Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
37-065
air Rocky Hill CoHousing Northampton, Massachusetts Opinion of Probable Site Work Cost - Subdivision Road �w Prepared by: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. on 08107103 Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Demolition/Earthwork ! + 1. Clear and Grub Vegetation AC 0.7 $3,500.00 $2,450.00 2. Strip and Stockpile Topsoil(-6" assumed) CY 577 $5.00 $2,885.00 3. Erosion Control Barrier LF 313 $4.00 $1,252.00 �w 4. Excavate/Rough Grade CY 3500 $3.00 $10,500.00 5. Fine Grading SY 3466 $1.50 $5,199.00 6. Spread Topsoil from Stockpile(6" deep) CY 577 $4.00 $2,308.00 Subtotal $24,594.00 Drainage 1. Flared End w/Rip Rap EA 2 $750.00 $1,500.00 2. 12"HDPE Storm drain LF 109 $24.00 $2,616.00 •r Subtotal $4,116.00 Water 1. 8" D.I. Water Main LF 540 $32.00 $17,280.00 eA 2. 6" D.I. Hydrant Branch LF 30 $28.00 $840.00 3. Fire Hydrant EA 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 4. 1" CU Type K services LF 124 $16.00 $1,984.00 5. Service Shut offs EA 5 $100.00 $500.00 Subtotal $22,404.00 Electric 1. Trench/Backfill LF 520 $4.00 $2,080.00 e 2. 6-4" PVC ductbank LF 520 $80.00 $41,600.00 Subtotal $43,680.00 Paving& Curbing 1. New Bit. Cone.Paving&Base SF 10,400 $4.00 $41,600.00 2. Bit.Cone.Sidewalk&Base SF 4,160 $2.50 $10,400.00 3 Bit.Cone.Curb LF 65 $4.00 $260.00 Subtotal $52,260.00 Planting&Seeding 1. Street Trees EA 12 $600.00 $7,200.00 1. Hydroseed MSF 16 $50.00 $800.00 Subtotal $8,000.00 TOTAL SITE WORK $155,054.00 10% Inspection/oversight $15,505.40 so 10% Contingency $15,505.40 GRAND TOTAL $186,064.80 N ON ON 40 Rocky Hill Cohousing Open Space Calculation 8/7/2003 Parcel Area 27.36 A Area Not Included in Cluster Development, if any B Parcel Area less Area Not Included in Cluster Development A-B 27.36 C 50% of Tract Area Required for Open Space before Wetland /Slope/Detention Subtraction C * 0.5 13.68 D .s. 25% of Required Open Space permitted to be Wetland/Slope/Detention under calculation before Wetland I Slope/Detention Subtraction D `0.25 3.42 E Wetlands in Open Space 1.87 F Slopes over 8% (if applicable) in Open Space (unless land dedicated for public use then 20%allowed) 8.6 G Detention in Open Space (1-10 yr typical) 0 H Subtotal F + G + H 10.47 1 4" Wetland/Slope/Detention not permitted as part of Required Open Space I - E 7.05 J Total Cluster Tract Area for Required Open Space Calculation after Excess Wetland I Slope/ Detention subtraction C -J 20.31 K 50%of Tract Area Required for Open Space after Wetland/Slope/Detention subtraction K/2 10.155 L 75% of Required Open Space that cannot include Wetland/Slope/Detention L*0.75 7.61625 M Area Allowed be be Lots/ Roads K/2 10.155 N Area of Roads to Limits of Subdivision Right of Way 0.7 O Area of Lots 7.221, P Subtotal of Lots and Roads O + P 7.92 Q If this field is positve, the developed land is within the required limits of the Bylaw N -Q 2.235 R ww �w aw Additional Information Open Space Calculation ,, Constructions Quantities and Cost The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Rocky Hill CoHousing June 26, 2003 Rev. 8-7-03 �•• Project Description The project proposes a 35 unit residential development on a 27 acre parcel. The most environmentally sensitive area of the parcel includes a bordering vegetated wetland through the center of the parcel. The wetland area and most of its respective 100' buffer as well as additional upland areas are proposed to constitute permanently preserved open space. Wetland Protection &Preservation RM The project will have a limited disturbance on the wetland area. The nature of the wetland is such that a crossing is necessary in order to reach the developable area of the parcel.The disturbance has been minimized as much as possible by locating the roadway within an existing wetland crossing which at one time served as an old logging road. an Erosion and Sedimentation Control measures, as indicted, will further ensure protection of wetland resource areas and buffer zones from erosion and sedimentation both during and after construction. MW Surface & Groundwater Quality *a Surface runoff from roadway pavement is proposed to be treated through overland flow and the incorporation of grass swales. Impacts to groundwater will also be minimized, as the project is proposed to connect to municipal water and sanitary systems. See also separate sanitary and ,�. drainage studies. Air Quality a�w As a residential development, any negative air quality impacts generated by the proposed subdivision are insignificant. w 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com 40 ON go ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Traffic The traffic impact will be as reported in the study prepared by Fuss &O'Neill, Inc. Sewer Impacts Projected sanitary sewer generation: 35 housing units x 3.5 bedrooms/unit x 110 gallons/day= 13,475 gallons/day The sewer system collecting and transporting the sewage from the site was evaluated and has adequate capacity to accommodate the project's sewage. Water Impacts ow Projected water use: 35 units x 3.5 capita/unit x 55 gal/day/capita=6,737 gallons/day (this is less than the projected sewer use, so use 13,475 gpd for estimate) The site is to be serviced with a new 8-inch water main, and the site will not detrimentally impact adjacent parcels, as outlined in the attached water report. on School Impacts Assuming 28 Attached/Single Townhouse Homes @ 0.5 children/unit= 14 children on Assuming 7 Single Family Detached Homes @ 0.75 children/unit=5.25 children Total= 19.25 children an No 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STATEMENT Rocky Hill CoHousing June 26, 2003 Rev August 7, 2003 NAME OF PROJECT: Rocky Hill CoHousing PM ACREAGE: 27.361 TYPE OF PROJECT: Open Space Residential Subdivision OWNERS: Tofino Associates, Inc. (37-65,66,67) Joseph and Amalia Singler(37-19) an LOCATION: Florence Road PLANNER: The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. PARCEL NUMBER: Map 37 Lots 65, 66, 67, 19 ZONING DISTRICTS: SR ENGINEER: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. ARCHITECT: n/a .w PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a. Number and types of units: 7 Single Family Detached Homes 28 Attached/Single Townhouse Units b. Number of bedrooms: to be determined C. Anticipated Housing Cost: to be determined 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com SEWER STUDY Rocky Hill Co-Housing Project State Sanitary code, and this factor already has a peaking factor included. (The average sewage flow rates are typically much less than this as generally reflected in water usage rates). FLOW SUMMARY: Total existing flow in sewer: 69,410 gpd= 48 gpm Total additional flow added to sewer: 13,530 gpd= 9 gpm Total proposed flow in sewer: 82,940 gpd = 57 gpm !*" Capacity of existing sewers 264,970 gpd= 184 gpm For the purpose of conservative evaluation, we have also examined the capacity of the pipe assuming an "* additional 180% peak flow rate; in addition to the already "built-in" peak flow rate in the 110gpd number. Even when evaluating the project in this manner, the study reveals that the project still has no adverse impacts on the City's infrastructure. Total proposed peak flow existing with factor of 1.8 = 149,292 gpd= 102 gpm Capacity of existing sewers 264,970 gpd= 184 gpm Due to the fact that the Rocky Hill project will be utilizing a sewage pump station, the peak flow from the site will actually be determined by the pumping capacity of the pumps utilized in the sewage pump station. The design parameters for the sewer pump station at this time include a 3-inch sewer force main with a design flow of 3.5 feet per second. A Meyer's WG 30 3 HP pump is proposed to accomplish those criteria, and the pump is capable of pumping at a rate of 80 gpm with anticipated dynamic and static heads. Even though Clement Street is remote from the pump station and flows will tend to stabilize at that distance, the Clement Street location was still evaluated with the assumption that the pump station flows would arrive in a surge condition. Given the pumping characteristics of the pump, the maximum anticipated flow to the existing municipal system at the Clement Street location would be as follows: FLOW SUMMARY: ` Peak existing flow in sewer(69,410 gpd x factor of 1.8 =127,938 gpd) 48 gpm Additional peak flow (pump station capacity): 80 gpm Total proposed peak flow in sewer with pump station: 128 gpm Capacity of existing sewers 264,970 gpd= 184 gpm In summary,even when evaluating the system utilizing very conservative methods, there are no detrimental impacts to the sewer infrastructure serving the project. Page 3of3 s SEWER STUDY Rocky Hill Co-Housing Project 44,660 gallons/day existing flow + 24,750 gallons/day "approved" flow = 69,410 gallons/day Total existing flow: 69,410 gallons/day The slope of the pipe varies along the route of the sewer, however the most restrictive gradient is located on the section of Clement Street east of the inverted siphon. This section of sewer has a slope of 0.0039 ft/ft. An 8 inch PVC sewer at a slope of 0.0039 ft/ft has a hydraulic capacity of 0.41 cfs =264,970 gpd. Capacity of sewer system= 264,970 gpd !•�! PROPOSED CONDITIONS: The project will consist of individual housing units, connected by gravity flow to an on-site sanitary pump station. The pump station will collect the sewage from the site and pump it through a 3 inch sewer force main, to the existing gravity sewer system located at the adjacent Pathways Co-housing project. *!* The pump station will be constructed with discharge pumps sized to adequately discharge the sewage at a design velocity of 3.5 feet per second. Utilizing this design criterion, the pumps chosen for this application will discharge the sewage at a rate of 80 gallons/minute. The pump station is very remote from the Clement Street sewer, and as such, any pumped discharge will have adequate time to dissipate prior to reaching the Clement Street sewer. The proposed project will consist of 35 units. If an assumption were made that half of the units will be 3 bedroom units and half will be 4 bedroom units, this would result in the addition of approximately 123 bedrooms to the sewer system. At 110 gpd/bedroom, this would result in an additional 13,530 gallons/day. When this figure is added to the existing anticipate flow that the sewer currently experiences, the total flow to be expected at the most restrictive location along the entire sewer system would be: (69,410 gallons/day existing) + (13,530 gallons/day proposed) =82,940gpd Total proposed flow=82,940 gpd As stated previously, the capacity of the most restrictive portion of eth sewer is approximately 264,971 gallons/day. SUMMARY The sewer serving the site was evaluated to the point on Clement Street where the most restrictive portion of the sewer is located. If all of the buildings connected to the sewer were producing 110 gallons/day/bedroom, then the following summary clearly demonstrates that the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating the proposed development with no detrimental effects on the City's sewer infrastructure. It is important to note that 110 gpd is the anticipated peak flow rate as determined by the Page 2 of 3 The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. SANITARY SEWER STUDY Rocky Hill Co-Housing Project June 26, 2003 Rev. August 8, 2003 EXISTING CONDITIONS: The sewer system that will be constructed as a part of the proposed Rocky Hill Co-Housing project will be connected to an existing 8 inch PVC sewer pipe located in the adjacent Pathways Co-Housing project. The sewer from the Pathways project gravity flows overland approximately 2,200 LF to an existing 8-inch sewer in Burts Pit Road, at the intersection of Clements Street . From the point of tie in on Burts Pit Road, the sewer traverses Clement Street to the Mill River, where it travels under the Mill River in an inverted siphon consisting of two 6-inch diameter pipes. The siphon is constructed in a very steep grade and does not have any history of inadequate capacity. After the sewer .. exits the siphon on the east side of the Mill River it continues for approximately 600 feet to Ladd Avenue where it connects to an existing 24-inch sewer. The 24 inch sewer is reported as having adequate excess capacity. The Diamond Court/Platinum Circle subdivision, a short section of Burts Pit Road east of Clement Street, and a short section of Florence Road south of Burts Pit road is also connected to the sewer. The recently approve Oaks Subdivision as well as the Pathways Co-housing project all flow to the sewer system at Clement Street. Based upon a review of the tax maps and location of the sewer, it is estimated that approximately 96 parcels are located along the sewer route that ultimately discharges into the Ladd Street Sewer. The Pathways project consists of 28 two and three bedroom units, for a total of approximately 70 bedrooms. +!*� If an assumption is made that each of the parcels along the sewer route contains a 3-1/z bedroom house, that would represent an additional 336 bedrooms. This would result in approximately 406 bedrooms connected to the system. If each bedroom generates approximately 110 gallons/day/bedroom, that would result in a total anticipate sewage flow of: 406 bedrooms X 110 gpd/bedroom=44,660 gallons/day=total existing flow. If an assumption is made that the Oaks project will be constructed prior to the new Rocky Hill project, then an additional 64 units will be connected to the system. If an assumption were made that half of the units will be 3 bedroom units and half will be 4 bedroom units, this would result in the addition of approximately 225 bedrooms to the sewer system. At 110 gpd/bedroom, this would result in an additional 24,750 gallons/day. Therefore the total existing flow anticipated to the existing sewer at the most restrictive portion, including existing buildings and approved projects: Page 1 of 3 s® No so m Studies & Analysis Sanitary Sewer Study Development Impact Statement Environmental Impact Analysis owners ivianuat Page 10 • Grab sampling (just taking samples at the inlet and outlet) is an unacceptable methodology for we testing the performance of the Stormceptor during wet weather conditions unless it is flow weighted (flow weighted composite sample from numerous grab samples) over the entire storm. • The oil containment area underneath the insert should be inspected via the vent pipe for dry weather spills capture once a month during the monitoring period since the flow rate of a dry weather spill may not trigger the automated samplers. • A tipping bucket rain gauge should be installed on-site to record the distribution of storm intensities and rainfall volume during the monitored events. • Results that are within the laboratory error(both inlet and outlet) or are representative of relatively clean water should be discarded. Typical concentrations of pollutants in storm water are: TSS 100 mg/L Total P 0.33 mg/L TKN 1.50 mg/L Total Cu 34 pg/L Total Pb 144 pg/L Total Zn 160 N g/L A threshold first flush/composite TSS value of 50 mg/L at the inlet to the Stormceptor should be used as the lower limit of an acceptable storm for reporting event efficiency. Monitoring results where the influent TSS concentration is less than 50 mg/L should only be used in mass load removal calculations over the entire monitoring period with other storms where the influent concentration is greater than 50 mg/L. The results should not be analyzed if the influent TSS concentrations during all monitored storms are less than 50 mg/L. Storms where the influent TSS concentration is less than 10 mg/L should be discarded from all analyses. • A threshold storm event volume equal to 1.5 times the storage volume of the Stormceptor being monitored should be used as the lower limit of an acceptable storm for monitoring. • Sampling at the outlet of the Stormceptor should be conducted within the 24" outlet riser pipe to accurately define event performance. • The personnel monitoring the Stormceptor should record incidental information in a log file. Information such as weather, site conditions,inspection and maintenance information, monitoring equipment failure, etc. provide valuable information that can explain anomalous results. • Laboratory results of monitored samples should be analyzed within 10 days of being submitted to the lab. • Weekly inspections of the sampling tubes, flow meter, rain gauge, and quality samplers should be conducted to ensure proper operation of the monitoring equipment. Debris and sediment that collects around the sampling intakes should be cleaned after each event. • During the installation of automated quality samplers, care should be exercised to ensure that representative samples will be extracted (placement of intakes, ensuring that tubing is not constricted or crimped). • Sampling should be conducted for a minimum of 6 storms. Ideally 15 storms should be sampled if the budget allows. 40 Stormceptoe so Owner's Manual Page 9 Table 4. Monitoring Pollutants Pollutant Minimum Detection Limit MDL Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 5 mg/l Total Phosphorus (P) 0.02 mg/l Total K'eldahl Nitrogen TKN 0.1 mg/l Copper(Cu) 0.001 mg/l Cadmium (Cd) 0.005 mg/l Lead (Pb) 0.05 mg/l Zinc(Zn) 0.01 mg/1 Chromium (Cr) 0.01 mg/1 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 1 mg/l Conductivity 0.1 µmho/cm Fecal Coliform* 1/100 ml Additional Metals (optional) Arsenic (As) 0.005 mg/1 Barium (Ba) 0.01 mg/l Mercury (Hg) 0.0005 mg/1 Selenium (Se) 0.005 mg/l Silver(Ag) 0.01 mg/l * only if explicitly requested in Terms of Reference 6.2 Monitoring Methodology The following monitoring protocol should be followed to ensure reasonable monitoring results and interpretation: • Monitoring protocols should conform to EPA 40 CFR Part 136. • The EPA guideline of 72 hours dry period prior to a monitoring event should be used. This will ensure that there is sufficient pollutant build-up available for wash-off during the monitored event. • Flow proportional monitoring must be conducted for the parameters indicated in Table 1. Samples should be analyzed separately for the first flush versus the remainder of the storm event. Monitoring need not extend longer than an 8-hour period after the start of the storm event (composite). • Sediment sampling(measuring the sediment depth in the unit at the beginning and end of the monitoring period) must be conducted.The water content of the sediment layer must be analyzed to determine the dry volume of suspended solids. Sediment depth sampling will indicate the rate of pollution accumulation in the unit,provide confirmation that the unit is not scouring and confirm the flow proportional monitoring results. A mass balance using the sediment sampling should be calculated to validate the flow proportional sampling. Stormceptoe Owner's Manual Page 8 Recognizing that every work site is different, the responsibility for safety falls on the contractor. The contractor must ensure that all employees and subcontractors follow established safety procedures and OSHA regulations for working in and around permit required confined spaces as well as for any other safety hazard that may be present on that particular site. 6.0 Stormceptor Monitoring Protocol If monitoring of your Stormceptor System is required, we recommend you follow the procedures outlined below by the CSR Stormceptor office. If you have any questions regarding monitoring please contact the CSR Stormceptor Technical Director at(800)909-7763. 6.1 Pollutants to be Monitored ., Table 4 indicates the pollutants to be monitored during the storm events and the minimum acceptable detection limit for each pollutant to be analyzed.Approved federal or state laboratory analysis methodologies are to be used for the analysis. The optional metals indicated in Table 4 refer to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act and may be covered by a generic metals scan. Bacteria monitoring will not be required unless explicitly requested elsewhere. Two sediment samples are to be extracted from the monitored Stormceptor at the end of the study and analyzed for the particle size distribution and water content. A minimum of 8 U.S. Sieve sizes is to be used to determine the particle size distribution. Sieves that are used must include, but are not limited to 35, 60, 100, 140, 200, 270, and 400. Three clay particle sizes must be analyzed to denote particle sizes between 5 and 25 µm. The particle size distributions should be plotted on a standard grain size distribution graph. Stormceptor° Owner's Manual Page 7 4.2 Disposal of Trapped Material from Stormceptor The requirements for the disposal of material from Stormceptor are similar to that of any other Best Management Practices (BMP). Local guidelines should be consulted prior to disposal of the separator contents. In most areas the sediment, once dewatered, can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. It is not anticipated that the sediment would be classified as hazardous waste. In some areas, mixing the water with the sediment will create a slurry that can be discharged into a trunk sanitary sewer. In all disposal options, approval from the disposal facility operator/agency is required. Petroleum waste products collected in Stormceptor(oiVchemicallfuel spills) should be removed by a licensed waste management company. What if I see an oil rainbow or sheen at the Stormceptor outlet? With a steady influx of water with high concentrations of oil, a sheen may be noticeable at the Stormceptor outlet. This may occur because a rainbow or sheen can be seen at very small oil concen- 40 trations (< 10 ppm). Stormceptor will remove over 95% of all free oil and.the appearance of a sheen at the outlet with high influent oil concentrations does not mean that the unit is not working to this level of removal. In addition, if the influent oil is emulsified, the Stormceptor will not be able to remove it. The Stormceptor is designed for free oil removal and not emulsified or dissolved oil conditions. 5.0 Recommended Safety Procedures CSR strongly recommends that any person who enter a Stormceptor System follow all applicable OSHA regulations for entry and work in permit required confined spaces, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.146. A permit required confined space consists of a space that: • Is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work. Has limited or restricted means for entry and exit. • Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy. • Contains or has one of the following: - a potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere. - a material that has the potential for engulfing an entrant. - any other recognized serious safety hazard. Storm water and wastewater systems fall under the OSHA guidelines for a permit required confined space. Failure to follow OSHA guidelines for entry and work in a permit required confined space can result in serious injury or death. Please exercise extreme caution and follow appropriate safety procedures when entering any confined space. Two square pick holes in the cover vent the Stormceptor, allow for removal of the cover, and provide .. sampling ports for air quality monitoring before the cover is removed. If you must enter the Stormceptor, please note that if the disc insert inside is wet, it can be slippery. Stormceptor go Owner's Manual Page 6 tw No entry into the unit is required for routine maintenance of the Inlet Stormceptor or the smaller disc insert models of the In-Line Stormceptor. Entry to the level of the disc insert may be required for servicing the larger disc insert models. Any potential obstructions at the inlet can be observed from the surface. The fiberglass insert has been designed as a platform for authorized maintenance personnel, in the event that an obstruction needs to be removed, sewer flushing needs to be performed, or camera surveys are required. Typically,maintenance is performed by the Vacuum Service Industry, a well established sector of the service industry that cleans underground tanks, sewers, and catch-basins. Costs to clean a Stormceptor will vary based on the size of the unit and transportation distances. If you need assistance for cleaning a Stormceptor unit, contact your local CSR representative, or the Stormceptor Information Line at (800) 909-7763. Figures 1 and 2 will help illustrate the access point for routine maintenance of Stormceptor. Sediment&oil Oil removal can be removal can be performed by vacuum track performed by vacuums ti , through the oiUnspection port ' Disc Insert rltr Concrete Stormceptor i ,,,, Figure 1 Single Inlet/Outlet"Disc"Insert In-Line Stormceptor 4 Inlet Grate .r Oil Port Inlet Insert Removable Tee r: Maintenance t Figure 2 STC 4501 Inlet Stormceptor Storrnceptor" Owner's Manual Page_5 Table 2. Stormceptor Capacities Model Sediment Capacity Oil Capacity Total Holding Capacity f 3 (L) US gal (L) US gal (L) 4501 45 (1276) 86 (326) 470 (1779) 900 75 (2135) 251 (950) 952 (3604) 1200 113 (3202) 251 (950) 1234 (4671) 1800 193 (5470) 251 (950) 1833 (6939) 2400 155 (4387) 840 (3180) 2462 (9320) 00 3600 323 (9134) 840 (3180) 3715 (14063) 4800 465 (13158) 909 (3441) 5059 (19150) 6000 609 (17235) 909 (3441) 6136 (23227) 7200 726 (20551) 1059 (4009) 7420 (28088) 11000s 942 (26687) 2797 (10588) 11194 (42374) 13000s 1230 (34841) 2797 (10588) 13348 (50528) 16000s 1470 (41632) 3055 (11564) 15918 (60256) 4.1 Recommended Maintenance Procedure For the"disc" design, oil is removed through the 6" inspection/cleanout pipe and sediment is removed through the 24" diameter outlet riser pipe. Alternatively,oil could be removed from the 24" opening if water is removed from the treatment chamber, lowering the oil level below the drop pipes. The depth of sediment can be measured from the surface of the Stormceptor with a dipstick tube equipped with a ball valve (Sludge Judge ). It is recommended that maintenance be performed once the sediment depth exceeds the guideline values provided in Table 3 for the reasons noted in Section 4 Stormceptor Maintenance Guidelines. Table 3. Sediment Depths Indicating Required Maintenance Model Sediment Depth 4501 8" 200 mm 900 8" (200 mm) 1200 10 (250 mm) 1800 15" (375 mm) Po 2400 12" (300 mm) 3600 17" (425 mm) 4800 15" (375 mm) to 6000 18" (450 mm) 7200 15" 375 mm OR 11000s 15" 375 mm)** 13000s 18" (375 mm)** 16000s 15" (375 mm)** * Depths are approximate. ** In each structure. Stormceptoe Owner's Manual Page 4 Table 1. Stormceptor Dimensions* Model Pipe Invert to Top of Base Slab 4501 60" 900 55" 1200 71" 1800 105" 2400 94" 3600 134" 4800 128" 6000 150" 7200 134" 11000s 128"** 13000s 150"** 16000s 134"** *Depths are approximate. **Depths per structure Starting in 1996,a metal serial number tag has been affixed to the fiberglass insert. If the unit does _ not have a serial number,or if there is any uncertainty regarding the size of the Stormceptor using depth measurements, please contact the CSR Stormceptor information line at(800)909-7763 for assistance. 4. Stormceptor Maintenance Guidelines The performance of all storm water quality measures that rely on sedimentation decreases as they fill with sediment(See Table 2 for Stormceptor capacities). An estimate of performance loss can be made from the relationship between performance and storage volume. CSR recommends maintenance be performed when the sediment volume in the unit reaches 15%of the total storage. This recommenda- tion is based on several factors: • Sediment removal is easier when removed on a regular basis (as sediment builds up it compacts and solidifies making maintenance more difficult). • Development of a routine maintenance interval helps ensure a regular maintenance schedule is followed. Although the frequency of maintenance will depend on site conditions, it is estimated that annual maintenance will be required for most applications; annual maintenance is a routine occurrence which is easy to plan for and remember. • A minimal performance degradation due to sediment build-up can occur. In the event of any hazardous material spill, CSR recommends maintenance be performed immediately. Maintenance should be performed by a licensed liquid waste hauler. -You should also notify the appropriate regulatory agencies as required. 40 Stormceptor° Owner's Manual Page 3 2. Stormcptor System Operation wo The Stormceptor consists of a lower treatment chamber, which is always full of water, and a by-pass chamber. Storm water flows into the by-pass chamber via the storm sewer pipe or grated inlet (Inlet Stormceptor). Normal flows are diverted by a weir and drop arrangement into a treatment chamber. Water flows up through the submerged outlet pipe based on the head at the inlet weir and is ,o discharged back into the by-pass chamber downstream of the weir. The downstream section of the pipe is connected to the outlet sewer pipe. 0 Oil and other liquids with a specific gravity less than water rise in the treatment chamber and become trapped under the fiberglass weir. Sediment will settle to the bottom of the chamber by gravity. The circular design of the treatment chamber is critical to prevent turbulent eddy currents and to promote settling. During infrequent high flow conditions, storm water will by-pass the weir and be conveyed to the outlet sewer directly. The by-pass is an integral part of the Stormceptor since other oil/grit separators have been noted to scour during high flow conditions (Schueler and Shepp, 1993). The key benefits of Stormceptor include: Capable of removing more than 80% of the total sediment load when properly applied as a source control for small drainage areas • Removes free oil from storm water during normal flow conditions Will not scour or resuspend trapped pollutants • Ideal spill control device for commercial and industrial developments • Vertical orientation facilitates maintenance and inspections 3. Identif cation o[Stormceptor All In-Line(including Submerged) Stormceptors are provided with their own frame and cover. The cover has the name STORMCEPTOR clearly embossed on it to allow easy identification of the unit. The name Stormceptor is not embossed on the inlet models due to the variability of inlet grates used/approved across North America. You will be able to identify the Inlet Stormceptor by looking into the grate since the insert will be visible. Once you have located a unit, there still may be a question as to the size of the unit. Comparing the measured depth from the water level (bottom of insert)to the bottom of the tank with Table 1 should help determine the size of the unit. Stormceptoe Owner's Manual Page 2 Thank You! We want to thank you for selecting the Stormceptor System to use in your efforts in protecting the environment. Stormceptor is one of the most effective and maintenance friendly storm water quality treatment devices available. If you have any questions regarding the operation and maintenance of the Stormceptor System, please call your local CSR representative, or the Stormceptor Information Line at (800) 909-7763. 1. Stormceptor Overview The Stormceptor System is a water quality device used to remove total suspended solids (TSS) and free oil(TPH) from storm water run-off. Stormceptor takes the place of a conventional manhole or inlet structure within a storm drain system. CSR manufactures the Stormceptor System with precast concrete components and a fiberglass disc insert. A fiberglass Stormceptor can also be provided for special applications. The Stormceptor System product line consists of four patented designs: • The In-Line (Conventional) Stormceptor, available in eight model sizes ranging from 900 to 7200 gallon storage capacity. • An In-Line (Series) Stormceptor is available in three model sizes ranging from 11,000 to 16,000 gallon storage capacity. The Submerged Stormceptor, an in-line system designed for oil and sediment removal in partially submerged pipes, available in eight models sizes ranging from 900 to 7200 gallon storage capacity. • The Inlet Stormceptor is a 450 gallon unit designed for small drainage areas. Stormceptor removes free oil and suspended solids from storm water preventing hazardous spills and non-point source pollution from entering downstream lakes and rivers. CSR and its affiliates market and manufacture the Stormceptor System in the United States and Australia. Several thousand Stormceptor Systems have been installed in various locations throughout North America,Australia and the Caribbean since 1990. In the Stormceptor, a fiberglass insert separates the treatment chamber from the by-pass chamber. The different insert designs are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. These designs are easily distinguishable from the surface once the cover has been removed. There are four versions of the in-line disc insert: single inlet/outlet, multiple inlet, in-line series insert and submerged designs. In the non-submerged "disc" design you will be able to see the inlet pipe, the drop pipe opening to the lower chamber, the weir, a 6" oil inspection/cleanout pipe, a large 24" riser pipe opening offset on the outlet side of the structure,and the outlet pipe from the unit. The weir will be around the 24" outlet pipe on the multiple inlet disc insert and on large diameter pipe applications. The STCs Stormceptors consist of two chambers comprised of similar fiberglass inserts. These units also contain a 6" oil/inspection cleanout pipe and 24" outlet riser pipes. The submerged disc insert has a higher weir and a second inlet drop pipe. In the inlet design you will be able to see an inlet drop pipe and an outlet riser pipe as well as a central oil inspection/cleanout port. Stormceptoe g. Owner's Manual Page I Stormceptor® Owners Manual Contents 1. Stormceptor Overview 2. Stormceptor System Operation 3. Identification of Stormceptor 4. Stormceptor Maintenance Guidelines 4.1 Recommended Maintenance Procedure 4.2 Disposal of Trapped Material from Stormceptor 5. Recommended Safety Procedures 6. Stormceptor Monitoring Protocol 6.1 Pollutants to be Monitored 6.2 Monitoring Methodology List of Tables Page Table 1. Stormceptor Dimensions 4 Table 2. Stormceptor Capacities 5 Table 3. Sediment Depths Indicating Required Maintenance 5 Table 4. Monitoring Pollutants 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Single Inlet/Outlet "Disc" Insert In-Line Stormceptor 6 Figure 2. STC 4501 Inlet Stormceptor 6 " Rev. 10/2000 If this manual is more than one year old, please contact CSR for an updated version by calling (800) 909-7763 or by visiting our website at www.csrstormceptorcom """ Stormceptor'° t� z �+ r 1 JII S g i r l �'� �• x,. ' _ __••• � —iii' 5 9 `• �ya � Ej 14~A� �, � rq • Rocky Hill CoHousing July 24,2003 Northampton,Massachusetts go Sediment and debris shall be removed manually at least once per year before the vegetation is adversely impacted. 3) Stormwater Treatment Chamber The Stormwater Treatment System requires minimal routine maintenance; however, it is important that the system be properly inspected and cleaned when necessary in order to function at its best. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the unit, e.g. heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly, but regular sweeping will slow accumulation. The water quality treatment system shall consist of Stormceptor or equal treatment chambers. For more detail of how the Stormceptor should be maintained see the Stormceptor Owner Manual. 4W 3 on Rocky Hill CoHousing July 24, 2003 Northampton,Massachusetts ow The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one- op half of the original installed height of the barrier. P" Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: The Developer, Tofino Associates, Inc. 31 Campus Plaza Road Hadley, MA 01035 shall own the stormwater management system until such time that the Homeowners Association is established. The City of Northampton Department of Public Works will not be responsible for maintaining the roadway and/or stormwater management system. Party Responsible for Operation &Maintenance: The Developer, ww Tofino Associates, Inc. 31 Campus Plaza Road Hadley, MA 01035 shall be responsible for the stormwater management system until such time that the Homeowners Association is established. The City of Northampton Department of Public Works will not be responsible for maintaining the roadway and/or stormwater management system. Inspection & Maintenance Schedule: 1) Street Sweeping Street and parking area sweeping shall take place annually. 2) Grassed Swales Swales shall be mowed at least once per growing season to prevent establishment of woody growth and other undesirable plants that inhibit proper performance. Grass vegetation should not be cut shorter than 4". It is important not to engage in excessive mowing operations, as this keeps the grass too short and decreases the efficiency of the vegetation to reduce runoff borne sediments and velocities. 2 Rocky Hill CoHousing July 24, 2003 Northampton,Massachusetts Proposed Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan During Construction The Contractor shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance during construction. At all times, siltation fabric fencing, stakes and hay bales sufficient to construct a sedimentation control barrier a minimum of 50 feet long will be stockpiled on the site in order to repair established barriers which may have been damaged or breached. An inspection of all erosion control and stormwater management systems shall be conducted by the Contractor at least once a week and during all rain storms until the completion of construction. In case of any noted breach or failure, the Contractor shall immediately make appropriate repairs to any erosion control system and notify the engineer of any problems involving stormwater management systems. A rain storm shall be defined as all or one of the following: • Any storm in which rain is predicted to last for twelve consecutive hours or more. • Any storm for which a flash flood watch or warning is issued. • Any single storm predicted to have a cumulative rainfall of greater than one- half inch. • Any storm not meeting the previous three thresholds but which would mark a third consecutive day of measurable rainfall. The Contractor shall also inspect the erosion control and stormwater management systems at times of significant increase in surface water runoff due to rapid thawing when the risk of failure of erosion control measures is significant. In such instances as remedial action is necessary, the Contractor shall repair any and all significant deficiencies in erosion control systems within two days. The Conservation Commission shall be notified of any significant failure of stormwater management systems and erosion and sediment control measures and shall be notified of any release of pollutants to a water body(stream, brook, pond, etc.). t Mw Stormwater Management System Operation and Maintenance Manual 00 Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point - Post Inflow = 24.09 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.751 of Outflow = 24.09 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.751 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Inflow = 52.86 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 7.046 of Outflow = 40.93 cfs @ 12.71 hrs, Volume= 7.028 af, Atten=23%, Lag= 14.2 min Primary = 40.93 cfs @ 12.71 hrs, Volume= 7.028 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Peak Elev=293.18' Storage= 0.734 of Plug-Flow detention time=8.6 min calculated for 7.014 of(100%of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store. Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 291.00 0.020 0.000 0.000 292.00 0.100 0.060 0.060 293.00 0.770 0.435 0.495 294.00 1.940 1.355 1.850 295.00 2.400 2.170 4.020 296.00 2.960 2.680 6.700 Primary OutFlow (Free Discharge) 't-1=Culvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices -1 Primary 291.00' 30.0" x 54.0' long Culvert X 2.00 RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert=290.50' S=0.0093'/' n=0.012 Cc=0.900 Rocky Hill CoHousing Type Ill 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 HydroCAD&6.00 s/n 000752 0 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.3 150 0.1000 0.2 Sheet Flow,, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 4.7 450 0.1020 1.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 3.3 340 0.1210 1.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 24.3 940 Total Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow = 40.93 cfs @ 12.71 hrs, Volume= 7.026 of Outflow = 40.87 cfs @ 12.76 hrs, Volume= 7.016 af, Atten=0%, Lag=2.5 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity=2.8 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.5 min Avg. Velocity= 1.0 fps, Avg.Travel Time=4.1 min Peak Depth=0.24' Capacity at bank full= 1,308.38 cfs Inlet Invert= 290.50', Outlet Invert=281.00' 60.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.040 Length=255.0' Slope=0.0373T Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point - Pre Inflow = 69.30 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 10.081 of Outflow = 69.30 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 10.081 af, Atten= 0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point - Post Inflow = 53.05 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 10.363 of Outflow = 53.05 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 10.363 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point - Pre Inflow - 20.30 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.319 of Outflow = 20.30 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.319 A Atten= 0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall-6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 4 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 „ Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area - Post Runoff = 23.46 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1.875 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 1.050 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 0.220 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.270 98 Road, Parking, Houses, Walks 1.630 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.020 73 Woods Fair HSG C ,. 5.190 81 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min feet ft/ft ft/sec cfs 3.1 50 0.1000 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.95" 0.8 210 0.0830 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.1 52 0.0200 6.9 5.46 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim=3.1' r= 0.25' n=0.012 0.4 124 0.0100 4.9 3.86 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r=0.25' n=0.012 1.7 70 0.0100 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 0.3 80 0.0440 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps 0.5 80 0.0300 2.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 140 0.0300 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 8.8 806 Total Subcatchment P-20: East Area - Post Runoff = 24.09 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.751 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 0.420 98 Houses, Walks 6.670 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 2.100 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG C `" 9.190 74 Weighted Average Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" „ Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 3 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 01986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 $0 Subcatchment P-10: West Area - Post Runoff = 52.86 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 7.046 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 2.228 98 Proposed & Exist. Roads, Houses 0.600 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C *■ 17.542 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 1.940 79 Woods Fair HSG D 22.310 76 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 4M 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 9.7 290 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 34.4 11065 Total • Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Runoff = 14.20 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 1.471 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS,Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 0.852 98 Road, Driveways, Buildings 0.700 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.958 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 0.780 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 4.290 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) e�w 12.8 50 0.0200 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 4.4 350 0.0700 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 1.9 100 0.0300 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 19.1 500 Total OM Rocky Hill CoHousing Type ///24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment E-1: West Area - Pre Runoff - 69.30 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 10.081 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 1.270 98 Roadway, Exist. Houses 27.490 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C +" 4.100 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 32.860 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, „ Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 10.7 320 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps •* 5.8 310 0.0320 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 41.2 1,405 Total Subcatchment E-2: East Area - Pre „ Runoff - 20.30 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.319 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 7.970 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.2 150 0.1400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2=2.95" 3.2 380 0.1580 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 6.9 460 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 24.3 990 Total Ma Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" + Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS,Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment E-1: West Area- Pre Tc=41.2 min CN=75 Area=32.860 ac Runoff=69.30 cfs 10.081 of Subcatchment E-2: East Area- Pre Tc=24.3 min CN=73 Area=7.970 ac Runoff=20.30 cfs 2.319 of Subcatchment P-10: West Area- Post Tc=34.4 min CN=76 Area=22.310 ac Runoff=52.86 cfs 7.046 of Subcatchment P-11: North West Area- Post Tc=19.1 min CN=79 Area=4.290 ac Runoff= 14.20 cfs 1.471 of Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area- Post Tc=8.8 min CN=81 Area=5.190 ac Runoff=23.46 cfs 1.875 of Subcatchment P-20: East Area- Post Tc=24.3 min CN=74 Area=9.190 ac Runoff=24.09 cfs 2.751 of - Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow=40.93 cfs 7.028 of Length=255.0' Max Vel=2.8 fps Capacity= 1,308.38 cfs Outflow=40.87 cfs 7.016 of Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point- Pre Inflow=69.30 cfs 10.081 of Outflow=69.30 cfs 10.081 of Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point- Post Inflow=53.05 cfs 10.363 of Oufflow=53.05 cfs 10.363 of Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow=20.30 cfs 2.319 of Outflow=20.30 cfs 2.319 of Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point- Post Inflow=24.09 cfs 2.751 of Outflow=24.09 cfs 2.751 of Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop.X-Culvert Peak Storage=0.734 of Inflow=52.86 cfs 7.046 of Primary=40.93 cfs 7.028 of Outflow=40.93 cfs 7.028 of Runoff Area=81.810 ac Volume =25.543 of Average Depth =3.75" NO W oft Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" g• Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point - Post Inflow = 12.73 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.473 of Outflow = 12.73 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.473 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Inflow = 28.75 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 3.856 of Outflow = 24.70 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 3.842 af, Atten= 14%, Lag= 10.6 min Primary = 24.70 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 3.842 of * Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Peak Elev=292.57' Storage=0.308 of Plug-Flow detention time=7.8 min calculated for 3.842 of(100%of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 291.00 0.020 0.000 0.000 292.00 0.100 0.060 0.060 293.00 0.770 0.435 0.495 294.00 1.940 1.355 1.850 295.00 2.400 2.170 4.020 296.00 2.960 2.680 6.700 Primary OutFlow (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 291.00' 30.0" x 54.0' long Culvert X 2.00 M!"' RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke=0.500 Outlet Invert=290.50' S=0.0093'P n=0.012 Cc=0.900 40 Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.3 150 0.1000 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 4.7 450 0.1020 1.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 3.3 340 0.1210 1.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 24.3 940 Total Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow = 24.70 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 3.842 of Outflow = 24.62 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 3.833 at, Atten=0%, Lag=3.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method,Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Max. Velocity=2.3 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.9 min Avg. Velocity=0.9 fps, Avg. Travel Time=4.9 min Peak Depth=0.18' Capacity at bank full= 1,308.38 cfs Inlet Invert=290.50', Outlet Invert=281.00' 60.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.040 Length=255.0' Slope=0.0373P Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point - Pre Inflow = 37.17 cfs @ 12.59 hrs, Volume= 5.456 of Outflow = 37.17 cfs @ 12.59 hrs, Volume= 5.456 at, Atten= 0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method,Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point - Post Inflow = 30.18 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 5.746 of Outflow = 30.18 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 5.746 at, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method,Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow = 10.56 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.227 of Outflow = 10.56 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.227 at, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs e Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 4 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 01986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area - Post Runoff = 13.55 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.082 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 1.050 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 0.220 80 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.270 98 Road, Parking, Houses,Walks 1.630 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C _ 1.020 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 5.190 81 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) '? 3.1 50 0.1000 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.95" 0.8 210 0.0830 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.1 52 0.0200 6.9 5.46 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area=0.8 sf Perim=3.1' r=0.25' n=0.012 0.4 124 0.0100 4.9 3.86 Circular Channel (pipe), " Diam= 12.0" Area=0.8 sf Perim=3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.012 1.7 70 0.0100 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 0.3 80 0.0440 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps 0.5 80 0.0300 2.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 140 0.0300 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps r 8.8 806 Total Subcatchment P-20: East Area - Post Runoff = 12.73 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.473 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 0.420 98 Houses, Walks 6.670 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C _ 2.100 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 9.190 74 Weighted Average Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 3 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-10: West Area - Post Runoff = 28.75 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 3.856 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 2.228 98 Proposed & Exist. Roads, Houses 0.600 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17.542 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 1.940 79 Woods Fair HSG D 22.310 76 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 9.7 290 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 34.4 1,065 Total Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Runoff = 8.04 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.831 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS,Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 0.852 98 Road, Driveways, Buildings 0.700 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.958 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 0.780 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 4.290 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.8 50 0.0200 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2=2.95" 4.4 350 0.0700 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 1.9 100 0.0300 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 19.1 500 Total to Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment E-1: West Area - Pre Runoff = 37.17 cfs @ 12.59 hrs, Volume= 5.456 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45' Area (ac) CN Description 1.270 98 Roadway, Exist. Houses 27.490 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 4.100 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 32.860 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 10.7 320 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 5.8 310 0.0320 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 41.2 1,405 Total Subcatchment E-2: East Area - Pre Runoff = 10.56 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.227 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 7.970 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) w 14.2 150 . 0.1400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2=2.95' 3.2 380 0.1580 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 6.9 460 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 24.3 990 Total Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 H droCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment E-1: West Area- Pre Tc=41.2 min CN=75 Area=32.860 ac Runoff=37.17 cfs 5.456 of " Subcatchment E-2: East Area- Pre Tc=24.3 min CN=73 Area=7.970 ac Runoff= 10.56 cfs 1.227 of Subcatchment P-10: West Area- Post Tc=34.4 min CN=76 Area=22.310 ac Runoff=28.75 cfs 3.856 of Subcatchment P-11: North West Area- Post Tc=19.1 min CN=79 Area=4.290 ac Runoff=8.04 cfs 0.831 of Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area- Post Tc=8.8 min CN=81 Area=5.190 ac Runoff= 13.55 cfs 1.082 of Subcatchment P-20: East Area- Post Tc=24.3 min CN=74 Area=9.190 ac Runoff= 12.73 cfs 1.473 of Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow=24.70 cfs 3.842 of Length=255.0' Max Vel=2.3 fps Capacity= 1,308.38 cfs Outflow=24.62 cfs 3.833 of Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point- Pre Inflow=37.17 cfs 5.456 of Outflow=37.17 cfs 5.456 of Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point- Post Inflow=30.18 cfs 5.746 of Outflow=30.18 cfs 5.746 of Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow= 10.56 cfs 1.227 of Outflow= 10.56 cfs 1.227 of Reach Sum-213: East Summation Point- Post Inflow= 12.73 cfs 1.473 of Outflow= 12.73 cfs 1.473 of Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Peak Storage=0.308 of Inflow=28.75 cfs 3.856 of Primary=24.70 cfs 3.842 of Outflow=24.70 cfs 3.842 of Runoff Area=81.810 ac Volume = 13.925 of Average Depth =2.04" Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point - Post Inflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.667 of �w Outflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.667 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Inflow = 12.92 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.808 of Outflow = 12.17 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 1.798 af, Atten= 6%, Lag=6.5 min Primary = 12.17 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 1.798 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span=0.00=24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev=292.03' Storage=0.072 of Plug-Flow detention time=7.9 min calculated for 1.794 of(99%of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 291.00 0.020 0.000 0.000 292.00 0.100 0.060 0.060 ► 293.00 0.770 0.435 0.495 294.00 1.940 1.355 1.850 295.00 2.400 2.170 4.020 296.00 2.960 2.680 6.700 Primary OutFlow (Free Discharge) t--1=Culvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 291.00' 30.0" x 54.0' long Culvert X 2.00 RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert=290.50' S=0.0093'P n=0.012 Cc=0.900 Rocky Hill CoHousing Type Ill 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 01986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.3 150 0.1000 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 4.7 450 0.1020 1.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 3.3 340 0.1210 1.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 24.3 940 Total Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow = 12.17 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 1.798 of Outflow = 12.14 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 1.792 af, Atten=0%, Lag=3.9 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 1.7 fps, Min. Travel Time=2.5 min Avg. Velocity= 0.7 fps, Avg. Travel Time=6.0 min Peak Depth= 0.12' Capacity at bank full= 1,308.38 cfs Inlet Invert=290.50', Outlet Invert=281.00' 60.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n=0.040 Length=255.0' Slope=0.0373T Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point - Pre Inflow = 16.28 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 2.513 of Outflow = 16.28 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 2.513 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min so Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point - Post Inflow = 16.44 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.753 of Outflow = 16.44 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.753 af, Atten=0%, Lag=0.0 min on. Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow = 4.36 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.545 of Outflow = 4.36 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.545 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 4 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area - Post Runoff = 6.82 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.551 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 1.050 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 0.220 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.270 98 Road, Parking, Houses, Walks 1.630 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.020 73 Woods Fair HSG C 5.190 81 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.1 50 0.1000 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 0.8 210 0.0830 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.1 52 0.0200 6.9 5.46 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area=0.8 sf Perim=3.1' r=0.25' n= 0.012 efe 0.4 124 0.0100 4.9 3.86 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim=3.1' r=0.25' n= 0.012 1.7 70 0.0100 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 0.3 80 0.0440 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps 0.5 80 0.0300 2.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 140 0.0300 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 8.8 806 Total Subcatchment P-20: East Area - Post Runoff = 5.42 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.667 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 0.420 98 Houses, Walks 6.670 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 2.100 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C '"' " 9.190 74 Weighted Average Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 3 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-10: West Area - Post Runoff = 12.92 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.808 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 2.228 98 Proposed & Exist. Roads, Houses 0.600 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17.542 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 1.940 79 Woods Fair HSG D 22.310 76 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 9.7 290 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, 00 __ Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 34.4 1,065 Total 00 Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Runoff = 3.85 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.410 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 0.852 98 Road, Driveways, Buildings 0.700 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.958 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 0.780 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 4.290 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.8 50 0.0200 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 4.4 350 0.0700 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 1.9 100 0.0300 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 19.1 500 Total Rocky Hill CoHousing Type ///24-hrRainfall-2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment E-1: West Area - Pre Runoff = 16.28 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 2.513 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 1.270 98 Roadway, Exist. Houses 27.490 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 4.100 79 Woods Fair HSG D 32.860 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 10.7 320 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 5.8 310 0.0320 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 41.2 1,405 Total Subcatchment E-2: East Area - Pre Runoff = 4.36 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.545 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 7.970 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.2 150 0.1400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2=2.95" 3.2 380 0.1580 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 6.9 460 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 24.3 990 Total ow Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment E-1: West Area- Pre Tc=41.2 min CN=75 Area=32.860 ac Runoff= 16.28 cfs 2.513 of Subcatchment E-2: East Area- Pre Tc=24.3 min CN=73 Area=7.970 ac Runoff=4.36 cfs 0.545 of Subcatchment P-10: West Area- Post Tc=34.4 min CN=76 Area=22.310 ac Runoff= 12.92 cfs 1.808 of on Subcatchment P-11: North West Area- Post Tc=19.1 min CN=79 Area=4.290 ac Runoff=3.85 cfs 0.410 of ow Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area- Post Tc=8.8 min CN=81 Area=5.190 ac Runoff=6.82 cfs 0.551 of Subcatchment P-20: East Area- Post Tc=24.3 min CN=74 Area=9.190 ac Runoff=5.42 cfs 0.667 of Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow= 12.17 cfs 1.798 of Length=255.0' Max Vel= 1.7 fps Capacity=1,308.38 cfs Outflow= 12.14 cfs 1.792 of Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point- Pre Inflow= 16.28 cfs 2.513 of Outflow= 16.28 cfs 2.513 of an Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point- Post Inflow= 16.44 cfs 2.753 of Outflow= 16.44 cfs 2.753 of Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow=4.36 cfs 0.545 of Outflow=4.36 cfs 0.545 of Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point- Post Inflow=5.42 cfs 0.667 of Outflow=5.42 cfs 0.667 of Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Peak Storage=0.072 of Inflow= 12.92 cfs 1.808 of ! " Primary= 12.17 cfs 1.798 of Outflow= 12.17 cfs 1.798 of Runoff Area = 81.810 ac Volume =6.495 of Average Depth=0.95" RW U) E co m N OO j, N In N .� r- c N Q •O O O 0 = o o Q CO c� � V T O (1) CO w Q � EL@ 0) U) IN N � � d O�m c T.. r I- �l0 �'o o Q<Y- co cm 0 M U 7 Y W „...,, fo:, r-wa Mme erg 0"M swam "w” OWN" tea own" ■"•v" own" mm" name at "mq' o ICD CD C x a Cl) \ a a Go \ o =3 \N, \ \ 8-� • x • � CO - 4 / � Oar ' . r ter ;,. :i4 '� L ��':, �:t •� / �. ,r M r / . [ k s i k f J 4u r E s �jr / , Ell "^....,, •�.'•-F .��'.'.'. �,'/�-� / /' - / Sub �i .�! ;;{1���... �f �����3�x,� �:gYa t�-��+ i�r _ a 4z - I - /r '• �Y,� .•� / � m g yMtl:y zSt it at x s �q t "TUA hF r/ d / f I _ice Ag PR`, CP q[ i J f \ , "�.+ a �� •J v / ! r i \ . .w e / Sheef Title: Reference: Figure Number. The Drainage Sub-Watersheds - Post Development Conditions Berkshire Design 4 Allen Place Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 ROCKY HILL CO-HOUSING Date' Scale: 3 Group,Inc. (413)582-7000 • FAX (413) 582-7005 NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 06/26/03 V=180' Rev.08/01/0 .� Im CD CID CD N C X d ? Cn CD CID �\ d d W O ♦\ / CL r co 4 F / w �♦ w~ U.. V. i. ► n ( `. `•' iii ` t y r�`G, f:" u \.1�J, i �I I l .- \ J jo r +/ a J � V / : , . , J �i - •r.�. \ \r LL{ 1 ' z / � Aso ay4y i7� k } { a - %r1 R r �- J ` .. .... '. f / / /ff////-. v. Sheet Title: Reference: Figure Number. The Drainage Sub-Watersheds - Pre Development Conditions Berkshire Design 4 Alen Pica Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 ROCKY HILL CO-HOUSING Date: Scale: Group,Inc. (413)582-7000 • FAX (413) 582-7005 NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 06/26/03 1"=180' Ow Drainage Calculations & Watershed Maps Pre- & Post-Development Conditions Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 5 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 4:30 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope(%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; mountain laurels Landform Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other go DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-5" A Forest Black n/o Mat 5"-22" Bw SL Light Brwn n/o Loose, little gravel, roots down to 31" 22"-59" C, LS Brwn >5% high Loose, Pockets of FSL, 35% chroma in FSL gravel &cobbles @ 34" 59"-63" C2 LS Red 15% high Platy,Very firm in place, pockets (coarse) (gleyed) chroma of SL, 35%gravel, some angular cobbles, refusal at 63"-very firm material MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >63" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: n/o Weeping from Pit Face: 59" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: M. Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. �Ir Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 4 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 3:40 Weather Cloudy 15 F ti. Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet w Drinking Water Weil Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-18" Bw LS Brwn n/o Many roots 18"-31" C, FS Light Brwn n/o Loose, little gravel, roots down to 31" 31"-57" C2 Sand Brwn >5%high Loose, Pockets of FSL, 35% (med) chroma in FSL gravel &cobbles @ 34" 57"-122" C, FSULS Red >10%high Massive, firm, very firm in place, (mixed) chroma fib 58" some smearing of sidewalls MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >122" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 96" Weeping from Pit Face: 90" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 34" rw Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to �w Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. a® Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 3 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 2:45 Weather Cloudy 15 F .Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other ww Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0"-26" B W FSL Grey-Brwn >5%High Massive, friable (med) chroma @20" 26"-68" C, LS/SL Brwn >5% High Boundary unclear, mixing, many (mix) (varies) chroma rounded cobbles, some rounded �• boulders, roots down to 30" 68"-101" C2 LS Red >10% High Massive, very firm in place- (greyed) chroma refusal @ 101" MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >101" e Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 60" p 9 Weeping from Pit Face: 32" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 20" an Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. yaw AN An Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA Am Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: no Deep Hole Number TP 2 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 2:00 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope(%) See Plan Surface Stones Few so Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform on Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet "" Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-3" A Forest Blck-Brwn n/o Many roots Mat 0M 1 3"-17" Bw FSL Brwn n/o Massive, Friable, Many Roots am 17"-42" C1 S (med) Brwn High chroma Loose in place, Roots down to around cobbles 42" 42"-102" C2 LS Brwn-Red None visible 35%gravel, 10%cobbles, some (coarse) surface angular boulders, OR excavation unstable, very firm reddish material at bottom of excavation—refusal @ 102" �a. *MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA 40 Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >102" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 72" Weeping from Pit Face: 44" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 44" wo Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and so should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. Im Am ma Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA on Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: on Deep Hole Number TP 1 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 1:00 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform wa Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-5" A Forest Blck-Brwn n/o Many roots Mat w,. 5"-27" Bw FSL Brwn n/o Massive, Friable, Some Gravel, Roots 27"-49" C, LS Reddish >5% @ 40" Platy, 10% gravel, some cobbles (med) Brwn Roots down to 45" 49"-83" C2 LS Red 30% high Platy, Very firm in place, (coarse) Gleyed chroma pockets of SL, 35%gravel, some angular cobbles, some 2-3' boulders, refusal at 83%very firm material MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >83" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 78" Weeping from Pit Face: 62" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 40" Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to a Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. on Am Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA a. Test Pits go Performed By M.D'Urso,The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 1 R Date: 02/26/03 Time: 12:30 Weather Sunny 15 F sm Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush am Landform Position on Landscape (sketch on back) so Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other 4M DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-4" A Forest Blck-Brwn n/o Mat 4"-19" BW FSL Brwn n/o Massive, Friable, Some Gravel, Roots 19"-37" C1 LS Reddish >5% @ 31" Platy, 10% gravel, some cobbles (med) Brwn Roots down to 35" 37"-56" C2 LS Brwn 10%high Platy, 10% gravel, some angular (med) chroma cobbles 56"-90" C. LS Red 15%high Platy, Very firm in place, less (coarse) (gleyed) chroma firm LS layer in upper 3", pockets of SL,35%gravel, some angular cobbles, some 2-3' boulders, +! refusal at 90%very firm material *MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >90" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 84" Weeping from Pit Face: 60" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 31" Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. l Z 0 663 0�, , •� ,N! B62 \ 860 \ ( o ,+ •.. , 857 s ..41r 'mil :�56 ww OS 5 p 40` a %' ° h� J Test Pit Performed on 2/26103 8 OI i ty E s B L N A CD Test Pit Data 40 OWA ON Provided: 1 deep sump catch basin 1 x 50 ft3= 50 ft3 StormCeptor (Model 450i) 1 x 45 ft3= 45 ft3 Level Lip Spreaders/Sedimentation Basins 5 x 120 ft3= 600 It Total: 695 ft Stormwater Management SummW MIMI + TSS Removal 81°l0 Storm Water Recharge � a o_t 0.014 acre-feet** Sediment Storage 9„ 695 ft3 Stormwater Quality SummW This project has been carefully designed to meet the State stormwater quality standards while maintaining the character of the site and its inherent abilily to provide treatment of stormwater flows. Point source discharges of stormwater have be minimized. Treatment of stormwater flows will be accomplished through the use of best management practices including;water quality swales, buffer(filter) strips, siltation + "a basins/level lip spreaders, and a stormwater treatment chamber. It is estimated that, when combined,these BMPs provide the required TSS removal in the post-development conditions approaching 80%. Stormwater infiltration will be achieved,to the greatest extent practical, through the use of level lip spreaders/sedimentation basins, overland flow, &water quality swales. Stormwater runoff will ultimately be discharged to the onsite wetlands, where it will have further opportunity to infiltrate and recharge groundwater. Due to the soil conditions and observed groundwater elevations infiltration trenches have not been proposed. Page 3 of 3 TSS Removal - BMP Series #2 Treatment Area: 0.299 acres BMP technology TSS removal Cumulative TSS remaining 0'" BMP 1 Parkin lot/street sweeping 10% 90.0% BMP 2 Treatment Chamber 80% 18.0% BMP 3 Filter(Buffer) Strip 15% 15.3% ON Total TSS removal 85% TSS Removal - BMP Series #3 Treatment Area: 0.163 BMP technology TSS removal Cumulative TSS remaining BMP 1 Parkin lot/street sweeping 10% 90.0% BMP 2 Filter(Buffer) Strip 55% 40.5% Total'TSS removal' 60%o Weighted Average TSS Removal Across Development: 81% Standard 4: Water Quality Volume In accordance with the standards and policies,the runoff volume to be treated for water quality is calculated as 0.5 inches of runoff times the total post-development impervious area. Roof runoff may be infiltrated; the infiltrated volume may be subtracted from the total runoff volume. 1=total impervious area (including rooftop) WQV=water quality volume lr=rooftop impervous area ReV=recharge volume RR= rooftop runoff Pre-dev. 1 = 0 acres I r= 0 Post-dev. I= 2.92 acres r= 1.55 WQV= 0.5" x I (acres)/12 RR=0.5"x Ir(acres)/12 Volume of stormwater that must be treated for water quality= r eels Sediment Storage Required: Volume (ft )= 0.1"712 x (I - Ir)x 43560 P = Page 2 of 3 Rocky Hill CoHousing July 24, 2003 Northampton, Massachusetts Stormwnter Management Standards Calculations Sheet Standards/Policy: Calculations are based on the requirements of the Massachusettes Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management/Stormwater Policy Handbook, March 1997. Standard 3: Stormwater Recharge I (acres) Volume to recharge (in) ReV(Acre-feet) �.. 100%of impervious area, soil group "C" 2.79 0.10 0.023 100%of impervious area, soil group "D" 0.13 0.00 0.000 w ReV= I x Volume to recharge/12 ;s � 2 Stormwater infiltration will be achieved, to the greatest extent practical,through the use of level lip spreaders/sedimentation basins, overland flow, &water quality swales. Stormwater runoff will ultimately be discharged to the onsite wetlands, where it will have further opportunity to infiltrate and recharge groundwater. Due to the soil conditions and observed groundwater elevations infiltration trenches have not been proposed. Estimated Recharge Volume Provided: Total: 0.014 acre-feet" "The estimated recharge volume provided was calculated soley on the retained volume of water in the level lip spreaders. Significant infiltration of runoff will occur via overland flow. Standard 4: TSS Removal Standard 4 requires the removal of 80%of the average post-development annual load of total suspended solids. This will be accomplished by the use of best management practices (BMPs). The following removal rates are from the TSS Removal Rates table, pp. 1-7, of the policy handbook and the MHD Stormwater Handbook,April 2002. The calculations for the storm treatment chamber("StormCeptor")were performed using CSR/StormCeptor software. The'Treatment Area'shown represents the pavement areas being drained to specified BMP series. ON TSS Removal - BMP Series #1 Treatment Area: 0.977 acres BMP technology TSS removal Cumulative TSS remaining BMP 1 Parking lo street sweeping 10%° 90.0% BMP 2 Water Quality Swale 60% 36.0% BMP 3 Siltation Basin/LevelLipSprd 15% 30.6% BMP 4 Filter Buffer Strip 45% 16.8% Total TSS removal 83% Page 1 of 3 so Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton, MA July 24,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report Rev.August 7, 2003 BMP Series 3: Remaining BMP Estimated Removal TSS �w (Initial: 100%) Street Sweeping 10% 90% Filter(Buffer) 55% 40.5% w Strip Total TSS Removal =59.5% Through the combined use of the three BMP series listed above the total average TSS removal rate for the proposed site approaches 81%. VI. Summary The proposed development has been carefully designed to allow stormwater flow paths to emulate existing patterns. The limit of work for the proposed site as been minimized so that wooded areas are retained in developed conditions. As such, peak flow rates in post-development conditions closely match peak flow rates in existing conditions. Treatment of stormwater is provided through the use of several BMP mechanisms. Buffer strips, water quality swales, and level spreaders/siltation basins will treat stormwater runoff along the limit of work areas of the site. A stormwater treatment chamber will treat runoff from the access road at the wetland crossing. The estimated TSS removal level for the site is 81%. Page 8 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA July 24,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report Rev. August 7, 2003 The following table shows the estimated sediment removal for each series of BMPs: BMP Series 1: Remaining BMP Estimated Removal TSS (Initial: 100%) �Irs Street Sweeping 10% 90% Water Quality 60% 36% Swale am Siltation Basin/Level Lip 15% 30.6% Spreader Filter(Buffer) 45% 16.8% Strip Total TSS Removal= 83% BMP Series 2: Remaining BMP Estimated Removal TSS (Initial: 100%) Street Sweeping 10% 90% Treatment 80% 18% Chamber Filter(Buffer) 151/, 15.3% Strip w Total TSS Removal= 85% OR Page 7 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA July 24,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report Rev.August 7, 2003 w peak flow with a longer duration than what is experienced in Pre-development conditions. Finally, two 30" reinforced concrete pipes are proposed to convey stormwater under the proposed access road. These pipes have been designed to not be overtopped in the 25- year storm event and to not allow overtopping of the roadway in the 100-year storm event. This design criterion is based on standard engineering practice. As a result, the model shows that some backing up of stormwater may temporarily occur during large storm events. East Property Boundary: As demonstrated in Table 2, slight increases in peak flow rates to the east property boundary will be experienced in each storm event analyzed. This increase is largely due to the addition of the watershed area that previously flowed to the north boundary (see No above discussion). Although there are increases, the runoff to the east boundary is conveyed overland with no point source discharges to the large off site wetland area. For this reason, significant downstream impacts are not expected and attenuation measures unwarranted. Erosion Control �r The site has been carefully designed to maintain overland sheet flow of runoff in all possible locations. Where water must be conveyed via grassed swales and/or piping the discharges are returned to sheet flow via level lip spreaders. Water Quality Several BMPs have been incorporated into the design of the developments stormwater management system. Theses include; water quality swales, level lip spreaders/siltation basins, grass filter strips, and a stormwater treatment chamber. The proposed project has been designed to maximize overland flow conveyance of all stormwater runoff. In areas where water needs to be conveyed via piping or grassed swales it is returned to sheet flow for a maximum distance to ensure proper removal of suspended solids and contaminants prior to reaching the wetland areas. The most heavily trafficked area is considered to be the access road, specifically at the wetland crossing. To ensure that runoff from these areas are properly treated for water quality a stormwater treatment chamber has been incorporated into the design. 40 Page 6 Oft Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton,MA July 24,2003 go Stormwater Drainage Report Rev. August 7, 2003 Table 2. Peak Flow and Peak Volume Summary Table ON 2-Year Storm 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Condition & Point of 2.95" 4.45" 6.50" MO Analysis Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Existing(Reach 1)* 16.28 2.51 37.17 5.46 69.30 10.08 s Prupp c1(Rea lr 1 � 4 ,J 5 5 53 fly � Q 6 Existing(Reach 2)* 4.36 0.55 10.56 1.23 20.30 2.32 Proposed(Rear�t')*' s .3 42 67� 12 73 147 2k4 095 y :. .. ,fix.:::.:: ,,,c *Names in parentheses refer to HydroCad model and calculations. Note:August 7, 2003 revisions have insignificant impact on drainage calculations. As shown in the Table 2, the Stormwater peak flows in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events at the north property line will not be increased as a result of the proposed development. The model does reveal slight increases in Stormwater peak flows at the east property boundary. am North Property Boundary: The decrease in peak flow rates in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events to the north property line is the result of three main factors: an overall decrease in the contributing drainage area size, an `offsetting' of the time that peak flow rates are experienced, and the consequent backing up of stormwater behind the proposed roadway cross culvert in larger storm events. no As a result of the proposed grading, a portion of existing sub-watershed E-1 (1.2 acres) is incorporated into proposed sub-watershed P-20. This shift of the watershed boundary results in a decrease in runoff being directed to the north boundary and a slight increase O. to the east boundary (see discussion below). Additionally, by increasing the amount of impervious area, coupled with grassed swales and area drains, the overall time of concentration (tc) for the downstream watersheds is substantially decreased. This results in peak flows from individual sub-watersheds that do not occur simultaneously. Specifically, the model shows that in the 100-year post conditions storm event, the peak flow for sub-watershed P-12 is roughly 23 cfs at hour 12.12; whereas the peak flow for sub-watershed P-11 is 14 cfs occurring at hour 12.26 and reach 10 (through which sub-watershed P-10 is routed to the north boundary) is 41 cfs at 12.71. The net result of this `off-setting' of peak flows is an overall peak flow of !"! 53 cfs at hour 12.48. Although the increase of impervious area produces more runoff (note increases in volume of runoff from Pre- to Post-development conditions), the time at which this runoff reaches the north boundary is sufficiently offset to produce a smaller Page 5 Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton, MA July 24,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report Rev.August 7, 2003 IV. Proposed Conditions The total area of the project parcel is approximately 27 acres with a contributing watershed of approximately 41 acres. The proposed cluster development will consist of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 5 single family house lots. The development has been designed with many interlaced vegetated areas that will maintain sheet flow drainage conveyance while contributing to total suspended solids removal. Existing wooded areas will be maintained to the greatest extent possible throughout the development. A paved access road and walkway provides access to the development. V. Calculations & Design Water Quantity Drainage calculations were performed on Hydrocad Stormwater Modeling System version 6.0 using Soil Conservation Service (SCS) TR-20 methodology. The SCS method is based on rainfall observations, which were used to develop the Intensity- Duration-Frequency relationship, or IDF curve. The mass curve is a dimensionless distribution of rainfall over time, which indicates the fraction of the rainfall event that occurs at a given time within a 24-hour precipitation event. This synthetic distribution develops peak rates for storms of varying duration and intensities. The SCS distribution provides a cumulative rainfall at any point in time and allows volume dependent routing runoff calculations to occur. The calculations are included in the appendices. + The watershed boundaries for calculation purposes are divided according to the proposed site grading, the natural limits of the drainage areas, and the property downstream boundaries. The curve numbers (CNs) and times of concentration for the existing and proposed subcatchment areas are based on the soil type and the existing and proposed cover conditions at the site. The soil hydrologic group assumed for the site is noted in section H. Watershed sub-catchment areas, runoff coefficients and watercourse slopes are based on The Berkshire Design Group site plans dated June 2003. w Calculations were performed for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year frequency storms under existing and proposed conditions. The results of the calculations are shown in the summary table below. as go Om Page 4 Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton, MA July 24,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report Rev.August 7, 2003 Property to the south is owned by the Bible Baptist Church. Property bordering the site on the east is owned by Christ United Methodist Church. An existing wetland area splits the part of the site fronting on Florence Road from the larger rear (easterly) section. The topography in the front section generally runs downhill from west to east, with a small section in the northwest corner running downhill toward the north. The topography in the rear section runs generally downhill toward the north, but splits west and east. The westerly flows run toward the central wetland described previously. The easterly paths flow toward the northeast corner of the site, and toward the adjoining Pathways property and a wetland on that site. (Refer to the Existing Drainage Area Map, Figure 2, attached.) The upstream boundaries for the drainage analysis were determined by current watershed boundaries. The downstream boundaries for the drainage analysis were determined by current drainage patterns with control points chosen at the property boundaries. For the existing conditions drainage model two sub-watersheds (sub-catchments) were identified and analyzed; these areas drain in the same general flow directions in both the pre- and post-developed conditions. Below is a description of the existing drainage sub- ON watersheds: Drainage Area E-1: This drainage sub-watershed is comprised of the areas to the west and east of the wetlands that divide the subject parcel. The contributing area to the west is comprised of *a a wooded hill side that drains overland through residential homes along Florence Road. The runoff from this hillside is collected in a road side ditch on the west side of Florence road where it is conveyed to a cross culvert and discharged on the subject parcel. The contributing watershed areas to the south of the parcel are comprised of a residential house lot and the Bible Baptist Church lot, which includes a paved parking area. Much the undeveloped areas in this sub-watershed are comprised of generally wooded areas with light underbrush. Runoff generated by this sub-watershed is collected in, and discharged via, the central wetlands that connect to the larger wetland area on the properties to the north of the 0" subject parcel. Drainage Area E-2: g• This drainage sub-watershed is located to the along the easterly property line of the subject parcel. The runoff from this area travels via overland flow to a large wetland ON area located on the Pathways property and the Christ United Methodist Church property. The vegetation in this area is generally wooded with light underbrush. so The attached calculations indicate the total pre-development peak runoff flows for existing conditions. 00 Page 3 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA July 24,2003 Oe. Stormwater Drainage Report Rev.August 7, 2003 • (PcQ Paxton. Deep, well drained soils on glaciated upland. Soils formed in glacial till. Hydrologic Group: C Flood Risk: none Depth to Water Table: 15-2.5' Depth to Bedrock: >60" A series of six test pits were conducted on site to determine subsurface conditions in several critical areas (see attached test pit logs in Appendix A). In general, the test pits revealed the existence of very dense loamy sand and sandy loam material throughout the site. The subsurface profile mainly consists of variations of medium-coarse very firm sand horizons and fine sand horizons. Table 1 below summarizes the test pit findings: Table 1. Summary of Test Pit Findings ± ' Test Number&Location General Soil Classification Approximate Depth to (Substratum) Seasonal High Groundwater* wwu TPIR:Entrance Road Medium-Coarse Loamy Sand 31" TP I: Entrance Road Medium-Coarse Loamy Sand 40" am TP 2: Entrance Road Medium-Coarse Loamy Sand 44" 40 TP 3: Entrance Road Loamy Sand 20" TP 4:Entrance Road Fine Sandy Loam&Loamy 34" Sand TP 5:Wooded Area Coarse Loamy Sand 34" *Approximate Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater was estimated based on observation of redox features in abundance greater than 5%where visible. Evidence of groundwater was observed in all six test pits. Actual groundwater(weeping and/or standing) was also observed in each of the test pits, see attached soil logs. In general, the soils horizons were observed to be a forest mat underlain by a sandy loam subsoil with a substratum comprised of a very firm, consolidated loamy sandy (with ! lenses of sandy loam in many locations). �. III. Existing Conditions The project site is located to the east of Florence Road. The parcel is L-shaped, adjoining the Pathways parcel on the subject site's northeast side. Properties bordering Florence Road on the opposite side of the road are primarily large-lot residential, as are some of the lots on the easterly side of the road to the north and south of the subject site. Page 2 Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton, MA July 24,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report Rev.August 7, 2003 I. Introduction The following report presents an analysis of the stormwater management system for the proposed Rocky Hill CoHousing development located on Florence Road in Northampton, Massachusetts. The proposed project is a cluster development providing err 35 units consisting of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 7 single family lots. The project parcel is approximately 27 acres with a contributing drainage water shed area of approximately 41 acres. Proposed domestic water and sewer infrastructure will connect A* to the existing Pathways CoHousing development located to the north and east of the proposed development. The proposed design encourages stormwater runoff to sheet flow to the greatest extent practical, thus allowing runoff flow patterns to emulate existing flow patterns. The purpose of this analysis is to determine 2, 10, and 100-year peak flow rates and quantities for the site in both the pre- and post-development conditions and to determine the potential impact of any increases in stormwater runoff from the site that may occur as a result of the site development. + '* II. Site Terrain and Soils The project site is comprised of sloping terrain with a low lying wetland area running *► through the center of the parcel in a generally south-north direction. This low lying area receives runoff from the west and east slopes and ultimately drains off of the site to the north, where the wetland expands in size. The subsurface conditions at the site are as follows: The USDA Soil Survey of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part report classifies the site soils as(see attached soil map): • (WxB, WxQ Woodbridge. Deep, moderately well drained soils on glaciated uplands. Soils formed in glacial till. Hydrologic Group: C Flood Risk: none am Depth to Water Table: 15-3.0' Depth to Bedrock: >60" (WhA) Whitman. Deep, very poorly drained soils on uplands. Soils formed in glacial till. 0a Hydrologic Group: D Flood Risk: none Depth to Water Table: +1.0-0.5' ON Depth to Bedrock: >60" Page 1 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA June 26,2003 Rev.August 7, 2003 '0 Stormwater Drainage Report - Summary Proiect Description: Cluster development providing 35 units consisting of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 7 single family lots. The project parcel is approximately 27 acres with a contributing drainage water shed area of approximately 41 acres. Site Soils: The USDA Soil Survey of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part report classifies the site soils as having hydrologic Group of C and D. Test pits revealed a very firm medium-coarse loamy sand parent material. Generally, evidence of seasonal high groundwater was observed approximately 36" below existing grade with actual groundwater observed at 60". Water Quantity and Water Quality: As shown in the Table 2, the stormwater peak flows in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events will not be increased as a result of the proposed development at the north property line downstream location. The model does reveal slight increases in stormwater peak flows at the east property boundary. Although there are increases, the runoff to the east boundary is conveyed overland to a large off site wetland area. For this reason, significant �a downstream impacts are not expected and attenuation measures unwarranted. Table 2. Peak Flow and Peak Volume Summary Table 2-Year Storm 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Condition & Point of 2.95" 4.45" 6.50" Analysis Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Existing,(Reaeh l)* 16.28 2.51 37.17 5.46 69.30 10.08 Existing:(Reach 2)4, 4.36 0.55 10.56 1.23 20.30 2.32 ,il,✓'c- ,s _.:.,r<.. ., .; ,... �.."..'.; wr., ,. - ., .>:. . „ 'S.a„i.�K .,.,,._ ..�..-�_t. 5",n.,,Se.�x,ac.-z, .,. ,.,34�?.r Note:August 7, 2003 revisions have insignificant impact on drainage calculations. Treatment of stormwater is provided through the use of several BMP mechanisms. Buffer strips, water quality swales, and level spreaders/siltation basins will treat stormwater runoff along the limit of work areas of the site. A stormwater treatment chamber will treat runoff from the access road at the wetland crossing. The estimated TSS removal level for the site is 81%. 40 go Page 1/1 on Drainage Analysis and Report for Rocky Hill CoHousing Florence Road Northampton, Massachusetts July 24, 2003 Rev.August 7, 2003 O OR "w, Prepared by: The a s Berkshire Prepared for: Design Tofino Associates and Group,Inc. Joseph and Amalia Singler WA 4 Allen Place,Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 OMNI - sewage disposal facilities water supply facilities +fib B-8. Existing&proposed: landscaping,trees and plantings(size&type of plantings) stone walls, - buffers and/or fencing: B-9. Signs-existing and proposed: - Location - dimensions/height color and illumination B-10. Provisions for refuse removal,with facilities for screening of refuse when appropriate: WO B-11. Lighting: - Location - Details Photometric Plan showing no more than .5 foot candle at property line OW B-12. An erosion control plan and other measures taken to protect natural resources&water supplies: 40 C. Estimated daily and peak hour vehicles trips generated by the proposed use,traffic patterns for vehicles and pedestrians showing adequate access to and from the site,and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site. Site Plans submitted for major projects shall be prepared and stamped by a: No Registered Architect, Landscape Architect,or Professional Engineer (At least one plan must have an original stamp,remaining plans must either have an original stamp or copy of original stamp.) so 003.pdf 9 SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS REQUEST FOR WAIVERS APPLICATION This form MUST be included in your application packet. The site plan MUST contain the information listed below. The Planning Board may waive the submission of any of the required information, if the Applicant submits this form with a written explanation on why a waiver would be appropriate. To request a waiver on any required information,circle the item number and fill in the reason for the request. Use additional sheets if necessary. If you are not requesting any waivers please note that on this form. A. Locus plan ' B. Site plan(s)at a scale of 1"=40'or greater B-1. Name and address of the owner and the developer,name of project, date and scale plans: B-2. Plan showing Location and boundaries of- - the lot - adjacent streets or ways - all properties and owners within 300 feet - all zoning districts within 300 feet B-3. Existing and proposed: — buildings — setbacks from property lines — -building elevations — all exterior entrances and exits — (elevation plans for all exterior facades structures are encouraged) B-4. Present&proposed use of the land # + - buildings: B-5. Existing and proposed topography(for intermediate projects the permit granting authority may accept generalized topography instead of requiring contour lines): - at two foot contour intervals - showing wetlands,streams,surface water bodies - showing drainage swales and floodplains: - showing unique natural land features B-6. Location of- - parking&loading areas — public&private ways — driveways,walkways — access&egress points — proposed surfacing: B-7. Location and description of: all stormwater drainage/detention facilities - water quality structures public&private utilities/easements 003.pdf 8 G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely effect those objectives,defined in City master study plans(Open Space and Recreation Plan; Northampton State Hospital Rezoning Plan;and Downtown Northampton:Today,Tomorrow and the Future). The Open Space Cluster design is consistant with the Northampton Vision through enhancing residential life with the expansion of SO open space and recreation while preserving significant reco s. 9. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.The undersigned owner(s)grant the Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this application. Date: t`/11/03 Applicant's Signature: C_ Date: 6 111 03 Owner's Signature: 0, 00 ners signature or letter from owner authorizing applicant to sign.) (Applicant must include waiver form on p. 8 indicating that either all information is included or that waivers are beine requested.) MA.�OR PROJ1aGTS M"UST�SO CO11_J_% i K-TH� �UI.I�O VII�TG VIAJ�i PR( i ` iPP OV I, : .;' R1. iIZI� 5 g �xa� Does the project incorporate 3 foot sumps into the storm water control system? Yes No X (IF NO, explain why) NE) e^+^h bar=--s f);r...°.sed # X61" Sumt, Will the project discharge stormwater into the City's storm drainage system? Yes No X wry (IF NO,answer the following:) Do the drainage calculations submitted demonstrate that the project has been designed so that there is no increase in peak flows from pre-to post-development conditions during the: 1, 2,or 10 year Soil 400 Conservation Service design storm? Yes X No (IF NO,explain why) Will all the runoff from a 4/10 inch rainstorm(first flush)be detained on-site for an average of 6 w hours? Yes X No (IF NO,explain why) Is the applicant requesting a reduction in the parking requirements? Yes Nom_ +Ms If yes,what steps have been taken to reduce the need for parking, and number of trips per day? 003.pdf 7 40 How does the project meet the special requirements?(Use additional sheets if necessary) The project complies with all open space, lot dimensional requirements and road layout requirements as provided in the Ordinance. F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards: 3 1. Curb cuts are minimized: $rye curb cuts proposed (4,dib►J 7R�yr- T��r,��caaz-rz7 Check off all that apply to the project: use of a common driveway for access to more than one business use of an existing side street use of a looped service road 2. Does the project require more than one driveway cut? NO _X YES (if yes,explain why) One driveway cut Per I nt typisa1 3. Are pedestrian,bicycle and vehicular traffic separated on-site? X YES NO(if no,explain why) FOR PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE INTERMEDIATE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ONLY,SIGN APPLICATION AND END HERE. (Applicant must include waiver form on p.8 indicating that either all 40 information is included or that waivers are being requested.) 9. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.The undersigned owner(s)grant Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this `" application. Date: Applicant's Signature: Date: Owner's Signature: (Owners signature or letter from owner authorizing applicant to sign.) " 6J 3 SmEgT AV>[E� ». 7911© iii _. @ <, - r. .� ..�, F. Explain why the requested use will: not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining zones: The requested use is consistant with the zoning and adjacent uses. not be detrimental to the health,morals or general welfare: As a residential use, the general welfare, morals or health will �eU not be impacted be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance: The open space cluster design is favorable through enhancing residential life by ! expanding omen ice and recreation. 003.pdf B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets? Pedestrian and vehicular movement remain separate How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area? See attached analysis by Fuss & O'Neill Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? Proposed new street is approximately 1000' South of Pathways Cc-Housing. What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for: ., access by emergency vehicles: Entire development is accessible bo emergency vehicles the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces: All loading and parking areas remain separate from pedestrian circulation. provisions for persons with disabilities: The majority of all walks on site have a maximum 5% grade. C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: the natural landscape: The majority of the site will be permanently preserved as open space to existing buildings: Nq existing buildings on site 40 other community assets in the area: An 8' bike trail easement has been prnvirlad. D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources,including: water supply and distribution system: See attached Analysis sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems: See attached Analysis fire protection,streets and schools: See attached Impact Statement How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources,as listed above? See attached Documentation go E. List the section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations are required for the proposed project (flag lot,common drive,lot size averaging,etc.) 5.2, 10.5 Open Space Cluster Development, 6.12 Common Drive 003.pdf 5 40 ON 00 CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION FOR: 10 Please Note: An omission of information could lead to a delay in processing your application. 1. Check type of protect INTERMEDIATE"PRO.TECT:' Site Plan Al`1D/OR S e6tnl hermit with Site Plan .; MAJOR' 'ROJ CT ? SytePlan AND/ORJ e ial ermit vif► ►tePlats Permit islequested stndertZoning Ordttii(stc eci�ct 5 2 Pa jw 6 12 6 16 3. Applicant's Name: Tofino Associates, Inc. Address: 31 Campus Plaza Rd, Hadley Telephone: (413) 256-0321 4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map#__3_7 Parcel#6_55,665 Zoning District: SR Street Address: 67,19 Fl orPnre Rd Property Recorded in the Registry of Deeds: County: Ham nshi r Book Pa � : 6 '07 e: 283,2302-74 S. Status of Applicant: Owner X Contract Purchaser_ X Lessee ; Other ; 6. Property Owner: Same as Above K Jmspph K Amalia Singler Address: 245 Litchfield Ln, Houston TX Telephone: fe 7. Describe Proposed Work/Project: (Use additional sheets if necessary): Cpen Space Cluster Development consisting of 28 attached/single townhouse units and .$ single family units. as Has the following information been included in the application? Site/Plot Plan X OR List of requested waivers X Fee X Signed Zoning Permit Review Form&Application_ 8. Site Plan and Special Permit Approval Criteria.(If any permit criteria does not apply,explain why) Use additional sheets if necessary. Assistance for completing this information is available through No the Office of Planning&Development. A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses? The proposed residential use is consistant with adjacent uses on and will be enclosed by an open space buffer. How will the project provide for: 40 surface water drainage: Stormwater management system incorporating grass swales and utilizing overland flow as sound and sight buffers: Wooded open space is proposed to surround and buffer the residential cluster, the preservation of views,light and air: Wooded open space along the perimeter AM will not alter light & air and will buffer views, 003.pdf 4 ON I to 4 to Special Permit Application 0 2 5. The Sanitary Sewer Study, Development Impact Statement, and Environmental Impact Statement have been updated to include the two additional units. 6. The Open Space Calculations have been updated to include the two new parcels. 7. The cost estimate has been revised to include only the construction within the limits of the subdivision roadway right of way. �w If you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (413) 582-7000. Sincerely, The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. to ryan Jereb Project Manager �r 10 00 — -- The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. August 7, 2003 Planning Board City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Rocky Hill CoHousing Dear Chairperson, w Enclosed please find the addenda for the Application for Approval of Definitive Plan for the Rocky Hill CoHousing project located on Florence Road. The proposed cluster development will now provide 35 units consisting of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 7 single family units. The initial submission proposed 33 total units with five single family lots. The total area of the site is 27.361 Acres. The following additional changes have been made to the submission: 1. The Plot/Site plans have been revised to include the two new parcels with frontage along Florence Road and their associated utility easements. 2. The Special Permit Application has been revised to include the two additional units and curb cuts. Landscape Architecture 3. The site plans have been updated to include measures which would increase the TSS (Total Suspended Solids) Civil Engineering removal within the storm water management system. The 40 drainage report has been updated accordingly. In addition Planning the Storm water Management System Operation and Urban Design Maintenance Manual has been revised to state the "Developer shall own the storm water management Environmental Services system until such time that the Homeowners Association is established. The City of Northampton Department of Public Works will not be responsible for maintaining the roadway and/or storm water management system." 4. Per discussion with MA DEP, some revisions have been made to the Sanitary Sewer Pump Station in an attempt to select the most appropriate option for this project. 4 Allen Place Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 Telephone(413)582-7000 Facsimile(413) 582-7005 E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com ADDENDA Application for Approval of Definitive Subdivision Plan Including Special Permit Application for Open Space Cluster Development and Common Drive Rocky Hill CoHousing ti Florence Road Northampton, Massachusetts August 7, 2003 Prepared by: The Prepared for: Berkshire Tofino Associates, Inc. PIP Design 31 Campus Plaza Road Group.Inc. Hadley, MA 01035 4 Allen Place,Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 ma MR Paving& Curbing 1. New Bit.Conc. Paving&Base SF 74,360 $4.00 $297,440.00 No 2. Bit.Conc. Sidewalk&Base SF 15,870 $2.50 $39,675.00 3 Bit.Conc.Curb LF 600 $4.00 $2,400.00 4 Goshen Stone Paving SF 1256 $12.00 $15,072.00 5 Goshen Stone Steps SF 24 $12.00 $288.00 Subtotal $354,875.00 Planting&Seeding 1. Hydroseed MSF 100 $50.00 $5,000.00 Subtotal $5,000.00 TOTAL SITE WORK $1,301,870.00 go 10% Inspection/oversight $130,187.00 10% Contingency $130,187.00 GRAND TOTAL $1,562,244.00 �w Vm mm Ift Rocky Hill CoHousing Northampton, Massachusetts Opinion of Probable Site Work Cost wK Prepared by: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. on 03112103 Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Demolition/Earthwork 1. Clear and Grub Vegetation AC 8.7 $3,500.00 $30,450.00 2. Strip and Stockpile Topsoil(-6" assumed) CY 7300 $5.00 $36,500.00 3. Erosion Control Barrier LF 2100 $4.00 $8,400.00 4. Excavate/Rough Grade CY 63200 $3.00 $189,600.00 5. Fine Grading SY 43800 $1.50 $65,700.00 6. Spread Topsoil from Stockpile(6" deep) CY 7300 $4.00 $29,200.00 Subtotal $359,850.00 Drainage 1. Flared End w/Rip Rap EA 4 $750.00 $3,000.00 2. Level Spreader/Misc. RipRap LS 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 "' 3. Drain Inlet EA 3 $600.00 $1,800.00 4. Catch Basin EA 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 5. Manhole EA 1 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 In 6. Stomwater Treatment Chamber EA 1 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 7. 12" HDPE Storm drain LF 495 $24.00 $11,880.00 8. 24"RCP Culvert LF 106 $32.50 $3,445.00 9. 6" PVC SDR 35 Subdrain LF 2790 $16.00 $44,640.00 Subtotal $83,365.00 Sanitary 1. Sewer Manhole EA 9 $1,500.00 $13,500.00 ! 2. 8" PVC Sewer Pipe LF 1700 $18.00 $30,600.00 3. 6" PVC SDR 35 ServiceS LF 1668 $16.00 $26,688.00 4. Sanitary Sewer Pump Station LS 1 $16.00 $45,000.00 Subtotal $115,788.00 Water 1. 8" D.I.Water Main LF 4368 $32.00 $139,776.00 2. 6" D.I.Hydrant Branch LF 67 $28.00 $1,876.00 w 3. Fire Hydrant EA 4 $1,800.00 $7,200.00 4. 1" CU Type K services LF 1990 $16.00 $31,840.00 5. Service Shut offs EA 33 $100.00 $3,300.00 "" Subtotal $183,992.00 Electric 1. Trench/Backfill LF 1800 $4.00 $7,200.00 2. 6-4"PVC ductbank LF 1800 $80.00 $144,000.00 Subtotal $151,200.00 Gas Service .� 1. Trench/Backfill LF 1800 $4.00 $7,200.00 2. Plastic Gas Main LF 1800 $12.00 $21,600.00 3. Domestic Service stubs LF 1900 $10.00 $19,000.00 Subtotal $47,800.00 qN on Rocky Hill Cohousing Open Space Calculations 6/26/2003 Parcel Area 27.36 A Area Not Included in Cluster Development,if any B Parcel Area less Area Not Included in Cluster Development A-B 27.36 C 50%of Tract Area Required for Open Space before Wetland/Slope/Detention Subtraction C'0.5 13.68 D 40 25%of Required Open Space permitted to be Wetland/Slope/Detention under calculation before Wetland/Slope/Detention Subtraction D'0.25 3.42 E w Wetlands in Open Space 1.87 F Slopes over 8%(if applicable)in Open Space �I (unless land dedicated for public use then up to 20%slope allowed) 8.6 G Detention in Open Space(1-10 yr typical) 0 H no Subtotal of land in Open Space that cannot be counted towards Open Space requirements once the land total exceeds 25%of the Required Open Space F+G+H 10.47 I MR Wetland/Slope/Detention not permitted as part of Required Open Space I-E 7.05 J as Total Cluster Tract Area for Required Open Space Calculation after Excess Wetland/Slope/ Detention subtraction C-J 20.31 K ws 50%of Tract Area Required for Open Space after Wetland/Slope/Detention subtraction. This amount of Open Space is required to meet the bylaw. 75%of it cannot be Wetlands,Slopes over IMI 8%,or Detention Basins required to meet a 10 year storm. K/2 10.155 L 75%of Required Open Space that cannot include Wetland/Slope/Detention L'0.75 7.61625 M This is the area permitted to be lots,buildings and roads K/2 10.155 N Area of Roads to Limits of Subdivision Right of Way 0.7 O Area of Lots 7.24 P Subtotal of Lots and Roads O+P 7.941 Q yew If this field is positve,the portion of the parcel area that is developed meets the required limits of the Bylaw N-Q 2.215 R Area of Open Space in Total 19.42 S If this field is positive,the portion of the parcel area that has been left as Required Open Space meets 40 the bylaw. S-1-M 1.33375 T This number should be zero C-O-P-S 0 u T 051=.1 1 COMM SllgS11HDVSSVW Koh ZNON gOpC—Z98 (£l�)kVi . oOOL—Z8S(£«) 'OaI`dnouJ l :goaS :o;op D IISfIOH-O3 'IZIH AXOO-d 19010 apaen4D-DYI 'uolaw�N GOold WIN ti �I�Q SUOTIL00-1 11d ISO,j, OU :jogwnN an6ll m uoaoloa :old 1N4S 00�! / 9 F6, i :Beb� AA <'O. _ •,.. m �,�,�n d5�. S�tyr�'t^yy�'}9`Y{9+',f�r �• : _• '; 1 �f3 .i ! .+`V iJ i / - f•'�ry�µ v`_) txi 9t� 1 1 Tit m Z. ! % , r t O 0, cD to Q Q m LO In f 1 1 _ Q If} '�(h 3 �`�r� x 7 19t S� r r�• _ i .,. /i 1 � ,/` SO 5 i p • 1 � l �--- ,, ��.y�� � +�is y W F �� �.• _ - : : " ,' j' ,�. 3' n - , fh - i/# � � 4L� r V s lit he - 1 ! \ q� L .,I� A :\,t li i t'S si fit, - Zt` \ \\� \` /�-' VA,1 ll .l .r+ s•i.v. - N 0 7! - .. \ 4 rt ! rhts"$"ykx" d >t f° .O '.9lh Jkff:. f --- — • a�da"u�" u. ✓ dpi'` t I co NIM `//may •` r/. 1 CLI LL Rpz r' Additional Information Open Space Calculation Constructions Quantities and Cost The Berkshire Design R Group, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Rocky Hill CoHousing June 26, 2003 Project Description The project proposes a 33 unit residential development on a 27 acre parcel. The most environmentally sensitive area of the parcel includes a bordering vegetated wetland through the center of the parcel. The wetland area and its respective 100' buffer as well as additional upland areas are proposed to constitute permanently preserved open space. Wetland Protection &Preservation The project will have a limited disturbance on the wetland area. The nature of the wetland is such that a crossing is necessary in order to reach the developable area of the parcel. The disturbance has been minimized as much as possible by locating the roadway within an existing wetland crossing which at one time served as an old logging road. Erosion and Sedimentation Control measures, as indicted, will further ensure protection of wetland resource areas and buffer zones from erosion and sedimentation both during and after construction. Surface& Groundwater Quality Surface runoff from roadway pavement is proposed to be treated through overland flow and the incorporation of grass swales. Impacts to groundwater will also be minimized, as the project is proposed to connect to municipal water and sanitary systems. See also separate sanitary and drainage studies. �w Air Quality As a residential development, any negative air quality impacts generated by the proposed subdivision are insignificant. 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Traffic The traffic impact will be as reported in the study prepared by Fuss &O'Neill, Inc. Sewer Impacts Projected sanitary sewer generation: 33 housing units x 3.5 bedrooms/unit x 110 gallons/day= 12,705 gallons/day The sewer system collecting and transporting the sewage from the site was evaluated and has adequate capacity to accommodate the project's sewage. Water Impacts Projected water use: 33 units x 3.5 capita/unit x 55 gal/day/capita=6,352gallons/day (this is less than the projected sewer use, so use 12,705 gpd for estimate) The site is to be serviced with a new 8-inch water main, and the site will not detrimentally impact adjacent parcels, as outlined in the attached water report. School Impacts Assuming 28 Attached/Single Townhouse Homes @ 0.5 children/unit= 14 children Assuming 5 Single Family Detached Homes @ 0.75 children/unit=3.75 children Total= 17.75 children 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com MW aw The Berkshire Design y Group, Inc. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STATEMENT Rocky Hill CoHousing June 26, 2003 NAME OF PROJECT: Rocky Hill CoHousing ACREAGE: 27.361 TYPE OF PROJECT: Open Space Residential Subdivision OWNERS: Tofino Associates, Inc. (37-65,66,67) Joseph and Amalia Singler(37-19) LOCATION: Florence Road PLANNER: The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. PARCEL NUMBER: Map 37 Lots 65, 66,67, 19 �. ZONING DISTRICTS: SR ENGINEER: The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. ARCHITECT: n/a PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a. Number and types of units: 5 Single Family Detached Homes 28 Attached/Single Townhouse Units b. Number of bedrooms: to be determined C. Anticipated Housing Cost: to be determined 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com SEWER STUDY Rocky Hill Co-Housing Project State Sanitary code, and this factor already has a peaking factor included. (The average sewage flow rates are typically much less than this as generally reflected in water usage rates). 4 FLOW SUMMARY: Total existing flow in sewer: 69,410 gpd= 48 gpm Total additional flow added to sewer: 12,760 gpd= 9 gpm Total proposed flow in sewer: 82,170 gpd = 57 gpm Capacity of existing sewers 264,970 gpd = 184 gpm For the purpose of conservative evaluation, we have also examined the capacity of the pipe assuming an ■ additional 180% peak flow rate; in addition to the already "built-in" peak flow rate in the 110gpd number. Even when evaluating the project in this manner, the study reveals that the project still has no adverse impacts on the City's infrastructure. Total proposed peak flow existing with factor of 1.8= 147,906 gpd = 102 gpm Capacity of existing sewers 2649970 gpd = 184 gpm Due to the fact that the Rocky Hill project will be utilizing a sewage pump station, the peak flow from the site will actually be determined by the pumping capacity of the pumps utilized in the sewage pump station. The design parameters for the sewer pump station at this time include a 3-inch sewer force main with a design flow of 3.5 feet per second. A Meyer's WG 30 3 HP pump is proposed to accomplish • those criteria, and the pump is capable of pumping at a rate of 80 gpm with anticipated dynamic and static heads. Even though Clement Street is remote from the pump station and flows will tend to stabilize at that distance, the Clement Street location was still evaluated with the assumption that the pump station flows would arrive in a surge condition. Given the pumping characteristics of the pump, the maximum anticipated flow to the existing municipal system at the Clement Street location would be as follows: FLOW SUMMARY: Peak existing flow in sewer(69,410 gpd x factor of 1.8 =127,938 gpd) 48 gpm Additional peak flow (pump station capacity): 80 gpm Total proposed peak flow in sewer with pump station: 128 gpm Capacity of existing sewers 264,970 gpd= 184 gpm low In summary,even when evaluating the system utilizing very conservative methods,there are no detrimental impacts to the sewer infrastructure serving the project. Page 3 of 3 SEWER STUDY Rocky Hill Co-Housing Project Total existing flow: 69,410 gallons/day The slope of the pipe varies along the route of the sewer, however the most restrictive gradient is located on the section of Clement Street east of the inverted siphon. This section of sewer has a slope of 0.0039 ft/ft. An 8 inch PVC sewer at a slope of 0.0039 ft/ft has a hydraulic capacity of 0.41 cfs = 264,970 gpd. Capacity of sewer system= 264,970 gpd PROPOSED CONDITIONS: The project will consist of individual housing units, connected by gravity flow to an on-site sanitary pump station. The pump station will collect the sewage from the site and pump it through a 3 inch sewer ,. force main, to the existing gravity sewer system located at the adjacent Pathways Co-housing project. The pump station will be constructed with discharge pumps sized to adequately discharge the sewage at .� a design velocity of 3.5 feet per second. Utilizing this design criterion, the pumps chosen for this application will discharge the sewage at a rate of 80 gallons/minute. The pump station is very remote from the Clement Street sewer, and as such, any pumped discharge will have adequate time to dissipate prior to reaching the Clement Street sewer. The proposed project will consist of 33 units. If an assumption were made that half of the units will be 3 bedroom units and half will be 4 bedroom units, this would result in the addition of approximately 116 bedrooms to the sewer system. At 110 gpd/bedroom, this would result in an additional 12,760 gallons/day. When this figure is added to the existing anticipate flow that the sewer currently experiences, the total flow to be expected at the most restrictive location along the entire sewer system would be: (69,410 gallons/day existing) + (12,760 gallons/day proposed) = 82,170gpd Total proposed flow = 82,170 gpd As stated previously, the capacity of the most restrictive portion of eth sewer is approximately 264,971 gallons/day. SUMMARY The sewer serving the site was evaluated to the point on Clement Street where the most restrictive portion of the sewer is located. If all of the buildings connected to the sewer were producing 110 gallons/day/bedroom, then the following summary clearly demonstrates that the existing infrastructure is capable of accommodating the proposed development with no detrimental effects on the City's sewer infrastructure. It is important to note that 110 gpd is the anticipated peak flow rate as determined by the Page 2 of 3 The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. R SANITARY SEWER STUDY Rocky Hill Co-Housing Project June 26, 2003 EXISTING CONDITIONS: The sewer system that will be constructed as a part of the proposed Rocky Hill Co-Housing project will be connected to an existing 8 inch PVC sewer pipe located in the adjacent Pathways Co-Housing project. The sewer from the Pathways project gravity flows overland approximately 2,200 LF to an existing 8-inch sewer in Burts Pit Road, at the intersection of Clements Street . From the point of tie in on Burts Pit Road, the sewer traverses Clement Street to the Mill River, where it travels under the Mill River in an inverted siphon consisting of two 6-inch diameter pipes. The siphon is constructed in a very steep grade and does not have any history of inadequate capacity. After the sewer exits the siphon on the east side of the Mill River it continues for approximately 600 feet to Ladd Avenue where it connects to an existing 24-inch sewer. The 24 inch sewer is reported as having adequate excess capacity. The Diamond Court/Platinum Circle subdivision, a short section of Burts Pit Road east of Clement Street, and a short section of Florence Road south of Burts Pit road is also connected to the sewer. The recently approve Oaks Subdivision as well as the Pathways Co-housing project all flow to the sewer �• system at Clement Street. Based upon a review of the tax maps and location of the sewer, it is estimated that approximately 96 parcels are located along the sewer route that ultimately discharges into the Ladd Street Sewer. The Pathways project consists of 28 two and three bedroom units, for a total of approximately 70 bedrooms. If an assumption is made that each of the parcels along the sewer route contains a 3'/z bedroom house, that would represent an additional 336 bedrooms. This would result in approximately 406 bedrooms connected to the system. If each bedroom generates approximately 110 gallons/day/bedroom, that would result in a total anticipate sewage flow of: 406 bedrooms X 110 gpd/bedroom=44,660 gallons/day =total existing flow. If an assumption is made that the Oaks project will be constructed prior to the new Rocky Hill project, then an additional 64 units will be connected to the system. If an assumption were made that half of the units will be 3 bedroom units and half will be 4 bedroom units,this would result in the addition of approximately 225 bedrooms to the sewer system. At 110 gpd/bedroom, this would result in an additional 24,750 gallons/day. Therefore the total existing flow anticipated to the existing sewer at the most restrictive portion, including existing buildings and approved projects: 44,660 gallons/day existing flow+ 24,750 gallons/day "approved" flow = 69,410 gallons/day Page 1 of 3 �r MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 99.60 390.38 113 .00 120.20 410 7.97 392.51 115.50 120.04 505 .00 391.70 115.00 119.90 520 .00 390.37 115.00 119.33 369 11.70 391.83 116.50 119.31 370 1.74 391.80 116.50 119.30 116 36.85 391.01 116.00 119.17 412 7.22 392.53 118.50 118.75 371 13.69 391.79 118.00 118.64 121 6.23 391.71 118.00 118.61 MINIMUM PRESSURES 805 9.96 408.88 374.00 15.11 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 9.96 408.88 362.00 20.31 506 .00 439.90 380.00 25.96 804 7.47 408.88 344.00 28.12 511 .00 453.99 385.00 29.90 802 9.96 408.88 338.00 30.71 809 9.96 408.94 338.00 30.74 ! 1° 61 4.23 409.95 339.00 30.75 813 19.92 392.56 320.00 31.44 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 6976.48 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 6655.26 853 321.22 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 6976.47 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00 �1w Ate. MRS r A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 2.49 THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 4.47 176 174.42 136 58.75 134 140.11 107 47.90 118 14.62 171 37.93 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6.16 342 13 .95 91 126.45 93 126.45 WA 94 126.45 155 10.17 175 13.96 502 21.32 503 21.32 260 125.30 17 43 .38 163 43.38 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 819 750.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00284 PEAK HOUR DEMAND WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 750 GPM FLOW @ NODE 819 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOW RATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 -291.09 -4.59 .00 .00 -1.19 -1.02 95 800 57 78.54 .11 .00 .00 .22 .03 96 73 72 709.39 5.83 .00 .00 2.01 2.18 97 72 71 29.26 .01 .00 .00 .08 .01 908 818 72 -526.14 -12.93 .00 .00 -2.15 -3.05 965 810 818 -52.24 -.04 .00 .00 -.21 -.04 967 810 811 343.33 1.02 .00 .00 2.19 2.93 ► 968 811 812 338.35 1.57 .00 .00 2.16 2.85 969 812 813 338.35 .90 .00 .00 2.16 2.85 970 813 814 318.43 1.88 .00 .00 2.03 2.54 971 814 815 298.51 1.60 .00 .00 1.91 2.26 972 815 819 291.04 .28 .00 .00 1.86 2.15 973 819 816 -181.52 -.54 .00 .00 -1.16 -.90 974 819 817 -277.44 -.92 .00 .00 -1.77 -1.97 975 816 817 -188.99 -.38 .00 .00 -1.21 -.97 976 817 818 -473.90 -6.38 .00 .00 -3.02 -5.31 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 65 20.17 400.63 261.00 60.51 72 13.20 409.01 314.00 41.17 810 .00 396.04 310.00 37.29 811 4.98 395.02 302.00 40.31 AA 812 .00 393 .45 301.00 40.06 813 19.92 392.56 320.00 31.44 814 19.92 390.67 292.00 42.76 815 7.47 389.07 294.00 41.20 'Aa 816 7.47 389.33 296.00 40.44 817 7.47 389 .71 284.00 45.81 818 .00 396.08 298.00 42.50 819 750.00 388.79 294.00 41.08 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 64.80 411.01 113.00 129.14 410 5.18 412.67 115.50 128.77 505 .00 412.05 115.00 128.72 520 .00 410.99 115.00 128.26 369 7.61 412.17 116.50 128.12 370 1.13 412.16 116.50 128.12 116 23 .98 411.33 116.00 127.98 412 4.70 412 .6.8 118.50 127.48 371 8.91 412.16 118.00 127.47 A 121 4.05 412.05 118.00 127.42 MINIMUM PRESSURES 805 6.48 413 .55 374.00 17.14 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 6.48 413 .53 362.00 22.33 506 .00 439.94 380.00 .25.97 804 4.86 413 .57 344.00 30.15 511 .00 455.83 385.00 30.69 61 2.75 410.01 339.00 30.77 802 6.48 413.52 338.00 32.72 600 .00 455.54 380.00 32.73 809 6.48 414.12 338.00 32.98 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 4978.06 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 5198.35 853 -220.29 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 5198.35 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -220.29 w� s A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 1.62 THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 4.47 176 174.42 136 58.75 134 140.11 107 47.90 118 14.62 171 37.93 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6.16 342 13.95 91 82.47 93 82.47 94 82.47 155 6.63 175 9.11 502 13.90 w 503 13.90 260 81.72 17 28.29 163 28.29 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 819 750.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00096 MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 750 GPM @ NODE 819 wa PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOW RATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 -287.39 -4.48 .00 .00 -1.17 -1.00 95 800 57 373.18 1.95 .00 .00 1.06 .56 96 73 72 631.97 4.70 .00 .00 1.79 1.76 97 72 71 -296.64 -.84 .00 .00 -.84 -.43 908 818 72 -506.35 -12 .04 .00 .00 -2.07 -2.84 965 810 818 -42.39 -.03 .00 .00 -.17 -.03 967 810 811 329.78 .95 .00 .00 2.10 2.72 968 811 812 326.54 1.47 .00 .00 2.08 2.67 969 812 813 326.54 .84 .00 .00 2.08 2.67 970 813 814 313.58 1.83 .00 .00 2.00 2.47 971 814 815 300.62 1.62 .00 .00 1.92 2.29 972 815 819 295.76 .29 .00 .00 1.89 2.22 973 819 816 -180.26 -.53 .00 .00 -1.15 -.89 974 819 817 -273.98 -.90 .00 .00 -1.75 -1.93 975 816 817 -185.12 -.36 .00 .00 -1.18 -.93 976 817 818 -463.96 -6.13 .00 .00 -2.96 -5.11 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 65 13.12 407.03 261.00 63.28 72 8.59 414.62 314.00 43.60 810 .00 402.55 310.00 40.10 811 3.24 401.60 302.00 43.16 812 .00 400.13 301.00 42.96 813 12.96 399.29 320.00 34.36 814 12.96 397.46 292.00 45.70 815 4.86 395.84 294.00 44.13 816 4.86 396.08 296.00 43.37 817 4.86 396.45 284.00 48.73 818 .00 402.58 298.00 45.32 819 750.00 395.55 294.00 44.00 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 43.20 420.85 113 .00 133.40 y 410 3.46 422.63 115.50 133.09 505 .00 422.00 115.00 133 .03 520 .00 420.84 115.00 132.53 369 5.08 422.16 116.50 132.45 ► 370 .76 422.16 116.50 132 .45 116 15.98 421.03 116.00 132.18 371 5.94 422.15 118.00 131.80 412 3.13 422.64 118.50 131.79 121 2.70 422.01 118.00 131.74 MINIMUM PRESSURES 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 805 4.32 417.54 374.00 18.87 803 4.32 417.51 362.00 24.06 506 .00 439.96 380.00 25.98 61 1.84 410.07 339.00 30.80 511 .00 456.86 385.00 31.14 804 3.24 417.57 344.00 31.88 600 .00 456.66 380.00 33.22 802 4.32 417.49 338.00 34.45 809 4.32 418.37 338.00 34.83 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 3736.67 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES "r PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 4210.00 853 -473.34 'A THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 4210.00 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -473.34 aw r I* A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 1.08 THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 4.47 176 174.42 OR 136 58.75 134 140.11 107 47.90 118 14.62 ow 171 37.93 133 2.79 42 2.79 40 132 6.16 342 13.95 91 54.98 93 54.98 ow 94 54.98 155 4.42 175 6.07 502 9.27 503 9.27 260 54.48 17 18.86 163 18.86 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 819 750.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00418 AVERAGE DAY DEMAND AM WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 750 GPM FLOW @ NODE 819 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOW RATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 -281.72 -4.32 .00 .00 -1.15 -.96 95 800 57 475.10 3.05 .00 .00 1.35 .87 96 73 72 561.40 3.78 .00 .00 1.59 1.42 97 72 71 -443 .87 -1.78 .00 .00 -1.26 -.92 908 818 72 -497.44 -11.65 .00 .00 -2.03 -2.75 965 810 818 -39.57 -.02 .00 .00 -.16 -.03 967 810 811 321.29 .91 .00 .00 2.05 2.59 968 811 812 319.13 1.41 . .00 .00 2.04 2.56 969 812 813 319.13 .80 .00 .00 2.04 2.56 970 813 814 310.49 1.80 .00 .00 1.98 2.43 971 814 815 301.85 1.64 .00 .00 1.93 2.30 972 815 819 298.61 .29 .00 .00 1.91 2.26 973 819 816 -179.51 -.53 .00 .00 -1.15 -.88 974 819 817 -271.88 -.88 .00 .00 -1.74 -1.90 975 816 817 -182.75 -.35 .00 .00 -1.17 -.91 976 817 818 -457.87 -5.98 .00 .00 -2.92 -4.99 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE w 65 8.75 411.71 261.00 65.31 72 5.72 419.07 314.00 45.53 810 .00 407.39 310.00 42.20 811 2.16 406.49 302.00 45.28 812 .00 405.08 301.00 45.10 813 8.64 404.28 320.00 36.52 814 8.64 402.48 292.00 47.87 815 3.24 400.84 294.00 46.30 816 3.24 401.08 296.00 45.53 817 3.24 401.43 284.00 50.89 818 .00 407.42 298.00 47.41 819 750.00 400.55 294.00 46.17 MINIMUM PRESSURES 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 805 4.00 425.56 374.00 22.34 506 .00 439.98 380.00 25.99 803 4.00 425.53 362.00 27.53 61 1.70 410.20 339.00 30.85 511 .00 457.74 385.00 31.52 600 *00 457.63 380.00 33 .64 804 3 .00 425.60 344.00 35.36 63 2.90 414.85 330.00 36.77 415 .00 438.95 352.00 37.68 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 56.50 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 886.74 853 -830.24 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES 886.74 WA THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES -830.24 ow .r BERKSHIRE DESIGN GROUP NORTHAMPTON WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ROCKY HILL COHOUSING 36" WM W/ PRV @ 440 FLOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSIG A SUCCESSFUL GEOMETRIC VERIFICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED OUTPUT SELECTION: THE FOLLOWING RESULTS ARE OUTPUT RESULTS ARE OUTPUT .FOR ALL PIPES WITH PUMPS - CLOSED PIPES ARE NOTED RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING PIPES 94 908 965 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 95 96 97 RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING JUNCTION NODES : 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 65 72 10 VALUES ARE OUTPUT FOR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES THIS SYSTEM HAS 695 PIPES WITH 463 JUNCTIONS , 230 LOOPS AND 3 FGNS THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 7 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00418 ee� PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOW RATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 87.79 .50 .00 .00 .36 .11 95 800 57 554.84 4.06 .00 .00 1.57 1.16 wwr 96 73 72 368.56 1.73 .00 .00 1.05 .65 97 72 71 -334.37 -1.05 .00 .00 -.95 -.54 908 818 72 -117.79 -.81 .00 .00 -.48 -.19 965 810 818 -81.28 -.09 .00 .00 -.33 -.10 967 810 811 -6.51 .00 .00 .00 -.04 .00 968 811 812 -8.51 .00 .00 .00 -.05 .00 969 812 813 -8.51 .00 .00 .00 -.05 .00 970 813 814 -16.51 -.01 .00 .00 -.11 -.01 971 814 815 -24.51 -.02 .00 .00 -.16 -.02 972 815 819 -27.51 .00 .00 .00 -.18 -.03 973 819 816 -11.43 .00 .00 .00 -.07 -.01 974 819 817 -19.07 -.01 .00 .00 -.12 -.01 975 816 817 -14.43 .00 .00 .00 -.09 -.01 976 817 818 -36.51 -.06 .00 .00 -.23 -.05 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 65 8.10 426.17 261.00 71.57 72 5.30 427.57 314.00 49.21 810 .00 426.67 310.00 50.56 811 2.00 426.67 302.00 54.02 812 .00 426.67 301.00 54.46 813 8.00 426.67 320.00 46.22 814 8.00 426.68 292.00 58.36 815 3.00 426.70 294.00 57.50 816 3 .00 426.70 296.00 56.64 817 3.00 426.71 284.00 61.84 818 .00 426.76 298.00 55.80 819 3.00 426.70 294.00 57.50 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 40.00 428.32 113.00 136.64 505 .00 428.96 115.00 136.05 410 3.20 429.34 115.50 136.00 520 .00 428.32 115.00 135.77 a.r 369 4.70 429.05 116.50 135.44 370 .70 429.05 116.50 135.44 116 14.80 428.44 116.00 135.39 371 5.50 429.04 118.00 134.79 121 2.50 428.96 118.00 134.75 372 3 .00 428.96 118.00 134.75 Ak MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 99.60 389.30 113 .00 119.73 ob 410 7.97 391.55 115.50 119.62 505 .00 390.68 115.00 119.46 369 11.70 390.82 116.50 118.87 370 1.74 390.80 116.50 118.86 4 520 .00 389.29 115.00 118.86 116 36.85 389.93 116.00 118.70 412 7.22 391.57 118.50 118.33 371 13.69 390.78 118.00 118.21 40, 121 6.23 390.69 118.00 118.17 MINIMUM PRESSURES 805 9.96 407.21 374.00 14.39 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 9.96 407.21 362.00 19.59 813 1000.00 376.03 320.00 24.28 Ak 506 .00 439.90 380.00 25.96 804 7.47 407.22 344.00 27.39 511 .00 453.86 385.00 29.84 802 9.96 407.22 338.00 29.99 809 9.96 407.22 338.00 30.00 61 4.23 409.92 339.00 30.73 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 re�a THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 7214.03 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 6751.41 853 462.62 rw THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 7214.03 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00 +�s M *4 ON on am 40 MR A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 2.49 No THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 4.47 176 174.42 136 58.75 134 140.11 107 47.90 118 14.62 171 37.93 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6.16 342 13.95 91 126.45 93 126.45 94 126.45 155 10.17 175 13.96 502 21.32 503 21.32 260 125.30 17 43.38 163 43.38 ®s 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 813 1000.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00273 too PEAK HOUR DEMAND WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 1000 GPM FLOW @ NODE 813 qo� PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 -395.56 -8.09 .00 .00 -1.62 -1.80 95 800 57 -12.22 .00 .00 .00 -.03 .00 96 73 72 740.31 6.31 .00 .00 2.10 2.36 ,o 97 72 71 17.86 .00 .00 .00 .05 .00 908 818 72 -659.22 -19.63 .00 .00 -2.69 -4.63 965 810 818 -236.87 -.67 .00 .00 -.97 -.70 967 810 811 632.44 3 .17 .00 .00 4.04 9.07 am 968 811 812 627.46 4.92 .00 .00 4.00 8.94 969 812 813 627.46 2.82 .00 .00 4.00 8.94 970 813 814 -372.54 -2.52 .00 .00 -2.38 -3.40 971 814 815 -392.46 -2.66 .00 .00 -2.50 -3.75 on 972 815 819 -399.93 -.50 .00 .00 -2.55 -3.88 973 819 816 -160.92 -.43 .00 .00 -1.03 -.72 974 819 817 -246.48 -.74 .00 .00 -1.57 -1.58 975 816 817 -168.39 -.30 .00 .00 -1.07 -.78 976 817 818 -422.34 -5.15 .00 .00 -2.70 -4.29 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE +ui 65 20.17 395.03 261.00 58.08 72 13 .20 407.24 314.00 40.40 810 .00 386.94 310.00 33.34 811 4.98 383 .76 302.00 35.43 812 .00 378.85 301.00 33.73 813 1000.00 376.03 320.00 24.28 814 19.92 378.55 292.00 37.51 815 7.47 381.21 294.00 37.79 me 816 7.47 382.15 296.00 37.33 817 7.47 382.45 284.00 42.66 818 .00 387.61 298.00 38.83 819 7.47 381.72 294.00 38.01 40 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 64.80 409.90 113 .00 128.66 410 5.18 411.79 115.50 128.39 505 .00 411.08 115.00 128.30 520 .00 409.89 115.00 127.78 369 7.61 411.23 116.50 127.72 370 1.13 411.22 116.50 127.71 116 23.98 410.22 116.00 127.50 412 4.70 411.80 118.50 127.10 371 8.91 411.21 118.00 127 .06 121 4.05 411.08 118.00 127.00 MINIMUM PRESSURES 805 6.48 411.97 374.00 16.45 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 6.48 411.96 362.00 21.65 506 .00 439.94 380.00 25.97 813 1000.00 382.98 320.00 27.29 804 4.86 411.99 344.00 29.46 511 .00 455.72 385.00 30.64 61 2.75 410.00 339.00 30.77 802 6.48 411.95 338.00 32.04 809 6.48 412.38 338.00 32.23 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 5219.96 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 5300.20 853 -80.25 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 5300.20 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -80.25 Hsu aw A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 1.62 s THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE: JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 4.47 176 174.42 136 58.75 134 140.11 107 47.90 118 14.62 171 37.93 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6.16 342 13.95 91 82.47 93 82.47 94 82.47 155 6.63 175 9.11 502 13.90 503 13.90 260 81.72 17 28.29 163 28.29 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 813 1000.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00086 MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 1000 GPM FLOW @ NODE 813 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOW RATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 -398.31 -8.20 .00 .00 -1.63 -1.82 95 800 57 307.74 1.36 .00 .00 .87 .39 96 73 72 673.15 5.29 .00 .00 1.91 1.98 97 72 71 -321.01 -.98 .00 .00 -.91 -.50 908 818 72 -637.33 -18.44 .00 .00 -2.60 -4.35 965 810 818 -226.81 -.62 .00 .00 -.93 -.64 967 810 811 625.13 3 .11 .00 .00 3 .99 8.88 968 811 812 621.89 4.83 .00 .00 3 .97 8.79 969 812 813 621.89 2.77 .00 .00 3 .97 8.79 970 813 814 -378.11 -2.59 .00 .00 -2.41 -3.50 971 814 815 -391.07 -2.64 .00 .00 -2.50 -3.72 972 815 819 -395.93 -.50 .00 .00 -2.53 -3.81 973 819 816 -158.91 -.42 .00 .00 -1.01 -.70 974 819 817 -241.88 -.71 .00 .00 -1.54 -1.53 975 816 817 -163.77 -.29 .00 .00 -1.05 -.74 976 817 818 -410.51 -4.89 .00 .00 -2.62 -4.07 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 4w 65 13.12 401.89 261.00 61.05 72 8.59 412.75 314.00 42.79 810 .00 393.69 310.00 36.27 811 3.24 390.58 302.00 38.39 812 .00 385.75 301.00 36.72 813 1000.00 382.98 320.00 27.29 814 12.96 385.57 292.00 40.55 815 4.86 388.21 294.00 40.82 ow 816 4.86 389.13 296.00 40.36 817 4.86 389.42 284.00 45.68 818 .00 394.31 298.00 41.73 819 4.86 388.71 294.00 41.04 ow MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 43 .20 419.60 113 .00 132.86 no 410 3.46 421.71 115.50 132.69 505 .00 420.97 115.00 132.59 369 5.08 421.16 116.50 132.02 370 .76 421.16 116.50 132.02 t 520 .00 419.59 115.00 131.99 116 15.98 419.78 116.00 131.64 412 3.13 421.72 118.50 131.40 371 5.94 421.15 118.00 131.37 121 2.70 420.97 118.00 131.29 MINIMUM PRESSURES 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 805 4.32 415.51 374.00 17.99 803 4.32 415.49 362.00 23.18 506 .00 439.96 380.00 25.98 813 1000.00 387.72 320.00 29.34 61 1.84 410.04 339.00 30.78 804 3.24 415.54 344.00 31.00 511 .00 456.73 385.00 31.08 600 .00 456.52 380.00 33.16 802 4.32 415.47 338.00 33.57 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 3981.27 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 4338.87 853 -357.61 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 4338.87 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -357.61 awr sll� �A 40 A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 1.08 wr THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE: JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 4.47 176 174.42 ow 136 58.75 134 140.11 107 47.90 4k 118 14.62 171 37.93 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6.16 342 13 .95 91 54.98 93 54.98 94 54.98 155 4.42 175 6.07 502 9.27 503 9.27 260 54.48 17 18.86 163 18.86 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 813 1000.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 4 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00101 AVERAGE DAY DEMAND WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 1000 GPM FLOW @ NODE 813 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 -396.10 -8.11 .00 .00 -1.62 -1.80 95 800 57 435.99 2.60 .00 .00 1.24 .74 96 73 72 610.51 4.41 .00 .00 1.73 1.65 97 72 71 -485.87 -2.10 .00 .00 -1.38 -1.08 908 818 72 -627.66 -17.93 .00 .00 -2.56 -4.23 965 810 818 -224.29 -.60 .00 .00 -.92 -.63 967 810 811 620.39 3.06 .00 .00 3.96 8.75 w 968 811 812 618.23 4.78 .00 .00 3.95 8.70 969 812 813 618.23 2.74 .00 .00 3.95 8.70 970 813 814 -381.77 -2.64 .00 .00 -2.44 -3.56 971 814 815 -390.41 -2.64 .00 .00 -2.49 -3.71 972 815 819 -393.65 -.49 .00 .00 -2.51 -3.77 973 819 816 -157.74 -.42 .00 .00 -1.01 -.69 974 819 817 -239.15 -.70 .00 .00 -1.53 -1.50 975 816 817 -160.98 -.28 .00 .00 -1.03 -.72 976 817 818 -403.37 -4.73 .00 .00 -2.57 -3.94 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE s 65 8.75 406.41 261.00 63 .01 72 5.72 416.83 314.00 44.56 810 .00 398.30 310.00 38.26 811 2.16 395.24 302.00 40.40 812 .00 390.46 301.00 38.76 813 1000.00 387.72 320.00 29.34 814 8.64 390.35 292.00 42.62 815 3.24 392.99 294.00 42.89 816 3.24 393.89 296.00 42.42 817 3.24 394.17 284.00 47.74 818 .00 398.91 298.00 43.73 819 3.24 393.48 294.00 43.11 +fir MINIMUM PRESSURES 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 805 4.00 425.56 374.00 22.34 ,s 506 .00 439.98 380.00 25.99 803 4.00 425.53 362.00 27.53 61 1.70 410.20 339.00 30.85 511 .00 457.74 385.00 31.52 600 .00 457.63 380.00 33 .64 804 3.00 425.60 344.00 35.36 63 2.90 414.85 330.00 36.77 415 .00 438.95 352.00 37.68 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 56.50 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 886.74 853 -830.24 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 886.74 sew THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -830.24 A" �4 +fit BERKSHIRE DESIGN GROUP NORTHAMPTON WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ROCKY HILL COHOUSING 36" WM W/ PRV @ 440 FLOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSIG A SUCCESSFUL GEOMETRIC VERIFICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED OUTPUT SELECTION: THE FOLLOWING RESULTS ARE OUTPUT RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR ALL PIPES WITH PUMPS - CLOSED PIPES ARE NOTED RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING PIPES 94 908 975 976 95 96 97 965 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING JUNCTION NODES : 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 65 72 10 VALUES ARE OUTPUT FOR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES THIS SYSTEM HAS 695 PIPES WITH 463 JUNCTIONS , 230 LOOPS AND 3 FGNS THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 7 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00418 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOW RATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 87.79 .50 .00 .00 .36 .11 95 800 57 554.84 4.06 .00 .00 1.57 1.16 A► 96 73 72 368.56 1.73 .00 .00 1.05 .65 97 72 71 -334.37 -1.05 .00 .00 -.95 -.54 908 818 72 -117.79 -.81 .00 .00 -.48 -.19 965 810 818 -81.28 -.09 .00 .00 -.33 -.10 967 810 811 -6.51 .00 .00 .00 -.04 .00 968 811 812 -8.51 .00 .00 .00 -.05 .00 969 812 813 -8.51 .00 .00 .00 -.05 .00 970 813 814 -16.51 -.01 .00 .00 -.11 -.01 971 814 815 -24.51 -.02 .00 .00 -.16 -.02 972 815 819 -27.51 .00 .00 .00 -.18 -.03 973 819 816 -11.43 .00 .00 .00 -.07 -.01 974 819 817 -19.07 -.01 .00 .00 -.12 -.01 975 816 817 -14.43 .00 .00 .00 -.09 -.01 976 817 818 -36.51 -.06 .00 .00 -.23 -.05 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 65 8.10 426.17 261.00 71.57 72 5.30 427.57 314.00 49.21 810 .00 426.67 310.00 50.56 811 2.00 426.67 302.00 54.02 812 .00 426.67 301.00 54.46 813 8.00 426.67 320.00 46.22 814 8.00 426.68 292.00 58.36 +uw 815 3.00 426.70 294.00 57.50 816 3.00 426.70 296.00 56.64 817 3.00 426.71 284.00 61.84 818 .00 426.76 298.00 55.80 819 3.00 426.70 294.00 57.50 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 40.00 428.32 113 .00 136.64 505 .00 428.96 115.00 136.05 410 3.20 429.34 115.50 136.00 520 .00 428.32 115.00 135.77 369 4.70 429.05 116.50 135.44 370 .70 429.05 116.50 135.44 116 14.80 428.44 116.00 135.39 371 5.50 429.04 118.00 134.79 121 2.50 428.96 118.00 134.75 372 3 .00 428.96 118.00 134.75 i MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 99.60 391.45 113.00 120.66 410 7.97 393.47 115.50 120.45 505 .00 392.71 115.00 120.34 520 .00 391.44 115.00 119.79 369 11.70 392.83 116.50 119.74 370 1.74 392.80 116.50 119.73 116 36.85 392.09 116.00 119.64 412 7.22 393.48 118.50 119.16 371 13.69 392.79 118.00 119.08 121 6.23 392.72 118.00 119.05 MINIMUM PRESSURES 805 9.96 410.38 374.00 15.76 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 9.96 410.37 362.00 20.96 506 .00 439.91 380.00 25.96 804 7.47 410.39 344.00 28.77 511 .00 454.13 385.00 29.95 61 4.23 409.98 339.00 30.76 802 9.96 410.37 338.00 31.36 809 9.96 410.57 338.00 31.45 600 .00 453.68 380.00 31.93 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 6714.03 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 6559.21 853 154.80 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 6714.01 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00 A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 2.49 THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE: JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 4.47 176 174.42 136 58.75 ob 134 140.11 107 47.90 118 14.62 *A 171 37.93 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6.16 342 13.95 91 126.45 93 126.45 94 126.45 155 10.17 175 13.96 502 21.32 503 21.32 260 125.30 17 43 .38 163 43.38 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 813 500.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY .00264 PEAK HOUR DEMAND WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 500 GPM FLOW @ NODE 813 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 00 94 810 65 -177.90 -1.84 .00 .00 -.73 -.41 95 800 57 182.08 .52 .00 .00 .52 .15 96 73 72 674.47 5.31 .00 .00 1.91 1.99 97 72 71 40.06 .02 .00 .00 .11 .01 908 818 72 -376.88 -6.97 .00 .00 -1.54 -1.64 965 810 818 -147.88 -.28 .00 .00 -.60 -.29 967 810 811 325.78 .93 .00 .00 2.08 2.65 p► 968 811 812 320.80 1.42 .00 .00 2.05 2.58 969 812 813 320.80 .81 .00 .00 2.05 2.58 970 813 814 -179.20 -.65 .00 .00 -1.14 -.88 971 814 815 -199.12 -.76 .00 .00 -1.27 -1.07 972 815 819 -206.59 -.15 .00 .00 -1.32 -1.14 973 819 816 -83.69 -.13 .00 .00 -.53 -.21 974 819 817 -130.37 -.23 .00 .00 -.83 -.49 975 816 817 -91.16 -.10 .00 .00 -.58 -.25 976 817 818 -229.00 -1.66 .00 .00 -1.46 -1.38 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 65 20.17 405.37 261.00 62.56 72 13.20 410.78 314.00 41.94 810 .00 403.53 310.00 40.53 811 4.98 402.60 302.00 43.59 812 .00 401.18 301.00 43.41 813 500.00 400.37 320.00 34.83 814 19.92 401.02 292.00 47.24 815 7.47 401.77 294.00 46.70 816 7.47 402.05 296.00 45.95 817 7.47 402.15 284.00 51.20 818 .00 403 .81 298.00 45.85 819 7.47 401.92 294.00 46.77 �r mm MINIMUM PRESSURES 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 805 4.00 425.56 374.00 22.34 506 .00 439.98 380.00 25.99 803 4.00 425.53 362.00 27.53 61 1.70 410.20 339.00 30.85 511 .00 457.74 385.00 31.52 600 .00 457.63 380.00 33.64 804 3.00 425.60 344.00 35.36 63 2.90 414.85 330.00 36.77 415 .00 438.95 352.00 37.68 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 56.50 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 886.74 853 -830.24 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 886.74 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -830.24 tit f as BERKSHIRE DESIGN GROUP NORTHAMPTON WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ROCKY HILL COHOUSING 36" WM W/ PRV @ 440 FLOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSIG A SUCCESSFUL GEOMETRIC VERIFICATION HAS BEEN COMPLETED OUTPUT SELECTION: THE FOLLOWING RESULTS ARE OUTPUT RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR ALL PIPES WITH PUMPS - CLOSED PIPES ARE NOTED RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING PIPES 94 908 965 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 95 96 97 RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING JUNCTION NODES : 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 65 72 10 VALUES ARE OUTPUT FOR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES THIS SYSTEM HAS 695 PIPES WITH 463 JUNCTIONS , 230 LOOPS AND 3 FGNS THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 7 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00418 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 94 810 65 87.79 .50 .00 .00 .36 .11 +#4 95 800 57 554.84 4.06 .00 .00 1.57 1.16 96 73 72 368.56 1.73 .00 .00 1.05 .65 97 72 71 -334.37 -1.05 .00 .00 -.95 -.54 908 818 72 -117.79 -.81 .00 .00 -.48 -.19 965 810 818 -81.28 -.09 .00 .00 -.33 -.10 967 810 811 -6.51 .00 .00 .00 -.04 .00 968 811 812 -8.51 .00 .00 .00 -.05 .00 969 812 813 -8.51 .00 .00 .00 -.05 .00 970 813 814 -16.51 -.01 .00 .00 -.11 -.01 971 814 815 -24.51 -.02 .00 .00 -.16 -.02 972 815 819 -27.51 .00 .00 .00 -.18 -.03 973 819 816 -11.43 .00 .00 .00 -.07 -.01 974 819 817 -19.07 -.01 .00 .00 -.12 -.01 975 816 817 -14.43 .00 .00 .00 -.09 -.01 976 817 818 -36.51 -.06 .00 .00 -.23 -.05 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 65 8.10 426.17 261.00 71.57 72 5.30 427.57 314.00 49.21 810 .00 426.67 310.00 50.56 811 2.00 426.67 302.00 54.02 812 .00 426.67 301.00 54.46 813 8.00 426.67 320.00 46.22 ![ 814 8.00 426.68 292.00 58.36 815 3.00 426.70 294.00 57.50 816 3.00 426.70 296.00 56.64 817 3.00 426.71 284.00 61.84 818 .00 426.76 298.00 55.80 819 3.00 426.70 294.00 57.50 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 40.00 428.32 113.00 136.64 505 .00 428.96 115.00 136.05 410 3.20 429.34 115.50 136.00 520 .00 428.32 115.00 135.77 369 4.70 429.05 116.50 135.44 370 .70 429.05 116.50 135.44 116 14.80 428.44 116.00 135.39 10 371 5.50 429.04 118.00 134.79 121 2.50 428.96 118.00 134.75 372 3.00 428.96 118.00 134.75 go W14 a ATTACHMENT A SYSTEM MODELING OUTPUT DATA Burt's Pit Road N ^ V] C N O N 00 w 00 00 a N Oi0 I I 00 W, iii � .°•, 00 00 V N 00 � � w O '^" ^ �n ►� O N � •�.y x 00 00 ^ 0 M � Ii N ►n •~ � �, w o0 p M O kn W �1 z �1 kn • , 4 Peou Im 931;)O I Berkshire Design Group February 26, 2003 Mr. Bryan Jereb,Project Manager Page 4 of 4 TABLE 3 FIRE FLOW AT PATHWAYS CO-HOUSING 65 750 65.3 63.3 60.5 + 72 750 45.5 43.6 41.2 810 750 42.2 40.1 37.3 811 750 45.3 43.2 40.3 812 750 45.1 43.0 40.1 813 750 36.5 34.4 31.4 814 750 47.9 45.7 42.8 815 750 46.3 44.1 41.2 816 750 45.5 43.4 40.4 817 750 50.9 48.7 45.8 818 750 47.4 45.3 42.5 819 1750 146.2 1 44.0 141.1 Based on the results of the hydraulic analyses conducted, the proposed development should be able to meet the water system pressure requirements with the use of 8-inch water mains connected and looped as shown on the site plan with no adverse impact to existing services in the surrounding areas. As previously noted, consideration should be given to installing individual booster pumps for service elevations expected to be at and above an elevation of 320 feet. If you have any questions or require additional information,please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, Inc. 9(t (flk� ** Peter A. Calderazzo Project Engineer Attachments C.\KypIpE\KYPIPENBDG\BDG02_ROCKYHH L.DOC Dewberry OR Berkshire Design Group February 26, 2003 Mr. Bryan Jereb,Project Manager Page 3 of 4 TABLE 2 FIRE FLOWS AT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ow 65 500 67.1 65.3 62.3 iw 1000 63.0 61.1 58.1 72 500 46.5 44.6 41.9 1000 44.6 42.8 40.4 me 810 500 45.2 43.3 40.5 1000 38.3 36.3 33.3 811 500 48.3 46.4 43.6 1000 40.4 38.4 35.4 812 500 48.2 46.2 43.3 1000 38.8 36.7 33.7 *" 813 500 39.6 37.7 34.8 1000 29.3 27.3 24.3 am 814 500 52.0 50.1 47.24 1000 42.6 40.6 37.5 moffiffimm 815 500 51.5 49.6 46.7 1000 42.9 40.8 37.8 816 500 50.8 48.8 46.0 1000 42.4 40.4 37.3 817 500 56.0 54.0 51.2 1000 47.7 45.7 42.7 818 500 50.5 48.6 45.6 1000 43.7 41.7 38.8 819 500 51.6 49.6 46.7 Or, 1000 143.1 141.0 38.0 C.\K ypipa Kyp(pE�BDG�BDG02_ROCKYHILL.DOC Dewberry ow Berkshire Design Group February 26, 2003 Mr. Bryan Jereb, Project Manager Page 2 of 4 may have pressures slightly less than the minimum 35 psi pressure due to the distance of the units from the water main and the potential losses through the service connection. We would recommend that units with finished grade elevation at and above 320 feet be provided with individual booster pumps. TABLE 1 SYSTEM PRESSURES UNDER NORMAL FLOWS 65 261 70.3 68.7 65.2 72 314 48.5 46.5 43.3 810 310 49.9 47.7 44.3 811 302 53.3 51.2 47.7 812 301 53.8 51.6 48.2 813 320 45.5 43.4 39.9 814 292 57.7 55.5 52.1 815 294 56.8 54.7 51.2 816 296 55.9 53.8 50.4 817 284 61.1 59.0 55.6 818 298 55.1 53.0 49.5 819 294 56.8 54.7 51.2 Table 2 presents the residual system pressures for both the proposed development and the existing Pathways Co-Housing development when fire flows of 500 gpm and 1,000 gpm are imposed within the Rocky Hill development at Node 813. Table 3 presents the residual system pressures for both the proposed development and the existing Pathways Co-Housing development when a fire flow of 750 gpm is imposed within the existing development at Node 819. The minimum required residual pressure for adequate fire protection is 20 psi. The residual pressures within both the proposed Rocky Hill development and the existing development are above the 20 psi threshold under fire flow conditions. C:\ICxrrPE 1KYPIPMDG\BMo2_ROCxYHU-L.DOC Dewberry 31 St.James Avenue 617 695 3400 •�� 3rd Floor 617 695 3310 fax Dewberry Boston,Massachusetts 02116-4103 www.dewberry.com February 26, 2001 Berkshire Design Group 4 Allen Place Northampton, MA 01060 Attn: Mr. Bryan Jereb, Project Manager SUBJECT: Rocky Hill Co-Housing Development Florence Road Northampton, Ma Hydraulic Analysis Dear Mr. Jereb: In response to your request, Dewberry-Goodkind,Inc. (Dewberry)has conducted a hydraulic analysis of Northampton's water distribution system based on the information provided by your office to estimate the system pressures under fire flow conditions for the subject project location and evaluate any service impacts that the proposed development may impose on the existing water system. The proposed development is located off of Florence Road between Burt's Pit Road and Rocky Hill Road, approximately 1,000 feet south of the Pathways Co-Housing Development. The development has been evaluated based on extending an 8-inch water main from the existing 10- ' " inch water main in Florence Road through the development and connecting to the existing 8-inch main that serves the adjacent development which will provide a looped system. (See attached schematic). For the analysis,fire flows of 500 and 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm)were simulated at the highest fire hydrant location based on the development plans and elevations provided by your firm. This location is represented by Junction Node 813 on the schematic. Scenarios were run for average day,maximum day and peak hour demands. In addition, a fire flow of 750 gpm was simulated within the Pathways Co-Housing development under average day, maximum day and peak hour demands to evaluate impacts of the proposed development to existing services.This location is represented by Junction Node 819 on the schematic. Results of the hydraulic analyses conducted are summarized in the following tables, and are based on the City's current operating system gradient of 440 feet as provided by the pressure reducing station located on Haydenville Road. Copies of the KYPIPE computer output data files are included in Attachment A. Table 1 presents the static system pressures under normal demand conditions for the proposed development and the adjacent existing development located. Based on the hydraulic gradient, all of the units should have the minimum recommended working pressure for water systems of 35 pounds per square inch (psi) at the service connection. However, some of the higher elevated units that are at an elevation of approximately 325 feet Dewberry-Goodkind,Inc. Studies & Analysis Water Study Sanitary Sewer Study Development Impact Statement Environmental Impact Analysis r4 r', Ex zTC 13, � m F www W (p W J J h oW W W W W W U) V � U = _ Wow F- !�1 0 0 W W F- wwww U) F- F- co -j LL U) >) LL LL W 3 > W p rn F- 0OOoo F- W Wac I- F- w w Z �co W J_ J_ f0 (O f0 — aOOO F-W W W Zxx W W W � Fw- `o � � � � yv)� W3W � > f- F- F- cptn W W W F- ) RYYXxM coW W z 0 0 0 H m W W � wLL Mw Q' 40 W J J JQQ JJ4Q J > QQ J � � � p KJ wJ w x w w ?: a W Z J J¢¢ Q Q 6 Z0W O 3 0000000 - z 00 0 000o0 V) F- F- DF- F- F- F- J F- F- F- JF- F- F- JF- x O x x x x a x x x o x x x o x t o w S2 U-' (7 C9a0YC9U-' 6LDg g < (9 Q J J J J J Z J J J J — 0 a Z Q Q Q a Y a Q a Y Q Q Q Y o 0 � 0000a0 poa000ao 0 0 0 0 w W U W w ir W � O O - 0 0 0 0 o N - 0 � 0 0 � O N o Cl) W Z J a' v xo xxa x ci O� 00 � O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL X Z X LL LL -Ill C) ° � � � � � LL � � � � � 000m qm 0 wzw WW WW W z J J J W .J Y J J Y J J Y J Y lyly1wi c C7C owazoozoozozzzlx W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z » � Q Q Q � 1lI� W W W W Z W W Z W W WI3-.IWIW W W 3-.IWI lz 1W cn3' W3w v �e m00000000000000000 D 000 .- oo .- o .- oro � o � oo t N 1-1 N N N r N N N N M N — N Fm. D 0 oozoozozo an. - aa - a - a -� 0a --, 0a --,0a0 a od0Z 0 - 00 - 0 - ozoz0o E ¢ aaa ¢ ¢ aQaQaQa ¢ Qaa E 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N O N N_ N N N N N N CD M N V' 07 N N 00 G M f�0 M O C7 a s f0 '7 T U, w w 1l�r OQQ U Qw y p = m m w w w rnrn = U) U)iu~iv~jUpo rn UUU rn F- FF F U mF N ZZZF W W OW W OOF- F- F- HJLL 0W0 F- F Z UUUU � Z W F oWwWaaaY3333wwww = F3a3 000 m 3333WZa LL LL LL w w w coo rn ma m w w w F- F• F- F- F- F- F- F- � UUUUUUUUUUUUa' � UUma' U) 0. aa � � � � � � � � � � � � E- F- ZZ_ W W `p �Q Fes., J J J J J J J J J J J J U U W ¢ W Ir � aaawwwwwwwwwwwWM � M O mmm www maaaa aaaaoao z � a � aozz zwilri , 0,16 of U U U U U U U O U O LL U U U U O ws 3 U U U r Z L L L Q L L r � Q O = = O '- O = O O _ = '- O 1� J m tc co m O m m m � O m m S Q is �o m O O 000 O 00 O Q 5 0 0 0 O O O O O ma Q Q on 3a } } } } WF }a }a }a }a Fw } WF } } } } } �i �i 3QQOQ3Q3Q3QQQOQ33 000Q N 9 W W 4a m V O O LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL F- LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL m w 0555555555W5 � � 5555 � 5 � � � zw zwwwzzzz wwww zzzwwww C w J 1141, w J J J w w Y J J J J Y W W J J J J cr ¢ w < < < w w _ < < < < w x ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ Z.3:lzlw-3: Z.Wlolwl jw wwwz3wzw3 > lzlzlwlwl3 zzUw33ww3U3wwww v � m000000000000000000000 C O O - ON O O M at O O O -1-1-1- 0 t N N N N N N N N N N N N N N t1 N N N N N w� O - 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q z Q z Q z Q Q z z Q Q Q �z O z z Q Q Q Q 000 00 JcL - a - a. a - - aaa - n- m aa ¢ aa ¢ aa °' aaan. ¢ n a ¢ a ¢ aa E ° o ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lwi► tid6i. ri � � itiirii66i666i6466i: 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �V N N QO �V N N l7 f� W O Of P� a r r ° d' 01 r 01 f0 N f- V' M M O�f M O O N M 000 Ix 0 LLJ e W W WUw�y W U(AmZJmmmmm 1 yZZZ» Z wrn O�W W V)F-F-F-W 2m m m m m. tW W W QQQ Wm� 3W Wy0}F-F-F-F-F� �OOOt9U' � `' 33WO coo F- mcoo��o owwwmwww y0F-F-y(q {--FF-{-F-F'F-►-�W W W W W W W m yF=dd W W Q(nUl(nfnylnytnFUUUUUUU(p O(AFF��Z���������wwwwwwwm W W W W W W W W 2T DWW2 W0000000 Co 2 LL LL LL LL LL LL W J { W m L v v c io P� `m N m m m m m p O N N m m m m m O m so 3UV0:UV000UUVVUVUUUV00000 > 7 J J t L L Q L L t L L L L L L Q L L L L L Z.0 L _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ C- C J m m m m w w m m m w m m c m m m m m m a m - OoO �a000a00003000000�0� t303a�aa000�ao�0oa-aaaoa CL y W W W U O O O °mLL � t�L 0�xoLL�aLLLLLL� LL�LL�U�. w � 2 227->2 o 00 00000 0 0 a o mWzzwW wzzzzzWzwzwz wzww J W W J J Y J W w W W W J W J W J W Y J W J J cc 9mmC 9C9ZoxwwwwowwC7a'(.9a'ZC9a'C9C9 �aWWQ �aWW 46iW 6 Z<Oa y W(nW W Z y W W 33w (g3(Afq(gz(nW >zwyz3(p3yw3wwww yyw33.z33 m00000000000000000000000 O L N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m00-,-,00��0000-,00000-,-,00-, oaZZOozz0000zoaccoZZOOZ F- mm- -mm--m n.mm-mamma--mm- m m Q m m Q m Q Q m m m Q m m m m Q<M m m Q m Ho$°0000°000,0000000°0000,0000$oo°oo n o�c; Sri co�n v v of r�v v of bo rnmrnwrnwrnrnrnrnrnrnmrnrnarnmrno�rnaoa, } Of W� o� W W O W o1 m O�O Qf 01 01 of of Of CD o1 a!W W y O �_ O)� � T WONT WW010m��0» o�0) W WD)0101�0101 W N W @O,N a N O N O N N N Q N o N w A qin t�m � a`o m(��nmr rnvu,�wm(�vn ao 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F NNW Fuss&O'Neill Inc. go on ACCIDENT DATA on A on go 16 F AP2002\5 5 5\A 10\TIAS.d- SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Burts Pit/Florence Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 317 12003 urisdiction Proj 2002555.A10 Time Period PM PEAK Mitigated alysis Year 2007 BUILD Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume(v ph) 9 51 37 118 113 79 57 187 63 40 1271 16 ww % Heavyveh 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.83 10.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.78 0.78 Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 1 13.0 1 1 3.0 Pha sin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 24.0 G= G = G G= 26.0 G= G = G= �.. iming Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= JY= 5 Y= I Y= ly=. Duration of Analysis hrs = 0._5 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Ca acit , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 117 1373 379 419 Lane group cap. 678 553 686 736 ratio 0.17 0.67 0.55 0.57 een ratio 0.40 0.40 10.43 10.43 w Unif. delay dl 11.6 14.8 12.7 12.8 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm.delay d2 0.6 16.5 3.2 3.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Control delay 12.2 21.3 15.9 16.0 Lane group LOS B C B B pprch. delay 12.2 21.3 15.9 16.0 rproach LOS B C B B Intersec. delay 17.1 Intersection LOS B HCS200dm Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k325.tmp 3/7/2003 iiva a�vrvaa -o SHORT REPORT eneral Information Site Information owelyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St ' ency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas )ate Performed 31712003 Jurisdiction Proj 2002555.A10 "ime Period PM PEAK Mitigated nalysis Year 2007 BUILD )lume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT m. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .ane group L T TR L R Iume(v ph) 96 498 717 201 1230 235 Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 '1-117 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 uated(P/A) P P P P P P 3rtup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 =xt. eff. green 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 ww-ival type 3 3 3 3 3 A Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 'ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 04ne Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 irking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N 'arking/hr "is stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 joit Extension 3.0 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 2basing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 12.0 G= 48.0 G = G= G = 20.0 G= G= G = nln9 1Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= 1Y= IY= 5 Y= 1Y= Y= 3uration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 95.0 ine Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB 04j.flow rate 107 553 967 250 255 _,ne group cap. 379 1275 914 373 617 ✓c ratio 0.28 0.43 1.06 10.67 0.41 -een ratio 0.68 0.68 0.51 1 0.21 0.39 Unif. delay d1 10.0 16.7 23.5 34.5 21.1 pw;lay factor k 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 1.9 1.1 46.3 9.2 2.0 III factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 _.)ntrol delay 11.8 7.8 69.8 43.7 23.1 One group LOS B A E D C )prch.delay 8.5 69.8 33.3 Approach LOS A E I C tersec.delay 42.2 Intersection LOS D 9CS200dm Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c le:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kA6.tmp 3/10/200= SHORT REPORT * General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Burts Pit/Florence Agency or Co. Fuss&O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 31712003 Jurisdiction Proj 2002555.A10 Time Period AM PEAK Mitigated 1A nalysis Year 2007 BUILD Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Num.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR olume(v ph) 16 151 54 59 30 28 12 251 129 84 201 7 o Hea veh 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88. 0.88 0.88 ctuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P ,■. tartu lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext.eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 1 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 24.0 G = G = G = G = 26.0 G= G = G = Own iming Y= 5 Y= Y= ly= 1Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C= 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination OR EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 243 1195 417 331 Lane group cap. 702 496 761 640 /c G ratio 0.35 0.39 0.55 0.52 reen ratio 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.43 w Unif. delay d1 12.5 12.8 12.6 112.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 1.4 2.3 2.8 3.0 PF factor 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 , . Control delay 13.9 15.1 15.5 15.4 Lane group LOS B I B B B pprch. delay 13.9 15.1 15.5 15.4 ,.. Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 15.1 Intersection LOS B MCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c !tom file:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\kristalm\Local%2OSettings\Temp\s2k33B.tmp 3/7/2003 SHORT REPORT general Information Site Information o nalyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St gency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas -jate Performed 31712003 Jurisdiction Proj 2002555.A 10 Fime Period AM PEAK Mitigated rnalysis Year 2007 BUILD t+f "Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT um. of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 _ane group L T TR L R 'blume (v ph) 198 626 319 216 170 93 o Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 3HF 0.92 0.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 0.92 wbtuated (PIA) P P P P P P tartu lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext.eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 nit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 ane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr .us stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 hasi.ng EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 15.0 G = 35.0 G= G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = iming ]Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= 1Y= IY= 5 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C= 85.0 `.ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB o6dj.flow rate 215 680 582 185 101 ane group cap. 500 1205 725 416 745 v/c ratio 0.43 0.56 0.80 0.44 0.14 ireen ratio 0.65 0.65 0.41 0.24 0.47 Unif.delay dl 9.4 8.3 22.0 127.8 12.7 0"elay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 `lincrem. delay d2 2.7 1.9 9.2 3.4 1 0.4 *F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ;ontrol delay 12.1 10.3 31.1 31.2 13.1 .Lane group LOS B 8 I C C B .pprch.delay 10.7 31.1 24.8 proach LOS B C C "itersec.delay 19.7 Intersection LOS B HCS2006TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 Am ile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k9B.tmp 3/10/200 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Burts Pit/Florence Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 31712003 Jurisdiction Proj 2002555.A10 Time Period PM PEAK Mitigated Analysis Year 2007 NO BUILD �r. Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH I RT LT TH RT Num.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group ILTR LTR LTR LTR olume(v ph) 9 151 37 117 1113 79 57 185 63 40 269' 16 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.78. 0.78 0.78 Actuated(P/A) P P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 112.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 13-0 1 1 1 3.0 13.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 24.0 G = G = G = G = 26.0 G= G = G = .�. iming Y= 5 1Y= Y= 1Y= Y= 5 Y= 1Y= Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C= 60.0 Lane Group Ca acit , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 117 1372 376 417 Lane group cap. 678 1553 685 736 /c ratio 0.17 0.67 0.55 0.57 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.43 .■ Unif.delay d1 11.6 14.8 12.6 12.8 Delay factor k 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 Increm.delay d2 0.6 6.4 13.1 3.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 control delay 12.2 1 21.2 15.8 li�j- Apprch. Lane group LOS B C B delay 12.2 21.2 15.8 15.9 Approach LOS B C B B Intersec.delay 17.1 Intersection LOS B HCS2000T M Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k310.tmp 3/7/2003 "*vo-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY 'O"enerai Information Site Information .,ialyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St ,gency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction state Performed 314 12003 Analysis Year NO BUILD W/MITIGATION lal sis Time Period No Build PM Peak w/mit 'ro'ect Description 2002555.A10 st/West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street tersection Orientation: Norfh-South tud Period hrs : 0.25 fehicle Volumes and Adjustments **a'or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R @,;plume 170 128 5 5 266 19 eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.87 fourly Flow Rate, HFR 202 152 1 5 5 305 21 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 _ _ ledian Type Undivided (T Channelized 0 0 ,,Ones 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR stream Signal 1 0 1 0 ,,,Minor Street Westbound Eastbound 4ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 21 5 5 7 5 178 leak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.74 0.74 0.74 -lourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 8 8 9 6 1 240 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 0 2 0 0 'ercent Grade N 0 0 =fared Approach N N storage 0 0 IT Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 w- Configuration LTR LTR -)elay,Queue Length,and Level of Service 4pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound 'Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 202 5 50 255 (m)(vph) 1234 1423 157 644 vlc 0.16 0.00 0.32 0.40 Pm95% queue length 0.58 0.01 1.28 1.89 -,ontrol Delay 8.5 7.5 38.3 14.2 LOS A A E B 4pproach Delay — — 38.3 14.2 pproach LOS -- -- E B tie? ICS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4. 1�1 CilP-//('-\TlnrnmPntco/.?nand%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settin2s\Tema\u2k13.tmn 3/10/2Ot wttr SHORT REPORT .., General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas a� Date Performed 31712003 Purisdiction Proj 2002555.A10 Time Period PM PEAK Mitigated nalysis Year 2007 NO BUILD Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num.of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Lane group L T TR L R Volume(v ph) 96 496 1716 201 230 235 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.90 10.90 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 Actuated(P/A) P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext.eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 1 1 0 Unit Extension 13.0 13.0 3.0 1 1 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 1 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 12.0 G= 48.0 G = G = I G = 20.0 G = G = 1G = iming Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= 1Y= Y= 5 Y= 1Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 107 551 1966 250 255 �w Lane group cap. 379 1275 914 373 617 /c ratio 0.28 0.43 1.06 0.67 0.41 reen ratio 0.68 0.68 0.51 0.21 0.39 Unif.delay d1 10.0 6.7 23.5 34.5 21.1 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm.delay d2 1.9 1.1 146.0 1 9.2 2.0 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 11.8 7.8 69.5 43.7 23.1 Lane group LOS B A E D C pprch.delay 8.5 69.5 33.3 Approach LOS A E Intersec.delay 42.0 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c nA1 file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k388.tmp 3/7/2003 SHORT REPORT Or General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Burts Pit/Florence Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 31712003 Purisdiction Proj 2002555.A10 Time Period AM PEAK Mitigated nalysis Year 2007 NO BUILD Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR olume(v ph) 16 151 54 59 30 28 12 248 128 84 200 7 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.88 0.88 0.88 Actuated P/A P P P P P P P P P P P P �.. Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rival e 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 112.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 1 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 +t Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 24.0 G = G = G = G = 26.0 G = G = G= iming Y= 5 1Y= Y= 1Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C= 60.0 Lane Group Ca acit , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 243 1195 413 1330 Lane group cap. 702 496 761 1641 /c ratio 0.35 0.39 0.54 0.51 reen ratio 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.43 Unif.delay dl 12.5 12.8 12.6 12.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm.delay d2 1.4 2.3 2.8 2.9 PF factor L13.9 00 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 15.1 15.4 Lane group LOS B B B pprch.delay 13.9 15.1 15.4 15.3 ' 8 pproach LOS 8 8 8 Intersec. delay 15.0 Intersection LOS B NO HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c A file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k365.tmp 3/7/2003 "`wo-Way Stop Control Page 1 of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information knalyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St 5,gency/Co. Fuss&O'Neill Jurisdiction *Date Performed 31312003 Analysis Year NO BUILD W/MITIGATION 'knal sis Time Period No Build AM Peak w/mit :"ro'ect Description 2002555.A10 =ast/ West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street ntersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments dor Street Northbound Southbound lla' 4ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 146 257 10 5 101 7 'leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.61 0.61 0.61 -iourly Flow Rate, HFR 175 309 12 8 165 11 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — — Median Type Undivided ,RT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR J stream Signal 0 0 ,Minor Street Westbound Eastbound vlovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 10 5 5 19 5 146 'leak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.94 0.94 0.94 ;dourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 1 6 1 6 20 5 155 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 0 2 0 0 'ercent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 0 0 :ZT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR )elay,Queue Length,and Level of Service proach NB SB Westbound Eastbound -Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 -ane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR sk(vph) 175 8 24 180 (m)(vph) 1400 1239 239 641 /c 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.28 5%queue length 0.43 0.02 0.33 1.15 .ontrol Delay 7.9 7.9 21.7 12.8 LOS A A C B pproach Delay — — 21.7 12.8 proach LOS — — C B CS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 File:HC:\Documents%20and%2OSettin2s\steves\Local%2OSettings\Tema\u2k1 l .turn 1/10/20ff U11V1 awt.... . .ibv a vi t SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neil! Area Type All other areas Date Performed 317 12003 urisdiction Proj 2002555.A10 Time Period AM PEAK Mitigated nalysis Year 2007 NO BUILD Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num.of Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Lane group L T TR L R olume(v ph) 198 625 317 216 170 93 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.92 10.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 13.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 120 12.0 .. Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EB Only EW Perm 03 04 S13 Onl 06 07 08 G = 15.0 G= 35.0 G= G = G = 20.0 G= G = G= luring Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= JY= 5 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 1 Cycle Length C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination so, EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 215 679 580 185 1101 *0 Lane group cap. 501 1205 725 416 745 ratio 0.43 0.56 0.80 0.44 0.14 een ratio 0.65 0.65 10.41 0.24 0.47 Unif. delay d1 9.4 8.3 21.9 27.8 12.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 Increm.delay d2 2.7 1.9 9.0 3.4 10.4 PF factor 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 12.1 10.2 31.0 31.2 13.1 Lane group LOS B 8 I C C B pprch.delay 10.7 31.0 24.8 Approach LOS B C C Intersec. delay 19.7 Intersection LOS B HCS2000 T"t Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k37D.tmp 3/7/2003 t'111 yray .1wY N.vtluUl i a6C 1 VlL ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information rDM Intersection Burts Pit Rd/Frence Rd uss&ONeill,Inc. urisdiction med 3/4/03 al sis Year me Period [BUILD PM Peak Hour Project ID 2002555.A10 Eas ot/West Street:. Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road lume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 9 51 1 37 118 113 79 / oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 57 187 63 40 271 16 /oThrus Left lane 50 1 50 "a Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 l2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Flow Rate 112 362 360 383 %Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 we INo.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-rums 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 Departure Headway and Service Time ,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.34 d,final value 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 final value 0.22 0.65 0.63 0.68 Move-up time,m 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 rvice Time 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 362 519 534 536 Delay 12.16 20.96 19.65 21.78 LOS B C C C Approach:Delay 12.16 20.96 19.65 21.78 LOS B C C C Intersection Delay 20.02 Intersection LOS C file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k9C.tmp 3/4/2003 Iwv-vvay vrvp %—viluv, i a6c i vi i wills TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Florence/Site Drive wo Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 314 12003 alysis Year 2007 Analysis Time Period Build PM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Proposed Site Roadway North/South Street: Florence Road Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 346 20 3 423 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 346 20 3 423 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided TT Channelized 0 0 1ei Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 1 1 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 11 0 2 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 3 13 C (m)(vph) 1204 392 /c 0.00 0.03 95%queue length 0.01 0.10 Control Delay 8.0 14.5 LOS A B P pproach Delay -- -- 14.5 proach — B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.is file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k99.tmp 3/4/2003 aiiv.L k-, 'F"'L race 1 OI 1 III SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Route 66/Florence Rd Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill, Inc. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 314103 Jurisdiction Time Period BUILD PM Pk Hour alysis Year Volume and Timing Input . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR olume(v ph) 23 98 37 52 188 41 56 302 38 22 370 30 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P H F 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated(P/A) P P P P P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension MNO 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/BikeIRTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 1 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 20.0 G = G = G IG= 20.0 G = k= jy=G= Timing Y= 5 1Y= Y= ly= Y= 5 Y= = Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C= 50.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 166 296 417 444 Lane group cap. 686 683 677 728 /c ratio 0.24 0.43 0.62 0.61 �w Green ratio 0.40 10.40 0.40 10.40 Unif. delay dl 10.0 10.9 11.9 11.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.20 0.20 Increm. delay d2 0.8 2.0 1.7 1.5 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.8 12.9 13.6 13.4 Lane group LOS B B B B pprch. delay 10.8 12.9 13.6 13.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec.delay 13.0 Intersection LOS B HCS1000 i Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kA6.tmp 3/4/2003 iwo-way stop UontroI Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 314 12003 Analysis Year nal sis Time Period Build PM Peak Project Description 2002555.A 10 N East/West Street: Grove Street orth/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 7 5 178 21 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.60 0.60 0.60 w Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 6 240 34 1 8 1 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — — Median Type Undivided + RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 170 128 5 5 266 19 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.87 + Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 202 152 1 5 5 1 305 1 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 tMr► Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR I LTR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 lr Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 9 34 359 331 (m)(vph) 1602 1320 405 577 /c 0.01 0.03 0.89 0.57 95% queue length 0.02 0.08 9.08 3.61 Control Delay 7.3 7.8 53.1 19.3 LOS A A F C Approach Delay — — 53.1 19.3 w Approach LOS — — F C HCS2000TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kDl.tmp 3/4/2003 WO-way 3tUP w11tr0t Page 1 of i TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information >nal st KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neil! Jurisdiction ;Date Performed 314 12003 Analysis Year nal sis Time Period Build PM Peak 'ro'ect Description 2002555.A10 ast/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street tersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 "Jehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' a'or Street Eastbound Westbound '>`,lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Mume 96 498 0 0 717 201 'Weak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 106 553 0 0 754 211 percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — edian Type Undivided .T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 41!onfiguration LT TR stream Signal 0 0 _Minor Street Northbound Southbound lovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 230 0 235 "eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 .'sourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 249 0 1 255 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 ` ercent Grade N 0 0 fared Approach N N Storage 0 0 ON .T Channelized 0 0 'Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,configuration I i LR ela , Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound "Olovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 3ne Configuration LT LR v(vph) 106 504 (m)(vph) 714 152 we 0.15 3.32 queue length 0.52 47.94 ontrol Delay 10.9 LOS B F *pproach Delay — — ipproach LOS — — F ;CS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c le:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k91.tmp 3/10/2003 ncpuit Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT ,eneral Information Site Information "Oialyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST 7ency or Co. 2007 Future Conditions STREET Date Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar Qme Period PM Peak Hour Jurisdiction alysis Year PM Build 'olume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB w LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT .gym.of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 _ane group L R L T TR plume(v ph) 153 535 384 489 673 136 ,,o Heavy veh 1 1 1 1 2 2 'HF 0.88 0.88 0.90 10.90 0.85 0.85 ;tuated P/A P P P P P P ,-..artup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 =xt.eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ,, rival type 3 3 3 3 3 iit Extension 3.0 13.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 9 0 ne Width 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 ;irking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N -2 N Parking/hr ' is stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 *asing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only. 07 08 G = 28.0 G = G = G= G = 41.0 G= 31.0 G= G = ming Y= 3 Y= Y= 1Y= JY= 4 Y= 3 Y= 1Y= lration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 CycleLengthC = 110.0 ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB " Jj.flow rate 174 608 427 543 952 --.one group cap. 396 784 593 1248 1169 44%ratio 0.44 0.78 0.72 0.44 1 0.81 'een ratio 0.25 0.56 1 0.69 0.69 0.37 Unif.delay dl 34.4 18.6 28.8 7.5 31.1 ;lay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.5 7.4 7.4 1.1 1 6.0 00�factor 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 �,mtrol delay 37.9 26.0 36.1 8.6 37.1 Wne group LOS D C D A D 1prch.delay 28.7 20.7 37.1 Approach LOS C C D tersec. delay 28.8 Intersection LOS C iCS20OdM Copyright C2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c e:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k76.tmp 3/10/2003 tXii-vvay 3wY L,VUU01 Page 1 Of 2 we ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information al st DM Intersection Burls Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. uss&O'Neill,Inc. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4103 Analysis Year al sis Time Period UILD AM Peak Hour Project ID 2002555.A10 East/West Street:. Bugs Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 16 151 54 59 30 28 /.Thrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 12 251 129 84 201 7 /aThrus Left Lane 50 1 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR an PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 246 130 1 439 326 %Heavy Vehicles 0 2 1 1 1 0 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 uration,T 0.25 ' ! aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 Prop.Right Tums 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 9.7 hadj,computed 6.34 6.34 6.34 6.34 e D arture Headway and Service Time d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.22 0.12 0.39 0.29 d,final value 6.34 6.34 6.34 6.34 final value 0.43 0.25 0.69 0.55 ove-up time,m 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rvice Time 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Ca aci and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 wu Capacity 496 380 613 559 Delay 14.08 11.98 20.13 16.08 LOS B B C C Approach:Delay 14.08 11.98 20.13 16.08 LOS B B C C ! ' Intersection Delay 16.74 Intersection LOS C file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k67.tmp 3/4/2003 Iwo-way stop uontroi Page 1 of TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Inalyst eneral Information Site Information KDM Intersection Florence/Site Drive + ► Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 31412003 Analysis Year 2007 Analysis Time Period Build AM Peak. Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Proposed Site Roadway North/South Street: Florence Road Intersection Orientation: North-South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 399 8 1 313 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 399 1 8 1 313 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT upstream Signal 0 1 0 wtr Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 25 0 4 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 1 D 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 1 29 C (m)(vph) 1163 422 /c 0.00 0.07 5%queue length 0.00 0.22 Control Delay 8.1 14.2 LOS A B pproach Delay — — 14.2 pproach LOS — — B Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c ! file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k94.tmp 3/4/2003 31101L PUPU11 rage 1 oI i AIR SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Route 66/Florence Rd Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill, Inc. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 314103 Jurisdiction Time Period BUILD AM Pk Hour nalysis Year Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR olume (v ph) 51 237 70 25 72 13 29 343 61 38 289 21 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93. 0.93 0.93 Actuated(P/A) P P P P P P A A A A A A r Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 12.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 „ Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 20.0 G= G = G = G= 20.0 G = G = G = Iming Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs =0.25 Cycle Length C= 50.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 385 118 466 375 + Lane group cap. 698 658 714 696 /c ratio 0.55 0.18 0.65 0.54 Green ratio 0.40 1 0.40 1 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay d1 11.5 9.7 12.2 11.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.14 Increm. delay d2 3.1 0.6 2.1 0.8 PF factor 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 1 1.000 Control delay 14.7 10.3 14.3 12.3 Lane group LOS B B B B prch. delay 14.7 10.3 14.3 12.3 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec.delay 13.5 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k170.tmp 3/4/2003 i VVV yray uWp vviiuvi rage 1 of 1 M, TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St !•�! Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 31412003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Build AM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 EastlWest Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 19 5 146 10 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 1 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.79 0.79 o. Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 5 1 155 12 1 6 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 — 2 — — Median Type Undivided , t RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 .w L T R L T R Volume 146 257 10 5 101 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.61 0.61 0.61 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 175 1 309 1 12 8 1 165 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 *0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR .w Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 20 12 496 184 C(m)(vph) 1607 1419 655 651 lc 0.01 0.01 0.76 0.28 95% queue length 0.04 0.03 6.94 1.16 Control Delay 7.3 7.6 25.6 12.7 LOS A A D B Approach Delay — — 25.6 12.7 Approach LOS — — O B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k83.tmp 3/4/2003 two-way stop t-onirol Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY general Information Site Information 'nal st KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St enc /Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 31412003 Analysis Year "'`final sis Time Period Build AM Peak -ro'ect Description 2002555.A10 ast/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street itersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 lehicle Volumes and Adjustments a'or Street Eastbound Westbound ''. lovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 198 626 0 0 319 216 eak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 215 1 680 1 0 0 346 234 3ercent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — ledian Type Undivided .T Channelized 0 0 -anes 0 1 0 0 1 0 `'.onfiguration LT TR stream Signal 1 0 1 0 inor Street Northbound Southbound lovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 0 170 0 93 `eak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 sourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 184 1 0 1 101 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 'ercent Grade(%) 0 0 -tared Approach N N Storage 0 0 ,T Channelized 0 0 '_anes 0 0 0 0 0 0 * onfiguration LR jela ,Queue Length,and Level of Service 4pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound "lovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 <:ane Configuration LT LR _v(vph) 215 285 (m)(vph) 994 135 vlc 0.22 2.11 1,5%queue length 0.82 23.33 'ontrol Delay 9.6 578.0 LOS A F ",pproach Delay -- -- 578.0 ,pproach LOS — __ F �WS200dM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 .le:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k8E.tmp 3/10/200: ihort Report Page 1 of A SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information ""malyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST kgency or Co. Future Conditions STREET Date Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar .Time Period AM Peak Hour Jurisdiction nalysis Year AM Build Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT lum. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 ane group L R L T TR folume(v ph) 121 464 395 473 620 135 % Heavy veh 0 0 1 1 1 1 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 kctuated (P/A) P P P P P P .,;tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 1 2.0 Ext. eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 -vrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 1 9 0 .ane Width 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 ,larking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N I N -2 N Parking/hr tus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 �Whasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 G = 22.0 G = G = G = G = 49.0 G = 29.0 G = G = iming IY= 3 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= 3 1Y= Y= uration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C= 110.0 .ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB dj.flow rate 132 504 429 514 888 .ane group cap. 314 690 633 1346 1409 /c ratio 0.42 0.73 0.68 0.38 0.63 green ratio 0.20 0.49 10.75 0.75 0.45 Unif. delay d1 38.4 1 22.2 24.0 5.0 23.5 Way factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.1 6.7 5.8 0.8 2.1 F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 'ontrol delay 42.5 28.9 29.7 5.8 25.6 ane group LOS D C C A C >pprch.delay 31.7 16.7 25.6 pproach LOS C B C itersec. delay 23.8 Intersection LOS C HCS200d M Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 +wn _ile:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k50.tmp 3/10/200: Ali-Way stopControl rage 1 of 2 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information nal st DM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd wM enc /Co. uss&O'Neill,Inc. Jurisdiction Date Performed 4103 al sis Year al sis Time Period O BUILD PM Peak Hour Project ID 2002555.A10 .s East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound e� Movement L T R L T R olume 9 51 37 117 113 79 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 ON roach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R Volume 57 185 63 40 269 16 /.Thrus Left Lane 50 50 ww Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 1-1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 am onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR HF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Flow Rate 112 361 358 381 Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 xQ No No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 uration,T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet rop.Left-rums 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 rop.Right-Turns 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 a HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 De arture Headway and Service Time d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ,initial 0.10 0.32 0.32 0.34 d,final value 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 "" final value 1 0.22 0.65 0.63 0.67 ove-up time,m 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 rvice Time 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 an apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound ■w L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 362 520 536 537 Delay 12.11 20.73 19.39 21.46 � . LOS 8 C C C Approach:Delay 12.11 20.73 19.39 21.46 LOS 8 C C C intersection Delay 19.77 intersection LOS C 40 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k3.tmp 3/4/2003 An-way stop t-onirot ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information MPerformed DM Intersection Burls Pit Rd/Florence Rd uss&O'Neill,Inc. Jurisdiction e Analysis Year 4/03 Period INO BUILD PM Peak Hour Project ID 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Burls Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 9 51 37 117 113 79 / oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R olume 57 185 63 40 269 16 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Flow Rate 112 361 358 381 %Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 on aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Tums 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 an Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 4M HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 De arture Headwa and Service Time ymp d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ,initial 0.10 0.32 10.32 0.34 d,final value 7.11 7.11 7.11 7.11 as ,final value 0.22 0.65 0.63 0.67 Move-up time,m 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.1 40 Ca pacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 362 520 536 537 Delay 12.11 20.73 19.39 21.46 LOS 8 C t C C Approach:Delay 12.11 20.73 19.39 21.46 LOS 8 C C C Intersection Delay 19.77 Intersection LOS C file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k3.tmp 3/4/2003 snort Keport rage l of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Route 66 1Florence Rd Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill, Inc. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 314103 Jurisdiction Time Period NO BUILD PM Pk Hour nalysis Year *� Volume and Timing Input EB W13 NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT * ! Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (v ph) 22 98 37 52 188 27 56 297 38 14 367 30 " % Hea veh 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95. 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext.eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rival e 3 3 3 3 +*� Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08. G = 20.0 G = G = G= G = 20.0 G = G = G = +•� iming Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Length C = 50.0 Lane Group Ca acit , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 165 1281 412 433 Lane group cap. 690 685 677 738 /c ratio 0.24 0.41 0.61 0.59 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 10.40 Unif.delay d1 10.0 10.8 11.9 11.8 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.18 Increm. delay d2 0.8 1 1.8 1.6 1.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Control delay 10.8 12.6 13.5 13.0 Lane group LOS B B B B pprch.delay 10.8 12.6 13.5 13.0 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 12.8 Intersection LOS B HCS2000T-%, Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kD.tmp 3/4/2003 IWO-VVay OwY wRLIU1 rage 1 01 1 RM �. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 31412003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West [Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 on L T R L T R Volume 7 5 178 21 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 1 0.74 0.74 0.60 0.60 0.60 no Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1 6 240 34 8 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR .. Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 170 128 5 5 266 19 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 202 1 152 1 5 5 305 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay,Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 w. Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 9 34 359 331 C (m)(vph) 1602 1320 405 577 /c 0.01 0.03 0.89 0.57 5%queue length 0.02 0.08 9.08 3.61 �. Control Delay 7.3 7.8 53.1 19.3 LOS A A F C Approach Delay — -- 53.1 19.3 pproach LOS — — F C HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2klF.tmp 3/4/2003 IWV VQy UlVP \.v11uV1 1 C1�G 1 Vl 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St ■• Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 313 12003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period No Build PM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 +w L T R L T R Volume 96 496 0 0 716 201 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 106 551 1 0 0 753 211 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided + + RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR a.. Up stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 230 0 235 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 249 1 0 255 - ---f Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 w Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration LR ... Delay, Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 106 504 C (m)(vph) 714 152 /c 0.15 3.32 95% queue length 0.52 47.94 Control Delay 10.9 LOS B F pproach Delay — — pproach LOS — — F KCS2000T", Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic WI file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kBC.tmp 3/4/2003 non tcepon rage i of i SHORT REPORT eneral Information Site Information 61 alyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST lency or Co. 2007 Future Conditions STREET ,ate Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar ,Ane Period PM Peak Hour urisdiction nalysis Year PM No Build plume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT im.of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 ane group L R L T TR low Ilume(v ph) 135 528 371 489 673 135 /o Heavy veh 1 1 1 1 2 2 'HF 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 Auated(P/A) P I P P P P P .artup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 :xt.eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 ""rival type 3 3 3 3 3 lit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 'ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 0 9 0 "`ne Width 11.0 111.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 >-arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N -2 N 'arking/hr is stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 mit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 **asing I EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 G= 28.0 G = G = G = G = 41.0 G= 31.0 G= G= ming Y= 3 IY= Y= 1Y= IY= 4 Y= 3 1Y= 1Y= ration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 110.0 ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB 04j.flow rate 153 600 412 543 951 .jne group cap. 396 784 593 1248 1169 ,&ratio 0.39 0.77 0.69 0.44 0.81 -een ratio 0.25 0.56 0.69 10.69 0.37 Jnif.delay d1 33.9 18.4 28.3 7.5 31.1 ;lay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 ncrem. delay d2 2.8 7.0 6.6 1.1 6.0 01C factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 .ontrol delay 36.7 25.4 34.9 8.6 1 137.1 ,,,,,@ne group LOS D C C A D )prch.delay 27.7 20.0- 37.1 4pproach LOS C B D tersec.delay 28.3 Intersection LOS C fCS200dm Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved version 4.1c 3/10/2003 -e://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k76.tmp L-llt-way aLUP WIIUUi iarc i Ut ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Anal IKDM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd Agency/Co. [Fuss&O'Neill,Inc. Jurisdiction Date Performed FW03 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period INO BUILD AM Peak Hour Pro'ect ID 2002555.A10 so East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound on ovement L T R L T R otume 16 151 54 59 30 28 %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 roach Northbound Southbound 'o Movement L T R L T R Volume 12 248 128 84 200 7 %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 am Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR an PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 246 130 434 325 /o Heavy Vehicles 0 2 1 0 am No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Tums 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 rop.Right-Tums 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 Sam hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 De arture Headway and Service Time ' d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ,initial 0.22 0.12 0.39 0.29 d,final value 6.31 6.31 6.31 6.31 Oft final value 0.43 0.24 0.68 0.54 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rvice Time 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 496 380 613 560 Delay 14.01 11.94 19.68 15.95 LOS B B C C Approach:Delay 14.01 11.94 19.68 15.95 LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 16.50 Intersection LOS I C file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k10A.tmp 3/3/2003 anon tcepon Ui i w SHORT REPORT General Information ite Information Analyst KDM Intersection Route 66/Florence Rd Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill, Inc. rea Type All other areas Date Performed 313103 urisdiction Time Period NO BUILD AM Pk Hour nalysis Year w� Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT ,ter Num.of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR olume(v ph) 50 237 70 25 72 8 29 341 61 21 282 20 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Actuated P/A P P P P P P A A A A A A + � Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival e 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N I N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 1 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 20.0 G= G = G I G= 20.0 G = G = G = iming IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= JY= 5 Y= 1Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Length C = 50.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 384 1113 464 348 Lane group cap. 700 658 716 720 /c ratio 0.55 0.17 0.65 0.48 ®.. Green ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 10.40 Unif.delay dl 11.5 9.7 12.1 11.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.11 Increm.delay d2 3.1 0.6 2.1 0.5 PF factor 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 on Control delay 14.6 110.2 1 14.2 11.7 Lane group LOS I B B 8 00 Apprch.delay 14.6 10.2 14.2 11.7 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 13.3 Intersection LOS B Mm Version 4.1 c HCS1000Tt"t Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved 40 file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k106.tmp 3/3/2003 Two-Way Stop Control rage i of i 4 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 31312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period No Build AM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Grove Street orth/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 19 5 146 10 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 20 1 5 1 155 12 1 6 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 146 257 10 5 101 7 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.61 0.61 0.61 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 175 309 12 8 1 165 1 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 w Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration i LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ON Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 20 12 496 184 C(m)(vph) 1607 1419 655 651 ON /c 0.01 0.01 0.76 0.28 95% queue length 0.04 0.03 6.94 1.16 40 Control Delay 7.3 7.6 25.6 12.7 LOS A A D B proach Delay — -- 25.6 12.7 om vp roach LOS — I — D B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c 4 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k131.tmp 3/3/2003 i wv-ryay OLUP i TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St • Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 3/3/2003 Analysis Year nal sis Time Period No Build AM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West [Study Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 +A* L T R L T R Volume 198 625 0 0 317 216 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 1 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 215 679 0 0 344 234 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR on Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 170 0 93 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 184 0 101 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delav,Queue Len th,and Level of Service proach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 215 285 C(m)(vph) 996 137 ** /c 0.22 2.08 5%queue length 0.82 23.12 Control Delay 9.6 563.6 LOS A F pproach Delay 1 — — 563.6 pproach LOS I — — F HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k131.tmp 3/4/2003 hort Report rage 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT 3eneral Information Site Information 001alyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST jency or Co. 2007 Future Conditions STREET )ate Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar GGme Period AM Peak Hour Jurisdiction nalysis Year AM No Build Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT .um. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 one group L R L T TR )lume(v ph) 120 448 390 473 620 135 % Heavy veh 0 0 1 1 1 1 F 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 �tuated (P/A) P P P I P P P Aartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 ::Xt. eff.green 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 rival type 3 3 3 3 3 ".,nit Extension 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 red/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 9 0 ane Width 11.0 111.0 112.0 14.0 12.0 arking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N -2 N arking/hr us stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 O-Ohasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 G= 22.0 G = G = G= G= 49.0 G = 29.0 G= G = ,iming IY= 3 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 3 1Y= Y= �puration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 CycleLengthC= 110.0 ane Grou Ca acit , Control Dela , and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB dj.flow rate 130 487 424 514 1 888 `Lane group cap. 314 1690 633 11346 1409 arlc ratio 0.41 10.71 0.67 10.38 0.63 ')reen ratio 0.20 10.49 0.75 0.75 0.45 Unif. delay dl 38.4 121.8 23.8 5.0 23.5 relay factor k 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.0 6.0 5.6 0.8 2.1 `F factor 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 11.000 1.000 Control delay 42.4 27.8 29.4 5.8 25.6 ane group LOS D C C I A C pprch. delay 30.9 16.5 25.6 pproach LOS C B C itersec. delay 23.4 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c OR 40 3/10/2003 ,ile:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k6B.tmp All-Way Stop Control MR ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information EKDM Intersection Bugs Pit Rd/Florence Rd Co. uss&O'Neill,Inc. urisdiction rformed 1/6/03 al sis Year Time Period 1EXfS TING PM Peak Hour Project ID 2002555.A10 w EastlWest Street: Butts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound wle Movement L T R L T R Volume 6 37 L 30 108 86 28 %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 1 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 46 171 58 16 248 12 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 �r Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Flow Rate 85 260 323 323 %Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 1 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 top.Right-Tums 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 aw HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 6.05 1 6.05 6.05 6.05 «� De arture Headway and Service Time d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.08 0.23 0.29 0.29 aft d, o final value 6.05 6.05 6.05 6.05 final value 0.14 0.43 0.49 0.50 ve-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rvice Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound w L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Li L2 Capacity 335 510 573 573 Delay 10.05 13.21 13.48 13.81 ++� LOS B B B B Approach:Delay 10.05 13.21 13.48 13.81 LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 13.22 Intersection LOS B file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k46.tmp 3/4/2003 "0 Short Report SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Route 66/Florence Rd Agency or Co. Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 117103 Jurisdiction Time Period EXISTING PM Pk Hour nalysis Year Volume and.Timing Input - EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR ILTR LTR ILTR Volume(v ph) 19 71 34 39 128 25 52 269 31 13 335 28 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated(P/A) P P P P P P A A A A A A tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rival type 3 3 3 3 OR Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 1 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 '" Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 w Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3. Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 20.0 G = G = I G = G = 20.0 G = G = G= *� lming Y= 5 1Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 I Cycle Length C= 50.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 131 1202 371 396 Lane group cap. 692 690 676 739 /c ratio 0.19 0.29 10.55 0.54 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 10.40 0.40 Unif.delay d1l 9.7 10.2 11.5 11.5 Delay factor k 0.50 10.50 0.15 0.14 Increm.delay d2 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Control delay 10.3 11.3 12.5 12.2 Lane group LOS B B B B pprch. delay 10.3 11.3 12.5 12.2 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec.delay 11.9 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k50.tmp 3/4/2003 1wo-way stop k-:ontrol TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill urisdiction Date Performed 31412003 nal sis Year Analysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 5 5 65 20 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.60 0.60 0.60 *� Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 1 6 87 33 8 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — — Median Type Undivided 4ew RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 �•w L T R L T R Volume 90 40 5 5 80 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.87 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 107 47 5 5 91 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 .w Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR rLane a ,Queue Length,and Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 t Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR ph) 6 33 159 101 C (m) (vph) 1602 1501 699 707 /c 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.14 5%queue length 0.01 0.07 0.87 0.50 .� Control Delay 7.3 7.5 11.7 10.8 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- — 11.7 10.9 proach LOS -- I -- B 8 HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k54.tmp 3/4/2003 Two-Way Stop Control TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill 5urisdiction Date Performed 314 12003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Existing PM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West [Study Period hrs : 0.25 Am Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 45 470 0 0 680 90 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 *� Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 50 1 522 0 0 715 94 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — -- Median Type Undivided + RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 rolume nor Street Northbound Southbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 0 0 0 60 0 105 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 65 1 0 114 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR D elay,Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ++ [ane Configuration LT LR vph) 50 179 m)(vph) 817 248 0.06 0.72 5% queue length 0.20 4.95 Control Delay 9.7 49.8 F p S A E proach Delay — — 49.8 proach h LOS — — E HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k63.tmp 3/4/2003 short Kepon SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information ""lnalyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST agency or Co. Existing Conditions STREET Date Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar 4ime Period PM Peak Hour Jurisdiction nalysis Year PM Existing it and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Ium.of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Lane group L R L T TR 'olume(v ph) 80 370 260 465 640 100 % Heavy veh 1 1 1 1 2 2 'LP HF 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.85 0.85 kctuated P/A P P P P P p ,-;tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext.eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rival type 3 3 3 3 3 lnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 1 0 9 0 MM .ane Width 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 -larking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N -2 N larking/hr Sus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 3.0 1 1 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 hasin EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 iming G = 28.0 G = G = G= G = 41.0 G = 31.0 G = G = Y= 3 1Y= Y= 1Y= IY= 4 Y= 3 1Y= 1Y= uration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C= 110.0 _ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB dj. flow rate 91 420 289 517 871 mane group cap. 396 784 615 1248 1175 /c ratio 0.23 0.54 0.47 0.41 0.74 3reen ratio 0.25 0.56 0.69 0.69 0.37 Unif.delay d1 32.5 15.0 23.2 7.4 29.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm.delay d2 1.4 2.6 2.6 1.0 4.1 F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 control delay 33.8 17.6 25.8 8.4 34.0 ane group LOS C B C A C %pprch.delay 20.5 14.6 34.0 pproach LOS C B C ntersec. delay 23.7 Intersection LOS C HCS2006TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.14 At11 ale://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k76.tmp 3/10/200: rX11 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst IKDM Intersection IBurls Pit RdlFlorence Rd Agency/Co. lFuss&O'Neill,Inc. Jurisdiction Date Performed 1116103 Analysis Year al sis Time Period 1EXISTING AM Peak Hour Pro'ect ID 2002555.A10 am East/West Street:.Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics roach Eastbound Westbound me Movement L T R L T R /olume 12 121 43 54 24 9 %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 9 229 118 35 185 5 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 '® Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 196 96 399 251 %Heavy Vehicles 0 2 1 0 +� No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headwa Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Tums 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 Prop.Right-Tums 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 Prop.Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67 De arture Headway and Service Time - d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.17 0.09 0.35 0.22 d,final value 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67 ,final value 0.31 0.16 0.56 0.38 Move-up time,m 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 ow apacity 446 346 649 501 Delay 11.18 10.30 14.08 11.63 so LOS B B B 8 Approach:Delay 11.18 10.30 14.08 11.63 LOS B B B B w Intersection Delay 12.44 Intersection LOS B #AD file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristahn\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k36.tmp 3/4/2003 Short Report rage i of > SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Route 66/Florence Rd Agency or Co. Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 117103 Jurisdiction Time Period EXISTING AM Pk Hour nalysis Year or. Volume and.Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Ja Num. of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume(v ph) 46 173 65 20 50 7 27 313 48 19 255 18 am % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P H F 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10.93 Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 rrival type 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 "' Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 1 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = wA Timing Y= 5 Y= Y= 1Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C= 50.0 Lane Group Ca acit , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 305 84 1418 313 Lane group cap. 696 667 719 725 /c ratio 0.44 0.13 0.58 0.43 Green ratio 0.40 1 0.40 0.40 0.40 Unif.delay dl 10.9 9.5 11.7 10.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.17 0.11 Increm. delay d2 2.0 0.4 1.2 0.4 PF factor 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Control delay 12.9 9.9 12.9 1 11.3 Lane group LOS B A B B is pprch.delay 12.9 9.9 12.9 11.3 pproach LOS B A B B Intersec. delay 12.2 Intersection LOS B HCS100dm Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k40.tmp 3/4/2003 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 31412003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period lExistingAM Peak Project Description 2002555.A10 East/West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 AW Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 5 5 75 10 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.79 0.79 0.79 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 5 1 5 79 12 1 6 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 40 85 10 5 35 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.61 0.61 0.61 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 48 102 1 12 8 1 57 1 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 4K Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 5 12 162 73 C (m) (vph) 1607 1513 805 777 /c 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.09 5%queue length 0.01 0.02 0.75 0.31 Control Delay 7.2 7.4 10.6 10.1 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- — 10.6 10.1 pproach LOS -- — B B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c 4II�! file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristatm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k22.tmp 3/4/2003 MEMEEMORIMINow iwo-way )top l-OnLI01 • u�� j �i 1 .. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 31412003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Existing AM Peak Project Description 2002555.A 10 East/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 70 595 0 0 300 65 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 '** Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 76 1 646 1 0 0 1 326 70 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR so Upstream Signal 0 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 40 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 75 0 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 w Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 0 81 0 54 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 J 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration I LR Del ay,Queue Length,and Level of Service proach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 76 135 C (m) (vph) 1163 281 lc 0.07 0.48 95%queue length 0.21 2.45 Control Delay 8.3 29.1 LOS A D Approach Delay -- -- 29.1 pproach LOS — -- D HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.lc file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k33.tmp 3/4/2003 i use, 1 Vl 1 SHORT REPORT 3eneral Information Site Information 40\nalyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST \gency or Co. Existing Conditions STREET )ate Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar ime Period AM Peak Hour Jurisdiction nalysis Year AM Existing Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB 4" LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT Jum.of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 _ane group L R L T TR /olume(v ph) 90 345 255 450 590 65 % Heavy veh 0 0 1 1 1 1 3HF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 actuated (P/A) P P P P P P 3tartup lost time 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff.green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Jnit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 'ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 9 0 a""_ane Width 11.0 11.0 1 12.0 14.0 12.0 -larking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N -2 N 'arking/hr '3us stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Jnit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 hasin EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 G= 22.0 G = G = G = G = 49.0 G = 29.0 G= G = Timing Y= 3 Y= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= 3 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs =0.25 C cle Len th C= 110.0 _ane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 98 375 277 489 770 _ane group cap. 314 690 672 1346 1426 /c ratio 0.31 0.54 0.41 0.36 0.54 3reen ratio 0.20 0.49 0.75 0.75 0.45 Unif. delay d1 37.5 19.4 15.2 4.9 22.3 " )elay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.6 3.1 1.9 0.8 1.4 F factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 �,ontrol delay 40.1 22.5 17.1 5.6 23.7 Ewe group LOS D C B A C %pprch. delay 26.2 9.8 23.7 pproach LOS C A C "ntersec.delay 19.0 Intersection LOS B 9CS200d M Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 #A! ile:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k5D.tmp 3/10/200: aw Fuss&O'Neill Inc. w HIGHWAY CAPACITY WORKSHEETS 15 FAP2002�555WOMAS.doc 4" TD.0 N W{Irt 176 sGek,MAO 1760 Telephone. 54A 651.1610 TAwNSPORTATION Fax ";6$7.1719 t1i� N/S•Florence Road p 90AP°a"r10N Pager 1800)e9ao763 File Name :01782BB E/W:Burts Pit Road . Site Code : 02001740 State,City:Northampton,MA Stm Date : 11/14/200 Client:Fuss &O'Neill/M.Chase G Page No : 1 tou Prin s�d-Tludcs Fbrance Rand 11WU Pk ROW Florrnos Road Suess Pa Row Flom Noel% From East From South Fm_m Wat Start e R M Thru ht rU Left Thou ht �_ I Oft fAt TOGS 04:00 PM 0 1� 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 --07 --- 2 04:15 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0430 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04.45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ' ;w 0 2 21 0 1 01 0 0 01 0 0 0 5 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 _ Total 6 2 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 �o -0 3 Grand Total 0 4 2� 0 1 0 I 0 0 0� 0 0 1 � 6 APprch% 010 66.7 33.3 0.0 100.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 go Total% 0.0 60.0 25.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 F1Grenas Road BUft Ptt ROed Flow"Road Buns pit Raw _ From N*1h _ Fmn East F rom Sant+ Fenn West tw Leif Leff Trohl Right Tlxv lelt TAI Right Thru Left � Int TOW aak mwf Fmm 04.00 PM to U3-:e5 -Pak 1 Of t - +� int mmm ion 44:00 PM 4 Vdww 0 2 2 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Percent 0.0 50.0 50.0 1 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 04:15 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Volume Peek Factor 0.626 Ktgh K 44:00 PM 44:45 PM 3:45:00 PM 1 3:45:00 PM VOILYM 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1I 1 Peak Factor 0.500 0250 ` s 23 Walnut Sisal !W TD NaGA.41A01760 TpANSFOgTAT10N ias�Ona(Soo)651 12" N/S:Florence Road wn►ooaPOFUnoN v,ya1: (800)09" as He Name : 01782BB 00 E/W:Burts Pit Road Site Code :02001740 State,City:Nordmmpton,MA Start Date '.- 11/14/200 Client:Fuss&O Neil/M.Chase Page No : 1 O+Ro Pttrtted-Cm-Tntdcs lord +noi R� aorta PR Rand flotsnctt ot,0 8utht Pk oed Fttm Nom From East Flom South Flom West Lrt tme ht Thou _ laA Thru LMl M lhfv O f Ulu L N1t Ts� .. 04:a0 PM 75 5 10 23 34 12 52 16 10 10 1 250 04:15 PM 5 59 4 4 19 32 13 40 13 5 8 4 205 04:30 PM 3 64 2 3 20 27 18 48 10 3 7 0 203 04:45 PM 2 50 5 11 25 15 16 33 7 12 12 1 188 TOW 11 248 16 28 88 108 - ~171 30 3f 8 848 05:00 PM 1 60 1 13 23 19 7 51 10 7 11 1 204 05:15 PM 3 51 5 8 17 20 18 34 17 7 8 2 190 05:30 PM 5 48 2 9 14 25 9 42 18 11 16 1 200 _ 05:45 PM 3 35 5 4 31 28 . 16 38 12 10 10 0 190 TOW 12 194 13 34 85 50 165 57 35 45 4- G,"Total 24 442 29 62 171 198 108 334 103 tab 82 10 1830 TOW% 1b 27.1 1.6` 14.4 36 10.5 12.11 19.7 6.8 206 18.6 63 44.0 b50 08, kl Orm Rml bunt Rood Flomms Road aurb ROW From North Fran East _ Fmm South From Wert I ShRTstte RlOht 7htu Lek T Riphl Thtu Left TaW Right Thw LWt Right ilutt Lratl InLToW Peak Hour F`iom 04:00 PM 10 05.48 PIS'- oak 7 o(1 Intarsecdon 04.00 PM Vdume 12 248 18 276 28 88 108 222 58 171 48 275 30 37 8 73� 846 Penot nt 4.3 - 89.9 5.8 12.8 38.7 48.6 21.1 62.2 16.7 41.1 50.7 8.2 04'00 2 75 6 82 10 23 34 67 12 52 18 80 10 -10 1 21I 250 VOWS 410 Pe2k Factor - 0.848 High K 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM (04:45 PM Vdurm 2 75 5 82 10 23 34 87 12 52 16 801 12 12 1 25 Peak Factor 0.841 . 0.828, 0.859 0.7301 w 00 w aw TDC NN w.nu S ee eact,MA 01760 Tilp SO )851.1610 hom.I TRANSPORTATION ou: 508 65r 1229 CATAOOAPO'1R Pager. ISM)89&07W F17e Name • 41782B /S: Florence Road /W:Burts Pit Road Site Code : 02001740 State,Cite:Northampton,MA Start Date : 11/14/2001 ,client: Fuss&O'Neill/M.Chase Page No : 1 Groups Primed-Umcks Fkxmca fted Buts Pit Road F1wvnW Rood � Runs Ph Road From W(M From East Flom South Flom West Stitt • nt m yr LeR Thru Lart he ru T+t Tnn, Lart Int Toatir +tse 07:00 AM 0 1 0 1 �0 1 4 0 0 0 0 7 07:15 AM 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 07:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 07:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Tctw 1 3 21 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 18 08:00 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 08:15 AM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 08:30 AM 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 5 08:45 AM 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 9 1 8 0 2 0 1 0 3 -1 -"- 2 0 0 18 Grand Total 2 11 2 5 0 1 2 10 1 2 0 0 38 go Apprch% 13.3 73.3 13.3( 83.3 0.0 18.7 I 15.4 78.9 7.7 I '100.0 0.0 0.0 Total% 5.8 30.6 5.8 13.9 0.0 2.8 5.6 27.8 2.8 5.6 0.0 0.01 8urb Pil Road Raw �- sum Pt Road From%am Frarn_East From scum Frain WS I swd Tim. ATOM fin+ w TOW "I'lt Uru lal! TOW R'ght Thru L-R Ta�oel Ripht Thnr left tnt Tooml Peak Hour From 07:00 AIM to 08:46 AM-Pak 1 or 1 4MI. Intfartecdon 07:00 AM Volume 1 3 2 6 3 0 0 3 2 7 0 9I 0 0 0 0 18 Percent volume 50.0 33.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 07'00 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 7 _ . 40k Peak Factor ( 0.643 1410 Int. 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:00 AM 6:45:00 AM Volume 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 2 1 4 0 5 Peek Factor 0.500 0.375 I 0.450 wr ' eta a>arr 010 23 TDC NaucA�MA01760 I Phom (WS O51-1610 TRANSP S�pN T:x! 508)651-im N/S: Florence Road D iORRTICT pa per: (WO)8984763 '""";/W:Bums Pit Road File Name : 01782B Site Code :02001740 .tate,City:Northampton,lv1.A Start Date 11/14/2001 Client Fuss &O'Neill/M.Chase Page No : 1 G Orvu Printed-Cars-Tnxics Flor�ncs R 6urd Rosa Nice Raw 6uA►PA Road From North from East _ Fmm SaA From Wpt f — '°Ur Lett Riaht L--Dai Left - Right I Thm I Lan ht I 'lmi La Irtl Tm1 07:00 ,1 0 40 5 1 5 7 _ 29 48 5 29 001�171 00 07:16 AM 1 49 8 3 5 13 48 63 1 14 28 2 238 07:30 AM 1 49 7 2 6 17 22 52 1 10 22 4 193 i 07:45 AM 1 58 11 3 4 13 32 61 2 11 38 2 234 k Total 3 198 31 �6' 20 50 132 224 7 40 �115 81 ___--9—.35 attlttt 08:OOAM 2 29 9 1 9 11 15 53 5 8 351- 4 181 08:15 AM 1 33 11 3 2 11 25 67 7 10 26 2 198 08:30 AM 4 31 10 8 8 8 22 50 4 6 27 2 180 —� 08:45 AM 1 47 _ 4 3 5 13 20 46 2 11 17_ 3 172 — Total B 140 13 24 43 62 2 8 '^ 18 37 106 11 731 Grand Total 11 338 66 22 44 93 214 440 25 77 220 19 1568 '40 Total% 0.7 21.5 14.2 I 11 A 2.8 55.9 I 13.7 8.1 1.6( 24.4 4.9 14.0 12 I Floienra o�C 8uro Pa Road Fit noro Pit Rood From Nash From East From South From West Stag Tlma RqM Tttru Leta TOW Right T1>ru�Lattt TToePi1 Right Thru Left �P' Right 1 �LaRT- TohPi! Inl Total ," r rem 0 :00 AM m OO:Ib AM-Paak 1 d 1 ' iii... �._ Inkiraection 07:16 AM i Volume 5 185 35 225 9 24 54 87 118 229 9 358 43 121 12 176 B44 Pem ernt 2.2 82.2 15.6 10.3 27.6 62.1 33.1 64.3 2.5 24.4 68.8 6.8 07:15 1 49 8 58 3 5 13 21 49 63 1 113 14 28 2 44 236 Volume Peak Factor 1 0.894 40 1 I High Int. 07:45 AM 07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07.45 AM Vokime 1 58 11 70 2 6 17 251 49 63 1 1131 11 38 2 49 Peak Factor 0.804 0.870 0.788 0.898 atw . w Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. 78 Interstate Drive ,IIIIplm: West Springfield, MA 01089 File Name : 200255-1 eekday PM Peak 413-452-0445 Site Code : 00022555 lorence Rd / Rocky Hill Road Start Date : 12/11/200'l !@sthampton, MA Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Passenger Vehicles-Heayy Vehicles From North From East From South From West tart Time Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left !Pe!dj: App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Righ Thru Left Ped App. Int. t s Total t Total t s Total t s Total Total Factor 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 ---1.01 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.0 07:00 AM 5 55 6 0 66 4 13 3 0 20 6 58 8 0 72 9 29 13 0 51 209 7:15 AM 4 55 7 0 66 3 13 1 0 17 9 77 11 0 97 22 34 18 0 74 254 607:30 AM 7 71 3 0 81 3 12 2 0 17 5 86 14 0 105 6 39 17 0 62 265 07:45 AM 7 78 5 0 90 4 9 3 0 16 5 85 12 0 102 10 46 16 0 72 280 Total 23 259 21 0 303 14 47 9 0 70 25 306 45 0 376 47 148 64 0 259 1008 08:00 AM 1 51 3 0 55 10 16 1 0 27 8 65 11 0 84 8 54 14 0 76 242 8:15 AM 4 57 5 0 66 2 11 3 0 16 10 76 14 0 100 5 37 11 0 53 235 08:30 AM 0 51 5 0 56 4 12 2 0 18 8 59 14 0 81 8 39 20 0 67 222 08:45 AM 4 54 4 0 62 1 9 5 0 15 4 57 10 0 71 9 30 12 0 51 199 Total 9 213 17 0 239 17 48 11 0 76 30 257 49 0 336 30 160 57 0 247 898 Grand 32 472 38 0 542 31 95 20 0 146 55 563 94 0 712 77 308 121 0 506 1906 Total Apprch% 5.9 87.1 7.0 0.0 21.2 65.1 13.7 0.0 7.7 79.1 13.2 0.0 15.2 60.9 23.9 0.0 Total% 1.7 24.8 2.0 0.0 28.4 1.6 5.0 1.0 0.0 7.7 2.9 29.5 4.9 0.0 37.4 4.0 16.2 6.3 0.0 26.5 II0 From North From East From South From West Righ Ped App. igh Ped App. Righ Ped App. Righ Ped App. Int. Start Time Left Thru t s Total t s Total Left Thru t s Total Left Thru t s Total Total eak Hour From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM-Peak 1 of 1 Ontersectio 07:15 AM n Volume 19 255 18 0 292 20 50 7 0 77 27 313 48 0 388 46 173 65 0 284 1041 Percent 6.5 87.3 6.2 0.0 26.0 64.9 9.1 0.0 7.0 80.7 12.4 0.0 16.2 60.9 22.9 0.0 07:45 7 78 5 0 90 4 9 3 0 16 5 85 12 0 102 10 46 16 0 72 280 Volume Peak 0.929 Factor High Int. 07:45 AM 08:00 AM 07:30 AM 08:00 AM Volume 7 78 5 0 90 10 16 1 0 27 5 86 14 0 105 8 54 14 0 76 Peak 0.811 0.713 0.924 0.934 Factor Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 40 40 MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS 44% 14 FAP2002\555\A10\T1AS.doc ieatner Licai rousted by: KDM TAS for Windows Site Code : 121320020100 roject Number: 2002555.A10 Copyright 1999 Start Date: 12/08/2002 11 Times Ahead by 1 Hour File I.D. DECMBERVOL street name :Florence Rd Both Page 3 3egin Mon. 12/22 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Weekday Avg. Sat. Sun. 'ime SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB 2:00 am 0 0 26 22 22 35 * + + * 16 19 + * * + )1:00 0 0 25 22 15 25 * * * * 13 16 72:00 0 0 8 10 7 8 * * * * 5 6 )3:00 0 0 3 5 2 3 * * * * 2 3 )4:00 0 0 13 11 18 6 * * * * 10 6 jW5:00 0 0 40 41 33 28 * * * * 24 23 )6:00 0 0 97 140 78 122 * * * * 58 87 )7:00 0 0 160 213 143 223 * * + * 101 145 + )8:00 0 0 192 232 179 199 * * + * 124 144 * * « )9:00 0 0 204 210 166 212 * * * * 130 141 0:00 0 0 217 237 229 240 * * * * 149 159 1:00 0 0 250 226 - 290 238 * * * * 180 155 12:00 pm 0 0 254 211 306 266 * * * * 187 159 * • * + )1:00 72 53 232 222 * * * « « * 152 138 J2:00 210 198 293 271 * + x + * * 252 234 + 03:00 202 219 324 245 * * * * * * 263 232 - J4:00 231 211 344 264 * * * + + * 288 238 * « + :)5:00 164 174 260 246 * * * « * * 212 210 * « « 06:00 156 160 205 187 + * * * * * 180 174 37:00 132 113 163 120 * * x + * * 148 116 * + + 4*8:00 128 112 114 117 * * * * * * 121 114 * t « 39:00 73 58 110 93 * * * * * * 92 76 10:00 60 60 67 74 * * * * + * 64 67 11:00 47 65 57 86 * * * * « * 52 76 « * * « totals 1475 1423 3658 3505 1508 1605 0 0 0 0 2823 2738 0 0 0 0 2898 7163 3113 0 0 5561 0 0 Avg. Day 52.21 51.91 129.51 128.06 53.4& 58.61 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Oft .094 01 AM Peaks 11:00 10:00 11:00 10:00 11:00 10:00 "volume 250 237 290 240 180 159 PM Peaks 04:00 03:00 04:00 02:00 12:00 12:00 04:00 04:00 Volume 231 219 344 271 306 266 288 238 ADTs MAIL 'ounted by: KDM TAS for Windows Site Code : 121320020100 roject Number: 2002555.A10 Copyright 1999 Start Date: 12/08/2002 11 Times Ahead by 1 Hour File I.D. DECMBERVOL ,reet name :Florence Rd Both Page 2 Begin Mon. 12/15 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Weekday Avg. Sat. Sun. rime SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB W:00 am 30 31 10 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 1:00 19 17 9 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 0 2:00 9 10 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 ,j3:00 7 6 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 04:00 0 7 13 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 155 00 11 21 66 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 14 0 0 0 0 6:00 20 44 129 146 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 38 0 0 0 0 ' 7:00 56 49 216 297 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 69 0 0 0 0 .;8:00 91 96 44 71 1 0 0 0 0 0 27 33 0 0 0 0 09:00 125 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 26 0 0 0 0 10:00 165 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 26 0 0 0 0 *01:00 187 188 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 38 0 0 0 0 --2:00 Pm 196 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 43 0 0 0 0 01:00 206 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 38 0 0 0 0 02:00 197 212 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 42 0 0 0 0 0*3:00 226 201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 40 0 0 0 0 4:00 232 167 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 33 0 0 0 0 5:00 184 155 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 31 0 0 0 0 06:00 144 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 32 0 0 0 0 07:00 134 106 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 21 0 0 0 0 408:00 111 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 17 0 0 0 0 9:00 62 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 15 0 0 0 0 0:00 44 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 11 0 0 0 0 .1:00 24 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 Totals 2480 2383 493 598 1 0 0 0 0 0 593 594 0 0 0 0 #A 4863 1091 1 0 0 1187 0 0 ,vg. Day 418.2% 401.1* 83.14 100.68 .1* .0* .04 .04 .0* .0* .0* .0* .0* .0* AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 07:00 07:00 08:00 07:00 07:00 Volume 187 188 216 297 1 54. 69 'M Peaks 04:00 12:00 04:00 12:00 Volume 232 217 46 43 #si weacner : �-- ......... .........,.,�_..�. ,&unted by: KDM TAS for Windows Site Code : 121320020100 -oject Number: 2002555.A10 Copyright 1999 Start Date: 12/08/2002 ll Times Ahead by 1 Hour File I.D. DECMBERVOL __reet name :Florence Rd Both Page 1 Begin Mon. 12/08 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Weekday Avg. Sat. Sun. Time SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB :00 am ' * * • • r • « • * + * * * 40 32 1:00 « • • • • r + • • * + • « • 24 24 2:00 « « • • + • + • • • : • • • 8 10 03:00 ' * * * * * * + * • s « * r 5 5 04:00 • • : • • * • + • r + • * + 7 5 W 00 22 35 6:00 * r « • • + • * * * * * * * 39 68 7:00 • « • • + r r « * « + * « * 97 86 08:00 * * * * « • * ♦ • * + « * « 127 133 09:00 * * * * + + r + • • + r • * 178" 139 40:00 ' • * : « r • r * « * * * * 191 196 :00 * * « « _ • * * * * * * * 213 174 225 194 2:00 pm * * * * ' ' : * * • * * 194 209 192 211 01:00 * * • • * ' • : • • * * 192 208 212 193 02:00 * • • « + + * * * * * * 268 273 186 212 403:00 • * • ' ' * * * • * * * 351 277 214 196 4.00 * ' * * • ' • ' * * * * 339 271 218 193 x:00 « « « « « * * * * * * * 321 261 190 175 06:00 • * • ' ' ' * ' ' * * • 215 180 148 134 07:00 * • • • * * * * * * * * 152 146 109 119 ! 8:00 * * * • « 120 113 98 91 9:00 * : « « « r r • « « r * 120 123 88 87 0:00 ' * • « « * « * * * * * 81 113 87 95 11:00 • * * ' * * * * * * * * 51 45 66 83 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2617 2393 2771 2716 0 0 0 0 0 0 5010 5487 #Iel "--vg. Day • « « • « r * « • « • « « « AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 04olume 213 174 225 196 M Peaks 03:00 03:00 04:00 02:00 Volume 351 277 218 212 40 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS 13 F:\P2002\555\A10\TIAS.doe M s� R �— `O C-4 113 Bt1RT5 PIT ROAD 51 37 -t O C-4 M �2 1( _o �6 m Q M V" 5 MN M ,8B _ 52 �Zi 7!-J 23� 5__' ( 178 � I 98 1 r-N� 37--) 900" Un o o ra 9� h9 f mew Fuss & O'Neill 0 c+w FIGURE 9 2007 BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES IIRU HM 200ZM"10 DAZE: 3/WW SCALES KM on N +A� 3S� 3gS3 R r-04co 30 I I — r-59'J BIJRTS PIT ROAD -) 151 54---) N o 1 (_o 1 25 _`•5 NNM 2 f (-10 25 s t9J 146 2Y --) 237 ) N 70--) ��� M ro M O 6 Fuss &O'Neill Al. ftaft aft= 0 c+w FIGURE 8 2007 BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1PRU N0. 002MA10 GAIL 3,--40 SCALE: KM 1�If MR wr N no 9 ��. N ` 70.4 BURTS t'IT ROAD N C M r- L-2 k ar N M CO �—,4 � S 2� � Fuss & O'Neill Jv c+w 0 FIGURE 7 TRIPS GENERATED PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROD.HM W025M A10 DAZE: 3/2= SOME HTS N ■ R 3 f BUR7'S T ROAD O Lo (-25 jf � �. S N III Fuss &O'Neill ftftft- Do= c+w �- 0 FIGURE 6 TRIPS GENERATED w. AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROD,NM ZX2M A10 DAIS 3/WW SCALE NTS sr N s� rn h fONO.r ,13 17 BURTS PIT ROAD � 51� � 11 37 Ln Coc Or w �• �-27 � `5 "oj� f- 52 J( — J �. 2, S 1 � 7 J I 5-.-'- 1 r- 22 r 98 178-----) oNU) 37---) LnNr7 �w �n o N N �2°b i L b� 4g6 qm ra Fuss & O'Neill 0 c++�o FIGURE 5 2007 NO BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PML NQ 20M5N6.A10 DATE: 3/2003 SCALE: KM 4 R N 7350 S `. 390 s � r-C14OOD 59 i1 (- BY TS PIT ROAp i 16-J 151 - p 54--) NON C-4 (�l C 0Z: � W � _ C14 �g n�'� _ 5 NNN 7L5 JjL 1 } �—LJ " 15 �I a 1 � 50 146 `.g Nr 70--) NdZo M d/A O 1 19a� 625 a • All Fuss & O'Neill 0 FIGURE 4 2007 NO BUILD.CONDITIONS AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROWL N0. 2002MLA10 DAZE 3/WW SCALE 1M A N ■ ■ w 6 10, 260 R AAA NNtO 86 x--,08 t 08 BURTS PIT ROAD 377 I I 30-- �i:co O C NAry- 128 �" + �-20 J+ I (-39 J ,J i 19� 0 6 � 7, N� Im 34--) ,nNA7 mo a Fuss & ONeill J V ftmft- am= c+w 0 FIGURE 3 2002 EXISTING CONDITIONS i PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROD.N& 00nW A10 DAZE: 3/`1003 W LE: KM N ss ?"A to R � �00 j �54 J BURTS PIT ROAD -) 121 43-1 °'04 N�" wo C Z� ar W aw to �7 tnMtn 5 mNrn 50 K � 1 � (--0 J IB X20 � ,per 11 5 1 46— ) 1 5--- 173 75� g ao�_ 65--) NMst �Innn ti6pp J 9 5 _( Fuss & O'Neill 0 FIGURE 2 2002 EXISTING.CONDITIONS AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PRU NO. 2o02M A10 DACE 3/2= SCA L N13 /r91�� �6�✓�J�_ i, (�((�ff/�J////////1//� � �� .tit ,>,� ��?a'" -�w� � � ��. �v/J g �A�-�lI��� �"'_' �� � ..-t+'fK.yj~•�f �{��15/��i '{•• 1. Rip am Eve, 0. IRA _ ♦ : �1� alit r . Fuss&O'Neill 78 Intwatate EWIve, west Springfiel FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION • •• L • 1/ 0 ASSOC. NORTHAMPTON,MASSACHUSETTS No. 2002555 Alo DATE: MARCH 2003 SCALE. 1*-2000' Fuss&O'Neill Inc. a� w - w �+ FIGURES 1 -9 12 FAP2002\555\A l0\TIAS.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX FIGURES 1 —9 MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS HIGHWAY CAPACITY WORKSHEETS ACCIDENT DATA we we 11 FAP2002\555\A 10\TIAS.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 4. The available intersection and stopping sight distance at the proposed site roadway intersection with Florence road is more than adequate for safe visibility of vehicles for intersection operations. 5. The incremental increase in peak period traffic demand resulting from the project at the intersections of Florence Road/Route 66,Route 10/ Earle Street, and West Street/Elm Street is of insufficient magnitude to affect the nature, scope or cost of any proposed transportation infrastructure improvements required to mitigate the impacts of other major development proposals in the vicinity. 10 F:\P2002\5551A 10\TIAS.doc No Fuss&O'Neill Inc. rM SIGHT DISTANCE Two sight distance measurements were recorded in the field:stopping sight distance(SSD)and intersection sight distance.Stopping sight distance determines the minimum distance required to safely avoid an obj ect with a height of 2 feet in the roadway at the intersection,representing the taillights of a stopped vehicle waiting to turn into the site driveway.Intersection sight distance (ISD) determines the minimum distance needed for vehicles traveling on the main road and those exiting a minor street or driveway to be able to see each other across the corners of the intersection for safe intersection operations.Average running speeds measured with radar are 40 mph northbound and 42 mph southbound.Table 7 illustrates the required sight distances for the ° average running speed on Florence Road and the available sight distance measured in the field. Using the prevailing operating speeds on Florence Road, there is adequate intersection and stopping sight distance at the site driveway intersection location. TABLE 7 DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE(FEET) Stopping Sight Distance* Intersection Sight Distance** w Approach Required Measured Required Measured Florence Road at site Northbound 360 900 500 950 driveway Southbound 360 820 500 900 • Table V-2,Minimum Stopping Sight Distance for Wet Pavements from AASHTO"Geometric Design of Highway and Streets". *• Table V-1 I Comer Sight Distances at Rural Intersections from AASHTO"Geometric Design Of Highways and Streets". CONCLUSIONS Based on the review and analysis of existing and projected traffic conditions in the project area,the following is concluded. 1. The proposed residential development will generate approximately 38 vehicles(9 entering and 29 exiting) during the weekday morning hour (7:15 to 8:15AM) and 36 vehicles (23 entering and 13 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour(4 to 5PM). 2. Traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 5 percent on Florence Road south of the site during the peak commuting hours.The peak hour increase in traffic at the intersection of Route 66/Florence Road is anticipated to be less than 3 percent. 3. The intersection of Route 66 / Florence Road is anticipated to continue to operate at an overall level of service B during peak traffic hours with or without the project. Vehicle delays (average stopped time per vehicle) are expected to increase by less than 1 second when comparing the 2006 No Build condition (future conditions without development traffic)to the 2006 Build condition(future conditions with development traffic). go 9 F:\P2002\555\AIO\TIAS.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. a TABLE 6 ■ PERCENT CAPACITY UTILIZATION CHANGE IN V/C RATIO) 2007 No Build 2007 Build FLOW V/C FLOW V/C % RATE RATIO RATE RATIO CHANGE Intersection/Approach AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM w - Route 9/West St Route 9 EB Thru/Right 888 951 0.63 0.81 888 952 0.63 0.81 0.0% 0.0% Route 9 WB Left 424 412 0.67 0.69 429 427 0.68 0.72 1.5% 4.3% Route 9 WB Thru 514 543 0.38 0.44 514 .543 0.38 0.44 0.0% 0.0% West St NB Left 130 153 0.41 0.39 132 174 0.42 0.44 2.4% 12.8% West St NB Right 487 600 0.71 0.77 504 608 0.73 0.78 2.8% 1.3% Overall 0.59 0.68 0.60 0.69 1.2% 1.2% Route 10/Earle St �+ Route 10 EB Left 215 107 0.43 0.28 215 107 0.43 0.28 0.0% 0.0% Route 10 EB Thru 679 551 0.56 0.43 680 553 0.56 0.43 0.0% 0.0% Route 10 WB Thru/Right 580 966 0.8 1.06 582 967 0.8 1.06 0.0% 0.0% Earle St SB Left 185 250 0.44 0.67 185 250 0.44 0.67 0.0% 0.0% Earle St SB Right 101 255 0.14 0.41 101 255 0.14 0.41 0.0% 0.0% Overall 0.59 0.73 0.59 0.73 0.0% 0.0% Grove St/Earle St Grove St EB Leftnlru/Right 180 255 0.28 0.4 180 255 0.28 0.4 0.0% 0.0% Grove St WB Leftnlru/Right 24 50 0.1 0.32 24 50 0.1 0.32 0.0% 0.0% " Earle St NB Left/Thru/Right 175 202 0.13 0.16 175 202 0.13 0.16 0.0% 0.0% Earle St SB Leftrfbru/Right 8 5 0.01 0 8 5 0.01 0 0.0% 0.0% Overall 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.29 0.0% 0.0% Route 66/Florence Rd Route 66 EB Leffi/ibufRight 384 165 0.55 0.24 385 166 0.55 0.24 0.0% 0.0% Route 66 WB LeWrhru/Right 113 281 0.17 0.41 118 296 0.18 0.43 5.9% 4.9% Florence Rd NB Left/Thru/Right 464 412 0.65 0.61 466 417 0.65 0.62 0.0% 1.6% Florence Rd SB Left/Thru/Right 348 433 0.48 0.59 375 444 0.54 0.61 12.5% 0.0% w Overall 0.53 0.51 0.55 0.53 2.9% 2.7% Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd Burts Pit Rd EB Left/I'hru/Right 243 117 0.35 0.17 243 117 0.35 0.17 0% 0% Burts Pit Rd WB Lefl/Thru/Right 195 372 0.39 0.67 195 373 0.39 0.67 0% 0% Florence Rd NB Left//ThnvRight 413 376 0.54 0.55 417 379 0.55 0.55 2% 0% Florence Rd SB Lefl/Thn1/Right 330 417 0.51 0.57 331 419 0.52 0.57 2% 00/0 Overall 0.47 0.56 0.47 0.56 1% 0% 8 FAP2002\55RA 10MA S.doc a Fuss&O'Neill Inc. w movements at the improved intersections with the addition of the proposed site traffic. TABLE 5 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERICE SUMMARY WITH HOSPITAL HILL MITIGATION 2007 No Build 2007 Build with Mitigation with Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS Intersection/Approach AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Route 10/Earle St Route 10 EB Left 12.1 11.8 B B 12.1 11.8 B B Route 10 EB Thru 10.2 7.8 B A 10.3 7.8 B A Route 10 WB Thru/Right 31.0 69.5 C E 31.1 69.8 C E Earle St SB Left 31.2 43.7 C D 31.2 43.7 C D Earle St SB Right 13.1 23.1 B C 13.1 23.1 B C Overall 19.7 42.0 B D 19.7 42.0 B D Grove St/Earle St Grove St EB Left/Thru/Right 12.8 14.2 B B 12.8 14.2 B B Grove St WB Left/Thru/Right 21.7 38.3 C E 21.7 383 C E Earle St NB Left/Thru/Right 7.9 8.5 A A 7.9 8.5 A A Earle St SB Left/Thru/Right 7.9 7.5 A A 7.9 7.5 A A Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd Burts Pit Rd EB Lt/Th/Rt 13.9 12.2 B B 13.9 12.2 B B Burts Pit Rd WB Lt/Th/Rt 15.1 21.2 B C 15.1 21.3 B C Florence Rd NB Lt/Th/Rt 15.4 15.8 B B 15.5 15.9 B B Florence Rd SB Lt/Th/Rt 15.3 15.9 B B 15.4 16.0 B B Overall 15.0 17.1 B B 15.1 17.1 B B INCREMENTAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS A methodology was developed to calculate the proportion of available capacity being utilized by the project at the study area intersections,possibly representing the project's share of responsibility for implementation of required improvements. The volume to capacity(v/c) ratio was calculated for each traffic movement under the No Build and Build conditions, assuming the Hospital Hill improvements to be in place. The percent change in the v/c ratio between the No Build and Build results was then calculated.This percent change represents the portion of available capacity being utilized by the proposed project. An overall weighted average v/c ratio change was calculated for each intersection in the study area. The maximum portion of available intersection capacity being used by the project is approximately 3% at the Route 66 / Florence Road intersection. No improvements are required at this location to accommodate any of the programmed projects accounted for in this analysis. At the other intersections in the study area,the project's protion of capacity utilization was 0 to 2 percent,a figure likely below the threshold of accuracy of the analysis or possible variation in input data, so is therefore insignificant. 7 ET2002\555W OMAS.doc a Fuss&O'Neill Inc. TABLE 4 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERICE SUMMARY e 2002 Existing 2007 No Build 2007 Build Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Intersection/Approach AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Route 9/West St Route 9 EB Thru/Right 23.7 34.0 C C 25.6 37.1 C D 25.6 37.1 C D Route 9 WB Left 17.1 25.8 B C 29.4 34.9 C C 29.7 36.1 C D Route 9 WB Thru 5.6 8.4 A A 5.8 8.6 A A 5.8 8.6 A A West St NB Left 40.1 33.8 D C 42.4 36.7 D D 42.5 37.9 D D �* West St NB Right 22.5 17.6 C B 27.8 25.4 C C 28.9 26.0 C C Overall 19.0 23.7 B C 23.4 28.3 C C 23.8 28.8 C C Route 10/Earle St Route 10 EB Lef rFhru 8.3 9.7 A B 9.6 1.0.9 A B 9.6 10.9 A B Earle St SB Left/Right 29.1 49.8 D F 563.6 >900 F F 578.0 >900 F F Grove St/Earle St Grove St EB Left/Thru/Right 7.2 7.3 A A 7.3 7.3 A A 7.3 7.3 A A Grove St WB Leffi/Thru/Right 7.4 7.5 A A 7.6 7.8 A A 7.6 7.8 A A Earle St NB Left/Thru/Right 10.6 11.7 B B 25.6 53.1 D F 25.6 53.1 D F Earle St SB Lef(rhru/Right 10.1 10.9 B B 12.7 19.3 B C 12.7 19.3 B C Route 66/Florence Rd Route 66 EB Left/Thru/Right 12.9 10.3 B B 14.6 10.8 B B 14.7 10.8 B B Route 66 WB Left/Thru/Right 9.9 11.3 A B 10.2 12.6 B B 10.3 12.9 B B w Florence Rd NB Lt/Th/Rt 12.9 12.5 B B 14.2 13.5 B B 14.3 13.6 B B Florence Rd SB LtrI'h/Rt 11.3 12.2 B B 11.7 13.0 B B 12.3 13.4 B B Overall 12.2 11.9 B B 13.3 12.8 B B 13.5 13.0 B B Site Rd/Florence Rd Site Rd WB Left/Right 14.2 14.5 B B Florence Rd SB Lef rrhru N/A N/A 8.1 8.0 A A Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd �. Burts Pit Rd EB Lv Th/Rt 11.2 10.1 B B 14.0 12.1 B B 14.1 12.2 B B Burts Pit Rd WB Ltgl/Rt 10.3 13.2 B B 11.9 20.7 B C 12.0 21.0 B C Florence Rd NB LV Th/Rt 14.1 13.5 B B 19.7 19.4 C C 20.1 19.7 C C Florence Rd SB Lt/Th/Rt 11.6 13.8 B B 16.0 21.5 C C 16.1 21.8 C C Hospital Hill Mitigation The proposed intersection improvements associated with the Hospital Hill project will restore acceptable operating conditions to all locations expected to experience congestion impacts due to the development of that project. The incremental increase in traffic due to the Rocky Hill Cohousing project can be accommodated by the improved intersections without significantly increasing delay for individual movements. Level of service will remain unchanged for all 6 FAP2002055U 10\TIAS.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. w TABLE 3 ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT 2007 No 2007 Build Increase Build Percent (Veh/Hr) (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) WEEKDAY MORNING Florence Road north of Driveway 701 706 5 0.71% Florence Road south of Driveway 722 755 33 4.57% Intersection of Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd 1017 1022 5 0.49% Intersection of Route 66/Florence Rd 1216 1249 33 2.71% Intersection of Route 10/Earle St 1619 1622 3 0.19% Intersection of West Street/Elm Street 2186 2208 22 1.01% WEEKDAY EVENING Florence Road just north of Driveway 728 733 5 0.69% Florence Road just south of Driveway 757 788 31 4.10% a. Intersection of Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd 1036 1041 5 0.48% Intersection of Route 66/Florence Rd 1226 1257 31 2.53% Intersection of Route I O/Earle St 1974 1977 3 0.15% Intersection of West Street/Elm Street 2348 2370 22 0.94% Table 3 illustrates the traffic volume increases in the study area.Traffic is anticipated to increase by less than 5 percent at all locations during the morning and the afternoon peak periods. Capacity Analysis A capacity analysis of traffic during the peak periods of the day was conducted to determine how well the intersections could handle the additional traffic.Table 4 presents a summary of the capacity analysis results. As illustrated in Table 4,the overall level of service at the intersectins in close proximity to the project will continue to result in little or no delays or congestion. Vehicle delays on each approach to this intersection are anticipated to increase slightly (less than 2 seconds) when comparing to the 2006 No Build condition.The proposed development driveway will intersect with Florence Road to form an unsignalized T-intersection. It is anticipated that all critical movements at this intersection will operate at a good LOS A or B during the year 2006 Build condition for both morning and afternoon hours analyzed. 5 F AP2002\555\A I 0\TIAS.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. peak hour traffic volumes for this development assuming 34 units occupied.The default value of 10 trips per day per residential unit was used to calculate the daily volumes as required by the City. The traffic to be generated by the project during the weekday morning peak hour is estimated at approximately 38 vehicle trips (9 entering and 29 exiting). Traffic to be generated during the weekday evening peak hour is estimated at approximately 36 vehicles (23 entering and 13 exiting). Table 2 summarizes the estimated site traffic generation. TABLE 2 ' SITE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Vehicle Trips Weekday Daily(24 hour) Entering 170 Exiting 170 Total 340 Weekday Morning Peak Hour s Entering 9 Exiting 29 Total 38 Weekday Evening Peak Hour Entering 23 Exitin 13 am Total 36 Oft TRIP DISTIBUTION The trip distribution of traffic to and from the proposed development is a function of the area travel patterns. The proposed project was assumed to produce travel patterns similar to those projected for the residential components of the Village at Hospital Hill project, for which a gravity model assignment was conducted. Projected trips assigned to Route 66 and Florence Road can be seen in Figures 6 and 7. IMPACT OF SITE TRAFFIC Traffic Volume Increases The new site traffic generated by the proposed development and the 2006 No-Build conditions traffic volumes were combined to develop the 2006 Build conditions.Figures 8 and 9 present the Build condition, which includes the traffic after the completion of the proposed development, for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours respectively. 4 F.\P2002\555\A to\TIAS.doc Fuss&ONeill Inc. particular intersection.There were no reported accidents near the immediate location of the site driveway. It should be noted that the Northampton Department of Public Works made this intersection a four-way stop in 1999.It appears that these improvements implemented in 1999 resulted in a significant decrease in vehicle accidents.A crash rate of 0.75 acc/mev is calculated when looking at the latest two years. This rate is lower than the average for the region. FUTURE TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS In order to evaluate the impact of the site traffic at the study area intersections,a projection year was assumed at which point the project would be fully occupied and contributing its maximum traffic impact. The future year of 2007 was used as the date of full occupancy for the site. Future traffic conditions were estimated by applying a traffic growth factor to all current peak hour turning movement traffic volumes to account for regional growth characteristics such as other developments,increasing populations,vehicle ownership,and other travel characteristics. Traffic data collected by MassHighway at a permanent count station,on Route 5/1 Ojust south of the Hatfield-Northampton town lines; indicate an estimate of 1.6 percent annual increase in traffic. This estimate was used as the background traffic growth factor to project the future conditions.In addition,the traffic volumes expected to be added by the full build of Phases I& II of the Hospital Hill project and the Oaks residential project on Rocky Hill Road have also been incorporated in the future projected conditions without the Cohousing project. Figures 4 and 5 indicate the projected 2007 peak hour traffic volumes for the No Build condition (i.e. without the proposed site traffic added). The results of the capacity analysis for the No Build conditions are summarized in Table 4.Comparison of the results of the capacity analysis for the existing conditions and the projected No Build conditions reveal that the additional traffic expected to be generated by the Hospital Hill project will result in significant congestion impacts to the intersections within the study area. Intersection improvements have been developed to mitigate these impacts and committed to implementation as part of the Hospital Hill project,consisting of signalization of the Burts Pit Road/Florence Road and Earle Street/ Route 10 intersections and realignment of the Earle Street/Grove Street intersections.Results of the No Build condition capacity analysis assuming these measures to be in place is presented in Table 5.The impacts of the Hospital Hill project are expected to be fully mitigated by these improvements,which will also provide additional capacity for other future development in the area. TRAFFIC GENERATED BY PROPOSED PROJECT An estimate was made of the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed residential development during the peak traffic periods.The peak periods used for analysis are 7:15AM-8:15AM and 4:45 PM-5:45 PM. These periods are when the traffic volumes at the study intersections are typically at their highest. 4M The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation" report uses actual field surveys to estimate trips associated with a variety of land uses and is a nationally accepted on standard.The Land Use Code 230,Residential Condominium/Townhouses,was used to project 3 FAP2002\555\A10\T1AS.doc 40 w Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Accident Experience Accident history for the most recent three calendar years available(1999-2001)was researched based on data from the Massachusetts Highway Department for the study area. Table 1 below presents a summary of the number of accidents by year. TABLE 1 INTERSECTION ACCIDENT SUMMARY-1999 THROUGH 2001 Route 66/ Burts Pit Rd/ TOTAL Florence Rd Florence Rd YEAR 1999 6 4 10 2000 1 3 4 2001 5 2 7 TOTAL 12 9 21 TYPE Angle 6 4 10 Rearend 2 4 6 Unknown/Other 4 1 5 TOTAL 12 9 21 SEVERITY Property Damage 7 7 14 Personal Injury 5 2 7 ,# Total 12 9 21 WEATHER Clear 9 6 15 Rain 1 1 2 Clouds 2 2 4 Total 12 9 21 TIME 7:OOAM-9:OOAM 4 3 7 4:OOPM-6:OOPM 4 1 5 Other 4 5 9 Total 12 9 21 on Source: Massachusetts Highway Department Accident Data Report on There were a total of 12 accidents reported at the intersection of Florence Road and Rocky Hill Road over the three years analyzed.A crash rate of 1.01 accidents per million entering vehicles was calculated,which is higher than the Hampshire/Franklin/Hampden region average of 0.92 for unsignalized intersections. The crash rate is a measurement used by MassHighway Department that compares the number of accidents to the number of vehicles passing through a 2 F-.\P2002\555W 101T1AS.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT ROCKY HILL COHOUSING NORTHAMPTON,MA INTRODUCTION ' The following traffic report summarizes the analysis and evaluation of the traffic impact expected for a proposed cooperative neighborhood development off Florence Road in Northampton, Massachusetts. This report presents the results of a field investigation, traffic counts, and analysis of the estimated traffic to be generated by the site and summary of the resulting traffic increases expected on the adjacent roadway.Figure 1 shows the site location in Northampton. The project consists of constructing a new residential development to be located off Florence Road north of Route 66. The proposed housing will consist of 28 residential units in attached structures and 6 detached single family homes.All vehicular access and egress will be from the new private site roadway intersecting Florence Road. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE ,,. Florence Road is a two-lane local rural road with an overall pavement width of approximately 30 feet in the vicinity of the access to the site.Average weekday traffic volume adjacent to the site is approximately 6,200 vehicles per day. The intersections included in this study are: • Florence Road/Route 66 • Florence Road/Burts Pit Road • Florence Road/Proposed Site Drive • West Street/Elm Street • Earle Street/Grove Street 0 Earle Street/Route 10 Manual turning movement counts were conducted during a weekday morning peak period (7:OOAM-9:OOAM)and weekday evening peak period(4:0 OPM-6:00PM)at the intersections of Florence Road/Route 66 and Florence Road/Burts Pit Road.Traffic volume data for the other locations was derived from the Transportation and Air Quality section of The Village at Hospital Hill DEIR, prepared by Vanasse & Associates. Figures 2and 3 present the existing weekday morning hour(7:15AM-8:15AM) and evening peak traffic hour(4:45PM-5:45PM) traffic volumes. Capacity analysis was conducted for the existing traffic volumes at the intersections in the study area. This analysis was conducted for the morning traffic hour (7:15-8:15AM) and for the evening peak traffic hour(4:45-5:45 PM). As illustrated in Table 5 the overall intersection is currently operating at a good level of service(LOS)B. 1 _ F AP2002\55 5\A 10\T1AS.d0c UII! ■ TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT ROCKY HILL COHOUSING NORTHAMPTON,MA March 2003 °�► Prepared for: The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. 4 Allen Place Northampton,MA 01060 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers w 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040-5921 TEL 860 646-2469 FAX 86o 643-6313 78 Interstate Drive,West Springfield,MA 01089 TEL 413 452-0445 FAX 413 846-0497 wr 56 Quarry Road,Trumbull,CT 06611 TEL 2o3 374-3748 FAx 203 374-4391 The Foundry Corporate Office Center 275 Promenade Street,Suite 350,Providence,RI 02908 TEL 401861-3070 FAX 401861-3076 9 6 Traffic Impact Report T Owner's Manual Page 10 • Grab sampling (just taking samples at the inlet and outlet) is an unacceptable methodology for testing the performance of the Stormceptor during wet weather conditions unless it is flow weighted (flow weighted composite sample from numerous grab samples) over the entire storm. • The oil containment area underneath the insert should be inspected via the vent pipe for dry weather spills capture once a month during the monitoring period since the flow rate of a dry weather spill may not trigger the automated samplers. • A tipping bucket rain gauge should be installed on-site to record the distribution of storm intensities and rainfall volume during the monitored events. • Results that are within the laboratory error (both inlet and outlet)or are representative of relatively clean water should be discarded. Typical concentrations of pollutants in storm water are: TSS 100 mg/L Total P 0.33 mg/L TKN 1.50 mg/L Total Cu 34 pg/L Total Pb 144 p g/L Total Zn 160µg/L w,. A threshold first flush/composite TSS value of 50 mg/L at the inlet to the Stormceptor should be used as the lower limit of an acceptable storm for reporting event efficiency. Monitoring results where the influent TSS concentration is less than 50 mg/L should only be used in mass load removal calculations over the entire monitoring period with other storms where the influent concentration is greater than 50 mg/L. The results should not be analyzed if the influent TSS concentrations during all monitored storms are less than 50 mg/L. Storms where the influent TSS concentration is less than 10 mg/L should be discarded from all analyses. • A threshold storm event volume equal to 1.5 times the storage volume of the Stormceptor being monitored should be used as the lower limit of an acceptable storm for monitoring. • Sampling at the outlet of the Stormceptor should be conducted within the 24" outlet riser pipe to accurately define event performance. • The personnel monitoring the Stormceptor should record incidental information in a log file. "a Information such as weather, site conditions, inspection and maintenance information, monitoring equipment failure, etc. provide valuable information that can explain anomalous results. go • Laboratory results of monitored samples should be analyzed within 10 days of being submitted to the lab. • Weekly inspections of the sampling tubes, flow meter, rain gauge, and quality samplers should be conducted to ensure proper operation of the monitoring equipment. Debris and sediment that collects around the sampling intakes should be cleaned after Each event. • During the installation of automated quality samplers,care should be exercised to ensure that .�. representative samples will be extracted(placement of intakes, ensuring that tubing is not constricted or crimped). • Sampling should be conducted for a minimum of 6 storms. Ideally 15 storms should be sampled if the budget allows. Stormceptor' Owner's Manual Page 9 Table 4. Monitoring Pollutants Pollutant Minimum Detection Limit MDL Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 5 m /l Total Phosphorus (P) 0.02 mg/l Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen TKN 0.1 m /l Copper (Cu) 0.001 mg/l Cadmium (Cd) 0.005 m /l Lead (Pb) 0.05 m /l Zinc (Zn) 0.01 mg 11 Chromium (Cr) 0.01 mg/l Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) 1 mg/l Conductivity 0.1 µmho/cm Fecal Coliform* 1/100 ml Additional Metals (optional) Arsenic (As) 0.005 mg/l Barium (Ba) 0.01 mg/l Mercury (Hg) 0.0005 mg/l Selenium (Se) 0.005 mg/l Silver (Ag) 0.01 mg/l * only if explicitly requested in Terms of Reference 6.2 Monitoring Methodology �r The following monitoring protocol should be followed to ensure reasonable monitoring results and interpretation: • Monitoring protocols should conform to EPA 40 CFR Part 136. • The EPA guideline of 72 hours dry period prior to a monitoring event should be used. This will ensure that there is sufficient pollutant build-up available for wash-off during the monitored event. • Flow proportional monitoring must be conducted for the parameters indicated in Table 1. Samples should be analyzed separately for the first flush versus the remainder of the storm event. Monitoring need not extend longer than an 8-hour period after the start of the storm event (composite). • Sediment sampling (measuring the sediment depth in the unit at the beginning and end of the monitoring period) must be conducted.The water content of the sediment layer must be analyzed to determine the dry volume of suspended solids. Sediment; depth sampling will indicate the rate of pollution accumulation in the unit, provide confirmation that the unit is not scouring and confirm the flow proportional monitoring results. A mass balance using the sediment sampling should be calculated to validate the flow proportional sampling. Stormceptor© Owner's Manual Page 8 Recognizing that every work site is different, the responsibility for safety falls on the contractor. The contractor must ensure that all employees and subcontractors follow established safety procedures and OSHA regulations for working in and around permit required confined spaces as well as for any other safety hazard that may be present on that particular site. 6.0 Stormceptor Monitoring Protocol If monitoring of your Stormceptor System is required, we recommend you follow the procedures outlined below by the CSR Stormceptor office. If you have any questions regarding monitoring please contact the CSR Stormceptor Technical Director at (800) 909-7763. 6.1 Pollutants to be Monitored " Table 4 indicates the pollutants to be monitored during the storm events and the minimum acceptable detection limit for each pollutant to be analyzed.Approved federal or state laboratory analysis methodologies are to be used for the analysis. The optional metals indicated in Table 4 refer to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act and may be covered by a generic metals scan. Bacteria monitoring will not be required unless explicitly requested elsewhere. Two sediment samples are to be extracted from the monitored Stormceptor at the end of the study and analyzed for the particle size distribution and water content. A minimum of 8 U.S. Sieve sizes is to be used to determine the particle size distribution. Sieves that are used must include, but are not limited to 35, 60, 100, 140, 200, 270, and 400. Three clay particle sizes must be analyzed to denote particle sizes between 5 and 25 pm. The particle size distributions should be plotted on a standard grain size distribution graph. �r Stormceptoe W Owner's Manual Page 7 4.2 Disposal of Trapped Material from Stormceptor The requirements for the disposal of material from Stormceptor are similar to that of any other Best Management Practices (BMP). Local guidelines should be consulted prior to disposal of the separator contents. In most areas the sediment, once dewatered, can be disposed of in a sanitary landfill. It is not anticipated that the sediment would be classified as hazardous waste. In some areas, mixing the water with the sediment will create a slurry that can be discharged into a trunk sanitary sewer. In all disposal options, approval from the disposal facility operator/agency is required. Petroleum waste products collected in Stormceptor (oil/chemical/fuel spills) should be removed by a licensed waste management company. What if I see an oil rainbow or sheen at the Stormeeptor outlet? With a steady influx of water with high concentrations of oil, a sheen may be noticeable at the 10 Stormceptor outlet. This may occur because a rainbow or sheen can be seen at very small oil concen- trations (< 10 ppm). Stormceptor will remove over 95% of all free oil and the appearance of a sheen at the outlet with high influent oil concentrations does not mean that the unit is not working to this level of removal. In addition, if the influent oil is emulsified, the Stormceptor will not be able to remove it. The Stormceptor is designed for free oil removal and not emulsified or dissolved oil conditions. 5.0 Recommended Safely Procedures A CSR strongly recommends that any person who enter a Stormceptor System follow all applicable OSHA regulations for entry and work in permit required confined spaces, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.146. A permit required confined space consists of a space that: • Is large enough and so configured that an employee can bodily enter and perform assigned work. • Has limited or restricted means for entry and exit. • Is not designed for continuous employee occupancy. ! * • Contains or has one of the following: - a potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere. - a material that has the potential for engulfing an entrant. - any other recognized serious safety hazard. Storm water and wastewater systems fall under the OSHA guidelines for a permit required confined space. Failure to follow OSHA guidelines for entry and work in a permit required confined space can result in serious injury or death. Please exercise extreme caution and follow appropriate safety procedures when entering any confined space. Two square pick holes in the cover vent the Stormceptor, allow for removal of the cover, and provide sampling ports for air quality monitoring before the cover is removed. If you must enter the Stormceptor, please note that if the disc insert inside is wet, it can be slippery. to Stormceptorl a Owner's Manual Page 6 No entry into the unit is required for routine maintenance of the Inlet Stormceptor or the smaller disc insert models of the In-Line Stormceptor. Entry to the level of the disc insert may be required for servicing the larger disc insert models. Any potential obstructions at the inlet can be observed from the surface. The fiberglass insert has been designed as a platform for authorized maintenance personnel, in the event that an obstruction needs to be removed, sewer flushing needs to be performed, or camera surveys are required. Typically, maintenance is performed by the Vacuum Service Industry, a well established sector of the service industry that cleans underground tanks, sewers, and catch-basins. Costs to clean a Stormceptor will vary based on the size of the unit and transportation distances. If you need assistance for cleaning a Stormceptor unit, contact your local CSR representative, or the Stormceptor Information Line at(800) 909-7763. Figures I and 2 will help illustrate the access point for routine maintenance of Stormceptor. Sediment&oil Oil removal can be removal can be performed by vacuum track performed by vacuums through the oillinspection port f is -' Disc Insert Concrete _ Stormceptor 4, Figure 1 Single Inlet/Outlet "Disc" Insert In-Line Stormceptor Inlet Grate : Oil Port e %Y Inlet Insert Removable s Tee 3 Maintenance 4, Figure 2 STC 4501 "' Inlet Stormceptor Stormceptor" Owner's Manual Page 5 ' Table 2. Stormceptor Capacities Model Sediment Capacity Oil Capacity Total Holding Capacity ft' (L) US gal (L) US gal (L) 0 4501 45 (1276) 86 (326) 470 (1779) 900 75 (2135) 251 (950) 952 (3604) 1200 113 (3202) 251 (950) 1234 (4671) 1800 193 (5470) 251 (950) 1833 (6939) 2400 155 (4387) 840 (3180) 2462 (9320) 3600 323 (9134) 840 (3180) 3715 (14063) 4800 465 (13158) 909 (3441) 5059 (19150) 6000 609 (17235) 909 (3441) 6136 (23227) 7200 726 (20551) 1059 (4009) 7420 (28088) 11000s 942 (26687) 2797 (10588) 11194 (42374) 13000s 1230 (34841) 2797 (10588) 13348 (50528) 16000s 1470 (41632) 3055 (11564) 15918 (60256) 4.1 Recommended Maintenance Procedure Wk For the "disc" design, oil is removed through the 6" inspection/cleanout pipe and sediment is removed through the 24" diameter outlet riser pipe. Alternatively, oil could be removed from the 24" opening if water is removed from the treatment chamber, lowering the oil level below the drop pipes. The depth of sediment can be measured from the surface of the Stormceptor with a dipstick tube equipped with a ball valve (Sludge Judge°). It is recommended that maintenance be performed once the sediment depth exceeds the guideline values provided in Table 3 for the reasons noted in Section 4 Stormceptor Maintenance Guidelines. Table 3. Sediment Depths Indicating Required Maintenance Model Sediment Depth 450i 8" 200 mm) 900 8" (200 mm) 40 1200 10" (250 mm) 1800 15" (375 mm) 2400 12" (300 mm) 3600 17" (425 mm) 4800 15" (375 mm) 6000 18" (450 mm) 7200 15" 375 mm 11000s 15" 375 mm)** 13000s 18" (375 mm)** 16000s 15" (375 mm)** Depths are approximate. **In each structure. ex Stormceptor° go Owner's Manual Page 4 Table 1. Stormceptor Dimensions* Model Pipe Invert to Top of Base Slab 4501 60" 900 55" 1200 71" 1800 105" 2400 94" 3600 134" 4800 128" 6000 150" 7200 134" 11000s 128"*1` 13000s 150"** 16000s 134"** *Depths are approximate. **Depths per structure Starting in 1996, a metal serial number tag has been affixed to the fiberglass insert. If the unit does not have a serial number, or if there is any uncertainty regarding the size of the Stormceptor using depth measurements, please contact the CSR Stormceptor information line at (800) 909-7763 for assistance. 4. Stormceptor Maintenance Guidelines The performance of all storm water quality measures that rely on sedimentation decreases as they fill with sediment(See Table 2 for Stormceptor capacities). An estimate of performance loss can be made from the relationship between performance and storage volume. CSR recommends maintenance be performed when the sediment volume in the unit reaches 15% of the total storage. This recommenda- tion is based on several factors: • Sediment removal is easier when removed on a regular basis (as sediment builds up it compacts and solidifies making maintenance more difficult). • Development of a routine maintenance interval helps ensure a regular maintenance schedule is followed. Although the frequency of maintenance will depend on site conditions, it is estimated that annual maintenance will be required for most applications; annual maintenance is a routine occurrence which is easy to plan for and remember. A minimal performance degradation due to sediment build-up can occur. In the event of any hazardous material spill, CSR recommends maintenance be performed immediately. Maintenance should be performed by a licensed liquid waste hauler. You should also notify the appropriate regulatory agencies as required. Stormceptor© Owner's Manual Page 3 2. Stormceptor S sty em Operation The Stormceptor consists of a lower treatment chamber, which is always full of water, and a by-pass chamber. Storm water flows into the by-pass chamber via the storm sewer pipe or grated inlet (Inlet Stormceptor). Normal flows are diverted by a weir and drop arrangement into a treatment chamber. Water flows up through the submerged outlet pipe based on the head at the inlet weir and is discharged back into the by-pass chamber downstream of the weir. The downstream section of the pipe is connected to the outlet sewer pipe. Oil and other liquids with a specific gravity less than water rise in the treatment chamber and become trapped under the fiberglass weir. Sediment will settle to the bottom of the chamber by gravity. The * circular design of the treatment chamber is critical to prevent turbulent eddy currents and to promote settling. During infrequent high flow conditions, storm water will by-pass the weir and be conveyed to the outlet sewer directly. The by-pass is an integral part of the Stormceptor since other oil/grit separators have been noted to scour during high flow conditions (Schueler and Shepp, 1993). The key benefits of Stormceptor include: • Capable of removing more than 80% of the total sediment load when properly applied as a source control for small drainage areas .�u • Removes free oil from storm water during normal flow conditions • Will not scour or resuspend trapped pollutants • Ideal spill control device for commercial and industrial developments • Vertical orientation facilitates maintenance and inspections 3. Identification of Stormceptor All In-Line (including Submerged) Stormceptors are provided with their own frame and cover. The cover has the name STORMCEPTOR clearly embossed on it to allow easy identification of the unit. The name Stormceptor is not embossed on the inlet models due to the variability of inlet grates used/approved across North America. You will be able to identify the Inlet Stormceptor by looking into the grate since the insert will be visible. Once you have located a unit, there still may be a question as to the size of the unit. Comparing the measured depth from the water level (bottom of insert) to the bottom of the tank with Table 1 should help determine the size of the unit. w Stormceptor" IN Owner's Manual Page 2 ' Thank You! We want to thank you for selecting the Stormceptor System to use in your efforts in protecting the environment. Stormceptor is one of the most effective and maintenance friendly storm water quality treatment devices available. If you have any questions regarding the operation and maintenance of the Stormceptor System, please call your local CSR representative, or the Stormceptor Information Line at (800) 909-7763. 1. Stormceptor Overview The Stormceptor System is a water quality device used to remove total suspended solids (TSS) and free oil (TPH) from storm water run-off. Stormceptor takes the place of a conventional manhole or inlet structure within a storm drain system. CSR manufactures the Stormceptor System with precast concrete components and a fiberglass disc insert. A fiberglass Stormceptor can also be provided for special applications. The Stormceptor System product line consists of four patented designs: • The In-Line (Conventional) Stormceptor, available in eight model sizes ranging from 900 to 7200 gallon storage capacity. • An In-Line (Series) Stormceptor is available in three model sizes ranging from 11,000 to 16,000 gallon storage capacity. • The Submerged Stormceptor, an in-line system designed for oil and sediment removal in partially submerged pipes, available in eight models sizes ranging from 900 to 7200 gallon storage capacity. • The Inlet Stormceptor is a 450 gallon unit designed for small drainage areas. Stormceptor removes free oil and suspended solids from storm water preventing hazardous spills and non-point source pollution from entering downstream lakes and rivers. CSR and its affiliates market and manufacture the Stormceptor System in the United States and Australia. Several thousand Stormceptor Systems have been installed in various locations throughout North America,Australia and the Caribbean since 1990. In the Stormceptor, a fiberglass insert separates the treatment chamber from the by-pass chamber. The different insert designs are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. These designs are easily distinguishable from the surface once the cover has been removed. There are four versions of the in-line disc insert: single inlet/outlet, multiple inlet, in-line series insert and submerged designs. In the non-submerged "disc" design you will be able to see the inlet pipe, the drop pipe opening to the lower chamber, the weir, a 6" oil inspection/cleanout pipe, a large 24" riser pipe opening offset on the outlet side of the structure, and the outlet pipe from the unit. The weir will be around the 24" outlet pipe on the multiple inlet disc insert and on large diameter pipe applications. The STCs Stormceptors consist of two chambers comprised of similar fiberglass inserts. These units also contain a 6" oil/inspection cleanout pipe and 24" outlet riser pipes. The submerged disc insert has a higher weir and a second inlet drop pipe. In the inlet design you will be able to see an inlet drop pipe and an outlet riser pipe as well as a central oil inspection/cleanout port. Stormceptoe MMMMWPI Owner's Manual Page Stormceptorl Owners Manual Contents 1- Stormceptor Overview 2. Stormceptor System Operation 3. Identification of Stormceptor 4. Stormceptor Maintenance Guidelines 4.1 Recommended Maintenance Procedure 4.2 Disposal of Trapped Material from Stormceptor 5. Recommended Safety Procedures 6. Stormceptor Monitoring Protocol 6.1 Pollutants to be Monitored 6.2 Monitoring Methodology List of Tables Page Table 1. Storinceptor Dimensions 4 Table 2. Storniceptor Capacities 5 Table 3. Sediment Depths Indicating Required Maintenance 5 Table 4. Monitoring Pollutants 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Single Inlet/Outlet"Disc" Insert In-Line Stormceptor 6 Figure 2. STC 450i Inlet Stormceptor 6 Rev. 10/2000 If this manual is more than one year old, please contact CSRfor an updated version by calling (800) 909-7763 or by visiting our website at www.csrstormceptorconi Stormceptorl r s; a p k,, y 4 t ,t'•' <`�—� 1 a �fit' /t, D -. � '� :'�.4� ..+'� ���• �1N'�ate{ � 1 • ws Rocky Hill CoHousing June 26, 2003 Northampton,Massachusetts Sediment and debris shall be removed manually at least once per year before the vegetation is adversely impacted. 3) Stormwater Treatment Chamber The Stormwater Treatment System requires minimal routine maintenance; however, it is important that the system be properly inspected and cleaned when �. necessary in order to function at its best. The rate at which the system collects pollutants will depend more heavily on site activities than the size of the unit, e.g. heavy winter sanding will cause the grit chamber to fill more quickly, but regular sweeping will slow accumulation. The water quality treatment system shall consist of Stormceptor or equal treatment chambers. For more detail of how the Stormceptor should be maintained see the Stormceptor Owner Manual. 3 on Rocky Hill CoHousing June 26,2003 Northampton, Massachusetts ON The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one- no half of the original installed height of the barrier. Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: The Developer, Tofino Associates, Inc. 31 Campus Plaza Road Hadley, MA 01035 shall own the stormwater management system until such time that the Homeowners Association is established or the City of Northampton Department of Public Works accepts the roadway and/or stormwater management system. Party Responsible for Operation & Maintenance: The Developer, 4ft Tofino Associates, Inc. 31 Campus Plaza Road Hadley, MA 01035 shall be responsible for the stormwater management system until such time that the Homeowners Association is established, at which time the Homeowners Association will or the City of Northampton Department of Public Works accepts the roadway and/or stormwater management system. Inspection & Maintenance Schedule: 1) Street Sweeping Street and parking area sweeping shall take place annually. 2) Grassed Swales Swales shall be mowed at least once per growing season to prevent establishment of woody growth and other undesirable plants that inhibit proper performance. Grass vegetation should not be cut shorter than 4". It is important not to engage in excessive mowing operations, as this keeps the grass too short and decreases the efficiency of the vegetation to reduce runoff borne sediments and velocities. 2 4W Rocky Hill CoHousing June 26, 2003 Northampton,Massachusetts Proposed Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan During Construction The Contractor shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance during construction. At all times, siltation fabric fencing, stakes and hay bales sufficient to construct a sedimentation control barrier a minimum of 50 feet long will be stockpiled on the site in order to repair established barriers which may have been damaged or breached. An inspection of all erosion control and stormwater management systems shall be conducted by the Contractor at least once a week and during all rain storms until the completion of construction. In case of any noted breach or failure, the Contractor shall immediately make appropriate repairs to any erosion control system and notify the engineer of any problems involving stormwater management systems. A rain storm shall be defined as all or one of the following: • Any storm in which rain is predicted to last for twelve consecutive hours or �e. more. • Any storm for which a flash flood watch or warning; is issued. • Any single storm predicted to have a cumulative rainfall of greater than one- half inch. • Any storm not meeting the previous three thresholds but which would mark a third consecutive day of measurable rainfall. The Contractor shall also inspect the erosion control and stormwater management systems at times of significant increase in surface water runoff due to rapid w thawing when the risk of failure of erosion control measures is significant. ,W In such instances as remedial action is necessary, the Contractor shall repair any and all significant deficiencies in erosion control systems within two days. •,,, The Conservation Commission shall be notified of any significant failure of stormwater management systems and erosion and sediment control measures and shall be notified of any release of pollutants to a water body (stream, brook, pond, etc.). 1 w. Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 @ 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point - Post Inflow = 24.09 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.751 of Outflow = 24.09 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.751 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert w Inflow = 52.86 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 7.046 of Outflow = 40.93 cfs @ 12.71 hrs, Volume= 7.028 af, Atten= 23%, Lag= 14.2 min Primary = 40.93 cfs @ 12.71 hrs, Volume= 7.028 of w Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs ., Peak Elev= 293.18' Storage= 0.734 of Plug-Flow detention time=8.6 min calculated for 7.014 of (100% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 291.00 0.020 0.000 0.000 ** 292.00 0.100 0.060 0.060 293.00 0.770 0.435 0.495 294.00 1.940 1.355 1.850 295.00 2.400 2.170 4.020 296.00 2.960 2.680 6.700 Primary OutFlow (Free Discharge) t--1=Culvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices -1 Primary 291.00' 30.0" x 54.0' long Culvert X 2.00 RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke=0.500 Outlet Invert= 290.50' S=0.0093'/' n= 0.012 Cc= 0.900 IM w ,n Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.3 150 0.1000 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 4.7 450 0.1020 1.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 3.3 340 0.1210 1.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 24.3 940 Total Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow = 40.93 cfs @ 12.71 hrs, Volume= 7.028 of Outflow = 40.87 cfs @ 12.76 hrs, Volume= 7.016 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 2.5 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.8 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.5 min Avg. Velocity= 1.0 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 4.1 min Peak Depth= 0.24' Capacity at bank full= 1,308.38 cfs Inlet Invert= 290.50', Outlet Invert= 281.00' 60.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.040 Length=255.0' Slope= 0.03737' Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point - Pre w Inflow = 69.30 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 10.081 of Outflow = 69.30 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 10.081 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point - Post Inflow = 53.05 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 10.363 of Outflow = 53.05 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 10.363 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point - Pre Inflow = 20.30 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.319 of Outflow = 20.30 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.319 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Ns ON Rocky Hill CoHousing Type Ill 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 4 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 w Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area - Post Runoff = 23.46 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 1.875 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 1.050 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 0.220 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.270 98 Road, Parking, Houses, Walks 1.630 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.020 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 5.190 81 Weighted Average +.. Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.1 50 0.1000 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 0.8 210 0.0830 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.1 52 0.0200 6.9 5.46 Circular Channel (pipe), 4 Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.012 0.4 124 0.0100 4.9 3.86 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area=0.8 sf Perim=3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.012 .. 1.7 70 0.0100 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 0.3 80 0.0440 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4" 0.5 80 0.0300 2.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 140 0.0300 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 8.8 806 Total Subcatchment P-20: East Area - Post Runoff = 24.09 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.751 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs„ dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 0.420 98 Houses, Walks 6.670 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 40 2.100 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 9.190 74 Weighted Average go M Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 3 HVdroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 @ 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-10: West Area - Post Runoff = 52.86 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 7.046 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 2.228 98 Proposed & Exist. Roads, Houses 0.600 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17.542 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 1.940 79 Woods Fair, HSG D 22.310 76 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description .� (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, 4 Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 9.7 290 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 34.4 1,065 Total Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Runoff = 14.20 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume= 1.471 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area ac CN Description 0.852 98 Road, Driveways, Buildings 0.700 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.958 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 0.780 79 Woods Fair HSG D ,® 4.290 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) -- 12.8 50 0.0200 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 4.4 350 0.0700 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, ,■, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 1.9 100 0.0300 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps "'. 19.1 500 Total * Rocky Hill CoHousing Type Ill 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 HVdroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer SVstems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment E-1: West Area - Pre Runoff = 69.30 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 10.081 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 1.270 98 Roadway, Exist. Houses 27.490 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 4.100 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 32.860 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.7 320 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.8 310 0.0320 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 4M 41.2 1,405 Total Subcatchment E-2: East Area - Pre Runoff = 20.30 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume= 2.319 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 7.970 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.2 150 0.1400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.2 380 0.1580 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 6.9 460 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 00 24.3 990 Total Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" ,w Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment E-1: West Area- Pre Tc=41.2 min CN=75 Area=32.860 ac Runoff=69.30 cfs 10.081 of Subcatchment E-2: East Area- Pre Tc=24.3 min CN=73 Area='7.970 ac Runoff= 20.30 cfs 2.319 of Subcatchment P-10: West Area- Post Tc=34.4 min CN=76 Area=22.310 ac Runoff=52.86 cfs 7.046 of Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Tc=19.1 min CN=79 Area=4.290 ac Runoff= 14.20 cfs 1.471 of Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area- Post Tc=8.8 min CN=81 Area=5.190 ac Runoff=23.46 cfs 1.875 of Subcatchment P-20: East Area - Post Tc=24.3 min CN=74 Area=9.190 ac Runoff=24.09 cfs 2.751 of Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow=40.93 cfs 7.028 of Length=255.0' Max Vel=2.8 fps Capacity= 1,308.38 cfs Outflow=40.87 cfs 7.016 of Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point- Pre Inflow=69.30 cfs 10.081 of Outflow=69.30 cfs 10.081 of Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point- Post Inflow=53.05 cfs 10.363 of Outflow=53.05 cfs 10.363 of " Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow=20.30 cfs 2.319 of Outflow=20.30 cfs 2.319 of Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point- Post Inflow=24.09 cfs 2.751 of Outflow=24.09 cfs 2.751 of ! * Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Peak Storage=0.734 of Inflow=52.86 cfs 7.046 of Primary=40.93 cfs 7.028 of Outflow=40.93 cfs 7.028 of Runoff Area = 81.810 ac Volume =25.543 of Average Depth = 3.75" me on Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer System:; 6/25/2003 41" Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point - Post Inflow = 12.73 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.473 of "M Outflow = 12.73 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.473 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Inflow = 28.75 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 3.856 of Outflow = 24.70 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 3.842 af, Atten= 14%, Lag= 10.6 min Primary = 24.70 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 3.842 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 292.57' Storage= 0.308 of r• Plug-Flow detention time=7.8 min calculated for 3.842 of (100% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections ,N Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 291.00 0.020 0.000 0.000 292.00 0.100 0.060 0.060 OR 293.00 0.770 0.435 0.495 294.00 1.940 1.355 1.850 295.00 2.400 2.170 4.020 M• 296.00 2.960 2.680 6.700 Primary OutFlow (Free Discharge) 't-1=Culvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 291.00' 30.0" x 54.0' long Culvert X 2.00 RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 290.50' S=0.0093 '/' n= 0.012 Cc= 0.900 MW on 00 OR an • Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.3 150 0.1000 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 4.7 450 0.1020 1.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 3.3 340 0.1210 1.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 24.3 940 Total Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow = 24.70 cfs @ 12.67 hrs, Volume= 3.842 of Outflow = 24.62 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 3.833 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 3.1 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 2.3 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.9 min Avg. Velocity = 0.9 fps, Avg. Travel Time=4.9 min w Peak Depth= 0.18' Capacity at bank full= 1,308.38 cfs Inlet Invert= 290.50', Outlet Invert= 281.00' 60.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.040 Length= 255.0' Slope= 0.03737' Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point - Pre wr Inflow = 37.17 cfs @ 12.59 hrs, Volume= 5.456 of Outflow = 37.17 cfs @ 12.59 hrs, Volume= 5.456 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point - Post Inflow = 30.18 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 5.746 of Outflow = 30.18 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 5.746 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point - Pre Inflow = 10.56 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.227 of Outflow = 10.56 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.227 af, Atten= 0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs on Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 4 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area - Post Runoff = 13.55 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.082 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 1.050 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 0.220 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.270 98 Road, Parking, Houses, Walks 1.630 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.020 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 5.190 81 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.1 50 0.1000 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 0.8 210 0.0830 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.1 52 0.0200 6.9 5.46 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n=0.012 40 0.4 124 0.0100 4.9 3.86 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.012 1.7 70 0.0100 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.3 80 0.0440 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps 0.5 80 0.0300 2.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 140 0.0300 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 8.8 806 Total Subcatchment P-20: East Area - Post Runoff = 12.73 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.473 of an Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 0.420 98 Houses, Walks 6.670 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 2.100 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 9.190 74 Weighted Average Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 3 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 OM Subcatchment P-10: West Area - Post Runoff = 28.75 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 3.856 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 2.228 98 Proposed & Exist. Roads, Houses 0.600 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17.542 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 1.940 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 22.310 76 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 9.7 290 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 34.4 1,065 Total Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Runoff = 8.04 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 0.831 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" �w Area (ac) CN Description 0.852 98 Road, Driveways, Buildings ws 0.700 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.958 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 0.780 79 Woods Fair HSG D 4.290 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.8 50 0.0200 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2=2.95" 4.4 350 0.0700 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, aw Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 1.9 100 0.0300 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 19.1 500 Total Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment E-1: West Area - Pre Runoff = 37.17 cfs @ 12.59 hrs, Volume= 5.456 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 1.270 98 Roadway, Exist. Houses 27.490 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 4.100 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 32.860 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.7 320 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.8 310 0.0320 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 41.2 1,405 Total Subcatchment E-2: East Area - Pre ! " Runoff = 10.56 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 1.227 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs w Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 7.970 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.2 150 0.1400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 3.2 380 0.1580 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 6.9 460 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 24.3 990 Total MMMW Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Type III 24-hr Rainfall=4.45" Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment E-1: West Area- Pre Tc=41.2 min CN=75 Area=32.860 ac Runoff=37.17 cfs 5.456 of Subcatchment E-2: East Area- Pre Tc=24.3 min CN=73 Area=7.970 ac Runoff= 10.56 cfs 1.227 of Subcatchment P-10: West Area- Post Tc=34.4 min CN=76 Area=22.310 ac Runoff=28.75 cfs 3.856 of Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Tc=19.1 min CN=79 Area=4.290 ac Runoff=8.04 cfs 0.831 of Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area- Post Tc=8.8 min CN=81 Area=5.190 ac Runoff= 13.55 cfs 1.082 of Subcatchment P-20: East Area- Post Tc=24.3 min CN=74 Area=9.190 ac Runoff= 12.73 cfs 1.473 of Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow=24.70 cfs 3.842 of Length=255.0' Max Vel=2.3 fps Capacity= 1,308.38 cfs Outflow=24.62 cfs 3.833 of w Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point- Pre Inflow=37.17 cfs 5.456 of Outflow=37.17 cfs 5.456 of on Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point- Post Inflow=30.18 cfs 5.746 of Outflow=30.18 cfs 5.746 of Im Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow= 10.56 cfs 1.227 of Outflow= 10.56 cfs 1.227 of an Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point- Post Inflow= 12.73 cfs 1.473 of Outflow= 12.73 cfs 1.473 of Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Peak Storage=0.308 of Inflow=28.75 cfs 3.856 of Primary=24.70 cfs 3.842 of Outflow=24.70 cfs 3.842 of Runoff Area = 81.810 ac Volume = 13.925 of Average Depth =2.04" ON No Rocky Hill CoHousing Type ///24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 6 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point - Post Inflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.667 of Outflow = 5.42 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.667 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Inflow = 12.92 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.808 of Outflow = 12.17 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 1.798 af, Atten= 6%, Lag= 6.5 min Primary = 12.17 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 1.798 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 292.03' Storage= 0.072 of Plug-Flow detention time=7.9 min calculated for 1.794 of (99% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 291.00 0.020 0.000 0.000 292.00 0.100 0.060 0.060 293.00 0.770 0.435 0.495 294.00 1.940 1.355 1.850 295.00 2.400 2.170 4.020 296.00 2.960 2.680 6.700 Primary OutFlow (Free Discharge) L1=Culvert # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Primary 291.00' 30.0" x 54.0' long Culvert X 2.00 RCP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert=290.50' S=0.0093 '/' n= 0.012 Cc=0.900 Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.3 150 0.1000 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 4.7 450 0.1020 1.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps +! 3.3 340 0.1210 1.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 24.3 940 Total Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow = 12.17 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 1.798 of Outflow = 12.14 cfs @ 12.69 hrs, Volume= 1.792 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 3.9 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 1.7 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.5 min Avg. Velocity = 0.7 fps, Avg. Travel Time=6.0 min Peak Depth= 0.12' Capacity at bank full= 1,308.38 cfs Inlet Invert= 290.50', Outlet Invert= 281.00' �w 60.00' x 2.00' deep channel, n= 0.040 Length= 255.0' Slope= 0.03737' Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point - Pre Inflow = 16.28 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 2.513 of Outflow = 16.28 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 2.513 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min !� Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Reach Sum-11P: North Summation Point - Post Inflow = 16.44 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.753 of Outflow = 16.44 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.753 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point - Pre Inflow = 4.36 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.545 of Outflow = 4.36 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.545 af, Atten= 0%, Lag=0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 4 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 @ 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area - Post w Runoff = 6.82 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.551 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 1.050 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D w 0.220 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1.270 98 Road, Parking, Houses, Walks 1.630 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C .. 1.020 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 5.190 81 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 3.1 50 0.1000 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 0.8 210 0.0830 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 0.1 52 0.0200 6.9 5.46 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim= 3.1' r= 0.25' n= 0.012 0.4 124 0.0100 4.9 3.86 Circular Channel (pipe), Diam= 12.0" Area= 0.8 sf Perim=3.1' r=0.25' n= 0.012 1.7 70 0.0100 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, *■ Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 0.3 80 0.0440 4.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.5 80 0.0300 2.6 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Grassed Waterway Kv= 15.0 fps 1.9 140 0.0300 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 8.8 806 Total Subcatchment P-20: East Area - Post Runoff = 5.42 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume= 0.667 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 0.420 98 Houses, Walks 6.670 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 2.100 74 >75%Grass cover, Good HSG C 9.190 74 Weighted Average Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 3 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment P-10: West Area - Post Runoff = 12.92 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 1.808 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 2.228 98 Proposed & Exist. Roads, Houses 0.600 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 17.542 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 1.940 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D w® 22.310 76 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, "• Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 9.7 290 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 34.4 1,065 Total Subcatchment P-11: North West Area - Post Runoff = 3.85 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.410 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 0.852 98 Road, Driveways, Buildings !+ 0.700 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.958 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 0.780 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 4.290 79 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 12.8 50 0.0200 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 4.4 350 0.0700 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 1.9 100 0.0300 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 19.1 500 Total W Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 2 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Subcatchment E-1: West Area - Pre Runoff = 16.28 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 2.513 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 1.270 98 Roadway, Exist. Houses +! 27.490 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C 4.100 79 Woods, Fair, HSG D 32.860 75 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.1 150 0.0670 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.5 445 0.1750 2.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 2.1 180 0.0830 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.7 320 0.0100 0.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.8 310 0.0320 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 41.2 1,405 Total Subcatchment E-2: East Area - Pre Runoff = 4.36 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.545 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Area (ac) CN Description 7.970 73 Woods, Fair, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 1W (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 14.2 150 0.1400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 3.2 380 0.1580 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 6.9 460 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 24.3 990 Total M No Rocky Hill CoHousing Type 11124-hr Rainfall=2.95" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 ©1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 6/25/2003 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Type III 24-hr Rainfall=2.95" Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment E-1: West Area- Pre Tc=41.2 min CN=75 Area=32.860 ac Runoff= 16.28 cfs 2.513 of Subcatchment E-2: East Area- Pre Tc=24.3 min CN=73 Area==7.970 ac Runoff=4.36 cfs 0.545 of Subcatchment P-10: West Area- Post Tc=34.4 min CN=76 Area=22.310 ac Runoff= 12.92 cfs 1.808 of Subcatchment P-11: North West Area- Post Tc=19.1 min CN=79 Area==4.290 ac Runoff= 3.85 cfs 0.410 of w0 Subcatchment P-12: Northeast Area- Post Tc=8.8 min CN=81 Area=5.190 ac Runoff= 6.82 cfs 0.551 of so Subcatchment P-20: East Area-Post Tc=24.3 min CN=74 Area=9.190 ac Runoff=5.42 cfs 0.667 of Reach 10: Wetland Channel Section Inflow= 12.17 cfs 1.798 of Length=255.0' Max Vel= 1.7 fps Capacity= 1,308.38 cfs Outflow= 12.14 cfs 1.792 of Reach Sum-1: North Summation Point- Pre Inflow= 16.28 cfs 2.513 of Outflow= 16.28 cfs 2.513 of Reach Sum-1 P: North Summation Point- Post Inflow= 16.44 cfs 2.753 of Outflow= 16.44 cfs 2.753 of Reach Sum-2: East Summation Point- Pre Inflow=4.36 cfs 0.545 of Outflow=4.36 cfs 0.545 of on Reach Sum-2P: East Summation Point- Post Inflow=5.42 cfs 0.667 of Outflow=5.42 cfs 0.667 of Pond 2P: Area Upstream of Prop. X-Culvert Peak Storage=0.072 of Inflow= 12.92 cfs 1.808 of Primary= 12.17 cfs 1.798 of Outflow= 12.17 cfs 1.798 of �. Runoff Area=81.810 ac Volume =6.495 of Average Depth = 0.95" co E co cV O Cf) N 73 Lo a) N CO c N a T (0 1 •� O No C o . U_ U c � o - N O cco .(N 0 N o0 Q O #I1M T a) QU a. N ) � � lC) p m N � � o T = F- O o CZ Q U o CL 2 N IM c N 10 I.L 11d 1 v � N rrte^^ U T '`1 W 0) O .o 4 -0 I� R CaD C .Q . =' ? C/) \ a CL W G O O �to \\ \ ! fl0 @ i 1 X\\`_— NMI IZ- Sly i� y -•�.., - - .ail?. r t � °' \'. �._ 1 r tt t✓ wm. \ I ♦ t tl w tI !3 qa�'v W �} �y . � - ♦ '. �':\, S,4 y` wc by ht,�,i :4 � It r! r.. ji Z (n - .. ,' - \� S'� #"y N r • i1 µ tt `�• r r7 'tl t ■ r • `••:,•.:,;.. 1♦ '1� .'��\, � �t \e '- -y�^S f'`. .�.:ryut4 `vk t i�4: fr k�i ,.ii / '/ .�• .� '. �'.' •.\ �' � _ ''. .aY t;� �, e�" �7k1 1""r, is .♦" / l w� x f) `r �t, '/' � I f � r .�. / 1. ..�i, �. .� t. .fr C! .�,."• },�nA r� �$/'F�S``ik � -�j • 8 0 .i 1 f�rl.+t, .i �! �r1�r �.I �\ �," )}• � � •h,,r /h,.k k. '���� `\ t / r A7M - `I ••i J °}, YI�: }7t': ; z ri,>r �y -t y .r ' _ ' \\ i / rY PSW 1 '7 4X lyAf v 7ra� � h ' -.` .! J ."�-_ � ,L�r ` .:,x s f 4� �� ,�a:6� :�t/ k V,_rkt ff�r•t-g�E r a'` i6m '�M,,s,'' dP M + t+'s eL'y. r4� tE R! rS t trl f! tv d. S i' % f s"C I•. .vmrp:, � •� � �r.��y h��v,by`.���'��k3�, �<� t - , `� r fr,rhav�} v' � ��. s~ ♦ r /- -! _ � n !� a f' 1 �'Y .• 4 ¢ { k i y. 3 t!t.l � '. '2 zY f� krlF t, CO LP 3. P C I I I � Sheet Me: Reference: Figure Number. The Drainage Sub-Watersheds - Post Development Conditions Berkshire Design 4 Alien Place Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 ROCKY HILL CO-HOUSING Date: Scale: 3 Group,Inc. (413) 582-7000 • FAX (413) 582-7005 NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 06/26/03 P100000 rmmw 1111110moom rwa- obnow 0own, womaw 40=0 mom* 00MM mom" OWN" Axemeo* on" a" o0 ICD CID CD B ., CD =r ? CD CL C% \ O Ca \� At :3 N `Z `G Air Alf Air 0 \ \ Air"\ \ 4 CM Air At A At / 4P 1 se L NcEko `'• - -��\� ,y/S°/so a�� pit�7`�''aG,��' � r'r1��. \ i�- s /" �., :•- `�\ "-. ry. ..+•�B:iJ• i;r�+ �N a.n��i� a X wti�� i�� qq •1 / 1J JJS�r '. '' �' f{;� .` _.:..., ::• t ti \ \. \ pug r Ix @ 1 /"' /. .. � .�•. .•-:•. -.` ���1�p ,svb��i,� � tnM1h,'�u t r�, j ti / y U' . f.. • \. R` At +lei"` AWN'** / / iii , r �jru x b / e Ago'+ j . � t t Y �� J •� I.. l i p,{9 daz�rf s orl�:i x'671 rf '. /_. 'r• i -J ", l t, \ by `s a-axts4 "\�+ t? �t' ,'-i� •-''� ', •'1 _i.. r I .'�•/�,;::;. '/ . � . ii� •'� '-./`,rI �' / ` 4 x,���H��o�,�ro /&�.���a�iz�,R} 3`�� �,tj,i}�.C�Y �M"�`r.���f�s ��5 }� l t, .S ityM +mAm , uF' .�''� y A !*r7t 1 h its e T i 1p ;�� "�'" /' '.•..' i .' -;-�_ ,i°+j / ! - � � 1 -7pij���tU"� 't1��� ���f � z r� a a i w♦' / •,/.' ` a 4 Y b 4 �y 1 {�+��'.{t_Y C�d '` ai ' t! 1 _ / 1 t "J . :';,.• • -'. 0 .7 - �r. .•. •' �►` - fi a W + 1k tVatr rr k fi x CP rft / / �7_Ba•.... / Y+Y w - ` •.// t bR }Fh� ' Ln / a At Sheet Title: Reference: figure Number. 1e Drainage Sub-Watersheds - Pre Development Conditions Berkshire Design 4 Allen Place Northampton,FAX (4`13) 582-7005 ROCKY HILL CO-HOUSING Date: wale: 2 Group,Inc. (413) 582-7000 NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 06/26/03 1"=180' N CD x421"F� CD4 V O P A I{ WLlk w ro ryd k9;1 < 5 \ °°g t Ir :�, \ r rr� ,a tfs.. s I a• *�*"' .- ,� t,q �,+y,•�.a {RrL�`q, �� •LI Aj •1 rQ & Y a•x'�lari cs I}qr r i 3 « _02,110,oyhu+„i `�e rc5"lq 1}\\I�s.}°'' ��� CJl ~\ ..•\\ tt�'e S \ •'�. \ [Z'w iaip 'Ft s�°� lat' �,til_ \:l `t{ - )�,� �— ��. .S. - '"[y x'9 f`c y''Vh J A \\1\4 y1 1`` 8. ••\ —0 l\ ! }a t tL -. \ il x I .\ . 11.1•. \ � � �� ��� ,� ..... \ 1!I 1 \ \ of Al -.... \.\ It - � ./' \�'• � .. w• =:� ��� as / 1 1 d eM?.Wttrolti ,Jr�h3 U tSTM°I1rA�Tt .: IRV r1Mr� �,y, far W { { U1 CD �Rs ��`�RKh.'�eX .. D ,� � ,. -. T, ., -. - � - ��� �, "�,�.r�F°�"���•f4rtl�i� "�~i^.�Crff r '7r +rVP d�l�% _ o rt /i ... ,.. .• % Sri�:; Z � .. f, / ��� _ _ f :x .� Y,q: - 0 p41�w�• pr��g�F� ��x��� �'� ; � 1 ir*m t �� �:.c � ' •C. ,��. ./ f { •4–�b CN `omSk�Vr • "�' �! j � � C+i OO� � bra}Ja�lrs[� ��,Md� "erU�.ib+k�iC�k w3'y:�,, t r _ i ,�'4f � / , ,- .• (y �. � t .�` `����>°�"�,P ��t�h`t �JJ �Xk4��tr bl�4�L t�� �i .. - •_.' c4'vt' ..•'• / � .. j – t � � O u��fi �s' r�„r rFs7axY�,�d��ss. k Kzr4n�r }' ,�h • 0 - ' �e vihtjf,yu�"W YM1�� � N �XB '' f $ Ln • ! 901 • \ ; m ,� �'1v�5 n5 J::{ ie a x 4 n{/ t r;y. �'LIF � ! ® � w •�r��N�c•+F�sF�Jr,ya,'�aL.` i ��� Sk •E x / f .� }y deb l�3J",�•� C,rl x4r y. 9 1 m 1 a CT CD Ln a4 S f'" yy "'n+w� �'�Si M T�d�S5 t''� t1 f �J O O N S?6'0'� 3� 7SO B tiw 0 , Al- �3 \\.... / ;3 Un Shoat Me: Reference: n9ure Number. The Test Pit Locations Berkshire ROCKY HILL CO—HOUSING 1 Design 4 Allen Plaa Northampton, ►laaeachueette 01060 =06/26/03V='ISU 1 Group,InC. (413)562-7000 • FAX (413) 582-7005 NORTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TIP 5 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 4:30 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; mountain laurels Landform !* Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-5" A Forest Black n/o 40 Mat 5"-22" Bw SL Light Brwn n/o Loose, little gravel, roots down to 31" 22"-59" C, LS Brwn >5% high Loose, Pockets of FSL, 35% chroma in FSL gravel &cobbles @ 34" 59"-63" C2 LS Red 15% high Platy, Very firm in place, pockets (coarse) (gleyed) chroma of SL, 35%gravel, some angular cobbles, refusal at 63"-very firm material MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >63" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: n/o Weeping from Pit Face: 59" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 34" Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and M should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. or In Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA am Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso,The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 4 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 3:40 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet eu► Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other i Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-18" Bw LS Brwn No Many roots 18"-31" C, FS Light Brwn n/o Loose, little gravel, roots down to + 31" 31"-57" CZ Sand Brwn >5% high Loose, Pockets of FSL, 35% (med) chroma in FSL gravel & cobbles @ 34" 57"-122" C3 FSULS Red >10% high Massive, firm, very firm in place, (mixed) chroma @ 58" some smearing of sidewalls MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >122" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 96" Weeping from Pit Face: 90" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 34" Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and aw should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. 40 Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 3 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 2:45 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope(%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0"-26" B w FSL Grey-Brwn >5% High Massive, friable (med) chroma @20" 26"-68" C, LS/SL Brwn >5% High Boundary unclear, mixing, many (mix) (varies) chroma rounded cobbles, some rounded boulders, roots down to 30° 68"-101" CZ LS Red >10% High Massive, very firm in place - Ir (greyed) chroma refusal @ 101" MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >101" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 60" Weeping from Pit Face: 32" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 20" Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. so Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA 40 Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 2 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 2:00 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform so Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet go Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-3" A Forest Blck-Brwn n/o Many roots Mat 3"-17" BW FSL Brwn n/o Massive, Friable, Many Roots 17"-42" C, S (med) Brwn High chroma Loose in place, Roots down to around cobbles 42" 42"-102" C2 LS Brwn-Red None visible 35%gravel, 10%cobbles, some (coarse) surface angular boulders, excavation unstable, very firm reddish material at bottom of excavation— refusal @ 102" 40 MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >102" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 72" Weeping from Pit Face: 44" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 44" 00 Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and 4" should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton ,MA Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 1 Date: 02/26/03 Time: 1:00 Weather Cloudy 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform 4„ Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other f, Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-5" A Forest Blck-Brwn n/o Many roots Mat 5"-27" BW FSL Brwn n/o Massive, Friable, Some Gravel, Roots 27"-49" C, LS Reddish >5% @ 40" Platy, 10% gravel, some cobbles (med) Brwn Roots down to 45" 49"-83" C2 LS Red 30% high Platy, Very firm in place, (coarse) Gleyed chroma pockets of SL, 35%gravel, some angular cobbles, some 2-3' boulders, refusal at 83%very firm material MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >83" P* Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 78" Weeping from Pit Face: 62" Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 40" Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. t1lII W Location Address or Lot No. Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton ,MA Test Pits Performed By M.D'Urso, The Berkshire Design Group Witnessed By: Deep Hole Number TP 1R Date: 02/26/03 Time: 12:30 Weather Sunny 15 F Location (identify on site plan) See Plan Land Use Wooded Slope (%) See Plan Surface Stones Few Vegetation Wooded; light underbrush Landform Position on Landscape (sketch on back) Distances from:See Plan Open Water Body Feet Drainage way Feet Possible Wet Area Feet Property Line Feet Drinking Water Well Feet Other 40 DEEP OBSERVATION HOLE LOG Depth from Soil Soil Texture Soil Color Soil Mottling Other Surface(Inches) Horizon (USDA) (Munsell) (Structure,Stones,Boulders, Consistency,%Gravel 0-4" A Forest Blck-Brwn n/o Mat 4"-19" Bw FSL Brwn n/o Massive, Friable, Some Gravel, Roots 19"-37" C, LS Reddish >5% @ 31" Platy, 10% gravel, some cobbles (med) Brwn Roots down to 35" 37"-56" CZ LS Brwn 10% high Platy, 10% gravel, some angular (med) chroma cobbles 56"-90" C3 LS Red 15%high Platy, Very firm in place, less (coarse) (gleyed) chroma firm LS layer in upper 3", pockets of SL, 35%gravel, some angular cobbles, some 2-3' boulders, refusal at 90%very firm material MINIMUM OF 2 HOLES REQUIRED AT EVERY PROPOSED DISPOSAL AREA Parent Material(geologic) Glacial Till Depth to Bedrock: >90" Depth to Groundwater: Standing Water in the Hole: 84" Weeping from Pit Face: 60" OR Estimated Seasonal High Ground Water: 31" Note: This test pit was performed for investigation of general soil conditions and should not be used for purposes related to Title 5 and/or soil suitability assessments for on-site sewage disposal. e t Test vii Data F e e t i E 1 �w Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton,MA June 26,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report BMP Series 3: Remaining BMP Estimated Removal TSS (Initial: 100%) Street Sweeping 10% 90% Filter(Buffer) 55% 40.5% Strip *� Total TSS Removal= 59.517o Through the combined use of the three BMP series listed above the total average TSS w� removal rate for the proposed site approaches 80%. VI. Summary The proposed development has been carefully designed to allow stormwater flow paths to emulate existing patterns. The limit of work for the proposed site as been minimized so that wooded areas are retained in developed conditions. As such, peak flow rates in post-development conditions closely match peak flow rates in existing conditions. Treatment of stormwater is provided through the use of several BMP mechanisms. .w Buffer strips and water quality swales will treat stormwater runoff along the limit of work areas of the site. A stormwater treatment chamber will treat runoff from the access road at the wetland crossing. The estimated TSS removal level for the site is 80%. �. Page 8 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA June 26,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report The following table shows the estimated sediment removal for each series of BMPs: awe. BMP Series 1: Remaining ' BMP Estimated Removal TSS (Initial: 100%) Street Sweeping 10% 90% Water Quality 40% 54% Swale Siltation Basin/Level Lip 15% 45.9% Spreader Filter(Buffer) 55% 20.7% Strip Total TSS Removal=79% BMP Series 2: Remaining BMP Estimated Removal TSS (Initial: 100%) Street Sweeping 10% 90% Treatment 80% 18% !0 Chamber Filter(Buffer) 25% 15.5% Strip Total TSS Removal= 84.5°lo Page 7 w Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA June 26,2003 MR Stormwater Drainage Report peak flow with a longer duration than what is experienced in Pre-development on conditions. Finally, two 30" reinforced concrete pipes are proposed to convey stormwater under the proposed access road. These pipes have been designed to not be overtopped in the 25- year storm event and to not allow overtopping of the roadway in the 100-year storm event. This design criterion is based on standard engineering practice. As a result, the model shows that some backing up of stormwater may temporarily occur during large storm events. East Property Boundary: w� As demonstrated in Table 2, slight increases in peak flow rates to the east property boundary will be experienced in each storm event analyzed. This increase is largely due to the addition of the watershed area that previously flowed to the north boundary (see above discussion). Although there are increases, the runoff to the east boundary is conveyed overland with no point source discharges to the large off site wetland area. For this reason, significant downstream impacts are not expected and attenuation measures unwarranted. on Erosion Control The site has been carefully designed to maintain overland sheet flow of runoff in all possible locations. Where water must be conveyed via grassed swales and/or piping the discharges are returned to sheet flow via level lip spreaders. no Water Quality Several BMPs have been incorporated into the design of the developments stormwater management system. Theses include; water quality swales, level lip spreaders/siltation basins, grass filter strips, and a stormwater treatment chamber. The proposed project has been designed to maximize overland flow conveyance of all stormwater runoff. In areas where water needs to be conveyed via piping or grassed. swales it is returned to sheet flow for a maximum distance to ensure proper removal of suspended solids and contaminants prior to reaching the wetland areas. The most heavily trafficked area is considered to be the access road, specifically at the wetland crossing. To ensure that runoff from these areas are properly treated for water quality a stormwater treatment chamber has been incorporated into the design. sw. Page 6 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA June 26,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report Table 2. Peak Flow and Peak Volume Summary Table 2-Year Storm 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Condition & Point of 2.95" 4.45" 6.50" Analysis Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Existing(Reach 1)*'_ 16.28 2.51 37.17 5.46 69.30 10.08 w 'rosed{Reach 1F) 844 C, F01 5� 55I 36 Existing(Reach 2)* 4.36 0.55 10.56 1.23 20.30' 2.32 w. x Pirbp�4e�ea+elli21?T 5F xT 1 42409 2 75` *Names in parentheses refer to Hydro Cad model and calculations. As shown in the Table 2, the stormwater peak flows in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm war events at the north property line will not be increased as a result of the proposed development. The model does reveal slight increases in stormwater peak flows at the east property boundary. North Property Boundary: The decrease in peak flow rates in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events to the north property line is the result of three main factors: an overall decrease in the contributing drainage area size, an `offsetting' of the time that peak flow rates are experienced, and the consequent backing up of stormwater behind the proposed roadway cross culvert in larger storm events. As a result of the proposed grading, a portion of existing sub-watershed E-1 (1.2 acres) is incorporated into proposed sub-watershed P-20. This shift of the watershed boundary results in a decrease in runoff being directed to the north boundary and a slight increase to the east boundary(see discussion below). Additionally, by increasing the amount of impervious area, coupled with grassed swales and area drains, the overall time of concentration (tc) for the downstream watersheds is substantially decreased. This results in peak flows from individual sub-watersheds that do not occur simultaneously. Specifically, the model shows that in the 100-year post conditions storm event, the peak flow for sub-watershed P-12 is roughly 23 cfs at hour RM 12.12; whereas the peak flow for sub-watershed P-11 is 14 cfs occurring at hour 12.26 and reach 10 (through which sub-watershed P-10 is routed to the north boundary) is 41 cfs at 12.71. The net result of this `off-setting' of peak flows is an overall peak flow of 53 cfs at hour 12.48. Although the increase of impervious area produces more runoff (note increases in volume of runoff from Pre- to Post-development conditions), the time at which this runoff reaches the north boundary is sufficiently offset to produce a smaller Page 5 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA June 26,2003 ..w Stormwater Drainage Report IV. Proposed Conditions The total area of the project parcel is approximately 27 acres with a contributing watershed of approximately 41 acres. The proposed cluster development will consist of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 5 single family house lots. The development has been designed with many interlaced vegetated areas that will maintain sheet flow drainage conveyance while contributing to total suspended solids removal. Existing wooded areas will be maintained to the greatest extent possible throughout the development. A paved access road and walkway provides access to the development. V. Calculations & Design ■w Water Quantity Drainage calculations were performed on Hydrocad Stormwater Modeling System version 6.0 using Soil Conservation Service (SCS) TR-20 methodology. The SCS method is based on rainfall observations, which were used to develop the Intensity- *!* Duration-Frequency relationship, or IDF curve. The mass curve is a dimensionless distribution of rainfall over time, which indicates the fraction of the rainfall event that occurs at a given time within a 24-hour precipitation event. This synthetic distribution a develops peak rates for storms of varying duration and intensities. The SCS distribution provides a cumulative rainfall at any point in time and allows volume dependent routing runoff calculations to occur. The calculations are included in the appendices. The watershed boundaries for calculation purposes are divided according to the proposed site grading, the natural limits of the drainage areas, and the property downstream �r boundaries. The curve numbers (CNs) and times of concentration for the existing and proposed subcatchment areas are based on the soil type and the existing and proposed cover conditions at the site. The soil hydrologic group assumed for the site is noted in section II. Watershed sub-catchment areas, runoff coefficients and watercourse slopes are based on The Berkshire Design Group site plans dated June 2003. Calculations were performed for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year frequency storms under existing and proposed conditions. The results of the calculations are shown in the summary table below. Page 4 Rocky Hill CoHousing, Northampton,MA June 26,2003 ww Stormwater Drainage Report Property to the south is owned by the Bible Baptist Church. Property bordering the site on the east is owned by Christ United Methodist Church. An existing wetland area splits the part of the site fronting on Florence Road from the larger rear (easterly) section. The topography in the front section generally runs downhill from west to east, with a small section in the northwest corner running downhill toward the north. The topography in the rear section runs generally downhill Oa toward the north, but splits west and east. The westerly flows run toward the central wetland described previously. The easterly paths flow toward the northeast corner of the site, and toward the adjoining Pathways property and a wetland on that site. (Refer to the Existing Drainage Area Map, Figure 2, attached.) in The upstream boundaries for the drainage analysis were determined by current watershed boundaries. The downstream boundaries for the drainage analysis were determined by *W, current drainage patterns with control points chosen at the property boundaries. For the existing conditions drainage model two sub-watersheds (sub-catchments) were identified and analyzed; these areas drain in the same general flow directions in both the pre- and 4e post-developed conditions. Below is a description of the existing drainage sub- watersheds: am Drainage Area E-1: This drainage sub-watershed is comprised of the areas to the west and east of the OR wetlands that divide the subject parcel. The contributing area to the west is comprised of a wooded hill side that drains overland through residential homes along Florence Road. The runoff from this hillside is collected in a road side ditch on the west side of Florence road where it is conveyed to a cross culvert and discharged on the subject parcel. The contributing watershed areas to the south of the parcel are comprised of a residential house lot and the Bible Baptist Church lot, which includes a paved parking area. Much the undeveloped areas in this sub-watershed are comprised of generally wooded areas with light underbrush. Runoff generated by this sub-watershed is collected in, and discharged via, the central wetlands that connect to the larger wetland area on the properties to the north of the subject parcel. Drainage Area E-2: This drainage sub-watershed is located to the along the easterly property line of the subject parcel. The runoff from this area travels via overland flow to a large wetland area located on the Pathways property and the Christ United Methodist Church property. The vegetation in this area is generally wooded with light underbrush. The attached calculations indicate the total pre-development peak runoff flows for existing conditions. r�. Page 3 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton, MA June 26,2003 we. Stormwater Drainage Report • (PcQ Paxton. Deep, well drained soils on glaciated upland. Soils formed in glacial till. Hydrologic Group: C Flood Risk: none Depth to Water Table: 15-2.5' Depth to Bedrock: >60" A series of six test pits were conducted on site to determine subsurface conditions in several critical areas (see attached test pit logs in Appendix A). In general, the test pits revealed the existence of very dense loamy sand and sandy loam material throughout the site. The subsurface profile mainly consists of variations of medium-coarse very firm sand horizons and fine sand horizons. Table I below summarizes the test pit findings: an Table 1.Summary of Test Pit Findings an Test Number&Location General Soil Classification Approximate Depth to (Substratum) Seasonal High Groundwater* OR TPIR: Entrance Road Medium-Coarse Loamy Sand 31" TP 1: Entrance Road Medium-Coarse Loamy Sand 40" TP 2: Entrance Road Medium-Coarse Loamy Sand 44" Ow TP 3: Entrance Road Loamy Sand 20" Fine Sandy Loam&Loamy TP 4:Entrance Road 34" Sand TP 5:Wooded Area Coarse Loamy Sand 34" *Approximate Depth to Seasonal High Groundwater was estimated based on observation of redox features in abundance greater than 5%where visible. +! Evidence of groundwater was observed in all six test pits. Actual groundwater(weeping and/or standing) was also observed in each of the test pits, see attached soil logs. In general, the soils horizons were observed to be a forest mat underlain by a sandy loam subsoil with a substratum comprised of a very firm, consolidated loamy sandy (with lenses of sandy loam in many locations). III. Existing Conditions The project site is located to the east of Florence Road. The parcel is L-shaped, Im adjoining the Pathways parcel on the subject site's northeast side. Properties bordering Florence Road on the opposite side of the road are primarily large-lot residential, as are some of the lots on the easterly side of the road to the north and south of the subject site. NO Page 2 Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton, MA June 26,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report I. Introduction The following report presents an analysis of the stormwater management system for the proposed Rocky Hill CoHousing development located on Florence. Road in Northampton, Massachusetts. The proposed project is a cluster development providing 33 units consisting of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 5 single family lots. The project parcel is approximately 27 acres with a contributing drainage water shed area of approximately 41 acres. Proposed domestic water and sewer infrastructure will connect to the existing Pathways CoHousing development located to the north and east of the proposed development. The proposed design encourages stormwater runoff to sheet flow to the greatest extent practical, thus allowing runoff flow patterns to emulate existing flow patterns. The purpose of this analysis is to determine 2, 10, and 100-year peak flow rates and * quantities for the site in both the pre- and post-development conditions and to determine the potential impact of any increases in stormwater runoff from the site that may occur as a result of the site development. II. Site Terrain and Soils The project site is comprised of sloping terrain with a low lying wetland area running through the center of the parcel in a generally south-north direction. This low lying area receives runoff from the west and east slopes and ultimately drains off of the site to the an north, where the wetland expands in size. The subsurface conditions at the site are as follows: W The USDA Soil Survey of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part report classifies the site soils as (see attached soil map): (WxB, WxQ Woodbridge. Deep, moderately well drained soils on glaciated uplands. Soils formed in glacial till. Hydrologic Group: C aw Flood Risk: none Depth to Water Table: 1.5'-3.0' Depth to Bedrock: >60" • (WhA) Whitman. Deep, very poorly drained soils on uplands. Soils formed in glacial till. Hydrologic Group: D Flood Risk: none Depth to Water Table: +1.0-0.5' Depth to Bedrock: >60" Page 1 s Rocky Hill CoHousing,Northampton,MA June 26,2003 Stormwater Drainage Report- Summary Proiect Description: Cluster development providing 33 units consisting of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 5 single family lots. The project parcel is approximately 27 acres with a contributing drainage water shed area of approximately 41 acres. 00 Site Soils: The USDA Soil Survey of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, Central Part report classifies the site soils as having hydrologic Group of C and D. Test pits revealed a very firm medium-coarse loamy sand parent material. Generally, evidence of seasonal 4 high groundwater was observed approximately 36" below existing grade with actual groundwater observed at 60". on Water Ouantity and Water Ouality: As shown in the Table 2, the stormwater peak flows in the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events will not be increased as a result of the proposed development at the north property line downstream 00 location. The model does reveal slight increases in stormwater peak flows at the east property boundary. Although there are increases, the runoff to the east boundary is conveyed overland to a large off site wetland area. For this reason, significant aww downstream impacts are not expected and attenuation measures unwarranted. Table 2. Peak Flow and Peak Volume Summary Table 2-Year Storm 10-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Condition & Point of 2.95" 4.45" 6.50" w,. Analysis Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Flow (acre-ft) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Rate(cfs) Existing(Reach 1)* 16.28 2.51 37.17 5.46 69.30 10.08 Existiug'(Reach ) _ 4.36 0.55 10.56 1.23 20.30 1 2.32 Propo Bch no Page 1/1 s. Drainage Analysis and Report for Rocky Hill CoHousing Florence Road Northampton, Massachusetts June 27, 2003 Prepared by: The Berkshire Prepared for: Design Tofino Associates and Group, Inc. Joseph and Amalia Singler 4 Allen Place,Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 •r e F E � Drainage Report I e t E E L i E E e e s e go 10. Do any signs exist on the property? YES NO X IF YES, describe size, type and location: Are there any proposed changes to or additions of signs intended for the property? YES NO X IF YES, describe size, type and location: 11. ALL INFORMATION MUST BE COMPLETED, or PERMIT CAN BE DENIED DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION This column reserved for use by the Building Department „„ EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED BY Lot Size ZONING 27.36 AC 10,000 SF MIN Frontage 80' MIN & 548.7' 482' Setbacks Front 25' MIN Side L: R: L: 15' MIN R: 15' MIN L R: 25' MIN Rear Building Height N/A 35' Max Building Square Footage N/A 850-1,400 sf Open Space: (lot area minus building&paved parking N/'A See Attached #of Parking Spaces N/A N/A #of Loading Docks N/A N, %A Fill: (volume $. location) N/A N/A 12. Certification: I hereby certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Date: Z, Applicant's Signature NOTE:Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve a4appant's rd en to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from the Board of Health,Conservation Commission, Historic and Architectural Boards,Department of Public Works and other applicable permit granting authorities. OOO.pdf FEB 2 1 2003 File No. x . ,� , '---- --Please type or print all information and return this form to the Building Inspector's Office with the $YO.filing fee (check or money order)payable to the City of Northampton Aga_boo 0 1. Name of Applicant: Tofino Associates Inc �' ,c,�i�•L w Address: 31 Campus Plaza Rd Hadley, MA 01035 Telephone: (413) 256-0321 2. Owner of Property: Same as above No Address: Telephone: 3. Status of Applicant: Owner Contract Purchaser V/ Lessee Other (explain) #o 4. Job Location: Florence Road VI ` +r � v s : •1 Rz '��q_ T" rS. y � $ �' n ElntS�a �k strict ..� RtralB MIS�ri �s F,ILLED `1B �(`HEBl11:DIIGI=I? MI:NT) .�x h.... we 5. Existing Use of Structure/Property: Waded Lot MW 6. Description of Proposed Use/Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): ,e The proposed 33 unit Open Space Cluster Development consists of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 5 single family units. MR go 7. Attached Plans: Sketch Plan Site Plan X Engineered/Surveyed Plans 8. Has a Special Permit/Variance/Finding ever been issued for/on the site? w NO X DON'T KNOW YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DONT KNOW YES w. IF YES: enter Book Page _ and/or Document# 9. Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO DONT KNOW YES _X IF YES, has a permit been or need to be obtained from the Conservation Commission? Needs to be obtained X Obtained , date issued:- (Form Continues On Other Side) o File#MP-2003-0114 on APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON Berkshire Design Group ADDRESS/PHONE 4 Allen Place (413)582-7000 PROPERTY LOCATION FLORENCE RD MAP 37 PARCEL 019 001 ZONE SR (,G,Gil THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: s.� PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE ONING F FILLED OUT Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid Typeof Construction: ZPA-33 UNIT OPEN SPACE CLUSTER DEV,28 ATT SINGLE TOWNHOUSE UNITS &5 SF UNITS New Construction Non Structural interior renovations •w Addition to Existing Accessory Structure Building Plans Included: 40 Owner/Statement or License 3 sets of Plans/Plot Plan THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON INFORMATION PRE7s KrED: Approved ✓Additional permits required(see below) PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § d Oo Intermediate Project: Site Plan AND/OR Special Permit with Site Plan we Major Project: Site Plan AND/OR /Special Permit with Site Plan ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § Sv6 p�u/f/p+J No Finding Special Permit Variance* Received&Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed an Other Permits Required: Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health Permit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee Permit from Elm Str Commission —? 4� Signature of Building Official Date Note:Issuance of a Zoning permit does not relieve a applicant's burden to comply with all zoning requirements and obtain all required permits from Board of Health,Conservation Commission,Department of public works and other applicable permit granting authorities. *Variances are granted only to those applicants who meet the strict standards of MGL 40A.Contact the Office of Planning&Development for more information. MR sewage disposal facilities water supply facilities B-8. Existing&proposed: landscaping,trees and plantings(size&type of plantings)_ "M - stone walls, buffers and/or fencing: M B-9. Signs-existing and proposed: Location dimensions/height color and illumination go B-10. Provisions for refuse removal,with facilities for screening of refuse when appropriate: can B-11. Lighting: Location - Details 40 - Photometric Plan showing no more than .5 foot candle at property line FOR MA JOR PROJECTS ONLY: w B-12. An erosion control plan and other measures taken to protect natural resources&water supplies: C. Estimated daily and peak hour vehicles trips generated by the proposed use,traffic patterns for vehicles and WA pedestrians showing adequate access to and from the site,and adequate vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site. 40 Site Plans submitted for major projects shall be prepared and stamped by a: "" Registered Architect, Landscape Architect,or Professional Engineer (At least one plan must have an original stamp,remaining plans must either have an original stamp or copy of original stamp.) ®w 003.pdf (� an go on SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS REQUEST FOR WAIVERS APPLICATION This form MUST be included in your application packet. The site plan MUST contain the information listed below. The Planning Board may waive the submission of any of the required information, if the Applicant submits this form with a written explanation on why a waiver would be appropriate. To request a waiver on any required information,circle the item number and fill in the reason for the request. Use additional sheets if necessary. If you are not requesting,any waivers,please note that on this form. A. Locus plan on B. Site plan(s)at a scale of 1"=40'or greater go B-1. Name and address of the owner and the developer,name of project,date and scale plans: B-2. Plan showing Location and boundaries of- the lot adjacent streets or ways all properties and owners within 300 feet all zoning districts within 300 feet B-3. Existing and proposed: — buildings — setbacks from property lines — -building elevations — all exterior entrances and exits — (elevation plans for all exterior facades structures are encouraged) B-4. Present&proposed use of 4 - the land buildings: B-5. Existing and proposed topography(for intermediate projects the permit granting authority may accept generalized topography instead of requiring contour lines): - at two foot contour intervals - showing wetlands,streams,surface water bodies - showing drainage swales and floodplains: - showing unique natural land features B-6. Location of- - parking&loading areas — public&private ways — driveways,walkways — access&egress points — proposed surfacing: B-7. Location and description of: - all stormwater drainage/detention facilities water quality structures - public&private utilities/easements 003.pdf g G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not adversely effect those objectives,defined in City master study plans(Open Space and Recreation Plan; Northampton State Hospital Rezoning Plan;and Downtown Northampton: Today,Tomorrow and the Future). The Open Space Cluster design is consistant with the Northampton aw Vision through enhancing residential life with the expansion of open space and recreation while preserving significant recources. 9. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.The undersigned owner(s)grant the Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this application. Date: )t 6 Applicant's Signature: cl- 1 CV-0- Date: 6 !I b3 Owner's Signature: ners signature or letter from owner authorizing applicant to sign.) (Applicant must include waiver form on p. 8 indicating that either all information is included or that waivers are s being requested.) MAJOR PROJECTS.MI7ST ALSO COM LE'TE'I`RE FOLLOWING MAJOR PIt(?JEGT APPROVAL CRITERIA Does the project incorporate 3 foot sumps into the storm water control system? Yes No X (IF NO, explain why) No catch basins proposed Will the project discharge stormwater into the City's storm drainage system? Yes No X (IF NO,answer the following:) Do the drainage calculations submitted demonstrate that the project has been designed so that there is no increase in peak flows from pre-to post-development conditions during the: 1, 2,or 10 year Soil Conservation Service design storm? Yes X No (IF NO,explain why) an Will all the runoff from a 4/10 inch rainstorm(first flush)be detained on-site for an average of 6 hours? Yes X No (IF NO,explain why) Is the applicant requesting a reduction in the parking requirements? Yes Nom_ on If yes,what steps have been taken to reduce the need for parking, and number of trips per day? 003.pdf 7 so go How does the project meet the special requirements?(Use additional sheets if necessary) '00 The project complies with all open space, lot dimensional requirements and road layout requirements as provided in the Ordinance. F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards: 1. Curb cuts are minimized: One curb cut proposed Check off all that apply to the project: *o use of a common driveway for access to more than one business use of an existing side street use of a looped service road we 2. Does the project require more than one driveway cut? NO X YES(if yes,explain why) One driveway cut per lot typical 3. Are pedestrian,bicycle and vehicular traffic separated on-site? X YES NO(if no,explain why)_ so FOR PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE INTERMEDIATE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ONLY'SIGN am APPLICATION AND END HERE. (Applicant must include waiver form on p. 8 indicating that either all information is included or that waivers are being requested.) 9. I certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.The s undersigned owner(s)grant Planning Board permission to enter the property to review this application. Date: Applicant's Signature: 4" Date: Owner's Signature: (Owners signature or letter from owner authorizing applicant to sign.) an � 2OJE T fiHAj t) f >r.J)rRE A SP CICAL IpERMIT C 12 W)ERCI ARC z� M C �RO,iEt Y a tCanfs, ISTsakrm'letetlie'follouvin ;,::'. F. Explain why the requested use will: not unduly impair the integrity or character of the district or adjoining zones: The requested use is consistant with the zoning and adjacent uses. not be detrimental to the health,morals or general welfare: As a residential use,, the general welfarer morals or health will not be impacted- be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance: The open space cluster design is favorable through enhancing residential life by expanding open space and recreatinn- POP 003.pdf 6 �w B. How will the requested use promote the convenience and safety of pedestrian movement within the site and on adjacent streets? Pedestrian and vehicular movement remain separate How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area? See attached analysis by Fuss & O'Neill Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? Proposed new street is approximately 1000' South of Pathways CoHousing. so What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for: access by emergency vehicles: Entire development is accessible lho no emergency vehicles the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces: All loading and parking areas remain separate from pedestrian circulation. ON provisions for persons with disabilities: The majority of all walks on site have a maximum 5% grade. on C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: the natural landscape: The majority of the site will be permanently an preserved as open space to existing buildings: Nq existing buildings on site an other community assets in the area: An 8' bike trail easement has been rovi dpd. me D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources,including: water supply and distribution system: See attached Analysis sanitary sewage and storm water collection and treatment systems: See attached Analysis fire protection,streets and schools: See attached Impact Statement w How will the proposed project mitigate any adverse impacts on the City's resources,as listed above? Sep attarhPd Donumentati on E. List the section(s)of the Zoning Ordinance that states what special regulations are required for the proposed project (flag lot,common drive,lot size averaging,etc.) ON 5.2, 10.5 Open Space Cluster Development, 6.12 Common Drive 003.pdf 5 tw nes CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION FOR: Please Note: An omission of information could lead to a delay in processing your application. I. Check type of projecti INTERMEDIATE PROJECT: Site Plan ci AN /OR , Speal iPermit,with Sii a Plan' Or MAJORPROJECT rte P1an.. .ANU/OR " 3 SpeexalPermit with Site Plan 2. Perrnitis requested underoning Ordati once Seaton: 5 2 Page , 6 12 6 16 3. Applicant's Name: Tofino Associates, Inc. so Address: 31 Campus Plaza Rd, Hadley Telephone: (413) 256-0321 4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map# 17 Parcel#6 9 65 6,— Zoning District: SR 4W Street Address: 67,19 F1 c)renee Rd Property Recorded in the Registry of Deeds: County: Hampshire Book: 6_;07 Page: 283, 302-74 5. Status of Applicant: Owner - X Contract Purchaser X ; Lessee Other g 6. Property Owner: Sn.me as Above R. .Jaseph P. Amalia Sinaler Address: 245 Litchfield Ln, Houston TX Telephone: an 7. Describe Proposed Work/Project: (Use additional sheets if necessary): Cpen Space Cluster Development consisting of 28 attached/single me townhouse units and 5 single family units. Has the following information been included in the application? Site/Plot Plan X we List of requested waivers X Fee X Signed Zoning Permit Review Form&Applications_ 8. Site Plan and Special Permit Approval Criteria.(If any permit criteria does not apply,explain why) Use additional sheets if necessary. Assistance for completing this information is available through we the Office of Planning&Development. A. How will the requested use protect adjoining premises against seriously detrimental uses? on The proposed residential use is consistant with adjacent uses and will be enclosed by an open space buffer. 00 How will the project provide for: surface water drainage: Stormwater management system incorporating grass swales and utilizing overland flow sound and sight buffers: Wooded open space i s proposed to surround and buffer the residential cluster, the preservation of views,light and air: Wooded open space along the perimeter will not alter light & air and will buffer views 1 w 003.pdf 4 Special Permit Application Eli ri-111, t4l, PA 37 -022-007 37 -022-008 37 -022-009 ,,WISHNEY PEARL HAAG JOHN & SUSAN ZEIGER SEEBERG DONALD M & 600 FLORENCE RD 97 600 FLORENCE RD #8 PAMELA T FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 600 FLORENCE RD #9 on FLORENCE, MA 01062 37 -022-010 37 -022-011 37 -022-012 GARCIA MARIA DEL CARMEN SLACK DAVID M &LUCY Z THRELFALL JASON& 600 FLORENCE RD 910 GARBUS 12 MOUNTAIN LAUREL PATH FLORENCE, MA 01062 600 FLORENCE RD #11 FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE,MA 01062 'x"37 -022-013 37 -022-014 37 -022-015 BERMAN ROGER S & FARKAS WILLIAM I & HIRSCHMAN PETER S & 600 FLORENCE RD #13 600 FLORENCE RD #14 600 FLORENCE RD #15 'FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 w37 -022-016 37 -022-017 37 -022-018 CAFFALL NANCY M SCHWARTZ LORI A ANDREWS-BANCROFT R 600 FLORENCE RD #16 600 FLORENCE RD #17 LUNDY ,,,„FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE,MA 01062 600 FLORENCE RD #18 FLORENCE, MA 01062 37 -022-019 37 -022-020 37 -022-021 wmO'KANE KATHLEEN G LEV MARTA MANGAN& SILVER SCOTT C &MARIE R 600 FLORENCE RD 600 FLORENCE RD #20 600 FLORENCE RD #21 FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 ON 37 -022-022 37 -022-023 37 -022-024 CARUSO DAVID A & SARA TURNER KARLEN GAIL MACLEOD PEGGY L "HUNT 600 FLORENCE RD #23 24 MOUNTAIN LAUREL PATH 600 FLORENCE RD #22 FLORENCE,MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 OR FLORENCE, MA 01062 an m on me 37 -013-001 37 -014-001 37 -071-001 SAWULA LAWRENCE& EADIE MICHAEL T &LAUREEN WILKINS RITA L D MAUREEN A F 661 FLORENCE RD 643 FLORENCE RD 651 FLORENCE RD FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE,MA 01062 37 -015-001 36 -252-001 37 -070-001 MYERS MARGARET K SCOTT CLIFFORD D & ELLEN P L'HEUREUX GERARD A& w669 FLORENCE RD 203 MAPLE RIDGE RD MARIE T FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 689 FLORENCE RD FLORENCE, MA 01062 0037 -068-001 37 -069-001 36 -091-001 DIDONNA PAUL J & LINDA M THOMPSON JOHN R& HOWARD MILTON B & 697 FLORENCE RD MARGARET E WILLIAM "FLORENCE, MA 01062 705 FLORENCE RD 221 PINE ST FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 36 -174-001 36 -173-001 36 -172-001 ""COX GEORGIANNA C GARTIN TERESA J PATEL RITA P 709 FLORENCE RD 717 FLORENCE RD 723 FLORENCE RD FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE,MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 37 -016-001 37 -008-001 37 -017-001 mwCURTIS MARY LOU &ESTHER HUMPHRISS KAREN L BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH THE 748 FLORENCE RD 770 FLORENCE RD 710 FLORENCE RD FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE,MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 0 37 -090-001 37 -088-001 37 -021-001 POPIOLEK JOSEPH S JR BOGAN JUNE & CAROLYN STREETON SUSAN A & 'x'"283 ROCKY HILL RD GROSE 644 FLORENCE RD FLORENCE, MA 01062 28 MOUNTAIN LAUREL PATH FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE,MA 01062 37 -065-001 37 -066-001 37 -030-001 CHICOINE CORBIN &JESSICA ORZEL MARIE &MICHAEL ET CHRIST UNITED METHODIST .39 HOLYOKE ST AL CHURCH EASTHAMPTON, MA 01027 31 CAMPUS PLAZA RD ROCKY HILL RD HADLEY, MA 01035 FLORENCE, MA 01062 ,m37 -067-001 37 -018-001 37-019-001 COVE MARY E BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH THE SINGLER JOSEPH &AMALIA F 720 KENNEDY RD 722 FLORENCE RD 245 LITCHFIELD LAND BLEEDS,MA 01053 FLORENCE,MA 01062 HOUSTON, TX 77042 37 -022-001 37 -022-002 37-022-003 "'FEINLAND JERALD B &JULIE MARTINS SUSAN R MAZO JULIE G B 600 FLORENCE RD #2 3 MOUNTAIN LAUREL PATH 600 FLORENCE RD #1 FLORENCE,MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 37 -022-004 37 -022-005 37 -022-006 ,,PATHWAYS COHOUSING INC KELLEY KATHLEEN M ZELDES KATHRYN 4 MOUNTAIN LAUREL PATH 600 FLORENCE RD #5 600 FLORENCE RD #6 FLORENCE, MA 01062 FLORENCE,MA 01062 FLORENCE, MA 01062 c E E E' nbunaR Lis, Ell E G c e E E foll e e e FORM D NORTHAMPTON, MA ew DATE CERTIFIED LIST OF ABUTTERS (Fill in this space with rough sketch of land described in this petition,and write against boundary lines the name and mailing address of adjoining owners in their relative positions. Include owners of land dew separated from the subdivision only by a street.) 37-13 N/F LAWRENCE SAWULA& MAUREEN H. SAWULA 37-88 SEE: BOOK 2795- PAGE 300 N/F 37-14 JUNE BOGAN & N/F CAROLYN GROSE ANDREW 0. MARINI SEE: BOOK`5848-,PAGE 301 HEATHER A. MARINI _ r� SEE: BOOK 6612 - PAGE 28 1 - --------- �.� ; 37-22 ' 1 ( N 3 N/F _ 1 PATHWAYS COHOUSSIING CONDOMINIUM RITA L 0. WILKINS I .--•__,--,_J SEE: BOOK 5880 « PACE 260 SEE: BOOK 1728 J ---- PLAN BOOK 186 PAGE 41 - PAGE 230 '--'--'--------'---- 37-22 ----'--'--•--'--'-'1 37-15 N/F i N/F - - SUSAN A. STREETON & I MARGARET K. MYERS KIMBERLY M. LORIMIER i SEE: BOOK 2215 SEE: BOOK 5614 « PAGE 322 I I" - PAGE 224 _ PLAN BOOK 74 PAGE 39 (PCL 1) 37-70 N/F _ GERARD A. L'HEUREUX - 3J-22 &MARIE T. L'HEUREUX N/F SEE: BOOK 1798 Z »-�+ I PATHWAYS COHOUSING CONDOMINIUM SEE: BOOK 5880- PAGE 260 « PAGE 158 - _ _,_. PLAN BOOK 186 PACE 41 37-68 N/F ._-: -'--•--'--'--'--'--'- PAUL J. DIDONNA &LINDA M. DIDONNA SEE: BOOK 1597 - PAGE 643 37-69 _ 37-30 N/F N/F JOHN R. THOMPSON & TRUSTEES OF MARGARET E. THOMPSON _ CHRIST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH SEE: BOOK 4393- PAGE 186 r-r- SEE: BOOK 1863- PAGE 152 36-174 I 37-18 PLAN BOOK 93 PAGE 90(PCL 1) N / 1 KARI M. NYKORCHUK 1 E BIBLE BAPTIST CHUR E BOOK 1532 - PAGE 1 J° _ SEE: BOOK 6301 - PACE 195 I �'-' SE REFERENCE PLAN NO ______________ 36-173 N/F 1 L" N TERESA J. GARTIN i SEE: BOOK 4578- PAGE 231 36-172 1 --•--37-16-'- 37-90 N/F 1 _ N/F i j N/F RITA P. PATEL r ESTHER L. CALIO & I JOSEPH S. POPIOLEK, JR. SEE: BOOK 3525- PAGE 201 36-252 1 MARY LOU CURTIS 37-17 iSEE: BOOK 1045 - PAGE 498 N/F i SE : BOOK 5385- PA,fE125 N/F I PLAN BOOK 167 PAGE 49 CLIFFORD 0. SCOTT & 800R'7jS SAGE 34 i THE BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH ELLEN P. SCOTT SEE: BOOK 1599 - PAGE 436 SEE: BOOK 5992- PAGE 267 36-91 PLAN BOOK 84 PAGE 34 N/F 37-8 MILTON B. HOWARD N/F OR SEE: BOOK 4245- PAGE 198 AREN L. HUMPHRISS SEE: BOOK 2695-PAGE 87 Planning Board Northampton, Massachusetts Planning Board This is to certify that at the time of the last assessment for taxation made by the City of Northampton,the names and addresses of the parties assessed as adjoining owners to the parcel of land III shown above were as above written,except as follows: Date of Verification (4/11/91) SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 62 This Power of .Attorney shall not be affected by subsequent disability or incapacity of the principal and is intended to constitute a uniform durable power of attorney pursuant to Chapter 2018 of the General Laws of Massachusetts. Executed as a sealed instrument this:; °%day of ��►+ , 2003 . fitness malia F gl r ®0 Witness J eph ngler STATE OF TEXAS 40 s County, ss. �.°if� d4-• 2003 Thgn appeared before me and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be their free acts and deeds. Notary Public My commission expires: ltz3 �1¢,0+ (Please place Notarial here.] t°�n�MY NATIM J.AMWI MYCQMWSSION EXPIRES 4dl3,2004 wit 120WER OF ATTORNEY KNOW ALL PERSONS by these presents, that we, Amalia F. Singler and Joseph Singler, of 245 Litchfield Lane, Houston, Texas, the owners of a parcel of land known as "6 Acres, Off Burts Pitt Road, Northampton, Massachusetts", and being Parcel 1 conveyed in a deed from John Giogia to Amalia F. Singler and Joseph Singler, dated September 22, 1982, and recorded with the Hampshire County Registry 'of Deeds at Book 2302, Page 74 (the "Property") , have made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute and appoint Tofino Associates, Inc. , a Massachusetts corporation with its principal office located at 31 Campus Plaza Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts, our true lawful attorney-in-fact, for us and in our name, place, and stead to make application to the various municipal boards of the City of Northampton, Massachusetts, including but not limited to the said City' s Planning Board, Conservation. Commission, and Zoning Board of Appeals, for the approval of a subdivision to be known as the "Rocky Hill CoHousing Project" and located partly on the Property and partly on land owned by Tofino Associates, Inc. , ws► hereby giving and granting to our said attorney-in-fact full power and authority to do and perform all and every act and thing whatsoever necessary to be done with respect to the said subdivision application process, as fully to all intents and purposes as we might or could do if personally present, hereby ratifying and confirming all that its said attorney-in-fact may do pursuant to this power. No person, firm, corporation, or municipal board, commission, or agency dealing with our attorney-in-fact need inquire further as to propriety of any action taken by our said attorney-in-fact pursuant to said power granted herein prior to actual knowledge on the part of our attorney-in-fact of the termination hereof by us or by operation of law, or prior to actual knowledge on the part of any such third person of such revocation, and a certificate of our attorney-in-fact ghat they have no such actual knowledge of the termination thereof shall be conclusive of the facts therein stated in favor of any person dealing with its said attorney-in-fact and any and all such acts consummated as the result of such dealing shall be conclusive and legally binding upon said us, our successors and assigns in favor „�, of any such person. 00 ON 40 FORM C Page 2 of 2 40 NORTHAMPTON, MA 0nu Date r The following are all the mortgages and other liens or encumbrances on the whole or any part of the above described pro erty: y J IDeArq&rg r,_ or rti o_ ; j<Jjjl - -L o61c -774/ :RA 961 go The undersigned hereby covenants and agrees with the City of Northampton upon approval of the am Definitive Plan: 1. To construct the ways and install the municipal services as finally approved by the Planning Board. 2. To design and construct the ways and design and install the municipal services in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land, City of Northampton, Massachusetts,with the rules and instruction of City Board of Health, appropriate department heads, and with the Definitive Plan and its accompanying material as finally approved by the Planning Board. 3. At the laying out and acceptance of said ways all municipal services within the ways will become the property of the City of Northampton at no cost to said City,unless otherwise agreed upon. This agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,administrators, successors, a d assigns of the A ,undersigned. Owner of Record 1 �o fls5��+ �n�. Print or type name Signature �rQs;alw.�r Tb{'y,� Assou.�larl��, Address U Phone Before me appeared Q m 4 0 u t-- , Owner of Record, and made oath that the above statements subscribed to be him/her are true. Notary Public: Commission Expires: oL a� L)4— Date of Submission: l I I OZ City Clerk: (signature) Note: Complete Form D and attach (4/11!91) No SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 61 ow we FORM C Page 1 of 2 NORTHAMPTON, MA Date APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF DEFINITIVE PLAN File sixteen completed forms and plans and file seven additional copies,showing wetlands,which may be 11"x17"reduced scale plans,with the City Clerk and the Planning Board, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4:02. +Iw To the Planning Board: The undersigned herewith submits the accompanying Definitive Plan of property located in the City of Northampton for approval as a subdivision under the requirements of the subdivision Control Law and the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land of the Planning Board in the City of Northampton. The undersigned applicant also certifies that all plans and additional materials required underthe above Rules and Regulations are included with this submission. 1. Applicant -�C % owm - Print or type name Signature Address Phone - 2. Owner - P ' t or type name ignature PnJ,.At qI To�r'.,o As1�t t Address�6'1cSk1�REZ�rr.SlGti C�Qc�a�,s�c, P 3. Engineer Print or type name Signature f\LLti K-:, P Nc-e. 1.3 t>a:T\ytm r!jk,,- m .4 t3-S$2-rT twb Address Phone( 4. Surveyor 4AV*1944 A5506a-ke-S P.C. Print orty ame Signature ,W JMLL,5+ gal 17. A4e.Easy , �oV- 6,,ApLD2 MA 413- 584 -'1444 Address Phone 5. Deed of Property Recorded in Hampshire County Registry, Book G3y7 Page 7_93 6. Location and Description of Property: ('077 7-0 •• 111130 q Z 7. Assessor's Map ID: 37 Lot(s):G ,66, :Z 1 1 Z:ZPZ 741 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 60 2 ON 7:019 Request waiver from required 250' minimum radius of street center line due to geometry of lot and wetland configuration on site. 8:06 The proposed roadway design does not include curbing to allow maximum overland flow of all runoff through grass swales based on the proposed storm water drainage system. 8:08 The proposed sidewalk width has been increased from 4' to 8' per request of the City of Northampton to provide a bike path. 8:10 1 Request waiver from required 4:1 side slopes within right of w, way lines due to the slope of the existing.topography. No waivers were requested or approved in the Preliminary filing process. Included in the submission are the Definitive Plans as well as a 40 hydraulic analysis of Northampton's water distribution system and a Traffic Impact Report. If you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (413) 582-7000. Sincerely, The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Bryan Je b Project Manager The Berkshire • Design Group, Inc. June 26, 2003 Planning Board City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Rocky Hill CoHousing Dear Chairperson, Enclosed please find an Application for Approval of Definitive Plan for the Rocky Hill CoHousing project located on Florence Road. The proposed cluster development will provide 33 units consisting of 28 attached/single townhouse units and 5 single family units. The total area of the site is 27.361 Acres. The proposed road length is 520' at five dollars a linear foot, in addition to the $300 special permit fee, represents a total filing fee of $2,900. The following waivers are requested in this application: 6:04 1 Request waiver from borings as test pits were performed providing a more accurate description of soil characteristics. Landscape Architecture 6:04 15 Lighting system not shown due to woodland setting and Civil Engineering proximity of neighboring residences. Planning 7:01 4b Request waiver from required 100' tangent at intersection Urban Design due to geometry of lot and wetland configuration on site. Environmental Services 7:015 Request waiver from providing cul-de-sac as the subdivision roadway ends after 520' and the private road continues to the CoHousing development. A turnaround has been provided at the end of the entry drive. 7:018 Request waiver from required 24' roadway width as the road will be a private way and no future growth is projected. 4AilenPlace Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 Telephone(413)582-7000 Facsimile(413) 582-7005 E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com 1p L ..0-* () /S 7 A pplication for A pproval fp of Definitive Subdivision Plan Including Special Permit Application for Open Space Cluster Development and Common Drive a Rocky Hill CoHousing Florence Road Northampton, Massachusetts June 26, 2003 I , Prepared by: The Prepared for: Berkshire Tofino Associates, Inc. Desi n 31 Campus Plaza Road Group,Inc. Hadley,MA 01035 4 Allen Place,Northampton,Massachusetts 01060