Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Report
Prepared By: SPACECO, Inc. 3850 Priority Way South Dr., Suite 110 Indianapolis, IN 46240 SPACECO PROJ #: PH: 317-779-2194 ORIGINAL DATE: Contact: LAST REVISED: Prepared For: FINAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT FOR ACE HARDWARE Village of WestClay KENNMAR, LLC SPEEDWAY, IN 2/14/2023 7/25/2023 12357 Dillon Reynolds, P.E. Project Site TABLE OF CONTENTS TAB DESCRIPTION 1 Stormwater Narrative Stormwater Narrative 2 Exhibits 1 2 FIRM Map 3 4 3 Existing Conditions 1 2 Existing Time of Concentration 3 Existing Runoff Calculations 4 Proposed Conditions 1 2 Storm Sewer Capacity and Hydraulic Grade Line Calculations 3 Inlet Capacity Calculations 4 Overall Drainage Basins 5 Composite CN Calculations 5 Water Quality 1 2 3 Water Quality CN Selection 4 Water Quality Flow Calculation 5 BMP Selection Guide 6 Detention Analysis 1 2 CrossRoad Engineers - Pond 5 Watershed Delineation 3 CrossRoad Engineers - Pond 5 CN Calculations 4 Detention Calculations Site Location Map Wetlands (NWI) Map Soils Map Proposed Storm Sewer Drainage Basin Maps Existing Drainage Map Email Regarding Pond 5 Improvements BMP Basin Impervious Calculations Water Quality Basin Map TAB 1 STORMWATER NARRATIVE February 14, 2023 PROJECT NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the stormwater management calculations for the proposed Ace Hardware development located in the Village of WestClay in Carmel, Hamilton County, Indiana. The project site is located on the southwest corner of Towne Road and Harleston Street. The total site area is about 1.76 acres. The stormwater analysis was performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Standards and in compliance with the overall master drainage plan for the retail area of the Village of WestClay. SOILS Per the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the primary soil types inside the project limits are Brookston Silty Clay Loam – Urban Land Complex (HSG B) and Crosby Silt Loam – Urban Land Complex (HSG C). A soils map is included under Tab 2. FLOODPLAIN Per the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 18057C0205G, the project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain. A National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette is included under Tab 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS/DRAINAGE HISTORY The existing site is an undeveloped site in Block B of Section 6003 of the Village of WestClay. The overall property is 2.98 acres; however, we are proposing a split of the development into its own lot of approximately 1.76 acres. The development of this site has been considered in the master drainage plan for this area in previous drainage reports prepared by The Schneider Corporation in 2005/2006 for sections 6001 and 6003. The site was planned to have a drainage divide, with some areas draining to Pond 6 to the west and some areas to Pond 5 to the north. A more recent study was performed by CrossRoad Engineers in 2019 to consider as- built conditions and increased impervious build-out of the subject site and surrounding areas. CrossRoad Engineers and the City of Carmel made recommendations for modifications to the outlet of Pond 5 to allow this site to develop without additional stormwater detention. However, as described in the proposed conditions section, a new drainage analysis was performed of existing Pond 5 since drainage patterns are being changed from what was intended in the original design. The overall existing property currently drains to two locations. Approximately 1.54 acres (EX-1 and most of the proposed site) currently drains overland from southwest to northeast toward the Towne Road drainage infrastructure and ultimately to Pond 5. Approximately 1.44 acres (EX-2) drains overland from southeast to northwest towards an existing curb inlet that ultimately discharges to Pond 6. Existing drainage information can be seen in Tab 2 and is summarized in Table 1 below. Table 1: Existing Drainage Basin Summary Basin Name Area Discharge Location 2-yr Peak Discharge 10-yr Peak Discharge 100-yr Peak Discharge EX-1 1.54 ac Towne Road/Pond 5 1.31 cfs 2.77 cfs 5.00 cfs EX-2 1.44 ac Harleston St/Pond 6 1.16 cfs 2.45 cfs 4.44 cfs PROPOSED CONDITIONS The proposed development consists of a ±21,000 square foot Ace Hardware building and surrounding parking infrastructure with utility and drainage improvements. Stormwater will be captured via sag inlets and conveyed using underground storm pipes. Because of how the land is being divided and developed, the entirety of the proposed site (1.76 acres) is designed to drain to the Towne Road storm sewer system and convey all runoff to Pond 5. Because this contradicts the original master drainage plan, a new detention analysis with current information has been completed to determine necessary improvements to the Pond 5 outlet to ensure allowable release rates and freeboard are still met. Stormwater Detention A summary of the original master drainage design of Pond 5 is listed below in Table 2. Table 2: Original Drainage Report (Schneider – 2006) 17.00 Acres, CN 88, Tc 38 min, 12” outlet Pond 5 Max Outflow Pond 5 Max Elevation 2yr 2.49 cfs 900.45 10yr 3.70 cfs 901.85 100yr 4.69 cfs 903.40 An updated model of the original design was created to calibrate our proposed model to the original design, so that comparisons of Pond 5 were equal. Our updated model results are below in Table 3. Table 3:Original Drainage Report (SPACECO calibrated model) 17.00 Acres, CN 88, Tc 38 min, 12” outlet Pond 5 Max Outflow Pond 5 Max Elevation 2yr 2.39 cfs 900.37 10yr 3.31 cfs 901.63 100yr 4.19 cfs 903.22 Based on a topographic survey completed May 12, 2023, the actual outlet pipe of Pond 5 is an 18” RCP, not a 12” RCP as the original design stated. Because of this, we created a second model of the original design based on the true outlet of the pond and as-built contour/stage data of the pond. We feel this is the most accurate representation of current conditions shown in Table 4. Table 4: Original Drainage Report (SPACECO calibrated model w/ As-Built Information) 17.00 Acres, CN 88, Tc 38 min, 18” outlet Pond 5 Max Outflow Pond 5 Max Elevation 2yr 4.75 cfs 899.72 10yr 7.04 cfs 900.77 100yr 9.64 cfs 902.09 Based on the City of Carmel Engineering department feedback, if the outlet of Pond 5 can be modified and restricted to meet the original design release rates from the master plan, no additional stormwater detention is required for this project. A revised detention model was created for this project that included the additional drainage area brought on by this project, the increased imperviousness of the overall basin, and the as-built pond information. An 8” restrictor was modeled as the modification to Pond 5 to limit proposed peak flows to the original allowable by the master plan. This will be the most accurate representation of the function of Pond 5 with the addition of this project. A summary of the final proposed conditions is shown in Table 5 below. Table 5: Existing Pond 5 in Proposed Conditions (SPACECO model w/ As-Built Information) 17.65 Acres, CN 90, Tc 38 min, 18” outlet, 8” orifice Pond 5 Max Outflow Pond 5 Max Elevation 2yr 2.35 cfs 900.28 10yr 3.03 cfs 901.58 100yr 3.71 cfs 903.20 Based on the above information, placing an 8” restrictor on the existing Pond 5 outlet pipe will limit peak release rates to the originally planned conditions, as well as keeping 1 foot of freeboard between the 100yr high water line and the top of bank of 904.40. Calculations can be seen in Tab 6. STORMWATER QUALITY An on-line cascade separator unit (CS-6) is being proposed upstream of the storm sewer connection point to treat stormwater quality. The unit chosen comply with the City of Carmel Stormwater standards and has been chosen so that max 10-year flow is not exceeded so that it can be installed on-line. A conservative water quality CN of 99 was Calculations can be seen in Tab 5. STORM SEWER SUMMARY Proposed storm sewers for the project were calculated using the rational method and input values as described in the City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Standards Manual for a 10-year peak storm event. For the simplification of calculations, all storm inlet basins were assumed a c-value of 0.85. Inlet capacities were calculated based on a 10-year peak storm event in a 50% clogged condition. Both orifice and weird depth calculations were performed to ensure no more than 6 inches of ponding. The existing storm sewer structure that serves as the downstream connection point is structure 864 from the original VOWC 6001 drainage report. It was designed for a drainage area of 3.22 acres (C=0.85) of the Stratford at West Clay development and 1.64 acres of the subject project sit (C=0.85). The proposed drainage area into existing Structure 864 is actually less, at 1.45 acres, therefore it conforms to the original master drainage design and no further analysis is necessary. Calculations and exhibits are included in Tab 4 of this report. SUMMARY This project will not have any adverse effects on the overall master drainage system based on the detention and storm sewer, and stormwater quality design governed by the City of Carmel Stormwater Technical Standards. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Dillon Reynolds, P.E. Senior Project Manager dreynolds@spacecoinc.com 812-249-7276 TAB 2 EXHIBITS February 14, 2023 SITE LOCATION TOWNE ROADHARLESTON STREET PROJECT SITE National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet Ü SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A, V, A99 With BFE or DepthZone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mileZone X Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood HazardZone X Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee. See Notes.Zone X Area with Flood Risk due to LeveeZone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X Area of Undetermined Flood HazardZone D Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17.5 Water Surface Elevation Coastal Transect Coastal Transect Baseline Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Effective LOMRs Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary Digital Data Available No Digital Data Available Unmapped This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 2/13/2023 at 11:41 AM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Legend OTHER AREAS OF FLOOD HAZARD OTHER AREAS GENERAL STRUCTURES OTHER FEATURES MAP PANELS 8 B 20.2 The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. 1:6,000 86°12'32"W 39°58'43"N 86°11'54"W 39°58'16"N Basemap: USGS National Map: Orthoimagery: Data refreshed October, 2020 Wetlands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,wetlands_team@fws.gov Wetlands Estuarine an d Marin e D eepwa ter Estuarine an d Marin e Wetlan d Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub We tla nd Freshwater Pond Lake Other Riverine Februa ry 14, 2023 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:7,523 This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI) This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site. Hydrologic Soil Group—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/13/2023 Page 1 of 44425300442531044253204425330442534044253504425360442537044253804425390442540044253004425310442532044253304425340442535044253604425370442538044253904425400567920567930567940567950567960567970567980567990568000568010568020568030568040568050568060568070568080 567920 567930 567940 567950 567960 567970 567980 567990 568000 568010 568020 568030 568040 568050 568060 568070 568080 39° 58' 33'' N 86° 12' 16'' W39° 58' 33'' N86° 12' 9'' W39° 58' 30'' N 86° 12' 16'' W39° 58' 30'' N 86° 12' 9'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 16N WGS84 0 35 70 140 210 Feet 0 10 20 40 60 Meters Map Scale: 1:766 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hamilton County, Indiana Survey Area Data: Version 23, Sep 3, 2022 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 15, 2022—Jun 21, 2022 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/13/2023 Page 2 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI YbvA Brookston silty clay loam-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes B/D 1.2 52.5% YclA Crosby silt loam, fine- loamy subsoil-Urban land complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes C/D 1.1 47.5% Totals for Area of Interest 2.3 100.0% Description Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms. The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows: Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission. Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes. Hydrologic Soil Group—Hamilton County, Indiana Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 2/13/2023 Page 3 of 4 TAB 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS February 14,2023 PETTIGRU DR.TAFT CIRCLE 905 906 907 908908908907906905 9 0 6 906 907 907 906907 907 9 0 5 90590590 6 907907 9049049059 0 6 905EX-1 A = 1.54 ac CN = 74 Tc = 22 min EX-2 A = 1.44 ac CN = 74 Tc = 24 min TC PATH TC PATH HARLESTON ST.TOWNE ROADEX-2 DRAINS TO EXISTING CURB INLET EX-1 DRAINS TO EXISTING CURB INLETS EX-1 DRAINS TO EXISTING CURB INLETS EXISTING DRAINAGE BASINSEDP 3850 Priority Way South Drive, Suite 110Indianapolis, IN 46240Phone: (317) 779-2194NO.DATEREMARKSFILENAME: DATE: JOB NO. SHEET 02/14/2023 12357 ACE HARDWAREVillage of WestClayHARLESTON STREET, CARMEL, IN 46032FILENAME: Existing Drainage BasinsN R CERTIFIED BY NOT F O R CON S T R U C TI O N SCALE 1" = 30' 300 60 SHEET FLOW SEGMENT ID 1. SUFACE DESCRIPTION (TABLE 3-1) 2. MANNING'S ROUGHNESS COEFF., n (TABLE 3-1) 3.FLOW LENGTH, L (TOTAL <= 100 FT) 4. TWO-YR 24-HR RAINFALL, P2 5. LAND SLOPE, S MIN SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW SEGMENT ID 7.(TYPE PAVED IF PAVED) 8.FT 9.'/' 10.FT/S MIN SEGMENT ID 3 4 5 CHANNEL FLOW 12. CROSS SECTIONAL FLOW AREA 13. WETTED PERIMETER, PW 14. HYDRAULIC RADIUS, r = a/PW 15. CHANNEL SLOPE, s 16. MANNINGS ROUGHNESS COEFF., n 17. 18. FLOW LENGTH, L 19. Tt =L HR 3600 V MIN 20. WATERSHED OR SUBAREA TC OR Tt TOTAL HR MIN 0.37 22.0 USE 22 MIN. V =1.49 r2/3 s1/2 n 4.3 12" PIPE 36" PIPE 48" PIPE 11. Tt =L 0.07 HR 3600 V FLOW LENGTH, L 339 LAND SLOPE, S 0.0067 AVERAGE VELOCITY (FIGURE 3-1)1.32 HR P2 0.5 s0.4 17.76 2 SUFACE DESCRIPTION (TABLE 3-1)UNPAVED 2.66 0.0057 6. Tt =0.007 (nL)0.8 0.30 SITE CONDITION:EXISTING 1 GRASS 0.15 100 LAST REVISED: CALCULATION TITLE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION:EXISTING BASIN 1 PROJECT: ACE HARDWARE PROJECT #:12357 LOCATION: Village of WestClay DATE:2/14/2023 SHEET FLOW SEGMENT ID 1. SUFACE DESCRIPTION (TABLE 3-1) 2. MANNING'S ROUGHNESS COEFF., n (TABLE 3-1) 3.FLOW LENGTH, L (TOTAL <= 100 FT) 4. TWO-YR 24-HR RAINFALL, P2 5. LAND SLOPE, S MIN SHALLOW CONCENTRATED FLOW SEGMENT ID 7.(TYPE PAVED IF PAVED) 8.FT 9.'/' 10.FT/S MIN SEGMENT ID 3 4 5 CHANNEL FLOW 12. CROSS SECTIONAL FLOW AREA 13. WETTED PERIMETER, PW 14. HYDRAULIC RADIUS, r = a/PW 15. CHANNEL SLOPE, s 16. MANNINGS ROUGHNESS COEFF., n 17. 18. FLOW LENGTH, L 19. Tt =L HR 3600 V MIN 20. WATERSHED OR SUBAREA TC OR Tt TOTAL HR MIN 0.39 23.4 USE 24 MIN. V =1.49 r2/3 s1/2 n 2.9 12" PIPE 36" PIPE 48" PIPE 11. Tt =L 0.05 HR 3600 V FLOW LENGTH, L 269 LAND SLOPE, S 0.0090 AVERAGE VELOCITY (FIGURE 3-1)1.53 HR P2 0.5 s0.4 20.46 2 SUFACE DESCRIPTION (TABLE 3-1)UNPAVED 2.66 0.004 6. Tt =0.007 (nL)0.8 0.34 SITE CONDITION:EXISTING 1 GRASS 0.15 100 LAST REVISED: CALCULATION TITLE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION:EXISTING BASIN 2 PROJECT: ACE HARDWARE PROJECT #:12357 LOCATION: Village of WestClay DATE:2/14/2023 Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Existing Runoff Printed 6/8/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX1: EX-1 Runoff = 5.00 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.398 af, Depth= 3.10" Routed to nonexistent node P5 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description * 1.540 74 1.540 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 22.0 Direct Entry, Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Existing Runoff Printed 6/8/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment EX1: EX-1 Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2yr 2.95 1.31 0.113 0.88 10yr 4.20 2.77 0.224 1.74 100yr 5.90 5.00 0.398 3.10 Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Existing Runoff Printed 6/8/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment EX2: EX-2 Runoff = 4.44 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.372 af, Depth= 3.10" Routed to nonexistent node P5 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description * 1.440 74 1.440 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 24.0 Direct Entry, Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Existing Runoff Printed 6/8/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment EX2: EX-2 Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2yr 2.95 1.16 0.105 0.88 10yr 4.20 2.45 0.209 1.74 100yr 5.90 4.44 0.372 3.10 TAB 4 PROPOSED CONDITIONS February 14, 2023 PROPOSED BUILDING ±21,633 GSF FFE = 907.90 HARLESTON STREET TOWNE ROADTAFT CIRCLE HARLESTON STREET PETIGRU DRIVETOWNE ROADM PETTIGRU DR.TAFT CIRCLE 905 906 907 908908908907906905 9 0 6 906 907 907 906907 907 9 0 5 90590590 6 907907 9049049059 0 6 905907 905906 906 907907 907STR. 100 RIM=906.52 STR. 102 RIM=906.20 STR. 101 RIM=906.05 STR. 105 RIM=906.27 STR. 106 RIM=906.23 STR. 104 RIM=906.06 STR. 100A RIM=905.52 STR. 103 RIM=906.20 BASIN 106 A = 0.06 ac C = .85 Tc = 5 min BASIN 105 A = 0.08 ac C = .85 Tc = 5 min BASIN 103 A = 0.15 ac C = .85 Tc = 5 min BASIN 102 A = 0.25 ac C = .85 Tc = 5 min BASIN 101 A = 0.09 ac C = .85 Tc = 5 min BASIN 101A A = 0.07 ac C = .85 Tc = 5 minBASIN ROOF A = 0.12 ac C = .90 Tc = 5 min ROOF A = 0.12 ac C = .90 Tc = 5 min BASIN 104 A = 0.32 ac C = .85 Tc = 5 min ROOF A = 0.26 ac C = .90 Tc = 5 min DRAINS TO R/W A = 0.36ac C = .49 Tc = 5 min STORM SEWER INLET BASINSSTM3850 Priority Way South Drive, Suite 110Indianapolis, IN 46240Phone: (317) 779-2194NO.DATEREMARKSFILENAME: DATE: JOB NO. SHEET 02/14/2023 12357 ACE HARDWAREVillage of WestClay2425 HARLESTON STREET, CARMEL, IN 46032FILENAME: Inlet Basins SCALE 1" = 20' 200 40 N R CERTIFIED BY106/06/2023REVISIONS PER TAC REVIEWSCALE 1" = 30' 300 60 PROJECT:ACE HARDWARE PROJECT #:12357 LOCATION:Village of WestClay DATE:6/6/2023 CALCULATION TITLE:INLET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS DESCRIPTION:INLET BASINS SITE CONDITION:PROPOSED Curb Inlet (R-3287-SB10) A = Square Foot Open = 1.50 ft2 = 0.75 ft2 (50% clogged) P = Weir Perimeter =5.50 ft = 2.75 ft (50% clogged) Storm Inlet (R-3472) A = Square Foot Open = 1.30 ft2 = 0.65 ft2 (50% clogged) P = Weir Perimeter =7.30 ft = 3.65 ft (50% clogged) Reference: EJIW Q = 3.0P(d)3/2 Weir Condition (d<0.3') Q =4.89A(d)1/2 Orifice Condition (d>0.4') Reference: HERPICC Stormwater Drainage Manual-Revised July 1994 (Equations 5.3.2 & 5.3.3) (control depth is based on d(weir) if d(weir)<0.4, if d(weir)>0.4 then d(orifice)) STR. #Type Area Weighted "C" Value Intensity Q Depth (d weir)Depth (d orifice)Max Depth Allowable Depth (ac)(in/hr)(cfs)(ft)(ft)(ft)6 inches 101 Curb Inlet (R-3287-SB10) 0.09 0.85 6.12 0.47 0.15 0.03 0.15 OK 101A Curb Inlet (R-3287-SB10) 0.07 0.85 6.12 0.36 0.12 0.03 0.12 OK 102 Storm Inlet (R-3472) 0.25 0.85 6.12 1.30 0.24 0.13 0.24 OK 103 Storm Inlet (R-3472) 0.15 0.85 6.12 0.78 0.17 0.08 0.17 OK 104 Storm Inlet (R-3472) 0.32 0.85 6.12 1.66 0.28 0.16 0.28 OK 105 Storm Inlet (R-3472) 0.08 0.85 6.12 0.42 0.11 0.04 0.11 OK 106 Storm Inlet (R-3472) 0.06 0.85 6.12 0.31 0.09 0.03 0.09 OK PROPOSED BUILDING ±21,633 GSF FFE = 907.90 HARLESTON STREET TOWNE ROADM PETTIGRU DR.TAFT CIRCLE 905 906 907 908908908907906905 9 0 6 906 907 907 906907 907 9 0 5 90590590 6 907907 9049049059 0 6 905907 905906 906 907907 907OVERALL TO STR. 864 A = 1.45 ac PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA TO EX STR 864STR8643850 Priority Way South Drive, Suite 110Indianapolis, IN 46240Phone: (317) 779-2194NO.DATEREMARKSFILENAME: DATE: JOB NO. SHEET 02/14/2023 12357 ACE HARDWAREVillage of WestClay2425 HARLESTON STREET, CARMEL, IN 46032FILENAME: 864DAN R CERTIFIED BY SCALE 1" = 30' 300 60 PROPOSED BUILDING ±21,633 GSF FFE = 907.90 HARLESTON STREET TOWNE ROADM PETTIGRU DR.TAFT CIRCLE 905 906 907 908908908907906905 9 0 6 906 907 907 906907 907 9 0 5 90590590 6 907907 9049049059 0 6 905907 905906 906 907907 907OVERALL TO POND 5 A = 1.96 ac CN = 92 Tc = 5 min OVERALL TO POND 6 A = 0.07 ac CN = 94 Tc = 5 min REMAINING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AREA TO DRAIN TO POND 6 A = 1.44 ACRES ALLOWABLE CN = 88 PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINSPDP 3850 Priority Way South Drive, Suite 110Indianapolis, IN 46240Phone: (317) 779-2194NO.DATEREMARKSFILENAME: DATE: JOB NO. SHEET 02/14/2023 12357 ACE HARDWAREVillage of WestClay2425 HARLESTON STREET, CARMEL, IN 46032FILENAME: Overall Drainage BasinN R CERTIFIED BY106/06/2023REVISIONS PER TAC REVIEW207/07/2023ADDENDUM 2307/07/2023ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION407/25/2023BULLETIN 2SCALE 1" = 30' 300 60 PROJECT:ACE HARDWARE PROJECT #:12357 LOCATION:Village of WestClay DATE:7/25/2023 CALCULATION TITLE: DESCRIPTION:TO POND 5 SITE CONDITION:PROPOSED CN Value Roof 98.00 Pavement 98.00 Lawn 74.00 OVERALL SITE Roof Pavement Lawn Total Total Composite (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres) CN 21,456 42,012 21,910 85,378 1.96 92 COMPOSITE CN CALCULATIONS PROJECT:ACE HARDWARE PROJECT #:12357 LOCATION:Village of WestClay DATE:6/6/2023 CALCULATION TITLE: DESCRIPTION:TO POND 6 SITE CONDITION:PROPOSED CN Value Roof 98.00 Pavement 98.00 Lawn 74.00 OVERALL SITE Roof Pavement Lawn Total Total Composite (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2)(acres) CN 0 2,549 500 3,049 0.07 94 COMPOSITE CN CALCULATIONS TAB 5 WATER QUALITY February 14, 2023 PROPOSED BUILDING ±21,633 GSF FFE = 907.90 HARLESTON STREET TOWNE ROADM PETTIGRU DR.TAFT CIRCLE 905 906 907 908908908907906905 9 0 6 906 907 907 906907 907 9 0 5 90590590 6 907907 9049049059 0 6 905907 905906 906 907907 907OVERALL TO POND 5 A = 1.43 ac CNWQ = 98 Tc = 5 min WATER QUALITY BASINWQ 3850 Priority Way South Drive, Suite 110Indianapolis, IN 46240Phone: (317) 779-2194NO.DATEREMARKSFILENAME: DATE: JOB NO. SHEET 02/14/2023 12357 ACE HARDWAREVillage of WestClay2425 HARLESTON STREET, CARMEL, IN 46032FILENAME: WQ BasinN R CERTIFIED BY106/06/2023REVISIONS PER TAC REVIEWSCALE 1" = 30' 300 60 PROJECT:ACE HARDWARE PROJECT #:12357 LOCATION:Village of WestClay DATE:6/6/2023 CALCULATION TITLE: DESCRIPTION:BMP SITE CONDITION:PROPOSED - WQ Roof Pavement Lawn Total % Imp (ft2) (ft 2) (ft 2) (ft 2) 21,633 28,382 12,428 62,443 0.80 % Impervious Calculations 06/28/07 Exhibit 701-1: Curve Number Calculation for Water Quality Storm Event Water Quality Curve Number7072747678808284868890929496981000 102030405060708090100Percent ImperviousnessWater Quality Curve Number (CNwq) Type II 24-hr WQ Storm Rainfall=1.00"Water Quality Flow Rate Printed 6/21/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1: BMP 1 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.89 cfs @ 11.95 hrs, Volume= 0.094 af, Depth= 0.79" Routed to nonexistent node P1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr WQ Storm Rainfall=1.00" Area (ac) CN Description * 1.430 98 1.430 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, See Tc Wksht Type II 24-hr WQ Storm Rainfall=1.00"Water Quality Flow Rate Printed 6/21/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment 1: BMP 1 Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) WQ Storm 1.00 1.89 0.094 0.79 City of Indianapolis Stormwater Quality Unit (SQU) Selection Guide Pg. 1 02/11/2020 Version 17.0 (Check http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPW/Business/Specs/Pages/UpdatedStormWaterManual.aspx for current Selection Guide) Performance Matrix for Manufactured SQUs that are approved for use as post-construction water quality units in the City of Indianapolis and in compliance with the Stormwater Design and Construction Specifications Manual PLEASE NOTE: All SQUs shall be configured as off-line units unless approved for on-line use. On-line units must document the peak 10-year flow (per the Stormwater Design and Construction Specification Manual) is less than the approved maximum10-yr flow rate. Rate Based SQUs - Table 1 Manufactured SQU SQU System Model Max Treatment Flow (cfs) Max 10-yr On-Line Flow Rate (cfs) Cleanout Depth (Inches) SC-3 0.39 N/A 9 SC-4 0.70 N/A 9 SC-5 1.09 N/A 9 SC-6 1.57 N/A 9 SC-7 2.14 N/A 9 SC-8 2.80 N/A 9 SC-9 3.54 N/A 9 SC-10 4.37 N/A 9 SC-11 5.29 N/A 9 SciClone1 SC-12 6.30 N/A 9 CDS-3 0.52 1.04 9 CDS-4 0.93 1.86 9 CDS-5 1.5 3.00 9 CDS-6 2.1 4.2 9 CDS-7 2.8 5.60 9 CDS-8 3.7 7.4 9 CDS-10 5.8 11.6 9 CDS Technologies1 CDS-12 8.4 16.8 9 DVS-36C 0.56 1.12 9 DVS-48C 1.00 2.00 9 DVS-60C 1.56 3.12 9 DVS-72C 2.25 4.50 9 DVS-84C 3.06 6.12 9 DVS-96C 4.00 8.00 9 DVS-120C 6.25 12.50 9 DVS1 DVS-144C 9.00 18.00 9 City of Indianapolis Stormwater Quality Unit (SQU) Selection Guide Pg. 2 02/11/2020 Version 17.0 Manufactured SQU SQU System Model Max Treatment Flow (cfs) Max 10-yr On-Line Flow Rate (cfs) Cleanout Depth (Inches) 4-ft 1.12 2.95 9 6-ft 2.52 6.63 12 8-ft 4.49 11.81 15 10-ft 7.00 18.40 18 Hydro International Downstream Defender1 12 ft 10.08 26.51 21 3-ft 0.85 1.84 9 4-ft 1.5 3.24 9 5-ft 2.35 5.08 9 6-ft 3.38 7.30 9 7-ft 4.60 9.94 9 Hydro International First Defense High Capacity1 8-ft 6.00 12.96 9 HS-3 0.50 1.00 6 HS-4 0.88 1.76 6 HS-5 1.37 2.74 6 HS-6 1.98 3.96 6 HS-7 2.69 5.38 6 HS-8 3.52 7.04 6 HS-9 4.45 8.9 6 HS-10 5.49 10.98 6 HS-11 6.65 13.3 6 HydroStorm by Hydroworks, LLC1 HS-12 7.91 15.82 6 XC-2 0.57 1.16 6 XC-3 1.13 2.30 6 XC-4 1.86 3.79 6 XC-5 2.78 5.66 6 XC-6 3.88 7.90 6 XC-7 5.17 10.52 6 XC-8 6.64 13.51 6 XC-9 8.29 16.87 6 XC-10 10.13 20.62 6 XC-11 12.15 24.73 6 XC-12 14.35 29.20 6 AquaShield Aqua-Swirl Xcelerator1 XC-13 15.53 31.60 6 CS-4 1.80 4.03 9 CS-5 2.81 6.29 9 CS-6 4.05 9.07 9 CS-8 7.20 16.1 9 CS-10 11.3 25.3 9 Contech Cascade Separator CS-12 16.2 36.3 9 TAB 6 DETENTION ANALYSIS February 14, 2023 1 Dillon Reynolds From:Willie Hall <whall@crossroadengineers.com> Sent:Monday, January 28, 2019 5:36 PM To:Jordan, Alex; Thomas, John G; Kashman, Jeremy M Cc:Michael Kalberg Subject:RE: Drainage Village of West Clay Attachments:Pond 5 Watershed Delineation-CRE 1.23.19.pdf; Pond 5 Watershed CN Calcs-CRE 1.23.19.pdf; Nearmap Converter.dwg Gentlemen, As a follow up to the review of the VOWC Sec. 6003 – Drainage Clarifications report discussed below, we have provided a detailed breakdown of the curve number projection for the full build-out of the Pond 5 basin. We have used the most current NearMap aerial imagery and have re-created the 16.9 acre basin boundary as close as possible to the basin boundary in the clarification report. Please see the attached documents, but to summarize: Master Plan Pond 5 Composite CN = 88 Projected Full Build-Out CN (considering Martial Arts and Westclay Uptown at CN=88 with compensatory on-site detention and Family Express w/ CN=95) = 90* Projected Full Build-Out CN (considering Martial Arts and Westclay Uptown at CN=95 if no compensatory on-site detention and Family Express w/ CN=95) = 91* * indicated curve number calculations does not consider bumping up infiltrating groups as currently required by ordinance. So even with the benefit of the Martial Arts and Westclay Uptown sites providing the on-site compensatory detention, the development of the Pond 5 basin has, or will, exceed the master planned composite curve number in the full build-out condition. As a reminder, each of the projects that provided the on-site detention was given the option of either meeting the master plan and of CN = 88 to provide no detention on-site, re-calculate the projected full build-out curve number to ensure compliance with composite CN = 88 to provide no on-site detention, re-model the as-built pond with the projected full build-out curve number to verify no adverse impacts, or provide the necessary compensatory on-site detention to account for the increased impervious cover. At your request, we have taken it a step further and created a calibrated detention model for Pond 5 to see the impacts and possible corrective action to the existing pond to accommodate a full-build CN of 90. As we discussed, our models were set up based on the master plan design of Pond 5 from the Drainage Report for Village of West Clay – Section 6001. No topographic survey was completed for the analysis. Our analysis employed SSA – Storm and Sanitary Analysis to run the model, which is different than used in the master plan model. Our Pond 5 model does not consider tailwater / interconnected pond routing, as the master plan calculations for Pond 5 did not appear to consider these conditions. It is anticipated that Pond 5 will perform as an interconnected pond and more accurate information would result from considering; however, as topo survey was out of our scope and as there are significant discrepancies between the Pond 5 and Pond 4 master plans (stage/storage elevations, etc.), this analysis can’t be completed until assumptions are made or additional work is completed. All this is to indicate that there are discrepancies between our created model results and the results of the master plan design. To account for this, we have created calibrated models so that we are comparing “apples to apples” results to the greatest extent possible. The model results are as follows: Scenario #1 - Original Drainage Report Pond 5 Max. Outflow Pond 5 Max. Elevation 2yr 2.49 cfs 900.45 10yr 3.70 cfs 901.85 100yr 4.69 cfs 903.40 Scenario #1 represents the original results from the master plan design report. No model was created for this scenario. Scenario #2 - Original Drainage Report (CRE Model) 2 Pond 5 Max. Outflow Pond 5 Max. Elevation 2yr 2.17 cfs 900.39 10yr 3.01 cfs 901.65 100yr 3.81 cfs 903.25 Scenario #2 represents the calibrated CRE model results to re-create the master plan design (12” RCP outlet pipe and CN = 88). We don’t feel this is an appropriate model to calibrate to as it appears that a 15” RCP was installed as the outlet pipe instead of the designed 12” RCP. Scenario #3 - Original Drainage Report (CRE Model with 15" outlet) Pond 5 Max. Outflow Pond 5 Max. Elevation 2yr 3.16 cfs 900.24 10yr 4.66 cfs 901.4 100yr 6.06 cfs 902.89 Scenario #3 represents the calibrated CRE model results to best re-create the actual Pond 5 baseline conditions (15” RCP outlet pipe and composite CN = 88). We feel this is the most appropriate model to calibrate to for the proposed impacts to Pond 5, short of considering tailwater / interconnected pond impacts. Scenario #4 – Update Pond 5 with CN = 90 (no TW) Pond 5 Max. Outflow Pond 5 Max. Elevation 2yr 3.46 cfs 900.44 10yr 4.88 cfs 901.61 100yr 6.22 cfs 903.08 Scenario #4 represents the proposed CRE model results for the actual Pond 5 proposed conditions with the current full build-out CN = 90 projection (15” RCP outlet pipe and composite CN = 90). We feel this is the most appropriate updated proposed model in full build-out, short of considering tailwater / interconnected pond impacts, to dictate possible corrective measure from the Family Express development. Scenario #5A - Pond 5 with CN = 90 and 8.75" Orifice (no TW) Pond 5 Max. Outflow Pond 5 Max. Elevation 2yr 2.12 cfs 900.63 10yr 2.94 cfs 901.90 100yr 3.72 cfs 903.50 Scenario #5a represents the modifications to the existing 15” outlet structure necessary to meet the 100-year peak master planned discharge rate from Scenario #2 (the calibrated design model). Again, this model does not consider impacts from, or to, Pond 4. As can be expected, any effort to reduce the peak flow rate from Pond #5 will elevate the peak flood elevations of Pond #5, unless additional detention volume is provided. Scenario #5B - Pond 5 with CN = 90 and 12.75" Orifice (no TW) Pond 5 Max. Outflow Pond 5 Max. Elevation 2yr 3.14 cfs 900.48 10yr 4.41 cfs 901.67 100yr 5.62 cfs 903.17 3 Scenario #5b represents the modifications to the existing 15” outlet structure necessary to meet the 100-year peak discharge rates from Scenario #3 (the actual Pond 5 baseline conditions model). Again, this model does not consider impacts from, or to, Pond 4. As can be expected, any effort to reduce the peak flow rate from Pond #5 will elevate the peak flood elevations of Pond #5, unless additional detention volume is provided. And lastly, you have asked us to quantify the difference between CN = 88 and CN = 90. As we discussed, this answer is completely watershed specific. To determine the impacts to the Pond #5 watershed from the change in curve number, we again need to calibrate to our modeling software to get “apples to apples” results. Please refer to the following tables: Peak Inflow Runoff Calcs - Pond 5 Watershed from Original Drainage Report 2yr 21.24 cfs 10yr 36.18 cfs 100yr 54.05 cfs Peak Inflow Runoff Calcs - Pond 5 Watershed - Original Drainage Report (CRE Model) 2yr 22.78 cfs 10yr 37.35 cfs 100yr 57.13 cfs Peak Inflow Runoff Calcs - Pond 5 Watershed with CN = 90 (CRE Model) 2yr 24.89 cfs 10yr 39.45 cfs 100yr 59.40 cfs (+2.27 cfs) Further, the calculated difference in total runoff volume from the 100-year storm due to the increased composite CN is 13,507.25 cu.ft. of additional runoff volume. Let me know when you have a chance to digest the information and I can explain in detail and discuss our full recommendations. Thanks, Willie WILLIAM HALL II, P.E. (317) 780-1555 x140 Office whall@crossroadengineers.com From: Willie Hall Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 11:46 AM To: 'Jordan, Alex' <ajordan@carmel.in.gov>; John Thomas <jthomas@carmel.in.gov> Cc: Michael Kalberg <mkalberg@crossroadengineers.com> Subject: RE: Drainage Village of West Clay John and Alex, As discussed previously, we have done a review of the VOWC Sec. 6003 – Drainage Clarifications report, as requested. After review of the document, there are multiple items that we feel need revised in the comparison, or items that need further discussion. I list those items below. However, I first wanted to verify our understanding of the clarification exercise. The purpose of the clarification report was to assess how the parameters of original planned Pond 5 detention design compares to an updated projection of Pond 5 design parameters in the full-build out condition, to set the parameters of the remaining “Proposed Family Express” site. Is this correct? The completed review assumes that the E&J Development (martial arts) and the West Clay Uptown Development (Proposed Puccini Pizza?) sites are installing their planned on-site compensatory detention. 4 · General Comment - To be valid, the watershed and curve number comparison for this exercise really needs to be “apples to apples” based on the original Pond 5 design. The areas that were planned to be routed to Pond 5 should still be considered in this comparison, as these areas are being contained and treated by the overall VOWC system. Unless information is provided that shows the areas were also planned to be detained within a different pond, these areas should be considered within the Pond 5 watershed for this exercise. · Watershed Comments: o Area A – The amount of grass area outside of the 16.9 acres boundary shouldn’t be considered in this comparison. If the area is to be considered, the 16.9 acre total watershed should be increased in the new projected condition. o Area Q – As indicated in the general comment above, this area should be considered in the watershed and curve number comparisons for this exercise. o Area R – Per the design plans of the E&J Development (martial arts), this area is conveyed to Pond 5 and should be considered. · Curve Number Comments: o Area B – The curve number for this area should be revised to consider the normal pool area of the pond at a CN = 98. Based on a GIS area is appears the NP area is approximately 0.67 acres. o Area C, D, M, L – Based on the exhibit, it is unclear if the 8 ft. asphalt trail is not accounted for. It is understood that the areas were very simplified in this exercise; however, this is a significant portion of impervious cover, so it should be considered. o Area G – Per the West Clay Uptown Development, this area will not be a grass area in final build- out. Area G can be combined with the remainder of the Proposed Puccini Pizza site and considered at a CN = 88 if the planned compensatory detention is being installed; otherwise, the entire combined Puccini and Area G should be considered at CN = 98. o Area H – Based on our previous conversations this area may end up being on-street parking. If this is the case, the Area H curve number should be revised to be CN = 98. o Area K – The center median has been modified to install a left turn lane from Towne Road onto Harleston Street, this should be considered and the resulting area of Impervious and Grass should be provided. o Area J (townhomes) – an assumed / projected curve number of CN=90 is being used in this exercise; however, this area is currently built-out and should be considered as such. The as-built ratio of Impervious cover (roof/pavement/sidewalk – CN = 98) versus Grass cover (CN = 74) should be calculated and used for this area. o Area Q – this area is currently built-out and should be considered as such. The as-built ratio of Impervious cover (street, curb, path, ramps, etc. – CN = 98) versus Grass cover (CN = 74) should be calculated and used for this area. o Area R – As indicated above, this area is conveyed to Pond 5. This area may be considered a CN = 88 due to the installation of the compensatory storage volume. · Following the update of the watershed and curve number comparison based on the comments above, and considering the Proposed Family Express at CN = 98, the resulting composite curve number should be compared to the originally planned CN = 88 for the Pond 5 basin. Thanks, Willie WILLIAM HALL II, P.E. (317) 780-1555 x140 Office whall@crossroadengineers.com From: Jordan, Alex <ajordan@carmel.in.gov> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 1:21 PM To: 'Tom Mahon' <TMahon@schneidercorp.com> Cc: Kashman, Jeremy M <jkashman@carmel.in.gov>; Thomas, John G <jthomas@carmel.in.gov>; Willie Hall <whall@crossroadengineers.com> Subject: RE: Drainage Village of West Clay Good afternoon Tom, We have sent the report provided to us to our drainage consultant for their review. We have asked that they generate a summary of their findings so once this is provided to us we will forward it on to you. 5 Sincerely, Alex Jordan Plan Review Coordinator City of Carmel Engineering Department (317) 571-2305 ajordan@carmel.in.gov From: Tom Mahon [mailto:TMahon@schneidercorp.com] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 10:20 AM To: Kashman, Jeremy M Cc: Jordan, Alex Subject: Re: Drainage Village of West Clay Jeremy, We’d really like to resolve this issue. Any suggestions? Tom Mahon Sent from my iPhone On Jan 8, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Tom Mahon <TMahon@schneidercorp.com> wrote: Hey Jeremy, Any updates from your internal discussions last week? Tom Mahon From: Tom Mahon Sent: Friday, January 4, 2019 8:22 AM To: Kashman, Jeremy M <jkashman@carmel.in.gov> Cc: Barry Schneider <jbschneider@schneidercorp.com>; Victoria Temple <vtemple@schneidercorp.com>; Mike Wylie <mwylie@schneidercorp.com>; tomh@brenwick.com; Jordan, Alex <ajordan@carmel.in.gov> Subject: RE: Drainage Village of West Clay Jeremy, Thanks for the update. Let me know what comes of your discussion later today. Tom Mahon From: Kashman, Jeremy M <jkashman@carmel.in.gov> Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2019 5:33 PM To: Tom Mahon <TMahon@schneidercorp.com> Cc: Barry Schneider <jbschneider@schneidercorp.com>; Victoria Temple <vtemple@schneidercorp.com>; Mike Wylie <mwylie@schneidercorp.com>; tomh@brenwick.com; 6 Jordan, Alex <ajordan@carmel.in.gov> Subject: RE: Drainage Village of West Clay Tom, I am in the process of looking through things and will discuss with staff further on Friday. One thing that I did notice is that the martial arts facility still discharges to the pond so it should not be totally subtracted from the calculations. Once thing also exposed is that area originally designed to go to this area is not going there. Good for this basin, but I am curious as to what happens to the downstream basin. I will further discuss that with staff. Adding the martial arts facility in to the basin I am getting a C value of closer to 90. Thanks, Jeremy Kashman, PE City Engineer From: Tom Mahon [mailto:TMahon@schneidercorp.com] Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 2:29 PM To: Kashman, Jeremy M Cc: Barry Schneider; Victoria Temple; Mike Wylie; tomh@brenwick.com Subject: FW: Drainage Village of West Clay Merry Christmas Jeremy, Brenwick Development asked if we might help clear up any confusion concerning the drainage facilities at the Village of West Clay with respect to the commercial section (6003). I believe the confusion is due to the fact that the drainage report was prepared and submitted some 12 years ago and no one here, at The Schneider Corporation, and more than likely no one at the city, was involved in that original report. So without some insight, or research, it is not obvious that the report is still applicable. I have access to our project files and I’ve spent considerable time reading through them. While I was not involved with that original report, I believe I have a fairly good understanding of what was done. The one piece of information I was unable to find was backup for the grassy areas assumed to drain into Pond 5. So to overcome that shortcoming, I resorted to Google Earth. Comparing what was actually constructed to what was anticipated to be constructed prior to the great recession, I believe the drainage report is consistent with current conditions. Please review the attached at your leisure. I will reach out to your office after the holidays and would be happy to stop by and discuss this matter if further discussion would help. Thank you in advance for your consideration and enjoy the holidays. <image002.png> Thomas A. Mahon, PS President 8901 Otis Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46216 317-826-7119 TMahon@Schneidercorp.com SchneiderGeomatics.com 7 From: Kashman, Jeremy M <jkashman@carmel.in.gov> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 9:48 AM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Michael Sloan Cc: Jordan, Alex Subject: RE: Drainage Village of West Clay Michael, You will need to have an engineer take the original drainage report and compare the assumptions to what was actually built. The comparison would show how the impervious areas would vary from site to site and we can get a since of how that affects the amount of runoff and the amount of detention required. For example, if one parcel was originally intended to be a 70/30 split of hard surface to impervious surface and it was actually developed at 80/20, then more detention would be required. What we discussed in our meeting was to look at what was actually constructed and see how the pond model works out and then to see if by modifying the outlet structure you could get more storage in the pond and still meet your allowable release rate in the drainage report without negatively affecting the downstream properties. I have also attached an as-built from the Stratford as it appears that most of the development flows into the pond at the SW corner of Towne and Main. It was discussed at the meeting that all of this drainage went to the west but only a small portion actually flows to the west. Thanks, Jeremy Kashman, PE City Engineer From: Hollibaugh, Mike P Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 9:22 AM To: Kashman, Jeremy M Subject: FW: Drainage Village of West Clay Jeremy, I think the Sloan is right, as Brenwick didn’t have confidence a request to Schneider for the stormwater data, etc. would result in a timely response (or any…) From: Michael Sloan [mailto:msloan@mgrindy.com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 6:25 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P Subject: Re: Drainage Village of West Clay Ok Mike, I missed something. I thought Alex was going to get w Schneider. Could you, Alex, or Jeremy help me out on exactly what calculations I should be pursuing? I’ll get right on it. Thank you! Michael P. Sloan MERIDIAN GROUP REALTY 110 North Delaware Street Indianapolis Indiana 46204 msloan@mgrindy.com 317-634-LAND (office) 8 317-523-3310 (Mobile) On Dec 10, 2018, at 4:57 PM, Hollibaugh, Mike P <MHollibaugh@carmel.in.gov> wrote: Michael, Talked with Jeremy, he is still waiting on getting the calculations from your engineer. I thought that’s how we left it with when we met with you and Tom a few weeks ago. Mike From: Michael Sloan [mailto:msloan@mgrindy.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 4:59 PM To: Hollibaugh, Mike P; Jordan, Alex; Kashman, Jeremy M Subject: Drainage Village of West Clay Hello Gentlemen, I was hoping to receive an update on the drainage issue in Uptown at VWC. Mike, you suggested the engineers were working it out in your last email to Tom Huston. Are you in a position to give an update? I thank you for your help!! <image001.jpg> Michael P. Sloan, Principal Broker 110 North Delaware Street Suite 200 Indianapolis Indiana 46204 OFF 317-634-LAND FAX 317-634-5263 CELL 317-523-3310 msloan@mgrindy.com Email secured by Check Point Email secured by Check Point Projected Buidout with Supplemental Detention Projected Buidout without Supplemental DetentionDescription Area CN Description Area CNMartial Arts Facility 1.37 88 Martial Arts Facility 1.37 95Westclay Uptown Development 0.56 88 Westclay Uptown Development 0.5695Building 1.78 98 Building 1.78 98Pavement 7.28 98 Pavement 7.28 98Grass 4.7 74 Grass 4.7 74Proposed Family Express 1.21 95Proposed Family Express 1.21 95Total Area 16.9 90 Total Area 16.9 91 2yr Allow=2.49cfs 10yr Allow=3.70cfs 100yr Allow=4.69cfs SPACECO Calibrated Model (Table 3 in Report) SPACECO Calibrated Model with As-Built (Table 4 in Report) Existing Pond 5 in Proposed Conditions (Table 5 in Report) DA1 Existing Pond 5 DA DA2 Existing Pond 5 DA DA3 Proposed Pond 5 DA ORP Original Pond 5 P1 Pond 5 (As-Built) P2 Pond 5 (As-Built) (Modified Outlet) Routing Diagram for Pond 5 Prepared by SPACECO, Inc., Printed 6/21/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 6/21/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment DA1: Existing Pond 5 DA Runoff = 56.00 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 6.417 af, Depth= 4.53" Routed to Pond ORP : Original Pond 5 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description * 17.000 88 Pond 5 DA 17.000 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 38.0 Direct Entry, Per VOWC 6001 Drainage Report Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 6/21/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond ORP: Original Pond 5 Inflow Area = 17.000 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.53" for 100yr event Inflow = 56.00 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 6.417 af Outflow = 4.19 cfs @ 14.28 hrs, Volume= 6.350 af, Atten= 93%, Lag= 117.2 min Primary = 4.19 cfs @ 14.28 hrs, Volume= 6.350 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 903.22' @ 14.28 hrs Surf.Area= 1.032 ac Storage= 4.002 af Plug-Flow detention time= 551.4 min calculated for 6.350 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 544.7 min ( 1,363.2 - 818.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 898.25' 6.597 af Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) 898.25 0.580 0.000 0.000 905.50 1.240 6.597 6.597 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 898.25'12.0" Round Culvert L= 256.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 898.25' / 898.00' S= 0.0010 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.79 sf Primary OutFlow Max=4.19 cfs @ 14.28 hrs HW=903.22' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 4.19 cfs @ 5.33 fps) Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 6/21/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Pond ORP: Original Pond 5 Event Inflow (cfs) Primary (cfs) Elevation (feet) Storage (acre-feet) 2yr 22.32 2.39 900.37 1.434 10yr 36.50 3.31 901.63 2.478 100yr 56.00 4.19 903.22 4.002 Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 6/21/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P1: Pond 5 (As-Built) Inflow Area = 17.000 ac, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.53" for 100yr event Inflow = 56.00 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 6.417 af Outflow = 9.64 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 6.361 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 56.5 min Primary = 9.64 cfs @ 13.27 hrs, Volume= 6.361 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 902.09' @ 13.27 hrs Surf.Area= 43,343 sf Storage= 145,776 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 251.0 min calculated for 6.357 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 247.1 min ( 1,065.6 - 818.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 898.00' 256,994 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 898.00 29,297 0 0 899.00 31,502 30,400 30,400 900.00 35,132 33,317 63,717 901.00 38,957 37,045 100,761 902.00 42,954 40,956 141,717 903.00 47,085 45,020 186,736 904.00 51,572 49,329 236,065 904.40 53,078 20,930 256,994 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 898.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 256.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 898.00' / 897.74' S= 0.0010 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=9.64 cfs @ 13.27 hrs HW=902.09' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 9.64 cfs @ 5.45 fps) Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 6/21/2023Prepared by SPACECO, Inc. HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 11934 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Pond P1: Pond 5 (As-Built) Event Inflow (cfs) Primary (cfs) Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 2yr 22.32 4.75 899.72 53,976 10yr 36.50 7.04 900.77 91,715 100yr 56.00 9.64 902.09 145,776 Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 7/25/2023Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 12420 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment DA3: Proposed Pond 5 DA Runoff = 60.34 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 6.984 af, Depth= 4.75" Routed to Pond P2 : Pond 5 (As-Built) (Modified Outlet) Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90" Area (ac) CN Description * 1.370 88 Martial Arts * 0.560 88 Westclay Uptown * 1.780 98 Building * 7.280 98 Pavement * 4.700 74 Grass * 1.960 92 Ace Hardware 17.650 90 Weighted Average 8.590 48.67% Pervious Area 9.060 51.33% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 38.0 Direct Entry, Per VOWC 6001 Drainage Report Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 7/25/2023Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 12420 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Subcatchment DA3: Proposed Pond 5 DA Event Rainfall (inches) Runoff (cfs) Volume (acre-feet) Depth (inches) 2yr 2.95 25.28 2.851 1.94 10yr 4.20 40.14 4.573 3.11 100yr 5.90 60.34 6.984 4.75 Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 7/25/2023Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 12420 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P2: Pond 5 (As-Built) (Modified Outlet) Inflow Area = 17.650 ac, 51.33% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.75" for 100yr event Inflow = 60.34 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 6.984 af Outflow = 3.71 cfs @ 14.75 hrs, Volume= 6.908 af, Atten= 94%, Lag= 145.3 min Primary = 3.71 cfs @ 14.75 hrs, Volume= 6.908 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 903.20' @ 14.75 hrs Surf.Area= 47,992 sf Storage= 196,344 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 661.9 min calculated for 6.904 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 656.4 min ( 1,468.0 - 811.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 898.00' 256,994 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 898.00 29,297 0 0 899.00 31,502 30,400 30,400 900.00 35,132 33,317 63,717 901.00 38,957 37,045 100,761 902.00 42,954 40,956 141,717 903.00 47,085 45,020 186,736 904.00 51,572 49,329 236,065 904.40 53,078 20,930 256,994 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 898.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 256.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 898.00' / 897.74' S= 0.0010 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 898.00'8.0" Vert. Orifice C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=3.71 cfs @ 14.75 hrs HW=903.20' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Passes 3.71 cfs of 11.35 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice (Orifice Controls 3.71 cfs @ 10.62 fps) Type II 24-hr 100yr Rainfall=5.90"Pond 5 Printed 7/25/2023Prepared by {enter your company name here} HydroCAD® 10.10-6a s/n 12420 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Events for Pond P2: Pond 5 (As-Built) (Modified Outlet) Event Inflow (cfs) Primary (cfs) Elevation (feet) Storage (cubic-feet) 2yr 25.28 2.35 900.28 73,778 10yr 40.14 3.03 901.58 124,073 100yr 60.34 3.71 903.20 196,344