Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-29P CREC International Magnet School
TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING& APPLI,1,ATAEGMED z c Application No: -2—ChD SEN 3 Loll Official Receipt Date: Receipt No: SOUTHWINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. !��'VOR.Co�'� APPLICANT: , PROJECT NAME: J `/ � b ADDRESS: \\\ .� +r.J �r,�� P,�. 4 , ka.J�c.� A 0 QUIC)U OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: --AMy� ,M I o V yv-.(, ADDRESS: e,?� fox �k15 XQ0 `)AwL A At&A� LADuv A'--,&V 03C (N- 021 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: L.rq- ul �✓�� IIA �2•C�. ASSESSOR'S MAP# _ PARCEL# —�— ZONE F'�'o*Z NAME, ADDRESS, TEL&FAX # OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: � '✓CJ�1 C.F Y�.S[., )) i CAA e.✓ O o1- Ave. . , 4cw4✓C.� l'�1 D wo u � D-jgj ��SL0 � Li07Z Estimated presentation time: 2-0 THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): ❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing required and Certificate of Mailing) ❑ Subdivision/Resubdivision ❑ Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required) Subdivision ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Conditional Approval Special Exception to Article (Public Hearing, Certificate of Mailing) Site Plan of Development ❑ General Plan of Development- State Hearing per Section 14-55 for ❑ Earth Filling (Sec. 15) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 14 - Public Hearing Required) ❑ Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision - Attach proposed amendment (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit for (Public Hearing Required) ❑ In Law apartment/Accessory Apartment(Public Hearing Required) ❑ Major Home Occupation for (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Other (explain in detail) An Application Pending sign is required to be posted on the property for all applications ten (10) days prior to being heard by the Co )issio Signature of Applicant Signature of Property O er TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION APPLICATION FORM ' f 3l Application No: -Zq RECEIVED , Official Receipt Date: 2 3 2 , •�� i Receipt No: SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. APPLICANT: Capitol Region Education Council PROJECT NAME: International Magnet School for Global Citizens op ADDRESS: Ill Charter Oak Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 OWNER OF RECORD ON LAND RECORDS: Jillison Farms Associates FD ADDRESS: P.O. Box 415, 200 Sullivan Avenue, E. Windsori CT 06028 COMPLETE LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Lot 007 Long Hill, Road ASSESSOR'S MAP# 7 PARCEL# 1 ZONE RROZ NAME, ADDRESS, TEL& FAX# OF PERSON TO WHOM INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED: David Fresk, Ill Charter Oak Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860) 524-4078 / Fax: (860) 524-4020 Estimated presentation time: 20 THIS APPLICATION IS FOR: (Check all that apply): ❑ Zone Change to (Public Hearing required and Certificate of Mailing) ❑ Subdivision/Resubdivision ❑ Open Space Subdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Resubdivision (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Minor ❑ Major ❑ Conditional Approval U Special Exception to Article (Public Hearing, Certificate of Mailing) ❑ Site Plan of Development ❑ General Plan of Development - State Hearing per Section 14-55 for ❑ Earth Filling (Sec. 15) and/or Earth Removal (Sec. 14 - Public Hearing Required) ❑ Regulation Amendment ❑ Zoning ❑ Subdivision -Attach proposed amendment (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Temporary and Conditional Permit for (Public Hearing Required) ❑ In Law apartment/Accessory Apartment (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Major Home Occupation for (Public Hearing Required) ❑ Other (explain in detail) An Application Pending sign is required to be posted on the property for all applications ten (10) days prior to being heard by the Commission. Signature eL4p scant Signature of Prope er By David S. Hoopes By David S. Hoopes Its Attorney Its Attorney Duly Authorized J Duly Authorized APPLICATION OF CAPITOL REGION EDUCATION COUNCIL FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION NARRATIVE IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF PARKING RRQUIREwNTS Per the parking table contained in Section,6.4.3.B of the Zoning Regulations,757 parking spaces would be required for this school(based on I space per 250 GFA)—As-explainetl_helow,- that is over three times what would typically be needed and twice what would ever be needed even for a few peak-volume days. The applicant proposes 146 spaces. The Commission is authorized to allow such reduction in spaces pursuant to section 6.4.9 of the Zoning Regulations,which provides as follows: A :reduction in parking spaces may be allowed when the Planning and Zoning. Commission;deems the reduction to be in the Best interest of the Town,'according to the following: 1: The increase in stormwater run-off rate shall be held to a minimum by reducing the parking spaces,and/or 2. The applicant demonstrates through actual experience that a, lesser number of parking spaces will suffice, and further that due to the nature of the building or business, future owners/occupants of the building are also unlikely to need`' a number of parking spaces required by the zoning regulations. Mere,reduction is appropriate, and in the public interest,for the following specific reasons: On an ordinary day,there will be a maximum of 65 staff and 10 parents at the school at any given time. Even assuming that all of them drive to the school alone,that is a total of 75 spaces required on a typical day. This leaves 71 additional spaces:, Attached as Exhibit A is summary of school events. This shows that,consistent with existing practice at this and other CREC schools,very large events are held at other locations. In the ease of certain:larger events CREC.will use buses to shuttle parents to the school from various off-site parking areas. The summary attached as Exhibit,4 also shows that,in a ease of each event to be held on- site,there will be more than sufficient parking. The largest on-site event held during non-school hours will involve only 100 families. The 146 spaces provided will be more than sufficient for these events. The largest on-site event held;during school hours will involve only 50 families. As noted, even if the maximum number of staff are working that day, there will be 71 spaces still available for those 50 families, MAGenaaX,RE lSouthWindsorZoninglagpspeccxopt.dac That 146,parking spaces is more than sufficient for a 435—student elementary school is also borne out by an examination,by way of comparison,of the parking spaces provided at South Windso?svlementary schools; ,iixhibit B attached hereto is a schedule prepared by the South Windsor school system,showing the number of parking spaces and enrollment of each South Windsor elementary school. In each.case,the number of spaces per student is significantly less than the applicant is proposing here. {In the case of the Smith and Orchard Hill schools,the applicant is proposing about twice as many spaces proportionate to the number of students.) A sea of permanently empty asphalt, obv ously,'not only serves no purpose,it would be :detrimental to the public interest in that it would detract from the aesthetics of the school and result-in a needless increase in storm water runoff. MAGejicroIXCREClSouth wiidsorLonin&ppspoeompt.doo 3':it 0 r,D EC ' � ��yitni Regrats�dsttatiost C�tssttii international Magnet School of Global Citizenship Summary of Sc#tool Events The CREC International Magnet School(IMS)holds many family and community events throughout'the year. At IMS we value our partnership with parents and the community, We offer an ongoing series of parent workshops and events to meet the needs of our students and'familles. Family events generally occur monthly,emphasizing the-importance of co munity. The chart below indicates a typical schedule of events that are held throughout the year, We are currently in two locations and the location is Indicated In the column to the right. When attendance of over two hundred is anticipated;we utilize other venues such as Two Rivers Middle Magnet School or Wickham Park. Events that anticipate requiring more than 150 parking will either be held off-sate or will utilize a nearby parking lot with a shuttle service. "August Open House/Meet& r150 150 Shuttle Service Greet-bight September 18 Curriculum Night 200 100 PKK); s tember 24t Ccirriculurmw ight(1-3) 100 100 Saptentber 22" 10 Workshop/PTO- 60 60 Night Monthly PTO Meetings 25 25 /workshops Night Monthly: Assemblies(by invite) 20 20 -coy October J0 Farnll Ni ht 60 60 October 27th Family Math& � 200 200 Shuttle Service Science-bight _ November Wh Harvest Feast-night 200 �. 200 Shuttle Service December:V ParentConfarences- s0 so anti 2nd Day Decembers" Pa"rent's Night Out 30 30 December .- Winter Concert- 300 300 Event to be off-site Night January 4 Parent Overview CMT 20 20 •Night Januar .2G ! �.� Farnli Game Nigltt 50 50: February 29 , G.erlre Night - 200 200 Shuttle Service March 7 1'and gt ` Parent Conferences 50 50 [ /Ook Poir-bight March_io International Family 275 275 Event to be off-site Day - April 12j Mad Science Night 125 125 May Tea eherAppreciation 20 20 Luncheon-Day Family Picnic-Ray 275 275 Event to be off-site Ib ut 'Mtndsor Pobiio Sahaais clil .0 raiions loot.,Elementary Perk n0 S saes y SCHOOL PARKimp SPACES HANDICAPPED SPACES Oct 1,2010 enrollillertt 2011.2012*5 Prof ected ' t E:ii a 95 ` 9 a8 85t3 i #'hiii R Smtth $0 2 842 314 1 Oraiiard Hrfi 86 2 428 880 .. in 74 290 276 0# 431 42t3 I' Ptea�artt Ye i 3 I a i E i } TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CHECKLIST A LIt;.ANT lN►tta Q :0 left ? Dtl.cA7?ena avnice //►/ /��G _.�w■�..■�T4{� PROJECT tM g,r., J�TGt�too t...- This checklist must be signed by plan preparer(P.E./L.S.)declaring that all required Information Is provided. Itens 1-7 are required for Al applications; items 8-11 required where appropriate. Check mark for each item supplied. 1. On each sheet for plans or maps,title block with the following information: ✓ a. Name,address and telephone of applicant 1.100 b. Name,address and telephone number of Land Surveyor or Professional Engineer. c. Name of Development. d Date when drawings were made. 2. Key Map: An overall map drawn to a scale of 1 Inch equals either 100 feet or 200 feet. This map will show the overall design of the Development and surrounding property within 500 feet. a. Data block which gives needed zoning information such as percentage of lot coverage, acreage of tract, number of apartment units, parking requirements,etc. b. Outline of buildings. c. Layout of streets. d. Surrounding property boundarles-within 500 feet e. Names of abutting property owners. +✓ f. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas. ✓ g. Driveway cuts on abutting properties and any properties across from proposed site. ✓ h. Distance to and name of nearest Intersection street. 3. Architectural Elevations:See attached checklist for Architecture and Design Review. x TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR CHEMIST OF REQUIRED SUBMISSION DOCUMENTS SUBDIVISIONS/RESUBDIMONS APPLICANT CAP ITdgwcw Co Wci e. PROJECT nrsa�, *ri �1 71 ens. to A.. r►l T ,Sc.ttoo L This clad t must be-daned by plan preps w(P.EJL.S)declaring that jLMulred lnfomatfon is provided. Plane a check mark far each item supplied. n r Book I. PROJECT PLOT INFORMATION A. General informatlon 1. Appl. &owner name,address x x 2. Engineer&land surveyor name,address,ikense no. &sal x x ✓3. Key map at:10- 1001 scale showing location of tract with reference to surrounding properties,streets, municipal boundaries, etc.,within SOW. Key map must Include: x x '✓ a. Outline of buildings. b. Layout of streets and lots. c. Surrounding property boundarftmithin S00 feet. V d. Names of abutting property owners. e. Proposed open spaces and recreation areas. f. Driveway cuts on abutting properties and any properties across from proposed site } Y 3 Mina'Regular 6. Development phasing.if proposed. x x 7. Names of abutting property.owners. x x 8. Proposed sb aet names(use approved list of names). x x M 9. All open space reserved for common x x ✓10. Appropriate A-2 certification&LS seals. x x Oh II Topographic map at same scale as plot plan containing all date included on the plat plan plus the following: 1. AN existing structures,sbuft,wetlands and erring watercourses,or other environmentally structs sensitive areas, Inducing enough data streets x beyond property boundaries to allow a wetlnds reasonable evaluation of the property's fldpin ecological relationship to surrounding areas,100 yr.floodplaln. x ' 2 Bdstlng and proposed contours to extend a x suffident amount beyond subject property,to deb undne the effects on the property as follows(town mapping): 1W x up to 3%grade: 11 contour Interval 3%grade&over;Z'contour Interval 3. Boundary limits,nature,and extent of wooded areas,specimen trees,and other sigWcant physical feabM x x '✓ 4. Existing system of drainage of subject site and of any larger tract or basin of which It Is a part(can use Town stormwater x x study). 5. Drainage area map. '" x WA 6. Drainage calculations * x N 7. Perc test data, preliminary Indication of septic system feaslb ilty If Indlvldual sanitary x sewerage systems provided. n f S dar c. Profile of roadway dwwkV endsdn9 and finislu d grades,all tangent grades,and all ver&W curve Infbnrmdon x d. Profile will straw all cdch I asir>s and all drainage Ones between catch banns with all invert and trap of frame etavatloris. Drainage pipe material to be described. x NIA e. TVpk:aVdtlwI cross-sedWs where grading Is of-way, x /V i4 f. Where any storm drainage line discharges Into an a dsWV brook suffklwnt profile of the brook will be shown to determine aorrdldons. x g, Ro Mes shall show all sanitary sewr9r lines and maMholek Including pipe material,eWationk sly,►to Vft and slopes of pipes. Tap of fawidatlon elevations br'habitable buildings shall be shown. * x MIA 1S. Traffic report(by traffic engineer) 16. Open space site imprawemerd plan. * x 17. ArchRKtUral elavatloW nformatlon per Sect.4.20 of the zoning regulations *-tf required by Town Engineer ALL INFORMATION REQUIRED ABOVE Is INCuIDED IN THIS APPLICATION AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION. am Data _i �1 Plea �' Febnrwy 20020 updated 7/28M South Windsor Public Schools Facility Operations Subject: Elementary Parking Spaces SCHOOL PARKING SPACES HANDICAPPED SPACES Eli Terry 95 4 Philip R. Smith 60 3 Orchard Hill 65 2 Wapping wapping 74 2 Pleasant Valley 91 3 South • Planning Department Memo To: David Fresk,CREC Project Manager From: Michele R.Lipe AICP,Town Planner Date: 9/29/2011 Re: Appl#11-29P,CREC Subdivision and Special Exception/Site Plan—Planning Dept.Review Comments Below are comments from the Planning Department regarding the above referenced application. Once you have received all staff comments,please make the necessary revisions and submit 7(seven)complete set of plans to the Planning Department. Engineering comments will be forthcoming under a separate memo. Subdivision Comments 1. An A-2 reference is required for the remaining of the property to be subdivided (See section 1.B.11 of the Subdivision Regulations). An existing A-2 survey of the property can be used. 2. Zoning data table on Sheet 1 of 2 of the subdivision plan is very confusion. Lot A and B zoning classification should be clarified and the minimum requirement and proposed should be shown. 3. Buffer setback requirements should be reflected on the plans. Special Exception Comments /1. A Copy of the deed is required for the Special Exception. /2. The narrative should reflect hours of operation of the school and other activities. A Updated traffic study is required—see staff comments below. /4. Questions have been raised by the public about an increase in interstate noise as a result of the removal of a significant number of trees from this property. Has there been any consideration of a sound barrier along the rear property line or is the applicant intending to mitigate the increased noise through proposed landscaping plantings/building placement? Site Plan Comments 1. Zoning Data Table /a. Parking requirement reduction should be noted and zoning section 6.4.3.Bx should be referenced. b. Building height increase — Documentation/statement should be provided on how this increase height complies with Section 3.1.2.D 1540 Sullivan Avenue,South Windsor,CT 06074 PH 860-644-2511,ext.252 Fax 860-644-7280 e-mail Michele.lige(a)-southwindsor.org 0 Page 1 MAYO CROWE LLC ATTORNEYS RECEIVED Flynn Boonstra CityPlace H 860-275-6822 185 Asylum Street foonstra@mayocrowe.com # DEC 08 2011 Hartford,CT 06103 Tel: 860-275-6800 • Fax: 860-275-6819 www.mayocrowe.com December 7, 2011 RECEIVE® VIA FEDEX Michele R. Lipe,AICP Town Planner SOUTH W{t�v Gk ;idNIsi.'G DEPT. Planning Department Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Capitol Region Education Council/Long Hill Road, South Windsor, CT Dear Ms. Lipe: As requested, I enclose three(3) originals of both the Subdivision Plan survey and the Boundary survey. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. V ry truly y F nTiBonstra ours, n Enclosures J:\CREC\South Windsor-Long Hill Drive\Correspondence\lipe Itr.doc Hartford White Plains MAYO CROWE LLC ATTORNEYS David S.Hoopes CityPlace II 860-275-6808 185 Asylum Street dhoopes@mayocrowe.com Hartford,CT 06103 Admitted in Connecticut Tel: 860-275-6800 and Massachusetts Fax: 860-275-6819 www.mayocrowe.com September 22, 2011 VIA FED EX R ; Ms. Michele R. Lipe, AICP SEP � 3 ; Town Planner Town of South Windsor SOUiHWINDSOgpL4pfl� s1 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: CREC Application for Special Exception Dear Michele: I have enclosed the original certificates of mailing to abutters, and form of abutter's notice, in connection with CREC's wetlands application. I have also enclosed an abutters list including addresses. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. V • truly yours, David S. Hoopes Enclosure cc: Mr. David Fresk(with enclosures) M:\General\C;REC\South Windsor Zoning\lipe ltr3.doc kk Hartford White Plains MAYO CROWE LLC ATTORNEYS David S.Hoopes CityPlace II 860-275-6808 185 Asylum Street dhoopes@mayocrowe.com Hartford,CT 06103 Admitted in Connecticut Tel: 860-275-6800 and Massachusetts Fax: 860-275-6819 www.mayocrowe.com September 22, 2011 Dear Property Owner: Re: International Magnet School for Global Citizenship proposed for property known as L007 Long Hill Road,owned by Jillson Farm Associates In accordance with South Windsor Zoning Regulations, you are hereby notified that Capitol Region Education Council has filed an application for a special exception for a school use on approximately 14.3 5 acres of land, being a portion of a property abutting yours, known as Assessor's Lot L007 Long Hill Road. This application will be the subject of a hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The application and plans are on file with the South Windsor Planning Department. All members of the public are invited to the hearing to ask questions and/or give comments. You may also submit written comments regarding the application prior to the hearing if you so desire. For further information regarding the specific date this application will be heard,please contact the Planning Department at 644-2511, ext. 329. truly yours, David S. oopes Attorney for Applicant Enclosure M:\General\CREC\South Windsor Zoning\owners ltr3.doe Hartford White Plains ABUTTERS LIST L007 Long Hill Road Re: Application for Special Exception Ramondetta Phyllis G. Trustee JE Shepard Co. Inc. Ramondetta P. Revocable Trust P.O. Box 415 503 Chapel Road East Windsor Hill, CT 06028 South Windsor, CT 06074 Atkins Steven Duke&Mary-Alice Conn Light&Power Company f/k/a 639 Chapel Road Hartford Electric Light Company South Windsor, CT 06074 P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141 Dalpe Kip J. Jillson Farms Associates 647 Chapel Road 200 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 P.O. Box 415 East Windsor Hill, CT 06028 Lindsay Thompson Sr. Malone Jacqueline A. & Rotker Janis P. 395 Ellington Road 161 Long Hill Road South Windsor, CT 06074 South Windsor, CT 06074 Farley Wesley A. &Melinda M. State of CT Department of Transportation 411 Ellington Road 2800 Berlin Turnpike South Windsor, CT 06074 Newington, CT 06111 Attn: Bureau of Highway Operations Burnham Raymond A. & Dianna E. Higgins Isabella P. Estate 171 Long Hill Road 200 Clinton Drive South Windsor, CT 06074 South Windsor, CT 06074 MAGeneral\CREC\South Windsor Zoning\abutters listldoc South Windsor Public Schools Facility Operations Subject: Elementary Parking Spaces SCHOOL PARKING SPACES HANDICAPPED SPACES Oct 1, 2010 enrollment 2011-2012 K-5 Projected Eli Terry 95 4 359 356 Philip R. Smith 60 3 342 314 Orchard Hill 65 2 428 385 Wapping 74 2 290 275 Pleasant Valley 91 3 431 426 ENROLLMENT PROJECTION 2011-12 South Windsor Public Schools ���{ Report#1 a�tliz �� Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 TOTAL Enrollment: October 1,2010 P.R. Smith 48 55 53 61 46 79 342 Eli Terry 45 56 65 64 63 66 359 Orchard Hill 41 65 62 81 85 94 428 Pleasant Valley 70 57 68 66 78 92 431 Wapping 36 50 49 58 39 58 290 Total Elementary 240 283 297 330 311 389 1850 2011-12 Projection P.R. Smith 51 51 54 52 60 46 314 Eli Terry 48 52 58 68 65 65 356 Orchard Hill 44 46 65 63 83 84 385 Pleasant Valley 74 73 60 70 70 79 426 Wapping 38 42 50 48 58 39 275 Total Elementary 255 264 287 301 336 313 1756 Difference. Projection v. Prior Year Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 TOTAL P.R. Smith 3 -4 1 -9 14 -33 -28 Eli Terry 3 -4 -7 4 2 -1 -3 Orchard Hill 3 -19 3 -18 -2 -10 -43 Pleasant Valley 4 16 -8 4 -8 -13 -5 Wapping 2 -8 1 -10 19 -19 -15 Total Elementary 15 -19 -10 -29 25 -76 -94 Percent Above/(Below) Prior Year 6% -7% -3% -9% 8% -20% -5% Page 1 (Report#1) I Approved 10/12/10 ENROLLMENT PROJECTION 2011-12 �- South Windsor Public Schools Report#1 District Summary Elementary Middle High Total Projected 2011-12 1756 1078 1493 4327 Actual2010-11 1850 1089 1546 4485 Difference -94 -11 -53 -158 Percent Difference -5% -1% -3% -4% Timothy Edwards Middle School Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total Projected 2011-12 365 361 352 1078 Actual2010-11 358 347 384 1089 Difference 7 14 -32 -11 Percent Difference 29/6 4% -8% -1% Two Rivers Maanet Middle School Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Total Projected 2011-12 28 18 18 64 Actual2010-11 18 18 21 57 Difference 10 0 -3 7 Percent Difference 56% 0% -14% 12% High School Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Total Projected 2011-12 386 353 379 375 1493 Actual2010-11 363 392 387 404 1546 Difference 23 -39 -8 -29 -63 Percent Difference 6% -10% -2% -7% -3% Actual Enrollment Chanae from Prior Year Elementary Middle High Total Actual2010-11 1850 1089 1546 4485 Actual2009-10 1937 1073 1579 4589 Difference -87 16 -33 -104 Percent Difference -4% 1% -2% -2% Eiaht Year Projections Elementary Middle High Total Change 2010-11 1850 1089 1546 4485 2011-12 1756 1078 1493 4327 -158 -4% 2012-13 1744 1022 1436 4202 -125 -3% 2013-14 1707 978 1401 4086 -116 -3% 2014-15 1710 897 1422 4029 -57 -1% 2015-16 1721 882 1346 3949- -80 -2% 2016-17 1755 825 1325 3905 -44 -1% 2017-18 1766 813 1266 3845 -60 -2% 2018-19 1773 822 1182 3777 -68 -2% Page 2 (Report#1) Approved 10/12/10 1 PROJECTION TO ACTUAL 2010-11 South Windsor Public Schools Report#2 Kinderaarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 TOTAL 2010-11 Projection (Prepared October 2009) P.R. Smith 49 48 52 67 45 79 340 Eli Terry 52 57 62 64 63 62 360 Orchard Hill 63 67 67 81 90 97 465 Pleasant Valley 53 58 71 72 78 93 425 j Wapping 42 44 48 60 42 63 299 Total Elementary 259 274 300 344 318 394 1889 Enrollment: October 1,2010 P.R. Smith 48 55 53 61 46 79 342 Eli Terry 45 56 65 64 63 66 359 Orchard Hill 41 65 62 81 85 94 428 Pleasant Valley 70 57 68 66 78 92 431 Wapping 36 50 49 58 39 58 1 290 Total Elementary 240 283 297 330 311 389 1850 Difference Actual v. Proiection Kinderaarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 TOTAL P.R.Smith -1 7 1 -6 1 0 2 Eli Terry -7 -1 3 0 0 4 -1 Orchard Hill -22 -2 -5 0 -5 -3 -37 Pleasant Valley 17 -1 -3 -6 0 -1 6 Wapping -6 6 1 -2 -3 -5 -9 Total Elementary -19 9 -3 -14 -7 -5 -39 Percent Above/Below Projection -7% 3% -1% -2% i li Page 1 (Report#2) Approved 10/12/10 R ,,� c t� N(NY?4v4 a_r1Q" CAPITOL REGION EDUCATION COUNCIL APPLICATION F OR SPECIAL ko B XCZ PTION NARRATIVE DESCRIBING PROPOSED USE AND DISCUSSION OF SECTION 8.4(B)STANDARDS The applicant, Capitol Region Education Council CCREC"), M a regional educational service-center whose members are 35 Hartfard-area school districtsi including South Windsor. It has contracted to purchase approximately 14,35 acres of land abutting Long Hill Road, Chapel Road and Interstate 1-291. It proposes to build on that site an early childhood and elementary magnet school to serve about 435 dhildren,pre-K to grade,s. Most of the site is zoned 1-291 Rural Residential Overlay(RROZ). A small portion is zoned Rural Residential (RR). Schools are a permitted vsc in both zones with aspecial exception. The criteria for special-exceptions are sot forth in Section 8.4(B)of the Zoning Regulations. A discussion of each of those criteria follows. 1. Consistency with the goals,objectives,and,recominendatioW of the Plan of Conservation and Development. The Plan of Conservation and Development("PCD")recognizes that the zoning regulations should provide for community public facilities to reflect the needs and wants of the community.See PCD p. 1,0. Schools are such facilities. Schools' are also an excellent transitional use that can serve to buffer residential areas from commercial and industrial uses-and also, in this case,,an interstate highway, The proposed land use map at page x 15 of the PCD—consistent with the zoning map-shows the site in question as b6inglo.cated in just a transition area, lying between the land to the west designated "economic development"and the land primarily to the north designated"residential." The transitional nature of the proposed school use thus makes it an ideal use for this site: 2. Requirements of zoning regulations. The application satisfies all the objective requirements of the Zoning Regulations, as shown on the zoning table contained within the plans. For reasons stated in a separate narrative, the applicant seeks,pursuant to Section 6.4.9 of the Zoning Regulations, a modification of parking requirements, 3. The physical suitability of the land, The,land in question is physically well-suited for a school. It contains no wetlands, it is not Steep(though it is sloping), it has fi-ontage on two roads and it has good access to Routes$3, 5%and 1-291. m:.koetteriwRiijmoutit windsor Zonj11&ay1Aqv,0-gpp.speoexceptiomdoo 4. Environmental impacts. Development of this site Will involve activities regulated under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act in that the site includes a relatively small area within the 80' wetland setback. This area is located in the southwestern portion zof the site.The project has been designed in a mariner not to adversely impact the downstream resource areas. Accordingly,the Inland Wetland Agenda/Conservation Commission approved, on September 21,2011,the applicant's application for a permit to conduct activities regulated under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Act, There are rro Other meaningful environmental impacts anticipated due to development of this site. 5. Traffic. The applicant's traffic study,incorporated herein by reference,demonstrates that no traffic or related hazards'will be created. All nearby intersections will continue to function very well under post-build conditions. 6. The impact on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities,streets,drainage systems,and other improvements, The site has access to sewers and has frontage on two town roads.Development of this site will not adversely affect existing streets,drainage systems or town sewers. 7-9.No adverse effects on an existing:uses/no adverse effect on property values/maintenance of character of neighborhood Schools in general are compatible with residential uses. This is why schools are permitted in all residential' zones, CREC is confident that it will show that this particular project is well designed, attractive,and well buffered from residential areas. Buffering is achieved by retention of existing trees and vegetation,new landscaping and the natural slope of the land. 10. The health and general welfare of the community. For all the reasons discussed above,the general welfare of the community will be advanced by development ,of this property for a use that advances educational opportunities while also carrying out the planning goals articulated in the PCD and the Zoning Regulations for the RRQZ zone. Those goals, in essenee, are to provide for uses that will create a good transition between I=291 and the residential areas at.ong Chapel Road. A school is an ideal transitional use—one of the relatively few uses,in fact,that is especially well- suited to this area. 11. Neighborhood acceptance weighed against community needs. Since the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood and has been well-designed to mitigate impacts,CREC does not expect neighborhood opposition per se. CREC is confident that any con erns that may be raised can be addressed to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2 w 12, The protection Qf historic factors.. No areas of special historic sensitivity will be impacted by this school.The site is remote from the historic districts recognized in the PCD. See PCD p. 6. 13-14. Physical appearance/architectural design. Schools in general are compatible with the Commission's goals for RRCZ zone, in that it is a type of institutional use that the regulations contemplate to provide for a good transition between I-291 and the residential areas along Chapel Road,while also allowing.for reasonable,productive use of property in this unique area of town. CREC is confident that the Commission will find the specific design elements of!his proposed school to be esthetically pleasing and compatible with the neighborhood. Appl #11-29P, CREC Magnet School Subdivision, Special Exception & Site Plan 10/11/11 Planning Department Report 1. This is a request for a two lot minor subdivision of'8s, a special exception to section 5.4.3 and a site plan of development to construct a 64,300 sf"International Magnet Elementary School". Th u 'ect propert is located on e westerly side of Long Hill Roads herl�the of Chap 1 Road, erly of 91, asterly side of Ellington Ro nd is 291 Co 'do eve lop ent Zone, Ru 1 Residen ' I-291 verlay Zone and Ru esidential Zone. 2. The subdivision will create a 14.5 acre parcel in the I-291 RR/OZ for the proposed school. The remaining land will be left undeveloped at this time and exceeds the minimum requirement for a building lot in the I-291 Corridor Development zone. The applicant must provide an A-2 map for the entire property as required in the s bdivision regulations. 3. The elementary school is proposed in the southwest corner of the site adjacent to I- 291. It will accommodate approximately 435 students and offer classes for Pre—k through 5th grade. Institutional uses, such as schools, are allowed by Special exception in both the RR and I-291 RR/OZ. In the design of this project, the applicant has adhered to the site appearance requirements related to landscaping, building and site design prescribed in the RR/Overlay zone, which are designed to mitigate impacts on residential neighbors. 4. Applications for special exceptions may be approved if the Commission determines that: a. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan of Conservation and Development. b. The application has met the requirements of the zoning regulations. c. The land is physically suited to the proposed use. d. Minimal, if any, adverse environmental impacts are created. e. No traffic or other hazards will be created. f. The impacts on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, street, drainage systems, sidewalks, and other elements of the infrastructure will be minimal. g. There will be minimal or no adverse effects on existing uses in the area. h. Surrounding property values will be conserved. i. The character of the neighborhood will be maintained or minimally disrupted. j. The general welfare of the community will be served. k. There is a balance between neighborhood acceptance and community needs. 1. Historic factors are adequately protected; or due consideration to preservation of historic factors has been demonstrated. m. The overall physical appearance of the proposed development is compatible with surrounding development and the Commission's goals for the neighborhood/corridor. n. The architectural design is aesthetically pleasing and blends well into the surrounding area. 5. The Commission may impose additional conditions in accordance with these regulations in order to ensure that all applicable criteria enumerated above are satisfied. 6. Maximum impervious coverage allowed is for this development is 50%; 25.5% shown. Frontage is 455 feet along Chapel Road and 436 feet along Long Hill Road; which exceeds the 175 foot minimum. The front yard setback for the school is 234 feet from Chapel Road, a minimum of 50 feet required. The proposed building height is 34 feet; 30 feet allowed. The applicant has proposed an increased building height in accordance with Section 3.1.2.1) which allows building height to be increased by 1 foot for every 2 feet setback from the side yard setback. 7. The parking requirement for schools is based on a square footage calculation. Based on the size, the parking required is 257 spaces. The applicant is providing 146 spaces and is requesting a modification to the number of spaces required as allowed in Section 6.4.9 of the Zoning Regulations. The applicant's documentation supports the reduction based on actual anticipated use of the site. Accommodations have also been made for off-site,p,�arking if needed. 8. Chapel Road is a oll�ect�br road. A sidewalk is shown along the access drive to Chapel Road and Chapel Road frontage with a crosswalk to Murielle Drive. T+ere 9. The applicant's traffic study discusses the impact of the traffic pattern for the school. The Chapel Road entrance will be used as the bus entrance and the Long Hill Road entrance will be used for parent drop off and pick up. It is estimated that a otal of trips would be generated going to the site during the morning peak and 83 during the afternoon peak hour. 10.Site distances looking out of the two site drives exceed required distances based on the posted speed of the road. The vegetation in the ROW in front of the property must be cleared and remain clear to meet these site lines. i 1 l.The t fic eport n udes at this d ' 'onal, v&—&w Id�be iodated by the xistin ro netw ___ _ 12.The ARDC reviewed the plans on October 6 and forwarded a favorable recommendation. The committee found the design to be of interest with the agricultural theme and varied rooflines. They encouraged the applicant to preserve the trees to maximum extent possible. They forwarded three recommendations: consider a darker split face color on the base of the building; place timers on the lights so they shut off after evening after evening activities; and return with sign design - to which the applicant agreed. 13.The lighting plan calls for 24 foot high poles, with full cutoff fixtures along the access drives and parking areas. Some smaller poles are shown along the school walk areas. The average lighting level throughout the site is 1.1 fc. with no light spill off of the property. The applicant must revise the plans to reflect to include the light style presented to the ADRC. 14.The plans also show two multi-purpose fields shown on the easterly end of the site; however there are not intentions to light this field. 15.The landscaping plan calls for the preservation of a number of significant trees around the perimeter of the site as well as an extensive landscape plan around the site. The trees proposed along the easterly boundary to screen the residential property and a variety of planting along the westerly boundary evergreen plantings along the easterly boundary. 16.The required buffers per our regulation are along the northerly boundary abutting up to the residential properties along Chapel Road and along the RR zone line of the property. The access drive is approx. 40 -45 away from the properties and the applicant intends to supplement the existing heavy deciduous vegetation to screen the property. The applicant must provide the required cross —sections of these areas. 17.Signage tot`ances'for tis type of use include a building sign and two free standing sign; one primary sign up to 32 sf and a secondary sign of 12 sf along Long Hill Road. 18.There are no regulated wetlands on the property; however the proposal includes discharging into a regulated wetland area adjacent to I-291. The IWA/CC granted approval on September 21, 2011 recommending a $30,000 bond to ensure compliance with E & S measures and $15,000 for the construction of the storm water system and other standard conditions. 19.There is public water and sewer available to the site. Water Pollution Control Authority approval was granted on 10/4/11. 20.The Fire Marshal and Fire Chief have reviewed the plans and is satisfied with the layout for emergency access. q0W N S fq C Town O-PSoaa ?()& G U �l ti • w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 sox.co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL October 19, 2011 Capital Region Education Council C/O David Fresk 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford CT 06106 Dear Mr.Fresk: Re: Appl. 11-29P, CREC-International Magnet School for Global Citizenship Resubdivision We are pleased to advise you that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted on October 11, 2011, to approve with modifications the above mentioned application for a resubdivision on 60+ acres to create 2 lots to be known as Capitol Region Education Council minor subdivision on property located on L007 Long Hill Road, I-291 Corridor Development Zone, Rural Residential/I-291 Overlay Zone and RR Zone as shown on plans prepared by Perkman & Eastman, Map No. 22-11-1S and dated 10/6/11, as revised. This approval is subject to the following modifications: 1. This approval is for 2 lots. 2. Drainage and construction for this subdivision is subject to the approval of the Town Engineer. 3. All lots shall be serviced by the Town of South Windsor sanitary sewer system and are subject to the approval of the Water Pollution Control Authority. 4. Water shall be supplied to this subdivision by MDC. 5. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission. 6. If, for any reason, finished grading and other individual lot site work is not completed,the Town Engineer shall determine the amount of a cash bond to ensure final grading and site work. This cash bond must be submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 7. A drainage assessment fee in the amount of$100.00 shall be submitted to this Commission. 8. The Town Engineer's review comments dated October 11, 2011 must be addressed to the Town Engineer's satisfaction. 9. No building permits will be issued until all modifications have been complied with,and the final plans have been filed in the Town Clerk's office. 10. A-2 map of the property is required to be submitted with the final plans. Black and white transparent mylars of Sheets # 1, 2 of Megson Heagle plans and an A-2 survey with the above modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set of plans must be submitted to this Commission. The letters of approval of this Commission, as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission,must be reproduced on the mylars. After mylars have been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the Town Clerk. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to the Planning Department. Sincerely, Patrick Kennedy, Chairman - Planning and Zoning Commission cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal Board of Education Registrars SOWN Sf4 - C 'G '3 • �� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSOR•c� . TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL 7008 1300 0001 4578 4150 October 19,2011 Capital Region Education Council C/O David Fresk 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford CT 06106, Dear Mr. Fresk: Re: Appl. 11-29P, CREC-International Magnet School for Global Citizenship Special Exception to Section 5.4.3 and Site Plan of Development We are pleased to advise you that the Planning & Zoning Commission voted on October 11, 2011 to approve with modifications the above referenced application for a special exception to Section 5.4.3 and a Site Plan of Development. This approval is for the construction of a 64,300 sf school to be know as "CREC International Magnet Elementary School"on property located at 625 Chapel Road, (westerly side of Long Hill Road, southerly side of Chapel Road, northerly of I-291), Rural Residential/I-291 Overlay Zone and Rural Residential Zone, as shown on plans prepared by Perkins Eastman,Inc., dated 10/6/11, as revised. This approval is subject to the following modifications: 1. Prior to commencement of any site work, a meeting must be held with Town Staff. 2. No building permit will be issued until the final mylars have been filed in the Town Clerk's office. 3. This application is subject to the conditions of approval of the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission,including bonds in the amount of$30,000 to ensure compliance with E& S measures and$15,000 for construction of the storm water system. 4. A landscape bond in the amount of$20,000 is required and must be submitted prior to filing of mylars. 5. All bonds must be in one of the forms described in the enclosed Bond Policy. 6. An as-built plan is required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy per Section 8.1.11 of the Zoning Regulations. 7. All plans used in the field by the developer must bear the stamp and authorized signature of the Town of South Windsor. 8. This approval does not constitute approval of the sanitary sewer,which can only be granted by the Water Pollution Control Authority. 9. The building street number must be included on the final plan. 10. Pavement markings must be maintained in good condition throughout the site drives and parking areas. 11. All free standing signs and/or building signs require the issuance of a sign permit before they are erected. 12. If a State Traffic Commission certificate is required,no building permits will be issued until the certificate has been issued(per CGS §14-311). 13. In accordance with Section 6.4.9 and based on the information submitted by the applicant,a reduction in the required number of required parking spaces to 146 spaces has been approved. 14. The Town Engineer's review comments dated 9/29/11, as revised 10/11/11 must be incorporated into the final plans. 15.The buffer line in the RR zone should reflect a 50 foot buffer in addition to the required side yard. 16. The applicant must return to the ADRC for approval of the proposed signage. 17.In the event traffic backups negatively impact the public ways,the applicant will have to take measures to mitigate the situation by staggering start times or changing the traffic pattern on the site. 18.The cross sections of the buffers required in Section 6.2.4.B.2 must be incorporated into the final plans. 19. The lighting details must be corrected on the plans to reflect the actual light fixtures proposed, including a cut sheet of the proposed lights. 20.Additional landscaping to be added to the entrance drives to provide additional buffering of the residences adjacent to he access drives. 21. It is understood that the Town of South Windsor will have access to the athletic fields. 22. Delivery trucks will be limited to using the Chapel Road entrance for deliveries. 23.Unnecessary parking lot and/or building lighting must be put on timers to limit light exposure in the evenings. Black and white transparent mylars of the Cover Sheet and Sheets C3.1, C3.2, C3.3, C3.4 and C3.5 with the above modifications, together with three blueprint copies of the entire set of plans (including architectural elevations and landscaping plans)must be submitted to this Commission. The letters of approval of this Commission as well as the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission must be reproduced on the mylars. After the mylars have been signed by the Commission, they will be returned to you for filing in the Office of the Town Clerk. After filing these plans, a copy of the receipt must be submitted to the Planning Department. The attached Special Exception form must be completed and filed in the Town Clerk's office. The special exception will take effect upon filing. Sincerely, Patrick Kennedy, Chairman Planning and Zoning Commissio PK/ma cc: Town Engineer Chief Building Official Assessor Superintendent of Pollution Control Fire Marshal I I c � 7 ! c 5� i I i z -- 1 PLANNING DEPARMENT IN-HOUSE REFERRAL FORM DATE: 9/14/11 TO: Matt Galligan, Fred Shaw, Michael Gantick, Rich Bond,Walter Summers, Jeff Doolittle Ray Favreau,Karl Reichle, Mark Owens, Chris Dougan, Sherry Roy,Ron Asselin, John Caldwell,Dennis Sheridan FROM: Michele Lipe,AICP,Town Planner The Planning&Engineering Departments have received plans for the following projects: Appl 11-29P, CREC Subdivision/Spec Exc/Site Plan Location: Southerly of Chapel Road, westerly of Long Hill Road 0 Site Plan ❑ Subdivision No. Acres 14 Zone RR-O, I-291 CD ❑ Industrial ® Commercial ❑ Residential No. Lots/Units Water: ® Public ❑ Private Well Sewerage: N Public ❑ Septic System Project Description: 64,300 sf elementary school Future Town-owned property involved? ❑Yes ®No ❑ new street(s) ❑ new detention area ❑ new open space/recreation area ❑ active ❑passive Planning Department notes: Please comment by 9/20/11 and return to the Planning Department. PERMITS/INSP PAYMENT RECPT#: 20520631 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE SOUTH WINDSOR CT 06074 DATE: 09/15/11 TIME: 16:11 CLERK: mariadace DEPT: CUSTOMER#: 0 PARCEL: CHG: DEP DEP FEE 410.00 AMOUNT PAID: 410.00 PAID BY: CREC PAYMENT METH: CHECK 203696 REFERENCE: AMT TENDERED: 410.00 AMT APPLIED: 410.00 CHANGE: .00 SOWN Sf4 Cn O-Psou� V&U&O't 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE •SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE(860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL 7008 1300 0001 4578 4631 September 27, 2011 David Fresk 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford CT 06106 Dear Mr. Fresk: Re: Appl # 11-29P, CREC Subdivision Special Exception Please be advised that the Public Hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission in the above referenced matter has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 7:30 PM in the Council Chambers of the South Windsor Town Hall, 1540 Sullivan Avenue. Someone must be present at the hearing to represent the application. Three signs advertising the hearing must be posted on the property for ten (10) consecutive days prior to the hearing and must be clearly visible from a town street. A sign must be posted on Long Hill, Chapel Road and Ellington Road by Friday September 30, 2011. Signs can be obtained in the Planning Department. Sincerely, Maria D. Acevedo Administrative Secretary MAYO CROWE LLC ATTORNEYS David S.Hoopes RECEIVED CityPlace 11 860-275-6808 185 Asylum Street dhoopes@mayocrowe.com Hartford,CT 06103 Admitted in Connecticut SEA' I�J 1 1 1 Tel: 860-275-6800 and Massachusetts Fax: 860-275-6819 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. www.mayocrowe.com September 22, 2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Ms. Michele R. Lipe, AICP Town Planner Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Re: CREC Application for Special Exception Dear Michele: Please consider this letter as a withdrawal of the captioned application. Thank you for agreeing to waive the $125 filing fee, and treating the previously-paid fee as applicable to this application. The plans are as previously submitted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Very truly yours, David S. Hoopes Enclosure cc: Mr. David Fresk (via email: DFresk(c�r�,crec.org with enclosures) M:\General\CREC\South Windsor Zoning\lipe Itr4.doc Hartford White Plains I, Patrick Kennedy, Chairman of the South Windsor Planning & Zoning Commission, hereby certify that on October 11, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted to Capitol Region Education Council a Special Exception to Section 5.4.3 of the Zoning Regulations and Site Plan of Development to allow the construction of a school, on property located at L007 Long Hill Road, Rural Residential/I-291 Overlay Zone and Rural Residential Zone zone, as shown on plans prepared by Perkins &Eastman Project No.4290. GIS PIN (See attached) OWNER OF RECORD: Jillson Farm Associates Dated at South Windsor, Connecticut this 19 day of October, 2011. In accordance with CGS Section 8-3d Chairman Patrick Ke edy Planning&Zoning Commission Received for record this day of , 20C_, at South Windsor, Connecticut ATTEST: CREC Property South Windsor CT Legal Description Beginning at a point marked by an existing iron pin and located in the northeast corner of the property,which point is also on the westerly ROW line of Long Hill Road;thence running S 14°21'48"W for a distance of 436.16';thence running S88124'18"W for a distance of 245.46'; thence running S00109'57"E for a distance of 26.00'; thence running along a curve to the left with a central angle of 02109'58"and a radius of 5087.00' for a distance of 192.31' to a monument;thence running along a curve to the left with a central angle of 02°25'34'and a radius of 5087.00' for a distance of 215.41%thence running N04°45'30"W for a distance of 380.94'; thence running N65°41'09"W for a distance of 236.14';thence running N24°18'51"E for a distance of 625.00; thence running S65°41'09"E for a distance of 455.75';thence running S25.31'23"W for a distance of 197.71;thence running S64°28'37"E for a distance of 241.25; thence running S 14°21'48"W for a distance of 11.73';thence running S65°48'56"E for a distance of 225.00' to the point or place of beginning. Said parcel contains 14.35 acres. Existing sanitary sewer easement: Beginning at a point located on the southerly ROW line of Chapel Road; thence running S25°31'23"W for a distance of 212.23';thence running S08°28'37"E for a distance of 630.07'; thence running S88°24'18"W for a distance of 20.15'; thence running N08°28'37"W for a distance of 633.77';thence running N25°31'23"E for a distance of 217.92' to a point; thence running S65°41'09"E for a distance of 20.01' to the point or place of beginning. S 1 e sl Volulns 600 Page N° 291�� i tnn�u-ca�«a,+cor r.+wrtrew � '�.r•••••�•••• . I as all 71tapUt W#pall blest f rue m sgau&m a 411"Ungl Ktlr fe x,ma a.flhT,of itr Tew of larch WedwT.County of • •'�q I s.Tttoyd dad itat.of Cassaettwt /.ram.w.q M?lvful s low rtwsNo w oolloo 0049.0m.00? ,rafsdto hat M rvale'$ .)J"p FOG Us M'jfl,a Cs.esetlaut fe.eeal partaerabap ultb its prl.eipol office is the Town of soeth Wind.. County of Rarefied and State of eirsetieat A dx.fAN. .erdts•doe{R�.sNeAerldd161aOWyAMASfeetAns. Its soenwee mf a saetaln plies or pavan&of laid MWITlslea 11,95 levee located easterly of x1ll.aten les0, se.thatly 914 hsNl>tad old westerly of lea/Will toad to •• i 06 Tom of aodft Willson Coast?of beetled a"scat&of COAMCHA.t ad, uses pertlarlarly described ou fabodAe 16 at"Ched hersto 644 Inamforated haeefa by Tofelame. �p1WCTAgOlTA%P6L8�lfs RNtt('�1AG1L�H '� - • Sneed W dOV1M ��^ Booksa00,pa1e:491 Volulad 600 Pop N° 293 (s10.00v) to an (ran plus thaoos turning and lovin9 N 59-261 3e■ m, along the Easterly line of aIlington Road, a distance of One Nundced Ta nd 6 nty-swan a1/360the,feet (127.51' to an Iron pint thence containing 9 so- sit 01a N, along tha tgatsrly line of lllln4ton lioad, a distance of Ong Hwndrad Fifteen and i2/166the ^'• toot (116.iisy to an Iron pint thongs turning and laving a ds' a3+ 4 ■ a along the southerly 11%g of land now or tornorly of Stephen F. mOhalner a distance of your Hundred aivty-Night and 7o/looths toot (M.1g') to on Iron pin; thongs turning and Corbett. cst(Iaar..SaWaasc, a the sdlstinceLof one 1(undr land sd and 00/100t • tact hoo0.00j) to sn iron pins thence turning and Roving 4 is- 32, 01• m, along the southerly line of land now or toraarly at stlpen P. fn . Sehoer a distance of One Thousand the Hundred Thirty- and 10/16965 cast {1,239.161i to an iron ppint thence miming and msv ng N 241 411 59" N aioeg ths masterly of"a slundrad Sixty-Ora formerly aid$0 Loatheeroot (161tsOr) to anti ins theme turning and ha:lrg N 45 111 01'M along the Neither- line of land now or, former of Stephen F. schotnar, a . taeoe of might Rondrad Twgntylhtoo and S1/100ths fact (013.611) to in iron pin eat in the sa►thoaatarly corner of land now or foroorly at Joseph R. and 4abstine O. Dube; thanes turning and Roving M 26. 29j is, N along the sastorly line of land no_w or No drell s!ty-s v n tad 1%looW coat.-(1q.i99 loin Iron yioi thence 'adppturning and*avi`tttt�111�9���.s 44.1%1 SS"N along As southerly liar ax 96/1 Ortbalfast Road, 224.9i) toask an ironwplat themes continuing s ism 428 401 N, along the southerly line of Chopet Raa4 a distance of one Thousand Two Hundred 1`190-7hree and 24/100tho fast pi bpinnl .to on $ran pin which iron pin works the point and place of fliC2elim0 711rNaFlwm/a paroel of tend described as J!M cdo lag. 1 in a Certificate of g4m detail Hamh 3, lief and reaordad in id firgo%No.1 in soralpartitcurilarlydescribedth oas collorof Records. 00WIM Zarme3 mac L-sltvated on the aruthveetorly■idr Of Frosrnt CDape3i Road, containing 0.349 09 an &gram, sore or loos, and boundedr NgRFmtJWMLY by 9magant Chapel Head, a total distance of. 1,479.46 fasts sOufmfl572a.Y• by land raw or lerwarly of Nillla% S. Durk- , hart, s test, sore or lames aoumvfitrnLY- by ounsrso rominingd�land, a total 419tan s, is shoown onrus rap boralinii by t r rilerna to,gSht*ttR 1.2, aning d , MoRtIMST aLY- by land now ar lorReriy of Jcerph R. aubn at al, 7 lent, were or'ldn. reratl 1 sppearr on a sap ontitlgde aTovn of mouth Hindswr, Nap 9hry ng spud aa�tirad Fro%Helen A. Hilt by The state of Connect- lout, aogon •1 atr%otion of chapel we# scale 1- - 401, October iFe7, Ralart N. OoDsIs, Treasportation Chios mnginsar-D&reau of Ntghvaye.a In sheste , 2 aid 7 of I ghetto, which sap is en t1e n the Town Clerk's onto&to which reference may be had. ts"Miz MMUM O and rat Inaluded in the above crn7ryalam Is a Want y loot (201) Strip at.land Imodiatoty adfaoant to the ■authorlF bamdory of ether promises at 061en A. Hilt bounded and described as collovo, to wits Coaanalr at a poL,t marked 6y an Iron tin, which point to Nleven and 73/SOOthR feat (11.131) ea+lhrrly st the souths&9tsrly corner at promised owed now or formorly by Vivian V. ditkrn/ , ....�.-.............�.-�... ..� ram-- • -•� 800k:600,Fage:29s w Volume 600 Pop N9 295 • OfI4044M•rrr..rwrAR•d• l . ■Y ie il+lt p 31o1 egJlit �M+ "'1 Awbr.wow""ord-4M f f/ry/t►.N LC �INfe Kr/Y/H SY4�MM� rit rY pr.Yr A Nr golf.q f f^• e pl 1 A dw YY trrrr/ iq f �e�arlYNetYulfK�dw�`anit L!. Yr��Yld reYYt•a Wrjewof. r.a /L[..nl M/e«dNd+r r.Y4r/rt�..rr s/�• rneYi.LoerrAtN+rr rMl rwei nr /DMcr• i fn.M iL/I.YVer,fxrW wMnrY+�re wrYb•r'�J1d:,F: I �wioarr id ltl Ititn r �..W.Al�1e• AXODLFtNdrfr/►r•eW�^� ���rt(ti.Wpol�Y�A/Cann. j .ergr w ArnWsfn MN.Yl. r . t - 1 ys taw/f�auL i bwt nlYel !A4 1 LA'w� Af!y Jumpy A.wAnnnrM Gt+ r.Jwr4d.4ueem i rIRA S�{.M.Srkl nt fr ice*y •{ .p A....0 a OIL •.s I rQ4f .t! .e P(til. WinkA.tUAL ' t� tL r • u S!A)r/fCOlsngw. u• Ie to vid.ur- covey s wAirm I �0.4.�fltr dl, Ifth Av V .7aa/ry .rAr wrlrtdw/41 .N++ +i y+jexe0� fel/a 11�Y�i1Ctr.T.a Yp�) . • A.OrnI N+M(N 111AfYNlr�/s tVb"'e wMr eAW Mwe t/ IArryM.grNbM.M V AfrtArY`rn1�.Ir�fNNI�tMJ WI iAt erA'Y1111Lf YKf►rrA/i'M!w/ 11 Zrl&OfOJJker . . ftoAt Of finrMlOM. i� . COW!Q S ' O.rLNrle O'!•/ LtrrdnJR..l�krr+f/nxrl�lbl�M+r1� YLI/eJ MhjAell to Me I.NV.pr7011.eVl1AM .NYtA �ItV/riAt/AYl ' M N J..IrwNel d[lwrl�K 1✓wwne Jw dM lurpr 14+e10 eNYMd.M IA•�(Ar Nnrf lAr r+r+l•n+N•by u.rr►1 M ' �YIYW CD1ALOf<f Awewl/M glwd 0*I�rrd TweeJOIAM farwr"W"$t Nam N/./.Jsaer t:^- '--'1t9.saa ssLllrar M.wr r...w....w.rr.t AECftYED fDR IIECQROC A!7 Lt TIMC R Ad P.u TOWfICIFRK � - lookri00rPryO:IIIL a i s° qq Ro 'i { i a . «I a h i hs C. XgF fvc 22263�� Miss Table of Contents INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1 1. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1. Major Roadways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2. Intersection Level of Service Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1. Future No-Build Traffic Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2. Future Build Traffic Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3. Sight Distance Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4. Analysis of Daily Traffic Volumes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 9 2.5. Pedestrian Access to School and Signage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 APPENDIX: CAPACITY ANALYSIS REPORTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION The Capitol Region Education Council (CREC) proposes to construct a new building for an International Magnet School on Chapel Road and Long Hill Road in South Windsor, CT. The proposed school includes a 62,700 square-foot building and 165 parking spaces. The school will accommodate 435 students and 65 faculty and staff. This study will evaluate three traffic scenarios: existing condition (September 2011) , future without proposed development (2013) and future with the proposed school (2013) . 1. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The school is proposed to be located at the south west corner of the Chapel Road and Long Hill Road intersection. Figure 1 shows the project site and the surrounding road network. In order to identify the intersections that would be impacted by the proposed development, we performed a traffic distribution analysis based on the geo-coded addresses of the CREC students. This analysis showed that the three intersections of Chapel Road with Long Hill Road and Ellington Road and also the intersection of Long Hill Road and Burnham Street would be mostly impacted by the proposed project. 1.1. Major Roadways There are four major roadways in the vicinity of the project site: Chapel Road: The 2-lane arterial road stretches from, Main Street in the west and extends all the way to the east and south to Tolland Turnpike. The road width at the vicinity of the project site is about 30' and there is a sidewalk on the north side of the road separated from the pavement by a landscaping strip. Chapel Road serves mostly the residential land uses and also a few commercial and educational land uses. Chapel Road is a Town of South Windsor road. The posted speed is 35 mph. f`Fant Val/� fior Shia r.i€}s 31fs.3rir; 4 hoc, 41, 1 ��'� � �,,�^"""`"` Q4arry Brook•. 30 �m sue' a .ArCy CO ?threw r Ve 'Fans7-P k a\niMarc h chool r 5 5 Caro , ,4 Mc9uire 30 4d Y — Or f 30 m'v i Burnham o aeq m PheO N o s tti rIr h m ra purdo Fclna m - toite9e gene - 4001 S t Square - Rdbert J oBr[�irihobi, Co)k od 4�Fn ush °' Hera Langford §cfiool o v } ah m I East H-Irtford Golf Course n'outh NO East Hartford Golf Club v G opVNi� Study Intersections Y gbn�3- m4 I Project Site CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impact Study Figure 1- Study Area 0 0.050.1 0.2 ®Miles 'South • • - 2011 CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 2 Route 30 (Ellington Road) : Route 30 is an arterial 2-lane state road starting at US Route 5 (John Fitch Blvd./Ellington Rd. ) in the south-west and extends to the north-east. It intersects Route 4 at Exit 4 of I-291. The road width at the vicinity of the study area is about 30' with no sidewalk. Route 30 serves mostly residential land uses and also a number of agricultural, commercial and educational land uses. Route 30 intersects Route 5 at Exit 4 of I-291. The posted speed is 30 mph. Long Hill Road: Long Hill Road is a 2-lane north-south arterial with a 30' pavement width and no sidewalk. Almost all the land uses along this road are residential. Long Hill Road is a town of South Windsor Road. The posted speed is 35 mph. Burnham Street: Burnham Street is a 2-lane east-west arterial with a 20' pavement width and no sidewalk. This road serves a mix of commercial, industrial and residential uses Burnham Street is a town of East Hartford Road. The posted speed is 30 mph. 1.2. Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using peak-hour traffic volumes, calculated peak-hour factors, geometric characteristics and signal phasing, all intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 method. Traffic conditions are described in the Highway Capacity Manual in terms of level of service (LOS) with the levels ranging from LOS A, which represents the best traffic flow condition, to LOS F, which represents the worst condition. Level of service C is generally considered the design level of service, while LOS D is generally considered as the acceptable limit during peak hours. Level of service E is typically at or near the capacity of the roadway or intersection and generally involves unacceptable delays. Levels of service for signalized intersections are defined in terms of average control delay per vehicle. Delay depends on a number of variables including the quality of signal progression, cycle length, green ratio and the volume/capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. For a signalized intersection, levels of service can be calculated and expressed for each movement or approach and for the total intersection as a weighted average of all movements. Specifically, level of service criteria are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle for the worst 15-minute period within the peak hour, as CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 3 shown in Table 1. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Table 1- Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Average Control Delay Service (seconds/vehicle) A 10.0 or less B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55.0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F more than 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update. Level of service analyses for un-signalized intersections are based on average control delay, defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line. This includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last-in-queue position to the first-in-queue position. The total delay for a particular minor movement is a function of the service rate or capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The level of service criteria are shown in Table 2. Table 2- Level of Service Criteria for Un-Signalized Intersections Level of Average Control Delay Service (seconds/vehicle) A 10.0 or less B 10.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 35.0 E 35.1 to 50.0 F more than 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209, Fourth Edition, 2000 Update. 1.3. Traffic Volumes and Capacity Analysis We performed a vehicle turning movement count at the intersections of Chapel Road/Long Hill Road, Chapel Road/Ellington Road and Long Hill Road/Burnham Street on Tuesday September 13, 2011 from 7am to 9am and also from 2:30pm to 5:30pm. This covers the adjacent street and the school morning and afternoon peak hours. The street peak hours occurred from 7:15am and 8:15am and from 4:30pm to 5:30pm. The afternoon school peak hour is from 2:45pm to 3:45pm. Figure 2 shows the AM, PM � AM Peak Hour I L 16 L20 240 319 23 4m 85 - 8 77 8 p'i 118 _ ___ ...... 50 _..._.._....._........_ J 1 f r 14 Chapel Rd. 26 .1 t r 2 "'T€ 4'1 t r 45 8 96 16 63 y 25 47 8 21 I 19 0 Proiect Site a L ,0 22 71 17 4— 68 ---..._.... 41 Burnham Rd.- 8 27 .! 40 62 13 � O 32 jm x a i PM School Peak Hour E f L 9 L 10 46 297 13 i 4.. 52 7 57 78 s 4— 43 _J.......... 4 l r- 1 r 5---- Chapel_Rd.... ti t r 37 41 t f 12 1 - 43 1► 10 99 77 704 20 84 16 8 18 �€ s Project Site a L3 9 70 1 4— 40 J 1 LI r 29 Burnham Rd. 15 J? * i r 52 37 102 29 x �a PM Peak Hour t L 18 L8 97 469 19 i 57 4 55 16 4— 57 �r--".....__..---------- ----a--- ._..._.�' € r 7 Chapel Rd. - 14 f t N 5 —j 1 t r 72 —41 17 106 83 148 31 94 23 16 21 Proiect Site L z 6 71 7 4— 45 J ` 4 r 42 Burnham Rd. 17 r 89 ""h 44 128 51 s 5 � a x Figure 2-Existing Traffic Volumes-AM,PM School&PM Peak Hours CREC International Magnet School Ti affic Impact Analysis South Windso,,CT Se tember 2011 CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis q school and PM street peak hour traffic volumes at these intersections. We collected the required signal timing/phasing information and the geometric and lane configuration measurements in the field. The intersection of Chapel Road and Ellington Road operates with an actuated signalized controller. The intersections of Long Hill Road with Chapel Road and Burnham Street are all-way stop controlled. CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 5 Table 3 shows the capacity analysis results for the existing traffic conditions at the three intersections. Table 3- Existing Condition Capacity Analysis Result Existing Traffic Conditions Intersection Control Type Lane Group/ AM Peak PM School PM Peak Movement Hour Peak Hour Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Eastbound C 22.4 C 24.2 C 26.7 Ellington Westbound C 30.7 C 30.5 C 30.5 Road & Signalized Northbound A 4.3 A 3.9 A 4.5 Chapel Road Southbound A 8.5 A 7.4 A 8.8 Overall B 113.0 B 111. 7 B 13. 7 Eastbound A 8.5 A 9.1 A 9.7 Chapel Road Westbound A 9.1 A 8.5 A 8.7 & Long Hill Unsignalized Road Northbound A 8.8 A 8.8 A 9.6 Southbound A 8.8 A 8.9 A 8.8 Long Hill Eastbound A 8.7 A 8.9 A 9.8 Road & Unsignalized Westbound A 9.4 A 8.9 A 9.6 Burnham Northbound A 9.4 A 9.9 B 10.5 Street Southbound A 1 9.4 1 A 1 8.6 1 A 1 9.4 As can be seen the signalized intersection of Chapel and Ellington Roads is working at an average LOS B during all peak periods and the two stop-controlled intersections are operating at LOS A and B. 2. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS To evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed school on the intersections, the traffic conditions without and with the proposed development will be analyzed in this section. 2.1. Future No-Build Traffic Conditions The future no-build conditions include the additional traffic generated by future developments that have been approved but not yet built near the 3 intersections plus the annual traffic growth. There are two major developments proposed close to the proposed school site. One is a 317, 000 SF television studio (Studio Connecticut) between Chapel Road, Ellington Road and Route 5 with access to both Chapel and Ellington Roads. The other major development is the Town Square at Evergreen Walk development located at 151 Buckland Road. CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 6 The Evergreen Walk project is about 3 miles north-east of the school site. We did not project any traffic from this development onto the three intersections adjacent to the school site. The ADT data provided by ConnDOT for the adjacent roadways show a very small increase (less than 0.5%) in traffic volumes since 1998 to 2007. To be conservative we assume a 1% background growth rate for the next two years. Figure 3 shows future no-build traffic volumes during the AM, PM School and PM peak hours. Table 4 shows the capacity analysis results for the future no-build traffic conditions at the three intersections. Table 4- Future No-Build Condition Capacity Analysis Result No-Build Traffic Conditions Intersection Control Type Lane Group/ AM Peak PM School PM Peak Movement Hour Peak Hour Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Eastbound C 22.4 C 24.2 C 26.5 Ellington Westbound C 31.0 C 30.5 C 30.3 Road & Signalized Northbound A 4.4 A 4.0 A 4.8 Chapel Road Southbound A 8.9 A 7.6 A 9.1 Overall B 113.3 B 11. 6 B 13. 6 Eastbound A 8.6 A 9.3 B 10.0 Chapel Road Westbound A 9.3 A 8.5 A 8.8 & Long Hill Unsignalized Road Northbound A 8.9 A 8.9 A 9.7 Southbound A 8.9 A 9.0 A 8.9 Long Hill Eastbound A 8.7 A 9.0 A 9.9 Road & Unsignalized Westbound A 9.5 A 9.0 A 9.7 Burnham Northbound A 9.4 B 10.0 B 10.7 Street Southbound A 9.4 A 8.7 A 9.5 As can be seen all intersections in the study area are operating under the same levels of service as for the existing conditions. 2.2. Future Build Traffic Conditions Table 5 shows the traffic generation assumptions for the number of students, faculty and staff. The modal split and student occupancy assumptions used for the students are based on statistics obtained from CREC. The percentage of trips assigned to the various peak hours has been estimated by us based on our experience and data from CREC regarding students' pre-school and post-school activities. As can be seen the proposed school is projected to generate a total of 359, 308 and 83 vehicles during the AM, PM School and PM peak hours, respectively. ' AM Peak Hour L 16 L 20 245 345 23 1— 87 8 79 8 130 j.__._ '....r_6' _—.._.._.. .... ... «, 1 l• r 74 Chapel Rd. 27 41 t r 2 _ ti t r 46 eee►s 8 103 16 64 y 26 48 8 21 19 Proiect Site L to 22 72 17 4e. 69 1 r 42 Burnham Rd. 8 4'1 t r 28 41 63 13 o 33 ix a PM School Peak Hour L 9 i L 10 i 47 305 13 53 7 511 78 44 9---------......_- .._—......._ ..__..._._ .....� .._..._........Chapel Rd_. 38 1 n t r 12 1 i 1 t r 44 10 111 84 Ill 20 86 16 1 8 18 o Project Site L3 9 71 1 4— 41 eJ 1 r 30 Burnham Rd. 15 *1 t r 53 •••►j 38 104 30 0 8 m �x a PM Peak Hour L 18 ' L8 99 483 19 4_ 58 4 56 16 4— 58 1 J _r 17 7 r Chapel Rd. 116 .J '1 t r 5 _J 1 41 t r 73 17 128 95 161 32 96 23 16 Z 21 i m Project Site o L 2 6 72 7 4— 46 _4j 1 �i r 43 Burnham Rd. 17 41 -�t r ---- 91 �! 45 131 52 5 jm �x Figure 3-Future No-Build Conditions-AM,PM School&PM Peak Hours SouthCREC International Magnet School Traffic Irnpact Anolysis • September 2011 CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 7 Table 5- Proposed Development Trip Generation Calculations Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Adjacent Passengers Arrival/ (Adjacent PM School Street Peak Mode Occup.Veh. Departure % Street) Peak Hour Hour Rate PM PM Type # AM School Street In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Peak Peak take 44%school 14 14 100% 90% 10% 14 14 28 13 13 26 1 1 2 Students 435 bus* 56%drop-off/ 1.5 162 90% 80% 20% 146 146 292 130 130 260 32 32 64 pick-up Faculty/ 65 95%drive 1.1 56 70% 40% 30% 1 39 0 39 0 22 1 22 1 0 17 17 Staff alone Total 1199 1601 359 1143 1651 308 133 50 83 * Based on the CREC's estimations Figure 4 shows geo-coded addresses of the currently enrolled CREC students. To maintain safe and orderly circulation conditions within the school site, the school bus traffic is assigned to the Chapel Road access, the parent drop-off/pick-up traffic to the Long Hill Road and staff traffic to either driveway. This will result in the most orderly and safe circulation pattern and will permit efficient queuing for parent drop-off and pick up. It should be noted that not all students arrive for the same start or finish period. About 38% of the students come early for pre-care, and 47% stay late for aftercare. Figure 5 shows the resulting traffic distribution percentages based on the student addresses. The percentages shown in Figure 5 represent the combined distribution of the three traffic groups (school buses, student drop-off/pick-ups and faculty/staff) . The assignment of the various traffic groups will be enforced by signage and school personnel. Using the traffic generation table and the traffic distribution percentages, we assigned the additional traffic volumes generated by the proposed development for the three peak hours onto the street network. Figure 6 shows the additional traffic volumes added by the proposed school. Figure 7 shows the future build traffic volumes and Table 6 shows the future capacity analysis results with the proposed school. Aga • g eado r t2r.:vx j erwood Me r T ° le, C tr I Somers i_ :�.,rnnk 1� d Depot Scan G iv er fate Par dLire$ 3.. .3 ......._.. ok Braeey ntra ibn 14ilrpor 5 d87, 4 skVTOk Al €'ak ¢r Br d Brook Te' Ile �r c€ ..s i ury Cente s i�F 'sOj 7 t81a` •E 6 enwgo9 State Pak 74i* 3J s§: far : f 17a; � po.n i / lue €is or Me ow` we Park t orr _..._ loft'l Notg` SaEa rk � � ___ d La qq A i an e r ansfield Hollow at•P rk. 44 .a.v: $ Co entry,Lai West He ar *Hartford ra€a h Couen Mansfield me *: ,83 Gay City S Ye� C J t17 hers d GI6Ao ry ac [ :€ 1 Poorer°y` s8e Psrk y eW 3.i_•,, ..�..;i ,� .,i.r, .,. ..�., th Windha i Ne Brit .., 3 , g Din aor to P 7 a7 5 '_""'n, Terra us K € _ ,71 J : W i Lake Pocotop g ortla d `; Satetaon Rl r Airfiel €men i state.Pa a < E t Hampton * 1 s€ . 6 J n rtavarr, tate orest *ems Mi Da" 3 e Park y tmd� tra Par n ietown «&' en, ` �,...�I-? SrU)k aport t'E;,tate vf�adg assta Park �' a � rk g Project Site 11 5 Address r Dtl ey aymour St Park nu M Student Addr CREC.International Magnet School Traffic Impact Study Figure 4- Students Addresses o 1.25 2.5 e Miles SouthSource:CREC • Regional Traffic Distribution t S` �- � . :. 40, 1,4 7`30...: I t% Y y�uee Local Traffic Distribution 1 L1% IL 4-- 12% r 11% 4— ; to < � _� ._.�.........._ r_9%..........__..._.__ I__._ Chapel Rd. ---- — — -- 11% 5% 3% y 11° 3% 14% i m 3 m Proiect Site -'-= 1% J 1 o_ A 28% 1 t 0 m 56% w 0 L 47% 10% 4 J 1 �»' r Burnham Rd. _r.o 41 t r s Figure 5-Traffic Distribution Percentages September 2011 AM Peak Hour L2 L 2 i 19 18 2 6 4— 6 _ _..._..._� ..14_...._._--___-..._ r 10 __....._.._J._..... 1 —r 28...Chapel Rd. � i t r 22 -0, 41 r 2 � n t r 2 y_ 40 22 78 8 5 y= 20 5 23 m 24 1 Proiect Site 56 2 In 200 J 1 o_ Oul 767 45 J t 90 112 2 L 76 16 Burnham Rd. 94 *1 t r y 20 Im' ix A PM School Peak Hour L 2 L 1 4m 20 f— 18 1 4 i4-- 4 ;._r.- 15 _............. r 7 1 i ii— 20 Chapel Rd. t r 16 ~ ''. 1 IF 2 � ''1 t r 1 y 29 16 18 8 5 y j 19 5 23 18 Project Site 40 2 Out 165 46 J 1 t 92 n 80 1 j L 78 17 ~ J 1 �» r B—ham Rd. 67 14 � o ;m ix aA PM Peak Hour L 1 L O b b 0 1 € 4— 1 ............... r-.._5...._._....—_.............. r 2 -._.._�..._—1..-... ....___r.5 Chapel Rd. -� ti tr 4 -► nr I � ti tr 0 7 4 6 3 2 �► 6 2 7 5 m Protect Site 10 1 Out 51 14 1 t 29 19 0 L 24 5 ~' •� 1 �» r Burnham Rd. 1 t r► 16 �' �► 3 � o m' ix A 1 Figure 6-Project Traffic Volumes-AM,PM School&PM Peak Hours CREC Inte.national Magnet School Traffic Impact Analysis Arw -_. South Windsoi,CT September 2011 AM Peak Hour L 18 L 20 245 345 25 4-- 106 18 10 85 8 136 J 75.._....- —.......... l— 10 _.J_ 1 r 42 Chapel Rd. 27 i 01 t r' 22 ~ (� 4 J= t 1 48 �►i 8 103 56 22 18 8 69 y 46 53 31 21 I 43 i 56 Proiect Site J i a 45 J t 90 112 2 L 10 98 88 17 4— 69 J 1 t» r 42 Burnham Rd. 102 .1 4'j t r► 28 41 83 13 o 33 a'o x A a. PM School Peak Hour L 11 L 10 47 305 14 i 4— 73 4— 18 8 62 18 4— 48 l r 24 r 7 J 1 r 25 Chapel Rd. 38 t r 16 1 f 14 1 t r 45 --0 10 111 113 16 18 8 116 39 97 39 8 36 ` I j m 40 2 Protect Site J 1 1 —46 1 t 92 80 1 L3 87 88 1 41 30 Burnham Rd. 82 41 53 38 118 30 g m 'x A PM Peak Hour L 19 L8 99 483 19 64 4— 6 4 57 16 4— 59 l r 22 2 - J 1 r 12 Chapel Rd. 116 n t r 4 6 1 t r 73 17 128 102 4 6 3 163 �► 38 98 30 16 ? 26 1 { Protect Site 10 1 J 1 14 1 t 29 19 0 L 2 30 77 7 46 J 1 r 43 --._..._.._._.__._.._. .__._�_......__......._ __._�_........................ Burnham Rd. 33 01 t 1 y 91 y 45 134 52 5 x Ta Figure 7-Future Build Conditions-AM,PM School&PM Peak Hours CRIEC Internotional Magnei School Traffic Impact Analysis South Windsot,CT W.tember 2011 CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 8 Table 6- Future Condition Capacity Analysis with Proposed School No-Build Traffic Conditions Build Traffic Conditions Intersection Control Type Lane Group/ AM Peak PM School PM Peak AM Peak PM School PM Peak Movement Hour Peak Hour Hour Hour Peak Hour Hour LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Eastbound C 22.4 C 24.2 C 26.5 C 20.5 C 23.2 C 26.3 Ellington Westbound C 31.0 C 30.5 C 30.3 C 28.6 C 30.2 C 30.4 Road & Signalized Northbound A 4.4 A 4.0 A 4.8 A 5.5 A 4.6 A 4.9 Chapel Road Southbound A 8.9 A 7.6 A 9.1 B 10.3 A 8.2 A 9.3 Overall B 13.3 B 111. 61 B 13. 6 B 13.81 B 112. 7 B 113. 7 Eastbound A 8.6 A 9.3 B 10.0 A 9.5 B 10.1 B 10.3 Chapel Road Road Westbound A 9.3 A 8.5 A 8.8 B 11.0 A 9.4 A 9.0 & Long Hill UnsignalizedNorthbound A 8.9 A 8.9 A 9.7 B 10.1 B 10.0 B 10.2 Southbound A 8.9 A 9.0 A 8.9 A 9.8 A 9.6 A 9.1 Long Hill Eastbound A 8.7 A 9.0 A 9.9 C 16.1 B 13.0 B 10.6 Road & Westbound A 9.5 A 9.0 A 9.7 B 11.9 B 10.5 B 10.1 Burnham UnsignalizedNorthbound A 9.4 B 10.0 B 10.7 B 12.4 B 12.7 B 11.2 Street Southbound A 1 9.4 1 A 1 8.7 1 A 1 9.5 1 C 115.01 B 112.51 B 110.2 As can be seen, the intersections of Chapel Road with Ellington and Long Hill Roads operate at the same levels of service as in the no-build conditions during the three peak hours. The average delay increases on all approaches would be less than two seconds per vehicle. At the intersection of Long Hill Road and Burnham Street during the AM peak hour, due to the significant increase of the left- turn movement from eastbound Burnham Street to northbound Long Hill Road (drop-off traffic) , there would be an increase of 7 seconds in average delay. The returning traffic ' will increase average delays on the southbound approach by about 5 seconds. These will change the levels of service from A to C at both approaches. It should be noted that the levels of service C predicted are "good" levels C since they are close to the B/C threshold of 15 seconds. We also see similar conditions during the PM school peak hour due to the pick-up traffic. The levels of service will change from A in no-build conditions to B in the build conditions. Regardless of the delay increase, the intersection of Burnham Street and Long Hill Road will continue to work at acceptable levels of service during all three peak hours. CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 9 2.3. Sight Distance Analysis The posted speeds along both Chapel Road and Long Hill Road are 35 mile per hour. According to ConnDOT Highway Design Manual, the required intersection sight distance for a passenger car exiting a driveway along a roadway with a design speed of 35mph is 3901 . With the proposed tree trimming along the site frontages on Chapel Road and Long Hill Road, the sight distances measured 15' from edges of roadways at both site driveways can exceed 600' , therefore satisfying the ConnDOT requirement. 2.4. Analysis of Daily Traffic Volumes Using the ADT (Annual Daily Traffic) data provided by ConnDOT, we extrapolated the ADT data along Chapel and Long Hill Roads adjacent to the proposed school driveways. Also by expanding the traffic generation table (Table 5) the proposed school daily traffic (ADT) would be 820 vehicles per day. By applying the trip distribution percentage (Figure 5) we calculated the proposed project ADT along Chapel and Long Hill Roads. Figure 8 shows the existing, project and future average daily traffic along Long Hill and Chapel Roads adjacent to the proposed school driveways. 2.5. Pedestrian Access to School and Signage Based on current demographics of school children, it does not appear that any kids would walk to this school. The pedestrian access is also difficult due to the fact that the surrounding neighborhood has only partial sidewalks. This situation should be monitored by the school to see if future children enrolled in the program may be in a situation to walk to and from school. If there will be school children walking, we recommend that the following improvements be considered: Stripe a pedestrian crossing across Long Hill Road north of Chapel Road, and also across Muriello Drive north of Chapel Road. A pedestrian crossing of Chapel Road near Muriello Drive and the Existing Conditions 2673 Chapel Rd. ° I m I = A D_ Protect Site 12251 I Additional Traffic by the proposed School i 1 180 131 Chapel Rd. — --. ............---. ........... .. — --- o I = 1238 Proiect site 1467 Future Conditions Conditions j i 2853 2804 [ Chapel Rd. j o I2489 Protect Site i �2718 Figure 8 School South • Se tem E BI CREC International Magnet School Traffic Impacts Analysis 10 school entrance may also be considered, however, it is not certain that the crossing will be warranted from the point of view of the number of pedestrians. Advance school warning signs (S1-1) should be installed on Long Hill Road and Chapel Road about 300 feet on either side of the school driveways. 3. CONCLUSION The impact analysis shows that all intersections and approaches are operating at good levels of service and will continue to do so in the future with the proposed school. We conclude that the traffic impacts of the proposed CREC International Magnet School on the surrounding street network would be insignificant and that no mitigation measures are needed. APPENDIX: CAPACITY ANALYSIS REPORTS HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. ■- % t 11W 2 Lane Configurations Vi T + Volume(vph) 26 45 21 50 85 16 8 96 16 23 319 240 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 100 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 100 0.65 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1770 1770 1830 1770 1800 1854 1583 At Permitted 0.41 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 765 1770 1308 1830 683 1800 1799 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.80 0.75 0.83 0.71 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.57 0.48 0.71 0.83 Adj.Flow(vph) 40 56 28 60 120 16 12 96= 28 48 449 289 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 22 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 118 Lane Group Flow(vph) 40 62 0 60 128 0 12 115 0 0 497 171 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5' 2' 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 15.3 15.3 8.9 8.9 46.7 46.7' 41.5 41.5 Effective Green,g(s) 15.3 15.3 8.9 8.9 46.7 46.7 41.5 41.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.13 0.67 0.67- 0.59 059 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0' 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 202 387 166 233 474 1201 1067 938 v/s Ratio Prot 001 c0.04 c0.07 0.00 c0.06' v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.05 0.02 c0.28 0.11 v/c Ratio' 0.20 0.16 0.36 0.55 0.03 0.10 0.47 018 Uniform Delay,d1 22.1 22.1 28.0 28.7 4.8 4.1 8.0 6.5 Progression Factor 100 100 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00>' 1.00 100 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.2 1.3 2.6 0.0 0.2 1.5 0.4 Delay(s)' 22.5 22.3 29.3 31.3 4.8 4.3 9.5 6.9 Level of Service C C C C A , A A A Approach-Delay(s) 22.4 30.7 4.3 8.5 Approach LOS - C C A A HCM Average Control Delay 13.0 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.47 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.8% ICU Level of Service' A' Analysis Period(min) _ 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. Lane Configurations , , , Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 2 63 19 14 118 20 25 47 8 8 77 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.25 0,78 0.80 0.50 0.90 0.71 0.66 0.67 0.88 0.44 0.75 058 Hourly flow rate(vph) 8 81 24 28 131 28 38 70 9 18 103 14 Volume Total(vph) 113 187 117 135 ........._........ .. Volume Left(vph) 8 28 38 18 Volume Right(vph) 24 28 9 14 Hadj(s) 0 08 -0.03 0.05 0.00 Departure Headway(s) 4.7 4.6 4.9 4.8 Degree Utilization,x 0.15 0.24 0.16 0.18 Capacity(veh/h) 711 727 690 698 Control Delay(s) 8.5 9.1 8.8 8.8 Approach Delay(s) 8.5 9.1 8.8 8.8 Approach LOS A A A A Delay :8.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.8% ICU''Level of Service' A' Analysis Period(min) _ 15 Existing Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop . Volume(vph) 8 27 32 41 68 10 40 62 13 17 71 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.44 0.69 0.50 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.71 0.92 0.46 0.64 0.58 Hourly flow rate(vph) 18 39 64 48 101 15 63 87 14 37 111 38 Volume Total(vph) 121 165 165 186 Volume Left(vph) 18 48 63 37 Volume Right(vph) _ 64 15 14 38 Hadj(s) -0.25 0.04 0.06 -0.05 Departure Headway(s) 4.8 5.0 4.9 4.8 Degree Utilization,x 0.16 0.23 0.23 0.25 Capacity(veh/h) 687 668 683 699 Control Delay(s) 8.7 9.4 9.4 9.4 Approach Delay(s) 8.7 9.4 9.4 9.4 Approach LOS A A A A Delay 9.3 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) _ 15 Existing Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. Lane Configurations , Volume(vph) 37 43 8 9 52 9 10 99(' 77 13 297 46 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 100 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93`' 1.00 085 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1819 1770 1812 1770 1726 1857 1683 Fit Permitted 0.45 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 838 1819 1318 1812 790 1726 1819 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.56 0.72 0.56 0.63 0.99 0.80 0.46 0.75 0.72 Adj.Flow(vph) 64 64 12 16 72 16 16 100" 96 28 396 64 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 10 0 0 13 0 0 30 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow(vph) 64 66 0 16 75 0 16 166 0 0 424 39 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected'Phases 7 4 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 g 2 6 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 13.6 13.6 7.2 7.2 48.4 48.4 43.1 43.1' Effective Green,g(s) 13.6 13.6 7.2 7.2 48.4 48.4 43.1 43.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.19 019 0.10 0.10 0.69 1 0.69 0.62 0.62 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension;(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 30 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 195 353 136 186 564 1193 1120 975 v/s Ratio Prot c0.01 004 0.04 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.01 0.02 c0.23 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.33 019 0.12 0.40 0.03 0.14 0.38 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 23.7 23.6 28.5 29.4 3.9 3.7 6.7 5.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.1 Delay(s) 24.7 23.8 28.9 30.8 3.9 3.9 7.7 5.4 Level of Service C C C C A A A A Approach Delay(s) 24.2 30.5 3.9 7.4 Approach LOS C C q A HCM Average Control Delay 11.7 HCM Level of Service B r. HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 036 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 416% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. NEW Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 12 104 18 5 43 10 20 84 16 18 57 7 Peak Hour Factor 050 0.81 0.75 0.63 0.65 0.63 0.71 0.89' 0.67 0.56 058 044 Hourly flow rate(vph) 24 128 24 8 66 16 28 94 24 32 98 16 mom Volume Total(vph) 176 90 146 146 Volume Left(vph) 24 8 28 32 Volume Right(vph) 24 16 24 16 Hadj(s) -0 02 -0.05 -0.03 0.01 Departure Headway(s) 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8 Degree Utilization;,x 023 0.12 0.19 0.19 Capacity(veh/h) 711 691 715 705 Control Delay(s) 9.1 8.5 8.8 8.9 Approach Delay(s) 9.1 8.5 8.8 8.9 Approach'L©S A A A A a N Delay 8.9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 24.3% tCUi Level of Service' A' Analysis Period(min) _ 15 Existing Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. Lane Configurations , „ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 15 52 8 29 40 3 37 102 29 1 70 9 Peak Hour Factor 0 5fl 0.71 0.44 0.68 0.71 0.38 0.53'' 0.69 0.84 0.25 0.74 0.44 Hourly flow rate(vph) 30 73 18 43 56 8 70 148 35 4 95 20 Volume Total(vph) 121 107 252 119 Volume Left(vph) 30 43 " 70 4 Volume Right(vph) 18 8 35 20 Hadj(s) -001 0.07 0.01 `-0.06 Departure Headway(s) 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.7 Degree Utilization,x 0.17 0.15 0.33 0.16 Capacity(veh/h) 667 652 738 706 Control Delay(s) 8.9 8.9 9.9 8.6 Approach Delay(s) 8.9 8.9 9.9 8.6 Approach LOS A A A A f Delay 9.3 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity utilization 297% ICU'Level of Service' A' Analysis Period(min) 15 Existing Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. Lane Configurations Volume(uph) 114 72 16 17 57 18 17 106 83 19 469 97 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 100 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 1.00 085 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1800 1770 1807 1770 1737'' 1858 1583 Fit Permitted 0.45 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.35 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 841 1800 1261 1807 653 1737 1823 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.74 0.57 0.71 0.71 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.77 0.68 0.94 0.93 Adj.Flow(vph) 133 97 28 24 80 20 20' 132 108 28 499 104 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 18 0 0 15 0 0 30 0 0 0 42 Lane Group Flow(vph) 133 107 0 24, 85 0 20 210`, 0 0 527 62 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2' 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 14.7 14.7 7.5 7.5 47.3 47.3 42.0 42.0 Effective Green,g(s) 14.7 14.7 7.5 7.5 47.3 47.3 42.0 42.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.68 0.68 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension'(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 219 378 135 194 462 1174 1094 950 vls Ratio Prot c0 03 0.06 0.05 0.00 cfl.12' v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.02 0.03 c0.29 0.04 vfc Ratio 0.61 0.28 0.18 0.44 0.04 0.18 0.48 0.07 Uniform Delay,dl 24.8 23.2 28.4 29.3 4.7 4.2 7.9 5.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.7 0.4 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.3 1.5 0.1 Delay(s) 29.5 23.6 29.1 30.8 4.7 4.5 9.4 6.0 Level of Service C C C C A A A A Approach Delay(s) 26.7 30.5 4.5 88 Approach LOS C C A A HCM Average Control Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.50 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59,4% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) _ 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. Lane Configurations 4, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 5 148 21 7 57 8 31 94 23 16 55 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.80 0.85 0.58 0.76 0.67 0.52'' 0.88 i 0.72 0.67 0.82 0.50 Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 185 25 12 75 12 60 107 32 24 67 8 Volume Total(vph) 220 99 198 99 Volume Left(vph) 10 12 60 24 Volume Right(vph) 25 12 32 8 Hadj(s) -0 02 -0.01 0.00 0.03 Departure Headway(s) 4.8 4.9 4.8 5.0 Degree Utilization,x M9 0.14 0.27 0.14 Capacity(veh/h) 707 669 699 659 Control Delay(s) 9.7 8.7 9.6 8.8 Approach Delay(s) 9.7 8.7 9.6 8.8 Approach L©S A A A A OEM ,} MWO _•. -, ;. . Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Existing Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. Lane Configurations , , Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 17 89 5 42 45 2 44 128 51 7 71 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.66 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.50 0.73 0.92 0.79 0.63 0.58 0.50 Hourly flow rate(vph) 23 135 10 70 60 4 60 139 65 11 122 12 Volume Total(vph) 168 134 264 146 Volume Left(vph) 23 70 60 11 Volume Right(vph) 10 4 65 12 Hadj(s) 003 0.12 -0.07 0.00 Departure Headway(s) 5.2 5.3 4.9 5.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.24 0.20 0.36 0.21 Capacity(veh/h) 636 615 700 651 Control Delay(s) 9.8 9.6 10.5 9.4 Approach Delay(s) 9.8 9.6 10.5 9.4 Approach L©S A A 8 A 4191WM F Y:- Delay 9.9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU'Level of Service' A Analysis Period(min) 15 Existing Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. Lane Configurations , * if Volume(vph) 27 46 21 61 87 16 8 103 16 23 345 245 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 100 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 085 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1772 1770 1831 1770 1803' 1854 1583 Fit Permitted 0.41 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm)! 756 1772 1306 1831 638 1803' 1802 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.65 0.80 0.75 0.83 0.71 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.57 0.48 0.71 0.83 Adj.Flow(vph) 42 58 28 73 123 16 12 103 28 48 486 295 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 22 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 120 Lane Group Flow(vph) 42 64 0 73 131 0 12 122' 0 0 534 175 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected;Phases 7 4 8 5 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 15,4 15.4 9,0 9.0 46.6 46.6 41.5 41.5 Effective Green,g(s) 15.4 15.4 9.0 9.0 46.6 46.6 41.5 41.5 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.13 0.67 0.67' 0.59 0.59 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 30 10 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 201 390 168 235 443 1200 1068 938 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c004 c0.07 0.00 " c0.07 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.06 0.02 c0.30 0.11 v/c Ratio 0,21 016 0.43 0.56 0.03 0.10 0.50 0.19 Uniform Delay,d1 22.0 22.1 28.2 28.6 5.0 4.2 8.2 6.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 Incremental Delay,d2 0.5 0.2 1.8 2.9 0.0 0.2 1.7 0.4 Delay(s)' 22.5 22.3 29.9 31.5 5.0 " 4.4 99 7.0 Level of Service C C C C A A A A Approach Delay(s) 22.4 31.0 4.4 89 Approach LOS C q A HCM Average Control Delay 13.3 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.49 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42 8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No-Build Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. tom — I,- .4\ Lane Configurations +4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 2 64 19 14 130 20 26 48 8 8 79 8 Peak Hour Factor 025 0.78 0.80 0.50 0.90 0.71 0.66 0.67 0.88 0.44 075 058 Hourly flow rate(vph) 8 82 24 28 144 28 39 72 9 18 105 14 x Volume Total(vph) 114 201 120 137 Volume Left(vph) 8 28 39 18 Volume Right(vph) 24 28 9 14 Hadj(9) 0 08 -0.02 0.05 0.00 Departure Headway(s) 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.8 Degree Utilization,x 0.15 0.26 0.16 0.18 Capacity(veh/h) 703 723 682 690 Control Delay(s) 8.6 9.3 8.9 8.9 Approach Delay(s) 8.6 9.3 8.9 8.9 Approach LOS A A A A Delay 9.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 32 9% ICU Level of Service' A' Analysis Period(min) _ _ 15 No-Build Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. --► -V t 10, Lane Configurations 41, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop, Stop Volume(vph) 8 28 33 42 69 10 41 63 13 17 72 22 Peak Hour Factor 0.44 0.69 0.50 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.71 0.92 0.46 0.64 0!58 Hourly flow rate(vph) 18 41 66 49 103 15 65 89 14 37 112 38 w Volume Total(vph) 125 167 168 187 Volume Left(vph) 18 49 65 37 Volume Right(vph) 66 15 14 38 Hadj(s) -025 0.04 0.06 -0.05 Departure Headway(s) 4.8 5.0 5.0 4.8 Degree Utilization;x 0.17 0.23 0.23 0.25 Capacity(veh/h) 684 665 679 695 Control Delay(s) 8.7 9.5 9.4 9.4 Approach Delay(s) 8.7 9.5 9.4 9.4 Approach LOS A A A A y. Delay 9.3 HCM Level of Service q Intersection Capacity Utilization 32 4% ICU Level of Service'- A' Analysis Period(min) 15 No-Build Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11: Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. Lane Configurations Vi T I 1� Volume(vph) 38 44 8 9 53 9 10 111 84 1`3 305 47 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0'! 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00, 0.93 1.00 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1820 1770 1813 1770 1728' 1857 1583 Fit Permitted 0.45 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.42 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 841 1820 1316 1813 776 1728' 1818 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.56 0.72 0.56 0.63 0.99 0.80 0.46 0.75 0.72 Adj.Flow(vph) 66 66 12 16 74 16 16 112' 1 fl5 28 407 65 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 10 0 0 13 0 0 33 0 0 0 25 Lane Group Flow(vph) 66 68 0 16 77 0 16 184 0 0 435 40 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5"' 2'' 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 13.7 13.7 7.3 Z3 48.3 48.3' 43.0 43.0 Effective Green,g(s) 13.7 13.7 7.3 7.3 48.3 48.3 43.0 43.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.69 0.69 0.61 061' Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3!0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 196 356 137 189 554 1192 1117 972 v/s Ratio Prot c0 01 0.04 0.04 0.00 c0.11 v/s Ratio Perm c0.05 0.01 0.02 c0.24 0.03 We Ratio 0.34 019 0.12 0.41 0.03 0.15 0.39 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 23.6 23.5 28.4 29.3 3.9 3.8 6.8 5.3 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00'' 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 1.0 0.3 0.4 1.4 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.1 Delay(s)' 24.7 23.8 28.8 30.8 4.0 4.0' 79 5.4 Level of Service C C C C A A A A Approach'Delay(s) 24.2 30.5 4.0 76 Approach LOS C _ A A n NINE MOM o P & HCM Average Control Delay 11.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.37 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.0% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period(min) 15 c' Critical Lane Group No-Build Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. -0. #e *-- t Lane Configurations ,4 4 *T* 4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop; Stop Volume(vph) 12 111 18 5 44 10 20 86 16 18 58 7 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.81 0.75 0.63 0.65 0.63 0.71 0.89 0.67 0.56 0.58 0.44 Hourly flow rate(vph) 24 137 24 8 68 16 28 97 24 32 100 16 Volume Total(vph) 185 92 149 148 Volume Left(vph) 24 8 28 32 Volume Right(vph) 24 16 24 16 Hadj(s) -0 02 -0.05 70.02 0.01 Departure Headway(s) 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 Degree Utilization;x 0.24 0.12 0.20 0.20 Capacity(veh/h) 709 686 709 699 Control Delay(s) 9.3 8.5 8.9 9.0 Approach Delay(s) 9.3 8.5 8.9 9.0 Approach LOS A A A A _ �- Delay 9.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 24 8% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period(min) 15 No-Build Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. Lane Configurations , 41, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 15 53 8 30 41 3 38 104 30 1 71 9 Peak Hour Factor 050 0.71 0.44 0.68 0.71 0,38 0.53 0.69' 0.84 0.25 0.74 0.44 Hourly flow rate(vph) 30 75 18 44 58 8 72 151 36 4 96 20 y Volume Total(vph) 123 110 258 120 Volume Left(vph) 30 44 72 4 Volume Right(vph) 18 _ 8 36 20 Hadj(s) -0 01 0.07 0.01 -0.06 Departure Headway(s) 5.0 5.1 4.7 4.8 Degree Utilization;x 0.17 0,15 0.33 0.16 Capacity(veh/h) 661 648 735 701 Control Delay(s) 9.0 9.0 10.0 8.7 Approach Delay(s) 9.0 9.0 10.0 8.7 Approach`°LOS A A A A „ <,n Delay 9.4 HCM Level of Service q Intersection Capacity Utilization 303% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 No-Build Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. Lane Configurations T# T+ Volume(vph) 116 73 16 17 58 18 17 12811 95 19 483 99 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93 100 0.85 At Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) , 1770 1801 1770 1808 1770 1741' 1858 1583 Flt Permitted 0.45 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 847 1801 1258 1808 632 1741 1821 1583 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.86 0.74 0.57 0.71 0.71 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.77 0.68 0.94 0.93 Adj.Flow(vph) 135 99 28 24 82 20 20 160 123 28 514 106 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 17 0 0 14 0 0 28 0 0 0 43 Lane Group Flow(vph) 135 110 0 24 88 0 20 255'' 0 0 542 63 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases'' 7 4 8 5 2' 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 14.9 14.9 7.7 7.7 47.1 47.1 41.8 41.8 Effective Green,g(s) 14.9 14.9 7.7 7.7 47.1 47.1 41.8 41.8 Actuated,g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.67 0.67 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension';(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 222 383 138 199 446 1171 1087 945 u/s Ratio Prot c0:03 006 0.05 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.02 0.03 c0.30 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.61 0.29 0.17 0.44 0.04 0.22'" 0.50 007 Uniform Delay,dl 24.7 23.1 28.3 29.1 4.9 4.4 8.1 5.9 Progression Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 100 Incremental Delay,d2 4.7 0.4 0.6 1.6 0.0 0.4 1.6 0.1 Delay(s) 294 23.5 28.9 30.7 4.9 4.8 97 6.1' Level of Service C C C C A A A A Approach Delay(s) 26.5 30.3 '' 4.8 9.1 Approach LOS C C A A NEWy HCM Average Control Delay 13.6 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60 6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group No-Build Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 5 161 21 7 58 8 32 96 23 16 56 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.80 0.85 0.58 0.76 0.67 0.52' 0.88 0.72 0.67 0.82 0.50 Hourly flow rate(vph) 10 201 25 12 76 12 62 109 32 24 68 8 Volume Total(vph) 236 100 203 100 Volume Left(vph) 10 12 62 24 Volume Right(vph) 25 12 32 g Hadj(s) -0 02 -0.01 0.00 0.03 Departure Headway(s) 4.8 5.0 4.9 5.1 Degree[Utilization;x 0.31 0.14 0.28 0.14 Capacity(veh/h) 703 661 690 649 Control Delay(s) 10.0 8.8 9.7 8.9 Approach Delay(s) 10.0 8.8 9.7 8.9 Approach LOS A A A A Delay 9.5 HCM Level of Service q Intersection Capacity Utilization 28 5% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 No-Build Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. ME Lane Configurations *4 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 17 91 5 43 46 2 45 131 52 7 72 6 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.66 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.50 0.73 0.92 0.79 0.63 0.58 0.50 Hourly flow rate(vph) 23 138 10 72 61 4 62 142 66 11 124 12 Volume Motalvph) 171 137 270 147 Volume Left(vph) 23 72 62 11 Volume Right(vph) 10 4 66 12 Hadj(s) 0.03 0.12 -0.07 0.00 Departure Headway(s) 5.2 5.3 4.9 5.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.21 Capacity(veh/h) 631 611 696 646 Control Delay(s) 9.9 9.7 10.7 9.5 Approach Delay(s) 9.9 9.7 10.7 9.5 Approach A A B A NMI Delay 10.1 HCM Level of Service g Intersection Capacity Utilization 375% ICU Level of Service> A Analysis Period(min) 15 No-Build Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. 1� NO Lane Configurations ,, T+ Volume(vph) 27 48 21 75 106 18 8 103 56 25 345 245 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 100 0.95 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.93 100 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1774 1770 1833 1770 1727; 1854 1583 Fit Permitted 0.40 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.32 1.00 0.96 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 737 1774 1304 1833 604 1727'' 1782 1583 Peak-hour factor,PHF 0.65 0.80 0.75 0.83 0.71 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.57 0.48 0.71 0.83 Adj.Flow(vph) 42 60 28 90 149 18 12" 103' 98 52 486 295 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 21 0 0 7 0 0 36 0 0 0 129 Lane Group Flow(vph) 42 67 0 90 160 0 12 165 0 0 538 166 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2; 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 17.7 17.7 11.3 11.3 44.3 44.3' 39.4 39.4 Effective Green,g(s) 17.7 17.7 11.3 11.3 44.3 44.3 39.4 39.4 Actuated,g/C Ratio 0.25 025 0.16 0.16 0.63 0.63 0.56 056 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension)(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3:0 3.0 3,0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 222 449 211 296 397 1093 1003 891 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0 04 c0.09 ] 0.00 c0.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 0.02 c0.30 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.19 015 0.43 0.54 0.03 0.15 0.54 0.19 Uniform Delay,d1 20.3 20.3 26.4 27.0 6.0 5.2 9.6 7.5 Progression Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 100 Incremental Delay,d2 0.4 0.2 1.4 2.0 0.0 0.3 2.1 0.5 Delay(s)' 207 20.5 27.8 29.0 6.0 5.5' 116 7.9 Level of Service C C C C A , A B A Approach Delay(s) 20.5 28.6 5.5 103 Approach LOS C C q B HCM Average Control Delay 13.8 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.7% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Croup Build Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. Lane Configurations 4+ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 4 69 43 42 136 20 46 53 31 8 85 10 Peak Hour Factor 0.25 0.78 0.80 0.50 0.90 0.71 0.66 0.67 0.88 0.44 0.75 0.58 Hourly flow rate(vph) 16 88 54 84 151 28 70 79 35 18 113 17 ri Volume Total(vph) 158 263 184 149 Volume Left(vph) 16 84 70 18 Volume Right(vph) 54 28 35 17 Hadj(s) -0.15 0.03 -0.01 401 Departure Headway(s) 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.3 Degree Utilization,x 0.22 Q 37 0.27 "0 22 Capacity(veh/h) 651 665 622 618 Control Delay(s) 9.5 11.0 10.1 9.8 Approach Delay(s) 9.5 11.0 10.1 9.8 Approach L©S A B B A Delay 10.2 HCM Level of Service g Intersection Capacity Utilization 379% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period(min) 15 Build Conditions-AM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. Lane Configurations „ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop,; Stop Volume(vph) 102 28 33 42 69 10 41 83 13 17 88 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.44 0.69 0.50 0.85 0.67 0.67 0.63 0.71 0.92 0.46 0.64 0.58 Hourly flow rate(vph) 232 41 66 49 103 15 65 117 14 37 138 169 s Volume Total(vph) 338 167 196 343 Volume Left(vph) 232 49 65 37 Volume Right(vph) 66 15 14 169 Hadj(s) 0.05 0.04 0.06 -0.24 Departure Headway(s) 5.9 6.3 6.2 5.6 Degree Utilization,,x 056 0.29 0.34 0.54 Capacity(veh/h) 558 496 515 594 Control Delay(s) 16.1 11.9 12.4 15.0 Approach Delay(s) 16.1 11.9 12.4 15.0 Approach LOS C B B C Ni MM RPM Delay 14.4 HCM Level of Service B Intersection Capacity Utilization 40.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Build Conditions-AM Peak Hour. September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. J Lane Configurations „ , , Volume(vph) 38 45 8 24 73 11 10 111'' 113 14 305 47 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 100 0.98 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.92 100 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prot) 1770 1820 1770 1817 1770 1707' 1856 1583 Fit Permitted 0.44 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.97 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 812 1820 1314 1817 762 1707' 1809 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.58 0.67 0.67 0.56 0.72 0.56 0.63 0.99 0.80 0.46 0.75 0.72 Adj.Flow(vph) 66 67 12 43 101 20 16 112 141i 30 407 65 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 9 0 0 11 0 0 46 0 0 0 26 Lane Group Flow(vph) 66 70 0 43 110 0 16 207 0 0 437 39 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2' 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green,G(s) 14.8 14.8 8.4 8.4 47.2 47.2- 41.9 41.9 Effective Green,g(s) 14.8 14.8 8.4 8.4 47.2 47.2 41.9 41.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.21 0.21 0.12 0.12 0.67 0.67`' 0.60 0.60 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension'(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 10 3 0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 205 385 158 218 533 1151 1083 948 v/s Ratio Prot c0:01 0`.04 c0.06 0.00 c0.12 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.03 0.02 c0.24 0.02 v/c Ratio 0.32 0.18 0.27 0.50 0.03 0.18 0.40 0.04 Uniform Delay,d1 22.8 22.6 28.0 28.8 4.3 4.2 7.4 5.8 Progression Factor 1.00 100 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1:00 Incremental Delay,d2 0.9 0.2 0.9 1.8 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.1 Delay(s) 23.7 22.9 29.0 30.7 4.4 4.6 86 5.9 Level of Service C C C C A A A A Approach Delay(s) 23.2 30.2 4.6 82 Approach LOS C C A A HCM Average Control Delay 12.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.42 Actuated Cycle Length(s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 16.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 429% ICU Level of Service' A Analysis Period(min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Build Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. r 4-- t Lane Configurations ,o, Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 14 116 36 25 48 10 39 91 39 18 62 8 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.81 0.75 0.63 0.65 0.63 0.71 0.89 0.67 0.56 0.58 0.44 Hourly flow rate(vph) 28 143 48 40 74 16 55 102 58 32 107 18 Volume Total(vph) 219 129 215 157 Volume Left(vph) 28 40 55 32 Volume Right(vph) 48 16 58 18 Hadj(s) -007 0.02 -0.08 0.01 Departure Headway(s) 5.0 5.2 5.0 5.1 Degree Utilization,x 030 0.19 0.30 0.22 Capacity(veh/h) 666 627 665 643 Control Delay(s) 10.1 9A 10.0 9.6 Approach Delay(s) 10.1 9.4 10.0 9.6 Approach LQS B A B A Delay 9.9 HCM Level of Service q Intersection Capacity Utilization 305% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Build Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St. Lane Configurations , Sign Control Stop Stop Stop; Stop Volume(vph) 82 53 8 30 41 3 38 118 30 1 88 87 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.71 0.44 0.68 0.71 0.38 0.53 0.69 0.84 0.25 0.74 0.44 Hourly flow rate(vph) 164 75 18 44 58 8 72 171 36 4 119 198 x 3r'3WBrRWW pwa. Volume Total(vph) 257 110 278 321 ,Volume Left(vph) 164 44 72 4 Volume Right(vph) 18 8 36 198 Hadj(s) 0.12 0.07 0.01 -0.33 Departure Headway(s) 5.9 6.1 5.6 5.2 Degree Utilization,x 0.42 0.19 0.43 0.46 Capacity(veh/h) 562 494 598 650 Control Delay(s) 13.0 10.5 12.7 12.5 Approach Delay(s) 13.0 10.5 12.7 12.5 Approach LOS B B B B Mon :i Delay 12.5 HCM Level of Service g Intersection Capacity Utilization 41 9% ICU Level of Service A' Analysis Period(min) 15 Build Conditions-PM School Peak H September 2011 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 11:Chapel Rd.&Ellington Rd. W I♦ { Lane Configurations Volume(vph) 116 73 16 22 64 19 17 128 102 19 483 99 Ideal Flow(vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0' 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lane Util.Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.93i 100 0.85 Fit Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 Satd.Flow(prof) 1770 1801 1770 1810 1770 1736 1858 1583 Fit Permitted 0.45 1.00 0.68 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.98 1.00 Satd.Flow(perm) 839 1801 1258 1810 630 1736' 1820 1583 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.74 0.57 0.71 0.71 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.77 0.68 0.94 0.93 Adj.Flow(vph) 135 99 28 31 90 21 20 160' 132 28 514 106 RTOR Reduction(vph) 0 17 0 0 14 0 0 31 0 0 0 43 Lane Group Flow(vph) 135 110 0 31 97 0 20 261" 0 0 542 63 Turn Type Reserved NA Perm NA Reserved NA Perm NA Perm Protected Phases 7 4 8 5 2' 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 6 Actuated Green, G(s) 15.1 15.1 7.9 7.9 46.9 46.9' 41.6 41.6 Effective Green,g(s) 15.1 15.1 7.9 7.9 46.9 46.9 41.6 41.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.67 0.67' 059 059 Clearance Time(s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Vehicle Extension(s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 -3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap(vph) 224 389 142 204 443 1163 1082 941 v/s Ratio Prot c0.03 0.06 0.05 0.00 c0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.10 0.02 0.03 c0.30 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.60 0.28 0.22 0.47 0.05 0.22 0.50 0.07 Uniform Delay,d1 24.6 22.9 28.2 29.1 4.9 4.5 8.2 6.0 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay,d2 4.5 0.4 0.8 1.7 0.0 0.4 1.7 0.1 Delay(s)' 29.1 23.3 29.0 30.8 5.0 4.9 9.9 6.1' Level of Service C C C C A A A A Approach Delay.(s) 26.3 30.4 4.9'' 9.3 Approach LOS C C A A HCM Average Control Delay 13.7 HCM Level of Service B HCM!Volume to Capacity ratio 0.52 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 70.0 Sum of lost time(s) 12.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.6% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period(min) 15 c' Critical Lane Group Build Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 12:Long Hill Rd.&Chapel Rd. ME Lane Configurations „ Sign Control Stop Stop Stop, Stop Volume(vph) 6 163 26 12 59 8 38 98 30 16 57 4 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.80 0.85 0.58 0.76 0.67 0.52 0.88 0.72 0.67 0.82 0.50 Hourly flow rate(vph) 12 204 31 21 78 12 73 111 42 24 70 8 r Volume Total(vph) 246 110 226 101 Volume Left(vph) 12 21 73 24 Volume Right(vph) 31 12 42 8 Hadj(s) j -003 0.01 -0.01 0.03 Departure Headway(s) 4.9 5.1 4.9 5.2 Degree Utilization,x 0.33 0.16 0.31 :0.15 Capacity(veh/h) 690 643 682 631 Control Delay(s) 10.3 9.0 10.2 9.1 Approach Delay(s) 10.3 9.0 10.2 9.1 Approach'LOS B A 8 A Delay '.9.9 HCM Level of Service q Intersection Capacity Utilization 303% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Build Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis CREC International Magnet School 13:Long Hill Rd.&Burnham St Is Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 33 91 5 43 46 2 45 134 52 7 77 30 Peak Hour Factor 0.75 0.66 0.50 0.60 0.75 0.50 0.73 0.92 0.79 0.63 0.58 0.50 Hourly flow rate(vph) 44 138 10 72 61 4 62 146 66 11 133 60 Volume Total(vph) 192 137 273 204 Volume Left(vph) 44 72 62 11 Volume Right(vph) 10 4 66 60 Hadj(s) 005 0.12 -0.07 -0.13 Departure Headway(s) 5.4 5.6 5.1 5.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.29 0.21 0.39 0.29 Capacity(veh/h) 604 578 656 648 Control Delay(s) 10.6 10.1 11.2 10.2 Approach Delay(s) 10.6 10.1 11.2 10.2 Approach LOS B B B B Delay 10.6 HCM Level of Service g Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.8% ICU Level of Service .A Analysis Period(min) 15 Build Conditions-PM Peak Hour September 2011 of 1 MEMORANDUM all 10 To: Michele Lipe,Town Planner Michael Gantick, P.E., Director of Public Works hese From: Jeffrey Doolittle,Town Engineer 60 Date: 9/29/11 utility RE: Application 11-29P CREC Magnet School, Chapel Road and Long Hill Rd ither Engineering has reviewed the plans for the above application and we have the its following comments. c5se 1. The crosswalk and handicap sidewalk ramps across the driveway off Chapel Road sere should both be moved south between the curb line of Chapel Road and the stop bar. The ramps should face across the proposed driveway. A second ramp will be needed for the crosswalk across Chapel Road. s 2. A keep right sign should be added to direct traffic one way around the island in front of the building. I suggest signs be added to direct traffic coming down the driveway ity. from Long Hill Road to only turn right onto the main driveway from Chapel Road at e the island. This will reduce conflicts with busses and other vehicles. 3. Shouldn't the fence along the top of the western retaining wall be 4 feet high? 4. Should there be a concrete or stone dust path to the future play area to the south west of the building? f 5. Include handicap ramps where sidewalks end at driveways such as south of the 15 building heading toward the dumpster pad, and east of the school where the sidewalk ends at the eastern most parking spaces. al 6. Add stop signs where the driveways from the parking lots meet the main driveway between Chapel Road and Long Hill Road (2 locations). 7. Add signs on the driveway from Long Hill Road directing cars into the student drop off area I 8. There appear to be spaces for about 5 cars in the student drop off area. Where will other cars line up while they are waiting to drop off students so they do not block parking lots and traffic flow on the driveways? 9. A narrative of the traffic flow through the site during drop off and pick up times id should be submitted. 10. The slope area that is shown between Chapel Road and the front parking lots )rd• should be regraded so water is directed to the west and not to the road by a 1 in shallow swale. A low berm could be put in this area. Acoustics • Audio/Video• IT Infrastructure • Security JaffeHolden MEMORANDUM To: Fritz Morris, Perkins Eastman Date: 10/11/2011 From: Scott Petrovits Project: CREC-IMS South Windsor cc: Joe Culotta, Perkins Eastman JH# 10-1221 Subject: 1-291 Highway Noise Concerns Fritz: It is our understanding that significant concern has been raised regarding highway noise at the proposed site of the new CREC-IMS facility in South Windsor. Specifically, we understand that the concerns are focused around the potential increase in highway noise to residents near the school site due to the removal of a portion of the trees currently occupying the site. In general, foliage does not provide significant protection from airborne noise. Though it provides good visual masking, and appears to be a solid barrier, the foliage does not actually have the mass that would be needed to significantly absorb or redirect sound energy, so sound energy passes through almost completely unimpeded. To verify that the removal of foliage will not significantly affect highway noise levels for the residences closest to the highway, we performed a calculation based on highway noise data measured at the south property line of the school site. Our calculation is summarized in the attached table, designated Figure 1.Values in the table for the various forms of sound reduction, or "attenuation" (in dB per unit distance) have been calculated as per the Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control,Third Edition, by Cyril M. Harris. We approached the calculation assuming that the primary acoustical difference between the site layout before and after the school's construction was the partial removal of trees. Our assumptions are as follows: • Trees are concentrated at the north section of the school property. The remainder of the school property is occupied by low shrubbery and other ground cover. According to Harris, all low ground cover, whether it is grass or shrubbery, attenuates noise to a similar degree, so the school's planned grassy areas will attenuate as much noise ("Ground Cover" in Figure 1) as the existing low shrubbery at the south end of the school site. • The geometry and topology of the site will not change significantly as part of the school construction. Thus, the attenuation due to distance ("Divergence" in Figure 1) and due to the highway embankment and the change in height between the highway and residences ("Geometry" in Figure 1)will not change due to the removal of trees. • Not all of the existing trees on the school site will be removed, so the values for "Tree Attenuation" in Figure 1 are based on a partial reduction in the pre-construction values, based on the current site demolition plan. JaffeHolden.com Headquarters`.114-A Washington Street, Norwalk,CT 06854 e 203.838.4167 Houston:4617 Montrose Boulevard,Suite C201, Houston,TX 77006•713.589.7018 JaffeHolden Pre-Construction (d6) Frequency(Hz) Overall 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dBA Measured Source Level 67.9 65.4 63.8 65.8 71.5 68.8 60.1 52.2 Divergence 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Ground Cover -8.0 -5.3 -2.2 9.2 14.0 17.4 21.1 25.2 Geometry 1 5.2 5.5 5.9 6.7 8.0 10.0 12.5 15.4 Highway Noise at Residence r�57.4 51.4 45.8 34.6 33.1 23.5 7.1 0.0 Post-Construction (dB) Frequency(Hz) Overall 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 dBA Measured Source Level 67.9 65.4 63.8 65.8 71.5 68.8 60.1 52.2 Divergence 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 Ground Cover -8.0 -5.3 -2.2 9.2 14.0 17.4 21.1 25.2 Geometry 1 5.2 5.5 5.9 6.7 8.0 10.0 12.5 15.4 Highway Noise at Residence 58.6 52.9 47.6 37.0 36.2 27.5 12 0.0 CREC-IMS Highway Noise Figure 1 October 11,2011 a CAPITOL REGION EDUCATION COUNCIL APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION/IMS SCHOOL PARENT DROP-OFF/PICK-UP NARRATIVE AND ANALYSIS This is to describe the parent drop-off and pick-up procedures that will be followed at the IMS School and to show why these procedures will be safe and efficient and why the area provided on-site for parent pick-up and drop-off will be sufficient to handle the number of vehicles that will be on-site at any one time. Regular school hours are 8:30 AM to 3:00 PM (8:45 AM to 2:45 PM for pre-K). CREC also offers a pre-care program starting at 7:30 AM and an after-care program running until 5:30 PM. Parents using the before and after care programs arrive over extended periods of time. They park their vehicles and enter the school to drop-off or pick-up their children. CREC has never experienced any need for special drop-off or pick-up procedures for before- or after-care. The procedures described below are for students who do not use the before- or after-care programs. Parents will drop off and pick up their children at the curb located at the northern entrance to the school, near the driveway providing access to and from Long Hill Drive. Parents will be required to use that entrance only. Busses will be prohibited from using the Long Hill Road entrance. Appropriate signage will be installed for that purpose. Safety cones will be set up during this time to modify normal vehicle circulation during these periods. In the morning, security personnel and school staff will direct parent traffic. Vehicles will be instructed to queue in the driveway that intersects with Long Hill Road and to wait until they are directed to the curbside drop-off area by a staff person, who will be stationed near the intersection of the driveway and the parking lot aisle providing access to the drop-off area. Vehicles will be directed to proceed to the drop-off area in groups of five at a time (unless there are less than five vehicles queued). Several staff will meet the vehicles and assist the children out of the vehicles. That assistance will involve opening the door and removing the children from the vehicle, so that the parents will not get out of the vehicle. Other staff will then escort the children into the building. Based on CREC's extensive experience with this procedure at other schools, this process will take no more than one minute per group of 5 vehicles. For the afternoon pick up,parents will be issued large dashboard or windshield placards identifying the student(s)to be picked up by each vehicle. A staff member will be posted in the same location mentioned above,near the front of the driveway queue. That staff person will radio other staff stationed near the curbside pick-up area, where the students will be waiting for pick-up,to identify each group of students that needs to be brought curbside for pick-up. Staff will escort the appropriate children to curbside, and will assist in securing the child in the vehicle. Parents will not need to (and typically will not)park their vehicles. The pick-up process will take no more than one minute thirty seconds per group of five vehicles based on CREC's experience. CREC uses this system at other elementary schools, specifically the Montessori Magnet School located in Hartford, University of Hartford Magnet School, located in West Hartford, and the Reggio Magnet School for the Arts, located in Avon. CREC has found this system to be most effective. CADocuments and SettingAn-dchelerlipe\Local Settingffemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK3B3\pickup-dropof£doc Several factors should be noted: • A large percentage of students use the before-care and after-care programs. That data is stated in the attached analysis. This substantially reduces the number of students arriving for regular start and dismissal times. • Parents do not all arrive at once for either drop-off or pick-up. In both cases they arrive over a thirty minute period, distributed fairly evenly. This is due to a number of factors. One is that the pre-K students start 15 minutes later and end 15 minutes earlier than the K-5 students. Another is that, for reasons unrelated to traffic, CREC affords its families flexibility concerning when children may be dropped-off or picked-up. Many CREC parents are single parent or two-earner families for whom this flexibility is especially important. Also, in the morning a certain number of children who do not use the before-care program arrive approximately 30 minutes early in order to take advantage of the breakfast program offered at CREC's elementary schools. • At least half of the students have one or more siblings at the school. Those students, arrive in any one vehicle, further reducing the number of vehicles. Since the school already exists, it is possible to arrive at reasonably precise numerical estimates as to (i) the number of students who will use parent transportation and will be dropped off and picked up at or around the regular start and dismissal times, and(ii)the number of vehicles that will be arriving on-site at those times,taking into account the percentage of students who will be siblings transported in a single vehicle. The following analysis states these estimates, and applies them to the capacity of the driveway and the parent drop-off/pick-up area taking into account that both the drop-off and pick-up processes, as described above, will occur over a thirty minute period and will be more or less evenly distributed over those thirty minutes based on CREC's experience. This shows that the driveway has more than sufficient capacity for the number of vehicles that will use the driveway at any one time, and that vehicles will not back up onto Long Hill Road. If for any reason, however, this does become an issue, CREC will introduce fully staggered start and dismissal times to resolve any such issues. IMS PARENT PICK-UP/DROP-OFF ANALYSIS A. Vehicle Volume: Existing Conditions • 311 students total • 136 ride bus (44%) • 175 driven by parents (56%) • Of the 175 driven by parents o 66 use before-care, so in AM 109 students are dropped off during the period 8:00 —8:30. CADocuments and Settings\michelerlipe\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK3B3\pickup-dropoff.doc a s 50%are siblings in same vehicle: 109 / 1.5 =73 vehicles using parent drop off during the period 8:00 to 8:30. o 83 use aftercare, so in PM 92 students are picked up during the period 2:45 —3:15 - 50% of these are siblings in same vehicle: 83 / 1.5 =55 vehicles picking up during the period 2:45 —3:15. B. Vehicle Volume: Extrapolation to New School • Ratio of existing students (311)to new(435) is 1.4. • AM reaular hours drop off o 73 vehicles x 1.4= 102 vehicles during the period 8:00—8:30. • PM regular hours drop off: o 55 vehicles x 1.4=77 vehicles during the period 2:45-3:15. C. Time Anal • AM drop off o 30 seconds per group of 5 vehicles, or o 102* vehicles dropping off/5 =20.4 groups (roundup to 21) o 21 groups x 1 minute—21 minutes (30 minutes are available). • PM drop off: o 1.5 minutes per group of 5 vehicles o 77* vehicles picking up/5 = 15.4 groups of 5 (round up to 16) o 16 groups x 1.5 minutes=24 minutes (30 minutes are available). D. Capacity Analysis: • There is capacity on-site for 30 vehicles. (Up to 25 will be able to queue in the driveway. The pick-up/drop-off area has a 5 vehicle capacity). • Thus, there is capacity on site for 6 groups of 5 vehicles at any time. • AM pick up o In a worst case scenario, if a vehicle is the 30th vehicle on site upon arrival, that vehicle will be on site 6 minutes. (6 groups x 1 minute per group). o 30 vehicles is 30%of the 102 vehicles that will arrive over a thirty minute period. o Based on CREC's experience, 30% of the vehicles that will arrive between 8:15 and 8:45 will not arrive in the same six minute period. Arrivals will be much more evenly distributed over the thirty minutes. • PM Pick up o In a worst case scenario, if a vehicle is the 30th vehicle on site upon arrival, that vehicle will be on site 9 minutes. (6 groups x 1.5 minutes per group). o 30 vehicles is 39%of the 77 vehicles that will arrive over a thirty minute period. o Based on CREC's experience, 39% of the vehicles that will arrive between 2:45 and 3:15 will not arrive in the same nine minute period. Arrivals will be much more evenly distributed over the thirty minutes. * This does not account for absences or for parents who choose on a given day to go into the school. It is a worst case number. CADocuments and Settings\michelerlipe\Local Settingffemporary Internet Fi1es\OLK3B3\pickup-dropoff.doc BVH kpgrated semcrs Civil SITE LIGHTING OPTIONS Structural Town of South Windsor Planning Department Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue Mechanical South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Phone (860) 644-2511 CREC International Magnet School Electrical Chapel Road South Windsor, Connecticut Technology October 6, 2011 Commissioning 50 Griffin Road South Bloomfield,CT 06002 T:860-286-9171 F:860-242-0236 start@bvhis.com www.bvhis.com OPTION 1 COOPER LIGHTING-MESA LED LIGHTBARTm TECHNOLOGY MESA LED iNVUE dylfEN11N1q d7 FWbIEM.WK el�{{��u.,.tME yYr�. f10 }iV,r� 7=2- d• I,VfVM,vN OA4w�.� I••Ywl *I.70 ,21V pIgNS.ILC�90R6 MEu h�Nrlm iF.ertl.r.han wd..p+wW g,�abdl S � II�Y�d-n-.ly Fin,howmwo.RlheNm .V, �wReda' aVR1aR�.dtMNNx�.d Rnu $CAARLE ULMNADON ��M11M��`Mg//0010l CnIe�W urlanrvvd l3KHItM arYl/Y!' M4y►MVf-.1M.dd.bt�..m.x 4<R1 . ,., _ .... ... ..... ......, .... ... ..........m:. ... assea+ane MauN»lc aPmoNt ImIll Roost nL ��rv�J1MMMr'i..r+w� �.�MeO0�.��rww...n..�sM�� nw.b.g •�.+. wro..r ' sr,Rerrrb..t.J..ear.wis.rsoosa.� .�omld lfard'AOO�SODR.ser;wlNo.MrNYnlCett4 eNawOAtd IMInIWw NPhsVGesY wMesr•.rr.f�.w '�wr4,.f.. ,o..sY.w�yM s�.s.tM►.i.w..nr n/e� o wndu,d 4000k MI�M-No�Y�h�he,.e utadeu{ua.d 1YTuali� _ _ Amliw lug dA'a:ee,.Nx Wi�N wvao; w�na_.ti.. emswu,. #AP6 16%. X.wsb�m.,wd __ 1od Mf,i.r�er;e.__- 10•C_ is 71M16trsr _ 'sDA?g71.aMi,.jW t�Mlw► asc - i _.Ro _ FCMr1— AccuLM@p#ics wVBIbR EHiOENW+CONflem �� ud o130% Au.Mw.r.Ysnll NOnrrin k, ` bb'. n.d.o i}LY�.iY.►Ir�Aoimiyw-M'n Q�i yk ate` 0.M d.l'n�.Mv�diNwe Mlr�nFnrM.rseulrr ..., eucu+•no, . COOPER LKMWSPABWPB4DM EOuane;ulK,Hre MBMNWt4Ew M5*4WIOn+EVOM5CMAKP Nrpughfing 9 n9 OPTION 2 PHILIPS LUMEC-URBAN SCAPE LED i , ti s W' 1 Lml e .. .. # •4 . aij �c \:•. r . /1fIW 1�Es9PlIIW ,: `;k r s r r OPTION 3 LITHONIA LIGHITNG-OMERO LED Lithonia Lighting- The best value in lighting Page 1 of 1 r�"MAYX/A L &NT/NO' Home Company Product Data Training Distributors Sales Sustainability Contact MRP & MRP-LED OMERO POST TOP LUMINAIRES .. Style R4 . Versatility HID Performance �. . LED Performance Construction Adaptors TECHNICAL DETAILS Omero Poet Top Luminaire(MRP)The Omero Post Top Luminaire addresses the illumination Spec Sheets needs of the pedestrian. This stylish luminaire offers designers another aesthetically pleasing choice in site lighting specifically for pedestrian level applications. This versatile luminaire carries Photometrics the same cohesive design and superior performance of the Omero family and is available in a variety of wattages and features interchangeable and rotatable reflectors. Addifio nal Information OMERO FAMILY MRP Area&Site Ideal for lower pole heights in pedestrian Post Top spaces • 70175W Metal Halide Wall Mounted I SOW High Pressure Sodium • 70W Compact Fluorescent Bollards - 100W Induction Additional Information Decorative Poles Family Brochure Family Flash Animation HARP-LED Download Flash Animation An energy saving alternative to HID post tops <Back 72W LED Package • Application equivalent to 15OW HID • Type III and Type V Distributions Additional Information Adaptors available for existing Open Top and Tenon-mount poles. gACu1tyf3riA7d5 CONTACT US I SITE TERMS t PRIVACY POLICY 0 2011 ACUITY BRANDS LIGHTING,INC. http://www.lithonia.conVMicro Webs/Omero/Omero_PoStTop/default.asp 10/4/2011 OPTION 4 BETA LED-THE EDGE i ■ ■ ■ THE EDGEO LED Round A . Light - TypeI 1 , BetaLED Catalog#:ARE - EDR-5M - R4- -D- - - - - e 23' [564mm] 40 21,4' [102mm] [543mm] � 13.5'7 [441 mm] [344mm] 3.W Notes: [98mm] 2.0. [51mmI Itl [89mmjSOR Product family Optic Mounting #of LEDs LED Voltage Color Drive Current Factory-Installed Options {X 10► Series Options Not Field Adjustable Please type additional options In manually on the lines provided above. ARE EDR 5M' B41 0 043 0 13 UL 0 SV 13 350 1343K 4300K Color Temperatures 13063 Universal Silver 350mA [3DIM 0-10VDimminge•' 1308, 120-277V 13BK [35254 0 F Fusee,v.lo [3101 13uH Black 525mA p HL Hi/Low(175/350/525,dual circuit input)" 1312 Universal 13 Bz 13700 O P Photocelie•10 347-480V Bronze 700mA 0 TL Two-Level(175/525 w/Integrated sensor control)" El 34 19 Pill [3TL2 Two-Level(0/350 w/integrated sensor control)" 347V Platinum 13TL3 Two-Level(0/525 w/integrated sensor control)" Bronze [3WH White Footnotes 1. IESNA Type V Medium distribution 5. Color temperature per fixture;6000K standard;minimum 70 CRI 10.Not available with all mulls-level options.Refer to multi-level spec 2. Spider mount,center direct fits Inside 4'(101.6mm)square pole 6. Control by others sheet for availability and additional information 3. Consists of multiple 20 LED light bars.40,60,80,and 100 LED units 7. Refer to dimming spec sheet for availability and additional 11.Rate to the muld-level Spa sheet for availability and additional use blanks as needed in place of populated light bars InformaW informstiorl- 4. Available on fixtures with 40-60 LEDs B. When code dictates fusing use time delay fuse 9. Not available when UH voltage is selected 1 PERFORMANCE Total Total Total Total Total L,4Hours' 50H Hours Lumen M of Initial Delivered Lumens- B U G (Type Delivered Lumens- B U G System walla Current Current Curtest Curtest Current 41 P5u C Maintenance LEDs Type V Medium 4jt 6000K Type Y Medium 41?4300K t20-400V @ 120V @ 230Y 277V Q 347Y a 488V (77°F) Factor' ®15°C W Fit 40s 4,025(04) 2 1 1 3,710 04 2 1 i 47 0.40 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.12 >150.000 603 5,960 06 3 2 1 5,493(06) 3 2 1 68 0.58 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.16 >150 000 801 7,946 08 3 2 2 7,324 08 3 2 2 90 0.77 0.38 0.34 0.26 0.20 >150.000 93% 100' 9,908 10 4 3 2 9.131 10 3 3 2 111 0.95 0.47 0.42 0.32 0.24 >150,000 120 11889 12 4 3 2 50,958 12 4 $ 2 132 1.15 0.56 0.50 0.88 0.28 >150,000 405 5.635 04 3 2 ) 5,194 04 3 2 1 70 0.57 0.29 0.26 0.21 0.16 136,000 60s 8,344(06) 3 2 2 7,690 06 3 2- 2 102 0.87 0.44 0.39 0.30 0.22 129.000 80a 11,125 08 4 3 2 10,253(08) 4 $ 2 133 1.14 0.56 0.49 0.39 0.29 129,000 92% 100s 13.871 10 4 3 2 12 784 10 4 3 2 172 1.47 0.75 0.67 0.51 0.38 128 000 i20 18845 12 4 3 2 1 15341 12 4 3 2 204 1.76 0.86 0.78 0.60 0.44 128000 r 403 6,883 04 4 2 1 1 6344 04 3 2 1 93 i 0.79 1 0.40 1 0.35 1 0.27 1 0.20 1 111,000 90% 603 10,191 0614131219,393 061313121137 1.18 0.59 0.51 0.39 0.29 111.000 For recommended lumen maintenance factor data see TD-13 'For more information on the IES BUG(Backlight-Uplight-Glare)Rating visit www.leana.org/PDF/Erratas/rM-15-07BUgRating$Addendum.pdf ©2011 Ruud Lighting Inc.-A Cree Company.All rights reserved.The information In this document is subject to change without notice. 9201 Washington Ave ■ Racine,WI53406-3772 ■ 800-236-6000 • www.betaLED.com _ Made in the U.S.A.of U.S.and imported parts. Meets Buy American requirements within the ARRA. ��� =j t,1 ;• � d�it 'III I { r: � t Y [ g ?I r t OPEC School Air-Cooled Series R(TM)RTAC p+� Items:CH-1 Oty:1 Tags:CH•1 2/24/2011 2:49:26 PN 610 I '�r w Q N zW n ' pc i �L i 1 I I 1 i i i r 8i i ttpp W J1 1 i 1 i I I W FL �v �g' a 1 IYr...•-- � r�rf t ' ip n f 0 r TOPSS Dimension Drawing ' ALL WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. CERTIFIED PRINTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REGUFST. Pace: 2 r ' o ' +�. CREC School Air-Cooled Series R(TM)RTAC Sum it Items:CH-I Qty.1 Tags:CH-1 2124/2011 2:49:27 PM w i g o a u z z w w $bd NO 8LLze0 0;��0 w I-E W ,o U. ia0u� U Cc O - cn w w 2 4 U 7OPSr,Dfinension Drrlwing ALL WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. CERTIFIED PRINTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. PaQe: 5 26 �--45 3/4--- t 95 1 1 BTFT discharge opening f 17.00 x 19.750 17" 10" 15" I © 17" 17" 1T' 2 Housed fan-15in. II diameter FC,class 2 f Supply fan 10 hp 460/3 Pipe cabinet right(3) i t4 Cooling coil-4 rows Coil type UW !v Heating coil-1 row Coil type 5W tn u i Hood left Return air damper left Fal 4 5 7 (j) 54 72 8 Hood right 19 3/4 10 Housed fan-15in. i diameter FC,Gass 1 Return fan 5 hp 460/3 181l8 i 1 0 Fan inlet 35.750 x bottom.00 11 1"N.P.T.Ext I 12 Combo filters-4€n. cartridge-95%eff-MERV 17" ® 25 3/4 9 14 38 Doors 17 width x 42 height 31 width x 41 height 10 width x 42 height i5 width x 42 height 42 261/2 31" 25 3/4 5 1/ 5/8 14 I 82 5/8 12 s , s0 1 51'/2 c 37112 k ,521I2 L ill V . H11 ill I l 12 1/2 �15 4-17 6 1"N.P.T.EA 1-35 3/4 118 ............. 256 3/4 5014 Ibs For maneuvering purposes,include 0.125 inches to each ship split length for overlapping panel flange. Flange will not add to overall installed unit:length shown. OPENING AND DIMENSIONS MAY VARY FROM CONTRACT DOCUMENTS/RETURN OF APPROVED DRAWINGS CONST17UTES ACCEPTANCE OF THESE VARIANCES/NOT TO SCALE unit size:17 ob Name: BVH-CREC School South Windsor Unit Casin :2in Double Wall Product group:Outdoor unit Proposal Number.. Integral base frame:6in.integral base frame {ual airflow: 7000 cfm ' Performance Climate Changer` Paint:Factory painted-slate gray Sales Office: Hartford Rig in Installed Weight: 4914.6lb/ 5013.7lb AaHandiws 9 8 7-- 8—•• 5 - 4" 3 2 1 O 6 56 3/4--- Overall Elevation View: Right-Shipping splits indicated by bold outline.-Measurements in inches For maneuvering purposes,Include 0.125 Inches to each ship split length for overlapping panel flange. Flange will not add to overall Installed unit length s Pos# Module Length Weight 1 Fan section 44 1051.85 2 Controls section 241/2 245.24 3 Controls section 24 5/8 256.62 4 Economizer section 521/8 701.12 5 Filter section 19 315.33 6 Coil section 10 368.30 7 Access section 141/8 207.78 8 Coil section 24 5/8 716.62 9 Fan section 44 1150.85 Installed Unit Weight 5013.71 Ibs 9 8 T 8 5 4 3 2 Ll 31" Basic Overall Plan View: Top-Measurements in inches OPENING AND DIMENSIONS MAY VARYFROM CONTRACT DOCUMENTS/RETURN OF APPROVED DRAWINGS CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THESE VARIANCES/Nor TO SCALE Unit size:17 ob Name: BVH-CREC School South Windsor Unit Casin :21n Double Wall Product group:Outdoor unit Pro osal Number: °V�g 0 Inlegralbassframe:8tn.integralbassframe ctual airflow: 7000 cfm a s:AltU-2 Performance Climate Changer Paint:Factory painted-slate gray Sales Office: Hartford iggingllnelalfodWOlght 4914.61b1 5013.71b AfrHandlers 1 2' 13rnm x 3/4" 19mm) GASKET FURNISHED 0 TRANE A D INSTALLED BY OTHERS ON UNII'MOUNTING SURFACE. 2" 12 _ 2 x 4 FURNISHED AND o INSTALLED BY TRANE. 18' 1B' o ROOF ~� SURFACE o 3 S' o o UNIT ROOF CURB EXT.PIPE CAB.CURB UNIT ROOF CURB EXT. PIPE CAB. CURB 2 x 4 GASKET NAILER NAIL COUNTER FLASHING ROOFING/INSULATING ROOF CURB _ MATERIAL _ FLASHING &88' 03-57 6.13' 66-120 -WOODEN 4 x 4 CANT NAILER - ROOF INSULATM -T�- 3.0' 03-57 ROOF PURLIN __._ 4.0' 66-IRD ROOF DECK NOTE: DRAIN CONNLC11UN TO ROOF ARE TO©E SUPPLIED RB BY THE INSTALLER. N ai O) r N r-I tF1 � N M 14112— r _ 04 <-41 — 92 5/8 1691/8 193 3/4 - - 216 3/8--- 255 3/4 -- Detailed Plan View: Curb-Measurements in inches OPENING AND DIMENSIONS MAY VARY FROM CONTRACT DOCUMENTS/RETURN OF APPROVED DRAWINGS CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THESE VARIANCES/NOT TO SCALE Unit size:17 Job Name: BVH-CREC School South Windsor Unit Casing:2in Double Wall Product group:Outdoor unit Pro osal Number: • nlegrsl base trams Bin.Integral base frame Actual airflow: 7000 cfm -Tags:AHt1-2 Performance CNmare Changer Paint;Factory painted-slate gray Sales Office: Hartford RtgInOrIstalled Weight:4914.611,1 6019.71b AlrHandlers a Printed Date: 8/11/2011 LNGREENHECK Job: BVH-CREC-SOUTH WINDSOR Building Value In Air. Product Type: Make-Up Air Mark: Mark 1 CONDENSING FANS ACCESS DOOR 10 FURNACE ACCESS DOOR OWNER ACCESS DOOR ELECTRICAL ACCESS DOOR ' EVAPCOIL/ FILTER ACCESS DOOR COMPRESSOR INLET DAMPER ACTVATOR ACCESS DOOR ACCESS DOOR Front Right Isometric Qc 25 52 CI��NCF Gy" � 52 GE 4 / 24� 2 �F "W eF -AGE C� A CF Back Left Isometric CAPS 4.6.1015 C:1Program Files(x86)\CAPS\Parine11BVH-CREC-SOUTH WINDSOR.gcj Page 5 of 9 Prited ate: 8/11/2011 LCREENHECK Job: BV_H-.CRECn SOUTH WINDSOR Building Value inAir Product'Type: Make-Up Air Mark: Mark 1 Overview. 6.0 136.1 6.0 ���• CONDENSER FUR CONDENSER FAN CONDENSER FAN CONDENSER FAN 33.1 33.1 ... . .. SUPPLY PLYAW 14E RHA00 SUPPLY AIR IINTAIF 97.0 42.0 77.4 72.8 ' 51.8 63.9 48.0 ACCESS DOOR CONDENl1NO C00. �---•37.0 - ~ 70.9 ��END PLAN 4RICN 97.0 FILTERS 37.0 SUPPLYAIR DX N%iRFS CONTROL SIOwER IGfIFwTER •1 DANDER C00. COIL CENTER ASSEMBLY COMPRESSOR ACCESS DOOR 47.6 COMPRESSOR D COMPRESSOR 3INCII FLERS 17A 77.4 72-8 ' SUPPLYAIR INEATHERNOOD a ' 1CO., WG I INCIi SUPPLY ==3=3 COIL AtR FLIERS i148.1 •- --j _ ' . . 70.9----I ELEVATION DISCHARGE END CAPS 4.6.1015 C:1Program Files(M)1CAPS1PartnerlBVH-CREC-SOUTH WINDSOR.gcj Page 4 of 9 c • ENERGY REGQ1�' FRIG'` 'J d, --- . ...... F 6 2 N a 4 ^ J w �'oori� g� �& �r�at�� ► - (x - = - f �rtsura x J static �rsre fi- v / 1 r { In ;.. ." .J -. "�`+•Ai) yC r C u s l IJ �s - `3 HER � •!. f �,..J'yL�f�E`� i r SL P�Y �,tC�.t %;� C C Y r . IF�'1 V HECK The S+ luti�an CQmpny January ....... ..... tom: s aF r t; Y+ Y; '"Model ERCH Energy Recovery Ventilator With Cooling & Heating The model ERCH combines the benefits of the total Product operation is simple: energy wheel with supplemental heating and cooling. s Fresh outdoor air is pre-conditioned by the total The result is a product that is specifically designed to enthalpy wheel,recovering a majority of the energy process 100%outdoor air to desired supply from the exhaust air. conditions. Four housing sizes provide air flow capacities from 1,000 cfm to 10,000 cfm with external • The coil section further conditions the outdoor air static pressures up to 1.5 in.wg (for requirements to desired conditions(typically near room above this performance, refer to Model ERT or APE)Q, conditions). Single Point The Coil Section Wiring is provides supplemental standard. A cooling or heating of the disconnect outdoor air after pre- switch and low conditioning by the voltage terminal energy wheel. Tempering strip are options include chilled provided. water,direct expansion, hot water,electric heat, Access Doors provide easy and indirect gas. access to blowers, energy wheel, filters,and noil section for C �L US ,spection and routine service. Forward Curved s".€nit.Ftmoilssfaojy�` to@CAI i Blowers are mounted Model ERCH shown with r`„;"' 1° '!` 01M� 40":.•' on isolation bases with optionsl chilled water coil T" �.�a"`a p '��pe � neoprene vi bration and indirect gash eater. isolators standard. «m�;rqu�,em�rte; r;u;eaicn `geili,Q0d414.t�nsie��9r�m:';a`, Double Wall Housing is A Control Box is furnished Energy recovery wheels certified by the ARI Air- standard. The housing is with motor starters for the to-Air Energy Recovery Ventilation Equipment constructed of heavy gauge supply blower, exhaust Certification Program in accordance with ARI Standard 1060.Actual performance in steel with insulation. The supply blower and wheel motors. packaged equipment may vary.Certified and exhaust side are internally Also included is a 24 volt Ratings are available in the Certified Product lined with galvanized steel, control circuit. Directory at httpJ/www.ari.orgfdlrectories/ery Healthy Buildings:Ventilate buildings adequately Load Reduction:The energy wheel saves 3 to 4 tons without losing control of indoor humidity levels. The of cooling AND 50-60 MBH of heating for every 1,000 ERCH is capable of conditioning summer air to room cfm of outdoor air for many climates. design conditions.Also, it helps prevent overly dry Low Maintenance: winter air that can contribute to respiratory irritation. Servicing is minimal.All components have a well System Design Simplicity: The ERCH is designed established history of reliable operation. pecifically to provide outdoor air to the space at ASHRAE 62 Compliance: By assuring that minimum desired conditions.This effectively de-couples the outdoor air volumes are delivered to the room spaces, outdoor air load from the building load, enabling the compliance with the ASHRAE 62 Standard is clearly traditional VAV system to perform as it was intended demonstrated. in response to building loads. 2 i5xr%:`,i::•?n•';.?�2i2idxis:�?�`i�'ji.:y.Kt'..:"5\?�"'tc:.�ryl,.'•k�:,�::a�s�1:i .viFa.i�$•:�X,lw?:?;•", i-;.:sS'ri-?.n :'x_,.ih..�.. ia'< ;'S •th`+:4:d.�,,�y;,�iy-k.,Nua<' 4:+v,4ja4,trK:.v ;xa":,,.�1 ...y; . .., 5 t`�3,` F+ •,.r .ay..yr:tisu e".'pax. ,:. <;'4;1,>.s'r,. ..,;•y,%S)s>=.4s.'$?+ ;ia_e'�3?Ck�3'c+?t'Y.s„'y,_�ri.3.?{ ;�`r,'�"'',,''+''_ ��`i;xt'.4..kgy3�.dr;?�g4 v-e!�,�:�'.fif�%��, !`":_�:.as',. .. C s:.:d:. �f. Yi 3„^".r,s:>u.''•.c:Y z:.r'k;,• igX.;i�^-3t, �+, O .ya"tp�ii: `4:g'F"u 7,.<. ,i� ..� 'f2.�tc r�T��Ri ,ei' �` S4'V_�s•�:(F OWN-, .�'+..'a.:s'kf::•\'-:.�.S�'aG£.��Y:?�'IS3.:..1 i<`!a`i' P%.sa� rr 3 }7i .?i3. �•'. N; "ti'S:':.+,, ct �- �n:,..:yg �y,t"5�:� q:: 1,}i.,��.�:1:y�4�.4s�'"..:9i�F'�¢�v7•.%< ,: at, %%>.; .i;;: z`.;4, ;,s., Z:`>. ..�r„:x? •aV .;��.•"i�,.,a j,;.,4, �y ���t;�<t r��•w "s^•�'n tFfu�4�r' •S� �;H,?� •�' 1��a0 1 � `, f�1 ��2Y f}1� 4'��•��?•ys� 0 3. %s'�.'•;,t',,yy:i .;y');�71�;.;,�t^ ^nl.'r.'.'t`sr����i;'S v e4. !�r^t k�fi s.hl);Cp1Y'*�,{�'s�s 4t C�ti2%k;J�t',.''SS tU`S���il;�i'{ n't ._u..;<r...l.fit20g•vti.^'Y.-: ..;L:� ,.tF..r...r..,. .4 r, .nuns:P?'•_...,.:wt6^.t..5...a:.2Yo9;,:.,�t.•-C'f<'.J,�'..>z�h�e:A.:?":•, t3►,..% ttP� .:`{•.a•••w arc,,isr"' {;R: .. •.;,`t.�'}zi F'v�" �'i' .x";�'.r rr;''�`' i9,�.B%•'r.`,my,,r��,1��t• ;h'� }��Z•.fi.7� Sew ; �., �.��."S� "SS` •s`' `"`r+:•Y A,#% "� ?,SS�✓L"N�a.dy'�i��R�;;a'�+V:+?x ' . ,'r{i :l......4.s,•:t :1?Sn."'.?�;.::i='•k.2 .. ;C:i`•'i .L'+ ``', na-dN:.,;lt :,X,, `r'•4 'E :?a :*.,', .: v`lsx.: S�>' ,:d #7;:r�''�`# ,r�Yo+x 5"U j ,`f•••.�t� ,may ,(���/g$J�' (Oj 2.'vt,a r1�1 4�.re':) tt�v.�t6 y'C,`l'+ i '{"I � FA ��'�y�vz�•"•:r n Ft �y Coll a Section B /J �(� K ` .:':yF)t y,vr?r+ `!'•'w� Y+n.i " � iiAYj yi'\•••. 1' 4 t?..�,+,,.a&S��i.� ^ `tea i.�i�",+`+�?u.•e'�x�:::f ��r K�',�^'�'+:�,v'�.'-.., v'rr+.`�� :3:+R9�? ,,�QQ re 3•i " 3, ' ?:n r, xc.:aMa ==: = t, s.' g:L.`.'.'�4; `' S� Y Y''. P. �A•Y:>."fit {�'` •�'Y,+�•.�%?." 66 Side All dimensions shown are in inches. View me EHOWM E ytr v •'v iti Y•t Top � View jE '?? '4 i;;,;;:..' r...n• s; ' 011.1 z>i:x`"•.'.`�d;,•.ts = cat a sectlon Actual weight is dependent upon unit E!:5 configuration. Y F" Y3 $<e Due to continuing research,Greenheok reserves the right to change specifications without notice. &GREENHELINK The Solution Company. ,a Visit the Greenheck website for the most current information I P.O.Greenhock Box 410 e• e ERCH Catalog SN Copyright©2003 Greenheck Fan Corp. Rev 3 January 2003 SOWN Sf4 Town O-P So v^// d&U&Ot Ct � ° 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 J�OSOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 Certified#70081300000145787342 September 22,2011 Capital Region Education Council Attn: David Fresk 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford CT 06106 RE: Appl.#11-29P—CREC International Magnet School,L007 Long Hill Road Dear Mr. Fresk: At the September 21, 2011 regular meeting, the Inland Wetlands Agency/Conservation Commission approved Appl. #11-29P—CREC Magnet School—Long Hill &Chapel Roads—IWA/CC application for the construction of an elementary magnet school, grading, parking, playing fields, stormwater, utilities and associated improvements on property located west of Long Hill Road and south of Chapel Road. Rural Residential (RR) Zone(GD),with the following conditions: 1. The final approved copy of the entire set of plans and this letter reproduced thereon must be submitted to the Planning Department. This must be completed within 65 days of approval prior to any construction activity on the site. Plans submitted to Planning &Zoning Commission shall be considered having met this requirement. 2. The application shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town of South Windsor against any liability,which might result from the proposed operation or use. 3. The permit is valid for five years and shall expire on September 21, 2016. It is the landowners)/applicant(s) responsibility.to track expiration dates and notify the Commission of a renewal request at least 65 days prior to expiration. 4. Bonds shall be collected in the amount of: $30,000 to ensure proper placement and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls and $15,000 for construction of stormwater system. . 5. All approvals required must be obtained and submitted prior to any activity on the site. 6. A contact person shall be identified on the plans. Very truly yours, INLAND WETLANDS AGENCY/ CONSERVATION COMMISSION Barbara Kelly,Vice Chairp�rs BK/dt cc: Town Planner Chief Building Official I t-zqp CAPITOL REGION EDUCATION COUNCIL APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION/IMS SCHOOL PARENT DROP-OFF/PICK-UP NARRATIVE AND ANALYSIS This is to describe the parent drop-off and pick-up procedures that will be followed at the IMS School and to show why these procedures will be safe and efficient and why the area provided on-site for parent pick-up and drop-off will be sufficient to handle the number of vehicles that will be on-site at any one time. Regular school hours are 8:30 AM to 3:00 PM (8:45 AM to 2:45 PM for pre-K). CREC also offers a pre-care program starting at 7:30 AM and an after-care program running until 5:30 PM. Parents using the before and after care programs arrive over extended periods of time. They park their vehicles and enter the school to drop-off or pick-up their children. CREC has never experienced any need for special drop-off or pick-up procedures for before- or after-care. The procedures described below are for students who do not use the before- or after-care programs. Parents will drop off and pick up their children at the curb located at the northern entrance to the school,near the driveway providing access to and from Long Hill Drive. Parents will be required to use that entrance only. Busses will be prohibited from using the Long Hill Road entrance. Appropriate signage will be installed for that purpose. Safety cones will be set up during this time to modify normal vehicle circulation during these periods. In the morning, security personnel and school staff will direct parent traffic. Vehicles will be instructed to queue in the driveway that intersects with Long Hill Road and to wait until they are directed to the curbside drop-off area by a staff person, who will be stationed near the intersection of the driveway and the parking lot aisle providing access to the drop-off area. Vehicles will be directed to proceed to the drop-off area in groups of five at a time(unless there are less than five vehicles queued). Several staff will meet the vehicles and assist the children out of the vehicles. That assistance will involve opening the door and removing the children from the vehicle, so that the parents will not get out of the vehicle. Other staff will then escort the children into the building. Based on CREC's extensive experience with this procedure at other schools, this process will take no more than one minute per group of 5 vehicles. For the afternoon pick up,parents will be issued large dashboard or windshield placards identifying the student(s)to be picked up by each vehicle. A staff member will be posted in the same location mentioned above,near the front of the driveway queue. That staff person will radio other staff stationed near the curbside pick-up area, where the students will be waiting for pick-up, to identify each group of students that needs to be brought curbside for pick-up. Staff will escort the appropriate children to curbside, and will assist in securing the child in the vehicle. Parents will not need to (and typically will not)park their vehicles. The pick-up process will take no more than one minute thirty seconds per group of five vehicles based on CREC's experience. CREC uses this system at other elementary schools, specifically the Montessori Magnet School located in Hartford, University of Hartford Magnet School, located in West Hartford, and the Reggio Magnet School for the Arts, located in Avon. CREC has found this system to be most effective. CADocuments and Settings\mariadacevedo\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK60\pickup-dropoff.doc Several factors should be noted: • A large percentage of students use the before-care and after-care programs. That data is stated in the attached analysis. This substantially reduces the number of students arriving for regular start and dismissal times. • Parents do not all arrive at once for either drop-off or pick-up. In both cases they arrive over a thirty minute period, distributed fairly evenly. This is due to a number of factors. One is that the pre-K students start 15 minutes later and end 15 minutes earlier than the K-5 students. Another is that, for reasons unrelated to traffic, CREC affords its families flexibility concerning when children may be dropped-off or picked-up. Many CREC parents are single parent or two-earner families for whom this flexibility is especially important. Also, in the morning a certain number of children who do not use the before-care program arrive approximately 30 minutes early in order to take advantage of the breakfast program offered at CREC's elementary schools. • At least half of the students have one or more siblings at the school. Those students, arrive in any one vehicle, further reducing the number of vehicles. Since the school already exists, it is possible to arrive at reasonably precise numerical estimates as to (i)the number of students who will use parent transportation and will be dropped off and picked up at or around the regular start and dismissal times, and(ii)the number of vehicles that will be arriving on-site at those times,taking into account the percentage of students who will be siblings transported in a single vehicle. The following analysis states these estimates, and applies them to the capacity of the driveway and the parent drop-off/pick-up area taking into account that both the drop-off and pick-up processes, as described above, will occur over a thirty minute period and will be more or less evenly distributed over those thirty minutes based on CREC's experience. This shows that the driveway has more than sufficient capacity for the number of vehicles that will use the driveway at any one time, and that vehicles will not back up onto Long Hill Road. If for any reason, however,this does become an issue, CREC will introduce fully staggered start and dismissal times to resolve any such issues. IMS PARENT PICK-UP/DROP-OFF ANALYSIS A. Vehicle Volume: Existing Conditions • 311 students total • 136 ride bus (44%) • 175 driven by parents (56%) • Of the 175 driven by parents o 66 use before-care, so in AM 109 students are dropped off during the period 8:00 —8:30. CADocuments and SettingArnariadacevedo\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK60\pickup-dropoffdoc n - 50% are siblings in same vehicle: 109/ 1.5 =73 vehicles using parent drop off during the period 8:00 to 8:30. o 83 use aftercare, so in PM 92 students are picked up during the period 2:45 —3:15 50% of these are siblings in same vehicle: 83/ 1.5 =55 vehicles picking up during the period 2:45 —3:15. B. Vehicle Volume: Extrapolation to New School • Ratio of existing students(311)to new(435) is 1.4. • AM regular hours drop off: o 73 vehicles x 1.4= 102 vehicles during the period 8:00— 8:30. • PM regular hours drop off. o 55 vehicles x 1.4=77 vehicles during the period 2:45-3:15. C. Time Analysis • AM drop off o 30 seconds per group of 5 vehicles, or o 102* vehicles dropping off/5 =20.4 groups (roundup to 21) o 21 groups x 1 minute—21 minutes (30 minutes are available). • PM drop off: 0 1.5 minutes per group of 5 vehicles 0 77* vehicles picking up /5 = 15.4 groups of 5 (round up to 16) 0 16 groups x 1.5 minutes=24 minutes (30 minutes are available). D. Capacity Analysis: • There is capacity on-site for 30 vehicles. (Up to 25 will be able to queue in the driveway. The pick-up/drop-off area has a 5 vehicle capacity). • Thus,there is capacity on site for 6 groups of 5 vehicles at any time. • AM pick up o In a worst case scenario, if a vehicle is the 30th vehicle on site upon arrival, that vehicle will be on site 6 minutes. (6 groups x 1 minute per group). 0 30 vehicles is 30% of the 102 vehicles that will arrive over a thirty minute period. o Based on CREC's experience, 30% of the vehicles that will arrive between 8:15 and 8:45 will not arrive in the same six minute period. Arrivals will be much more evenly distributed over the thirty minutes. • PM Pick up o In a worst case scenario, if a vehicle is the 3&vehicle on site upon arrival, that vehicle will be on site 9 minutes. (6 groups x 1.5 minutes per group). o 30 vehicles is 39% of the 77 vehicles that will arrive over a thirty minute period. o Based on CREC's experience, 39%of the vehicles that will arrive between 2:45 and 3:15 will not arrive in the same nine minute period. Arrivals will be much more evenly distributed over the thirty minutes. * This does not account for absences or for parents who choose on a given day to go into the school. It is a worst case number. CADocuments and Settings\inariadacevedo\Local SettingsWemporary Intemet FileAOLKWpickup-dropof£doe CAPITOL REGION EDUCATION COUNCIL APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION NARRATIVE DESCRIBING PROPOSED USE AND DISCUSSION OF SECTION 8.4(B) STANDARDS The applicant, Capitol Region Education Council ("CREC"),is a regional educational service center whose members are 35 Hartford-area school districts, including South Windsor. It has contracted to purchase approximately 14.35 acres of land abutting Long Hill Road, Chapel Road and Interstate I-291. It proposes to build on that site an early childhood and elementary magnet school to serve about 435 children,pre-K to grade 5. Regular school hours will be approximately 8:15 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Before care programs will start at 7:30 a.m. After care programs will be until 5:30 p.m. Most of the site is zoned I-291 Rural Residential Overlay(RROZ). A small portion is zoned Rural Residential (RR). Schools are a permitted use in both zones with a special exception. The criteria for special exceptions are set forth in Section 8.4(B)of the Zoning Regulations. A discussion of each of those criteria follows. 1. Consistency with the goals, objectives, and recommendations of the Plan of Conservation and Development. The Plan of Conservation and Development("PCD")recognizes that the zoning regulations should provide for community public facilities to reflect the needs and wants of the community. See PCD p. 10. Schools are such facilities. Schools are also an excellent transitional use that can serve to buffer residential areas from commercial and industrial uses - and also, in this case, an interstate highway. The proposed land use map at page 15 of the PCD—consistent with the zoning map- shows the site in question as being located in just a transition area, lying between the land to the west designated"economic development"and the land primarily to the north designated"residential." The transitional nature of the proposed school use thus makes it an ideal use for this site. 2. Requirements of zoning regulations. The application satisfies all the objective requirements of the Zoning Regulations, as shown on the zoning table contained within the plans. For reasons stated in a separate narrative, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Section 6.4.9 of the Zoning Regulations, a modification of parking requirements. 3. The physical suitability of the land. The land in question is physically well-suited for a school. It contains no wetlands, it is not steep(though it is sloping), it has frontage on two roads and it has good access to Routes 83, 5 and 1-291. CADocuments and Settings\michelerlipe\Local Settingffemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK3B3\narrative-app spec exception.doc 4. Environmental impacts. Development of this site will involve activities regulated under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act in that the site includes a relatively small area within the 80' wetland setback. This area is located in the southwestern portion of the site. The project has been designed in a manner not to adversely impact the downstream resource areas. Accordingly,the Inland Wetland Agenda/Conservation Commission approved, on September 21, 2011, the applicant's application for a permit to conduct activities regulated under the Inland Wetlands and Watercourse Act. There are no other meaningful environmental impacts anticipated due to development of this site. 5. Traffic. The applicant's traffic study,incorporated herein by reference, demonstrates that no traffic or related hazards will be created. All nearby intersections will continue to function very well under post-build conditions. 6. The impact on the capacity of the present and proposed utilities, streets, drainage systems, and other improvements. The site has access to sewers and has frontage on two town roads. Development of this site will not adversely affect existing streets, drainage systems or town sewers. 7-9.No adverse effects on an existing uses/no adverse effect on property values/maintenance of character of neighborhood Schools in general are compatible with residential uses. This is why schools are permitted in all residential zones. CREC is confident that it will show that this particular project is well designed, attractive and well buffered from residential areas. Buffering is achieved by retention of existing trees and vegetation, new landscaping and the natural slope of the land. 10. The health and general welfare of the community. For all the reasons discussed above,the general welfare of the community will be advanced by development of this property for a use that advances educational opportunities while also carrying out the planning goals articulated in the PCD and the Zoning Regulations for the RROZ zone. Those goals,in essence, are to provide for uses that will create a good transition between I-291 and the residential areas along Chapel Road. A school is an ideal transitional use—one of the relatively few uses, in fact, that is especially well- suited to this area. 11. Neighborhood acceptance weighed against community needs. 2 Since the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood and has been well-designed to mitigate impacts, CREC does not expect neighborhood opposition per se. CREC is confident that any concerns that may be raised can be addressed to the satisfaction of all concerned. 12. The protection of historic factors. No areas of special historic sensitivity will be impacted by this school. The site is remote from the historic districts recognized in the PCD. See PCD p. 6. 13-14. Physical appearance/architectural design. Schools in general are compatible with the Commission's goals for RROZ zone,in that it is a type of institutional use that the regulations contemplate to provide for a good transition between I-291 and the residential areas along Chapel Road,while also allowing for reasonable,productive use of property in this unique area of town. CREC is confident that the Commission will find the specific design elements of this proposed school to be esthetically pleasing and compatible with the neighborhood. 3 kW 1 , //- 2,q 1 Page 1 of 1 Lipe, Michele From: Jacqueline Malone gmgrok@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:08 PM To: Lipe, Michele Subject: Proposed Charter School 161 Long Hill Road South Windsor, CT 06074 October 10,. 2011 Dear Michele: My home abuts the proposed location of the new charter school, and I have some serious concerns: First and foremost is traffic. I'm told that the latest estimate has upwards of 200 cars a day going in and out of that site from Long Hill Road. If you lived here, you would know that is excessive. In addition to the early-morning noise it would create, as it is getting out of my driveway can take several minutes. I fear this will create quite a disruption in our quiet neighborhood. In order to build such a entrance, they must remove the sign that cautions about deer crossing the road. I want to know what thought has been given to the impact on habitat. Where do you expect these deer to go? Such a sign was not necessary before they built the highway, and now that cramped habitat will be even smaller. I would also request that if this project goes through, the ingress be built as close to the highway as possible, and that the tree buffer between it and my property be increased to diminish the noise, to protect my privacy, and to preserve the natural beauty I now look out on. As someone who grew up here when living in South Windsor was living in the country, the thought of anything that further destroys what woodlands we have left is disturbing. These particular woodlands are especially precious to me, since my family used to own them. Thank you for your consideration. Jacqueline Malone 10/11/2011 Lipe, Michele From: Gary Schultz[wconcord@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 4:28 PM To: Lipe, Michele Subject: Proposed Parking Facility on LongHill Rd Dear Michele, Having lived for fifteen years on LongHill Rd. I can only disagree with the idea of creating a parking facility for 200 vehicles. The Street LongHill Rd is already congested with the everyday traffic flowing from East Hartford and South Windsor. I believe a much safer solution may be to create the entrance and exits along Chapel Rd or Ellington Rd, between Chapel and Route 5. The limited space on Longhill Rd would not allow the steady flow of traffic that would be needed to accomodate 200 vehicles. With the top notch creative planners we are sure a safer and far better location could be created. Thank You Gary , Carol and David Schultz 1 Upe, Michele From: Gary Schultz[wconcord@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 3:48 PM To: Lipe, Michele Subject: LongHill d. Parking for Projected Charter School Dear Michele, As a concerned citizen of South Windsor, the proposed parking facility on LongHill Rd needs to be reconsidered. Having lived on LongHill for over 15 years with my family and having raised a young boy from the 1st grad to High School, to add 200 more vehicles twice a day will create mass confusion, let alone the dangerous situations it will create. Having complete faith in your groups abilities I feel a smarter solution at a different location, perhaps off of Elllington Rd. between Chapel and Route 5 could be a consideration. The dangerous situation involving so many vehicles will put our youth in a very dangerous place when with place when with a little more planning may solve what could turn into a dangerous situation Thank You for Your Time Gary Schultz, Carol Schultz and David Schultz 1 RECEIVED lo/(I/(( OCT 07 2Q11 SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. y� 1 i e4l (6 A -�j "(A a - f d ucloi O(�3�Ji 115 � Jo �1t�• �S � G Clnnlrl tt v4 Ott �u joj c.,.ff a.! L✓ , Lki a-t C4�r iv74of cipfrtd4 kv\---� r,\io.m 4tjv� f4- fd" l y � mi f Vest a !'ejl 6Teo - 2,81 - 10y0 ��,�� u� 4 •v ,y �" AM fa l k ti. Y:i iw ' ti f�H l F �.. MK. tia �' �ql r `,� 5 , r'14 4t �` ak $.t F4\F�x "Wig +1s sr +4 ttT 7 � 0 E�•h � � s �� 'S ,q,�re �+ � r sl i �,�r f�;,✓ v r L �;.� i!� ��' J s�iRl'fi�*?,«�� t4 �-it�ri �" '�t�"_'�+� .t t '; R�"tea x��'q �..,.� t�t� � �� t; y u i � J�� �.t � c`S �"S �: Q'✓ s r'ts d �i{`rkt dw�a�'�5iitigD��f a�e��`}�, g o j tt t `� z ��` s s ' ` 44rrJcbr �s V G ���,",t�am.t� S k � P Kt at�"�'t s r ry � �; r�&r�•'�ya.iN t�?.� N)�3��.�y''�'tY'd�4���tt��Yk ��.y .y�C�.��,,�f ,� t,�� ����,�t.��` -Y � � t 2. �'a �� '��$ t.4�t a .h t dt's41F MM��l 7�5K"4 J',te^« ^�.�... Asa "�,•�"�!'�', u #x Shy F��''� A.� a t - a a�'�„� t Jc!� +r; 4 �� ,� pay i"�Saey.a "�;�N fh �'�?'�' f�a� :' x a 1 b � t� ri � � fi �s s +,� U � t •e' �� t�( >r° < y -�` M rya"1 �j i,P-.g�?� u. � p, G• x'ir2 f t�� Y 'a� r ,� dC"y� d�� k e» G�:�,ya ti F r��� h� 4M��f�`��*.�3w'�,. �, } ? uM,P{� dU'4� �`:.'�.-• � i... to �.c: � s rd.a;fj��fi ,' .f:�, s7�j;s 1 �,,�." � `C.ti.� rZ_c,I!({t 1 Au^�`"�' t �G.p�' d'4�'-,+. °;'�', t' n P�.w'�tt`� s �.y�r� r 7 � k ��`� -r,C a �%-w�, `,tt t•g'"y�t�tj r'�rn+", �t � �* � s: a{n '•. 4i^�h�t-:�� q }zarc�°S,� ��.� 4s G �.'ff��� z��wt �f � ,,� � t,6A"S'�3��'M `�v:+�wr2 �i �n `ufs,� ,' >'v. .� � r 4 y r BVH servi C8 Civil SITE LIGHTING OPTIONS Structural Town of South Windsor Planning Department Planning and Zoning Commission 1540 Sullivan Avenue Mechanical South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 Phone (860) 644-2511 CREC International Magnet School Electrical Chapel Road South Windsor, Connecticut Technology October 6, 2011 Commissioning 50 Griffin Road South Bloomfield,CT 06002 T:860-286-9171 F:860-242-0236 start@bvhis.com www.bvhis.com OPTION 1 COOPER LIGHTING-MESA LED LIGHTBARTm TECHNOLOGY MESA LED wVUE PPW— aGtpv�.dGU(I,,,bN iNn Fi ENUNe4 M5W51tot1IIa7--- = tm lm tsi amwwlb tom. t +t<b/OMr tt�e!�.a bM'tr� tbtsAtM a �� f,..a+.4 m 1 o..+wotV4' a r T anaNs..ccEso�(Mtx p.t.wd m.n.ad..!nar,e ad a�a.dbPe dvenl .b+.x.-.nbs.N .MfOrC.YMMum Nm o c.....e...+...yes v��,n ow•.ar.aM.n.w.xd-.wv Kq.TC Ca.rAOd<. PVu�A.v�.w Mmmm�rd NN SCAWlE4WgN4710N xatM.VMit C01?t IQ nil�dCddW aarlaeryPeek lkwic llCu er]lNf' IM•M)-�ivf�.l Meth bdxxvN YVWA WE Jlkll WARdLGN9 MWNiWG OFlgNS fj At x.e1tM vAl xarxhm e0+u�...�•.a..w...•w 'N•o a.v+ ..a..re.e as..,.�ry.�.h..,-e .. •.ee.,.a..x..�..kWn+f".r.+.....e.. ...4-.rw....w...x.er...r.ab..,w.�-,.w.� � .�..... .�.., ..de..�.xacanx a�..a.,a.n...�wx.xw awa...��.N-.......:v•,a:.�t:a.✓......a.�. ... �.�. a.ree eo.:a.o er mr+a,d .cdo9- ar....wyroo;r.•..•�n.dww�. w•w••�c`��•, a.edaera eNtR6Y onto .er..odn rxraoe au..,—d.,40WK,.a MrltDas�Jw.a--.rr�Vr.r xOp� Mb'ixx Wm,n wGs.r vA..ar...x.n o.andord d000K.:I.r...x..�....�.....a• u!sdai�e.d gepa.xx.rvx w.y sovaoi o ....... _- _- �.mo.�w• M�tpe� seen _._ s Inn�el_ n+w�� _. �rors.wxnaaw t.n,aow svne�. >'c !c� H • a.rx,x,r. IOT_ a.GG A«uLEI�Optics- wv�doa EA1Clt?1CY�CON:ROL Mesa LED gas m,cl�os 3JA Maw MwrA.I NO.aW arm COdEplGt(fING5 PA7B1f YHJMNGIEA1K.MdVtIGM@G►E BpNOSNlW MblYN6 TO THENgvLSVIAMIIY .Wnm wma.w LIghin9 LJMa,a�ng OPTION 2 PMLIPS LUMEC-URBAN SCAPE LED rF, ' I ' ffff + s.: OPTION 3 LITHONIA LIGHITNG-OMERO LED Lithonia Lighting-The best value in lighting Page 1 of 1 CA1/MVJVIA L,04WYWVQ' ��a"' `'"""''•r Home Company Product Data Training Distributors Sales Sustainability Contact • , DMERO POSTTDP LUMINAIRES . Style -� �K � •r rtii Versatility cif °w. HID Performance �. . LED Performance Construction Adaptors TECHNICAL DETAILS Spec Sheets Omero Post Top Luminal►e(MRP)The Omero Post Top Luminaire addresses the illumination needs of the pedestrian. This stylish luminaire offers designers another aesthetically pleasing choice in site lighting specifically for pedestrian level applications. This versatile luminalre carries Photometrics the same cohesive design and superior performance of the Omero family and is available in a variety of wattages and features interchangeable and rotatable reflectors. Additional Information DMERO FAMILY MRP Area&Site Ideal for lower pole heights in pedestrian Post Top spaces • 70 175W Metal Halide Wall Mounted 15OW High Pressure Sodium • 70W Compact Fluorescent Bollards - 10OW Induction Decorative Poles Additional Information Family Brochure Family Flash Animation MRP-LED Download Flash Animation An energy saving alternative to HID post tops <Back 72W LED Package • Application equivalent to 15OW HID • Type III and Type V Distributions Additional Information Adaptors available for existing Open Top and Tenon-mount palm. %iculty8ti.,nds. CONTACT US I SITE TERMS I PRIVACY POLICY 0 2011 ACUITY BRANDS LIGHTING.INC. http://www.lithonia.com/Micro,Webs/Omero/Omero_PoStTop/default.asp 10/4/2011 OPTION 4 BETA LED-THE EDGE I ' 1 ' `4 THE EDGE" 1 Round Area Light - TypeI ' BetaLED Catalog#:ARE -EDR-5M - R4- -D- - - - - n 23- {584mm I ` 4A' 21,4' ]102mm] [548mm] -� • 17.4' 13.5' [441 mm] (344mm] 3.9' Notes: [98mm] 2.0' 41, - 151 mm I h33'1 10911101111 (89mm I SOR Product Family Optic Mounting #of LEDs LED Voltage Color Drive Current Factory-installed Options (X 10 Series Options Not Field Adjustable Please type additional options in manually on the tines provided above. ARE EDR 5M7 R41 0 043 0 E3 UI. B SV p 356 C343K 4300K Color Temperatures 0063 Universal Silver 350mA C(DIM 0-10VDimminge,' 13083 120-277V 0BK 135254 0 F Fusee.e.lo 13103 t3 UH Black 525mA G HL HI/Low(175/350/525,dual circuit input)" O 12 Universal El BZ p 700 0 P Photocell'.10 347-480V Bronze 700mA p TL Two-Level(175/525 w/Integrated sensor control)" Z3 34 13 PB [3TL2 Two-Level(0/350 w/integrated sensor control)11 347V Platinum 13TL3 Two-Level(0/525 w/integrated sensor control)" Bronze [3WH White Footnotes 1. IESNA Type V Medium distribution 5. Color temperature perfixture;6000K standard;minimum 70 CAI 10.Not available with all mutll-level options.Refer to multi-level spec 2. Spider mount,center direct fits inside 4'(101.6mm)square pole 6. Control by others sheet for availability and additional information 3. Consists of multiple 20 LED light bars.40,60,80,and 100 LED units 7. Refer to dimming spec sheet for availability and additional 11.Referto the multi-level spee sheet for availability and additional use blanks as needed in place of populated light bars Informaum' informetlm 4. Available on fixtures with 40-60 LEDs B. When code dictates fusing use time delay fuse 9. Not available when UH voltage is selected p PERFORMANCE Total Total Total Total Total L,oHours 50K Hours Lumen A of Initial Delivered Lumens- B U G Initial Delivered Lumens- 8 U G System Watts Current Currant Current Current Current 025•C Maintenance LEDs Type V Medium 4i!BOOOK Type V Medium 04300K 120-480V 120V 230Y 277V 947Y !4e0V (77•F) Factor 4D 150 C F r 403 4,025(04 2 1 1 3,710 04 2 1 1 47 0.40 0.21 0.19 0.15 0.12 >150,000 60, 5,960(06) 3 2 1 5,493(06) 3 2 1 68 0.58 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.16 >1 50 000 803 7,946(08) 312 2 7,324 08 3 2 2 90 0.77 0.38 0.34 0.26 0.20 >150,000 93% 1003 9.90800) 4 3121 9,131 10131312 111 0.95 0.47 0.42 0.32 0,24 >150,000 120 11 889 12 4 3 2 10 958 12 4 3 2 132 1.15 0.58 0.50 0. t1.28 >150,000 4031 5,635 04 3 2 1 5.194 04 3 2 1 70 0.57 0.29 0.26 0.21 0.16 i36,000 603 8,344(06 131212 7,690(06) 31212 102 0.87 0.44 0.39 _ 0.30 0.22 129,000 803 11,125 08141312 10,253(08) 1413121 3 2 133 1.14 0.56 0.49 0.39 0.29 129.000 92% 1003 13,871 10141312 12,78400) 172 1.47 0.75 0.67 0.51 0.38 128000 120 18 845 12 4' 3 2 1b 341 12 3 2 204 1.78 0.88 0.78 0.60 0.44 128.000 t 4031 6,883 04 3 2 i 1 6.344 04 3 2 11 93 1 0.79 1 0.40 0.35 1 0,27 1 010 1 111,000 1 90% 6011 10,191 00 4 3 2 9,393 06) 1313121 137 1 1.18 1 0.59 1 0.51 1 0.39 1 0.29 1 111.000 For recommended lumen maintenance factor data see TD-13 `For more information on the IES BUG(Backlight-Uplight-Glare)Rating visit www.leana.org/PDF/Erratas/TM-15.076ugRatingsAddendum.pdf ©2011 Ruud Lighting Inc. A Cree Company.All rights reserved.The information In this document is subject to change without notice. 9201 Washington Ave • Racine,WI 53406-3772 • 800-236-6800 • www.betaLED.com (S Made in the U.S.A.of U.S.and Imported parts. ' ® Meets Buy American requirements within the ARRA. ��� a 3 �ZC M,��c� -w�tu� D a p - 49 n �k sip —II AAL i 1 A V — I'. U f ' J x - - 1 I' � n/� C/-Y-kA O i _ Ou I 8 l a i i, i � Y All ;AA, 1 I' ��11T'7M it A - - -- 1 1RECEIVED SEP 55 .4u 1 1 � SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. integrated 1 services Civil STORM DRAINAGE REPORT 1 Structural Town of South Windsor ' Planning Department Inland Wetlands— Conservation Commission 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Mechanical 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, Connecticut 06074 1 Phone (860) 644-2511 Electrical 1 CREC International Magnet School Chapel Road South Windsor, Connecticut 1 Technology September 6, 2011 1 Commissioning SCANNEL) 1 uu�Ay`��p F 00NNFC�i� NIX= 5272O�fs'lV� ago � /gyp/lilts 1 1 50 Griffin Road South Bloomfield,CT 06002 T:860-286-9171 1 F:860-242-0236 start@bvhis.com www.bvhis.com 1 Table of Contents Tab 1 Executive Summary 2 Site Mapping USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map Flood Map Soil Survey of Project Site 3 Hydrologic Analysis D-1 Pre Development Hydrologic Analysis Plan D-2 Post Development Hydrologic Analysis Plan Hydrologic Analysis - Pre-Development Hydrologic Analysis - Post-Development 4 Hydraulic Analysis D-3 Post Development Hydraulic Analysis Plan D-4 Hydraulic Analysis - Post-Development Stormwater Piping Model ' Hydraulic Analysis - Post-Development Piping Report and Pipe Profiles Hydraulic Analysis - Time of Concentration Calculations Appendix A. Level Spreader and Emergency Spillway Calculations B. Stormwater Quality Calculations C. Geotechnical Report D. Maintenance and Operations Procedures E. Curve Number(CN) Calculations CREC International Magnet School Page 1 of 1 Table of Contents Executive Summar y ' The proposed activity includes the construction of a new school along with associated utilities, site improvements, and storm drainage collection,detention and treatment. According to the 2008 Flood Insurance Rate Map for South Windsor, Connecticut, no flood zones are indicated for the proposed site (See tab 2 for Flood Map) The hydrologic analysis consists of two design points [Design Point 1 (DP-1) and Design Point 2 (DP- 2)] where the peak flows were analyzed for pre-development (existing condition) and post- development (proposed condition). Subarea DA-1 contributes to flows at DP-1 and Subarea DA-2 contributes to flows at DP-2.The subareas and design points are indicated on drawings D-1 and D-2, which are included in Tab 3. ' DP-1 (Subarea DA-1) ' In the pre-development condition Subarea DA-1 consists of approximately 1 1.87 acres. Stormwater flows overland at a gradual slope to a low lying area.The area consists of soil types A, B, and C. The proposed stormwater system in this area was designed to replicate the existing flow patterns by slowing down piped flows and allowing the stormwater to flow overland at non-erosive velocities to existing low lying areas on site. This was achieved by discharging piped flows into a rip-rap plunge pool to dissipate energy. From the plunge pool, stormwater flows over a 100' level spreader which reduces the velocity to non-erosive conditions and continues downstream to DP-1. Velocity calculations for the level spreader and a section are included in Appendix A. For the purpose of the calculation, flows into the level spreader were conservatively assumed to be at the full flow capacity of the pipe discharging into the level spreader. Grass lined swales were also utilized to convey flows overland, rather than collecting runoff in piped systems. In the post-development condition Subarea DA-1 was reduced to 9.99 acres and because the overland flow path was slightly altered, the time of concentration increased. Due to these factors stormwater flows to DP-1 were reduced for the post-development condition. Peak Flow Discharges and Volumes to Design Point 1 (DP-1) Return Pre- Pre- Time Post- Post Time ' Frequency Development Development (min) Development Development (min) (yr) (cfs) Volume(cf) (cfs) Volume(cf) 2 4.66 25,868 738 4.31 27,949 750 10 13.32 62,791 734 10.57 62,464 746 25 18.80 85,949 734 14.38 83,471 746 50 23.90 107,625 734 17.86 102,879 746 100 29.21 130,360 734 21.46 123,047 746 CREC International Magnet School Page 1 of 4 ' Executive Summary Stormwater runoff will be treated using multiple measures in a "treatment train" approach. First, deep sump catch basins will allow sediments to settle out of runoff. Next, a trap hood will be installed on ' CB07 to prevent any large debris from being discharged downstream. Finally, an offline hydrodynamic separator will be installed upstream of the discharge into the level spreader to treat the water quality flow from the parking areas and drives. This separator is sized in accordance with ' the 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual by The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, and water quality flow calculations are included in the Appendix B. DP-2 (Subarea DA-2) In the pre-development condition Subarea DA-2 consists of approximately 9.04 acres. Stormwater flows overland at gradual to steep slopes to a low lying wetland. The area consists of soil types A, B, C and D. In the post-development condition the area flowing to DP-2 was increased by 1.88 acres. A stormwater detention pond will be used to mitigate peak flow increases caused by the increase in area. The pond is sized to attenuate peak flows resulting from up to the 100 year storm event. A rip- rap reinforced emergency spill way was designed to safely convey flows at non-erosive velocities in the event the pond overtops, refer to the Appendix A for calculations and a section. Due to recommendations from the geotechnical engineer infiltration was not taken into account in the ' calculations, refer to page 6 paragraph 10 of the Geotechnical Report included in Appendix C. A sediment forebay will be placed upstream from the pond to treat run-off from the parking areas and drives. The forebay is sized to hold the water quality volume per 2004 Connecticut Stormwater Quality Manual by The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection requirements. Refer to Appendix B for calculations. Deep sump catch basins and trap hoods will also be utilized to pre-treat ' flows into the forebay. Flows from lawn areas will be diverted around the forebay via a vegetated Swale. ' As with DP-1,the proposed stormwater system in this area was designed to replicate the existing flow patterns by slowing down piped flows and allowing the stormwater to flow overland at non-erosive velocities to existing low lying areas on site. This was achieved by discharging piped flows into a rip- rap plunge pool to dissipate energy. From the plunge pool, stormwater flows over a 50' level spreader which reduces the velocity to non-erosive conditions and continues downstream to DP-2. Velocity calculations for the level spreader and a section are included in the Appendix A. For the purpose of the calculation, flows into the level spreader were conservatively assumed to be at the full ' flow capacity of the pipe discharging into the level spreader. CREC International Magnet School Page 2of 4 Executive Summary Peak Flow Discharges and Volumes to Design Point 2 (DP-2)with Detention Return Pre- Pre- Time Post Post Time Frequency Development Development (min) Development Development (min) ' (yr) Flow(cfs) Volume (co Flow(cfs) Volume (cf) 2 5.94 28,851 736 3.75 43,484 724 10 13.79 62,102 734 10.21 87,387 726 ' 25 18.45 82,084 734 13.91 113,025 724 50 22.68 100,438 734 17.05 136,299 726 100 27.03 119,428 1 734 1 22.06 1 160,233 1 740 Peak flow discharges and volumes for Design Point DP-2 without detention have been included below for reference only. ' Peak Flow Discharges and Volumes to Design Point 2 (DP-2)without Detention Return Post-Development Flow Post Development Volume Time (min) Frequency(yr) without Detention (cfs) without Detention (cf) ' 2 9.94 42,241 732 10 20.76 85,269 732 25 27.07 110,455 730 50 32.75 133,337 730 100 38.53 156,825 730 Foreboy and Detention Pond Water Surface Elevations ft 2r 10r 25r 50r 100r ' Forebay 92.12 92.21 92.24 92.42 92.65 Detention Pond 89.85 91.26 91.94 92.39 92.65 General ' All catch basin structures shall be constructed with four foot sumps to provide sediment storage. Catch basin traps will be placed on structures at the downstream end of pipe runs to prevent debris from discharging into the level spreaders, and the sediment forebay. Sedimentation and soil erosion will be minimized during construction through the use of construction best management practices, such as catch basin inlet protection, silt fence, and erosion control blankets on sloped areas. There will be an erosion protection and sediment control plan included with the contract documents. ' A stormwater management operations and maintenance plan has been included in Appendix D. It provides the Owner with the necessary information for achieving optimal performance of the proposed stormwater infrastructure. CREC International Magnet School Page 3of 4 Executive Summary Hydraulic calculations were completed using Bentley StormCAD XM VBi, Rational Method. Pipes were sized for the 10 year storm with intensity-duration-frequency data from the CONNDOT ' Drainage Manual, October 2000. Refer to Tab 4 for maps and calculations. Hydrologic calculations were completed using Autodesk Inc. Hyrdaflow Hydrograph Extensions ' Version 6.052 TR-55 Method. Pre and Post development peak flow attenuation analysis was performed for the 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100 year 24 hour storm events. Rainfall data was referenced from the values published in the CT DEP Stormwater Quality Manual. Curve numbers were ' referenced from NRCS TR-55, refer to Appendix E for calculations. Conclusion In conclusion, there is a decrease in peak flow to design points DP-1 and DP-2, due to reducing the area to DP-1 and the attenuation of flow from the detention pond located in Subarea DA-2. The stormwater system replicates existing conditions by discharging stormwater onsite and allowing runoff to flow overland at non-erosive velocities, utilizing existing flow paths. The proposed development should not result in any adverse impacts to the watershed. i t 1 1 1 CREC International Magnet School Page 4of 4 Executive Summary USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map 1 f 1 I I I n + 10 a � `.i j 4i��I �` t U •' ., In ea t -a • r ua• _4 ' Of .-`-, r Yam s�-Y3� 'I�y� ���'• `. 4 • - ' hAfYl /AM ■ 'sr Ii ' PROJECT LOCATION USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP t MANCHESTER,CT SCALE: 1:24000 Zi CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET NGVD 1929 NORTH JOB NO: 21-10-106 so aft CLIENT: CREC International Magnet School alga"d.Cr ow 9 intC tC' FB I SUBJECT: USGS Topographic Quadrangle Map S�STlCCB CK 8T7 1D6WALaMEfWWILAM 82CMIM 84feW Prepared By: SPW Date: 9/6/2011 Checked By: TSD ' (04)2110106-CREC IMS_USGS To o Map P 9/1/2011 2:31 PM cd ,-d O O w r r Soil Survey of Project Site 1 r 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r r r Hydrologic Soil Group—State of Connecticut (CREC International Magnet School) 0 io M n � N n 41"49 27" 41"49 26" r" IL rr 410 48'12" 410 48'12" Map Scale:1:3,190 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. M 0 40 gp 160 Meters M 24 V 0 N 0 150 300 Feet n 600 900 _USDA Natural Resources • Conservation Service Web Soil Survey 6/6/2011 National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group—State of Connecticut (CREC International Magnet School) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOQ Map Scale:1:3,190 if printed on A size(8.5"x 11")sheet. Area of Interest(AOI) The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. Solis 0 Soil Map.Units Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Soil Ratings ® A Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov A/D Coordinate System: UTM Zone 18N NAD83 B This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of 0 B/D the version date(s)listed below. 0 C Soil Survey Area: State of Connecticut Survey Area Data: Version 10,Mar 31,2011 C/D Date(s)aerial images were photographed: 8/14/2006 ® D The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Not rated or not available compiled and digitized probably differs from the background Political Features imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting � Cities of map unit boundaries may be evident. Water Features ® Oceans -- Streams and Canals Transportation Rails r� Interstate Highways w US Routes Major Roads Local Roads USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Paggee 2 of 2of 1 4 Hydrologic Soil Group-State of Connecticut CREC International Magnet School Hydrologic Soil Group ' Hydrologic Soil Group—Summary by Map Unit—State of Connecticut Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI ' 13 Walpole sandy loam D 2.3 9.2% 21A Ninigret and Tisbury soils,0 to 5 B 0.3 1.1% percent slopes 32B Haven and Enfield soils,3 to 8 percent B 5.0 19.9% slopes 36B Windsor loamy sand,3 to 8 percent A 2.6 10.3% slopes 43A Rainbow silt loam,0 to 3 percent C 2.9 11.7% slopes 43B Rainbow silt loam,3 to 8 percent C 12.0 47 7%° slopes 306 Udorthents-Urban land complex B 0.0 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest 25.2 100.0% r r i ' USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/6/2011 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 4 Hydrologic Soil Group-State of Connecticut CREC International Magnet School 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. Rating Options Aggregation Method. Dominant Condition Component Percent Cutoff- None Specified Tie-break Rule: Higher USDA 2iiiiiiiiiiIIIIIINatural Resources Web Soil Survey 6/6/2011 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 4 of 4 WkT Hydrologic Analysis Pre-Development Hydraflow Table of Contents Pre Development.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADCD Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Watershed Model Schematic................................................................................ 1 ' Hydrograph Return Period Recap........................................................................ 2 2 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................... 3 HydrographReports............................................................................................................. 4 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1)..................................................................... 4 ' TR-55 Tc Worksheet...................................................................................................... 5 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DP-2 (DA-2)..................................................................... 6 TR-55 Tc Worksheet...................................................................................................... 7 10 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................... 8 HydrographReports............................................................................................................. 9 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1)..................................................................... 9 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DP-2 (DA-2)................................................................... 10 ' 25 -Year ' Summary Report......................................................... ....................... 11 ...... ........................... HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 12 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1)................................................................... 12 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DP-2-(DA-2)................................................................... 13 50 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................. 14 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 15 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1)................................................................... 15 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DP-2 (DA-2)................................................................... 16 100 - Year ' Summary Report................................................................................................................. 17 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 18 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DPA (DA-1)................................................................... 18 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DP-2 (DA-2)................................................................... 19 t1 ' Watershed Model SchematicHydraflowHydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D82011byAutodesk,Inc.vB 1-DP-1 (DA-1) 2_DP-2(DA:2) t Legend ' Hyd. Origin Description 1 SCS Runoff DPA (DA-1) ' 2 SCS Runoff DP-2(DA-2) Project: Pre Development.gpw Friday, Sep 2, 2011 2 ' Hydrograph Return Period RllydCraloRydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow(cfs) Hydrograph ' No. type hyd(s) Description (origin) 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr ' 1 SCS Runoff --- 4.661 13.32 18.80 23.90 29.21 DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff ----- 5.935 13.79 18.45 22.68 27.03 DP-2(DA-2) 1 Proj. file: Pre Development.gpw Friday, Sep 2,2011 3 ' Hydrograph Summary Repo-I ydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 ' Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) M (cuft) ' 1 SCS Runoff 4.661 2 738 25,868 -- —— DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 5,935 2 736 28,815 — -- -- DP-2(DA-2) Pre Development.gpw Return Period: 2 Year Friday, Sep 2,2011 Hydrograph Report 4 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.A Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) ' Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 4.661 cfs Storm frequency 2 yrs Time to peak = 738 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 25,868 cuft ' Drainage area = 11.870 ac Curve number = 65 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 18.30 min Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 ' DP-1 (DA-1) Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --2 Year Q(cfs) 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 ' 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 ' 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 - 0 120 --240 -360 - 480 -600-- 72-0- 840- 960- -1080 -1200- 1320 1440 -1§60- - - Hyd No. 1 Time(min) 5 TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow H dro ra hs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 b Y 9 P y Autodesk,Inc.v8 ' Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) ' Description A ¢ C Totals Sheet Flow ' Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 150.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.20 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 6.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 12.72 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 12.72 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 815.00 300.00 0.00 ' Watercourse slope (°to) = 6.00 2.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) =3.95 2.28 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 3.44 + 2.19 + 0.00 = 5.63 ' Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ftls) =0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 TotalTravel Time,Tc .............................................................................. 18.30 min Hydrograph Report 6 ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3136 2011 b Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Se 2 2011 Y Y� p Hyd. No. 2 DP-2 (DA-2) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 5.935 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 736 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 28,815 cuft Drainage area = 9.040 ac Curve number = 71 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 17.10 min ' Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-2 (DA-2) Q{cfs) Hyd. No. 2--2 Year Q( s) 6.00 6.00 ' 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 ' 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0-- -120 -240-- -360 - 480 --600 720- -840- 960- 1080 —1200 1320 1440 1560--- --- - - Hyd No. 2 Time(min) TR55 Tc Worksheet 7 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D@ 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. No. 2 DP-2 (DA-2) ' Descriotion A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 150.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.20 0.00 0.00 ' Land slope (%) = 6.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 12.72 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 12.72 ' Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 490.00 200.00 240.00 ' Watercourse slope(%) = 5.00 10.00 3.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Unpaved Average velocity (ft/s) =3.61 5.10 2.79 Travel Time (min) = 2.26 + 0.65 + 1.43 = 4.35 ' Channel Flow X sectional flow area(sgft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity(ft/s) =0.00 ' 0.00 . 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 TotalTravel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 17.10 min rHydrograph Summary ReporlydraflowHydrographs Extension for AutoCADOD Civil 3DID2011 byAutodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (tuft) 1 SCS Runoff 13.32 2 734 62,791 ------ DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 13.79 2 734 62,102 --- DP-2(DA-2) r t i Pre Development.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Friday, Sep 2, 2011 Hydrograph Report 9 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAIM Civil 31M 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 13.32 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume 62,791 cult Drainage area = 11.870 ac Curve number = 65 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 18.30 min Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Q(cfs) DP-1 (DA-1)Hyd. No. 1 --10 Year Q(cfs) ' 14.00 14.00 12.00 12.00 ' 10.00 10.00 ' 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0 120 ----240 _360_-__ 480 --600 _--720-- ---84-0- -960 -1-080-- 1-200- -1320- -1440 1560- - - --- - -- - Hyd No. 1 Time(min) 10 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DP-2 (DA-2) ' Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 13.79 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 62,102 cult Drainage area = 9.040 ac Curve number = 71 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 17.10 min Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 ' DP-2 (DA-2) Q(cfs} Hyd. No.2--10 Year Q(cfs) 14.00 14.00 ' 12.00 12.00 ' 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 ' 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 - -_- 0 -- 120 240 _ 360- --480- 600- 720- -- 840- -960 -1-080 - 1200—1320- 1440--1660-- _ - — Hyd No. 2 Time(min) 11 iHydrograph Summary Repo-Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 18.80 2 734 85,949 ------ --- ---- DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 18.45 2 734 82,084 — DP-2(DA-2) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Pre Development.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Friday, Sep 2,2011 12 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3130 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 18.80 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 85,949 cuft Drainage area = 11.870 ac Curve number = 65 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 18.30 min ' Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-1 (DA-1) Q{cfs} Hyd. No. 1 --25 Year Q{cfs) 21.00 21.00 18.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 ---1-20- --240 -360- 480__-- 600- - 720 - 840 -960 _ 1-080 1-200 1-320- 1440 1-560- - Hyd No. 1 Time(min) 13 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD()Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DP-2 (DA-2) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 18.45 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 82,084 tuft Drainage area = 9.040 ac Curve number = 71 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 17.10 min Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-2 (DA-2) Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 2--25 Year Q{cfs) 21.00 21.00 18.00 A18.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 _-_-120----240-__-360-- -480-----600- -720 __ --840-- --960 1080 1200-- 1320 - 1440 1560 - Hyd No.2 Time(min) 14 H yd ro g ra p h Summary Repo l ydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 23.90 2 734 107,625 ----- - DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 22.68 2 734 100,438 DP-2(DA-2) i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pre Development.gpw Return Period: 50 Year Friday, Sep 2,2011 15 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 23.90 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 734 thin Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 107,625 cult ' Drainage area = 11.870 ac Curve number = 65 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 18.30 min Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-1 (DA-1) Q(cfs} Hyd. No. 1 --50 Year Q(cfs) 24.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 -0 120- 240 360 480- 600 - 720 - 840- -960 -1080- 1200 - 1-320 1440- 1560- - Hyd No. 1 Time(min) 16 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 31®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DP-2 (DA-2) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 22.68 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 100,438 cuft Drainage area = 9.040 ac Curve number = 71 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of cons. (Tc) = 17.10 min ' Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-2 (DA-2) Q(cfs} Hyd. No. 2--50 Year Q(cfs} 24.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 _-120 -_ 240 360 480 -600-_---720-- -_840- --960- --1080- -1-200---1320- --1440- --1560- - Hyd No.2 Time(min) 17 Hydrograph Summary Re po'lydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3136 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph ' No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 29.21 2 734 130,360 — ----- DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 27.03 2 734 119,428 — -- — DP-2(DA-2) 1 1 I I Pre Development.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Friday, Sep 2, 2011 ' 18 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAOO Civil 308 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 29.21 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 130,360 cuft Drainage area = 11.870 ac Curve number = 65 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of cone. (Tc) = 18.30 min ' Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 ' DP-1 (DA-1) Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 1 -- 100 Year Q(cfs) 30.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 15.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 - --_ 0 --- 120-- 240- 360- -480- --600- 720- 840 --960 1080 1200 1320- 1440- 1560- Hyd No. 1 Time(min) Hydrograph Report 19 ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DP-2 (DA-2) ' Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 27.03 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 734 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 119,428 cuft ' Drainage area = 9.040 ac Curve number = 71 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 17.10 min ' Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-2 (DA-2) Q{cfs} Hyd. No. 2-- 100 Year Q{cfs) ' 28.00 28.00 ' 24.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 1 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 s.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 ---0 __120- -240---360-_ -A80- _--600- 720 -840 - -960 -1080- 1200- 1320- 1440- -1560-- - - Hyd No. 2 Time(min) t 1 Hydrologic Analysis Y 1 Post-Development 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hyd raf I ow Table of Contents Post Development.gpw Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.A Friday,Sep 2,2011 Watershed Model Schematic................................................................................ I HydrographReturn Period Recap........................................................................ 2 2 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................... 3 HydrographReports............................................................................................................. 4 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1)..................................................................... 4 ' TR-55 Tc Worksheet................................................................................................ .. 5 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DA-2A. 6 Hydrograph No. 3, SCS Runoff, DA-2B.............................................................................. 7 TR-55 Tc Worksheet................................. ..........,...............................,..........,,............ 8 Hydrograph No. 4, SCS Runoff, DA-2C. 9 TR-55 Tc Worksheet.................................................................................................... 10 Hydrograph No. 5, SCS Runoff, DA-2D............................................................................ 11 TR-55 Tc Worksheet.................................................................................................... 12 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, Forebay/Pond................................................................... 13 PondReport- Forebay...................................................,............................................. 14 PondReport- Detention............................................................................................... 15 Hydrograph No. 7, Combine, DP-2................................................................................... 16 10 -Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................. 17 ' Hydrograph Reports........................................................................'......,......,.................... 18 Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1). 18 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DA-2A............................................................................ 19 Hydrograph No. 3, SCS Runoff, DA-2B............................................................................ 20 Hydrograph No. 4, SCS Runoff, DA-2C............................................................................ 21 Hydrograph No. 5, SCS Runoff, DA-2D............................................................................ 22 ' Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, Forebay/Pond................................................................... 23 Hydrograph No. 7, Combine, DP-2................................................................................... 24 25 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................. 25 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 26 ' Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 {DA-1}................................................................... 26 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DA-2A. 27 Hydrograph No. 3, SCS Runoff, DA-2B............................................................................ 28 Hydrograph No. 4, SCS Runoff, DA-2C............................................................................ 29 Hydrograph No. 5, SCS Runoff, DA-2D............................................................................ 30 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, Forebay/Pond................................................................... 31 ' Hydrograph No. 7, Combine,-DP-2................................................................................... 32 50 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................. 33 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 34 Contents continued... Post Development.gpw Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1)................................................................... 34 ' Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DA-2A............................................................................ 35 Hydrograph No. 3, SCS Runoff, DA-2B. 36 Hydrograph No. 4, SCS Runoff, DA-2C............................................................................ 37 Hydrograph No. 5, SCS Runoff, DA-2D............................................................................ 38 Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, Forebay/Pond. 39 Hydrograph No. 7, Combine, DP-2................................................................................... 40 ' 100 - Year SummaryReport................................................................................................................. 41 HydrographReports........................................................................................................... 42 ' Hydrograph No. 1, SCS Runoff, DP-1 (DA-1)................................................................... 42 Hydrograph No. 2, SCS Runoff, DA-2A............................................................................ 43 Hydrograph No. 3, SCS Runoff, DA-2B............................................................................ 44 Hydrograph No. 4, SCS Runoff, DA-2C............................................................................ 45 Hydrograph No. 5, SCS Runoff, DA-2D............................................................................ 46 ' Hydrograph No. 6, Reservoir, Forebay/Pond................................................................... 47 Hydrograph No. 7, Combine, DP-2................................................................................... 48 ' 1 Watershed Model Schematicl,draflowHydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DE}2011byAutodesk,Inc.v8 1 4-DA-2C 5-DA-213 3-DA-ZB 1 -DP-1 (DA-1)2-DP`"2A r 6-ForebaylPond i r r 1 7-DP-2 Legend r r r HAOrigin Descrigtion 1 SCS Runoff DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff DA-2A 3 SCS Runoff DA-211 4 SCS Runoff DA-2C 5 SCS Runoff DA-21) 6 Reservoir(i) ForebaylPond 7 Combine DP-2 1 Project: Post Development.gpw Friday, Sep 2, 2011 1 2 Hydrograph Return Period R,ygp,�,ydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Inflow Peak Outflow(cfs) Hydrograph No. type hyd(s) Description (origin) 1-yr 2-yr 3-yr 5-yr 10-yr 25-yr 50-yr 100-yr 1 SCS Runoff ----- --- 4.312 ---- 10.57 14.38 17.86 21.46 DP-1 (DA-1) ' 2 SCS Runoff -- ---- 1.435 -- ---- 2.424 2.953 3.416 3.876 DA-2A 3 SCS Runoff -- - -- 5.003 --- ----- 9.540 12.07 14.32 16.57 DA-213 4 SCS Runoff --- 3.217 ------ -- 7.240 9.598 11.77 13.99 DA-2C 5 SCS Runoff 2.159 ------ 5.050 6.800 8.397 10.04 DA-2113 6 Reservoir(i) 3,4 3.078 --- ------ 7.573 10.23 12.00 18.68 Forebay/Pond 7 Combine 2,5,6 3.751 ----- 10.21 13.91 17.06 22.06 DP-2 ' Pro'J.file: Post Development.gpw Friday, Sep 2, 2011 3 Hydrograph Summary Re po-Frdraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3002011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 4.312 2 750 27,949 M � DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 1.435 2 724 4,301 DA-2A 3 SCS Runoff 5.003 2 730 19,470 ---- ------ DA-28 ' 4 SCS Runoff 3.217 2 732 14,148 ----- --- --- DA-2C 5 SCS Runoff 2.159 2 724 6,594 ----- DA-213 ' 6 Reservolr(i) 3.078 2 754 32,589 3,4 92.12 12,490 Forebay/Pond 7 Combine 3.751 2 724 43,484 2,5,6 ----- DP-2 Post Development.gpw Return Period:2 Year Friday, Sep 2,2011 4 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 4.312 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 750 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 27,949 cuft Drainage area = 9.990 ac Curve number = 69 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 36.00 min Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DPA (DA-1) Q(cfs) Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --2 Year ' 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 r 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960_ 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time(min) - Hyd Na. 1 ' 5 TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 31W 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow ' Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.240 0.240 Flow length (ft) = 150.0 110.0 40.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.20 3.20 3.20 ' Land slope (%) = 5.00 5.00 2.00 Travel Time (min) = 13.68 + 10.68 + 6.86 = 31.21 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 215.00 100.00 430.00 Watercourse slope(%) = 6.00 5.00 2.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Unpaved Average velocity (ft/s) =3.95 4.55 2.28 Travel Time (min) = 0.91 + 0.37 + 3.14 = 4.41 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 1.42 2.53 0.00 Wetted perimeter(ft) = 3.14 4.19 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 5.00 5.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.012 0.012 0.015 Velocity(ft/s) =16.31 19.80 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})125.0 265.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.13 + 0.22 + 0.00 = 0.35 TotalTravel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 36.00 min ' 6 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3138 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DA-2A Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 1.435 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 4,301 tuft Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 87* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of cons. (Tc) = 5.00 min ' Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 ' `Composite(Area/CN)_[(0.120 x 39)+(0.190 x 36)+(0.450 x 74)+(1.000 x 73)+(0.240 x 77)]/0.660 DA-2A Q(cfs) Q{cfs) Hyd. No. 2--2 Year 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time(min) - Hyd No.2 r r r7 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 31D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 3 r DA-2B Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 5.003 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 730 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 19,470 cult Drainage area = 3.710 ac Curve number = 80* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of cone. (Tc) = 12.70 min Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 "Composite(Area/CN)_[(2.030 x 98)+(0.250 x 74)]13.710 DA-2B Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 3--2 Year Q(cfs) 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 1 3.00 3.00 r 2.00 2.00 r1.00 1.00 r 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Hyd No. 3 Time(min) i r ' 8 TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADV Civil 3D0 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. No. 3 DA-213 Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.240 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 20.0 130.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.20 3.20 0.00 Land slope (%) = 33.00 8.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 1.28 + 10.11 + 0.00 = 11.39 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 30.00 75.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%} = 8.00 4.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) =4.56 4.07 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.11 + 0.31 + 0.00 = 0.42 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 0.97 1.42 2.53 Wetted perimeter(ft) = 2.62 3.14 4.19 Channel slope (%) = 5.00 5.00 2.00 Manning's n-value = 0.012 0.012 0.012 Velocity (ft/s) =14.27 16.31 12.52 Flow length (ft) ({0})175.0 185.0 375.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.20 + 0.19 + 0.50 = 0.89 rTotal Travel Time,Tc .............................................................................. 12.70 min 9 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 31382011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 4 DA-2C Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.217 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 732 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 14,148 cult Drainage area = 4.300 ac Curve number = 72* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 15.40 min Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 *Composite(Area/CN)=[(4.400 x 74)+(1.440 x 61)]14.300 DA-2C Q (cfs) Hyd. No.4--2 Year Q(cfs) 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2,10 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time(min) Hyd No.4 10 TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. No. 4 DA-2C Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.240 0.240 Flow length (ft) = 100.0 50.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.20 3.20 0.00 Land slope (%) = 6.00 33.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 9.20 + 2.67 + 0.00 = 11.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 460.00 90.00 0.00 Watercourse slope (%) = 2.00 33.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Unpaved Paved Average velocity (fUs) =2.28 9.27 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 3.36 + 0.16 + 0.00 - 3.52 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 TotalTravel Time,Tc .............................................................................. 15.40 min 11 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAQ®Civil 3D8 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 5 DA-2 D Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 2.159 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 6,594 cuft Drainage area = 2.250 ac Curve number = 70 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 14.40 min Total precip. = 3.20 in Distribution = Type II Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DA-2D Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5--2 Year Q(cfs) 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time(min) Hyd No. 5 12 TR55 Tc Worksheet Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3138 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.va Hyd. No. 5 DA-2 D Description A B C Totals Sheet Flow Manning's n-value = 0.240 0.011 0.011 Flow length (ft) = 150.0 0.0 0.0 Two-year 24-hr precip. (in) = 3.20 0.00 0.00 Land slope (%) = 5.00 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 13.68 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 13.68 Shallow Concentrated Flow Flow length (ft) = 100.00 0.00 0.00 ' Watercourse slope(°lo} = 2.00 0.00 0.00 Surface description = Unpaved Paved Paved Average velocity (ft/s) =2.28 0.00 0.00 Travel Time (min) = 0.73 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.73 Channel Flow X sectional flow area (sgft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wetted perimeter(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel slope (%) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 Manning's n-value = 0.015 0.015 0.015 Velocity (ft/s) =0.00 0.00 0.00 Flow length (ft) ({0})0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Time (min) = 0.00 + 0.00 + 0.00 = 0.00 TotalTravel Time, Tc .............................................................................. 14.40 min 13 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAi O Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 6 Forebay/Pond Hydrograph type = Reservoir(interconnected) Peak discharge = 3.078 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 754 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 32,589 cuft UWAin asd = Forebay EovAnftad = Detention Inflow hyd. = 3 - DA-213 Other Inflow hyd. = 4 - DA-2C Max. Elevation = 92.12 ft Max. Elevation = 89.85 ft Max. Storage = 5,622 cuft Max. Storage = 6,867 cuft Interconnected Pond Routing.Storage Indication method used. Forebay/Pond Q(cfs) Q{cfs} Hyd. No.6--2 Year 8.00 s:oo 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440 1680 1920 2160 2400 - Hyd No. 6 - Hyd No. 3 LLTUF_l Total storage used = 12,490 cult Time(min) - Outflow Pond 1 Hyd No. 4 Inflow Pond 2 Pond Report 14 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Pond No.I - Forebay Pond Data Contours-User-defined contour areas.Conic method used for volume calculation.Begining Elevation=90.00 ft Stage/Storage Table Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sqft) Incr.Storage(cuft) Total storage(cuft) 0.00 90.00 2,200 0 0 1.00 91.00 2,600 2,397 2,397 2,00 92.00 3,100 2,846 5,243 2.75 92.75 3,500 2,473 7,716 Culvert/Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A] [B] [C] [D] Rise(in) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span(in) = 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El.(ft) = 92.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 10 0 0 0 WeirCoeff. = 3.33 3.33 3-33 3.33 Invert El.(ft) = 90.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Weir Type = Rect Length(ft) = 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope(%) = 2,00 0.00 0.00 n/a N-Value = .011 .013 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Exfil.(in/hr) = 0.000(by Contour) Multi-Stage = n/a No No No TW Elev.(ft) = 0.00 Note:Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet(ic)and outlet(cc)control.Weir risers checked for orifice conditions(ic)and submergence(s). Stage(ft) Stage I Discharge Elev(ft) 3.00 93.00 woo- 2.00 92.00 1.00 91.00 0.00 90.00 0.00 7.00 14.00 21.00 28.00 35.00 42.00 49.00 56.00 63.00 70.00 Total Q Discharge(cfs) Pond Report 15 Hydrafiow Hydrographs Extension forAutoCAD®Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc,v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Pond No.2- Detention Pond Data Contours-User-defined contour areas.Conic method used for volume calculation.Begining Elevation=88.00 ft Stage/Storage Table Stage(ft) Elevation(ft) Contour area(sgft) Incr.Storage(cult) Total storage(cuft) 0.00 88.00 145 0 0 1.00 89.00 5,134 2,047 2,047 2.00 90.00 6,268 5,691 7,738 3.00 91.00 7,270 6,762 14,500 4.00 92.00 8,662 7,955 22,455 5.00 93.00 10,422 9,527 31,983 5.50 93.50 11,100 5,379 37,362 Culvert I Orifice Structures Weir Structures [A►] [B] [C] [PrfRsr] [A►] [B] [C] ID] Rise(in) = 12.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 Crest Len(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Span(in) = 12.00 36.00 0.00 0.00 Crest El.(ft) = 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 No.Barrels = 1 1 0 0 Weir Coeff. = 3.33 3.33 3.33 3.33 Invert El.(ft) = 88.50 90.58 0.00 0,00 Weir Type = - - - --- Length(ft) = 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Multi-Stage = No No No No Slope(%) = 2.00 2.00 0.00 n/a N-Value = .013 .013 .013 n/a Orifice Coeff. = 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Exfil.(inlhr) = 0.000(by Wet area) Multi-Stage = n/a No No No TW Elev.(ft) = 0.00 Note:Culvert/Orifice outflows are analyzed under inlet(ic)and outlet low control.Weir risers checked for orifice conditions(1c)and submergence(s). -� Stage(ft) Stage I Discharge Elev(ft) 6.00 94.00 5.00 93.00 4.00 92.00 3.00 - 91.00 2.00 90.00 rol/ 1.00 89.00 0.00 88.00 0,00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 Total Q Discharge(cfs) 16 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADOD Civil 3D0 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.A Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 7 DP-2 Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 3.751 cfs Storm frequency = 2 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 43,484 cuft Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6 Contrib. drain. area = 2.910 ac DP-2 Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 7--2 Year Q{cfs} 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440 1680 1920 2160 2400 Time(min) — Hyd No. 7 — Hyd No. 2 -- Hyd No. 5 —�— Hyd No.6 17 Hydrograph Summary Re po"I rdraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) MIS) (min) (min) (cult) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 10.57 2 746 82,464 .� y � DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 2.424 2 724 7,380 DA-2A 3 SCS Runoff 9.540 2 728 36,565 � � � DA-2B 4 SCS Runoff 7.240 2 732 29,973 DA-2C 5 SCS Runoff 5.050 2 722 14,467 ------ ---- DA-213 6 Reservoir(i) 7.573 2 748 65,540 3,4 92.21 22,503 Forebay/Pond 7 Combine 10.21 2 726 87,387 2,5,6 ---- ----- DP-2 i Post Development.gpw Return Period: 10 Year Friday, Sep 2, 2011 18 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. I DPA (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 10.57 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 746 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 62,464 cuft Drainage area = 9.990 ac Curve number = 69 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 36.00 min Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-1 (DA-1) Q{cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --10 Year Q{cfs} 12.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 I 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time(min) Hyd No. 1 19 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3138 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DA-2A Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 2.424 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 7,380 cuft Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 87* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 *Composite(Area1CN)_[(0.120 x 39)+(0.190 x 36)+(0.450 x 74)+(1.000 x 73)+(0.240 x 77)j 10.660 DA-2A Q(cfs) Q (cfs} Hyd. No. 2--10 Year 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 Time(min) -- Hyd No.2 20 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension forAutoCADS Civil 31D 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 3 DA-2B Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 9.540 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 728 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 36,565 cult Drainage area = 3.710 ac Curve number = 80* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 12.70 min Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type 11.1 Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 "Composite(Area1CN)_[(2.030 x 98)+(0.250 x 74)]/3.710 DA-2B Q(cfs) Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 3--10 Year 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 &00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 240 _ 360 - 480 - -600- 720 - 840- -960- - 1080 -1200 1320 _ 1440 1.560 Time(min) - Hyd No. 3 ' 21 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3130 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 4 DA-2C Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 7.240 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 732 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 29,973 cult ' Drainage area = 4.300 ac Curve number = 72* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 15.40 min Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 .Composite(Area/CN)_[(4.400 x 74)+(1.440 x 61)]/4.300 DA-2C Q(cfs) Q(cfs) Hyd. No.4-- 10 Year 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 ' - - - - - 0 120 -240- -360- --480- --600- 720 _ 840 960 - 1080 1200 1320_ _1440 1560 Time(min) - Hyd No. 4 r22 Hydrograph Report r Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAO®Civil 3130 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 r Hyd. No. 5 DA-2 D ' Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 5.050 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 722 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 14,467 cuft r Drainage area = 2.250 ac Curve number = 70 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of cone. (Tc) = 14.40 min r Total precip. = 4.70 in Distribution = Type Il Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 r rDA-2D Q{cfs} Q {cfs) Hyd. No. 5--10 Year 6.00 6.00 r5.00 5.00 r 4.00 4.00 r r3.00 3.00 r2.00 2.00 r 1.00 1.00 r 0.00 Wk 0.00 0- 120 240 360 480 -600 720-- 840 __ --960 - _1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time{min} - Hyd No. 5 r r ' 23 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3136 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 6 Forebay/Pond ' Hydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharge = 7.573 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 748 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 65,540 cuft ' Bponfted = Forebay EovAnffiaed = Detention Inflow hyd. = 3 - DA-26 Other Inflow hyd. = 4 - DA-2C Max. Elevation = 92.21 ft Max. Elevation = 91.26 ft ' Max. Storage = 5,921 cuft Max. Storage = 16,582 cuft Interconnected Pond Routing.Storage Indication method used. ' Forebay/Pond Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 6-- 10 Year Q(cfs) 18.00 18.00 ' 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 9.00 ' 6.00 6.00 ' 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 _ 240_ _480 _ 720 _M 1200_ _1440 _1680 1920 _2160 2400 Time(min) Hyd No. 6 - Hyd No. 3 (f II-CLI] Total storage used =22,503 cuft ' - Outflow Pond 1 Hyd No. 4 Inflow Pond 2 ' 24 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD@)Civil 3D@ 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 7 DP-2 ' Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 10.21 cfs Storm frequency = 10 yrs Time to peak = 726 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 87,387 cuft ' Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, S Contrib. drain. area = 2.910 ac t ' DP-2 Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7-- 10 Year Q{cfs) 12.00 12.00 ' 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 t 6.00 6.00 ' 4.00 4.00 ' 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 240 480_ _ 720 960 _ 1200 _ _ 1.440_ _ _ 1680 1920 2160 Time(min) - Hyd No. 7 Hyd No. 2 - Hyd No. 5 - Hyd No.6 25 Hydrograph Summary Report ydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D0 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) ' 1 SCS Runoff 14.38 2 746 83,471 --- DPA (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 2.953 2 724 9,075 DA-2A ' 3 SCS Runoff 12.07 2 728 46,294 .� .� DA-28 4 SCS Runoff 9.598 2 732 39,411 DA-2C 5 SCS Runoff 6.800 2 722 19,226 — — DA-213 6 Reservoir(i) 10.23 2 748 84,724 3,4 92.24 27,973 Forebay/Pond 7 Combine 13.91 2 724 113,025 2,5,6 ------ --- DP-2 Post Development.gpw Return Period: 25 Year Friday, Sep 2,2011 Hydrograph Report 26 Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 14.38 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 746 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 83,471 cuft Drainage area = 9.990 ac Curve number = 69 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 36.00 min ' Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 ' DP-1 (DA-1) Q{cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --25 Year Q(cfs) 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 ' 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 _120 240 360 _ 480_ 600 720 840 960 _ 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 - Hyd No. 1 Time(min) 27 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil MOD 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2. DA-2A Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 2.953 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 9,075 cuft Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 87* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of cone. (Tc) = 5.00 min ' Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 ' k Composite(Area/CN)_[(0.120 x 39)+(0.190 x 36)+(0.450 x 74)+(1.000 x 73)+(0.240 x 77)]/0.660 ' DA-2A Q (cfs) Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 2 --25 Year 3.00 3.00 r 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 _ _120_ 240 360 480 600 _ 720 840 960_ 1080 1200 1320 1440 Hyd No. 2 Time(min) r28 Hydrograph Report rHydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 3 DA-2B Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 12.07 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 728 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 46,294 cuft Drainage area = 3.710 ac Curve number = 80* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 12.70 min Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 "Composite(Area/CN)_[(2.030 x 98)+(0.250 x 74)]!3.710 ' DA-213 Q(cfs) Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 3--25 Year 14.00 14.00 ' 12.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 ' 8.00 8.00 ' 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 r 2.00 2.00 1 0.00 0.00 '- - 0 --120 240 - 360- -480 _ 600 - 720 840 960 -_1080 1200- 1.320_ _1440 _1560 Time(min) -- Hyd No. 3 1 1 29 Hydrograph Report Hydraffow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3138 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 4 DA-2C Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 9.598 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 732 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 39,411 cuft ' Drainage area = 4.300 ac Curve number = 72* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 15.40 min Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 *Composite(Area/CN)_[(4.400 x 74)+(1.440 x 61)]/4.300 DA-2C Q(cfs) Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 4--25 Year 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 ' 2.00 2.00 UO 0.00 - - 0 -120- 240- -360- _- 480 --600- 720 - 840 960 -1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 ' - Hyd No. 4 Time(min) 30 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension forAutoCADS Civil 3136 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 5 DA-2D ' Hydrograph type = SGS Runoff Peak discharge = 6.800 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 722 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 19,226 cuft ' Drainage area = 2.250 ac Curve number = 70 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 14.40 min ' Total precip. = 5.50 in Distribution = Type 11 Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DA-2D Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 5--25 Year Q(cfs} 7.00 7.00 ' 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 ' 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 ' 0 120- 240 360 480 600 - 720 - 840 -960 - -1080- -1200- 1320- --1440- 1560 - - Time(min) - Hyd No. 5 31 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 6 Forebay/Pond Hydrograph type = Reservoir(Interconnected) Peak discharge = 10.23 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 748 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 84,724 cult 8pOingued = Forebay RovAnVoed = Detention Inflow hyd. = 3 - DA-213 Other Inflow hyd. = 4 - DA-2C Max. Elevation = 92.24 ft Max. Elevation = 91.94 ft Max. Storage = 6,039 cult Max. Storage = 21,934 cult Interconnected Pond Routing.Storage Indication method used. Forebay/Pond Q(cfs) Hyd. No.6--25 Year Q{cfs) 24.00 24.00 r20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 - - -0 240- 480 720 - 960 1200 _ _ _1440 1680 1920_ _2160_ - Hyd No. 6 - Hyd No. 3 Total storage used=27,973 cuft Time(min) - Outflow Pond 1 Hyd No. 4 Inflow Pond 2 32 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil MID 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 7 DP-2 Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 13.91 cfs Storm frequency = 25 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 113,025 cuft Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6 Contrib. drain. area = 2.910 ac DP-2 Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 7--25 Year Q(cfs) 14.00 14.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 6M 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0_ 120 240 360 480 _ 600 720 840 960 _1080 1200 1320 1440 _1560 1680 Time{min) Hyd No. 7 — Hyd No. 2 �— Hyd No. 5 — Hyd No. 6 33 Hydrograph Summary Re po-I-lydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAO@ Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 17.86 2 746 102,879 DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 3.416 2 724 10,576 DA-2A 3 SCS Runoff 14.32 2 728 55,028 --- - -- ---- DA-28 ' 4 SCS Runoff 11.77 2 730 48,054 -- — — DA-2C 5 SCS Runoff 8.397 2 722 23,609 --- — - DA-213 ' 6 Reservoir(i) 12.00 2 746 102,114 3,4 92.42 32,347 Forebay/Pond 7 Combine 17.06 2 726 136,299 2,5,6 — DP-2 i Post Development.gpw Return Period: 50 Year Friday, Sep 2, 2011 ' 34 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D8 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 1 DP-1 (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 17.86 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 746 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 102,879 cuft Drainage area = 9.990 ac Curve number = 69 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 36.00 min Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DPA (DA-1) Q {cfs} Hyd. No. 1 --50 Year Q{cfs) 18.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 _ 240 360 480 604 720_ 840 9610 1080 1200 1320 1440. 1560 Time(min) - Hyd No. 1 35 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3138 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DA-2A Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.416 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 10,576 cult Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 87* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 *Composite(Area/CN)_[(0.120 x 39)+(0.190 x 36)+(0.450 x 74)+(1.000 x 73)+(0.240 x 77)]/0.660 DA-ZA Q MS) Hyd. No.2--50 Year Q(cfs) 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1 A0 0.00 0.00 0_ 120_ 240_ 360 480 600 _ 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320_ 1440 - Time(min) --- Hyd No. 2 i 1 36 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3139 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 3 DA-2 B Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 14.32 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 728 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 55,028 cuft Drainage area = 3.710 ac Curve number = 80* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of cons. (Tc) = 12.70 min Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 "Composite(Area/CN)_[(2.030 x 98)+(0.250 x 74)113.710 i Q{cfs} DA-2B Hyd. No. 3--50 Year Q(cfs} 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 _ 0 _120 _ _240 360_ 480 600_ _ 720 840 960 _ 1080 1200 _ 1320 1.440 1560 Time{min} - Hyd No. 3 37 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3130 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 4 DA-2C Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 11.77 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 730 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 48,054 cuft Drainage area = 4.300 ac Curve number = 72* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of cons. (Tc) = 15.40 min Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 "Composite(Area/CN)_[(4.400 x 74)+(1.440 x 61)]/4.300 DA-2C Q(cfs) Hyd. No.4--50 Year Q{cfs) 12.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0 120 _ 240 360 480 600 720 840 _ 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time(min} --- Hyd No. 4 38 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADaD Civil MOD 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ■ Hyd. No. 5 ! DA-2 D Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 8.397 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 722 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 23,609 cuft Drainage area = 2.250 ac Curve number = 70 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 14.40 min Total precip. = 6.20 in Distribution = Type II Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DA-2D Q{cfs} Hyd. No. 5--50 Year Q{cfs} 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 EM 0.00 0 - 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 -960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 �i Time(min) Hyd No. 5 39 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension forAutoCAD@ Civil 3D0 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 6 Forebay/Pond 1 Hydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharge = 12.00 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 746 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 102,114 cuft Bpp*nff led = Forebay eovAiriptned = Detention Inflow hyd. = 3 - DA-2131 Other Inflow hyd. = 4 - DA-2C Max. Elevation = 92.42 ft Max. Elevation = 92.39 ft Max. Storage = 6,135 cult Max. Storage = 26,212 cuft Interconnected Pond Routing,Storage Indication method used. Forebay/Pond Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 6--50 Year Q(cfs) 28.00 28.00 24.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 8 8.00 .00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 -� 0 240 480 720__ _ 960 1200 1440 1680 1920 - Hyd No. 6 -- Hyd No. 3 (1 11 l l 1 1 Total storage used =32,347 cult Time(min) Outflow Pond 1 Hyd No.4 Inflow Pond 2 40 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D@ 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 7 DP-2 Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 17.06 cfs Storm frequency = 50 yrs Time to peak = 726 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 136,299 cuft Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6 Contrib. drain. area = 2.910 ac DP-2 Q{cfs} Hyd. No. 7--50 Year Q{cfs) 18.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 -- 120 240 360 480_ 600_ _ 720 _ 840 _960 _ 1080 1200 1320_ _1440 1560 Time(min) — Hyd No. 7 — Hyd No. 2 Hyd No. 5 — Hyd No. 6 41 Hydrograph Summary Repo ldraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Hyd. Hydrograph Peak Time Time to Hyd. Inflow Maximum Total Hydrograph No. type flow interval Peak volume hyd(s) elevation strge used Description (origin) (cfs) (min) (min) (cuft) (ft) (cuft) 1 SCS Runoff 21.46 2 746 123,047 � � DP-1 (DA-1) 2 SCS Runoff 3.876 2 724 12,090 DA-2A 3 SCS Runoff 16,57 2 728 63,917 —— — — ----- DA-2B 4 SCS Runoff 13.99 2 730 56,979 —- — DA-2C 5 SCS Runoff 10.04 2 722 28,154 - -- DA-213 6 Reservoir(i) 18.68 2 740 119,989 3,4 92.65 35,578 Forebay/Pond 7 Combine 22.06 2 740 160,233 2,5,6 ------ ----- DP-2 j 1 Post Development.gpw Return Period: 100 Year Friday, Sep 2, 2011 ' 42 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension forAutoCAD®Civil 3130 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 1 DPA (DA-1) Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 21.46 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 746 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 123,047 cuft Drainage area = 9.990 ac Curve number = 69 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 36.00 min Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 DP-1 (DA-1) Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 1 --100 Year Q(cfs} 24.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0 120 240 360 480- 600 _ 720 840_ _960 _ 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 Time(min) Hyd No. 1 43 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3130 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 2 DA-2A ' Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 3.876 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 724 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 12,090 cult Drainage area = 0.660 ac Curve number = 87* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = User Time of conc. (Tc) = 5.00 min Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 *Composite(Area/CN)_[(0.120 x 39)+(0.190 x 36)+(0.450 x 74)+(1.000 x 73)+(0.240 x 77)]10.660 DA-2A Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 2-- 100 Year Q(cfs} 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0 - 120 - 240 360 480 - -600 - 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440- Time(min) - Hyd No.2 44 Hydrograph Report Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 3 DA-2B ' Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 16.57 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 728 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 63,917 cuft Drainage area = 3.710 ac Curve number = 80* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 12.70 min Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 Composite(Area/CN)_[(2.030 x 98)+(0.250 x 74)]13.710 DA-213 Q(cfs) Q (cfs) Hyd. No. 3--100 Year 18.00 18.00 15.00 15.00 12.00 12.00 ' 9.00 9.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0 120- 240 360 480 600 720 - 840 -960 . 1080. 1200 1320 1440. 15e0 Time(min) Hyd No. 3 45 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk.Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 4 DA-2C Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 13.99 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 730 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 56,979 cuft Drainage area = 4.300 ac Curve number = 72* Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 15.40 min ' Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type III Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 •Composite(AreatCN)=[(4.400 x 74)+(1.440 x 61)]!4.300 DA-2C Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 4-- 100 Year Q(cfs) 14.00 14.00 12.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 o.o0 0.aa ' 0 120 240 360 480 -600 720 840- -960 _108Q 1200 1320 _ 1440 1560 Time(min) Hyd No. 4 46 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3DO 2011 by Autodesk, Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 Hyd. No. 5 DA-2D ' Hydrograph type = SCS Runoff Peak discharge = 10.04 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 722 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 28,154 cuft Drainage area = 2.250 ac Curve number = 70 Basin Slope = 0.0 % Hydraulic length = 0 ft Tc method = TR55 Time of conc. (Tc) = 14.40 min ' Total precip. = 6.90 in Distribution = Type II Storm duration = 24 hrs Shape factor = 484 ' DA-2D Q(cfs) Q cfs) Hyd. No. 5--100 Year 12.00 12.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 6.00 ' 4.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 t - 0 120 240 - 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200- -1320 1440 1560 Time(min) --- Hyd No. 5 ' 47 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 300 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 6 Forebay/Pond Hydrograph type = Reservoir (Interconnected) Peak discharge = 18.68 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 740 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 119,989 cuft BpoiniMand = Forebay EowbnPoad = Detention ' Inflow hyd. = 3 - DA-213 Other Inflow hyd. = 4 - DA-2C Max. Elevation = 92.65 ft Max. Elevation = 92.65 ft ' Max. Storage = 6,902 cuft Max. Storage = 28,676 cuft Interconnected Pond Routing.Storage Indication method used. Forebay/Pond Q(cfs) Hyd. No.6-- 100 Year Q(cfs) ' 35.00 35.00 30.00 30.00 25.00 25.00 ' 20.00 20.00 ' 15.00 15.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0- - 1-20- -240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440 1560 1680 - Hyd No. 6 - Hyd No. 3 HUM Total storage used=35,578 cult Time(min) ' - Outflow Pond 1 Hyd No.4 Inflow Pond 2 ' 48 Hydrograph Report ' Hydraflow Hydrographs Extension for AutoCAD@ Civil 3D@ 2011 by Autodesk,Inc.v8 Friday,Sep 2,2011 ' Hyd. No. 7 DP-2 ' Hydrograph type = Combine Peak discharge = 22.06 cfs Storm frequency = 100 yrs Time to peak = 740 min Time interval = 2 min Hyd. volume = 160,233 cuft ' Inflow hyds. = 2, 5, 6 Contrib. drain. area = 2.910 ac DP-2 Q(cfs) Hyd. No. 7--100 Year Q(cfs) 24.00 24.00 20.00 20.00 16.00 16.00 12.00 12.00 8.00 8.00 ' 4.00 4.00 1 0.00 -JL0.00 -' 0 120 240 360 - 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320 1440_ 1560 Time(min) - Hyd No. 7 - Hyd No. 2 - Hyd No. 5 - Hyd No. 6 E. Hydraulic Analysis Post-Development Piping Report and Pipe Profiles Hydraulic Analysis Post-Development ' Time of Concentration Calculations 1 1 1 1 U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06/04 TR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) Project: 'CREC IMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 ' Check one: Present Developed Check one: / Tc Tt through subarea CB01 NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. ' Sheet Flow(Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID ' 1. Surface description (Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass Grass 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1).............................. 0.24 0.24 3. Flow length, L(total L< 100 ft) .............................................. ft 100 50 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P2.................................................. in 3.2 3.2 5. Land slope, s ....................................................................... ft/ft 0.080 0060 6. Tt = 0.007(nL)0-8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 0.14 J + 0.09 ' P20.5 S0.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Paved 8. Flow length, L ......................................................................... ft 50 ' 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.060 10.Average velocity, V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................fus 5.0 11. Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr 0.00 J + ' 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ...............................................ftz 13. Wetted perimeter, PW.........................................................ft ' 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r..................................ft PW 15, Channel Slope, s ............................................................ft/ft ' 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ / 17.V= 1.49 r23 s1/2 Compute V......................ft/s ' n 18. Flow length, L ......................................................................ft 19.Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr J + _ 3600 V ' 20. Watershed or subarea Tc or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11, and 19 ........................... .................... ...... ..... hr 0.23 U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06104 ' TR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (TJ or Travel Time (TJ Project: CREC IMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 ' Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 ' Check one: Present Developed Check one: ,' Tc Tt through subarea CB02 ' NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. ' Sheet Flow(Applicable to T, only) Segment ID ' 1. Surface description(Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass Grass 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1).............................. 0.24 0.24 3. Flow length, L(total L< 100 ft) .............................................. ft 100 50 ' 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P2.................................................. in 3.2 3.2 5. Land slope, s ....................................................................... ft/ft 0.060 0.060. 6. Tt = 0.007(nQ 0.8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 1 0.15 + 1 0.09 = 0.24 P2 0.5 50.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID ' 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Unpaved Paved 8. Flow length, L .........................................................................ft 200 60 ' 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.060 0.060 10.Average velocity,V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................ft/s 4.0 5.0 11. Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr 0.01 J + 0.00 ' 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID ' 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ...............................................ft2 13. Wetted perimeter, PW.........................................................ft ' 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r..................................ft PW 15, Channel Slope, s ............................................................ Tuft ' 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ / 17.V= 1.49 r23 s1/2 Compute V......................ft/s n 18. Flow length, L......................................................................ft 19.Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr + _ 3600 V 20. Watershed or subarea T.or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11 and 19 .... ......... ......... ........................ hr 0.26 U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06/04 TR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) Project: CREC IMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 ' Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 ' Check one: Present ,/ Developed Check one: ,/ Tc Tt through subarea CB03 ' NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. ' Sheet Flow(Applicable to T, only) Segment ID ' 1. Surface description (Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass Grass 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1).............................. 0.24 0.24 3. Flow length, L total L< 100 ft ............ ft 100 50 ' 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P2.................................................. in 3.2 3.2 5. Land slope, s ....................................................................... ft/ft 0.060 0.060 6.Tt =0.007(nQ 0.8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 0.15 + 0.09 ' P20.5 s0.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID ' 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Unpaved Paved 8. Flow length, L .........................................................................ft 200 65 ' 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.060 0.060 10.Average velocity, V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................ft/s 4.0 5.0 11.Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr 0.01 + 0.00 ' 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID ' 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ...............................................ftz 13. Wetted perimeter, PW.........................................................ft ' 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r..................................ft PW 15. Channel Slope, s ............................................................ft/ft ' 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ ! 17.V= 1.49 r23 s1!2 Compute V......................ft/s ' n 18. Flow length, L......................................................................ft 19.Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr + - 3600 V ' 20. Watershed or subarea Tc or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11,and 19 .... ...-........................................ ......... .. hr 0.26 1 U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06/04 tTR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (Tt) Project: CREC tMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 ' Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 ' Check one: Present ( Developed Check one: ( Tc Tt through subarea CB04 ' NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. ' Sheet Flow(Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID ' 1. Surface description (Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass Grass 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1).............................. 0.24 0.24 3. Flow length, L(total L< 100 ft) ..............................................ft 100 50 ' 4. Two-year24-hour rainfall, PZ.................................................. in 3.2 3.2 5. Land slope, s .......................................................................ft/ft 0.060 0.060 6. Tt =0.007(nL)0-8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 0.15 J + 0.09 ' P2.5 S0.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID ' 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Unpaved Paved 8. Flow length, L .........................................................................ft 250 50 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.060 0.060 10.Average velocity, V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................ft/s 4.0 5.0 11.Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr 0.02 + 0.00 ' 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID ' 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ...............................................ftz 13. Wetted perimeter, PW.........................................................ft 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r.................................. ft P,N ' 15. Channel Slope, s ...................... .............ft/ft 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ 17.V= 1.49 r2/3 s112 Compute V......................ft/s ' n 18. Flow length, L ......................................................................ft 19.Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr + _ 3600 V 20. Watershed or subarea T,,or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11,-and 19...- .................... ...... ........................ hr 0.26 1 1 U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06/04 TR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (TJ or Travel Time (TJ Project: CREC IMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 ' Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 ' Check one: Present Developed Check one: �/ Tr Tt through subarea CB05 ' NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. Sheet Flow(Applicable to T, only) Segment ID 1. Surface description(Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass Grass 1 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1).............................. 0.24 0.24 3. Flow length, L(total L< 100 ft) ..............................................ft 100 50 ' 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P2................................................ in 3.2 3.2 5. Land slope, s ....................................................................... ft/ft 0.060 0.060 6.Tt =0.007(nL)0.8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 0.15 + 0.09 ' P2 0.5 S0.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID ' 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Unpaved Paved 8. Flow length, L ......................................................................... ft 180 160 ' 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.040 0.020 10.Average velocity, V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................ft/s 3.0 2.8 11.Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr 0.02 J + 0.02 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ...............................................ft2 13. Wetted perimeter, Pw.........................................................ft 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r..................................ft PW 15. Channel Slope, s............................................................ ft/ft ' 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ 17.V= 1.49 r2/3 s112 Compute V......................ft/s t n 18. Flow length, L ......................................................................ft 19.Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr + _ 3600 V 20. Watershed or subarea T.or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11, and 19 .... ........................................................... hr 0,27 ' U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06/04 ' TR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (TJ or Travel Time (TJ Project: CREC IMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 ' Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 ' Check one: Present v/ Developed Check one: ,/ Tc Tt through subarea CB08 ' NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. ' Sheet Flow(Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1. Surface description (Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1).............................. 0.24 3. Flow length, L(total L< 100 ft) .............................................. ft 100 ' 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P2.................................................. in 3.2 5. Land slope, s .......................................................................ft/ft 0.100 6.Tt = 0.007(nL)0-8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 0.12 + P20.5 S0.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID ' 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Unpaved Paved 8. Flow length, L .........................................................................ft 65 100 ' 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.040 0.020 10.Average velocity, V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................ft/s 3.0 2.8 11.Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr F 6.61 + 0.01 ' 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ...............................................fc 13. Wetted perimeter, PW.........................................................ft 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r..................................ft PW 15, Channel Slope, s ............................................................ ft/ft 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ 17.V= 1.49 r2/3 s1/2 Compute V......................ft/s n 18. Flow length, L ......................................................................ft 19.Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr + _ ' 3600 V 20. Watershed or subarea T,or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11, and 19 .... ..................... .................................. hr 0.14 U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06/04 ' TR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (TJ or Travel Time (TJ Project: 'CREC IMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 Check one: Present v( Developed Check one: ✓ Tc Tt through subarea CB17 NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. ' Sheet Flow(Applicable to T, only) Segment ID 1. Surface description(Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass Grass ' 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1).............................. 0.24 0.24 3. Flow length, L(total L< 100 ft) ..............................................ft 75 25 ' 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, P2.................................................. in 3.2 3.2 5. Land slope, s ....................................................................... ft/ft 0.070 0.330 6.Tt =0.007(nQ 0.8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 0.11 J + 0.03 = 0.14 P20.5 S0.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Unpaved Paved 8. Flow length, L .........................................................................ft 280 60 ' 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.020 0.050 10.Average velocity,V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................ft/s 2.2 5.0 11. Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr 0.04 J + 0.00 ' 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID 12. Cross sectional flow area, a...............................................fe 13. Wetted perimeter, PW.........................................................ft 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r.................................. ft PW 15. Channel Slope, s ............................................................ ft/ft ' 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ 17.V= 1.49 r2/3 s7/2 Compute V......................ft/s n 18. Flow length, L ......................................................................ft 19.Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr J + - _' 3600 V 20. Watershed or subarea Tc or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11 and 19 .... ........................................... ............ hr 0.18 U.S.Department of Agriculture FL-ENG-21 B Natural Resources Conservation Service 06/04 TR 55 Worksheet 3: Time of Concentration (Tc) or Travel Time (TJ Project: CREC IMS Designed By: DCC Date: 9/1/11 Location: South Windsor Checked By: TSD Date: 9/6/11 Check one: Present ✓ Developed Check one: ( Tc Tt through subarea CB121 NOTES: Space for as many as two segments per flow type can be used for each worksheet. Include a map, schematic, or description of flow segments. Sheet Flow(Applicable to Tc only) Segment ID 1. Surface description(Table 3-1) ................................................ Grass Grass 2. Manning's roughness coeff., n (Table 3-1) .............................. 0.24 0.24 3. Flow length, L(total L< 100 ft) .............................................. ft 75 25 ' 4. Two-year 24-hour rainfall, PZ.................................................. in 3.2 3.2 5. Land slope, s .......................................................................ft/ft 0.070 0.330 6. Tt =0.007(nL)0.8 Compute Tt.......................... hr 0.11 + 0.03 PZ0.5 50.4 Shallow Concetrated Flow Segment ID 7. Surface description (paved or unpaved) ................................... Unpaved Paved 8. Flow length, L.........................................................................ft 430 120 9. Watercourse slope, s ...........................................................ft/ft 0.020 0.050 10.Average velocity,V(Figure 3-1) ..........................................ft/s 2.2 5.0 11.Tt = L Compute Tt ......................... hr 0.05 J + 0.01 J ' 3600 V Channel Flow Segment ID ' 12. Cross sectional flow area, a ...............................................fe 13. Wetted perimeter, PW.........................................................ft ' 14. Hydraulic radius, r= a Compute r.................................. ft PW 15. Channel Slope,s ............................................................ft/ft 16. Manning's Roughness Coeff., n ............................................ 17.V= 1.49 r2i3 s'/Z Compute V ft/s n 18. Flow length, L ...................................................................... ft 19. Tt = L Compute Tt.................................... hr J + _ 3600 V 20. Watershed or subarea Tc or Tt(add Tt in steps 6, 11,and 19 .... ......... ................................ ............hr 0.20 Channel Report Hydraftow Express Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc. Friday,Sep 2 2411 North Level Spreader Trapezoidal Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 100.00 Depth (ft) = 0.31 Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00 Q (cfs) = 48.53 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Area (sqft) = 31.29 Invert Elev (ft) = 79.50 Velocity (ftls) = 1.55 Slope (%) = 33.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 101.96 N-Value = 0.240 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.20 Top Width (ft) = 101.86 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.35 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 48.53 ft Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) ' 81.00 1.50 ' 80.50 1.00 80.00 0.50 ' 79.50 0.00 79.00 -0.50 0 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Reach (ft) Channel Report Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCADO Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc. Friday,Sep 2 2011 Emergency Spillway Trapezoidal Highlighted ' Bottom Width (ft) = 20.00 Depth (ft) = 0.34 Side Slopes (z:1) = 16.00, 16.00 Q (cfs) = 18.68 Total Depth (ft) = 1.05 Area (sgft) = 8.65 Invert Elev (ft) = 92.65 Velocity (ft/s) = 2.16 Slope (%) = 6.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 30.90 N-Value = 0.070 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.28 ' Top Width (ft) = 30.88 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.41 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 18.68 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 94.00 1.35 93.50 0.85 ' 93.00 0.35 92.50 -0.15 92.00 -0.65 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Reach (ft) Channel Report-- Hydraflow Express Extension for AutoCAD®Civil 3D®2011 by Autodesk,Inc. Friday,Sep 2 2011 South Level Spreader Trapezoidal Highlighted Bottom Width (ft) = 50.00 Depth (ft) = 0.33 Side Slopes (z:1) = 3.00, 3.00 Q (Cfs) = 27.34 Total Depth (ft) = 0.50 Area (sgft) = 16.83 Invert Elev (ft) = 79.50 Velocity (fUs) = 1.62 Slope (%) = 33.00 Wetted Perim (ft) = 52.09 N-Value = 0.240 Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.21 Top Width (ft) = 51.98 Calculations EGL (ft) = 0.37 Compute by: Known Q Known Q (cfs) = 27.34 Elev (ft) Section Depth (ft) 81.00 1.50 80.50 1.00 80.00 0.50 Q 79.50 0.00 79.00 -0.50 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 Reach (ft) Water Quality Volume - North Separator 1. Compute Voumetric Runoff Coeffincient, R R=0.05+0.009(i) where(i)is percent impervious cover i.e. use 80 for 80%impervious cover i= impervious area = 1.660 acres = 31 % total area 6.060 acres 2. Compute Water Quality Volume, WQF WQV= R) (A) where: R=volumetric runoff coefficient=0.05+0.009(I) 12 A=site area in acres WQV= 0123 5.05 = 0.137 ac-ft CT DEP Stormwater Quality 5980 s Manual(pg. 7-3) ft Water Quality Flow - North Separator 1. Compute the water quality flow(WQF)for off-line stormwater treatment a. Compute the runoff depth,Q Q= [WQV(ac-ft)]x[12(in/ft)] = 0.137 12 = 0.33 in Drainage Area(acres) 5.05 b. Compute the NRCS Runoff Curve Number(CN) CN= 1000 z �n P= 1 (in) f 10+5P+ 10Q-10(Q +1.25QP) 1 000 = CN= 1 109 90 c. Read initial abstraction, la(Table 4-1 in Chapter 4,TR-55) f. Compute water quality flow(WQF) d. Compute, la/P la= 0.198 e. Read Unit Peak Discharge,q„(Exhibit 4-III in Chapter 4,TR-55) WQF=(qu)(A)(Q) For Tc 0.25 & la/P= 0.198 WQF= cfs q„= 500 csm/in(Type III Storm) 1.29 AIN 50 GrtfSn Road South JOB NO.:21-10-106 Bloomfldd,CT 00002 CLIENT:CREC IMS integrated Tel:(�0)286-9171 SUBJECT:Water Quality Volume&Flow semces Fax(880)242-0235 PREPARED BY: DCC DATE:09/06/2011 CHK BY:TSD CIVIL,STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS Water Quality Volume - South Forebay 1. Compute Voumetric Runoff Coeffincient, R R=0.05+0.009(i) where(i)is percent impervious cover i.e. use 80 for 80%impervious cover ' i= impervious area = 1.24 acres = 33 % total area 3.71 acres 2. Compute Water Quality Volume, WQF WQV= ( 1") (R) (A) where: R=volumetric runoff coefficient=0.05+0.009(1) 12 A=site area in acres WQV= ( 1") 0125 3.71 ac-ft CT DEP Stormwater Quality 4724 ft3 Manual(pg.7-3) Ah50 Grimm Road South JOB NO.:21-10-106 BWB[oomffeid,CT 00002 CLIENT:CREC IMS integrated Tai'(80)28"171 SUBJECT:Water Quality Volume serv�i.ces Fax(880)242-0236 PREPARED BY:DCC DATE:09/06/2011 CHK BY:TSD CIVIL,STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS DR. CLARENCE WELTI, P E., P.C. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 227 Williams Street • P.O. Box 397 Glastonbury,CT 06033 June 25, 2011 (860)633-46231 FAX(860)657-2514 1 Mr. Fritz Moritz,AIA, CSI, LEED Perkins Eastman 422 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901 Re: Geotechnical Study for Proposed CREC International Magnet School for Global Citizenship, Chapel Road and Long Mill Road,South Windsor, CT Dear Mr. Moritz: 1.0 Herewith are test boring and test pit data pertaining to the above.Eight borings were drilled at the proposed building to a maximum depth of 21.5 feet or to auger refusal if above that depth.Four borings were drilled in areas of site development to a depth of 11.5 feet.Five test pits were excavated to depths of 5 to 8 feet below the existing grades.The boring and test pit locations were selected and staked in the field by others. The locations are shown on the attached plan. The grade elevations indicated on the boring logs were taken from the survey. The boi-itigs were drilled by Clarence YVelti Associates, Inc. and sampling leas conducted by this firm solely to obtain indications of substa face conditions as part of a geotechnical exploration program. No services-vi ere per formed to evaluate subsurface environmental conditions. Eight grain size gradation tests,fourteen water content tests, and two laboratory permeability tests were performed on soil samples taken from the borings and test pits. The results of those tests are included with the boring and test pit Iogs. 2.0 The Subject Project will include the construction of a one to two story building with a footprint of about 40,000 sf, plus pavements for parking and access drives, and two athletic fields. The existing grades in the area of the proposed building and site development range from up to Elev.135 at Long Dill Road to Elev.78 along the west property line.The existing grades across the proposed ' building footprint range from about Elev. 108 to Elev.85.The building will have ground floor levels at Elev.91.5 and Elev. 105.5. It is presumed the change in floor elevation occurs near the center of the building.The proposed athletic field grading will require cuts up to 8±feet and fills tip to 5f feet. The proposed parking lots and roadway grading will require cuts up to 3±feet and fills tip to 8±feet. 3.0 The Geologic origin of the natural soils at the site and environs are generally from glacial moraine deposits.The deposits consist generally of a dense fine to medium sand,some silt,trace to little gravel and cobbles.The moraine soils overlies bedrock at 10+feet below the existing grades. 3.1 The Soils Cross Section from the borings is generally as follows: 1 Topsoil to 4" to 12" Subsoils; fine SAND and SILT with Roots to 1.5 to 2.5 feet, loose frost disturbed soils Fine SAND, some Silt; or SILT and fine SAND to 3 to 4 feet, medium compact Locally(see boring B-9);fine to coarse SAND, some Gravel,little Silt to about 7 feet,dense Moraine; fine to medium SAND, some Silt, trace to little Gravel, few Cobbles to the top of bedrock at 10+feet below the existing grades,dense Note: Borings B-7 encountered auger refusal at 6.5 feet below the existing grades on possible boulders or bedrock. This boring was located in a proposed fill area at the west side of the proposed building. The remainder of the borings and test pits did not encounter bedrock. 3.2 The Water Table, where evident in the boreholes, was at 6 to 15 feet below the below the existing grades at the completion of the borings:The water at boring B-8 at 13 feet below grade at the completion of the boring and at 4 feet below the existing grade at 2 hours after the completion of the boring.The soil samples taken in the moraine deposits, below about 5 feet below the existing grades, had water contents close to saturation levels. It should be assumed that high water can be within 5 feet of the existing grades in all areas. The dense moraine deposits have a low permeability and a low voids ratio. These properties allow large fluctuations or mounding of the water table to occur in areas which receive a concentrated recharge of storm water. 4.0 The Criteria for Foundation Type and Loading are normally as follows: 1. The maximum total settlement shall not exceed 1" and the maximum differential settlement shall not exceed 'l2 the maximum settlement. 2.The foundation and structure design must address seismic requirements of the building code. 3. The Slab on Grade must not settle differentially more than '/2" in excess of the structure subsidence. These criteria are those normally applied to structure ofshnilar character.Ifthe structural engineer or owner has other criteria, the writer should be notified for possible supplemental input. 4.1 Regarding item 2 (above) the IBC seismic site soil profile classification is "C'. The mapped i NICE spectral accelerations for South Windsor, CT are S 0.237 for a short period, and S,=0,064 for a 1 second period. For transfer of ground shear into the soils the friction factor between the concrete and the crushed stone atop the natural soils or controlled fill can be 0.55. 5.0 Regarding Foundation Type the logical type will be spread footings.The footings can be placed on the natural inorganic soils at least 3.5 feet below final grades_(required frost depth)and_at_least__ _ 2 2 feet below existing grades to be below any frost disturbed subsoil, or on a controlled fill placed after the removal of any existing fills,topsoil,and frost disturbed subsoils(assumed removal of soils to at least 2 feet below existing grades). Controlled fills should conform to section 6.0 below and should extend outside of foundations for a distance equal to at least the depth of fill beneath foundations. There should be a minimum 6" layer of 3/8" crushed stone on a geotextile beneath footings on the natural soils and beneath controlled fills where on a wet sub grade. 5.1 The allowable bearing pressure for spread footings placed either on the crushed stone over the natural soils within 4 feet of the existing grades or on the controlled fill can be 2 Tons/s£ The allowable loading can be increased to 3 Tons/sf for foundations on the moraine deposits at 4+feet below the existing grades. 5.2 The frost protection depth(by code)is 3.5 feet below finish grades in areas,which are exposed to weather. 5.3 The lateral loading on retaining walls(if any)which are a part of the structure shall be with at rest pressure using the pressure coefficient cited in section 5.4 below. 5.3.1 Seismic lateral loading for retaining walls within the building shall be based on the nominal loads cited below.Any requirements for the seismic analyses of earth retention structures should be determined in accordance with the IBC. 1. For walls braced at top and bottom apply a total lateral force (seismic plus static at-rest pressure) equal to 24H2 lb/ft located at '/�H above the bottom. 2. For cantilever walls (unrestrained) apply a total lateral force (seismic plus static active pressure)equal to 19.5H2 lb/ft located at ''/ZH above the bottom. The above values are based on the Mononobe-Okabe solution for the case with level backfill, excluding wall friction and hydrostatic pressure. The inertia of the soil mass and wall mass are excluded from the above values. 5.4 The following is a summary of the foundation design parameters: Parameter - 'Value Soil Weight(Backfill) -F 125 pcf At Rest Coefficient 0.45 Active Coefficient 0.28 Allowable Bearing Pressure on controlled fill or 4,000 psf natural soils within 4 feet or existinggrades am' __ - - - - - _ 3 Allowable Bearing Pressure on natural.moraine 6,000 psf deposits at 4+feet below the existing grades Frost Protection Depth 3.5 feet Sliding Coefficient __._ . 0.55_. .. ' Seismic Site Soil Profile Classification «C" Mapped MCE Spectral Acceleration S, 0.237 (for a short period) Mapped MCE Spectral Acceleration S, 0 (for a 1 second e 064 od) Based on gradation cited below 6.0 Regarding Controlled Compacted Structural Fill, Slab Underlayment of and Backfill o Retaining Walls the material shall conform to the following gradation or be 3/8' crushed stone. Percent Passing SieveSxze 100 3.5" 50- 100 3/4" 25 - 85 No.4 The fraction, passing the No.4 sieve shall have less than 15%,passing the No. 200 sieve. The on site natural soils will not conform to the above gradation. ' 6.1 All backfill and fill must be compacted to at least 95%of modified optimum density. 6.2 Where the floor slab is in an earth cut there should be a minimum 10"layer of 3/8"crushed stone beneath the floor. Where the floor slab is in a fill section there should be a 16" layer controlled fill conforming to section 6.0 above beneath the floor slab and the 4"layer directly beneath the slab on grade shall be with 3/8" crushed stone. All topsoil, subsoils, and existing fill should be removed from beneath the building footprint and replaced with controlled fill and the required floor underlayment. ' 6.3 Where the floor slab is below finished grades there will be a requirement for a perimeter foundation drain. This drain should extend behind the retaining wall which separates two ground floor levels.It is recommended that there also be interior under slab drain placed about 8 feet inside ofhuilding-walls_which retain soils.The drains-should be enveloped in-3/8"crushed stone:wrapped- --- - - - - 4 in filter fabric, and placed at least 8" below the crushed stone floor underlayment. 7.0 Regarding Earthwork the natural soils are in OSHA Class C and all excavations deeper than 5 feet,which are unshored, must be cut back to slopes less than 34°. 7.I Long term earth slopes should be at 2H:1V or less. There should be a under drain at the base of cut slopes which exceed 4 feet in height. 8.0 Regarding Pavement Construction there should be at least 10" of gravel subbase beneath pavement sections.The gravel subbase should conform CTDOT M.02.01, grading B. To provide a stable sub grade for the placement of pavement sections and controlled fills at the subject site will probably require stripping the subsoils to about 2 feet. Where the sub grades area wet there may be a requirement for an initial 12"- layer of 3/4"crushed stone atop a geotextile beneath the gravel ' subbase or controlled fills. The final requirement for preparation of the sub grades beneath paved areas will be dependent on the proposed grading and sub grade conditions at the time of construction. 8.1 The recommended pavement sections atop the gravel subbase are as follows: For passenger car parking: 3.0"Bituminous Concrete on 6"Processed Stone Base For access drive areas: 4.0" Bituminous Concrete on 8" of Processed Stone Base 8.2 There should be under drains/edge drains where pavements are in cut sections.The under drains should be enveloped in 3/4" crushed stone and placed at least 10" below the subbase. 9.0 The criteria for developing the soils cross section and drainage requirements at athletic fields relate to(1)the water table levels and/or permeability of the sub grade soils and(2)the storage capacity of the soils directly beneath the topsoil and the permeability of those soils. 9.1 The proposed athletic fields will require cuts up to 8t feet and fills up to 5±feet. The sub grade in the deepest cut area will be in moraine deposits below the current water table.In fill areas the sub grades,after stripping topsoil,will be atop subsoils which consist generally of silt and fine sand. If the subsoils are wet they will probably have to be stripped to provide a stable base for heavy equipment required to place and grade fill materials.The subsoils were wet at the time the borings. The placement and compaction of fills within the fields can be with bulldozers. The placement of an under drains in cut areas as an initial step,prior to placement of fills and grading, will mitigate ' the potential problems with wet sub grades beneath equipment.Where the sub grades are wet there may be a requirement for an initial 12" layer of 3/8" crushed stone atop a geotextile to provide a stable base for equipment. 9.2 The recommended field cross section would include a layer of sand or sand and gravel, below the topsoil, connected to a system of under drains. Typically this layer would be graded from a minimum of 10" below the topsoil to about 16" at the deepest. The drains would be placed at the 5 i 1 latter location. 1 9.3 The spacing between under drains is a function of the time to reach the under drain,after storm water recharge or irrigation occurs. With a gradient of 18" in 15 feet and a permeability of 30 ' feet/day(i.e.,new sand or sand and gravel fill as cited in section 5.0 below)the flow time would be about 3 feet per day. With drains at 30 feet on centers and 4"of potential voids(1/3 of 12 average of sand below the topsoil) to absorb storm water (equivalent to about 3" of precipitation, after iexcluding normal water content in the sand) it would take about four days to allow the water table to fall at least 6" after the sands become saturated. This estimate assumes there is no significant infiltration into the soils below the select material,or that those soils are already saturated.The under 1 drains can be with 4" diameter perforated pipe,placed about 18"below the field in trenches 24"in width and backfrlled with 3/8" crushed stone to within 12" of the field surface. 1 9.4 The proposed construction shall include initial stripping of the topsoil.The sand material beneath the topsoil shall have a permeability of at least 30 feet/day to provide adequate movement of water to the under drain system.The material should have no more than 5%,passing the No.200 sieve and imust have a uniformity coefficient(Cu=D6o/D,,)of less than 5.Testing of the proposed fills should include a standard permeability test in addition to the normal sieve and optimum density analyses. 1 In general the gradation shall conform to the following: Percent Passuig Sieve Size _. 100 3/4" 50-100 No.4 i25-100 No.40 0-5 No.200 1 10.0 The potential for storm water infiltration into the natural soils on the site would be limited by 1 the high water table and the low permeabilities of the soils.Based on the grain size gradations and a laboratory permeability tests performed on soil samples from the test pits,the permeability of the natural moraine soil is less then 1 feet/day and the permeability of the fine sand and silt deposits is 1 less then 3 feet/day. 11.0 This report has been prepared for specific application to the subject project in accordance with i generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranty,express or implied, is made. In the event that any changes in the nature, design and location of structures are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless 1 the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. The analyses and reconunendations submitted in this report are based in part upon data obtained from referenced_explorations.-The extent of variations_between explorations may not become evident_ 1 1 until construction. If variations then appear evident, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the ' recommendations of this report. Dr.Clarence Welti,P.E.,P.C.,should perform a general review of thefinal design and specifications ' in order that geotechnical design recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented as they.were intended. ' If you have any questions please call me. Very truly yours, Ate" ' Max Welti. P.E. Clarence Welti Ph.D., P. E. President,Dr. Clarence Welti P.E.; P.C. ' 7 t APPENDIX 1 ' TEST BORING & TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN TEST BORING & TEST PIT LOGS CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME MAGNET SCHOOL P.O. BOX 397 LOCATION ' GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD..SOUTH WINDSOR CT, SURFACEELEV. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET 100 HOLE NO. B-1 TYPE HSA SS LINE 8:S'CA. ' GROUND WATER OOSfiRVA'S'lOIvS START 6113t11 SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375° N.COORDINATEAT 15.0 FC.ASTER O HOURS DATE HAMMER WT... .... 140lbs _. E.COORDINAT� AT . .. iT-Arrr:R HOURS FINISH6/13t11 HAMMER FALL 30" ' DEPTH SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION ELEV. a NO. BLOWSt6" DEPTH A +REMARKS 1 1-1-2-4 0.00'-2.00' TOPSOIL fl.3 100 BR.FINE SAND AND SILT 2 15-23-21-21 2.00'-4.00' REDIBR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 3.5 ' 3 13-11-25-19 4.00'400' 5 95 ' RED/BR.FINE SAND AND SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL,FEW 8.0 :. COBBLES ' 10 -90 4 10-18-20 10.001-11.50' 15 -85 5 15-23-48 15,00'-16.50, r 20 80 6 13-20-26 20.00'-21.50' ' . BOTTOM OF BORING @ 21.5' 21.5 25 -75 3p -70 LEC,END:COL.A:I2ECOVERY" DRILLER: J.BREWER SAMPLE TYPE: D=DR.Y A=AUGER C-COME U E=UNDISTL)RB D PISTON S=SPLIT SPOON INSPECTOR: PROPORTIONS USED: TRACE=0-10"fi LCI"I'LG=10-20 S, SOM1=20-35"u AND=35-504u SHEET 1 OF 1 HOLE NO. B-1 ' CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PRQIEC'I'N:tMEMAGNETSCHOOL P.O. BOX 397 LOCATION ' GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD..SOUTH WINDSOR CT. SURFACE'ELEV. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET 108 HOLE NO. B-2 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375" DATE. 6110/11 N.COORDINATE AT 7.5 FT.AC7Ell 0 HOURS HAMMER WT: _.. .. . ...-.. 140 _. FINISH Ibs E.COORDINATE AT FT. I�ouRs DAIT: 610111 HAMMER FALL. 30" SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION DEPTH NO. BLOWS/6" DEPTH A 4•REMARKS L"LEV. 0 1 1-0 6-11 0.00'-2.00' • TOPSOIL 0.3 --^ BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT 1.0 :: BR.FINE-MED.SAND,LITTLE SILT&GRAVEL 2 3-4-3-6 2.00'-4.00' -105 ' 3 6-18-16-14 4.00'-6.00' 5 RED/BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,TRACE GRAVEL 5.0 100 ' 10 4 6-12-19 10.001-11.50' RED/BR.FINE-MED.SAND AND SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 10.0 15 5 8-10-14 15.00'-16.50' 9a 20 6 31-42-47 20.00'-21.50' BOTTOM OF BORING @ 21.5' 21.5 -85 25 -80 30 -75 35 LEGEND:COI..A:RECOVERY" DRILLER. J.BREWER ' INSPECTOR: SAMPLE TYPE: D=DRY A--AUGER C=CORr U=UNDISTURBED PISTON S=SPLIT SPOON PROPORTIONS USED: TRACIE=0.10%," LITTLE-10-20"N. SOME=20-35,. AN13=35-5011-" SI-IEET 1 OF 1 HOLE NO. B-2 ' CLARENCE WELT[ASSOC.,INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O. BOX 397 MAGNET SCHOOL LOCATION GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD.,SOUTH WINDSOR.CT. SURT•:4CE ELEV. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET 101 }LULL NO. B-3 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START 6110(11 SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1,375" HATE N.COORDINATE AT 11.0 rr.AFTER 0 rloults HAMMER WT. .. . ... 140 Ibs . E.COORDINATE AT �'T..`'�R HOUR So�Tc; ..6/10/11 SAMPLE ' HAMMER FALL 30" STRA'I'Ulvt DESCRIPTION DEPTH NO. BLOWS/6- DEPTH TOPSOIL ELEV. REMARKS 0.00'-2.00' TOPSOEL BR,FINE SAND AND SILT 1.0 -100 2 4-4-12-20 2.00'-4.00' BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 3.0 ' 3 15-5-9-6 4.00'-6.00' RED/BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,TRACE GRAVEL 4'S 5 95 REDIBR.FINE-MED.SAND AND SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 8.0 10 .. 4 12-14-14 10.001-11.50' -90 i5 5 18-20-27 15.00'-16.50' 85 ' 20 6 24-48-40 20.00'-21.50' -SO BOTTOM OF BORING @ 21.5' 21.5 25 75 30 -70 351. DRILLER: J.BREWER LEGEND:COL.A:RECOVLRY" INSPECTOR: SAMPLE TYPE- D=DRY A=AUGER C=CORE U=UNDISTURBED PISTON S=SPLIT SPOON PROPORTIONS USED: 'TRACE=0-101'i5 LITI'I.E=10-20% SOME=20-35% AND=35-504L SHEET 1 OF 1 HOLE NO. B-3 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME MAGNET SCHOOL P.O. BOX 397 GLASTONBLIRY,CONN 06033 LOCATION PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD. SOUTH WINDSOR.CT. SURFACF ELEV. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET 103 HOLE NO. B-4 TYPE"- HSA SS LINE&STA. raouwD tYATGE!OBSERVATIONS START 6113l11 SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375" DATE N.COORDINATE .��r 10.0 rr.nFTFR 0 rEauas HAMMER WT.... ........__ 1401bs . AT rr Arrr:a aouas vEs 6I13111 HAMMER FALL 30" E.COORDINATE DATE n SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION DEPTH[ NO. BLOWS/6" DEP"LI-1 A REMARKS ELEV. 0 1 1-1-2-4 0.00'-2.00' TOPSOIL 0.3 ' BR.FINE SAND AND SILT 2 5-5-7-13 2.00'-4.00' -100 3 20-18-20-28 4.00'-6.00' 5 RED/BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,TRACE GRAVEL 5.0 95 14 4 3-5-9 10-001-11.50' -90 15 5 24-38-18 15.001-16.50, 85 20 6 17-20-23 20.00'-21.50' BOTTOM OF BORING @ 21-5' 21.5 - -80 ' 25 75 ' 30 -70 35 LEGEND:COL.A.-RECOVERY" DRILLER: J.BREWER SAMPLE TYPE: D—DRY A=AUGER C=CORE LI=UNDIS'i'URBPD PISTON S=SPLIT SPOON INSPECTOR: PROPORTIONS USED: 'TRACE=0-10% L1171..E7=10-2Ma SOMI-20-35% AND=35-5090 SHEET 1 OF =HOLENO. 6-4 CLARER[CE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O. BOX 397 MAGNET SCHOOL GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 LOCATION PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD. SOUTH WINDSOR CT. AUGER CASING S OFFSET SURIFACE ELEV.AMPLER CORE BAR. 95 HOLE NO. B-5 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START fit13/11 SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375" DATE N.COORDINATE AT 6.0 rr.,u-rER 0 nouRs 1-IAMMER b1'T. .. _.._. _.. . . .140 Ibs _.... AT - rT AFrGIe FIOURS FINISH . I-IAMML"-R FALL 30" E.COORDINATE"-"- DATE 6/13/11 SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION DEPTH NO BLOWS'/6" DEPTH A t REMARKS ELEV. 0 1 1-0-1-5 0.00'-2,00' TOPSOIL 04 95 BR.FINE SAND AND SILT ' 2 11-15-14-13 2.00'4.00' RED/BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,TRACE GRAVEL 3.0 ' 3 11-12-12-15 4.00'-6.00' 10 85 ' 4 14-18-21 10.001-11.50, 15 80 5 9-17-20 15.00'-16.50' ' 20 -75 6 '13-16-20 20.00'-21.50 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 21.5' 21.5 25 70 311 -65 sn LEGEND:COL.A.-RECOVER)" DRILLER: J.BREWER ' SAMPLE TYPE: D=DRY A----AUGER C-CORE U=UNDISTURBED PISTON S=SPLIT SP00N INSPECTOR: PROPORTIONS USED: TRAC"E=0-10% LITTLE-10-20% SOME=20-35"ii AND=33-50NI SHEET 1 OF I 1-10I-E NO. B-5 ' CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME MAGNET SCHOOL P.O. BOX 397 LOCATION GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD.,SOUTH WINDSOR CT. SURFACE AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET 95 FiO1.E NO. B-6 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. ' GROUND WATER OBSERVATION'S START 61#3111 SIZE 1.D. 3.75" 1.375° N.COORDINATE AT 13.0 r E7 r AEEl 0 HOURS DA"IT. HAMMER WT. ... 140 lbs Al' Fi AFTER liglJRS FINISH E.COORDINATE DATE 6113111 HAMMER FALL 30" DEPTH SAMPLE A STRATUM DESCRIPTION ELEV. NO. [SLOWS/6" DEPTH +REMARKS 0 1 1-1-2-2 0.00'-2.00' TOPSOIL 0.4 9 BR.FINE SAND,SOME SILT 2 2-4-6-9 2.00'-4.00' BR.FINE SAND,LITTLE SILT 3.5 3 17-22-15-15 4.00'-6.00' 5 90 RED/BR.FINE-MED,SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 5.5 #0 -85 4 7-9-20 10.00'-11.50' 15 -80 5 13-14-18 15.00'-16.50' 20 -75 6 12-18-27 20.00'-21.50' BOTTOM OF BORING @ 21.5' 21.5 25 -70 30 -65 LEGEND:COL.A:RECOVERY" DRILLER: J.BREWER INSPi=CTOR: SAt•IPLC T'1'PE: 13=DRY A=AUI�ER C=4""ORE U=UNDISTURf3ED P[3T'ON S=SPL11'Sl'OON PROPORTIONS USED: TRA:E=0-10114) LI17LE=10-20a SOME=20-3514 AND=35-50' i SHEET 1=1HOLE NO. B-6 ' cLAREr�cE wELsI Assoc., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O. BOX 397 MAGNET SCHOOL GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 LOCATION PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD. SOUTH WINDSOR CT. A1.tGFR CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR- OFFSET SURFACE ELEv. HOLE NO, B-7 8 TYPE HSA SS LINE S''STA. GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375" ❑Al'E 6/13/11 N.COORDINATE AT none FT.AFTER O HOURS HAMMER WT.... ....-... -... .. 140lbS . . . . .. - AT - FT.AFTER ......HOURS FINISH T .. HAMMER FALL 30" .COORDINATT DA'IT 6/13J11 SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION DEPTH NO. BLOWS/b" DEPTH A +REMARKS ELEV. V. 0 1 1-1-2-2 0.00'-2.00' `" "' ,TOPSOIL 0.4 FINE SAND AND SILT ' BR.FINE SAND,SOME SILT 2.0 2 5-4-7-18 2A0'-4:00' -85 ' 3 17-25-60 4.00'-6.00' 5 RED FINE-MED.SAND AND SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 5A WEATHERED ROCK OR BOULDERS 6.0 s.� AUGER REFUSAL @ 6.5' -80 10 75 15 -70 ' 20 65 25 - - -60 30 -55 - - --- - -- --- -- - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LEGEND.-COL.A:REC'OVERI'" DRILLER: J.BREWER SAMPLE TYPE: D--DRY A=AUGER C=CQRE (J=UNDISTURBED PISTON S-SPLIT SPOON INSPECTOR: PROPORTIONS USED: 'TRACE-0-100L LITTLE-10-20%' SOAIE=20-35% AN13=35-50%' SHEET 1 OF 1 [POLE NO. B-7 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC.,INC. CLIENT PROJECT'NAME MAGNET SCHOOL P.O. BOX 397 LOCATION ' GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EA TMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD..SOUTH WINDSOR.CT. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET SURFACE ELEV. HOLE NO. B-8 94 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. GROUND iv:1'1'EItOBSERVATIONS s)rlrer 6/13/11 SILL:S.D. 3,75" 1.375" N.COORDINATE AT 13.5 FT.AFMR 0 HOURS DATE HAMMER wr. _ _... 140 Ibs ._ _ . AT 4. r•T.ArrER r)oURs r•'N[stt HAMMER CALL 30" l.COORDINATE DATE 6113/11 SAMPLE STRATUM DESCR.113TION DEFT}-1 NO. BLOWS/b" DEPTHA +RL-MARKS ELEV. 1 1-0-1-2 0.00'-2.00` -- TOPSOIL 0.3 BR.FINE SAND AND SILT ' SR.FINE-CRS,SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 2.0 2 17-21-42-28 2.00'-4.00' � 3 36-39-31-43 4.00'-6.00' -90 5 RED/BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 8.0 -85 ' 1a 4 18-12-9 10.00'-11.50' 80 15 5 10-23-24 15.00'-16.50' 75 20 6 21-40-51 20.00'-21.50' BOTTOM OF BORING @ 21.5' 21.5 -70 25 - -65 30 35 LEGEND:COL.A:RECOVERY^ DRILLER: J.BREWER SAMPLE TYPE: D=DRY A=AUGER C=CORE U=UNDISTURBED PISTON S=SPIJ'I'SPOON INSPECTOR: PROPORTIONSUSED: TRACE=0-10",, LITTLE-=10.70% SOMI=?0-35% AN[7=35-50411) SITL--LI' 1 OF 1 HOLE NO. B-8 CL,ARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O. BOX 397 MAGNET SCHOOL LOCATION GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD..SOUTH WINDSOR CT. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET SURFACE EL's HOLE NO. B-9 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. ' GROUND WATER 06SGi(VA'1'tON5 sr,+Rs g11 pt11 SILL-"I.D. 3.75" 1.375" N.COORDINATE AT 8.0 FT.AFTER 0 HOURS DATE HAMMER WT. .. _ .- . _. . 140 lbs - .. . E.COORDINATE AT Fr.AFTER HOURS DATE FINISH 610111 HAMMER FALL 30" DEPTH SAMPLE ASTRATUM DESCRIPTION ELEV. BLOWS/6" DEPTH +REMARKS 0 1 1-2-1-1 0.00'-2.00' TOPSOIL 0.75 -125 _ BR.SILT AND FINE-MED.SANO 2 1-1-3-7 2.00'A.00' RED/BR.FINE-CRS.SAND,SOME GRAVEL,LITTLE SILT 3.5 3 19-27-39-29 4.00'-6.00' 5 -120 RED/BR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL $"0 10 4 8-25-31 10.09-11.50' 115 BOTTOM OF BORING @ 11.5' x 11.5 t •15 -110 20 -105 25 100 311 -95 35 LEGEND:COL.A:IECOVERV DRILLER: J.BREWER SAA•IPLE TYPE: D=DRY A=AUGER C=CORE U=UNDISTURBED PISTON S=SPLIT SPOON INSPECTOR: PROPORTIONS USED: TRACE=0-10"n l..I'CI'LE=1n-2o9;, SOME=20-35% AND=35-50% SHEEN 1 OF 1 HOLE NO. B-9 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.O. BOX 397 MAGNET SCHOOL GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 LOCATION PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD. SOUTH WINDSOR CT. SURFACE EI..Ev. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET 102 HOLE 10. B-10 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. GROUND tL'.1TEIt pl35ERVATiUtdS START SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375" DATE 6/10/11 N.COORDINATE AT 9.0 l�i.Ai7L•R d HOURS I-IAMMER WT... _ . . . .. __ 140Ibs... ._ ...._ _._ ... ._.... . .. .. ._ . ,t,E,......t'C.-AFCL•R...._..EIQUELS- I'1N15E E " HAMMER FALL 30" E.COORDINATE IUATE 6/10111 SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTION DEI'TII NO. BLOWS16" DEPTH A +REMARKS LLEV. 0 1 1-1-1-4 0.00'-2.00' - TOPSOIL BR.FINE SAND AND SILT 1.0 z 1aa 6-8-18-25 2.00'-4.00' REDIBR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 3.5 3 18-19-18-14 4.00'-6.00' 5 -95 i RED/BR.FINE SAND AND SILT,TRACE FINE GRAVEL 9'0 1d 4 4-4-4 10.00'-11.50' BOTTOM OF BORING @ 11.5' 11.5 90 15 -85 20 -80 25 - -75 30 -70 LEGEND:COI..A:RECOVERY" DRILLER: J.BREWER Se1Ni1'l..Is''F1'i'E: ll=DRY A=AUGER C=Ct7RE U=1)Nl]ES'I'URI3EDPIS'1'QN S=SPLII'SPOC)N INSPECTOR: I'i20PORTIONS USED: TIZACE=0-10% L.ITT'LL--=10-20%, SOME=10-35% AND=35-5014 SHEET 1 01= 1 �IIOLENO- B-10 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME MAGNET SCHOOL P.O. BOX 397 LOCATION GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD. SOUTH WINDSOR CT. AUGER CASING SAMPLER CORE BAR. OFFSET SURFACEFI.FV. MOLL'NO. B-11 112 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS START SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375" DATE 6110/11 N.COORDINATE AT noneF•r.ArrcR a IiOUIiS HAMMER WT. . 140 Ibs . E.COORDINATE AT Fr.Arrr:R Nouns FINISH HAMMER FALL 30" DATE 6110111 DEPTH SAMPLE" a STRATUM DESCRIPTION ELEV. NO. BLOWS/6" DEPTH +REMARKS 0 1 1 4 6-11 0.00'-2.00' TOPSOIL BR.FINE SAND,SOME SILT a.7 2 13-60 2.00'-2.75' BR.FINE-MED.SAND,LITTLE SILT 2.0 110 3 10-11-8-5 4.00'-5.00' 5 REDIBR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,LITTLE GRAVEL 5'0 105 10 4 17-7-16 10.0 0'-11.5 0, BOTTOM OF BORING @ 11.5' 11.5 _100 15 95 20 -9D 25 85 30 -80 LEGEND:COL.A:RECOVERV" DRILLER: J.BREWER SAMPLE TYPE: D=1)RY A=AUCiFR C=CORE U=UNIASTUR1REI)PISTON S=SPLIT SPOON INSPECTOR: PROPORTIONS USED: TRACE=O-tWo' 1-1171.1=10-?0':u SOM1 20-35".0 AND=35-50% s1aEr_'r 1 OF 1 1-101.E No. B-11 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOC., INC. CLIENT PROJECT NAME P.Q. BOX 397 MAGNET SCHOOL LOCATION ' GLASTONBURY,CONN 06033 PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS LONG HILL RD.,SOUTH WINDSOR CT. AUGERCASING SAMPLER CORE OFFSET SURCACE ELEV.BAR. 113 I HOLE NO. B-12 TYPE HSA SS LINE&STA. GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS s-r'ART 6110/11 SIZE I.D. 3.75" 1.375" DATE N.COORDINATE AT 11.0 FT AFTER D HOURS HAMMER WT.. .14016s E.COORDINATE DATE 6110/11 AT r••r.,vTER uouRs FINISH HAMMER CALL 30' DL"i'T[1 SAMPLE STRATUM DESCRIPTIONNO. BLOWS/G" DEPTH A +REMARKS ELEV. p 1 1-2-4-7 0.00'-2.00' - TOPSOIL BR.FINE-MED.SAND AND SILT 0.75 2 10-12-2-17 2.00'-4.00' 110 SR.FINE-MED.SAND,LITTLE SILT,TRACE GRAVEL 3.5 3 9-9-6-7 4.00'-6.00' REDISR.FINE-MED.SAND,SOME SILT,TRACE GRAVEL 4'S 5 —105 1D 4 25-23-33 10.001-11,50, BOTTOM OF BORING @ 11.5' 11.5 —100 15 1 - 95 ' 20 —90 25 - 85 3D —80 LEGEND:COL.A:11EC;OVERY" DRILLER: J.BREWER IN5PL'C'1'OI2: SAMPLE TYPE: D=DRY A=l1UGGR C=CORE U=UND[STIJRI3GD PISTON S=SPLI"['SPOON PROPORTIONS USED: TRACE=0-[0'%' LITTLE=10-2046 SOME=30-35°o AND=35-50% SHEET 1 OF 1 HOLE NO. B-12 Proposed Magnet School Chapel Road and Long Hill Road South Windsor, CT Tests Pits excavated 6/22/11 Test Pit TP-1 Topsoil to 10" Subsoil; Orange brown fine SAND and SILT, some Roots to 2 feet Light greylbrown fine SAND, some Silt to 3 feet ' Moraine; Red/brown fine to medium SAND, some Silt, little Gravel, few Cobbles to 7 feet Bottom.of Test Pit at 7 feet, no water at completion, soils were wet below 5 feet Test Pit TP-2 Topsoil to 10" Subsoil; Orange brown fine SAND and SILT, some Roots to 2 feet Light grey/brown fine SAND, some Silt to 4 feet Moraine; Red/brown fine to medium SAND, some Silt, little Gravel, few Cobbles to 7 feet Bottom of Test Pit at 7 feet, no water at completion, soils were wet below 5 feet Test Pit TP-3 Topsoil to 10" Subsoil; Orange brown fine SAND and SILT,some Roots to 2 feet Moraine;Red/brown fine to medium SAND, some Silt, little Gravel, few Cobbles to 7 feet Bottom of Test Pit at 7 feet,water at 7 feet at completion, soils were wet below 5 feet Test Pit TP-4 Topsoil to 10" Subsoil; Orange brown fine SAND and SILT, some Roots to 2 feet Moraine; Red/brown fine to medium. SAND, some Silt, little Gravel, few Cobbles to 5 feet Bottom of Test Pit at 5 feet, no water at completion, soils were wet below 3 feet I Test_Pit TP-5.... Topsoil to 10" i Subsoil; Orange brown fine SAND and SILT,some Roots to 2 feet i Light brown fine SAND, some Silt to 4 feet II Red/brown fine to coarse SAND,trace Silt to 5 feet � t Moraine; Red/brown fine to medium SAND, some Silt, little Gravel,few Cobbles to 8 feet t1 Bottom of Test Pit at 8 feet,no water at completion, soils were wet below 5 feet l � I � i � 1 ti Particle Size Distribution Report 0 13 0 0 0 M 0 n 100 P 80 70 60 w LL F- L Z 50 LU LU 40-- 30 20 10 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+31. %Gravel %Sand %Fines F_ Fine lCoarse l Medium Fine silt clay 0 1 6 45 48 ❑ 4 16 42 32 A 8 38 54 X1 LL PL I Dgr D1g Cu D60 D5p Dlfl C, 01 0.2806 1 0.1138 0.0812 7�� DI 0.7669 1 0.2690 0.1977 Al 0.2911 1 0.0970 1 Material Description USCS AASHTO 0 Project No. Client: PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS Remarks: Project: MAGNET SCHOOL, LONG HILL ROAD,SOUTH WINDSOR,CT o WATER CONTENT=3 1.0% oWATER CONTENT= 11.9% c-Source of Sample:-B-1 -Depth:0.3 A WATER CONTENT_= 1-8.2%- o Source of Sample: B-2 Depth:6.0 A Source of Sample: B-4 Depth:2.0 Sample Number:2 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure Particle Size Distribution Report C e O O O 00 8 N M G 10D G V N m vs cv 100 I ! t I I i ( I ,• 90 i I I I I 80— - I ' 1 70 ; — i LL ' W 50 — � LLJ 40 I I I I I I i I I I 30— I I I I I 20 ! I I I I 10 I I i ii 0 tit I. I 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+3" %Gravel %Sand I %Fines Coarse Fine Icoarsel Medium I Fine I Silt Clay 01 ( 70 1 28 Ili 6 50 44 .�1 2 10 35 53 ILL PL I DRS D60 D D D D CrCU o I 0.2996 0.1847 0.1500 0.0812 0 j 0.2823 0.1261 0.0906 [ 0 0.3556 1 0.1143 Material Description USCS AASHTO 0 a 0 Project No. Client: PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS Remarks: Project: MAGNET SCHOOL,LONG HILL ROAD,SOUTH WINDSOR,CT o WATER CONTENT= 16.44% o WATER CONTENT= 19.9% o Source of Sample: B-6 _ _Depth:2.0 ___ -Sample Number: 2 - _ - __ o WATER_CONTENT=_17 7% _ o Source of Sample: B-7 Depth:0.4 r� Source of Sample: B-9 Depth:0,75 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure ' Particle Size [Distribution Report a aoo 0 0Q0 ^. 10NA 0 I ! 90 N. so ! ! ! 1 I I 70 i ' Z 50—Ul - - 40 -- 30 20 ' ! I I 10 ! 1 I 0 1 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE-mm. %+3„ %Gravel %Sand %Fines Coarse Fine Coarsel Medium Fine Silt Clay o� 11 24 20 10 © 14 47 39 rX LL PL I D D Dfia D D D10 C G 0 1 3.1995 1.3553 0.4247 0.1556 ' 0 1 0.4070 0.2038 0.1481 Material Description USCS AASHTO o Project No. Client: PERKINS EASTMAN ARCHITECTS Remarks: Project: MAGNET SCHOOL,LONG HILL ROAD,SOUTH WINDSOR,CT o WATER CONTENT=6.2% o W ATER CONTENT- 14.3% o-Source--of-Sample.-B-9---— Depth:4-.0- _ Sample Number:-1- o Source of Sample: B-12 Depth: 0.75 CLARENCE WELTI ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure Proposed Magnet School Chapel Road and Long Hill Road South Windsor, CT ' Water Content Tests 6/24/11 Sample# Water Content% B1,0-2 31.8 ' B2,4'-6' 11.9 B2,10'-11' 11.0 B4, 2'-4' 18.2 ' B5,T-6' 10.8 B5, 10'-11.5' 10.2 B6, 2'-4' 16.4 B7, 0-2' 19.9 B9,0-2' 17.7 B9,4'-6' 6.2 tB9, 10'-11.5' 11.0 B8,T-6' 8.7 ' 138, 10'-11.5' 10.3 ' B 12, 0-2' 14.3 Note: The saturation iwater content(i.e., eater content ofsoils below the water table)ofthe dense ' moraine deposits is at about 10 to 12%. The saturation water content in the subsoils and stratum to the top of the moraine deposits ranges from about 18%to 35%. 11 Proposed Magnet School Chapel Road and Long Hill Road South Windsor, CT Permeability Tests-6/24/11 Sample# Permeability(lc}B t/day TP-1, 2'-3' 1.6 I TP-1,4'-5' 0.3 I II I ) Maintenance and Operations Procedures 50 Griffin Road South ;PVH Bloomfield,CT 06002 Tel:(860)286-9171 wd Fax:(860)242-0236 " ' www.bvhis.com services Spill Management: Remove and replace soil which has contacted oil/gas or other pollutant. ' Stabilize and remove any gas/oil or other fluid spill in parking area as soon as possible. Stormwater Quality Structures: rStructures shall be inspected for accumulated sediment on a quarterly basis and cleaned when the depth of sediment is in excess of one foot. Collected sediment shall be disposed of ' in accordance with local regulations. A maintenance log should be kept with amount of sediment removed,the date it was removed and a brief description of the condition of the structure. Water Quality and Detention Basins: Water Quality and Detention Basins in the first year following construction shall be inspected at least once a week and within 24 hours of the end of a storm event with a rainfall amount of 0.5 inches or greater.Thereafter inspect once every 3 months or after major storm event. ■ Embankment and emergency spillway ■ Adequate vegetation and ground cover ■ Embankment erosion ■ Animal burrows ■ Emergency spillway intact and clear of obstructions and debris ■ Inlet/Outlet Control Devices ■ Clear of sediment deposits ■ Inspect precast for spalling, joint failures and water tightness ■ Inspect for rip rap failures ■ Sediment Forebays ■ Adequate vegetation and ground cover ■ Spillway clear of obstructions and debris ■ Remove accumulated sediment deposits when depth exceeds 50%of design depth CREC International Magnet School Page 2of 3 Operations and Maintenance Program for Storm Water Management Maintenance and Operations Procedures 1W 50 Griffin Road South Bloomfield,CT 06002 EM Tel:(860)286-9171 wd Fax:(860)242-0236 `" " ' www.bvhis.com services ' Dry Pond Areas ■ Adequate vegetation and ground cover ■ Remove undesirable vegetation growth ■ Remove undesirable woody growth ■ Low flow channels clear of obstructions ■ Remove accumulated sediment or trash deposits A maintenance log should be kept with amount of sediment removed,the date it was removed and a brief description of the condition of the system. ' Preventive maintenance inspection records: ' Maintenance program shall be evaluated annually for the first five years of occupancy, and depending on conditions, modification shall be made.After the first five years,the maintenance program shall be reviewed biennially. ' The key to implementing and tracking a preventive maintenance program is through the continual updating of maintenance records. Update records immediately after performing preventive maintenance or repairing an item and review them annually to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the program. Refine the preventive maintenance procedures as necessary. CREC International Magnet School Page 3of 3 ' Operations and Maintenance Program for Storm Water Management Area ac Total Drainage Area 20.91 ' Subarea DA-1 11.87 Subarea DA-2 9.04 Subarea DA-1 Breakdown(PRE) Designation Area (ac) CN 36B - ' Overall 2.28 Woods 2.18 36 Impervious(Dirt) 0.10 72 Woods Total 2.18 36 78.48 Impervious Total 1 0.10 1 72 7.20 ' Total 2.28 6EM Designation Area (ac) CN 21A - - Overall 0.04 - Woods 0.04 60 32B - Overall 2.96 - Woods 1.08 60 Residential 1.88 70 1/2 ac Woods Total 1.12 60 67.20 ' Residential Total 1 1.88 1 70 131.60 Tota I 3.00 60M Designation Area (ac) CN ' 43B - - Overall 6.59 ' Woods 6.52 73 Residential 0.04 80 Impervious(Dirt) 0.03 87 Page 1 of 11 ' Woods Total 6.52 73 475.96 Residential Total 0.04 80 3.20 Impervious(Dirt) 0.03 72 2.16 Total 6.59 Area Type Area CN (weighted) Woods 9.82 - Residential 1.92 - ' Impervious(Dirt) 0.13 - Total 11.87 65 Page 2 of 11 Area(ac) Total Drainage Area 20.91 Subarea DA-1 11.87 Subarea DA-2 9.04 Subarea DA-2 Breakdown (PRE) Designation Area(ac) CN 36B - - Overall 0.30 - Woods 0.30 36 Woods Total 0.30 36 10.80 Total 0.30 rDesignation Area (ac) CN 32B - - Overall 1.16 Woods 1.16 60 Woods Total 1.16 60 69.60 Total 1.16 Designation Area (ac) CN 43A - - Overall 2.38 - Woods 2.38 73 43B - - Overall 4.79 - Woods 4.56 73 Wetlands 0.23 77 Woods Total 6.94 73 506.62 Wetlands 0.23 77 17.71 Total — —-- - -- ---7.17----— Page 3 of 11 Designation Area(ac) CN 13 - = Overall 0.41 Woods 0.26 79 Wetlands 0.15 83 Woods Total 0.26 79 20.54 Wetlands 0.15 83 12.45 Total 0.41 Area Type Area CN (weighted) Woods 8.66 - Wetlands 0.38 - Total 9.04 71 Page 4 of 11 Area(ac) Total Drainage Area 20.91 Subarea DA-1 9.99 Subarea DA-2 10.92 Subarea DA-1 Breakdown(POST) Designation Area(ac) CN 36B - Overall 2.21 - Grass 0.26 39 Woods 1.85 36 impervious(Dirt) 0.10 72 Grass Total 0.26 39 10.14 Woods Total 1.85 36 66.60 impervious Total 0.10 72 7.20 Total 2.21 Designation Area(ac) CN 21A - - Overall 0.04 - Grass 0.04 61 326 = Overall 2.70 Grass 0.16 61 Impervious 0.22 98 Woods 0.44 60 Residential 1.88 70 1/2 ac Grass Total 0.20 61 12.2 Impervious Total 0.22 98 21.56 Woods Total 0.44 60 26.40 Residential Total 1.88 70 131.60 Total 2.74 Designation Area(ac) CN Page 5 of 11 43B - Overall 5.04 Grass 2.46 74 Woods 0.70 73 Residential 0.04 80 Impervious(Pvmnt) 1.81 98 Impervious(Dirt) 0.03 87 Grass Total 2.46 74 182.04 Woods Total 0.70 73 51.10 Residential Total 0.04 80 3.20 Impervious(Pvmnt) 1.81 98 177.38 Impervious(Dirt) 0.03 87 2.61 Total 5.04 Area Type Area CN (weighted) Grass 2.92 = Woods 2.99 Residential 1.92 - Impervious(Pvmt) 2.03 = Impervious(Dirt) 0.13 Total 9.99 69 Page 6 of 11 Area(ac) Total Drainage Area 20.91 Subarea DA-1 9.99 Subarea DA-2 10.92 Subarea DA-2A Breakdown(POST) Designation Area (ac) CN 43B - - Overall 0.66 - Grass 0.30 74 Impervious 0.32 98 ' Gravel 0.04 89 Grass Total 0.30 74 22.2 Impervious Total 0.32 98 31.36 Gravel 0.04 89 3.56 Total 0.66 Area Type Area CN (weighted) Grass 0.30 Impervious 0.32 Gravel 0.04 iTotal 0.66 1 87 Page 7 of 11 Area(ac) Total Drainage Area 20.91 Subarea DA-1 9.99 Subarea DA-2 10.92 Subarea DA-2B Breakdown(POST) Designation Area (ac) CN 32B - - Overall 0.88 - iGrass 0.69 61 Woods 0.19 60 Grass Total 0.69 61 42.09 Woods Total 1 0.19 1 60 11.40 Total 0.88 60M Designation Area (ac) CN 43A - - Overall 0.22 - Grass 0.22 74 436 - Overall 2.61 Grass 1.17 74 Impervious 1.44 98 Grass Total 1.39 74 102.86 1 Impervious Total 1 1.44 1 98 1 141.12 Tota 1 2.83 60M Area Type Area CN (weighted) :Grass 2.08 - Impervious 1.44 - Woods 0.19 - Tota1 3.71 80 Page 8 of 11 Area(ac) Total Drainage Area 20.91 Subarea DA-1 9.99 Subarea DA-2 10.92 Subarea DA-2C Breakdown (POST) Designation Area (ac) CN 32B - - Overall 0.56 - Grass 0.36 61 Woods 0.20 60 iGrass Total 0.36 61 21.96 Woods Total 1 0.20 1 60 12.00 Total 0.56 6=0 Designation Area (ac) CN 43A - - Overall 2.18 - Grass 1.85 74 Woods 0.33 73 43B - - Overall 1.56 - Grass 1.56 74 Grass Total 3.41 74 252.34 Woods Total 0.33 1 73 1 24,09 Total 3.74 Area Type Area CN (weighted) Grass 3.77 - Woods 0.53 - Tota 1 4.30 72 Page 9 of 11 Area(ac) Total Drainage Area 20.91 Subarea DA-1 9.99 Subarea DA-2 10.92 Subarea DA-2D Breakdown(POST) Designation Area (ac) CN 36B - - Overall 0.32 - Grass 0.06 39 Woods 0.26 36 Grass Total 0.06 39 2.34 Woods Total 0.26 36 9.36 Total 0.32 1 Designation Area (ac) CN 17 43B - - Overall 1.52 - Grass 0.49 74 Woods 0.80 73 Wetlands 0.23 77 Grass Total 0.49 74 36.26 Woods Total 0.80 73 58.40 Wetlands Total 0.23 77 1 17.71 Total 1.52 1 Designation Area (ac) CN 13 - - Overall 0.41 - Woods 0.26 79 Wetlands 0.15 83 Woods Total 0.26 79 20.54 Wetlands Total 0.15 1 83 12.45 ' Total 0.41 Page 10 of 11 Area Type Area CN(weighted) Grass 0.55 - Woods 1.32 - Wetlands 0.38 - Tota 1 2.25 70 Page 11 of 11 GO C - i TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR '( STAFF SITE CHANGE i FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GM?ERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON Phone ?1`2�335' { Addrea s I tb S "'i c Rill Site Na e,-3:M.5Tro i,ELT 62.S- s4,46AC7 P&S No. } Owner C.Q- C, Phone No. Contractor)inn i"t �P2t t-t,C Signature of owner Date; Signature of Design Rngr. Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) i OBE 710 . / 4t 7D Crivi[I L i v0 l C ADt1W '! i Reason. for Change: (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (As Required} Dir. Of Planning's IJates /—? I.;)- Town Engineer Date: Dir.. of Public Works Date; Other: Date: STAFF COMMENTS: I 3 i i i Whit ---Town Hngt r-- YeZZaw - Applicant - - - - P1iik--- Director of Planning - -- t3alde trod -- Engineering-Department - ------- �.�.......' � •. ._� �i:�r` f 'O' f- a t? .... � ,=w+ 7 - •fr'y" �>�`r( .•,. s "tf # '� ._`'�`U•^_�... .r �, 'ice. .. £ .,..F.. �,R..-e•' Jj,�}' . 4 , _ �._.. :ram.• -'`4.=�1 llk7-1 • �..r�; �, \ \. `. # - 'fit e . F TOWN of SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHARGE FOR SITE & MBDIVISION GENERAL t 2_,, CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON C Phone No.$ice`8 7I-2 M- Address 105 --L"%Gc.�I°3`�L)Ac-:k4t f site Name-�rm!5 m(EG' InZcz Cf04Lgz R-6 4 P&S No. Owner � EG Phone NO. 1 Contractor t. T {, IC' 2..�PR.�Sts Q Signature of Owner. Date: Signature of Design Engr. Dater CHANGE: (_Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) s c'�/E 'T,2��5 ♦ .Cl� '7D � i^�Lk Ci -A'�7tNJ t Reason for Change: (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning Date: 3 Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Other: Date: STAFF COVMENTSt l i i White Town. Engineer �llora - Apx>� -- _ --Pink _- Director-of Planning-_ _- - - Goldenrod - - Engineering Department - - -- - - .i„�-- ..,y....•,.-..�M���1����'.•��j� •, h f•. ^` - �-r r rr't' ^-t c-.. -� s._. � �- w.,..'tO•-�... i +i.• 'rt ___, airy .�wr.�i .�. r - � � w .w it ..r w.wiw..irn y t+y E \ , r TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: n , CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON b Y Phone No. Address 105 'J' Mb(ASMfAL ?Pnfk jQ Site Nante�AlS (7YbG7 (aZ.S Gh4Pat. P&Z No. Oy,�er G,O G Phone No. Contractor C` •��'� e�^Tt* P Kz 6 e-% .L1.-C- Signature of Owner Date: Signature of Design Engr. Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) • We l t t �' ,rp butt• �`o i'�t3' Reason for Change: (Why is change required) �Jt+L �'C4l''b -Tb -Ierr i,*1sT vtrA QmL XW15 Aaz I<v '�odC S PB to S� �.t�'�►st�D APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning Date: Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Others Dates STAFF COMMENTS: Whits --Town Engineer- --- -Yellow- ---App--cant Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department .J`: Y' Y •Y YY YYYY'r ,1'C� I f'� R � '- Ll if y � � „`�Y ,��" yip�r \ �� \• .2',�'g[p f �sr� � �• r�� in �,G`^ ° Ir { 1 ' Y. • n x At 1 {)l r \\f A `� i')' � •`+-- —i`-- -r-'�--•ft-nt-- x--;'mot.".-�'r�' X•+ +. � J i \ �, i 31�Z.wit�13063a'',oC oz 1 4 t i i TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON Phone No. Address 10S Sa-k(�) 5 kCRA-U Q..� Site Name_ :r—su•s ?fple-c-A �n2C G� .� 1" P&Z No. Owner c ~L Phone No. Contractor Signature of Owner Dates = Signature of Design Engr. Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) i( �-t�• tt•?e S i �rd-��� 1 : t \/ ��t� i V\ �t �X�•- C:o�Q�`1�Cal CA2 L}��l h3 i�� 1�'u1�''�S`�t-4x� �.?c�� �U 1 l�J��-�i l�f t`��4'�C•11 �Y1 Ci Reason for Change: (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning Date: Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Others Date: STAFF COMMENTS: -- -- - --- - White -_ Tawr--Engineer -- - - - - -- -- --Yellow---_ Applicant --- --- --------- ---- - - -- Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department a 1 f Ii t 1 - -. r . 1 ' OWN Sf5 7-0� 074C w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f�OSOR•CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 June 29, 2012 David Fresk 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Mr. Fresk: RE: Preconstruction Meeting for Appl.# 11-29P, CREC Magnet School IN ATTENDANCE Name Company E-MAIL Phone number Michele R. Lie SW Planner michele.li e southwindsor.or 644-2511 x252 Jeffrey Fol er SW Planning effre .fol er southwindsor.or 644-2511 x229 Jeffrey Doolittle SW Engineering , 'effre .doolittle southwindsor.or 644-2511 x245 - Walter Summers SW Fire Marshal walter.summers@southwindsor.org 644-2511 x217 Bernard Drabek SW Engineering bemard.drabek@southwigdsor.org 644-2511 x 241 Dep. Chief Rich Riggs. SW Police Dept. richard.ri s southwindsor.or 860-648-6211 William Cunningham FolsomConstruction wcunninghain@folsomllc.com 860-528-8928 Jim Slater Slater Construction slaterjininsbcglobal.net 860-528-5252 David Netz Cutter Enterprises dave@cutteregLeMrises.com 860-871-2839 Bob Dlo yer Cutter Enterprises bob@cutterent=rises.com rises.com 860-871-2839 John King FolsomConstruction john@folsomllc.com 860528-8928 Dan Cefaratti BVH Integrated Ser danielc@.bvhis.com 860-286-9171 Lloyd Folsom FolsomConstruction I.folsom@folsomllc.com 860-528-3928 Jim Eschert* MDC jeschert@themdc.com NotInAttendance The following is a brief summary of points discussed during the meeting: Erosion and Sedimentation Control 1. All erosion and sedimentation control measures are to be in place prior to earth moving operations in each area and maintained/cleaned out during construction. Call Jeffrey Folger, Senior Environmental Planner fqr inspection when measures are in place, prior to commencement of site work or if any problems/concerns arise during construction. 2. All topsoil stockpile areas to be protected(ringed with haybales or equal). 3. During construction a crushed stone tracking pad may need to be installed and maintained to minimize tracking of dirt/gravel on to [ ]Calcium chloride or water is to be used for dust control as required. 4. Install and stabilize the detention basin and swale on site first. Public Works 1. Three complete sets of approved/revised plans to be provided to Town prior to start of construction. They will be stamped by the Planning Department along with plans developer needs. Only approved plans are to be used on the job site. 2. The Engineering Department is to be notified forty-eight (48) hours prior to the start of major, construction work in West Road with inspections and testing per Developers Checklist for the following: a. After site is staked out b. All drainage work c. Preparation of subgrade, compaction tests as per Developer's checklist d. Placement of bituminous concrete, two (2) inch layers maximum 3. Certification of gravel used as subbase and processed stone for base will be required from an approved testing company 4. Certification of all products used -- storm pipe, structures, pavement, oil/grit separator and sewer grinder pump system shall be presented to the Town Engineer prior to installation. 5. Progress As Built Plans are to be submitted to the Town Engineer for approval prior to paving and after subgrade formation. Show elevations and location of all storm drainage and sanitary sewer. 6. An as built plan will be required for the improvements to [Road]. A separate as built plan will be required. 7. As built plans are to include horizontal and vertical location of all underdrains, footing drains, and sanitary sewers and house service laterals located as per revised as-built checklist. 8. All pipe and structures to be backfilled with free draining material compacted in maximum one foot lifts with approved compaction equipment or approved equal if deep trench is encountered. Any pipe or structure work requires inspection prior to backfilling. 9.--Any-problems-and/or-questions-regarding construction of-this-project-will be--directed to Scott - -- Bartlett, Project Supervisor, in the field at (860)830-2329 or/and Lloyd Folsom, Folsom Construction at(860)559-4033. t -- 10. All filling to be done in accordance with Department of Transportation specifications. To be compacted in maximum lifts and tested as necessary. 11. Job meetings will be held as needed, and can be called by the developer or Town. 12. Seventy-two (72) hours' notice needed for certificate of occupancy inspection and a $35 C.O. inspection fee is due at that time. 13. Any proposed changes are to be presented to the Engineering or Planning Department prior to implementation on change order form in quadruplicate with 4 copies of the drawing. Town will attempt to turn around within 24 hours. 14. Normal hours of operation 7:00 a.m.—5:00 p.m.,no work on Sunday. 15. No paving after October 15 or before April 15 without written approval from Director of Public Works. 16. Extra care must be taken when compacting around structures such as catch basins and manholes. These spots often become problem areas in the future due to settling, therefore, the town stafFinspectors will be requesting additional compaction tests in these areas. 17. Inspection of gravel access road required prior to placement of topsoil. 18. Sanitary lateral locations should be tied down to existing structures and shown on the progress as built. 19. For concrete sidewalks, 8" depth with reinforcements is required at driveway crossing. If the sidewalk is constructed before lot development, the locations must be indicated on the as-built plans. If a proposed driveway location is moved, the sidewalk must be removed to the nearest expansion joint and rebuilt to the proper depth with reinforcement. 20. If a concrete monument is located within a driveway, a cast iron frame and cover must be provided for town public improvements specifications. 21. During construction of individual sanitary sewer house laterals, the contractor shall prepare an as- built sketch on standard form provided by the Engineering Department. This form should be submitted to the design engineer/surveyor for their use in preparing the as-built plan. The Engineering Department suggests that the contractor also show locations of foundation drains and water laterals on this form. 22. A Drain Layers Permit is needed for installation of the sewer. 23. A Street Cut Permit is needed for installation of both driveways and the street utilities. Planning Department 1. Landscaping is to be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. If there are changes required, contact the Planning Dept. Additional landscaping installed on one part of a site will not preclude planting all of the remaining items shown on the landscaping plan. 2. All bonds required; mylar to go on file prior to issuance of building permit. 3. All easements must be submitted for review prior to filing of mylars. 4. Sign permits are required for all temporary and permanent signs. SNET/NU 1. Contact utilities for coordination of utilities connection. Fire Marshal (Commercial Facilities) 1) Documents—Complete set of stamped plans with the following: a. Plan review paid b. Code information sheet c. Exiting plans with travel distances d. Wall types e. Door schedule f. Mechanical, Electrical,reflected ceiling g. Fire alarm h. Basic sprinkler layout ** PLAN REVIEW COULD TAKE 30 DAYS FOR APPROVALS ** 2) Inspections: a. Above ceiling b. Penetrations and separations c. Sprinkler system A. Hydraulic calculations and cut sheets B. Underground flush and hydrostatic test C. System hydrostatic test D. Main drain test/inspectors test E. Outside bell F. NFPA 13 paperwork d. Fire Alarm -e.--Emergency lighting-test- - ------ - - -- - ------ f. Final Inspection ** PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING: 1. Consulting inspection will be welcomed 2. Multiple inspections can be done on the same day 3. Stocking/addition of fixtures to occupancy will only be allowed if the life safety systems are on line. Police Services 1. Emergency phone numbers for the duration of the construction must be provided to Police Services on a company letterhead. If the developer occupies or owns the building after construction emergency numbers must be provided to Police Services. 2. All buildings located on property that abuts a public highway must be numbered and visible from the street. All numbering shall comply with Town Ordinance 6-800 through 6-802. 3. Barns, garages, and outbuildings, which are located on the same premises as a numbered structure, are excluded. 4. Erect temporary sign on the site during construction identifying the project. 5. If an alarm is to be installed contact Police Services. Building Department 1. Plan review with Building Official/Fire Marshal required prior to application for building permit. Coordinate with Chief Building Official. Very truly yours Michele R. Lipe,AICP Town Planner MRL/llz cc: Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer Bernie Drabek, Engineering Inspector Karl Reichle, Public Works Christopher Dougan, Chief Building Official Fred Shaw, Superintendent of Pollution Control Walter Summers, Fire Marshal CL&P SBC/SNET PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING SIGN IN SHEET (please print clearly) NAME COMPANY ADDRESS and / or EMAIL TELEPHONE c�-kduf1) 1N16 CuNN I tj 1+4M Q_ - 8918 i 1 ,»,� e- r-�tri 2 iSa,S v r,44etie,nke r�rSe.S. rt �'66 7!-�-1339 r o1l�a• C;rm,&. evcrcv�ws 6 OR CWVW ,Awnot P-Osc*.tom 9�p- 87!• 283 I V1 ' `� Sala 81�n COY ��sr X.�sa s SWIM tavtAO-102 tt=i* Isf sA-44410 emu.zasJ ,DNA! .�i.v� �oyso. �m.vIT(LjiL--C *A) '0kAQ folsaM06 , �, o .^� �C"'v, 3 V6 Qj L s J4 l 14✓ vA v✓1� i • i 1 co' 3 TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: �"" CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON 1�d`I7 �-(13VV Phone No. Address ios axwAsuf L ?,cam !LO Site Name�rM.s � � - ?- c1�go� Pdi P&Z No. Owner Cee G Phone No. Contractor sea LLC- Signature of Owner Date: F7 1 Lh a Signature of Design Engr. Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) l o �cw►.ovc CS�c�s�bc. �T'2�c�s �tv A�c� + -�'`� '�?��,U '` A L� i a t Qh.%4 I tA �Co I 1 Reason for Change: (Why is change required) G✓u �t -yb -1CFT- 5 iy i m y\G Q m- `C -W5 Afiz I N 106 L- S A06 AaZ�tl-u��A -►�Cable { APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning Date: Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: other: w'), Date: 00-.L) STAFF COMM T : White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department IN - `. z , / m I , r r - L �I� mil .�- / - ���, s' i /- %. � y- ��:/ \ '�` i ! / • /` .-' _ Y r _ 07 ojAne oz ivu�oaa saai;oc' F ter\ fill I I .^, \ \` / / — \ � — -- •� � :,`t(1� I'i .� \\,�\\\�` I �,. P , II li'�i � :� � V A V ?. •I %/ /� / III Ilia ', r •Q� I /�' C ,' __. I � l i .., , ICI' ` J / 4 " Robert Dwyer From: Robert Dwyer Sent: Wednesday,July 18, 2012 10:50 AM To: 'Joseph Culotta (J.Culotta@perkinseastman.com)' Cc: 'David Fresk(dfresk@crec.org)'; 'f.morris@perkinseastman.com' Subject: FW: CREC IMS Attachments: Scan1000.PDF Joe, Due to the condition of several "trees to remain" listed on the drawings,we have requested that the Town allow for the removal per the attached sketch. They have agreed but asked that we look at possibly adding a few trees where we have removed (5)of them along Chapel Rd. under CO-3. If necessary,your landscape architect can speak with Jeff Folger at the Town for what he thinks might work best. Call with any questions, Bob Robert Dwyer Manager Cutter Enterprises,I.I.C. 105 Industrial Park Road Vernon,CT. 06066 Ph. 860-871-2839 ext 303 Fx. 860-871-3058 www.cutterenterprises.com ******PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS*************** From: Robert Dwyer Sent: Wednesday,July 18, 2012 10:46 AM To: 'jeffrey.folger@southwindsor.org'; Tipe, Michele (Michele.LipeCabsouthwindsor.orct)' Cc: 'David Fresk(dfreskC5)crec.org)'; 'William Cunningham (wcunningham(&folsomlic.com)'; Dave Netz; Scott Bartlett Subject: CREC IMS Jeff, As discussed at the site today, we are making the revisions to the save/remove status of 8 trees. Attached is the Town CO form for processing. I can have D Fresk from CREC sign off on Monday. Thanks for your assistance today, Bob Robert Dwyer Manager Cutter Enterprises,I.I.C. 105 Industrial Park Road Vernon,CT. 06066 Ph. 860-871-2839 ext 303 Fx. 860-871-3058 1 I TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON ' Phone No. Address Site Name `fir ;�-C� �n2� GvC,Oe>l`( Paz No. Owner CA C Phone No. Contractor e- Signature of Owner• I Date: Signature of Design Engr. Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) -'-Z `(vvNx t Z a � �-��, "Mtn -M,cwll L2 i k)It Reason for Change: (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning Date: Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Other: ^ Date: STAFF COMM White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department 0 41 34, .:�� I I , 9�7= .ilylLN]rJ1531I QS v. .. y/f I /. u x ��. �� `-I'- .. % smaiina 31T62 IvLLN3GiS ..............I a. 07 .................. Robert Dwyer From: Robert Dwyer Sent: Wednesday,July 25, 2012 11:23 AM To: 'William Cunningham (wcunningham@folsomllc.com)'; 'David Fresk(dfresk@crec.org),; 'Lipe, Michele (Michele.Lipe@southwindsor.org)' Cc: Dave Netz, Scott Bartlett Subject: CREC IMS Attachments: Scan1007.PDF Bill, David I discussed the trees to be removed along the west property line this morning and Michelle agreed that these trees are OK to go. I have prepared a CO#4 for the work, attached to this e-mail for record. Bill, It is my understanding from David that these removals are a no cost field change. If this is not the case you should contact me prior to completing the work. Thanks, Bob Dwyer Robert Dwyer Manager Cutter Enterprises,LLC. 105 Industrial Park Road Vernon,CT. 06066 Ph. 860-871-2839 ext 303 Fx. 860-871-3058 www.cutterenterprises.com ******PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS*************** 1 I TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR 1 STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON &7b.bW��J Phone No. SGO-S 1)-2 Address 1015- : AWSMI,4C azze & Site Name LNL6 t� �GT hZ� Ghao P&Z No. _a°� Owner Cze G Phone No. Contractor Signature of Owner Date: Signature of Design Engr. Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) o navC- CS - ten .s i N) A v c+7i-eb.' i • WM %LU10,Aj k9tTAr � 2t;P t�'t' `To Q>g Reason for Change: (Why is change required) G✓� ^^ '3� I` �i70LtwVA,'• i APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning Date: I Z. I Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works _ Date: Other: Date: STAFF COMMENTS: I i C White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink --Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department /* +' — _ W/+Esmt+&AL zg,E'reuFFen M. v Fit. NT /* , l , ' �� ) i of .J .. ;. _." r .. 7 // "- '� '�.... �•`� 'a �� y,.,. �,uy rr ++�dv� r •vr!`� ��."' •rah �'' r--f f .� 5 t4lf "'' =. PLANT SC EDULE KEY EVERAREE QUA9TITY Abies concclor_. .._. COMMON .... -._ COMMENTS BOTANICA 'White F J iv 51 Jumperusv rginiana eurkt L _..._ ---.. NAME < ��- N - Bto SO'B&Brn _...... \ -- ---__ p 4 'Picea glauca P y-,' •.__ : _ :: _ -' _..._.__ .._ _ -- i.S:_ __ .__--_._.__- _... _.8 - Tto B'B&B ...__ ,Pious strobus White Pine .. -_L-....- __..__ .___._ -_ _ _ __r______ _ -____ _- _ _____ ....... .j, :Fastigiate White Pinedar psf 18 =Pious strobus'Fastigiata' - _.._ Ig_.. -. - ___..t n .9 __. ___ —_._ ___ _: _"�� _ _- - Giant Arbor Vitae Tto B'e&B ......_. _ ._[rrarw .. TREES-DECIDUOUS .__._. _ .._.._ maple _ � nrirrt �- Ar 1. 329 Acer mbrum Red Sunset' r SIGN ON I1;1,ASONkY WALL _ -_. LKchtertlaev s Servarceberryed rnaiple As 28 N OS Ame an Da•�APEtIGHTING-.. CIJt/_./+p (+tAIA SS'B&B multi-stem p LAN LYy lrf\ O':Y Y/'1 � ...... .. _....____._______. ,. - -. R AD • -• s - - „_ep 38 ,Bet lap,puhfolia .. __ Grey eir _. G_8'e&BB&B _ 12 L. Eastem Redbud 15'to2 B&B Cc 'multi-stem -Corou slorf da s __... ..._. Dogwood American 8eech 2 to25 Fag sg ndSolia __.._.. _ ._— ___ ,__ .._...--- -_. - _ a.n...1.8;`_ ., - 13 sFraxinus ameriwna - ...._ ^....... x ___— �_ ._ n-. -. ,.. F White Ash _.._._ 2{3 Oak C L �6 �@Ch<, i r '� ` FB eons Ivaniw'Patmore' Patmore GreenAsh 2'to25'e&B - c; .. t•. Fp 15 'Fr xtn s p .__y, - __--- g �, .-`�• -1 _ --- Moraine Hpney Locust3 to 3 5 B&e fo remain : Gt 12 Gled!tsta tnAcanth sme mts'Morame' tq re gin Jv 3 b,.,, t .: taro ma- - t 1 S to 2 0&B - 'lexandrina' :Alexandria Saucer Magnolia 15 to2 B&B �..- , .: -.. :. .;. _ .. --. .r_ , �`- .:: a' C.;S•SSv�% �. _ Ms 1 .Magnolia soulang ana Al...__._. __..._ ._. i ..`i tZ_ 1 s :.'I -,.'.--�.`.` •. .j.,_ _ _ f�- - _ ._._ .. -- White Oak ..__.. .2"to25 S Querc salba._ _......-... -_._._. :? - \.'. Qf\ .'.''i•' 1 \` 4 z"tn2s°B&B -.,l. _�. a 3 -pi .., . _-ry .-- - r•t_ .- -'r1: - + ' :Qu rcus rubs Jv 6 1 _ _ - •` ut 7n�rtSHRUBS --.. -r. ♦. .. I. _ .• ., .\.:.-.. 1. :.. •.. .>:. -' "- ", r _Red Dogwood.,_ a .., - 4.;,:•\f -., � ., -��. ..._ .. .., �, ,i �, r <r„" - .- , - - -� 21 iCornus sencea'Stolonifera' ..._g_ Pfitzer luni er -24"to 30"g5 coot. _.._.. _ - _ - - ,tr {I• - _ ,._-_ _. .. ;:S .- - t ,eras chinensis'Pfitzeriana tom acta_ Com_paa P YI :� .� •�_ :l':, - ; `. > ` _. imn thS lrea -18"to 24';g3 mot.' ., :� - ..- ......_ <.._. .... � •�__NiEAD4. - _'_ - -. - ./. -, Or P..o� -,. .r .�•. ...<__ -. -.i- _ w. ood Viburnum 9'-4':B&B 14 W burnum dcn[atum ...__ _. .. .. _.. .. "_ r.. - .I 1 ♦ rj y� ;:r`. �� _ - �J _ i'-Ct-1'T� --\tt t/r._- - - - (roc..,. _Vd .. ..._ _ .._-._.....__ _.-..__. _.___ - `• .. _ --.. � > �; _ - •f-'r,- . \.- -,'-. 4�1�- ,-.. ._ �-_ c" ,. �.�_ _ �..5-�� - - --\-'A''6i` PERENNIALS ____ __._. .__. : I. .i _ -.-i-,". it,: . .-=. ay: ._ a- _- .:� - _}:' `�- - ;_?:•i- -.__ ... _ - Butterfl Weed 1_quartmnt ..._. • ..` ,. 4 _ 1. _-, �. f _S.. - - ti3 i :.'_ _ ;!f_ _ ..At 25 'Asdepiastuherosa :New En land Aster yl quart coot. An TS -Asternovaeangliae -.@_,, _ . _ ,l r ,. _ ... Y�"rt_♦ ..-. / - - ,•�„f• - ,<," .. -.._._. New York Aster ., Y.,r_ :,!��,+'� _ ,• ' `Ps Cf 3 __ — - -}' Ano Zs 'Bat dsia alb`�a.Alba .OaP�isia _ 1_quart c .•.-..£! -� ! --\ -X. t> - y P 2 � — — — ——— .r�• (_ - ..._ Ba _ <_P - _ _.__ __.- of Coreosis ;Squartcont. I. ,_;• ,d. J./_.,- — —-- ——— _— — — _ 25_ ..iC reop s lanceolata. Lance Le p- -�( '_...,.� : . ' , �. , :. ^/ } 'Purple Coneflower_. -I quart rant. `� �--,i EP 25 Echmacea purpurea _. _. �• g( ) _ l quart coot. T atorium•ierfohatum _..___ Bp __.. .. __- kk nt. ..•,.' .. ; : ,'_� .�.. ,. .. .- 2, , :':<%} 25 _iHello sts hehanthoides _. flower _.-... ,l q4a _....._. tJ; : ; ": r rs1 Tr4 Hh _. P n" `3 uartcont. • - - - "� - +'• - - ` ` B 3 .7" 25Lobeha sihilitira Great Lobelia i q___ _. �.. t Psi 3 PO :z" L� P. .n.-.": L. _ ,'`= z.� %? - -. Lp _.[ 25 LuPtnus perennis _ _ :Blue WPi ne _... _19uart coot. : fill -: J . I . 4 t Wild Be amot Squart coot .-. A) 1 _ - - : --• - _ L ;< :.! - M( 25 ;Monarch fistulosa __. - - A .` i/ , _ --.TP(4 :.�i _. ___ _._... _... =Horsemint _-.. il quart tort. ,.. _. I - .,. - narda unctata P -}.�:+- I• - _ __ Hairy eeardton6ue_ lquart cont. ,. .MI'X_G^h I .. - -. �, I .- .`:.Q�"' '.. �Y- - Y•lr'_. ..._ 25 _ Penstemon hirsutus _.._ .- MEADOW L:z Qr.__- f- . . : obedient Plant Squart coot. • •t_. 1 :.' i. \( : ....•.-..•F. .: <i, '�' _ -Pv 25 Physostegta virgml.na- ___. _..... } i I �\ is ,I\ .f. . - -- - \11"!/ , l•" - Black eyed Susan__ l..quart coot. l'71 Ps Rh 25 Rudbeckta fiirta __-.._. - E = \ Brown Eyed Susan S quart cont. • �":- _ Rt 25 Rudbeckiatriloba - . .�- Pg(,3)\.- s �: _•. r _ i `. _ - - Showy Goldenrod Yquart coot. _. C ri \` r • !\ Solidagospenosa _.._.. _. _. ,� _ XISI - .s-. y 14\ -.:-Ps MEADOW SEED NtlXES.. _ ;SEED RATE ... ... \ '✓- - - - '�<' - -ERNSTSEEDMX NUMBER DESCRIPTION _ r 1 �. . ., : : ,,- _ Ps(2) Af 0 RJR --�. - `.Ar `._ _ -- ' Ps(4) - _Eastem Ecotype Native Gras --IS lb.per acre __.... Seed MlxA Ernst Seed Miz-ERN 177 �' Ott - .... Enst Seed N..x ERNMX-132 __ _.. Right of Way Woods '4016.peracre __... AI \ • MEADOW�'MIX B s MEADOW M B AI SeedfkxB _ . r - t. - : r t-- - -_._ - - ;Ernst Seed Mix ERNMX 181 _.._- _,Native Steep Slope `301b peracre i _1'.: - �. - I - : ....__— + - -\:7,, Seed MixC -__ per acre - ft 0 , _ - - ..f - C--' __-'z-ERNM%-131_. Detention Basin Floor AD lb.P _. - �. - r 1 .•-.1.�. t i. ':I ' \_ _ ' - - , `,., :'lit• . ...Seed Mix D... -;Ernst Seed Na_ _ I : Jcf a r I: r 5� ..- r All\'\ lc(3) Jv(5) I He(3) --- - --- — Qr} Q+ Qt} CT }'Qr Al t _ CUSTOM SIGN A VI LIGKTING.-.'\ I LL _ . �r TP(6) 0. LF I Fp Ar t ��� �IJ i - f .�.. j Date: 00 f 01/12 P6R Landscape CRY1,C--IMS SKETCH SKL-01 Scale: 1~=40' 115 FIFTH AVENUE 625 Chapel Hill Road South Windsor, CT 06074 - - NEW YORK,NY 10003 T.212.353.7373 •- F.212.,53.7676 II I TOWN OF "SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE: " + FOR SITE & .SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON c _,._ -.. � Phone No. &7yo0- (� '/7 Address Site Name ( y J..1kc.c �-ta.r..4 V C,UEA' 5c14'"I'olP&Z No. Owner^ > - Phone No. Contractor � ,, � Signature of Owner Date: Signature of Design Engr.. Date CHANGE: (Describe `location and nature change. Include F Four (4) copies of pl&W4p fix: of Change.) r- Reason for Change: (Why is change required). G APPROVALS: (As Required) "; ;' / Dir.. Of Planning " eA Date: -- _-v Town Engineer ` Date: Dir. of Public Works Date Others - Date STAFF COMMENTS: AUG 8 2012 SOUTH WINDBOR FLANNINU UtF I M White - Town Engineer Yellow —Applicant "Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod Engineering Department TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENERAL: CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON__ke j k rc Phone No. ( 88 -S 3 3-] Address Site Name CRLG SCh P&Z No. Owner CRE.C_ Phone No. Contractor r41)SCA1)F Signature of Owner ✓ Date: Signature of Design ngr. Date: CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) Ft-uniwAnoN of DEc1LV(>LZ TRQr,S WyA Cc-0 Asky, AiyrAc,�•1 i Tb AA".J ra)4r-S Fi-JI- /1-1,4 70" Cir F-x1fm,%16, /S knC Qti AT s��- ;����niG �F�r� ��rive A • �G Tff/S �,4�.�t 7?- Xs�Fe e4<c-5 C cs/,A/G c.Av 70 2 c! Reason for Change: (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (As Required) Dir. Of Planning i Date: 10 a is Town Engineer Date: Dir. of Public Works Date: Other: Date: STAFF COMMENTS: i fv r -1 H :, 4 r v White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink - Director of Planning Electrical Contractors, Inc. 3510 Main St.Hanford,Connecticut 06120 (860)549-2822 Fax(860)549-7.948 C1`. State License 4102800,4103327 E-mail:jack-b@EClncorporated.com EDT—MIF December 23,2013 Mr. Scott Bartlett Cutter Enterprises, UC' 105 Industrial Park Rd. Vernon, CT 06066 Mr.Bartlett: Per our conversation today, the Exterior lighting installed at the new South Wind- sor CREC International Magnet School at 625 Chapel Rd. in South Windsor CT. has been installed per plans and specifications and is filly functional at this time. Please:feel free to contact me with any questions you might have. 4 "neerely, tJac . rihan Pro C Manager i TOWN OF SOUTH WINDSOR STAFF SITE CHANGE FOR SITE & SUBDIVISION GENE=$ CHANGE ORDER CONTACT PERSON Phone No.8UD.452+,LJV16 jAddress; tfl25 site Name P&E No.'1oo$ Moo cool #4S7S 4)5a Owner t2ca�ortsecr�t ro.sncl Phone No. 2 - contractor Caw Signature of Owner Date: qt 10�� Signature of Design Engr. Dates CHANGE: (Describe location and nature of change. Include .,^ Four (4) copies of plan/profile of Change. ) L lam+ C.tay'v►t.t c�,�Ab►�eCl rJ�c�an ��.ave c�+ey 'Two ilc�cai"o►�1c. b2�E' tor, . �1 k� �kg 1.�e of nPJA..� noeU . C. V,c, Ulej 11 to 100.16s"a;m o,nL X20.k1 -i-o �tu V4mJ ear'-W&nC-' . Reason for Changes (Why is change required) APPROVALS: (AS Required) q Dir. Of Planning Date: f Town Engineer Dates Dir. of Public Works Dates Others Date: STAFF COMMENTS: �a f White - Town Engineer Yellow - Applicant Pink - Director of Planning Goldenrod - Engineering Department 'M,,n, K}IM!Y70�Y�..s9Cp�tlllA•My MCM • i � �6 I ; t'l�..l(�/{�y,��.th.t—tt.t.}.J`M_l-..1.-.1/ll..h.V-•A:,.SA° ....\.VJJrIJ.'.AAA1�.l ! CJC I"4 :x�.'.A'_u a}.}t.`l'.t.}J.:A.C'•:� 'i ,a ' -.lE-y • id' F p tp j t r I � LL�.�.�J � �� ti - .:t xvnami. �.rwt•>:, '{ ti Rai ///J X 1� t ;. sxtt�aal'�uY'.Tu"°S r •►g7as!0,'. _ � i , ;� i� YJ fit t �.. ,•... 1....�.:..`.L .ram �..._ � 1 ��'��� �� is '— � ,• , (� � � $� ��,? � :� ,�' gg y es r•�: ail � _.� � �1`��z���,i y��•_i� �. I iny l/ b yy��y -p.q-- - -- --- '-- - .T4 � MATOHUNI REM TO 0*4 f} I • ♦ t , ®6 ©6 r r t --- ---..----..RIriR ffl Ci.7 .�..�..�r..�.. fir ff , 1 .1 a i i o®�®o r fit12 (9� p A pill 10 .�24W WATEILET-CU SLACICENEOS7ECLWnERS. 3lrM*CKTO SEMOLNIED INTO CONCIZETE W CORE OF MASONRY VOW WALL. b N ---------- ..-- 4ana(Typ,) U(3HT --- ---------------- �F00T1NGFORLANDSCAPELK;O 3 ENTRY WALL ELEVATION SCALE 1/2•=T'—T 4 n+t is SIGN rs I I MASONRY WALL - LANDSCAPE LKWT F007M FOR LANDSCAPE LIGHTS Expert Ron CRECSolutions CONSTRUCTION SERVICES Gregg A. Blackstone Finance Officer DECEIVED June 5, 2015 JUN 0 g 2015 Ms. Michele Lipe SOUTH WINDSOR PLANNING DEPT. Director of Planning Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 RE: Release of Planning and Zoning Permit Application Obligations Dear Ms. Lipe- The Capitol Region Education Council hereby requests release from the following: APPL# BANK AMOUNT LC# COMMENTS 11-29p United $ 15,000 10620 Stormwater 11-29p United $ 20,000 10621 Landscaping 1 1-29p United $ 30,000 10622 Erosion and Sedimentation Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me with questions or concerns. Sincerely, Gregg A. Blackstone Finance Officer CREC Construction Services cc: P. Drummey 111 Charter Oak Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 860-524-4073 gblackstone@crec.org ■ www.crecconstruction.org Webster Ba n k ___ __ Webster Bank, N.A. — 185 Asylum Street �1 G® 5th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 WebsterBank.com February 13, 2012 FEB 1 !/4 Z01Z SOUTH WIND60R PLANNING DEPT. Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Attn: Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission We hereby open our Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. 1-0620 in your favor by order and for the account of CREC-Capitol Region Education Council, 111 Charter Oak Avenue, Hartford, CT 06005 up to an aggregate amount of U. S. Dollars Fifteen Thousand and 00/100 (US$15,000.00). Available by your draft(s) at sight drawn on Webster Bank, National Association accompanied by: (1)the original Letter of Credit and any amendments thereto; and (2) a statement signed by an authorized officer of the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut, stating wthat the conditions set forth in a letter dated October 19, 2011, as it relates to the construction of storm water system, from the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut addressed to CREC-Capitol Region Education Council in connection with the construction of the 64,300 sf. school on property located at 625 Chapel Road have not been fulfilled. Draft(s) and documents must be dated and presented to Webster Bank, CityPlace II, 5th Floor, 185 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT 06103-3494 not later than January 20, 29013 or any automatically extended date set forth herein. This Letter of Credit shall be automatically extended for an additional period of'one year from the present or each future expiration date unless we have notified you in writing, not less than sixty(60) days before such expiration date, that we elect not to renew this Letter of Credit. Our notice of such election shall be sent by express,registered or certified mail to the above address. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, this Letter of Credit shall have a final expiration date of January 20, 2017. PAGE TWO IS AN INTEGRAL PART HEREOF WebsterBa I !k Webster Bank, N.A. 185 Asylum Street 5th Floor Hartford,CT 06103 WebsterBank.com February 13, 2012 Town of South Windsor 1540 Sullivan Avenue South Windsor, CT 06074 Attn: Town of South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission We hereby open our Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. 10622 in your favor by order and for the account of CREC-Capitol Region Education Council, 111 Charter Oak Avenue,Hartford, CT 06105 up to an aggregate amount of U. S. Dollars Thirty Thousand and 00/100 (USS30,000.00). Available by your, draft(s) at sight drawn on Webster Bank, National Association accompanied by: (1)the original Letter of Credit and any amendments thereto; and (2) a statement signed by an authorized officer of the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut, stating that the conditions set forth in a letter dated October 19, 2011, as it relates to compliance with E&S measures,from the Town of South Windsor, Connecticut addressed to CREC-Capitol Region Education Council in connection with the construction of the 64,300 sf. school on property located at 625 Chapel Road have not been fulfilled. Draft(s) and documents must be dated and presented to Webster Bank, CityPlace II, 5th Floor, 185 Asylum Street, Hartford, CT 06103-3494 not later than January 20, 2013 or any automatically extended date set forth herein. This.Letter of Credit.shall be:automatically extended for an additional period of one.year, from the present or each future expiration date unless we hove notified you in writing, not less than sixty(60) days before such expiration date, that we elect not to.renew this Letter of Credit. Our notice of such election shall be sent by express, registered or certified mail to the above address. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, this Letter of Credit shall have a final expiration date of January 20, 2017. PAGE TWO IS AN INTEGRAL PART HEREOF o U 7_� ale S_V� V&U&at w� 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 CERTIFIED MAIL 70111570 0000 63371402 June 26, 2015 Gregg Blackstone CREC Construction Services 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Mr. Blackstone: RE: Appl. 11-29P, CREC Letters of Credit This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on June 23, 2015 to release the Stormwater Bond in the amount of$15,000 and Erosion & Sedimentation Bond in the amount of$30,000 for the above-referenced project. Please find the two enclosed Letters of Credit. The Planning and Zoning Commission also reduced the Landscaping Bond from $20,000 to $10,000. Please forward an amendment to the Letter of Credit we are currently holding showing this reduction or provide a substitute surety at your earliest convenience. If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 252. Thank you. Sincerely, Bart Pacekonis, Chairman PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION Enclosure Postalru CERTIFIED MAILP, RECEIPT BP/llz o Provided) cc: Town Engineer 7), f. ,n m :• r 7 Postage $ REC IVED 0 Certified Fee ReturnReceipt Fee L2 Mere O M (Endorsement Required) V �O'�{.lere Restricted Delivery Fee C7 (Endorsement Required) P� [�- OR WM DEPT. Lr) Total Postage&Fer-qes r_1 Sent Toae O Street,Apt-No.; C� or PO Bax No. C` City,State,Z[1, +4 --------. f0 V 00. f ra( C D compLETE THIS SEC Tjof,1 ` ■ Complete items 1•;2,and'3: COMPLETE THIS item 4 if Restricted Delive Also �� ,; � ' � ■ .Print your name and address o tNe�reverse Signature so that we can return the card to you• ■Attach this card to the back of the ..L�Ag ht• or on the front if space permits. mailpiece, B• eceived b ❑Addressee Y(PNnted Name) �. Article Addressed to; C` t@ of Delivery D, Is dejivery address different fro � Mr� Gr E?gg $1 d If YES,en#er delive m item y? •-�Yes CREC CkStOne ryaddressbelow; ❑No I11 Construction Services Hartford ter -Oak Avenue . CT 06106 3• Service Type �ertified Mail �]Express Mail Registered ❑Retu ❑.Insured Mai! m Receipt for Merchandise 2. Article Number 4: Restricted Delive �❑QO.D. (TransferfroM service label) •7 01� ry' (Extra Fee) PS Form 3811.February 2ooa 15 7� 0 0�� 6 3 3 7 - ❑Yes Domestic Re#urn Receip# �02595.02-M•7540 �0.N N S fq C T_0� 07- ioa� ?d&U&Ot 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 r�OSOR-CO TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 November 8,2016 Gregg Blackstone CREC Construction Services 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Mr. Blackstone: RE: Appl. 11-29P, CREC Letter of Credit The Planning and Zoning Commission is holding the following Letters of Credit: PROJECT BANK AMOUNT EXPIRATION CREC Webster $10,000 Landscaping 1/20/17 In accordance with our policy for accepting Letters of Credit in lieu of surety bonds, we must have an amendment to each expiring Letter of Credit well in advance, extending the term for a one-year period from the expiration date. Will you please forward us the amendment promptly? If you have any questions,please contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 253. Thank you. Sincerely, Michele R. Lipe,AICP Director of Planning MRL/llz cc: Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer Jeff Folger, Senior Environmental Planner SpNN Sr., C� O 9 r: 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 f`�Os0R•c0�' TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 January 3, 2017 Gregg Blackstone CREC Construction Services 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Mr. Blackstone: RE: Appl. 11-29P, CREC Letter of Credit The Planning and Zoning Commission is holding the following Letters of Credit: PROJECT BANK AMOUNT EXPIRATION CREC Webster $10,000 Landscaping 1/20/17 We have not as yet received a renewal of the Letter of Credit, which expire on January 20, 2017 as noted in our previous renewal request dated November 8, 2016. Please be advised that discussion of this matter will be placed on the January 10, 2017 agenda of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Calling of the letters of credit will be initiated at that time if we have not received a renewal. If you have any questions,please contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 253. Thank you. Sincerely, Michele R. Lipe,AICP MRL/llz Director of Planning cc: Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer Jeff Folger, Senior Environmental Planner N Sfq co C I �e 719v� ale 1: • 0 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE� • SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 SOR-CO TELEPHONE(860)644-2511 January 24, 2017 Gregg Blackstone CREC Construction Services 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Mr. Blackstone: RE: Appl. 11-29P, CREC Landscaping Bond This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on January 10, 2017 to reduce the following bond as follows: Appl. 11-29P, CREC $10,000 Landscaping Bond reduced by$5,000 to leave a balance of$5,000 Please forward an amendment to the Letter of Credit we are currently holding at your earliest convenience. If you have any further questions contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 253. Thank you. Sincerely, Gary Bazzano, Chairman PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION GB/llz cc: Town Engineer Environmental Planner SOWN Sfq � � V&U&Ota 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 sox•c° TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 December 4,2017 Gregg Blackstone CREC Construction Services 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Mr. Blackstone: RE: Appl. 11-29P, CREC Letter of Credit The Planning and Zoning Commission is holding the following Letters of Credit: PROJECT BANK AMOUNT EXPIRATION CREC Webster $5,000 Landscaping 1/20/18 In accordance with our policy for accepting Letters of Credit in lieu of surety bonds, we must have an amendment to each expiring Letter of Credit well in advance, extending the term for a one-year period from the expiration date. Will you please forward us the amendment promptly? If you have any questions,please contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, ext. 253. Thank you. Sincerely, Michele . Lipe,AICP MRL/llz Director of Planning cc: Jeff Doolittle, Town Engineer Jeff Folger, Senior Environmental Planner <OWN Sfq C V/ Sot� :J 1540 SULLIVAN AVENUE• SOUTH WINDSOR, CT 06074 r�dsox•Co TELEPHONE (860) 644-2511 January 11, 2018 Gregg Blackstone CREC Construction Services 111 Charter Oak Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 Dear Mr. Blackstone: RE: Appl. 11-29P, CREC Landscaping Bond This is to advise you that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted on January 9, 2018 to reduce the following bond as follows: Appl. 11-29P, CREC $S 00O Landscapin�l l-29P, CREC $5 000 Landscaping reduced by$5,000 to leave a balance of-0-. Please contact the Planning Department at 860-644-2511, Ext. 329 to arrange for the return of the above referenced Letters of Credit. Thank you. Sincerely, Bart Pacekonis,Chairman PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION BP/llz cc: Town Engineer Environmental Planner