Loading...
36-406 STATE OF DELAWARE AQM-2 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL APPLICATION FOR COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT PERMIT Complete in Duplicate) Page 2 14. NUMBER OF BOILERS PER STACK STACK USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES? SPECIFY OTHER PURPOSES GENERATORS YES ✓ NO NOT APPLICABLE 1 15. SAMPLING PORTS? NUMBER LOCATION YES ✓ NO NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE HEIGHT OF NEAREST OBSTRUCTION DISTANCE TO NEAREST OBSTRUCTION 50.5 Feet 175 Feet 16. FLUE GAS POLLUTANT CONTROL DEVICE TYPE EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER OR (Include Drawings) MODEL NUMBER NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE NONE NOT APPLICABLE VOLUME OF GAS HANDLED NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE Inlet: ACFM @ °F Outlet: ACFM @ °F EMISSION RATE: [SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR EMISSIONS DATA] COLLECTION EFFICIENCY With Control Device Operating pound(s)per Million BTU Heat Input With Control Device Out of Service pound(s)per Million BTU Heat Input NOT APPLICABLE OPACITY SMOKE MONITORING DEVICE? TYPE YES ✓ NO NOT APPLICABLE 17. .. .... . . PROOF OF LOCAL ZONING APPROVAL ENCLOSED? YES ✓ NO PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PERMIT FEE ENCLOSED? ✓ YES NO PROPOSED LOCATION WITHIN COASTAL ZONE? YES ✓ NO Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent DESCRIBE MODIFICATIONS HERE NOT APPLICABLE SKETCH PLOT PLAN HERE(Indicate Nearest Occupied Dweling) SEE ATTACHED REPORT MR STATE OF DELAWARE AQM-2 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL APPLICATION FOR COMBUSTION EQUIPMENT PERMIT(Complete in Duplicate Page 1 1. NAME OF PLANT OR ESTABLISHMENT DATE OF APPLICATION COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION DIVISION USE,ONLY NEWARK DATA CENTER Registration Number: MAILING ADDRESS (Street of P.O.Box) (City) (State) (County) (Zip Code) 655 PAPER MILL ROAD NEWARK DE NEW CASTLE 19711 2. NAME OF OWNER COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION MAILING ADDRESS (Street of P.O.Box) (City) (State) (County) (Zip Code) 1111A 655 PAPER MILL ROAD NEWARK DE NEW CASTLE 19711 3. ....... 9§K# _ . aw 4. MAJOR ACTIVITY AT THIS LOCATION Manufacturing Commercial Apartment so NONE OF THESE Governmental Institutional Power Generation DESCRIBE MAJOR ACTIVITY COMPUTER DATA CENTER SIC CODE 7374 00 5. EQUIPMENT TO BE PERMITTED ✓ New Replacement Modification(See Page 2) Existing MANUFACTURER MODEL NUMBER RATED HEAT INPUT FIRING RATE MAXIMUM go (BTU/hr) Detroit Diesel 16V4000 T1637K36-G41 15,511,500 BTU/hr 114.90 gal/hr 6. TYPE FUEL PERCENT SULFUR PERCENT ASH HEAT CONTENT(BTU per ANNUAL FUEL ON Gallon,Cubic Food Pound) CONSUMPTION DIESEL FUEL 0.3%(MAXIMUM) 0% 140,000 LB/MMBTU 28,743 gal/yr METHOD OF FIRING OR FEEDING 7. TYPE COMBUSTION CONTROLS 1141! INTERNAL COMBUSTION ✓ On/Off Modulating High/Low 8. OIL PREHEAT? METHOD TEMPERATURE OF YES ✓ NO NOT APPLICABLE NOT APPLICABLE 9. COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY MONITORING DEVICES? TYPE YES ✓ NO NOT APPLICABLE 10. SOURCE OF MAKE-UP COMBUSTION AIR TO BOILER ROOM DESCRIBE METHOD YES ✓ NO NOT APPLICABLE 11. OPERATING SCHEDULE MONTHS 1 hours per day 1 days per week MONTH 12 weeks per year 12. STACK HEIGHT(Feet)(Above INSIDE DIAMETER AT OUTLET EXIT GAS TEMPERATURE Grade) 12 feet 14 Inches 765 OF 13. DRAFT EXIT GAS FLOWRATE EXIT GAS VELOCITY ✓ Natural 14.590 ACFM 296.92 Feet per Second Mechanical FAN NONE MANUFACTURER CAPACITY NOT APPLICABLE Induced Draft NOT APPLICABLE Forced Draft CFM @ OF : .ASH RATE WORKSHEET k' CITYITOWN : f\J oRTH A mP'ro t'v, M) COUNT DATE: Nov 2001 MHD USE ONLY DISTRICT: :2 UNSIGNALIZED: U SIGNALIZED: Source#� aw •- INTERSECTION DATA =` C.o R E ry C.E 1� A�0 RIN# w O RIN STREET: F. D MINORSTREET(S): RTS P=-r /�OAO _, RIN# aw RIN# RIN# . RIN# b� T INTERSECTION INTERSECTION North t�( '9 $ w" to DIAGRAM REF* (Label Approaches) OKT o ,ro --T C-11 3'T - o • Peak Hour Volumes APPROACH: 4 2 3 4 5 6 DIRECTION:,: E g LJ6 nl B 58 To-rAL VOLUMES(AM&: -73 222 " 2.7S 2"7 Co SyCo I b 1 9 3 ADT=TOTAL VOU-1C'FACT. " K" FACTOR: O.0 8 3 APPROACH ADT: TOTAL#OF Q #OF AVERAGE#OF 3 ACCIDENTS: V YEARS: 3 ACCIDENTS.(A): n CRASH RATE CALCULATION :. ��72 RATE _ (A*AD� ) )J Comments: BMW Fuss&O'Neill Inc. MR 40 40 ACCIDENT DATA an MR .m ! F:T2001\2001740\A11\TIAS NEW.DOC Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 .. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY „w General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Build PM Peak Project Description 2001740.A11 East/West 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 7 5 178 21 5 5 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.60 0.60 0.60 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 6 240 34 1 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 olume 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 5 5 1 305 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 ow Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L7_T_R _T LTR Delay, Queue Len th 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) 9 34 359 331 C (m) (vph) 1602 1320 405 577 lc 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 Approach LOS -- — F C ••� HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k3C.tmp 4/3/2003 All-way stop control Page 1 of 2 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information nal st DM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. uss&O'Neill,Inc. Jurisdiction Date Performed 3 Analysis Year al sis Time Period IBUILD PM Peak Hour ro'ect ID 2001740.A11 a ! ast/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics proach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 9 51 37 118 113 79 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound " Movement L T R L T R olume 57 187 63 40 271 16 / oThrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR HF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 luration,ow Rate 112 362 360 383 Heavy vehicles 0 1 0 1 om .Lanes sometry Group T 1 0.25 go Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Lefi-rums 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 Prop.Right-Tums 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.0 ! rop.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 1 -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 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 7.14 7.14 7.14 7.14 ,final value 0.22 0.65 0.63 0.68 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service 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 8 C C C Approach:Delay 12.16 20.96 19.65 21.78 LOS 8 C C C intersection Delay 20.02 Intersection LOS C file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k4D.tmp 4/2/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 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 412103 Jurisdiction Time Period BUILD PM Pk Hour nalysis 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 Volume (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 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 ctuated P/A P P P P P P A A A A A A tartu lost time 120 20 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 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 1 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 Pq-Oy= 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 imin G = 2G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = g ]Y= 5 Y= IY= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 50.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination aw EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 166 1296 1417 444 Lane group cap. 686 683 1677 728 /c ratio 0.24 0.43 10.6 2 0.61 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 10.40 0.40 Unif. delay dl 10.0 110.9 111.9 11.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 10.20 0.20 Increm. delay d2 0.8 2.0 1.7 1.5 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.8 12.9 13.6 13.4 Lane group LOS B B B B pprch. delay 10.8 129 13.6 13.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 13.0 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k57.tmp 4/2/2003 i wo-w ay stop uontroi Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst MJC Intersection Development Drive/Bunts Agency/Co. F&O Pit Rd Date Performed 4/2/2003 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period 2006 BUILD PM Peak Analysis Year 2006 �. our Project Description 2001740.A11 - The Oaks, Northam ton East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Development Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Ptudy 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 0 80 0 30 156 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 94 0 35 183 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 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 17 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.85 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 19 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 Len th and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 35 19 C (m) (vph) 1513 968 /c 0.02 0.02 95%queue length 0.07 0.06 Control Delay 7.4 8.8 LOS A A Approach Delay -- -- 8.8 Approach LOS -- -- A file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k6B.tmp 4/2/2003 Short Report Page 1 ofd, SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST Agency or Co. 2007 Future Conditions STREET Date Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar Time Period PM Peak Hour Purisdiction alysis Year PM Build Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT I LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume(v ph) 153 535 384 489 673 136 % Heavy veh 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 PHF 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 10.85 0.85 Actuated (P/A) P P I P P I P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3,0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 9 0 Lane Width 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 112.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N j N N 0 N N -2 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 ffDuration EB Onl 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 G = 28.0 G = G = G = G = 41.0 G = 31.0 G = G = Y= 3 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 3 Y. Y= of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacitv. Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 174 1608 427 543 952 Lane group cap. 396 784 593 1248 1169 /c ratio 0.44 0.78 0.72 0.44 0.81 Green ratio 0.25 0.56 0.69 0.69 0.37 Unif. delay dl 34.4 118.6 28.8 7.5 131.1 Delay factor k 0.50 10.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.5 7.4 7.4 1.1 6.0 PF factor 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 ontrol delay 37.9 26.0 36.1 8.6 37.1 Lane group LOS D C D A D pprch. delay 28.7 20.7 37.1 Approach LOS C C D Intersec. delay 28.8 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k40.tmp 4/4/200i) WO-vv ay 3wp t-ontro> 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 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period uild AM Peak Project Description 2001740.A11 East/West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Ea►1e Street Intersection Orientation: East-West tud Period hrs : 0.25 *■ ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume 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 5 155 12 6 6 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 2 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Signal 0 1 0 rolume nor Street Northbound Southbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R 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 1 12 8 165 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 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay,Queue Length, and Level of Service proach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 20 12 496 184 (m) (vph) 1607 1419 655 651 +t /c 0.01 0.01 0.76 1 0.28 5%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 pproach LOS -- -- D B HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k4D.tmp 4/3/2003 Now I VV V-VV"y JIVF VVIM V1 rage 1 01 1 am TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Build AM Peak Project Description 2001740.A11 .w East/West Street: Route 10 Ptudy orth/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West P eriod 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 198 626 0 0 319 216 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.92 1 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 215 680 1 0 0 1 346 1 234 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 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 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 1 0 1 101 ,. 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 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) 215 285 (m)(vph) 994 135 /c 0.22 2.11 5%queue length 0.82 23.33 Control Delay 9.6 578.0 LOS A F "" Approach Delay -- -- 578.0 Approach LOS -- -- F HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c s file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k4A.tmp 4/3/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information "Analyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST Agency or Co. Future Conditions STREET Date Performed 0510912000 Area Type CBD or Similar Time Period AM Peak Hour urisdiction nalysis Year AM 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 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume (v ph 121 1464 395 473 620 135 % Heavy veh 0 0 1 1 1 1 H F 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 '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 12.0 "'Arrival type 3 3 3 3 1 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 1 0 9 1 0 ane Width 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 112.0 Parking/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 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 hasing EB Only- 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Only 07 08 iming G= 22.0 G = G = G = G = 49.0 G = 29.0 G = G = IY= 3 Y= Y= Y= JY= 4 Y= 3 Y= Y= luration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 C cle Len th C= 110.0 Lane Group Ca acit Y, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB dj.flow rate 132 1504 1 429 1514 888 Lane group cap. 314 1690 633 11346 1409 /c ratio 0.42 10.73 0.68 0.38 0.63 Green ratio 0.20 0.49 0.75 0.75 0.45 Unif. delay dl 38.4 22.2 24.0 5.0 23.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 4.1 6.7 5.8 10.8 2.1 44PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 42.5 28.9 29.7 5.8 25.6 Lane group LOS D C C A C pprch. delay 31.7 16.7 25.6 Approach LOS C B C Intersec. delay 23.8 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\steves\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k35.tmp 4/4/2003 Jhort Keport Page 1 of 1 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 412103 Jurisdiction Time Period BUILD AM Pk Hour nalysis Year Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT FTH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 +* Lane group ILTR LTR LTR LTR Volume (v ph) 51 1237 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 ctuated (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 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 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 13.0 13.0 1 1 1 3.0 3.0 .� Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 imin G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = g 1Y= 5 ly= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= ly= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 50.0 Lane Group Capacitjr, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 385 1118 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 0.40 1 0.40 1 Unif. delay d1 11.5 9.7 112.2 11.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.14 Increm. delay d2 3.1 0.6 12.1 0,8 .� PF factor 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 Control delay 14.7 10.3 14.3 12.3 Lane group LOS 8 I B B B pprch. delay 14.7 10.3 14.3 12.3 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 13.5 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c eRr file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k3A.tmp 4/2/2003 Iwo-way stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St e Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period Build PM Peak Project Description 2001740.A11 East/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: East-West J§tudy 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 96 498 0 0 717 201 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 1 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 106 553 1 0 0 1 754 211 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 __ — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T k 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 1 0 249 1 0 255 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 Delay,Queue Len th 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 5%queue length 0.52 47.94 Control Delay 10.9 LOS B F pproach Delay -- -- pproach LOS -- -- F HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k39.tmp 4/3/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 ... SHORT REPORT .w General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 91West St Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 41312003 Jurisdiction Time Period Build PM Peak nalysis Year Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group TR DefL T L R olume (v ph) 673 136 384 489 153 535 % Heavy veh 2 2 1 1 1 1 P H F 0.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 0.88 0.88 ctuated P/A 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 rrival e 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 OW Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 -0 0 0 .. Unit Extension 1 13.0 13.0 3.0 1 3.0 1 3.0 Phasing EW Perm WB Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 1 08 Timing G = 69.0 G = 22.0 G = G = G = 19.0 G = IG = I G = Y= 3 Y= 3 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 952 427 543 174 608 Lane group cap. 1984 619 1213 283 586 /c ratio 0.48 0.69 0.45 0.61 1.04 Green ratio 0.57 0.21 0.78 0.16 0.37 Unif. delay dl 15.0 23.4 4.3 47.1 38.0 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 ,. Increm. delay d2 0.8 6.2 1.2 9.6 47.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 15.8 29.5 5.5 1 56.7 85.2 Lane group LOS B C A E F pprch. delay 15.8 16.1 78.9 Approach LOS B B E Intersec. delay 34.2 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k35.tmp 4/3/2003 .� All-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information FSEalyst IKOM Intersection IBurts Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. uss&O'Neill,Inc. Jurisdiction ate Performed 3 Analysis Year al sis Time Period UILD AM Peak Hour Project ID 2001740.A11 an East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 16 151 54 59 30 28 /6Thrus Left Lane 50 1 1 50 low Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 12 251--j- 51 129 84 201 7 on /6Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR HF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 246 130 439 326 /a Heavy Vehicles 0 2 1 1 0 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 CAI 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 me RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 6.34 6.34 1 6.34 6.34 De arture Headway and Service Time C,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 Move-up time,m 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Service Time 4.3 4.3 -43-7- 3 4.3--T- Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound w L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 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\u2k3E.tmp 4/2/2003 i WO-vv ay 3Lop �_ontroi Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst MJC Intersection Development Drive/Burts Agency/Co. F&O Pit Rd .� Date Performed 41212003 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period 2006 BUILD AM Peak Analysis Year 2006 Hour Project Description 2001740.A11 - The Oaks, Northam ton East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Development Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West tudy 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 0 191 0 7 42 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 1.00 ., Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 214 0 7 47 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 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 ,. L T R L T R Volume 0 0 30 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.89 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 33 0 1 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 ow Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 'W Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th,and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 7 33 C (m) (vph) 1368 831 lc 0.01 0.04 5% queue length 0.02 0.12 Control Delay 7.6 9.5 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 9.5 pproach LOS -- -- A file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k68.tmp 4/2/2003 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 414103 Analysis Year NO BUILD W/MITIGATION Analysis Time Period No Build PM Peak w/mit Project Description 2001740.A11 East/West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street Intersection Orientation: North-South [Study 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 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 5 5 305 21 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — f 2 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 21 5 5 7 5 178 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.74 0.74 0.74 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 8 1 8 9 1 6 1 240 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 0 2 0 0 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 NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 202 5 50 255 C (m) (vph) 1234 1423 157 644 /c 0.16 0.00 0.32 0.40 5%queue length 0.58 0.01 1.28 1.89 Control Delay 8.5 7.5 38.3 14.2 LOS A A E 8 pproach Delay -- -- 38.3 14.2 pproach LOS — -- E B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k33B.tmp 4/4/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information .� Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 414103 Jurisdiction Time Period PM PEAK Mitigated 1A nalysis Year 2006 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 Volume(v ph) 96 496 716 201 230 235 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.92 ctuated P/A P P P P P P tartu lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. reen 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 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 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 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 1 SB Only 06 1 07 1 08 imin G = 12.0 G = 48.0 G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = g Y= 5 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= jY= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 95.0 Lane Group Ca acit Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 107 551 1966 250 255 Lane group cap. 379 1275 914 373 1617 /c ratio 0.28 0.43 1.06 10.67 0.41 Green ratio 0.68 0.68 0.51 10.21 10.39 Unif. delay dl 10.0 6.7 23.5 134.5 21.1 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 1.9 1.1 46.0 9.2 2.0 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 11.000 Control delay 11.8 7.8 69.5 43.7 23.1 ow Lane group LOS B A E D C pprch. delay 8.5 69.5 33.3 Approach LOS A E C Intersec. delay 42.0 Intersection LOS D HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c wer file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k345.tmp 4/4/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST Agency or Co. 2006 Future Conditions STREET Date Performed 414103 Area Type CBD or Similar Time Period PM Peak Hour urisdiction nalysis Year PM No Build Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 Lane group L R L T TR Volume(v ph) 152 526 368 489 673 1134 ■* % Heavy veh 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 PHF 0.88 0.88 0.90 0.90 0.85 10.85 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 1 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N -2 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 3.0 1 1 .0 3.0 3.0 Phasing 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 = Timing Y= 3 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= 3 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay. and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 173 598 409 543 950 Lane group cap. 396 784 593 1248 1169 /c ratio 0.44 0.76 1 0.69 0.44 0.81 Green ratio 0.25 0.56 0.69 10.69 0.37 Unif. delay dl 34.4 18.4 28.2 7.5 31.0 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.5 6.9 6.4 1.1 6.0 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 w Control delay 37.9 25.3 34.7 8.6 37.0 Lane group LOS D C C A D pprch. delay 28.1 19.8 37.0 pproach LOS C B D Intersec. delay 28.3 Intersection LOS C X11 HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k3C4.tmp 4/4/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 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 412103 Jurisdiction Time Period NO BUILD PM Pk Hour rnalysis Year Volume and Timing Input Mw EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 •• Lane group ILTR LTR LTR LTR Volume(v ph) 22 98 37 52 188 41 56 296 38 22 366 30 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wr P H F 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.905 0.95 0.95 Actuated (P/A) P I P P P P I 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 type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 • Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 12.0 127 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 1 0 1 0 Unit Extension 13.0 a 0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 1 07 1 08 iming G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = Y= 5 1Y= Y= IY= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Len th C = 50.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 165 1296 411 440 Lane group cap. 688 683 677 728 wr /c ratio 0.24 0.43 0.61 0.60 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay d1 10.0 10.9 11.9 11.9 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.19 0.19 Increm. delay d2 0.8 2.0 1.6 1.4 .� PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.8 12.9 13.5 13.3 Mw Lane group LOS 8 I B B B pprch. delay 10.8 12.9 13.5 13.3 Approach LOS B B B 8 Intersec. delay 12.9 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved w Version 4.1 c ow file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k24.tmp 4/2/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 •e 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 414103 Purisdiction Time Period PM PEAK Mitigated rnalysis Year 2006 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 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR olume(v ph) 7 40 33 118 93 79 50 187 63 40 271 13 % Heavy veh 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 I P P P P P P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 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 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Lane Width 112.0 1 120 112.0 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 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 = iming Y= 5 1Y= Y= 1Y= Y= 5 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Anal sis hrs = 0.25 cle Len th C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 96 349 371 415 Lane group cap. 681 548 693 737 /c ratio 0.14 0.64 0.54 0.56 Green ratio 0.40 1 0.40 0.43 0.43 Unif. delay dl 11.4 14.5 12.5 1 12.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.4 15.6 1 3.0 3.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 "* ontrol delay 11.9 20.1 15.5 15.8 Lane group LOS B C B B pprch. delay 11.9 1 20.1 15.5 15.8 Approach LOS B C B B Intersec. delay 16.6 Intersection LOS B NCS2000 TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic !1 file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k337.tmp 4/4/2003 MW Two-Way Stop Control Pagel of 2 am TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Earle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 414103 Analysis Year NO BUILD W/MITIGATION Analysis Time Period No Build AM Peak w/mit Project Description 2001740.A11 East/West Street: Grove Street North/South Street: Earle Street 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 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 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 aw Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 10 5 5 19 5 146 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.94 0.94 0.94 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 6 1 6 20 1 5 1 155 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 0 2 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N torage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 .r Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR 1(vph) 175 8 24 180 C 5%(m)(vph) 1400 1239 239 641 /c 0.13 0.01 0.10 0.28 queue length 0.43 0.02 0.33 1.15 Control Delay 7.9 7.9 21.7 12.8 LOS A A C B aw pproach Delay -- -- 21.7 12.8 pproach LOS -- -- C B Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c aw file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k169.tmp 4/4/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 #w SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle St Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 414103 urisdiction Time Period AM PEAK Mitigated Analysis Year 2006 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) 198 626 317 216 170 93 + t % 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 I P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff.green 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 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 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EB Only EW Perm 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 iming G = 15.0 G = 35.0 G = I G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = Y= 5 Y= 5 Y= IY= IY= 5 Y= ly= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = a25 I Cycle Length C = 85.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 215 680 1580 185 101 Lane group cap. 501 1205 725 416 745 /c ratio 0.43 0.56 0.80 0.44 0.14 Green ratio 0.65 0.65 1 0.41 0.24 0.47 Unif. delay d1 9.4 8.3 1 21.9 27.8 12.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 2.7 1.9 9.0 3.4 0.4 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Control delay 12.1 10.3 31.0 31.2 13.1 Lane group LOS B B C C 8 pprch. delay 10.7 31.0 24.8 Approach LOS B C C Intersec. delay 19.7 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k183.tmp 4/4/2003 Short Keport Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst MJC Intersection ELM STREET& WEST Agency or Co. 2006 Future Conditions STREET Date Performed 414103 Area Type CBD or Similar rime Period AM Peak Hour Purisdiction nalysis Year AM No Build Volume and Timing Input ,,w EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Num. of Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 • Lane group L R L T TR Volume (v ph) 120 447 391 473 620 135 % Heavy veh 0 0 1 1 1 1 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.85 0.85 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 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 • ed/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 11.0 11.0 12.0 14.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N N N 0 N N -2 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 1 0 0 0 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasin EB Onl 02 03 04 NS Perm NB Onl 07 08 G = 22.0 G = G = G = G = 49.0 G = 29.0 G = G = IF- Timing Y= 3 1Y= Y= Y= JY= 4 Y= 3 Y= Y= .� Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj. flow rate 130 1486 1 425 1514 888 Lane group cap. 314 690 633 1346 1409 /c ratio 0.41 0.70 0.67 0.38 0.63 Green ratio 0.20 0.49 0.75 0.75 0.45 Unif. delay d1 38.4 21.8 23.9 5.0 23.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 E 4.0 5.9 5.6 10.8 2.1 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 1.000 ontrol delay 42.4 27.7 29.5 5.8 25.6 aw Lane group LOS D C C A C pprch. delay 30.8 16.5 25.6 Approach LOS C B C Intersec. delay 23.4 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright(D 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c wr file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k3B9.tmp 4/4/2003 Jhort Keport Page 1 of 1 go SHORT REPORT on 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 412103 Palysis risdiction Time Period NO BUILD AM Pk Hour Year Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH I RT LT I 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) 51 237 70 25 72 13 29 341 61 38 283 20 !+� % 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 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 type 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 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 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 = Timing 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 385 118 464 367 Lane group cap. 698 658 715 695 /c ratio 0.55 0.18 0.65 0.53 Green ratio 0.40 1 0.40 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay d1 11.5 9.7 12.2 11.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.23 0.13 Increm. delay d2 3.1 0.6 2.1 0.8 PF factor 1 1.000 1 11-000 11.000 1 1.000 +�. Control delay 14.7 10.3 14.2 12.2 Lane group LOS B 1 13 1 B B a pprch. delay 14.7 10.3 14.2 12.2 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 13.4 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k10.tmp 4/2/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT ow General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Butts Pit/Florence Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 414103 Jurisdiction Time Period AM PEAK Mitigated 1A nalysis Year 2006 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 Volume(v ph 13 131 47 59 26 28 10 251 129 84 201 6 % 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 10.60 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 12.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 I Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 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 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 1 04 1 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 24.0 1 G = G = I G I G = 26.0 G = G = G = .K IY= 5 ly= Y= I Y IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.-flow rate 210 188 415 330 Lane group cap. 705 492 763 641 /c ratio 0.30 0.38 0.54 0.51 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 0.43 1 0.43 Unif. delay dl 12.3 12.7 12.6 12.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 1.1 2.2 12.8 2.9 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 13.3 15.0 15.4 15.3 Lane group LOS B B B B pprch. delay 13.3 15.0 15.4 15.3 MW Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 14.9 Intersection LOS g Nor HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c aw file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kl65.tmp 4/4/2003 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 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period EXISTING PM Peak Project Description 2001740.A11 North/South Street: Earle Street East/West Street: Grove 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 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 6 87 33 8 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 onfiguration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 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 1 47 1 5 5 1 91 1 5 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 �t 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 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 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 10.9 LOS A A B B pproach Delay -- -- 11.7 10.9 vp pproach LOS -- -- B B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c Im file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k85.tmp 4/3/2003 . ... .., ­F �....«.,. rage i or i TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection RtIOlEarieSt Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period EXISTING PM Peak Project Description 2001740.A11 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 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 50 522 0 0 1 715 1 94 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 _ — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR ream U stSignal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 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 0 114 Mw 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 "' onfiguration LR Delay, Queue Len th and Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound a Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 50 179 C (m) (vph) 817 248 /c 0.06 0.72 .• 5%queue length 0.20 4.95 Control Delay 9.7 49.8 LOS A E • Approach Delay -- -- 49.8 Approach LOS -- — E ow HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c ow file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k82.tmp 4/3/2003 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt Mest St Agency or Co. Fuss & O'Neill Area Type All other areas aw Date Performed 41312003 Palysis nsdiction Time Period EXISTING PM Peak Year 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 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group TR jDefL T L R Volume(v ph) 640 100 260 465 80 370 % Heavy veh 2 2 1 1 1 1 P H F 10.85 0.85 0.90 0.90 1 0.88 0.88 Actuated (P/A) P P P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 12.0 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 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 + , Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm WB Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G = 69.0 G = 22.0 G = G = G = 19.0 G = G = G Timing = Y= 3 Y= 3 Y= 1Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB Adj.flow rate 871 289 517 91 420 Lane group cap. 1994. 651 1248 283 586 /c ratio 0.44 0.44 0.41 0.32 0.72 Green ratio 0.57 0.21 0.78 0.16 0.37 Unif. delay dl 14.5 12.9 4.2 44.8 32.6 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 +•■ Increm.delay d2 0.7 2.2 1.0 13.0 7.3 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 15.2 15.1 5.2 47.8 40.0 Lane group LOS 8 8 A D D pprch. delay 15.2 8.7 41.4 Approach LOS B A D Intersec. delay 18.9 Intersection LOS B X11 HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c 1 file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k7C.tmp 4/3/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 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 WK Date Performed 1124103 Jurisdiction Time Period EXISTING PM Pk Hour nalysis Year Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB 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 olume (v ph) 19 71 34 39 128 25 52 269 31 13 335 28 % Heavyveh 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.9059 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ctuated (P/A) P I P P P P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 .E Ext. eff. green 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 1120 120 120 120 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 A.< Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 1 07 1 08 iming G = 20.0 G = G = IG = G = 20.0 G= I G = G = M IY= 5 IY= Y IY= Y= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 50.0 Lane Group Ca acit , Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB ..g Adj.flow rate 131 1202 371 396 Lane group cap. 692 690 676 739 /c ratio 0.19 0.29 0.55 0.54 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 ., . Unif. delay dl 9.7 10.2 11.5 11.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.14 Increm, delay d2 0.6 1.1 1,0 0.8 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.3 11.3 12.5 12.2 Lane group LOS B B B B pprch. delay 10.3 11.3 12.5 122 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 11.9 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c ow ow file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kA5.tmp 4/2/2003 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection t 10/Earle A* Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Date Performed 2121 12003 Jurisdiction EXIST PM Peak(4:45- Analysis Year 2001 Analysis Time Period 5:45 Project Description 2001740.A11 -PHF APPROX/MATED 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 L T R L T R Volume 45 470 0 0 680 90 +• Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 50 522 0 0 755 100 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 60 0 105 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 0 66 1 0 1 116 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 EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 50 182 C (m)(vph) 793 237 /c 0.06 0.77 5% queue length 0.20 5.51 Control Delay 9.8 57.3 LOS A F Approach Delay -- -- 57.3 ,Approach LOS — — F file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k9B.tmp 4/2/2003 All-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 a„ ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS *w General Information Site Information Falyst DM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd nc /Co. uss&ONeill urisdiction e Performed 1/24/03 al sis Year 001 l sis Time Period 001 EXISTING PM Peak Hour Pro'ect ID 2001740.A11 The Oaks-Northampton w East/West Street: Burts Pit Road orth/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics pproach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 6 37 30 108 86 28 /.Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 roach Northbound Southbound war ovement L T R L T R Volume 46 171 58 16 248 177� /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 wr Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR ww HF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 low Rate 85 260 323 323 Heavy Vehicles 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 2ometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 w aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Tums 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 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 IDeparture T-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 ow V-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 dj,computed 6.05 6.05 6.05 6.05 Headwa and Service Time ,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.08 0.23 0.29 0.29 ,final value 6.05 6.05 6.05 6.05 ww final value 0.14 0.43 0.49 0.50 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time -4o--T- 0 4.0 4.0 4.0 771 ow Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 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 wa Intersection Delay 13.22 Intersection LOS B file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\kristalm\Local%2OSettings\Temp\u2k98.tmp 4/2/2003 i vvv-ry ay OwF %-WIL1V1 Yage 1 of 1 in TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection arle St/Grove St Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period EXISTING AM Peak - T Project Description 2001740.A11 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 L T R L T R Volume 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 1 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 1 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 1 102 1 12 8 57 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 Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 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 95%queue length 0.01 0.02 0.75 0.31 Control Delay 7.2 7.4 10.6 10.1 LOS A A B 8 Approach Delay -- -- 10.6 10.1 Approach LOS -- -- B B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k68.tmp 4/3/2003 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 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 41312003 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period EXISTING AM Peak Project Description 2001740.A11 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 _ 646 0 0 326 70 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 ..� Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 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 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 81 0 54 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 Delay,Queue Len th and Level of Service Approach 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 j 0.48 5%queue length 0.21 2.45 Control Delay 8.3 29,1 LOS A D pproach Delay -- -- 29.1 pproach LOS -- -- D HCS2000TM Copyright©2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k65.tmp 4/3/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 91West St Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill Area Type All other areas Date Performed 41312003 Jurisdiction Time Period Existing AM Peak 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 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane group TR IDefL T L R Volume(v ph) 590 65 1255 450 90 345 % Heavy veh 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 PHF 0.85 0.85 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 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 , t Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 I hasin ONY=WB Only 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G = 16.0 G = G = G = 15.0 G = G = G = iming 3 Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= 1Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 110.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 770 277 489 98 375 Lane group cap. 2209 672 1339 246 499 /c ratio 0.35 0.41 0.37 0.40 0.75 Green ratio 0.63 1 0.17 10.80 0.14 0.31 Unif. delay dl 9.8 7.4 3.1 43.4 34.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.4 1.9 0.8 4.8 1 10.0 PF factor 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .. Control delay 10.2 9.3 3.9 48.1 44.2 Lane group LOS B A A D D pprch.delay 10.2 5.8 45.0 Approach LOS B A D Intersec. delay 16.7 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright(D 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k61.tmp 4/3/2003 Short Report Page 1 of 1 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 1124103 Jurisdiction Time Period EXISTING AM Pk Hour 1A nalysis Year 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 •w Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume(v ph) 46 173 65 20 50 7 27 313 48 19 255 18 % Heavy veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 "m PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10.93 0.93 10.93 0.93 10.93 0.93 0.93 Actuated (P/A) P I P P P P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 13.0 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 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 1 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 1 13.0 13.0 1 1 1 3.0 3.0 Phasin EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 20.0 G= G = G = G = 20.0 G IG = .� Y= 5 1Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= IY= Y= Duration of Analysis hrs =0.25 Cycle Len th C = 50.0 Lane Group CapacitIF, Control Delay. and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adj.flow rate 305 84 1418 313 Lane group cap. 696 667 1719 725 • /c ratio 0.44 0.13 10.58 0.43 Green ratio 0.40 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 11.3 Lane group LOS 8 A B B pprch. delay 12.9 9,9 12.9 11.3 Approach LOS B A 8 B Intersec. delay 12.2 Intersection LOS B .. HCS200OTM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k94.tmp 4/2/2003 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Rt 10/Earle Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Date Performed 2121 12003 Analysis EXIST AM Peak(7:15- al sis Year 2001 Analysis Time Period 8:15 Project Description 2001740.A11 -PHF APPROXIMATED East/West Street: Route 10 North/South Street: Earle Street in Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound An Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 70 595 0 0 300 65 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 77 661 0 0 333 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — e� Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 40 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound *0 Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 75 0 50 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 0 83 1 0 1 55 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 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration I I LR Delay,Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 77 138 +* (m) (vph) 1165 275 lc 0.07 0.50 5% queue length 0.21 2.62 ns Control Delay 8.3 30.6 LOS A D Approach Delay — -- 30.6 pproach LOS -- -- D file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k8A.tmp 4/2/2003 All-way stop uontroi Pagel of 2 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information E st DM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd /Co. uss&ONeill urisdiction erformed 1/24/03 nal sis Year 001 ow is Time Period 12001 EXISTING AM Peak Hour Project ID 2001740.A11 The Oaks-Northampton East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics proach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 12 121 43 54 24 9 / oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R �w Volume 9 229 118 35 185 5 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR HF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 w. Flow Rate 196 96 399 251 /o Heavy Vehicles Q 2 1 0 No.lanes eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headway 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 9' 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 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 00 [Departure dj,computed 5.67 5.67 Headwa and Service Time ow ,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 2.0 2.0 2.0 Service Time 3.7 3.7 Capacity and Level of Service •, Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 446 346 649 501 Delay 11.18 10.30 14.08 11.63 LOS B B B B .a Approach:Delay 11.18 10.30 14.08 11.63 LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 12.44 .E Intersection LOS B file://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\kristalm\Local%2OSettings\Temp\u2k87.tmp 4/2/2003 IN Fuss&O'Neill Inc. ON an on on w HIGHWAY CAPACITY WORKSHEETS "m MR ■ we F:T2001\2001740\A 1 I\TIAS_NEW.DOC a� Co:aClon Nortnamp'_on Pioneer valley Planning Corni3sion Site Code : 00000000739E Covn:e_ u 0996 26 Central Stzeet Start Date: 05/01/1998 Modulo i 099 West Springfield, HA, 01089 rile I.D. 739e module V-6 (413) 7el-60,15 wsr.,.pvpc.org Pa e 1 Strest name :8urt3 Fit R3 Cross stteet:illo Fl rence Thuz. Fri. Weekday Avg, sat. sun.ed.B.gin Hon. Tues. Tame 1 EH 2 WH 1 EH 2 ►r8 1 EB 2 iJB 1 ED Z HH 1 E9 2 WH 1 EE 2 9tB 1 ED 2 F:* 1 EB a9 S 1 6 • 12:09 am • - 3 ] 2 S ' 2 4 01:00 . • 1 2 2 7 • 2 4 + • ? 02:00 1 • 2 2 03100 i 1 4 2 • 9 2 a a a 04:00 • * 32 3 31 3 32 3 05:00 + 75____20 81 17 ` 06:00 • ' + 7 26� 151 -37 56 3 07:00 ' a 01 2.�—_ 5 • 3 68 129 62 ' ' �! 08:00 * - 59 27 72 42 • • 66 34 • a ' 09:00 - , - 59 50 54 52 56 51 ' • ` 10:00 • a - 52 69 46 69 j 50 66 11:00 _ 12:00 pm • 58 85 so 89 34 6 64 ' - 43 69 lE 74 02:00 4 ' • ewr 01:00 • • • 49 89 44 105 • 46 97 • • ' + . . : + 3 • ' ' 03:00 + • 55 129 0 • • 15 + • 03:00 ' 72 149 _ 16 �--� 05:CO • 93 164 71 0 - 82 - • + 65 136 81 117 • a • 73 128 + 06:00 67 39 TS 96 • • 71 80 ' 07:00 • 08:00 62 121 - 51 90 • ` ' S6 106 + 23 13 36 72 • • 30 7Z • • 03:00 12 33 20 43 • 16 39 • ' 10:00 a + • ' ' 11100 + • 5 19 11 23 E 21 Totals 0 0 454 911 1215 1430 725 570 0 0 1198 1453 0 0 0 0 0 0 1365 2645 1295 0 2651 0 Av9. Day .0% .0% 37.93 62.7% 101.41 98.4% 60.Si 39.2% .0% .00 .014 .0% .0% .0% ]1! Feik!vms 07:00 Qa:00 07:00 11:00 07100 156 11200 66 MOP Vol 161 68 151 69 P! Peaks 05:00 05:00 06:00 05:00 12:00 02:00 05°82 S:00 Volume 93 184 el 180 50 105 ee ADTs NOW w4r w 4w we ROO esr e a�a Fuss&O'Neill Inc. an AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS No No go qw in #w No 40 ex W F:\P2001\2001740\A I BTIAS_NEW.DOC TDC z3 Walnut Sweet Nahck,r.0 01760 Fu phone Rw 651.1610 TRANSPORTATION 506 651 12n N/S: Florence Road 2920APOPATay Pager taco!e914M File Name : 01782BB E/W: Burts Pit Road Site Code : 02001740 State, City: Northampton,MA Start Date : 11/14/2001 Client: Fuss& O'Neill/M. Chase G Page No row Pril T eeo- ruoles Fbrenoe Road Burs Ph Ocied Fknnce Rto=m Suns !Road From NoM From Ent Flom Sara From Westr Start e M Thru Right ru Left Thru ht _ L_ Ldt Irft Told 04:00 PM ` 0 1' 1 0 0 0 0 �' 0 0 2 *� 04:15 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 04:30 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 �ofal 0 • 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 -' 0 0 0 5 Ow 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 05:15PM 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 0_5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 "'" TOW U--2 0 _ 0 0 ' 0 0 0 -�0 Grand Total 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 e 33,3 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 .t.f TOW% 0.0 60.0 25.0 0.0 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 Apprrh% 0.0 68.7 1 r Fiaronm Rom buft Pit Road Fi mtm Rood sum pivi ota0 �+ From Nwh _ Fmrn Emat Fran SauA+ From Wed Swart Tme RJpht 1 Tnry Lett T W Rgnt Tnro loll W Rant Thry Lail Told Rtht Thru Loft T Int Tonal Ree_Ti Maur loir►04:00 M to33:a3 •POM 1 1 - _ L-T Irttimsection 04:00 PM ! NOR vdurne 0 2 2 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0I 5 Percent 0.0 50.0 50.0 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 Paak Factor HVII Int 04:00 PM 04:45 PM 3:45:00 PM 1 3:45:00 PM 1 0.825 w volume 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 Peak Factor 0.500 0.250( i t■r .a tws .r me, stn+ me TDC 2Jt-A.V 0176 Nal,rh_VA 0�760 TRANS�ION ias�iOAO (5081>651.1229 /S:Florence Road 2M CO�O�"T1�N P"ft' (cool eaaa'w File Name : 41782BB /W:Burts Pit Road Site Code : 02001740 gate,City: Northampton,MA Start Date : 11/14/2001 dent: Fuss&ONeill/M.Chase Page No : 1 Orw PMeeO-Can-Ttudu "Pwd Buns Ptt Road Flrienw oeo suds Pk oed Foam NaM From East Flom South Flom YVetl trna M Theo __ Le1i Thev Leff _ RfphtT` ThAo _Right evl�f I--1 Int 7otrd. 04:00 PM 75 5 10 23 34 12 52 18 10 10 1 250 04:15 PM 5 59 4 4 18 32 13 40 13 5 8 4 205 04:30 PM 3 84 2 3 20 27 18 48 10 3 7 0 203 04:46 PM 2 50 6 11 25 15 16 33 7 12 12 1 188 aes olal 1�1 248 16 28 108 .58 171 30 3f 8 849 05:00 PM 1 80 1 13 23 19 7 51 10 7 1 t 1 204 05:15 PM 3 51 5 8 17 20 18 34 17 7 8 2 160 0530 PM 5 48 2 9 14 25 9 42 18 11 18 1 200 T 05:45 PM 3 35 5 4 31 26 18 38 12 10 10 0 190 TOW 12 194 13 34 85 90 50 185 57 35­ 45 4 784 Grand Tote! 24 442 291 82 171 1981 108 330 1031 86 82 10 1830 law Apprch% 4.8 89.3 5.9 14.4 39.7 45.9 19.7 81.4 18.6 41.4 52.2 6.4 TOW% 1.5 27.1 1.8 3.8 10.5 12.1 6.8 20.8 8.3 4.0 5.0 0.8 �iaeetee�foed Buns ft Rood Road aleF From Note From East _ From Swum From West Start Time Riphtr Thry LeR T Rohl Thou LeR TOW Right Thou Mft TT.W ROt TM I LM T� InLTaW ask Haar Vr& 04:00 PM b 05:45 rm- e"1 of 1 Intatsecdon 04.00 PM me Vdww 12 248 18 278 28 88 108 2221 58 171 48 275 30 37 8 73I 848 Percent 4.3 89.8 5.8 12.8 38.7 48.8 21.1 82.2 16.7 41.1 50.7 6.2 04'00 2 75 6 82 10 23 34 87 12 fe 52 18 80 10 10 1 21 `' 250 Votun ,eeak Factor i i 0.84E 04.45 PM High InL 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM Vdufm 2 75 5 82 10 23 34 67I 12 52 18 801 12 12 1 251 Peak Factor 0.841 0.828, 0.859 0.730 wlr stet 1001 atlr 11/15l,LeJOi V7: �r Jc'D orL4D Ili-. rtI I r v w��• GIs TD CNaUck.rMA0171 Nslkk,AAA 01760 i� T*1vvh ".l508 851.1610 TRANSPORTATION Fur: (508 65r 12" (}RTA CORPORATION Pager: (800)N&0763 File Name : 01782B N/S: Florence Road E/W:Burts Pit Road Site Code : 02001740 State,City:Northampton,MA Start Datc : 11/14/2001 Client: Fuss &O'Neil/M. Chase Page No : 1 Grou •PrIn Thacks itorerlee Road Sum PA Rend Florence Roo Funs Plt R=d o From Nam Ftorn FM From South Flom Went sun 79-6-1 ftht `Ifttu .Idt RJgM I T ru Leff _ Right I Thru I Ldt' _._i� t Thm I LAM Int TOW 07:00 AM 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 7 aw 07:15 AM 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 07:3.0 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 POW 1 3 2 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 18 Am 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 s, 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 I 2 10 1 I 2 0 0 I 36 Apprch% 13.3 73.3 13.3 63.3 0.0 18.7 15.4 78.9 7.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 I Mw TOW% 5.6 30.8 5.6 13.9 0.0 2.8 5.6 21.8 2.8 5.9 0.0 0.01 --Prw o wow but"PA Ram �-__ Bents Pt Rood use From North From East From Sous► From Met SM Tim• RqM Then 4e TA RlOM Thti UO A". Right Thru UR Rphl Thry UR Irtt Tots Peak Moor From 07:00 AM to 0G A5 AM-Peelt 1 Or 1 Inberaection 07:00 AM eae Volume 1 3 2 6 3 0 0 3 2 7 0 9 0 0 0 0 18 Percent 16.7 50.0 33.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 U7'00 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 7 Volume I Ow Peak Factor 0.643 ° Nlph Int. 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 07:00 AM 16.45:00 AM I Volume 1 , 1 3 2 0 0 2 1 4 0 5) Peek Factor 0.500 0.375 0.450 I a a. s ..r ell TDC 23 N MAO t Sirsat ahck.uck. 1760 TRANS tpN TelePhone(508 651.1610 Fax (508 651-1229 0%TA ODAPOA�cnW Payer: (KO)996-076) /S: Florence Road File Name : 01782B /W: Burts Pit Road Site Code : 02001740 State,City: Northampton,NIA Start Date : 11/14/2001 Qlicnt: Fu33 &O'Neil/M.Chase Page No : 1 Orou Prh+ee0-Cate-Tn+dcs R eurta F_Rued ad Berta Pt Road L,.. From N01h From East _ From 6wlh Fvn West UA Tyne Thru I LGR Right _ Thru I Left RIght I Twu 1 UIt ht -ru I Left I irri.Tow 07:00 AM 0 40 5 1 5 7. 29 48 3 5 29 Of '- 2 07:16 AM 1 49 8 3 5 13 49 83 1 14 28 2 238 0730 AM 1 49 7 2 e 17 22 52 1 10 22 4 193 07:45 AM 1 58 11 3 4 13 32 61 _ 2 11 _ 36 2 234 ets Yaw 3 198 31 � _ 20 Sol 132 224 71 40 115 6 --�5 08:00 AM 2 29 9 1 9 11 15 53 5 8 35 4 181 08:15 AM 1 33 11 3 2 11 25 87 7 10 26 2 196 08:30 AM 4 31 10 8 8 8 22 50 4 8 27 2 180 06:45 AM 1 47 4 3 5 _ 13 20 46 2 11 17 3 172 8 140 -:W 13 24 43 82 2 8 18 37 106 11 -- 731 Grand Total 11 Total% 0.7 81.0 4 2( 2.8 44 14 1315 l 13.7 2� 1.8` 4.9 �6 1.2 1 1 25 7 ,,,, Appreh% 2.7 81,8 15.8 13.8 27.7 58.5 31.5 84.8 3.7 24.4 89.8 8.0 Fleronoa ROW Burb PO Raw q Raw Bulb Pit Road 'w From Narth Flan East I From South Ffm West Start Tkne ROM Thru Larl APP' Right Thtu�-Colt A9 MOM Thru Left Afy' Right TMu LdttT Pj Inl Toth Tctd _ . .�.�.__ Tod( _TOW _ Total Pe F r rom 0 00 AM eo 0l:4A A)M- oak t d 1 Intarsec5ort 07:15 AM j an Volume 5 185 35 225 9 24 54 87 118 229 9 358 43 121 12 176 844 Percent 2.2 82.2 15.6 10.3 27.6 82.1 33.1 64.3 2.5 24.4 68.8 6.8 07:15 1 49 8 58 3 5 13 21 49 83 1 113 14 28 2 44 238 Volume Pesk Faeor I I 1 0.894 High Int. 07.45 AM 07:30 AM 07:15 AM 07.45 AM ` Vokime 1 58 11 70 2 8 17 251 49 83 1 1131 11 3d 2 491 Peak Factor 0.804 0.870 0.788 0.898 1 wltt am eb MR sm Fuss&O'Neill Inc. No ON ■m nw .. MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS 4m o .w ow ow ws aw .. F:\P2001\2001740\A I BTIAS_NEW.DOC 4 N +s� s J h (-30 jN jLT �j r wR 86 I 51_j � I � SAD 37—) nnr� p ao m ._ MM^1 N 41 J 1j 5 r'-21 52 98-1 I r' 178----) 0NO 37--) LO MM Lo o N N �10� g6--�, 496 in on O'Neill wa BL ��l1�� (�al� �ii-_ FIGURE 9 S 2006 BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES ML Mo►2=740A» DAIL 4/,004 !CALF. Mrs .. N .p w ow W nc0va�o �30 mo �72 I I (-59 191 _J + �T ROAD 1st ow 0 151 n 54 O N.— am F ww rn _5 NNM �72 J ! (-10 25 .. 51—J } 15 1J ^O 237 I '� 70--) rnM� N N M o�EO X239 J � 9 Fuss & O'Neill ba .«. c+q FIGURE 8 S 2006 BUILD CONDITIONS f i AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) LTRAFFIC VOLUMES PIIOa NCB 2OM74QA11 DAM 4/== SC" 111= me N �w 2\ no 0)I-30 20 ,a r' N J s d---j a J PIT ROAD ,2 4 L) in o� J ++ J- i Am f, 2� Fuss & O'Neill JtirJ-�s�aft M..' tai+. FIGURE 7 g TRIPS GENERATED PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PRU Ma 2OM74OA" DAM 4/2= SCALE WM N �4 J �3 (-7 J 4 4 T5 PIT ROAp 3 -1 2 M 207 N 18 O ow r JY 1 N No 2 .eP 1 T mw ..w ow Fuss & O'Neill c+w a FIGURE 6 g TRIPS GENERATED 1 i AM PEAK(7:15 AM- 8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11PNU MO► 9001MA" DAM 4/9003 WAM WM ,�, 4m N �w s� 134 !!,9 No N J I (-„$ PIT ROAD 40 -� i 33 Lo00t go A ON 41 O1NIn �5 m 5 MMN ,$$ —2, JI � �52 / r + ,LJ 1 Ir 22-1 178 �' °D 9$ i 37--) U')iNM An L O N N IN J (— an 96/� Ag6 no Fuss & O'Neill ac n. Na/ FIGURE 5 g 2006 NO BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK(4:45 PM - 5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES POU W 2=74"11 DAZE: 4/9004 SCAM Nis N 3s \ 39 3 roN� 26 J I �59 + T$ PIT ROAD •p 131 1 41 ,n O N•- M nom �5 NNM 72 �O JI � (- 25 ,_ r 237 I 146 770--) 04 N M O JL 626/ w. Fuss & O'Neill Q moaft .«. c+� .w FIGURE 4 g 2006 NO BUILD CONDITIONS 2 AM PEAK(?:15 AM -8:15 AM) mp TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROM In 2=74OA" DAM 4/MW SCAM. I" N w e�. s NN� 8F> il (-108 R PIT ROAD -� 1 (- 3' O 30 � .. mo A Ix in 0 to NMI ?8 l 5 JI � �39 ( "'20 go + 5� 5 19-j 6 -- 71 34—) Lc,",,;; go c*4 to s 9 80 J � -'6 No 45�/� go 4� Fuss & O'Neill c«r FIGURE 3 g 2001 EXISTING CONDITIONS l i PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Plena H& 2O 1740AII DAZE: 4/7006 SCAM WM ow sm N S � Rb a A 24 JI � �54 +� NIT ROAp �• 121 43A0 N 0 O N; Lo Lo in 4w J +I X20 J .w 173 i I 75--) gGo° 65--) NM� ow J 5g5 ow or —� Fuss & O'Neill t«� r g FIGURE 2 2001 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 i AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) " TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11PNU N& 2=740 AIt DAM 4/2= WAM WM 77 7 717 pa ox JI/� ��'. � �_ �f -� ((/rte •' � � .�;;a 11. ,fir� ��,�°;• .. � . 1�j -L• y r nrl. pp kill 1. ;l 1 i1,t ,+. =tea:. .. .�►_ lam. � .��'`�� ,_ It it/'1\ti., (4M 452-0445 FIGURE I SITE LOCATION h t CITY OF • • • BURTS PIT• •• may• ROAD NORTHAMPTON, PROJ. NO. 2001740 All DATE- JANUARY 2003 SCALE. -2000' am Fuss& O'Neill Inc. ow ■. sr FIGURES 1 —9 aw ow aw ow ow mw F:\P2001\2001740\A 11\TIAS_NEW.DOC ow �w Fuss&O'Neill Inc. sw TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX FIGURES 1 —9 an MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS on AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS HIGHWAY CAPACITY WORKSHEETS ACCIDENT DATA mm to 4■ flo In F:\P2001\2001740W I IMAS_NEW.DOC Fuss&O'Neill Inc. available intersection capacity being used by the project is approximately 7%at the Burts Pit Road/ 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 portion 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. 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 37 vehicles (7 entering and 30 exiting) during the weekday morning hour (7:15 to 8:15AM) and 47 vehicles (30 entering and 17 exiting)during the weekday evening peak hour(4 to 5PM). 2. Traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 16 percent(37 vehicles)on Burts Pit Road just east of the proposed driveway during the weekday morning hour (between 7:15 and .� 8:15AM). During the weekday evening peak hour traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 20 percent(47 vehicles). The increase in traffic at the intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road is anticipated to increase by less than 5 percent during those hours. MW 3. The intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road is anticipated to continue to operate at an overall level of service C or better during peak traffic hours with or without the project. aw Vehicle delays (average stopped time per vehicle) are expected to increase by less than 5 seconds when comparing the 2006 No Build condition (future conditions without development traffic) to the 2006 Build condition (future conditions with development traffic). a 4. The available intersection and stopping sight distance at the proposed site roadway intersection with Burts Pit 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,Grove Street/Earle Street,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. 9 FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS new.doc in Fuss& O'Neill Inc. an TABLE 7 PERCENT CAPACITY UTILIZATION (CHANGE IN V/C RATIO) MW 2006 No Build 2006 Build Flow Rate V/C Ratio Flow Rate V/C Ratio %Change on Intersection/Approach AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Route 9/West St Route 9 EB Thru/Right 888 950 0.63 0.81 888 952 0.63 0.81 0.00% 0.00% Route 9 WB Left 425 409 0.67 0.69 429 427 0.68 0.72 1.49% 4.35% Route 9 WB Thru 514 543 0.38 0.44 514 543 0.38 0.44 0.00% 0.00% West St NB Left 130 173 0.41 0.44 132 174 0.42 0.44 2.44% 0.00% West St NB Right 486 598 0.70 0.76 504 608 0.73 0.78 4.29% 2.63% Overall 0.59 0.68 0.60 0.69 1.57% 1.41% Route 10/Earle St Route 10 EB LeftrMru 215 106 0.22 0.15 215 106 0.22 0.15 0.00% 0.00% Earle St SB Left/Right 285 504 2.08 3.32 285 504 2.11 3.32 1.44% 0.00% Overall 1.28 2.77 1.30 2.77 1.34% 0.00% Grove St/Earle St Grove St EB Left/Thru/Right 20 9 0.01 0.01 20 9 0.01 0.01 0.00% 0.00% Grove St WB Left/Thru/Right 12 34 0.01 0.03 12 34 0.01 0.03 0.00% 0.00% Earle St NB Lef/Tbru/Right 496 359 0.76 0.89 496 359 0.76 0.89 0.00% 0.00% Earle St SB Left/Thru/Right 184 331 0.28 0.57 184 331 0.28 0.57 0.00% 0.00% 40 Overall 0.60 0.69 0.60 0.69 0.00% 0.00% Florence Rd/Route 66 Route 66 EB Left/rhru/Right 385 165 0.55 0.24 385 166 0.55 0.24 0.00% 0.00% Mw Route 66 WB LeftrMni/Right 118 296 0.18 0.43 118 296 0.18 0.43 0.00% 0.00% Florence Rd NB Left/ThrulRight 464 411 0.65 0.61 466 417 0.65 0.62 0.00% 1.64% Florence Rd SB Left/Thru/Right 367 440 0.53 0.60 375 444 0.54 0.61 1.89% 0.00% mw Overall 0.55 0.52 0.55 0.53 0.52% 1.34% Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd qW Burts Pit Rd EB Left/Thru/Right 213 93 0.46 0.27 246 112 0.50 0.31 7.81% 14.11% Burts Pit Rd WB Left/Thru/Right 126 339 0.34 0.63 130 362 0.34 0.70 2.09% 9.87% Florence Rd NB Left/Thru/Right 437 351 0.69 0.63 439 360 0.72 0.67 4.06% 7.75% Florence Rd SB Left/Thru/Right 325 380 0.57 0.67 326 383 0.58 0.71 3.18% 0.00% 40 Overall 0.57 0.62 0.59 0.66 3.65% 7.17% 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. Results of this analysis are presented in Table 7. 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 g FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS new.doc am Fuss&O'Neill Inc. aw TABLE 5 DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE(FEET) Stopping Sight Distance* Intersection Sight Distance** a` Approach Required Measured Required Measured Burts Pit Road at site Eastbound 250 650 390 675 driveway Westbound 250 700 390 400 aw ' Table V-2,Minimum Stopping Sight Distance for Wet Pavements from AASHTO"Geometric Design of Highway and Streets". '• Table V-11 Comer Sight Distances at Rural Intersections from AASHTO"Geometric Design Of Highways and Streets". ■s Hospital Hill Mitigation aw The proposed intersection improvements associated with the Hospital Hill project will restore acceptable operating conditions to all locations expected to experience congestion impacts due aw to the development of that project. The incremental increase in traffic due to the Oaks project can be accommodated by the improved intersections without significantly increasing delay for individual movements. Level of service will remain unchanged for all movements at the Aw improved intersections with the addition of the proposed site traffic. ow TABLE 6 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WITH HOSPITAL HILL MITIGATION MW 2007 No Build 2007 Build with Mitigation with Mitigation Delay LOS Delay LOS MW Intersection/Approach- AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Route 10/Earle St 4W Route 10 EB Left 12.1 11.8 B B 12.1 11.8 B B Route 10 EB Thni 10.3 7.8 B A 10.3 7.8 B A Route 10 WB Tbru/Right 31.0 69.5 C E 31.1 69.8 C E ow 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 ow Grove St/Earle St Grove St EB LeftrnmVRight 12.8 14.2 B B 12.8 14.2 B B Grove St WB Left/ 1mvRight 21.7 38.3 C E 21.7 38.3 C E ow 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 ow Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd Burts Pit Rd EB Lt/Th/Rt 13.3 11.9 B B 13.9 12.2 B B Burts Pit Rd WB Lt/Th/Rt 15.0 20.1 B C 15.1 21.3 B C ow Florence Rd NB Lt/'IIVRt 15.4 15.5 B B 15.5 15.9 B B Florence Rd SB LVIVRt 15.3 15.8 B B 15.4 16.0 B B Overall 14.9 16.6 B B 1 15.1 17.1 1 B B .R 7 FAP200I\2001740W11\TIAS new.doc aM Fuss&O'Neill Inc. to Hospital Hill Area The proposed project is expected to increase peak hour through traffic volumes on Burts Pit Road east of Florence Road by less than 10%. This incremental increase in traffic is not expected to have detrimental congestion impacts on the intersections in the Hospital Hill Area. Full build out of just the Phase I portion of the proposed Hospital Hill development is estimated to generate more than ten times this amount of peak hour traffic volume on adjacent roadways, so that the potential share of any mitigation responsibility related to the impacts of the Hospital Hill project which could be assigned to The Oaks development is insignificant. 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 intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road will continue to operate at a good level of service of C or better during the 2006 Build condition. 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 Burts Pit Road,just to the west of Platinum Circle, to form an unsignalized T-intersection. It is anticipated that all critical movements at this intersection will operate at a good LOS A during the year 2006 Build condition for both morning and afternoon hours analyzed. 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 object 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 36 mph eastbound and 34 mph westbound.Table 5 illustrates the required sight distances for the average running speed on Burts Pit Road and the available sight distance measured in the field. Using the prevailing operating speeds on Burts Pit Road, there is adequate intersection and stopping sight distance at the site driveway intersection location. 6 FAP200I\2001740W11\TIAS new.doc MM Fuss&O'Neill Inc. am Burts Pit Road just east of the proposed driveway during the weekday morning hour between 7:15 and 8:15AM. During the weekday evening peak hour (4:45 to 5:45 PM) traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 20 percent (47 vehicles) at the same location. The .� increase in traffic at the intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road is anticipated to increase by less than 5 percent during the morning and the afternoon peak periods. Traffic on Burts Pit Road just east of Florence Road is anticipated to increase by less than 9 percent during both peak hours analyzed or approximately 24 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 31 vehicles during the evening peak hour. TABLE 4 WEEKDAY MORNING/WEEKDAY EVENING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERICE SUMMARY 2001 Existing 2006 No Build 2006 Build Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Route 9/West St Route 9 EB Thru/Right 23.7/34.0 C/C 25.6/37.0 C/D 25.6/37.1 C/D Route 9WBLeft 17.1 /25.8 B/C 29.5/34.7 C/C 29.7/36.1 C/D Route 9WBThru 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 42.4/37.9 D/D 42.5/37.9 D/D West St NB Right 22.5/ 17.6 C/B 27.7/25.3 C/C 28.9/26.0 C/C Overall 19.0/23.7 B/C 23.4/283 C/C 23.8/28.8 C/C Route 10/Earle St Route 10 EB Left/Thru 8.3/9.7 A/A 9.6/ 10.9 A/B 9.6/ 10.9 A/B Earle St SB Left/Right 29.1 /49.8 D/E 563.6/>600 F/F 578.0/>600 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 Left/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 13/13 25.6/53.1 D/F 25.6/53.1 D/F Earle St SB Left/Thru/Right 10.1 / 10.9 13/13 12.7/ 19.3 B/C 12.7/ 19.3 B/C Florence Rd/Route 66 Route 66 EB Left/rhrWRight 12.9/10.3 BB 14.7/10.8 BB 14.7/10.8 BB Route 66 WB LeftnluvRight 9.9/11.3 AB 10.3/12.9 BB 10.3/12.9 BB Florence Rd NB Left/Thru/Right 12.9/12.5 BB 14.2/13.5 BB 14.3/13.6 BB ` Florence Rd SB Leftrfbru/Right 11.3/12.2 BB 12.2/13.3 BB 12.3/13.4 BB Overall 12.2/11.9 BB 13.4/12.9 BB 13.5/13.0 BB .a Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd Burts Pit Rd EB Left/Thru/Right 11.2/10.1 BB 12.8/11.3 BB 14.1/12.2 BB Burts Pit Rd WB Lef rrhru/Right 10.3/13.2 BB 11.6/18.0 B/C 12.0/21.0 B/C ow Florence Rd NB Left/Thru/Right 14.1/13.5 BB 18.4/17.3 C/C 20.1/19.7 C/C Florence Rd SB Left/Thru/Right 11.6/13.8 BB 15.1/19.4 C/C 16.1/21.8 C/C MM Burts Pit Rd/Site Drive Burts Pit Rd WB LefVThrough Does Not Exist Does Not Exist 7.6/7.4 A/A Site Driveway NB Left/Right 9.5/8.8 A/A IM 5 am FAP2001\2001740\AII\TIAS new.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 40 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. The resulting distribution produces no demand for commuting trips oriented to and from the west on Burts Pit Road. Projected trips assigned to Burts Pit Road and Florence Road can be seen in Figure 4. 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. Figure 5 present the Build «. conditions,which includes the traffic after the completion of the proposed development,for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours respectively. TABLE 3 ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT 2006 No 2006 Increase Build Build Percent (Veh/Hr) (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) WEEKDAY MORNING Burts Pit Road just west of Driveway 233 233 0 0.0% Burts Pit Road just east of Driveway 233 270 37 15.9% Burts Pit Road just east of Florence Rd 457 481 24 5.3% Intersection of Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd 985 1022 37 3.8% Intersection of Route 66/Florence Rd 1240 1249 9 0.7% Intersection of Route IO/Earle St 1620 1622 2 0.1% Intersection of West Street/Elm Street 2186 2208 22 1.0% «a WEEKDAY EVENING Burts Pit Road just west of Driveway 236 236 0 0.0% q" Burts Pit Road just east of Driveway 236 283 47 19.9% Burts Pit Road just east of Florence Rd 433 464 31 7.2% Intersection of Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd 994 1041 47 4.7% Intersection of Route 66/Florence Rd 1246 1257 11 0.9% Intersection of Route I O/Earle St 1974 1977 3 0.2% Intersection of West Street/Elm Street 2342 2370 28 1.2% Table 3 illustrates the traffic volume increases at the intersection of Burts Pit Road with Florence Road. Traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 16 percent(37 vehicles)on 4 F:\P2001\2001740\AIIMAS new.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 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 overall intersection delay at Burts Pit Road/Florence Road will increase by approximately five seconds per vehicle ow during both peak hours analyzed and level of service will drop from B to C due to background traffic growth. OF 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:OOPM-5:OOPM. These periods are when the traffic volumes at the study .. intersections are typically at their highest. 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 standard. The Land Use Code 230,Residential Condominium/Townhouses,was used to project peak hour traffic volumes for this development assuming 64 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 37 vehicle trips (7 entering and 30 exiting). Traffic to be generated during the weekday evening peak hour is estimated at approximately 47 vehicles (30 entering and 17 exiting). Table 2 summarizes the estimated site traffic generation. TABLE 2 SITE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Vehicle Trips Weekday Daily(24 hour) Entering 320 Exiting 320 Total 640 Weekday Morning Peak Hour Entering 7 Exiting 30 Total 37 Weekday Evening Peak Hour Entering 30 Exiting 17 Total 47 Figure 4 indicates the peak hour traffic added by the site for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak periods respectively. 3 FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS new.doc Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Capacity analysis was conducted for the existing traffic volumes at the intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road. This analysis was conducted for the morning traffic hour(7:15-8:15AM) and for the evening peak traffic hour (4:00-5:00 PM). As illustrated in Table 4, the overall intersection is currently operating at a good level of service (LOS) B. 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 ■w ACCIDENT DATA Burts Pit Rd and Florence Rd Near Proposed Site Drive Total 1999 3 0 3 2000 3 0 3 2001 2 0 2 ' Total 16 0 16 There were a total of 8 accidents reported at the intersection of Florence Road and Burts Pit Road over the three years analyzed. A crash rate of 0.72 accidents per million entering vehicles was calculated,which is lower 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 particular intersection. There were no reported accidents near the immediate location of the site driveway. 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 2006 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 5110 just south of the Hatfield-Northampton town lines, indicate an estimated 1.6 percent annual increase in ■ traffic. This estimate was used as the background traffic growth factor to project the future conditions. Figure 3 indicates the projected 2006 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 2 FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS new.doc so Fuss& O'Neill Inc. ,o TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT THE OAKS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT am NORTHAMPTON, MA am INTRODUCTION ow The following traffic report summarizes the analysis and evaluation of the traffic impact expected for a proposed Open Space Residential/Cluster development off Burts Pit 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 Burts Pit Road just to the west of Platinum Circle. The proposed housing will be divided into two ' building areas. These building areas will include a total of 10 2-family and 44 single family residential structures.All vehicular access and egress will be from the new site roadway,located off Burts Pit Road. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE Burt Pits Road is a two-lane residential street with an overall pavement width of approximately 32 feet in the vicinity of the access to the site. The study area intersections included in this aw study are: • Florence Road at Route 66 ow • Burts Pit Road at Florence Road 0 Burts Pit Road at Proposed Site Drive • West Street/Elm Street • Earle Street/Grove Street • 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:OOPM-6:OOPM)at the intersection of Burts Pit Road and Florence Road. This intersection is a four-way, stop sign controlled, intersection with one approach lane (a shared left/through/right-turn lane) in each direction. Figures 2 and 3 present the existing weekday morning hour(7:15AM-8:15AM) and evening peak traffic hour(4:45PM-5:45PM) traffic volumes. ow Daily traffic volumes for Burts Pit Road were obtained from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission(PVPC). Daily volumes just to the west of Florence Road averaged approximately 2,650 vehicles per day during the year 1998. Comparison of this count with the more recent intersection counts indicates that this daily volume figure is still valid. .. 1 FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS new.doc �w w TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT THE OAKS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT per NORTHAMPTON,MA Prepared for: +� The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. March 2003 In Revised Traffic Impact Report March 2003 Well No. B-9 Start 11-6-02 Finish I1-6-02 B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet --!-Of I Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Inspector P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project The Oaks # Tel: 1-4134323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J•Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25"ID Y Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. `""' No. Range Change Lithology/Remarks -08 1844 . S-1 0-2' 5 3 3 7 1 9" 0-2"organics,2-9"-brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.DRY S-2 5-7' 23 35 26 16 4' Same as above.DRY S-3 10-12' 10 48 50 12" Gray/brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels. till DRY 3" AUGER REFUSAL 13' No Apparext Water +wr Field Obs. Only Sump Ft Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. wo Well No. B-8 Start 11-6-02 Finish I1-6-02 B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet --!-Of I Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Inspector P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project The Oaks # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25"ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range change Lithology/Remarks 6-1 1 - 18-21 . S-1 0-2' 15 50 3" Brown fine-medium SAND,trace organics.DRY 1" S-2 5-7 27 27 50 10" Gray fine-medium SAND,some silt,trace gravels.DRY 2" e S-3 10-12' 25 1 33 35 40 18" Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT.WET S-4 15-1T 25 48 50 15" Brown fine-medium SAND,some silt,trace gravels.WET 5" EOB @ IT Water 9' Field Obs.Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Mae Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser R. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. go Well No. B-7 Start 11-7-02 Finish 11-7-02 B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet 1 of 1 Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Inspector P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project The Oaks # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J-Martin on Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" 40 Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range Change Lithology/Remarks t32 1 -8 1&24 S-1 0-2' 3 7 14" 1 0-4"organics,4-14"brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.DRY S-2 5-7 40 50 6" Brown/ fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.DRY 4" S-3 10-12' 17 1 24 23 1 20 20" Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.DRY S-4 15-1T 15 16 36 30 12" Brown fine-coarse SAND,some silt,trace gravels.WET EOB @IT Water 14' am a. Field Obs.Only Sump FL Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%) Screen Ft. Slot- Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. Well No. B-6 Start 11-6-02 Finish 11 6-02 B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet 1 of 1 Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Inspector P.O. Box 1060 The Oaks Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location_Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5066 ** Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martin am Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range Change Lithology/Remarks t68 18-24 S-1 0-2' 1 7 12" 04"organics, 4-12"brown fine-medium SAND and SILT.DRY S-2 5-7 35 29 35 31 20" Gray/brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.DRY S-3 10-12' 9 1 23 1 19 20 11" Same as above.WET S4 15-1T 22 27 50 9" Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.WET 5" EOB A IT Water @ 9' w Field Obs.Only Sump Ft Dia. Fifter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft Slot-Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. go Well No. B-5 Start 11-7-02 Finish 1111 — B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet 1 of 1 Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Desi1 Inspector on P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project The Oaks # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065 ** Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" ' ample Depth REC. No. Range change Lithology/Remarks 0.8 8- 1 -18 7 S-1 0-2' 2 2 4 6 1 6" 0-2"organics,2-6"brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.DRY S-2 5-7 20 28 25 30 18" Gray fine SAND.DRY as S-3 10-12' 12 21 20 30 16" Brown fine SAND and SILT.WET Mill 4011 S-4 15-17 7 12 17 26 19" 1 GMY SILT,trace fine-medium sand.MOIST EOB @ I T Water @ 8' w am Field Obs. Only Sump Ft Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10 o ). Screen Ft. Slot-Dia Bentonite Flush � Little-10-20% Riser R. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. Well No. B-4 Start 11-7-02 Finish 11-7-02 B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet --L--Of 1 Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Desi Inspector P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project The Oaks # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martin 10 Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25"ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth RED. `r'�' No. Range CA�npt Lithology/Remarks 0 B 1 12-18 _W4 go S-1 0-2' 8 3 1 3 15" 0-6"organics,6-15"brown fine-medium SAND and SILT.MOIST S-2 5-7 9 8 10 14 17" Red/brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels,coarse sand.DRY S-3 10-12' 19 26 18 50 2" Rock eats.DRY S-4 13-15' 100 3" Pulverized rock fiagments.DRY 3" AUGER REFUSAL @ 13' EOB @ 13' No Apparent Water am +.e Field Obs. Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete w Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser FL Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. Well No. Start 11-7-02 Finish 11-7-02 B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet 1 Of I Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Inspector P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Tt1e Oaks # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J•Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25"ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" an No. Ra Qe REC. ch�ps Lithology/Remarks 61 12-18 18- *■ S-1 0-2' 1 1 2 3 10" 0-2"organics,2-10"brown fine-medium SAND and SQ.T,trace gravels,coarse sand.DRY S-2 5-7 18 24 25 16 22" brown/ fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels,coarse sand.DRY S-3 10-12' 10 12 22 14 18" Same as above.DRY S-4 15-17 50 40 42 35 14" Gray fine-median SAND,some silt,trace gravels,coarse sand.DRY EOB IT No Apparent Water lox IN +'s ra in Field Obs. Only Sump Ft Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot-Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% I Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. Well No. U'2 Start 11-6-02 Finish I1 b-01 +wl B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet 1 of 1 Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Inspector aw P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project The oaks # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Northampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065' am Well Locus Drill/Crew J•Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25"ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range change Lithology/Remarks 61 -1 _"2 S-1 0-2' 1 1 1 3 1 6" Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT.DRY S-2 5-7 17 40 31 26 6" Gray fine-coarse SAND,some silt.MOIST S-3 10-12' 5 10 15 16 8" Brown/ fine-coarse SAND,some silt,little gravels.WET S-4 15-17 26 50 10" Gray fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.(till) 5" EOB @ 1T WATER @ 9' w Field Obs. Only Sump FL Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen FL Slot-Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. Sentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. Well No. —B-1 Start 11-6-02 Finish 11-6-02 B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass, LLC Sheet! Of 1 Environmental /Geotechnical Specialists Berkshire Deli Client 8n Inspector P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project The Oaks # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd,Nordiampton,MA Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J•Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range Change Lithology/Remarks 0-8 Jq _1 1 48 1 4 . S-1 0-2' 11 13 11 3 14" 0-2"orgaWcs, 2-14"Brown fine SAND and SILT.DRY S-2 5-7 22 28 32 38 14" GraY fine-medium SAND,some silt,trace gravels.DRY aaw S-3 10-12' 29 50 0" No Recovery, DRY 1" S-4 15-1 T 6 2 1 1 18" Gray SILTY fine-medium SAND.WET EOB Q IT WATER 12' am Field Obs. Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot- Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% AM L And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. �w Soil Exploratory Boring Logs November 6, 2002 Paving& Curbing 1. New Bit.Conc.Paving&Base SF 88,500 $4.00 $354,000.00 2. Bit.Conc. Sidewalk&Base SF 14,600 $2.50 $36,500.00 3. Granite Curb LF 178 $30.00 $5,340.00 4 Granite Curb Inlets EA 22 $100.00 $2,200.00 w® 5 Bit.Conc. Berm LF 7300 $3.00 $21,900.00 Subtotal $419,940.00 Planting&Seeding 1. Hydroseed MSF 50 $50.00 $2,500.00 Subtotal $2,500.00 TOTAL SITE WORK $1,539,069.00 10% Inspection/Oversight $153,906.90 10% Contingency $153,906.90 GRAND TOTAL $1,846,882.80 w s so +�w 0" The Oaks Northampton, Massachusetts Opinion of Probable Site Work Cost Prepared by: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. 02107103 Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Demolition/Earthwork 1. Clear and Grub Vegetation AC 6.5 $3,500.00 $22,750.00 2. Strip and Stockpile Topsoil(-6" assumed) CY 5254 $5.00 $26,270.00 3. Erosion Control Barrier LF 2900 $4.00 $11,600.00 4. Excavate/Rough Grade CY 21250 $3.00 $63,750.00 5. Fine Grading SY 31500 $1.50 $47,250.00 6. Spread Topsoil from Stockpile(6"deep) CY 5254 $4.00 $21,016.00 Subtotal $192,636.00 Drainage 1. Detention Basins LS 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 2. Flared End w/Rip Rap EA 5 $750.00 $3,750.00 3. Level Spreader/Misc. RipRap LS l $3,000.00 $3,000.00 4. Catch Basin EA 22 $1,800.00 $39,600.00 5. Manhole EA 26 $1,800.00 $46,800.00 6. Stormwater Treatment Unit EA 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 go 7. 12" RCP Storm drain LF 1012 $24.00 $24,288.00 8. 15" RCP Storm drain LF 75 $26.00 $1,950.00 9. 18" RCP Storm drain LF 1079 $30.00 $32,370.00 "" 10. 24" RCP Storm drain LF 369 $34.00 $12,546.00 11. 30" HDPE Storm drain LF 966 $36.00 $34,776.00 12. 36" RCP Storm drain LF 45 $45.00 $2,025.00 in Subtotal $216,605.00 Sanitary 1. Sewer Manhole EA 21 $1,500.00 $31,500.00 my 2. 8" PVC Sewer Pipe LF 4078 $18.00 $73,404.00 3. Domestic Service stubs LF 1620 $16.00 $25,920.00 Subtotal $130,824.00 Water qW 1. 8" D.I.Water Main LF 4368 $32.00 $139,776.00 2. 6" D.I. Hydrant Branch LF 131 $28.00 $3,668.00 3. Fire Hydrant EA 7 $1,800.00 $12,600.00 n 4. Domestic Service stubs LF 1920 $16.00 $30,720.00 5. Curb Stops EA 64 $100.00 $6,400.00 Subtotal $193,164.00 Electric 1. Trench/Backfill LF 3650 $4.00 $14,600.00 2. Roadway Lighting/Wiring EA 1 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 3. 6-4" PVC concrete encased ductbank LF 3650 $80.00 $292,000.00 Subtotal $308,800.00 Gas Service 1. Trench/Backfill LF 3650 $4.00 $14,600.00 2. Plastic Gas Main LF 3650 $12.00 $43,800.00 3. Domestic Service stubs LF 1620 $10.00 $16,200.00 Subtotal $74,600.00 MR we Revised Opinion of Probable Cost April 7, 2003 The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Northampton, Massachusetts April 2003 POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN CERTIFICATION I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility o ine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Signed: Mark Kislyuk Creative Developers, Inc. 72 Mountainview Drive Belchertown,MA 01007 CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION I certify under penalty of law that I understand the terms and conditions of the general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that authorizes the stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity from the construction site identified as part of this certification. Signature Company Responsible For Tel: Tel: Tel: 10 40 The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Northampton,Massachusetts April 2003 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS This stormwater pollution prevention plan reflects State of Massachusetts requirements for stormwater management and sediment and erosion control as established by the Wetlands Protection Act(3 10 CMR 10.00) and by the Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Policy. To ensure compliance, this plan was prepared in consultation with the following publications: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection. Stormwater Management Policy. November 1997. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection. Wetlands Protection Act Regulations: 310 CMR 10.00 for Administering M.G.L. Chapter 31, Section 40. November 1997. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection and Office of Coastal Zone Management. Stormwater Management, Volume One: Stormwater Policy Handbook. March 1997. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection and Office of Coastal Zone Management. Stormwater Management, Volume Two: Stormwater Technical Handbook. March 1997. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Storm Water Management For Construction Activities, Developing Pollution Prevention Plans And Best Management Practices, Summary Guidance. October 1992. �w 9 The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Northampton, Massachusetts April 2003 tightly sealed, clearly labeled containers. Any asphalt substances used on-site will be applied according to the manufacturer's recommendations. No vehicle refueling or maintenance will take place within 100 feet of a wetland or waterway. No petroleum-based or asphalt substances will be stored within 100 feet of a wetland or waterway. Fertilizers: Fertilizers used will be applied only in the minimum amounts recommended by the manufacturer. Once applied, fertilizer will be worked into the soil to limit exposure to stormwater. Unused fertilizer will be stored in a covered shed. The contents of any partially used bags of fertilizer will be transferred to a sealable plastic bin to avoid spills. No fertilizers will be stored within 100 feet of a wetland or waterway. Solvents, Paints and Other Hazardous Substances: All containers will be tightly sealed when not required for use. Excess material will not be discharged to the storm sewer system but will be properly disposed of according to manufacturers' instruction or local and state regulations. No solvents, paints or other hazardous substances will be stored within 100 feet of a wetland or „q waterway. Concrete Trucks: Concrete trucks will not be allowed to wash out or discharge surplus concrete or drum wash water on the site. Spill Control Practices In addition to the good housekeeping and material management practices discussed in the previous sections of this plan, the following practices will be followed for spill prevention and cleanup: • Manufacturers' recommended methods for spill cleanup will be clearly posted and site personnel will be made aware of the procedures and the location of the information and cleanup supplies. • Materials and equipment necessary for spill cleanup will be kept in the on-site material storage area. Equipment and materials will include, but is not limited to, brooms, dust pans, mops, rags, gloves, goggles, kitty litter, sand, sawdust and plastic and metal trash containers specifically for this purpose. • All spills will be cleaned up immediately after discovery. • The spill area will be kept well ventilated and personnel will wear appropriate protective clothing to prevent injury from contact with a hazardous substance. XM • Spills of toxic or hazardous material will be reported, regardless of size, to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection at 888-304-1133. • Should a spill occur, the spill prevention plan will be adjusted to include measures to wa prevent another spill and to cleanup up the spill should another occur. A description of the spill, along with the causes and cleanup measures will be included in the updated spill prevention plan. • The construction superintendent responsible for daily operation on the construction site will be the spill prevention and cleanup coordinator. The superintendent will designate at least three site personnel to receive spill prevention cleanup and training. These individuals will each become responsible for a particular phase of prevention and cleanup. The names of responsible spill personnel will be posted in the material storage area and in the on-site job trailer. 8 go The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan m Northampton, Massachusetts April 2003 Inventory for Pollution Prevention Plan ' Asphalt Masonry block Cleaning solvents Metal studs Concrete Paints (enamel and latex) *u Detergents Petroleum-based products Fertilizers Solvents Gravel Wood Spill Prevention All employees will be instructed regarding the following spill prevention practices. Notice of these practices will be posted in the job trailer, and the site construction supervisor will hold responsibility for ensuring that the procedures are followed. Material Management Practices The following material management practices will be used to reduce the risk of spills or other accidental exposure of materials and substances to stormwater runoff: Good Housekeeping The following good housekeeping practices will be followed on-site during the construction period: An effort will be made to store only enough product to do the job. All materials stored on-site will be stored in a neat, orderly manner in their appropriate containers and, if possible,under a roof or other enclosure. Products will be kept in their original containers with the original manufacturer's label. Substances will not be mixed with one another unless recommended by the manufacturer. Whenever possible, all of a product will be used up before disposing of the container. Manufacturer's recommendations for proper used and disposal will be followed. The site superintendent will inspect daily to ensure proper use and disposal of material on-site. •n Hazardous Products The following practices will reduce the risks associated with hazardous materials (e.g. petroleum products, solvents, etc.): • Products will be kept in original containers unless they are not resealable. • Original labels and material safety data sheets (MSDS) will be retained; they contain important product information. • A copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for each product used in construction will be kept in the job trailer. • If surplus product must be disposed of, manufacturer' or local- and state-recommended methods for proper disposal will be followed. Product Specific Practices Petroleum Products: All on-site vehicles will be monitored for leaks and will receive regular preventative maintenance to reduce the chance of leakage. Petroleum products will be stored in 7 The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Northampton,Massachusetts April 2003 wn MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection and Maintenance Practices The following inspection and maintenance practices will be utilized in this project to maintain sediment and erosion controls: • Less than one half of the site will be cleared at one time. • All control measures will be inspected weekly (at a minimum) and following any storm event of 0.5 inches or greater. • All measures will be maintained in good working order; if a repair is necessary, it will be initiated within 24 hours of report. • Contractor will stockpile on site or make available all equipment, materials (e.g. filter fabric, haybales, crushed stone, etc.)and labor necessary to make emergency erosion control improvements within four hours if necessary. n • Built-up sediment will be removed from silt fence when it has reached one-third the height of the fence. 0 Silt fence will be inspected for depth of sediment, tears, to verify that fabric is securely attached to the stakes and to verify that stakes are firmly in the ground. 0 Sediment basin(s) will be inspected for depth of sediment, and accumulated sediment will be removed when it reaches 10 percent of the design capacity or at the end of the job. ' ! • Temporary and permanent seeding will be inspected for bare spots, washouts and healthy growth. • A maintenance inspection report will be made after each inspection. • The site contractor will select one or more individuals who will be responsible for inspections, maintenance and repair activities and for completing inspection and maintenance reports. ?en • Individuals selected for inspection and maintenance responsibilities will receive training in all inspection and maintenance practices necessary for keeping the on-site erosion and sediment controls in good working order. Non-Stormwater Discharges It is expected that the following non-stormwater discharges will occur from the site during the construction period: • Water from water line flushings. • Pavement wash waters (where no spills or leaks of toxic or hazardous chemicals have occurred. • Uncontaminated groundwater from dewatering excavations. • Water from washing the exterior of construction vehicles. Non-stormwater discharges will be directed to stabilized surfaces or the detention basin prior to discharge. Exterior washing and rinsing of vehicles will take place more than 100 feet from wetlands or waterways. an 6 Im The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Northampton, Massachusetts April 2003 Other Controls Waste Disposal Waste Materials: Waster materials will be collected and stored in a lidded metal dumpster rented from a licensed solid waste management company. All trash and construction debris will be stored in the dumpster. The dumpster will be emptied at least twice a week, or more if necessary, and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulation. No construction waste materials will be buried on site. Notices stating these procedures will be posted in the job trailer. Site personnel will be instructed in these procedures and site construction supervisor(s) will ensure that the procedures are followed. w Hazardous Waste: Hazardous waste will be disposed of in the manner specified by local, state and federal regulation or by the manufacturer. Site personnel will be instructed in these procedures and site construction supervisor(s) will ensure that the procedures are followed. Sanitary Waste: Sanitary waste will be collected from portable units a minimum of three times per week by a licensed sanitary waster contractor and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal regulation. Off-Site Vehicle Tracking A stabilized construction entrance will be provided to help reduce tracking of sediments. Stone, which is large enough to not get picked up in truck tires, will laid at the entrance in order to ** dislodge sediment in tires on trucks leaving the site. The paved street adjacent to the construction entrance will be swept daily to reduce mud, dirt or sediment tracked from the site. Dump trucks hauling material to and from the site will be covered by tarps as necessary. an Timing of Controls n As indicated in the Sequence of major Activities, the haybale/silt fence barrier, stabilized construction entrance and sedimentation basin will be constructed prior to clearing or grading of any other portions of the site. No excavation or dewatering activities will take place in an area until appropriate dewatering basins or sediment control structures have been installed. Areas where construction activity temporarily ceases for more than 21 days will be stabilized with temporary seed and mulch within 14 days of the last disturbance. Once construction activity ceases permanently in an area that area will be stabilized with plant material or pavement as indicated in the plans. After the entire site is stabilized, the accumulated sediment will be removed from the sediment basin. 5 MR The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan #w Northampton,Massachusetts April 2003 • Filter fabric will be toed 4-6 inches into ground. • Sediment will be removed from behind silt fence when it reaches half the original height of the fence. • Fences will be inspected weekly and both before and after storm events. Repairs and replacement will take place as necessary. 2. Dewatering Basins: Dewatering basins will be constructed where required prior to excavation activities. These basins will act to settle suspended solids from pumped W groundwater. • Basins will be sized according to the amount of groundwater encountered at a particular „n location. • Basins will utilize a perforated standpipe wrapped in filter fabric for discharge. on 3. Catch Basin Filters: Filter consisting of anchored haybales, embedded 4-6" in the ground, will surround each new catch basin. • Filters will be placed around each catch basin prior to paving or planting. • Sediment will be removed when it reaches half of the original height of the filter. • Filters will be removed only after upgradient areas have been permanently stabilized. 4. Dust Control: Dust control will be maintained by sprinkler or water truck during construction to minimize sediment transport and maintain air quality at an acceptable level. 5. Roadway Stabilization: Until final paving takes place, project roadways and parking areas will be stabilized by grading with clean gravel. Emergency access and service roadways will be maintained as clean gravel surfaces. Stormwater Management A system for stormwater management has been designed for this project. The system, designed by a professional engineer, utilizes curb and gutter, catch basins, a detention basin, level lip spreaders, and a stormwater treatment chamber. The stormwater management system has been designed to reduce total suspended solids (TSS) by 80% and ensure that peak flows for the 2-, 10- and 100- year storm events remain at or near their current rates. A maintenance plan for the Stormwater management system has also been developed. The maintenance plan includes removal of oil and sediment from hooded catch basins, removal of W sediment from the stormwater treatment chamber and annual sweeping of paved areas. The stormwater management system as designed will meet DEP Stormwater management on guidelines. we IN 4 in no The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan No Northampton,Massachusetts April 2003 CONTROLS Erosion and Sediment Controls General Sedimentation Control Practices The following general erosion and sediment controls will be utilized during construction in order to maintain local water quality: 1. Erosion control barriers will be installed prior to clearing and excavation work. 2. Grading and other soil disturbance will be done so as to minimize erosion during wet seasons. 3. A stormwater retention basin will be constructed early in the project to allow the basin to function as a sedimentation basin. 4. Sediment will periodically be removed from behind sediment trapping devices. 5. The clearing of natural vegetation will be minimized; remaining natural vegetation will be protected from nearby construction to the greatest degree possible. 6. Staging and soil stockpile areas are to be located at least 100 feet from wetlands. A haybale/siltation fence barrier will be installed immediately downgradient of such areas. 7. Designated temporary dewatering basins will be used for dewatering. 8. Disturbed areas will be stabilized as soon as possible after construction. r 9. Maintenance and cleaning of construction vehicles and equipment will take place in designated staging areas only. Stabilization Practices The following stabilization practices will be utilized during construction in order to maintain local water quality: 1. Temporary stabilization: temporary seeding, mulching or other suitable stabilization measures will be utilized to protect disturbed areas and stockpiles during prolonged construction periods. 2. Permanent stabilization: areas disturbed by construction will be permanently stabilized by paving with concrete or bituminous concrete, by installation of plant material, or by seeding and mulching with seed mix as described in the project specifications. Seeded areas will be covered with straw mulch or biodegradable netting in order to protect surface until seed germination. Structural Practices The following structural erosion and sediment controls will be utilized during construction in order to maintain local water quality: 1. Haybales/Filter Fabric Fencing: Staked haybales with filter fabric fencing will be installed between any wetlands and areas of work. 3 The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Northampton, Massachusetts April 2003 and detention basins; installation of curbs, light foundations, and utility pads; paving or drives, walkways and parking areas; and preparation for final seeding and planting. Runoff Coefficient Drainage calculations for this project, developed using the SCS TR20 method, resulted in an SCS overall Curve Number(CN) of 74 for the proposed project site. Site Area The project site is 53.57 acres, of which approximately 6.6 acres will be disturbed by construction activities. Sequence of Major Construction Activities The order of construction activities at the site will be as follows: 1. Install haybale/silt fence barrier around wetlands 2. Install stabilized construction entrance 3. Clear and grub for sedimentation basin 4. Install sedimentation basin 5. Continue clearing and grubbing 6. Stockpile topsoil 7. Install utilities, storm drainage structures and basins, and curbs 8. Apply stone to roadway areas and walkways 9. Complete grading and install permanent sod and plantings 10. Install paving 11. Remove sediments accumulated in dewatering basin and in front of haybale/silt fence barrier 12. Remove haybale/silt fence barrier and reseed areas disturbed by its removal Name of Receiving Waters A majority of the stormwater runoff from the project site flows to the northwest area of the site where it is discharged to a tributary to Parsons Brook. 2 40 The Oaks Residential Community Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan W Northampton, Massachusetts April 2003 SITE DESCRIPTION 40 Project Name and Location co The Oaks Residential Community Northampton, Massachusetts on Owner Name and Address Creative Developers Attn: Mark Kislyuk 72 Mountain View Drive Belchertown, MA 01007 Proposed Project General Description The project consists of a cluster development providing 64 units to be sold as single and two family homes. A 12' fire access road and associated grading is proposed within the 100' wetland buffer. Existing Conditions The subject site is a 53.57 acre wooded lot located on Burts Pit Road. The site slopes towards Burts Pit Road and contains three isolated wetlands and a bordering vegetated wetland comprising approximately 1.48 Acres of the total site area. A tributary to Parsons Brook begins at a culvert in the northwest corner of the site and continues offsite in a westerly direction. Proposed Conditions The project consists of a cluster development providing 64 units to be sold as single and two family homes. The development will consist of approximately 4,280 linear feet of roadway including a 12' wide paved fire access road and site utilities including: gravity sewer main and services, water main and services, stormwater sewers, and a stormwater detention basin equipped with a stormwater treatment chamber. The anticipated completion date for the subdivision road and utilities portion of the project is autumn 2003. Natural Resources Conservation Service for the Central Part of Hampshire County reports the soil at the site as Paxton fine sandy loam (PcB, hydrologic group Q. On site exploratory soil borings confirmed the presence of type C soils. This soil type covers the entire area of the property. Prior to the start of construction, erosion control barriers will be installed. These will include silt fencing and staked hay bales. They will remain in place until construction is complete and vegetation has been established. Soil disturbing activities will include: clearing and grubbing, installation of sediment controls and stabilized construction entrance; grading; excavation for dewatering basins, utility trenches, 9W 1 �r TABLE OF CONTENTS SITEDESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................1 ProjectName and Location.................................................................................................................1 OwnerName and Address...................................................................................................................1 Proposed Project..................................................................................................................................1 4s RunoffCoefficient................................................................................................................................2 SiteArea................................................................................................................................................2 Sequenceof Major Construction Activities.......................................................................................2 Nameof Receiving Waters..................................................................................................................2 CONTROLS ......................................................................................................................3 Erosionand Sediment Controls..........................................................................................................3 +ue Stormwater Management....................................................................................................................4 OtherControls......................................................................................................................................5 Timingof Controls...............................................................................................................................5 MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES..............................................6 wo Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection and Maintenance Practices..........................................6 Non-Stormwater Discharges...............................................................................................................6 Inventoryfor Pollution Prevention Plan............................................................................................7 SpillPrevention....................................................................................................................................7 SpillControl Practices.........................................................................................................................8 CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS ...............................................................................................................9 POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN CERTIFICATION..........................................10 CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATION.........................................................................10 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Prepared in compliance with NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With Construction Activity The Oaks Residential Community Burts Pit Road Northampton, Massachusetts April 4, 2003 Prepared by: The Prepared for: Berkshire Creative Developers, Inc. Design .. Group, Inc. 72 Mountainview Drive 4 Allen Place, Northampton, Massachusetts 01060 Belchertown, Massachusetts 01007 The Oaks December 19,2002(Rev. April 4, 2003) Northampton,Massachusetts excessive mowing operations, as this keeps the grass too short and decreases the efficiency of the vegetation to reduce runoff borne sediments and velocities. Sediment and debris shall be removed manually at least once per year before the vegetation is adversely impacted. 3) Hooded Catch Basin with Sump Oil and water/sediment separators should be inspected at least four times per year and cleaned annually or more often if required. Oil and sediments should be removed and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. In the case of an oil or bulk pollutant release, the system must be cleaned immediately following the spill and the proper authorities notified. 4) 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 system should be inspected four times a year for the first three years of operation and, at a minimum, annually thereafter. During years with significant snowfall the system may need to be inspected more frequently. An inspection program should be developed based on experience with the system over the course of operation. 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. 5) Detention Basin Detention basins shall be inspected at least once per year. Inspection shall be conducted during and after storms to ensure that the basin is functioning as intended, i.e. detaining stormwater and releasing it at a controlled rate. All outlet structures shall be inspected for clogging and general condition. Potential problems that shall be checked include: sediment accumulation around the outlet, change in condition of low flow channel, erosion within the basin or the banks. Any necessary repair shall be made immediately. Accumulated sediment at the detention basin shall be removed as necessary, and at least once every three years. The upper-stage, and side slopes shall be mowed at least twice per year. Trash and debris shall also be removed at this time. 3 The Oaks December 19, 2002(Rev. April 4, 2003) Northampton, Massachusetts The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one- " " half of the original installed height of the barrier. Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: The Developer, Creative Developers, Inc. 72 Mountainview Drive Belchertown, MA 01007 shall own the stormwater management system until such time that the Homeowners Association is established. Once established, the Homeowners Association shall take ownership of the stormwater management system unless the City of Northampton Department of Public Works accepts the roadway and/or stormwater management system as City property. Party Responsible for Operation & Maintenance: The Developer, Creative Developers, Inc. 72 Mountainview Drive Belchertown, MA 01007 shall be responsible for the stormwater management system until such time that the Homeowners Association is established; at which time the Homeowners Association will be responsible. The Homeowners Association shall maintain responsibility unless the City of Northampton Department of Public Works accepts the roadway and/or stormwater management system as City property. Inspection & Maintenance Schedule: in 1) Street Sweeping Street and parking area sweeping shall take place annually. on 2) Grassed Swales on 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 2 40 The Oaks December 19, 2002(Rev. April 4, 2003) Northampton, Massachusetts go 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. a. 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 Revised Stormwater Management System Operations and Maintenance Plan Revised April 7, 2003 in The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7, 2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4,2003) e. Traffic counts used within the study are more than I year old (Burts Pit Road -1998). New counts should be used to give a more accurate depiction of the intersection (counts used were from 2001) 57. Applicant's contradict them. In one part of the report it states that Burts Pit Road intersection will remain at a LOS A but the conclusions state it will be a LOS C. on SANITARY SEWER: 58. Ties/stubs for sewer lines were not shown on the plans for each lot. *! Ties and stubs for sewer lines for each lot have been added to plans. 59. All sewer lines must have a traceable tape installed 3'above the pipe. a�. A note requiring that traceable tape be installed 3' above the pipe has been added to Detail 6/L3.2. 60. DPW has some concerns regarding the steepness of the sanitary sewer line and its ability to function without clogging. In the flattest locations, the grade on the sanitary sewer is 0.5%. The recommended minimum slope for an 8" pipe is 0.4% (TR-16 Section 2.3.4 with n=0.013). For an 8" SDR 35 PVC pipe (Manning's number, n = 0.011) flowing '/2 full the velocity in the pipe is approximately 2.8 fps, which exceeds the minimum desirable velocity of 2 fps. As such, the Applicant feels that the pipe grade is adequate to function without clogging based on standard engineering practice. 61. A plan and profile of the system within the easement areas need to be submitted. A plan and profile sheet has been included in the plan set showing the sanitary and storm sewers within the easement. 11111 V w The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7, 2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4,2003) so 52. Water testing/fire flow information appears to be based upon 2001 information. Applicant must use more recent information. 4M Response: The water analysis was based on the latest information provided by the D.P.W. 53. Applicant did not explore the feasibility of looping the water line throughout the subdivision, instead of only within the lower portion of the subdivision. Response: The entire water main is looped within the proposed development. 54. Page 14 "Water Study"of Subdivision Rules and Regulations requires that the water study show how to mitigate the impacts of the development on water pressures in the surrounding areas. Applicant did not address the issue of real or potential impacts nor did they offer any possible solutions. Response: Based on the water study prepared for the development no adverse impacts to the surrounding areas are anticipated. 55. In its preliminary subdivision review comments, the DPW requested that the developer install pressure-recording devices along Burts Pit Road and within the Diamond CourtlPlatinum Circle subdivision to provide historic pressures. These were not submitted. Response: This information was submitted in the original Application for Approval of Preliminary ` Plan, dated July 22, 2002. TRAFFIC: Please refer to the attached responses from Fuss and O'Neil pertaining to the DPW's comments related to Traffic. ' 56. It appears the Traffic Study is inconsistent with the information used. The beginning narrative refers to 44 single-family houses and 10 two-family houses. However, the trip generation report uses "Residential townhouses/condominiums" to estimate traffic generation. The applicant should submit a revised traffic ** study considering the following information: a. Impact of new traffic light at the intersection of Route 66 and Florence Road on traffic flows onto the Burts Pit Road intersection. b. Traffic impacts are based upon numbers generated from townhouses and condominiums not single and two family houses. DPW does not believe that 64 units will only generate 30 cars leaving in the peak morning hours. c. Site distances discuss the average running speeds. Actual impact using posted speed limits should be used also. d. Applicant uses number of accidents from MA Highway (1998-2000). Local police department records should be used also. 10/11 The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7,2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4,2003) 45. Waterline should be triple gated at Burts Pit Road. Response: The proposed connection to the existing water in Burts Pit Road consists of a tapped connection (tapping sleeve and valve) and a gate valve on the new water line. This method of connection will permit a live tap without service disruption to the surrounding costumers. A mechanical joint connection would significantly disrupt existing service and was deemed unwarranted. Additional valves on the Burts Pit Road water main should not be required provided the water main was initially installed with adequate valving. w. 46.All curve/angles of the water system require thrust blocks and restraining joints. Response: A note has been added to the plans requiring thrust blocks at all bends, branches, and valves along the water main. w■ 47. Throughout the subdivision there are locations where there is not a 10'lateral separation between the waterlines and sewer lines. Response: The plans have been reviewed and adequate lateral separation throughout the project has been provided. 48. Applicant should redesign the layout of the stormwater and waterlines to prevent multiple crossovers of the system. Many places where this occurs there is less than 2 feet of horizontal separation between the 2 utilities(Stations: 18+75, 20+50, 21 +00, 34+05. 35+25). Response: Our office has reevaluated the layout of the proposed utilities and feels that a redesign is not warranted. Given the circular shape of the proposed roadway, the roadway width, and the number of required utilities, crossover of utility lines is unavoidable. Separation of the utilities has been provided to the greatest extend practical. 49. No plan and profile was submitted showing the depth of the waterline within the emergency access road. Response: The plans specifically require that all water lines be constructed with 5' of cover including the section in the emergency access road. A typical cross section for the emergency access road has been added to the plans, see Detail 7/1.3.1. 50. Waterlines are shown to be deeper than 5 feet in some locations. DPW does not want waterlines to have 9w more than 5.5 feet of cover. Response: The water lines shown on the plans have been located 5' below the proposed finished grade of the roadway. 51. Detail for thrust blocks show "rods." This is not acceptable to the DPW; applicant should show go restraining joints instead of rods. Response: The detail for thrust blocks has been modified to require mechanical joint restraints in lieu of rods. Im 9/11 94 The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7,2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4, 2003) r 40. Applicant states that the residual system pressure for a 500-gpm fire flow is estimated to be 14.5 psi, and that 14.5-psi "should be more than enough to prevent the potential backflow of water into the system." The subdivision rules and regs, the DPW and the DEP prohibit a residual psi below 20. Response: All homes throughout the development will be equipped with individual fire sprinkler systems and all homes with less than 20 psi residual are proposed to utilize private wells and will not be connected to the municipal system. See response to comment #33 above. 41. The DPW is concerned about the impact of 64 additional units(or more if accessory apartments go are constructed) on the remaining distribution system, especially out Burts Pit Road. a. Since fire flows were simulated, and the results suggest a possible backflow condition no may be created, we are requiring the applicant to conduct an actual fire-flow test, using 750 gpm as a baseline at locations above (Diamond Court), below (low point in the distribution system on Burts Pit Road)and at the entry of the site into the distribution system. on Response: Our office has requested actual fire flow tests in the past and has historically been told that the City no longer permits them. Also, please refer to Item 40. go b. No supporting information and/or the consultants "assumptions" was submitted to the DPW to verify fire flow information. This must be submitted(i.e. Average daily flow, maximum daily flow and peak hour flow). no Response: Dewberry-Goodkind is in the process of providing this information. c. DPW wants to know the length of time and amount of water that can be pumped off of this system before a negative pressure is seen within the distribution system. Response: Once the pressure stabilizes during the peak hourly demand there is no reason for negative pressure to be experienced as long as the water supply is stable. 42. Shut-offs and gate valves on the water lines are not shown. Consultation with the Water Superintendent is required for acceptable locations. Response: Gate valves on the proposed water main are shown on the plans. Shut-offs for individual service connections have been added to the plans. 43. Ties/stubs for water lines are not shown for individual lots. Response: See Item 42. 44. Waterline at station 36+00 is outside of the paved roadway. This is not acceptable. Response: The waterline at STA 36+00 has been adjusted. 8/11 The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7, 2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4, 2003) 34. The DPW does not guarantee adequate water pressure for any customer above the elevation 320. on Locations served above elevation 320 will be subject to the Rules and Regulations of the City's Cross Connection Backflow Prevention Program. Response: The entire development is located above the elevation at which the DPW can guarantee adequate water pressure; the proposed subdivision road at the intersection with Burts Pit Road is at elevation 320'. As such, all locations within the proposed development will be constructed in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the City's Cross Connection Backflow Prevention Program. The plans have been modified accordingly. 35. Section 8:21 (20) of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations require that fire flows be based upon 750 gpm for this type of development. Applicant used 500 gpm. Response: The Hydraulic Modeling report prepared by Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. (dated 2/05/03) used both 500 gpm demand and 1000 gpm demand to estimate the fire flow conditions at the site. All homes within the proposed development will be equipped with individual sprinkler systems, and as such, the Applicant suggests that the information provided is adequate. 36. Applicant must demonstrate the peak demand usage (in GPD)anticipated for the subdivision. Response: Projected water use for the development: Number of units: 64 total, 19 with private wells,45 on City System Daily Demand (method 1): 45 units x 3.5 capita/unit x 55 gal/day/capita = 8,665 gallons/day Daily Demand (method 2): 45 units x 3.5 bedrooms/unit x 110 gpd/bedroom = 17,325 gallons/day. Using the more conservative estimate the peak demand is calculated as: 17,325 gallons/day. 37. Applicant should demonstrate how, individual pumps may affect other water services within the development? Response: As mentioned above, individual booster pumps may be installed at the discretion of the homeowner. No impact other than from typical water use is anticipated. The individual booster pumps will increase the pressure at the service connection within the house and will not create an increase in demand different than what is expected from a standard house connection. 38. How will individual pumps affect residual pressures within and out of the subdivision? Response: See response to Item 37. 39. Applicant should demonstrate what the residual pressure drop will be once water is pumped through the house services. Response: See response to Item 37. MR 7/11 in The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7,2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4,2003) WATER SYSTEM: General Response: Based on the comments presented by the DPW and discussions at several meetings with the DPW, the proposed water distribution system and fire protection system have been modified to address the limitations of the existing municipal water service at the proposed development. Please find responses to each of the DPW's comments below. In addition to the responses please note the following revisions: Fire Protection: All homes throughout the development will be equipped with individual fire sprinkler systems. Fire hydrants will only be provided on site at elevations that will have adequate residual pressures during peak hour fire flow demands. From Table 2 of the Hydraulic Modeling report prepared by Dewberry-Goodkind,Inc. (dated 2/05/03))this elevation is estimated to be 360'. Domestic Water Service: All lots that have less than the required 20 psi of pressure in the water main during peak demand will not be connected to the City's water distribution system. These lots (lots 26-45) will be serviced by individual privately owned wells. Lots that have adequate pressure of 20 psi in the water main will connect to the water distribution system. Some homes may be equipped with individual booster pumps if necessary at the homeowner's discretion. All lots throughout the site that connect to the City's system will be constructed in accordance with the City's Cross Connection Backflow Prevention Program, as the entire site is above elevation 320' (the elevation above which the DPW can not guarantee adequate water pressure). 33. 310 CMR 22.19 Distribution System Requirements states "(1) All service connection shall have a minimum residual water pressure at street level of at least 20 pounds per square inch (psi) under all design conditions of flow." Therefore, the DPW will not allow a subdivision to have access into the water distribution system if it does not meet the above state regulation. a. Less than 20 psi in the distribution system can create a backflow condition and jeopardize the safety of the water supply within the distribution system. Response: The proposed design has been modified to address the state requirement that at a minimum of 20 psi under all design conditions of flow be available to permit a service connection. Table 1 `System Pressures Under Normal Flows' in the Hydraulic Modeling report prepared by Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. (dated 2/05/03) reports that the static pressure in the proposed water main at peak hour demand at the highest elevations as follows: Elevation 362'—� 22.2 psi Elevation 374'—� 17.1 psi. +�e Therefore, it is estimated that the critical elevation at which 20 psi will be experienced is roughly 365'. To address the probability of low water pressure at these elevations the proposed plans specify that house lots above this elevation shall have individual private on-site wells with no service connection to the proposed water main in the street. Specifically, lots 26 through 45. 6/11 w The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7, 2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4,2003) 26. The Operation and Maintenance Plan states that the contractor will be responsible for required maintenance until the City has accepted the road. Provisions should be included that state the homeowner's association will be responsible if the City does not accept the road. Minimally, maintenance documents should require the homeowner's association be responsible for any utilities located outside of the paved roadway. Response: The Operations and Maintenance Plan has been revised to indicate that the Developer is responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater management system until such time that the ei Homeowners Association is established should the City not accept the road. 27. After March 10, 2003, disturbance of more than I acres of land requires an NPDES permit from EPA unless the DPW is approved as the permitting authority. It will be the applicants responsibility to determine the correct permitting authority. Minimally, a copy of the erosion controllsedimentation control plan (storm water pollution prevention plan) must be submitted to the DPW for review and comment. Response: The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan for the proposed project has been prepared and is enclosed. A Notice of Intent will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency prior to the start of construction. 28. Operation and maintenance plan calls for inspection of catch basins 4 times/year. If this becomes a city street, the DPW will not be able to comply with this requirement. Response: The requirement to inspect the catch basins 4 times/year is more critical during the first few years of operation while the system performance can be determined. Experience will dictate the required frequency of inspection over time, which is typically a seasonal procedure. 29. In order for the homeowners to fully understand the maintenance of the stormceptor, its maintenance requirements should be spelled out in a document, not just referenced to `see the owner's manual.' Response: The Operations and Maintenance Plan has been revised to specify that the chamber shall ' be inspected 4 times/year for the first three years of operation and, at a minimum, once annually thereafter. An adequate inspection regimen should be established with experience. All other pertinent information is detailed in the StormCeptor Owner's Manual. 30. Required inspections of the detention basin should be required by a Professional Engineer or by a person working under the direction of a Professional Engineer. A copy of the inspection report and 4r information on what maintenance has been performed should be submitted to the DPW on an annual basis. No response required from Applicant. go 31. Drop manholes are required for DMH 15 and DMH 21. Response: It is not standard engineering practice to utilize drop manholes for stormwater drain manholes. As such, the Applicant requests that the DPW reconsider the current design proposal. 32. All catch basins need a grate-type VB curb inlets. Response: A note specifying that all catch basin are to have granite-type VB curb inlets has been added to Sheet L2.1 (note#13) and Detail 1/L3.2. go 5/11 +K The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7, 2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4,2003) 20. Additional separation between stormwater and sanitary sewer needs to be maintained. Specifically stations: 13+50, 14+75, 21+25, and 31+40. Response: The storm drains at STA 13+50 and STA 14+75 have been adjusted. The other locations were reviewed by this office and were determined to have adequate separation. 21. CB 34 is located off of the paved roadway. Who will be responsible for maintenance in winter and ensuring that it continues to operate properly? What is its purpose? Response: C.B.#34 has been omitted. *� 22. Stormwater modeling should use the entire drainage area not just site boundaries. Response: To facilitate an analysis of the downstream effects of the proposed development on e1 adjacent properties the downstream watershed boundaries were drawn at the project property lines. The analysis boundary along the upstream areas of the site includes all watershed areas that drain through the site. This ensures that all runoff that may be affected by the proposed development �. (upstream of analysis point) is included in the model. 23. DPW needs to know, what, if any, impacts may occur downstream of the site after development. Response: As described in the Drainage Report, no detrimental downstream impacts will occur as a result of the proposed development. A detention basin has been designed to attenuate peak flows from the site by detaining and releasing runoff generated by paved areas at a controlled rate. '■ Erosion is controlled by returning all point discharges to sheet flow via level lip spreaders. Catch basins with deep sumps and traps and a stormwater treatment chamber will remove and store sediments and protect downstream wetlands. 24. Page 3 of the drainage report discusses drainage from the north collecting on the east side of the entrance road." This does not exist. What is this in reference to? Response: This paragraph refers to an earlier conceptual design. As an oversight, the paragraph was included in the drainage report. Please disregard. 25. Applicant states that 80% TSS removal will be from street sweeping, deep sump catch basins and treatment chambers. This number assumes regular maintenance of catch basins and stormwater treatment chamber and regular street sweeping. The DPW cannot guarantee that the street sweeping and the catch basin cleaning will be completed on an annual and or bi-annual basis, due to fiscal constraints. Response: The Homeowners Association will be responsible for maintenance of all stormwater components. 4/11 The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7,2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4, 2003) �w 13. A statement must be placed on the plans and specification stating that all materials and construction IF must be to MHD and City Northampton DPW specifications. Response: A statement has been added to the plans and specifications requiring that all materials and construction must be in accordance with MHD and City of Northampton DPW specifications IP (note#3, Sheet L2.1). 14. Where will the electrical service and/or gas service be located in relation to other major utilities? ex Response: Applicant will coordinate the locations of electrical and gas services with the utility companies at the time of construction. 15. No street sign was shown on the plan. Response: A street sign has been added to the plans. 16. All underground utilities must have warning tape installed a minimum of 3'above the pipes. Response: A note has been added to the Utility Trench detail requiring that all underground utilities must have warning tape installed above the pipes. ADDITIONAL WAIVERS REOUESTED: •� 17.The DPW recommends the following on waivers requested: a. 6.04-yes b. 7.01 (4b)—no c. 7.01 (7 & 8d) -no d. 8.10(1)-no Response: Applicant is of the opinion that all of the waivers requested are justified and viable. STORMWATER DRAINAGE: 18. HDPE pipe is not allowed per the subdivision rules and regulations. Response: The plans have been revised to show that all drainage pipe to be RCP. 19. Utility easement that is a "cross country" run must be planted with grass and mowed a minimum of l x per year by the Homeowners Association. This must be included within the Homeowners Association maintenance documents. Response: The loam & seeding of the easement area has been noted on the plans. The Homeowners Association will be responsible for the maintenance of the grassed areas. 3/11 The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7, 2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4, 2003) ww 6. Common driveways will require a turnout to be constructed at the intersection with the road and a separate curb cut application to be filed for each. Response: A turnout is shown on the plan at the intersection of the common driveway and the subdivision road. A separate curb cut application for the common drive will be filed at the time of construction of the common drive. 7. Applicant should explore the relocation of one of the utility poles (65-1 or 66-1) to be centered with the intersection of the street and to have a streetlight installed on it. Response: The Applicant is proposing to install a new utility pole with a standard street light on the south side of Burts Pit Road at the intersection of the proposed street as shown on the revised plan. a. Will utility poles be installed within the development'?If yes, none were shown on the plans. Response: Utility poles are not proposed within the proposed development. 8. Plans show 64 units, however the application narrative discusses 70 units. How many units will be constructed? Response: The proposed development consists of 64 units, not 70 units. a. Will there be a limit on construction of accessory apartments? Response: No accessory apartments are proposed at this time but future proposals are at the discretion of future owners. 9. Due to revisions on the type of drainage pipe to be used, the cost estimate must be revised. Response: The cost estimate has been revised to reflect the change in type of drainage pipe proposed. 10. Boring Log descriptions in report are not numbered, therefore we can not match log to location on map and cannot determine what, if any, impact groundwater may have with the installation of utilities. Response: Boring logs with legible numbers have been included. H. Cape cod berm is not acceptable for the construction of this subdivision unless the road will remain private. Curb shall be either bituminous Type 2 or vertical granite. Driveway aprons must be installed instead of mountable curbs for access to retention basins. Response: The Applicant would like to continue to propose the use mountable bituminous Cape Cod berm. w■ 12. Cost estimate must include a minimum of 5%-10%for inspection oversight. Response: A 10%contingency has been included in the cost estimate. +e. 2/11 The Oaks Residential Subdivision April 7, 2003 Responses to D.P.W. Draft Comments Memorandum (Dated March 4, 2003) GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. As available personnel resources decrease and budget constraints tighten, the DPW will recommend to the board of Public Works and the City Council that the utilities and the street remain a private way, if requested to be accepted by the City. 'a No response required from Applicant. 4• 2. The benches that are proposed to be located within the road right-of-way at station 0+25 +/- need to be located within an easement. All maintenance and/or replacement of such benches shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association. They shall be removed prior to the first snowfall and the DPW shall not be held liable for any damage that may occur due to snow removal activities if the benches are not removed prior to the first snowfall. Response: Per Planning Board request, a waiting area for school children has been included in the proposed development. The benches have been removed from the plans. 3. There shall not be a continuous curb along the frontage to the access road located at station 12+55+1-. A driveway apron with curbing must be installed. 1f this "road" will be used for emergency access, including in the winter, then granite curbing must be installed in lieu of a typical driveway apron. Response: The Applicant proposes to use mountable bituminous Cape Cod berm at the apron of the emergency access road where it intersects the proposed subdivision road. a. Will this road be plowed in the winter to continue to provide emergency access? Response: This road will be plowed in the winter to provide emergency access year round. b. Who will be responsible for the maintenance of this access roadway? Response: The Homeowners Association will be responsible for the maintenance of the access roadway. c. The DPW will accept no responsibility of plowing this access during the winter, as the slope (as scaled off the plan)appears to be in excess of 15%. Response: The contours on the plan are shown at 1' intervals. The access drive has been designed at a maximum 8.3% slope. 4. Who will own and/or maintain the utility easement? Response: The Homeowners Association will own and maintain the utility easement. 5. No cross-section/details were submitted showing slope of utilities within easements and emergency access. Response: Profiles showing the proposed utilities within the easement have been generated and included in the plan set. 1/11 Responses to Department of Public Works Draft Comments Memorandum Dated March 4, 2003 April 7, 2003 RM 3. Wetlands a. The driveway for lot 26 has been moved as far from the wetland as possible but remains within the parcel boundary and partially within the wetland buffer. Moving the driveway entirely out of the wetland buffer would infringe on the developable area of lot 27. 4. Traffic Mitigation—See Attached 5. Open Space Conservation Restriction a. All open space will be held by the Homeowners Association with a Conservation Restriction held by the City of Northampton. 6. Public Access Easement a. A Public Access Easement will be provided within the 60' Right of Way of the subdivision Road and also for the emergency access road. Upon further review of the submission requirements, the following additional waiver is requested: 8:21 20a. Based on minimum lot frontage requirements the city requires fire flows of 750 gpm at twenty pounds per square inch (psi) for a two hour duration. The „ Hydraulic Modeling report prepared by Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. (dated 2/05/03) used both 500 gpm demand and 1000 gpm demand to estimate the fire flow conditions at the site. Based on the results of this model the Applicant is proposing that all homes within the proposed development be equipped with individual sprinkler systems. As such, the Applicant suggests that the information provided is adequate. We trust these responses are adequate so as to allow the project to proceed. Please feel free to call if you have any additional questions or comments.Thank you. w Sincerely, The Berkshire es' Group, Inc. x Bryan Jereb L.A. cc: Ned Huntley, Northampton D.P.W. (1 set) Brian Duggan, Fire Chief, Northampton Fire Department (1 set) go r 100' wetland buffer adjacent to the entry drive will be donated to increase open space. d. The portions of lots 16 and 38 that are within the wetland buffer zone will be donated to open space under the zoning ordinance per your request provided we receiver credit for this land for minimum lot size and depth.We request the setback requirements be adjusted so that the developable area will remain the same as before the land donation. 2. Drainage a. Given that the bottom of the proposed detention basin has an elevation of 306.0' and the existing grade in this location is 314'±, the proposed basin will roughly require an 8.0' deep excavation. A soil boring (Boring B-4) was performed in this location to a depth of 13', or elevation 301'±, with no apparent groundwater observed. Groundwater was observed at other locations of the site. Based on this information we do not anticipate that the bottom of the detention basin will intercept groundwater. ** Regardless of this determination, the introduction of groundwater into the detention basin would not interfere with the proper functioning of the basin during storm events, as any groundwater entering the basin will be discharged through the basin outlet. The rate of flow entering and exiting the basin during a storm event will far exceed the rate at which groundwater may enter the basin during seasonal highs. As such, if any groundwater is introduced to the basin it would not affect the designed storage volumes or controlled discharge flow rates. Additionally, some recharge to groundwater will take place through the detention basin side walls and bottom. b. The soil logs performed at the site were witnessed by a Licensed Professional Engineer from this office. The soil borings were adequate to evaluate the subsurface conditions for the purposes of the detention basin design. Although a test pit may provide a more accurate indication of seasonal high groundwater (typically borings will only reveal groundwater at the time of the sampling), this information is not critical to the design (see response to Item 2(a) above). A percolation test was not necessary because infiltration of stormwater is not c. considered in the detention basin design. Copies of the soil boring logs showing each boring number have been enclosed for your use. -- The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. April 7,2003 Wayne Feiden Planning and Development 210 Main Street Northampton,MA 01060 RE: The Oaks Residential Subdivision—definitive Subdivision Approval Supplementary Information Dear Mr. Feiden, This supplementary submission is in response your February 10, 2003 letter and the Department of Public Works Draft Comments Memorandum,dated March 4, 2003; both of which requested additional information for The Oaks Definitive Subdivision Application. Enclosed for your review please find the following: • (2 Sets) Revised Site Drawings: Sheets 1-7, Ll, L2.1-L2.6, L3.1- 3.2. 0 (2 Bound Sets) Supplementary Information including; additional responses to DPW General Comments dated March 4, 2003, a revised Stormwater Operation & Maintenance Plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, revised cost estimate, boring logs with legible well numbers, and a revised traffic report. Below please find responses to the Planning Department's comments: 1. Quality of Open Space—See attached Flag Lot Revision Sketch a. A 75' wide open space link between Open Space 4 and 5 has been Landscape Architecture provided and will be done by a donation of a portion of lots 24 and 25 under the zoning ordinance so that we will still receive credit for Civil Engineering this land for minimum lot size purposes. We request the minimum Planning rear setback be reduced from 80' to 5' so the developable area will remain the same as before the land donation. .� Urban Design b. An open space link connecting the road to the Maple Ridge Subdivision has been provided. A 25' wide strip of land will be Environmental Services donated under the zoning ordinance provided we receive credit for this land for minimum lot size and frontage purposes. Again we w request the setback requirements be adjusted so that the developable area will remain the same as before the land donation. This would require the rear setback be reduced to 20' where the 75' land donation occurred and the front setback be reduced from 60' to 35' where the 25' land donation occurred. c. Lot 26 has been reconfigured to provide a 75' wide open space link around its perimeter. An additional 4,192 sf±of land within the 4 Allen Place Northampton.Massachusetts 01060 Telephone(413)582-7(XX) Facsimile(4l3) 582-7005 E-mail hda(ahcIk,11iIcdc,I,n ,nn i i 1 I _,I -�--� _ .. __ .� � ._ ,i` �b,: e1 Will The Oaks Residential Community Open Space Calculations 2/6/2043 Parcel Area 53.567 A Area Not Included in Cluster Development,if any 4.37 B Parcel Area less Area Not Included in Cluster Development A-B 49.197 C 50%of Tract Area Required for Open Space before Wetland/Slope/Detention Subtraction C`0.5 24.5985 D 25%of Required Open Space permitted to be Wetland/Slope/Detention under calculation before Wetland t Slope/Detention Subtraction D 0.25 8.149625 E Wetlands in Open Space 1.48 F Slopes over 8%(if applicable)in Open Space (unless land dedicated for public use then up to 20%slope allowed) 8.45 G Detention in Open Space(1-10 yr typical) 0.9 H 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 10.83 I Wetland/Slope/Detention not permitted as part of Required Open Space I-E 4.680375 J Total Cluster Tract Area for Required Open Space Calculation after Excess Wetland/Slope/ Detention subtraction C-J 44.51663 K 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 8%,or Detention Basins required to meet a 10 year storm. K/2 22.25831 L Ilw 75%of Required Open Space that cannot include Wetand/Slope/Detention L•0.75 16.69373 M This is the area permitted to be lots,buildings and roads K/2 22.25831 N Area of Roads to Limits of Subdivision Right of Way O Area of Lots 13.79 P Subtotal of Lots and Roads O+P 18.921 Q FM If this field is positve,the portion of the parcel area that is developed meets the required limits of the Bylaw N-Q 3.337313 R Area of Open Space in Total 1 30.276 S If this field is positive,the portion of the parcel area that has been left as Required Open Space meets the bylaw. S-I-M 2.752266 T This number should be zero C-O-P-S U Paving& Curbing 1. New Bit. Conc. Paving& Base SF 88,500 $4.00 $354,000.00 so 2. Bit. Conc. Sidewalk&Base SF 14,600 $2.50 $36,500.00 3. Granite Curb LF 178 $30.00 $5,340.00 4 Granite Curb Inlets EA 22 $100,00 $2,200.00 5 Bit. Conc, Berm LF 7300 $3.00 $21,900.00 FM Subtotal $419,940.00 Planting&Seeding 1. Hydroseed MSF 50 $50.00 $2,500.00 an Subtotal $2,500.00 TOTAL SITE WORK $1,510,424.00 10% Contingency $151,042.40 GRAND TOTAL $1,661,466.40 an on an ON on M on PM The Oaks Northampton, Massachusetts Opinion of Probable Site Work Cost Prepared by: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. on 02106103 Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Demolition/Earthwork 1. Clear and Grub Vegetation AC 6.5 $3,500.00 $22,750.00 2. Strip and Stockpile Topsoil (-6" assumed) CY 5254 $5.00 $26,270.00 3. Erosion Control Barrier LF 2900 $4.00 $11,600.00 4. Excavate/Rough Grade CY 21250 $3.00 $63,750.00 Ow 5. Fine Grading SY 31500 $1.50 $47,250.00 6. Spread Topsoil from Stockpile(6"deep) CY 5254 $4.00 $21,016.00 Subtotal $192,636.00 Drainage I. Detention Basins LS 1 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 2. Flared End w/Rip Rap EA 5 $750.00 $3,750.00 3. Level Spreader/Misc. RipRap LS 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 ? 4. Catch Basin EA 22 $1,800.00 $39,600.00 5. Manhole EA 16 $1,800.00 $28,800.00 6. Stormwater Treatment Unit EA 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 wr 7. 12" HDPE Storm drain LF 1012 $24.00 $24,288.00 8. 15" HDPE Storm drain LF 75 $26.00 $1,950.00 9. 18"HDPE Storm drain LF 1079 $28.00 $30,212.00 10. 24" HDPE Storm drain LF 1305 $30.00 $39,150.00 11. 36" HDPE Storm drain LF 45 $38.00 $1,710.00 Subtotal $187,960.00 Sanitary 1. Sewer Manhole EA 21 $1,500.00 $31,500.00 2. 8" PVC Sewer Pipe LF 4078 $18.00 $73,404.00 3. Domestic Service stubs LF 1620 $16.00 $25,920.00 Subtotal $130,824.00 Water 1. 8" D.I. Water Main LF 4368 $32.00 $139,776.00 2. 6" D.I. Hydrant Branch LF 131 $28.00 $3,668.00 3. Fire Hydrant EA 7 $1,800.00 $12,600.00 4. Domestic Service stubs LF 1920 $16.00 $30,720.00 5. Curb Stops EA 64 $100.00 $6,400.00 Subtotal $193,164.00 Electric I. Trench/Backfill LF 3650 $4.00 $14,600.00 2. Roadway Lighting/Wiring EA 1 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 3. 64" PVC concrete encased ductbank LF 3650 $80.00 $292,000.00 Subtotal $308,800.00 Gas Service 1. Trench/Backfill LF 3650 $4.00 $14,600.00 2. Plastic Gas Main LF 3650 $12.00 $43,800.00 3. Domestic Service stubs LF 1620 $10.00 $16,200.00 "' Subtotal $74,600.00 1 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 1 7 7 1 1 Additional Information Open Space Calculation Constructions Quantities and Cost rT, The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The Oaks Residential Development February 6, 2003 Project Description so The project proposes a 64-lot residential subdivision on a 53 acre parcel. The most environmentally sensitive areas of the parcel include isolated wetlands as well as a bordering vegetated wetland in the northwest corner of the parcel. These areas and their respective 100' buffers as well as additional upland areas are proposed to constitute permanently preserved open space. Wetland Protection & Preservation The project will have no measurable effects on wetland areas within and adjacent to the site. The only proposed disturbance within 100' of any wetland resource area is an emergency access way. To further protect the site's wetlands, all property lines within the subdivision have been relocated outside the 100' buffer, with the exceptions of lots (#16, #38), and two of the three flags lots (#25, #26). The portions of those lots in the Cluster Development which lie within the buffer are proposed to have a conservation restriction to ensure wetland protection, per condition of preliminary subdivision approval. �r 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 r Surface runoff from roadway pavement is proposed to be collected and treated through either treatment chambers or overland flow. A storm water detention area is proposed to attenuate the majority of storm volume. 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 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(4t3)582-7005 • E-mail bd&berkshiredesign.com /R s � w .� �w Traffic ON The traffic impact will be as reported in the study prepared by Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. Sewer Impacts am Projected sanitary sewer generation: on 64 housing units x 3.5 bedrooms/unit x 110 gallons/day=24,750 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. w Water Impacts we Projected water use: ON 64 units x 3.5 capita/unit x 55 gal/day/capita= 12,320 gallons/day (this is less than the projected sewer use, so use 24,750 gpd for estimate) flift 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 ON Assuming 64 Single Family Homes @ 0.75 children/unit =48 children �Iw an u. 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com taw - The Berkshire Design •"�� Group, Inc. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT STATEMENT The Oaks Residential Development February 6, 2003 NAME OF PROJECT: The Oaks eat ACREAGE: 53.57 TYPE OF PROJECT: Open Space Residential Subdivision 10 OWNERS: Lisa A. Beaulieu &Pamela M. Labrecque (36-068) David B. Musante(36-288, 36-286) no LOCATION: Burts Pit Road (S) PLANNER: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. II�M PARCEL NUMBER: Map 36 Lots 068, 286, 288 ZONING DISTRICTS: SR ENGINEER: The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. ARCHITECT: n/a to PROJECT DESCRIPTION: a. Number and types of units: +0 44 Single Family Detached Homes 20 Attached (Duplex) Units b. Number of bedrooms: to be determined C. Anticipated Housing Cost: to be determined ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Traffic and Circulation 4 Allen Place • Northampton,Massachusetts 01060 • Telephone(413)582-7000 • Fax(413)582-7005 • E-mail bdg @berkshiredesign.com 1111 pig so #m SEWER STUDY Oaks Residential Subdivision PROPOSED CONDITIONS The proposed project will consist of 64 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 225 bedrooms to the sewer system. At 110 gpd/bedroom, this would result in an additional 24,750 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: (44,660 gallons/day existing) + (24,750 gallons/day proposed) = 69,410 gpd Total proposed flow = 69,410 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 impor5tant to note that 110 gpd is the anticipated peak flow rate as determined by the 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). 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. FLOW SUMMARY: Total existing flow in sewer: 44,660 gpd = 31 gpm Total additional flow added to sewer: 24,750 gpd = 17 gpm Total proposed flow in sewer: 69,410 gpd = 48 gpm Total proposed peak flow (factor of 1.8) 124,938 gpd = 86 gpm Capacity of existing sewers 264,970 gpd = 184 gpm Page 2 of 2 The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. SANITARY SEWER STUDY W The Oaks Residential Subdivision February 4, 2003 EXISTING CONDITIONS: The sewer system that will be constructed as a part of the proposed Oaks Subdivision will be connected to an existing 8 inch PVC sewer pipe located in Burts Pit Road. This sewer line in Burts Pit Road begins just west of the proposed tie in location and services only 5 houses west of the proposed tie in. From the point of tie in on Burts Pit Road, the sewer travels in an easterly direction towards Florence Road, crosses Florence Road and continues easterly to Clement Street. 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 newly constructed Pathways Co-housing project is also connected 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 1 10 gpd/bedroom = 44,660 gallons/day = total existing flow. 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 Page I of 2 ow mm aw 4m 4w ON ow ow om Mm ". no go o MIM ON MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 99. 60 392. 18 113.00 120.98 410 7. 97 394.06 115.50 120.71 505 .00 393.36 115.00 120.62 520 .00 392.17 115.00 120.11 369 11.70 393. 47 116.50 120.02 wr 370 1.74 393.45 116.50 120.01 116 36. 85 392.81 116.00 119.95 412 7.22 394.08 118.50 119.42 371 13. 69 393.43 1118.00 119.35 121 6.23 393.38 118.00 119.33 MINIMUM PRESSURES 805 9. 96 410.05 374.00 15.62 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 9. 96 410.03 362.00 20.81 506 .00 439. 91 380.00 25. 96 w 804 7.47 410.08 344 .00 28 .63 809 500.00 404. 19 338.00 28.68 511 .00 454 . 18 385.00 29. 98 61 4 .23 409. 98 339.00 30.76 802 9. 96 410.02 338.00 31.21 600 .00 453.74 380.00 31.95 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 6649.29 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 6520. 14 853 129. 15 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 6649.29 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00 A A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION FOLLOWS ww THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 2.49 THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE: JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND 4 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 �s 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 .00 809 500.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 4 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00045 PEAK HOUR DEMAND WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 500 GPM FLOW @ NODE 809 A� PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 95 800 57 62.39 . 07 .00 .00 . 18 .02 950 800 801 -6. 96 -.31 . 00 .00 -.02 .00 40 951 801 807 -99.74 -.02 .00 .00 -.28 -. 05 952 800 802 -55.43 -.07 .00 .00 -.35 -. 10 953 801 804 92. 78 . 18 .00 .00 .59 .26 954 802 803 -16. 15 -.01 . 00 .00 -. 10 -. 01 Vm 955 802 804 -49.24 -.06 .00 .00 -.31 -.08 956 804 805 36.07 .03 .00 .00 .23 .05 957 803 805 -26. 11 -.02 .00 .00 -. 17 -.02 958 808 809 500.00 4 . 83 .00 .00 3. 19 6. 90 959 807 808 247.59 1.27 .00 .00 1.58 1.88 960 806 808 262.37 1.57 .00 .00 1. 67 2.09 962 806 72 -614.68 -.70 .00 .00 -1.74 -1.40 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 57 8.72 409. 88 272.00 59.75 72 13.20 411.29 314.00 42. 16 800 .00 409. 95 307.00 44. 61 801 .00 410.26 319.00 39.55 802 9.96 410.02 338.00 31.21 803 9.96 410.03 362.00 20.81 804 7 .47 410.08 344 .00 28.63 805 9.96 410.05 374 .00 15. 62 806 .00 410.58 316.00 40. 99 807 4.98 410.28 316.00 40.86 808 9.96 409.02 320.00 38.57 809 500.00 404. 19 338.00 28.68 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 64.80 412.80 113.00 129. 91 505 .00 413. 64 115.00 129.41 410 5. 18 414.12 115.50 129.40 520 .00 412.79 115.00 129.04 369 7. 61 413.73 116. 50 128.80 370 1. 13 413.72 116.50 128. 79 116 23. 98 413. 12 116.00 128.75 371 8. 91 413.71 118. 00 128. 14 121 4 .05 413.64 118.00 128. 11 372 4 .86 413. 64 118.00 128. 11 MINIMUM PRESSURES uw 521 .00 410.00 370. 00 17.33 805 6.48 414 .56 374.00 17.58 803 6.48 414 .43 362.00 22.72 506 .00 439. 94 380.00 25. 98 804 4 .86 414 .71 344.00 30. 64 511 .00 456.02 385.00 30.77 61 2.75 410.04 339. 00 30.78 809 500.00 409.83 338.00 31. 13 600 .00 455.74 380. 00 32.82 802 6.48 414 .30 338 . 00 33.06 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 4677.84 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 5031 .58 853 -353.74 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 5031.58 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -353.74 AA1� ow 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 w� 107 47. 90 lib 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 Aw 175 9.11 502 13. 90 503 13. 90 260 81.72 ark 17 28.29 163 28.29 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 809 500.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00045 MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS WELLS OFF W1 TANK FULL 500 GPM FLOW @ NODE 809 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 95 800 57 224 .83 .76 . 00 .00 . 64 .22 950 800 801 -20.00 -2.22 .00 .00 -.06 . 00 951 801 807 -249. 13 -. 12 .00 .00 -.71 -.26 952 800 802 -204 .83 -.84 .00 .00 -1 .31 -1 . 12 953 801 804 229. 13 . 97 .00 .00 1.46 1. 38 954 802 803 -69. 91 -. 13 .00 .00 -. 45 -. 15 955 802 804 -141.40 -. 41 . 00 .00 -. 90 -. 57 956 804 805 82.87 . 15 .00 .00 .53 .21 957 803 805 -76.39 - .13 .00 .00 -.49 -. 18 958 808 809 500.00 4 .83 .00 .00 3. 19 6. 90 959 807 808 233.73 1. 14 .00 .00 1 .49 1. 69 960 806 808 272.75 1. 68 .00 .00 1.74 2.24 962 806 72 -758 .85 -1 .04 .00 .00 -2.15 -2.07 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 57 5. 67 412. 69 272 .00 60. 97 72 8.59 417 .38 314 .00 44 . 80 800 .00 413.45 307 .00 46.13 801 .00 415. 67 319.00 41.89 802 6.48 414 .30 338.00 33.06 803 6.48 414 .43 362.00 22.72 804 4.86 414 .71 344 .00 30. 64 805 6.48 414.56 374 .00 17.58 806 .00 416.34 316.00 43.48 807 3.24 415.79 316.00 43.24 808 6.48 414.66 320.00 41.02 809 500.00 409.83 338.00 31.13 40 MAXIMUM PRESSURES on 117 43.20 422.94 113.00 134 .31 505 .00 423.72 115.00 133.78 410 3.46 424 . 15 115.50 133.75 520 .00 422.93 115.00 133.44 ow 369 5.08 423.83 116.50 133. 17 370 .76 423.82 116.50 133. 17 116 15. 98 423. 12 116.00 133.09 371 5. 94 423. 82 118.00 132.52 121 2.70 423.73 118.00 132.48 372 3.24 423.72 118.00 132.48 MINIMUM PRESSURES 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17 .33 805 4.32 418.39 374.00 19.23 803 4.32 418.20 362.00 24 .35 506 .00 439. 96 380.00 25. 98 on 61 1.84 410. 10 339.00 30.81 511 .00 457 .04 385.00 31.22 804 3.24 418.59 344.00 32.32 809 500. 00 414 .24 338.00 33.04 600 .00 456.86 380.00 33.30 802 4.32 417 . 98 338.00 34 .66 am THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 3453.19 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 4014 .26 853 -561.07 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 4014 .26 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -561.07 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 4.47 176 174.42 136 58.75 134 140. 11 107 47. 90 118 14.62 171 37. 93 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6.16 ew 342 13.95 91 54. 98 93 54 . 98 94 54. 98 Aw 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 .00 809 500.00 40 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00061 AVERAGE DAY DEMAND wo WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 500 GPM FLOW @ NODE 809 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 ON 95 800 57 286. 17 1. 19 .00 .00 .81 .34 950 800 801 -24 .82 -3.31 .00 .00 -.07 .00 951 801 807 -302.37 -.17 .00 .00 -.86 -.38 952 800 802 -261.35 -1.32 .00 .00 -1.67 -1.77 953 801 804 277 .55 1.38 .00 .00 1.77 1 . 97 954 802 803 -90.29 -.21 .00 .00 -.58 -.25 955 802 804 -175. 38 -. 61 .00 .00 -1.12 -.84 956 804 805 98.93 .20 .00 .00 .63 .29 957 803 805 -94 . 61 -. 19 .00 .00 -. 60 -.27 958 808 809 500.00 4 .83 .00 .00 3. 19 6. 90 959 807 808 227. 64 1.08 .00 .00 1.45 1. 61 960 806 808 276.68 1.73 .00 .00 1.77 2.30 962 806 72 -808.85 -1. 17 .00 .00 -2.29 -2.33 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 57 3.78 415.47 272.00 62. 17 72 5.72 421.96 314 .00 46.78 800 .00 416. 66 307.00 47.52 801 .00 419. 97 319.00 43.75 802 4 .32 417. 98 338.00 34 . 66 803 4.32 418 .20 362.00 24.35 804 3.24 418.59 344.00 32.32 805 4.32 418 .39 374 .00 19.23 806 .00 420.79 316.00 45.41 807 2.16 420.15 316.00 45.13 808 4.32 419.06 320.00 42.93 809 500.00 414 .24 338.00 33.04 s 600 .00 457 .71 380.00 33. 67 804 3.00 425.52 344.00 35.33 an 63 2. 90 414.06 330.00 36.43 802 4.00 424 . 32 338.00 37.41 am THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 26.50 on SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 787.71 s 853 -761.20 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 787.71 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -761.20 A FLOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSIG �sw 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 95 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 962 RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING JUNCTION NODES : 804 800 801 72 802 803 805 806 807 808 809 57 ° 10 VALUES ARE OUTPUT FOR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES THIS SYSTEM HAS 684 PIPES WITH 454 JUNCTIONS , 228 LOOPS AND 3 FGNS THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 8 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00150 BERKSHIRE DESIGN GROUP NORTHAMPTON WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 36" WM W/ PRV @ 440 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 95 800 57 411. 06 2.33 .00 .00 1. 17 . 67 950 800 801 -35. 40 -6.39 .00 .00 -. 10 -.01 951 801 807 -426. 06 -.33 .00 .00 -1.21 -.71 952 800 802 -375. 65 -2.59 .00 .00 -2. 40 -3. 46 953 801 804 390. 65 2. 60 . 00 .00 2. 49 3. 72 954 802 803 -130.37 -.42 .00 .00 -.83 -. 49 955 802 804 -249.29 -1. 16 . 00 .00 -1. 59 -1 . 62 956 804 805 138. 37 .38 .00 .00 .88 .54 957 803 805 -134 . 37 -.36 . 00 .00 -. 86 -.51 958 808 809 4 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .03 .00 959 807 808 -72. 45 -. 13 .00 .00 -. 46 -. 19 960 806 808 80. 45 . 18 .00 .00 .51 .23 962 806 72 -436.06 -. 37 .00 .00 -1.24 -.74 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 57 3.50 419.40 272.00 63.87 72 5.30 429. 09 314.00 49.87 800 .00 421.73 307.00 49.72 801 .00 428. 12 319.00 47.29 802 4 .00 424 .32 338.00 37.41 803 4 .00 424 .75 362.00 27. 19 804 3.00 425.52 344 .00 35.33 805 4 .00 425. 14 374 .00 22. 16 806 .00 428.72 316.00 48.85 807 2.00 428.45 316.00 48.73 808 4 .00 428.58 320.00 47.05 809 4 .00 428.58 338.00 39.25 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 40.00 429.02 113.00 136. 94 505 .00 429.56 115.00 136.31 410 3.20 429.88 115. 50 136.23 520 .00 429.02 115.00 136.07 116 14 .80 429. 14 116. 00 135. 69 369 4 .70 429. 63 116.50 135. 69 370 .70 429. 63 116.50 135. 69 371 5.50 429. 62 118.00 135.04 121 2.50 429.56 118.00 135.01 372 3.00 429.56 118.00 135.01 MINIMUM PRESSURES 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 805 4.00 425. 14 374.00 22.16 506 .00 439. 98 380.00 25. 99 803 4.00 424.75 362.00 27.19 61 1.70 410.17 339.00 30.84 511 .00 457.82 385.00 31.55 w. MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 99. 60 392. 86 113.00 121.27 410 7. 97 394.70 115.50 120. 98 505 .00 394.02 115.00 120. 91 520 .00 392. 85 115. 00 120.40 369 11.70 394. 12 116.50 120. 30 370 1. 74 394 . 10 116. 50 120.29 116 36.85 393. 49 116.00 120.25 412 7.22 394 .72 118.50 119. 69 371 13. 69 394 . 09 118.00 119. 64 121 6.23 394.03 118.00 119. 61 MINIMUM PRESSURES a 805 500.00 407.38 374.00 14 .47 521 .00 410. 00 370.00 17.33 803 9. 96 408.05 362.00 19. 95 506 .00 439. 91 380.00 25. 96 804 7.47 409. 10 344.00 28 .21 511 .00 454 .29 385.00 30.02 802 9. 96 408 . 96 338.00 30.75 61 4 .23 409. 97 339.00 30.75 600 . 00 453. 85 380.00 32.00 809 9. 96 412.28 338. 00 32. 19 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 6649.29 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 6442.28 853 207.02 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 6649.30 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00 �r w w 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 ,o 134 140. 11 107 47. 90 118 14. 62 171 37. 93 ON 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6. 16 342 13. 95 an 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 .00 805 500.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00339 PEAK HOUR DEMAND �* WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 500 GPM FLOW @ NODE 805 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 95 800 57 -104 . 13 -. 18 .00 .00 -.30 .05 950 800 801 -21.53 -2.55 . 00 .00 -.06 .00 951 801 807 -423.26 -.32 .00 .00 -1.20 .70 952 800 802 125. 66 .34 .00 .00 . 80 . 45 w► 953 801 804 401.73 2.74 .00 .00 2.56 3. 91 954 802 803 197 . 15 . 91 .00 .00 1.26 1. 05 955 802 804 -81.45 -. 15 .00 .00 -.52 .20 956 804 805 312.81 1.72 . 00 .00 2 .00 2. 46 957 803 805 187. 19 . 67 .00 .00 1. 19 . 95 958 808 809 9.96 .00 .00 .00 .06 .00 959 807 808 -66. 95 -.11 .00 .00 -. 43 . 17 960 806 808 86.87 .20 .00 .00 .55 .27 962 806 72 -448. 16 -.39 .00 .00 -1 .27 .78 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 57 8.72 409.48 272.00 59.58 72 13.20 412.88 . 314 .00 42.85 800 .00 409.30 307.00 44 .33 801 .00 411.84 319.00 40.23 802 9.96 408.96 338.00 30.75 803 9.96 408.05 362.00 19. 95 804 7.47 409.10 344 .00 28.21 805 500.00 407.38 374 .00 14.47 �w 806 .00 412.48 316.00 41.81 807 4 .98 412.17 316.00 41.67 808 9.96 412.28 320.00 39.99 809 9.96 412.28 338.00 32. 19 of MAXIMUM PRESSURES go 117 64.80 413.54 113.00 130.23 505 .00 414 .32 115.00 129.71 410 5. 18 414 .77 115.50 129. 68 520 .00 413.53 115.00 129.36 so 369 7. 61 414 .40 116.50 129.09 370 1. 13 414 .39 116.50 129.09 116 23. 98 413. 86 116.00 129.07 371 8. 91 414 . 39 118.00 128.43 qm 121 4.05 414 . 33 118.00 128.41 372 4.86 414 .32 118.00 128. 41 MINIMUM PRESSURES 'Am 805 500.00 410.51 374.00 15.82 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 6. 48 411.02 362.00 21.24 506 .00 439. 94 380.00 25.98 on 804 4 .86 412.51 344.00 29. 69 61 2.75 410.02 339.00 30.77 511 . 00 456. 12 385.00 30.82 802 6.48 411. 69 338.00 31. 93 ow 600 .00 455.85 380.00 32. 87 809 6.48 418.23 338.00 34 .77 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 u THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 4677.84 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 4941.58 853 -263.74 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 4941.58 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -263.74 wr No 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. 90 503 13. 90 w 260 81.72 17 28.29 163 28 .29 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 805 500.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00037 MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 500 GPM FLOW @ NODE 805 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 Sa 95 800 57 65. 80 . 08 .00 .00 . 19 . 02 950 800 801 -33. 45 -5.75 .00 .00 -.09 . 01 951 801 807 -583. 62 -. 59 . 00 .00 -1. 66 1.27 952 800 802 -32. 35 -.03 . 00 .00 -.21 . 04 Am 953 801 804 550. 17 4 . 90 .00 .00 3.51 7 .01 954 802 803 167. 57 . 67 . 00 .00 1.07 .77 955 802 804 -206.40 -. 82 .00 .00 -1.32 1 . 14 956 804 805 338. 91 2.00 . 00 .00 2. 16 2.86 00 957 803 805 161.09 . 50 .00 .00 1.03 .72 958 808 809 6.48 .00 . 00 .00 .04 .00 959 807 808 -98.43 -.23 .00 .00 -. 63 . 34 960 806 808 111. 39 .32 .00 .00 .71 . 43 962 806 72 -599.82 -. 67 .00 .00 -1.70 1.34 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE esw 57 5. 67 411. 59 272.00 60.49 72 8 .59 419.22 314.00 45. 60 800 .00 411. 66 307.00 45.35 801 .00 417.42 319.00 42.65 * 802 6.48 411. 69 338.00 31. 93 803 6.48 411.02 362.00 21.24 804 4 .86 412.51 344 .00 29. 69 805 500.00 410.51 374.00 15.82 806 .00 418.55 316.00 44.44 807 3.24 418.00 316.00 44 .20 808 6.48 418.23 320.00 42.57 809 6.48 418.23 338.00 34 .77 e MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 43.20 423. 66 113.00 134 . 62 4w 505 .00 424 .34 115.00 134 .05 410 3.46 424.71 115.50 133.99 520 .00 423. 65 115.00 133.75 OR 369 5.08 424 .43 116.50 133.44 370 .76 424 . 42 116.50 133.43 116 15.98 423.84 116.00 133.40 371 5. 94 424.42 118 .00 132.78 ow 121 2. 70 424 .35 118 .00 132.75 372 3.24 424 .34 118.00 132.75 MINIMUM PRESSURES s, 805 500.00 413. 43 374.00 17 .09 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 803 4.32 413. 86 362.00 22.47 506 .00 439.96 380.00 25. 98 ow 61 1.84 410.07 339.00 30.80 804 3.24 415. 58 344. 00 31.02 511 .00 457. 11 385.00 31.25 802 4.32 414 . 42 338.00 33. 11 gw 600 .00 456. 94 380.00 33.34 63 3. 13 411. 52 330.00 35.32 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 as THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 3453. 19 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES ws PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 3927. 43 �w 853 -474 .24 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 3927 .43 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -474 .24 r on gr gt Ift 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 4.47 176 174.42 136 58.75 40 134 140. 11 107 47. 90 118 14. 62 171 37. 93 on 133 2.79 42 2.79 132 6. 16 342 13. 95 40 91 54. 98 93 54. 98 94 54. 98 155 4.42 so 175 6. 07 502 9.27 503 9.27 260 54.48 17 18.86 163 18. 86 135 .00 3 .00 6 .00 805 500.00 THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00228 AVERAGE DAY DEMAND WELLS OFF W/ TANK FULL 500 GPM FLOW @ NODE 805 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 95 800 57 131.58 .28 .00 .00 .37 .08 950 800 801 -37.82 -7 .22 .00 .00 -. 11 .01 951 801 807 -643.46 -.70 .00 .00 -1.83 1. 53 952 800 8C2 -93.76 -.20 .00 .00 -. 60 .26 953 801 804 605. 64 5.86 .00 .00 3. 87 8. 37 �wr 954 802 803 151. 69 .56 .00 .00 . 97 . 64 955 802 804 -249. 76 -1. 17 .00 .00 -1.59 1. 62 956 804 805 352. 63 2. 15 .00 .00 2.25 3. 07 957 803 805 147.37 . 43 .00 .00 . 94 . 61 958 808 809 4 .32 .00 .00 .00 .03 . 00 959 807 808 -110. 81 -.29 .00 .00 -.71 .42 960 806 808 119.45 .36 .00 .00 .76 .49 962 806 72 -654 .26 -.79 .00 .00 -1.86 1.57 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 57 3.78 413. 94 272.00 61.51 72 5.72 423.58 314 .00 47. 49 800 .00 414 .22 307.00 46.46 801 .00 421.44 319.00 44 .39 802 4 .32 414 .42 338.00 33. 11 803 4 .32 413.86 362.00 22.47 804 3.24 415.58 344 .00 31.02 805 500.00 413.43 374 .00 17.09 40 806 .00 422.80 316.00 46.28 807 2. 16 422.15 316.00 46.00 808 4.32 422.43 320.00 44 .39 809 4.32 422.43 338.00 36.59 40 MINIMUM PRESSURES we 521 .00 410.00 370.00 17.33 805 4.00 425. 14 374.00 22. 16 506 .00 439. 98 380.00 25. 99 803 4.00 424.75 362.00 27. 19 or 61 1.70 410. 17 339.00 30.84 511 .00 457. 82 385.00 31.55 600 .00 457.71 380.00 33.67 804 3. 00 425.52 344.00 35.33 on 63 2. 90 414.06 330. 00 36.43 802 4.00 424 .32 338.00 37. 41 THE SYSTEM CAN NOT MAINTAIN THE PRESSURE SET FOR THE PRV IN LINE 906 THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 26.50 SUMMARY OF INFLOWS (+) AND OUTFLOWS (-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE 600 787. 71 yew 853 -761.20 THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 787 .71 THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = -761.20 on +wt 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 95 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 962 RESULTS ARE OUTPUT FOR THE FOLLOWING JUNCTION NODES : 804 800 801 72 802 803 805 806 807 8D8 809 57 10 VALUES ARE OUTPUT FOR MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PRESSURES THIS SYSTEM HAS 684 PIPES WITH 454 JUNCTIONS , 228 LOOPS AND 3 FGNS THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 8 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00150 BERKSHIRE DESIGN GROUP NORTHAMPTON WATER DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 36" WM W/ PRV @ 440 PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000 95 800 57 411.06 2.33 .00 .00 1. 17 . 67 950 800 801 -35.40 -6.39 .00 .00 -. 10 .01 951 801 807 -426.06 -.33 .00 .00 -1.21 .71 952 800 802 -375. 65 -2.59 .00 .00 -2.40 3.46 953 801 804 390. 65 2. 60 .00 .00 2. 49 3.72 954 802 803 -130. 37 -.42 .00 .00 -.83 . 49 955 802 804 -249.29 -1. 16 .00 .00 -1.59 1. 62 956 804 805 138.37 .38 .00 .00 .88 .54 957 803 805 -134 . 37 -. 36 .00 .00 -. 86 . 51 958 808 809 4 .00 . 00 .00 .00 .03 .00 959 807 808 -72.45 -.13 .00 .00 -.46 .19 960 806 808 80.45 . 18 .00 .00 .51 .23 962 806 72 -436. 06 -.37 .00 .00 -1.24 .74 JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND GRADE LINE ELEVATION PRESSURE 57 3.50 419.40 272.00 63.87 72 5.30 429. 09 314 .00 49.87 800 .00 421.73 307.00 49.72 801 .00 428 . 12 319.00 47.29 802 4 .00 424 . 32 338.00 37 .41 803 4 .00 424 .75 362.00 27. 19 804 3.00 425. 52 344 .00 35.33 805 4 .00 425. 14 374 .00 22. 16 806 .00 428 .72 316.00 48.85 rww 807 2.00 428 . 45 316.00 48.73 808 4 .00 428.58 320.00 47. 05 809 4 .00 428 .58 338 .00 39.25 MAXIMUM PRESSURES 117 40.00 429.02 113.00 136. 94 505 .00 429. 56 115.00 136. 31 410 3.20 429.88 115.50 136.23 520 .00 429.02 115.00 136.07 116 14 .80 429. 14 116.00 135. 69 369 4 .70 429. 63 116.50 135. 69 370 .70 429. 63 116.50 135. 69 371 5.50 429. 62 118.00 135.04 121 2.50 429.56 118.00 135.01 372 3.00 429.56 118.00 135.01 �w ATTACHMENT A SYSTEM MODELING OUTPUT DATA t�. Florence Road N L O � � O w �C I I A M O W O > � W O O w A ° #�► � W W � W O � �Irr _O O � M A GC Q lIi ew Or OR Berkshire Design Group February 5, 2003 Attention: Mr. Mark D'Urso Page 3 of 3 TABLE 3 FIRE FLOW AT DIAMOND COURT w , Demand at RESIDUAL PRESSURES Junction Node 809 Avg. Day Max.Day Peak Hour (gpm) Demand Demand Demand (psi) (psi) (psi) 72 500 46.8 44.8 42.2 800 500 47.5 46.1 44.6 802 500 34.7 33.1 31.2 803 500 24.2 22.7 20.8 804 500 32.3 30.6 28.6 805 500 19.2 17.6 15.6 808 500 42.9 41.0 38.6 809 500 33.0 31.1 28.7 The minimum required residual pressure for adequate fire protection is 20 psi. The residual pressures for the existing Platinum Circle development (Nodes 808 and 809) are well above the 20 psi threshold with minimal impact to service and fire protection from the proposed development. For the proposed development, residual pressures meet the 20 psi threshold with the exception of the highest house elevation of 374 feet represented by Node 805. At this location, the residual system pressure for a 500 gpm fire flow is estimated to be 14.5 psi. Although this pressure is below 20 psi, it should be more than enough to prevent the potential backflow of water into the system. Based on the results of the hydraulic analyses conducted, the proposed development should meet water system pressure requirements with the use of booster pumps for service elevations above 340 feet with no adverse impact to existing services in the surrounding areas. If you have any questions or require additional information, please feel free to contact our office. Very truly yours, DEWBERRY-GOODKIND, Inc. Peter A. Calderazzo Project Engineer 00 --- Bvcoi 10 Dewberry Berkshire Design Group February 5, 2003 Attention: Mr. Mark D'Urso Page 2 of 3 TABLE 1 SYSTEM PRESSURES UNDER NORMAL FLOWS STATIC PRESSURES Elevation Junction (feet) Avg. Day Max. Day Peak Hour Demand Demand Demand (psi) (psi) (psi) 72 314 49.2 47.2 43.4 800 307 49.2 47.8 45.5 802 338 36.8 35.2 32.5 803 362 26.7 24.9 22.2 804 344 34.7 33.0 30.13 805 374 21.5 19.8 17.1 808 320 46.3 44.4 41.1 809 338 38.5 36.7 33.3 TABLE 2 FIRE FLOWS AT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RESIDUAL PRESSURES Demand at Junction Node 805 Avg. Day Max. Day Peak Hour (gpm) Demand Demand Demand (psi) (psi) (psi) 72 500 47.5 45.60 42.9 ,n 1000 46.3 44.5 41.2 800 500 46.5 45.4 44.3 1000 44.5 43.9 42.1 802 500 33.1 31.9 30.8 1000 30.5 29.7 27.3 803 500 22.5 21.2 19.9 1000 18.7 17.8 15.4 804 500 30.3 28.2 27.9 1000 28.2 26.9 24.8 wo 805 500 17.1 15.8 14.5 1000 12.44 11.5 9.1 808 500 44.4 42.6 40.1 1000 42.9 41.3 38.1 .,� 809 500 36.6 34.8 32.2 1000 35.1 33.5 30.8 Bnco I 10 Dewberry �y 31 St.James Avenue 617 695 3400 •~ •• Dewberry 3rd Floor 617 695 3310 fax Boston,Massachusetts 02116-4103 www.dewberry.com i February 5, 2001 Berkshire Design Group 4 Allen Place Northampton, MA 01060 Attn: Mr. Marc D'Urso SUBJECT: The Oaks Residential Community Northampton, Ma Hydraulic Modeling Dear Mr. D'Urso: 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. 4• The proposed development is located off of Burt's Pit Road approximately 1,560 feet west from the intersection with Florence Road. The development is to be served by 8-inch water mains that a loop through and connect to the existing 12-inch main on Burt's Pit Road at two locations. The closest existing development is located on Platinum Circle and Diamond Court directly east of the proposed development off of Burt's Pit Road (See attached schematic). For the analysis, fire flows of 500 and 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) were simulated at the highest house elevation based on the development plans and elevations provided by your firm. This location is represented by Junction Node 805 on the schematic. Scenarios were run for average day, maximum day and peak hour demands. In addition, a fire flow of 500 gpm was simulated at the end of Diamond Court 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 809 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 on Platinum Circle. Sites within the proposed development at elevations above approximately 340 feet exhibit system pressures below the minimum recommended working pressure for water systems of 35 pounds per square inch (psi). House services at and above this elevation will need to be provided with individual booster pumps to meet this criteria. Table 2 presents the residual system pressures for the proposed development and the existing Platinum Circle development when fire flows of 500 gpm and 1,000 gpm are imposed at Node 805. Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. .� . � . � . � � � � � � �] � . j � � . � . � . � a � � � i . � � 000 000 00000000 000; 000 00000000 zzzzzzzz W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UUUI UUU UUUUUODU Io 000 LL LL LL J J J-j J J J J J J LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL O O O, 000 00000000 � d' K aaa) ayaa aaaaaaaa FN-FN-FN- F-H N F FN-!N- hN-r F K K a: O C C K K K K K K co Col mmm mmmmmmmm 0 It S0 000 0o0000oo ry °' 000 �33 c000�3cin 0 00 0 N �jaF2 rrZ _ �jaF2-�p7 Q W � W W 99W tZ�L WZWZWv ZI3 0:cZ 70««cr= Z<3: 2 W N<N co 3 Z N N Z Z W W N Z B:N W Z W 3 N W 0001 0 0 0 00000-000 -a'- 01 O H O 00— Mi fl N N NNN NNC'f Pf NNN� - a a aS aaSa�� 000 0 y'yg O O O ow Fuss&O'Neill Inc. io ACCIDENT DATA 40 "M 40 FAP2001\2001740\A I I MAS-NEWDOC Short Report Pale 1 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 213103 urisdiction Time Period BUILD PM Pk Hour nalysis Year 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 IL TR LTR ILTR LTR olume(v ph) 22 77 37 42 139 27 56 296 34 14 367 30 % 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 10.95 0.95 0.95 Actuated P/A P P P P P P A A A A A A SStartup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 00 Arrival type 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 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 N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr " Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Wpm Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 iming G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = 1Y = 5 Y = Y= Y JY= 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 143 1218 407 1433 Lane group cap. 686 688 677 1738 /c ratio 0.21 0.32 1 0.60 10.59 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 1 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay dl 9.8 10.3 11.8 111.8 Delay factor k 0.50 10.50 0.19 1 10.18 Increm. delay d2 0.7 1 1.2 1.5 1 1.2 PF factor 1.000 11.000 1.000 11.000 Control delay 10.5 11.5 113.4 13.0 Lane group LOS 8 B B B pprch. delay 10.5 11.5 13.4 13.0 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 12.5 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.I c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k7A.tmp 2/3/2003 SIX All-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 t~r ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. IFuss&O'Neill Jurisdiction Date Performed 1213103 Analysis Year 12006 nal sis Time Period BUILD PM Peak Hour Project ID 2001740.A11 The Oaks-Northampton East/West Street: Burts 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 31 /oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L I T R olume 57 185 63 17 269 16 /oThrus 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 112 305 358 353 Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 !0 Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.4 0.2 0 1 `W Prop.Right-Turns 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 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 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 6.64 6.64 6.64 6.64 Departure Headway and Service Time d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ,initial 0.10 0.27 0.32 0.31 hd,final value 6.64 6.64 6.64 6.64 ,final value 0.21 0.54 0.59 0.59 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Service Time 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound AMA L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 362 524 573 565 Delay 11.37 16.46 17.07 17.27 LOS B C C C Approach:Delay 11.37 16.46 17.07 17.27 LOS B C C C Intersection Delay 16.40 Intersection LOS C ILIA file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k70.tmp 2/3/2003 Ow Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 t TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Development Drive/Burts Agency/Co. Fuss & O'Neill Pit Rd Date Performed 2/3/03 urisdiction Analysis Time Period BUILD PM Peak Hour 'Analysis Year d2006 Project Description 2001740.A11 - The Oaks, Northampton 40 East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Proposed Site Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West lStudyPeriod 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 0 80 0 30 156 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 80 0 30 156 1 0 A 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 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume 0 0 17 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 1 0 1 17 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 Len at and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 30 17 C (m) (vph) 1531 986 /c 0.02 0.02 5% queue length 0.06 0.05 Control Delay 7.4 8.7 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 8.7 pproach LOS -- -- A file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k6D.tmp 2/3/2003 Short Report Pale 1 o f 1 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 213103 Jurisdiction Time Period BUILD AM Pk Hour 1A nalysis Year 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 IL TR LTR ILTR LTR Volume(v ph) 50 1187 70 22 54 8 29 1341 52 21 282 20 % Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.93 10.93 0.93 10.93 0.93 10.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Actuated (P/A) P P P P P I 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 Ar 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 0 0 1 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 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = Y = 5 1Y= Y= Y = IY= 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 330 91 454 1348 Lane group cap. 693 1660 717 721 /c ratio 0.48 10.14 0.63 0.48 Green ratio 0.40 10.40 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay dl 11.1 1 9.5 12.1 11.2 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.11 Increm. delay d2 2.3 0.4 1.8 0.5 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 13.5 10.0- 13.9 111.7 Lane group LOS B A B B pprch. delay 13.5 10.0- 13.9 11.7 F pproach LOS B A B B Intersec. delay 12.8 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright®2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k69.tmp 2/3/2003 40 All-Way Stop Control y p Pale 1 of 3 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information wlw nal st LKDM Intersection lBurts Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. uss 8 O'Neill urisdiction Date Performed 213103 nal sis Year 2006 nal sis Time Period [BUILD AM Peak Hour Pro ect ID 2001740.A11 The Oaks-Northampton East/West Street: Burts 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 10 / oThrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R olume 12 248 128 38 200 7 "M %Thrus Left Lane 50 1 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 as Configuration s LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 246 110 434 273 on %Heavy Vehicles 0 2 1 0 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 on Duration,T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 MR Prop.Right-Turns 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 1 -0.6 1 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 HV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 adj,computed 6.00 1 6.00 6.00 6.00 Departure Headway and Service Time d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.22 0.10 0.39 0.24 hd,final value 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 ,final value 0.41 0.20 0.65 0.44 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 !l Service Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 rC-apacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 496 360 644 523 Delay 13.12 11.21 17.70 13.31 LOS B B C 8 Approach:Delay 13.12 11.21 17.70 13.31 LOS B B C B Intersection Delay 14.84 Intersection LOS B we file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k5F.tmp 2/3/2003 AM Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of �r TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst KDM Intersection Development Drive/Burts Agency/Co. Fuss& O'Neill Pit Rd Date Performed 213103 Jurisdiction Analysis Time Period 2006 BUILD AM Peak Analysis Year 2006 Hour Project Description 2001740.A11 - The Oaks, Northam ton Rpm East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Proposed Site Driveway 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 0 191 0 7 42 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 191 0 7 1 42 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 -- — 0 _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 30 0 0 0 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 1 30 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 TT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service 40 pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT on v(vph) 7 30 (m) (vph) 1395 856 lc 0.01 0.04 5% queue length 0.02 0.11 Control Delay 7.6 9.4 LOS A A pproach Delay -- -- 9.4 pproach LOS -- -- A file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k5C.tmp 2/3/2003 40 Short Report Page 1 of t so 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 1124103 Jurisdiction Time Period NO BUILD PM Pk Hour nalysis Year wat 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 IL TR LTR LTR LTR Volume(v ph) 21 77 37 42 139 27 56 291 34 14 363 30 % 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 I A A A A A Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 1 3 1 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 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 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 0-7---T-08 ate. Timing G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G I G = IY= 5 1Y= Y = Y = IY= 5 Y = 1Y = IY = 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 142 218 401 1429 Lane group cap. 688 688 676 738 /c ratio 0.21 0.32 0.59 0.58 Green ratio 0.40 1 0.40 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay dl 9.8 10.3 11.8 11.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.17 Increm. delay d2 0.7 1.2 1.4 1.2 PF factor 1.000 1 11.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 10.5 11.5 13.2 12.9 Lane group LOS 8 B B B 1�. pprch. delay 10.5 11.5 13.2 12.9 Approach LOS B B B B Intersec. delay 12.5 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kl29.tmp 2/5/2003 All-Way Stop Control Pale 1 of Z we ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information nal st IKDM Intersection urfs Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. uss&O'Neill urisdiction Date Performed 11124103 nal sis Year 12006 nal sis Time Period INO BUILD PM Peak Hour r Pro ect ID 2001740.A11 The Oaks--Northampton East/West Street: Burfs Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics p roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 7 40 33 117 93 31 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L I T R L T R olume 50 185 63 17 269 13 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 w Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Flow Rate 93 282 349 350 %Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 Geometry Group 1 1 1 1 ON Duration,T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 0.4 0.1 0.2 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 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj,computed 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 Departure Headway and Service Time id,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.08 0.25 0.31 0.31 id,final value 6.40 6.40 6.40 6.40 ,final value 0.17 0.48 0.55 0.56 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ► Service Time 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 343 532 599 592 Delay 10.66 14.75 15.39 15.84 LOS B B C C Approach:Delay 10.66 14.75 15.39 15.84 w LOS B B C C Intersection Delay 14.96 Intersection LOS B t file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k11F.tmp 2/5/2003 on Short Report Page 1 o f 1 so 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 1124103 Jurisdiction "M Time Period NO BUILD AM Pk Hour nalysis Year 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 IL TR LTR ILTR LTR Volume(v ph) 50 1187 70 22 54 8 29 339 52 21 276 19 % Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.93 10.93 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 1 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 1 12.0 1 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 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = G = G = Y= 5 iy = Y = I Y IY= 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 330 91 452 1340 Lane group cap. 693 660 718 721 /c ratio 0.48 0.14 0.63 0.47 Green ratio 0.40 10.40 0.40 0.40 Unif. delay dl 11.1 9.5 12.0 11.1 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.11 Increm. delay d2 2.3 0.4 1.8 0.5 I PF factor 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 13.5 10.0- 13.8 11.6 Lane group LOS 8 A B B pprch. delay 13.5 10.0- 13.8 11.6 pproach LOS B A B B Intersec. delay 12.8 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1c file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k10C.tmp 2/5/2003 All-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information 416 nal y s KDM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. Fuss&O'Neill urisdiction Date Performed 1124103 nal sis Year 12006 nal sis Time Period NO BUILD AM Peak Hour Project ID 2001740.A11 The Oaks-Northampton East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T I R oiume 13 131 47 59 26 10 40 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 roach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T I R Volume 10 248 128 38 200 6 10 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 tlAM Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 Flow Rate 213 106 432 272 No %Heavy Vehicles 0 2 1 1 0 No.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 Prop.Right-Turns 0.2 0.1 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 +5.91 1.7 1.7 hadj,computed 5.91 5.91 5.91 De arture Headway and Service Time d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ,initial 0.19 0.09 0.38 0.24 d,final value 5.91 5.91 5.91 5.91 final value 0.35 0.19 0.62 0.42 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 ervice Time 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 Ca acit_y and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity 463 356 666 522 Delay 12.06 10.88 16.43 12.71 LOS B B C B Approach:Delay 12.06 10.88 16.43 12.71 LOS B B C B Intersection Delay 13.95 Intersection LOS B file:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k102.tmp 2/5/2003 M Short Report Page l of t go 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 1124103 urisdiction Time Period EXISTING PM Pk Hour Fnalysis Year Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB M 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 go 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 10.95 40 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 ON Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mw Lane Width 112.0 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 D D 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 = JG = 20.0 G = G = G = iming IY = 5 Y = 1Y = Y = JY = 5 Y = ly = ly = Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 1 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 0.55 0.54 �s Green ratio 10.40 0.40 10.40 0.40 Unif. delay dl 9.7 10.2 11.5 11.5 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.14 Increm. delay d2 0.6 1.1 1.0 0.8 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 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 C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kIIA.tmp 2/5/2003 All-Way Stop Control Page 1 o[2 ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information 40 nal st DM Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd ;n7'/Co' uss&O'Neill urisdiction Date Performed 1!24!03 nal sis Year 2001 nal sis Time Period 2001 EXISTING PM Peak Hour Pro ect ID 2001740.A11 The Oaks-Northam ton East/West Street: Burts Pit Road North/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics 04 roach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 6 37 30 108 86 28 °loThrus Left Lane 50 50 t�l Approach Northbound Southbound ovement L T R L T R olume 46 171 58 16 248 12 pa loThrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 onfiguration LTR LTR LTR LTR PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Flow Rate 85 260 323 323 !o Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 1 o.Lanes 1 1 1 1 eometry Group 1 1 1 1 ul� Duration,T 0.25 aturation Headwa Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.1 Prop.Right-Turns 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 -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 6.05 6.05 6.05 6.05 De arture Headwa and Service Time d,initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ,initial 0.08 0.23 0.29 0.29 d,final value 6.05 6.05 6.05 6.05 ,final value 0.14 0.43 0.49 0.50 Move-up time,m 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 l0 ervice Time 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Ca acit and t_evel of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 apacity 335 510 573 573 elay 10.05 13.21 13.48 13.81 ON LOS B B B B pproach: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\u2k110.tmp 2/5/2003 Short Report Page I of l SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information 40 Analyst KDM Intersection Route 66/Florence Rd Agency or Co. Fuss& O'Neill, Inc. Area Type All other areas Date Performed 1124103 Jurisdiction Time Period EXISTING AM Pk Hour nalysis Year l Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB ewe 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 IL TR LTR LTR LTR Volume(v ph) 46 1173 65 20 50 7 27 313 48 19 255 18 % Heavy veh 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF 0.93 10.93 0.93 10.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 10.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 an Actuated (P/A) P I P P P P P A A A A A A Startup lost time 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 12.0 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 Arrival type 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 13.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 1 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 N 0 N N 0 N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 0 Unit Extension 13.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing IG = 20.0 G = G = G = G = 20.0 G = JG = G = Y= 5 Y= Y = Y = Y = 5 Y = I 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 305 84 418 313 Lane group cap. 696 1667 719 725 /c ratio 0.44 0.13 0.58 0.43 Green ratio 0.40 0.40 1 0.40 10.40 Unif. delay dl 10.9 9.5 11.7 110.9 Delay factor k 0.50 070 0.17 0.11 Increm. delay d2 2.0 0.4 1.2 0.4 PF factor 1.000 11.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 12.9 9.9 12.9 11 3 Lane group LOS B A B B pprch. delay 12.9 9.9 12.9 11.3 Approach LOS B A I B B Intersec. delay 12.2 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright C 2000 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 c file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kFE.tmp 2/5/2003 All-Way Stop Control Page 1 of on ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information 40 nal st _D.M Intersection urts Pit Rd/Florence Rd enc /Co. uss&O'Neill urisdiction Date Performed 1124103 nal sis Year 2001 nal sis Time Period 2001 EXISTING AM Peak Hour Project ID 2001740.AI I The Oaks-Northampton East/West Street: Surfs Pit Road orth/South Street: Florence Road olume Adjustments and Site Characteristics t1 proach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R olume 12 121 43 54 24 9 ll1A /°Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 9 229 118 35 185 5 on %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 so 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 Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop.Left-Turns 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.2 No Prop.Right-Turns 0.2 0.1 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 oft RT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj,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 hd,final value 5.67 5.67 5.67 5.67 final value 0.31 0.16 0.56 0.38 Move-up time,m 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 ON Service Time 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Ll L2 Capacity 446 346 649 501 Delay 11.18 10.30 14.08 11.63 LOS B B B B Approach:Delay 11.18 10.30 14.08 1173 LOS B B B B Intersection Delay 12.44 Intersection LOS B file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\kristalm\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kF4.tmp 2/5/2003 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. + HIGHWAY CAPACITY WORKSHEETS .m ON on FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS NEW.DOC Location Nortnamp:on Pioneer valley Planning Commission Counter 4 0996 26 Ccncral Screez Site Code : C00000001392 Module i N/A WeEC Springfield, MA, 01089 Start Date: 05/01/1993 Fun.Class.: U-6 (413) 7E1-6045 wr+v.pvpc.org File I.D. 7392 Strest name :EUres fir R3 Cresz streec:Wit) Florence Rd Paaa 1 Begin Mon. o Tu es. ed. Thur. Fri. Weekday Avg. Sat. Sun. T_me 1 E5 2 WB 1 ELI 2 NB 1 EB 2 WD 1 E13 2 WB 1 ED 2 WB 1 ED 2 SIB 1 ED 2 W5 1 ED 2 W3 X12:0 am _ • _ 5 11 6 11 = : 6 Ir • . 01:00 ' 3 3 2 5 2 4 02:00 f f . 1 2 2 7 ' 2 4 03:00 - ' , 1 1 2 1 ' * 2 2 ' • ` 04.00 - + 9 3 10 1 ' 9 2 05:00 ' • • 32 3 31 3 32 3 06:00 • + 75 --20 el 17 07:00 • 0351 262> 151 •37 56 3 08:00 1 68 124 62 ' • 20-- 5 • ' 09:00 * 59 27 72 42 * ' 66 34 • + _ 10:00 ' - S8 SO 54 52 56 51 • • ' 11:00 • • ' S2 64 46 69 + - 50 66 * ' 12:00 pm * • 59 as SO e4 • • 54 89 01:00 + ' - - 46 64 4e 14 ' 46 69 • ' + 02:00 * ' 49 e9 44 105 + 46 97 03:00 ' ' 55 129 0 • * ' • 13 ' 03:CO ' 72 149 _ 16 ' 154 * ' 05sC0 - • 93 lea 71 0 ' * ' • 62 -—162 05:00 • 65 139 el 117 + • 73 128 • 07:00 • 61 65 75 96 ' ' 71 e0 - 08:00 62 121 51 90 ' * 56 106 + - 09:00 - + 23 73 36 72 • • 30 72 ' • - 10:00 • ' 12 33 20 43 ' • * 16 39 + 11:00 ' ' 5 19 11 23 * • ' B 21 • ' ' Totala 0 0 454 911 1215 1430 725 570 0 0 1198 1453 0 0 0 0 0 1365 2645 1295 0 2651 0 0 Avg. pay .0% .0% 37.91 62.1% 101.4E 98.4E 60.51 39.2% .0% .0% 0i .0% .0% .0% At: Peaks 07:00 08:00 07:00 11:00 07100 11:00 Volume 161 68 151 69 156 66 P:: Peak-- 05:00 05:00 06:00 05:00 12:00 02:00 05:00 OS:00 voiuma 93 194 el 180 50 105 62 162 A.DTr, I A9 ON 4AR 9� ow Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 40 AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS P" omp FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS NEW.DOC NO TDC 23WrrMStreet Netuk,MAO 1760 T�lepnpne.(5(SB)651.1610 TRANSPORTATION r:� 508 65 1610 I''4S: Florence Road ORrACoR TION Pager (800)B98-0763 File Name : 01782BB L, W: Bunts Pit Road Site Code : 02001740 State, Ciry: Northampton,MA Start Datc : 11/14/2001 C'""wt: Fuss & O'Neill/M.Chase Page No : 1 —Groups Pri+m4-Trucks Florence Roved ��Ftht`rs Pit Rood F%Mce Road Burt Pt Row From North From East _ From Soul% From West �_, Stan e _ Right Thru r U LeR Thru _.. ht _�_ Left Im Total 04:00 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 01 2 04:15 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 04:30 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 —+ ;— al 0 2 2 0 1 01 0 0 0 _.. 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 0_5:45 PM 0 1 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~� Total a�2 0 0 0 + 0 0 Gra�T�otal% 0.0 60.0 26.01 0 0 1125 0.0 I 0 0 0 0 O O I 0.0 0.0 1102.5` t3 —' Florence ROW � urt Plt Rood Fionrfos Road Burfa I"a From North _ From Eeat From South From West Soot Time Rlpht ~ThN leR AW' Right Tnru ldt T� Rlpht TT►nt Ldt Total Right Ttw LaR .. T�ul Int.Total NR rore 04:110 PM to-5' •Pam 1 of 1 "Ottrmection 04:00 PM � � Volume 0 2 2 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Percent 0.0 50.0 50.0 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 ak Factor 0.626 High Int 04:00 PM 04:45 PM 3:45:00 PM 1 3.45:00 PM Volume 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 t I I 0 Pak Factor 0.500 0.250 �Iw 010- - - +•+...�� TDC 20M 017 Na b".lµ�•MA O1TED � Tfoel:e;ve-w". ed))SSI-1610 65 -1229 is Florence Road MN pa" leoo)896-0763 File Name : 01787-BB XV- Burts Pit Road Site Code :02001740 care, City. Northampton,MA Start Date : 11/14/2001 : ntr Fuss &O'Neill/M.Chase Page No : 1 _ - I'm PAROW-Can-Ttudu oran+ -'Road 6uro At Ro�C FkXWWO ROW Bind Ph 11osa From NoM _ From East From South From Wal tut Tima M Thru __ L-A RRI 7luu l ht Thr.I ftht I 7 -L Irr 7ohd I ' 04:00 PM 75 5 10 23 34 12 52 18 10 10 1 254 0415 PM 5 59 4 4 18 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 6 11 25 15 15 33 7 12 12 1 188 "M TOW -12 248 18 28 108 171 30 gj 6 848 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 18 1 200 05:45 PM 3 35 5 4 31 26 16 38 12 10 10 0 190 Total 12 194 13 34 85 90 50 185 57 35 45 41 784 Grand Total 24 442 291 62 171 1981 108 336 1031 66 82 101 1830 OR Apprch% 4.6 89.3 5.9 14A 39.7 45.9 19.7 61.4 18.8 41.4 52.2 8.4 Tote!% 1.5 27.1 1.6 3.8 10.5 12.1 6.5 20.8 8.3 4.0 5.0 0.8 I1Sr kranosRosd awls 6 oad Rose! auraA O -� From Nam From East From scum From War Start Tama Rloht t Thru Ldt App. Rig Thru L-ft Total Right ThN LsR T� Right Thar Loll T Inl TofjO ak Fbur Give QK:00 PAO b 05:46 PAO-Peak 1 Of 1 Volume 12 04;00 PM 248 16 276 2a 88 108 212` 58 171 46 275, 30 37 6 73` 648 Peraent 4.3 89.9 5.8 12.8 38.7 48.6 21.1 62.2 15.7 41.1 50.7 8.2 �I�sic Volume 2 75 5 62 10 23 34 67 12 52 18 80 10 10 1 21 1 250 P` = Factor 0.50 Y High tnt 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM (04:45 PM ` Volume 2 75 5 82 10 23 34 67 12 52 16 801 12 12 1 251 Peak Factor 0.841 0.82a, 0.859 0.730 lop tlll�t so Ow ii/i5%.2uui u7: 47 SrJour244G LC r`i i ; �_` TDC Wk r 5Vee1 N eUU M�,AAA 0176Q Til!v► .(508)65l.16j0 alb TRANSPOiiTaTipN per: 598 63, 1279 3: Florence Road a"T"O0`��i1ON Pager. 1800)e96.o7W File Name : 01782B /W:Buns Pit Road Site Code : 02001740 )wt,CitT.Northampton,MA Start Date : 11/14/2001 nt.Fuss & O'NeMIM.Chase Page No : 1 Grau •Prineefd-Trud�s _ I Florence Road Buro PR Raid 'duns Ph Road From North Flom Eaa I From South Frain Wad SuR Time I Right I -Thru I- Left RVM I Thru I Left _ ft ht I Thra I Laft Right I T1w I LaR Int Total 07:00 AM 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 7 07:15 AM 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 07:$0 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 04 07:45 AM 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 lrotaT- 1 3 21 3 0 01 2 7 01 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 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 9 'T`otl 1 8 0 2 0 1 0 3 r 1 2 0 0 18 Gmnd Total 2 11 2 5 0 1 2 10 1 2 0 0 38 Apprcfi 96 13,3 73.3 13.3 I 83.3 0.0 18.7 I 15.4 78.9 7.7 I 100.0 Q.0 0.0 TOW% 5.8 30.6 5.8 13.9 0.0 2.8 5.8 27.8 2.8 5.6 0.0 0.01 Burb Pit Rob �Fcq� Sum Pit Reed From Mann From_East From Sam From Wet Swd Tune RipM Thru Lvt T RryM Thru LeA App. Right Thru LeR T d Rfpht Thru Wt T� Ir1t Total �1OFlaar From 07:00 AM b 00:46 AM-FGU 1 or 1 itersection 07:00 AM I ( I Volume 1 3 2 8 3 0 0 3 2 7 0 9 0 0 0 0 18 Pe=nt 16.7 50.0 33.3 100.0 0.0 0.0 222 77.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 V TO 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 7 WA acbx High Int, 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 1 07:00 AM 8:45:00 AM 1 0.8+F3 Volume 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 2 1 4 0 5 !!tweak Factor 0.500 0.375 0.450 10 TDC N tw-k.M Sus6I NarirJ�,MA 01760 S(ONTRAN TaI� SOH H51.1Ht0 1 I S: Florence Road R TAODg�'0N Pap' (OW)&°'Q763 File Name : 01782B L/W:Burts Pit Road Site Code : 0200174-9 S te,City: Northampton,NIA Start Date . 11/14/2001 ent: Fu33 &O'Neill/M.Chase Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Cats-Trucks Flonmca Road 8ura Pit Road tsenoa Row Burts Ph Road' From North From East From South Foam Wss! _ -�esrt Tknj M Snru I Left Right Th Right I Im I Lon Right I `hru T Lent I trti ToM 07:00 AM 0 40 5 1 5 7 29 48 '3 r 5 29 0 17 07:16 AM 1 49 8 3 5 13 49 83 1 14 28 2 238 07:30 AM 1 49 7 2 6 17 22 52 1 10 22 4 193 r 07:45 AM 1 _ 58 11 3 4 13 32 81 _ 2 11 - 38 2 234 'vital 3 199 311 'r_ 9 20 501 132 224 71 40 115 +'-6 X35 08:00 AM 2 29 9 1 9 11 15 53 5 8 35 4 181- 08:15 AM 1 33 11 3 2 11 25 87 7 10 28 2 198 08:30 AM 4 31 10 6 8 8 22 50 4 8 27 2 180 08:45 AM 1 47 4 3 5 13 20 48 2 11 17 3 172 Total 8 140 13 24 r 43 82 2 8 '� 18 37 105 11 -'- 731 Grand Total 11 338 65 I 22 44 93 1 214 440 25 n 220 18 1586 Apprch% 2.7 81.6 15.8 13.8 27.7 58.5 31.5 64.8 3.7 24.4 89.8 8.0 TOM% 0.7 21.5 4.2 1 A 2.8 5.9 13.7 28.1 1.6 4.9 14.0 1.2 ftoience RoW Burb PO Road FWWOO *W Bulb Pil Rood r, From Norsk From East .49' From South _ From Wes! �1^ Sort Time Right Tluu Left App- Right TRn+�rLeR L RiOM Thew Let APP' Righc Thru Left I 0' Int.Taw TOW .0 TOW Toad Total PeeF r F rom 07:00 AM to 00;45 AM-Peak 1 d 1 nWsacton 07.15 AM { I Volume 5 185 35 225 9 24 54 87 118 229 9 358 43 121 12 178 844 Perk ant 2.2 82.2 15.8 10.3 27.6 62.1 33.1 84.3 2.5 24.4 68.8 6.8 WAS 1 49 8 58 3 5 13 21 49 63 1 113 14 28 2 44 238 Volume eak Factor 1 0.894 High tnt 07:45 AM 07:30 AM 1 07:15 AM (07:45 AM Volume 1 58 11 70 2 6 17 251 49 63 1 1131 11 38 2 491 weak Factor 0.804 0.870 0.788 0.898 t t� •. e t Fuss & O'Neill 78 Interstate Drive KDM West Springfield, MA 01089 File Name : 200255-1 Weekday PM Peak 413 452-0445 Site Code : 00022555 po Florence Rd / Rocky Hill Road I Start Date : 12/11/2002 Easthampton, MA Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Passenger Vehicles A From North From East From South From West Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Time u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 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 07:15 AM 4 55 7 0 66 3 13 1 0 17 9 77 11 0 97 22 34 18 0 74 254 07:30 AM 7 71 3 0 81 3 12 2 0 17 5 86 14 0 105 6 39 17 0 62 265 40 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 00 08:00 AM 1 51 3 0 551 10 16 1 0 27 8 65 11 0 84 8 54 14 0 76 242 08:15 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 Total 32 472 38 0 542 31 95 20 0 146 55 563 94 0 712 77 308 121 0 506 1906 87. 21. 65. 13. 79. 13. 15. 60. 23. � Apprch% 5.9 1 7.0 0.0 2 1 7 0.0 7.7 1 2 0.0 2 9 9 0.0 Total% 1.7 24. 2.0 0.0 28.4 1.6 5.0 1.0 0.0 7.7 2.9 29. 4.9 0.0 37.4 4.0 16. 6.3 0.0 26.5 ow 1w M to eip Fuss & O'Neill 78 Interstate Drive KDM West Springfield, MA 01089 File Name : 200255-2 Weekday PM Peak 413 452-0445 Site Code : 02002555 Florence Rd / Rocky Hill Rd Start Date : 12/12/2002 4 Easthampton, MA Page No : 1 Grou s Printed-Passenger Vehicles-Heavy Vehicles From North From East From South From West Start Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Left Thr Rig Ped App. Int. Time u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total u ht s Total Total Factor 1.01 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1.01 1.01 1.01 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.01 1.01 1.0 04:00 PM 2 76 5 0 83 8 27 1 0 36 12 62 5 0 79 4 13 15 0 32 230 04:15 PM 4 72 7 0 83 8 13 4 0 25 12 63 9 0 84 4 18 8 0 30 222 04:30 PM 4 89 8 0 101 11 29 5 0 45 12 52 8 0 72 5 7 11 1 24 242 04:45 PM 3 77 7 0 87 10 27 9 0 46 17 60 5 0 82 5 18 6 0 29 244 Total 13 314 27 0 354 37 96 19 0 152 53 237 27 0 317 18 56 40 1 115 938 05:00 PM 3 95 7 0 105 12 34 4 0 50 10 64 8 0 82 2 16 7 0 25 262 05:15 PM 3 89 6 0 98 11 39 4 0 54 12 71 8 0 91 5 19 8 0 32 275 05:30 PM 4 74 8 0 86 6 28 8 0 42 13 74 10 0 97 7 18 13 0 38 263 05:45 PM 1 67 4 0 72 11 18 5 0 34 9 61 12 0 82 3 23 7 0 33 221 Total 11 325 25 0 361 40 119 21 0 180 44 270 38 0 352 17 76 35 0 128 1021 Grand 24 639 52 0 715 77 215 40 0 332 97 507 65 0 669 35 132 75 1 243 1959 89. 23. 64. 12. 14. 75. 14. 54. 30. Apprch% 3.4 4 7.3 0.0 2 8 0 0.0 5 8 9.7 0.0 4 3 9 0.4 Total% 1.2 32. 2.7 0.0 36.5 3.9 11. 2.0 0.0 16.9 5.0 25. 3.3 0.0 34.2 1.8 6.7 3.8 0.1 12.4 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS tr ' FAP200I\2001740\AII\TIAS NEW.DOC N ?97 156 fON� 113 N 30 i l 117 -J + R PIT ROAD 51 80 1 9 � 37--) 100o m 1 O MME KV" ow I 12 ./ _20 J 42 } � 1 � I 5 77 70--) o 0 L 37--) m r,* 1n N M O J� X16 qg/� Ag'1 1I~ �IIR Fuss$0Weill J V 0 (� FIGURE 9 2006 BUILD CONDPTIONS PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PFAL NM MM74UII DATE' 1/2003 WAM NU N s oo°ao —10 �7 J 2 (-59 RTS PIT ROAp 1s1 � � } O 151 I 2J 54--) N�N O N �- OCND.- IAM1n NNN �8 — 5 J ! 22 (—,0 50J 70—)70 5� _1 1 1 95� 0 00 NMO ,1 J � ,5 625 .rlffj�l Fuss&�Clll � anift ago= NW 0 FIGURE 8 2006 BUILD CONDITIONS AM PEAK(7:1S AM-8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11MU NOS =74"11 DAZE: 1/20M WAW WM CN lei go, 6 I (-30 I -20 J 18 PIT ROAD N 2—) 4 ^ 10 ow An Fm&ONeffl 0 worm% PICK=7 TRIPS CMNERATED 0--M PIA PEAK(4:45 PM-5-45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11PAU N& 2=74"11 DAW. 1/2= WAM NIS N 0 (-7 J 4 J 4 0 TS 3 PIT ROAD 0 20 2-j M 2 N 0 18 C A r JY 1 N 1m v A" Fm&O NeW r V ft O �p��FKKW 6��.p� TRIPS�J�I� TJBD AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES lim" 110. W0174"11 DAM i/WW WALL M N s� s ��o e CD �31 N2 N� 93 J! (-117 PIT ROAD 33--� Lo Co to O IMF► M �27 u�w�n �5 roi�r°q� 139 1 5 �42 ` r-20 5LJ 77 70 37 to o h5� 495 0 (w10 FIGURE 5 2006 NO BUILD CONDITIONS PM PEAK(4:45 PM-5:45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11RU M =74"11 DAIS 1/Wo SOLE Km 00 NNCO 28 cj —86 108 R75 PIT ROAD 37— � 1 � 30 Go in 01 LO �5 Go' 25 �5 C-4 In 1 �2 —128 39 (-20 51J 5— 71 65--) as 34--) co;; N LO 00 to go Al A Fm&ONeW 2 . 0 , i 0 FICK=3 2001 EXISTING COMMONS PM PEAK(4.45 PM-5-45 PM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11PA" MM 2=74MAll DAM ItMW WAL MM p" 1A N S90. sS \ 2SS0 Ash i �n!2,n 24 JIL (-54 + T5 PIT ROAD 12 -) ,2, 43 rn rn WW� N� F In LnVIn �5 20rn 50 J , (--10 i l � �20 _J + 5!-) 46- f 75 173 I --) 00 r 65--) Lo^ 6 p0 1595/ amm am= sito FIGURE 2 2001 EXISTING CONDITIONS AM PEAK(7:15 AM-8:15 AM) TRAFFIC VOLUMES PROM NO, OM74"11 DA-M 1/2003 WA L NHS anosk �,� I ( j 1 -Ah gn j". cam G (� "•.o 'ro pit inrutute� rc e W' ~\�1�`L I y J I / �y-!�__ .. �� '\� 1 1 _�--� ��•i`t �� �'���_.- + t ! -,:v�ON iti�. .��"'�••' FF �" ✓,1�11(i������t� � ��-r,�����t��(�SSS�J��I �_ -�_�'.'' �>�---�F< ",�"y�",� -e�'R '-! ( �t, /�11:� �t�,4`�\`y r`�M ,^'. r / r �:�r--��rJ � •�� f t t i it .,,..r �cb;r i � �,� r i a Matries��� ��/ / /� �t. � �, I 4.µ �; 1 tr;.�1i �t�� � �'{ I�;,� �? /' ,• ��.�'i field s� �S-�r� �1� 4, � r,- ��+ �t� 1 � ''; ''•k =, , `li I 3'/i l s _� Will 'lil;b, : ��+\J��: J. ;•_� (.� i / :: / t, �` 4 ,....c_, 4_� 1 \,��� 1t, �\i" "`����r ` ,� C � i (j—/ � lf�../� �i�. 41 •_ . }(� ta$j r( �/`�.c���'�� �� �ti�1:�.�� Fe�7fe �� ' / �o ,r; �� tj a goP�'-:o •J- V �. Q SITE "R mv lei K O'q0 �� N 0 T 91!�11 Grave �� � t1 � u .: -- Nd ta in ° t e t ' - a 3°° o � , Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Consulting Engineers Drive. West Springfield, MA 01089 N • O 78 Interstote (413) 452-0445 FIGURE I III!I MAP REFERENCE 0 SITE LOCATION THIS MAP WAS PREPARED FROM THE 0 FOLLOWING 7.5' SERIES USGS MAP: CITY OF NORTHAMPTON Easthampton (MA) 1964; PHOTOREVISED 1979. ^ BURTS PIT ROAD NORTHAMPTON,MASSACHUSETTS 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 j PROJ. NO. 2001740 All DATE: JANUARY 2003 SCALE: 1-=2000' Fuss&O'Neill Inc. FIGURES I -9 F:\P2001\2001740\A I I\TIAS—NEW.DOC Fuss& O'Neill Inc. TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX FIGURES 1 —9 MANUAL TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC RECORDER COUNTS HIGHWAY CAPACITY WORKSHEETS ACCIDENT DATA po F:\P2001\2001740\AlIMAS NEW.DOC Fuss& O'Neill Inc. 8:15AM). During the weekday evening peak hour traffic is anticipated to increase by 4" approximately 20 percent(47 vehicles). The increase in traffic at the intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road is anticipated to increase by less than 5 percent during those hours. on 3. The intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road is anticipated to continue to operate at an overall level of service C or better during peak traffic hours with or without the project. Vehicle delays (average stopped time per vehicle) are expected to increase by less than 1 ON second when comparing the 2006 No Build condition (future conditions without development traffic) to the 2006 Build condition (future conditions with development ON traffic). 4. The available intersection and stopping sight distance at the proposed site roadway 0. intersection with Burts Pit 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. ,w. F:\P2001\2001740\A11\TIAS NEW.DOC on Fuss& O'Neill Inc. on As illustrated in Table 5 the overall intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road will continue to operate at a good level of service of C or better during the 2006 Build condition. 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 Burts Pit Road,just to the west of Platinum Circle, to form an unsignalized T-intersection. It is anticipated that all critical movements at this intersection will operate at a good LOS A during the year 2006 Build condition for both morning and afternoon hours analyzed. 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 object 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 36 mph eastbound and 34 mph westbound.Table 6 illustrates the required sight distances for the average running speed on Burts Pit Road and the available sight distance measured in the field. wr Using the prevailing operating speeds on Burts Pit Road, there is adequate intersection and stopping sight distance at the site driveway intersection location. TABLE 6 DRIVEWAY SIGHT DISTANCE(FEET) Stopping Sight Distance* Intersection Sight Distance" Approach Required Measured Required Measured Burts Pit Road at site Eastbound 250 650 390 675 driveway Westbound 250 700 390 400 * Table V-2,Minimum Stopping Sight Distance for Wet Pavements from AASHTO"Geometric Design of Highway and Streets". ** Table V-1 l 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 37 vehicles (7 entering and 30 exiting) during the weekday morning hour (7:15 to 8:15AM) and 47 vehicles (30 entering and 17 exiting) during the weekday evening peak hour(4 to 5PM). 2. Traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 16 percent(37 vehicles)on Burts Pit Road just east of the proposed driveway during the weekday morning hour (between 7:15 and F:\P2001\2001740\All\TIAS NEW.DOC 40 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. FM by less than 5 percent during the morning and the afternoon peak periods. Traffic on Burts Pit Road just east of Florence Road is anticipated to increase by less than 9 percent during both peak hours analyzed or approximately 24 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 31 vehicles during the evening peak hour. O Hospital Hill Area The proposed project is expected to increase peak hour through traffic volumes on Burts Pit Road east of Florence Road by less than 10%. This incremental increase in traffic is not expected to have detrimental congestion impacts on the intersections in the Hospital Hill Area. Full build out of just the Phase I portion of the proposed Hospital Hill development is estimated to generate more than ten times this amount of peak hour traffic volume on adjacent roadways, so that the potential share of any mitigation responsibility related to the impacts of the Hospital Hill project which could be assigned to The Oaks development is insignificant. 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 5 presents a summary of the capacity analysis results. TABLE 5 WEEKDAY MORNING/WEEKDAY EVENING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERICE SUMMARY 2001 Existing 2006 No Build 2006Build Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Burts Pit Rd/Site Drive Burts Pit Rd Westbound 7.6/7.4 A/A Left/Through Does Not Exist Does Not Exist Site Driveway Northbound Left/Right 9.4/8.7 A/A 1 Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd Burts Pit Rd Eastbound 11.2/10.1 BB 12.1/10.7 BB 13.1/11.4 BB Burts Pit Rd Westbound 10.3/13.2 BB 10.9/14.8 BB 11.2/16.5 B/C Florence Rd Northbound 14.1/13.5 BB 16.4/15.4 C/C 17.7/17.1 C/C Florence Rd Southbound 11.6/13.8 BB 12.7/15.8 B/C 13.3/17.3 B/C Overall 12.4/13.2 BB 13.9/15.0 BB 14.8/16.4 B/C Florence Rd/Route 66 Route 66 Eastbound 12.9/10.3 BB 13.5/10.5 BB 13.5/10.5 BB Route 66 Westbound 9.9/11.3 A/B 10.0 111.5 AB 10.0 111.5 AB Florence Rd Northbound 12.9/12.5 BB 13.8/13.2 BB 13.9/13.4 BB Florence Rd Southbound 11.3/12.2 BB 11.6/12.9 BB 11.7/13.0 BB Overall 12.2/11.9 BB 12.8/12.5 BB 12.8/12.5 BB PP go F:\P2001\2001740\AlIMAS NEW.DOC 00 Fuss&O'Neill Inc. 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. The resulting distribution produces no demand for commuting trips oriented to and from the west on Burts Pit Road. Projected trips assigned to Burts Pit Road and Florence Road can be seen in Figure 4. 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. Figure 5 present the Build conditions,which includes the traffic after the completion of the proposed development,for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours respectively. TABLE 4 ROADWAY TRAFFIC VOLUME INCREASE DUE TO PROJECT 2006 No 2006 Increase Build Build Percent (Veh/Hr) (Veh/hr) (Veh/hr) �w WEEKDAY MORNING Burts Pit Road just east of Driveway 233 270 37 15.9% Burts Pit Road just east of Florence Rd 392 416 24 6.1% Intersection of Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd 916 953 37 4.0% Intersection of Route 66/Florence Rd 1127 1136 9 0.8% ! Intersection of Route 10/Earle St 1235 1237 2 0.2% Intersection of West Street/Elm Street 1900 1922 22 1.2% WEEKDAY EVENING Burts Pit Road just east of Driveway 236 283 47 19.9% Burts Pit Road just east of Florence Rd 361 392 31 8.6% Intersection of Burts Pit Rd/Florence Rd 918 965 47 5.1% Intersection of Route 661Florence Rd 1131 1142 11 1.0% Intersection of Route 10/Earle St 1535 1538 3 0.2% Intersection of West Street/Elm Street 2025 2053 28 1.4% PM Table 4 illustrates the traffic volume increases at the intersection of Burts Pit Road with Florence Road. Traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 16 percent(37 vehicles)on Burts Pit Road just east of the proposed driveway during the weekday morning hour between 7:15 and 8:15AM. During the weekday evening peak hour(approximately 4 to 5 PM)traffic is anticipated to increase by approximately 20 percent (47 vehicles) at the same location. The increase in traffic at the intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road is anticipated to increase F:\P2001\2001740\A11\TIAS NEW.DOC Fuss&O'Neill Inc. peak hours analyzed and will continue to operate at LOS B. 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:OOPM-5:OOPM. These periods are when the traffic volumes at the study intersections are typically at their highest. 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 standard. The Land Use Code 230,Residential Condominium/Townhouses,was used to project peak hour traffic volumes for this development assuming 64 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. to The traffic to be generated by the project during the weekday morning peak hour is estimated at approximately 37 vehicle trips (7 entering and 30 exiting). Traffic to be generated during the weekday evening peak hour is estimated at approximately 47 vehicles (30 entering and 17 exiting). Table 2 summarizes the estimated site traffic generation. TABLE 2 SITE TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES Vehicle Trips Weekday Daily(24 hour) Entering 320 Exiting 320 Total 640 Weekday Morning Peak Hour Entering 7 Exiting 30 Total 37 Weekday Evening Peak Hour Entering 30 Exiting 17 Total 47 Figure 4 indicates the peak hour traffic added by the site for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak periods respectively. TRIP DISTIBUTION The trip distribution of traffic to and from the proposed development is a function of the area F:\P2001\2001740\AIIMAS NEW.DOC Fuss&O'Neill Inc. Accident Experience Accident history for the most recent three calendar years available(1998-2000)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 ACCIDENT DATA Burts Pit Rd and Florence Rd Near Proposed Site Drive Total 1998 8 0 8 1999 3 0 3 2000 3 0 3 Total 14 0 14 ow There were a total of 14 accidents reported at the intersection of Florence Road and Burts Pit Road over the three years analyzed. A crash rate of 1.25 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 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 0.81 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 2006 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 5110 just 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. Fib indicates the projected 2006 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 5. Comparison of the results of the capacity analysis for the existing conditions and the projected No Build conditions reveal that the overall intersection delay at Burts Pit Road/Florence Road will increase by approximately two seconds during both F:\P2001\2001740\AII AS NEW.DOC Fuss&O'Neill Inc. am TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT THE OAKS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NORTHAMPTON, MA on INTRODUCTION The following traffic report summarizes the analysis and evaluation of the traffic impact expected for a proposed Open Space Residential/Cluster development off Burts Pit 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 Burts Pit Road just to the west of Platinum Circle. The proposed housing will be divided into two building areas. These building areas will include a total of 10 2-family and 44 single family residential structures.All vehicular access and egress will be from the new site roadway,located off Burts Pit Road. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN THE VICINITY OF THE SITE Burt Pits Road is a two-lane residential street with an overall pavement width of approximately 32 feet in the vicinity of the access to the site. The study area intersections included in this study are: • Florence Road at Route 66 • Burts Pit Road at Florence Road • Burts Pit Road at Proposed Site Drive 0 Manual turning movement counts were conducted during a weekday morning peak period (7:OOAM-9:OOAM)and weekday evening peak period(4:OOPM-6:OOPM)at the intersection of ON Burts Pit Road and Florence Road. This intersection is a four-way, stop sign controlled, intersection with one approach lane (a shared left/through/right-turn lane) in each direction. so Figures 2and 3 present the existing weekday morning hour(7:15AM-8:15AM)and evening peak traffic hour(4:45PM-5:45PM) traffic volumes. Daily traffic volumes for Burts Pit Road were obtained from the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission(PVPC). Daily volumes just to the west of Florence Road averaged approximately 2,650 vehicles per day during the year 1998. Capacity analysis was conducted for the existing traffic volumes at the intersection of Burts Pit Road/Florence Road. This analysis was conducted for the morning traffic hour(7:15-8:15AM) and for the evening peak traffic hour (4:00-5:00 PM). As illustrated in Table 5 the overall intersection is currently operating at a good level of service (LOS)B. F:\P2001\2001740\A 11 MAS_NEW.DOC P• TRAFFIC IMPACT REPORT THE OAKS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT on' NORTHAMPTON, MA January 2003 Prepared for: The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. 4 Allen Place Northampton, MA 01060 PIP Fuss&O'Neill Inc. cnpr.,uirin.e Fnonect, 146 Hartford Road,Manchester,CT 06040-5921 TEL 86o 646-2469 FAX 86o 643-6313 78 Interstate Drive,West Springfield,MA 01089 TEL 413 452-0445 FAX 413 846-0497 56 Quarry Road,Trumbull,CT 06611 TEL 203 374-3748 FAX 203 374-4391 The Foundry Corporate Office Center 278 nPr m naide Strregt (Providence,RI 02908 FAP2001r€ doti7> o70-- a1-4 1 6 076 mom i i i i i i i i i i E C C Traffic Impact Repoli E E r E C C C E G C f go • Grab sampling dust taking samples at the inlet and outlet) is an unacceptable testing the performance of the Stormceptor during wet weather conditions unless it is flo%� 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 µg/L Total Pb 144 pg/L Total Zn 160 pg/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 I 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 ON 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. Stormceprot' �N11, - ------ - Table 4. Monitoring Pollutants i---__- - — Pollutant Minimum Detection Limit MDL Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 5 m /l ' Total Phosphorus (P) 0.02 mg/l Total Kieldahl Nitrogen TKN 0.1 mg/l Copper (Cu) 0.001 mg/I Cadmium (Cd) 0.005 m /I Lead (Pb) 0.05 mg/l Zinc (Zn) 0.01 mg/l Chromium (Cr) 0.01 mg/I 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/1 Mercury (Hg) 0.0005 mg/l Selenium (Se) 0.005 mg/l Silver(Ag) 0.01 mg/I ! " * 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, ±e■ should be calculated to validate the flow proportional sampling. Stormceptor° l) tu�� 11tnrrrl Pa Recognizing that every work site is different, the responsibility for safety fall,, on the contrictk)r_ I h: contractor must ensure that all employees and subcontractors follow established safety procedure anal OSHA regulations for working in and around permit required confined spaces as well as for any othcr 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 ION contact the CSR Stormceptor Technical Director at (800) 909-7763. 6.1 Pollutants to be Monitored an Table 4 indicates the pollutants to be monitored during the storm events and the minimum acceptable VP 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. Stormceptor4 4.2 Uisnosal of 1rapped Material from Stornceptor The requirements for the disposal of material from Stormceptor are similar to that of am t,ther Management Practices (BMP). Local guidelines should be consulted prior to disposal of the 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/chemicaUfuel 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- 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. ,m - 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 contincd 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 pr o% Id' " 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" eAn No entry into the unit i5 required for routine maintenance of the Inlet Stormceptor or the >nl,tll.r d insert models of the In-Line Stormceptor. Entry to the level of the disc insert may he required fur 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 oil/inspection port Disc Insert ' T r Concrete Stormceptor Figure 1 Single Inlet/Outlet "Disc" Insert In-Line Stormceptor Inlet Grate Oil Pon Inlet Insert l t Removable J 5 Tee i T Maintenance Figure 2 STC 4501 Inlet Stormceptor Stormcepuo,'' llu ire tlurr , Table 2. Stormceptor Capacities Model Sediment Capacity T Oil Capacity Total Holding Capacity ft' (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 (467 1) 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 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) 2400 12" (300 mm) 3600 17" (425 mm) 4800 15" (375 mm) 6000 18" (450 mm) 7200 15" 375 mm 11000s 15" 375 mm)** 13004s 18" (375 mm)** 16000s 15" (375 mm)** Depths are approximate. `* In each structure. Stormceptor® _ ll�rnc, 1/rr,rrrri /' Table 1. Stormceptor Dimensions* li 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. 0 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' 2. Stornrcrptot- .System Operation The Stormceptor consists of a lower treatment chamber, which is always full of water, and a h,, -1,,,,, chamber. Storm water flows into the by-pass chamber via the storm sewer pipe or grated inlet i Inl,:i Stormceptor). Normal flows are diverted by a weir and drop arrangement into a treatment �h.unh r Water flows up through the submerged outlet pipe based on the head at the inlet weir and i, discharged back into the by chamber downstream of the weir. The downstream section ,I th. 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 separator, have been noted to scour during high flow conditions (Schueler and Shepp, 1993). OR 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 w 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 I shi,uld help determine the size of the unit. Stormceptor4 r �w 'I hank lou: W'e ant ti) thank you I'M r selecting the Stormceptor System to use in your efforts in pl-tc,III' Ih, an environment. Stormceptor is one of the most effective and maintenance friendly storm treatment devices available. If you have any questions regarding the operation and nmintenan,,. „I Stormceptor System, please call your local CSR representative, or the Stormceptor Inforn1,itiO�n PIN (8(10) 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 preca,,t 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 720() gallon storage capacity. PIP • 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" rier pipe opening offset on the outlet side of the structure, and the outlet pipe from the unit. The �kcir 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. Thee unit, 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 deli gn O'l will be able to see an inlet drop pipe and an outlet riser pipe as well as a central oil inspection/cleanout port. Stormceptor'® 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 /f this manual is more than one year old, please contact CSR for an updated version b)• calling (800) 909-7763 or by visiting our website at www.csrstorrnceptor.com Stormceptor* e 5 i- a, i ON aft vm _\ , l� � ��' �� ' C�• It �' .+'. THE STORMCEPTORO SYSTEM • • THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfa!,'-6 5;' Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. page 3-4 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12`19'2002 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Device 2 306.00' 15.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 2 Primary 305.75' 36.0" x 30.0' long Culvert CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 303.75' S= 0.0667 '/' n= 0.012 Cc= 0.900 " ! 3 Device 2 308.25' 1.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 „ 4 Device 2 311.00' 0.12' k 0.12' Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 36.00 Limited to weir flow C= 0.600 5 Primary 311.50' 20.0' long x 6.0'breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3. Coef. (English) 2.37 2.51 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.66 A. 6 Device 2 309.70' 6.0' long x ON breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 O w of THE OAKS Type IU 24-hr Rarnfall_E; Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 38 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Svstems 1219 20C'' ON Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach PIPE: New pipe into detention basin Inflow = 21.10 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 3.439 of Outflow = 21.00 cfs @ 12.76 hrs, Volume= 3.434 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 3.5 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 8.8 fps, Min. Travel Time= 1.8 min Avg. Velocity= 4.3 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 3.7 min Peak Depth= 1.43' Capacity at bank full= 24.51 cfs Inlet Invert= 330.75', Outlet Invert= 321.25' 24.0" Diameter Pipe n= 0.012 Length= 950.0' Slope= 0.0100 'f Pond Det. Basin: New detention basin Inflow = 55.59 cfs @ 12.61 hrs, Volume= 8.687 of Outflow = 52.70 cfs @ 12.74 hrs, Volume= 8.573 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 7.5 min Primary = 52.70 cfs @ 12.74 hrs, Volume= 8.573 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev=310.90' Storage= 53,605 cf Plug-Flow detention time=33.3 min calculated for 8.556 of (98% of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 306.00 7,520 0 0 307.00 8,845 8,183 8,183 308.00 10,225 9,535 17,718 309.00 11,665 10,945 28,663 310.00 13,160 12,413 41,075 311.00 14,710 13,935 55,010 ! * 312.00 16,320 15,515 70,525 Primary Out low (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert 1=Orifice/G rate 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir 4=Orifice/Grate =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir e[ THE OAKS bSThe Berkshire Design Group, Inc. TYPe 11124-hr Rainfall-6 �,C� HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 9'2 Q2 12�19'20 '1 „ Reach C.R. #32: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow = 56.27 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 9.912 of Outflow = 56.27 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volurhe= 9.912 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 C.R. #4: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 27.67 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 3.666 of Outflow = 27.67 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 3.666 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs 40 Reach C.R. #40a: Summation point for subcatchments 40 Inflow = 3.19 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.228 of Outflow = 3.19 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.228 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min 00 Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach C.R.#2: Summation point for exist. subcatchments 4 Inflow = 72.75 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 10.690 of Outflow = 72.75 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 10.690 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 C.R.#40: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow = 12.01 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.936 of Outflow = 12.01 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 0.936 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 C.R.#5: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 31.97 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 4.597 of Outflow = 31.97 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 4.597 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 C.R.#50: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow = 21.05 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.835 of '""" Outflow = 21.05 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.835 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min go ow THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfal1=6 50 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 36 HydroCADO6.00_s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Svstems 1219'200, ON Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow from entrance road onto Burt's Pit Rd. on Reach C.R. #1: Summation point of exist. subcatchments ON Inflow = 35.05 cfs @ 12.43 hrs, Volume= 4.424 of Outflow = 35.05 cfs 0 12.43 hrs, Volume= 4.424 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min No Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments an Inflow = 25.30 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 4.086 of Outflow = 25.30 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 4.086 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Wo Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Reach C.R. #20: Summation point of reaches 31 & 32 Inflow = 62.63 cfs @ 12.68 hrs, Volume= 12.869 of Outflow = 62.63 cfs @ 12.68 hrs, Volume= 12.869 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 C.R. #3: Runoff from subcatchments 2 and 3 Inflow = 43.72 cfs @ 12.53 hrs, Volume= 6.107 of Outflow = 43.38 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 6.093 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 4.2 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/ 3 Max. Velocity= 11.2 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.4 min Avg. Velocity = 5.0 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.3 min Peak Depth= 0.63' f"* Capacity at bank full= 115.52 cfs Inlet Invert= 334.00', Outlet Invert= 292.00' 3.00' x 1.00' deep channel, n= 0.012 Length= 1,584.4' Slope= 0.0265T Side Slope Z-value= 5.0'P Reach C.R. #31: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow = 13.40 cfs Q 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.122 of Outflow = 13.40 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.122 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Ralnfall-6 5c, Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 35 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19/2002 ±+ Area (ac) CN Description 0.220 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.053 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.640 98 Paved parking & roofs 1.913 82 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.4 80 0.0625 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.95" 2.8 320 0.0723 1.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 8.2 400 Total Subcatchment 4113: Section of subcatchment 70 Runoff = 10.25 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.899 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 .. 1.200 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.550 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.244 98 Paved parking & roofs w 2.994 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.8 80 0.0350 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 5.5 440 0.0720 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 12.3 520 Total Subcatchment 41 C: Pavement area between detention ponds Runoff = 3.19 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.228 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 0.241 98 Entrance road draining into existing road 0.389 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.630 81 Weighted Average PM g 0--0 THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6 50 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 34 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12'19/2002 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 3.3 360 0.0680 1.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.8 340 0.0880 1.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 14.8 800 Total Subcatchment 40: Eastern side of site Runoff = 21.10 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 3.439 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 8.140 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.700 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.055 98 Paved parking & roofs 11.895 73 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.9 100 0.0350 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 2.4 152 0.0460 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 3.2 220 0.0540 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, 0.5 40 0.0600 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 7.2 400 0.0340 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into first detention basin 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow Into second detention basin 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow from second detention basin to road 51.2 912 Total Subcatchment 41A: Section of subcatchment 41 Runoff = 9.03 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.708 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" M THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6 5J MR Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 33 HydroCAM 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12J19i2002 on Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Back edge of site Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 5.9 500 0.0800 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into prop. catch basins 7.4 460 0.0430 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Out of pipe continuing over Iz Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry. Flow from street into Det pond 39.5 1,060 Total Subcatchment 31: NW side south of prop. detention basin Runoff = 13.40 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1.122 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 2.570 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.250 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.140 98 Paved parking & roofs 3.960 72 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ► (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 100 0.0600 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 0.5 60 0.1000 2.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.6 280 0.0680 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.7 440 Total Subcatchment 32: Area north of prop. detention basin Runoff = 14.29 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 1.339 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 3.390 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.200 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.140 98 Paved parking & roofs 4.730 72 Weighted Average THE OAKS Type Ill 24-17r Ralnla1,1.6 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 32: HydroCAD®6.00 sln 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 1219'2002 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into new pipe and out to edge of propel 3.0 240 0.0708 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Flow from F.E.O. off of prope Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.0 240 Total Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Runoff = 12.60 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 1.085 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 2.130 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.460 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.130 98 Paved parking & roofs 3.720 73 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Flow from edge of new road Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 1.0 140 0.1140 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, flow over new lawn areas Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 3.0 200 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Off yards into woods Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.7 440 Total Subcatchment 30: Central portion of site(picks up most of runoff) Runoff = 36.82 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 5.254 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 9.029 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 3.690 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.200 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.291 100 New Detention Basin 16.210 77 Weighted Average THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6 5(1 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. page 31 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12119'2002 Area (ac) CN Description 0.210 98 Paved parking & roofs 1.750 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.140 70 Woods Good, HSG C 3.100 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 80 0.0750 0.3 Sheet Flow, Flow starting above houses and into catch bz Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 3.8 440 0.0778 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, From S.C. flow into CB Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 8.8 520 Total Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Runoff = 19.74 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 2.809 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 8.970 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.310 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10.280 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fJft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Sheet flow from back of site Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 7.1 600 0.0790 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps .� 13.2 600 0.0230 0.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 39.3 1,300 Total Subcatchment 11: Prop. road area into cul-de-sac Runoff = 2.17 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.192 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 0.368 98 New paved road and cul-de-sac IM THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=6 L,,() Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page K. HydroCAM 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12i 192002 Area (ac) CN Description 22.880 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.160 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C w• 23.040 70 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95° 8.6 660 0.0660 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, "" Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.5 220 0.0180 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 7.4 560 0.0640 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 37.7 1,540 Total 4. Subcatchment 4A: Larger section of existing subcatchment 4 go Runoff = 27.67 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 3.666 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs 00 Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 12.260 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.960 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.180 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers 13.400 71 Weighted Average On Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.5 100 0.0500 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2=2.95" 9.8 660 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps " 8.5 500 0.0380 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 33.8 1,260 Total �r Subcatchment 4B: Section of existing subcatchment 4 Runoff = 11.67 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.931 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs r Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" MW ON THE OAKS Type 11124-hr RarnfaN-6 50 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 29 HydreCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 @ 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19/2002 08 Subcatchment 1: South edge of property Runoff = 21.79 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 2.767 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 10.420 70 Woods, Good, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 6.3 540 0.0810 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.2 460 0.0350 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 30.7 1,100 Total Subcatchment 2: SW edge of property near small wetland area Runoff = 13.28 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 1.657 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 6.240 70 Woods, Good, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 5.8 320 0.0340 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 4.8 340 0.0560 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, ` Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 29.6 760 Total Subcatchment 3: Middle portion of site collected in larger wetland near road Runoff = 43.72 cfs @ 12.53 hrs, Volume= 6.107 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" P0 THE OAKS Type Ill 24-hr Rainfall.6 PW Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 28 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcom uter Systems 12,'19 2002 00 Reach C.R. #1: Summation point of exist. subcatchments Inflow= 35.05 cfs 4.424 of Outflow= 35.05 cfs 4 424 a` ON Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatch)'nents Inflow= 25.30 cfs 4.086 ai Outflow= 25.30 cfs 4.086 of Reach C.R. #20: Summation point of reaches 31 & 32 Inflow=62.63 cfs 12.869 of Outflow=62.63 cfs 12.869 of Reach C.R. #3: Runoff from subcatchments 2 and 3 Inflow=43.72 cfs 6.107 at rw Length= 1,584.4' Max Vel= 11.2 fps Capacity= 115.52 cfs Outflow=43.38 cfs 6.093 of Reach C.R. #31: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow= 13.40 cfs 1.122 at Outflow= 13.40 cfs 1.122 at Reach C.R. #32: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow=56.27 cfs 9.912 of Outflow=56.27 cfs 9.912 of Reach C.R. #4: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow=27.67 cfs 3.666 at Outflow= 27.67 cfs 3.666 of Reach C.R. #40a: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow=3.19 cfs 0.228 of Outflow=3.19 cfs 0.228 of Reach C.R42: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow=72.75 cfs 10.690 of Outflow=72.75 cfs 10.690 of Reach C.R.#40: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow= 12.01 cfs 0.936 at Outflow= 12.01 cfs 0.936 of Reach C.R.#5: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow=31.97 cfs 4.597 of Outflow=31.97 cfs 4.597 of Reach C.R.#50: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow=21.05 cfs 1.835 at Outflow=21.05 cfs 1.835 of Reach PIPE: New pipe into detention basin Inflow= 21.10 cfs 3.439 at Length= 950.0' Max Vel=8.8 fps Capacity= 24.51 cfs Outflow=21.00 cfs 3.434 of Pond Det. Basin: New detention basin Peak Storage=53,605 cf Inflow= 55.59 cfs 8.687 of Primary= 52.70 cfs 8.573 of Outflow= 52.70 cfs 8.573 of Runoff Area = 112.900 ac Volume = 32.203 of Average Depth = 3.42" THE OAKS Type !ll 24-hr Rainfall-(3 5o !' Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page HydroCAD®6.00_s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19 20 % 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 1: South edge of property Tc=30.7 min CN=70 Area=10.420 ac Runoff= 21.79 cfs 2.767 of A Subcatchment 2: SW edge of property near small wetland area Tc=29.6 min CN=70 Area=6.240 ac Runoff= 13.28 cfs 1.657 of Subcatchment 3: Middle portion of site collected in larger wetland near road Tc=37.7 min CN=70 Area=23.040 ac Runoff=43.72 cfs 6.107 of so Subcatchment 4A: Larger section of existing subcatchment 4 Tc=33.8 min CN=71 Area=13.400 ac Runoff= 27.67 cfs 3.666 of on Subcatchment 413: Section of existing subcatchment 4 Tc=8.8 min CN=74 Area=3.100 ac Runoff= 11.67 cfs 0.931 of P!" Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Tc=39.3 min CN=71 Area=10.280 ac Runoff= 19.74 cfs 2.809 of Subcatchment 11: Prop. road area into cul-de-sac Tc=8.0 min CN=98 Area=0.368 ac Runoff=2.17 cfs 0.192 of Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Tc=11.7 min CN=73 Area=3.720 ac Runoff= 12.60 cfs 1.085 of so Subcatchment 30: Central portion of site(picks up most of runoff) Tc=39.5 min CN=77 Area=16.210 ac Runoff= 36.82 cfs 5.254 of 00 Subcatchment 31: NW side south of prop. detention basin Tc=10.7 min CN=72 Area=3.960 ac Runoff= 13.40 cfs 1.122 of on Subcatchment 32: Area north of prop. detention basin Tc=14.8 min CN=72 Area=4.730 ac Runoff= 14.29 cfs 1.339 of Subcatchment 40: Eastern side of site Tc=51.2 min CN=73 Area=11.895 ac Runoff= 21.10 cfs 3.439 of Subcatchment 41 A: Section of subcatchment 41 ! " Tc=8.2 min CN=82 Area=1.913 ac Runoff= 9.03 cfs 0.708 of Subcatchment 4113: Section of subcatchment 70 Tc=12.3 min CN=74 Area=2.994 ac Runoff= 10.25 cfs 0.899 of Subcatchment 41 C: Pavement area between detention ponds Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Area=0.630 ac Runoff=3.19 cfs 0.228 of +1tt THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4 45 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 26 HydroCADO6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19;2002 # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Device 2 306.00' 15.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 2 Primary 305.75' 36.0" x 30.0' long Culvert CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 303.75' S= 0.0667 'P n= 0.012 Cc= 0.900 3 Device 2 308.25' 1.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 4 Device 2 311.00' 0.12' x 0.12' Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 36.00 Limited to weir flow C= 0.600 5 Primary 311.50' 20.0' long x 6.0'breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3. Coef. (English) 2.37 2.51 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.6E 6 Device 2 309.70' 6.0' long x ON breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 wa► air THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4 4ti Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 25 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12,119/2002 Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach PIPE: New,pipe into detention basin Inflow = 10.95 cis @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 1.819 of Outflow = 10.91 cfs @ 12.79 hrs, Volume= 1.815 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 4.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 7.6 fps, Min. Travel Time=2.1 min Avg. Velocity =3.7 fps, Avg. Travel Time=4.2 min Peak Depth=0.94' Capacity at bank full=24.51 cfs Inlet Invert= 330.75', Outlet Invert= 321.25' 24.0" Diameter Pipe n= 0.012 Length= 950.0' Slope= 0.0100 'P Pond Det. Basin: New detention basin Inflow = 29.85 cfs @ 12.63 hrs, Volume= 4.721 of Outflow = 23.07 cfs CAD 12.94 hrs, Volume= 4.633 af, Atten= 23%, Lag= 18.6 min Primary = 23.07 cfs @ 12.94 hrs, Volume= 4.633 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 310.07' Storage= 42,067 cf Plug-Flow detention time=41.6 min calculated for 4.633 of (98%of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 306.00 7,520 0 0 307.00 8,845 8,183 8,183 308.00 10,225 9,535 17,718 309.00 11,665 10,945 28,663 310.00 13,160 12,413 41,075 311.00 14,710 13,935 55,010 312.00 16,320 15,515 70,525 Primary Out low (Free Discharge) 2=Culvert 1=Orifice/Grate 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir =Orifice/Grate =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir THE OAKS Type ll! 24-hr Rarnfall=4.45 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 24 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/1 9/2002 Reach C.R. #32: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow = 24.45 cfs @ 12.93 hrs, Volume= 5.334 of Outflow = 24.45 cfs @ 12.93 hrs, Volume= 5.334 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 C.R. #4: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 13.95 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 1.894 of Outflow = 13.95 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 1.894 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 C.R. #40a: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow = 1.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.131 of Outflow = 1.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.131 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 C.R.#2: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 36.13 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 5.498 of Outflow = 36.13 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 5.498 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 C.R.#40: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow = 7.05 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.544 of Outflow = 7.05 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.544 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 C.R.#5: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 16.26 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 2.393 of Outflow = 16.26 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 2.393 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 C.R.#50: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow = 11.76 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.025 of Outflow = 11.76 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 1.025 af, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rain/all=4 45 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 23 HydroCAD D 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/192002 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow from entrance road onto Burt's Pit Rd. Reach C.R. #1: Summation point of exist. subcatchments Inflow = 17.37 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 2.258 of Outflow = 17.37 cfs @ 12.45 hrs, Volume= 2.258 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min W Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments or Inflow = 12.95 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 2.155 of Outflow = 12.95 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 2.155 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 C.R. #20: Summation point of reaches 31 & 32 Inflow = 29.23 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 6.946 of Outflow = 29.23 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 6.946 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 C.R. #3: Runoff from subcatchments 2 and 3 Inflow = 21.67 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 3.116 of ±o Outflow = 21.49 cfs @ 12.64 hrs, Volume= 3.105 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 5.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/ 3 Max. Velocity= 9.2 fps, Min. Travel Time= 2.9 min Avg. Velocity = 4.2 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 6.3 min Peak Depth= 0.45' Capacity at bank full= 115.52 cfs Inlet Invert= 334.00', Outlet Invert= 292.00' 3.00' x 1.00' deep channel, n= 0.012 Length= 1,584.4' Slope= 0.0265 'r Side Slope Z-value= 5.0T Reach C.R. #31: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow = 6.86 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.587 of Outflow = 6.86 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.587 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs THE OAKS Type Ill 24-hr Rainfall=4.4 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 22 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12'19'200' Area (ac) CN Description 0.220 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.053 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0-0 0.640 98 Paved parking & roofs 1.913 82 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.4 80 0.0625 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 2.8 320 0.0723 1.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 8.2 400 Total Subcatchment 41 B: Section of subcatchment 70 Runoff = 5.38 cfs 0 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.481 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 1.200 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.550 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.244 98 Paved parking & roofs 2.994 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.8 80 0.0350 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 5.5 440 0.0720 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 12.3 520 Total Subcatchment 41 C: Pavement area between detention ponds Runoff = 1.85 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.131 of PM 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 0.241 98 Entrance road draining into existing road 0.389 70 Woods, Good, HSG C f" 0.630 81 Weighted Average r PP THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.45 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 21 HydroCADCD 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19/2002 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 .Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 3.3 360 0.0680 1.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.8 340 0.0880 1.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 14.8 800 Total w Subcatchment 40: Eastern side of site Runoff = 10.95 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 1.819 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 8.140 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.700 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.055 98 Paved parking & roofs 11.895 73 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.9 100 0.0350 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 2.4 152 0.0460 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 3.2 220 0.0540 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, - Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, 0.5 40 0.0600 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 7.2 400 0.0340 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow Into first detention basin 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into second detention basin 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow from second detention basin to road 51.2 912 Total Subcatchment 41 A: Section of subcatchment 41 Runoff = 5.32 cfs ® 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.413 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" NO THE OAKS Type ll! 24-hr Rainfall=4 4LL Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 20 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 1219'2002 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Back edge of site Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 5.9 500 0.0800 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into prop. catch basins 7.4 460 0.0430 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Out of pipe continuing over la Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow from street Into Det. pond 39.5 1,060 Total Subcatchment 31: NW side south of prop. detention basin Runoff = 6.86 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.587 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 2.570 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.250 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.140 98 Paved parking & roofs 3.960 72 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 100 0.0600 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 0.5 60 0.1000 2.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 3.6 280 0.0680 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, .A Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.7 440 Total Subcatchment 32: Area north of prop. detention basin Runoff = 7.31 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.701 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 -- 3.390 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.200 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.140 98 Paved parking & roofs 4.730 72 Weighted Average THE OAKS Type 11124-hr Rainfall-4 45 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 19 HydroCAM 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19'2002 + • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into new pipe and out to edge of proper 3.0 240 0.0708 1.3 'Shallow Concentrated Flow, Flow from F.E.O. off of prope Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.0 240 Total Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Runoff = 6.55 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.575 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" ww Area (ac) CN Description 2.130 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.460 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.130 98 Paved parking & roofs 3.720 73 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Flow from edge of new road Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.95" 1.0 140 0.1140 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow,flow over new lawn areas Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 3.0 200 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Off yards into woods Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.7 440 Total Subcatchment 30: Central portion of site(picks up most of runoff) Runoff = 20.30 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 2.906 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 9.029 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 3.690 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.200 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.291 100 New Detention Basin '* 16.210 77 Weighted Average go THE OAKS Type !ll 24-hr Rainfall=4,4 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 18 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 1 2/1 6";2002 Area (ac) CN Description 0.210 98 Paved parking & roofs 1.750 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C e. 1.140 70 Woods Good, HSG C 3.100 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 80 0.0750 0.3 Sheet Flow, Flow starting above houses and into catch b� Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.95' 3.8 440 0.0778 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, From S.C. flow into CB Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 8.8 520 Total Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Runoff = 9.95 cfs @ 12.57 hrs, Volume= 1.451 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 8.970 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.310 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10.280 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Sheet flow from back of site Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 7.1 600 0.0790 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 13.2 600 0.0230 0.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 39.3 1,300 Total Subcatchment 11: Prop. road area Into cul-de-sac Runoff = 1.48 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.129 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 0.368 98 New paved road and cul-de-sac on THE OAKS Type ll! 24-hr Rainfall=4 45 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page t Hydro CAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986 2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12'19'2002 on Area (ac) CN Description 22.880 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.160 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C *M 23.040 70 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description ON (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 8.6 660 0.0660 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.5 220 0.0180 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 7.4 560 0.0640 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 37.7 1,540 Total Subcatchment 4A: Larger section of existing subcatchment 4 Runoff = 13.95 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 1.894 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 12.260 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.960 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.180 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers 13.400 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 15.5 100 0.0500 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 9.8 660 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.5 500 0.0380 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 33.8 1,260 Total Subcatchment 4B: Section of existing subcatchment 4 Runoff = 6.18 cfs @ 12.13 hrs, Volume= 0.499 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" THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Ralofall-4 .1;' Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 16 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12i 1_9 2002 Subcatchment 1: South edge of property Runoff = 10.80 cfs @ 12.46 hrs, Volume= 1.412 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 10.420 70 Woods, Good, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 6.3 540 0.0810 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.2 460 0.0350 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 30.7 1,100 Total Subcatchment 2: SW edge of property near small wetland area Runoff = 6.58 cfs @ 12.44 hrs, Volume= 0.846 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 6.240 70 Woods, Good, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 5.8 320 0.0340 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 4.8 340 0.0560 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 29.6 760 Total Subcatchment 3: Middle portion of site collected in larger wetland near road Runoff = 21.67 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 3.116 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" so THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Ra,nfail_4 45 so Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 15 HydroCAD(D 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986 2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12;19 2 02 No Reach C.R. #1: Summation point of exist. subcatchments Inflow= 17.37 cis 2.258 of Outflow= 17.37 cis 2.258 of A. Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments Inflow= 12.95 cis 2.155 at Outflow= 12.95 cis 2,155 of on Reach C.R. #20: Summation point of reaches 31 &32 Inflow=29.23 cis 6.946 of Outflow=29.23 cfs 6.946 of Reach C.R. #3: Runoff from subcatchments 2 and 3 Inflow=21.67 cfs 3.116 of ow Length= 1,584.4' Max Vel=9.2 fps Capacity= 115.52 cfs Outflow=21.49 cfs 3.105 at Reach C.R. #31: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow=6.86 cfs 0.587 of * Outflow=6.86 cis 0.587 of Reach C.R. #32: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow=24.45 cfs 5.334 of Outflow=24.45 cis 5.334 of Reach C.R. #4: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow= 13.95 cfs 1,894 at Outflow= 13.95 cfs 1.894 at Reach C.R. #40a: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow= 1.85 cfs 0.131 of Outflow= 1.85 cfs 0.131 of Reach C.R.#2: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow=36.13 cis 5.498 at Outflow=36.13 cis 5.498 of Reach C.R.#40: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow=7.05 cfs 0.544 at Outflow=7.05 cis 0.544 at Reach C.R.#5: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow= 16.26 cfs 2.393 at Outflow= 16.26 cfs 2.393 of ON Reach C.R.#50: Main drain tine on Burt's Pit Inflow= 11.76 cfs 1.025 of Outflow= 11.76 cfs 1.025 of Reach PIPE: New pipe into detention basin Inflow= 10.95 cis 1.819 of Length=950.0' Max Vel= 7.6 fps Capacity=24.51 cfs Outflow= 10.91 cfs 1.815 at Pond Det. Basin: New detention basin Peak Storage=42,067 cf Inflow=29.85 cis 4.721 at Primary=23.07 cfs 4.633 of Outflow= 23.07 cis 4.633 of Runoff Area = 112.900 ac Volume = 16.960 of Average Depth = 1.60" THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=4.4:1 Pm Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1.1 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986 2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19%2002 as 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 1: South edge of property Tc=30.7 min CN=70 Area=10.420 ac Runoff= 10.80 cfs 1.412 of Subcatchment 2: SW edge of property near small wetland area Tc=29.6 min CN=70 Area=6.240 ac Runoff=6.58 cfs 0.846 of Subcatchment 3: Middle portion of site collected In larger wetland near road Tc=37.7 min CN=70 Area=23.040 ac Runoff=21.67 cfs 3.116 of Subcatchment 4A: Larger section of existing subcatchment 4 Tc=33.8 min CN=71 Area=13.400 ac Runoff= 13.95 cfs 1.894 of Subcatchment 4131: Section of existing subcatchment 4 Tc=8.8 min CN=74 Area=3.100 ac Runoff=6.18 cfs 0.499 of ,�. Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Tc=39.3 min CN=71 Area=10.280 ac Runoff=9.95 cfs 1.451 of Subcatchment 11: Prop. road area Into cul-de-sac Tc=8.0 min CN=98 Area=0.368 ac Runoff= 1.48 cfs 0.129 of � Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Tc=11.7 min CN=73 Area=3.720 ac Runoff=6.55 cfs 0.575 at Subcatchment 30: Central portion of site(picks up most of runoff) Tc=39.5 min CN=77 Area=16.210 ac Runoff=20.30 cfs 2.906 of Subcatchment 31: NW side south of prop.detention basin 00 Tc=10.7 min CN=72 Area=3.960 ac Runoff=6.86 cfs 0.587 of Subcatchment 32: Area north of prop. detention basin 00 Tc=14.8 min CN=72 Area=4.730 ac Runoff=7.31 cfs 0.701 of Subcatchment 40: Eastern side of site 0, Tc=51.2 min CN=73 Area=11.895 ac Runoff= 10.95 cfs 1.819 of Subcatchment 41 A: Section of subcatchment 41 ON Tc=8.2 min CN=82 Area=1.913 ac Runoff= 5.32 cfs 0.413 of Subcatchment 41 B: Section of subcatchment 70 Tc=12.3 min CN=74 Area=2.994 ac Runoff=5.38 cfs 0.481 of Subcatchment 41 C: Pavement area between detention ponds Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Area=0.630 ac Runoff= 1.85 cfs 0.131 of THE OAKS Type tit 24-hr Rainfall=2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 13 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied MICfOCOmnutar �� 9 stems 12/19/2002 4w # Routing Invert Outlet Devices 1 Device 2 306.00' 15.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 2 Primary 305.75' 36.0" x 30.0' long Culvert CMP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 303.75' S= 0.0667 'f n= 0.012 Cc= 0.900 3 Device 2 308.25' 1.0' long x 0.5' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 "e 4 Device 2 311.00' 0.12' x 0.12' Horiz. Orifice/Grate X 36.00 Limited to weir flow C=0.600 5 Primary 311.50' 20.0' long x 6.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3. Coef. (English) 2.37 2.51 2.70 2.68 2.68 2.67 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.66 2.6E 6 Device 2 309.70' 6.0' long x ON breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 Coef. (English) 2.80 2.92 3.08 3.30 3.32 �s• no on THE OAKS Type fit 24-hr Rainfall-29 5 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page I HydroCAD@ 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19,2002' as Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs on Reach PIPE: New.pipe into detention basin Inflow = 4.52 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 0.807 of Outflow = 4.50 cfs @ 12.85 hrs, Volume= 0.805 at, Atten= 0%, Lag= 4.4 min s Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Max. Velocity= 5.9 fps, Min. Travel Time=2.7 min Avg. Velocity= 3.1 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 5.0 min Peak Depth=0.58' Capacity at bank full= 24.51 cfs Inlet Invert= 330.75', Outlet Invert= 321.25' 24.0" Diameter Pipe n= 0.012 Length= 950.0' Slope=0.0100'P *• Pond Det. Basin: New detention basin Inflow = 13.09 cfs @ 12.66 hrs, Volume= 2.191 of w Outflow = 7.59 cfs @ 13.18 hrs, Volume= 2.126 af, Atten= 42%, Lag= 31.4 min Primary = 7.59 cfs @ 13.18 hrs, Volume= 2.126 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 308.27' Storage= 20,698 cf Plug-Flow detention time=47.8 min calculated for 2.126 of(97%of inflow) Storage and wetted areas determined by Prismatic sections Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 306.00 7,520 0 0 307.00 8,845 8,183 8,183 308.00 10,225 9,535 17,718 309.00 11,665 10,945 28,663 310.00 13,160 12,413 41,075 311.00 14,710 13,935 55,010 312.00 16,320 15,515 70,525 Primary Out low (Free Discharge) ,t 2=Culvert 1=Orifice/Grate 3=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir =Orifice/Grate =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir =Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir THE OAKS Type If/ 24-hr Palnfa11=2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12'19'2002 Reach C.R. #32: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow - 8.12 cfs @ 13.14 hrs, Volume= 2.432 of Outflow 8.12 cfs @ 13.14 hrs, Volurbe= 2.432 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 C.R. #4: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 5.43 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.809 of Outflow = 5.43 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.809 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 C.R. #40a: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.067 of Outflow = 0.93 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.067 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 C.R.#2: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 13.56 cfs @ 12.63 hrs, Volume= 2.331 of Outflow = 13.56 cfs @ 12.63 hrs, Volume= 2.331 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 C.R.#40: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow - 3.60 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.280 of Outflow = 3.60 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.280 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 C.R.#5: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow = 6.42 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 1.035 of Outflow = 6.42 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 1.035 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 C.R.#50: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow = 5.53 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.498 of """ Outflow = 5.53 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.498 at, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min go .w THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall-29:, Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 10 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 0 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19%2002 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 ,Direct Entry, Flow from entrance road onto Burt's Pit Rd. Reach C.R. #1: Summation point of exist. subcatchments Inflow = 6.52 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.945 of Outflow = 6.52 cfs ® 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.945 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 C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments Inflow = 5.19 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.958 of Outflow = 5.19 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 0.958 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 C.R. #20: Summation point of reaches 31 & 32 Inflow = 11.31 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 3.186 of Outflow = 11.31 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 3.186 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 C.R. #3: Runoff from subcatchments 2 and 3 Inflow = 8.15 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.303 of Outflow = 8.03 cfs @ 12.71 hrs, Volume= 1.296 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 6.7 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs/ 3 Max. Velocity=6.9 fps, Min. Travel Time= 3.8 min Avg. Velocity =3.4 fps, Avg. Travel Time= 7.8 min Peak Depth= 0.27' ow Capacity at bank full= 115.52 cfs Inlet Invert= 334.00', Outlet Invert= 292.00' 3.00' x 1.00' deep channel, n= 0.012 Length= 1,584.4' Slope= 0.0265T 00 Side Slope Z-value= 5.0 'P Reach C.R. #31: Summation point for subcatchments so Inflow = 2.74 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.256 of Outflow - 2.74 cis @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.256 af, Atten= 0%, Lag=0.0 min 00 Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs moo THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 9 HydroCAM 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12!19/2002 po _ Area (ac) CN Description 0.220 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.053 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C _ 0.640 98 Paved parking & roofs 1.913 82 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.4 80 0.0625 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 2.8 320 0.0723 1.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 8.2 400 Total Subcatchment 41 B: Section of subcatchment 70 Runoff = 2.29 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.218 of ,40 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 1.200 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.550 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.244 98 Paved parking & roofs ow 2.994 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.8 80 0.0350 0.2 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n=0.150 P2=2.95" 5.5 440 0.0720 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 12.3 520 Total Subcatchment 41 C: Pavement area between detention ponds �. Runoff = 0.93 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 0.067 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 0.241 98 Entrance road draining into existing road rw 0.389 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.630 81 Weighted Average s �r OR ON THE OAKS Type /I/ 24-hr Rainfall-2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 8 HydroCAD®6.00s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19 2002 40 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 6heet Flow, ""' Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 3.3 360 0.0680 1.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.8 340 0.0880 1.5 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 14.8 800 Total Subcatchment 40: Eastern side of site Runoff = 4.52 cfs @ 12.77 hrs, Volume= 0.807 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 8.140 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.700 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.055 98 Paved parking & roofs 11.895 73 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.9 100 0.0350 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2=2.95" 2.4 152 0.0460 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 3.2 220 0.0540 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, 0.5 40 0.0600 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 7.2 400 0.0340 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow Into first detention basin 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into second detention basin 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow from second detention basin to road 51.2 912 Total Subcatchment 41 A: Section of subcatchment 41 Runoff = 2.72 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.213 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" THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall-295 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19"2002 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Back edge of site 'Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 5.9 500 0.0800 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into prop, catch basins 7.4 460 0.0430 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Out of pipe continuing over I; Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow from street into Det pond 39.5 1,060 Total Subcatchment 31: NW side south of prop. detention basin Runoff = 2.74 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.256 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 2.570 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.250 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.140 98 Paved parking $ roofs 3.960 72 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description �.. (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 6.6 100 0.0600 0.3 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 0.5 60 0.1000 2.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 3.6 280 0.0680 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 10.7 440 Total Subcatchment 32: Area north of prop. detention basin Runoff = 2.90 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume= 0.306 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 3.390 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.200 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.140 98 Paved parking & roofs 4.730 72 Weighted Average w THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 63 HydroCADO 6.00 sfn 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19,12002 « ►► Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Flow into new pipe and out to edge of prope 00 3.0 240 0.0708 1.3 "Shallow Concentrated Flow, Flow from F.E.O. off of prope Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.0 240 Total Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Runoff - 2.68 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.256 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 2.130 70 Woods, Good, HSG C + . 1.460 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.130 98 Paved parking & roofs 3.720 73 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Flow from edge of new road Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 1.0 140 0.1140 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, flow over new lawn areas Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.0 200 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Off yards Into woods Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 11.7 440 Total Subcatchment 30: Central portion of site(picks up most of runoff) Runoff = 9.35 cfs @ 12.59 hrs, Volume= 1.386 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 9.029 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 00 3.690 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.200 98 Paved parking & roofs 0.291 100 New Detention Basin PW 16.210 77 Weighted Average THE OAKS Type I!! 24-hr Rainfal1=2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 5 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12 19,'202 ±w. Area (ac) CN Description 0.210 98 Paved parking & roofs 1.750 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1.140 70_ Woods, Good, HSG C " 3.100 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 80 0.0750 0.3 Sheet Flow, Flow starting above houses and into catch ba Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 3.8 440 0.0778 2.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, From S.C. flow into CB Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 8.8 520 Total Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Runoff = 3.87 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume= 0.619 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 8.970 70 Woods, Good, HSG C " 1.310 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10.280 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Sheet flow from back of site » Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 7.1 600 0.0790 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv=5.0 fps 13.2 600 0.0230 0.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 39.3 1,300 Total Subcatchment 11: Prop. road area into cul-de-sac Runoff = 0.97 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 0.083 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 0.368 98 New paved road and cul-de-sac THE OAKS Type 111 24-hr Rainfall-2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page w HydroCAM 6.00_s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19/2002 Area (ac) CN Description 22.880 70 Woods, Good, HSG C - 0.160 74 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG-C 23.040 70 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 8.6 660 0.0660 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 5.5 220 0.0180 0.7 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 7.4 560 0.0640 1.3 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 37.7 1,540 Total Subcatchment 4A: Larger section of existing subcatchment 4 ** Runoff = 5.43 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 0.809 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 12.260 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.960 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.180 98 Paved roads w/curbs& sewers 13.400 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) aA. 15.5 100 0.0500 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 9.8 660 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.5 500 0.0380 1.0 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps �w• 33.8 1,260 Total Subcatchment 413: Section of existing subcatchment 4 Runoff = 2.63 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.226 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" ,�w THE OAKS Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. TYpe Ill 24-hr RaintalPa )5 Page 3 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19/200-7 00 Subcatchment 1: South edge of property Runoff = 4.06 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 0.591 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 10.420 70 Woods, Good, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 16.2 100 0.0450 0.1 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 6.3 540 0.0810 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 8.2 460 0.0350 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 30.7 1,100 Total Subcatchment 2: SW edge of property near small wetland area Runoff = 2.47 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.354 of 0 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 6.240 70 Woods, Good, HSG C Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, '" Woods: Light underbrush n=0.400 P2= 2.95" 5.8 320 0.0340 0.9 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 00 4.8 340 0.0560 1.2 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 29.6 760 Total Subcatchment 3: Middle portion of site collected in larger wetland near road Runoff = 8.15 cfs @ 12.60 hrs, Volume= 1.303 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" THE OAKS Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group P Inc. TYPe 11124 hr Ramfala g1. Page HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752_© 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12/19'200-, Reach C.R. #1: Summation point of exist. subcatchments Inflow= 6.52 cfs 0.945 of Outflow=6.52 cfs 0.945 a! f Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments Inflow= 5.19 cfs 0 958 <-,f Outflow= 5.19 cfs 0.958 of Reach C.R. #20: Summation point of reaches 31 &32 Inflow= 11.31 cfs 3.186 of Outflow= 11.31 cfs 3.186 of Reach C.R. #3: Runoff from subcatchments 2 and 3 Inflow=8.15 cfs 1.303 of go Length= 1,584.4' Max Vel=6.9 fps Capacity= 115.52 cfs Outflow-8.03 cfs 1.296 of Reach C.R. #31: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow=2.74 cfs 0.256 of A" Outflow=2.74 cfs 0.256 of Reach C.R. #32: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow=8.12 cfs 2.432 of Outflow=8.12 cfs 2.432 of Reach C.R. #4: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow=5.43 cfs 0.809 of Outflow=5.43 cfs 0.809 of Reach C.R. #40a: Summation point for subcatchments Inflow=0.93 cfs 0.067 of Outflow=0.93 cfs 0.067 of Reach C.R.#2: Summation point for exist.subcatchments Inflow= 13.56 cfs 2.331 of Outflow= 13.56 cfs 2.331 at Reach C.R.#40: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow= 3.60 cfs 0.280 of Outflow= 3.60 cfs 0.280 of Reach C.R.#5: Summation point for exist. subcatchments Inflow= 6.42 cfs 1.035 of Outflow= 6.42 cfs 1.035 of Reach C.R.#50: Main drain line on Burt's Pit Inflow= 5.53 cfs 0.498 at Outflow=5.53 cfs 0.498 of OP Reach PIPE: New pipe into detention basin Inflow= 4.52 cfs 0.807 at Length=950.0' Max Vel=5.9 fps Capacity= 24.51 cfs Outflow= 4.50 cfs 0.805 of Pond Det. Basin: New detention basin Peak Storage=20,698 cf Inflow= 13.09 cfs 2.191 of Primary=7.59 cfs 2.126 of Outflow= 7.59 cfs 2.126 of OP Runoff Area= 112.900 ac Volume=7.494 of Average Depth = 0.80" �r 00 00, THE OAKS Type Ill 24-hr Paint3li.2 9--) Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 12,19,200'2 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 1: South edge of property Tc=30.7 min CN=70 Area=10.420 ac Runoff=4.06 cfs 0.591 of Subcatchment 2: SW edge of property near small wetland area Tc=29.6 min CN=70 Area=6.240 ac Runoff= 2.47 cfs 0.354 at Subcatchment 3: Middle portion of site collected In larger wetland near road Tc=37.7 min CN=70 Area=23.040 ac Runoff=8.15 cfs 1.303 of Subcatchment 4A: Larger section of existing subcatchment 4 Tc=33.8 min CN=71 Area=13.400 ac Runoff=5.43 cfs 0.809 at > Subcatchment 48: Section of existing subcatchment 4 Tc=8.8 min CN=74 Area=3.100 ac Runoff= 2.63 cfs 0.226 of Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Tc=39.3 min CN=71 Area=10.280 ac Runoff=3.87 cfs 0.619 of on Subcatchment 11: Prop. road area into cul-de-sac Tc=8.0 min CN=98 Area=0.368 ac Runoff=0.97 cfs 0.083 of Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Tc=11.7 min CN=73 Area=3.720 ac Runoff=2.68 cfs 0.256 at Subcatchment 30: Central portion of site(picks up most of runoff) Tc=39.5 min CN=77 Area=16.210 ac Runoff=9.35 cfs 1.386 of Subcatchment 31: NW side south of prop. detention basin Tc=10.7 min CN=72 Area=3.960 ac Runoff=2.74 cfs 0.256 of Subcatchment 32: Area north of prop. detention basin Tc=14.8 min CN=72 Area=4.730 ac Runoff= 2.90 cfs 0.306 of Subcatchment 40: Eastern side of site Tc=51.2 min CN=73 Area=11.895 ac Runoff=4.52 cfs 0.807 of 40 Subcatchment 41 A: Section of subcatchment 41 Tc=8.2 min CN=82 Area=1.913 ac Runoff=2.72 cfs 0.213 of Subcatchment 41 B: Section of subcatchment 70 Tc=12.3 min CN=74 Area=2.994 ac Runoff= 2.29 cfs 0.218 of OP Subcatchment 41 C: Pavement area between detention ponds Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Area=0.630 ac Runoff=0.93 cfs 0.067 of oar Or r N W N LL •-- c d CM o a r W d' = =3a ` oQ ,20o E om T- t4 m (o W M 0 Z�"JJ CCS� d ! N N 0) 0 Ln s Y ti d - ° a� o U ~ O v N cz Q p a U o Q) o U C Q U ON v (�as U on c 0 m M N CL A U N U U Existing & Proposed Conditions Calculations Ow 0" Ilie ( ak' Oc'cttthcr 1'+. Northampton, NIX—tchusetts 4) 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 go 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. 5) Detention Basin Detention basins shall be inspected at least once per year. Inspection shall be conducted during and after storms to ensure that the basin is functioning as intended, i.e. detaining stormwater and releasing it at a controlled rate. All outlet structures shall be inspected for clogging and general condition. Potential problems that shall be checked include: sediment accumulation around the outlet, „0 change in condition of low flow channel,erosion within the basin or the banks. Any necessary repair shall be made immediately. Accumulated sediment at the detention basin shall be removed as necessary, and at least once every three years. The upper-stage, and side slopes shall be mowed at least twice per year. Trash and debris shall also be removed at this time. > �w► 3 rM► 0 {he Oak Deco mhcr 1". Northampton. Massachusetts The Contractor shall remove the sediment from behind the fence of the sedimentation control barrier when the accumulated sediment has reached one- half of the original installed height of the barrier. 0 Post-Construction Stormwater Management System Owner: Creative Developers, Inc. 72 Mountainview Drive Belchertown, MA 01007 Party Responsible for Operation & Maintenance: Creative Developers, Inc. 72 Mountainview Drive Belchertown, MA 01007 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 � r 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. Sediment and debris shall be removed manually at least once per year before the vegetation is adversely impacted. 3) Hooded Catch Basin with Sump Oil and water/sediment separators should be inspected at least four times per year NO and cleaned annually or more often if required. Oil and sediments should be removed and disposed of in accordance with local, state and federal guidelines and regulations. In the case of an oil or bulk pollutant release, the system must be 4, cleaned immediately following the spill and the proper authorities notified. 2 0 Che t)A, Northampwn, h1assaAusetts Proposed * Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan 0 During Construction The Contractor shall be responsible for inspection and maintenance during construction. f 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. Aft 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.). Mfr 1 AN 1 00 Proposed Stormwater Management System Operation & Maintenance Plan oil w► Stormwater Recharge I acres) Volume to recharge (in) ReV (Acre-feet) 100% of impervious area, soil group "C" 5.27 1 0.10 0.044 ReV= I x Volume to recharge/ 12 0.044 acre-feet Given the very dense glacial till on site high infiltration rates are not expected. Recharge to groundwater will be accomplished through overland flow from 1/2 of the roofs and drives. Additional infiltration will occur in the bottom of the detention basin. Sediment Storage Required: Volume (ft')= 0.1"/12 x (I - Ir) x 43560 1078 ft Provided: (26) Catch basins 26 x 50 ft3= 1,300 ft' (1) StormCeptor (Model 450i) 1 x 45 ft3= 45 ft3 Total: 1,345 'NOTE: additional sediment storage is available in the Detention Pond Stormwater Management Summar,� Required Provided TSS Removal 80% 85% Storm Water Recharge 0.044 ac.-ft. via overland flow Sediment Storage 1,078 ft 1,345 ft fir► 40 �r ell► Page 2 of 2 > The Oaks--Subdivision on Burt's Pit Rd. 19-Dec-02 of Northampton, MA Stormwater Management Standards 3 & 4 Calculations Standards/Policy: Calculations are based on the requirements of the Massachusettes Department of Environmental Protection Stormwater Management/Stormwater Policy Handbook, March 1997 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. The calculations for the storm treatment chamber("StormCeptor") were !' performed using CSR/StormCeptor software. TSS Removal BMP technology TSS removal Cumulative TSS removed BMP 1 Street sweeping 10% 10% BMP 2 Deep sump-hooded CB 15% 14% BMP 3 Treatment Chamber 80% 61 Total TSS removal 852 Note: The TSS removal figure for the StormCeptor is the minimum expected to be realized. Some of the units will achieve greater treatment in the first flush of the storm. 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. So I=total impervious are (including rooftop) WOV=water quality volume Ir=rooftop impervous area ReV = recharge volume RR= rooftop runoff Pre-dev. 1 = 0.63 acres Ir= 0 Post-dev.' 1 = 3.71 acres Ir= 0.74 III WOV = 0.5" x I (acres)/ 12 0.155 acre-feet RR = 0.5" x Ir (acres)/ 12 0.031 acre-feet Volume of stormwater that must be treated for water quality= 0.124 acre-feet all roadway and 1/2 of roofs and drives were included in calcs. Remainder of roofs and drives flow overland Page 1 of 2 g. ®R uy ff Post Development Drainage Areas Map Q 1 .y� Berkshire DRAINAGE WAIWHED AREAS:pRE.DEVELOP Design Group,Im M=WhAlft 010M (413)W-70W FAX(413)582-7QW NORTHAMPTON DMOAM MASSACHUSEM Predevelopment Drainage Areas Map The Oak's Residential Subdivision December 19, 2002 Drainage Report VI. Summary + " The proposed Burt's Pit Road development site is set on a presently undeveloped woodland area approximately 56.70 acres. The existing trees where the houses are proposed will be cleared and removed from the site. The proposed project consists of 70 new houses on the site. No construction will affect the existing 5 wetlands on the site as the 100' buffer is maintained. The proposed project also consists of 2.60 acres of new roadway pavement, making up the road around the site and a fire lane in the northwest corner of the site. Stormwater from any paved area flows to the detention basin ,then through stormwater treatment chamber before it is released overland before entering the buffer zone and then ultimately reaching the wetlands. The stormwater management system has been designed to maintain or reduce the existing peak flow rates under proposed conditions for the 2, 10, and 100-year storm frequencies. Special care has been taken to treat runoff with a series of best management practices to ensure water quality. These practices include street sweeping and deep sump catch basins with storm water treatment chambers. By doing these practices, along with adding a new detention basin, it was possible to reduce the time of concentration, remove total suspended solids, and maintain water quality to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed system outlet mimics the existing conditions. 5 The Oak's Residential Subdivision December 19, 2002 Drainage Report existing conditions. Once flow reaches the existing stream in the northwest corner wetland, it discharges off the site to an unknown location down Burt's Pit Road. Calculations were performed for the 2, 10, and 100-year frequency storms under existing and proposed conditions. As shown in the summary table, the proposed runoff peak flows closely match the existing conditions runoff peak flows for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Table 2. Peak Flow and Peak Volume Summary Table 2-Year Storm 25-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Condition & Point of 2.95" 4.45" 6.50" Analysis Peak Peak Peak Flow Volume Flow Volume Flow Volume Rate(efs) acre-ft) Rate(cfs) (acre-ft) Rate(cfs) (acre-ft) IRV Existing(Reach 1)* 6.52 0.945 17.37 2.258 35.05 4.424 Proposed(Reach 10)* 5.19 0.958 12.95 2.155 25.30 4.086 Existing(Reach 2)* 13.56 2.331 36.13 5.498 72.75 10.69 Proposed(Reach 20)* 11.31 3.186 29.23 6.946, 62.63 12.869 *Names in parentheses refer to NydroCad model and calculations. Water Quality BMPs have been incorporated into the stormwater management system design to assist in attaining the required 80% TSS removal rate from runoff generated in impervious areas. BMPs include incorporating sheet flow whenever possible, the use of deep sump/hooded catch basins and the inclusion of a storm water treatment chamber. The treatment chamber has been installed on the outlet of the detention basin to essentially polish the outfall from the detention basin. The storm water treatment chamber has been sized to achieve average TSS removal rates in excess of 80%. The discharge from the detention basin, after treatment through the treatment chamber, will be returned to sheet flow which will further treat the storm water for water quality. It is important to note that the discharge from the detention basin will occur well outside of the wetlands buffer zone, thereby ensuring no detrimental impacts to the wetland resource area. The overall calculated TSS removal rate achieved by just the street sweeping, catch basin and treatment chamber system is shown in the Standards 3 & 4 Calculations sheet in the Appendix. Through the use of those BMPs the total estimated TSS removal rate for the proposed stormwater management system is 85%, however if the overland flow from the discharge point to the wetlands is taken into consideration, rip the removal rate would actually be even greater. 4 The Oak's Residential Subdivision December 19, 2002 ! ' Drainage Report The flow from the west edge of the property flows west off the property and eventually collects with flow coming from the wetland in the northwest corner of the site. Different summation points were used for this flow and the remaining water on the site just to get an idea,-of how much water was coming from Burt's Pit Road, but in the end, these flows come together. Flow from the eastern edge of the property flows in a northerly direction. It collects in a small detention basin on the east side of the entrance road. After getting detained for a short period of time, the flow is piped into a second detention basin in order to decrease the time it takes the flow to reach the catch basin on Burt's Pit Road. These basins are needed to slow down the flow of the stormwater from the back of the site to the existing road. An existing 12" RCP pipe carries the flow down to the wetland at the northwest corner of the site and to be sure this pipe does not get backed up, the flow must be slowed down. Once this flow is slowed down, it collects in the proposed catch basins at the beginning of the entrance road. From here it is piped down Burt's Pit Road and into the wetland. r Once storm flows from the proposed site reach the existing stream on the south side of Burt's Pit Road, the remainder of the drainage system is left untouched and continues to function as detailed under the existing conditions. 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. Watershed subcatchment areas, runoff coefficients, and watercourse slopes were based on the survey plans prepared by Heritage Surveys, Inc. of Southampton, Massachusetts dated August 1, 2002. Under proposed conditions runoff will be collected, peak flows detained, and discharged to the existing wetlands in a controlled manner that mimics the 3 OW The Oak's Residential Subdivision December 19, 2002 Drainage Report the other side of the street through a 30" corrugated metal pipe flowing under Burts Pit Road. It is important to note that running though this small wetland area in the NW corner of the property is a small stream. When the runoff flows into this area, it is picked up by this stream and carried off the property to an unknown location. In the event of a large storm the stream just increases in width and is able to contain any large amounts of water. The low point at the end of the stream, which drains the site, collects a portion of Burts Pit Road runoff from the existing catch basins on the road. For storm water modeling purposes, the property lines at the site were used to bound the watershed with control points located as shown on the plans. IV. Proposed Conditions The proposed condition closely mimics the existing drainage patterns, utilizing the existing wetlands on the site and the existing catch basins on Burts Pit Road as the ultimate point of discharge as well as the overall modeling control point. �,. Incorporated in the proposed design are water detention ponds intended to detain peak flows from the site so as to ensure no increase in peak discharges from the existing to the proposed condition is experienced and to maintain groundwater recharge levels. The high point of the site is located on the southeast corner of the parcel. Flow from this area runs overland in a northwesterly direction through existing wetlands and off the site. A portion of this flow will be collected in the proposed detention basin. The flow that does not make it to the basin will flow off the property and collect in the stream running off the site. The detention basin is designed to detain flows to match the existing flow leaving the site. It is also designed to drain into the existing wetland after allowing infiltration and removal of suspended solids. This detention basin also collects a portion of overland flow located upslope of the detention pond but below the roadway. From the southwest portion of the site, the water will flow directly to the west off the site into a different area than the rest of the site. The reason for the different destination in this flow pattern is because of the existing houses off the edge of the property line. These houses prevent the flow from this part of the site from connecting with the rest of the flow. Once it leaves the property, it flows to an W unknown area. It is important, since the end destination is not known, to make sure the proposed conditions don't increase flow to this area. As shown in the modeling though, this flow actually decreases. 2 40 go The Oak's Residential Subdivision December 19, 2002 Drainage Report PW I. Introduction This report is intended to present analysis and discussion of storm water management calculations and design performed for the Creative Developers, Inc. proposed Residential Subdivision located on Burts Pit Road in Northampton, Massachusetts. Construction improvements for the proposed project include: clearing and grubbing of existing trees,construction of a new multi lot subdivision, new paved road, and installation of a new storm water management system and utilities. Impervious surface at the site will be increased from 0.63 acres to approximately 5.27 acres with 2.60 acres being comprised of roadway pavement. The total size of this subdivision covers an area of approximately 56.70 acres. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the 2, 10, and 100-year peak flow rates for the site under current conditions and to design a storm water management system that maintains the existing peak flow rates while improving storm water runoff quality from the site. II. Site Soils According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service for the Central Part of Hampshire County (see attached soils map) the soil in the area of the proposed storm water management systems consist of a single type called PcB, Paxton fine sandy loam (hydrologic group Q. This soil type covers the entire area of the property. III. Existing Conditions The existing site is comprised of a thick-forested area with four small wetlands on the northwest corner, western side, middle, and the southwest side of the property line. Beginning with the south side, runoff from the existing site drains towards the west and flows down the vegetated/forested slopes, ultimately collecting in a flatter area and drained off the property. From the southeast section of the site, the water flows north to the front of the site. Here it encounters a wetland area where it is detained for a short period of time until the overflow continues towards Burts Pit Road. The water at the east side of the site flows along the east side of the property into existing catch basins on the side of Burts Pit Road. Runoff from the site flows to a wetland area in the northwest corner of the parcel. It collects here and flows off the site in a small stream flowing in the southwesterly direction. It is important to note that this small wetland also collects flow from W �w P■ on THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev Type ili 24-hr Rainfall=6.50 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCAD®6.00 sln 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 215/2003 Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments (40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow = 25.72 cfs Q 12.45 hrs, Volume= 4.091 of Outflow = 25.72 cfs 0 12.45 hrs, Volume= 4.091 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev Type Ill 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 2/5/2003 Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property +± Runoff = 14.44 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, VolumeJ' 1.243 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 2.260 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.500 74 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.380 98 Paved parking& roofs 4.140 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Flow from edge of new road Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.95" 1.0 140 0.1140 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, flow over new lawn areas Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.0 200 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Off yards into woods Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.7 440 Total THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev Type l/l 24-hr Rainfal1=6.50° Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 2/5/2003 Subcatchment 10: South edge of property me Runoff = 20.01 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume=` 2.848 of Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs am Type III 24-hr Rainfall=6.50" Area (ac) CN Description 9.830 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.320 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.275 98 Driveways & Roofs 10.425 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 40 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Sheet flow from back of site Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 7.1 600 0.0790 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps ' ' 13.2 600 0.0230 0.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 39.3 1,300 Total ON on ON an THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev r YPe 111 24-hr Rainfal 9 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 2/5/2003 Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow = 13.14 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 2.137 of Outflow = 13.14 cfs @ 12.47 hrs, Volume= 2.137 at, Atten=0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs �r. THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev 24-hr Rainfal Type M Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page ° 1 Page 1 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 2/5/2003 Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Runoff = 10.09 cfs @ 12.57 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=4.45" Area (ac) CN Description 9.830 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.320 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.275 98 Driveways & Roofs 10.425 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Sheet flow from back of site Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 7,1 600 0.0790 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 13.2 600 0.0230 0.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 39.3 1,300 Total THE OAKS-Fla Lots-Rev OAKS-Flag - Type 111 24-hr Rainfall-4.45 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 HydroCAD®6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 2/5/2003 Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Runoff = 7.63 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume 0.666 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 2.260 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.500 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.380 98 Paved parking & roofs 4.140 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Flow from edge of new road Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 1.0 140 0.1140 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, flow over new lawn areas MM Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 3.0 200 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Off yards into woods Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 11.7 440 Total am THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev Type /// 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 2/5/2003 Reach C.R. #10: Summation point of subcatchments [40) Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow = 5.23 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 0.930 of Outflow = 5.23 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 0.930 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs .e. �w 40 on THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev Type 111 24-hr Rainfall=2.95 Prepared by The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. Page 1 oft HydroCADO 6.00 s/n 000752 © 1986-2001 Applied Microcomputer Systems 2/5/2003 Subcatchment 20: SW edge of property Runoff = 3.21 cfs C 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.302 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 2.260 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 1.500 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.380 98 Paved parking & roofs 4.140 74 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.7 100 0.0400 0.2 Sheet Flow, Flow from edge of new road Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2=2.95" 1.0 140 0.1140 2.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, flow over new lawn areas Short Grass Pasture Kv=7.0 fps 3.0 200 0.0500 1.1 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Off yards into woods Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps e„ 11.7 440 Total ON e■ THE OAKS-Flag Lots-Rev 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 2/5/2003 Subcatchment 10: South edge of property Runoff = 3.92 cfs @ 12.62 hrs, Volume=, 0.628 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 9.830 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 0.320 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.275 98 Driveways & Roofs 10.425 71 Weighted Average Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 19.0 100 0.0300 0.1 Sheet Flow, Sheet flow from back of site " " Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.95" 7.1 600 0.0790 1.4 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 13.2 600 0.0230 0.8 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 39.3 1,300 Total f c .� N � W (V a CL c C- M J o °v M V U x � C T Q (1) Q p Q CL CCC\I), W go o = N o (� i. Drn 00 d 0 EE u cm wON Y N M p' o U O C o 0 � N o o � g n.Q a) U o d � _ u 0 s U Ilw � J 4-0 U c 0 V I � U • 1 Of 4 I • ,, A� r, • go The Oak's Residential Subdivision February 6, 2003 Drainage Report - Flag Lot Revisions ADDENDUM TO DECEMBER 19 2002 DRAINAGE REPORT on The drainage calculations (dated 12/19/02) have been revised to reflect the omission of the cul-de-sac and roadway formally at STA 21+00. The new proposal entails the construction of three flag lots in this area. The original drainage areas were modified to correlate with the new proposal. Specifically, drainage area #11 was omitted and combined into drainage areas #10 and #20. Subsequently, drainage areas#10 and #11 where modified. The following table presents the results of the revised drainage calculations, which reveal that drainage peak flows and volumes closely match the existing conditions runoff peak flows for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storm events (see attached HydroCad analysis sheets for details). Table 2. Peak Flow and Peak Volume Summary Table 2-Year Storm 25-Year Storm 100-Year Storm Condition & Point 2.95" 4.45" 6.50" of Analysis Peak Peak Peak Flow Volume Flow Volume Flow Volume Rate(cfs) (acre-ft) Rate(cfs) (acre-ft) Rate(cfs) (acre-ft) Existing(Reach 1)* 6.52 0.945 17.37 2.258 35.05 4.424 New Proposed- Flag Lots 5.23 0930 13.14 2.137 25.72 4.091 (Reach 10)* an *Names in parentheses refer to HYdroCad model and calculations. "a fps Pill I t 1 Drainage Report .sh 4 A O.L. Ivlyr;l5 Dras. of Mass LLL sheet i —Of Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp Inspector Man P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project rest Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" ample Depth REC strata No. Range Change Lithology /Remarks 111 06 6.12 12-18 18-24 S-1 0-2' 11 13 11 3 14" 0-2"Organics,2-14" Brown fine SAND and SILT.DRY S-2 5-7 22 28 32 38 14" Gray fine-medium SAND,some silt,trace gravel.DRY S-3 10-12 29 50 0" No Recovery,Spoon DRY 1" S-4 15-17' 6 2 1 1 18" Gray SILTY fine-medium SAND.WET EOB @ 17' WATER 12' 1 00 Field Obs. Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%) Screen Ft. Slot- Dia — Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Oia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. lAIR o.L. Myers brOS. of Mass, LLC ' sheet of Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp Inspector Matt P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Test Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burs Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus rtw Drill/Crew J.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range change Lithology / Remarks _:T6_12 12-18 18-24 S-1 1 0-2' 1 1 1 3 6" 1 Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT. DRY S-2 5-7 17 40 31 26 6" Gray fine-coarse SAND,some silt.MOIST S-3 10-12' 5 10 15 16 8" Brown/Gray fine-coarse SAND,some silt,little gravel. WET S-4 15-17' 26 50 101' Gra y fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravel.WET EOB 17' WATER 12' JIM Field Obs, Only Sump Ft Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia— Bentonite Flush ! " Little-10-M Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. o.L_. iviyet5 pros. of Mass, LLC sheet I Of. _'______ Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp Inspector �1,ltt P.O. Box 1060 —_- Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Test Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No Range Change Lithology /Remarks 1F1 0-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 S-1 0-2' 1 1 2 3 1 10" 0-2"Organics, 2-10"Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels, coarse sand. DRY No S-2 5-7 18 24 25 16 22" Brown/ fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace Brown/gray gravels,coarse sand. DRY S-3 10-12' 10 1 12 22 14 18" 1 Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels,coarse sand.DRY S4 15-17' 50 40 42 35 14" Gray fine-medium SAND,some silt,trace gravels,coarse sand.DRY EOB @ 17' No Apparent Water Field Obs. Only Sump FI, Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft Slot - Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. t)ia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% I Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. b,L. Myers bros. of Mass LLC Sheet I of Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp Inspector %13tt P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Test Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range Change Lithology / Remarks 6-12 12-18 18-24 S-1 0-2' 8 3 1 3 1 15" 0-6"Organics, 6-15"Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT.MOIST S-2 5-7 9 8 10 14 17" Red/brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels,coarse sand. DRY S-3 10-12' 19 26 18 50 2" 1 Rock Fragments.DRY 1" S-4 13-15' 100 3" Pulverized rock ents. DRY 311 EOB @ 13" No Apparent Water try > Field Obs. Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia ! Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. lNlr i E31. Myers Bros. of Mass LLC Shut I Of I Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client t3erkshire Design Grp Inspector Hatt _ P.O. Box 1060 Test Borings Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project g # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burls Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Marlin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# ' 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range Change Lithology /Remarks O�b 612 12-18 18-24 S-I 1 0-2' 2 2 4 6 1 6" 0-2"Organics,2-6"Brown fine-medium SAND,trace gravels,coarse sand. DRY S-2 5-7 20 28 25 30 18" Gray fine SAND. DRY S-3 10-12' 12 21 20 30 16" Brown fine SAND and SILT. WET S4 1 15-17' 7 12 17 26 18" Gray SILT,trace fine sand.MOIST +� EOB @ 17' Water @ 8' �Iwr Field Obs. Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia— Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Some-20-3596 Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up.._...__ And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland , Misc. M1! MI* B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass LLC sheet I or Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp Inspector ti1att P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Test Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Burts Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Location p ) Well Locus _ Drill/Crew J.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC strata go No. Range change Lithology / Remarks 0 6 6 12 12-18 18-24 w. S-1 1 0-2' 1 6 8 7 1 12" 04"Organics,4-12"Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT. DRY S-2 5-7 35 29 35 31 20" Gray/light brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels. DRY S-3 10-12' 9 23 19 20 11" Light brown! y fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels. WET 0 S4 15-17' 22 27 50 9" Gm /brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels.WET EOB @ 17' Water @ 9' Possible Rock @ 16.5' 1M 1 > Field Obs.Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%) Screen FI Slot - Dia— Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-500 Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass LLC Sheet Of Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp Inspector P.O. Box 1060 11�1u Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Test Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J.Martln Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata Lithology /Remarks No. Range Ch e 0.6 6-12 12-18 18-24 S-I 0-2' 3 2 3 7 1 14" 0-4"Organics,4-12"Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT. DRY S-2 J 5-7 40 50 6" Brown/ ay fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels. DRY 4" S-3 10-12' 17 24 23 20 20" 1 Same as above.DRY R S-4 15-17' 15 1 16 36 30 12" Brown fine-coarse SAND,some silt,trace gravels.WET. EOB 17' Water @ 14' tll� 1!tI~ Field Obs. Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia _ Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. Bentonite Stand Up.____ Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. * B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass LLC sheet of Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp Inspector Man P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Test Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Location Burts Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus Drill/Crew J•Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 5' Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata ll! No Range Change Lithology / Remarks t}6 6-12 12-18 18-24 S-1 0-2' 15 50 3" Brown fine-medium SAND and Organics. DRY 1" E-2 5-7' 27 27 50 10" Gray fine-medium SAND,some silt, trace gravels. DRY 2" 10-12' 25 33 35 40 18" Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT. WET S-4 15-17' 25 48 50 15" Brown fine-medium SAND and SILT.Trace gmvels. WET EOB @ 17' Water @ 10' Field Obs.Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete M Trace-0-10%) Screen Ft. Slot - Dia Bentonite Flush Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia. _ Bentonite Stand Up Some-20-35% And-35-50% Endcaps Expansion plug Portland Misc. B.L. Myers Bros. of Mass LLC sheet i of i Environmental / Geotechnical Specialists Client Berkshire Design Grp inspector b'latt P.O. Box 1060 Belchertown, MA 01 007 Project Test Borings # Tel: 1-413-323-0099 1-800-947-5552 Burts Pit Rd. Northampton, MA(Oaks) Location P ) Fax: 1-413-323-5065 Well Locus _ +? Drill/Crew 1.Martin Auger Size Casing Size Sampling Core barrel Utility Clearance# 4.25" ID 51 Town Permit# BLOWS PER 6" Sample Depth REC. strata No. Range Change Lithology / Remarks 0 6 8-12 12-18 18-4 S-1 0-2' 5 3 3 7 9" 1 0-2"Organics,2-9"brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels. DR S-2 5-7 23 35 26 16 4" Same as above.DRY S-3 10-12' 10 48 50 12" Gray/brown fine-medium SAND and SILT,trace gravels. DRY 3" AUGER REFUSAL @ 13' No Apparent Water EOB 17' Water 10' Ila aA W Field Obs. Only Sump Ft. Dia. Filter Sand Concrete Trace-0-10%). Screen Ft. Slot - Dia — Bentonite Flush�.._ Little-10-20% Riser Ft. Dia, Bentonite Stand Up�...� Some-20-35%5-50 Endcaps Expansion plug Portland And-35-50% Misc. �....--�. i n f 1 I Boring roe: F E E F E E A 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 ZONING Lot Size 53 . 567 AC 10 , 000 SF MIN Frontage 647 . 63 65 ' Min Cul -de-sa Setbacks Front Vacant 25 ' Min Side L: R: L: 1 5 ' Min R: 1 5 ' Min L: R: 25 ' Min Rear Building Height N/A N/A Building Square Footage s� N/A N/A Open Space: (lot area minus building ft paved parking N/A N/A i # of Parking Spaces N/A N/A # of Loading Docks N/A N/A Fill: (volume Et 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: • �� Applicant's Signature NOTE: Issuance of a zoning permit does not relieve an applicant's burden 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. 000.pdf of WNW File No. O D_J - ZONING PERMIT APPLICATION(&o.2) Please type or print all information and return this form to the Building Inspector's Office with the $io.filing fee (check or mo o der)payable to the City of Northampton „ .L 1. Name of Applicant: Creative Developers , Inc . c Address: 72 M o t i n t a i n v i e w Dr- Telephone: 41 3 323-57 1 0 2. Owner of Property: David M u s a n t e Address: 1 3 1 N . H o l l y d a l e Dr . Fullerton , CA Telephone: 3. Status of Applicant: Owner Contract Purchaser X Lessee Other (explain) 4. Job Location: B u r t s Pit Road ew Parcel Id: Zoning Map#&,( Parcel# lOd 4strict(s): rc In Elm Street District In Central Business District (TO BE FILLED IN BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT) 5. Existing Use of Structure/Property: Wooded Lot on 6. Description of Proposed Use/Work/Project/Occupation: (Use additional sheets if necessary): qM The oroject consists of a cluster development providing 70 units to be sold as single and two family homes . w. 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? NO X DON'T KNOW YES IF YES, date issued: IF YES: Was the permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds? NO DON'T KNOW YES IF YES: enter Book Page and/or Document# 9. Does the site contain a brook, body of water or wetlands? NO DON'T 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) Im File #MP-2003-0089 w APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON The Berkshire Design Group,Inc. ADDRESS/PHONE 4 ALLEN PLACE (413)582-7000 Q PROPERTY LOCATION BURTS PIT RD MAP 36 PARCEL 068 001 ZONE SR THIS SECTION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST ENCLOSED REQUIRED DATE ZONING FORM ILLED OUT � Building Permit Filled out Fee Paid Typeof Construction: ZPA-CLUSTER DEV 70 UNITS New Construction Non Structural interior renovations .. Addition to Existin4 Accessory Structure Building Plans Included• Owner/Statement or License 3 sets of Plans/Plot Plan THE FOLLOWING ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION BASED ON w INFORMATION PRES TED: Approved Additional permits required(see b:? ­) PLANNING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER. 0- Intermediate Project: Site Plan AND/OR_ _„pecial Permit with Site Plan CGG S,77f k Major Project: Site Plan AND/OR_Special Permit with Site Plan ZONING BOARD PERMIT REQUIRED UNDER: § Finding Special Permit Variance* Received&Recorded at Registry of Deeds Proof Enclosed Other Permits Required: _/Curb Cut from DPW Water Availability Sewer Availability Septic Approval Board of Health Well Water Potability Board of Health VxPermit from Conservation Commission Permit from CB Architecture Committee Permit from Elm t Commission l O L Signature of Buil m�gggff ia l 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. OW ■s sewage disposal facilities - water supply facilities 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: OW B-11. Lighting: Location Details - Photometric Plan showing no more than .5 foot candle at property line OR FOR MAJOR PROJECTS ONLY: B-12. An erosion control plan and other measures taken to protect natural resources&water supplies: ON See Attached 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. See Attached 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.) 001pdf 9 SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS REQUEST FOR WAIVERS APPLICATION This form MUST be included in your application packet. The site plan MUST contain the information w� 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 40 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 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 001pdf 8 G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not a• 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). aa� 9. 1 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: Applicant's Signatur Im Date: Owner's Signatu : 2 (Owners signature r der_from ow er aut orizing applicant to sign.) (Applicant must include waiver form on p. 8 indicating that either all information is included or that waivers are being requested.) MAJOR PROJECTS MUST ALSO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MAJOR PROJECT APPROVAL CRITERIA: Does the project incorporate 3 foot sumps into the storm water control system? Yes No (IF NO, explain why) Will the project discharge stormwater into the City's storm drainage system? Yes No (IF NO,answer the following:) Do the drainage calculations submitted demonstrate that the project has been designed so that there is no ON increase in peak flows from pre-to post-development conditions during the: 1, 2,or 10 year Soil Conservation Service design storm? Yes No (IF NO,explain why) Pill Will all the runoff from a 4/10 inch rainstorm (first flush)be detained on-site for an average of 6 hours? Yes No (IF NO,explain why) Is the applicant requesting a reduction in the parking requirements? Yes No Fill If yes,what steps have been taken to reduce the need for parking, and number of trips per day? PM 003.pdf 7 s RON G. Explain how the requested use will promote City planning objectives to the extent possible and will not OR 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 qW Nc.rthamnton Vision through enhancing_residential life with t1.e expansion of open space and recreation while preserving signi i - n o u s. 40 9. 1 certify that the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.The undersigned owner(s)grant the Plannin Board permission to enter the property to review this on application. ''/ Date: a 5075 Applicant's Signature: rF -� on Date: ! .� ;, Owner's Signature:�o (Owners 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 being requested.) MAJOR PROJECTS MUST ALSO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING MAJOR PROJECT APPROVAL CRITERIA: Does the project incorporate 3 foot sumps into the storm water control system? Yes No X (IF NO, explain why) 4' Sumps Will the project discharge stormwater into the City's storm drainage system? Yes X 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) 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) t Is the applicant requesting a reduction in the parking requirements? Yes No X P0 If yes,what steps have been taken to reduce the need for parking, and number of trips per day? 003.pdf 7 How does the project meet the special requirements?(Use additional sheets if necessary) The project complies with all open space, lot/flag lot dimensional _requirements and rnadt layrnut raz„irements ac rrnyiderd in the Ordinance. �w F. State how the project meets the following technical performance standards: I. Curb cuts are minimized:One curb cut at main entrance . Additional curb cut restricte to fire access on1Y 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 per lot typical 3. Are pedestrian,bicycle and vehicular traffic separated on-site? an X YES NO(if no,explain why) FOR PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE INTERMEDIATE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, ONLY, SIGN PP 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 MON 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.) OWN FOR PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT OR WHICH ARE A MAJOR PROJECT, applicants MUST also complete the following: 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 AdjarPnt uses not be detrimental to the health,morals or general welfare: As a residential use . the general welfare , morals or health will noy be impacted be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Ordinance: The open s(Lame !o rl iictar diaci nn is favorable through anhanci nd+ rac i ddanti a 1 lif-o by exnandi nq npen gear and rPrreatinn 003.pdf 6 40 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 by incorporating sidewalks , crosswalks and seating areas . How will the project minimize traffic impacts on the streets and roads in the area? See attached analySls_.hy Fuss & O ' Neill Inc . Where is the location of driveway openings in relation to traffic and adjacent streets? Proposed new street is approximately 350 ' West of Platinum Circle . What features have been incorporated into the design to allow for: access by emergency vehicles:_A 1 1 s t a n d a rd s per Northampton * Regulations with additional 12 ' fire lane provided . the safe and convenient arrangement of parking and loading spaces: N/A provisions for persons with disabilities:_A_I I w a 1 k s h a y e m a x 5% g r a d e . Accessible curb ramps are proposed . C. How will the proposed use promote a harmonious relationship of structures and open spaces to: the natural landscape: The m a h o r i t y of the site will be permanently preserved as open space . to existing buildings: No existing buildings on site other community assets in the area: Easements have been provided to accomadate future trail systems . !! D. What measures are being taken that show the use will not overload the City's resources, including: water supply and distribution system: S e e A t t a c h e d A n a l y s i s 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 ( 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.) �•� Sz, 10,S�OPPK Seca C"4,WA 1D4y Co rww�v �►v�. 003.pdf 5 t Fill a CITY OF NORTHAMPTON PLANNING BOARD APPLICATION FOR: Please Note: An omission of information could lead to a delay in processing your application. Pill 1. Check type of project: INTERMEDIATE PROJECT: Site Plan AND/OR Special Permit with Site Plan JIM Or MAJOR PROJECT: Site Plan AND/OR Special Permit with Site Plan 2. Permit is requested under Zoning Ordinance:Section: Pager- �. G- 13 (o-17 10-T Pill 3. Applicant's Name: Creative Developers Inc . Address: 72 Mpuntainview Dr. BelchertowrTelephone:413 323-5710 4. Parcel Identification: Zoning Map#3_ Parcel# (-)p Zoning District:-S R Street Address: 2 8 6„2 2 8 B u r t s Pit Rd . Property Recorded in the Registry of Deeds: County: H a m n s hi r e Book: -5 81 0 Page: 19 2 5. Status of Applicant: Owner Contract Purchaser Lessee ; Other X _; 6. Property Owner: D a v i d M u S ante & See b e l ow Address: 131 N . H o l l y d a l e D r. F u l le r t o n_ elephone: 7. Describe Proposed Work/Project: (Use additional sheets if necessary): Open SpacP Cl iiStpr 0Pv PlnDmPnt—prnVidincl70 units to be sold as single and two family hnmPS - Has the following information been included in the application? Site/Plot Plan_ X List of requested waivers_ Fee 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 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 and will be enclosed by an open snare huffPr- How will the project provide for: surface water drainage: Stormwater management system i nrI udi n0 catch basins , treatment chambers and detention ponds , sound and sight buffers: Wooded n Pp n s pa re i s p r n n n S e d to surround and buffer the_ residentidl cluster the preservation of views,light and air: Wooded n Pp n S p a r P a l o ng the perimeter will not alter light & air and will buffer views 003.pdf 4 1 7 7 7 1 7 7 7 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Special Permit Application OR CJ '� M M CSI C14 00 00 Cq j I .i j"o � p 0 p O 'o � (4 � ¢ ¢ N O O O N ■4 I Co o N C o cl O O O D U O O M �� .. .. C Io O N ° `� o N 0 0 0 z z ° ° 0 0 U N U �o O O a' N "o Zo z U o z o W W U U o o .. � ww uSZ z w wwwaawzzo ° Ozw M Z + U U U U [rW U U U U U �' ° z z z z o 0 0 o z z z z 0 0 oz W o a c � oo �. 0 o 00 wwaaaW�arzaC� oUwzEza�i o z paa Uowav o aa wzou' w o H o0oo(Dp9 a W7wo � aUU4t ' .j a g 4 f� E: ppi Ppaaaa a �z zz aw � Oy zOaOa Oy aw wza�.i S. cu z cl a c>a G4 A A � Cq o� C4 � � � O000 �D M M N •-+ •~•• A 00 C� t�1 m m m M O M N 000 h r v� l� M M %O .� NN. h N l� N N l� 1.0 F, r+ v1 vl i � En a ozUU ¢ OvO �"� ¢ A °0 C g z ai A Q ¢ :4 4d. 43z 0 ¢ a °� a v v� aW A � n3p• z �! �3c0cA44 A �3 �y `ja a cC z M go A ¢ w E.. A 0 o w Q 0 2 o H � z � � � 3C7A � wco 40 y i h o v� �noa, � OgA9 3 � , 3r 0 ww � vw, Ox UO OWxN W o 0 Na � o I O aaAAAwwC7xa � a � � cncnv�i vFiCn > 3 20 11 02 0222 2 w X222 H L f� L z a4 a4 o. H � 9w H ,a ,a xx ,a a. va, 0 v, owo wovHH rnC' H �a u 04 Af O 1. g g M 0\ O �+ .-. n h b 00 •-. h 00 O '�t E"� H 00 H M 0\ r, M M Do O N , 00 M N N .r .r + O — 1` N Pl �o M 0S M O O — •+ N o0 r+ UO j0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 O O O O O 0 Co O O O O w 5 0 QQ 0 , Q 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o CO GU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 A d y m O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O io 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 .. 1 !! O it O'1 VY O M 0\ r- 00 h i` 1` 00 h .� %0 \0 1` M 10 00 M I, N 00 O 0% \0 t - N 00 co 00 tt .-� '0 00 M %0 M O �D 0 O� C4 M O� 0 00 a0 00 O� �o V1 O r+ O N — N 0� CO � �� W I C N N O N N N N N N .+ N N .-� O N N N � N N N N N N �•-� N O O 0 o� •o �o �o �o \o \o 'o \o �o 'o �o �o �o %0 �o \o %0 %0 %0 %0 ko �o %0 %0 �o �o ko w o PC •_` N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0 C0 N ' �I O O 10 O O O O O p 0 0 (> M Q � Z ,Q p( w w w w w tv rW Z Z a M z zzzzz " z '" ° O I O O O O O O O w w A H wwww `w� w '124 0 }� rm � 5 � do A4a04 aaa4 9 R � O z a � p Q HHHHHH 0 O `-' � z a a A A M G4 O oo n O% O W w %0 -+ t� v v�. t- 4 a � v a O o3 U zH o 0 4 A4 aa � � � a -t4P. _ O > > a a U pozaUA M OAS `� a •o O � co mm1.4com 3 M � oo a. wwwwa HHHHHH ° O � H � cs ; y � aa y mmc4c0a1r� aAAv� oav� m U 000000 )00 a C8 H r.li _ D O I O i 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ..� 1 C O o O O O p o O p 0 0 ~ (I kn �o O w [— 'D `t 00 pp CA is 00 r- r- r— 00 01 4 M M oo 00 �O CA Nt N N N N N O rn CU C �r O4 " O4 O4 04 04 eO en en cO tO en ~O N N N N N N M M M M M M � '' C7 y � N I �' M t 00 I' o ° ° � � � ¢ . ti0 0 0 o 0 o U ! .. ., .. 0 0 o F M z oaa cwicwiva ° ," o wAUOOOA A a s Ul w w w a wa >4 .b Na' p' zaaaa-� � I Q ] � acncnr� a HE~ HO9a 9qmzQ U U U PO 00 0�0 o e�i 40� I w I U ¢ w 04 dd r4 PL4 U U O O O ►, ¢ ¢ cqs o3a -� z ¢ ¢ � ►+ y N O 0 o x �. z ow 000A3 w ` 'i u PL4 a s M 00 00 0 [ H en u o V 0 0 0 0 It Q CQ [A CO o o 0 o W CQ t ' d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ! d I N C' p O O en vl �o I- 00 00 00 \0 co Pa !O O Cl N r+ O N (D 0) O 0 N N N M M M M M M 0 FORM D NORTHAMPTON, MA 4� 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 separated from the subdivision only by a street.) 29-478 ._ 29-612 JOSEPH VRBLLE JR I ELIZABETH 0 KATZ 2,9 G4B IE TOFINO ASSOCIATES INC & LETICA MICHAEL F RI 29-008 I I 1 29-476 1 29-010 29-007 JOSEPH V BRIN TOFINO ASSOCIATES INC JOSEPH M KAMINSKI k PATRICK MELISSA J. LEAAIPRON & / BEATRICE E K ER PAC PAGi 2 JONATHAN H. MARSH 27 BOOK 5924 PAGE 260 ERALD FAS A & PLAN BOOK 106 PACE 77 KAREN BOOK 279 79 AGE 43 BOOK 130 PAGE 79 DENNIS B. GURN Ec RAYMOND M. MI7F'J ANET C. GURN P BOpK 174 PAGE 77 OOK 3090 PAGE 69 MARY-ELLEN G. DACHOS a K 4186 PACE 271 LAN BOOK 130 PAGE 19 BOOK 5015 PAGE 299 PLAN BOOK 138 PAGE 64 M0 K 34lPACE 69 JOHN MAGEE IV& PLAN BOOK 774 PAGE 77 JULIE A. MAGEE BOOK 6120 PAGE 119 RK PLAN BOOK 130 PAGE 19 LW UNI 1A M.%IWAKI BOOK 4138 PAGE 230 PLAN BOOK 174 PACE 77 LAN B 17 P GE 77 JOHN MAGEE IV& \ Bpp� JULIE A. MAGEE MARY-ELLEN G. QACHOS PLAN BOOK2230PPAGE119 BOOK 5015 PAGE 299 PLAN BOOK 738 PAGE 64 PAUL LENKOWSKI ANN L NKO KI PLAN BOOK 133 AGE 8 MARK R. AR0 & CYNTHIA L. SHEPARD 26 BOOK 28 PAGE 201 PUN BOOK 133 PAGE CLIFFORD 0. SCOTT k ERIC ppM. SpPARNGEINTHAL & ELLEN P. SCOTT AN PLAN BOOK61333 4 PLAN BOOK 9194 7 PACE 237 PATRICK D. GLEAS HELEN C. GLEASON a 0PAE299 PLAN DENNIS P. HE T& CLIFFORD D. SCOTT& ggppppDONNgNAppG. HEEBERT ELLEN P. SCOTT PLAN BOOKK1380PAGEC4 152 PLAN BOOK 9947 PA E 23 JEROME A. ROSENTHAL DOROTHY B. ROSENTHAL BARRY BOOK 5781 PACE 239 MARCIE S. YOSS PLAN BOOK 147 PACE ZJ BOOK 4096 PAGE 164 Planning Board SM PLAN BOOK 147 PACE 23 Northampton, Massachusetts PLAN BOOK 747 PAGE 23 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 shown above were as above written, except as follows: Date of Verification (4/11/91) go SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 62 FORM C Page 2 of 2 NORTHAMPTON, MA Date The following are all the mortgages and other liens or encumbrances on the whole or any part of the above described property: me The undersigned hereby covenants and agrees with the City of Northampton upon approval of the Definitive Plan: 40 1. To construct the ways and install the municipal services as finally approved by the Planning Board. so 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 04 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, and assigns of the undersigned. Owner of Record Pamela M. LaBrec ue Print or type name Signature f 40 57 Bay Road, Hadley, MA 01035 413-586-5947 Address Phone we Before me appeared 'v " �L wner of Record, and made oath that the above statements subscribed to be him 6 are tr �. Notary Public: Commission Expires: Date of Submission: City Clerk: (signature) Note: Complete Form D and attach (4/11/91) so SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 61 ap "' FORM C Page 1 of 2 NORTHAMPTON, MA 0 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. 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 wet Northampton. The undersigned applicant also certifies that all plans and additional materials required under the above Rules and Regulations are included with this submission. 1. Applicant��aQk C. ow Print or type name Signature -/Z- U0wN-rja►ku/jrW '126 maintu. Ka 01OD7 37 _,,57 0 Address Phone 2. Owner Pamela M. LaBrec ue AvL�,2 n (,( Print or type name Signature 57 Bay Road, Hadley, MA 01035 413-586-5947 Address P ne 3. Engineer LjAuyr, 1 Print c�type nam Signature Address Phone 4. Surveyor — A35 Print or type name Signature /7�1r fu ,4`s'1 .TNi�B / u.7t °rte A-+ St7 3e'od Address Phone 5. Deed of Property Recorded in Hampshire County Registry, Book TW Page i°lZ, 6. Location and Description of Property: 7. Assessor's Map ID: 3� Lot(s): 4 8 in SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 60 OR on FORM C Page 2 of 2 NORTHAMPTON, MA 40 Date The following are all the mortgages and other liens or encumbrances on the whole or any part of the above described property: The undersigned hereby covenants and agrees with the City of Northampton upon approval of the 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, and assigns of the undersigned. Owner of Record�>�, 0 i� ; N i Z- rt- Print or type name Signature (.7 ?-Z 5,,-s Wo Address Phone Before me appeared David B. Musante Owner of Record, and made oath that the above statements subscribed to be him/her are true. Notary Public: Ben min A. -Barnes ``%%lillN'/,' Commission Expir 17 November 2006 / Date of Submission: `�,��od►'� �► r City Clerk: - w c i (signature) cc Note: Complete Form D and attach •••; ��°'�' �� 0 � i e TAR`( �IIIIIII\V�\ SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 61 40 10 FORM C Page 1 of 2 NORTHAMPTON, MA Date 10 APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF DEFINITIVE PLAN 10 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. 00 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 *0 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 under the above Rules and Regulations are included with this sub is)sion. J l 1. Applicants K• Print or type name &gnature 7Z H&z r as& ji cw_ f cy, A= y�3 3ZI-,T7/ d Address Phone 2. Owner it n: + i ti ,. 11 . ►v1 4 � ( ��< Print or type name Signature lsl 7 n�r Address T P on . 3, Engineer Print or„type name Signature tFtr jT;?e up&41V 6RiOW;=- Z.—I. Au.Aw h-LW114mPox LIA 01066 Address Phone 4. Surveyor UCH • �AQJ rin o ype�c►��J /fie, Signature 10 Address Phone 5. Deed of Property Recorded in Hampshire County Registry, Book 1 0 Page 6. Location and Description of Property: 7. Assessor's Map ID: 3L? Lot(s):Zf - ZZ g SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS-------PAGE 60 The following waivers have been approved in the preliminary review process: 1. The length of cul-de-sac from 850' 2. Reduction in street width to 22' 3. No connection of dead-end street 4. Reduction in frontage for cul-de-sac lots .w 5. Road radius at lots 50-55 Included in the submission are the Preliminary Plans as well as a 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. Peter H. Wells Principal so w'a The Berkshire Design Group, Inc. February 6, 2003 Planning Board City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 RE: The Oaks —Open Space Residential Development Dear Chairperson, Enclosed please find an Application for Approval of Definitive Plan for The Oaks located on Burts Pit Road. Please note the plans have changed since the Preliminary filing to include three flag lots in place of the cul-de-sac. The Project now consists of a cluster development and three flag lots providing 64 units to be sold as single and two family homes. The total area of the site is 53.567 Acres. The proposed road length is 3,656' and, with a 50% reduction for affordable housing (per 10:05) and $300 special permit fee, represents a total filing fee of$9,440. The following waivers are requested in this application: 6:04 15 Lighting system not shown due to woodland setting and L�ind.ti'<'u(��ArchiterturE proximity of neighboring residences. Civil E11"'ineerill 7:01 4b Request waiver from required 100' tangent at intersection due to geometry of lot and wetland configuration on site. Phmllin 7:01 7 & 8d Request waiver from required 60' right-of-way width Crhtur L)c-.�i�n and centerline layout due to the existing parcel being 59.75, wide at Crn irrnmen�ul servirc_ti its narrowest. �w 8:10 1 Request waiver from required 4:1 side slopes within right of way lines in one location due to the geometry of the lot and the slope of the existing topography. 4AIlen Place North ani pion.Massachwetts 01060 Telephnne(411)582-70(X) FacsinnIe(-413) S82-7005 V-mail hd,_,(,,hCrL�hirL,Ir.iu�., , u OR Applica ton or Approval of .Deej t ituve Subdivision Plan Including Special Permit Application for Open Space Cluster Development, Flag Lots and Common Drive The Oaks Residential Subdivision T6 Emep--s Z'& 6Jq Bunts Pit Road Northampton, Mossachu.setts February 6, 2003 Prepared bN The Prepared for: Berkshire Creative Developers, Inc. ......�= Design 72 Mountainview Drive Group, Inc. Belchertown, MA 01007 4 Allen Place, Northampton. Massachusetts()I()()()