 15.8 11.1 17.9 11.6 18.6 14 0.29 90 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 1.7 7.7 2.0 8.6 2.3 9.9 2.6 11.1 2.9 11.6 3.0 15 0.3 100 0.90 180 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.5 10.0 6.3 1.7 7.7 2.1 8.6 2.3 9.9 2.7 11.1 3.0 11.6 3.1 16 0.09 100 0.90 80 1.5 6 0 0 0 0 0.2 10.0 6.3 0.5 7.7 0.6 8.6 0.7 9.9 0.8 11.1 0.9 11.6 0.9 17 1.18 100 0.90 240 2 6 0 0 0 0 0.7 10.0 6.3 6.7 7.7 8.2 8.6 9.2 9.9 10.5 11.1 11.8 11.6 12.4 L.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~BURY+PARTNERS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ·~~~~~~~~-~~------------------------------- Label Upstream Upstream Inlet Inlet Area CA (acres) (acres) P-1 37 .50 22 .50 (,..p.2 :z.irn 2 :12 P -5 0.49 0.44 P-6 1 .78 1 .60 P-4 0 .29 0 .26 Title : HD-College Station j :\048\030\public drain .stm 09/03/02 09 :30 :55 AM Scenario: Base Pipe Report Upstream Calculated System Total Length Constructed Section Mannings Full Upstream System CA Intensity System (ft) Slope Size n Capacity Invert (acres) (in/hr) Flow (ft/ft) (cfs) Elevation (cfs) (ft) 22.~.Q-_J 0.05 228 .01 166 .80 0 .005036 60inch 0 .014 171.61 265 .29 2'4 .63 -9 .9,,.. 24-7 .58 5() .00 O.OM9.90 69-fncl'I 1 -0~01-4--11e .e~ -264.4!!5 25 .07 9 .76 246 .67 127.72 0 .005011 60inch 0 .014 171 .18 261 .95 26 .67 9 .71 261 .03 200 .30 0 .004993 60inch 0 .014 170.87 261 .31 26 .93 9 .63 261 .51 28 .00 0 .005000 60 inch 0 .014 171 .00 260 .31 Bury & Partners © Haestad Methods , Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury , CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Downstream Hydraulic Invert Grade Elevation Line Out (ft) (ft) 264.45 274.18 26.f-.95 -268.93- 261 .31 267.60 260 .31 265 .26 260.17 264 .66 Hydraulic Grade Line In (ft) 275 .66 -2'1"4 .tS> 268 .93 267 .60 265 .26 Project Engineer: BPf User StormCAD v4 .1.1 [4 .2014) Page 1 of 1 ~· ~ t t • • • • • t • t t t t • • • • • t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Hydrograph R~port Hyd. No. 2 Post Developed Conditions Hydrograph type Storm frequency ratffage area==- lntensity = 1-D-F Curve Hydrograph Discharge Table Time --Outflow (min cfs) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 26.27 52 .54 78 .81 105.08 131 .35 157 .62 183.89 210 .16 236 .43 262 .70 288 .97 315.24 « 302 .11 288 .97 275 .84 262 .70 249 .57 236.43 223 .30 210 .16 197 .03 183.89 170.76 157 .62 144.49 131 .35 118.22 105 .08 91 .95 78 .81 65.68 52.54 Time -Outflow (min cfs) 33 39.41 34 26 .27 35 13.14 ...End Page 1 English Peak discharge = 315.24 cfs Time interval = 1 min Runoff coeff. = 0 .9 Time of cone. (Tc)= 12 min Reced . limb factor= 2 Total Volume= 340,462 cuft .,---• Hydrograph Report r. I Page 1 i • English I Hyd. No . 2 • It Reservoir Peak discharge It Hydrograph type = 74.49 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time interval = 1 min • Inflow hyd. No. = 1 Reservoir name = POND .. Max. Elevation = 264.74 ft Max. Storage = 263,053 cuft • Storage Indication method used. Total Volume= 339,706 cuft It Hydrograph Discharge Table • • Time Inflow Elevation ClvA ClvB Clv C Clv D WrA WrB WrC WrD Outflow • (hrs) cfs ft cfs cfs cf s cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs 0.07 105 .08 261 .28 0 .57 0 .57 1.15 • 0.08 131 .35 261.43 1.31 1.31 2 .62 • 0 .10 157.62 261 .62 2 .28 2 .28 4 .57 0.12 183 .89 261 .84 3 .79 3.79 7 .59 lit 0 .13 210 .16 262 .06 5 .64 5 .64 11 .28 0.15 236.43 262 .25 6 .92 6 .92 13 .83 II 0 .17 262 .70 262 .46 8 .94 8.94 17.88 0.18 288 .97 262 .69 10 .68 10 .68 21 .36 • .20 3'f5.21 262.93 2.5-3 -25 .05 • 0.22 302 .11 263 .15 14 .35 14.35 28 .69 0.23 288 .97 263 .35 15 .70 15 .70 31 .39 0.25 275 .84 263 .54 16 .69 16 .69 ' 33 .37 • ---- 0 .27 ·262 .70 263 .71 17 .51 17 .51 35 .01 • 0.28 . 249.57 263 .88 17 .93 17 .93 35 .86 0.30 236 .43 264 .02 18 .64 18 .64 37 .28 • 0.32 223 .30 264 .14 22.83 22.83 45 .65 0.33 210 .16 264 .25 26 .00 26.00 52.01 • 0.35 197 .03 264 .35 28 .53 28 .53 57.06 • 0.37 183 .89 264.43 30 .58 30 .58 61.17 0.38 170 .76 264 .50 32 .28 32 .28 64.56 • 0.40 157 .62 264 .57 33.64 33.64 67 .28 0.42 144.49 264 .62 34 .76 34.76 69 .52 • 0.43 131 .35 264 .66 35 .64 35 .64 71 .27 0.45 118 .22 264 .70 36 .32 36.32 72 .65 • 0.47 105.08 264 .72 36 .80 36.80 73 .61 0.48 91 .95 264 .74 37 .11 37 .11 74.21 • 0 . 7..8. 264 .-14 < 3T:. 41 . 4 74.49 «< • 0.52 65 .68 264 .74 37 .22 37 .22 74.43 0.53 52 .54 264 .73 37.03 37 .03 74 .06 • 0.55 39.41 264 .71 36 .69 36 .69 73 .37 0.57 26 .27 264 .69 36 .18 36 .18 72 .36 • 0.58 13 .14 264 .65 35.50 35 .50 71 .01 • 0 .60 0 .00 264 .61 34 .68 34 .68 69 .35 0 .62 0 .00 264 .57 33 .75 33 .75 67 .50 • 0.63 0 .00 264 .53 32 .83 32 .83 65 .65 0.65 0 .00 264.49 31 .91 31.91 63 .82 • Continues on next page ... I • • ' • • • a < ~ ~ w 0 0 0 0:: w ...J ...J < < c.. u. u. w w 0 t-c c (!) 0:: ...J ...J z < z z < <( w ~ w (.) :3 ~ :3 z ...J > :!: ...J < w w w <( 0:: (!) 0:: ...J < t-0 z > .... Wz w ...J 0:: 0 z w < 0 >w > <( 0 .... ::::> (!) c.. .... 0 ...J 0 u. NO. AC. 0.45 0.6 0.95 ft. ft. JB1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.0 J82-0.00 ··-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.0 ·-JB3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.0 EDA-1 1.90 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.0 0.0 --EDA-2 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.0 0.0 EDA-3 2.09 0.00 0.22 1.87 1.91 0.0 0.0 PDA-111 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.0 0.0 PDA-1B 1.51 0.00 0.33 1.19 1.32 135.0 2.0 PDA-2 1.26 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.0 0.0 PDA-3 2.08 0.00 0.16 1.92 1.92 0.0 0.0 Exhibit A-1 Rational Formula Drainage Area Calculations CONGLETON CARWASH ~ =:: 0 0 ...J ...J u. u. ~ 0:: :I: 0:: " w t-w (3 t-" ~ (!) ~ ...J 0 .... u ::::> z ::::> ...J ...J w w c; "' N ll) (!) ~ (!) ~ > (.) ::::> £:! a ~ a ft. ft. ft/s min min In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 10.0 6.33 0.0 7.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 10.0 6.33 0.0 7.7 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 10.0 6.33 0.0 7.7 0.0 389.0 8.5 2.9 2.2 10.0 6.33 5.4 7.7 6.6 315.5 9.0 3.3 1.6 10.0 6.33 3.7 7.7 4.5 850.5 24.0 3.3 4.3 10.0 6.33 12.1 7.7 14.7 265.5 11.0 4.0 1.1 10.0 6.33 1.2 7.7 1.4 120.0 3.3 1.3 3.2 10.0 6.33 8.4 7.7 10.2 315.5 9.0 3.3 1.6 10.0 6.33 3.6 7.7 4.4 850.5 24.0 3.3 4.3 10.0 6.33 12.1 7.7 14.8 0 0 .... ll) :::: a £:! In/Hr cfs In/Hr 8.6 0.0 9.9 8.6 0.0 9.9 8.6 0.0 9.9 8.6 7.4 9.9 8.6 5.0 9.9 8.6 16.5 9.9 8.6 1.6 9.9 8.6 11.4 9.9 8.6 4.9 9.9 8.6 16.6 9.9 0 ll) 0 0 0 N 0 ll) 0 .... a ~ a :::: a cfs In/Hr cfs In/Hr cfs 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.6 0.0 8.4 11.1 9.5 11.6 9.9 C---·-I-5.8 11.1 6.5 11.6 6.8 18.8 11.1 21.3 11.6 22.1 -1.8 11.1 2.0 11.6 2.1 13.1 11.1 14.8 11.6 15.4 5.6 11.1 6.3 11.6 6.6 18.9 11.1 21.4 11.6 22.3 9/23/2003 CONGLETON-DRAIN-CALC.xls Exhibit A-1 e < 0 ~ ... u 0 z ~ .... 00 ~ ~ ~ = z ~ bJ) -~ ~ ·-0 0 fl} z CJ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ -# # Ac. min yr JB1 STPT2 5.0 11.9 100 JB2 JB1 3.8 10.6 100 JB3 STPT2 1.3 10.2 100 -· EDA-1 STPT1 0.9 10.0 100 EDA-2 JB1 0.6 10.0 100 EDA-3 JB2 1.9 10.0 100 PDA-1A STPT1 0.2 10.0 100 PDA-18 JB3 1.3 10.0 100 -PDA-2 JB1 0.6 10.0 100 PDA-3 JB2 1.9 10.0 100 *Includes 25% Flow Increase for pipe sizes <27" dia. Exhibit A-2 Pipe Size Calculations CONGLETON CARWASH = -I< bJ) -I< ·-~ ~ fl} Q. Q. "O it; ~ ~ fl} ·-0 ~ 0 ~ ~ -.... -Q. 00 "' ~ "O ·-""' 4> ~ 4> = .:. = ..... ~ 0 fl} -I< .... "O bJ) ·-• :. it; 0 it; ..... ~ ·-CJ = ~ "O 0 0 0 ·--""' ~~ <fi: z ~ ~ <24" <24" cfs cfs # cfs % II 57.8 57.8 1 57.8 0.03 44.4 44.4 1 44.4 0.02 15.4 19.2 1 19.2 0.83 9.9 12.4 1 12.4 1.61 6.8 8.5 1 8.5 0.16 22.1 22.1 1 22.1 0.03 2.1 2.6 1 2.6 0.07 15.4 19.2 1 19.2 0.83 6.6 8.3 1 8.3 0.15 22.3 22.3 1 22.3 0.03 ••See Plan & Profile for pipe slope used (Pipe slope >or= Friction slope) -I< .0 ·-CJ ~ ~ ~ N Q. ~ -~ 00 ;;>-u fps cfs ' 66 2.4 57.8 66 1.9 44.4 24 6.1 19.2 18 7.0 12.4 24 2.7 8.5 48 1.8 22.1 18 1.5 2.6 24 6.1 19.2 24 2.6 8.2 48 1.8 22.3 ~ e "O = ·-~ = ~ ~ ""' -~ @) z ... ~ ~ ""' CJ ~ ~ ~ --min min 40 0.27 12.19 152 1.35 11.92 65 0.18 10.42 67 0.16 10.16 9 0.05 10.05 60 0.57 10.57 67 0.75 10.75 87 0.24 10.24 9 0.05 10.05 60 0.56 10.56 9/23/2003 CONGLETON-DRAIN-CALC.xls Exhibit A-2 '"' ~ ,.Q 8 = z ~ .g 00. Q, .... ~ s = Q.() . .. ~ Exhibit A-3 Hydraulic Grade Calculations CONGLETON CARWASH .c bii d <ll ·o.o d .... -eo:s = 0 .... -CJ ~ 00. ~ eo:s .~ '3 ,,, = = '"' .... .c-.... CJ 0 d -IC 0 -IC .... ~ 1j =.. <ll Cl> <ll <ll 0 ~ '"' 0 CJ :.= = = -eo:s Cl> -.~ = '30 eo:s Cl> ~ =.. ~ f---~--P-4 <ll ~ Q <ll ~ Q • !::l 00. = ~ ~ = = eo:s ~ =.. 4,) .... '"' ~< "O "O ..... = =~ -~ > .... 0 '"' -~ 00. .e ~ '"' "O "O = ..... '"' =~ '"' "O "O = ..... '"' =~ 100 I 265.11 I 66 I 28.0 I 0.014 I 23.76 I 1.38 I 11.16 I 0.00719 I 0.19 I 264.66 I 265.05 RH=~~~Eiit~~~~~ . __ _!':6 ·~ 100 264.63 66 200.3 0.014 23.76 1.38 11.14 0.00116 o.o 265.05 t 266.49 _, P-5 100 250.27 66 127.7 0.014 23.76 1.38 10.53 0.00641 0.0 266.49 I 267.31 l-----···----P-2 100 251.18 66 501.0 0.014 23.76 1.38 10.57 0.00645 0.0 267.31 270.54 ·--··--··------1 P-1 100 228.01 66 166.8 0.014 23.76 1.38 9.60 0.00532 0.0 270.54 I 271.43 1-HGL at the proposed connection 45 ft D/S of nearest Junction Box -~ i3 -8 0 '"' ~ -4,) = -0 ~ ~ 0 -00. Q, .... <ll ~ Q g s Q, . .. <ll ~ Q ~ .!::l 00. 456.0 i = 4,) ~ 2.014 = <ll ·o.o = ·a = eo:s ~ 0.00 -eo:s = 0 .... -~ 00. ~ = =.. ~ .... '"' ~< 0.00 CJ .... '3 <ll = = a.. .... "O "O ..... eo:s =~ 10.57 I 0.00645 .c-.... CJ 0 -Cl> > =-IC 0 -IC .... ~ 1:j =.. .... 0 a.. -~00. 0.0 <ll 4,) <ll <ll 0 ~ a.. 0 = .... ~ 267.31 ~ = = -eo:s ~ '"' "O "O = ..... a.. ttl ~ 270.25 -.~ = '3 0 eo:s 4,) a.. "O "O = ..... a.. =~ 1---I JB3 PDA-18 ,__ STPT2 I 100 I 19.23 I 24 I 65.0 0.014 3.14 0.50 6.12 0.00834 0.50 270.25 I 271.29 JB3 100 19.20 24 87.0 0.014 3.14 0.50 6.11 0.00831 0.0 271.29 272.02 • Includes 25% Flow Increase for pipe sizes <27" dia. •• See Plan & Profile for pipe slope used (Pipe slope >or= Friction slope) ••• Design flow column includes the 3.6 cfs increase specified in the attached letter 9/23/2003 CONGLETON-DRAIN-CALC.xls Exhibit A-3