Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout036-90 Huntington Meadows - Stonewall District - Backfilew \. SITE PLAN CHECKLIST The application is not complete if the following are not present: 1. Two sets of comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; OK r����✓ VD T Vs �� City of Winchester ohoha Co. San. Auth. _ Co. Hlth. Dept. o� /8'�0 Inspections Dept. -Parks & Rec. Q K_ pf - G(3 �a�% Fire Marshall i Airport Authority 2. 2 copies of the Site Plan application 3. 5 copies of the plan on a single sheet A. 1 reproducible copy of the plan (if required) 5. a 35mm. slide of the plan (if required) * One copy of the application and comment sheets, two copies of the plan and the marked plans from the r-�i.ew agencies should be enclosed in a package which will be forwarded to the County Engineer. TRACKING 0 9� Application Received Site Plan forwarded to Consulting Engineer Review/Invoice received from Engineer. Fee Paid (amount $ V. I 1 — Site Plan heard by Planning Commission (if required) Final Site Plan submitted with review agency, Planning Commission, and staff comments addressed. 1W RECEIPT 022806 F?cDE :GK CiiUNTY DEPT. OF FLAW NG AND DDELOPMENT P.O. BOX 601 • 9 CC:URT SQUARE WNC iEL'TER, VtRGiNiA «601 • (iC3) 6G5-5551 AMOUNT DUE AMOUNT PA S RECEIVED FROM- BALANCE DUFJ ADDRESS 0^�i—= cy ? A DATE r- LARS AA ffSUM OE. i� PAID BY �% :••A `y� v//tip lJ .^ `,� ./ /If t; CASH FO CHECK Anl� OTHER - Ran SUt'vi Sio n - - 3'1 1 o fs S� 1' 9c e o (o fins Nollof� < zo �, 00 27 l� �y5 J ldt � r 00 L,2w uAi+s fl`�) j� V5 C_3 eO No, 3221 USA RECEIPT 02J86 i i AMOUNT DUE AMOUNT PAID ((}\) BALANCE DUE PAID BY CASH + l J CHECK El OTHER / BY r FREDE,isCK COUNTY DEPT. of PUMPINJIG AND DE'IELCRIENT P.O. BOX Gil • 9 COURT SnU,^J?E 1i::sCtiE�TiR, ViRGINIA 22601 • JC3) UG5.5651 DATE -. - --- RECEIVED FROMiJ ADDRESS �r �! ��`//�i �� •/!-��'�`�''/ 7 �` THE SUM OF, " /- -� LLARS $ COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIr IP Caller Time Called _ _ Phone No. __ Time Requested Received By PERMIT HOLDER NAME RT. NO. Lot No. SEC. No STREET NAME DIRECTIONS Type of Inspection Residential Footers Slab Water Sewer Rough Plumbing Groundworks Other: Time In: Time Out: Results: Approved Comments: Setbacks: FR Draintile Service Rough Electric Rough Mechanical Gas Piping/Test Temperature Weather d Date Called Date Requested Date of Inspection __ SUBDIVISION DISTRICT Commercial BK Rejected BUILDING NO. PLUMBING NO. _ ELECTRICAL NO. MECHANICAL NO SIGN NO. L Gas Fire -up Final Electrical Framing Final Mechanical Final Site Plan Final Building Fire Marshall Final Plumbing Special/Complaint Cut in No. Signature Date 0 P-k SP si-- 036-9(5 December 12, 1990 Jeni Company Box 8 Stephens City, Dear Sirs: Virginia 22655 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 Our 1990 records indicate that. Site Plan #036-90 for Townhouses was approved on September 10, 1990. This approved site plan is located on Routes 713 and 1200 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Please keep this approval letter in your file. If I may answer any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, &.4, 1 1 a. 44— Evan A. W tt Planner II EAW/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 tVI ,:.0 L - COMMONWEALTH of VIRC-jINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER November 5, 1990 Ms. Janet Williams, Proj. Manager Ref: Huntington Meadows/ C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Baker Knight Street Extended 200 North Cameron Street Routes 1200 & 712 Post Office Box 2104 Frederick County Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Janet: This is to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced project's revised site plans dated October 31, 1990. Our earlier comments concerning the placement of the double line of culverts at approximate Station 29+50, Baker Knight Street and the installation of both water and sewer services to the Henry Property appear satisfactory. However, we have noticed the profile of Baker Knight Street at its intersection with Route 712 has been revised. We have also noticed the detention pond grades have been revised. Before we may offer our approval on these revised plans I will need to submit them to our District Office in Staunton for review. In order to do so I will require two (2) additional sets of the plans. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Transp. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Hwy. Permits & Subd. RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. John Neff Mr. Jim Petry Mr. R. W. Watkins Childress Spec. Senior 6 f�l 0 PAYTOTHE COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 October 5, 1990 Mr. Thomas Price G. W. Clifford .& Associates P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Overpayment on Huntington Meadows Site Plan #036-90 Dear Tom: Enclosed is a check in the amount of $50.00 made payable to JENI Company which represents an overpayment on the Huntington Meadows Site Plan. JENI Company paid for 286 units; however, when Evan completed the site plan review, he noted that there were only 284 units. The corrected charge for the site plan is: $1,000 - Base Fee 800 - 20 units @ $40/unit 6,600 - 264 units @ $25/unit $8,400 - Total If you will forward the check to JENI Company, I would appreciate it. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, COUNTY OF FREDERICK PETTY CASH 9 COURT SQUARE, P.O. BOX 601 WINCHESTER, VA 22601 Farmers and Merchants National Bank MAIN OFFICE - WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 7091 68-139 1 R614 199� $ FINANCE DIRECTOR DOLLARS FOR I''00709111' 1:05111013991: 1 II' 1 25065Sill . AUG 26 ' 0 10 : 2? D0N0HU# I RFA . • P. August 27, 1990 Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planner Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Huntington Meadows Site Plan ENOINEeks # 17555.089 ARCHITECTS SCIENIISIS Dear Evan, We have completed the second review of the above referenced site plan. it is our opinion that the plan can be approved once the Engineer has addressed a few recommended modifications based on some inconsistency in the storm sewer plan, profiles and computations. We find that most of the inconsistencies do not have any effect on the adequacy of the structures but should be corrected for construction purposes. Also it is our opinion that modifications must be made to the stormwater management pond outlet design which are outlined following the storm sewer comments. 1) STR #1 The top elevation of the structure shown on plan is different from that on profile sheet. The computation chart did not reflect the length, slope and type of structure shown on plan. 2) STR #2 The slope of 4.5% shown on the computation chart is different from the 7.67% shown on plan & profile. 3) STR #8 The length of pipe shown on computation chart (76.0) is different from that shown on plan & profile (66.01) 4) STR #9 The top elevation of structure on the plan was mistakenly written as 687.75 instead of 678.75 5) STR #17 The top elevation of structure on the plan sheet (678.75) is different from that on profile sheet (679,56) '90 10'.2- DO rI IPF-AIRFRX • P.?/5 AUG �� ��I. H 6) STR #31 In review of the invert into STR #31 from STR #32 having a pipe length of 92.41, a, Slope of 1.14 and an invert out of 685.25, the invert into STR #31 was foto und- check rail�e the appropriate changes in and computation chart. 7) STR #32 The slope (1.24%) written on plan should be 1.14% ENGINEERS $) STR #33 The slope provided for the 181' pipe on the plan AR4:H(T'ECTS & profile sheets (1 .04 0 ) is different from that on SCIENTISTS the computation sheet. For the invert out of 686.65 provided, the slope would be 1.14%. 9) STR #38 & STR #39 e size Both structures need to be checked. The pip and slope provide for STR #39 on plan is different from that on profile. If slope 1.48% is used for the culvert from STR #39, then the invert into STR #18 = 692,02, but if slope 1.02% is used instead, the invert into STR #38 = 692.1.7. Kindly check and correct these culvert information. 10) STR #47 provided on the plan The type of structure (DI-7) p and profile sheets is different from that on the computation chart (DI-1) 1.1) STR #53 The top elevation of 671.50 provided on the plan and profile did not correspond to (668.50) provided on the computation chart. It is my opinion that the above items do not seriously affect the approvability of the plan and are referenced so that the Engineer can clarify them to reduce construction problems in the future. The following stormwater management comments must be addressed as a condition of approval. it is my opinion that the pond may not be adequate to handle the 10 year storm and will utilize the emergency spillway as part of the ten year discharge. We ran different evaluation methods for the inflow and outflow hydrograph generation and the routing of the storms through the proposed pond outfall structure. in all cases, we found that the water surface would rise to higher elevations than the design indicates. As a result, the water would start to flow out of the emergency spillway sooner than predicted. AUG 2EE1 190 10 : 29 DON0HUPAIRFA , • P.4/5 We felt the primary difference is due to the method of distribution used for the inflow y are ratph. he The methods we used fox comp arison -Modification stational Method and a similar method used by Fairfax County. We selected these because of the similarity to the method used by the Design Engineer. We used all of the parameters established by the Engineer such as runoff coefficients, Time of Concentration, pond elevation vs. volume storage, rainfall rates, and outflow structure. The time of concentration used does not take into account that the ENGINf:t:RS time of concentration after development is usually ARCHITECTS shorter than the time Of concentration before development. Therefore, .in reality the difference $C'I F. NT IST `u between pre and post runoff rates is usually greater tion d to than assumed comparison arison toebetterreevaluatedth thee for our pmethodassumpused for hydrograph development. A caution that is often given for the use of the Rational method in the development an aftenunderesti ate hydrograph volumes is that i the volume of storage needed. Although the pond storage is adequate, the routing of the developed ill ofhydrograph fec rap hedischargeof water hough the shows t1re t w effecdam t structure. In review of the various result, we find a simple modification to the outfall structure will satisfy the design parameters, In fact it calls for a much simpler outfall device. The use of an 18 inch RCP culvert through the dam with the invert a 672,00 and an emergency spillway of 20 feet width at invert 76.15. Other dimensions as specified in the plans. I would like to point out that the predicted maximum 100 year water surface elevation would be 677.4 (assuming all of the 100 year flow is releasing through the weir) which will come into the building envelope for lots 154, 155, 156, and 157. Caution will be needed in siting houses on these lots. Lastly, the northern most culvert under 1-81 consists of 6 foot by 8 foot box culvert. The designer's computations show that the backwater from the 10o year storm will exceed an elevation of 665.5 feet. This water surface will appear to go well into the building envelope for lots 225, 224, 223, 222, and 221. Again, caution will be required when siting houses on these lots, it would be advisable if grades could be established to reduce risks in these areas. However, it is apparent that the building envelope has enough building area in both of these cases to build AUG 2.9 '90 10:29 LiOHOHI PFAIRFAX • P. 5/5 houses outside the ponding limits of the 100 year storm. once the Engineer has modified the stormwater management outfall design as recommended or has oonclusively convinced us that his design i I h te equate as submitted, we can recommend app grading problem with recommeding release of an earl' permit at this time. We have inclosed our calculations for your ENGINELRS reference. If If you or the Engineer have any questions, ARCHITECTS please let me know so we can resolve these issues so 5r1E:N'1'1S"I''+ the plans can be approved. Since�1Y, onohu & Associ es, Inc. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager CC". Ron Mislowsky Gilbert Clifford PAB/jm file: 17555.089 AUG 29 ' 90 10 :.91 D1:)N0HU A I RF-H: F. August 27, 1990 Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planner Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Huntington Meadows Site Plan ENGINEERS # 17555.089 ANCIIITE(,Tti ScicsTISTS Dear Evan, We have completed the second review of the above referenced site plan. It is our opinion that the plan can be approved once the Engineer has addressed a few recommended modifications based on some inconsistency in the storm sewer plan, profiles and computations. We find that most of the inconsistencies do not have any effect on the adequacy of the structures but should be corrected for construction purposes. Also it is our opinion that modifications must be made to the stormwater management pond outlet design which are outlined following the storm sewer comments. 1) STR #1 The top elevation of the structure shown on plan is different from that on profile sheet. The computation chart did not reflect the length, slope and type of structure shown on plan. 2) STR #2 The slope of 4.5% shown on the computation chart is different from the 7.6700- shown on plan & profile. 3) STR #8 The length of pipe shown on computation chart (76.0) is different from that shown on plan & profile (66.01) 4) STR #9 The top elevation of structure on the plan was mistakenly written as 687.75 instead of 678.75 5) STR #17 The top elevation of structure on the plan sheet (678.75) is different from that on profile sheet (679.56) AUG 23 '90 10:32 DOMOHU0AIRFA>. • P. _, 5 6) STR #31 In review of the invert into STR #31 from STR #32 having a pipe length of 92.411, a slope of 1.14% and an invert out of 685.25, the invert into STR #31 was found to be 684.20, Check and e the and appropriate changes in plan, profile computation chart. 7) STR #32 The slope (1.24%) written on plan should be 1.14% ENGINEEHS g) STR #33 ARCHITECTS The slope provided for the 18" pipe on the plan & SCIEh-TISTS profile sheets (1.04%) is different from that on the computation sheet. For the invert out of 686.65 provided, the slope would be 1.14%. 9) STR #38 & STR #39 Both structures need to be checked. The pipe size and slope provide for STR #39 on plan is different from that on profile. If slope 1.48% is used for the culvert from STR #39, then the invert into STR #18 = 692.02, but if slope 1.02% is used instead, the invert into STR #38 = 692.17. Kindly check and correct these culvert information. 10) STR #47 The type of structure (DI-7) provided on the plan and profile sheets is different from that on the computation chart (DI-1) 11) STR #53 The top elevation of 671.50 provided on the plan and profile did not correspond to (668.50) provided on the computation chart. It is my opinion that the above items do not seriously affect the approvability of the plan and are referenced so that the Engineer can clarify them to reduce construction problems in the future. The following stormwater management comments must be addressed as a condition of approval. it is my opinion that the pond may not be adequate to handle the 10 year storm and will utilize the emergency spillway as part of the ten year discharge. We ran different evaluation methods for the inflow and outflow hydrograph generation and the routing of the storms through the proposed pond outfall structure. In all cases, we found that the water surface would rise to higher elevations than the design indicates. As a result, the water would start to flow out of the emergency spillway sooner than predicted. i ALIr, 22 '90 10:33 D0I`1C1HU4AIPPA};. is P.4: We felt the primary difference is due to the method of distribution used for the inflow hydrograph. The methods we used for comparison are the Modification Rational Method and a similar method used by Fairfax county. We selected these because of the similarity to the method used by the Design Engineer. We used all of the parameters established by the Engineer such as runoff coefficients, Time of Concentration, pond elevation vs. volume storage, rainfall rates, and outflow structure. The time of concentration used does not take into account that the ENGINEERS time of concentration after development is usually ARCHVIFc-rs shorter than the time of concentration before development. Therefore, in reality the difference sc ll ?I greater between pre and post runoff rates is usually than assumed here. We decided to hold the assumption for our comparison to better evaluate the method used for hydrograph development. A caution that is often given for the use of the Rational method in the development of inflow hydrograph volumes is that it can often underestimate the volume of storage needed. Although the pond storage is adequate, the routing of the developed hydrograph shows elevation differentials that will effect the discharge of water through the dam structure. In review of the various result, we find a simple modification to the outfall structure will satisfy the design parameters. In fact it calls for a much simpler outfall device. The use of an 18 inch RCP culvert through the dam with the invert a 672.00 and an emergency spillway of 20 feet width at invert 76.15. other dimensions as specified in the plans. I would like to point out that the predicted maximum 100 year water surface elevation would be 677.4 (assuming all of the 100 year flow is releasing through the weir) which will come into the building envelope for lots 154, 155, 156, and 157. caution will be needed in siting houses on these lots. Lastly, the northern most culvert under I-81 consists of 6 foot by 8 foot box culvert. The designer's computations show that the backwater from the 100 year storm will exceed an elevation of 665.5 feet. This water surface will appear to go well into the building envelope for lots 225, 224, 223, 222, and 221. Again, caution will be required when siting houses on these lots. It would be advisable if grades could be established to reduce risks in these areas. However, it is apparent that the building envelope has enough building area in both of these cases to build ' HLIG 33 ' 90 10: 33 D(-A 1i=!HUW F'Fi=i ; -7 • F F� ,c houses outside the ponding limits of the 100 year storm. once the Engineer has modified the stormwater management outfall design as recommended or has conclusively convinced us that his design is adequate as submitted, we can recommend approval. I have no problem with recommeding release of an early grading permit at this time. We have inclosed our calculations for your EtvGl"�tt#ti reference. If you or the Engineer have any questions, ARCHITECTS please let me know so we can resolve these issues so SCIFNTISTS the plans can be approved. Since ly, onohu & Associ es, Inc. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. project Manager cc: Ron Mislowsky Gilbert Clifford PAB/jm file: 17555.089 I�unti -fvr� Meadou,S -Subd. ,�hd . hoc .2S& 1 of 5 e P -) -rigure-d 254 l61s f )DOD se Koo- flD r po. N. irc- COUNTY of FREDERICK 0 Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Finance Department FROM: Renee' S. Arlotta, Planning Department SUBJECT: Refund Check to Jeni Company DATE: September 24, 1990 Please issue a refund check in the amount of $50.00 payable to JENI Company. This amount represents an overpayment by JENI on the Huntington Meadows Site Plan #036-90. (They paid for 286 units instead of 284 units.) This amount was deposited under GF1303-07. If you will deliver the check to the Planning Department, we will take care of mailing it. Thank you. rsa 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 ] r. COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMM6SIONER (703) 984-4133 September 4, 1990 Ms. Janet Williams, Proj. Manager G. W. Clifford & Associates 200 North Cameron Street P. O. Box 2104 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Janet: SP 4J- 636-40 V100-r ccl,t 1-V . WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Huntington Meadows Subdivision Baker -Knight Street Extended Routes 713 & 1200 Frederick County This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans dated August 23, 1990 to the above referenced locations. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following comments: Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require (forty-eight) 48 hours notice for inspections. A land use permit shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. Because of the amount of work proposed on the right-of-way it will be necessary for the developer to pay the full salary and expenses of a State assigned inspector. This charge will be billed monthly on an account receivable basis. If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots they are to be installed in accordance with the approved detail. Private entrances will be installed in accordance with our �Standard CG-9D specification. This is the developer's responsibility. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Ms. Janet Williams September 4, 1990 Page #2 Any entrances constructed from the referenced street(s) shall meet VDDT minimum standards. This is the developer's responsibility Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backf filled completely with C.R. Type 21-A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. An agreement between VDOT and Frederick County to absolve the Department of any maintenance or liability of the detention basin will be required. This is the developer's responsibility. The executed agreement is needed before the streets are eligible for acceptance into the State's Secondary Road System. At this time we would like to express our appreciation to the developers for their efforts in working with all concerned in order to provide an alternate access, Baker -Knight Street Extended, into the development. We feel this new roadway will be a huge asset to both the City of Winchester and Frederick County. We have discussed at length the construction of Baker -Knight with both Mr. Mike Harmer of your firm and Mr. John Neff of E. R. Neff Excavating. As I am sure you are aware there is a tremendous amount of trash/debris within the proposed right-of-way which appears to have been nothing more than an open dump in years past. As I have already discussed with Mr. Neff, this material will have to be completely removed from the right-of-way. Also, there is the question of drainage in the area. Because of the existing topography there are high and low spots which tend to cause the ponding of water. Although the site plan design appears satisfactory as approved, we would hope and expect the developers to cooperate in implementing additional measures if such were warranted in the construction of this arterial roadway. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer 6�—� /9 W. zz� By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC / rf Attachments xc: Mr. R. L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. F. E. Wymer (w/ plans) Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. James L. Bowman Mr. Fred L. Glaize Mr. Billy J. Tisinger Mr. Jim Petri G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 memorandum To: Mr. Bob Childress, Virginia Department of Transportation Mr. John Whitacre, Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mr. John Neff, E.R. Neff Excavating Shenandoah Gas Company Potomac Edison Company C&P Telephone Company Adelphia Cable Mr. Fred Glaize, Jeni Company Mr. Jim Bowman, Jeni Company Mr. Jim Petry, Jeni Company Mr. Bill Tisinger, Jeni Company Mr. Jim Vickers, Oakcrest Builders Mr. Evan Wyatt, Frederick County Planning From: Mike Hammer Re: Huntington Meadows Date: August 9,1990 A pre -construction conference for the above referenced project has been scheduled for Wednesday, August 22, 1990 at 9:30am at the office of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Va. In an effort to coordinate all of the activities associated with this project, it would be beneficial if a member of your organization or firm would attend this meeting. If you are aware of any other firms, utilities or organizations which may be affected by this project that have not been copied by this notice, please notify them or our firm directly, so that we may make every effort to notify all necessary parties. I have attached a site location map for your reference. Should you have any questions do not hesitate to contact me directly. cc: Chuck Maddox Janet Williams COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control NoDate Received & �liDate Reviewed C1_G Q� Applicant Name `� S ,G_, i<"'14,t/ Address Project Name Phone No Tvpe of Application Current Coning /I P Ist Due Fire Co. 1st Due Rescue Co. 3 Election District 40e-I/f1:119lc RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler System N Automatic Fire Alarm System Other - Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate x Inadequate Not Identified Fire Lanes Required; Yes �_ No Comments: Coo�m m e n t s : -/-A/ .yT c�� AFL fis/nf�lpi� f'rZ' Roadway/Aisieway Widths; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Special Hazards Noted; Yes No Comments: --r4 !r - Continued - • Hydrant Locations; Adequate X_ Inadequate Not Identified Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not Identified Additional Comments: /,lf'Ft�' AAO R �w ,Tim ougIas A. K racofe Fire Marshal REOUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Sanitation Authority ATTN: Wellington Jones, Engineer/Director P.O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Agent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn: Name of development and/or decription of the request: 1,1UNT1 N6'To ^/ AEA,pows Location: Sanitation Authority Comments: 3 nal R,4'Y/Fw- *,-Q/O R o V,em 4 S AV o ?AD 6 /l;�Fw s Sanit. Signature & Date: D (NOTICE TO SANITATION - �EAS�ETURN THI�FOR�MO AGENT.) NOTICE M APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach TWO copies of your plans and/or application foam. 4/27/89 Application for a Site Plan Complete the following application: Development's Name: Huntington Meadows Location of Property: Adjacent & West of Interstate 81. North of Interchange 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane DATE: 22 June 1990 Application #: 03(0-9 Property Owner's Name: Jeni Company Address: Box 8 Stephens City Va Telephone: (703) 869-1800 Agent/Applicant: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Inc Address: 200 N. Cameron St Winchester, Va Telephone: (703) 667-2139 Designer/Design Co.: same Address: Telephone: Contact: Tom Price Total Area of Property: 58,7194 Tax Map Number: Parcel Number: Double Circle A - #99 Property Zoning and Present Use: RP (Vacant) Adjoining Property Zoning and Present Use: M-1 (Vacant),B-3 (Vacant),B-2(Vacant) & RP (Residential) Proposed Uses: SF Detached -Cluster & Townhouses (Site Plan review required for Townhouses) Magisterial District: Stonewall 0 6 • • HUNTINGTON MEADOWS TRAFFIC GENERATION TOTALS Frederick County, VA No. of Single Family Units 52 Daily Trips generated by Single Family = 552 No. of Townhouse Units = 284 Daily Trips Generated by Townhouses = 1663 Total Daily Trips Generated by Developmer 2215 Adjacent Street - Baker Knight G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 memorandum To: Wayne Miller, Frederick County Planning From: Ron Mislowsky Re: Erosion and Sediment Control Study Hungtington Meadows, Frederick County, VA Date: 5/3/90 Project Description This project involved is being developed by The Jeni Company, Stephens City, VA. The type of construction is 5$ single family detached residences, and 284 townhouses. The project will also involve installation of roads, sewer, water and utilities. The total developed area is 58.7 acres. Existing; Site Conditions Prior to construction, the site was characterized by rolling terrain, predominately open with some undergrowth, all typical of undeveloped areas in the Upper Shenandoah Valley. The site is in the Wiekert-Berks-Blairton Soil Association. This area is characterized by gently sloping, moderately deep, somewhat poorly draining soils that have medium to fine textured subsoil; formed in material weathered from shale. Adjacent Areas The areas surrounding the development are varied in use. Tracts to the south are residential in nature. The land to the north of the site is vacant but zoned M-1. The area to the west is zoned M-1, and RP, but currently vacant. I-81 runs just east of the site. Soils For purposes of design run off conditions, antecedent moisture condition II (normal consideration for the mid -Atlantic region) is assumed. The soil is considered to have a moderate rate of water transmission, therefore, CSC Soil Class "C" is adopted. Soils are of the Series, for the most part of the Blairton (3B), Wiekert (41C), or Clearbrook (9B) Series. A copy of the respective soil map is enclosed. Permanent Stabilization Seeding for permanent stabilization is specified in the V.E.S.C. Handbook. Any area denuded in which work is not proceeding for a period of 30 days or more will be stabilized by a temporary seeding in accordance with State guidelines and procedures. All areas to be seeded will receive seed application by hydroseed methods immediately upon obtaining grades. Storm Water Management Consideration Site Plans have been attached. The entire site is served by curb and gutter streets, and drainage is carried by enclosed storm sewer to two well defined, existing drainage swales which run west to east thru the site. The flow from the site is directed to two box culverts under I-81. The amount of drainage to the southern most box is controlled by a detention pond. The post development flows can be easily carried by the existing south box. This is structure 51 on the drainage calculations. The flow to the northern most box is increased and not controlled. This box is structure 52 on the drainage calculations. We have performed flood routing calculations through this structure which actually acts to detain some of the flow. These calculations are attached. The head water elevations are acceptable. The 100 year elevation at structure 52 is 665.53. The ten year post development flow to the box is 840 cfs. The actual flow thru the box is 741 cfs. Structure 53 is a new box culvert under Bradford Terrace. This box is designed to keep the 100 year flood below the 674 elevation. EC-1 is required at all storm pipe outlets. The detention pond will act as a siltation basin during construction. Straw bales and silt fences have been placed where appropriate. Maintenance All soil erosion control structures shall be checked weekly by the contractor during this construction period and after construction is completed until grass cover is established. Sediment retained by these structures shall be continuously removed and placed in an area of the site specified, damage to soil erosion control structures shall immediately be repaired when identified by the contractor. The contractor shall cooperate with all agents of the County, the Engineer and others who may identify needed facilities or work in order to protect the environment within the subject of this report. �� •K • .. , J '1w`''•.�� /f/•'''ram .,� J,♦►(/j ,��' y� 401 INr j, t •NIL771 .41 r ♦ 'r� a �• AP .�'`� �'' •mow �ti�`*'•e - ,'� `� �•3' " Ne- f � • � MAIL �a ►� i� : t. All. ., . ' 41"Tk /L'4' �`• yr %r i'' �f rf rl A , a • .`AIL �, h; ... / RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of 'VIRC,INL1 , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 (703) 984-4133 August 20, 1990 Ms. Janet Williams, Proj. Manager C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Janet: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER �03(o -�O Ref: Huntington Meadows Subdivision Routes 713 & 1200 Frederick County Upon further review of the above referenced project's site plans dated August 8, 1990 please find our recommendations on the attached plans marked in red and as follows: 1. There was some confusion over the street names. Some appear to have been changed since our initial review, however, other names on the plans do not match the profiles. 2. The proposed CG-6 curb and gutter along Baker -Knight Street should be extended to the Stratford Drive intersection. A curb drop inlet and pipe will be required as noted. 3. As discussed a 30' radius on the northeast side of the Route 712 intersection with Baker -Knight Street will be acceptable. The intersection should be a standard CG-11 design with 30' width. 4. The location of the southern most entrance into the Henry property does not match on all plan sheets. 5. The lane transitioning on Baker -Knight Street extended is to be adjusted as noted. 6. The proposed culvert locations and elevations under Baker -Knight Street on Sheet #12 does not correspond with the profiles on Sheet #18. 7. A mini= of 36" of cover should be so specified on the 12" watermain. 8. The profile size of culvert #39 is to be revised as noted to an 18" size. 9. The Baker -Knight Street pavement design is to be upgraded to 1.5" of SM-2A asphalt concrete as noted. 10. The entrance typical section to the Townhouse Courts indicates a 60' right-of-way on Stratford Drive. This needs to be clarified. TR,- NSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST C=_ ,T'`;_ 0 • Ms. Janet Williams August 20, 1990 Page #2 11. The street intersection radii within the single family section are to be increased as noted. 12. The enclosed specifications are to be incorporated into the plans. Please revise and resubmit four (4) copies for final approval. Should any changed be deemed necessary please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. We are also returning the recently submitted final plats for revision. Our comments are marked in red. For your information we will not be able to sign off on the plats until the subdivision site plans are approved. Also, because the proposed street right-of-ways within this project currently do not adjoin an existing State maintained right-of-way it will be necessary to submit a plat of the proposed Baker -Knight Street extension as well. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer 6� /�. ��. '�� By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC / rf Attachments xc: Mr. R. L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. Gary Lofton Mr. John Neff 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 667-0370 August 20, 1990 G.W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Mr. Douglas C. Legge 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Huntington Meadows - Section II Site Plan Review. Dear Doug: I have finished my third review of the Huntington Meadows - Section II Site Plan. All of the comments from my second review have been addressed; therefore, I can recommend approval from a zoning review standpoint. Prior to final site plan approval, I must receive copies of approval letters from the following review agencies: 1) VDOT 2) Sanitation Authority 3) Fire Marshal 4) Parks & Rec. 5) Donohue & Associates Once I have received the required comment sheets, I will recommend that the Zoning Administrator approve the site plan. if I may answer any questions regarding this letter, please contact me. Sincerely, 1 Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 g. w. clifford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 August 10,1990 Mr Evan A. Wyatt County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Huntington Meadows - Section II (Townhouse Section) Dear Evan, Attached are four (4) sets of revised site development plans for the above referenced project which reflect the revisions and/or corrections noted in your letter of review dated August 7,1990. The total area of Section II has been revised to meet the required density of 8 units per acre and all other comments have been addressed. Thank you for your prompt attention to this review and we trust that final approval can now be given for these plans. If you have any questions concerning the latest revisions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, �f Douglas C. Legge, .L.S. Project Manager cc: Chuck Maddox Oakcrest Builders DCL/klf COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 August 7, 1990 G.W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Mr. Douglas C. Legge 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Huntington Meadows - Section II Site Plan Review. Dear Doug: I have finished my second review of the Huntington' Meadows - Section II Site Plan. The second review pertains only to the issues that were addressed from my preliminary review of August 1, 1990. I offer the following comments: ✓DENSITY: Based on the total acreage of Section II (32.89 acres), the density for this project is 8.63 units per acre. This exceeds the maximum gross density requirement of 8 units per acre which would allow for 263 total units. ✓IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: OK vADJOINERS: The adjoiners were addressed in narrative form. Because the lots are vacant, buffers are not required; however, residential separation buffers need to be verified by the Zoning Administrator. ,/SETBACKS: OK PARKING: A) The majority of the parking spaces meets the 180 square foot requirement; however, the alignment in front of units 191 - 203 and units 237 - 252 is off. v B) Aisle width is OK. /C) More than 14 handicapped spaces have been provided. D) Handicapped ramps need to be provided for all handicapped spaces. The ramps in front of units 1, 25, 331 981 120, 185, 210, and 269 are not accessible and need to be located to the side of the parking space. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 r Huntington Review Con't '✓NOTE: Our numbers of total parking spaces are different due to elimination of parking spaces on plan (ex: unit 80); however, both of our numbers are above the required amount of parking. SIDEWALKS: "A) OK ✓B) There is no sidewalk provided for unit 40. BIKE TRAIL: /A) The location of warning signs needs to be shown. ;'B) The parking space across from unit 217 needs to be eliminated due to the bike crossing. * The project summary on the Key Map (sheet 2 of 10) needs to be revised to reflect: A) Required parking B) Acreage of section I and section II for density calculations. The comments I have made (as well as all other review agency comments) need to be addressed prior to the approval of this site plan. Once all comments have been addressed, please resubmit four copies of the final site plan for review and approval. If I may answer any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, C.. Evan A Wyatt Planner II EAW 0 • G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2.00 North Cameron Street I'.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 August 6,1990 Mr. Evan A. Wyatt County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 9 Court Square Winchester, Va 22601 Re: Huntington Meadows - Section II (Townhouse Section) Dear Evan, In response to your letter of review dated August 1, 1990 for the above referenced project, the following information is forwarded for your use to expedite final approval. 1. Density: The total acreage of Section II is 32.89 acres 2. Impervious Surface: The total area of impervious surface (buildings, parking lots and sidewalks) is 11.4 acres ± or approximately 35% of the total acreage. 3. Adjoiners: The zoning of the adjoining properties is B-2, B-3 and M-1, and the current use is vacant. 4. Setbacks: All setback restrictions have beer. met. 5. Parking: All parking spaces have been revised to meet the 180 square foot restriction with 767 regular spaces and 17 handicap spaces provided. 6. Sidewalks: Four foot wide linear and lead sidewalks have been provided to accommodate pedestrian access from the parking lots to the townhouse units. 7. Bike Trail: The four foot wide asphalt bike trail has been revised to intersect the interior roadways in nonparking areas. Painted stripe crosswalks, curb cuts and signs will be provided. Four copies of the final site plans are attached. We would appreciate your indication of site plan approval at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions concerning these revisions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Douglas C. Legge, C. S. Project Manager cc: Oakcrest Builders DCL/klf COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 August 1, 1990 G.W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Mr. Tom Price 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Huntington Meadows Site Plan Review. Dear Tom: I have finished my preliminary review of the Huntington Meadows Site Plan. The following comments need to be addressed prior to the approval of this site plan: DENSITY: The total acreage for the townhouse section needs to be provided so the unit density can be verified. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: Calculations for all impervious surface needs to be indicated on the site plan (townhouse units, parking area, sidewalks) so the maximum site impervious surface ratio can be verified. ADJOINERS: I need the adjoining property zoning and use for Kim Henry, Helmut and Gusela Radar, and Daniel J. Travostino in order to verify required buffer and/or landscaping requirements. SETBACKS: ✓A) Side building setback between units 17 & 18 is 15 feet apart (I believe the intention is for units 16 & 17 to be separated). ✓B) Side building setback between units 80 & 97 is 27 feet. ✓C) Side building setback between units 110 & 111 is 29 feet. ✓l5) Side building setback between units 252 & 253 is 26 feet. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Huntington Review Con't PARKING: A) All parking spaces are currently 144 square feet. They need to be increased to 180 square feet, and all required handicapped spaces need to be a minimum of 12 feet in width. B) The increase in parking space dimensions will require a 22 foot aisle width. C) All parking areas over 501 spaces requires 2% of the total spaces to be handicapped. 677 spaces will require a total of 14 handicapped parking spaces. D) All 14 handicapped parking spaces will require a 3 foot wide curb ramp to provide access to linear sidewalks. SIDEWALKS: A) Linear sidewalks need to be provided parallel to each parking space. B)Sidewalks need to be provided to each unit. BIKE TRAIL: A) A painted crosswalk and warning signs need to be provided where the bike trail crosses Canterbury Drive. B) If the bike trail is intended to continue through parking areas, curb cuts need to be provided, and the bike trail should not intersect proposed parking spaces. The comments I have made (as well as all other review agency comments) need to be addressed prior to the approval of this site plan. Once the revisions are complete, please resubmit four copies of the final site plan for review and approval. If I may answer any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW +a - COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER July 31, 1990 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: -0O3%o-�0 Vice Pres. Ref: Huntington Meadows Subd. Routes 713 & 1200 Frederick County As requested we have reviewed the above referenced site plan dated June 20, 1990. Our recommendations may be found on the attached plans marked in red and as follows: Huntington Meadows 1. Additional drop inlets and adjustment of storm sewer is required as noted at the intersection of Canterbury Drive and Baker -Knight Street. 2. CD-2 underdrains are to be added at all sags in grade. 3. Pipe Culvert No. 32 is to be increased to 21" and Culvert No. 39 to 18" in size. 4. DI-3C inlet structures Numbers 30, 31, 35, 45 and 46 are to be redesigned with a minimum 6' slot opening in accordance with standard drawings. 5. Structure No. 39 is to be changed to standard ES-1 and Structure No. 47 to a standard DI-7 drop inlet. 6. The proposed detention basin (Structure No. 50) should be redesigned and moved downstream due to encroachment of the spillway water surface elevation onto Lots 49 and 50. Drainage easements to and including the basin will be required along with a maintenance/liability agreement between the Department and Frederick County. This agreement is the developer's responsibility. The emergency spillway is to be concrete or rock lined and grouted. 7. The proposed drainage ditches behind the curb and gutter sections are to be eliminated. 8. Street intersection radii are to be increased as noted. 0 • Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. July 31, 1990 Page #2 9. The three (3) proposed entrances to the townhouse section off of Canterbury Drive are to meet our minimum commercial standards of 30' in width from the face to face of gutter pan. A half typical section of the entrances will be required which detail the same pavement design of that of Canterbury Drive. Baker -Knight Street Extended 1. The proposed 54" pipe at Station 29+50 is to be increased to a double line of 73"x55" pipe arch or equivalent concrete oval pipe. 2. Additional drainage easements We suggest a 20' slope and right-of-way line where possible. are to be provided as noted on the plans. drainage easements be provided along the 3. Additional information concerning existing and proposed utilities is needed. A profile of the proposed 12" watermain which details a minimum depth of 36" will be required. 4. It appears pavement widening will be necessary on Route 1322 opposite the Baker -Knight Street intersection with Baker Lane in order to align properly and accommodate through lane traffic. 5. The proposed entrances into the Henry property should be constructed with minimum 50' radii as noted. Also, if possible, the entrance left of Station 15+00 should be shifted to Station 12+75 to align with Route 712. 6. The existing pavement structure off the portion of Route 712 to be reconstructed is to be completely removed. 7. The Route 712 intersection with Baker -Knight Street is to be reconstructed to a standard street connection with 50' radii. An overlay of the new intersection to the backside of the radii will be required to provide for a smooth transition. 8. Access to the properties along the portion of Route 712 to be reconstructed is to be provided during construction. Existing culverts are to be replaced and/or adjusted and necessary grading completed to provide for positive drainage. 9. With only one (1) access from the residential portion of the development onto Baker -Knight Street we are concerned with the amount of traffic which will be generated at this point. Therefore, please include traffic splits at this location upon resubmittal. 1, 0 • Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. July 31, 1990 Page #3 General 1. All construction activities along the I-81 right-of-way line is to be restricted to private property. Under no circumstances is the limited access fence to be disturbed. 2. The enclosed standards CG-6 mailbox placement detail, CD underdrain, ES-1 and PE-1 specifications are to be incorporated into the plans. Please revise and resubmit four (4) copies for final approval. Should any changes be deemed necessary please design them to meet or exceed the above recommendations. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman /Resident Engineer 18Ay By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. R. L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. Gary Lofton Mr. John Neff ti June 81 1990 Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 ©© . ENGINEERS Re: Huntington Meadows Site Plan ARCHITECTS #17555.089 'j SCIENTISTS Dear Kris: We have reviewed the Huntington Meadows Site Plan and offer the comments listed hereunder. We recommend these comments be addressed prior to plan approval. STORMWATER DRAINAGE 1. The plans do not specifically reflect the necessary curb inlet and drop inlet protection, silt fencing and required measures to provide temporary sediment control at discharge structures. Suggest details on Sheets 20 and 21 be called out where appropriate throughout the site plan. 2. Limits of clearing and grading are not clearly indicated on the plans. 3. The plans need to indicate pipe discharge outlet protection used (rip -rap, etc.) per design velocities as indicated in E&S narrative. Velocities in Culverts 81, 12. 15, and 16 are above 19 F.P.S. and thus will require a specially designed end treatment (VDOT Drainage Manual, Pages 3-6). 4. Temporary silt traps will be required at outfall extremities of the project. 5. Proposed stormwater and sanitary sewer piping is shown with the same symbols on Sheets 4 through 11. Sanitary piping should conform to the legend on the cover sheet for clarity. 6. Matchline referred to on Sheet 10, "Matchline see sheet 9 of 2111, should read "Matchline see sheet 5 of 21" . ■ 11240 Waples Mill Road Faitfax, Virginia 22030 703.385.3566 Telef ix 703.385.8319 • • 7. Structure #17 is shown tieing in to Structure #1 on Sheet 19. However, Structure #17 does not appear on the profile view (Sheet 17) or plan view (Sheet 5) with Structure #1. 8. The plan view of Structures #40 through #44 on Sheet 19 does not match the layout shown on profile sheets or plan view on Sheet 3. D Q � Q ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS 9. A nominal time of concentration of 15 minutes is used throughout the drainage design. It appears SCIENTISTS that this value may be too high for certain drainage areas. 10. Sheet 5 shows a sanitary pipe running under the length of the 61x6' box culvert. This appears to have minimal cover at the outfall and therefore will require erosion protection to prevent uncovering the sewer. Also, the outfall of this culvert will flow over the existing sanitary sewer manhole and could contribute to an inflow problem. A water tight manhole frame and cover may be necessary. 11. The detention pond elevation substantially encroaches lots 49, 50, and 51. Recommend an easement around the ponding elevation to preclude structures from being built in the ponding area. TRAFFIC 1. Vertical curve sight distance is provided for new roads; however, sight distance to Baker Knight Street is not verified although from Sheet 12 it appears adequate. 2. All curb return, R/W intersection, and cul-de-sac radii should be labeled. In some instances, this information is not shown. Sincerely, D OHUE ASSOC TES, INC. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB:mb cc: Tom Price - Gilbert Clifford & Associates 0�,O- ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS i 11240 Waples Mill Road Suite 100 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703.385.3566 Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Va. 22601 Your Authorization: Signed Agreement Huntington Meadows Site Plan 0 Date: Please Reference: Project No. Invoice No. Client No. June 8, 1990 17555.089 9004906 07534 Principal .5 hr. @ $ 48.00 $ 24.00 Project Manager 5.0 hrs. @ $ 33.25 $166.25 Senior Engineer 18.0 hrs. @ $ 33.25 $598.50 Engineer 8.0 hrs. @ $ 19.90 $159.20 Admin. Assist. 1.0 hr. @ $ 14.50 $ 14.50 Total Direct $962.45 Total Indirect $1,443.68 TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE $2,406.13 FAIPFHX KI Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Huntington 117555.089 We have reviewed the Huntington Meadows offer the comments listed hereunder. these comments be addressed prior to plan Site Plan and We recommend approval. The plans do not specifically reflect the necessary curb inlet and drop inlet protection, silt fencing and required measures to provide temporary sediment control at discharge structures. suggest details on Sheets 20 and 21 be called out where appropriate throughout the site plan. Limits of clearing and indicated on the plans. The plans need to indicate pipe discharge outlet protection used (rip -rap, etc.) per design velocities as indicated in E&S narrative. velocities in Culverts 8, 12. 15, and 16 are above 19 F.P.S. and thus will require a specially designed end treatment (VDOT Drainage Manual, Pages 3-6). Temporary silt traps will extremities of the project. Proposed stormwater and sanitary sewer piping is shown with the same symbols on Sheets 4.through 3-1. Sanitary piping should conform to the legend on the cover sheet for clarity. Matchline referred to sheet 9 of 21", should of 21" . on Sheet 10, "Matchline see read "Matchline see sheet 5 ■ 11240 Ntiiples .,Will k)ael Fairiax. 22030 703. 38, . i 106 -.l.'_.. 9n1 7QC Q2It' TI_II`I 1 "+Gt 1tt:�; Linhl�iHl_I�FHIF'FH:>•: • P. Structure #17 is shown tieing in to Structure #1 7' on Sheet 19. However, Structure #17 does not or plan view appear on profile structureview #1(Sheet 17) (Sheet 5) with #44 on 8. The plan view Of nett mat h ructure the401 yo t through shown on Sheet 19 dews profile sheets or plan view on Sheet 3. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS 9. A nominal time of concentration of design. minutes aears used throughout the dr be agt highfor certain SCIENTISTS that this value maX drainage areas. 10. Sheet 5 shows a sanitary pipe running under the length of the 61x6` box culvert. This appears to have minimal cover at the outf all and therto efore ent will require erosion protection ctioutfall of this uncovering the sewer. Also, sanitary sewer culvert will flow over the Existing manhole and tight could manholelbute frameo an andinco inflow pmablebe A water g necessary. 11, The detention pond elevation ion s Recommend 1 an encroaches lots 49, 50, preclude easement around the ponding elevation to preclecl structures from being built in the ponding TELgIC 1. Vertical curve sight distance is provided for new roads; however, sight distance to Baker Knight Street is not verified although from Sheet 12 it appears adequate. 2. All curb return, R/w intersection, and cul-de-sac radii should be labeled. In some instances, this information is not shown. Sincerely, rul ASSOC TES, INC. .Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB:mb cc: Tom Price - Gilbert Clifford & Associates REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN COMMENTS City of Winchester, Virginia ATTN: Tim Youmans, Planning Director 15 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-1815 The City of Winchester offices are located in Rouss City Hall at 15 North Cameron Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize, III Box 8 Stephens City, Va (703)869-1800 Agent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or decription of the request: Huntington Meadows Location: Adjacent & West of Interstate 81. North of Interchana_e 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane Cit of Winchester Comments : " X`n'�" �^ �+�`� r4 C"�� �i �C�S� � �2'r-.s �//"✓C ��o i-� /r/�/ir✓E C•n%.-` , /ry/�, KPFsi/'1 S�E✓f�i S :1 � /'ra +al twC/' .-�.o we//- '04" n fi cf " J.1fitiC�Td./_ L'f' G'I e<:d h._LIX/5JS Jh C_ A, J/)JJ/N iPl'%j' )e z)&�, 5)ace Cvjc!,j 7ye (CCZ t Se.�[:a�c1 7�� OGZIG�cr'— �C4�Ic�la .�?� • �� p �i ?��mLc i� City Signature and Date f S" c7 (NOTICE TO CITY - PLEASE RETURNIT V)ICANT RM TO THE AG NOTICE TO It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please also attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 5/3/90 sty o ... • M REC�iVE© MAY 0 8 9,99d REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Fire Marshall P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-6350 The Frederick County Fire Marshall is located at 21 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize, III Box 8 Stephens City, Va (703)869-1800 Agent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or decription of the request: Huntington Meadows Location: Adjacent & West of Interstate 81. North of Interchange 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane Fire Marshall Comments: Fire Marshall Signature & Date: L-.2�' -- (NOTICE TO FIRE MARSHALL - PLEASE -RETURN THIS FORM T NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach TWO copies of your plans and/or application form. 5/3/90 NTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGIN FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 061490098 Date Received 050890 Date Reviewed 061490 Applicant Name James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize III Address Box 8 Stephens City, VA 22655 Project Name Huntington Meadows Phone No. 703-869-1800 Type of Application Site Plan Current Zoning 1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. Election District Stonewall RECOMMENDATIONS 3 RP Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler System X Automatic Fire Alarm System Other Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate Inadequate Not Identified Fire Lanes Required; Yes X No Comments: In front of all hydrants per Frederick County Chapter K Article 2-3-1'2. Roadway/Aisleway Widths; Adequate Inadequate X Not Identified Special Hazards Noted; Yes X No Comments: Parking spaces will have to be lengthened reducing aisi. ----------------------'--------------'-----------'------------'----'------' width to 18` as drawn. Aisle width between ' - parking must be minimum 22' to comply with county ��....................... .... ordinance 3-3-2.8. ����������.................. - Continued -- 9 Hydrant Locations; Adeouate Inadeouate X Not Identified Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not Identified X Additional Comments: 1> Relocate hydrant from cul-de-sac on Kennsington Circle to lots 46/47 to comply with 300' requirement. 2) Relocate _ hydrant on lot 18, 200' west to comply with 300' requirement. 3) Access to interior lot lines from parking area for ambulance crews. 4> Hyrdant beside lot 80 is not accessable due to parking - must be on island with fire lane markings. 5) Squad access points on Essex Lane and Canterbury _... .............. _..... ..... ______________ Drive. 6) Hydrant at lot #172 is not accessable due to parking. 7> .......... -.......... _' Hydrant to rear of lot #137 is not accessable - must be placed on island .`���. .`������`��`�`����`����������������`���������........ .....�����`������������������ with fire lane markings. 8) Hydrant next to lot #209 inaccessable due � to parking' Relocate within 3` of curb line. 9) Ensure that hydrant �����������_�����_....... . ....... next to lot #218 is within 3' of curb line. Review Time 2.25 hr Douglas Kiracofe Fire Marshal REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN COMMENTS Frederick -Winchester Health Department ATTN: Herbert L. Sluder, Sanitation Engineer P.O. Box 2056, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-9747 The Frederick -Winchester Health Department is located at the intersection of Smithfield Avenue and Brick Kiln Road, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize, III Box 8 Stephens City, Va (703)869-1800 Agent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC, P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or decription of the request: Huntington Meadows Location: Adjacent & West of Interstate 81. North of Interchange 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane Health Department Comments: Health Signature and Date: S +D 5 U (NOTICE TO HEALTH DEPT. - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 5/3/90 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN COMMENTS Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize, III Box 8 Stephens City, Va (703)869-1800 Agent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC, P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or decription of the request: Huntington Meadows Location: Adjacent & West of Interstate 81. North of Interchange 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane Winchester Regional Airport Comments: See Comments on Back Side Airport Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO AIRPORT - PLEASE RETURN THIS FROM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 5/3/90 Me developer shall comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Airport Zoning District (AP-1) and the following Codes of Virginia; Title 15.1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning Ard i nances) and Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning). Title 5.1 - 25.1 Cede of Virginia (Permits Required for Erection of Certain Structures.) Engineers, architects, contractors and developers must be aware that as Winchester Regional Airport Expands services and operations, noise associated with such expansion may increase. Although zoning may soon be suggested to Consideration should be given to insulating new and existing structures located within one !calf (1/2) mile of the end of the airport runway and 1,000 feet either- side of an imaginary extended center line of the airport runway. SUGGESTIONS: New Construction For new sound -insulated construction, design considerations often include: using brick or concrete masonry walls, staggering studs, insulation and fiberboard under interior and exterior finish materials; installing attic space insulation; properly baffling vents; avoiding single joint roof construction where interior and exterior materials are attached to the same rafters; avoiding exposed rafter ceilings; mortar should be free of pin holes and all joints should be well sealed. tx i st inq Construct icon nr r'ehauilitatlon of existing buildings, sounoprooting modifications include: replacement of existing windows with windows of greater sound transmission coefficient (STC) rating, n„- adding a second layer of glass; upgrading doors and seals; acoustic baffling of vents; adding insulation to walls and attic spaces; adding another layer of wall material to existing walls, in effect creating a two -panel wall; eliminating windows and pilling the space to match exterior walls. 1 Frederick County Sanitation Authority ATTN: Wellington Jones, Engineer/Director P.O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize, IIT Box 8 Stephens 1 :.• :11 Agent* G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC, P.O. Box 2104 Winchester. Va .1 • - 1 .. • Name of development and/or decription of the request: Location:West of Interstate 81, North of -Interchange 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane Sanitation Authority Comments: //o s- e-oAAEcT� r4Z:Yj�IOMIT. Sanit. Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION i NOTICE It is your responsibility to possible in order to assist please attach TWO copies of 5/3/90 IS FORM TO IQ APPLICANT complete this form as accurately as the agency with their review. Also, your plans and/or application form. • 0 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department ATTN: Kenneth L. Coffelt, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 Court Squard in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize, III Box 8 Stephens City, Va (703)869-1800 Aaent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or decription of the request: Huntington Meadows Location: Adjacent & West of Interstate 81. North of Interchange 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane Inspections Department Comments: - ��?-1 cba LJC ,4/a- %y U ,S- e (9,Ye1 cJ Inspect. Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS - F E RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT. NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 5/3/90 �2��p G7(y,q• . �ff�sosAT�3 j . COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETWTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 June 7, 1990 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., PE C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Proposed Baker -Knight Street Extension Huntington Meadows Project Routes 712 & 1200 Frederick County This is in response to your letter of April 9, 1990 and our telephone conversation of June 6, 1990 concerning the above referenced project. As we discussed this Department has no preliminary objections to the concept. However, we will not be able to comment any further on your proposal until we are in receipt of a complete set of site plans which are to include drainage calculations and traffic flow data for review. Should you have any questions concerning the above or if I can be of further assistance in this matter, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer � _4x By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rh xc: Mr. R. L. Moore Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. F. E. Wymer Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. Gary Lofton TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY I Huntington Meadows Site Plan 2,7 2,6 * 215 2,4 >� 2/3 212 2,1 260 210 284 259 283 258 * 282 257 55 281 256 )� 54 280 255 53 279 254 52 2%6 253 51 277 p 50 x 49 n —252 48 26 p 251 275 250 274 0 249 * 47 273 248 * 46 272 247 * 45 271 0 246 44 270 245 43 269 42 A, 244 40 268 a�vE 75: PT N r 0 0�+ CANTERBURY DRIVE tJJtXLANE 157 56 55 156 53 = 152 D 151 50 --I am U) 47 V 146 C D 45 m 144 143 C 142 m 41 2- 267 242 * so 266 241 * 3^ 79 265 240 * * 38 78 264 239 * 37 77 263 238 * 36 76 262 237 * * 35 15 261 * 34 74 33 i UNITS WITH BASEMENTS as as 39 d` ar � m Z G)/Z/ll O z n 49 Z1 n r m 34 33 32 52 o �PNE SS PFFpP 3 2� �9 �G BRADFORDTERRACE P� 23 ' 22 2 24 25 19 26 1ft 27 28 O 6 C 29 z 15 O Z 30 r D 14 Z m 31 1 10 9 6 0 0 REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION & SITE PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: James L. Bowman & Fred L. Glaize, III Box 8 Stephens City, Va (703) 869-1800 Acgent: G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOC. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or decription of the request: Huntington Meadows Location: Adjacent & West of Interstate 81. North of Interchange 81(Route 7) & East of Baker Lane Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Recreation areas specified meet the.requirements established by the County. The attached specifications should become part of the Huntington Meadows Site Development Plan. Tennis court specifica- tions should also be reviewed and approved. Parks Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO PARKS - P v May 29, 1990 TURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. 5/3/90 0 Standard Grill Miracle's popular standard grill is tough enough to last many years in any picnic area. This unique design has a fire box that rotates 3600 on it's pipe support to provide draft and smoke control. Model Number 1104 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 2'0" x 2'0"/95 lbs. Height 3'6" Burner Box Material 7 gauge steel plate Economy Grill An economy version of our popular Standard Grill ideal for parks, picnic areas or patios. Its theft proof grill grid has four levels of adjustment and side mounted handles. All grills and stands are pre -drilled for easy assembly. Model Number 1104-4 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 2'0" x 2'0"/85 lbs. Height 3'6" Burner Box Material 3/16" bottom & 11 gauge side steel plate Super Grill The Super Grill is five feet long, designed for large group outings or that special family reunion. The cooking area is three times that of a standard grill and will accommodate an enormous amount of food prep- aration. The Super Grill is a popular park companion to the individual grills. Model Number 1104-5 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 1'2" x 5'6"/200 lbs. Height 3'6" Burner Box Material 3/,6' bottom & 11 gauge side steel plate Heavy Duty Grill Created especially for those areas where a large cooking grill is needed, this virtually indestructable grill features a large cooking box with top hot plate and side shelves. No assembly required; just anchor to concrete footing. Model Number 1104-8 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 3'8" x 3'0"/225 lbs. Height 3'6" Burner Box Material 3/16" steel plate throughout 103 No. 1900 — 18' 6" spire roof style, with cedar shingles Wt. 2540 lbs. NOTE: SPIRE ROOF SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN PHOTO SHOWS CAP ROOF .J LL U. Z10 PLYW'D SHEATHING, 15# FELT, S WOOD SHINGLES Vx6^ FASCIA & —~ TRIM SM. a m 4x6 W ~ NOM POST cc to ie FIN. FLOOR LINE No. 1950 — 18' 6" cap roof style, with cedar shingles Wt. 2540 lbs. Please refer to price list for both roof styles with asphalt or cedar shake shingles. jhis freespan hexagonal gazebo spans 18'6". Two roof styles are available: spire roof and cap roof. Both offer a variety of uses with the advantage of an ornate ap- peal. Columns are 4" x 6" nom., pressure treated pine and rafters are 4" x 5" laminated, southern yellow pine using a waterproof ad- hesive. Laminated southern yellow pine columns are also available upon request. Roof decking is 3/4" external grade uniform structure wood. Decking is optional in 2" x 6" nom. tongue and groove V-joint face side. Optional pressure treat- ed pine floor decking is available. Fascia is 2" x 6" nom., southern yellow pine, pressure treated to a retention of 0.4 lbs. per cubic foot. Available with or without a shingle package consisting of either 235 lb. asphalt shingles, color Earth - tone Cedar, or cedar shake shin- gles along with 15 lb. felt, nails and metal drip edge. Necessary hard- ware and compression ring includ- ed: Walnut stain optional. 26 0 C� DELUXE ALL WOOD PICNIC TABLE No. 4083 — 8' Deluxe Table, unfinished Wt. 312 lbs. Please refer to price list for all size tables with optional stain and polyurethane finishes. This sturdy, rustic table was designed for the Michigan State Parks years ago and is still quite prevalent today. Unique, massive 5" x 7" round pine log legs slabbed on two sides are mortised for added strength. The No. 1 grade, 2" x 10" nom., southern yellow pine top boards are secured to 4" x 4" nom., pine braces and attached from the bottom with plated hardware, shipped assembled. Cross braces and seat braces are 4" x 4" nom. pine wood members pre - drilled and counter sunk with eased edges and ends. Available in 6', 8' and 10' lengths unfinished as shown, or treated with walnut brown oil stain, or polyurethane finish over walnut brown oil stain. The table also available in construction heart redwood with either hand rubbed linseed oil finish or polyurethane finish. TRADITIONAL ALL WOOD PICNIC TABLE Our traditional, all-purpose table is built for heavy use areas in parks, campgrounds, restaurants or shopping centers. Strong 4" x 4" southern yellow pine table legs feature mortised construction for extra strength. The No. 1 grade 2" x 10" nom., southern yellow pine seat and top boards are secured to 3" x 3" nom., pine braces and are attached from the bottom with plated hardware, shipped assem- bled. Cross braces and seat braces are 3" x 3" nom., southern yellow pine, pre -drilled and counter sunk with eased edges and ends. This truly traditional looking table is available in 6' and 8' lengths unfinished, or treated and with walnut brown oil stain, or polyurethane finish over walnut brown oil stain. This table also available in con- struction heart redwood with either hand rubbed linseed oil finish or polyurethane finish. No. 4173 — 6' Redwood table, linseed oil finish Wt. 182 lbs. Please refer to price list for both size tables in both pine and redwood with optional finishes. STANDARD LITTER RECEPTACLE i E No. 5566 — 22 gallon, portable receptacle, redwood, linseed oil finish No. 5560 — 22 gallon, wood top, redwood, linseed oil finish Please refer to price list for optional top, woods, finishes, and both s1ze Wt. 12 lbs. capacities. No. 5566 — 22 gallon, portable receptacle, redwood, Other woods available. Please inquire. linseed oil Wt. 42 lbs. Our sixteen extra -wide pine, wood slat litter unit includes a 22 gallon rigid plastic liner with plastic top, or is available in a larger 32 gallon liner with top. The 8- sided welded steel frame assures that the wood remains flat and securely fastened. Available with an optional heavy-duty wood top which can be raised to remove litter. Pine wood slats are either treated, finished with walnut brown oil stain or walnut brown stain with polyurethane finish. Available for permanent or portable use. Dimensions without optional wood top: 34" high x 24" diameter. Shipped assembled. All metal components primed and coated gloss brown enamel. Optional redwood extra -wide wood slats as shown in the portable model or oak extra -wide wood slats. Optional galvanized liners also available. HEAVY LITTER RECEPTACLE These "heavies" feature the same well built quality as our standard 22 and 32 gallon litter units. The heavy, however, is constructed of 2" x 4'' pine, set in a vertical fash- ion. Slats also available in red- wood or oak. All metal compo- nents primed and coated in gloss brown enamel. Available with op- tional heavy-duty wood top. No. 5722 — 22 gallon, treated pine, walnut brown oil stain, permanent Wt. 65 lbs. Please refer to pnce list for optional woods, tops, and both size capacities. 14 Hurricane Slides • 0 r The new Hurricane Slide uses a familiar design with some 0 new safety features. Improved canopy and handrail m designs make the Hurricane a slide to take playgrounds by storm. The deep, recessed bedway and enclosed V% step assembly are more safety features that makes the Hurricane a must addition to your playground. Model Number 120-11 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 5'0" x 11'0"/200 lbs. Platform Height 4'0" Protective Area 21'0" x 27'0" Child Capacities 5 Model Number 121-11 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 6'0" x 1347220 lbs. Platform Height 5'0" Protective Area 22'0" x 29'4" Child Capacities 6 Model Number 102-1 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 7'2" x 15'8"/240 lbs. Platform Height 6'0" Protective Area 23'2" x 31'8" Child Capacities 7 Model Number 103-1 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 9'3" x 20'4"/280 lbs. Platform Height 8'0" Protective Area 25'3" x 36'4" Child Capacities 8 Bedway Material 16 gauge, polished stainless steel Step Assembly Material 16 gauge, dimpled, non- skid steel Handrail Material 11/2" O.D. die -formed, galvanized steel tubing Leg Support Material 11/2" O.D. galvanized steel tubing It j 53 .: 17 oe-17 17 '-77 ■ ■�. ■.— �_ —�■ ,� �, � �'i`:., .cam/ � '. f,,: • .. a,,,A�cti � �� .• ,� �s' -:'��.�•' �w" ✓'c� V �. •Ifs �": �� �� • � t n. �,,�,e� �';d9 ''.'_ ✓' .. rr •_,' t ,,.,, �r�^ -'^-- �++kF"'"sw. �A,{.��!�-4� -x �i Lf.-t� �. ,� c �• #. f d r� � � a �uw�,�� ��� j+`� 1� . ' urt�ll "p� r il�'+/Mi YA �C. y� :...r�.�..� •tom .� � �+s 1� d..' X�� _�,w. h�� �` �� -'�s.. � .^e •7 .Fx a�._w.� { .W •,� ��4•arvf'�,,.g'�6•y' '��"*r �� �, 1 y„+ ., . X _ j. S �.. - f' �t---" t } r� • } l tj l,� 4�_,� � t.� ��,Is .,.y t`A rard_ � *. �y +l� f a, ',/i }Wy i vr' ...7 j•.C''o- ..A� ,,�y �7 -�� 'ate i•-c`;� ... .:.. � �' � � ��.-• 6)) ,i:x..t�c-tf-'71 � ���YZ� ��y„ •t �• �=dR' .. •� • � rye �JM%��'r' _ ,�� '�' Fa,..... a -:.e:j i �� _ ����+�: ' . � ' 1 _,``+•V 6:y `-1 `•� ! '•. :cam/ I .f e I LJ All Miracle Climbers have a "Fall Free" safety design. This simply means, should a child fall from any point 1" on a Miracle Climber, the first thing they should come into contact with is the energy absorbing surface the 3 equipment is installed over. Remember, an energy ab- sorbing surface is mandatory under all play equipment fl1 and when coupled with Miracle's "Fall Free" design it provides the best insurance for safe play. N Spider Climber The Spider Climber provides a means for children to exercise at play as they strengthen their arms, legs and hands to reach the top of the brightly finished climber. The center support features all welded construction of the climbing rungs, and four 2" O.D. sleeves welded at the top allow easy installation of the four support legs. Model Number 409 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 7'0" x 7'0"/258 lbs. Height 9101, Protective Area 23' x 23' Support Leg Material 23/a' O.D., galvanized, steel pipe Center Support Material 27/8" O.D., galvanized, steel pipe Climbing Rungs Material 15/8" O.D., galvanized, steel pipe Geodesic Climber Children of all ages flock to Miracle's Geodesic Climbers. The "Fall Free" design makes these climbers an excellent recreation unit for play areas in pre- schools as well as the elementary level. All children need the opportunity to reach, stretch, and climb, and Miracle's Geodesic Climbers provide that opportunity. NOTE: The Miracle Geodesic Climber also comes in 8 and 18 foot diameter models. Galvanized Model Number 402 MiraCote Model Number 402-2 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 13'0" diameter/354 lbs. Height/Protective Area 5'0"/29'0" diameter Colors Available Green, yellow, red, black, blue & burnt gold Climbing Bar Material 1" O.D. x 14 gauge galvanized steel tubing Climbing Bar Finish Galvanized or MiraCote Connector Plate Material 1/8" die -formed steel plates Connector Plate Finish Perma-Guard Fasteners All zinc plated Child Capacity 8-20 depending on model Surfacing An energy absorbing surface is required 57 Animal Riders Colorful Animal Riders offer the unique play experi- ence of having your very own ride to bounce and control as you see fit. Miracle's internally supported Rockite" Engineered Plastic has proven to be the perfect material for years of resistance to hard play and harsh weather. Animal Riders Two-Way/Four-Way Animal Hop Available as a Two -Way or Four -Way, Miracle's Animal Hops combine the interplay of a See -Saw with the bouncing motion of a Spring Rider. Once again Miracle combines its tough Rockite`M Spring Animals with a long lasting Perma-Guard metal finish for years of durability. Character "C" Spring Model # Coil Spring Model # Shipping Weight *Rodeo Rocky 901 901-4 50 lbs. Lion 917 917-4 50 lbs. Squirrel 918 918-4 50 lbs. Seal 919 919-4 50 lbs. Frog 932 932-4 50 lbs. Schnozz Wump 933 933-4 50 lbs. Elephant 938 938-4 50 lbs. Jet Interceptor 940 940-4 50 lbs. Two -Way Animal Hop 2 *Rodeo Rockys come in 4 base colors: white, yellow, brown, black. NOTE: Each Spring Rider is approximately 1'0" wide and 3'0" long and should be placed on an energy absorbing surface with a 8' protective area around each rider. Four -Way Animal Hop Model Number 925 926 Ground Space/Shipping Weight 3'0" x 9'0"/210 lbs. 9'0" x 9'0"/470 lbs. Protective Area 19'0" x 25'0" 25'0" x 25'0" Base Plate Material 18" x 18", 7/16' steel plate 18" x 18", 7/,6" steel plate Box Slide Material 3/16' steel plate with 15/6" pins welded to attach springs 3/16" steel plate with 15/6" pins welded to attach springs Rocker Arm Material 2" x 4" x 3/16' rectangular tubing 2" x 4" x 3/16" rectangular tubing Animal Rider Material 2 Rockite'" Spring Riders 4 RockiteTM Spring Riders Spring Material Six, 31/2" x 31/2", cylindrical, neoprene rubber springs Twelve, 31/2" x 31/2" cylindrical, neoprene rubber springs Pla Hai r-- Hul Bey n/] ,i Copied but never equaled, the Lifetime Whirl repre- sents three generations of enjoyment and the very be- ginnings of Miracle Recreation Equipment Company. Refined over the years, this durable playground staple includes sealed bearings and a tough MiraCote finish to set the industry standards for whirl durability. � • • • RockiteT"^ Engineered Plastic brings a sleek shape to complimented with rugged yellow handrails. Extra the Apollo Whirl and provides a means for the Whirl's heavy duty roller bearings complete the unit for a su- understructure to be fully enclosed. The durable brown per smooth ride. and yellow sections are joined by a steel channel and Lifetime Whirl Apollo Whirl C r N Model Number 302 315 Leg Material 23/8" O.D., schedule 40, galvanized steel pipe No legs, shaft assembly goes directly into footing Ground Space/Shipping Weight 10'0" diameter/570 lbs. 8'0" diameter/500 lbs. Protective Area 26'0" diameter 24'0" diameter Platform Material 12 gauge, die -formed, galvanized, dimpled, non-skid steel Rockite'" Engineered, color impregnated, polyethylene plastic Handrail Material 11/2" O.D. galvanized, steel tubing, solid weld construction 1 Yz" O.D. galvanized, steel tubing, solid weld construction Hub & Shaft Assembly 5" O.D., machined, steel pipe collar & 3" steel shaft 6" O.D. schedule 40 pipe & 3" schedule 40 steel pipe Bearing Type 2 heavy duty, sealed, ball bearings 2 extra heavy duty, roller bearings Child Capacity 16 8 61 OZ Z O IL 2 O v Z 3 N NOTE: The general information on this page regarding Miracle's swings applies to either swings ordered as complete units or by components. For more infor- mation on options, compatibility of com- ponents, and model numbers, see the charts on pages 51 and 52. Swing Hangers Sturdi-Grip: The rugged, certified malleable iron hanger assembly delivers years of trouble -free oper- ation. Clevis swivels on oil - impregnated bearings. The Sturdi- Grip is finished in durable white Miracote. Hanger includes clevis with bolt. "S" Hook Pliers For ease in closing "S" hooks during installation, order a pair of Miracles "S" Hook Pliers with your next swing. Seat Styles Slashproof Seat: This molded rub- ber seat has a tough spring steel core to minimize damage from van- dalism. With steel reinforced attach- ment holes the Slashproof Seat measures 5" wide, 261/2" long and 3/6" thick. Tot Seat: For smaller children, Mira- cle suggests the Tot Seat for safety and durability. Made with the same steel reinforcement as the Slashproof Seat. 3600 Tot Seat: For added smaller child protection the 3600 Tot Seat provides a circular enclosure of 5" wide molded rubber. Therapeutic Seat: This reinforced fiberglass seat sports a red gel coat finish and a safety strap for children with special needs: Flying Animals: All Flying Animal swing seats are made of Miracle's exclusive RockiteM plastic with molded in frame. For more informa- tion and photographs on Flying Animals see page 49: Another exclusive touch of quality for Miracle's Flying Animal series for 1988 is an attractive front stirrup and bridle frame applique. This bright red horizontal plastic attach- ment piece is vacuum formed from tough 1/4 inch thick polyethylene plastic molded -in color for years of 6+rability and good looks. This ap- plique simply bolts to the stirrup and bridle frame assembly, and because of the ease of bolting on, the new item is a natural retrofit for your existing Flying Animals and v give your playground that new look that kids all like. Pipe Finishes Perma-Lok II: An acrylic polyure- thane based two component paint. This finish is extremely durable and has exceptional weathering and chemical resistance. Perma-Lok II is resistant to fading and provides a surface that is easy to clean. Most graffiti can be wiped free with sol- vent. Available in the six colors shown on this page. Perma-Guard: This finish provides a top quality baked on enamel coat- ing which is applied to both the top rails and legs. Available in the colors shown on this page, the swing yokes come standard in white. Galva -Guard: An all galvanized finish for top rails, end yokes and support legs. The weight of galva- nizing is 2 oz. per square foot of pipe surface. Swing Colors (Pictured from left to right: light blue, burgundy, red, yellow, brown and grey) Swing top rails and support legs come in a variety of colors as shown above. Burgundy and Charcoal have been added to the list of solid colors. When ordering, solid colors can be mixed or matched. End yokes are always white and the Arch Swing featured on page 49 is available in bright yellow only. 50 Miracle Swings As Complill Units • The swings listed below are standard models sold as complete units. Pages 48-50 give details about each of the different styles of swing sets available. The only option that can be exercised on the models listed below is in the area of color, for those units available in more yl than one color. If you wish to make other substitutions or create a swing to your specific needs please order your swing set by components from the chart on page 52. Contact your Miracle Representative for more information. Swing Number Seat Top Rail End Support Ground Protective Shipping Series Model # of Seats Style Height Type Configuration Space Area Weight Slashproof 242 2 Slashproof 8'0" Doubled 7'0" x 15'6" 29' x 31'6" 224 lbs. Seat Swing 252 2 Slashproof 1010" Double 810" x 18'6" 33, x 34'6" 244 lbs. 243 3 Slashproof 810" Double d 7'0" x 18'8" 29' x 34'8" 251 lbs. 253 3 Slashproof 10,0" Double 810" x 2218" 33' x 38'8" 273 lbs. 244 4 Slashproof 8'0" Doubled 710" x 2318" 29' x 39'8" 367 lbs. 254 4 Slashproof 10,0" Double " " " " 810" x 26'4" 33' x 42'4" 399 lbs. 246 6 Slashproof 810" Double 7'0" x 32'0" 29' x 48'0" 510 lbs. 256 6 Slashproof 10,0" Double 8'0" x 34'0" 33' x 50'0" 554 lbs. 248 8 Slashproof 8'0" Double 7'0" x 43'6" 29' x 59'6" 725 lbs. 258 8 Slashproof 10,0" Double 8'0" x 46'6" 33' x 62'6" 799 lbs. Heavy Duty 2730 3 Slashproof 10,0" Tripod /T'N 8'0" x 25'0" 33' x 41'0" 385 lbs. Slashproof 2740 4 Slashproof 10,0" V v v v Tripod T 8'0" x 30'0" 33' x 46'0" 545 lbs. Seat Swing 2760 6 Slashproof 10,0" Tripod 810" x 3810" 33' x 54'0" 728 lbs. 2780 8 Slashproof 10,0" Tripod 810" x 47'0" 33' x 63'0" 800 lbs. Economy 2202 2 Slashproof 810" Double d 7'0" x 16'0" 29' x 32'0" 200 lbs. 2212 2 Slashproof 1010" Double 8'0" x 19'0" 33' x 35'0" 220 lbs. 2204 4 Slashproof 810" Double �� � 7'0" x 24'0" 29' x 40'0" 300 lbs. 2214 4 Slashproof 10,0" Double 810" x 26'0" 33' x 42'0" 330 lbs. 2206 6 Slashproof 810" Double ^^� 7'0" x 3210" 29' x 48'0" 400 lbs. 2216 6 Slashproof 10,0" Double 8'0" x 34'0" 33' x 50'0" 440 lbs. 2208 8 Slashproof 810" Double 7'0" x 44'0" 29' x 60'0" 600 lbs. 2218 8 Slashproof 10,0" Double 8'0" x 46'0" 33' x 62'0" 650 lbs. Therapeutic 418-252 4 Therapeutic 8'0" Double 7'0" x 2318" 29' x 39'8" 400 lbs. Tot Swing 2424 4 2 Rockite Ponies 8'0" Double o 10'3" x 20'0" 29' x 36'0" 600 lbs. Combination 2 Tot Seats 2626 6 3 Rockite Ponies 3 Tot Seats 8'0" Double a o 0 10'3" x 30'0" 29' x 46'0" 710 lbs. Tot Swing 2222 2 Tot Seat 810" Double /' 7'0" x 15'6" 29' x 31'6" 240 lbs. Series 2223 3 Tot Seat 8'0" Doubled 7'0" x18'8" 29' x 3418" 275 lbs. 2224 4 Tot Seat 8'0" Double /7 7 F�.; 7'0" x 23'8" 29' x 39'8" 399 lbs. 2226 6 Tot Seat 8'0" Double 7'0" x 29'6" 29' x 45'6" 469 lbs. 2228 8 Tot Seat 810" Double 7'0" x 40'0" 29' x 56'0" 717 lbs. Flying 202 2 Rockite Ponies 8'0" Double o 0 10'3" x 14'8" 29' x 30'8" 310 lbs. Animal 203 3 Rockite Ponies 8'0" Double o 0 0 10'3" x 18'2" 29' x 3412" 374 lbs. Series 204 4 Rockite Ponies 8'0" Double o 0 T o b 10'3" x 22'8" 29' x 3818" 516 lbs. 206 6 Rockite Ponies 810" Double o 0 0 0 0 0 10'3" x 30'0" 29' x 46'0" 658 lbs. Arch Swing 294 4 Slashproof 9'6" Double ;,; 1018";x 2710" 32' xA3'0" 584 lbs. Timber 120-176 3 Tire Seat 810" Single b—F7cT-�b 3'0" x 2010" 29' x 36'0" 770 lbs. Swing 120-177 3 Slashproof 8'0" Single ,; a 310" x 2010" 29' x 36'0" 740 lbs. 120-178 3 Tot Seat 810" Single o(T1 3'0" x 2010" 29' x 36'0" 750 lbs. Natureville 144-854 1 Single Hanger 8'0" Single 1'6" x 12'0" 29' x 28'0" 575 lbs. Frame 144-854-1 2 Double Hanger 8'0" Single -7-1 116" x 1210" 29' x 28'0" 575 lbs. Steelville 166-854 1 Single Hanger 8'0" Single F1 1'6" x 12'0" 29' x 28'0" 600 lbs. Frame 166-854-1 2 Double Hanger 810" Single F--� 1'6" x 12'0" 29' x 28'0" 600 lbs. 51 • • HUNTINGTON MEADOWS CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN August, 1990 is to within Notice constructed complete Months of The Proceed. be constructed 12 Months of to Proceed. complet The 6 G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2:00 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 memorandum To: Wayne Miller, Frederick County Zoning Administrator From: Ron Mislowsky Re: Erosion and Sediment Control Study Winchester Countertop Building Addition, Frederick County, VA Date: 7/9/90 Project Description This project involved is being developed by Winchester Countertop. The type of construction is a warehouse facility. The project will also involve extension of sewer and water service to the warehouse site. The total developed area is less than one quarter acre. Existing Site Conditions Prior to construction, the site was characterized by rolling terrain, predominately open with little undergrowth. The building is located adjacent to an existing warehouse and parking lot. The site is in the Wiekert-Berks- Blair ton Soil Association. This area is characterized by gently sloping, moderately deep, somewhat poorly draining soils that have medium to fine textured subsoil; formed in material weathered from shale. Adjacent Areas The areas surrounding the development are for the most part industrial in use. The land to the north of the site is a mobile home park. Soils For purposes of design run off conditions, antecedent moisture condition H (normal consideration for the mid -Atlantic region) is assumed. The soil is considered to have a moderate rate of water transmission, therefore, CSC Soil Class "C" is adopted. Soils are of the Series, for the most part of the Berks OB) Series. A copy of the respective soil map is enclosed. Permanent Stabilization Seeding for permanent stabilization is specified in the V.E.S.C. Handbook. Any area denuded in which work is not proceeding for a period of 30 days or more will be stabilized by a temporary seeding in accordance with State guidelines and procedures. All areas to be seeded will receive seed application by hydroseed methods immediately upon obtaining; grades. in � ' OF PLgNNIi. U BUILDING Storm Water Management Consideration A copy of the site plan is attached. The existing undeveloped portions of the site have an estimated C factor of .35. The weighted C factor of the developed area which drains to the north is as follows: Additional parking - 1100 sq. ft. = .0?5 Ac. Q C = .7 CA = .018 Fire lane - 1560 sq. ft. = .036 Ac. Q C = .7 CA = .025 Building - 2600 sq. ft. = .OEiO Ac. Q C = .9 CA = .054 Grass area - 1100 sq. ft. = .025 Ac. Q C = .3 CA = .008 .105/.146 Ac Weighted C = .72 For an area of .146 Ac. and a T(c) of 5 minutes the increased flow from the site for the two year storm is: Post Development .146 Ac. x 72 x 5.3 in/hr. = .56 cfs Pre Development .146 Ac. x 35 x 5.3 in/ = .27 cfs Increased flow = .29 cfs We feel this increase to be negligible and will have no affect on the trailer park to the north. The developed area which drains to the south, about .11 acres is carried to a roadside ditch capable of carrying all flows from this site. Maintenance All soil erosion control structures shall be checked weekly by the contractor during this construction period and after construction is completed until grass cover is established. Sediment retained by these structures shall be continuously removed and placed in an area of the site specified, damage to soil erosion control structures shall immediately be repaired when identified by the contractor. The contractor shall cooperate with all agents of the County, the Engineer and others who may identify needed facilities or work in order to protect the environment within the subject of this report. C nIriiinfinnc Attached WE 4 VIE .41 JEW 014-1 41 IL stop � fir WAMP 41 -41 JPlk IF I611. August 27, 1990 Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planner Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Huntington Meadows Site Plan I NGI'll IR' # 17555.089 4RCMriE( I,, ^rrl 7 Dear Evan, We have completed the second review of the above referenced site plan. It is our opinion that the plan can be approved once the Engineer has addressed a few recommended modifications based on some inconsistency in the storm sewer plan, profiles and computations. We find that most of the inconsistencies do not have any effect on the adequacy of the structures but should be corrected for construction purposes. Also it is our opinion that modifications must be made to the stormwater management pond outlet design which are outlined following the storm sewer comments. 1) STR #1 The top elevation of the structure shown on plan is different from that on profile sheet. The computation chart did not reflect the length, slope and type of structure shown on plan. 2) STR #2 The slope of 4.5% shown on the computation chart is different from the 7.67 % shown on plan & profile. 3) STR #8 The length of pipe shown on computation chart (76.0) is different from that shown on plan & profile (66.01) 4) STR #9 The top elevation of structure on the plan was mistakenly written as 687.75 instead of 678.75 5) STR #17 The top elevation of structure on the plan sheet (678.75) is different from that on profile sheet (679.56) • 6) STR #31 In review of the invert into STR #31 from STR #32 having a pipe length of 92.41, a slope of 1.14% and an invert out of 685.25, the invert into STR #31 was found to be 684.20. Check and make the appropriate changes in plan, profile and computation chart. 7) STR #32 The slope (1.24%) written on plan should be 1.14% D 0 O UENGINEERS 8) STR #33 ARCHITECTS The slope provided for the 18" pipe on the plan & SCIENTISTS profile sheets (1.04%) is different from that on the computation sheet. For the invert out of 686.65 provided, the slope would be 1.14%. 9) STR #38 & STR #39 Both structures need to be checked. The pipe size and slope provide for STR #39 on plan is different from that on profile. If slope 1.48% is used for the culvert from STR #39, then the invert into STR #18 = 692.02, but if slope 1.02% is used instead, the invert into STR #38 = 692.17. Kindly check and correct these culvert information. 10) STR #47 The type of structure (DI-7) provided on the plan and profile sheets is different from that on the computation chart (DI-1) 11) STR #53 The top elevation of 671.50 provided on the plan and profile did not correspond to (668.50) provided on the computation chart. It is my opinion that the above items do not seriously affect the approvability of the plan and are referenced so that the Engineer can clarify them to reduce construction problems in the future. The following stormwater management comments must be addressed as a condition of approval. It is my opinion that the pond may not be adequate to handle the 10 year storm and will utilize the emergency spillway as part of the ten year discharge. We ran different evaluation methods for the inflow and outflow hydrograph generation and the routing of the storms through the proposed pond outfall structure. In all cases, we found that the water surface would rise to higher elevations than the design indicates. As a result, the water would start to flow out of the emergency spillway sooner than predicted. We felt the primary difference is due to the method of distribution used for the inflow hydrograph. The methods we used for comparison are the Modification Rational Method and a similar method used by Fairfax County. We selected these because of the similarity to the method used by the Design Engineer. We used all of the parameters established by the Engineer such as runoff coefficients, Time of Concentration, pond elevation vs. volume storage, rainfall rates, and outflow structure. The time of concentration used does not take into account that the D o oU ENGINEERS time of concentration after development is usually ARCHITECTS shorter than the time of concentration before SCIENTISTS development. Therefore, in reality the difference between pre and post runoff rates is usually greater than assumed here. We decided to hold the assumption for our comparison to better evaluate the method used for hydrograph development. A caution that is often given for the use of the Rational method in the development of inflow hydrograph volumes is that it can often underestimate the volume of storage needed. Although the pond storage is adequate, the routing of the developed hydrograph shows elevation differentials that will effect the discharge of water through the dam structure. In review of the various result, we find a simple modification to the outfall structure will satisfy the design parameters. In fact it calls for a much simpler outfall device. The use of an 18 inch RCP culvert through the dam with the invert a 672.00 and an emergency spillway of 20 feet width at invert 76.15. Other dimensions as specified in the plans. I would like to point out that the predicted maximum 100 year water surface elevation would be 677.4 (assuming all of the 100 year flow is releasing through the weir) which will come into the building envelope for lots 154, 155, 156, and 157. Caution will be needed in siting houses on these lots. Lastly, the northern most culvert under I-81 consists of 6 foot by 8 foot box culvert. The designer's computations show that the backwater from the 100 year storm will exceed an elevation of 665.5 feet. This water surface will appear to go well into the building envelope for lots 225, 224, 223, 222, and 221. Again, caution will be required when siting houses on these lots. It would be advisable if grades could be established to reduce risks in these areas. However, it is apparent that the building envelope has enough building area in both of these cases to build houses outside the ponding limits of the 100 year storm. Once the Engineer has modified the stormwater management outfall design as recommended or has conclusively convinced us that his design is adequate as submitted, we can recommend approval. I have no problem with recommeding release of an early grading permit at this time. We have inclosed our calculations for your 0 0_�" o j U ENGINEERS reference. If you or the Engineer have any questions, ARCHITECTS please let me know so we can resolve these issues so SCIENTISTS the plans can be approved. ,onohu & Associ tes, Inc. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager cc: Ron Mislowsky Gilbert Clifford PAB/jm file: 17555.089 IE 0n�J ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS • 11240 Waples Mill Road Suite 100 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703.385.3566 Evan Wyatt, Planner Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Your Authorization: Huntington Meadows Subdivision Plan Signed Agreement 9 Date: Sept. 5, 1990 Please Reference: Project No. 17555 .087 Invoice No. 90073600 Client No. 07534 Principal 1.0 hrs @ 48.88 48.00 Project Manager 7.5 hrs @ 33.25 249.38 Sr. Engineer 6.0 hrs @ 33.25 199.50 Engineer 40.0 hrs @ 19.90 796.00 Admin. Assist 1.0 hrs @ 14.50 14.50 Total Direct 1307.38 Total Indirect 1961.07 TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE $ 3268.45 p'lnk -1--0 -GrAO.Ace.. D al,lla" RsO. �ecd.9]71go 0 • Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 00:57:30 08-24-1990 »»> I-D-F Curve ««< 2 YEAR STORM I.D.F. CURVE FOR FREDERICK CO. Recurrence Frequency = 2 DURATION INTENSITY minutes inches/hour ------- 5 ----------- 5.3 10 4.1 15 3.35 20 2.8 25 2.4 30 2.1 35 1.85 40 1.7 45 1.55 50 1.45 55 1.35 60 1.30 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 00:57:30 08-24-1990 »»> I-D-F Curve ««< 10 YEAR STORM I.D.F. CURVE FOR FREDERICK CO. Recurrence Frequency = 10 DURATION INTENSITY minutes ------- inches/hour ----------- 5 6.8 10 5.5 15 4.6 20 3.9 25 3.4 30 3.05 35 2.75 40 2.5 45 2.3 50 2.15 55 2 60 1.9 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 00:57:30 08-24-1990 »»> I-D-F Curve ««< 100 YEAR STORM I.D.F. CURVE FOR FREDERICK CO. Recurrence Frequency = 100 DURATION INTENSITY minutes ------- inches/hour ----------- 5 9.3 10 7.8 15 6.65 20 5.7 25 4.95 30 4.4 35 3.95 40 3.65 45 3.35 50 3.15 55 2.95 60 2.75 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:02:23 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Graphical Summary for Specified Storm Duration ---- CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM ********************************************************************** * RETURN FREQUENCY: 2 yr Allowable Outflow: 19.94 cfs * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 i Required Storage: 0.432 ac-ft i *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 40.87 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: 2-PEAK .HYD ********************************************************************** i I Tc= 15.00 minutes I = 3.350 in/hr Area (ac): 23.46 i Q = 40.87 cfs Weighted C: 0.52 .�. Adjusted C: 0.52 F L i-----__ Required Storage O i i---- 0.432 ac-ft W ` I. f ! .•• •.. s 0 0 0 Q= 19.94 cfs o �. (Allow.0utflow) 0 o i NOT TO SCALE - ----o---------------- ----------------------- 22.68 minutes • 9 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:02:23 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Summary for Single Storm Frequency ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM RETURN FREQUENCY: 2 yr `C' Adjustment = 1.000 Allowable Q = 19.94 cfs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph file duration= 15.00 minutes Hydrograph file: 2-PEAK .HYD Tc = 15.00 minutes ........................................................................... VOLUMES Weighted Adjusted Duration Intens. Areas Qpeak ! Inflow Storage --`C'-------'C'-----minutes in/hr acres -cfs--(ac_ft)---(ac_ft) --- - 0.520 0.520 15 3.350 23.46 40.87 1 0.844 0.432 • 0 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:04:40 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM ********************************************************************** * RETURN FREQUENCY: 2 yr Allowable Outflow: 19.94 cfs * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 ' Required Storage: 0.468 ac-ft *------------------------------------------------ --- * Peak Inflow: 32.21 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: 2-DURA .HYD ***************************************************** ************** us Td = 22 minutes i Return Freq: 2 yr /------- Approx. Duration for Max. Storage------� C adj.factor: 1.00 Tc= 15.00 minutes I = 3.350 in/hr i Area (ac): 23.46 Q = 40.87 cfs Weighted C: 0.52 .�. I Adjusted C: 0.52 F I L i Required Storage O .-- 0.468 ac-ft Td= 22 minutes W i i i i I= 2.640 in/hr x x x x x x x`x x x x x x x x x x x Q= 32.21 cfs c i f i x x s Q= 19.94 cfs i x o ix (Allow.Outflow) x o x o NOT TO SCALE ` x o - x ---------- ---------------------------------------- ----- ----- 27.71 minutes 0 0 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:04:40 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Summary for Single Storm Frequency ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM RETURN FREQUENCY: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 yr `C' Adjustment = 1.000 Allowable Q = 19.94 cfs Hydrograph file duration= 22.00 minutes Hydrograph file: 2-DURA .HYD Tc = 15.00 minutes ' VOLUMES•..•.. Weighted Adjusted Duration Intens. Areas Qpeak Inflow Storage `C' 'C' minutes in/hr acres cfs (ac-ft) (ac-ft) -� - 0.520 0.520 15 3.350 23.46 40 87 1 0.844 0.432 0.520 0.520 20 2.800 23.46 34.16 0.941 0.460 Storage Maximum 0.520 0.520 22 2.640 23.46 32.21 j 0.976 0.468 0.520 0.520 30 2.100 23.46 25.62 1.059 0.441 0.520 0.520 40 1.700 23.46 20.74 1.143 0.387 0.520 0.520 50 1.450 23.46 17.69 1 Qpeak < Qallow POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 »»> HYDROGRAPH PRINTOUT ««< 08-24-1990 01:16:08 Hydrograph file: A:2-DURA .HYD HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Time increment = 0.083 Hours Hours ------Time on left represents time for first Q in each row. -------- ---- -------- ----------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ----- ---- 0.000 0.00 10.74 21.47 32.21 32.21 25.76 15.03 0.583 4.29 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:02:23 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Graphical Summary for Specified Storm Duration ---- CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM ********************************************************************** * RETURN FREQUENCY: 10 yr Allowable Outflow: 26.98 cfs * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 i Required Storage: 0.602 ac-ft i *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 56.12 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: 10-PEAK .HYD ********************************************************************** Tc= 15.00 minutes I = 4.600 in/hr Q = 56.12 cfs 1 i •• L •. O - ---------- I W ( i ,. .•. f .•• s ; 0 0 0 Area (ac): 23.46 Weighted C: 0.52 Adjusted C: 0.52 Required Storage 0.602 ac-ft Q= 26.98 cfs (Allow.Outflow) 0 i NOT TO SCALE ----o ---------------------------------- ----- 22.79 minutes 0 • Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:02:23 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Summary for Single Storm Frequency ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM RETURN FREQUENCY: 10 yr `C' Adjustment = 1.000 Allowable Q = 26.98 cfs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph file duration= 15.00 minutes Hydrograph file: 10-PEAK .HYD Tc = 15.00 minutes ................................................................:...... .... .......................................................... ...... .... VOLUMES Weighted Adjusted Duration Intens. Areas Qpeak i Inflow Storage --1C_-------'C'----- minutes ---in/hr--- acres ------cfs--+(ac_--- ft)(ac_ft) --- - 0.520 0.520 15 4.600 23.46 56.12 i 1.159 0.602 I 1 LJ • Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:04:40 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM ********************************************************************** * RETURN FREQUENCY: 10 yr Allowable Outflow: 26.98 cfs * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 Required Storage: 0.703 ac-ft --------------------------------------------------- Peak Inflow: 38.06 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: 10-DURA .HYD ***************************************************** ************** * Td = 29 minutes Return Freq: 10 yr /------- Approx. Duration for Max. Storage ------/ C adj.factor: 1.00 ' Tc= 15.00 minutes { I = 4.600 in/hr i Area (ac): 23.46 Q = 56.12 cfs Weighted C: 0.52 Adjusted C: 0.52 F ••i•• _� I L Required Storage O .- 0.703 ac-ft Td= 29 minutes WMNMWAMM I= 3.120 in/hr x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Q= 38.06 cfs c i f x x s Q i .• x o 6 ix (AllowOutflow) x o x o NOT TO SCALE i x x -----------o---------------------------------------- (----- ----- 33.37 minutes Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:04:40 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Summary for Single Storm Frequency ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM RETURN FREQUENCY: 10 yr `C' Adjustment = 1.000 Allowable Q = 26.98 cfs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph file duration= 29.00 minutes Hydrograph ............................................................ file: 10-DURA .HYD Tc = 15.00 .......... minutes .................................................................:.......... VOLUMES Weighted Adjusted Duration Intens. Areas Qpeak i Inflow Storage `C' -- ------- 'C' minutes in/hr acres cfs--I (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 0.520 ---- 0.520 ---------------------- 15 4.600 23.46 56.12 -------------------- 1.15:9 0.602 0.520 0.520 20 3.900 23.46 47.58 j 1.311 0.660 ********************************************************* Storage Maximum 0.520 0.520 29 3.120_ 23.46 38.06 j 1.520 0.703 0.520 0.520 30 3.050 23.46 37.21 1.538 0.701 0.520 0.520 40 2.500 23.46 30.50 1.680 0.658 0.520 0.520 50 2.150 23.46 26.23 i Qpeak < Qallow POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 »»> HYDROGRAPH PRINTOUT ««< 08-24-1990 01:17:31 Hydrograph file: A:10-DURA .HYD HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Time increment = 0.083 Hours Hours i------Time-on left represents time for first Q in each row. -------- ------------------------------------------------- 0.000 0.00 12.69 25.37 38.06 38.06 38.06 35.52 0.583 22.84 10.15 0 Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:02:23 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Graphical Summary for Specified Storm Duration ---- CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM ********************************************************************** * RETURN FREQUENCY: 100 yr I Allowable Outflow: 38.71 cfs * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 I Required Storage: 0.876 ac-ft *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * Peak Inflow: 81.12 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: 100-PEAK.HYD F 0 W c f s Tc= 15.00 minutes I I = 6.650 in/hr Area (ac): 23.46 . Q = 81.12 cfs Weighted C: 0.52 .i. Adjusted C: 0.52 I i I i Required Storage f----------- 0.876 ac-ft I I 1 I' • 0 0 o Q= 38.71 cfs o i. (Allow.Outflow) 0 o i NOT TO SCALE - ----o---------------- I ----------------------- 22.84 minutes • Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:02:23 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Summary for Single Storm Frequency ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM RETURN FREQUENCY: 100 yr `C' Adjustment = 1.000 Allowable Q = 38.71 cfs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph file duration= 15.00 minutes Hydrograph file: 100-PEAK.HYD Tc = 15.00 minutes ........:................................................................... .......................................................................... VOLUMES Weighted Adjusted Duration Intens. Areas Qpeak Inflow Storage `C' 'C' -minutes in/hr acres cfs--i---(ac_ft)---(ac_- ft) ------------------- ------------------ ------ 0.520 0.520 15 6.650 23.46 '81.12 ; 1.676 0.876 0 • Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:04:40 08-24-1990 F O W c f s MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Graphical Summary for Maximum Required Storage ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM ********************************************************************** * RETURN FREQUENCY: 100 yr Allowable Outflow: 38.71 cfs * 'C' Adjustment: 1.000 Required Storage: 1.027 ac-ft *--------------------------------------------------- -- -* * Peak Inflow: 56.36 cfs Inflow .HYD stored: 100-DURA.HYD ***************************************************** ************* ** Td = 28 minutes i Return Freq: 100 yr ------- Approx. Duration for Max. Storage ------/ C adj.factor: 1.00 I Tc= 15.00 minutes I = 6.650 in/hr i Area (ac): 23.46 Q = 81.12 cfs Weighted C: 0.52 •� Adjusted C: 0.52 .. Required Storage 1.027 ac-ft I Td= 28 minutes • I = 4.620 in/hr X x X x x x x i x x x X x x x X X X x Q= 56.36 cfs X X • o Q= 38.71 cfs .x o ix (Allow.Outflow) x o x o NOT TO SCALE i x -X -X-------o---------------------------------------- I ----- ------ 32.70 minutes 0 i Quick TR-55 Ver.5.42 S/N:1240545087 Executed: 01:04:40 08-24-1990 MODIFIED RATIONAL METHOD ---- Summary for Single Storm Frequency ---- First peak outflow point assumed to occur at inflow recession leg. CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM RETURN FREQUENCY: 100 yr `C' Adjustment = 1.000 Allowable Q = 38.71 cfs ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph file duration= 28.00 minutes Hydrograph .... file: 100-DURA.HYD ................................................................ Tc = 15.00 minutes ...........:................................................................ VOLUMES Weighted Adjusted Duration Intens. Areas Qpeak i Inflow Storage `C''C'-- -- ------- ---------- minutes---in/hr acres cfs , (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 0.520 0.520 15 - ----------------- 6.650 23.46 - 81.12 ------------------- - 1.676 0.876 0.520 0.520 20 5.700 23.46 69.54 i 1.916 0.982 Maximum 0.520 0.520 28 4.620 23.46 56.36 i 2.174 1.027 0.520 0.520 30 4.400 23.46 53.68 ' 2.218 1.018 0.520 0.520 40 3.650 23.46 44.53 2.453 0.987 0.520 0.520 50 3.150 23.46 38.43 Qpeak < Qallow • POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 »»> HYDROGRAPH PRINTOUT ««< 08-24-1990 01:18:03 Hydrograph file: A:100-DURA.HYD HYDROGRAPH ORDINATES (cfs) Time Time increment = 0.083 Hours Hours i -Time on left represents time for first Q in each row. ---- ----- -------- ----------- ----- ---- ------ ---------- ----- ---- 0.000 0.00 18.79 37.57 56.36 56.36 56.36 48.85 0.583 30.06 11.27 0 • POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM CALCULATED 08-24-1990 01:19:31 DISK FILE: A:HUNTMEAD.VOL Planimeter scale: 1 inch = 50 ft. * Elevation Planimeter Area Al+A2+sgr(Al*A2) Volume Volume Sum (ft) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (sq.in.) (acres) (acres) (acre-ft) (acre-ft) 72.00 0.38 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.00 2.85 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.16 76.00 6.70 0.38 0.80 0.53 0.70 78.00 13.56 0.78 1.71 1.14 1.84 2 IA = (sq.rt(Area1) +((Ei-E1)/(E2-E1))*(sq.rt(Area2)-sq.rt(Areal))) where: E1, E2 = Closest two elevations with planimeter data Ei = Elevation at which to interpolate area Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for El, E2, respectively IA = Interpolated area for Ei * Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes. Volume = (1/3) * (EL2-EL1) * (Areal + Area2 + sq.rt.(Areal*Area2)) where: EL1, EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for EL1, EL2, respectively Volume = Incremental volume between EL1 and EL2 Outlet Structuripile: HUNTMEAD.STR 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Date Executed: Time Executed: **************************** CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM n D f /`t S Vey **************************** ***** COMPOSITE OUTFLOW SUMMARY **** `0 00e-r0,: Elevation (ft) Q (cfs) Contributing Structures 72.00 0.0 1 72.20 0.1 1 72.40 0.4 1 72.60 0.7 1 72.80 1.0 1 73.00 1.3 1 73.20 1.5 1 73.40 1.7 1 73.60 1.9 1 73.80 2.1 1 74.00 2.2 1 74.20 2.3 1 74.40 2.5 1 74.60 2.6 1 74.80 2.7 1 75.00 2.8 1 75.20 2.9 1 75.23 2.9 1 75.40 3.0 1 75.60 4.4 2 +1 75.80 9.6 2 +1 76.00 17.0 3 +2 +1 76.15 27.2 3 +2 +1 76.20 31.6 3 +2 +1 76.40 52.6 3 +2 +1 76.60 78.0 3 +2 +1 76.80 104.2 3 +2 +1 77.00 133.5 3 +2 +1 77.20 165.5 3 +2 +1 77.40 200.3 3 +2 +1 77.60 237.0 3 +2 +1 77.80 272.4 3 +2 +1 78.00 310.3 3 +2 +1 78.20 350.8 3 +2 +1 78.40 393.8 3 +2 +1 78.60 439.3 3 +2 +1 78.80 487.5 3 +2 +1 79.00 0.0 QNd ' ClVaK,LNf1H : V : 01T J uz paaO4s s8M AaPumns aTgpq 5=4P z MOT94nO T <- T UD-lUaAgaD Z <- Z HdId QNVIS £ <- £ AX-2iISM ------- ------ ------------- aTgps b OTgpl 0 'ON aingan.zgS A,LIAIZOaNNOO WalSAS ST'9L £Z'SL : aTgLaq UT papnTout aq o:4 (-43 ) suOT-4PAala TPuOt74TPPV Z' = (-43)'.zouI 6L = (43)'A9Ta *XPN ZL = (g3)'AOTH -UTK QNd' CVaNlNflH: V : aTTJ gndgn0 aTgps BUT4PH ZOA*UVR ISNAH:V :aTTJ 4ndu2 aa4auzzuPTd 'd,ZS * GVa lNnH : V : aTTJ aan4Ona4S 4aT4nO iniMS SM0GVa I NOSONISNf1H XDaHO :pa4noaxa aunty :pa4noaxa agea £TTSTSOZZT :N/S £T'S :uozsaOA Z-QNOd 0 uLis' avaKiNIIH : aTTw zn-4on.z-4S -4aT-4nO Outlet StructurEWle: HUNTMEAD.STR • POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Date Executed: Time Executed: **************************** CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM **************************** »»» Structure No. 3 ««« (Input Data) WEIR-XY Weir - Defined by X, Y Coordinates E1 (ft) =76.00 E2 (ft) =79.00 X dist.(ft) 0 9 29 38 Y elev.(ft) 79 76 76 79 Outlet Structur0ile: POND-2 Version: 5.13 Date Executed: HUNTMEAD.STR 9 SIN: 1220515113 Time Executed: CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM »»» Structure No. 2 ««« (Input Data) STAND PIPE Stand Pipe with weir or orifice flow E1 elev.(ft)? 75.50 E2 elev.(ft)? 79.00 Crest elev.(ft)? 75.50 Diameter (ft)? 4.00 Weir coefficient? 3.07 Orifice coefficient? 0.60 Start transition elev.(ft) @ ? Transition height (ft)? 1.00 Outlet Structur0ile: HUNTMEAD.STR 9 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Date Executed: Time Executed: CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM >>»» Structure No. 1 ««« (Input Data) CULVERT-CR Circular Culvert (With Inlet Control) E1 elev.(ft)? 72.00 E2 elev.(ft)? 79.00 Diam. (ft)? 0.67 Inv. el.(ft)? 72.00 Slope (ft/ft)? 0.020 T1 ratio? T2 ratio? K Coeff.? 0.0098 M Coeff.? 2.0 c Coeff.? 0.0398 Y Coeff.? 0.67 Form 1 or 2? 1 Slope factor? -0.05 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22. :46 Page 1 Oeturn Freq: 2 years ********************************** * * * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM * * * * * * * * ********************************** Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow - 0.00 cfs Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA ----------------------------- ELEVATION � OUTFLOW 1 STORAGE --(ft)---i--(cfs)--i-`(ac_ft)- 72.00 72.20 72.40 72.60 72.80 73.00 73.20 73.40 73.60 73.80 74.00 74.20 74.40 74.60 74.80 75.00 75.20 75.23 75.40 75.60 75.80 76.00 76.15 76.20 76.40 76.60 76 80 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.0 4.4 9.6 17.0 27.2 31.6 52.6 78.0 104 2 Wes 0.005' 0.012i 0.0211 0.0321 0.0461 0.0631 0.0831 0.1061 0.1331 0.1631 0.198 0.236 0.2781 0.3241 0.3741 0.4291 0.4381 0.4891 i 0.5531 i 0.6221 i 0.6961 i 0.7561 i 0.7761 i 0.8631 i 0.9571 i 1 0591 i i 77.00 133.5 1.168i 77.20 i 165.5 i 1.284i 77.40 i 200.3 ( 1.409i 77.60 ------------------------------ 237.0 i 1.543 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ' 2S/t ' 2S/t + 0 ' ---(cfs)-- i ---(cfs)--- 0.0 i 0.0 i 1.5 i 1.6 i i 3.5 i 3.9 i i 6.1 i 6.8 i i 9.4 i 10.4 i 13.4 i 14.7 i i 18.3 19.8 i i 24.0 i 25.7 i i 30.8 32.7 i 38.5 i 40.6 i i 47.5 i 49.7 i i 57.5 i 59.8 i i 68.6 i 71.1 i i 80.8 i 83.4 i i 94.1 i 96.8 i i 108.7 i 111.5 i i 124.6 127.5 i 127.1 i 130.0 i i 141.9 i 144.9 i 160.5 i 164.9 i i 180.6 i 190.2 i i 202.1 i 219.1 i i 219.4 i 246.6 i 225.4 i 257.0 i 250.7 i 303.3 i 278.0 i 356.0 i 307.4 i 411.6 i 339.1 i 472.6 i 373.0 i 538.5 i 409.3 i 609.6 448.0 685.0 EXECUTED 08-27-1990 •31:46 , DISK FILES: 2-DURA .HYD HUNTMEAD.PND 9 Page 2 GIVEN POND DATA !ELEVATION! OUTFLOW ! STORAGE ` -- (f t) --- i -- --- -- -- --) --- - 77.80 272.4 1.685� 78.00 310.3 1.836� 78.20 350.8 1.999� 1 78.40 1 393.8 1 2.1761 78.60 1 439.3 1 2.3691 { 78.80 1 ------------------------------ 487.5 j 2.578j INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS 2S/t i 2S/t + 0 s) ---- -----i---------- is) 489.3 761.7 533.2 843.5 580.4 931.2 632.0 1025.8 688.1 1127.4 748.8 ---------- -------------- 1236.3 Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22. :46 Page 3 Oeturn Freq: 2 years Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH TIME (hrs) --- (cfs) -I --------- 0.000 0.00� 0.083 , 10.74� 0.167 21.47� 0.250 , 32.21� 0.333 32.21� 1 0.417 1 25.761 0.500 1 15.031 0.583 j 4.29 ROUTING COMPUTATIONS I1+I2 2S/t - O 2S/t + O OUTFLOW �ELEVATION � ` (cfs) i__--(cfs)----___(cfs)_T;__(cfs) -------- -� ; (ft) _ - 0.0 0.0� 0.00 72.00 1 10.7 8.7 10.7� 1.02 72.82 , 32.2 ' 36.7 i , 40.9� 2.10 73.81 53.7 85.1 90.4� 2.65 74.70 64.4 142.8 149.5� 3.32 + 75.45 ' 58.0 176.2 200.8� 12.32 75.87 , 40.8 184.1 217.01 16.45 1 75.99 1 19.3 ------------------------------------------------------ 177.4 j 203.41 12.98 j 75.89 1 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22. :46 Page 4 Oeturn Freq: 2 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 32.21 cfs Peak Outflow = 16.45 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.99 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.69 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.69 ac-ft Warning: Inflow hydrograph truncated on right side. POND-2 Version: 5.13WN: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD Peak Inflow = 32.21 cfs Peak Outflow = 16.45 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.99 ft Page 5 Oeturn Freq: 2 years EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22:31:46 Flow (cf s ) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 .----------------------------------------- ----- ----------�- 0.0 -fix x .08 -� x x .17 -I x x .25 -i x x .33 -i x x * .42 -i x x .5 -± * x * x i TIME (hrs) * File: A:2-DURA .HYD Qmax = 32.2 cfs x File: A:002 .HYD Qmax = 16.5 cfs POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 220 :46 Page 1 Oeturn Freq: 10 years ********************************** * * * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM * * * * * Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cf s Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA ------------------------------ �ELEVATION OUTFLOW I STORAGE --(ft)---I (cfs) `--(ac_ft)-` - 72.00 0.0 0.000� 72.20 0.1 0.005� 72.40 0.4 0.012� 72.60 0.7 0.021� 72.80 1.0 0.032� 73.00 1.3 0.046� 73.20 1.5 0.063� 73.40 1.7 0.083� 73.60 1.9 0.106� 73.80 ( 2.1 0.133` 74.00 2.2 0.163� 74.20 2.3 0.198� 74.40 1 2.5 0.236� 74.60 2.6 0.278� 74.80 ' 2.7 0.324� 75.00 2.8 0.374� 75.20 2.9 0.429� 75.23 2.9 0.438� 75.40 , 3.0 0.489� 75.60 4.4 0.553� 75.80 9.6 0.622� 76.00 17.0 0.696� 76.15 27.2 0.756' 76.20 31.6 0.776� 76.40 52.6 0.863� 76.60 78.0 0.957� 76.80 104.2 1.059� 77.00 133.5 1.168� 77.20 165.5 1.284� 77.40 200.3 1.409� 77.60 ------------------------------ 237.0 1.543 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 ----(cfs)---i----(cfs) 0.0 ; 0.0 1.5 1.6 3.5 3.9 6.1 , 6.8 9.4 10.4 13.4 14.7 18.3 19.8 24.0 25.7 30.8 32.7 38.5 40.6 47.5 49.7 57.5 59.8 68.6 71.1 80.8 83.4 94.1 ' 96.8 108.7 111.5 124.6 127.5 127.1 130.0 141.9 144.9 160.5 164.9 180.6 190.2 202.1 219.1 219.4 246.6 225.4 257.0 250.7 1 303.3 278.0 356.0 307.4 411.6 339.1 472.6 373.0 538.5 409.3 609.6 448.0 j 685.0 -------------------------- EXECUTED 08-27-1990 :31:46 , DISK FILES: 10-DURA .HYD HUNTMEAD.PND Page 2 GIVEN POND DATA �ELEVATION OUTFLOW STORAGE (ft) i--(cfs)--I--(ac_ft)- ---77.80 272.4 1.685� 78.00 310.3 1.836� 1.999� 78.20 350.8 78.40 393.8 2.176� 78.60 1 439.3 1 2.3691 j 78.80 ------------------------------ 487.5 2.578 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS 2S/t ' 2S/t + 0 ' ---- (cf s) --- I (cf s ) ---- 489.3 761.7 533.2 843.5 ' 580.4 931.2 6320 1025.8 688..1 1127.4 748.8 i ------- -------------- 1236.3 Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 220 :46 Page 3 Oeturn Freq: 10 years Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ------------------ TIME INFLOW ------------------------------------------------------ I1+I2 2S/t - O 2S/t + O OUTFLOW ELEVATION� --(hrs)-1--(cfs)_-I I__(cfs)--1----(cfs)---1----(cfs)--1--(cfs) i (ft) 1 0.000 0.001 1 ----- 1 0.0 I 0.01 0.00-1---72.00 I 0.083 1 1 1 12.691 1 12.7 1 I 1 10.4 1 12.71 1.16 1 72.91 i 1 1 0.167 25.371 38.1 44.1 48.41 2.19 73.97 1 0.250 1 38.061 I 63.4 1 101.9 1 107.51 2.77 1 74.94 1 1 0.333 I 38.061 1 76.1 I 163.8 1 178.11 7.11 I 75.70 1 1 0.417 1 38.061 1 76.1 I 190.5 1 240.01 24_.73 1 76.11 1 1 0.500 1 35.521 1 73.6 1 194.5 1 264.11 34:81 1 76.23 1 1 0.583 1 22.841 1 584 1 193.2 1 252.81 2 1 76.18 1 0.667 ----------------- 10.15! i 33..0 i ------------------------------------------------------ 186.9 226.21 19.61 1 76.04 o° Coro 1p GCS POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 220 :46 Page 4 Qeturn Freq: 10 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 38.06 cfs Peak Outflow = 34.81 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.23 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0:00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm - 0.79 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond- = 0.79'ac-ft Warning: Inflow hydrograph truncated on right side. .42 .5 .58 POND-2 Version: 5.134(N: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD Peak Inflow = 38.06 cfs Peak Outflow = 34.81 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.23 ft Page 5 Oeturn Freq: 10 years EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22:31:46 Flow (cfs) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 * * * * * * x x x x x* * x * x * x i TIME (hrs) * File: A:10-DURA .HYD Qmax = 38.1 cfs x File: A:010 .HYD Qmax = 34.8 cfs POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22. :46 Page 1 leeturn Freq: 100 years ********************************** * * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM * * * * * ********************************** Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cfs Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA �ELEVATION OUTFLOW STORAGE (ft) i--(cfs)----(ac_ft)- ------ i 72.00 0.0 0.000� 72.20 0.1 0.005� 72.40 0.4 0.012� 72.60 0.7 0.021� 72.80 1.0 ' 0.032� 73.00 1.3 0.046� 73.20 1.5 0.063� 73.40 1.7 0.083� 73.60 ( 1.9 0.106� i 73.80 2.1 , 0.133� 74.00 2.2 0.163� 74.20 2.3 0.198� 74.40 2.5 0.236� 74.60 2.6 0.278� 74.80 2.7 0.324� 75.00 2.8 0.374� 75.20 2.9 0.429� 75.23 2.9 0.438� 75.40 3.0 0.489� ` 75.60 4.4 0.553� 75.80 9.6 0.622� 76.00 17.0 0.696` 76.15 27.2 ( 0.756� 76.20 31.6 0.7761 76.40 52.6 0.8631 76.60 78.0 0.9571 76.80 104.2 1.0591 77.00 133.5 1.1681 77.20 1 165.5 1.2841 77.40 1 200.3 1.4091 77.60 1 ------------------------------ 237.0 1.543! INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 ---- (cf s) --- ---- (cf s) ---- 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.6 3.5 3.9 6.1 6.8 9.4 10.4 13.4 14.7 18.3 19.8 24.0 25,7 30.8 32.7 38.5 40.6 47.5 + 49.7 57.5 59.8 ` 68.6 71.1 80.8 83.4 94.1 96.8 108.7 111.5 124.6 127.5 127.1 130.0 141.9 144.9 160.5 164.9 180.6 190.2 202.1 219.1 219.4 246.6 225.4 257.0 250.7 303.3 278.0 356.0 f 307.4 411.6 339.1 472.6 373.0 538.5 409.3 6096 448.0 -------------------------- 685..0 EXECUTED 08-27-1990 ,31:46 DISK FILES: 100-DURA.HYD , HUNTMEAD.PND 0 Page 2 GIVEN POND DATA ----------------------------- !ELEVATION! OUTFLOW ! STORAGE (ft) i -77.80 --- (cfs)I--(ac_ft)- �- 272.4 1.685� 78.00 310.3 1.836! 78.20 350.8 1.999� 78.40 393.8 2.176� 78.60 439.3 2.3691 78.80 ------------------------------ 487.5 2.5781 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS 2S/t ' 2S/t + 0 ' (cfs)I---- ---- --- (cfs) - 489.3 761.7 ! 533.2 843.5 ! 580.4 931.2 632.0 , 1025.8 688.1 1127.4 748.8 j -------------------------- 1236.3 j Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 20515111113333 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22. :46 Page 3 Qeturn Freq: 100 years Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH TIME ---,--W (hrs) (cfs) -I 0.000 0.00) 0.083 18.79� 0.167 37.57� 0.250 56.36� 0.333 56.36� 0.417 56.36� 0.500 48.851 1 0.583 1 30.061 0.667 1 ----------------- 11.271 ROUTING COMPUTATIONS I1+I2 2S/t - O 2S/t + O OUTFLOW iELEVATION� --(cfs)-----_(cfs)---`----(cfs)----(cfs)----(ft)---� f I � � 0.0 0.0� 0.00 72.00 18.8 15.9 18.8� 1.46 73.16 f 56.4 67.2 72.2� 2.51 74.42 93.9 152.9 161.1� 4.14 75.56 112.7 194.6 265.6� 35.49 76.24 , 112.7 198.2 307.3� 54.55 76.42 1 105.2 198.1 303.41 52.68 1 76.40 1 1 ` 78.9 1 195.7 277.01 40.67 76.29 41.3 j ------------------------------------------------------ 189.7 j 237.0j 23.63 i 76.10 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 4 20515113 EXECUTED: 08-27-1990 22. 1:46 Page 4 Oeturn Freq: 100 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 56.36 cfs Peak Outflow = 54.55 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.42 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.87 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.87 ac-ft Warning: Inflow hydrograph truncated on right side. POND-2 Version: 5.13&N: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD Peak Inflow = 56.36 cfs Peak Outflow = 54.55 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.42 ft Page 5 Qeturn Freq: 100 years EXECUTED: 08•-27-1990 22:31:46 Flow (cfs) 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 36.0 42.0 48.0 54.0 60.0 66.0 ----------------t---------- II-----t-----t---------------I-----I- � t I i ► I t t t I t i 0.0 -fix x .08 -i x x .17 -� x x .25 -i x x .33 -' x -` x .42 x* *x .5 -� * x * x .58 -� * x * x I TIME (hrs) * File: A:100-DURA.HYD Qmax = 56.4 cfs x File: A:100 .HYD Qmax = 54.5 cfs I'Vopix-0 ftWSEC G%iTF4tt lit~ RCP CO&USIT Outlet Structure File: HUNTMEAD.STR w / t 0"! *0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 4r 4 74'IS Date Executed: Time Executed: **************************** CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM ***** COMPOSITE OUTFLOW SUMMARY **** Elevation (ft) Q (cfs) Contributing Structures 72.00 0.0 1 72.20 1.8 1 72.40 3.6 1 72.60 5.3 1 72.80 7.1 1 73.00 8.9 1 73.20 9.6 1 73.40 10.3 1 73.60 11.1 1 73.80 11.8 1 74.00 12.5 1 74.20 13.1 1 74.40 13.7 1 74.60 14.3 1 74.80 14.8 1 75.00 15.4 1 75.20 15.9 1 75.23 16.0 1 75.40 16.4 1 75.60 16.8 1 75.80 17.3 1 76.00 17.8 1 76.15 18.1 2 +1 76.20 19.4 2 +1 76.40 32.2 2 +1 76.60 52.3 2 +1 0 0 76.80 77.9 2 +1 77.00 108.4 2 +1 77.20 143.2 2 +1 77.40 182.2 2 +1 77.60 225.2 2 +1 77.80 272.1 2 +1 78.00 322.7 2 +1 78.20 377.0 2 +1 78.40 435.0 2 +1 78.60 496.6 2 +1 78.80 561.8 2 +1 79.00 0.0 GNd ' CVal-ILINl1H : V :aTTJ UT paaogs spm Fapuiuzns aTgpg buTgpa moT;gnO Z <- Z AX-2=M ------- ------ ------------- aTgp.L 0 aTgas ' ON @angonags 2=AIL3aNN03 WaLSAS 5T'9L CZ'SL :aTgPg uz papnTouz aq og (gg) suozg-enaTa T-euoz4zpPV Z' _ (gj).aouI 6L = (-4j)'AaTS *XPW ZL = (-43)'AaTS *UTW QNd' avaKjNaH: v : aTTa gndgno aTgps buzgaH qOA' CVaWZNIIH:V : aTTa gndul aagemTuleTd HIS' GVaKZNaH: V : aTTd aan40na4S gaTgnO AIMS SMOQVaN NOIONISNQH X3RHO : pagnoaxg auz rs : pagnoaxg ag�Q OTTST50ZZT :N%S OT'S :uozs.zaA Z-QNOd HlS' GVaWlNnH : aTTd aangonagS gaTgnO 0 0 Outlet Structure File: HUNTMEAD.STR POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Date Executed: Time Executed: CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM »»» Structure No. 2 ««« (Input Data) WEIR-XY Weir - Defined by X, Y Coordinates E1 (ft) =76.15 E2 (ft) =79.00 X dist.(ft) Y elev.(ft) ---------------------- 0 79 8.64 76.15 z� 6-4 1 76.15 LJ2r gym• U c� Y S ov ol Of- W r `5 L� Outlet Structure File: HUNTMEAD.STR POND-2 Version: 5.13 Date Executed: SIN: 1220515113 Time Executed: CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM »»» Structure No. 1 ««« (Input Data) TABLE Input your own rating table. E1 (ft) =72.00 E2 (ft) =79.00 Constant (ft) added to each elevation was: Elev. (ft) Q (cfs) 72 0 73 8.88 74 12.52 75 15.41 76 17.76 77 19.8 78 21.72 79 23.43 0 • POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Page 1 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Return Freq: 2 years * * * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM * * * * * * * * ********************************** Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cfs Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA ----------------------------- �ELEVATIONOUTFLOW STORAGE (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) ' 72.00 0.0 0.000' i 72.20 1.8 0.005, 72.40 3.6 0.012' 72.60 5.3 0.021� 72.80 7.1 0.032� 73.00 8.9 0.046� 73.20 9.6 0.063+ i 73.40 10.3 0.083� 1 73.60 11.1 0.106� 73.80 ( 11.8 { 0.133y 74.00 12.5 ' 0.163� 74.20 13.1 0.198� 74.40 13.7 0.236� 74.60 14.3 , 0.278� 74.80 14.8 0.324+ 75.00 15.4 0.374� 75.20 15.9 0.429� i 75.23 16.0 0.438� 75.40 16.4 ' 0.489� 75.60 ( 16.8 0.553� 75.80 17.3 0.622) 76.00 17.8 0.696� 76.15 18.1 0.756� 76.20 19.4 , 0.776f 76.40 I 32.2 0.863� 76.60 52.3 0.957y 76.80 77.9 1.059� 77.00 108.4 1.168y ' 77.20 143.2 1.284+ 77.40 182.2 1.409, 77.60 ------------------------------ 225.2 1.543 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 (cfs) ; ------------------------ (cfs) .0 0.0 i 1.5 3.3 3.5 7.1 6.1 11.4 9.4 16.5 ` 13.4 22.3 18.3 + 27.9 24.0 , 34.3 30.8 41.9 38.5 50.3 47.5 ' 60.0 57.5 70.6 68.6 ' 82.3 80.8 95.1 94.1 108.9 108.7 124.1 , 124.6 140.5 127.1 143.1 141.9 158.3 160.5 177.3 i 180.6 197.9 1 202.1 219.9 219.4 237.5 225.4 244.8 , 250.7 282.9 278.0 y 330.3 307.4 ' 385.3 339.1 447.5 373.0 ' 516.2 409.3 i 591.5 i 448.0 i -------------------------- 673.2 1_J 0 EXECUTED 08-24-1990 23:15:52 DISK FILES: 2-DURA .HYD ; HUNTMEAD.PND GIVEN POND DATA �ELEVATIONOUTFLOW STORAGE (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) ' 77.80 272.1 1.685' 78.00 322.7 , 1.836� 78.20 377.0 ' 1.999, 78.40 435.0 2.176� 78.60 496.6 2.369� f 78.80 -------- ---------------------- 561.8 2.578 Page 2 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ' 2S/t 2S/t + 0 ' (cfs) f____---�_--- (cfs) f 489.3 + 761.4 533.2 855.9 i 580.4 ' 957.4 632.0 1067.0 688.1 1184.7 f 748.8 i ---------- -------------- 1310.6 Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH ' TIME INFLOW ' (hrs) f--- f---- ` (cfs) 0.000 ! 0.00� ` 0.083 , 10.74� 0.167 21.47� i 0.250 32.21� 0.333 32.21� ` 0.417 25.761 0.500 15.03! 0.583 1 4.291 --------------- Page 3 Return Freq: 2 years ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ' I1+I2 ' 2S/t - O ' 2S/t + O ' OUTFLOWELEVATION f--(cfs)-- ----(cfs)--- ----(cfs)--,--(cfs)--`--(ft)--- ----- y 0.0 i 0.0 0.00 y 72.00 I 10.7 , 0.7 I 10.7I 5.03 72.57 32.2 12.6 32.9 10.14 I 73.36 53.7 i 40.6 66.3i 12.86 i 74.12 64.4 75.7 105.0 14.66 74.74 58.0 102.3 f 133.61 15.69 i 75.12 40.8 111.1 143.1' 16.00 75.23 19.3 i 99.2 130.41 15.59 75.08 r-� u POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Page 4 Return Freq: 2 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 32.21 cfs Peak Outflow = 16.00 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.23 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.44 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.44 ac-ft Warning: Inflow hydrograph truncated on right side. 0 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD Peak Inflow = 32.21 cfs Peak Outflow = 16.00 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.23 ft Page 5 Return Freq: 2 years EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Flow (cfs) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 - -----t-----t-----t-----t-----i-----t-----i-----i-----t-----t-----t- � t t t 0.0 -fix I x .08 -` x x .17 -; x X .25 -; x X .33 -� x x .42 -; x x .5 -; *x * x t TIME (hrs) * File: A:2-DURA .HYD Qmax = 32.2 cfs x File: A:002 .HYD Qmax = 16.0 cfs 0 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 S/N: 1220515113 Page 1 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Return Freq: 10 years * * * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM * * Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cfs Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA ELEVATION' OUTFLOW STORAGE (ft) i (cfs)--;--(ac_ft)-` '- 72.00 0.0 0.000� 72.20 1.8 0.005` 72.40 3.6 0.012� 72.60 5.3 0.021, 72.80 7.1 + 0.032� i 73.00 8.9 0.046` 73.20 9.6 0.063� 73.40 f 10.3 0.083� 73.60 11.1 0.106+ 73.80 i 11.8 ' 0.133� 74.00 12.5 0.163+ i 74.20 13.1 0.198y 74.40 13.7 0.236� 74.60 14.3 0.278, 74.80 14.8 0.324' 75.00 15.4 0.374� 75.20 15.9 1 0.429+ i 75.23 16.0 0.438, 75.40 16.4 0.489� i 75.60 16.8 0.553` 75.80 17.3 0.622' I 76.00 17.8 0.696� 76.15 18.1 0.756+ 76.20 19.4 0.776, ' 76.40 32.2 0.863+ 76.60 , 52.3 0.957, 76.80 77.9 1.059� 77.00 108.4 1.168` 77.20 143.2 1.284� 1 77.40 1 182.2 1 1.4091 1 77.60 i ------------------------------ 225.2 i Z.54311 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 (cfs) `---------------y (cfs) 0.0 ' 0.0 + 1.5 3.3 3.5 ( 7.1 6.1 ( 11.4 9.4 16.5 13.4 22.3 18.3 27.9 , 24.0 , 34.3 30.8 41.9 i 38.5 50.3 47.5 60.0 57.5 ` 70.6 .68.6 82.3 80.8 95.1 i 94.1 108.9 108.7 124.1 124.6 140.5 127.1 143.1 , 141.9 + 158.3 160.5 177.3 180.6 + 197.9 202.1 219.9 i 219.4 237.5 ` 225.4 244.8 250.7 282.9 278.0 330.3 307.4 385.3 339.1 447.5 , 373.0 516.2 409.3 591.5 448.0 -------------------------- 673.2 9 0 EXECUTED 08-24-1990 23:15:52 DISK FILES: 10-DURA .HYD ; HUNTMEAD.PND GIVEN POND DATA �ELEVATION OUTFLOW STORAGE --(ft)---i--(cfs)--;--(ac_ft)- 77.80 272.1 1.685� i 78.00 322.7 1.836� 78.20 377.0 + 1.999� 78.40 435.0 2.176, 78.60 496.6 2.369� 78.80 ------------------------------ 561.8 2.5781, Page 2 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS i 2S/t i 2S/t + 0 ' (cfs) -------'---- (cfs) 489.3 , i 761.4 533.2 , 855.9 580.4 957.4 i 632.0 1067.0 , 688.1 1184.7 748.8 --------- -------------- 1310.6 Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. l_J • POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH ' TIME INFLOW ' `--(hrs)-i--(cfs)-- 0.000 0.00� 0.083 12.69� 0.167 25.37� 0.250 , 38.06� 0.333 + 38.06� 0.417 38.06� ' 0.500 35.52� 0.583 22.84! 0.667 1 10.151 --------------- Page 3 Return Freq: 10 years ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ' ' 2S/t - O ' 2S/t + O OUTFLOW �ELEVATION� -I1+I2 ` (cfs) ;----(cfs)---;----(cfs)--y--(cfs)--;--(ft)--- ----- 0.0 0.0� 0.00 72.00 12.7 i 1.2 i 12.7� 5.75 i 72.65 38.1 17.6 39.3 10.82 73.53 63.4 53.8 81.0� 13.64 74.38 i 76.1 98.7 129.9+ 15.57 75.07 ' 76.1 141.4 174.9� 16.75 75.57 73.6 58.4 179.6 201.E 214.91 237.91 17.69 18.17 1 75.95 1 76.15 33.0 ------------------------------------------------------ 198.5 234.6! 18.05 76.12 i • 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 S/N: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Page 4 Return Freq: 10 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 38.06 cfs Peak Outflow = 18.17 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.15 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.76 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.76 ac-ft Warning: Inflow hydrograph truncated on right side. POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-DURA .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD Peak Inflow = 38.06 cfs Peak Outflow = 18.17 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.15 ft 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24 0.0 -iX x .08 -+ x x .17 -' x x .25 -i x x .33 -j x x .42 -+ x x .5 -± x x .58 -± x * X I TIME (hrs) * File: A:10-DURA .HYD Qmax = 38.] x File: A:010 .HYD Qmax = 18.1 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 S/N: 1220515113 Page 1 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Return Freq: 100 years CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cfs Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA ----------------------------- �ELEVATIONOUTFLOW STORAGE ' (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) ` 72.00 0.0 0.000' 72.20 1.8 0.005� 72.40 3.6 0.012� i 72.60 5.3 0.021� 72.80 7.1 0.032� 73.00 8.9 0.046� 73.20 + 9.6 0.063� 73.40 10.3 0.083) 73.60 11.1 0.106) 73.80 11.8 0.133� 74.00 12.5 0.163� i 74.20 13.1 0.198, 74.40 13.7 0.236� 74.60 , 14.3 ` 0.278y 74.80 14.8 0.324� 75.00 15.4 0.374, 75.20 + 15.9 0.429� 75.23 16.0 i 0.438� 75.40 16.4 0.489� ` 75.60 16.8 0.553� 75.80 17.3 0.622� 76.00 17.8 0.696, 76.15 18.1 + 0.756) 76.20 19.4 0.776� 76.40 32.2 0.863� 76.60 52.3 0.957� 76.80 77.9 1.059+ 77.00 108.4 1.168� 77.20 143.2 1.284+ 77.40 182.2 1.409, 77.60 ------------------------------ 225.2 1.5431 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 ----(cfs)---,----(cfs)----� 0.0 f 0.0 1.5 3.3 3.5 7.1 , 6.1 11.4 9.4 16.5 ti 13.4 22.3 18.3 27.9 24.0 34.3 30.8 41.9 38.5 50.3 , 47.5 60.0 57.5 70.6 i 68.6 82.3 80.8 95.1 94.1 + 108.9 108.7 , 124.1 124.6 ' 140.5 , 127.1 143.1 141.9 158.3 160.5 177.3 , 180.6 197.9 202.1 , 219.9 , 219.4 + 237.5 ' 225.4 244.8 250.7 , 282.9 278.0 330.3 307.4 385.3 339.1 i 447.5 373.0 516.2 409.3 591.5 448.0 ' -------------------------- 673.2 • EXECUTED 08-24-1990 23:15:52 DISK FILES: 100-DURA.HYD ; HUNTMEAD.PND GIVEN POND DATA ----------------------------- �ELEVATIONOUTFLOW STORAGE (ft) (cfs) (ac-ft) ' 77.80 272.1 1.685' 78.00 322.7 1.836� 78.20 , 377.0 1.999' 78.40 435.0 2.176� 78.60 496.6 2.369� 78.80 , ------------------------------ 561.8 2.5781 Page 2 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS 2S/t 2S/t + 0 ' ----(cfs)---;----(cfs) 489.3 ! 761.4 533.2 , 855.9 580.4 957.4 632.0 1067.0 , 688.1 1184.7 748.8 i ---------- -------------- 1310.6 Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. • 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 S/N: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH INFLOWTIME `--(hrs)-;--(cfs)-� 0.000 0.00� ` 0.083 , 18.79� 0.167 + 37.57' i 0.250 i 56.36� 0.333 56.36� 0.417 56.36� 0.500 48.85� i 0.583 30.06� 0.667 i ----------------- 11.271 A ss ww►rvc Page 3 Return Freq: 100 years ROUTING COMPUTATIONS 11+12 2S(cfs)O 2S(cfs)0 O(cfs)W iEL(ftjION? (cfs) + if I ------------ i � ----------- --------- --------- ----- 1 0.0 0.0� 0.00 ' 72.00 18.8 , 3.2 ` 18.8y 7.81 72.88 56.4 34.6 59.5� 12.47 + 73.99 93.9 i 97.5 128.5� 15.53 75.05 ` 112.7 175.0 210.2� 17.58 75.91 112.7 219.2 287.7, 34.26 7 2 105.2 + 224.8 + 324.4+ 49.82 76. i 78.9 221.6 303.7y 41.03 7 . 41.3 ------- ---------------------------------- 212.0 263.O1 25.51 1 76.30 om ,tIS CCo�cFa f 41 A x 100 tfr Anvi k f. i I( p� • 2 c4s by Pee%k n-rc+4 cd •ear, 477.V • 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Page 4 Return Freq: 100 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft **** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 56.36 cfs Peak Outflow = 49.82 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.58 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.95 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.95 ac-ft Warning: Inflow hydrograph truncated on right side. POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-DURA.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD Peak Inflow = 56.36 cfs Peak Outflow = 49.82 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.58 ft Page 5 Return Freq: 100 years EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:15:52 Flow (cfs) 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 36.0 42.0 48.0 54.0 60.0 66.0 - -----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----I-----i-----I- � 0.0 -'x I x .08 -� x x .17 -i x x .25 -i x x .33 -i x -� X .42 .5 -� i .58 -� i * I TIME (hrs) * File: A:100-DURA.HYD Qmax = x File: A:100 .HYD Qmax = * * * x x *x * x * x X 56.4 cfs 49.8 cfs 0 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-PEAK .HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cfs Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA �ELEVATION OUTFLOW 1 STORAGE (ft) i __(cfs)_-;__(ac_ft)-� ' 72.00 0.0 0.000, 72.20 i 1.8 i 0.005, 72.40 f 3.6 + 0.012' { 72.60 5.3 0.021� 72.80 7.1 0.032� 73.00 8.9 0.046, 73.20 9.6 0.063' 73.40 10.3 0.083, 73.60 11.1 0.106+ 73.80 11.8 0.133` 74.00 12.5 , 0.163� 74.20 13.1 0.198� 74.40 13.7 0.236+ 74.60 ` 14.3 0.278� 74.80 + 14.8 0.324� 75.00 15.4 0.374� 75.20 15.9 0.429� 75.23 16.0 0.438� 75.40 16.4 0.489� 75.60 16.8 0.553I 75.80 17.3 0.622I 76.00 17.8 0.696� 76.15 18.1 , 0.7561 76.20 19.4 , 0.776 76.40 32.2 ' 0.863 76.60 i 52.3 0.957 Page 1 Return Freq: 2 years INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 (cfs) ---�------------- (cfs) , 0.0 0.0 1.5 i 3.3 3.5 7.1 6.1 11.4 9.4 16.5 13.4 22.3 18.3 27.9 24.0 34.3 30.8 41.9 38.5 50.3 47.5 60.0 57.5 70.6 f 68.6 82.3 80.8 95.1 94.1 ! 108.9 108.7 124.1 124.6 140.5 127.1 143.1 i 141.9 + 158.3 160.5 , 177.3 180.6 197.9 202.1 219.9 219.4 + 237.5 225.4 244.8 250.7 282.9 278.0 330.3 0 76.80 77.9 1.059� i 77.00 108.4 1.168� 77.20 143.2 1.284+ 77.40 182.2 1.409� 77.60 i ------------------------------ 225.2 1.543 • 307.4 385.3 339.1 447.5 , 373.0 516.2 409.3 591.5 j448.0 -------------------------- 673.2 9 • EXECUTED 08-24-1990 23:19:25 DISK FILES: 2-PEAK .HYD ; HUNTMEAD.PND GIVEN POND DATA �ELEVATION OUTFLOW STORAGE -_(ft)-----(cfs)----(ac_ft)- 77.80 272.1 1.685� i 78.00 322.7 1.836, 78.20 377.0 1.999) i 78.40 435.0 2.176� 1 78.60 1 496.6 1 2.3691 78.80 i ------------------------------ 561.8 i 2.578 Page 2 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ----(cfs)-----�5(cfs)-0- 489.3 761.4 533.2 , 855.9 , 580.4 957.4 632.0 1067.0 688.1 1184.7 748.8 ---------- ---------------- 1310.E Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. • POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-PEAK .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH TIME INFLOW ' --(hrs)-;--(cfs)-- 0.000 0.00� 0.083 13.62� 0.167 27.24� 0.250 40.87� 0.333 27.24� 0.417 13.62� 0.500 ± ----------------- 0.00! Page 3 Return Freq: 2 years ROUTING COMPUTATIONS I1+I2 2S t - O 2S t + O 1 OUTFLOW 'ELEVATION (cfs) 1 ---(cfs)--- i----(cfs)--1--(cfs)--; (ft) --- ----- 0.0 0.0+ 0.00 72.00 13.6 1.5 13.6� 6.08 , 72.69 40.9 20.0 42.3� 11.14 73.61 68.1 ` 60.2 , 88.2� 13.98 74.49 68.1 97.3 128.3� 15.53 75.05 40.9 106.5 138.1� 15.83 ` 75.17 13.6 ± ---------------- 89.6 ----------------------- 120.11 15.24 --------------- i 74.95 • • FOND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Page 4 Return Freq: 2 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-PEAK .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 40.87 cfs Peak Outflow = 15.83 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.17 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.42 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.42 ac-ft • i POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:2-PEAK .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:002 .HYD Peak Inflow = 40.87 cfs Peak Outflow = 15.83 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.17 ft Page 5 Return Freq: 2 years EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Flow (cfs) 0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 36.0 40.0 44.0 ---------------- ----- --------------�- 0.0 -!x X * .08 -i X X .17 -I x x .25 -± x x .33 -i x x .42 -i * x * x i TIME (hrs) * File: A:2-PEAK .HYD Qmax = 40.9 cfs x File: A:002 .HYD Qmax = 15.8 cfs POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Page 1 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Return Freq: 10 years * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-PEAK .HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cf s Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA iELEVATION i OUTFLOW ' STORAGE ' --(ft)---;--(cfs)--i--(ac_ft)-� 72.00 0.0 0.000+ 72.20 1.8 0.005� 72.40 3.6 0.012� i 72.60 5.3 0.021y ' 72.80 7.1 0.032' i 73.00 8.9 0.046� 73.20 9.6 , 0.063' ` 73.40 10.3 0.083y 73.60 11.1 0.106� 73.80 11.8 0.133y 74.00 12.5 + 0.163' 74.20 13.1 0.198� 74.40 13.7 0.236+ i 74.60 14.3 0.278� 74.80 14.8 0.324� 75.00 15.4 , 0.374� 75.20 15.9 0.429� ` 75.23 , 16.0 0.438� 75.40 16.4 0.489+ 75.60 16.8 0.553� 75.80 + 17.3 0.622+ i 76.00 17.8 0.696, 76.15 + 18.1 0.756� i 76.20 19.4 , 0.776� ' 76.40 ' 32.2 0.863' 76.60 52.3 , 0.957, 76.80 77.9 1.059� 77.00 108.4 1.168� 77.20 143.2 1.284, i 77.40 182.2 1.409` ± 77.60 ------------------------------ 225.2 i 1.543 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 (cfs) ---------------� (cfs) 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.3 , 3.5 + 7.1 6.1 , 11.4 f 9.4 16.5 13.4 , 22.3 18.3 , 27.9 24.0 34.3 30.8 41.9 38.5 50.3 , 47.5 + 60.0 ' 57.5 , 70.6 68.6 82.3 80.8 ` 95.1 , 94.1 I 108.9 108.7 ( 124.1 124.6 140.5 127.1 i 143.1 141.9 158.3 ` 160.5 , 177.3 180.6 197.9 202.1 219.9 219.4 237.5 i 225.4 , 244.8 250.7 282.9 278.0 , 330.3 , 307.4 385.3 339.1 447.5 373.0 516.2 y 409.3 i 591.5 448.0 -------------------------- 673.2 • EXECUTED 08-24-1990 23:19:25 DISK FILES: 10-PEAK .HYD ; HUNTMEAD.PND GIVEN POND DATA ELEVATION OUTFLOW OUTFLOW STORAGE --(cfs) --; --(ac_ft) - 77.80 272.1 1.685� 78.00 322.7 1.836� 78.20 + 377.0 1.999� 78.40 435.0 2.176� 78.60 496.6 2.369� 78.80 ------------------------------ 561.8 i 2.578 Page 2 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS 0 ----(cfs)---i--25(cfs) 489.3 761.4 , ` 533.2 855.9 580.4 + 957.4 632.0 , 1067.0 688.1 + 11847 748.8 , -------------------------- 1310..6 f Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-PEAK .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH INFLOWTIME `--(hrs)-,--(cfs)-, 0.000 0.00� 0.083 18.71� 0.167 37.41) 0.250 , 56.12� 0.333 37.41� 0.417 ` 18.71� 0.500 ----------------- 0.001 Page 3 Return Freq: 10 years ROUTING COMPUTATIONS I1+I2 2S/t - 0 2S/t + 0 OUTFLOW ELEVATION� --(cfs)--�----(cfs)---;----(cfs)--f (cfs) --------- ; -- ------- 0.0 + 0.0+ 0.00 72.00 18.7 ` 3.1 18.7y 7.78 72.88 56.1 34.4 59.3� 12.45 73.99 93.5 96.9 127.9� 15.51 75.05 93.5 + 156.2 1 190.41 17.12 1 75.73 1 561 , 177.0 1 212.31 17.63 1 75.93 1 18..7 ------------------------------------------------------ 161.2 11 195.71 17.25 1 75.78 POND-2 Version: 5.13 S/N: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Page 4 Return Freq: 10 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-PEAK .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 56.12 cfs Peak Outflow = 17.63 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.93 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.67 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.67 ac-ft POND-2 Version: 5.13 S/N: 1220515113 Page 5 Return Freq: 10 years Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:10-PEAK .HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:010 .HYD EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 Peak Inflow = 56.12 cfs 23:19:25 Peak Outflow = 17.63 cfs Peak Elevation = 75.93 ft Flow (cfs) 0.0 ----------------------------------------- 6.0 12.0 18.0 24.0 30.0 36.0 42.0 48.0 54.0 60.0 66.0 ----- ----------�- 0.0 i -ix X .08 -i x X .17 -, x x .25 -i x x .33 -i x x .42 -i x* y * x i TIME (hrs) * File: A:10-PEAK .HYD Qmax = 56.1 cfs x File: A:010 .HYD Qmax = 17.6 cfs 0 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Page 1 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Return Freq: 100 years * * CHECK HUNTINGTON MEADOWS SWM * * * * * Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-PEAK.HYD Rating Table file: A:HUNTMEAD.PND ----INITIAL CONDITIONS ---- Elevation = 72.00 ft Outflow = 0.00 cfs Storage = 0.00 ac-ft GIVEN POND DATA �ELEVATION OUTFLOW ' STORAGE ' (cfs)--;--(ac_ft)- 72.00 0.0 0.000� i 72.20 1.8 0.005` 72.40 3.6 0.012� 72.60 ` 5.3 0.021� 72.80 7.1 + 0.032, 73.00 8.9 0.046, 73.20 9.6 0.063� 73.40 10.3 0.083, 73.60 11.1 0.106� 73.80 11.8 0.133, 74.00 12.5 0.163+ 74.20 13.1 0.198� 74.40 13.7 0.236' 74.60 14.3 0.278y ' 74.80 14.8 0.324) 75.00 15.4 0.374, 75.20 15.9 0.429� 75.23 16.0 0.438` 75.40 16.4 I 0.489+ 75.60 16.8 , 0.553y 75.80 17.3 0.622! i 76.00 17.8 , 0.696, 76.15 18.1 0.756� 76.20 19.4 0.776� 76.40 32.2 0.863� ` 76.60 52.3 , 0.957, 76.80 77.9 1.059� 77.00 , 108.4 1.168, ' 77.20 143.2 1.2841 77.40 182.2 1.4091 ' 77.60 ------------------------------ 225.2 i 1.543 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS -------------------------- 2S/t 2S/t + 0 ----(cfs)---I----(cfs)----, 0.0 0.0 1.5 , 3.3 , 3.5 7.1 6.1 11.4 , 9.4 16.5 13.4 , 22.3 , 18.3 + 27.9 24.0 34.3 30.8 41.9 38.5 , 50.3 , 47.5 ' 60.0 57.5 70.6 68.6 82.3 80.8 95.1 i 94.1 + 108.9 108.7 124.1 , 124.6 140.5 127.1 i 143.1 141.9 + 158.3 160.5 , 177.3 { 180.6 197.9 , 202.1 219.9 , 219.4 + 237.5 225.4 244.8 y 250.7 282.9 278.0 ` 330.3 i 307.4 385.3 339.1 447.5 , 373.0 516.2 , 409.3 , 591.5 448.0 -------------------------- 673.2 • 0 EXECUTED 08-24-1990 23:19:25 DISK FILES: 100-PEAK.HYD ; HUNTMEAD.PND GIVEN POND DATA ----------------------------- ELEVATION! OUTFLOW ! STORAGE --(ft)---;- (cfs) -;- ------- (ac-ft)-; ------ 77.80 272.1 1.685� 78.00 322.7 , 1.836, 78.20 377.0 1.999� 78.40 435.0 , 2.176f 78.60 496.6 2.369+ 78.80 11 ------------------------------ 561.8 2.5781 Page 2 INTERMEDIATE ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ' 2S/t 2S/t + 0 ' ----(cfs)---I----(cfs) I 489.3 761.4 533.2 855.9 , 580.4 + 957.4 632.0 ` 1067.0 i 688.1 1184.7 748.8 -------------------------- 1310.6 Time increment (t) = 0.083 hrs. 0 POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-PEAK.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD INFLOW HYDROGRAPH INFLOWTIME `--(hrs)-;--(cfs)- 0.000 0.00� 0.083 27.04, 0.167 54.08� ` 0.250 81.12� 0.333 54.08� { 0.417 1 27.041 0.500 1 ----------------- 0.001 Page 3 Return Freq: 100 _years ROUTING COMPUTATIONS I1+I2 2S/t - O 2S/t + O OUTFLOW ELEVATION� (cfs) ; ---------�- ---(cfs)---;----(cfs)--;--(cfs)----(ft)---f 0.0 0.0� 0.00 72.00 27.0 8.1 27.0� 9.49 73.17 81.1 + 61.1 89.2� 14.02 74.51 135.2 , 161.8 196.3, 17.26 75.79 135.2 + 220.6 297.01 38.19 1 76.46 1 81.1 221.3 1 301.71 40.20 1 76.48 1 27.0 i ------------------------------------------------------ 207.2 248.41 20.60 76.22 POND-2 Version: 5.13 S/N: 1220515113 EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 Page 4 Return Freq: 100 years ****************** SUMMARY OF ROUTING COMPUTATIONS ****************** Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-PEAK.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD Starting Pond W.S. Elevation = 72.00 ft ***** Summary of Peak Outflow and Peak Elevation ***** Peak Inflow = 81.12 cfs Peak Outflow = 40.20 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.48 ft ***** Summary of Approximate Peak Storage ***** Initial Storage = 0.00 ac-ft Peak Storage From Storm = 0.90 ac-ft --------------- Total Storage in Pond = 0.90 ac-ft POND-2 Version: 5.13 SIN: 1220515113 Pond File: A:HUNTMEAD.PND Inflow Hydrograph: A:100-PEAK.HYD Outflow Hydrograph: A:100 .HYD Peak Inflow = 81.12 cfs Peak Outflow = 40.20 cfs Peak Elevation = 76.48 ft Page 5 Return Freq: 100 years EXECUTED: 08-24-1990 23:19:25 0.0 ------i-----t-----t-----ttt-----i-----t--- 8.0 16.0 24.0 t t t 32.0 40.0 48.0 56.0 64.0 ----- ----- t t t t t 0.0 i -fix � x * .08 -± x x .17 -± x x .25 -± x x .33 -i x x* .42 -i * x * x t TIME (hrs) * File: A:100-PEAK.HYD Qmax = 81.1 cfs x File: A:100 .HYD Qmax = 40.2 cfs Flow (cfs) 72.0 80.0 88.0 * W. G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 North Cameron Street P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 Fax: 703-665-0493 June 6,1991 Mr. Jim Doran Frederick County Parks & Recreation 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Huntington Meadows Recreational Units Dear Jim, JUN I Q 1991 I have been asked by Jim Vickers (& Oakcrest to clarify steps taken to credit Huntington Meadows 1 recreational unit bringing total required to 8 rather than 9, as shown. The agreement between the developers and the County is attached for reference. Please see item number 4 of the agreement. 1) FMDP approval by Board of Supervisors on January 19, 1990. (9 Recreational Units shown as required) 2) Site Plans to Parks and other agencies for review on May 3, 1990 with 9 recreational units. 3) Agreement between County and developers on June 19,1990. 4) Site Plans to County staff for approval on June 22, 1990 with 9 recreational units. Illegal for us to change plans at that time. 5) Site Plans approved on 9/10/90 with 9 recreational units shown. Clifford and Associates took a neutral stance on the agreement between the County and the developers. We did not change any plans to reflect credit on any recreational units simply because we thought it was not necessary. If the agreement was signed, parties involved could look at Site Plans to see that 9 recreational units were shown as approved on MDP. G. • Ilk 9 L' Agreement calls for 1 credit, therefore when time came for construction of recreational units,1 credit would be given. I would be happy to meet you if confusion still exists. Sincerely, W 44eL Thomas W. Price G.W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. TWP/kf cc: Jim Vickers Evan Wyatt BURR P. HARM50N 190-0-1973 WILL1Av( A. JOHNSTON H. K. B F N HAM III BILLY J. T151NCEP, THOMAS A. SCHUM, JR. nPWCE E. DOWNING IAN R. D. WILLIAMS ELIZA13ETH D. JOHN5TON Mr. John R. Riley County Administrator County of Frederick 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 HAR-RISON 8 JOHNSTON ATTO FLN EYS AT LAW WINCHESTER VIMGINIA 22601 -0809 Re: Brookland Heights Dear John: :1 'OVTH LOUACUN MbCT June 19, 1990 MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX Boo TELEPHONQ AREA CODE 703 667-1266 FAX No, 703-8e7-1312 This is to place in writing those agreements reached on June 19, 1990 in regard to what is commonly called the "Grand Canyon" problem at Brookland Heights, This agreement was reached after the following people met on the site: John Riley, Bob Watkins, Wayne Miller, Evan Wyatt, Johnny Neff, Jim Vickers, Greg Unger, Chuck Maddox, Harrington Smith, James L. Bowman, Fred L. Glaize, III, Jim Petry and myself. The following things, I believe, were agreed to: 1. That oakcrest Builders, Inc., G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. and Bowman & Glaize will undertake the project as outlined on -site which basically consists of extending an 18" pipe from the existing 1811 pipe south of lots 67 and 68 to a new man --hole which will also connect with a new 1511 pipe running from a northerly direction and through a new man -hole into the same man -hole. From the new man -hole a 24" pipe will be extended in a southeasterly direction which will extend just beyond an existing manhole just south of Lot 89 and will clear lot 90 which has a unit with a basement. The area will then be back -filled to cover the pipe and to create a terraced effect resulting in two basically level areas in which playground equipment may be placed. The pipe will be covered for the entire length that it is extended. The fill area will be accomplished by the importing of material from another area and no material will be disturbed within the project area with the slopes remaining as they are. After the fall portion of the project is completed, the same will be top -soiled and grass seed planted. At that time, the slopes on the side of the project area will also be seeded as necessary. R , 14, John R. Riley gage 2 June 19, 1990 2. That this work will be accomplished sometime in the fall when the children have returned to school and are not present at the site. 3. That in the event that the material is taken from a site where an erosion control permit is necessitated that the fees for applying for the same will be waived. Regardless of the fees being waived a soil and erosion plan will be developed in accordance with the regular processes and whatever steps are necessitated will be observed to comply with the permit that is issued. 4. That in return for the above -the County will waive two unite of playground equipment in the Brookland Heights Subdivision, meaning that three units will be installed rather than. five. In addition a credit will be given on one playground unit at the Euntington Meadows project. 5. That the above referenced project will be undertaken by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., Oakcrest Builders and Bowman and Glaize at their expense. The preliminary estimate for accomplishing this work was $48,000.00 and possibly will remain somewhere around that figure although the project was somewhat modified as a result of our meeting. 6. That Harrington Smith, Supervisor, with the assistance of Wayne Miller, will clear the way with the Property Owners Association of Brookland Heights and make it possible for the project to go forward this fall. 7. That of the three units remaining to be placed in Brookland Heights the same will be spotted by the appropriate authorities and Jim petry.notified as to the appropriate locations in order that the same may be installed in the very near future. I believe that the above encompasses the agreements reached. I would say, in passing, that this agreement is the result of the governmental body working with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., Oakcrest Builders, Inc., and Bowman and Glaize in order to achieve something that is reasonable and which we believe will enhance the Brookland Heights project. It is always difficult to get so many people together to agree on anything and these matter can drag on for an extended period of time unless there are reasonable good faith efforts to resolve them. .; Mr. John Page 3 June 19, R. Riley 1990 All of the people involved should resolve to keep a candid conversation going about what problems exist and what actions can be taken to correct them. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., Oakcrest Builders, Inc. and Bowman and Glaize intend to continue business in this community and are very aware that a working relationship has to exist with everyone involved. I take no pride in the authorship -of this letter and if changes are necessary we would appreci4te your suggestions* If ty ign no changes the necessary then we w,,Il same and retus are rnonehat copyhtoCousns forOu ou aft oz�r files. Sincerely, G. W. CLZFFORD & ASSOCIATES, iNC. OAKCREST BUILDERS, INC. and BOWMAN & GLAIZE LIM THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA By John R. Riley, Count dministrato. May 16, 1990 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS PARK PROPOSAL Catalog Page Description Model# Height Ground Space Approx cost Miracle 103 Standard Grill 1104 31611 2'0"x2'0" Litchfield 26 Gazebo Shelter with Cap Roof 1950 12 5„ 18 6"span $3, 477.00 Litchfield 14 Litter Box 5722 22 gallon $ 107.00 Litchfield 3 Table 4186 8' Long $ 240.00 Tot Area Miracle 53 Slide 103-1 8'xl6" $ 711.00 Miracle 57 Geodesic Climber 402 5'0"/29' Diameter $ 816.00 Miracle 60 Frog Rider 932 $ 178.00 Miracle 60 Rodeo Rocky 901 $ 178.00 Miracle 61 Whirl 302 10'Diameter $1,029.00 Miracle 51 Swings 4 sets 2214 10'Top Rail $ 452.00 2 sla proof/2 tot seats approx. $ 100.00 $3,464.00 Natureville Miracle 31 Deck System 144-518PVS $4,823.00 Miracle 48 Swings (3) s COUNTY of FREDERICK IParks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 540-665-5678 FAX: 540-665-9687 September 17, 1998 Mr. James T. Vickers, CEO/President Oak Crest Builders 2055 Valley Ave. Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Huntington Meadows Dear Mr. Vickers: Based upon the approved master development plan for the Huntington Meadows Subdivipion, nine (9) recreation units are required. The planned recreation units and values are .as follows: • Tot Lot - 1 recreation unit • '/2 Basketball Court -'/z recreation unit • Tennis Court - 2 recreation units • Gazebo, Grills, Tables - '/2 recreation unit • Tot Lot - 1 recreation unit • Bike Trail (3,345 l.f.) - 4 recreation units In our meeting and site visit on September 1, 1998, we observed the following completed recreation amenities. • Tot Lot - 1 recreation unit • Tennis Court - 2 recreation units • Sand Volleyball Court -'/z recreation unit • 4 ft. Bike/walkway trail (1,9501.f.) - 2'/z recreation units With credit given for one (1) recreation unit at this location for a tot lot in the Brookland Heights subdivision, you will need to provide for two (2) recreation units or equivalent to satisfy the approved master development plan. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 w Mr. James T. Tickers Page 2 With the equipment value of a tot lot (recreation unit) being around $8,000 and your desire to have some open play area, we would recommend the installation of two (2) play structures in this area. One play structure for children ages 2-5 and one play structure for children ages 5-12 (see pages 51 and 57 respectively in the enclosed catalog). If you should have any questions or need additional information please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, n � James M. Doran, Director Parks and Recreation Department JMD/sm copy: Evan Wyatt, Assist. Dir., Planning Department enc Huntington Meadows Homeowner's Association P.O. Box 2563 Winchester, VA 22604 April 20, 1998 Jim Vickers Oakcrest Development 2055 Valley Ave. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Jim, Our Board of Directors decided at the April meeting to ask that the new commons area include a park area with fast growing trees (Bradford pears maybe) benches, tables (sturdy, difficult to move), walking trail continued to Braeburn-I don't know where it could go to from there. Also, there were a lot of requests for tot size equipment -safety swings, climbing houses, short slides, etc.. The results of the survey relating to the playground area were as follows: 75 surveys returned- 22 wanted a park like area 18 wanted a dog walk area 14 basketball court 13 wanted a second playground The rest were requests for a pool, a gym, and to do nothing with the area. Our annual meeting is scheduled for June 16,1998 at 7:00 at the Greenwood Fire Hall. Please send me the proxy when you receive a copy in the mail ( or join us). Thanks for all of yo elp, Jacki Lewis President Huntington Mea ows HOA BURR P. HARR150N 1004-1 973 WILLLkM A. JOHNSTON H. K. BP.NHAM III BILLY J. T151NCER THOMAS A. SCHULTZ, JR• BRUCE E. DOWNIN0 IAN K, 1). VVILLIAMS ELIZABETH B. JOHN57rON Mr. John R. Riley County Administrator County of Frederick 9 Court Square Winchester, VA 22601 HARR.ISON 8 JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW WINCHESTFp, VIMMNIA 22601--0$09 Re: Brookland Heights Dear John: :I SOUTH LOUPouN -1,TKheT June 19, 1990 11IAILING ADDRE55e P. 0. BOX BOO TELEPHONE AREA CODE 703 667-1266 FAX NO, 703-667.1312 This is to place in writing those agreements reached on June 19, 1990 in regard to what is commonly called the "Grand Canyon" problem at Brookland Heights, This agreement was reached after the following people met on the site: John Riley, Bob Watkins, Wayne Miller, Evan Wyatt, Johnny Neff, Jim Vickers, Greg Unger, Chuck Maddox, Harrington Smith, James L. Bowman, Fred L. Glaize, III, Jim Petry and myself. The following things, I believe, were agreed to: 1. That Oakcrest Builders, Inc., G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. and Bowman & Glai_ze will undertake the project as outlined on -site which basically consists of extending an 1811 pipe from the existing 1811 pipe south of lots 67 and 68 to a new man -hole which will also connect with a new 1511 pipe running from a northerly direction and through a new man -hole into the same man -hole. From the new man -hole a 24" pipe will be extended in a southeasterly directionx which will extend just beyond an existing man -,hole just south of Lot 89 and will clear lot 90 which has a unit with a basement. The area will then be back -filled to cover the pipe and to create a terraced effect resulting in two basically level areas in which playground equipment may be placed. The pipe will be covered for the entire length that it is extended. The fill area will be accomplished by the importing of material from another area and no material will be disturbed within the project area with the slopes remaining as they are. After the fall portion of the project is completed the same will be top -soiled and grass seed planted. At that time, the slopes on the side of the project area will also be seeded as necessary. . John R. Riley .Llage 2 June 19, 1990 2. That this work will be accomplished sometime in the fall when the children have returned to school and are not present at the site. 3. That in the event that the material is taken from a site where an erosion control permit is necessitated that the fees for applying for the same will be waived. Regardless of the fees being waived a soil and erosion plan will be developed in accordance with the regular processes and whatever steps are necessitated will be observed to comply with the permit that is issued. 4. That in return for the above -the County will waive two units of playground equipment in the Brookland Heights Subdivision, meaning that three units will be installed rather than. five. In addition a credit will be given on one playground unit at the Huntington Meadows project. $. That the above referenced project will be undertaken by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., oakcrest Builders and Bowman and Glaize at their expense. The preliminary estimate for accomplishing this work was $48,000.00 and possibly will, remain somewhere around that figure although the project was somewhat modified as a result of our meeting. 6. That Harrington Smith, Supervisor, with the assistance Of Wayne Miller, will clear the way with the Property Owners Association of Brookland Heights and make it possible for the project to go forward this fall. 7. That of the three units remaining to be placed in Brookland Heights the same will be spotted by the appropriate authorities and Jim Petry notified as to the appropriate locations in order that the same may be installed in the very near future. I believe that the above encompasses the agreements reached. I would say, in passing, that this agreement is the result of the governmental body working with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., Oakcrest Builders, Inc., and Bowman and Glaize in order to achieve something that is reasonable and which we believe will enhance the Brookland Heights project. It is always difficult to get so many people together to agree on anything and these matter can drag on for an extended period of time unless there are reasonable good faith efforts to resolve them. Mr. John R. Riley Page 3 June 19, 1990 All of the people involved should resolve to keep a candid conversation going about what problems exist and what actions can be taken to correct them. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., Oakcrest Builders, Inc. and Bowman and Glaize intend to continue business in this community and are very aware that a working relationship has to exist with everyone involved. I take no pride in the authorship' 'of this letter and if changes are necessary we would appreciate your suggestions. If at tY no changes the necessarY then we woul same and retu$ are rnonehcopyhtoCusns for our aft oign z� files. sincerely, G. W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, iNC. OAKCREST BUILDERS, INC. and BOWMAN & GLAIZE En to isinger, Esq. THE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA By AjohnR—.Riley, dmi.nistrato. �y is P Zr- C, COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 November 6, 1992 OakCrest Companies Attn: Jean Swartz 2023 Valley Avenue Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Huntington Meadows Subdivision (Section II). Dear Jean: I apologize for my dilatory response to your letter dated July 16, 1992. Unfortunately, my involvement with the Frederick County house numbering project has kept me from completing my usual workload. Your letter requests the relocation of seven (7) disabled parking spaces within Section II of the Huntington Meadows Subdivision. Frederick County does not object to the proposed relocation of these parking spaces provided that they are accessible to sidewalks equipped with ramps and dimensional requirements are maintained. You also indicated that OakCrest would like to install a beach volleyball court and playground equipment at this site. Enclosed is a memorandum from James M. Doran, Director of Parks and Recreation, supporting this request. I hope this letter is beneficial to your work with the Huntington Meadows project. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter, or if I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt Planner II EAW Enclosure 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 0 CREST COMPANIES Builders • Developers • Realtors 20 Valley Avenue 703/665-0360 Winchester, VA 22601 D JL 2 July 16, 1992 Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning & Development 9 N. Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Evan: OakCrest Builders would like to request the movement of seven handicapped parking spaces in the Huntington Meadows Subdivision (Section 2). These seven spaces fall directly in front of individual homes which leaves the homeowners without adequate parking spaces. We would request that these handicapped spaces be moved either across their respective streets or to the other end of their respective row of parking spaces. After careful review of the site plans we do not believe moving these handicapped spaces should pose a problem. Below you will find the numbers of the lots which we believe are most adversely effected by the handicapped spaces. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 665-0360. I hope to have a response from you within a week or two. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Sincerely, 49/tk- �v�.eu�3 Jean Swartz Customer Service Handicapped lots needing to be moved: 1 (done), 33, 185, 210, 231, 232, 284 Building Custom Homes Since 1974 COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Director 703/665-5678 - FAX: 703,667-0370 INVUnv evnmr TO: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Department FROM: James 11. Dora���� �✓ SUBJ: Recreation Amities in Huntington Meadows Subdivision DATE: August 10, 1992 The Parks and Recreation Department staff met with Ms. Jean Swartz of Oakcrest Builders regarding the installation of a beach volleyball court and playground equipment in the Huntington Meadows Subdivision. As we have discussed, these amenities are in addition to what is required by the approved site plan and the staff would recommend these amenities be constructed. JMD/sm D FN - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 zt- gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. D 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 9 Fax: 703-665-0493 n L December 28, 1992 Mr. Lloyd Jones, State Director US Farmers Home Administration Federal Building, Room 8213 400 N. Eighth Street Richmond, Virginia 23240 Re: Huntington Meadows Subdivision Frederick County, Virginia Townhouse Parking Requirement Dear Mr. Brown, I have been asked to comment on the parking requirements for townhouse subdivisions in Frederick County. In Virginia the regulation of parking spaces for new townhouse subdivisions rests with the County. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has a regulation (Subdivision Street Requirements, 3.6, Page 17) which regulates townhome parking in the event the County does not; but if VDOT has approved a local ordinance, that local ordinance controls. Of interest is that a minimum criteria (B) eliminates any parking space that "backs" into the street, and the only way of meeting this criteria is by using off street parking courts. The local Frederick County Zoning and Subdivision ordinances are approved by VDOT and we have requested the local VDOT Resident Engineer, Mr. Bill Bushman, P.E., to verify this approval direct to you by separate letter. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires between 2.0 and 2.5 "off street" parking spaces per townhouse unit (page 21-5-16). The stated purpose of "off street" parking is given on page 21-3-5 and provides for parking to be located off of the public street right-of-way in order for the parking access not to interfere with traffic. The definition given on page 21-19-12 further specifies the need for a space located next to an aisle and located "off street." Mr. Loyd Jones, USFmHa Huntington Meadows Subdivision Townhouse Parking Requirements December 28,1992 • Page In summary, VDOT allows the County to control parking and excludes "pull in" type parking on public streets. Huntington Meadows has been designed to meet all state and local requirements in this regard. I trust this satisfies your questions relating to the design at Huntington Meadows. Sincerely yours, C. E. M dox, Jr., . ., V. Gilbert W. Clifford & sociates, Inc. CEM/cls cc: Mr. Bill Bushman, P.E., V.D.O.T. t1VIr:::.Bob-_Watk Tr-.ederick_Countu Planning -_ Direct ,0 Mr. Jim Vickers, Oakcrest Builders Mr. Bill Tisinger, Attorney ® Law d ,.i --. _ - '. - - _ .. - ._ _ .y�,_ .. yr .. _,-r.:�i•K''- R .SUBDIVISION . - , -. � _ STREET, REQUIREMENTS- • � � �'�».- � } i'.i! � y ��T{j-� .p-:�+�* ... oar .�; tarttr��r� k =� � j• •':%�"� i •C�r �( � .-� ��. i��' Y .a J1.1 `r '. may.. •`.M1 S '!l.•••y"� PU x�+,pr•rp) K� k'� t � J.l..l ;.+ � - b.S� AL v mot. s:dht . � ..-..Z . i:3 i - a .•u[" _ v.,, �. . � 1 L3�?� X +� 4 J :{ � � i_ . '•t \yew. �ifi >•E( • �yMn+'• '� dlr.+�.W h.A� "r " Ar i : F <t" 4 Q•ate X4 t7 f Y�< t - Y aG114`s •�, Y _.��. �.J'�.1i 1A'- .y e•7 �J1r'7i:4h•*''� a, Ts`t'' _'i'ii• -fir ��L '•kS. ...:•y..}*i .,7y..v..e }�k•';�ir'%f7�,�� ! _ � • a fi y 4 r a � s.� ._--a�`r �. ~aii�.1�t 7•'ii ��� w<tt �l �: t �� � �4• C`' rLT ,. •.y..u'�y .4 .)N,,vy._A �A�� 44 #0. - �.. �j.! '�`t"`+Z,= `�.`I'4"`w:•a�.n�.w.':h:..- �!". Y..; < a• _ '�� #,fix F- ' va.•y. �' - "f::'. . ' ,r ,u.v. y..7vt�1R h �%r -4dT'�4 �Y � �t u� ^.� Y•-'% :) � . y,'�. `' -Y�.t ��3.~r �� .,4�. �7��Y� �:^�< % • i �,-b�`� Y yyMyyY�ss��� �� .��.-- f - yap ,!< ...� -r _r5 :.• .. . .nI t � �� r� � l �+� � w s � < aesthetically compatible with the surrounding areas should be considered. One acceptable type is "Corten" or weathering steel rail with treated timber post. Alternate types may be considered provided they conform to applicable VDOT standards or the criteria prescribed in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 230, blend in with their surroundings and do not create an undue maintenance problem. 33.4 Curb and Gutter For the purpose of these requirements, the use of a curb and gutter is an acceptable alternative, rather than a requisite, for the acceptance of subdivision streets. However, where its use is required by the governing body or otherwise desired, "local" streets utilizing a curb and gutter typical section shall be designed in accordance with Tables I and I -A. The appropriate standard for curb and gutter, as prescribed in Table IV, shall be utilized. Curb -cut ramps shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 (S15.1-381) of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia and constructed in accordance with the department's Standard CG-12. 93.5 Turn Lanes Left or right turn lanes shall be provided at intersections when the department determines that projected turning movements warrant their installation. These facilities shall be designed in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the department's Minimum Entrance Standards. Where necessary, additional width of right-of-way shall be provided to accommodate these facilities. 33.6 Townhouses and Condominiums The density of units normally associated with the development of townhouses and condominiums presents several unique situations that must be considered in the design of the adjacent subdivision streets. Primarily, these relate to parking and the frequency of desired entrances. In the absence of local regulations which are deemed acceptable by the department, the following criteria shall apply for the design of subdivision streets serving these developments: A. A minimum of two parking spaces for each unit shall be provided. Owstreet parking, if available and in the proximity of the unit it is intended to serve, may be combined with "on -site" parking to satisfy this provision. B. In the event parking bays are provided, they shall be located off the stre-it's right-of-way and designed to prevent vehicles from backing into the adjacent subdivision street. C. Entrances to parking bays and/or individual units shall be separated by at least 50 feet and designed in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Standards and/or Permit Manual. 17 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ZONING ORDINANCE Chapter 21 of the Frederick County Code I t ADOPTED - r=NUARY 14,1990 AS AMENDED DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING; � OE:E�EL.0PM. N'1 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22kk0.9 (703) 665-5651 21-5-16 5-6-12.2 Dimensional Requirements: Minimum Average Off -Street Minimum Lot Area Lot Area Parking Lot Width Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Space Feet 1 BR 1500 1600 2.00 18' 2 BR 1700 1800 2.25 18' 3 + BR 2000 2200 2.50 18' 5-6-12.3 Maximum Site Impervious Surface Ratio - .40 5-6-12.4 Minimum Yards: 5-6-12.4.1 Setbacks - 35' From road right-of-way - 20' From parking area or driveway 5-6-12.4.2 Side - 30' From Perimeter Boundary 5-6-12.4.3 Rear - 50' From Perimeter Boundary 5-6-12.5.1 Minimum On -Site Building Spacing: 5-6-12.5.1 Side - 30' 5-6-12.5.2 Front or Rear - 50' 5-6-12.6 Maximum Building Height - Principle 35'; Accessory 20' i TOWNHOUSES 5-6-13 GARDEN APARTMENTS - Garden apartments are muji-family buildings where individual dwelling units share a common outside access. They 5-6-11.4.1 Setback - 35' From road right-of-way - 20' From parking area or driveways 5-6-11.4.2 Side - 30' From Perimeter Boundaries 5-6-11.4.3 Rear - 50' From Perimeter Boundaries 5-6-11.5 Minimum On -Site Building Spacing: 5-6-11.5.1 Side - 30' 5-6-11.5.2 Front or Rear - 50' 5-6-11.6 Maximum Building Height - Principle 35'; Accessory 20' 21-5-15 WEAK -LINK TOWNHOUSE 5-6-12 TOWNHOUSE - The townhouse is a single-family attached dwelling with one dwelling unit from ground to roof, having individual outside access. Rows of attached dwellings shall not exceed ten (10) units and shall average no more than eight (8) dwellings per structure. 5-6-12.1 Maximum Gross Density - 8 units per acre 21-19-12 19-1-1080 MOTOR VEHICLE SERVICE - Businesses engaged in the maintenance, service or repair of motor vehicles. 19-1-1090 NATURAL STORMWATER RETENTION AREA - Areas of poorly drained soils which are subject to periodic flooding and act as areas to temporarily store stormwater. In some cases, natural stormwater retention areas will contain floodplain and wetland areas. 19-1-1100 NOISE EASEMENT - A required easement within the Winchester Regional Airport's noise abatement area as specified in the Airport District. 19-1-1110 NONCONFORMING USE - A use or activity which was lawful prior to the adoption, revision or amendment of the Chapter but which fails, by reason of such adoption, revision or amendment, to conform to the present requirements of this Chapter. 19-1-1120 NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE - Any sturcture within an HAO District not listed as a contributing structure. 19-1-1130 NUISANCE - An activity which annoys, vexes or creates a health hazard or that which, by its existence, created annoyance, injury or damage to persons or property. 19-1-1140 NURSERY, RETAIL - Uses which raise plant materials or sell plant materials and related products. 19-1-1150 OCCUPANCY PERMIT - A required permit allowing occupancy of a building, structure or use after it has been determined that the building, structure, or use meets all the requirements of the Frederick County Code. 19-1-1160 OFF STREET PARKING SPACE - A temporary storage space for a motor vehicle with access to an aisle and driveway which is not located within a street or road right-of-way. 19-1-1170 OFFICE - A room or building used for conducting the affairs of a business, professional service, industry, government or other enterprise. 19-1-1180 OFFICE PARK - A development primarily devoted to office uses containing two (2) or more uses within a single master development or site plan. 19-1-1190 OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGE - An area devoted to organized shooting and target shooting. Rev. 8-12-92 41 COUNTY of FREDERICK Stephen F. Owen Assistant County Administrator 703/665-5653 FAX: 703 / 667-0370 MEMORANDUM TO: DISTRIBUTION FROM: Stephen F. Owen, Assistant County Administrato>� SUBJECT: Bluemont Concert Series DATE: June 24, 1992 Please have all members of your staff read the attached memorandum regarding the Bluemont Concert Series and note especially the section that refers to county vehicles parked on Rouss Avenue. The personnel office will need to lock the lunchroom door on Fridays the concerts are scheduled (please see schedule that is also attached). If you have any questions, please give me a call. SFO:clt Attachments: as stated DISTRIBUTION: Commissioner of the Revenue's Office County Administrator's Office Information Services'Department Economic Development Commission Engineering and Inspections Department Extension Office Finance Department Fire and Rescue Department Maintenance and Grounds Department 0and Recreation Department nnel Department ing and Development Department Reassessment Department Sanitation Authority Treasurer's Department 9 Court S P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Y MEMORANDUM TO: 'Steve Owen FROM: 'Cindy S. Roed4� SUBJ: Bluemont Concert Series DATE: June 23, 1992 COUNTY of FREDERICK Parks and Recreation Department James M. Doran, Directoi 703/665-5678 - FAX:703/667-037C The Friday Courthouse Concert Series is scheduled to begin, this week on June 26, beginning at 7:30 p.m. Julie Bruce, our Public Relations intern will be serving as the liaison between Bluemont Concert Series and this department. As we have arranged in the past, the following items need to be taken care of each Friday: cars removed from Rouss Ave by 5 p.m.; Courthouse door left unlocked for the performers to begin equipment set up (Julie will lock up at the end of the night); copiers and computer equipment partitioned off in the first floor work room to discourage interference by the general public; cleaning supplies and extra restroom supplies made available to keep the downstairs facilities in working order. Peter has a key to the storage area below the courthouse and will be accessing that area for chairs. He also needs 4 folding tables brought to the storage room to use for admissions. If you can think of anything else, Julie can take care of it on our behalf. Melissa Dunning and Mimi McLaughlin are the Winchester site coordinators, any concerns should be routed to them. I have attached a copy of the schedule for your reference. �23.22 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 H*r � Uernont;,1 e-r. s _ r ESTER , C.1 C ; thouse co c'e�ts �.... �'' Jule 26,: ysty rlasort Ensemble JQly 3 . Torn;1Cunnirlgtlam Orchestra July tQ- Capital Bluegrass boys • lu.►y 17 J_orn mcCutchgon ` Jyjy 24 Caribbean festival , ,VlY 31 M. 09rson and Joekburn S dug 7 -ryce Da.igreportt. Cajun Band Aug W $ill Miller Aug 21 ' file h �\ �►ug 28' Too Much fun till � �,\ '. ��►.'!�li�l �� _.�II�Lalr�llrid�ii� �� l�� � . a" �l/ 111I —I+,hl����U��111� l�l�_� 11411t� !t lhulttu„I�l���l��a� l COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONStO3to_9�� Caller IEASiL l_AW4A+J Time Called 9 ' 30 Ad Date Called 4149 ���-- Phone No. 5765-0 Time Requested ASAP Date Requested ��9 Received By P-Vt►J V�(YCr Date of Inspection 4I29I9z.. PERMIT HOLDER NAME OAKCQEST' _EU1L_bta2S RT. NO. 1 1 2- pLot No. SEC. No. SUBDIVISION STREET NAME BftKER- kNIGTr PX7er1DE1) DIRECTIONS NDt'iH 6E BERRYUILLE AVENUE BUILDING NO. VIA '�l i41<E12- Khji647- �. NDED PLUMBING NO. PERMIT FOR: �5Fr) T'Du)N NOMCS Type of Inspection Residential ELECTRICAL NO. MECHANICAL NO. SIGN NO. DISTRICT STMTIEWALk— Commercial Footers Setbacks: FR BK L R Slab Draintile Gas Fire -up Final Electrical Water Service Framing Final Mechanical Sewer Rough Electric Final Site Plan Rough Plumbing Rough Mechanical Final Building Fire Marshall Groundworks Gas Piping/Test Final Plumbing Special/Complaint Other: Time In: Temperature 80° F Cut in No. Time Out: T 4 _ o Weather Sy ►J ►.�Y n Results: Approved ejected Signature dlcw Q. L'L Date �z9I9z_ COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTIONS / Ith J V �14N Caller IULL��-� Time Called Date Called T� Phone No. 03(.0 Time Requested i15A Date Requested AS/}t' Received By qVP,J VyKii Date of Inspection 3/31 LIL PERMIT HOLDER NAME 0 A K C REST _39I1_DER_5 _ RT. NO. Lot No. SEC. No. SUBDIVISION HUNTI►JG7O"3 M��40Dv�S STREET NAME BAKLR — KtA LXTNrlr-: DIRECTIONS NoRM7 A BE292iVi" _- A\467QUBUILDING NO. V I A -BA, — 161 1 GW7 EXTE-N►D1_ 11 PLUMBING NO. PERMIT FOR: sr-r'�' -r ro N MM&ES Tvoe of Inspection Residential Footers Slab Water Sewer Rough Plumbing Groundworks Other: Setbacks: FIR Draintile Service Rough Electric Rough Mechanical Gas Piping/Test _ Time In: 10' 15.,i Temperature ELECTRICAL NO. MECHANICAL NO SIGN NO. DISTRICT ��eNEWALA Commercial BK L Gas Fire -up Framing Final Final Building Final Plumbing q: 55 ° F Time Out: 10 ' S &i Weather SuNgi Results: Approved Rejected Cut in No. R Final Electrical Final Mechanical Site Plan Fire Marshall Special/Complaint AKI iN A SF -rq rc-y ':a o pmajJ SF Lerm 49- 5 3 � T14 ft Lcr_­_-� 1,18 - t G -7) Signature.... D. A M M 0 D + v r x C 1o191c/19,3, I DEPARTMENT OF FIRE AND RESCUE COUNTY OF FREDERICK P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 703.665-6350 N° 799 DATE ARRIVAL DEPARTURE INSPECTORS NAME _ ( TYPE OF INSPECTION kftI.'Mry hOOG M M D D Y Y H H M M H -+ M M t.kS FIRST '52 P I I L—� v �/iL� I I 2" sprv,xkrr,is S, ^I.jMBER _— ... STREET NAM4 31_1 alarm system 4" wWllead000, SUIT APT SRA 61 " Dummg Permit OCCUPANT TELEPHONE �L�i�/ I ��_L�✓ 1 I I I I I i t I I I-L I I 1-1 I I I 71 1 blaS k1rga 6U hrmganon 91 1 Will 1011 pan revue. — MANAGER, REPRESENTATIVE BUSINESS i TELEPHONE _ I usl nstenabon 12L_1 u5l *ax 13" us: removal 14" USt Ipud Spill BUILDING OWNERS LAST NAME OWNERS ADDRESS TELEPHONE 15" annual v+soecoon FIXED PROPERTY I I I NUMBER OF STORES 161 ' compar+r nU v,aatnrt CONSTRUCTION 'YPE I U tare resistive 3 LU protected non-combustible 5 LJ protected br0mary 7 LJ protected wood frame 91 1 not classnred 2 " heavy Umber 4 unprotected non-combushfNe 6 LJ unprotected orainary B LJ unprotected wood 0 " undelennx+e0 tBLU fie WN irppexlbn t9U fire rant s0orbvN 20" re-*tsoecuon FIRE PREVENTION PERMIT r RE -INSPECTION DATE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY LOAD v M M D DYY I IIII III III III III INSPECTION GUIDELINE -CORRECTIONS REQUIRED The Following Conditions Need Corrections: BUILDING EXIT AND EGRESS C 61 Unapproved or Detective Cas Connection — I Space under Stars Urea br Sbxage Purposes 31 inadequate Means of Egress C 52 OamaQed a Detenaated Vent Pipe on Gas Burmng Aypkarxe 2 Broken Cemngs andor Wws — Exposed Lath on Ceilings ardor Walks 32 Second Means of Egress Not Readily Accessible 63 lent Hoods. Vent Fans Into Duct Systems Need Ckarwg Unnatura; Openrtgsl C 33 Axles Ina or Passageways Obstructed 64 CompusOda Be" Shea Near Hol Myer Healer 3 Detective andar Unapproved Incinerator ankh Spark Arrestor Screen C 34 PWK Hardware IAno PinC Latches and Bats) Required on Exit Doors a Cardboard Ceilings anaor Waf C. 35 Discharge From Even Outside Buealrg. Etc ORDINARY HAZARDS C 5 Fire Door Not Servlteable -_ 36 Eemor way Blocked and Obstructed D 65 Poor Housekeeorg Catdbons C 6 Fie Door Backed or Wedged Open C 37 Exit Door locked ands Barrraded C 66 Improper Stage 7 Ov Soaked Wood Floors C 38 Exit Na Property Designated or Marked C 67 Storage of Floor Ore. Clearwg Compounds W4xes, Poisnes, Etc, 8 AmC Areas Open to the Outside. Screen to Prevent Entry by Buds C 39 Exit Lghts Provided But Not Operative C 68 Storage of Excetsla. Straw. Sawdust, Buruo, Etc C 9 Doors Requiring Sell-Clbs+ng Devices Not So Equipped ❑ 40 Iaumananng Dlrectdnal Signs to Enls Required 69 Metal Oro Part Required But Na Provided 10 Pronrpltrve—Shad Be Razed C 41 Exit Door Swngrg Aganst Line of Exit I" G 70 Excessive Grease on Stove CII. Open and Exposed Foundation Beneath BrAdrg C 42 Stairways Na Pirooery Enclosed ands Equipped With Non-Stakdara Doors 071 Cakio t Carer Olt G 12 Post Max Occupancy Load C 43 Suirways Not Property wumnated 072 Unapproved lash Containers 44 Emergency WMte Lents ELECTRICAL C 13 Illegal and or Boot -Leg Wnnrq RAE PROTECTION SPECIAL HAZARDS C 73 Unnecessary ardor Disorderly AccumWtion d Boxes. Cartons, Etc, ,_, 14 Inadequate Service and.ar Insu fic"I Circuits 045 Fire Exnngurshers Reoured. But Not Provided C 46 Fire Exongirshers Need Recharge glinspecLon Collapse —Maintain Orderly Arrangemem 'No C 15 Insult I Receptacles 015 Detective. Detenoraled or SokcedW IN 047 Unapproved Type Fire Extinguishers 074 Smo" in Hazardous Location. Smoking" Signs Needed 075 Flammable Lauds ardor Gases Berg Impropery Used andmr Sabred p 17 Detective ardor Broken Enures ❑ 48 Fire Extrig rshem Nov Property Mounted 4•-60 ❑ 76 nadeguat Vendabon in Hazardous Location 018 Detective ands Broken Switches ardor Sockets ❑ 49 Fire Extinguishers Not Readily VrAle p 50 Standow Hose DeknoraW/Not Racked 077 Storage of Compressed GasCyknders Without Proper Anceraage (Rana or p 19 Circuit Breakers BY -Passed a Blocked Open C 20 Oversize Fuses ardor Circurt Breakers Set too High C 51 Fire Proteow System Chalons) ❑ 78 Oxygen Cyknders Berg Stored ands Used in Greasy or Oily Locibons 021 Pennies Behind Rug Type Fuses 052 Detective Slanoov Nozzles C 53 Standw System Disconnected 079 Oxygen Cyrders Bang Stored Near Acetylene or Fuld Gas Cylinders C 22 Metal Strip of Fuse Holder Cut Back O 23 Fuses Jumped a Banged 054 Spnnkkr Heads Cut -Offs or Siamese Blocked ❑ 80 Oxidizing Materials Being Sabred Wirh Acids, Sulpha. Etc 81 Unapproved Pint Spraying 024 Open Junction Box ardor Fuse Box C 55 Inadequate Sprnkld Head Clearance (18 nches Requredl Door t Equippdoused ❑ 82 Irish Fbom Doer Not Egtrpped MAttt Sell-Cbsrig OHlkte C ❑ 25 Fuse Panei Obstructed ardor Inaccessible 30' ❑ 56 Sprinkler Valves Not Noperly identified C 83 Open Flame Heaag in Hazardous Locator C1 26 Motors India Fans Dirty or Dust Covered HFaT1NG AND COOKING ❑ 84 Vacant at Time of Inspection ❑ 27 Unapproved Extension ds/Drop Cads Ca p 57 DefeMe Heabng Und—Furnace, Gas Bolkr, Stove, Heater. Etc ❑ 85 Locked at Tate of Inspecbm 028 Excessive the of Mu" Oubet Plugs ❑ 58 Detective Cooling Una —Range. Hot Plate, Etc. ❑ 86 See Supplement Sheet ❑ 29. Lamps, Fixtures, Equipment, Etc.. Not Property Enclosed (ftazarrbus ❑ 59 flu Meter Blocked and a ObstrucledrNol Now Locaborm 0") 060 Furnace Baer. Heating Cooking and4x Snakeppe and Vera Pipe 87 IN THE OPINION OF THE INSPECTOR, THERE WERE NO HAZARDOUS; •p 30 Dead and Unused Wkrg, Should Be Removed Clearances. From Combustible Materials Not Standard CONDMONS IN THIS AREA AT THE TIME OF THIS INSPECTION COIN NTS LG D is C lz:l2 �� �i �L�•r/ ✓ems The oondibons reported on hits forth reflect the premiss as observed by oLx w4pector, of me Wive of inspection. Any ertorr or artrntsslon regarding III safety or condrbons regarding fire pievee em are unirlterltionel and are not deerneq the tau" of the cmrity. OR RECEIVED BY FOW ES-1 / • w Permit Type Fed. Use Code Use Group Value of Job Permit Year Permit Number Issuance Date Sub -Division Lot: BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 90 398 90-09-07 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 1 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 399 90-09-07 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS o ------ BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 400 90-09-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 3 • 5 BUILD 02 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 401 90-09-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 6 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 402 90-09-07 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS -- BUILD -- 102 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 403 90-09-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 404 90-09-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS _ ' _._ BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 65,000.00 405 90-09-07 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS L19, TOTAL 520,000.00 • COUNT(13 O BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 91 514 91-05- 0 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 56 15 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 515 91-05-13 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 57 16 - BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000,00 516 % -05-i3 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 58 w 17 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 42,000.00 517 % -05-13 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 59 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 50 91-05-0 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 60 BUILD 102, R0620 RESID 40,000.00 519 %-05-13 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 6. BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 1,223 91-OB-06 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS i7 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 1,236 91-08-06 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 18 z BUILD R0620 RESID 40,000.00 1,237 91-08-06 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 0 3 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 1,241 91-08-06 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 20 a BUILD 02 R0620 RESID 4,000,00 1,242 91-09-06 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 21 5---- BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 1,243 91-08-06 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 22 6 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 1,244 91"-09-06 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 23 � -, BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 1,245 91-08-06 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 24 s BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,716 %-0-11 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 9 s BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,717 91-10-11 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 10 30 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,70 % -10-1i HUNTINGTON MEADOWS ii .1 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,70 %-0-11 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 12 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,720 91-10-11 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 0 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,721 % -i8-1i HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 14 34 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,722 % -W-ii HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 0 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 60,000.00 1,723 91-iO-f HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 16 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 55,000.00 i,B72 91-it-i4 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 62 7 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 55,000.00 1,873 91-11-14 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 63 0 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 55,000.00 1,874 91-1i-i4 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 64 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 55,000.00 1,875 91-it-i4 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 65 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 55,000.00 1,876 91-11-14 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 66 • 1 • s TOTAL COUNT 27 1,281,000.00 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 64,000.00 92 394 92-04-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 67 102 R0620 RESID 64,000.00 406 92-04-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 68 7 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 64,000.00 407 92-04-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 69 w 1BUILD a BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 64,000.00 409 92-04-07 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 70 9 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 64,000.00 410 92-04-07 HUNTINGTON MEADOWS 7: • 5-oll BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 64,000.00 411 92-04-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 72 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 64,000.00 412 92-04-07 HUNTINGTDN MEADOWS 73 -f BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 42,000.00 1,333 92-09-08 Huntington Meadows 9B BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 42,000.00 1,336 92-09-08 Huntington Meadows 99 154l BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 42,000.00 1,337 92-09-08 Huntington Meadows 100 Permit Type Fed. Use Code Use Group BUILD 102 R0620 RESID BUILD i02 R0620 RESID TOTAL COUNT 12 BUILD t02 BUILD 102 BUILD 02 BUILD 02 BUILD 102 - — BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 ► BUILD 102 s BUILD 102 TOTAL s COUNT !8 BUILD 102 _ + Bl- l 102 z BUILD 102 3 BUILD 102 a BUILD 102 s BUILD i02 5 BUILD 102 BUILD 102 e BUILD 102 9 BUILD 02 BUILD 102 + BUILD 102 z BUILD 102 3 _ BUILD 102 a BUILD 102 51 BUILD 102 e BUILD 102 BUILD 102 a BUILD 102 9i BUILD 102 o' BUILD 102 BUILD 102 z BUILD 102 3 BUILD 102 4 BUILD 02 Value of Job Permit Tear Permit Number Issuance Date Sub-Divislon Lot: 42,000.00 92 1,338 92-09-08 Huntington Meadows i0i 42,000.00 1,339 92-09-08 Huntington Meadows 102 4 5 658,000.00 s R0620 RESID 70,000.00 93 639 93-05-12 huntington meadows Bi R0620 RESID 70,000.00 640 93-05-12 huntington meadows 82 R0620 RESID 70,000.00 641 93-05-12 huntington meadows 83 R0620 RESID 70,000.00 642 93-05-12 huntington meadows 84 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 1,676 93-10-18 Huntington 85 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 1,690 93-10-i8 Huntington Meadows 86 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 1,694 93-0-18 Huntington Meadows 87 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 1,696 93-10-18 Huntington Meadows 88 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 1,698 93-10-18 Huntington Meadows 89 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 1,699 93-0-i8 Huntington Meadows 90 R0620 RESID 56,000.00 2,104 94-01-06 huntington meadows 103 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 2,105 94-01-06 huntington meadows 104 R0620 RESID 54,000,00 2,507 94-01-06 huntington meadows 105 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 2,08 94-01-06 huntington meadows 106 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 2,09 94-01-06 Huntington Meadows 107 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 2,i10 94-01-06 huntington meadows 106 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 2,111 94-01-06 huntington meadows 109 R0620 RESID 54,000.00 2,ii2 94-01-06 huntington meadows i10 1,038,000.00 R0620 RESID 45,000.00 94 215 94-03-16 huntington meadows 118 R0620 RESID 45,000.00 216 94-03-16 huntington meadows 119 R0620 RESID 45,000.00 21B 94-03-16 Huntington meadows 120 R0620 RESID 45,000.00 219 94-03-16 huntington meadows 121 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 416 94-05-1i Huntington Meadows 48 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 420 94-05-11 Huntington Meadows 49 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 421 94-05-11 Huntington Meadows 50 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 422 94-05-11 Huntington Meadows 51 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 423 94-05-1i Huntington Meadows 52 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 424 94-05-i1 Huntington Meadows 53 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 425 94-04-11 Huntington Meadows 54 R0620 RESID 50,000.00 426 94-05-11 Huntington Meadows 55 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 884 94-07-13 huntington meadows 91 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 885 94-07-0 huntington meadows 92 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 886 94-07-0 huntington meadows 93 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 B87 94-07-13 huntington meadows 94 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 889 94-07-13 huntington meadows 95 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 890 94-07-0 huntington meadows 96 R0620 RESID 40,000.00 891 94-07-0 huntington meadows 97 R0620 RESID .00 892 94-06-23 huntington meadows iii R0620 RESID .00 893 94-06-23 huntington meadows 112 R0620 RESID .00 894 94-06-23 huntington meadows 113 R0620 RESID .00 895 94-06-23 huntington meadows 114 R0620 RESID .00 904 94-06-23 huntington meadows 115 R0620 RESID .00 905 94-06-23 huntington meadows 116 0 Permit Type Fed. Use Code Use Group 2 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 3 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 4 BUILD - - — -- ._402. -'- R0620 RESID 5 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 8 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID BUILD 102 R0620 RESID BUILD 102 R0620 RESID BUILD 102 R0620 RESID L19 - BUILD 102 R0620 RESID BUILD 102 R0620 RESID BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 3 - BUILD 102 R0620 RESID Q BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 5 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 16 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 17 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 18 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 19 -' +♦ TOTAL 42 21 _ _COUNT 2 3 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 4 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID w BUILD 02 R0620 RESID BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 27 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID N e BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 9 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 30 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 31 BUILD - i02 R0620 RESID 2 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 3 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID a BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 35 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 36 BUILD 102 R0620 RESID 7 BUILD 3�. R0620 RESID 8 39 TOTAL TOTAL _. COUNT-- • 41 2 FINAL TOTALB 3 __ __ _ _._ TOTAL 4 COUNT 122 451 s(_ END OF REPORT Value of Job Permit Year Permit Number Issuance Date Sub -Division Lot: .00 94 908 94-06-23 huntington meadows ii7 45,000.00 i,4B7 94-08-23 huntington meadows 172 45,000.00 1,489 94-08-23 huntington meadows 173 45,000.00 1,490 94-08-23 huntington meadows 174 45,000.00 1,491 94-08-23 huntington meadows 05 45,000.00 1,492 94-08-23 huntington meadows 176 45,000.00 1,493 94-08-23 huntington meadows 07 45,000.00 1,494 94-08-23 huntington meadows 17B 45,000.00 1,495 94-08-23 huntington meadows 179 55,000,00 2,127 94-11-09 Huntington Meadows 122 50,000.00 2,128 94-11-09 Huntington Meadows 123 55,000.00 2,129 94-11-09 Huntington Meadows 124 50,000.00 2,130 94-11-09 Huntington Meadows 125 55,000.00 2,131 94-11-09 Huntington Meadows 126 50,000.00 2,02 94-ti-09 Huntington Meadows 127 55,000.00 2,133 94-11-09 Huntington Meadows 128 50,000.00 2,04 94-11-09 Huntington Meadows 129 1,640,000.00 50,000.00 95 29 95-01-25 Huntington Meadows 130 50,000.00 34 95-01-25 Huntington Meadows 131 50,000.00 35 95-Oi-25 Huntington Meadows 132 50,000.00 36 95-01-25 Huntington Meadows 133 50,000.00 37 95-01-25 Huntington Meadows 134 50,000.00 38 95-01-25 Huntington Meadows 135 50,000.00 39 95-01-25 Huntington Meadows 136 50,000.00 40 95-01-25 Huntington Meadows 137 57,000.00 946 95-06-22 Huntington Meadows 33 57,000.00 947 95-06-22 Huntington Meadows 34 57,000.00 948 95-06-22 Huntington Meadows 35 57,000.00 949 95-06-22 Huntington Meadows 36 57,000.00 950 95-06-22 Huntington Meadows 37 57,000.00 951 95-06-22 Huntington Meadows 38 57,000.00 952 95-06-22 Huntington Meadows 39 799,000.00 5,936,000,00 40 E