The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 5 & 6 - Drainage Studycote June 24, 2016 Mr. Steven Anderson, P.E., C.F.M. City of Southlake Public Works Administration 1400 Main Street, Suite 320 Southlake, TX 76092 Re: Preliminary Drainage Study White Chapel Village — 15.865 acres Dear Steve, ST. LOUIS Power House at Union Station 401 S. 18th Street, Suite 200 St. Louis. MO 63103 314.984.9887 tel ST. CHARLES DALLAS PHOENIX 1520 S. Fifth Street 6175 Main Street 2701 E. Camelback Road Suite 307 Suite 367 Suite 175 St. Charles, MO 63303 Frisco, TX 75034 Phoenix, AZ 85016 636.978.7508 tel 972.624.6000 tel 602.795.4111 tel This preliminary drainage study was prepared in accordance with City of Southlake zoning and subdivision requirements with respect to development of 15.865 acres at the southeast corner of SH 114 and North White Chapel Boulevard (the Site). The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of site development on existing drainage infrastructure and to determine the need for improvements. More specifically, the study was performed to address four primary concerns: 1. Is stormwater detention required? 2. Does existing TxDOT infrastructure have adequate capacity to convey the proposed runoff under SH 114 towards the Carillon regional detention ponds? 3. Does the conveyance system north of SH 114 to the Carillon regional detention ponds have adequate capacity to convey the increased runoff? 4. What size storm sewer would be required to reroute the drainage conveyed through the unnamed Dove Creek tributary that transverses the northwest corner of the site? In performing this study, the following information was reviewed: • Flood Study for Dove Creek for the Carillon Tract, August 2010, by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) • As -Built Plans for SH 114 Highway Improvements, June 2001, by TxDOT (TxDOT) • Tributary to Dove Creek Drainage Study SH 114 at White Chapel Blvd, January 2007, by Halff Associates, Inc. (Halff) • White Chapel Blvd Improvements, Interim Review Plans, August 2010, by Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Maier) • Forest Park Medical Center at Southlake, Land Development Plans, February 2012, by Cross Engineering Consultants (Cross) • Preliminary Master Drainage Plan Phase II for the City of Southlake, July 2007, by KSA Engineers (KSA) CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING / PLANNING I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Cole & As, poration d.b.a. Cole Design Group, Inc. In/ �a and 7 eferred to a; Texas Board of Professional Engineers Registration #F-10253 Texas Board of Professional Land Surveying Corporate Registration #10193871 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village In order to address the primary concerns, we analyzed the documents listed and performed our own calculations and models as needed to reconcile the differences in order to develop our conclusions. Based on our analyses, we concluded that: 1. Stormwater detention for the development site has been accounted for in the design of the Carillon detention ponds. 2. The TxDOT drainage conveyance system under SH 114 has capacity to convey the 100 -year developed runoff. 3. The conveyance channel north of and parallel to SH 114 is in disrepair and should either be improved, or the ultimate underground sewer should be constructed. It is understood that this work is the responsibility of others and will be completed prior to Site development. Once this work is complete, the conveyance from SH 114 to the Carillon ponds should have adequate capacity to convey the site developed runoff. Because of the current state of disrepair, the channel was not analyzed for capacity. 4. A conveyance system with a capacity of 305 cfs (or the approximate equivalent of an 8'x4' box sewer) will be required to reroute runoff from the unnamed Dove Creek tributary underground at the northwest corner of the site. Please review the summary of findings, analysis of data, and associated exhibits for an understanding of our procedures and reasoning for our conclusions. We request that the City accept our findings or let us know if any further analysis or information is needed. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Sandy H. Stephens, P.E. V.P. of Regional Operations cc: Mr. Lucien Tujague — Dominion Southlake Properties Mr. Carl Schwab — RREAF Southlake, LLP CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING / PLANNING / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village Table of Contents I. Summary of Findings II. Analyses of Data A. Drainage Area Analysis B. Runoff Analysis C. Capacity Analysis and Models III. Conclusion IV. Exhibits A. Jacobs - Regional Drainage Area Map B. TxDOT - Drainage Area to Culvert B C. Halff - Drainage Area Map to Culvert B D. Maier - Proposed Drainage Area Map E. TxDOT - Drainage Areas to Storm Sewer B F. Cole - Profile 1 System A G. Cole - Profile 2 System B H. Cole - Profile 3 Storm Sewer C (TxDOT Inlets) I. Cole - Concept Drainage Plan V. Appendices on CD 1. Jacobs - Flood Study for Dove Creek for the Carillon Tract, August 2010 2. TxDOT - As -Built Plans for SH 114 Highway Improvements, June 2001 3. Halff - Tributary to Dove Creek Drainage Study SH 114 at White Chapel Blvd, January 2007 4. Maier - White Chapel Blvd Improvements, Interim Review Plans, August 2012 5. Cross - Forest Park Medical Center at Southlake, Land Development Plans, February 2012 6. KSA - Preliminary Master Drainage Plan Phase 11 for the City of Southlake, July 2010 7. Cole - Computer Models and Data CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING / PLANNING / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village A. CARILLON PONDS DETENTION CAPACITY The Carillon regional detention ponds were designed with capacity for the 100 -year developed runoff from the Site: • According to Jacobs, "The two proposed regional detention ponds will detain the 100 -year flood for the Carillon development and the ultimate development conditions within sub -basins B -4a, B -b, and B -4c located south of SH 114." (Jacobs, page 17) The Carillon regional detention ponds were designed to detain the ultimate runoff from areas that include the Site. The Site consists of 9.0 acres that falls within Jacobs sub -basin B -4a, and 6.8 acres that falls within sub -basin 134-b. Both Carillon detention ponds have been constructed. However, neither an as -built survey nor a pond capacity analysis was performed as part of this study. B. TxDOT INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY There are two storm sewers that cross SH 114 and provide drainage for areas south of SH 114 that include the Site. These sewers were designated as Culvert B and Storm Sewer B, and were determined to have adequate capacity to convey the Site's proposed runoff under SH 114 towards the Carillon regional detention ponds according to TxDOT, Halff, Maier, and Cole: Culvert B • The total proposed 100 -year runoff to Culvert B from the 15.865 acre site is 36 cfs. The total 100 -year runoff to Culvert B from upstream areas is 253 cfs. • TxDOT Culvert "B" (8'x4' box culvert) was designed to convey 100 -year developed runoff from drainage area B. Three acres of the site lie within drainage area B according to TxDOT. • Cole's analysis of the TxDOT Culvert B system, which includes lateral connections under SH 114, indicates that the available capacity of Culvert B at the upstream end is 342 cfs. • Halff analyzed the drainage channel in the northwest corner of the site as well as the capacity of Culvert B and determined Culvert B to have a capacity of 364 cfs, "under uniform flow conditions." • Maier depicts a drainage area of 78.81 acres flowing to Culvert B via three 6'x3' box culverts proposed for construction underneath North White Chapel Boulevard. Cole utilized Maier, the rational method, and a 0.70 C coefficient and found this acreage produces 252.66 cfs of runoff. The low runoff is partially due to the existing lot for single family homes and single family zoning designations, as well as plans to develop parks on a portion of the watershed. CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING / PLANNING / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village • Combined runoff from Maier and the developed portion of the Site equates to 289 cfs. This is 75 cfs less than the 364 cfs capacity of TxDOT Culvert B according to Halff Storm Sewer B • TxDOT Storm Sewer "B" (8'x4' box sewer) was designed to convey developed runoff from drainage areas 133-15, B3 -15x, 133-16, B3 -16x, 133-17, B3 -17x, and 133-18A. 12.8 acres of the site lie within these drainage areas according to TxDOT. • The Concept Drainage Plan (Exhibit 1) shows 83.75 cfs of Site runoff to be drained towards Storm Sewer B. This will leave up to 240 cfs to be discharged from TxDOT drainage area 313-18A which includes Forest Park and DeRose properties. It is anticipated 313-18A will drain only 123 cfs to Storm Sewer B. C. DRAINAGE CAPACITY FROM SH 114 TO CARILLON DETENTION PONDS There is an existing drainage channel on the north side of SH 114 which flows into a culvert underneath Southmont Drive. This system conveys runoff from SH 114 and upstream areas to the Carillon detention ponds. Drainaqe Channel from SH 114 to Southmont Drive The existing channel north of SH 114 that drains to the Carillon ponds is currently in disrepair. The channel needs to be repaired or the ultimate developed infrastructure needs to be constructed prior to development of the site. It is understood that this is the responsibility of others. Due to the current condition of the channel it was not included in this analysis. Culverts and Sewer from Southmont Drive to Carillon Ponds There are two 8'x4' culverts beneath Southmont Drive that convey runoff from the drainage channel to the detention ponds. Construction plans for this section of sewer were not analyzed. However, it is understood from discussions with City officials that this system either has adequate capacity to convey the ultimate runoff condition, or that it is the responsibility of others to provide adequate conveyance capacity. D. DRAINAGE CHANNEL REROUTE The existing unnamed Dove Creek tributary in the northwest corner of the Site may be rerouted along the perimeter of the property by constructing an underground storm sewer system with a minimum capacity of 306 cfs, or approximately the equivalent of an 8'x4' box sewer. CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING / PLANNING / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 2 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village II. Analyses of Data A. Drainage Area Analysis The drainage areas flowing towards SH 114 as illustrated by the various consulting firms and TxDOT were compared in order to understand the relative accuracy of each. The following is a breakdown of the discrepancies that were found, organized with respect to TxDOT downstream infrastructure Culvert B and Storm Sewer B: Culvert B Jacobs Jacobs indicates that the Site lies within watershed sub -basin B -4a of the Dove Creek Watershed (Exhibit A). Sub -basin B -4a (76.8 acres) includes approximately 9 acres of the site. B -4a ultimately drains to TxDOT 8'x4' box Culvert B. TxDOT TxDOT indicates that Site lies within drainage area "B" that flows to infrastructure along SH 114 service road (Exhibit B). • Drainage area B (88.74 acres), includes approximately 3 acres of the Site and drains to Culvert B. Note: Drainage area B includes 0.46 acres of the DeRose property. Halff Halff indicates that the Site lies within drainage area "DA" that flows to Culvert B (Exhibit C). Halff also referenced TxDOT in their study. Drainage area DA (85.7 acres) drains to TxDOT Culvert B and includes approximately 6.6 acres of the Site. Maier Maier indicates that the Site lies within multiple drainage areas that flow to Culvert B (Exhibit D). • Drainage areas A, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, and S (78.81 acres) including approximately 2.5 acres of the Site, ultimately drain to TxDOT Culvert B via three proposed 6'x3' culverts underneath North White Chapel Boulevard. Storm Sewer B Jacobs Jacobs indicates that the Site lies within watershed sub -basin B -4b of the Dove Creek Watershed (Exhibit A). • Sub -basin B -4b is 25.6 acres and includes approximately 6.8 acres of the site. B -4b drains to TxDOT 8'x4' box Storm Sewer B. CIVIL ENGINEERING i SURVEYING / PLANNING i LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village TxDOT TxDOT indicates that the Site lies within multiple drainage areas flowing to infrastructure along the SH 114 access road (Exhibit E). • Drainage areas 133-15, B3 -15x, 133-16, B3 -16x, B3-17, B3 -17x, and B3 -18A ultimately drain to TxDOT Storm Sewer B on the south side of the SH 114 access road (34.09 acres including approximately 12.8 of the site). Note: TxDOT accounted for fully developed flow in their conduit design for areas B3 -15x thru B3 -17x (TxDOT, sheet 84B). Note: Drainage area B3 -18A includes 4.54 acres of the DeRose property. Cross Cross indicates that multiple drainage areas flow to TxDOT Storm Sewer B (Cross, sheet C7). Drainage areas OS -1 and EE, 19.07 acres flow to Storm Sewer B. Drainage area OS -1 includes 4.54 acres of DeRose Property under undeveloped conditions C=0.30 Note: Cross did not include any of the Site in their runoff calculations. Drainage Area Analvsis Summary The discrepancies in drainage areas from the various reports may be explained by the varying levels of accuracy of the topographic data used and the scope of each study. The variations in area flowing to Culvert B range up to 13%. The greatest discrepancy - between TxDOT and Jacobs - appears to result from Jacob's exclusion of approximately 11 acres of Carroll High School. It is unclear why Jacobs may have excluded this acreage. • TxDOT, Halff, and Maier indicate similar acreages of land draining to Culvert B to within 11 %. The variations in area flowing to Storm Sewer B range up to 25%. The greatest discrepancy - between TxDOT and Jacobs - is likely due to the size of sub -basin B -4a. Based on Cole's analysis of topographic data, including Cole's own field survey, the boundary between B -4a and B -4b does not extend as far east as Jacobs depicts. • TxDOT, Halff, and Maier indicate similar acreages of land draining to Culvert B to within 11 %. • If Cross had included the 12.8 acres of the Development Site, the discrepancy between Cross and TxDOT would be 7%. • Exclusion of the Development Site in runoff calculations according to Cross is likely due to the intent to show these areas for illustration purposes only as no proposed runoff from Forest Park Medical Center drains to Storm Sewer B. • Jacobs study was regional in nature and covered over 1.7 square miles (1,088 acres). Table 1 displays the acreage discrepancies between the various plans and reports showing areas that drain to Culvert B, area of Site draining to Culvert B, and source of contour data used in each plan. CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING / PLANNING / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 4 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village Table 1 Jacobs 76.8 9 VARGIS 2001 TxDOT 88.74 3 Photogrammetry Halff 85.7 6.6 Field and Ortho Map Maier 78.81 2.5 Photogrammetry Table 2 displays the acreage discrepancies between plans and reports with areas that drain to Storm Sewer B, area of Site draining to Storm Sewer B, and source of contour data used in each plan. Table 2 Jacobs 25.6 6.8 VARGIS 2001 TxDOT 34.09 12.8 Photogrammetry Did not account Cross 19.07 for Development Photogrammetry Site CIVIL ENGINEERING i SURVEYING / PLANNING i LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 5 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village B. Runoff Analysis All of the studies and plans provide runoff information. The various information was compared to better understand the relation of the hydrological conditions as calculated by the different entities; a breakdown follows. Runoff to Culvert B TxDOT TxDOT indicates that 100 -year peak developed runoff to Culvert B will be 223.95 cfs using NRCS methodology (TxDOT, sheet 82). Halff Halff indicates that the 100 -year peak developed runoff to Culvert B will be 242 cfs using the Rational Formula (Halff, page 2). Maier Maier indicates peak runoff for individual drainage areas (Maier, sheet 37). The cumulative peak runoff was not calculated. Many of these areas, highlighted in pink on Exhibit D, flow to Culvert B via three 6'x3' RCB culverts to be constructed with the North White Chapel Improvement Plans. Cole Cole performed calculations using the rational method to determine a cumulative peak for the watershed based on Maier. Cole's peak 100 year developed runoff was 252.66 cfs. Note: Time of concentration was calculated using TR -55 Time of Concentration methodology as the watershed was too large to apply the iSWM time of concentration estimation equation. Figure 1 represents runoff calculations performed by Cole with respect to Maier. Fiqure 1 Note: TxDOT, Halff, and Cole calculations based on Maier are accurate to within 11 % with Cole being the most conservative of the three. Jacobs Jacobs indicates peak runoff to Culvert B is 379 cfs and 449 cfs under proposed and developed conditions respectively (Jacobs, page 12, 13). These peaks are not aligned with other plans. Runoff to Storm Sewer B Two plans showed peak runoff to Storm Sewer B, TxDOT and Jacobs. CIVIL ENGINEERING i SURVEYING / PLANNING i LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 6 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village Cole with respect to TxDOT TxDOT indicates 10 -year peak runoff draining to Storm Sewer B under developed conditions as 166.175 cfs (TxDOT, sheet 8413). TxDOT did not provide calculations for 100 -year peak under developed conditions, therefore Cole performed calculations to reflect the developed 100 -year peak. The calculations resulted in a peak of 186.97 cfs using the Rational Method. Note: Runoff from 4.54 acres of the DeRose property was included in TxDOT runoff computations. Cole also included an additional runoff from DeRose property in the hydraulic model mentioned in section III -B. TxDOT also accounted for commercial development in their conduit design as well. Cross Cross indicates 100 -year peak runoff to Storm Sewer B under existing conditions will be 45.63 cfs using the Rational Method (Cross, page 13). Note: Due to the exclusion of the applicable portion of the Site Cross calculations were excluded from the hydraulic analysis. Jacobs Jacobs indicates 100 -year peak runoff to Storm Sewer B will be 152 cfs and 176 cfs under proposed and ultimate conditions respectively using NRCS TR -55 methodology (Jacobs, page 12 & 13). Cole believes these peaks to Storm Sewer B are aligned with what is appropriate for the watershed. Runoff Analysis Summary The discrepancies in runoff may be explained by the differences in drainage areas, runoff methodology used, factors of safety, and hydrological assumptions. Regarding runoff to Culvert B, peak calculations from TxDOT, Halff and Cole generally correspond and represent a realistic developed watershed condition based on the Southlake 2030 Future Land Use Plan (FLUP). Cole's assessment of the 2030 FLUP determined that a curve number in the range of 0.70 to 0.75 is more reflective of potential future developed conditions for watersheds to Culvert B and Storm Sewer B. It is unclear why Jacob's runoff calculation is significantly higher, but possible explanations are: The factor of safety Jacobs included in the Carillon ponds design. The potential for future infrastructure underneath SH 114 draining to the ponds (reflects peak runoff under ultimate conditions (449 cfs). Jacobs being conservative and assuming the watershed will be developed enough to require the full capacity of Culvert B. This is reflected in the peak runoff under proposed conditions (379 cfs) that represents the max outflow of Culvert B according to Jacobs. Regarding runoff to Storm Sewer B, the capacity indicated by Jacobs and the analysis performed by Cole based on variables extrapolated from TxDOT correspond to within 6%. Tables 3 and 4 represent the runoff to Culvert B and Storm Sewer B respectively, runoff methodology used and assumed developed condition for the area to Culvert B. CIVIL ENGINEERING i SURVEYING / PLANNING i LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village Table 3 Jacobs 449 NR 55 -TR Ultimate by 186.97 Rational Proposed Cole Jacobs 378 NR 55 -TR Proposed TxDOT 223.95 NR 55 -TR Proposed Halff 242 Rational Ultimate Maier by 254.20 Rational Proposed Cole Table 4 Jacobs 176 NRCS-TR 55 Ultimate TxDOT by 186.97 Rational Proposed Cole Cross 45.63 Rational Existing CIVIL ENGINEERING i SURVEYING / PLANNING i LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 8 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village C. Capacity Analysis & Modeling 1. Pre -Developed Conditions Capacity Culvert B Cole with respect to TXDOT TxDOT provides culvert computations for Culvert B for the 100 -year storm event (TxDOT, sheet 83). TxDOT did not provide calculations for the maximum capacity of Culvert B or downstream infrastructure, therefore Cole performed a separate capacity analysis. A capacity analysis of Culvert B was performed based on TxDOT variables, including an upstream head condition of approximately 3.5 feet. A capacity of 342 cfs was determined (model included on CD in Appendix). Jacobs Jacobs indicates that Culvert B acts as a control structure with a maximum conveyance of 378 cfs (Jacobs, page 13). However, there were no detailed calculations provided. Halff Halff analyzed the capacity of Culvert B and found that the culvert can convey up to 364 cfs (Halff, page 4). Cole, Jacobs and Halff correspond to within 9% of each other. Slight differences in capacities are likely due to different methodologies, software, and assumed conditions. Storm Sewer B TxDOT TxDOT provides storm sewer calculations for the 50 -year storm event for Storm Sewer B and applicable laterals (TxDOT, sheet 86E). TxDOT did not perform any calculations for the maximum capacity of Storm Sewer B or downstream infrastructure, therefore Cole performed a separate capacity analysis. Cole A capacity analysis of Storm Sewer B was performed based on TxDOT design variables. The existing inlets were modeled as collection points for the developed runoff from the site. A capacity of 244 cfs was determined. This represents the inlets 313-15 thru 313-18 at maximum capacity collectively conveying 131 cfs. 2. Developed Conditions Models Models were created to determine the maximum runoff that may be conveyed to the Carillon ponds under future proposed conditions by Culvert B and Storm Sewer B. These systems were modeled as Systems A and B, and are further described as follows: CIVIL ENGINEERING i SURVEYING / PLANNING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 9 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village System A System A (Exhibit F) starts at the outfall of the future culverts under N. White Chapel (Maier), and continues into the proposed 8'x4' sewer (channel reroute), progresses through and into Culvert B and terminates at the outfall of Culvert B on the north side of SH 114. No back water conditions were assumed at this point. All laterals leading into Culvert B are accounted for in the model. A total of 305.66 cfs was input at the upstream end of System A. This runoff was successfully conveyed and determined to be the maximum capacity of the system. The 305.66 cfs maximum includes 252.66 cfs from the future North White Chapel culverts as calculated by Cole. Thus, 53 cfs is the total allowable runoff release between North White Chapel and Culvert B. As depicted on the Concept Drainage Plan (Exhibit 1), the proposed runoff will be approximately 38 cfs, or 15 cfs less than capacity. System B System B consists of: 1. TXDOT Inlets 313-15, -16, -17, and -18, and the storm sewer that connects these inlets (collectively referred to henceforth as Storm Sewer C, Exhibit H). 2. Storm Sewer B and all laterals connected thereto. System B terminates at the outfall of Storm Sewer B on the north side of SH 114. No back water conditions were assumed at this point. In the model runoff was released to the inlets of Storm Sewer C as depicted on the White Chapel Village Conceptual Drainage Plan. The total flow through System B at the south side of the SH 114 eastbound access road totals to 207.02. This includes 83.75 cfs from the Site, 123.27 cfs from TxDOT drainage area 313-18A (includes Forest Park Medical Center and DeRose property). Note: Storm Sewer C was designed by TxDOT to accommodate runoff from future commercial development (TxDOT, sheet 85 A). The total capacity of Storm System C was determined to be 132 cfs, or 48.25 cfs more than the total anticipated site runoff. Under proposed conditions shown on the Concept Drainage Plan, Storm Sewer B can accommodate up to 240 cfs from TxDOT drainage area 3B -18A. This is more than adequate for demands of the area. It should be noted that although the culvert sizes are the same, System B has a lower capacity than System A due to hydraulic constraints and elevations of inlets within Storm System C. Certain inlets will flood if too much runoff is introduced to the system. To prevent flooding of the highway runoff must not exceed 323 cfs at the entrance of Storm Sewer B. CIVIL ENGINEERING / SURVEYING / PLANNING / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 10 Preliminary Drainage Study —White Chapel Village 1111111. Conclusion This study was performed in order to analyze the drainage impact of development of the 15.865 -acre site. By reconciling the information previously prepared by other engineering firms and TXDOT, and performing our own modeling and analyses, it has been determined that: 1. Stormwater detention for the development site has been accounted for in the design of the Carillon detention ponds as stated in Jacobs. 2. The TxDOT drainage conveyance system under SH 114 has capacity to convey the 100 - year developed runoff from the site. 3. The conveyance channel north of and parallel to SH 114 is in need of repair or reconfiguration. It is understood that this is the responsibility of others. It is assumed that the once repaired or reconstructed, this conveyance system will have equal or greater capacity than the system for which it served. 4. A storm sewer with a capacity roughly equivalent to an 8'x4' box sewer will be required to reroute the drainage from North White Chapel Boulevard underground and around the boundary of the site. CIVIL ENGINEERING i SURVEYING / PLANNING i LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I I IV- EXHIBITS PATH: K:\C3X513O1-CcriIIon\O9O218 Flood plain\Workmap-Report05.10.dwg 0 a � m 580 LEGEND - �166 Ili (( f�� JaJ: v "- e it AI • JPP r Creek Centerline Im Iraa� ! I '+D� '# II Property Boundary 'a �' • ,i I p 2 -foot Contours �. _., `,IP _ r" Basin Boundaries LABEL oil Lim S 3 ` , Basin Labels , ' E ar .p ,. .� �`AREA = h �00 A . IN0 k.y �k r, -- : r 'AJ— 4 fJ F I' � � �� - f�,,, ■� _ ` � � 6 `. � .. JF�I _ -,a` a14�� py - ��`� °::!'�''. - *k- "p' ,,_ VLI VA '� �� i � _��■�� Y 11111. ��.v� I � - 'i` - '�.,kr .�� i _.� �f i `�, .� , ;, 3 Y. �- Lido, wlr� ANA ps ZIC-1 3m 1 �. 1 — , � s. Z., h 7 ► 4 - � � %- � moi,' Y} ,I x WA iL IV, I1P_a Arm • mor .� - i e„� '� ! �.t ,� a • �1.. ,, _ P,." •iI ♦s �� fir, --- �`,•�,,r _ :�= �••..=rte, � � v y -'�. r rte- f V � W AlIiN r -NN RAI.- I AM AA JAN e At rl _ f a, - _ s , ► - a : -' �, �i.�. a . �,� � '� � ,LJ 0,i�. _ � , �� r 4 d! - ,� JI - J . `� 9 � 9 - �+ y - .' a• - _ - -.'_" .� r� V 41 L . . . 14 �, �� , ,� v �. r � ..- � la �a ,�� mil a"■r4 �� ;1 ,_ ., r � { y -� A oft 41 + .I 1-w &�'� ! i s` _ iYsa .. .. At AN � FAN A JT- /� 1 I NVF 14i R. A.T. 1 ■[, 9 I t w , _. - �; -4 � � IFr I��a''- � P ��:.�+• I F , .. � 4 M #" {� .�. i�,. � ; '+ - y,;� I ' . � •• � + � � 1 � 8 q CT Y':J,,AA id . ANN on r " '-s A, , , - 1:; I qlj� I it L� IL%AYE.. _.. _ S' T4 .Ji. - v "rte AN '�►a44All"L I - Ift a, Nil 1 i i _ 1 _ e : 1 l sL A 1 i 4 I Y \F i A II 1 ,� ,� a ..:. ll, � _ � '1 , .! +D� I `fit °u' •�* ^ I ' �' 4kAL 1. Al " Y:F -, - _y. f +. 1 r■,a..r�� !I J 4�, A IP - + t { • a9 F f, 1 r 44 i ;- - - 1.4. _ } �i1t+• '��' I 1 , - 1, I JM i.. / Ilr s.. ., .- r ,4 + i [► - w, P . I 4 �' I - 'a� �' + �—e�e '— r ; I'y'' ++ VIA ' -L_-.` d 1 ,+, - Ya.... • ,y !x 4 _ .. s' . �' �.�'l "y, y� , - r .: - y 1' +a u I IL a..� On , , , ,#(!.%I . I - .�I �' y, -. 9999„t .,��ce J � �-� '. ` —� '// J�.� �” � ..� ` ■� f .. - ' "._,�\II. - err'♦.� =may y i Ji _a. S.,: - e- t Ar, J �� :f � Y I P I I Fi�Yi -3 .4 1• ` Y AY � � i !� _ -_ 1 _ 1 - • - - a - a - s'mam — —ITO,AJA w; 0 00 J m D D = Z7 ZJ N (n 0 =no m m Fri 0 z = D CD C7 cn � coo C7 NC7� r D G7 rr- o z Z � ■ W, HINES CARILLON TRACT FLOOD STUDY City of Southlake, Tarrant County, Texas PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA MAP 1!' dJ� , � � ,. Av �� ,� r• .Ja�� -l. � `'4R:,�^ � + � --� �"�4, -�; F. :, INi;R 1 �vr,wf rte' �iJ� '� , 1 i • ^ '7. ��, ..: MJw'�{I`iYr♦YI#aa;; +k �-� • �- : r� # '� ` as k, '� {� �"«a, phi '• q _ ji ,� � } .ate ,a- •t T � ,. � art' , .y,.'�' k ,w41!`r°+�+'I�-- -' - �- IAN* 4N �9 t.l' AN-- • p.w•. ,:.., a,M i -iTO"�:.y AIR Ii I _ is - T - ` ire 1 • '1 - iz•.+�p. i TM JACOBS 7950 ELMBROOK DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS 75247 PHONE: 214-638-0145, FAX: 214-638-0447 c o = I SCALE: 1 "=400' z rrl o m DESIGNED BY: (n n �D DRAWN BY: CMW m�000 o � REVIEWED BY: cn CHECKED BY: zm o Frl 0 o PROJECT NO.: 24274.010 (n o T' 70 Z FILE NAME: K�CJN51301Cm11m�090218fbod�aio�WahIIWRepalfb.10.8q < o D DATE: 01/2009 o 0 DESCRIPTION DATE APPR/ a i I I 630. 4 . 7 641. _ N 1 ,- 11 t_ ' ' r i > ; r. 7 r 1 - I� 1 ---•r 1\ !ter I' i �t -- ' 1_�,II p 632.8 . •-----633. 636. �r � /. II I �M I I ti LL I I I 1 L 1 j 4 I II 6 I 641'4 644. I 640.7 643 1 \` 620.6 14 I: \ - -` 7.4 61 ��.;----- - 627.3 627.7 ' �e\ ' \ e \♦ i 640/ - r 629. J ..I ♦ �. 2 645.4 49. i t 1 _ _ IL 1 rLVER/ I � - � F - 645.0 6 628.1 65Qg71 644. I l 7 I IJ 1'607. 2-i 647. 646.8 648.6 �� r _ - _ - 631. r ' t 630.7 629 I 11 ,- y5 p• I648 9 1 631.0 I t IL L r�1 631.6 629 I J 649.( I _ _ I 1 I r '_a - 62 5 it ' I'I Sli•_. ' - ! 631. 629. 627. IV - I II 64 66.4 _ - -- ---- - - - -- - - - - - I� 6 f I ti I I I rll L_I $ 868�1�-3 _i- -I r. c� - - - - - I r I I I 1.7 it 11 r I 1 J 631. --� 672. � ,. 1� '�. I 615 L[ I I I- 3. 4 1 1� r r 1 1 I 657.9 I''i L ` I I i I 614.6 i t Lr 1 \624.9 _J I' I_1 614.5 II I 162 .2 ` J / 615.0 r I I L Ll I 647. ' I I 623 1 1. I I.`4 `r' 1 1 1 ^t- 616 9 61�Y 6 I i 77. 1 I _ I . 8 r- I I I � ,1 67 .9 ;III t 1 i �6 9. 11 '64 r 3r-# 1'".- 1- _a'..� r-, I� 1�1 6 616.9 OU' I' Irl LI I 3. t f •ter r I n I _ _ CULVERT 1l B11 6 SrOj iI1 I '�. ✓ r - '_49. . 684.9 L6.79-.3 679 i q I, Ljr.*.........:8.0....6...................`.�� DRAINAGE A REA 651.2 679.4 6 3 ....... ..R........... 68 31 81 JOHN R SHlIT68. 4 60 676.5 85.3 L.1 91.5 v / ' 652L _ 65 9 I - - 684 9 I I . 5 653.2 I..I 1 f 6 moi. T - _ 6 7) 4` , �,c� •9FGIST �'�'•• 1 I i 6- .7 684.9 7 ®8 ? I _ _ 676.f - / J I r - _ 11� I . et000 M r•xw acerb... er ,renseorwaery t i 684. -- I 1 I ' I 1 ' x I r s,2, u•Qosst on r;anre r•wrw• J 1 1 62 1I yr>l 7[ �2f'7.� 0 655ZA 68015 639 c� f I1s. S IHEET 2 OF 5 SHEET S .6 67 $ 6 l FEO.RD.FE[Rb0 PROECT NO. s+NEOE., r ON.NO 6 Ir6 NH 2001(15) 81A 76 6 I q I f 1 1 1 677. 6. SCOIB Feet raTE coum 0 2TARRANT I CONT. SECT. r II_40. 7 MOU657.0 ) 11 .I JOB I 1z r. r7 11 t r ' 683 `q� _ 0353 03 1 073 I SH 114 1 • i tt" � �S ` Figure 1. - DRAIGE • •f EA MAP •s :Qk* 85.'x` _ ' u d ` .;.� • x _. � L � `l• SMS �- �..tii 1 2"'1y' -.ys.'l Vii _ .r 7 I met - FE,'� -•T"� �' �-:r,..�, �t� `"�—��y.; 1 ,� ili.,�.-� r -i: �I k -_- 1 • __ t � .! ,�!� Fes- � _.J / i�.J {� •��II A 71�� i =.� �F:�.�~i 3 �t � � i r � � � • ' i+ i, a ik'. '��';� • �"" I 111 � E 111111 I t 1 1 , 1 f r ^ �� F 1 f F"s��— ! .fit--� eS�.+•� A�;F4 e F• Inlet No. Drainage Cf Coeff. Of C*Cf*A Tc 15 (in./hr) 125 (in./hr) 1100 (in./hr) Q5 Q25 Q100 oa-a j d Area 7 Runoff L z LU F- LU Dmo w Q Im Q LU (Ac) � C IL (min.) (Tc+d)^e (Tc+d)^e (Tc+d)^e (c.f.s.) (c.f.s.) (c.f.s.) A 67.12 1.25 0.51 42.55 47.16 2.57 3.53 4.47 87.56 132.08 190.05 B 0.22 1.25 0.95 0.22 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 1.23 1.70 2.08 C 0.26 1.25 0.95 0.26 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 1.44 1.99 2.44 D 0.98 1.25 0.83 0.98 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 4.70 6.79 9.10 E 0.94 1.25 0.77 0.90 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 4.15 6.00 8.35 F 0.39 1.25 0.78 0.38 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 1.74 2.51 3.49 G 0.37 1.25 0.95 0.37 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 1.99 2.76 3.38 H 1.24 1.25 0.85 1.24 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 6.05 8.75 11.49 1 0.26 1.25 0.95 0.26 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 1.43 1.97 2.42 J 0.15 1.25 0.95 0.15 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 0.81 1.13 1.38 K 2.79 1.25 0.95 2.79 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 15.22 21.06 25.78 L 0.19 1.25 0.95 0.19 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 1.01 1.40 1.71 M 0.07 1.25 0.95 0.07 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 0.38 0.53 0.64 N 0.68 1.25 0.95 0.68 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 3.73 5.16 6.31 O 2.16 1.25 0.79 2.14 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 9.84 14.23 19.79 P 2.39 1.25 0.92 2.39 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 12.57 18.03 22.08 Q 1.51 1.25 0.95 1.51 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 8.24 11.41 13.97 R 0.11 1.25 0.95 0.11 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 0.61 0.84 1.03 S 0.14 1.25 0.95 0.14 10.00 5.74 7.55 9.24 0.78 1.07 1.31 \ ,,L B 0.2 T r 1 47+00 48+00 50+00A 51+00 _ PFT , DT AD- D 0.98 0000 000000 -1-1 JF 0.39 C� WHITI)A 60+00 61+00 62+ HAPEL BLVD. \ 64+00 l_r J' mum MENEM \ too .00 ce 01i ,l I P / 2.39 / O O ( o 66 0 +0 c.•i�rI�r��r a 0 70+00 70+71 It j 0 1A � A 07 R S 0.11 0.14 A 0.7 LEGEND DRAINAGE AREA AREA (ACRES) DRAINAGE DIVIDE LINE 0 100 200 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET w Q 0 z 0 w M = n M aoa N OZ op:w �tlww •• W 1- N wc-)N Z iaC,0z0 M N a y 00 O zaw w moa w �O Q Z OVA ,� LU X oa-a j d zoa N0W 7 mew L z LU F- LU Dmo Me Z o LU w Z M o � C � •Zz Z ° J�J N Zc� Q06 �-' w 00 N iU Cn Z a x Z� U x aQ o H SCALE JOB No. DATE 08-076 08/2012 0 LU o 0 00 0 Q <Q ,� LU X Q LU F- LU 0 w Q Im Q LU LU � IL 0 Q1L z U0 U D =_ SCALE JOB No. DATE 08-076 08/2012 0 LU o 0 00 �1 /- ,.. c Rev. No. C.O. No. De lGtlon Dole 6Y REMOVAL OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT & DRAINAGE 8/5Y02 JRT \ 6 ADD ADDITIONAL INLET 7/7/03 JRT K / , I V" 1 �• / � ,°' r// / / Pj,,�'�� < _ - T- -§f�II-a�t:.t—:_ _ _l� I Ln C 1 O r ' ' ' I `\ Cl -2 ; �/ // ,� �/ /Vr r, ' v I LI ' T N IL C\i Bl -12 / aj 9t Qo N / �' -/9 I 1 N ro Qo I_ N I.0 B2- /' /, LIDi N Qo Cy N I N N <9 1 f / r- ` j i f �P�00 E of rFX�, /I JOHN R. TILLINGHAST / c� I �.......... B-%16 B - f. * . 80691..... B/-9 X213 1 8 c 9FCIST ��e AL 71 10 82-9InI l -2 f I, / ' r I � I 1 i � r r_ ' - I ®fl C3�9P&✓�Od Bl' f I_.- , Bl -C7 // I, / / ♦ ` , I 1 \ \ 3 -/Ce' 1 , � eiaouii i.-rno.y way �:'..�We�w I r c9 o 831/9 I 11 rr i -- SH /I4 T 3 -PI l / vh 1 B3- 4X ,' / — —L5 B/ Bl-, ' 1 1 ; ; =' x . DRAINAGE AREA -- — r--�- -- -x - --- - - -- C�— _ _ - - - - - - --- -- •/'' __$ --- s ----- - - �,�--—�� MAP - - - - - - - -� _ — - - - _---—----------- - - - - - - - SHEET 5 OF 5 B/ 6 _ _ i Cfl 1 I I - c FED -RD. SHEET B Bl tt / , I - -� ' I DN.NO. FEDERAL A/D PROJECT NO. No. B1-3 � : 43" 1 , _ _ y I 6 NH 2001(/5) 181 D I I S / , / I u/4 I STATE DIST. COUNTY / 1 scale Feef TEXAS FW TARRANT 125 250 375 I Dow. sEcT. I Jos HGHwar ND. � 0353 03 I 072 SH //4 I "Lit e 652 650 648 TY 646 644 642 640 638 V636 C 634 0 632 m 630 tY 628 626 624 622 620 618 -- 616 - - 614 - - Profile 1 System A - Base I ... i Label: T-19 ------....._----------- .._. -- .. sin Type Transition I - ..... ----------- ._ _._ .. 10:4-72---------------- _.._....... -------------- ... - -_ _.. ILabel 3B-14 O -- ._._. _...................... --.--.. Label MH -3 IM "" Typer Transition Type Manhole -..... .---...... ID: 93. ID 168 Label: CUL B IN ` -- - Type: Catch Basin ID: 31 Label CO-49_� Type: Condiut ID: 169 1 Label: CO -50 Type. Conduit ID: 171 Label: T-17 Type: Transition ID: 166 Label• Type: Conduit Label: CO -52 Cabal CUL 8 1� - ID: 173 1 Type: Conduit Type Conduit ID. 17. Lab.l. CUL B 2 ID: 94 ..Type:. Conduit Label: GUL B 3 ID: 98 1 Type: Conduit ID: 102 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 B)Wbel 169\C0-49 `--- --- _ ""171\CO-58 173\CO-Si - -174 t, CO -52 941 CUL 81------------------98\CUL6-2 --- Link Length (ft) 165.0 241.0 99.0 232.0 45.0 353.0 Rise (in)\Matedal ....:.. ...............:..........._.._...------------ 36.0 \ Concrete 48.0 \ concrete ----C8.0 .. ....1............. \Concrete 18.0 1 Concrete ............... 48.0 \Concrete ... ........... .. ... 48.0 \Concrete Mow (f -A) 252.31 i--..... 252.31 232.31 i.. :.............. 252.51 289.84 300.57 Slope (ft/ft) ..__. -------- 0.003 ........ 0.017 0 030 ...._...... 0.032 ........ 0.003 ..._.... ........ 0.007 W\Ub.11 7 \'CB -22 168 \�MM-3 170 5T-18 172 \T-19 31 1 C81638-14 OUT Greond (ft) ----• 638.00 -----------------•------. ...... 636.00 . ---- ._.. ...:------. 636.00 634.30 _-.._-......-.---... 628.50631.00 ......._ _......._ Invert(ft) I(ft) 631.57 631.00 627.00 626.00 623.15623.00 Station (ft) _. .... a6_ ............... ................ _ 166.0 ....................0 .. .........Sos .o ]3Z0 762.0 ----------------- .. \.___....._............................._...__-.........._..._......_..........i.._... -------------------------------------------------------- _abet: WYE -82-5 Label CUL B 4 L b I.CUL. B OU c: TypTransition ID 101 Type: Conduit Type: Outfall ---10:307 • D:10 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 --...---.------... 102 \ CUL B 3 --..-...--. _.--........ 103 \ CUL B4--..--.- --... 642.027" ....................................................... ............. .._..._.........................._.:._------.........----------_..._..........._.- 48.0 \ Concrete 48.0 \ Concrete 0.005 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 166 \ T-37 650.44 620.44 -...-........ 1134.9 0.011 3011 W4-82-5 30 \ CUL B 0117 ---------- ....--"--'""- 6�0.75 "--""--.. 620.00 61).48 --.... -.... 614.50 1776.9 2050.9 Profile 2 System B - Base 636 635 Label: 3B-18 634 Type: Catch. Basin) 633 ID: 21 632 Label:Nei c -B2-16 631 Label: WYE -82-2 Label: WYE -B2-3 I Type: Transition Label: 3B -18A 630 Type: Transition Type: Transition ID: 77 ID: 81 ID: 85 Ty De: Catch Basin ID: 19 629 Labe% 628 TransiOG Type: Transition� V627 / U: 89 626 0 625 m 624 Label: OUT Type: Outfall ID: 1S Label: 8X4 3 Label: 8X4 2 Label: -8-X-4-1-1 m 623 Label: 6X4 5 T v Vc: Conduit Label: 8X4 3 ?Ype: Conduit Type: Conduit [D: 87 Type: Conduit ID: 91 TYDe: Conduit ID: 90 u1 622 JD: 79 ID: 83 621 / 620 619 618 617 Label: SSA - 18 616 -Type: Conduit 615 ID: 23 614 f 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 ID\Label J$ 83 83\8%44 - @r 18:{93 91\8%42 - y918x41 t3 -\18A-18 Link Length(ft� 236.0 47.0 105.0 31.0 89.0 - 13.0 fuse(in)Vaatenal 48.0\C4ncrole A4.0\t4ncrete 48.0\Concrete - 48.0\Concrete 48.0\Concrete 48.0\Concrete flow (hs/s) 281.99 270.69 267.13 222.42 219.32 111.35 Slope (ft/h) 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.187 ID\Label 18 1 OUT 77 \ WYE -B2-2 81 \ WYE -B2-3 85 \ WYE -82-16 89 \ M -19 -OUT 21 \ 3a98 3B -IBA Ground (h) 62 00 634.00 635.00 62'/.00 624.00 628.08625.00 Invert (ft 63' S0 61.19 615.3361`.66 61S.84 616.07616.50 E Station (ft) .0 3 216.0 2 .0 388.0 418.9 545.9 SAS Label: 3B-18 Profile 3 - TXDOT Inlets Along SH 114 Access Road - Base Type: Catch Basin ID: 2l : 3 Label8-35 628.50 628.00 IO: 26 627.50 627.00 626.50 LabD 3 626.00 Basin Type: ID: U: 26 26 625.50 U-17 Label: 3B-35 - 3B4 625.00 C. Type. Catch Basin Type: Conduit 624.50 24 _. ...._...... .. ..__. _. ._ _.. _.. ..._........... _. M:.211 624.00 Label: 3111-16 - 38-1 i. 623.50 623.00 C 622.50 Label: 3B -17-3B-1 TYPe: Conduit 7 SID: 27 G 622.00 Z621.50 621.00 W 620.50 620.00 619.50 619.00 618.50 618.00 617.50 617.00 616.50 .-. 616.00 615.50 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 200.0 220.0 240.0 260.0 280.0 300.0 320.0 340.0 360.0 380.0 400.0 420.0 440.0 460.0 480.0 500.0 520.0 540.0 560.0 580.0 600.0 620.0 ID\label 23\36-17-36-18 27 \ 3616 - 36.27 29 \ 36.13 - 311.16 Unk Length (h) 253.0 164.0 200.0 Wse Iin)1Nat4nal 46.0 \ Concrete 36.0 \ Concrete 36.0 \ Concrete So. (hrla) 67.12 40.61 20.61 Slope (h/h) 0.004 0.008 0.010 ID%abel 1\3618 24\3617 26\3616 28\36-35 Ground (h) 628.08 624.07 623.37 627.46 Invert (h) 616.07 617.07 619.37 621.46 Station (h) 6.0 253.0 415.0 617.0 M _ \ vv^, STORM SEWER NOTESC"i 50' o' So' 100' 'V w U \ eXrST/ O \ \I N� \ 1. ALL WYE CONNECTIONS AND BENDS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FITTINGS. \ 24., \ \p o, SCALE: 1 " = 50' �i 2. STORM SEWERS BACKFILL SHALL NOT BE PLACED BY MEANS OF WATER JETTING. Q z r \4/ \L' \4/ 3. STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE EMBEDDED IN 6" GRAVEL BELOW THE PIPE AND UP EACH SIDE OF THE PIPE TO N / /- THE SPRING LINE. 0- 4. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEMS SHALL CONFORM TO TXDOT STANDARDS AND N \ SPECIFICATIONS. o \� 5. ALL STORM SEWER IS CLASS III REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. AVERAGE STORM MANHOLE DEPTH IS APPROXIMATELY 10'. w I A laoX/ / _ 7. ALL STORM MANHOLES ARE 4' IN DIAMETER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. RELOCATE AND RECONNECT INLET °/ � eoX LEGEND II PROPOSED 36.48 CFS TO TXDOT / / G� ez 3 _ _ _ 36-14 / 0�� y %gam = EXISTING CONTOUR LU �� \ RELOCATE AND RECONNECT / / � � � /� � i = PROPOSED CONTOUR o _ - - - - - - = STORM PIPE 2' WAX R ;� _ - _ 30 \ � TXDOT INLET 313-14 � _ � � v, � = cuR6 INLET o ��o � I � TX 3 74 ��' /, o, / �L �L �V ,V \ \ li �■ = YARD DRAIN REMOVE EXISTING �•/NO EX/N \ = PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY z�wzm wo= C) vi I 4.70 >> 4HEADWALL. EXTEND �, �, �, �, �, �, �, c 2»� -UjM/18 / AND CONNECT 4X8 Ac I \ Q N =Q��ow 0 7 �-'. BOX CULVERT � °i, �, �, � � � � �� o \ y � Q <z �� v V LIJw r^ A I LJ Ld EINFORCED CONCRETEIIA/D \ ly JUNCTI\ v.J EXTENSOIVE BOXES &� \�\ \ \ / Q ' DESIGN REQUIRED ,4 / zzoo�= REINFORCED CONCRETE \ 2 \ � ^ JUNCTION BOX TO �� \ ROPSOED 17.33 CFS eXrsn \ / W �w�a CONNECT 5'X8' R.C.B. " ° \ �c 3o,, Rc \ \ �� ❑'1 8 3\ TO TXDOT 3B-15 ` p j J N w�rwwo z z w TO EXISTING 4'X8' R.C.B b' e w �C) N� � � NEW 5X8 R.C.B TXDOT CULVERT � g TX °0 � � `L `L F\ z oo-o of w �� STORM SEWER >> //v�� \ � RELOCATE AND RECONNECT INLET I'iST/ SYSTEM 5 15 303g,�s PROPOSED 33.21 CFS TO TXDOT �r ez,- 313-16r4 \ �, � \4/ N�2g-R \ / W N ��-w�� ` Z/ L woN ow =JZQ� �� aTE� _ CONTRACTOR o ,�, �� /, �\ �: U) z� SHALL GRADE T �s ' Y Qri + X ' `�'1� ELOCATE AND RECONNECT INLET �s No 3X3' c�� N ID of Lo LL _� I PAD TO DRAIN 2 °0 �� PROPOSED 33.21 CFS TO TXDOT eoX C'N w Cn �w�(D n / oa v wH X 20 3a,76 3B-17 °j'e2s j CoQ 14'x40' CONCRETE JUNCTION " Lj �¢v�LaC) CONNECT TO 3-6'x3' BOX EXTENSIVE STRUCTURAL 24 3g �\ �� o =�� o SOUTHLAKE BOX CULVERT151 DESIGN REQUIRED E. REMOV. � 07 /A, /N EXISTING � 11 /J I \ r 3e,�� /z HEADWALL3 ET / 5' DIAMETER 2.50 STORM MANHOLE _ 10 N �0 �� 10 JUNCTION BOX TO i „ 10 / T CONNECT TO STORM SEWER 3 6 �g%� 10 0 38-7 / PROPOSED 14.67 CFS OF TX �� ADDITIONAL OFFSITE 15 7' DIAMETER DoT iN�E RUNOFF % „ b STORM �a 1 g ° g, MANHOLE REM EXISTING HEADWALL REMOVE 15 -NLET FORCE �J�- r 0 �` bCONSTRUCT JUNC BOX I; i8 y 5' DIAMETER o / \ WITH 4'X4' WYE INLET \ \ r " STORM .A 30 � � � OPENING - o P >> `\SS MANHOLE 12 LA 18/;LJ 0 / �sao Q > I-- W x o 0 S� �� x,15 "� f" w Q � cn - LQ» 60 �' / / �rw - 18 - - - - % \ \ = o 7 ° - \ J 0 \ As / / � � � / SS � � \ z = L -Li _ �. , s 8.66 / ; ,- ,2.w, � C/C) T , S F b 7' DIAMETER / / S o Of z Q /, / / / s W z =I-QCE / STORM SS 36� ,' / co RkJ` MANHOLE %% / �j a " IQLd L W LLJI N � �-4 ° SSS �' r --' �� I �' 0 CONTRACTOR `� SS I I I SHALL GRADE 2» POLY PAD TO DRAIN 8 GAS MAIN �# I `��2� try. 2 „ - I LJ I.\ -- X24"------ - \ I 1 i LULU CD ES in \ II I J o o o N LU M G G G G G G / a ^ `� <Ln �o w rm 4. iC� 8 ` / / I \ ` \ + �,�� 0 cc Nva 0 N ECT TO 3 JOS GAS LINE CD0 0 W 0 a g U U 1 8 ' 1232 ONSITE PARKING SPACES SS- SHOWN / \ \ 1 O J a 3: 1258 n ! g TOTAL PARKING SPACES „ / \ \ ` z u8 uu cE I - i INCLUDES HOTEL ONSITE & FLEX 42 �'/ I \ \ z m, - - i' PARKING i \ z c 0 1� 8 C I l ---\ a3V C-DNO TI LE PROVIDED ON Z -a Ln a /i-, .,T ; 2 g BLOCK A-80, Ulf- TEMPORARY _ADDITION 1 s Cn 4'X4' OSED ADDITION - 10 c 5'a Z I AREA WYE SQUARE FEET >> Ln o a 0 I �o r- , of I,LET 36" 18 36" 18" RUNOFF VARIABLES z0 Wm� I 42 wa° _ _ 4 w2 = - _ - 3 6 _ \ - - - - - - - Tarrant County z 0 tl 2 -yr 10 -yr 25 -yr 100 -yr x DEROSE \ \ I 1 \ , \ \ b= 51.393 77.103 90.982 110.202 U i 1 -� y 0 _ ` 0 �' � 1 � \ d = 9.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 I -u \ I I I I \ e = 0.811 0.800 0.783 0.780 1 m I I I I DESIGN/CALC BY PROPERTY" cis I I i�� `�� II 11 I \V DRAWN BY RUNOFF CALCULATIONS cis Q CHECKED BY X11 � � I I 1 \ 1.73 I 0.23 1 1 1 2 SHS Lu DRAWING SCALE \ \ I I I I I I I \\ G�al��ay� Rainfall Intensities (in/hr) Flowrate (cfs) m Area Total Area Runoff T° i b/ (Tc+d)e Q CiA Drains to: DATE (ac) Coefficent C (min) 05/05/2016 Designation i2 i10 its i100 Q2 Q10 Q25 Q100 4.70 0.84 10.00 4.71 6.51 7.82 9.24 18.60 25.70 30.87 36.48 CULVERT B Job Number 2.50 0.75 10.00 4.71 6.51 7.82 9.24 8.83 12.21 14.66 17.33 313-15 i / r - 1 I I I I , ► 1 ' I 11 , 1 ► I 15-0073 III 8.66 0.83 10.00 4.71 6.51 7.82 9.24 33.85 46.79 56.21 66.42 CULVERT C 0-1 1.73 0.81 10.00 4.71 6.51 7.82 9.24 6.60 9.12 10.96 12.95 CULVERT C OZ Sheet Number i I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0-2 0.23 0.81 10.00 4.71 6.51 7.82 9.24 0.88 1.21 1.46 1.72 CULVERT C z C4mO r r V - APPENDICIES SEE INCLUDED CD