The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFPCM2012-500218 Construction DocsFina l Opinion of Probable Construction Cost -December 10, 2012 .. Co llege Station Medical + Senior Living / Unit Quantitites Cost Prices Arnold Rd & Normand Arnold Rd & No rmand Dr. Normand Dr. Dr. Total Normand Dr. (Public) Total (Private) (Public) (Private) ROADWAY MOBILIZATION, OVERHEAD, CONSTRUCTION STAK ING LS 0 .75 0 .25 1 $45,000.00 $33,750 .00 $11 ,250.00 $45,000.00 EXCAVATION (ROADWAY} CY 3088 760 3848 $7 .25 $22 ,388 .00 $5,510.00 $27,898.00 EMBANKMENT CY 309 466 775 $5.75 $1,776.75 $2 ,679.50 $4,456 .25 REMOVE & REPLACE EXIST SOIL CY 895 1135 2030 $13.00 $11,635 .00 $14,755 .00 $26,390.00 COMPACTE D CHEMICALLY STABILIZED SUBGRADE (6 ") SY 7516 2386 9902 $2.25 $16,911 .00 $5,368.50 $22,279.50 LIME (27 LB/SY) TON 102 32 134 $170.00 $17,340.00 $5 ,440.00 $22,780.00 COMPACTED CRUSHED LIMESTONE BASE (8") SY 6790 2195 8985 $13.50 $91,665.00 $29,632 .50 $121,297 .50 PRIME COAT SY 5562 1814 7376 $2.15 $11,958 .30 $3,900.10 $15 ,858.40 OCST SY 5562 1814 7376 $1 .70 $9,455.40 $3,083 .80 $12,539.2 0 TACK COAT SY 5562 1814 7376 $1 .50 $8,343 .00 $2,721.00 $11,064.00 HMA TY D (2 .5") SY 5562 1814 7376 $13 .75 $76,477.50 $24,942 .50 $101,420.00 CONC CURB & GUITER LF 2750 747 3497 $13.00 $35,750.00 $9,711.00 $45,461.00 MONO CURB LF 759 79 838 $3 .50 $2,656 .50 $276.50 $2,933 .00 PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS (CONCRETE) EA 2 0 2 $2 ,500.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS (CONCRETE) EA 3 1 4 $5,750.00 $17,250.00 $5,750.00 $23,000.00 8 " JOINTED PORTLAND CEMENT SF 6535 1719 8254 $4.75 $31,041.25 $8,165.25 $39,206.50 CURB RAMPS EA 6 4 10 $600.00 $3,600.00 $2,400.00 $6,000.00 CONC SIDEWALK (4") SF 17237 5750 22987 $3.50 $60,329.50 $20,125.00 $80,454.50 CONC PAVERS SF 0 430 430 10 $0.00 $4,300.00 $4,300.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL MO 0 1 1 $2 ,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,500 .00 ROADWAY SUBTOTAL $457,327.20 $162:s10.6s $619,837 .85 REMO VALS PREPARING ROW ACRE 2.17 0 .71 2.88 $2,500.00 $5,425 .00 $1,775 .00 $7,200.00 SALV, HAUL, & STKPL RCL ASPH ((4 "-6") SY 0 2400 2400 $4.50 $0 .00 $10,800.00 $10,800.00 REMOVE EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTU RES LS 0 1 1 $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $2 ,500.00 REMOVALS SUBTOTAL $5,425.00 $15,075.00 $20,500.00 ILLUM IN ATION STREET LIGHT ILLUMINATION ASSEMBLY EA 3 4 $5,000.00 $5 ,000.00 $15 ,000.00 $20,000.00 STREET LIGHT CONC FND EA 3 4 $750.00 $750.00 $2 ,250.00 $3,000.00 CONDT (PVC) (SCH 40) 2" LF 175 685 860 $10.00 $1 ,750.00 $6,850.00 $8,600.00 ELEC CONDR (NO . 6) INSULATED LF 350 685 1035 $2.15 $752 .50 $1 ,472.75 $2,225 .25 ILLUMINATION SUBTOTAL $8,252.50 $25,572.75 $33,825.25 WATER LI NE 12" PVC C-900 (STRUCTURAL) LF 198 198 $44.50 $8,811.00 $0 .00 $8,811 .00 12" PVC C-900 (NON STRUCTURAL) LF 1155 1155 $37.50 $43,312.50 $0.00 $43,312.50 12 " GATE VALVE & BOX EA 2 2 $1,850.00 $3 ,700.00 $0.00 $3,700.00 12" 90~ BEND EA 2 2 $650.00 $1,300.00 $0.00 $1,300.00 2" ARV ASSEMBLY EA 1 1 $1 ,400.00 $1 ,400.00 $0.00 $1,400.00 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EA 3 3 $3,750.00 $11,250.00 $0.00 $11 ,250.00 CONNECT TO EXIST 12 " LINE EA 2 2 $1 ,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 TRENCH SAFETY LF 198 198 $1.25 $247 .50 $0.00 $247.50 TESTING EA 1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 $1 ,500.00 WATER LINE SUBTOTAL $73,521.00 $0.00 $73,521.00 SIGNING AND STRIPING REFL PAV MRK TY I (W) 6" SLD (100 mil) LF 2764 567 3331 $0.75 $2,073 .00 $425 .25 $2 ,498.25 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W) 8" SLD (100 mil} LF 73 92 165 $1.25 $91 .25 $115 .00 $206.25 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W) 12" SLD (100 mil} LF 0 100 100 $4 .00 $0 .00 $400.00 $400.00 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W) 6" BRK (100 mil) LF so 100 150 $1.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W) 24" SLD (100 mil) LF 54 30 84 $8.25 $445 .50 $247 .50 $693 .00 REFL PAV MRK TY I (Y) 4" SLD (100 mil) LF 2884 820 37 04 $1.50 $4,326.00 $1 ,230.00 $5 ,556 .00 REH PAV MRK TY I (W)(ARROW) EA 1 1 2 $140.00 $140.00 $140.00 $280.00 REH PAV MRK TY I (W}(WORD) EA 1 1 2 $180.00 $180.00 $180.00 $360 .00 Final Opinion of Probable Construction Cost -December 10, 2012 ,. College Station Medical + Senior living / Unit Quantitites Cost Prices Arnold Rd & Normand Arnold Rd & Normand Dr. Normand Dr. Dr. Total Normand Dr. (Public) Total (Private) (Public) (Private) REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)(BIKE SYML) EA 8 4 12 $225 .00 $1,800.00 $900.00 $2,700 .00 REFL PAV MRK TY I (W)(BIKE ARROW) EA 8 4 12 $135 .00 $1,080.00 $540.00 $1,620.00 REFL PAV MRKR TY 1-C EA 3 6 9 $4.75 $14.25 $28.50 $42 .75 REFL PAV MRKR TY I-A-A EA 36 10 46 $4.25 $153.00 $42.50 $195.50 Rl-1 W/STREET NAME SIGNS EA 2 1 3 $650.00 $1,300.00 $650.00 $1,950.00 R4 -4 EA 1 2 3 $650.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 $1,950 .00 TY II DEAD END BARRICAE W / OM -4R EA 2 0 2 $500.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 PAVEMENT SEALER LF so 100 150 $5.00 $250.00 $500.00 $750.00 PAVE SURF PREP LF 50 100 150 $5 .00 $25 0 .00 $500.00 $750.00 SIGNING AND STRIPING SUBTOTAL $13,803 .00 $7,298.75 $21 ,101.75 SW3P SW3P LS 0 .75 0 .25 1 $12 ,005.50 $9,004.13 $3,001 .38 $12,005.50 FURNISHING AND PLACING TOPSOIL (4") SY 2078 1850 3928 $2.50 $5,195.00 $4,625.00 $9,820.00 SEEDING SY 2078 1850 3928 $0.40 $831.20 $740.00 $1,571.20 VEGETATIVE WATERING (10 GAL/SY) MG 21 19 40 $10.00 $210.00 $190.00 $400.00 SW3P SUBTOTAL $15,240.33 $8,556.38 $23,796.70 DRAINAGE TRENCH SAFETY LF 650 0 650 $1.25 $812.50 $0.00 $812.50 RC PIPE (CL Ill) (STRUCTURAL) 18" LF 350 61 411 $45 .00 $15,750.00 $2,745.00 $18,495 .00 RC PIPE (CL IV) (STRUCTURAL) 18" LF 84 173 257 $62.00 $5,208.00 $10,726 .00 $15 ,934.00 RC PIPE (CL Ill) (STRUCTURAL) 24" LF 465 10 475 $52.50 $24,412.50 $525 .00 $24,937.50 RC PIPE (CL Ill) (NON STRUCTURAL) 24" LF 554 0 554 $52 .50 $29,085 .00 $0.00 $29,085 .00 RC PIPE (CL IV) (STRUCTURAL) 24" LF 42 24 66 $67.50 $2,835 .00 $1,620.00 $4,455.00 ROCK RIPRAP CY 15 0 15 $100.00 $1,SOO .OO $0 .00 $1 ,500.00 CL B CONC FLUME CY 3 4 .5 7 .5 $350.00 $1,050.00 $1,575.00 $2,625 .00 SINGLE RECESSED CURB INLET EA 7 5 12 $2 ,750.00 $19,250.00 $13,750.00 $33,000.00 CURB INLET EXTENSION EA 1 2 3 $600.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,800.00 STORM SEWER JUNCTION BOX EA 4 0 4 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 CONVERT CURB INLET EA 0 1 1 $3,500.00 $0.00 $3 ,500.00 $3,500.00 SET 18" EA 0 2 2 $1,500.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 SET 24" EA 1 2 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2 ,000.00 $4,000.00 SET GRATE EA 1 0 1 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 $500 .00 OUTFALL SECURITY FENCING EA 1 0 1 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 SIDEWALK DRAINAGE TRENCH EA 1 0 1 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 CHA NNEL EXCAVATION & GRADING CY 97 0 97 $7.25 $703.25 $0.00 $703.25 NEEN AH TYPE D MANHOLE COVER LOCK EA 2 0 2 $250.00 $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 TV INSPECTION LF 1495 268 1763 $3.00 $4,485.00 $804.00 $5,289 .00 DRAINAGE SUBTOTAL $124,191 .25 $41 ,445.00 $165,636.25 MED SITE CONC CURB & GUTIER LF 381 381 $13.00 $0.00 $4,953.00 $4,953 .00 LANDSCAPE SCREENING (INDIAN HAWTHORNE) EA 74 74 $15.00 $0.00 $1,110.00 $1,110.00 PROPOSED CANOPY TREE (LIVE OAK) EA 11 11 $250.00 $0.00 $2 ,750.00 $2,750.00 PROPOSED IRRIGATION LS 1 1 $2,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 $2,SOO.OO MED SITE SUBTOTAL $0.00 $11 ,313.00 $11,313 .00 SUB TOTAL _ ............. ,,, $697,760.28 $271,771.53 $969,531.80 CONTINGENCY (10%) --~E. OF TE. \\ $68,627.08 $27,177.15 $95,804.23 -~P. ........ ~ ' -~ .......... tS'. ;' ... ... . TOTAL ,...... ····.*'' $766,387 .35 $298,948 .68 $1,065,336.03 ~·: ~·' p~ ,. ................................. ,. l BRANDON M. BOATCAWE ~ ~ ................................ ., . . ,, '•1'·.. 97419 .... ~ /2-/ ID /1 ?---t,o~· .. f ICENS~~···~~ '\{.s'.Si(j''"""'~~C)--,,,,~~~.~.-- LETTER OF COMPLETION CITY ENGINEER CITY OF COLLEGE STATION COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS DATE: ~1 r~\ l3;:> b \) ri---1-i 1> RE : COMPLETION OF Co u.~€. S~loo-J bear 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 required by the City of College Station, Texas . This approval and acceptance by the City is requested in .order that we may finalize any subcontracts and to affirm their warranty on the work. This approval and acceptance by the City of the improvements listed below does hereby void the letter of guarantee for the listed improvements on the above referenced project. The one-year warranty is hereby affirmed and agreed to by L AyY Yflwv '-Pt\-""'', :f "'c: · and by their subcontractors as indicated by signatures below. WORK COMPLETED WARRANTY DATE Contractor: L..arr7 Yov,...~. Pov•~ :L"C. Phone Number: q 1CJ, 3o 7-02>2. I Phone Number: C\14 -B?-3-'if?B8 Address: 'Pe> 1?o ')( 2'0 lt"f Address: ('.>o Bop t l '71CJ BP-Y~. n 11 ec5 , Col~, 5 Av b;cn '. l~ 7-,3'-12- ·· Sign.atur;72 G'b ~ t>uflPeN Signature: ~ ~"&/ A~L . ~ City Representative Revised 1131107 SOP: Filing of Final Plats -Letters of Completion Engineering Inspector/Date: '\\tl~er Project Engineer/Date: ~b~ 00 S DP Number: b? \ 7--Z-l6 10/01/10 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: ~rosion/Drainage: Donnie Willis (0: 764 -6375, C: 229-7632) et"' CS Water Services -General: Charles "Butch " Willis (0: 764-3435 , C: 777 -1202) • Water -coordinate fire flow analyses (or the design engineer for non-city utilities) and confirm test results meets min requirements with the dev review engineer (specific hydrants to test, if simultaneous, and min allowable flow) • Sanitary o /CS Water Service -Liftstation: Doug Wallace (0: 764-6333) <,! CS Electric and Streetlights: Gilbert Martinez (0: 764 -6255) o BTU Electric and Streetlights: Sonia Creda (0: 821 -5770) John Fontinoe or Randy Trimble (0 : 821 -5728) Confirm with development review engineer that service agreement is in place with BTU o Non-City Utility Service Providers: (Wellborn Water SUD, Brushy Creek SUD, Wickson Creek SUD , etc) confirm with development review engineer that infrastructure is complete and for outstanding issues, o Digital Constrution Pictures: From contractor on CD-R, Inspector to confirm and file <!' Record Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for all Public Infrastructure with the following attestation: "I, , General Contractor for development, certify that the improvements shown on this sheet were actually built, and that said improvements are shown substantially hereon . I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge, that the materials of construction and sizes of manufactured items, if any are stated correctly hereon." / General Contractor ~Record Drawings: (2 Red-Lined Copies) for Public Drainage Infrastructure including Private Detention Facilities with the following attestations: "I hereby attest that I am familiar with the 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 /inspectors 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 Drawing.s to Jeffery Speed (CSU) /inspectors 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 Development review engineer to: • o Add Dev Permit Number to Letter of Completion o stamp the Letter of Completion to confirm by initialing that the final plat is filed (or mylar is ready to be filed), all necessary easements (including offsite) have been filed, and blanket easement issues are resolved, and o initial and route the Final Plat mylar for filing. (Note if the developer provided surety the plat it may have been filed ahead of construction.) Deborah Grace-Rosier (Planning) to file the Final Plat utilizes a coversheet to confirm: o infrastructure is accepted by Letter of Completion -or-Surety is provided and acceptable, o signed and notarized mylar of final plat, o parkland dedication has been paid, o digital file of final plat is provided, o a current paid tax certificate has been submitted, and Development review engineer, upon the filing of Final Plat, stamp the Letter of Completion with the new stamp and verify-initial-n/a the Final Plat was filed, offsite easements have been filed, we have all necessary easements, etc -and then forward the Letter of Completion to Alan Gibbs (City Engineer) for final signature. Carol (Sr. Asst. City Engineer) to: o enter the engineer's estimate and Letter of Completion date into Inspection List o forward hard original of finalized Letter of Completion to Mandi Alford (P&DS). Mandi to: verify o signatures on the Letter of Completion, o forward scanned copy of Letter of Completion and associated Engineers Estimate to the owner, developer, contractor, Terry Boriskie (Building), Ben McCarty (Building), Janet Dudding (Accounting), Jeffery Speed (CSU), Stephen Maldonado Sr. (CSU), Diane Broadhurst (CSU), Charles "Butch" Willis (CSU), Sue Hosea (CSU), Carol Cotter (Engineering), Alan Gibbs (Engineering) and Deborah Grace-Rosier (Planning), 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. Keith Tinker From: Eric Horton Sent: To: Tuesday , August 13 , 2013 1: 19 PM Keith Tinker Subject: RE: College Station Med and Senior Living MR . TINKER NO ELECTRIC ISSUES ON THIS PROJECT. THANKS. ------------------------------------------ From: Keith Tinker Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:47 AM To: Eric Horton Subject: College Station Med and Senior Living Looking fr LOC, any outstanding issues on your side? 1 Keith Tinker From: Sent: To: Subject: Justin Tamplin Tuesday, August 20 , 2013 3:57 PM Alan Gibbs ; Carol Cotter; Charles Butch . Willis ; Danielle Charbonnet; Danielle Singh ; Diane Broadhurst; Edward Mcdonald ; Erika Bridges ; Israel Koite ; Jeffrey Speed ; Keith Tinker; Philip Bargas; Ray W . Argersinger ; Stephen Maldonado ; Walter J. Jones Arnold Rd . Ext. The issues we had with this project have been corrected, debris in valve box and the air relief not being finished, so it is good to go . 1 Keith Tinker From: Donnie Willis Sent: To: Thursday , August 15 , 2013 12 :20 PM Keith Tinker Subject: RE : College Station Med and Senior Living All areas disturbed by construction must be vegetated . From: Keith Tinker Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 12:18 PM To: Donnie Willis Subject: RE: College Station Med and Senior Living I need a response please . From: Donnie Willis Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:49 AM To: Keith Tinker Subject: RE: College Station Med and Senior Living What is the address? From: Keith Tinker Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:48 AM To: Donnie Willis Subject: College Station Med and Senior Living Looking for LOC, any outstanding issues? 1 Binkley Barfield consulting engineers October 10, 2012 Mr. Alan Gibbs , P.E. City Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: Water Line Design Report (Proposed 12" Waterline) College Station Medical + Senior Living Proposed Normand Drive and Arnold Road Extensions College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Gibbs: Binkley & Barfield , Inc. (BBI) is pleased to present this Water Line Design Report for the proposed 12 " water line to be built with the proposed Normand Drive and Arnold Road extensions to serve the subject project. We have evaluated the proposed 12 " water line according to the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Standards. A summary of our design process, assumptions, and conclusions is below. Water Model Development The proposed project is located on the south side of Rock Prairie Road at the intersection of Normand Drive , where Arnold Road currently terminates. There is an existing 12" water line located along Arnold Road which terminates at the end of the roadway. There is also an existing 12" water line located just east of the project site on the College Station Medical Center property. BBI was provided fire flow test results conducted on two fire hydrants by College Station Utilities. One fire hydrant (Q-032) is located at 1602 Rock Prairie Road on the College Station Medical Center site just east of the project, and the other fire hydrant (Q-150) is located at 3615 Farah Drive. The tests were conducted on September 5, 2012 and September 11, 2012, respectively. The reports stated the static pressure (psi), amount of flow (gpm), and residual pressures at nearby hydrants during the flow tests. The residual pressures (during the flow tests) were recorded. For the fire flow test at 1602 Rock Prairie (Hydrant Q-032), the residual pressure of 92 psi, was recorded at Hydrant Q-030 located at the same address. For the fire flow test at 3615 Farah Drive, the residual pressure of 90 psi, was recorded at Hydrant Q-065 located at 1000 Bougainvillea Street. These residual pressures were used to model the source. Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F·257 • 426 Tarrow Street, Su~e 106 ·College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703.1809 • www.BinkleyBarfield.com Binkley Barfield con s u lti n g eng i neers EP ANET 2 software was used to create the model. EP ANET 2 uses the Hardy Cross Method , and the Hazen Williams equation was selected to run the model. The existing 12 " water line just east of the project site on the College Station Medical Center property is modeled as one of the source supply points with a static head (elevation) of 308.5 feet and a residual pressure of 92 psi , for a total head of 520.74 feet. The existing 6" water line located on Farah Drive (Hydrant Q- 150), just southwest of the project site , is modeled as the source supply point with a static head (elevation) of 300 feet and a residual pressure of 90 psi , for a total head of 507.63 feet. Nodes were entered and include their static head (elevation) and demand. Links (pipes) were entered and include their lengths in feet and diameters in inches . Bends and valves were added as necessary to the allow the program to determine a pipe's overall loss coefficient. Roughness coefficients (C factor) of 110 were used to simulate a higher roughness in the future. For each of the three (3) fire events modeled , a summary of the nodes and links input information is included with this report , along with a schematic showing node numbers , link numbers , elevations , pipe s izes , and demands . Estimating Demand Domestic demands are included in the attached table. The demands are based on Method 2 - Land Use Determination in the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Standards. The domestic demand peak was estimated as average daily flow (ADF) x a peaking factor of 4 , and converted to gallons per minute (gpm). As shown the total domestic peak demand for Lot 1 is estimated to be 41.67 gpm , Lot 2 is estimated to be 32.58 gpm , and Lot 3 is estimated to be 50.25 gpm . The domestic demands were applied to Node ID Numbers 3 (Lot 3), 4 (Lot 2), and 5 (Lot l ). BBi estimated demands on the fire sprinkler systems for each building to be included in the water model calculations. BBi does not size fire suppression systems , and will rely on the expertise of the NFP A 24 licensed Fire Sprinkler Consultant, which will size the fire suppression system. Therefore we do not have the exact fire suppression system demand for each building at this time. However, BBI has estimated fire sprinkler demands of approximately 1,800 gpm for each Lot. Should the occupancy type, fire suppression area size , or required flowrate be determined by the Fire Sprinkler Consultant or City of College Station Fire Official/Fire Marshal to need adjustment, further analysis may need to be performed. Each fire event is modeled separately (i.e., Lot 1 Fire Event, Lot 2 Fire Event , Lot 3 Fire Event): The "Lot 1 Fire Event" model loads Node ID Number 5 with 1841.67 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), Node ID Number 4 (the nearest fire hydrant) with 532.58 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), and Node ID Number 3 with 50.25 gpm (domestic demand only). The "Lot 2 Fire Event" model loads Node ID Number 5 with 41.67 gpm (domestic demand only), Node ID Number 4 with 1832.58 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), and Node ID Number 3 (the nearest fire hydrant) with 550.25 gpm (including domestic demand). Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106 -Colle!Je Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703.1809 • www.BinkleyBarfield .rom .. •' '• ( " ', ,. 'j "· I ' ' ., , J I I I. f T J. 'l ... ·, .. .. , • .L , ' •• t ff .. JI ( .; . ' I - I , Binkley Barfield consulting eng in eers The "Lot 3 Fire Event" model loads Node ID Number 5 with 41.67 gpm (domestic demand only), Node ID Number 4 (the nearest fire hydrant) with 532.58 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), and Node ID Number 3 with 1850.25 gpm (including domestic demand). City of College Station standards dictate that fire flows for hydrants be estimated at a total of 2 ,500 gpm at the two furthermost hydrants in the system. For the "Exterior Fire Event" model , each furthermost hydrant, denoted as Node ID Numbers 4 and 5, were loaded with 1,250 gpm each , plus there domestic demands, for a total of 1282.58 gpm and 1291.67 , respectively (Node ID Number 3 remained at 50.25 gpm domestic demand only). Results Two parameters were closely monitored when reviewing the results of the model during the above fire/domestic flow events: maintaining a minimum residual pressure at each node of 20 psi or more per TCEQ standards and maintain pipe velocities lower than 12 feet per second per City of College Station standards . The lowest modeled pressures and highest velocities are summarized below and in the attached table which includes demands. Lot 1 Fire Event: a. Lowest Pressure at Node 5 of 84.46 psi. b. Highest Velocity in Pipes 1 and 2 of 6.05 ft/s. Lot 2 Fire Event: a. Lowest Pressure at Nodes 4,5 and6of86.26 psi. b. Highest Velocity in Pipes 1 and 2of6.62 ft/s. Lot 3 Fire Event: a. Lowest Pre ss ure at Node 9 of 87.31 psi . b. Highest Velocity in Pipes I and 2 of 7.38 ft/s. Exterior Fire Event: a. Lowest Pressure at Node 5 of 84 .29 psi. b. Highest Velocity in Pipes 1 and 2 of 6 .5 8 ft/s. Binkley & Barfield , Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 T arrow Street, Suite 106 -College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703 .1809 • www.BinkleyBarfiekl .com Binkley Barfield consulting e ngineers As shown , the model d emons trates that the proposed 12" wa ter line meets the City of College Station requirements. Should yo u have any qu estions or co mments, please do not he sitate to contact me. Sincerely, Binkley & Barfield, In c. Consulting Engineers Rey Gonzalez, P.E. Project Engineer Binkley & Barfie ld, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 farrow Street , Suite 106 -College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703 .1809 • www.BinkleyBarfield .com College Station Medical + Senior Living Domestic Water Demand Lot Number Acreage Population Factor Total Population Average Daily Flow Peaking Per Capita Average Daily Flow Factor Peak Flow (Based on Method 2) (GPO/Capita) (GPO) (GPO) 1 5.00 30 150.00 100 15000 4 60000 2 3 .91 30 117.30 100 11730 4 46920 3 6.03 30 180.90 100 18090 4 72360 Totals 44,820 179,280 Fire Flow Water Demand Building Fire Hydrant Domestic Total Demand Lowest Modeled Highest Sprinkler Demand Demand Residual Pressure Modeled Demand Line Velocity (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (psi) (ft/s) Lot 1 Fire Event 1800 500 125 2,425 84.46 6.05 Lot 2 Fire Event 1800 500 125 2,425 86.26 6.62 Lot 3 Fire Event 1800 500 125 2,425 87.31 7.38 Exterior Fire Event 0 2500 125 2,625 84.29 6.58 EPANET2 COLLEGE STAllON MEDICAL+ SENIOR LIVING PROPOSED 12" WATER LINE Pipe 5 Pi e 4 Pi e 3 Pi 2 Node6a----e~......-..:.....:.t=--'--........ ~..:.....:.t:..::....:~--41~'-!.l::.:::....::c.a Hydrant Q--032 (1602 Rock Prairie) Pipe 1 NodeB------Node 5 Node 4 Node3 Node 2 Pipe 7 Node 7 Pipe 8 Hydrant Q-150 (3615 Farah) Page 1 ,/ Network Table -Nodes Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi June 2 307.5 0.00 517.68 91.07 June 6 308 0.00 502.93 84.46 June4 308 532.58 506.50 86.01 June 5 308 1841.67 502.93 84.46 June 3 308.5 50.25 513.82 88.97 June 7 308 0.00 502.96 84.48 June 8 308 0.00 503.01 84.50 Resvr I 520.74 -2133.60 520.74 0.00 Resvr 10 507.63 -290.90 507 .63 0 .00 EPANET2 Page 1 Network Tab le -Links Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft m GPM fps ft/Kft Pipe 1 218 12 110 2133 .60 6.05 14.05 0.025 Pipe 2 262 12 110 2133.60 6.05 14 .71 0.026 Pipe 3 545 12 110 2083.35 5 .9 1 13.45 0.025 Pipe 4 458 12 110 1550.77 4.40 7.78 0.026 Pipe 5 4 12 110 -290.90 0.83 0.35 0.033 Pipe 6 66 .7 12 110 -290.90 0.83 0.41 0 .038 Pipe 7 140 12 110 -290.90 0.83 0.35 0 .033 Pipe 8 438 6 1 10 -290 .90 3.30 10 .55 0 .031 EPANET2 Pa ge 1 Network Table -odes Elevat ion Demand Head Pr essure Node ID ft G PM ft psi June 2 307 .5 0 .00 517.12 90.83 June 6 308 0.00 507.09 86.26 June 4 308 1832.58 507.0 8 86.26 June 5 308 41 .67 507 .09 86.26 June 3 308.5 550 .25 512.57 88.43 June 8 308 0 .0 0 507.09 86 .27 June 9 308 0 .00 507.09 86.27 Resvr l 520.74 -2333.45 520.74 0.00 Resvr 7 507.63 -91.05 507.63 0.00 EPANET2 Page 1 - Binkley Barfield consulting engineers October 10 , 2012 Alan Gibbs , P .E. City Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re : COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL+ SENIOR LIVING-Preliminary Drainage Report with Technical Design Summary Dear Alan: I am pleased to submit the Preliminary Drainage Report for the College Station Medical+ Senior Living project. Please feel free to contact me with any que stions or comments. Sincerely, Brandon Boatcallie, P.E. Office Manager -Brazos Valley Regional Office Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 T anuw Street , Suite 106 -Colege Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703.1809 • www.BinkleyBartield .com - Executive Summary Contact Information The design engineer for the College Station Medical +Senior Living {"CSM+SL") project drainage report is Brandon Boatcallie, P.E. He may be contacted at the local Binkley and Barfield office, 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106, College Station, TX 77840, 979 .703 .1809 or via email at bmb@binkleybarfield.com. Jesse Durden is the representative for Texas Hotel Management, LP. {"Owner") and may be reached by mail at 110 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103, College Station, TX 77840, by phone at 979 .307 .0321, or by email at jesse.durden@caprocktx.com . The College Station Medical + Senior Living drainage report was submitted to the City of College Station on October 3, 2012. Project Description The CSM+SL site is situated south of the Southwood Athletic Complex and East of the College Station Medical Center in College Station, Texas . The 17 .07 acre tract (zoned POD -City Ordinance 2012 -3392) will be subdivided into 3 lots that will be used for medical support facilities and senior housing. This drainage report will focus on the public infrastructure for the extension of Arnold Road and Normand Drive. As each of the 3 lots is developed, each design engineer will submit a separate drainage report for their portion of the site development. The preliminary plan was submitted to the City of College Station on September 5, 2012 and was assigned the following case file#: 12-00500194. Project Location The 17 .07 acre tract is located roughly 3300' to the southwest of the SH6/Rock Prairie Road intersection . The tract is bounded by the Southwood Athletic Complex to the north and the College Station Medical Center to the East. The site lies on the ridge line between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek watersheds and contributes roughly 5.5 acres to Bee Creek and 12.7 acres to Lick Creek . The entire project site lies within the City of College Station city limits . None of the site lies within FEMA floodplains as shown in Tab 6: Flood Insurance Rate Map. The site lies on the ridgeline between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek Watersheds . Roughly 5.5 acres drains to Bee Creek while the remaining 12.4 acres drains to Lick Creek . The Strategic Behavioral Health site will provide detention for the Arnold Road improvements to mitigate increased flows into Bee Creek. The existing flows to Lick Creek are currently being re routed around the College Station Utilities site, by an existing earthen berm, to the Arnold tract to the west and storm flows appear to be used to fill an existing stock pond . The proposed outfall location for the Arnold Road drainage system is currently being determined with input from the owner of the Arnold tract. The current design assumes that flows will be conveyed to Lick Creek via a pipe through the College Station Utilities site but an in- depth analysis of downstream impacts and detention facilities has not been performed, pending direction regarding the rerouting of existing flows away from the Arnold Property. However, an initial detention analysis of the proposed flows indicated that post developed flows were only slightly higher - Executive Summary than existing flows and that detaining the increase in flow would be hard to accomplish without over deta i ning storm water flows. Site Hydrologic Characteristics The 17 .05 acre site is essentially undeveloped. In general, the property consists mostly of open, grass covered pasture land with clusters of trees throughout. An existing BTU aerial electric line bisects the project site and the remnants of a storage barn are present, but there do not appear to be any improved roads or other distinctive surface features in the area planned for construction . The site lies on the ridge line between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek watersheds as previou sly stated . Flows are generally conveyed across the site as sheet flow . A field investigat ion confirmed that existing berms along all property boundaries redirect flows, hence forming shallow concentrated flow conditions along the site boundaries. Existing storm water flows exit the site at two locations: The Bee Creek portion of the site (See Tab 3: Drainage Area Maps and Hydrologic Computations, Drainage Area El) exits into a shallow creek on the northwest corner of the property. The Lick Creek portion of the site flows to the south , and concentrates at the northeast corner of the Arnold property. Flows then appear to travel along the Arnold property driveway and into an existing stock pond. It appears that flows are t hen detained in the pond until the spillway elevation is reached then conveyed into Lick Creek . Stormwater Management Plan Proposed stormwater flows will be conveyed within the site via sheet flow and conveyed along Arnold Road and Normand Drive via curb and gutter, collected in curb inlets, and conveyed underground via storm sewer pipes . The Normand Drive flows will be conveyed to the existing Bee Creek detention pond on the Med site . Additional volume will be provided in the Strategic Behavioral Health site to mitigate the increase in storm water flows due to the increase in impervious cover along Normand Drive. The Arnold Road flows will likely be conveyed to Lick Creek via a storm sewer pipe through the College Station Utility site. Additional information (such as an existing HEC model for Lick Creek) may be requested from the City to demonstrate the impacts (if any) to existing water surface elevations in Lick Cr eeek . Preliminary analysis indicate that mitigating the nominal increase in storm water flows will be difficult to achieve and will likely over detain flows if used . Coordination and Permitting The City of College Station has reviewed the preliminary site plan and will also review the final plat and construction plans . The engineering design team has coordinated with the City regarding a number of issues (including conveyance through the College Station Utilities site and existing pond modifications on the Med site). The client, Jesse Durden, will contact the owner of the Arnold property to discuss the proposed impacts to existing flow paths and will provide direction to the design team regarding the proposed outfall design . The City of College Station appears to be the only permitting authority required for this development hence the City permitting process will be followed to ensure the appropriate permits are obtained prior to construction . Drainage Report The complete drainage report will outline the specific assumptions and calculations to outline the drainage design process . The report consists of the following : Executive Summary Tab 1: Executive Summary (3 pages) Tab 2: Technical Design Summary (26 pages) Tab 3: Drainage Area Maps and Hydrologic Computations (2 pages) Tab 4: System Pl & P2 Winstorm Output Files (8 pages) Tab 5: Hyd r aulic Gradeline Calculations (1 page) Tab 6: Flood Insurance Rate Map (1 page) In addition to the items listed above, the complete construction draw ings and spec ification s submitted herewith comprise the drainage report for this project. • 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 II I 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 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 • • • r 'I I' '1 ·~' !( , . ' .. ,... -. -SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY applications that are in process with either City : plat(s), site plans , zoning requests , or clearing/grading perm its , 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 dra ins 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 Env ironmental 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), includ ing 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 August 2012 , ' ''. •r . I ., r 'I . ., J • r , . , - • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2 .1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Engineering F i rm Name and Address: Jurisdiction Binkley & Barfield Inc . City: Brya n 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106 x Coll ege Station College Station , TX 77840 Date of Submittal : October 3, 2012 Lead Eng i neer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone, e-ma il, fax): Other : Brandon Boatcall ie, p : 9 79.703 .1809 , bmb@bi nkley barfi e ld .com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I Applicant Name and Address : Phone and e-mail: Jesse Durden, Caprock Texas 979.492 .0425 110 Lincoln Ave , Ste. l 03 jesse.durden@caprocktx.com College Station , TX 77840 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e -mail : Texas Hotel Management Corporation 979.307.0321 PO Box 2864 , Bryan, TX 77805 Project Identification Dev elopment Name: College Station Medical + Senior Living Is subject property a site project , a si ngle-phase subdivision , or part of a multi -phase subd iv i sion? Multi-phase subdivision If multi -phase , subj ect property is phase l of 4 Legal descri pt ion of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II , Paragraph B-3a) Certain tract or parcel ofland lying and being situated in the Robert Stevenson Leag ue, Abstract no . 43 , College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Said tract being the remainder of a ca ll ed 17.215 acre tract as descri bed by a deed to Texas Hotel Management Corporatio n recorded in Volume 3665 , Page 248 of the official public records of B razos County, Texas. If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, describe genera l status of all e arl ie r phases. For most recent earlier phase Include subm ittal and rev iew dates. General Locati on of Project Area , o r subject property (phase): Comer of Arnold R oad and Normand Drive in College Station . In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bry an : acres. Bryan : College Station: 0 College Station : 17 .05 acres. Acreage Outside ET J : 0 STORMWATE R DESIGN GUIDELIN ES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 APP ENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN S UMMARY As Revised August 2012 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2 .2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land , or built subject property : developments: Arnold Road and Normand Drive Co ll ege Station Medical Center to east, College Station Utility Center Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed(s): Tributary Basin(s): Lick Creek & Bee Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Preliminary Plat File#: Final Plat File #: Pending Date: Name: Case file no . 12-00500194 Status and Vol/Pg: If two plats, second name: File#: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Ordi nance Zoning Type: PDD Existing or Proposed? Existing Case Code: 2Ql2-JJ22 Case Date 12 Jan 2012 Status: Approved 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): Participants: September 25 , 2012 Alan Gibbs, Brandon Boatcallie Preliminary Report Required? No 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 August 2012 ... SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2 .3 ) Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Note: For any Coordination of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substant iating any agreements , understandings, contracts , or approvals. Coordination Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: With Other P&DS Alan Gibbs, P .E . Letter Volume swap with Med pond Departments of Jurisdiction CSU Group 10/4/12 Outfall across CSU site City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (i nclude contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): T AMUS Needed? Yes No x ---- 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 i n spaces below. Entity Pennitted or Approved? US Army Crops of Eng i neers No x Yes --- US Environmental Protection Agency No x Yes - Texas Comm ission on Environmental Quality No x Yes -- Brazos River Authority No x Yes --- STORMVl/ATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 5 of 26 Status of Actions (include dates) APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro12ert)l Characteristics I Start (Page 3 .1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used , including extent of impervious cover? Entire 17 .05 acres is currently undeve l oped. 0% 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 __ Bu i lding 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 fomi applicable) a new street (but may i nclude ROW dedication to existing streets). _x_ Other (explain): Installing publ ic infrastru cture for future development. Subdivision __ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. Development __ x _ 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. Size of Propo sed fina l plat to subdi vide site into 3 l ots. (Lot 1-5.00 acres , Lot 2 -3.91 acres, Pro~sed Lot 3 -6.03 acres). Progo sed 1200 LF extension of Arnold Road. Proposed 785 LF Project exte nsion of Normand rive . Pro pos ed dedicatio n of 2.11 acres of publ ic ROW. Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain: or on land for which platting is not pending? x No Yes -- FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I N x y (Section II , Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? 0 --es __ Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No_x 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 x -- 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 August 2012 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Prouert~ Characteristics I Continued (Page 3 .2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earli e r hydrologic analysis been done for larger a rea i ncluding subject property? Yes Ref e re nce the st udy (&date) here , an d attach copy if not al ready in City fi les. -- Is the stormwater management plan for the property i n substantial conformance w ith the earl ie r study? Yes No If not , explain how it differs. No If subject property is not part of multi-phase project , descri be stormwater management x 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 w i ll comply therewith. Increased flows al ong Arnold D rive to be detaine d in Strateg i c B ehaviora l Hea l th pond . Increased flows along Arnold Road mitigation pending further ana lysis and direction from client. Yes Do existing topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? _x_ No --Describe them (i nclude approximate size , volume , outfall , model , etc). Any known drainage or flooding problems in a reas near subject property? _x_ No --Yes Identify: Based on location of study property i n a watershed , is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed? (see Table B-1 in Append ix B) __ Detention is required . x Need must be evaluated . __ Detention not requi red. -- What decision has been reached? By whom? Bee Creek -required. Lick Creek -evaluate. D etention later req uired per Alan Gibbs If th e need for direction How was determination made? Type 1 Detention City determined need for dete ntion in Lick Creek basin . Pre l iminary analysis must be evaluated : indicated detention (without over detaining flows) wou l d be difficult to achieve du e to nomina l increase in flows . Further di scuss ion needed . STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELIN ES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of26 APPENDIX . D : T ECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 l' - - 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? __ No x Yes If yes , --describe splits below. In Part 4 describe design concept for handl ing this . Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage Bee Cre ek 5.5 Lick Creek 12 .7 Above-Project Areas(Section II , Paragraph 83-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) rece ive runoff from upland areas? _x _ No --Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet , shallow concentrated , recognizable concent rated section(s}, small creek (non -regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Project Area should receive runoff from upstream areas but existing berms redirect flows along property boundaries . Flow determination : Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does sto rm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? x No Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW: -- -- Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change in future? Explain Conveyance Pathways (Section II , Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reaching a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? No x Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway (s). Include ownership of property (i es). F low curre ntly flows across Arnold Property (to the south) for roughly 800' to existing pond. A portion of the flow may bypass the pond to the east and flo w directly into Lick Creek. Further c larification is needed to determine exact existing flow path and proposed co nveyance path. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective Febr uary 2007 Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 - - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Property Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do dra inage If yes , for what part of length? % Created by? __ pl at , o r easements __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their prov isions. exist for any part of pathway (s)? x No __ Yes Pathway Areas Nearby Where runoff must cross lower properties , describe cha racterist ics of abutting lower p roperty(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) CSU consent acquired for insta ll ation of pro posed outfall through CSU sight. Coordination needed to redirect flows away from Arno ld Property. Developer obtaining consent from owner of Arnold Property to redirect flows . Describe an y built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (c ulverts , bri dges, lined channels , buried condu it, swales , detention ponds , etc). Existing shallow swales an d stock pond to the south . Existing detention pond on Med site and box culvert under R ock Prairie Road to the north. Drainage 1-=~~---:---,--~~~.,...-..,...-~.,...-~~~~-..,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 Facilities Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraul ic influence on proposed sto rmwa te r des ign? __ No _x_ ves If yes , expla in: Existing pond to south may detai n flow . F urther ana lysis needed . STORMVVATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Rev ised August 2012 - .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce(!t and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) From Upland 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. Arnold Road profile designed to allow existing site flows to enter proposed drainage conveyance systems . As each site is developed, post developed flows will be mitigated via proposed detention faci liti es and conveyed to Lick Creek via proposed storm drain system. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II, Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? No x Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guidelines reference above, how will __ Establish ing Easements (Scena ri o 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring property(ies)? __ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) _x_ Combination of the two Scenarios Scenario 1: If easements are proposed , describe where needed , and provide status of actions on each . (Attached Exhibit# ) Scenario 2 : Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development conditions (detention , sheet flow, partially concentrated , etc.). (Attached Exhibit# ) Combination : If combination is proposed , explain how discharge will differ from pre- development conditions at the property line for each area (or point) of release . Proposed storm drain outfall is antic ip ated to cross College Station Utilities site hence easements are not being proposed on City Property. Increase d flows due to public infrastructure are nominal hence im pacts to Lick Creek appear to be negligible . If Scenario 2 , or Combination are to be used , has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? No x Yes Explain and provide --documentation . Operators of College Station utilities site have given consent to outfall pipe across property . Further coordination with Arnold Property owner needed. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project Identify gai ning Basins or Watersheds and acres shifting : Will project result i n shifting runoff between Basi ns or between What design and mitigation is used to compensate for increased runoff Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? x No -- Yes -- How will runoff from Project 1. __ x _ with facility(ies) i nvolving other development projects. Area be mitigated to pre-2. __ Establishing features to serve overall Project A rea . development conditions? Select any or all of 1, 2 , 3 . _x_ On phase (or site) project basis within Project A rea . 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 # ) Bee Creek flows wil l be mitigated by proposed detention pond on Strategic Behavioral Health Site . 2 . For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit # ) 3 . By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Each site development wi ll provid e detention as they develop . Are aquatic echosystems proposed? __ No --Yes In which phase (s) or proj ect(s)? C'· "'O Q) II) r:: (1) ~ >-Are other Best Management Practices for reduci ng stormwater pollutants proposed ? a: No Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use: II) ---- r:: O> "iii Q) 0 Oz l xi If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Techn ical 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 11 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .,, - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!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)? _x_ No __ Yes Identify type and general size and In wh ich phase(s). If detention/retention serves (will serve) overall Project Area , describe how it relates to subject phase or site project (physical location , conveyance pathway(s), construction sequence): Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase , or Site) If property part of larger Project Area , is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? __ Yes No , then summarize the difference(s): Identify whether each of the types of drainage features l isted below are included , extent of use , and general characteristics. Typical shape? I Surfaces? C'-· "C !/) Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: !/) ::I !/) >- I ..s:: Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway : .B 'O typical greatest (Attached Exhibit # ) 0 "C 'iii z "C xi ro 0 Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? .... Yes No , then explain : .... <{ !/) At intersect ions or otherwise , do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? ..c No x Yes If yes explain : ~ <;; ,_I -- £ ~ x Pro po sed Norman d Drive gutter will cro ss intersection with P ro pose d Arnold Road. ·-::I 3:: .... Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? !/) 11 ~ 0 x No Yes Explain : (number of locations?) ._ OlZ ---- ii) "C I c: .... ro <{ STORMI/I/ATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .4) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes: Least 0 .6% Usual 0 .6 % Greatest 5 .0% Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? x Yes No lf "no", ----identify where and why . Will inlets capture 10-year design stormflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? Yes x No If no , explain where and why not. ---- C'· Nee d to discuss Normand Drive/Rock Prairie Road intersection . Proposed roadway profile "O makes addin g inlets at intersection challenging. Inlets are currentlv offset from intersection. Q) I/) Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-y ear :J L.. 2 design storm throughout site (or phase)? x Yes No If no, explain. -----:J Cl "O ........ c: "O ro a> Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? x Yes No Are inlets and .0 ~ -- L.. ·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? :J -u c: x Yes No Explain "no" answers. .c 0 _u ----·--3:: I/) a; Q) L.. ii) Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on L.. <{ whole length of all streets? x Yes No If no , describe where and why. -- -- Do designs for curb, gutter, and inlets comply with 8-CS Technical Specifications? x Yes No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification . -- Are any 12-inch laterals used? _x_ No --Yes Identify length(s) and where used . C'· ~I/) Pipe runs between system j Typical 150 Longest 265 I/) Q) access points (feet): :J >- E Are junction boxes used at each bend? If not , explain where i x i x Yes No --and why. I/) c: ·-0 ~z "O I E L.. 0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic -I/) grade line is below gutter line ..!!! Yes x No __ If not, explain where and why : --(system-wide): l.00 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 IV r , .. r.. t • - - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Ci) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below (1) (include design discharge velocity , and angle between converging flow lines). (.) c: 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle? Ill iii Bee Creek (System P2), 3.45 fps, 90" .~ ~ -o ~E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle? :l .... c: 0 Lick Creek (System Pl ), 4 .81 fps, 90" ·--c: . 0 .E (.) c: ........ - ~ Ea> a> E 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle? -Ill ~ rJ) rJ) ~(1) :l c: 12 0 ·-> !!! e "O a. E-For each outfall above , what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of .... (1) 0 (1) receiving and all facilities at juncture? -,r; (f) rJ) (1) 1) Pilot channel -Ill .... Ill 2) a. Will line outfall channel to protect. Exact o utfall location pending. (1) rJ) c: 3) E. Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? __ No --Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low-flow flumes if any): C'· rJ) -(1) ~ rJ) -(1) Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): rJ) :>-c: ~ I ~o rJ>Z :l Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle , & end treatment). j x i rJ) ~ <{ 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 August 2012 .. T l. - - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) A re roadside ditches used? No __ Yes If so , provide the following : IJ) Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No a.> .s::. -- (.) Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes No ---0 Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No a.> -----c For any "no" answers prov ide location(s) and explain : "iii -c ro 0 a:: If conduit is beneath a swale , prov ide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location , approx imate length : IJ) a.> Is 100-year design flow contained in conduiVswale combination? Yes No >--- --I~ If "no" explain : c: Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width o ro z iii Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum x i~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm : 0 C'-· ~ 2! -c Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains , inlets by type): a.> ro c: >. c: ro c: .s::. ro (.) .... c: .E a.> c: a. 0 0 :.;:; Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale , into conduit): -ro 0 E :J ~ .E -~ -~ a.> Instance 2 Describe general location , approximate length: -c E a.> ro IJ) IJ) :J IJ) a.> Is 100-year design flow contained in conduiVswale combination? Yes No c: -c ·::;: -- --0 If "no" explain : :.;:; e ro c: a. :.0 Q.i Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E a.> 0 .s::. (.) IJ) Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum -a.> ·5 -and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm : ro -c .... c: ro 0 a. (.) a.> Inlets Describe how condu it is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): --IJ) a.> ro c: ;: ~ IJ) a.> 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 August 2012 .. - .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .7) Stonnwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) c ·a; E~ ow ~ If "y es" prov ide 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 a> within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: ·~ ,.I 1--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 ~ Access Describe how maintenance access is provide : ..... 0 ·3 z "§ xi t--~~~.,..-.,.--~~~~~.,.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--1 Instance 2 Describe general location , approx imate length , surfacing : ~ ·c C'· ::J (/) .0 c :5 Q) o E £ Q) "§: ~ Q) (/) ..... _gi 0 ro ~ ~ 0 ;;: 0::: ~ .!:2 Q; c c ro .i:::. (..) 1'i ::J 0. Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided : Instance 3, 4. etc. If swales are used in more than two instances , attach sheet provid ing 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 _x_ 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 sect ion shape & area , flow line slope (min . & max.), surfaces , and 100-year design flow , and amount of freeboa rd : Instance 1: W ill like ly need to modify outl et channe l on CSU s ite pe ndin g fina l design directio n. Instance 2: Instance 3: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 - l - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels {small creeks}: Are these used? --No --Yes If "ves" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location : For each location , describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location , describe section shape & area , flow line slope (min . & max.), surfaces , and 100-year design flow. 'O 4l :::J .£::: c Watercourses {and tributaries}: Aside from fringe changes , are Regulatory 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Expla i n below. ~ --en -Submit full report describing proposed changes to Regulatory Watercourses. Address c 4l existing and proposed section size and shape , surfaces, alignment, flow line changes, E 4l length affected , and capacity , and provide full documentation of analysi s procedures > 0 and data. Is full report submitted? Yes No If "no" expla i n: .... --a. _§ a; c c cu All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work , provide information ..c. (.) 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 th is 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 conta i n 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 August 2012 - - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .9) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) How many facilities for subject property project? For each prov ide 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: I/) 4) ~ I For each facility what is 25-yr design Q , and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: 0 z Facility 2 : xi Do outlets and spillways discharge i nto a publ ic facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: __ Yes No Facility 2 : Yes No ---- --<'· If "no" explain : "C 4) I/) 0 a. 0 ._ a.. For each , what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? I/) 4) Facility 1: & Facil ity 2 : & ~ '(3 Are ene rgy dissipation measures used? No Yes Descri be type and Cll ----u. location : c .Q c: 4) di 0 4) 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 rece iv ing 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 August 2012 .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with 8 -CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no": I/) Facility 1; ~ =:o-(..) Q) nJ :J Facility 2: u. c c:;:: 0 c +:: 0 c (..) Cl>- a:i For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. Cl A re parking areas to be used for detention? __ No --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 i n next two boxes. W ill 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 8-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No Explain any "no" answers: C'-· I/) C> c "iii Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: I/) 0 --..... I/) (..) Q) Q) ..... >-!I Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage nJ ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? "O 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. Q) z ----I/) xi :J How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. I/) t: Q) Location 1: ~ :J (..) Q) Location 2 : ..... <( Location 3: For each location enter value for: 1 2 3 Design year passing without toping travelway? Water depth on t ravelway at 25-year flow? Water depth on travelway at 100-year flow? For more i nstances descri be location and same i nformation on separate sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 19 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 , ·' .. - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulato~ Watercourses {& Tributari~s): A re culverts proposed on these facilities? No __ Yes , then provide full report documenting assumptions , criteria , analysis, computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", explain : -Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways? Q) Q) No Yes How many instances? For each identify the .s:::. (/) ---- Q) location and provide the i nformation below. -(/) (IJ Instance 1: Q) .... >-~ I~ Instance 2: Instance 3: c: .Q Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: o ro 1 2 3 z E x i~ Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E C'· (IJ Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? (/) (/) g>"O Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c: ~ (IJ 0 c: .... 0 0:.;:; >-(IJ (IJ (.) ~..Q "O Q) (IJ .0 Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? Q ._ ~ u No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-(/) -----Q) ~"O location and provide the i nformation below: a. Q) -a. Instance 1: (IJ i!::' "O >-Instance 2 : Q) c: (/) (IJ ::I.._ Instance 3: (/) 0 t:: (/) Q) Q) For each instance enter value, or "yes" I "no" for: 1 2 3 ~ (.) ::I c: (.) (IJ Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft . below curb top ? Q) iii .... c: <{·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Q) .... 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E .... g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? Lim it of down stream analysis (feet)? Explai n any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 - .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .12) Stonnwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roadside ditch intersects) provide information requested in next eight boxes . Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? Yes No If not , ----identify location(s) and intersect angle(s), and justify the design(s): Does drainage way alignment change within or near lim its 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 barret(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes , identify location(s) and provide just ification : 'O Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? cu --No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): :::I ,5; c 0 ~ en t:: cu Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structural ~ :::I 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 i n subject property? --No --Yes If "y es" describe location(s) and mitigation measures: Are all culvert designs and materials in compliance with B-CS Tech . Specifications? --Yes --No If not , explain in Special Design Section of this Part . STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .. .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase , or Site) (continued) Is a bridge i ncl uded in plans for subj ect prope rty p roject? --No --Yes If "yes" provide the follow ing information. Name(s) and functiona l classification of the roadway(s)? What drainage way(s) is to be crossed? en Q) O> "tJ ·;:: ca A f ull report supporti ng all aspects of the proposed bridge(s) (structural , geotechn ical , hydrolog ic, and hydraulic factors) must accompany this summary report . Is th e report prov ided? --Yes --No If "no" explain : Is a Stormwater Provide a general descri ption of planned techn iques: ~ Pollution Prevention Stabilized construction entrances, si lt fence, in let protection. ro Plan (SW3P) ::I 0 established fo r ,_ proj ect construct ion ? Q) -~ No x Yes ---- Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland-type detention , natural stream replication , BMPs for water quali ty , etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property proj ect? _x_No --Yes If "yes" list general type and location below. Provide fu ll report about the proposed spec i al design(s) including rationale for use and expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stormwater management obj ectives w i ll not be compromised , and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution(s). Is report prov ided? STORMWATER DESIGN GUID ELINES Effecti ve February 2007 Yes ---- Page 22 of 26 No If "no" explai n: APPENDIX . D : TECH . DES IGN SUMMARY As Rev ised August 2012 , .. .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt 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. 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) Design Parameters Hydrology x Yes No Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? ---- Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Rational method use d to size proposed roadway storm system per C ity Design guidelines. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 12.66 acres STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Location (or identifi er): El Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In maki ng determinations for t ime of conce nt ration , was segment analysis used ? No x Yes In app roximately what percent of Design Drai nage Areas? 100 % As to intensity -duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for determ i ning runoff flows , were any criteria other than those provided i n these Gu idel i nes used? _x_ 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 frequenc ies (year) ana lyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design . Feature Analysis Year(s) Design Year Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets 100 10 Storm drai n system for local streets Open channels Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel Swales Roadside ditches and culverts serving them Detention facilities: sp illway crest and its outfall Detention facilities : outlet and conveyance structure(s) Detention facili ties : volume when outlet plugged Culverts serving private drives or streets Culverts serv ing public roadways Bridges: prov ide in bridge report . Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities; Highest (feet per second) Lowest (feet per second ) Streets and Storm Drain Systems Roughness coefficients used : For conduit type(s) concrete STORMWATER DESIGN G UID ELINES Effect ive February 2007 Gutters Condu it Culverts Swales Channels 2 .5 5.10* *Uniform v elocity (fps) 1.7 2 .76* Provide the summary information outlined below: For street gutters: Page 24 of 26 0 .0 18 Coefficients: 0 .013 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .16) Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following , are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? No x Yes Head and friction losses No x Yes -- ------ Explain any "yes " answer: Used TxDOT lo ss coefficients an d calcul ati on methodol ogy . In condu it is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? x Yes No -- Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? x Yes No ---- Explain any "no " answers : Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? x Yes No ---- For 100-year flow conditions? x Yes No Explain any "no" answers: ---- What tailwater conditions were assumed at outfall po i nt(s) of the storm drain system? Identify each location and explain : Assumed Med detention tailwater 303 .00 for I O year design and 304 .00 for 100 year design . Existing drai nage report not avai lab le to verify . Tailwater at Coll ege Station u ti lities o utfall set to uniform de pth e levatio n. Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized , does it follow Sec Vl.F .5.a? __ Yes __ No Outside of st raight sections , is flow regime w ithin 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 (ba rrel) control or i nlet control? Entrance , fri ction and exit losses: Bridges Provide all in bridge report STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effecti ve February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .. • -SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I 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 Winstorm version 3 .05, January 25 , 2002 . Part 5 -Plans and SQecifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Design Summary Report . See Section Ill , Paragraph C3 . Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any concluding information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Design Summary Drainage Report by siqninq and sealinq below. "This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of 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 improvements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits." Licensed Professional Engineer State of Texas PE No. 974 19 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 26 of 26 (Affix Seal) APPENDIX . D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 A - • Winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) PROJECT NAME THMC JOB NUMBER : 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : System 1 DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: 10 Years 100 Years ENGLISH system Pl output OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 10/10/2012 6:01:52 AM ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Pl 0.282 3.08 30.14 30.14 0.9 0.15 Pavement 0.25 2.93 undeveloped P2 0.285 3.86 30.54 30.54 0.9 0.21 Pavement 0.25 3.65 Undeveloped P3 0.81 0.29 1. 78 10.00 0.9 0.25 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped P4 0.288 3.04 28.12 28.12 0.9 0.18 Pavement 0.25 2.86 Undeveloped PS 0.782 0.22 1.90 10.00 0.9 0.18 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped P6 0.317 1.94 33.84 33.84 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 1. 74 undeveloped P7 0.792 0.24 1. 77 10.00 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 0.04 Undeveloped Intensity Ci n/hr) 4.92 4.88 8.63 5.13 8.63 4.59 8.63 Supply Q (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Q (cfs) 4.270 5.380 2.029 4.498 1.485 2.823 1.641 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID Inlet Inlet slopes Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) Gutter n Depr. (ft) Grate Width Type (ft) Pond Width Critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) Pl curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 n/a n/a 12.50 307.31 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept ID Type Capacity (cfs) (cfs) Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded Allow Actual ID Length Length width (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pl curb 4.270 4.263 0.250 0.008 P2 10.31 10.00 11.09 Page 1 , system Pl output sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len9th/ Grate Left-Slope Right-slope ID Type Per1m. Area Long Trans Long Trans Gutter n Deprw (ft) Depth Allowed (ft) critic Elev. (ft) (ft) (sf) (%) (%) (%) (%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO o. so 306.Sl P3 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 306. Sl P4 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO o. so 307.47 PS curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO o. so 307.47 P6 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 307.74 P7 curb s.oo n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO o. so 307.74 sag Inlets computation Data. ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q Inlet Total Ponded Width ID Type Perim Area Capacity Head Left Right (ft) (sf) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 Curb S.00 n/a n/a S.387 9.189 0.3SO 9.10 11.47 P3 Curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.029 9.189 0.183 7.03 7.42 P4 curb S.00 n/a n/a 4.498 9.189 0.311 7.87 11.44 PS curb S.00 n/a n/a 1.48S 9.189 0.148 S.60 7.31 P6 curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.823 9.189 0.228 8.92 7.66 P7 Curb S.00 n/a n/a 1.641 9.189 0.1S9 6.68 6.89 cumulative Junction Discharge computations ================================================================================= Node I.D. Pl P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 MHl MH2 OUT Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. Type c-value or.Area Tc (acres) (min) (in/hr) curb 0.282 3.08 30.14 4.92 curb 0.284 6.94 30.60 4.88 curb 0.30S 7.23 30.7S 4.86 Curb 0.288 3.04 28.12 s .13 curb 0.320 12.67 35. 71 4.44 curb 0.317 1.94 33.84 4.59 curb 0.369 2.18 34.11 4.57 BoxMh 0.30S 7.23 30.7S 4.86 BoxMh 0.369 2.18 34.11 4.S7 outlt 0.320 12.67 35. 71 4.44 conveyance configuration Data user supply Q cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Additional Q in Node (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Disch. (cfs) 4.270 9.606 10. 720 4.498 18.024 2.823 3.678 10. 720 3.678 18.024 ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. us OS us OS shape # span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 P6 P7 304.74 304.65 Ci re 1 0.00 1. 50 45.00 0.20 0.013 2 P7 MH2 304.SS 303.81 Ci re 1 0.00 1. so 185.00 0.40 0.013 3 MH2 PS 303.71 302.97 ci re 1 0.00 1. so 18S.OO 0.40 0.013 4 PS OUT 301.20 301.0S Box 1 3.00 2.00 50.00 0.30 0.013 5 P4 PS 304.47 304.20 circ 1 0.00 1.SO 45 .00 0.60 0.013 6 Pl P2 304. 31 303.SS Ci re 1 0.00 1. 50 127.00 0.60 0.013 7 P2 P3 302.95 302. 77 circ 1 0.00 2.00 4S .00 0.40 0.013 8 P3 MHl 302.67 302.37 ci re 1 0.00 2.00 73.50 0.40 0.013 9 MHl PS 302.27 301.20 ci re 1 0.00 2.00 268.80 0.40 0.013 Page 2 • t I • • ' ' ' system Pl output conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater ; 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydra ul ic Gradeline Depth velocity June Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual unif. Actual Q Cap Loss (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (f /s) (f /s) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 305 .58 305.35 0.072 0.84 0.84 2.76 2.76 2.82 4.70 0.000 2 305.35 304.54 0.123 0.80 0.80 3.86 3.86 3.68 6.64 0.000 3 304.51 303.70 0.123 0.80 0.80 3.86 3.86 3.68 6.64 0.000 4 302.45 302.30 0.136 1. 25 1. 25 4.81 4.81 18.02 26.72 0.000 5* 305.27 305.00 0.183 0.80 0.80 4.72 4.72 4.50 8.14 0.000 6* 305.08 304.32 0.165 0.77 0.77 4.65 4.65 4.27 8.14 0.000 7 304.15 303.95 0.180 1.20 1.20 4.87 4.87 9.61 14.31 0.000 8 303.95 303.56 0.225 1.28 1.28 5.04 5.04 10. 72 14.31 0.000 9 303.56 302.45 0.225 1. 28 1.28 5.04 5.04 10. 72 14. 31 0.000 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff com putation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Pl 0.282 3.08 30.14 30.14 0.9 0.15 Pavement 0.25 2.93 Undeveloped P2 0.285 3.86 30.54 30. 54 0.9 0.21 Pavement 0.25 3.65 undeveloped P3 0.81 0.29 1. 78 10.00 0.9 0.25 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped P4 0.288 3.04 28.12 28.12 0.9 0.18 Pavement 0.25 2.86 undeveloped PS 0.782 0.22 1.90 10.00 0.9 0 .18 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped P6 0.317 1.94 33.84 33.84 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 1. 74 Undeveloped P7 0.792 0.24 1. 77 10.00 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 0.04 Undeveloped Intensity Ci n/hr) 6.73 6.68 11.64 7.00 11.64 6.29 11.64 Supply Q (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Q (cfs) 5.836 7.354 2.735 6.139 2.002 3.867 2.211 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet Inlet Inlet slopes Gutter Grate Pond Width Critic ID Ty pe Length Long Trans n Depr. Width Type Allowed Elev. (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pl curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 n/a n/a 12.50 307.31 Page 3 ' system Pl output on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type capacity Allow Actual ID Length Length width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pl curb S.836 S.S89 0.2SO 0.247 P2 12.09 10.00 12.4S Sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len9th/ Grate Left-Slope Right-Slope ID Type Per1m. Area Long Trans Long Trans (ft) (sf) (%) (%) (%) (%) Gutter n Deprw (ft) Depth Allowed (ft) critic Elev. (ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO o. so 306.Sl P3 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO o. so 306.Sl P4 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 307.47 PS curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO o.so 307.47 P6 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 307.74 P7 Curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO o.so 307.74 Sag Inlets computation Data. ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q Inlet Total Ponded Width ID Type Perim Area Capacity Head Left Right (ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 curb S.00 n/a n/a 7.601 9.189 0.441 10.36 13.0S P3 Curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.73S 9.189 0.223 7.87 8.33 P4 curb S.00 n/a n/a 6.139 9.189 0.382 8.8S 12.87 PS curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.002 9.189 0.181 6.26 8.19 P6 curb S.00 n/a n/a 3.867 9.189 0.281 10.04 8.64 P7 curb S.00 n/a n/a 2 .211 9.189 0.193 7.49 7.73 cumulative Junction Discharge Computations ================================================================================= Node Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Additional Total I.D. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cf s) (cfs) (cfs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pl curb 0.282 3.08 30.14 6.73 0.000 0.00 S.836 P2 curb 0.284 6.94 30. S6 6.67 0.000 0.00 13 .141 P3 curb 0.30S 7.23 30. 71 6.66 0.000 0.00 14.669 P4 Curb 0.288 3.04 28.12 7.00 0.000 0.00 6.139 PS curb 0.320 12.67 3S.60 6.10 0.000 0.00 24.762 P6 curb 0.317 1.94 33.84 6.29 0.000 0.00 3.867 P7 curb 0.369 2.18 34.09 6.26 0.000 0.00 S.040 MHl BoxMh 0.30S 7.23 30.71 6.66 0.000 0.00 14.669 MH2 BoxMh 0.369 2.18 34.09 6.26 0.000 0.00 S.040 OUT outlt 0.320 12.67 3S.60 6.10 0.000 0.00 24.762 conveyance configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. US OS 1 P6 P7 Fl owl i ne Elev. US OS (ft) (ft) shape# span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 304.74 304.6S circ 1 0.00 l.SO Page 4 4S.OO 0.20 0.013 ' 2 P7 MH2 304.SS system Pl output 303.81 circ 1 o.oo 1. so 18S .00 0.40 0.013 3 MH2 PS 303.71 302.97 circ 1 0.00 1. so 18S .00 0.40 0.013 4 PS OUT 301.20 301.0S Box 1 3.00 2.00 S0.00 0.30 0.013 s P4 PS 304.47 304.20 ci re 1 0.00 1. so 4S.OO 0.60 0.013 6 Pl P2 304.31 303.SS Circ 1 0.00 1. so 127.00 0.60 0.013 7 P2 P3 302.9S 302.77 circ 1 0.00 2.00 4S .00 0.40 0.013 8 P3 MHl 302.67 302.37 circ 1 0.00 2.00 73.SO 0.40 0.013 9 MHl PS 302.27 301. 20 circ 1 0.00 2.00 268.80 0.40 0.013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 1 30S. 77 30S.S3 0.13S 1.03 1.03 2 30S.S3 304.69 0.230 0.98 0.98 3 304.69 303.83 0.230 0.98 0.98 4 302.76 302.61 0.2S8 1. S6 1. S6 s 30S.44 30S.16 0 .341 0.97 0.97 6 30S.2S 304 .Sl 0.309 0.94 0.96 7 304.Sl 304.36 0.337 1. so 1. S9 8 304.36 303.96 0.420 1.69 1.69 9 303.96 302.76 0.420 1.69 1.69 velocity unif. Actual (f /s) (f/s) 2.99 2.99 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 S.28 S.28 S.06 S.06 S.02 4.90 S.20 4.91 S.19 S.19 S.19 S.19 Q (cfs) 3.87 S.04 S.04 24.76 6.14 S.84 13.14 14.67 14.67 Cap (cfs) 4.70 6.64 6.64 26.72 8.14 8.14 14.31 14.31 14. 31 June Loss (ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= Pl Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH2 Previous 1ntens1tY used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MHl Previous 1ntens1ty used. Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation = 302.30(ft) Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# S Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years Capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= Pl computed right ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= P2 computed right ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= P4 Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH2 Previous intensity used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MHl Previous intensity used. Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation = 302.6l(ft) Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# S Run# 9 Insufficient capacity. Run# 8 Insufficient capacity. Page S , system P2 output Winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 10/10/2012 6:02:44 AM PROJECT NAME THMC JOB NUMBER 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : system 2 DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: 10 Years 100 Years ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) PlO 0.763 0.52 4.43 10.00 0.9 0.41 Pavement 0.25 0.11 undeveloped Pll 0.814 0.38 4.88 10.00 0.9 0.33 Pavement 0.25 0.05 undeveloped Intensity (in/hr) 8.63 8.63 Supply Q (cfs) 0.000 0.000 Total Q (cfs) 3.424 2 .672 on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID PlO Pll Inlet Inlet slopes Gutter Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) n oepr. (ft) curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 On Grade Inlets conmputation Data. Grate Width Type (ft) n/a n/a n/a n/a Pond Width Critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) 12.50 12.50 304.79 304.58 ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type capacity (cfs) (cfs) Allow Actual ID Length Length width (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) PlO Pll curb curb 3.424 2.672 3.424 2 .672 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 cumulative Junction Discharge computations 9.23 8.16 10.00 10.22 10.00 9.31 ================================================================================= Node I.D. PlO Pll OUT Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. Type c-value or.Area Tc curb curb outlt 0.784 0.814 0.784 (acres) (min) (in/hr) 0.90 0.38 0.90 10.00 10.00 10.00 8.63 8.63 8.63 Conveyance configuration Data Page 1 user supply Q cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 Additional Q in Node (cfs) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Disch . (cfs ) 6.096 2.672 6.096 ' system P2 output ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. 1 2 US OS Pll PlO PlO OUT US OS (ft) (ft) shape # Span Rise Length Slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 301.58 301.27 circ 1 0.00 1.50 301.17 301.07 circ 1 0.00 1.50 52.00 0.60 0.013 16.60 0.61 0.013 Conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 303.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope Unif. Actual velocity unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) 1* 2 (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 303.09 303.06 0.065 303.06 303.00 0.337 0. 59 1. 50 0. 96 1. 50 4.12 1.51 2.67 8.14 0.000 5.10 3.45 6.10 8.19 0.000 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity (in/hr) Supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) PlO 0.763 0.52 4.43 10.00 11.64 0.000 4.615 0.9 0.41 Pavement Q.25 0.11 undeveloped Pll 0.814 0.38 4.88 10.00 11.64 0.000 3.602 0.9 0.33 Pavement 0.25 0.05 undeveloped on Grade Inlet Configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID PlO Pll Inlet Inlet slopes Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) Gutter n Depr. (ft) curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. Grate Width Type (ft) n/a n/a n/a n/a Pond width critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) 12.50 12.50 304.79 304.58 ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type capacity Allow Actual ID Length Length Width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) PlO Pll curb Curb 4.615 3.602 4.579 3.602 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 cumulative Junction Discharge computations 10.72 9.46 10.00 11.40 10 .00 10. 39 ================================================================================= Node Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Additional Total Page 2 ' system P2 output I.D. Type c-value or .Area Tc suppl~ Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cf s (cfs) (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PlO curb 0.784 0.90 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 8.217 Pll Curb 0.814 0.38 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 3.602 OUT outlt o. 784 . 0.90 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 8.217 conveyance configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US OS US OS (ft) (ft) shape # span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 1 2 Pll PlO PlO OUT 301.58 301.27 circ 1 0.00 1.50 301.17 301.07 circ 1 0.00 1.50 Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 304.000 (ft) 52.00 0.60 0.013 16.60 0.61 0.013 ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) Velocity Unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) 1* 304.16 304.10 0.118 0 .70 1.50 4.48 2.04 3.60 8.14 0.000 2 304.10 304.00 0.612 1.24 1.50 5.25 4.65 8.22 8.19 0.000 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM . warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= PlO Run# 2 Insufficient capacity. Page 3 • System Pl & P2 HGL Calculations 10 Year 100 year Critical Depth Depth Elevation HGL Below HGL Below Critical Critical FT FT FT FT FT Pl 306.81 305.08 1.73 305.25 1.56 P2 306 .01 304 .32 1.69 304.51 1.5 P3 306 .01 303 .95 2 .06 304.36 1.65 P4 306 .97 305 .27 1 .7 305.44 1.53 PS 306.97 305 1.97 305.16 1.81 P6 307.24 305 .58 1.66 305.77 1.47 P7 307 .24 305 .35 1.89 305 .53 1.71 PlO 304.29 303 .06 1.23 304.1 0 .19 Pll 304.08 303.09 0 .99 304.16 -0.08 t • • • • • • • • I I I I I I .. ' ' CrTY oF Cou .EGE STATJON Hom e ofTexm A&M U11iversi1y • FOR OFFICE USE ONLY CASE NO .: \ [) • ae DATE SUBMITIED: lO = ( I '8 TIME : s·.or STAFF : :?1L PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your submittal. D New Project Submittal D Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application . Case No .: l$J Existing Project Submittal. Case No .: \Qr Q_ ~ f Project Name Co~\eqe,. S\@C)'(\ fM :X1 cu l -t s~ j) I oc Contact Name ______________ _ We are transmitting the following for Planning & Development Services to review and comment (check all that apply): D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D Rezon i ng Application D Conditional Use Permit D Preliminary Plan D Final Plat D Development Plat D Site Plan D Special District Site Plan D Special District Building I Sign D Landscape Plan D Non-Residential Architectural Standards D Irrigation Plan D Variance Request D Development Permit D Development Exacti on Appeal D FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR D Grading Plan D Other -Please specify below INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set. The following are included in the complete set: D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D TxDOT Driveway Permit D TxDOT Utility Perm it D Drainage Letter or Report D Fire Flow Analysis Special Instructions: 10/1 0 D D D D g I, Print Form Waterline Construction Documents Sewerline Construction Documents Street Construction Documents Easement Application Other -Please specify + Sr\e df\le \ c>?mef\ Final Construction Document Comment Responses The following comments were provided by Alan Gibbs, via e-mail correspondence, on December 6, 2012. Following are items to include on the construction plans: /1) Depict drainage revisions redirecting flows from M3 to SSH pond. Plans revised. 2) P ;ovide security measures as discussed near city property including: a) SET detail with cross pipes specifically spaced so an adult cannot enter: Referenced, and included, appropriate standards. v b) Detail for locking inlet covers for closest two upstream inlets : Referenced Neenah Type D Fastening Device in General Notes. Vc ) Detail for downstream fence security as discussed: Provided fence security detail. v 3) Provide a site specific sealed HOPE trench detail where the BCS storm detail is the minimum for reference . Replaced HOPE with RCP per COCS specs. Related additional items for the development permit related to the final plat: v'}) Revise Drainage Report to reflect redirected M3 flows . Report updated. v 2) Revise the engineer's estimate to reflect the noted changes above. Estimate updated. ) The original letter of Credit from the bank for the engineer's estimate . Original to be provided by Jesse Durden. v 4) Provide the remaining Development Permit fee of $10,053 .36 which is based on 1% of the engineer's estimate (An initial $600.00 has already been received). Fee to be provided by Jesse Durden. V 5) Provide four full-size sets of construction plans for stamping (This will only return one set to the contractor when the sign the Development Permit and bring in TPDES NOi. Additional sets can be submitted for stamping if desired .) Four full-size sets (plus two additional sets for / owner/engineer) provided. / 6) Provide one 11x17 erosion control plan . Plan provided. Page 1of1 '· I I ' ' .. 'r •t fl :: ' . II .. I' t • I r:. ,. _,,.. ______ j // ·' \ \ \ ' \ ' \ \ \ ' ' ' PC LOT 3 // ' \ ' \ \ _.,•""j ., ~wtr .... ,,., .. ,N .... \ -Qo ;·-:34.50' LT J.R RELEASE STA. 23+00 34.50' LT SSEMBLY 1-FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY PROPOSED 12" 1-6"x6" SWIVEL TEE , WATER LINE 1-6" G.V. & BOX // O' PUE-\ 1 _ 2 _-:=_ ___ -_ - - - -,/ A w-12-----w.:12----- . ~ (' ., . .. ~ ' . -:. , . ·. b <O ............. , ...... p·•·" ····--""''" ...... , . ._. ......... ,.,,, '· ...... ~-. . :·· ,: . ~-· .. END ASPHALT PA YING BEGIN CONCRETE PAVING STA 23+21.52 PROPOSED SIDEWALK DRAINAGE TRENCH SEE SW3-02 (10'L, 0.5'W, 33 MIN. SLOPE <p Cl w (/) 0 a 0 a::: g.. ,,. ·. ~' '. . *" t') ~ RELOCATE t"J -.:t-EXISTING O't -..- 0 . CXJ -.:t' cx:i + CHAIN LINK z ':;:~ FENCE t"J & REMOVE "';:: EXISTING /_...,-.\ ;:: (/) TREES WITHIN .. (/) w J?ROP·--~-/' i 0 ~ /FENCE LIMITS . \ <.0 / 0 Oo/ Q o:: ~, oo·oo +ot 1od cl; g ~ 1' oa:: ! z p I ':v Member FDIC riwtf:fJJ~ TEXAS FROM: City Bank ISSUER: City Bank 1409 University Drive East College Station, TX 77845 College Sta tion Branch 1409 Univers ity Drive East College Station , Texas 77840 Phone: 979-268-2265 Fax: 979-268-4141 Toll Free : 8 00-687-2265 www.citybankonline.com IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT DATE: December 10 , 2012 TO BENEFICIARY: City of Coll ege Station Atte ntion: Direc tor of Deve lopm e nt Services 110 I Texas A venue College Station , Texas 77840 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO.: 795 ISSUE DATE: 12:0 0 Noon C e ntral Standard Time , Decemb e r 10 , 2012 EXPIRATION DATE: 12:00 Noon C e ntral Standard Time, June JO , 2013 , or up o n the completion and fin al payme nt to a ll contractors, whichever occ ur s first. LOCATION OF PROJECT: College Station Medical + Senior Living AMOUNT: ACCOUNT OF: ONE MILLION SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX AND 03/100 DOLLARS ($1,065 ,336.03) Texas Hotel Management, LP , (herei n "DEVELOPER") 1203 University Drive East College Station , TX 77845 GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS: The Iss uin g B a nk set out abo ve hereby iss ues its IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO . 795 in favor of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, in accorda nce with CHAPTER 5 , V .T.C.A . TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMM ERC E COD E and pursuant to the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ART. 8 for the Acco unt of DEVELOPER for an aggregate amount of up to ONE MILLION SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX AND 03/100 DOLLARS ($1,065 ,33 6.03). Thi s am o unt is availabl e b y your draft(s) payabl e at sight when accompanied by the following: 1. Sworn Statement by a duly authorized re present a ti ve of the City of College Stat io n, Texas , statin g that Developer(s ) has/have defaulted and fai led to co mpl e te th e pe rformance a nd co nstruction of th e impro ve me nt s d escrib e d below in Page J of 2 TIWSTSJ::RVJCES -llllSINLS.Hl \A.\CIALSJ;m:JCJ:,<; -l'LRSO.V :\J FINANC/,1LSIRVJCE.\ -O."\,llNl' HANKING -LOANS -MORTGAGf accordance with th e UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, Texas, and that the proceeds from this Letter of Credit will e ith e r be utili zed by the City of College Station , Texas , to complete such construct io n or wi ll be returned by th e City of College Station to the Iss uin g Bank : (list improvements). SPECIAL TERMS & CONDITIONS: I. All banking fees/expe nses/c har ges in c urred are for the acco unt of D eveloper. The City of College Station is not responsib le for any c ha rges in co nn ectio n wit h a drawing und er thi s Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit is issued in conj uncti o n with the develo pme nt of D evelop er in th e City of College Station , Texas , spec ific a ll y for the following: To g uarantee the payment a nd performance of th e proposed construction impro vement s in College Station, Texas at th e College Station M ed+ Senior Living part of a Planned D evelopme nt District according to Ordinance No 20 12 -3392 , for a pe riod not to exceed six (6) months from the date hereof. 2 . Di sbursements pursuant to this Letter of Credit will never exceed the above-stated amount, less a ny a mo unt released by the City of Coll ege Station, Texas . The amo unt of c redi t under thi s Letter of Credit may be reduced upon approval and acceptanc e by the City of College Station of comp leted imp rovement s , which reduction may only be made with th e written authorization of the Director of Planning a nd D eve lop ment Services of the City of College Station . 3. In accordance with SECTION 5 .106 of th e TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE , this Letter of Credit may be modified , upon the exec uti o n and d e liv e ry to I ss uer o f a sworn statem e nt g ivin g consent to mod ificati o n by th e Director of Pl ann in g and D evelop me nt Services of the City of College Stati o n. 4 . The Issuer of thi s Letter of Credit has ca used this Letter to be signed by the und e rsig ne d officer who h as attached proof of hi s authorization to s ig n, toge th e r with attestation by Issuer 's authorized attesting officer a nd sealed with the seal of I ssuer. _l J.J ( \ - ISSUER: ~ V~ STATE OF TEXAS * * COUNTY OF BRAZOS * BY: Jonathan Voight Vice President Atte'1edByo ~~ This instrume nt was acknowledged before me on J tJ fuU Avi. (Qg)U , 20 I±, by Jonathan Voight, th e a uth orized officer of City Bank, Iss uer, a Texas Banking Corporation , on behalf of sai d B a nkin g Corporation and in the capacity stated . lUk l!J,ffiltv Notary P ~te of Texas ,,,,~V ~U11,, WENDY BARNETT /:~~?·· ··.~~;\ Nornrv Pu b li c . State o f Texas ~ :. .:~~ My Comm1 s s 1o n Exp ir es <:.~~;0 ;;~~,,,. August 02, 2015 '''""''' Page 2 of2 CITY O F C OLLEG E STATTON Home ofTtxas A&M University• FOR OFFICE USE 0 LY V CA S E NO .: I EJ. I 0 DAT E SUBMITTED : \ 'd' \ (). 19 T IM E: ~ •. ~2:: STA FF : '¥-'\, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TRANSMITTAL LETTER Please check one of the options below to clearly define the purpose of your subm itta l. 0 New Project Subm ittal D Incomplete Project Submittal -documents needed to complete an application . Case No .: r$, Existing Project S ubm ittal. Case No .: \b?·JJ~ Project Na me ---....U"'"""-'\\"V''c¥"+-"""'-..1 _~--"'--'-'--'-'lo'\--()'")-+----'-Cfk1~%1 ........ ~m~l~-t-'----"-'CC-£"'""'-'~L-'-'\(j-""-'-('-U_' ~-' ru-X.jL-/ ___ _ Contact Name Phone Number d ---------------------------- We are transm itting the follow ing for Planning & Development Services to review and comment (check all that apply ): D Comprehensive Plan Amendment 0 Rezon ing Applicat ion 0 Conditional Use Permit D Prelim inary Plan D Final Plat D Development Plat D Site Plan 0 Special District Site Plan D Spec ia l District Building I Sign 0 Landscape Plan INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS D D Non-Residential Architectural Standards Ir rigation Plan D Variance Request D D D D D Development Permit Development Exaction Appea l FEMA CLOMA/CLOMR/LOMA/LOMR Grading Plan Other -Please spec ify below All infrastructure documents must be submitted as a complete set The following are included in the complete set: D Comprehensive Plan Amendment D TxDOT Driveway Perm it D TxDO T Ut ility Perm it D Drainage Lette r o r Report D Fire Flow Analysis Special Instructions: 10/10 D Waterline Construction Docume nts O Sewerline Construction Documents 0 Street Construction Documents O Easement Application ¢ Ee ff e;:··ortyutV, t-- Prln~F¢rm Binkley Barfield December 10 , 2012 City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL+ SENIOR LIVING-Final Plans Submittal We are pleased to submit the following items for City Review: • One (1) copy of the revised drainage report • One (1) copy of the revised estimate of probable construction cost • Six (6) complete sets of the revised construction documents • One (1) 11 " x 17 " copy of the erosion/sedimentation control plan • One (1) copy of the comment responses Sincerely, Brandon Boatcallie, P .E. Office Manager -Brazos Valley Regional Office \(?(·O()T) 1(;2·10 ·/9- ~;f)S ~ Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 Tarrow Street , Suite 106-College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703.1809 • www.BinkleyBarfield.com Binkley Barfield consulting engineers October 10, 2012 Alan Gibbs , P.E. City Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station , Texas 77842 Re: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL+ SENIOR LIVING-Preliminary Drainage Report with Technical Design Summary Dear Alan: I am pleased to submit the Preliminary Drainage Report for the College Station Medical+ Senior Living project. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandon Boatcallie, P.E. Office Manager -Brazos Valley Regional Office Binkley & Barfield , Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 Tarrow Street , Suite 106-Colege Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703.1809 • www.BinkleyBarfield .com Executive Summary Contact Information The design engineer for the College Station Medical +Senior Living ("CSM+SL") project drainage report is Brandon Boatcallie, P.E. He may be contacted at the local Binkley and Barfield office, 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106, College Station, TX 77840, 979.703 .1809 or via email at bmb@binkleybarfield.com . Jesse Durden is the representative for Texas Hotel Management, L.P. ("Owner") and may be reached by mail at 110 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103, College Station , TX 77840, by phone at 979.307.0321, or by email at jesse.durden@caprocktx.com . The College Station Medical +Senior Living drainage report was submitted to the City of College Station on October 3, 2012 . Project Description The CSM+SL site is situated south of the Southwood Athletic Complex and East of the College Station Medical Center in College Station, Texas . The 17 .07 acre tract (zoned POD -City Ordinance 2012-3392) will be subdivided into 3 lots that will be used for medical support facilities and senior housing. This drainage report will focus on the public infrastructure for the extension of Arnold Road and Normand Drive . As each of the 3 lots is developed, each design engineer will submit a separate drainage report for their portion of the site development. The preliminary plan was submitted to the City of College Station on September 5, 2012 and was assigned the following case file#: 12-00500194 . Project Location The 17.07 acre tract is located roughly 3300 ' to the southwest of the SH6/Rock Prairie Road intersection . The tract is bounded by the Southwood Athletic Complex to the north and the College Station Medical Center to the East . The site lies on the ridge line between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek watersheds and contributes roughly 5.5 acres to Bee Creek and 12 .7 acres to Lick Creek. The entire project site lies within the City of College Station city limits. None of the site lies within FEMA floodplains as shown in Tab 6: Flood Insurance Rate Map. The site lies on the ridgeline between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek Watersheds . Roughly 5.5 acres drains to Bee Creek while the remaining 12.4 acres drains to Lick Creek. The Strategic Behavioral Health site will provide detention for the Arnold Road improvements to mitigate increased flows into Bee Creek. The existing flows to Lick Creek are currently being re routed around the College Station Utilities site, by an existing earthen berm, to the Arnold tract to the west and storm flows appear to be used to fill an existing stock pond. The proposed outfall location for the Arnold Road drainage system is currently being determined with input from the owner of the Arnold tract . The current des ign assumes that flows will be conveyed to Lick Creek via a pipe through the College Station Utilities site but an in- depth analysis of downstream impacts and detention facilities has not been performed, pending direction regarding the rerouting of existing flows away from the Arnold Property. However, an initial detention analysis of the proposed flows indicated that post developed flows were only slightly higher Executive Summary than existing flows and that detaining the increase in flow would be hard to accomplish without over detaining storm water flows. Site Hydrologic Characteristics The 17.05 acre site is essentially undeveloped . In general, the property consists mostly of open, grass covered pastureland with clusters of trees throughout. An existing BTU aerial electric line bisects the project site and the remnants of a storage barn are present, but there do not appear to be any improved roads or other distinctive surface features in the area planned for construction. The site lies on the ridge line between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek watersheds as previously stated. Flows are generally conveyed across the site as sheet flow. A field investigation confirmed that existing berms along all property boundaries redirect flows, hence forming shallow concentrated flow conditions along the site boundaries . Existing storm water flows exit the site at two locations : The Bee Creek portion ofthe site (See Tab 3: Drainage Area Maps and Hydrologic Computations, Drainage Area El) exits into a shallow creek on the northwest corner of the property. The Lick Creek portion of the site flows to the south, and concentrates at the northeast corner of the Arnold property. Flows then appear to travel along the Arnold property driveway and into an existing stock pond. It appears that flows are then detained in the pond until the spillway elevation is reached then conveyed into Lick Creek . Storm water Management Plan Proposed stormwater flows will be conveyed within the site via sheet flow and conveyed along Arnold Road and Normand Drive via curb and gutter, collected in curb inlets, and conveyed underground via storm sewer pipes. The Normand Drive flows will be conveyed to the existing Bee Creek detention pond on the Med site. Additional volume will be provided in the Strategic Behavioral Health site to mitigate the increase in storm water flows due to the increase in impervious cover along Normand Drive. The Arnold Road flows will likely be conveyed to Lick Creek via a storm sewer pipe through the College Station Utility site . Additional information (such as an existing HEC model for Lick Creek) may be requested from the City to demonstrate the impacts (if any) to existing water surface elevations in Lick Creeek. Preliminary analysis indicate that mitigating the nominal increase in storm water flows will be difficult to achieve and will likely over detain flows if used. Coordination and Permitting The City of College Station has reviewed the preliminary site plan and will also review the final plat and construction plans . The engineering design team has coordinated with the City regarding a number of issues (including conveyance through the College Station Utilities site and existing pond modifications on the Med site). The client, Jesse Durden, will contact the owner of the Arnold property to discuss the proposed impacts to existing flow paths and will provide direction to the design team regarding the proposed outfall design. The City of College Station appears to be the only permitting authority required for this development hence the City permitting process will be followed to ensure the appropriate permits are obtained prior to construction . Drainage Report The complete drainage report will outline the specific assumptions and calculations to outline the drainage design process. The report consists of the following: • Executive Summary Tab 1: Executive Summary (3 pages) Tab 2: Technical Design Summary (26 pages) Tab 3: Drainage Area Maps and Hydrologic Computations (2 pages) Tab 4: System Pl & P2 Win storm Output Files (8 pages) Tab 5: Hydraulic Gradeline Calculations (1 page) Tab 6: Flood Insurance Rate Map (1 page) In addition to the items listed above, the complete construction drawings and specifications submitted herewith comprise the drainage report for this project. 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 subd ivisions . 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 severa l 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 , includ ing any proposed project phases . This paragraph should also include reference to STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 . ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY appl ications that are in process with either City : plat(s), site plans , zoning requests , 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 ac reage 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 propert ies 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 Qual ity , 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 t he drainage report for this project." STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 2 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 -r . {' t I I t f\ t t t -.~ t , I ""'. ~ . ' t ' t t t t t t • ~ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Proje ct Ad mi nistrati on I Start (Page 2 .1) Eng ine ering and Desi gn Professi onals In form ation Engineeri ng Firm Nam e and A ddress: Jurisdiction B inkley & B arfie ld Inc. City: Bryan 426 Tarrow Street, Suite l 06 x College Station College Stat i on , TX 77 840 Date of Submittal: Octob er 3, 2012 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.{phone, e-mail , fax): Other: Bran don Boatca llie, p : 9 79. 703 .1809 , bmb@binkl ey barfield.com Supporting Engineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other co ntacts: Developer I Own er I Appli cant Infor mati on Developer I Applicant Name and Address: Phone and e-mail : Jesse Durden, Caprock T exas 979 .492 .04 25 110 Lincoln Ave, Ste. 103 j esse.durden@caprocktx.com College Station , TX 77 840 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail : Texas H otel Manageme nt Co rp oratio n 979 .307 .032 1 PO B ox 2 864 , B ryan, T X 77 80 5 P roject Id e ntificat ion Development Name: College Stat i on M edi cal + Senior Living Is subject property a site project , a single-phase subdiv ision , or part of a multi-phase subdivision? Multi-phase subdivi sion If multi-phase, su bject property is p hase 1 of 4 Legal description of su bject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II , Paragraph B-3a) Certain trac t or parce l oflan d lying an d bei ng si tuate d in the Robert Ste venson League, Abstract no . 43, Co llege Station, B raz os County, T ex as. Sa id tract being the rem aind er of a ca lled 17 .2 15 acre tract as descr ibed by a deed to T exas H otel M anage ment Co rp oration recorded in V ol ume 36 65 , Page 24 8 of the official public records of B razos Coun ty, T exas. If subject property (phase) is second or later phase of a project, de scribe general status of all earlier phases. For m o st recent earlier phase Include submittal and review dates. General Location of Project Area, or subject property (phase): Comer of A rn old Ro ad and Norm and D rive in College St ation . In City Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan : acres. Bryan : College Station : 0 College Station : 17 .0 5 acres. Acreage Outside ET J : 0 STOR MWATER DES IG N G UIDELINES Effective Feb ruary 2007 Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TEC H . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2 .2) Project Identification (continued) Roadways abutting or within Project Area or Abutting tracts, platted land , or built subj ect property : developments: Arnold R oad and Normand Drive Co ll ege Station Medical Center to east, College Station Utility Center Named Regulatory Watercourse(s) & Watershed (s): Tri butary Basi n(s): Lick Creek & Bee Creek Plat lnfonnation For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Prelim i nary Plat File #: Final Plat File #: P ending Date: Name: Case file no. 12-00500194 Status and Vol/Pg : If two plats, second name: File#: Status: Date: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Orclinance Zoni ng Type: PDD Exi sti ng or Proposed? Existing Case Code: 2Ql2-JJ22 Case Date 12 Jan 20 12 Status: Approved Zon ing Type: Exi sti ng o r P roposed? Case Code: Case Date Status: Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Pla nn i ng Confe rence(s) & Date(s): Partic i pants: September 25 , 2012 A lan Gibbs, Brandon Boatcallie Preli m i nary Report Requ ired ? No Subm ittal Date Rev iew Date Rev iew Comments Addressed? Yes --No --In Writi ng? When? Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach documentation e x plai ning) a ny dev iation(s) from prov isions of Preliminary Dra inage Report , if any . STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page4 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2.3) Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Note: For any Coordination of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substantiati ng any agreements, understandings , contracts , or approvals. Coordination Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: With Other P&DS Alan Gibbs, P .E. Letter Volwne swap with Med pond Departments of CSU Group 10/4/12 Outfall across CSU site Jurisdiction City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination With Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination w ith Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (i nclude contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes No x -- -- 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 Pennitted or Aooroved? US Army Crops of Engineers No x Yes --- US Env ironmental Protection Agency No x Yes - Texas Comm ission on Environmental Quality No x Yes -- Brazos River Authority No x Yes --- STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 5 of26 Status of Actions (include dates) APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 t t ., . , SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert~ Characteristics I Start (Page 3 .1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing : Land proposed fo r development currently used , i ncluding extent of imperv ious cover? Entire 17.05 acres is currently undeve l oped. 0% impervious cover . Site __ Redevelopment of one p latted lot, o r two or more adjoi ni ng platted lots. Development __ Building on a si ngle platted lot of undeveloped land . Project __ Building on two or more platted adj oi n ing lots of u ndeveloped land . (select all __ Building on a single lot , o r adjoining lots, where proposed plat will not form appli cable) a new street (but may i nclude ROW dedication to ex ist ing streets). _x_ Other (expla i n): Installing pub lic infrastructure for future development. Subdivision __ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one o r more platted lots. Development __ x _ Construction of streets and utilities t o serve one o r more p roposed 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 , li near feet of streets and Nature and drainage easements or ROW. Size of Proposed fina l pl at to subdivide site into 3 l ots . (Lot 1- 5 .00 acres, Lot 2 - 3 .91 acres, Proegsed Lot 3 -6.03 acres). Progosed 1200 LF exte nsion of Arnold Road. Pro(>osed 785 LF Project extens i on of Normand rive. Propose d dedication of 2.11 acres of public RO W . Is any work planned on land t hat is not platted If yes, expla in: or o n land for wh ich platting is not pending? x No Yes -- FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutti ng a Named Regulatory Watercourse I No_x_ Yes __ (Section II , Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property in floodplain I No _x Yes Ra te Map area of a FEMA-regulated watercourse? -- Encroachment(s) Encroachment purpose(s): __ Building site(s) __ Road crossi ng(s) into Floodpla in areas planned ? __ Util ity crossing(s) __ Other (explain ): No x -- Yes -- If floodplain areas not shown on Rate Maps, ha s work been done toward amend ing the F EMA- approved Flood Study to define allowable encroachments i n proposed areas? Explain . STORMWAT ER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effecti ve Febru ary 2007 Page 6 of 26 APP ENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 - •I SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Pa rt 3 -Pro12ert)l Characteristi cs I Conti nued (Page 3.2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subj e ct P roperty (or Phase) Has an earlier hyd rolog ic analysis been do ne for larger area including subject property? Yes Reference the study (&date) here, and attach copy if not already in City files . -- Is the stormwater management plan for the property in substantial conformance with the earlier study? Yes No If not , expla in how it differs. No If subject property i s not part of m ulti-phase proj ect, desc ribe st ormwater management x plan for the property in Part 4. --If property is part of multi-phase project , prov ide overview of stormwater ma nagement plan for Project A rea here. In Part 4 describe how plan for su bject property will comply therewith . Increased fl ows along Arnold Drive to be detained in Stra teg ic Behavioral Health pond. Increase d flo ws a long Arnol d Road mitigation pe nding fu rt her analysis and di rection fr om clie nt. Do existi ng topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? _x_ No --Yes Describe them (i nclude approx imate size, volume, outfall, model, etc). Any known drainage or flooding problems in areas near subject property? _x_ No --Yes Identify : Based on location of st udy property in a watershed , is T yp e 1 Detenti o n (flood control) needed? (see Tab le B-1 in Appendix B) __ Detention is required. x Need must be evaluated . __ Detention not requ i red . -- What decision has been reached? By whom ? B ee Creek -re quired . Lick Creek -evaluate. Detenti on later requ ired per Alan Gi bbs If the need for dir,. ... tion. How was determi nati on made? Type 1 Detenti o n City determin ed need for dete nti on in Lick Creek bas in . Preliminary an alysis must be ev aluated : indi cated detention (w ithout ove r deta ining flow s) would be diffi cult to achieve due to nomina l in crease in fl ows. Furth er d isc ussion needed . STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 200 7 Page 7 of 26 APPE NDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY A s Rev ised August 2012 .. t SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ert~ Characteristics I Continued (Pag e 3 .3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject p roperty straddle a Watershed o r Basi n divide? No x Yes If yes, --describe spl it s below. In Part 4 descri be desiQn concept for handlinQ th is. Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage Bee Creek 5 .5 Lick Creek 12 .7 Above-Project Areas(Section II , Paragraph 83-a ) Does Proj ect Area (project or phase) rece ive runoff f rom upland areas? _x_ No --Yes Size(s) of a rea(s) i n a c res: 1) 2 ) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet , shallow concentrated , recognizable concentrated section (s), small creek (non -regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or t ri butary); Project Area sho ul d receive runoff from upstream areas but existing berms redirect flows al ong property boundaries . Flow determination: Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm runoff drai n from publ ic easements or ROW onto or across subject property? x No Yes If yes , describe facilities i n easement or ROW: ---- Are changes in runoff characteristics subject to change i n future? Explain Conveyance Pathways (Section II , Paragraph C2) Must run off from study property drain across lower properties before reach ing a Regu latory Watercou rse or tributary? No x Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway(s). Include ownership of property (i es). Flow currently flows across Arnold Property (to the south) for rough l y 800' to existing pond. A portion of the flow may bypass the pond to the east and flow directly into Lick Creek . Further clarification is needed to determine exact existing flow path an d pro posed conveya nce path . STORMWATE R DESIGN GUIDELIN ES Effecti ve Feb ruary 2007 Page 8 of 26 APP ENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 • t t t .. ,. ' t ,, • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Property Characteristics I Continued (Page 3 .4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes , for what part of length? % Created by? __ pla t, or easements __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe the ir provisions. exist for any part of pathway(s)? x No __ Yes Pathway Areas Nearby Where runoff must cross lower properties , describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) CSU consent acquired fo r installation of propo sed outfall through CSU sight. Coordination needed to redirect flows away from Arno ld Property. D eve loper obtaining consent from owner of Arnold Property to redirect flows . Describe any bu il t or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts , bridges, lined channels, buried conduit , swales , detention ponds, etc). Existing sha ll ow swa les and stock pond to the south. Existing detention pond on Med site and box culvert under Rock Prairie Road to the north. Drainage f--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----1 Facilities Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwate r design? __ No _x_ ves If yes , expla in: Ex isting pond to so uth may detain flow . Further analysis needed . STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .. SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4 .1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) From Upland Area(s) If runoff is to be received from upland areas, what design drainage features w ill be used to accommodate it and insure it is not blocked by future development? Describe for each area, flow section , or discharge po i nt. Arnol d Road profile designed to allow existing site flows to enter proposed drainage conveyance systems . As each site is developed, post developed flows will be mitigated via proposed detention facilities and conveyed to Lick Creek via proposed storm drain system. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Sect ion II , Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become public via platting? No x Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes Per Guideli nes reference above, how w i ll __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring property(ies)? __ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) _x_ Combination of the two Scenarios Scenario 1: If easements are proposed , describe where needed, and provide status of actions on each . (Attached Exhibit # ) Scenario 2 : Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development conditions (detention , sheet flow , partially concentrated , etc.). (Attached Exhibit# ) Combination: If combination is proposed , explain how discharge will differ from pre- development conditions at the property line for each area (or point) of release . Proposed storm drain outfall is anticipated to cross College Station Utilities s ite hence easements are not being proposed on City Property. Increased flows due to public infrastructure are nominal hence im pacts to Lick Creek appear to be negligible . If Scenario 2 , or Combination are to be used , has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of receiving property(ies)? No x Yes Explain and provide --documentation . Operators of College Station utilities site have given consent to outfall pipe across property . Further coordination with Arno ld Property owner needed . STORM\/VATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 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 t-W __ h_a_t -d-es-i-gn-a-nd-m-it.,....ig-a-ti_o_n.,....is_u_se_d_t_o_c_o_m_p_e_n_sa_t_e....,.fo_r_i-nc_r_e-ase_d_r_u_n_off.,.,.......-1 Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? __ x _No __ 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. __ x_ with facility(ies) involving other development projects . 2. __ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area . 3. _x_ 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# ) Bee Creek flows will be mitigated by propo sed detention pond on Strategic Behavioral Health Site . 2. For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit# ) 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part . Each site development will provide detention as they develop . C'-· "O Q) II) c: Q) ~ >-a: II) c: O> "iii Q) 0 Oz l xi ~ <( Are aquatic echosystems proposed? __ No project(s)? __ Yes In which phase(s) or Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? __ No __ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use : If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain 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 August 2012 • • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceRt 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)? _x_ 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 (physical location , conveyance pathway(s), construction sequence): Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area , is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? __ Yes No , then summarize the difference(s): Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included , extent of use , and general characteristics . Typical shape? I Surfaces? C'-· "O Q) I/) Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes : Usual back slopes: I/) ::J Q) I/) >- Q) I ..c Flow line slopes: least Typical distance from travelway : .B 'O typical greatest (Attached Exhibit # ) Q) 0 "O ·u; z "O xi ro 0 Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? ..... Q) Yes No , then explain: ..... ~ I/) At intersections or otherwise, do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? .0 Q) No x Yes If yes explai n: ~~>-I -- £ ~ x Proposed Normand Drive gutter will c ro ss intersection with Proposed Arnold Road. ·-::J 3:: ..... Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? I/) Q) Q) ~ 0 x No Yes Explain : (number of locations?) ~ C>Z -- -- iii "O I Q) c: ..... ro ~ STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .4) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes: Least 0 .6% Usual 0.6% Greatest 5 .0% A re i nlets recessed on arterial and collector st reets? x Yes No lf "no ", ----identify whe re and why . Will inlets captu re 10-year design stormflow to prevent flood i ng of intersections (arte ri al w ith arteri al or collector)? Yes x No If no , ex plain whe re and why not. -- -- C'· Need to discuss Normand Drive/Rock Prairie R oad intersection . Proposed roadway profile ~ makes ad din!! inlets at intersectio n chall en!!in!!. Inlets are currentlv offset from intersection . Q) (/) Will inlet size and placement prevent exceed ing allowable water spread for 10-year ::i .... Q) design storm throughout site (or phase)? x Yes No If no , expla in. :i:: -- -- ::i C> ~-c: ~ ro a.> Sag curves: A re i nlets placed at low points? x Yes No Are inlets and ..0 ~ --.... ·-condu it sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? ::i-u c: x Yes No Explain "no " answe rs. .s::. 0 ----.... u ·--3: (/) 'al Q) .... iii Q) Will 100-yr stormflow be contained i n combination of ROW and buried conduit on .... <( whole length of all streets? x Yes No If no , describe where and why . ---- Do designs fo r curb , gutter, and i nlets comply w ith B-CS T echnical Speci fications? x Yes No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification . -- Are any 12-i nch laterals used? _x_ No --Yes Identify length (s) and where used . C'-· ~ Pipe runs between system I Typical 150 265 Q) (/) Longest (/) Q) access points (feet): ::i >- E Are junction boxes used at each bend? i x i x Yes No If not , expla in where --and why . (/) c: ·-0 ~z ~ I E .... 0 A re downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraulic .... (/) grade li ne is below gutter li ne J!J. Yes x No __ If not, explai n where and why : --(system-wide): 1.00 STO RMWATE R DE SIGN GUIDELIN ES Effecti ve February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN S UMMARY As Revised August 2012 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceRt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Describe watercourse(s), or system(s) receiving system discharge(s) below Iii" (include design discharge velocity , and angle between converging flow lines). Q) () c 1) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? n:J iii Bee Creek (System P2), 3.45 fps , 90 " .!: ~ -o ~E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle? ::J .... c 0 Lick Creek (System Pl), 4 .81 fps, 90" ·-._ c . o.8 () c -·-~ E Q) Q) E 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity , and angle? .... n:J ~ I/) I/) ~ Q) ::J c'.!2 0 ·-> ~ 0 "O l5. E .... For each outfall above , what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of .... Q) 0 Q) receiving and all facilities at juncture? .... ..c. en I/) Q) 1) Pilot channel .... n:J .... n:J 2) c. Will line outfall channel to protect. Exact outfall location pending. Q) I/) c 3) _£. Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? __ No --Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low-flow flumes if any): C'-· I/) a:; ~I/) .... Q) Flow line slopes (minimum and maximum): I/)>-c ~ I "O 0 3l z Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle , & end treatment). ::J ~x i I/) Q) .... 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 August 2012 1r 1l I I r I .. • -I - • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceRt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Are roadside ditches used? --No __ Yes If so , provide the following : (/) a.> Is 25-year flow contained with 6 inches of freeboard throughout? __ Yes No ..c --.B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes --No i5 Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No a.> -- --"U For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain: "iii "U ro 0 0:: If conduit is beneath a swale , provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location , approximate length: (/) a.> Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No >----- lw If "no " explain : c Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width o ro z iii Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum x i~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm : 0 ~· ~ la "U Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): a.> ro c >-c ro c ..c ro u ..... cs a.> c a. 0 0:;::; Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale , into conduit): -ro 0 E ::I ..... 11 s .5 .5 a.> Instance 2 Describe general location , approximate length : "U E a.> ro (/) (/) ::I (/) a.> Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No c "U ·::; -- --.Q 0 If "no" explain : iii ..... c a. :.0 di Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E a.> 0 ..c u (/) Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size , m i nimum and maximum -a.> ·5 -and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm : ro "U ..... c ro 0 a. u a.> Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm dra i ns , inlets by type): --(/) a.> m c ::: £. (/) a.> Access Desc ribe 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 August 2012 t • t ' , ' ' • • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .7) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase , or Site) (continued) c: ·ro E~ ow ~ If "yes" provide the following information for each instance: Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length , surfacing : :g ui Is 100-year des ign flow contained in swale? __ Yes __ No Is swale wholly c: <1> within drainage ROW? __ Yes __ No Explain "no" answers: .; >-I t--~~--,,~-,.,~~~-,-~~~~~---,,--~...,....,...~~~~~~~~~~~--j 1rl Access Describe how maintenance access is provide : ..... 0 '§ z ~ xi >--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__, ..., Instance 2 Describe general location , approximate length , surfacing : <I) ·c C'· :::::! I/) .D c "S <I) o E £<I) ·~ gj <I) I/) ..... ~ 0 ro S: ~o ~~ Qi c: c: ro .i:::. () 1i :::::! a. 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 otherw ise altered? __ No _x_ 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: Will like ly need to modi fy outl et channe l on CSU site pe nding fina l design direction. Instance 2: Instance 3: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .. ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels {small creeks}: Are these used? --No --Yes If "yes" provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed? __ Yes No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location : For each location , describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): For each location , describe section shape & area , flow line slope (min . & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. '§' :J c: :;:: Watercourses {and tributaries}: Aside from fringe changes, are Regulatory c: 0 Watercourses proposed to be altered? __ No Yes Explain below. ~ -- I/) 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 : .... --c.. £ Qj c: c: ro All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work , provide information ..c: (.) 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. W ill 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 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 ' J ' J .. ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .9) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) How many facilities for subject property project? 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: (/) (I) >- I For each facility what is 25-yr design Q , and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: 0 z Facility 2 : xi Do outlets and spillways discharge into a public facility in easement or ROW? Facility 1: __ Yes No Facility 2 : Yes No -- ----<'-· If "no" explain: "O (I) (/) 0 a. 0 ..... a.. For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? (/) ~ Facility 1: & Facility 2: & T5 Are energy dissipation measures used? No Yes Describe type and ro ----u. location : c 0 E (I) -(I) 0 ~ 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 August 2012 " I ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with 8 -CS Specifications? Yes or no, and explain if "no ": (/) Facility 1; ~ ;: :0-u Q) rn :J Fac i lity 2 : u.. c: c: :;::; 0 c: ·.;::; 0 c: u Q) -Q) For additional facilities provide all same information on a separate sheet. a Are parking areas to be used for detention? __ No --Yes What is maximum depth due to required design stonn? Roadside Ditches: Will culverts serve access driveways at roadside ditches? --No --Yes If "yes", provide infonnation in next two boxes. Will 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway in all cases? --Yes --No W ithout causing flowing or standing water on public roadway? --Yes --No Designs & materials comply with 8-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No Explain any "no" answers: ('-· (/) Cl c: "iii Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain : (/) 0 --..... (/) u Q) Cl> ->-rn I > ·;::: Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives, or streets cross drainage a. (ii ways that serve Above-Project areas or are in public easements/ ROW? -c 0 No Yes If "yes" provide infonnation below . Q) z ----(/) xi :J How many instances? Describe location and provide infonnation below. (/) t Cl> Location 1: ~ :J u Q) Location 2 : ..... <( Location 3: For each location enter value for: 1 2 3 Des ign 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 infonnation on separate sheet. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 19 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 I ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Pa rt 4 - D rain ag e Co nce12t and Des ig n Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .11) S t ormwater Manage me nt Concept (continued) Wit hin O r Servi ng Subj ect Property (Phase , o r Site) (continued) Na med Re gu lato ~ Watercourses {&Tribu taries}: Are culverts proposed on these facil ities? No __ Yes , then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria , ana lysis , computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", exp lain : -Arterial or Maj or Co llector St reets: W ill culverts serve these ty pes of roadways? a; Q) No Yes How many instances? For each identify the ..c (/) -- -- Q) location and provide the information below. -(/) ro Instance 1: Q) ... >-~ I~ Instance 2: Instance 3: c 0 o~ Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 ZE 1~ Headwater WSE 1 foot be low lowest curb top? x .!:: Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? Q) E C'-· ro Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? (/) (/) g>-o Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c ~ ro 0 c ... 0 O:;: >-ro ro u ;: ..Q -0 Q) ro .o Min or Coll ector or Loc al Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? 0 --...... () () No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-U) -- -- -Q) -g -0 location and prov ide the information below: 0. Q) -0. Instance 1: ro ;::. -0 >-Instance 2: Q) c ui ro ::i_ Instance 3: U) 0 t U) Q) Q) For each instance enter v alue, or "yes" I "no" for: 1 2 3 ~ () ::I c u ro Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? Q) iii ... c <·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? !!! 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E ... g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? Lim it of down stream analysis (feet )? Explain any "no" answers : STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 200 7 Page 20 of 26 APPE NDI X. D: TECH . DESIG N SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 ·' '. ' . '• I • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .12) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roadside ditch intersects) provide information requested i n next eight boxes. Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? Yes No If not , ----identify location(s) and intersect angle(s), and justify the design(s): Does drainage way alignment change within or near limits of culvert and surfaced approaches thereto? __ No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe change(s), and justification : Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes , identify location(s) and provide justification : 'O Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? Q) --No --Yes If "yes" identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): :::J .£ c 0 ~ I/) t:: Q) Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structu ral > -:; 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 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 8-CS Tech . Specifications? --Yes --No If not, explai n i n Special Design Section of this Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 ·, • ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .13) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? --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? Iii or Cl -0 ·;:: al 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 Stabilized construction entrances, si lt fence, inlet protection. (ii Plan (SW3P) ::::J 0 established for ..... project construction? Q) ~ No x Yes ---- Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland-type detention, natural stream rep lication, BMPs for water quality, etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project? _x_No --Yes If "yes" list general type and location below. Provide full report about the proposed special design(s) includi ng 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 August 2012 ' 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 prov isions of B-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 w ith the City Engineer or her/his designee? For each item above provide "yes" o r "no", action date, and staff name: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Design Parameters Hydrology Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? x Yes No ---- Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Fonnula: R ational method used to size proposed roadway storm system per City Design guidelines. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rat ional Fonnula has been applied? 12.66 acres Location (or identifier): El STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 • • I ' I ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration , was segment ana lysis used? No x Yes In approxi mately what percent of Design Dra i nage A reas? 100 % As to intensity-duration -frequen cy and rain depth crite ri a for determini ng runoff flows , were any criteria other than those prov ided in these Guidelines used? _x_ No __ Yes If "yes" identify type of data , source(s), and where appl ied : For each of the stormwater management features listed below identify the storm return frequenc ies (year) analyzed (or checked), and that used as the basis for design . Featu re Analysis Year(s) Design Yea r Storm drain system for arterial and collector streets 100 10 St orm drain system for local street s Open cha nnels Swale/buried conduit combination i n lieu of channel Swales Roadside ditches and culverts serv i ng them Detention facilities : sp illway crest and its outfall Detention f acilities: o utlet and conveyance st ructure(s) Detention facil ities: volume when outlet plugged Culverts serving private drives or st reets Cu lvert s se rv ing pub li c roadways Bridges: p rov ide in bri dge report. Hydraulics What is the ra nge of design flow veloc ities as outlined below? Design flow velocities ; Gutters Conduit Culverts Swa les C han nels Highest (feet per second) 2.5 5.10* *Uniform" ~l ocity (fps) Lowest (feet per second ) 1.7 2.76* Streets and Storm Drain Systems Provid e the summary information outlined below: Roughness coefficients used : For street gutters: O.oI8 For cond uit type(s) concrete Coefficients: 0.013 STORMWATER D ES IGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Pag e 24 of 26 APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 .. ... I , 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 following, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? No x Yes Head and friction losses No x Yes ------ Explain any "yes" answer: Used TxDOT loss coefficients and calculati on methodol ogy . In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? x Yes No -- Are elevation drops prov ided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? x Yes No ---- Explain any "no" answers: Are hydraul ic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? x Yes No ---- For 100-year flow conditions? x 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 : Assumed Me d detent ion tai lwater 303.00 for 10 year des ign and 304 .00 fo r 100 year design. Existing drai nage re port not availabl e to verify. Tail water at Coll ege Station util iti es outfall set to uniform depth elevatio n . Open Channels If a HEC analysis is utilized , does it follow Sec Vl.F .5.a? __ Yes __ No Outside of stra ight 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 STORMVVATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 25 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 I[ . ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I 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 W instorm v ers ion 3 .05, Janu ary 25, 2002. Part 5 -Plans and S12ecifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Design Summary Report. See Section Ill , Paragraph C3 . Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any concluding information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Techn ical Design Summary Drainage Report by signing and sealing below. "This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of 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 improvements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits." Licensed Professional Engineer State of Texas PE No. 974 19 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 26 of 26 (Affix Seal) APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 "' 'f -J ·'' I ' • ~ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • t , system Pl output Winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 10/10/2012 6:01:52 AM PROJECT NAME THMC JOB NUMBER : 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : system 1 DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: 10 Years 100 Years ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used Intensity Supply Q Total Q (acre) (min) (min) (in/hr) (cfs) (cfs) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Pl 0.282 3.08 30.14 30.14 4.92 0.000 4.270 0.9 0.15 Pavement 0.25 2.93 undeveloped P2 0.285 3.86 30.54 30.54 4.88 0.000 5.380 0.9 0.21 Pavement 0.25 3.65 Undeveloped P3 0.81 0.29 1. 78 10.00 8.63 0.000 2.029 0 .9 0.25 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped P4 0.288 3.04 28.12 28.12 5.13 0.000 4.498 0.9 0.18 Pavement 0.25 2.86 undeveloped PS 0.782 0.22 1.90 10 .00 8.63 0.000 1.485 0.9 0.18 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped P6 0.317 1.94 33.84 33.84 4.59 0.000 2.823 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 1. 74 Undeveloped P7 0.792 0.24 1. 77 10.00 8.63 0.000 1.641 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped On Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID Inlet Inlet slopes Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) Gutter n Depr. (ft) Pl curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. Grate width Type (ft) n/a n/a Pond Width critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) 12.50 307.31 ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type Capacity Allow Actual ID Length Length width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pl curb 4.270 4.263 0.250 0.008 P2 10.31 10.00 11.09 Page 1 system Pl output sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len9th/ Grate Left-slope Right-slope ID Type Per1m. Area Long Trans Long Trans (ft) (sf) (%) (%) (%) (%) Gutter n Deprw (ft) Depth Allowed (ft) Critic Elev. (ft) P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 curb curb curb curb curb curb S.00 S.00 S.00 S.00 S.00 S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO o.so o.so 0. so o. so 0. so 0. so 306.Sl 306.Sl 307.47 307.47 307.74 307.74 sag Inlets Computation Data. ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet ID Type P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 curb curb curb curb curb curb Length (ft) S.00 S.00 S.00 S.00 S.00 S.00 Grate Perim Area (ft) (sf) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Total Q Inlet Capacity (cfs) (cfs) S.387 2.029 4.498 1.48S 2.823 1.641 9.189 9.189 9.189 9.189 9.189 9.189 Cumulative Junction Discharge computations Total Head (ft) 0.3SO 0.183 0.311 0.148 0.228 0.1S9 Ponded Width Left Right (ft) (ft) 9.10 7.03 7.87 S.60 8.92 6.68 11.47 7.42 11.44 7.31 7.66 6.89 ================================================================================= Node Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Additional Total I.D. Type c-value Dr .Area Tc suppl) Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs (cfs) (cfs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pl Curb 0.282 3.08 30.14 4.92 0.000 0.00 4.270 P2 curb 0.284 6.94 30.60 4.88 0.000 0.00 9.606 P3 curb 0.30S 7.23 30.7S 4.86 0.000 0.00 10. 720 P4 curb 0 .288 3.04 28.12 S.13 0.000 0.00 4.498 PS curb 0.320 12.67 3S.71 4.44 0.000 0.00 18.024 P6 curb 0. 317 1.94 33.84 4.S9 0.000 0.00 2.823 P7 curb 0.369 2.18 34.11 4.S7 0.000 0.00 3.678 MHl BoxMh 0.30S 7.23 30.7S 4.86 0.000 0.00 10. 720 MH2 BoxMh 0.369 2.18 34.11 4.S7 0.000 0.00 3.678 OUT outlt 0.320 12.67 3S.71 4.44 0.000 0.00 18.024 conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. us DS us OS shape # span Rise Length slo)e n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 P6 P7 304.74 304.6S Ci re 1 0.00 1. so 4S.OO 0.20 0.013 2 P7 MH2 304.SS 303.81 ci re 1 0.00 1. so 18S .00 0.40 0.013 3 MH2 PS 303.71 302.97 Ci re 1 0.00 1. so 18S.OO 0.40 0.013 4 PS OUT 301. 20 301.0S Box 1 3.00 2.00 S0.00 0.30 0.013 s P4 PS 304.47 304.20 circ 1 0.00 1. so 4S .00 0.60 0.013 6 Pl P2 304.31 303.SS ci re 1 0.00 1. so 127.00 0.60 0.013 7 P2 P3 302.9S 302.77 Ci re 1 0.00 2.00 4S.OO 0.40 0.013 8 P3 MHl 302.67 302.37 Ci re 1 0.00 2.00 73.SO 0.40 0.013 9 MHl PS 302.27 301.20 ci re 1 0.00 2.00 268.80 0.40 0.013 Page 2 • t t I t t t , ' • I r , ' System Pl output conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydra uli c Gradeline Depth velocity June Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope Unif. Actual Unif. Actual Q Cap Loss (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) (f /s) (f /s) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 305.58 305.35 0.072 0.84 0.84 2.76 2.76 2.82 4.70 0.000 , 305.35 304 . 54 0.123 0.80 0.80 3.86 3.86 3.68 6.64 0.000 L 3 304.51 303.70 0.123 0.80 0.80 3.86 3.86 3.68 6.64 0.000 4 302.45 302.30 0.136 1. 25 1. 25 4.81 4.81 18.02 26. 72 0.000 5* 305.27 305.00 0.183 0.80 0.80 4.72 4. 72 4.50 8.14 0.000 6* 305.08 304.32 0.165 0.77 0.77 4.65 4.65 4.27 8.14 0.000 7 304.15 303.95 0.180 1.20 1.20 4.87 4.87 9.61 14.31 0.000 8 303.95 303.56 0.225 1.28 1.28 5.04 5 .04 10.72 14.31 0.000 9 303 .56 302.45 0.225 1.28 1.28 5.04 5.04 10.72 14.31 0.000 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID Pl P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 c value Area Tc Tc Used 0.282 0.9 0.25 0.285 0.9 0.25 0.81 0.9 0.25 0.288 0.9 0.25 0.782 0.9 0.25 0.317 0.9 0.25 0.792 0.9 0.25 (acre) (min) (min) 3.08 0.15 2.93 3.86 0.21 3.65 0.29 0.25 0.04 3.04 0.18 2.86 0.22 0.18 0.04 1.94 0.20 1. 74 0.24 0.20 0.04 30.14 30.14 Pavement undeveloped 30.54 30.54 Pavement Undeveloped 1. 78 10.00 Pavement Undeveloped 28.12 28.12 Pavement undeveloped 1.90 10.00 Pavement undeveloped 33 .84 33 .84 Pavement undeveloped 1. 77 10.00 Pavement undeveloped Intensity (in/hr) 6.73 6.68 11.64 7.00 11.64 6.29 11.64 Supply Q (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Q (cfs) 5.836 7.354 2.735 6.139 2.002 3.867 2 .211 on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID Pl Inlet Inlet slopes Gutter Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) n Depr. (ft) curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 Page 3 Grate Width Type (ft) n/a n/a Pond width critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) 12.50 307.31 , system Pl outpu t on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type capacity Allow Actual ID Length Length width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pl curb S.836 S.S89 0.2SO 0.247 P2 12.09 10.00 12.4S Sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len~th/ Grate Left-Slope Right-Slope ID Type Per1m. Area Long Trans Long Trans (ft) (sf) (%) (%) (%) (%) Gutter n Deprw (ft) Depth Allowed (ft) critic Elev. (ft) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 curb S.00 n/a o. 30 3.00 o. 36 3.00 0.018 3.SO o. so 306.Sl P3 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 306.Sl P4 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 307.47 PS curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 307.47 P6 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 307.74 P7 curb S.00 n/a 0. 30 3 .00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO 0. so 307.74 sag Inlets computation Data. ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q Inlet Total Ponded Width ID Type Perim Area Capacity Head Left Right (ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 curb S.00 n/a n/a 7.601 9.189 0.441 10.36 13.0S P3 curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.73S 9.189 0.223 7.87 8.33 P4 curb S.00 n/a n/a 6.139 9.189 0.382 8.8S 12.87 PS curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.002 9.189 0.181 6.26 8.19 P6 curb S.00 n/a n/a 3.867 9.189 0.281 10.04 8.64 P7 curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.211 9.189 0.193 7.49 7.73 cumulative Junction Discharge computations ================================================================================= Node Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Additional Total suppl) Q I.D. Type c-value or .Area Tc Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) Ci n/hr) cf s (cfs) (cfs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pl curb 0.282 3.08 30.14 6.73 0.000 0.00 S.836 P2 curb 0.284 6:94 30. S6 6.67 0.000 0.00 13.141 P3 curb 0.30S 7.23 30.71 6.66 0.000 0.00 14.669 P4 curb 0.288 3.04 28.12 7.00 0.000 0.00 6.139 PS curb 0.320 12.67 3S.60 6.10 0.000 0.00 24.762 P6 curb 0.317 1.94 33.84 6.29 0.000 0.00 3.867 P7 Curb 0. 369 2.18 34.09 6.26 0.000 0.00 S.040 MHl BoxMh 0.30S 7.23 30.71 6.66 0.000 0.00 14.669 MH2 BoxMh 0.369 2.18 34.09 6.26 0.000 0.00 5.040 OUT outlt 0.320 12.67 3S.60 6.10 0.000 0.00 24.762 conveyance configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I. D. US OS 1 P6 P7 Flowline Elev. US OS (ft) (ft) shape# span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 304.74 304.6S circ 1 0.00 l.SO Page 4 45.00 0.20 0.013 ' 2 P7 MH2 304.SS system Pl output 303.81 circ 1 0.00 1. so 18S .00 0.40 0.013 3 MH2 PS 303.71 302.97 circ 1 0.00 1. so 18S .00 0.40 0.013 4 PS OUT 301. 20 301. OS Box 1 3.00 2.00 S0.00 0.30 0.013 s P4 PS 304.47 304.20 circ 1 0.00 1. so 4S.OO 0.60 0.013 6 Pl P2 304.31 303.55 Circ 1 0.00 1. 50 127.00 0.60 0.013 7 P2 P3 302.9S 302.77 circ 1 0.00 2.00 4S.OO 0.40 0.013 8 P3 MHl 302.67 302.37 circ 1 0.00 2.00 73.SO 0.40 0.013 9 MHl PS 302.27 301. 20 circ 1 0.00 2.00 268.80 0.40 0.013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 0.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 1 30S.77 305.53 0.135 1.03 1.03 2 305.53 304.69 0.230 0.98 0.98 3 304.69 303.83 0.230 0.98 0.98 4 302.76 302.61 0.258 1. 56 1. 56 5 305.44 305.16 0.341 0.97 0.97 6 305.25 304. Sl 0.309 0.94 0.96 7 304.51 304.36 0. 337 1. 50 1. 59 8 304.36 303.96 0.420 1.69 1.69 9 303.96 302.76 0.420 1.69 1.69 velocity unif. Actual (f /s) (f/s) 2.99 2.99 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 5.28 5.28 S.06 S.06 5.02 4.90 5.20 4.91 5.19 5.19 5.19 5.19 Q (cfs) 3.87 5.04 5.04 24.76 6.14 5.84 13.14 14.67 14.67 Cap (cfs) 4.70 6.64 6.64 26. 72 8.14 8.14 14.31 14.31 14. 31 June Loss (ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years Capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= Pl Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH2 Previous intensity used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MHl Previous intensity used. Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation = 302.30(ft) Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# 5 Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years Capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= Pl computed right ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= P2 computed right ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= P4 Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH2 Previous intensity used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MHl Previous intensity used. Tailwater set to uniform depth elevation = 302.61(ft) Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 5 Run# 9 Insufficient capacity. Run# 8 Insufficient capacity. Page 5 ' system P2 output Winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) Version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 10/10/2012 6:02:44 AM PROJECT NAME THMC JOB NUMBER 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : system 2 DESIGN FREQUENCY ANALYSYS FREQUENCY MEASUREMENT UNITS: 10 Years 100 Years ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) PlO 0.763 0.52 4.43 10.00 0.9 0.41 Pavement 0.25 0.11 Undeveloped Pll 0.814 0.38 4.88 10.00 0.9 0.33 Pavement 0.25 0.05 undeveloped Intensity (in/hr) 8.63 8.63 supply Q (cfs) 0.000 0.000 Total Q (cfs) 3.424 2 .672 on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID PlO Pll Inlet Inlet slopes Gutter Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) n Depr. (ft) curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 Grate Width Type (ft) n/a n/a n/a n/a Pond Width critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) 12.50 12.50 304.79 304.58 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept ID Type capacity PlO Pll curb curb (cfs) (cfs) 3.424 2.672 3.424 2.672 Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded Allow Actual ID Length Length Width (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.23 8.16 10.00 10.22 10.00 9.31 cumulative Junction Discharge Computations ================================================================================= Node I.D. Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Additional Total Type c-value Dr.Area Tc supply Q Q in Node Disch . (acres) (min) (in/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------PlO curb 0.784 0.90 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 6.096 Pll curb 0.814 0.38 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 2.672 OUT outlt 0.784 0.90 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 6.096 Conveyance Configuration Data Page 1 • t '• ~ \ J I I .. ' system P2 output ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. 1 2 US OS Pll PlO PlO OUT US OS (ft) (ft) shape # span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 301.58 301.27 circ 1 0.00 1.50 301.17 301.07 circ 1 0.00 1.50 52.00 0.60 0.013 16.60 0.61 0.013 conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 303.000 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev DS Elev Fr.slope Unif. Actual velocity Unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) 1* 2 (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 303.09 303.06 0.065 303.06 303.00 0.337 0. 59 1. 50 0. 96 1. 50 4.12 1.51 2.67 8.14 0.000 5.10 3.45 6.10 8.19 0.000 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity (in/hr) supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) PlO 0.763 0. 52 4.43 10.00 11.64 0.000 4.615 0.9 0.41 Pavement 0.25 0.11 Undeveloped Pll 0.814 0.38 4.88 10.00 11.64 0.000 3.602 0.9 0.33 Pavement 0.25 0.05 undeveloped ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID PlO Pll Inlet Inlet slopes Gutter Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) n Depr. (ft) curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. Grate width Type (ft) n/a n/a n/a n/a Pond width critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) 12.50 12.50 304.79 304.58 ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type capacity Allow Actual ID Length Length Width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) PlO Pll curb curb 4.615 3.602 4.579 3.602 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 cumulative Junction Discharge computations 10.72 9.46 10.00 11.40 10.00 10.39 ================================================================================= Node Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. User Additional Total Page 2 ' system P2 output I.D. Type c-value or .Area Tc suppl) Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cf s (cfs) (cfs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------PlO curb 0.784 0.90 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 8.217 Pll Curb 0.814 0.38 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 3.602 OUT outlt 0.784 0.90 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 8.217 Conveyance configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US OS US OS (ft) (ft) shape # Span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 1 2 Pll PlO PlO OUT 301.58 301.27 circ 1 0.00 1.50 301.17 301.07 circ 1 0.00 1.50 Conveyance Hydraulic Computations. Tailwater = 304.000 (ft) 52.00 0.60 0.013 16.60 0.61 0.013 ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) velocity Unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) 1* 304.16 304.10 0.118 0.70 1.50 4.48 2.04 3.60 8.14 0.000 2 304.10 304.00 0.612 1.24 1.50 5.25 4.65 8.22 8.19 0.000 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= PlO Run# 2 Insufficient capacity. Page 3 ' System Pl & P2 HGL Calculations 10 Year 100 year Critical Depth Depth Elevation HGL Below HGL Below Critical Critical FT FT FT FT FT Pl 306.81 305.08 1.73 305.25 1.56 P2 306 .01 304.32 1.69 304.51 1.5 P3 306.01 303.95 2.06 304.36 1.65 P4 306 .97 305 .27 1.7 305.44 1.53 PS 306.97 305 1.97 305.16 1.81 PG 307 .24 305.58 1.66 305 .77 1.47 P7 307 .24 305 .35 1.89 305.53 1.71 PlO 304 .29 303.06 1.23 304.1 0.19 Pll 304.08 303.09 0.99 304.16 -0.08 Binkley Barfield consulting eng i neers October 10, 2012 Mr. Alan Gibbs , P .E. City Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue , P.O. Box 9960 College Station , Texas 77842 Re: Water Line Design Report (Proposed 12" Waterline) College Station Medical + Senior Living Proposed Normand Drive and Arnold Road Extensions College Station, Texas Dear Mr. Gibbs: Binkley & Barfield , Inc. (BBI) is pleased to present this Water Line Design Report for the proposed 12" water line to be built with the proposed Normand Drive and Arnold Road extensions to serve the subject project. We have evaluated the proposed 12 " water line according to the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Standards. A summary of our design process , assumptions , and conclusions is below . Water Model Development The proposed project is located on the south side of Rock Prairie Road at the intersection of Normand Drive, where Arnold Road currently terminates. There is an existing 12 " water line located along Arnold Road which terminates at the end of the roadway. There is also an existing 12 " water line located just east of the project site on the College Station Medical Center property . BBI was provided fire flow test results conducted on two fire hydrants by College Station Utilities. One fire hydrant (Q-032) is located at 1602 Rock Prairie Road on the College Station Medical Center site just east of the project, and the other fire hydrant (Q-150) is located at 3615 Farah Drive. The tests were conducted on September 5, 2012 and September 11 , 2012 , respectively. The reports stated the static pressure (psi), amount of flow (gpm), and residual pressures at nearby hydrants during the flow tests. The residual pressures (during the flow tests) were recorded. For the fire flow test at 1602 Rock Prairie (Hydrant Q-032), the residual pressure of 92 psi , was recorded at Hydrant Q-030 located at the same address. For the fire flow test at 3615 Farah Drive, the residual pressure of 90 psi, was recorded at Hydrant Q-065 located at 1000 Bougainvillea Street. These residual pressures were used to model the source . Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106 -College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703 .1809 • www.BlnkleyBarfield .rom '• ., '· '• !' r '• ., II' ·' 'I I( •' r 1, '• Binkley Barfield consu lti ng eng i n e ers EP ANET 2 software was used to create the model. EP ANET 2 uses the Hardy Cross Method , and the Hazen Williams equation was selected to run the model. The existing 12 " water line just east of the project site on the College Station Medical Center property is modeled as one of the source supply points with a static head (elevation) of 308.5 feet and a residual pressure of 92 psi , for a total head of 520.74 feet. The existing 6" water line located on Farah Drive (Hydrant Q- 150), just southwest of the project site , is modeled as the source supply point with a static head (elevation) of 300 feet and a residual pressure of 90 psi , for a total head of 507 .63 feet. Nodes were entered and include their static head (elevation) and demand. Links (pipes) were entered and include their lengths in feet and diameters in inches. Bends and valves were added as necessary to the allow the program to determine a pipe 's overall loss coefficient. Roughness coefficients (C factor) of 110 were used to simulate a higher roughness in the future. For each of the three (3) fire events modeled , a summary of the nodes and links input information is included with this report, along with a schematic showing node numbers , link numbers , elevations, pipe sizes , and demands. Estimating Demand Domestic demands are included in the attached table. The demands are based on Method 2 - Land Use Determination in the Bryan/College Station Unified Design Standards. The domestic demand peak was estimated as average daily flow (ADF) x a peaking factor of 4 , and converted to gallons per minute (gpm). As shown the total domestic peak demand for Lot 1 is estimated to be 41.67 gpm , Lot 2 is estimated to be 32.58 gpm , and Lot 3 is estimated to be 50.25 gpm. The domestic demands were applied to Node ID Numbers 3 (Lot 3), 4 (Lot 2), and 5 (Lot 1 ). BBi estimated demands on the fire sprinkler systems for each building to be included in the water model calculations. BBi does not size fire suppression systems, and will rely on the expertise of the NFP A 24 licensed Fire Sprinkler Consultant, which will size the fire suppression system. Therefore we do not have the exact fire suppression system demand for each building at this time. However, BBI has estimated fire sprinkler demands of approximately 1,800 gpm for each Lot. Should the occupancy type , fire suppression area size , or required flowrate be determined by the Fire Sprinkler Consultant or City of College Station Fire Official/Fire Marshal to need adjustment , further analysis may need to be performed. Each fire event is modeled separately (i.e., Lot 1 Fire Event, Lot 2 Fire Event, Lot 3 Fire Event): The "Lot 1 Fire Event" model loads Node ID Number 5 with 1841.67 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), Node ID Number 4 (the nearest fire hydrant) with 532.58 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), and Node ID Number 3 with 50 .25 gpm (domestic demand only). The "Lot 2 Fire Event" model loads Node ID Number 5 with 41.67 gpm (domestic demand only), Node ID Number 4 with 1832.58 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), and Node ID Number 3 (the nearest fire hydrant) with 550.25 gpm (including domestic demand). Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 T arrow Street, Suite 106 -College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703 .1809 • www .BinkleyBarfield .(X)ITl 'l d •, • .1 ,1 . ' r J1i' '1 " • JV •iJ • i ,, , I i . ' I I I I I) 1 ... . , ,. I I' •' r ' • ·1 ,, ., •l ' l '. _, Binkley Barfield c on s u l t i ng e n g i n ee r s The "Lot 3 Fire Event" model loads Node ID Number 5 with 41.67 gpm (domestic demand only), Node ID Number 4 (the nearest fire hydrant) with 532 .58 gpm (including the domestic demand at the node), and Node ID Number 3 with 1850.25 gpm (including domestic demand). City of College Station standards dictate that fire flows for hydrants be estimated at a total of 2 ,500 gpm at the two furthermost hydrants in the system. For the "Exterior Fire Event" model , each furthermost hydrant, denoted as Node ID Numbers 4 and 5, were loaded with 1,250 gpm each , plus there domestic demands , for a total of 1282.58 gpm and 1291.67 , respectively (Node ID Number 3 remained at 50.25 gpm domestic demand only). Results Two parameters were closely monitored when reviewing the results of the model during the above fire/domestic flow events: maintaining a minimum residual pressure at each node of 20 psi or more per TCEQ standards and maintain pipe velocities lower than 12 feet per second per City of College Station standards . The lowest modeled pressures and highest velocities are summarized below and in the attached table which includes demands. Lot 1 Fire Event: a. Lowest Pressure at Node 5 of 84.46 psi. b . Highest Velocity in Pipes 1 and 2 of 6.05 ft/s . Lot 2 Fire Event: a. Lowest Pressure at Nodes 4,5 and6 of 86.26 psi. b. Highest Velocity in Pipes 1 and 2 of 6.62 ft/s. Lot 3 Fire Event: a. Lowest Pressure at Node 9 of 87.31 psi . b. Highest Velocity in Pipes 1 and 2of7.38 ft/s . Exterior Fire Event: a. Lowest Pressure at Node 5 of 84.29 psi. b. Highest Velocity in Pipes 1and2of6.58 ft/s. Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 Tarrow Street Suite 106 -College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703 .1809 • www.BinkleyBarfield .oom Binkley Barfield consulting engineers As shown, the model demonstrates that the proposed 12" water line meets the City of College Station requirements. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Binkley & Barfield, Inc. Consulting Engineers Rey Gonzalez, P.E. Project Engineer ~''''" -~OF f.'\\ .r:.. ~1. ••••••••• !'..-"I.''• 11''0 •• •• * ···.\SI '• l'.,,l .... ,. • : • * l ~ .................................. ,, 1~~.~~Q9 .. ~.~~.~;., .. .l... 91803 :-gi! ~.~;;.·f.l.cr:N':/l~.···~'l ,,,·.ss ............ ~r:,J' \\ .. 'ONA\..~ ... ,~...,..· / IO lo /rz.. Binkley & Barfield, Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106 -College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979 .703.1809 • www.BinkleyBarfield .com College Station Medical + Senior Living Domestic Water Demand Lot Number Acreage Population Factor Total Population Average Daily Flow Peaking Per Capita Average Daily Flow Factor Peak Flow (Based on Method 2) (GPO/Capita) (GPO) (GPO) 1 5.00 30 150.00 100 15000 4 60000 2 3 .91 30 117.30 100 11730 4 46920 3 6 .03 30 180.90 100 18090 4 72360 Totals 44,820 179,280 Fire Flow Water Demand Building Fire Hydrant Domestic Total Demand Lowest Modeled Highest Sprinkler Demand Demand Residual Pressure Modeled Demand Line Velocity (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (psi) (ft/s) Lot 1 Fire Event 1800 500 125 2,425 84 .46 6.05 Lot 2 Fire Event 1800 500 125 2,425 86 .26 6.62 Lot 3 Fire Event 1800 500 125 2,425 87.31 7.38 Exterior Fire Event 0 2500 125 2,625 84.29 6.58 EPANET 2 COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL+ SENIOR LIVING PROPOSED 12" WATER LINE Pipe 5 Pi e 4 Pi e 3 Pi 2 Node6._--e~~..:......:..i:=-.;..._..,.._~..:......:..i:=-'"---41f----'c....:..c;=-="4 Hydrant Q-032 (1602 Rock Prairie) Pipe 1 Node8-----e Node 5 Node 4 Node3 Node 2 Pipe 7 Node 7 P ipe 8 Hydrant Q-150 (3615 Farah) Page 1 Network Table -Nodes Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi June 2 307.5 0.00 517 .68 91.07 June 6 308 0.00 502.93 84.46 June 4 308 532.58 506.50 86.01 June 5 308 1841.67 502.93 84.46 June 3 308.5 50.25 513.82 88.97 June 7 308 0.00 502.96 84.48 June 8 308 0.00 503.01 84.50 Resvr 1 520.74 -2133 .60 520.74 0.00 Resvr 10 507.63 -290.90 507.63 0.00 EPANET2 Page 1 Network Table -Links Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft m GPM fps ft/Kft Pipe l 218 12 110 2133 .60 6.05 14.05 0.025 Pipe 2 262 12 110 2133.60 6 .05 14.71 0.026 Pipe 3 545 12 110 2083.35 5.91 13.45 0.025 Pipe 4 458 12 I I 0 1550.77 4.40 7.78 0.026 Pipe 5 4 12 110 -290.90 0.83 0.35 0.033 Pipe 6 66.7 12 110 -290.90 0 .83 0.41 0.038 Pipe 7 140 12 110 -290.90 0.83 0.35 0.033 Pipe 8 438 6 110 -290.90 3.30 10.55 0.031 EPANET2 Page 1 Network Table -odes Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi June 2 307 .5 0.00 517.12 90.83 June 6 308 0.00 507.09 86.26 June 4 308 1832.58 507.08 86.26 June 5 308 41.67 507.09 86.26 June 3 308.5 550.25 512.57 88.43 June 8 308 0.00 507.09 86.27 June 9 308 0.00 507.09 86.27 Resvr l 520 .74 -2333.45 520.74 0.00 Re svr 7 507.63 -91.05 507.63 0 .00 EPANET2 Page 1 Network Table -Lin.ks Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft in GPM fps ft/Kft Pipe I 218 12 110 2333.45 6.62 16 .59 0.024 Pipe 2 262 12 110 2333.45 6.62 17.37 0.026 Pipe 3 545 12 110 1783.20 5 .06 10 .08 0.025 Pipe4 458 12 110 -49.38 0 .14 0.01 0.043 Pipe 5 4 12 110 -91.05 0.26 0.04 0.037 Pipe 6 66.7 12 110 -91.05 0.26 0.05 0.045 Pipe 7 140 12 110 -91.05 0.26 0.04 0 .040 Pipe 8 438 6 110 -91.05 1.03 1.22 0.037 EPANET 2 Page 1 Network Table -Nodes Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi June 2 307 .5 0.00 516.31 90.48 June 6 308 0.00 509.53 87.32 June 4 308 532 .58 509.62 87.36 June 5 308 41.67 509.53 87.32 June 3 308.5 1850.25 510.74 87.63 June 8 308 0.00 509 .52 87.32 June 9 308 0 .00 509.50 87.31 Resvr 1 520.74 -2603.00 520 .74 0.00 Resvr 7 507.63 178.50 507 .63 0.00 EPANET2 Page 1 Network Table -Links Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft m GPM fps ft/Kft Pipe 1 218 12 110 2603.00 7.38 20.31 0.024 Pipe 2 262 12 110 2603.00 7.38 21.28 0 .02 5 Pip e 3 545 12 110 752.75 2.14 2.04 0.029 Pipe4 458 12 110 220.17 0.62 0.21 0.035 Pipe 5 4 12 110 178.50 0.51 0.14 0.036 Pipe 6 66.7 12 110 178.50 0.51 0.16 0.041 Pipe 7 140 12 110 178.50 0 .51 0.14 0.036 Pipe 8 438 6 110 178.50 2.03 4.26 0.033 EPANET2 Page 1 Network Table -Nodes Elevation Demand Head Pressure Node ID ft GPM ft psi June 2 307.5 0.00 517.16 90.85 June 6 308 0.00 502 .52 84.29 Jw1e4 308 1282.58 504.07 84.96 June 5 308 1291.67 502.52 84.29 June 3 308.5 50.25 512.66 88.46 June 8 308 0.00 502.55 84.30 June 9 308 0.00 502.61 84.32 Res vr 1 520.74 -2320.28 520.74 0.00 Re svr 7 507.63 -304.22 507 .63 0.00 EPANET2 Page 1 Network Table -Links Length Diameter Roughness Flow Velocity Unit Headloss Friction Factor Link ID ft 111 GPM fps ft/Kft Pipe I 218 12 110 2320.28 6.58 16.42 0.024 Pipe 2 262 12 110 2320.28 6 .58 17.19 0.026 Pipe 3 545 12 110 2270.02 6.44 15.76 0.024 Pipe4 458 12 110 987.45 2.80 3.37 0.028 Pipe 5 4 12 110 -304 .22 0.86 0.37 0.032 Pipe 6 66.7 12 110 -304.22 0.86 0.44 0.038 Pipe 7 140 12 110 -304 .22 0.86 0.38 0.033 Pipe 8 438 6 110 -304.22 3.45 11.47 0.031 EPANET 2 Page 1 FOR Offlr~~ Oft_L Y CASE NO.: i a. d_ LX" DATE SUBMl'.fED: JO · , 61a I CTTY or Cm.LEGE STATION Home ofTexz A&M University• TIME : ~~·)) STAFF: z ___..~i-==""'------ FINAL PLAT APPLICATION (Check one) D Minor ($700) D Amending ($700) ~Final ($932) D Vacating ($932) 0Replat ($932) Is this plat in the ET J? D Yes ~ No Is this plat Commercial [g) or Res idential D I MINIMUM SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: ~ $700-$932 Final Plat Application Fee (see above). · D i 233 Waiver Request to Subdivision Regulations Fee (if applicable). W $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 ~ue prior to the issuance of any plans or development permit). ~ Application completed in full. This application form provided by the City of College Station must be used and ;nay not be adjusted or altered . Please attach pages if additional information is provided. 0" J76 urteen (14) folded copies of plat (A signed mylar original must be submitted after approval.) Wyv o (2) copies of the grading , drainage, and erosion control plans with supporting drainage report . ~Two (2) copies of the Public infrastructure plans and supporting documents (if applicable). ~ _9 opy of original deed restrictions/covenants for replats (if applicable). [8(" Title report for property current within ninety (90) days or accompanied by a Nothing Further Certificate current within ninety (90) days. The report must include applicable information such as ownership , liens, cumbrances , etc. aid tax certificates from City of College Station , Brazos County and College Station l.S .D. e 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 for the preliminary plan project and processed and 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 College Station Medical+ Senior Living ADDRESS 1401 Arnold Road, College Station, TX SPECIFIED LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLAT: NW comer of the future intersection of Arnold Road and Normand Drive APPLICANT/PROJECT MANAGER'S INFORMATION (Primary contact for the project): Name CapRock Texas c/o Jesse Durden E-mail jesse .durden@caprocktx .com Street Address 110 Lincoln Avenue, Ste . 103 City College Station Zip Code 77840 ------ Phone Number 979-307-0321 Fax Number 979-314-7606 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1/11 Page 1of9 PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION (All owners must be identified. owners): Please attach an additional sheet for multiple Name Texas Hotel Management, LP E-mail -------------- PO Box 2864 Street Address City Bryan State TX Zip Code _7_78_0_5 ___ _ Phone Number 979-307-0321 Fax Number 979-314-7606 ----------------- ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER'S INFORMATION : Name Binkley & Barfield Consulting Engineers I Brandon Boatcallie, PE E-mail bmb@binkleybarfield.com Street Address 426 Tarrow, Ste. 106 City College Station State TX --------Zip Code _7_78_4_0 ___ _ Phone Number 979-703-1809 Fax Number ----------------~ Do any deed restrictions or covenants exist for this property? D Yes (g] No Is there a temporary blanket easement on this property? If so , please provide the Volume ____ and Page No . __ _ Total Acreage _1_7._0_5 _______ _ Total No . of Lots 3 ------R-0-W Acreage _2._1_1 _____ _ Existing Use _11'._a_ca_n_t ____________ _ Proposed Use Commercial & Multifamily (POD) Number of Lots By Zon ing District 3 I POD Average Acreage Of Each Residential Lot By Zoning District: ___ / __ _ ___ / __ _ Floodplain Acreage _o_.o_o __________________________________ _ Is there Special Flood Hazard Area (Zone A or Zone AE on FEMA FIRM panels) on the property? I Yes IX 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 lim ited to that which is provided in Chapter 245 of the Texas Local Government Code or other applicable law. Is this application a continuation of a project that has received prior City platting approval(s) and you are requesting the application be reviewed under previous ordinance as applicable? I Yes IX No If yes , provide information regarding the first approved application and any related subsequent applications (provide additional sheets if necessary): Project Name: C ity Project Number (if known): Date I Timeframe when submitted: 1/11 Page 2 of9 Requested waiver to subdivision rei::iulations and reason for same (if applicable): nla Regarding the waiver request, explain how: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved such that strict application of the subdiv ision rei::iulations will deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. nla 2. The waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. nla 3. The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public health, safety , or welfare , or injurious to other property in the area , or to the City in administering subdivision regulations. nla 4 . The granting of the waiver will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other land in the area in accordance with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. In/a Fee in lieu of sidewalk construction is being requested because of the following condition (if applicable): 1. I An alternative pedestrian way or multi-use path has been or will be provided outside the right-of-way ; 2. I The presence of unique or unusual topographic , vegetative, or other natural conditions exist so that strict adherence to the sidewalk requirements of the UDO is not physically feasible or is not in keeping with the purposes and goals of the UDO or the City's comprehensive Plan ; 3. I A capital improvement project is imminent that will include construction of the required sidewalk . Imminent shall mean the project is funded or projected to commence within twelve (12) months; 4. I Existing streets constructed to rural section that are not identified on the Thoroughfare Plan with an estate / rural context; 5. I When a sidewalk is required along a street where a multi-use path is shown on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Greenways Master Plan ; 1/11 Page 3 of 9 6. I The proposed development is within an older residential subdivision meeting the criteria in Platting and Replatting within Older Residential Subdivisions Section of the UDO; or 7 . I 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. Requested Oversize Participation. _______________________________ _ Total Linear Footage of Proposed Public: ~Streets 3 410 Sidewalks Sanitary Sewer Lines /'3lfC>water Lines Channels q I () Storm Sewers Bike Lanes I Paths Parkland Dedication due prior to filing the Final Plat: ACREAGE: ___ No. of acres to be dedicated + $ ____ development fee ___ No. of acres in floodplain ___ No. of acres in detention ___ No. of acres in greenways OR FEE IN LIEU OF LAND: __ No. of SF Dwelling Units X $ = $ --------- (date) Approved by Parks & Recreation Advisory Board ---- NOTE: DIGITAL COPY OF PLAT MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO FILING. The applicant has prepared this application and certifies that the facts stated herein and exhibits attached hereto are true, correct, and complete. 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. x ~A Date 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 will 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 City of College Station , Texas City Code, Chapter 13 and associated BCS Unified Des ign 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 bidding purposes only . I understand that final approval and release of plans and development for construction is contingent on contractor signature on approved Develop t Permit. 13 . I, THE OWNER , AGREE TO AND CERT Y TH TALL STATEMENTS H , AND IN ATIACHMENTS FOR OWLEDGE, TRUE , AND THE DEVELOJ>ME I TION, RE , TO THE BEST OF .........,.. ..•• r,,..TE . I Property Owner(s) ~~"" Y"H. / 5"'1 A-IL Date 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 will 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 ATIACHMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION, ARE , TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE , TRUE, AND ACCURATE . Engineer 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:* certify, as demonstrated in the attached drainage study, that the alterations or development covered by this permit, 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. Engineer 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: B. I, (S{'~,JOo J /3.D~CALc{ l:( , 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 . Engineer 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 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 Elevation Certificates will be provided with 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 commercial , industrial , or other non-residential structure are designed to have the lowest floor, 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 utility , ductwork, basement and sanitary facilities is designed to be flood-proofed so that the structure and utilities, ductwork, basement and san itary facilities are designed to be watertight and impermeable 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 construction (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 Existing D D D 1/11 FINAL PLAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (ALL CITY ORDINANCES MUST BE MET) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: (Requirements based on field survey and marked by monuments and markers.) ~ Drawn on 24" x 36" sheet to scale of 100' per inch . ~ Vicinity map which includes enough of surrounding area to show general location of subject property in relationship to College Station and its City Limits . No scale required but include north arrow. ~ Title Block with the following information : ~ Name and address of subdivider, recorded owner, planner, engineer and surveyor. ~ Proposed name of subdivision. (Subdivision name & street names will be approved through Brazos County 911 .) ~ Date of preparation . ~ Engineer's scale in feet. ~ Total area intended to be developed . ~ North Arrow. ~ Subdivision boundary indicated by heavy lines. ~ If more than 1 sheet , an index sheet showing entire subdivision at a scale of 500 feet per inch or larger. ~ All applicable certifications based on the type of final plat. ~ Ownership and Dedication ~ Surveyor and/or Engineer ~ City Engineer (and City Planner, if a minor plat) ~ Planning and Zoning Commission (delete if minor plat) ~ Brazos County Clerk D Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval (ET J Plats only) D If submitting a replat where there are existing improvements, submit a survey of the subject property showing the improvements to ensure that no encroachments will be created. D If using private septic systems, add a general note on the plat that no private sewage facility may be installed on any lot in this subdivision without the issuance of a license by the Brazos County Health Unit under the provisions of the private facility regulations adopted by the Commissioner's Court of Brazos County , pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 .084 of the Texas Water Code. D Location of the 100-Year Floodplain and floodway , if applicable , according to the most recent available data . ~ Lot corner markers and survey monuments (by symbol) and clearly tied to basic survey data . ~ Matches the approved preliminary plan or qualifies as minor amendments (UDO Section 3.3 .E.2). The location and description with accurate dimensions , bearings or deflection angles and radii , area, center angle, degree of curvature, tangent distance and length of all curves for all of the following : (Show existing items that are intersecting or contiguous with the boundary of or forming a boundary with the subdivision, as well as, those within the subdivision). Proposed ~ Streets. Continuous or end in a cul-de-sac, stubbed out streets must end into a temp turn around unless they are shorter than 100 feet. Public and private R.0.W. locations and widths . (All existing and proposed R.O.W.'s sufficient to meet Thoroughfare Plan.) Street offsets and/or intersection angles meet ordinance. Page 8 of9 Existing D D D D Proposed Alleys . Easements . A number or letter to identify each lot or site and each block (numbered sequentially). Parkland dedication/greenbelt area/park linkages . All proposed dedications must be reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and documentation of their recommendation provided prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration . [8] Construction documents for all public infrastructure drawn on 24" x 36" sheets and properly sealed by a Licensed Texas Professional Engineer that include the following : [8] Street , alley and sidewalk plans, profiles and sections. One sheet must show the overall street, alley and/or sidewalk layout of the subdivision. (may be combined with other utilities). Sewer Design Report. Sanitary sewer plan and profile showing depth and grades. One sheet must show the overall sewer layout of the subdivision . (Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth areas .) D Water Design Report and/or Fire Flow Report. [8J Water line plan showing fire hydrants, valves, etc. w ith plan and profile lines showing depth and grades . One sheet must show the overall water layout of the subdivision . (Utilities of sufficient size/depth to meet the utility master plan and any future growth areas .) [8J Storm drainage system plan with contours , street profile, inlets , storm sewer and drainage channels , with profiles and sections . Drainage and runoff areas, and runoff based on 5, 10 , 25 , 50 and 100 year rain intensity. Detailed drainage structure design , channel lining design & detention if used . One sheet must show the overall drainage layout of the subdivision . [8] Detailed cost estimates for all public infrastructure listed above sealed by Texas P.E. D Letter of completion for public infrastructure or guarantee I surety in accordance with UDO Section 8.6 . .JZf Drainage Report with a Technical Design Summary. [8J Erosion Control Plan (must be included in construction plans). r8J All off-site easements necessary for infrastructure construction must be shown on the final plat with a volume and page listed to indicate where the separate instrument easements were filed . Separate instrument easements must be provided in recordable form to the City prior to being scheduled for P&Z Commission consideration . [8] Are there impact fees associated with this development? 0 Yes [8J No Impact fees must be paid prior to building permit. [8] Will any construction occur in TxDOT rights -of-way? 0 Yes [8] No If yes, TxDOT permit must be submitted along with the construction documents. NOTE: 1. We w ill be requesting the corrected Final Plat to be submitted in digital form if available prior to filing the plat at the Courthouse. 1/11 2 . ~f the construction area is greater than 5 acres, EPA Notice of Intent (NOi) must be submitted prior to issuance of a development permit. Print Form Page 9 or 9 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO. 12-218 CITY oF Cou,EGE STxnoN i'i'.:•11tiH!:&l>.-i'f'kfmm1S'.-n:iot:< FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE : CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: College Station Medical + Senior Living DATE OF ISSUE: 12/21/12 OWNER: Texas Hotel Management, LP (c/o Jesse Durden) PO Box 2864 Bryan, TX 77805 SITE ADDRESS: 1401 Arnold Rd . DRAINAGE BASIN: Lick Creek VALID FOR 24 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: Full Development Permit CONDITIONS: 1. No work beyond limits covered in permit is authorized . 2. The permit may be revoked if any false statements are made herein. If revoked, all work must cease until permit is re - issued. 3. Development shall not be used or occupied until Certificate of Occupancy is issued . 4 . The permit will expire if no significant work is progressing within 24 months of issuance . 5. If required , Elevation Certificates will be provided with elevations certified during construction (forms at slab pre-pour) and post construction . 6. 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 . 7. Stormwater mitigation , including detention ponds will be constructed first in the construction sequence of the project. 8. 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 . 9. All disturbed areas will be re-vegetated prior to Letter of Completion or Certificate of Occupancy . 10 . 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 . 11 . 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 . 12 . Special Conditions : *** TCEQ PH .II RULES IN EFFECT *** I, ________________ , the Contractor, hereby agree to comply with all conditions herein . Contractor Date I hereby gran~ this perm~t for ~evelopment. C~ntact jt ~l~ -·r1 V\\lf( :tl1-Q'Zg1.. , the Public Works Inspector assigned to this project 24 hours prior to beginning construction for scheduling required Inspections . 1i/14 JI~ Date Binkley Barfield consulting eng i neers December 10 , 2012 Alan Gibbs, P .E. City Engineer City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue, P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: COLLEGE STATION MEDICAL + SENIOR LNING -Final Drainage Report with Technical Design Summary Dear Alan: I am pleased to submit the Final Drainage Report for the College Station Medical + Senior Living project. As discussed, the area M3 flows have been routed to the SBH pond and the report has been updated to reflect the changes. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Brandon Boatcallie, P .E . Office Manager -Brazos Valley Regional Office Binkley & Barfield , Inc. I TBPE F-257 • 426 Tarrow Street , Suite 100 -College Station , Texas 77840 • Tel : 979.703.1800 • www.BinkleyBarfield .com Executive Summary Contact Information The design engineer for the College Station Medical+ Senior Living ("CSM+SL") project drainage report is Brandon Boatcallie, P.E. He may be contacted at the local Binkley and Barfield office, 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106, College Station, TX 77840, 979 .703 .1809 or via email at bmb@binkleybarfield.com . Jesse Durden is the representative for Texas Hotel Management, LP. ("Owner") and may be reached by mail at 110 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103, College Station, TX 77840, by phone at 979 .307.0321, or by email at jesse.durden@caprocktx.com. The College Station Medical +Senior Living preliminary drainage report was submitted to the City of College Station on October 3, 2012. The final report was submitted to the City on November 26, 2012 for final review. Project Description The CSM+SL site is situated south of the Southwood Athletic Complex and East of the College Station Medical Center in College Station, Texas. The 17 .07 acre tract (zoned POD -City Ordinance 2012-3392) will be subdivided into 3 lots that will be used for medical support facilities and senior housing. This drainage report will focus on the public infrastructure for the extension of Arnold Road and Normand Drive. As each of the 3 lots is developed, each design engineer will submit a separate drainage report for their portion of the site development. The preliminary plan was submitted to the City of College Station on September 5, 2012 and was assigned the following case file#: 12-00500194. The final plat and construction documents were submitted to the City on October 10, 2012 for initial review. Final documents were submitted November 26, 2012. Project Location The 17 .07 acre tract is located roughly 3300' to the southwest of the SH6/Rock Prairie Road intersection. The tract is bounded by the Southwood Athletic Complex to the north and the College Station Medical Center to the East. The site lies on the ridge line between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek watersheds and contributes roughly 5.5 acres to Bee Creek and 12.7 acres to Lick Creek. The entire project site lies within the City of College Station city limits. None of the site lies within FEMA floodplains as shown in Tab 6: Flood Insurance Rate Map. The site lies on the ridgeline between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek Watersheds . Roughly 5.5 acres drains to Bee Creek while the remaining 12.4 acres drains to Lick Creek. The existing Med facility and the proposed lot 3 currently drain to the Bee Creek watershed via an existing detention pond and drainage channel near the Normand Drive intersection with Rock Prairie Road. The existing flows to Lick Creek are currently being re routed around the College Station Utilities site, by an existing earthen berm, to the Arnold tract to the west and storm flows appear to be used to fill an existing stock pond. The proposed outfall location for the Arnold Road dra i nage system will be installed through the College Station utilities site as directed by City representatives and as approved by the owner's representative Executive Summary for the Arnold tract. Detention will not be installed with the roadway construction; however the final plat w i ll require the developers of lots 1 and 2 to detain the increase in flow produced as a result of the increase i n impervious cover produced by the Arnold Road roadway construction. Site Hydrologic Characteristics The 17 .05 acre site is essentially undeveloped . In general , the property consists mostly of open, grass covered pastureland with clusters of trees throughout. An existing BTU aerial electric line bisects the project site and the remnants of a storage barn are present, but there do not appea r to be any improved roads o r other dist i nctive su rface features in the area planned for construction . The site lies on the ridge line between the Bee Creek and Lick Creek watersheds as previously stated . Flows are generally conveyed across the site as sheet flow. A field investigation confirmed that existing berms along all property boundaries redirect flows, hence forming shallow concentrated flow condit ions along the site boundaries. Ex isting storm water flows exit the site at two locations : The Bee Creek portion of the site (See Tab 3: Drainage Area Maps and Hydrologic Computations, Dra i nage Area El) exits into a shallow creek on the northwest corner of the property. The Lick Creek portion of the site flows to the south, and concentrates at the northeast corner of the Arnold property. Flows then appea r to trave l along the Arnold property driveway and into an existing stock pond . It appears that flows are then detained in the pond until the spillway elevat ion is reached then conveyed into Lick Creek. Stormwater Management Plan Proposed stormwater flows will be conveyed within the site via sheet flow and conveyed along Arnold Road and Normand Drive via curb and gutter, collected in curb inlets, and conveyed underground via storm sewer pipes . The Normand Drive flows will be conveyed to the existing Bee Creek detention pond on the Med site . The existing pond volume will be reduced by 300 CY due to the Normand Drive construction. Additional volume will be provided i n the Strategic Behavio r al Health site to re place the volume lost i n the existing Med pond and a portion of the Med site flows (drainage area M 3) w ill be diverted to the proposed SBH pond . This report does not analyze the impacts to Bee Creek due to the detention pond modifications. Furthermore, the existing pond analysis was not performed as part of this report and it is our understanding that others will analyze and mitigate any increases in flow caused by these modifications. The Arnold Road flows will be conveyed to Lick Creek via a storm sewer pipe through the College Station Utility site. The final plat will require the future property owners on lots 1 and 2 to over-detain storm water flows upon site development to offset the slight i ncrease i n flow caused by the impervious cover added along Arnold Road . Mitigating the nominal increase i n storm water flows due to the Arnold Road construction would not be feasible during the roadway construction but would be feasible with site development. Coordination and Permitting The City of College Station has reviewed the pre li m inary site plan and w i ll also rev iew the fi nal plat an d const r uction pla ns. The eng i neering design team has coord i nated with t he City regard i ng a number of issues (i ncluding conveyance through the College Station Uti lities site and existing pond mod ifi cat ions on the Med site). The client, Jesse Durden, contacted the owner of the Arnold property and discussed the proposed impacts to existing flow paths with the owner's representative . The owner's representative indicated that the re -routing of storm flows through the College Station Electric site would ben efit t he property owner and indicated that the design team could move forward with the designing of the outfall Executive Summary structure . The City of College Station appears to be the only permitting authority required for this development hence the City permitting process will be followed to ensure the appropriate permits are obtained prior to construction. BBi calculated the reduction in the existing Med detention pond volume and provided it to the Client as directed in email communications. BBi has not performed an analysis of the impacts of the existing pond reduction as it relates to the flow rate into Bee Creek and makes no guarantees that pre developed and post developed flow rates are equivalent. It is our understanding that others will perform this analysis and design mitigation measures should they be required. Drainage Report The complete drainage report will outline the specific assumptions and calculations to outline the drainage design process. The report consists of the following: Tab 1: Executive Summary (3 pages) Tab 2: Technical Design Summary (26 pages) Tab 3: Drainage Area Maps and Hydrologic Computations (2 pages) Tab 4: Winstorm Output Files (17 pages) Tab 5: Hydraulic Gradeline Calculations (1 page) Tab 6: Flood Insurance Rate Map (1 page) In addition to the items listed above, the complete construction drawings and specifications submitted herewith comprise the drainage report for this project. 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 STORMWATER DESIGN GU IDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 1of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY applications that are in process with either City : plat(s}, site plans , zoning requests , 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 li mits and within the ET J is to be identified , including whether the property straddles city jurisdictional lines. If any port ion 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 facilit ies ; 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 w ith othe r 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 August 2012 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Start (Page 2.1) Engineering and Design Professionals Information Eng i neering F irm Name and Address : Jurisd iction Binkley & Barfield Inc . City: Bryan 426 Tarrow Street, Suite 106 x College Station College Station, TX 77840 Date of Submittal : November 26, 2012 Lead Engineer's Name and Contact lnfo.(phone , e-mail , fax ): Other: Brandon Boatcallie, p: 979. 703 .1809, bmb@ binkley barfield.com Supporting Eng ineering I Consulting Firm(s): Other contacts: Developer I Owner I Applicant Information Developer I Applicant Name and Address : Phone and e-mail: Jesse Durden, Caprock Texas 979.492.0425 110 Lincoln Ave , Ste. 103 jesse.durden@caprocktx .com College Station, TX 77840 Property Owner(s) if not Developer I Applicant (&address): Phone and e-mail: Texas Hotel Management Corporation 979.307.0321 PO Box 2864, Bryan, TX 77805 Project Identification Development Name: College Station Medical + Senior Living Is subject property a site proj ect , a single-phase subdivision , or part of a multi-phase subd iv ision? Multi-phase subdivision If multi -phase , subject property is phase 1 of 4 Legal description of subject property (phase) or Project Area: (see Section II, Paragraph B-3a) Certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the Robert Stevenson League, Abstract no. 43 , College Station, Brazos County, Texas. Said tract being the remainder of a called 17.215 acre tract as described by a deed to Texas Hotel Management Corporation recorded in Volume 3665, Page 248 of the official public records of Brazos County, Texas. 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 Area, or subject property (phase): Comer of Arnold Road and Normand Drive in College Station. In C ity Limits? Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (acreage): Bryan : acres . Bryan : College Station : 0 College Station : 17.05 acres. Acreage Outside ET J: 0 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 3 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 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 bu ilt subj ect property : developme nts: Arnold Road and Normand Drive Coll ege Station Medical Center to east, College Station Utility Center Named Regu lat ory Watercourse (s) & Watershed (s): Tribu t ary Basin(s): Lick Creek & Bee Creek Plat Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) P re limin ary Plat Fil e #: Fin al Plat Fil e #: Pending Date: Na m e : Case file no . 12-00500194 St at us and Vol/Pg : If two plats , second name: File#: St atus : Dat e: Zoning Information For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Urdmance Zonin g Type: PDD Exi st ing or Pro posed ? Existing Case Code: 2Ql 2-3392 Case Date 12 Jan 20 12 Status: Approved Zon i ng Type: Existing or Proposed? Case Code: Case Date Status: Stormwater Management Planning For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Plann ing Conference(s) & Date(s): Participants : September 25 , 2012 Alan Gibbs, Brandon Boatcallie Pre limi nary Report Requi red? No Subm ittal Dat e Rev iew Date Rev iew Com men t s Addressed? Yes --No --In W ri t ing? When? Compliance With Preliminary Drainage Report. Briefly describe (or attach documentation ex pla ini ng) an y deviation (s) from provisions of Prel im inary Drainage Report , if an y. STOR MWAT ER DESIGN GU IDELINE S Effecti ve Feb ruary 2007 Page 4 of 26 APP ENDI X. D: TECH . DESIGN SU MMA RY As Re v ised A ug ust 20 12 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 2 -Project Administration I Continued (page 2 .3) Coordination For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) Note: For any Coordination of stormwater matters indicated below, attach documentation describing and substantiating any agreements , understandings, contracts , or approvals . Coordination Dept. Contact: Date: Subject: With Other P&DS Alan Gibbs, P .E . Letter Volume swap with Med p ond Departments of Jurisdiction CSU Group 10/4112 Outfall across CSU site City (Bryan or College Station) Coordination W ith Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Non-jurisdiction City Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): Brazos County Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TxDOT Needed? Yes No x ---- Coordination with Summarize need(s) & actions taken (include contacts & dates): TAMUS Needed? Yes No x ---- Permits For Project or Subject Property (or Phase) As to stormwater management, are permits required for the proposed work from any of the entities listed below? If so, summarize status of efforts toward that objective in spaces below. Entity Permitted or Approved? US Army Crops of Engineers No x Yes --- US Environmental Protection Agency No x Yes - Texas Commission on Environmental Quality No x Yes -- Brazos River Authority No x Yes --- STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 5 of26 Status of Actions (include dates) APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Start (Page 3.1) Nature and Scope of Proposed Work Existing: Land proposed for development currently used , including extent of impervious cover? Entire 17.05 acres is currently undeveloped. 0% 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). _x_ Other (explain): Installing public infrastruc tu re for future development. Subdivision __ Construction of streets and utilities to serve one or more platted lots. Development __ x _ 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. Size of Proposed final plat to subdiv id e site into 3 lo ts. (Lot 1-5.00 acres, Lot 2 -3.91 acres, Pro12osed Lot 3 -6.03 acres). Progosed 1200 LF extension of Arnold Road. Proposed 785 LF Project extension ofNormand rive. Proposed dedication of2.l l acres of public ROW . Is any work planned on land that is not platted If yes, explain : or on land for which platting is not pending? x No Yes ---- FEMA Floodplains Is any part of subject property abutting a Named Regulatory Watercourse I No _x_ Yes __ (Section 11, Paragraph B1) or a tributary thereof? Is any part of subject property in floodplain INo_x 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 x -- 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 of26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 ' SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Pro~ertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.2) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) Has an earlier hydrologic analysis been done for larger area including subject property? Yes Reference the study (&date) here , and attach copy if not already in City files . -- Is the stormwater management 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 x 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 wi ll comply therewith . Modifications to Med pond will reduce pond volume by 300 CY. Strategic Behavioral Health pond will add lost volume to proposed pond . Will divert area M3 from Med Pond to SBH pond. This report does not analyze impacts to Bee Creek channel. Analysis (including proposed mitigation to be performed by others. Increased flows along Arnold Road will be mitigated with future site development as noted on the final plat. Do ex isting topographic features on subject property store or detain runoff? _x_ No --Yes Describe them (include approximate size , volume , outfall , model , etc). Any known drainage or flood ing problems in areas near subject property? _x_ No --Yes Identify: Based on location of study property in a watershed , is Type 1 Detention (flood control) needed? (see Table B-1 in Appendix B) __ Detention is required . x Need must be evaluated . __ Detention not required . -- What decision has been reached? By whom? Bee Creek -required . Lick Creek -evaluate . Detention later required per Alan Gibbs r1iredinn If the need for How was determination made? Type 1 Detention City determined need for detention in Lick Creek basin . Mitigation will be required must be evaluated : with site development for lots 1 & 2 as noted on the Final Plat. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 7 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 I_ SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -ProQertv Characteristics I Continued (Page 3.3) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property (or Phase) (continued) Does subject property straddle a Watershed or Basin divide? __ No x Yes If yes , --describe splits below. In Part 4 describe desiqn concept for handlinq this . Watershed or Basin Larger acreage Lesser acreage Bee Creek 5 .5 Lick Creek 12 .7 Above-Project Areas(Section II , Paragraph 83-a) Does Project Area (project or phase) receive runoff from upland areas? _x_ No --Yes Size(s) of area(s) in acres: 1) 2) 3) 4) Flow Characteristics (each instance) (overland sheet, shallow concentrated , recognizable concentrated section(s), small creek (non-regulatory), regulatory Watercourse or tributary); Project Area should receive runoff from upstream areas but existing berms redirect flows along property boundaries. Flow determination : Outline hydrologic methods and assumptions: Does storm runoff drain from public easements or ROW onto or across subject property? x No Yes If yes, describe facilities in easement or ROW : ---- Are changes in runoff characterist ics subject to change in future? Explain Conveyance Pathways (Section II , Paragraph C2) Must runoff from study property drain across lower properties before reach i ng a Regulatory Watercourse or tributary? No x Yes Describe length and characteristics of each conveyance pathway (s). Include owne rship of property(ies). Flow currently flows across Arnold Property (to the south) for roughly 800' and then flows to Lick Creek via shallow concentrated flow and stock pond overflow . Property owner granted permission to redirect flows to Lick Creek as indicated in Executive Summary. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 8 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 , SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 3 -Property Characteristics J Continued (Page 3.4) Hydrologic Attributes of Subject Property {or Phase) {continued) Conveyance Pathways (continued) Do drainage If yes , for what part of length? % Created by? __ plat , or easements __ instrument. If instrument(s), describe their provisions . exist for any part of pathway(s)? x No Yes Pathway Areas Nearby Where runoff must cross lower properties , describe characteristics of abutting lower property(ies). (Existing watercourses? Easement or Consent aquired?) CSU consent acquired for installation of proposed outfall through CSU sight. CSU requested piping water through site and daylighting to an open ditch near southern parking area. Describe any built or improved drainage facilities existing near the property (culverts , bridges , lined channels , buried conduit , swales, detention ponds, etc). Existing shallow swales and stock pond to the so uth. Existing detention pond on Med si te and box culvert under Rock Prairie Ro ad to the north. Drainage r--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----i Facilities Do any of these have hydrologic or hydraulic influence on proposed stormwater design? __ No _x_ ves If yes , explain : It appears that stock pond may detain some flow but ultimately flows outfall into Lick Creek. For the sake ofthis report, we assumed that the pond does not detain stormwater flows . STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 9 of26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Start (Page 4.1) Stormwater Management Concept Discharge(s) From Upland 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. Arnold Road profile designed to allow existing site flows to enter proposed drainage conveyance systems. As each site is developed, post developed flows will be mitigated via proposed detention facilities and conveyed to Lick Creek via proposed storm drain system. Lots 1 & 2 will also be required to overdetain to mitigate increased flows due to Arnold Road construction as indicated on the Final Plat. Discharge(s) To Lower Property(ies) (Section II , Paragraph E1) Does project include drainage features (existing or future) proposed to become publ ic via platting? No x Yes Separate Instrument? No Yes ---- Per Guidel in es reference above, how will __ Establishing Easements (Scenario 1) runoff be discharged to neighboring __ Pre-development Release (Scenario 2) property(ies)? x Combination of the two Scenarios Scenario 1: If easements are proposed , describe where needed , and provide status of actions on each . (Attached Exhibit# ) Scenario 2: Provide general description of how release(s) will be managed to pre-development conditions (detention, sheet flow, partially concentrated , etc.). (Attached Exhibit# ) Combination: If combination is proposed , explain how discharge will differ from pre- development conditions at the property line for each area (or po int) of release . Proposed storm drain outfall is anticipated to cross College Station Utilities site hence easements are not being proposed on City Property . Increased flows due to public infrastructure are nominal hence impacts to Lick Creek appear to be negligible. Site development projects on Lots l & 2 will detain nominal increase in flows . If Scenario 2, or Combination are to be used , has proposed design been coordinated with owner(s) of rece iving property(ies)? No x Yes Explain and provide --documentation . Operators of College Station utilities site have given consent to outfall pipe across property. Arnold property owner has given consent to redirect flows onto CSU si te as summarized in Executive Summary. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 10 of 26 APPENDIX . D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revis ed August 2012 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 1--W-h_a_t_d_e-si_g_n_a_n_d_m_i~ti-ga-t-io_n_i~s-u_s_e~d-to~c-om~p-e-nsa~t-e~fo_r_i-nc_r_e_a-se-d~ru_n_o~ff~--; Watersheds? from gaining basin or watershed? x No 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. __ x _ With facility(ies) involving other development projects. 2. __ Establishing features to serve overall Project Area . 3. _x_ 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# ) Bee Creek storage volume lost in M ed pond will be prov id ed in Strategic Behavioral H ealth pond. As previous ly di scus sed, this proj ect has not analyzed the impacts to Bee Creek. This analys is will be performed by others. 2 . For Overall Project Area (type & location of facilities): (Attached Exhibit# ) 3. By phase (or site) project: Describe planned mitigation measures for phases (or sites) in subsequent questions of this Part. Each site development will provide d etention as they develop. C'-· "O Q) (/) c Q) ffi >-a: (/) c Cl 'iii Q) 0 Oz ro ! xi ~ <( Are aquatic echosystems proposed? __ No project(s)? __ Yes In which phase(s) or Are other Best Management Practices for reducing stormwater pollutants proposed? __ No __ Yes Summarize type of BMP and extent of use : If design of any runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain 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 August 2012 , SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concept and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .3) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Project Area Of Multi-Phase Project (continued) Will Project Area include bridge(s) or culvert(s)? _x_ 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 (physical location , conveyance pathway(s}, construction sequence): Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) If property part of larger Project Area , is design in substantial conformance with earlier analysis and report for larger area? __ Yes No , then summarize the difference(s): Identify whether each of the types of drainage features listed below are included , extent of use, and general characteristics. Typical shape? I Surfaces? Steepest side slopes: Usual front slopes: Usual back slopes: Flow line slopes: least ____ _ Typical distance from travelway : typical greatest ___ _ (Attached Exhibit # ) Are longitudinal culvert ends in compliance with B-CS Standard Specifications? ___ Yes No , then explain : At intersections or otherwise , do valley gutters cross arterial or collector streets? ___ No _x_Yes If yes explain : Proposed Normand Drive gutter will cross intersecti on with Proposed Arnold Road . Are valley gutters proposed to cross any street away from an intersection? _x _ No __ Yes Explain : (number of locations?) STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 12 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.4) Stonnwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Gutter line slopes : Least 0 .5% Usual 0 .6% Greatest 5.0% Are inlets recessed on arterial and collector streets? x Yes No If "no '', -- --identify where and why. Will inlets capture 10-year design storrnflow to prevent flooding of intersections (arterial with arterial or collector)? x Yes No If no , explain where and why not. -- ('-· Normand Drive inlets lo cated roughly 125 lf off Rock Prairie at point in ro adway pro file where 1:l HGL into oond is acceotable. Alan Gibbs agreed that this is sufficientlv close to intersection. (I) (/) Will inlet size and placement prevent exceeding allowable water spread for 10-year ::i '-design storm throughout site (or phase)? x Yes No If no , expla in. (I) :::::: ---- ::i C) 1:l ~ c: 1:l C1l (I) Sag curves: Are inlets placed at low points? x Yes No Are inlets and ..a ~ -- '-·-conduit sized to prevent 100-year stormflow from ponding at greater than 24 inches? ::i ...... 0 c: x Yes No Explain "no" answers. ..c: 0 ----~~ 3 (/) ...... (I) (I) '-...... (/) (I) Wi ll 100-yr stormflow be contained in combination of ROW and buried conduit on '-~ whole length of all streets? x Yes No If no , describe where and why . -- -- Do designs for curb , gutter, and inlets comply with B-CS Technical Specifications? x Yes No If not, describe difference(s) and attach justification. -- Are any 12-inch laterals used? _x_ No --Yes Identify leng t h(s) and where used . C'-· 1:l Pipe runs between system I Typical 150 265 (I) (/) Longest (/) (I) access points (feet): ::i >- E x i x i Are junction boxes used at each bend? --Yes --No If not , explain where and why . (/) c: ·-0 ~z 1:l I E '-0 Are downstream soffits at or below upstream soffits? Least amount that hydraul ic iii .!!1 Yes x No __ If not, explain where and why : grade line is below gutter line --(system-wide): 9" STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 13 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce12t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.5) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Ui" 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? co ii) Bee Creek (System P2), 1.91 fps , 90 " c Q) .._ -o ~E 2) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? :::J .._ c 0 Lick Creek (System Pl), 5 .74 fps , 90 " ·--c . 0 .2 (.) c -·-~ E Q) Q) E 3) Watercourse (or system), velocity, and angle? ....... co :E (/) (/) ~ Q) :J c:"Q 0 ·-> ~ e "C a. E ....... For each outfall above, what measures are taken to prevent erosion or scour of .._ Q) 0 Q) receiving and all facilities at juncture? ....... .r::. (/) (/) Q) 1) Pilot channel ....... co .._ co 2) a. Ro ck riprap Q) (/) c 3) _£. Are swale(s) situated along property lines between properties? __ No --Yes Number of instances: For each instance answer the following questions. Surface treatments (including low-flow flumes if any): C'-· (/) Q) ~ (/) ....... Q) F low line slopes (minimum and maximum): (/) >-c ~ I ~o (/)z :::J Outfall characteristics for each (velocity, convergent angle, & end treatment). ~xi ~ (/) Q) .._ 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 August 201 2 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .6) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) 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 ..c -- .B Are top of banks separated from road shoulders 2 feet or more? __ Yes --No 0 Are all ditch sections trapezoidal and at least 1.5 feet deep? Yes No Q) -- --"O For any "no" answers provide location(s) and explain : ·u; "O Cll 0 0:: If conduit is beneath a swale , provide the following information (each instance). Instance 1 Describe general location, approximate length : (/) 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 Cll z iii Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size , minimum and maximum xi~ and maximum slopes: slopes, design storm: 0 ~ C'-· ii (/) "O Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): Q) Cll In lets c >. c Cll c ..c Cll u .... c .E Q) c Access Describe how maintenance access is provided (to swale , into conduit): c. 0 0 ~ '+-Cll 0 E :::J .... -~ .E c .!: Q) Instance 2 Describe general location , approximate length : "O E Q) Cll (/) (/) :::J (/) Q) Is 100-year design flow contained in conduit/swale combination? Yes No c "O ·:;;; -- --0 If "no" explain : ~ 0 Cll .... c c. :.0 -Q) Space for 100-year storm flow? ROW Easement Width E Q) 0 ..c u (/) Swale Surface type , minimum Conduit Type and size, minimum and maximum -Q) ·s iii and maximum slopes : slopes , design storm : "O .... c Cll 0 c. u Q) Inlets Describe how conduit is loaded (from streets/storm drains, inlets by type): --(/) Q) ro c 3 ~ (/) 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 August 2012 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 instance: Instance 1 Describe general location , approximate length , surfacing : c:: "ii'i E c. x 0 w '--~ vi Is 100-year design flow conta ined in swale? --Yes --No Is swale wholly 0 Q) within drainage ROW? Yes No Explain "no " answers: c:: >-I :::I ---- '- Q) > ·a; Access Describe how maintenance access is provide : u Q) '-0 ~ z :::I -0 xi c:: 0 u Instance 2 Describe general location , approximate length , surfacing : -0 Q) ·.::: C'-· :::I en .0 c "5 Q) 0 E £ Q) en Is 100-year design flow contained in swale? Yes No Is swale wholly ·3 ro ----Q) within drainage ROW? __ Yes No Explain "no" answers : en '---Q) 0 ro ~ ::: en 0 ~ a::: Access Describe how maintenance access is provided : .!:2 :0 :::I a. Instance 31 4 1 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. <'-· -0 c:: Will design replicate natural channel? Yes No If "no", for each instance Q) -----en ro describe section shape & area , flow line slope (min . & max.), surfaces , and 100-year 0 -a. ~ design flow, and amount of freeboa rd: e w a. Instance 1: en en c Q) Q) >- E I Q) > Instance 2: 0 '-a. E 0 z Q) xi c:: Instance 3: c:: ro ..c:: (..) STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 16 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 - SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conce~t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .8) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Existing channels {small creeks}: Are these used? --No --Yes If "yes " provide the information below. Will small creeks and their floodplains remain undisturbed ? __ Yes No How many disturbance instances? Identify each planned location : For each location , describe length and general type of proposed improvement (including floodplain changes): Fo r each location , describe section shape & area , flow line slope (min . & max.), surfaces, and 100-year design flow. 'O Q) :::I c ~ Watercourses {and tributaries}: Aside from fringe 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 , ali gnment, 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 " expla in: ..... --a. E -a; c c ro All Proposed Channel Work: For all proposed channel work , prov ide inform ati on £ () 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 requ ired maintenance space? --Yes --No If not, identify location (s) and expla in: STORMWATER DESIGN GU I DELINES Effective February 2007 Page 17 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 20 12 ... SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .9) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) How many facilities for subject property project? 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: (/) Q) >- I For each facility what is 25-yr design Q, and design of outlet structure? Facility 1: 0 z Facility 2 : xi 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 : l:J Q) (/) 0 a. 0 ..... a.. For each, what is velocity of 25-yr design discharge at outlet? & at spillway? (/) Q) Facility 1: & Facility 2 : & :E "(3 Are energy dissipation measures used? No Yes Describe type and ro ---- LL location: c 0 ~ c Q) ...... Q) Cl 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 August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceRt and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .10) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Do structures comply with 8-CS Specifications? Yes or no , and explain if "no": CJ) Faci lity 1; Q) :;:::; == :a-~ Q) Facili ty 2 : u_ ::J c c :z:; 0 c :;:::; 0 c (.) Q) -a; For additional facil ities provide all same information on a separate sheet. 0 Are parking areas to be used for detention? __ No --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. W ill 25-yr. flow pass without flowing over driveway i n all cases? --Yes --No Without causing flowing or standing water on pub li c roadway? --Yes --No Designs & materials comply with 8-CS Technical Specifications? __ Yes --No Explain any "no" answers: C'-· CJ) Ol c CJ) Are culverts parallel to public roadway alignment? __ Yes No Explain: CJ) 0 --..... CJ) (.) Q) Q) ...... >-ro I > ·;:: Creeks at Private Drives: Do private driveways, drives , or streets cross drainage a. -ro ways that serve Above-Project areas o r are in public easements/ ROW? "O 0 No Yes If "yes" provide information below. Q) z ----CJ) xi ::J How many instances? Describe location and provide information below. CJ) t:::'. Q) Location 1: > ::; (.) Q) Location 2 : ..... ~ Locat ion 3: For each location enter value for: 1 2 3 Design year pass ing without toping travelway? Water depth on t ravelway 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 Rev ised Augus t 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceE!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .11) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Named Regulatoi:y Watercourses {&Tributaries}: Are culverts proposed on these facilities? No __ Yes, then provide full report documenting assumptions, criteria , analysis, computer programs, and study findings that support proposed design(s). Is report provided? __ Yes --No If "no", explain : -Arterial or Major Collector Streets: Will culverts serve these types of roadways? Q) Q) No Yes How many instances? For each identify the ..c en -- -- Q) location and provide the information below. en m Instance 1: Q) .... >-~ I~ Instance 2 : Instance 3 : c 0 :;=; Yes or No for the 100-year design flow: 1 2 3 o ro ZE Is Headwater WSE 1 foot below lowest curb top? x ·~ Spread of headwater within ROW or easement? E C'· ro Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? en en g>-o Explain any "no" answer(s): ·-c ~ ro 0 c .... 0 O:;:, >-ro ro u ~..Q -0 Q) ro ..c Minor Collector or Local Streets: Will culverts serve these types of streets? 0 ·-........ (.) (.) No Yes How many instances? for each identify the ·-en -----Q) .g -0 location and provide the information below: a. Q) ...... a. Instance 1: ro .?;- -0 >. Instance 2 : Q) c en ro ::I._ Instance 3 : en o t en Q) Q) For each instance enter value, or "yes"/ "no" for: 1 2 3 ~ (.) ::I c u ro Design yr. headwater WSE 1 ft. below curb top? ...... ID en .... c ~ ·-100-yr. max. depth at street crown 2 feet or less? Q) .... 0 Product of velocity (fps) & depth at crown (ft) = ? E .... g Is velocity limited per conditions (Table C-11 )? Limit of down stream analysis (feet)? Explain any "no" answers: STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 20 of 26 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .1 2) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) All Proposed Culverts: For all proposed culvert facilities (except driveway/roadside ditch intersects) provide information requested in next eight boxes. Do culverts and travelways intersect at 90 degrees? Yes No If not, ----identify location(s) and intersect angle(s}, and justify the design(s): Does drainage way alignment change within or near limits of culvert and surfaced approaches thereto? __ No --Yes If "yes " identify location(s), describe change(s}, and justification : Are flumes or conduit to discharge into culvert barrel(s)? __ No __ Yes If yes, identify location(s) and provide justification : -Are flumes or conduit to discharge into or near surfaced approaches to culvert ends? -c No Yes If "yes " identify location(s), describe outfall design treatment(s): Q) ----::J c :;:::; c 0 ~ (/) t Q) Is scour/erosion protection provided to ensure long term stability of culvert structura l > "5 () 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 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 Spec ial Design Section of th is Part. STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Page 21of26 APPENDIX . D : TECH. DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 ... SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .1 3) Stormwater Management Concept (continued) Within Or Serving Subject Property (Phase, or Site) (continued) Is a bridge included in plans for subject property project? --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? Ii) ar Ol "O ·c: ell 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 Stabilized construction entrances, silt fence , inlet protection. ro Plan (SW3P) ::J a established for .... project construction? Q) -ro s: No x Yes -- -- Special Designs -Non-Traditional Methods Are any non-traditional methods (aquatic echosystems, wetland -type detention , natural stream replication , BMPs for water quality , etc.) proposed for any aspect of subject property project? _x_No --Yes If "yes" list general type and location below. Provide full report about the proposed special design(s) including rationale for use and expected benefits. Report must substantiate that stormwater management objectives will not be compromised, and that maintenance cost will not exceed those of traditional design solution(s). Is report provided? STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Yes ---- Page 22 of 26 No If "n o" explain : APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 • SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceRt 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 8-CS Technical Specifications If any design(s) or material(s) of traditional runoff-handling facilities deviate from provisions of B-CS Technical Specifications, check type facility(ies) and explain by specific detail element. Detention elements __ 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) Design Parameters Hydrology x Yes No Is a map(s) showing all Design Drainage Areas provided? ---- Briefly summarize the range of applications made of the Rational Formula: Rational method used to size proposed roadway storm system per City Design guidelines. What is the size and location of largest Design Drainage Area to which the Rational Formula has been applied? 12 .6 6 acres STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Location (or identifier): El Page 23 of 26 APPENDIX. D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Conceet and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4 .15) Design Parameters (continued) Hydrology (continued) In making determinations for time of concentration , was segment analysis used? No x Yes In approximately what percent of Design Drainage Areas? 100 % As to intensity-duration-frequency and rain depth criteria for determining runoff flows , were any criteria other than those provided in these Guidelines used? _x_ 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 100 10 Storm drain system for local streets Open channels Swale/buried conduit combination in lieu of channel Swales Roads ide ditches and culverts serving them Detention facilities: spillway crest and its outfall Detention facilities : outlet and conveyance structure(s) Detention facilities: volume when outlet plugged Culverts serving private drives or streets Culverts serving public roadways Bridges: provide in bridge report . Hydraulics What is the range of design flow velocities as outlined below? Design flow velocities ; Highest (feet per second) Lowest (feet per second) Streets and Storm Drain Systems Roughness coefficients used : For conduit type(s) concrete STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 Gutters Conduit Culverts Swales Channels 2.5 7.99* *Uniform v ~locity (fps) 1.7 2.76* Provide the summary information outlined below: For street gutters: Page 24 of 26 0 .018 Coefficients: 0.013 APPENDIX . D: TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage Concel;!t and Design Parameters I Continued (Page 4.16) Design Parameters (continued) Hydraulics (continued) Street and Storm Drain Systems (continued) For the following, are assumptions other than allowable per Guidelines? Inlet coefficients? x No Yes Head and friction losses No x Yes ------ -- Explain any "yes " answer: In conduit is velocity generally increased in the downstream direction? x Yes No ---- Are elevation drops provided at inlets, manholes, and junction boxes? x Yes No ---- Explain any "no" answers: Are hydraulic grade lines calculated and shown for design storm? x Yes No -- -- For 100-year flow conditions? x 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 : Assumed Med detention tailwater 303 .68 (lowest point in outfall berm) for 10 & 100 year design. Tailwater at College Station utilities outfall set to outfall pip e soffit 297.98. Tailwater at SBH pond set to 10 yr-303.31 100 yr-304 .74 per HEC output provided by Mitchell and Morgan. 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 August 2012 SECTION IX APPENDIX D -TECHNICAL DESIGN SUMMARY Part 4 -Drainage ConceQt and Design Parameters I 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 Winstorm versi on 3 .05 , January 2 5, 2002 . Part 5 -Plans and SQecifications Requirements for submittal of construction drawings and specifications do not differ due to use of a Technical Design Summary Report. See Section Ill, Paragraph C3 . Part 6 -Conclusions and Attestation Conclusions Add any concluding information here: Attestation Provide attestation to the accuracy and completeness of the foregoing 6 Parts of this Technical Design Summary Drainage Report by signing and sealing below. ''This report (plan) for the drainage design of the development named in Part B was prepared by me (or under my supervision) in accordance with provisions of 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 improvements have been issued or fall under applicable general permits." -~~ Licensed Professional Engineer State of Texas PE No . 97419 STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES Effective February 2007 /2-/ 10/;z_ Page 26 of 26 _ ........... ,, (Affix Seal) --P.."1E. gf. r~, -~ ····· .... ' """··· * ··. . ""' .. ··. '*... · .•• , I•! \•'-.,. ................................ ..,,. l. BRANDON M. BOATCAWE I ~ ................................ ., . . ~ '•:t·. 97419 /~, ··~·. ~ -.. ·,; ., • .~ ··.:'"'t:N~~.•" ~~.,. '·~,or~, ..... ""c~~.-,, .9NAl ~ . APPENDIX. D : TECH . DESIGN SUMMARY As Revised August 2012 Winstorm General Warning Message Explanation General Warning Message Explanations: • Discharge decreased downstream error: As Winstorm calculates the Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations, it determines which intensity to use at each junction point based on the individual node intensity or the calculated intensity within the storm drain system to that j unction po i nt. The "Discharge decreased downstream ... " warnings indicates that in the event that the selected intensity reduces the flow at a node (such as a Manhole) Winstorm will select the previous intensity to ensure that the flow rates do not decrease as you move down the system . • Drop flowline elevation error: When pipe sizes change at a manhole or inlet, the downstream HGL drops with the pipe size change . This message indicates that Winstorm will utilize the critical (or uniform) depth as the downstream HGL where a change in pipe size is noted . Refer to the error messages at the end of each Winstorm Run for system specific warning messages: Winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) PROJECT NAME THMC JOB NUMBER : 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : System 1 DESIGN FREQUENCY : 10 Years ANALYSYS FREQUENCY 100 Years MEASUREMENT UNITS: ENGLISH System Pl output OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 11/21/2012 3:59:08 PM ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity Ci n/hr) Supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) Pl 0.282 3.08 30.14 30.14 4.92 0.000 4.270 0.9 0.15 Pavement 0.25 2.93 undeveloped P2 0.285 3.86 30. 54 30.54 4.88 0.000 5.380 0.9 0.21 Pavement 0.25 3.65 undeveloped P3 0.81 0.29 1. 78 10.00 8.63 0.000 2.029 0.9 0.25 Pavement 0.25 0.04 Undeveloped P4 0.288 3.04 28.12 28.12 5.13 0.000 4.498 0.9 0.18 Pavement 0.25 2.86 undeveloped PS 0.782 0.22 1. 90 10.00 8.63 0.000 1.485 0.9 0.18 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped P6 0.317 1. 94 33.84 33.84 4. 59 0.000 2.823 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 1. 74 undeveloped P7 0.792 0.24 1. 77 10.00 8.63 0.000 1. 641 0.9 0.20 Pavement 0.25 0.04 undeveloped on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID Inlet Inlet Slopes Type Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) Gutter n Depr. (ft) Grate Width Type (ft) Pond width critic Allowed Elev. (ft) (ft) Pl curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 n/a n/a 12. 50 306.06 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept ID Type Capacity (cfs) (cfs) Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded Allow Actual ID Length Length width (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pl curb 4.270 4.263 0.250 0.008 P2 10.31 10.00 11.09 sag Inlets configuration Data. Page 1 s y stem Pl output ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len 9th/ Grate Left-slope Right-slo pe ID Type Per 1m. Area Lon g Trans Long Trans Gutter n De p rw (ft) Depth All owed (ft) critic Elev. (ft) (ft) (sf) (%) (%) (%) (%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 c u rb 5.00 n/a 0 .30 3.00 0. 36 3.00 0.018 3.5 0 0. 50 305.26 P3 curb 5 .00 n/a 0 .30 3 .00 o. 36 3 .00 0.018 3.5 0 o. 50 305.26 P4 c urb 5 .00 n/a 0. 30 3. 00 o. 30 3 .00 0 .018 3.5 0 0. 50 306 .22 PS curb 5 .00 n/a 0.30 3 .0 0 0 . 30 3 .00 0.018 3.5 0 o. 50 306.22 P6 curb 5 .00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3. 50 0. 50 306.49 P7 curb 5.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0 .30 3.00 0.018 3 .50 0. 50 306.49 Sag Inlets com putation Data. ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q I nlet Total Ponded Width ID Type Perim Area capacity Head Left Right (ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 curb 5.00 n/a n/a S.387 9.189 0. 3SO 9.10 11.47 P3 curb 5.00 n/a n/a 2.029 9.189 0 .183 7.03 7.42 P4 curb 5.00 n/a n/a 4 .498 9.189 0.311 7.87 11.44 PS curb 5.00 n/a n/a 1.48S 9 .189 0 .148 5.60 7 .31 P6 curb 5.00 n/a n/a 2 .823 9.189 0 .228 8.92 7.66 P7 curb 5.00 n/a n/a 1.641 9.189 0 .1S9 6.68 6.89 cumulative Junction Discharge computati o ns ================================================================================= Node Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Add itional Total I.D. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc s upply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (mi n) (in/h r) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pl curb o. 282 3.08 30.14 4.92 0 .000 0.00 4.270 P2 curb 0 .284 6.94 30.60 4.88 0.000 0.00 9.60 5 P3 curb 0. 30S 7 .23 30.75 4.86 0 .000 0.00 10.719 P4 curb 0.288 3 .04 28.12 5.13 0.000 0.00 4.498 PS curb 0 .310 10.49 31.88 4 .76 0.000 0.00 15.482 P6 curb 0 .317 1.94 33.84 4.S9 0 .000 0.00 2.823 P7 curb 0.369 2.18 34.11 4.S 7 0.000 0.00 3.678 MHl BoxMh o. 30S 7.23 30.7S 4.86 0.000 0.00 10.719 MH2 Bo xMh o. 369 2.18 34.11 4.57 0.00 0 0.00 3.678 MH3 BoxMh 0.32 0 12.67 35.6S 4.45 0.000 0.00 18.043 MH4 BoxMh 0 .320 12 .67 35 .6S 4.4S 0 .000 0.00 18.043 OUT outlt 0 .320 12.67 3S .65 4.4S 0.000 0.00 18.043 c onveyance configurati o n Data ================================================================================== Run# No de I.D. Flowline Elev. us DS us OS s hape # Span Rise Lengt h slo pe n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 P6 P7 304.74 304.65 circ 1 0 .00 1. 50 45 .00 0 .20 0.013 2 P7 MH2 304 .SS 30 3.81 Ci re 1 0.00 1. 50 185.00 0 .40 0.013 3 MH2 MH3 30 3. 71 30 3.02 Ci re 1 0.00 1. so 171. 50 0 .40 0.013 4 PS MH3 301.10 300.99 Ci re 1 0 .00 2 .00 13. so 0 .80 0.013 s P4 PS 304 .47 304.20 ci re 1 0.00 1. so 45.00 0 .60 0.013 6 Pl P2 30 3.81 30 3.0 S circ 1 0 .00 2.00 127.00 0 .60 0.013 7 P2 P3 302.9S 302.77 circ 1 0 .00 2.00 4S.OO 0.40 0.013 8 P3 MHl 302.67 302.37 circ 1 0.00 2 .00 73.50 0.40 0.013 9 MHl PS 302.27 301. 20 circ 1 0 .00 2.00 268 .80 0.40 0.013 Page 2 -, system Pl output 10 MH3 11 MH4 MH4 OUT 300.89 298 .32 circ 1 0.00 2.00 303.00 0.85 0.012 298.22 295 .98 circ 1 0.00 2.00 263.00 0.85 0 .012 conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 297.980 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope Unif. Actual 1 2 3 4* 5* 6* 7 8 9 10* 11 * (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 305.73 305 .46 304.62 302 .60 305.70 304. 56 304.37 304.14 303.73 302.40 300.00 305.46 0.072 304.62 0.123 303.76 0.123 302.40 0.468 305.00 0.183 304.37 0.036 304.14 0.180 303.73 0.224 302.60 0.224 300.00 0.542 297. 98 0. 542 0 .84 0.80 0.80 1.31 0.80 0.67 1.20 1.28 1.28 1. 35 1.35 0.84 0 .81 0.80 1.41 0.80 1. 32 1. 38 1. 35 1.40 1.69 2.00 Velocity unif. Actual (f /s) (f/s) 2.76 3.86 3.86 7.08 4.72 4.61 4.87 5.04 5.04 7.99 7.99 2.76 3.76 3.86 6. 54 4.72 1.94 4.16 4.74 4.55 6.38 5.74 Q (cfs) 2.82 3.68 3.68 15.48 4. 50 4.27 9.61 10. 72 10. 72 18.04 18.04 cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) 4.70 0.148 6.64 0.110 6.64 0.116 20.24 0.166 8.14 0.432 17.53 0.073 14.31 0.135 14.31 0.175 14.31 0.161 22.60 0.158 22. 60 0.256 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID Pl P2 P3 P4 PS P6 P7 c value Area Tc Tc used 0.282 0.9 0.25 0.285 0.9 0.25 0.81 0.9 0.25 0.288 0.9 0.25 0.782 0.9 0 .25 0.317 0.9 0.25 0.792 0.9 0.25 (acre) (min) (min) 3.08 0.15 2.93 3.86 0.21 3.65 0.29 0.25 0.04 3.04 0.18 2.86 0.22 0.18 0 .04 1. 94 0.20 1. 74 o. 24 0. 20 0.04 30.14 30.14 Pavement undeveloped 30. 54 30. 54 Pavement undeveloped 1.78 10.00 Pavement undeveloped 28.12 28.12 Pavement undeveloped 1. 90 10. 00 Pavement undeveloped 33.84 33.84 Pavement undeveloped 1. 77 10. 00 Pavement undeveloped on Grade Inlet configuration Data Intensity (in/hr) 6.73 6.68 11. 64 7.00 11.64 6.29 11.64 supply Q (cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Total Q (cfs) 5.836 7.354 2.735 6.139 2.002 3.867 2 .211 =============================================================================== Inlet Inlet Inlet slopes Gutter Grate Pond width critic ID Type Length Long Trans n oepr. width Type Allowed Elev. Page 3 ·' ( ' system Pl output (ft) (%) (%) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pl curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 n/a n/a 12. so 306.06 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass Allow Actual (cfs) (cfs) To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type capacity ID Length Length Width (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) Pl curb 5.836 5.S89 0.2SO 0.247 P2 12.09 10.00 12.4S Sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len~th/ Grate Left-Slope Right-slope ID Type Per1m. Area Long Trans Long Trans Gutter n Deprw (ft) (ft) (sf) (%) (%) (%) (%) P2 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.50 P3 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.36 3.00 0.018 3.SO P4 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO PS curb S.00 n/a 0. 30 3 .00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO P6 curb S.00 n/a 0.30 3.00 0.30 3.00 0.018 3.SO P7 curb S.00 n/a 0. 30 3 .00 o. 30 3.00 0.018 3.SO Sag Inlets computation Data. Depth Allowed (ft) 0. 50 0. so 0. so o. so 0. so 0. so critic Elev. (ft) 305.26 30S.26 306.22 306.22 306.49 306.49 ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet Length Grate Total Q Inlet Total Ponded width ID Type Perim Area capacity Head Left Right (ft) (ft) (sf) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------P2 curb 5.00 n/a n/a 7.601 9.189 0.441 10.36 13 .OS P3 curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.73S 9.189 0.223 7.87 8. 33 P4 curb S.00 n/a n/a 6.139 9.189 0.382 8.85 12.87 PS curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.002 9.189 0.181 6.26 8.19 P6 curb S.00 n/a n/a 3.867 9.189 0.281 10.04 8.64 P7 curb S.00 n/a n/a 2.211 9.189 0.193 7.49 7.73 cumulative Junction Discharge computations ================================================================================= Node Node weighted Cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Additional Total I.D. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc Supply Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) Ci n/hr) cfs) (cfs) (cfs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pl curb 0.282 3.08 30.14 6.73 0.000 0.00 S.836 P2 curb 0.284 6.94 30. 56 6.67 0.000 0.00 13.140 P3 curb 0.30S 7.23 30.71 6.66 0.000 0.00 14.669 P4 curb 0.288 3.04 28.12 7.00 0.000 0.00 6.139 PS curb 0.310 10.49 31.81 6. S2 0.000 0.00 21. 212 P6 Curb 0. 317 1.94 33.84 6.29 0.000 0.00 3.867 P7 curb 0. 369 2.18 34.09 6.26 0.000 0.00 S.040 MHl BoxMh 0. 30S 7.23 30.71 6.66 0.000 0.00 14.669 MH2 BoxMh 0. 369 2.18 34.09 6.26 0.000 0.00 S.040 MH3 BoxMh 0.320 12.67 3S.54 6.11 0.000 0.00 24.78S MH4 BoxMh o. 320 12.67 3S.S4 6.11 0.000 0.00 24.78S OUT outlt 0.320 12.67 35.S4 6.11 0.000 0.00 24.78S Page 4 • I " - system Pl output conveyance Configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. us DS us DS shape # span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 P6 P7 304.74 304.6S circ 1 0.00 1. so 4S.OO 0.20 0.013 2 P7 MH2 304 .SS 303 .81 circ 1 0.00 1. so 18S.OO 0.40 0.013 3 MH2 MH3 303.71 303.02 circ 1 0.00 1. so 171. so 0.40 0.013 4 PS MH3 301.10 300.99 circ 1 0.00 2.00 13. 50 0.80 0.013 s P4 PS 304.47 304.20 circ 1 0.00 1. so 4S.OO 0.60 0.013 6 Pl P2 303.81 303.05 Circ 1 0.00 2.00 127.00 0.60 0.013 7 P2 P3 302.9S 302. 77 circ 1 0.00 2.00 4S.OO 0.40 0.013 8 P3 MHl 302.67 302.37 circ 1 0.00 2.00 73.50 0.40 0.013 9 MHl PS 302.27 301.20 ci re 1 0.00 2.00 268.80 0.40 0.013 10 MH3 MH4 300.89 298.32 circ 1 0.00 2.00 303.00 0.8S 0.012 11 MH4 OUT 298. 22 29S.98 circ 1 0.00 2.00 263.00 0.8S 0.012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 297.980 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev DS Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 1 30S.94 30S.6S 0.13S 1.03 1.03 2 305.65 304.87 0.230 0.98 1.06 3 304.87 304.49 0.230 0.98 1.47 4 304.79 304.49 0.879 1. 7S 2.00 s 30S.94 30S.16 0.341 0.97 0.97 6* 307.00 306.8S 0.067 0.80 2.00 7 306.8S 306.S7 0.337 1. so 2.00 8 306.S7 306.09 0.420 1. 69 2.00 9 306.09 304.79 0.420 1.69 2.00 10 304.49 301.lS 1.022 2.00 2.00 11 301. lS 297.98 1.022 2.00 2.00 velocity Unif. Actual (f /s) Cf /s) 2.99 2.99 4.10 3.78 4.10 2.87 7.28 6.7S S.06 S.06 S.00 1.86 S.20 4.18 S.19 4.67 S.19 4.67 7.89 7.89 7.89 7.89 Q (cfs) 3.87 S.04 S.04 21.21 6.14 S.84 13.14 14.67 14.67 24.79 24.79 Cap (cfs) 4.70 6.64 6.64 20.24 8.14 17.S3 14.31 14.31 14.31 22.60 22.60 June LOSS (ft) 0.173 0.111 0.064 0.177 0.498 0.067 0.136 0.169 0.169 0.242 0.484 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= Pl Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH2 Previous intensity used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MHl Previous intensity used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH4 Previous intensity used. Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to critical depth elevation at Run# 3 Drop flowline elevation. Downstream HGL set to uniform depth elevation at Run# S Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= Pl computed right ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= P2 computed right ponded width exceeds allowable width at inlet Id= P4 Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH2 Previous intensity used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MHl Previous intensity used. Discharge decreased downstream node Id= MH4 Previous intensity used. Run# 11 Insufficient capacity. Run# 10 Insufficient capacity. Run# 4 Insufficient capacity. Page S system Pl output Run# 9 Insufficient capacity. Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= MHl Run# 8 Insufficient capacity. Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= P3 upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= P2 Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= Pl Page 6 winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) PROJECT NAME : THMC JOB NUMBER 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : System 2 DESIGN FREQUENCY : 10 Years ANALYSYS FREQUENCY 100 Years MEASUREMENT UNITS: ENGLISH system P2 output OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 11/21/2012 5:04:16 PM ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity (in/hr) supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) PlO 0.763 0.52 4.43 10.00 8.63 0.000 3.424 0.9 0.41 Pavement 0.25 0.11 undeveloped Pll 0.814 o. 38 4.88 10.00 8.63 0.000 2.672 0.9 0.33 Pavement 0.25 0.05 undeveloped Ml 0. 794 0.86 3.25 10.00 8.63 0.000 5.897 0.9 0. 72 Pavement 0.25 0.14 undeveloped ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID Inlet Type Inlet slopes Gutter Grate Width Type (ft) Pond width critic Length Long Trans n Depr. Allowed Elev. PlO Pll (ft) (%) (%) (ft) curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. n/a n/a n/a n/a (ft) (ft) 12. 50 12. 50 303.97 303.76 ================================================================================= Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept ID Type capacity Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded Allow Actual ID Length Length Width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) PlO Pll curb curb 3.424 2.672 3.424 2.672 sag Inlets configuration Data. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.23 8.16 10.00 10.22 10.00 9.31 ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len~th/ Grate ID Type Per1m. Area (ft) (sf) Left-slope Long Trans (%) (%) Right-slope Long Trans (%) (%) Gutter n DeprW (ft) Ml curb 5.00 n/a 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.018 3.50 Sag Inlets computation Data. Depth Allowed (ft) 0. 50 Critic Elev. (ft) 304.25 ================================================================================ Page 1 (' Inlet Inlet ID Type Length (ft) Grate Perim Area (ft) (sf) system P2 output Total Q Inlet capacity (cfs) (cfs) Total Head (ft) Ponded width Left Right (ft) (ft) Ml curb 5.00 n/a n/a 5.897 9.189 0.372 11.25 14.20 Cumulative Junction Discharge Computations ================================================================================= Node Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. user Additional Total I.D. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc Suppl) Q Q in Node Disch. (acres) (min) (in/hr) cf s (cfs) (cfs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------PlO curb 0.789 1. 76 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 11. 993 Pll curb 0.800 1.24 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 8.570 Ml curb 0.794 0.86 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 5.897 OUT outlt 0.789 1. 76 10.00 8.63 0.000 0.00 11. 993 conveyance configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. 1 2 3 US OS Pll PlO Ml PlO OUT Pll Flowline Elev. US OS (ft) (ft) 301. 50 301.14 302.27 301. 24 301.06 301.88 shape # span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) Circ 2 0.00 2.00 circ 2 0.00 2.00 circ 1 0.00 1.50 52.00 16.60 55.50 o. 50 0. 50 0.70 0.013 0.013 0.013 conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 303.680 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope Unif. Actual Velocity unif. Actual (f/s) (f/s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) l * 2 * 3 * (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) 303.77 303.72 304.17 303.72 0.036 303.68 0.070 303.77 0.315 0.71 0.84 0.90 2.00 2.00 1. 50 4.31 4.76 5.31 1.36 8.57 32.00 0.036 1.91 11.99 32.00 0.028 3.34 5.90 8.80 0.216 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity (in/hr) Supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------PlO 0.763 0.52 4.43 10.00 11. 64 0.000 4.615 0.9 0.41 Pavement 0.25 0.11 undeveloped Pll 0 .814 0.38 4.88 10.00 11.64 0.000 3.602 0.9 0.33 Pavement 0.25 0.05 Undeveloped Ml 0.794 0.86 3.25 10.00 11.64 0.000 7.950 0.9 0.72 Pavement 0.25 0.14 undeveloped Page 2 system P2 output on Grade Inlet configuration Data =============================================================================== Inlet ID PlO Pll Inlet Type Inlet slopes Length Long Trans (ft) (%) (%) Gutter n Depr. (ft) curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 curb 10.00 0.60 3.00 0.018 0.33 on Grade Inlets conmputation Data. Grate Width Type (ft) n/a n/a n/a n/a Pond width Allowed (ft) 12. 50 12. 50 critic Elev. (ft) 303.97 303.76 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Inlet Inlet Total Q Intercept Q Bypass To Inlet Required Actual Ponded ID Type capacity Allow Actual ID Length Length width (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) PlO Pll curb curb 4.615 3.602 4.579 3.602 sag Inlets configuration Data. 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 10.72 9.46 10.00 11.40 10. 00 10. 39 ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len~th/ Grate ID Type Per1m. Area (ft) (sf) Left-slope Right-slope Long Trans Long Trans (%) (%) (%) (%) Gutter n Deprw (ft) Depth Allowed (ft) Critic Elev. (ft) Ml curb 5.00 n/a 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.018 3.50 0. 50 304.25 sag Inlets computation Data. ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet ID Type Length (ft) Grate Perim Area (ft) (sf) Total Q Inlet capacity (cfs) (cfs) Total Head (ft) Ponded width Left Right (ft) (ft) Ml curb 5.00 n/a n/a 7.950 9.189 0.454 12.60 15.90 cumulative Junction Discharge computations ================================================================================= Node I.D. Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. Type c-value or.Area Tc (acres) (min) (in/hr) user supply Q cfs) Additional Q in Node (cfs) Total Disch. (cfs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PlO curb 0.789 1. 76 10.00 11. 64 0.000 0.00 16.167 Pll curb 0.800 1. 24 10.00 11. 64 0.000 0.00 11. 552 Ml curb 0.794 0.86 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 7.950 OUT outlt 0.789 1. 76 10.00 11.64 0.000 0.00 16.167 conveyance configuration Data ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US OS US OS (ft) (ft) shape # Span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Pll PlO 301. 50 301. 24 Circ 2 0.00 2.00 52.00 o. 50 0.013 2 PlO OUT 301.14 301. 06 circ 2 0.00 2.00 16.60 0. 50 0.013 3 Ml Pll 302.27 301. 88 circ 1 0.00 1. 50 55.50 0.70 0.013 Page 3 ' I ., system P2 output conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 303.680 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.Slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) Velocity unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) 1* 303.85 303.75 0.065 0.83 2.00 4.70 1.84 11.55 32.00 0.066 2* 303.75 303.68 0.128 1.01 2.00 5.10 2.57 16.17 32.00 0.051 3 304.56 303.85 0.573 1.11 1.50 5.65 4.50 7.95 8.80 0.393 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. Warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= Pll Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years capacity of grade inlet exceeded at inlet Id= PlO upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= Pll Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= Ml Page 4 system P3 output Winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run@ 11/21/2012 4:01:57 PM PROJECT NAME THMC JOB NUMBER 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : System 3 DESIGN FREQUENCY : 10 Years ANALYSYS FREQUENCY 100 Years MEASUREMENT UNITS: ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity (in/hr) Supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) M2 0.827 0.9 0.25 0.71 3.03 10.00 8.63 0.000 5.068 0.63 Pavement 0.08 Undeveloped sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Length/ Grate ID Type Per1m. Area (ft) (sf) Left-slope Long Trans (%) (%) Right-slope Long Trans (%) (%) Gutter n Deprw (ft) M2 curb 3.00 n/a 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.018 3.50 sag Inlets computation Data. Depth Allowed (ft) o. 50 critic Elev. (ft) 305.35 ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet ID Type M2 curb Length (ft) 3.00 Grate Perim Area (ft) (sf) n/a n/a Total Q Inlet capacity (cfs) (cfs) 5.068 7.563 cumulative Junction Discharge computations Total Head (ft) 0.383 Ponded Width Left Right (ft) (ft) 5.10 15.45 ================================================================================= Node I.D. M2 OUT Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc (acres) (min) (in/hr) curb 0.827 Outlt 0.827 0.71 10.00 0.71 10.00 8.63 8.63 conveyance configuration Data user supply Q cfs) 0.000 0.000 Additional Q in Node (cfs) 0.00 0.00 Total Disch. (cfs) 5.068 5.068 ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US DS US DS (ft) (ft) shape # Span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 1 M2 OUT 302.25 301.40 circ 1 0.00 1.50 85.50 1.00 0.013 Page 1 , - system P3 output conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 303.680 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev DS Elev Fr.slope Unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) velocity Unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June LOSS (ft) 1 * 304.04 303.68 0.233 0. 73 1. 50 5.91 2.87 5.07 10.51 0.160 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity (in/hr) Supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) M2 0.827 0.9 0.25 0.71 0.63 0.08 3.03 10.00 11.64 0.000 6.832 Pavement undeveloped sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len~th/ Grate ID Type Per1m. Area (ft) (sf) Left-slope Right-slope Long Trans Long Trans (%) (%) (%) (%) Gutter n Deprw (ft) M2 curb 3.00 n/a 0.50 2.00 0.50 2.00 0.018 3.50 sag Inlets computation Data. Depth Allowed (ft) o. 50 critic Elev. (ft) 305.35 ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet ID Type M2 curb Length (ft) 3.00 Grate Perim Area (ft) (sf) n/a n/a Total Q Inlet capacity (cfs) (cfs) 6.832 7.563 cumulative Junction Discharge computat~ons Total Head (ft) 0.467 Ponded width Left Right (ft) (ft) 5.75 17.30 ================================================================================= Node I.D. M2 OUT Node Weighted Cumulat. Cumulat. Intens. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc curb 0.827 Outlt 0.827 (acres) (min) (in/hr) 0.71 10.00 0.71 10.00 11.64 11.64 Conveyance Configuration Data user Supply Q cf s) 0.000 0.000 Additional Q in Node (cfs) 0.00 0.00 Total Disch. (cfs) 6.832 6.832 ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US DS US DS (ft) (ft) shape # span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) Page 2 1 M2 OUT 302.25 system P3 output 301.40 circ 1 0.00 1 .50 c onveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 303.680 (ft) 85.50 1.00 0.013 ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope Unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) velocity Unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June Loss (ft) 1* 304.33 303.68 0.423 0.88 1.50 6.35 3.87 6.83 10.51 0.290 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years Page 3 system P4 output Winstorm (STORM DRAIN DESIGN) version 3.05, Jan. 25, 2002 Run @ 12/7/2012 11:14:15 AM PROJECT NAME THMC JOB NUMBER 154300 PROJECT DESCRIPTION : System 4 DESIGN FREQUENCY : 10 Years ANALYSYS FREQUENCY 100 Years MEASUREMENT UNITS: ENGLISH OUTPUT FOR DESIGN FREQUENCY of: 10 Years =========================================== Runoff computation for Design Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity Ci n/hr) Supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) M3 0.769 0.9 0.25 1. 24 0.99 0.25 3.11 10.00 8.63 0.000 8.233 Pavement undeveloped sag Inlets configuration Data. ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Len~th/ Grate ID Type Per1m. Area (ft) (sf) Left-slope Long Trans (%) (%) Right-slope Long Trans (%) (%) Gutter n Deprw (ft) M3 curb 5.00 n/a 0.50 2.00 0.45 2.00 0.018 3.50 sag Inlets computation Data. Depth Allowed (ft) 0. 50 critic Elev. (ft) 305.70 ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet ID Type M3 curb Length (ft) 5.00 Grate Perim Area (ft) (sf) n/a n/a Total Q Inlet capacity (cfs) (cfs) 8.233 9.189 cumulative Junction Discharge Computations Total Head (ft) 0.465 Ponded width Left Right (ft) (ft) 6.15 18.90 ================================================================================= Node I.D. M3 OUT Node Weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc (acres) (min) (in/hr) curb 0.769 outlt 0.769 1. 24 10.00 1.24 10.00 8.63 8.63 conveyance configuration Data user supply Q cfs) 0.000 0.000 Addi ti ona 1 Q in Node (cfs) 0.00 0.00 Total Disch. (cfs) 8.233 8.233 ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US DS US DS (ft) (ft) shape # span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) 1 M3 OUT 303.46 302.25 circ 1 0.00 1.50 101.13 1.20 0.013 Page 1 ' system P4 output conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 303.310 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev os Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) velocity Unif. Actual (f/s) (f/s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June LOSS (ft) 1 * 305.14 303.31 0.614 0. 94 1. 06 7.09 6.17 8.23 11.51 0.739 ================================================================================== OUTPUT FOR ANALYSYS FREQUENCY of: 100 Years ============================================= Runoff computation for Analysis Frequency. ============================================================================= ID c value Area Tc Tc used (acre) (min) (min) Intensity Ci n/hr) Supply Q (cfs) Total Q (cfs) M3 0.769 0.9 0.25 1.24 0.99 0.25 3.11 10.00 Pavement undeveloped sag Inlets configuration Data. 11.64 0.000 11.098 ================================================================================== Inlet Inlet Length/ Grate ID Type Per1m. Area (ft) (sf) Left-Slope Long Trans (%) (%) Right-slope Long Trans (%) (%) Gutter n oeprw (ft) M3 curb 5.00 n/a 0.50 2.00 0.45 2.00 0.018 3.50 sag Inlets computation Data. Depth Allowed (ft) 0. 50 critic Elev. (ft) 305.70 ================================================================================ Inlet Inlet ID Type M3 Curb Length (ft) 5.00 Grate Perim Area (ft) (sf) Total Q Inlet capacity (cfs) (cfs) n/a n/a 11.098 6. 718 cumulative Junction Discharge computations Total Head (ft) 0.932 Ponded Width Left Right (ft) (ft) 6. 90 21.15 ================================================================================= Node I.D. M3 OUT Node weighted cumulat. cumulat. Intens. Type c-value Dr.Area Tc (acres) (min) (in/hr) curb 0.769 outlt 0.769 1. 24 10.00 1. 24 10. 00 11.64 11.64 conveyance configuration Data user Supply Q cfs) 0.000 0.000 Additional Q in Node (cfs) 0.00 0.00 Total Disch. (cfs) 11.098 11.098 ================================================================================== Run# Node I.D. Flowline Elev. US OS US OS (ft) (ft) shape # Span Rise Length slope n_value (ft) (ft) (ft) (%) Page 2 system P4 output 1 M3 OUT 303.46 302.25 circ 1 0.00 1.50 101.13 1.20 0.013 conveyance Hydraulic computations. Tailwater = 304.740 (ft) ================================================================================== Hydraulic Gradeline Depth Run# us Elev DS Elev Fr.slope unif. Actual (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft) velocity Unif. Actual (f /s) (f /s) Q (cfs) Cap (cfs) June LOSS (ft) 1* 306.63 304.74 1.116 1.18 1.50 7.42 6.28 11.10 11.51 0.766 ===================================END============================================ * super critical flow. NORMAL TERMINATION OF WINSTORM. warning Messages for current project: Runoff Frequency of: 10 Years Runoff Frequency of: 100 Years capacity of sag inlet exceeded at inlet Id= M3 Upstream hydraulic gradeline exceeds critical elevation at node Id= M3 Page 3 • HGL Calculations 10 Vear 100 year Top of Critical Top-Depth Depth Depth Depth Structure Elevation Critical HGL Below Below HGL Below Below Top Critical Top Critical FT FT FT FT FT FT FT FT FT Pl 307.31 306.06 1.25 304.56 2.75 1.50 307.00 0.31 -0 .94 P2 306.51 305.26 1.25 304.37 2.14 0.89 306.85 -0.34 -1.59 P3 306.51 305 .26 1.25 304.14 2.37 1.12 306.57 -0.06 -1.31 P4 307 .47 306 .22 1.25 305 .70 1 .77 0.52 305.94 1.53 0 .28 PS 307.47 306 .22 1.25 305.00 2 .47 1.22 305.16 2.31 1.06 PG 307.74 306.49 1.25 305.73 2.01 0.76 305.94 1.80 0.55 P7 307.74 306 .49 1.25 305.46 2 .28 1.03 305.65 2.09 0.84 PlO 305.22 303.97 1.25 303.72 1.50 0.25 303 .75 1.47 0 .22 Pll 305.01 303.76 1.25 303.77 1.24 -0.01 303.85 1.16 -0.09 MHl 306.81 305.56 1.25 303.73 3.08 1.83 306.09 0.72 -0 .53 MH2 308.24 306 .99 1.25 304.62 3 .62 2.37 304.87 3.37 2.12 MH3 307.48 306 .23 1.25 303.76 3 .72 2.47 304.79 2.69 1.44 MH4 303 .50 302 .25 1.25 300.00 3 .50 2.25 301.15 2 .35 1.10 Ml 305.50 304.25 1.25 304.17 1.33 0.08 304.56 0.94 -0.31 M2 306.60 305.35 1.25 304 .04 2.56 1 .31 304.33 2.27 1.02 M3 306.95 305 .70 1.25 305 .14 1.81 0 .56 306.63 0.32 -0.93