Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcocc_council_mtg_packet_20240416_regular_item_3_as_presentedPublic Realm Project Updates Presidential Streets Civic Hub Fillmore Avenue Feasibility April 16, 2024 N'+ ' City of Cape Canaveral AAP- ip—qt Presidential Streets Vision Plan Agenda • Kimley-Horn Task Work Order Assignments • Presidential Streets Master Plan • Presidential Streets Two -Way vs One -Way Evaluations • Civic Hub Final Concept • Civic Hub Feasibility Analysis for Stormwater • Presidential Street Recommendations • Identification of first Presidential Street for implementation • Timing • Funding Methodology • Civic Hub Recommendations • Phased Improvements • Timing • Funding Methodology • Fillmore Avenue Recommendations 8 City of Cape Canaveral Presidential Streets Master Plan Framework Plan Toolkit • Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements • Roadway Improvements • Intersection and Crossing Improvements • Placemaking Design Improvements • Traffic Calming Tools (raised intersections, speed tables, etc.) • Beach Ends • Stormwater Improvements • Resiliency Improvements LEGEND .._ STLIOY AREA FOODSAREA PARKS • POINT OF INTEREST * BEACH ACCESS KEY INTERSECTIONS MAJOR ,C L NE CT,CN, =A S�INCTON=VE • 1� 4 q"AOAM$ AYE y0 001 PERSON AVE POLK+AVE TAYLOR AVE +^T FILL°MORE AVE )] �•� r41 »� 'PIERCE AVE - BLICHANANZ NCO AVE', gON AVE .`did tT.T: Nlt City of Cape Canaveral ept Presidential Streets Master Plan Community Workshop Flooding 14.89/0 Point of Int est 17.2% Project Idea 9.10/0 Miscellanggillhsb 3.6% Issues Et Ideas Shade Trees 24.8% Safety Concern 30.5% 30.5% of responses to the map exercise documents a safety concern. Followed by 24.8% indicating a desire for shade trees. 15dill 0 100 - - 50 0 ...4; .,,,, .e ..„,c,,, ,00 e e 4, �i`ae Vie` F21Qag. 5x\o tee‘h e* rP ketNS% 4`L�GNe Matey fb ',1P oat Participants' Priorities 176 of the participants ranked "Address Flooding" as the #1 priority. Followed by 82 participants who ranked "Safer Intersections" as the #1 priority. 7T.4 City of Cape Canaveral Presidential Streets Master Plan 28;98° N,-80.6082° W Recent Flooding ( > e Start: 09/14/22 h"'1 Span :1 day -� Add Chart r1 City Hall ® City Hall Rain Gauge Data Rain Rate in?hr = Rain High Rain Rate / 90 1.40 1.30 f.11 1.20 6.32 1.10 1.00 5.i.3 0.90 O.R0 4.74 3.9i E 0.70 2.3/ 1.58 0.79 0.60 0.10 0.40 0.30 0.70 0.10 0.00 0.00 1700 AM 0700 AM 04O0 AM 0600 AM OR DO AM 1000 AM 1700 PM 0700 PM 04O0 PM 06 00 PM OR 00 PM 1000 PM 17 00 AM A .`kid tT.T: City of Cape Canaveral Presidential Streets Master Plan Stormwater Improvements • Implement exfiltration trenches to increase stormwater infiltration • Reduce impervious surfaces by reducing street widths where practical • Consider low impact development (LID) stormwater techniques • rain gardens • bio-retention swales • tree wells • exfiltration trenches • pervious pavers hr 8 City of Cape Canaveral A, igt elt Presidential Streets Master Plan Legend Subbasin Condition (1-Hour) Flooding No Flooding Source: City of Cape Canaveral 8 City of Cape Canaveral Presidential Streets Master Plan Resiliency Improvements • Plant native and Florida -friendly trees and plants • Use Low Impact Development (LID) or Xeriscape practices on roadways • Cover all bus stops and illuminate via solar powered lighting • Introduce Complete Street design and install ADA compliant sidewalks • Convert 100% of City's streetlights to solar by 2050 • Capture stormwater for reuse through stormwater chambers, rain barrels, or green roofs • At least 25% of new City roads, parking, and sidewalks should be permeable hz City of Cape Canaveral Presidential Streets Master Plan Recommendation Focus Areas Intersections: 1. Ridgewood Ave at Fillmore Ave 2. N Atlantic Ave at Tyler Ave 3. Magnolia Ave at Tyler Ave Streets: 4. Fillmore Ave (one-way option, two-way option, and beach end) 5. Poinsettia Ave Strategy: "Sequence" of street projects within a one basin Holistic approach to redevelopment and infrastructure replacement LEGEND sruov AREA FOCUS. AREA PARKS _ * POINT CIF INTEREST * BEACH ACCESS : KEY INTERSECTIONS 7 -OP MAJOR CONNECTIONS WASHINGTON AVE -4- S AkiE z •!1.4L. till' • 141 MADISON AV • • l• LIR turn=•11Wial!f I. 01 • moN.R11.01:11vE Iz . JAC. SbNAV ill 41i. re AR 11•r. ‘1101-1• i al-111 : it: I PIERCE AVE UCHANAN two .ter LiJCOLNA 161 1.1.9 ft it f - JoH . " Presidential Streets Master Plan VETERMN PARK LIBFi'ARY hz 8 City of Cape Canaveral ot Presidential Streets Master Plan Existing Conditions: Fillmore Ave Ta or AV anaver aiian "' Complex Y� 't11,i II FillmorevAve Algae ,j 5yl AVM 8 City of Cape Canaveral A * Presidential Streets Master Plan Recommendations: Fillmore Ave (Two Way) Crosswalk with potentia in pavement fighti loft drive aisles with bicycles sharing roadway TAYLOR AVE Proposed Sidewalk Consider moving between building and parking, change parking to angle instead of straight PIERCE AVE 6 ft sidewalk, shade trees, lighting, rain garden bulb outs, and pervious curb LNewcurb: bulb -out Continuous sidewalk and additional beach parking II with permeable pavement Existing ADA .orlon. Additional Bicycle Parking, Benches, and Shade Trees Extended turnaround area Shade trees and lighting V BEACH ACCESS ADA Accessible Crosswalks Raised intersection with Mural �� City of Cape Canaveral Presidential Streets Master Plan Next Phase with "Generational Approach" Location Framework Actions/Recommendations Priority 1 Ridgewood Ave and Fillmore Ave Improved stomiwater infrastructure and permeability Raised Intersection Ter 1 2 Ridgewood Ave and Harrison Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Raiusil intersection Tier 1 I3 Fillmore Ave Improved stommwater infrastructure and permeability Tier 1 4 Lincoln Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Tier 1 5 Ridgewood Ave and Taylor Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Raised Intersection Tier 1 6 Harrison Ave and Magnolia Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Raised Intersection Tier 1 7 Poinsetta Ave and Pierce Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Ter 1 8 Orange Ave and Pierce Ave Improved slam -water infrastructure and permeability Tier 2 9 Ridgewood Ave and Tyler Ave Improved starnwater infrastructure and permeability Tier 2 10 Poinsetta Ave — between Adams Ave and Monroe Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Painted crosswalk and intersections Ter 2 11 Ridgewood Ave — between Washington Ave and Madison Ave Improved stommwater infrastructure and permeability Tier 2 12 Ridgewood Ave and Buchanan Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Tier 3 13 Ridgewood Ave and Jackson Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Tier 3 14 Orange Ave and Lincoln Ave Improved stormwater infrastructure and permeability Tier 3 15 Cherie Down Park Parking Lot Improved stormwater infrastructure `Hammer head" turnarounds Tier 3 16 Cherie Down Park Parking Lot Improved stormwater infrastructure "Hammer head" turnarounds Tier 3 Lei ,�—.-r r • 1 • " •WAS,INy6TON•AV ' �Y*� t `i' �l&iC4 1 MADAMS AV ■ N . • m r s _ • TAYL•OR AV gm rIPAIx _ Ft ORE AyV3 OW 0 c — 0 POLK AV Study Area Focus Area — Priority Segment • Priority Point Crashes Sparse ail Dense 100-Year Flood Zone (1% Annual Chance Event) SAE IOW AO VE 0 0.05 0.1 Miles 0.2 Public Realm Project Updates Presidential Streets Civic lub Fillmore Avenue Feasibility April 16, 2024 CIVIC HUB MASTER PLAN PERFORMANCE STAGE °ACTIVITY LAWN °TRELLIS WITH BENCH SWINGS Q PROPOSED ON -STREET PARKING PLAY AREA MOUNDS ANEW TENNIS COURTS & PICKLEBALL COURTS 0 RESURFACED PARKING LOT °CIVIC HUB GATEWAY WITH REMOVABLE BOLLARDS °CIVIC HUB SIGNAGE (NORTHBOUND) °CIVIC HUB SIGNAGE (SOUTHBOUND) °RACQUETBALL COURT WITH RESTROOMS, BEVERAGE COUNTER, & STORAGE °DECORATIVE LIGHTING IN EXISTING TREES °FESTOON LIGHTING EMERGENCY ACCESS MARKET PLAZA (TURN AROUND SPACE FOR ON STEET PARKENG AFTER EVENTS) Q PRESERVED MURAL 0 FOOD TRUCK DRIVE EXTENSION OF EXISTING CITY HALL PLAZA ° CONNECTION TO CITY HALL MARKET PLACE °EXISTING DOG PARK RAISED DECK SEATING Kimley>»Harn CIVIC HUB MASTER PLAN - OPTION A STORMWATER Potential underground stormwater areas to be evaluated Kimley>})Horn TAYLOR AVE MARKET RESTROOMS AND CONCESSIONS MURAL WALL yt AlA PROMENADE ATLANTIC AVENUE Kimley>; Horn Expect Mor- I xperience Befte�. .14\r, Kimley»>Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Kimley0Horn Expect Mora Experience Better. Kimley>)>Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Expect Mora Experience Beifer EXISTING CATCH BASIN Sx A• GRATE TOP OF GRATE EL 921 INV EL: 3.30? C--- II PERVIOUS HAS AREA = o.fi00 f I I II 'I1. • 1 n , I. 'I II 11 II 1 i II ,I EX19ORAR SLOT DRAIN TDP EL B.IV MHBT RIM EL e.90' N INV EL" 3.r3' a1mvAt s.ne• ,1 rr.-�.� I�r'--RE.- , f , MIN EG =9.d 3 F1 114. S .4 + �� •A f N.:77\ 1I 1 ';r a- \\� N. •. •..�� , STORM....ATFR DFTFN'ION �I •l1. A." M/di.A[1-r TRCA4.1r.\T VOL. = 0.417 AC FT STORMWATER DETENTION AREA - 0.213 AC STORM W ATFR fiGTFATICN AREA=0102 AC AVAIL ABLE TREATMENT VOL. =7.1T3 AC Fr 0 rr&N EG-7.5C ET AVAILABLE'REATAfENT I EXSTIEXISTING CURT INLET VOL. =0.191 AC -FT NG C RT uDNAIYVATER FAWN/TIN. AREA =0 +OA AC GRATE TOP EL:8.e0 t N INV E; 0.AR i LAVAILABLE TREATMENT EINV FI'3.67' I VOI tEGA5 AC FT IF $BJV EL: 0.77 I ,.r._ _ 1 I 1 I I FAIN EG-7[OFT l r' I. PERVIOUS RAVER AREA = 0.111 AC MIN ER= TWAT uu uu STORRFW'ATER DETENTION AREA = SINS AC: AVAILABLE I REATMEh I VOL =0 441 AC -FT STORP AVA-ER DETENTION AREA 0.164 AC AVAILABLE TREATMENT VOL. =0.z7o AU- I LEGEND ■ it 11 WEST BASIN UNDERGROUND EXF ILTRATION EAST BASIN UNDERGROUND EXFILTRATION PERVIOUS PAVERS SITE SUMMARY ADDITIONAL AREA FOR UNDERGROUND EXF ILTRATION WEST EAST TOTAL FOOTPRINT AREA: 0.eta AC 0.484 AC 0.047 AC AVAIL. TREATMENT VOLE 0.941 AC -FT 40,990 CF 0.505- AC -FT 21,998 CF t 446 AC -FT 62,988 CF TOTAL PERVIOUS AREA PROVIDED: 0.336 AC ASSUMPTIONS: CIVIC HUB MASTER PLAN - OPTION A STORMWATER 1. THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER ELEVATION (SHWE) ELEVATION HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO BE 4.00 FT (NAVD68) WHICH MATCHES THE SHINE OF 'VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK' ACROSS THE STREET 2. ASSUME 85% VOID RATIO WITHIN UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEMS 3. ASSUME WEIR 6" BELOW THE TOP OF THE EXFILTRATION SYSTEM Kimley>» iorn 9k Public Realm Project Updates Presidential Streets Civic Hub lmore Avenue Feasibility April 16, 2024 CIVIC HUB MASTER PLAN PERFORMANCE STAGE °ACTIVITY LAWN °TRELLIS WITH BENCH SWINGS Q PROPOSED ON -STREET PARKING PLAY AREA MOUNDS ANEW TENNIS COURTS & PICKLEBALL COURTS 0 RESURFACED PARKING LOT °CIVIC HUB GATEWAY WITH REMOVABLE BOLLARDS °CIVIC HUB SIGNAGE (NORTHBOUND) °CIVIC HUB SIGNAGE (SOUTHBOUND) °RACQUETBALL COURT WITH RESTROOMS, BEVERAGE COUNTER, & STORAGE °DECORATIVE LIGHTING IN EXISTING TREES °FESTOON LIGHTING EMERGENCY ACCESS MARKET PLAZA (TURN AROUND SPACE FOR ON STEET PARKENG AFTER EVENTS) Q PRESERVED MURAL 0 FOOD TRUCK DRIVE EXTENSION OF EXISTING CITY HALL PLAZA ° CONNECTION TO CITY HALL MARKET PLACE °EXISTING DOG PARK RAISED DECK SEATING Kimley>»Harn City of Cape Canaveral g=t dop Presidential Streets Vision Plan Civic Hub Infrastructure Improvements • Creation of a Place to Belong • "Holistic" approach to redevelopment • Regional BMP Stormwater Treatment • Preliminary Analysis =—100,000 CF (includes adjacent roads) • Civic Hub Requires =—20,000 CF • Remaining Capacity to treat offsite areas =—80,000 CF • Hydraulically connect flooding areas to the Civic Hub • Replace Vitrified Clay Pipe w/ PVC Pipe within Taylor Ave • VCP is brittle • Reduction of Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Which Presidential Street is the first demonstration project? N City of Cape Canaveral fat idop Presidential Streets Vision Plan Existing Conditions • Stormwater and Sanitary Sewer infrastructure dates back to 1966 • Sanitary Sewer is vitrified clay • Streets with Flooding Issues • Atlantic Avenue / Johnson Avenue • Fillmore Avenue • Fillmore Avenue / Poinsetta Avenue • Fillmore Avenue / Ridgewood Avenue • Johnson Avenue / Ridgewood Avenue • Lincoln Avenue / Orange Avenue • Lincoln Avenue / Ridgewood Avenue • Orange Avenue / Polk Avenue • Poinsetta Avenue / Polk Avenue Legend Subbasin Condition (1-Hour) No Flooding Flooding Center Street Basin Ora nage improvern nets Figure A4 -Existing Center Street Subbasin Flooding (Critical 1-Hour Storm Mead I lunt N City of Cape Canaveral fat dop, Presidential Streets Vision Plan Previous Engineering Studies • Mead & Hunt • Center St. Basin recommendations • Review of sub - basin impacts Legend Conceptual Design Diameter 2.5' 3.5' 6 0" Stormwater Pipes • Starmwater Irrfet N City of Cape Canaveral fat idop Presidential Streets Vision Plan Fillmore Avenue Improvements • Stormwater Improvements • Exfiltration trenches within R.O.W. to improve roadway conditions and Center Street Basin flooding • Low Impact Development (LID) / Rain Gardens • Replace Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) w/ PVC Pipe • VCP is brittle • VCP deteriorates even when construction activities occur in and around existing pipes • Reduction of Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) • Shared use path for i ntercon nectivity Civic Hub Permeable Pavers Shared Use Path L.I.D. Rain Garden & Tree Well c. AMA IVO En Reconstructed Shared Sanitary Sewer Use Path PERMEABLE PAVERS L.I.D. RAIN GARDEN & TREE WELL SOD UNDERGROUND EXFILTRATION RECONSTRUCTED SANITARY SEWER City of Cape Canaveral gEl do) Presidential Streets Vision Plan RN Riw 0_02 STRUCTURAL SOIL CELLS LECTRIC LINE POTABLE WATER LINE 3' PEA 2" ENGINEER RAVEL =D SOIL t FILLMORE AVE. 0.02 - • PZ n. �w.r:0:OS..OZ. e:wars:+a: UNDERGROUND E r -I STORM WATER COLLE [; E%ISIING ROW LIN 2' VALLEY GUTTER STABILIZED SUB -BASE RECONSTRUCTED SANITARY SEWER 10 SHARED USE PATH) Rain Garden Examples 10' TRAVEL LANE 6' LANDSCAPE+ RAIN GARDEN+TREE WELL OPPORTUNITY AREA 2' VALLEY GUTTER 10' TRAVEL LANE Fillmore Avenue Typical Section 1-2' VALLEY GUTTER Exfiltration Examples N'- ' City of Cape Canaveral ip—qt Presidential Streets Vision Plan Why Fillmore? • Central East/West Street in the Center Street Stormwater Basin • Hydraulically connect highest incidence of flooding • Central to the city's redevelopment activities and public realm improvements • Creation of shared use path for interconnectivity • Consistent with previous studies on Tier 1 improvement • Can potentially reduce major stormwater improvements "downstream" in the Center Street Basin T THANK YOU! Questions? Contact: Scott Mingonet, PLA, AICP 407-427-1622 Scott.mingonet@kimley-horn.com Technical Drainage Memo for City of Cape Canaveral Civic Hub / Center Street Basin Stormwater Feasibility Analysis ;iy of Cape Canaveral, Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Orlando, Florida 149501004 April 3, 2024 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2024 Kimley» Horn Technical Drainage Memo for City of Cape Canaveral Civic Hub / Center Street Basin Stormwater Feasibility Analysis City of Cape Canaveral, FL Prepared for: City of Cape Canaveral Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Orlando, Florida 149501004 April 3, 2024 © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 2024 Brian S. Ashby, P.E. FL P.E. # 80456 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 5 2 RESOURCES 5 3 ASSUMPTIONS MADE FOR ANALYSIS 5 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 6 5 OVERVIEW OF FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS 6 5.1 ANALYSIS 1— ALLEVIATE EXISTING POLK/POINSETTA FLOODING 7 5.1.1 ANALYIS 1— POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO 8 5.2 ANALYSIS 2 — ALLEVIATE FLOODING AT ORANGE/POLK 8 6 SUMMARY OF MEAD AND HUNT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 9 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 10 7.1 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 10 7.2 STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM 11 7.3 FILLMORE AVENUE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS / REDEVELOPMENT 11 7.4 REDUCE R.O.W. WIDTH TO 20 FT 11 7.5 'CENTER STREET BASIN IMPROVEMENTS' STUDY PROJECT #1 12 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDICES STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AS-BUILTS / RECORD DRAWINGSAPPENDIX A STORMWATER MAP OF CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL APPENDIX B STORMWATER REPORT FOR CENTER STREET BASIN APPENDIX C VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK GEOTECH EXCERPT APPENDIX D VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY APPENDIX E CIVIC HUB EXFILTRATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX F "EXIST NAVD88" ICPR NODE MAX REPORT APPENDIX G "CIVIC HUB EXFIL" ICPR NODE MAX REPORT APPENDIX H "ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" ICPR NODE MAX REPORT APPENDIX I MAPS APPENDIX J Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 General Location Map Aerial Photograph USGS Quad Map FEMA F.I.R.M. SCS Soil Survey — Project Area Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis 1 SUMMARY The Civic Hub project site is located on the Northeast Corner of A1A (Astronaut Boulevard) and Fillmore Avenue in the City of Cape Canaveral. The project site is located in Section 23, Township 24S, Range 37E. Refer to Appendix A of this report for a general location map, an aerial photograph, the USGS Quadrangle Map, and Map No. 12009C0363H of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), effective January 29, 2021. The City of Cape Canaveral is proposing to redevelop the existing Recreation Complex, Taylor Ave, and the asphalt parking lots to the north. As part of this redevelopment, an exfiltration system is being proposed beneath the tennis courts and fields to treat the runoff generated by the redeveloped recreation complex. This report explores the feasibility of routing offsite stormwater runoff into the future exfiltration system to alleviate flooding within the Center Street Basin. This report assumes that the existing conditions shown within the "Stormwater Report for Center Street Basin Improvements" are consistent with current conditions and does not take into consideration new projects that may have occurred within the basin, or potential capital improvements projects that may be planned. 2 RESOURCES The feasibility analysis has been performed using the following resources: • Record Drawings / As-builts of the Center Street Basin stormwater collection system by Briley, Wild, and Associates dated May 1966 (provided by City of Cape Canaveral) (See Appendix A) • Stormwater Map of Cape Canaveral dated Nov. 2006 Rev 1 (provided by City of Cape Canaveral) (See Appendix B) • ICPR Model of the existing conditions for the Center Street Basin (provided by Mead and Hunt) • Mead and Hunt `Stormwater Report for Center Street Basin Improvements' (provided by City of Cape Canaveral) (See Appendix C) • Veteran's Memorial Park Geotech Report (See Appendix D) • Veteran's Memorial Park Topographic Survey by Kugelmann Land Surveying, Inc. (See Appendix E) • Exfiltration storage area and volumes provided by various manufacturers (See Appendix F) 3 ASSUMPTIONS MADE FOR ANALYSIS The following assumptions were made for the analysis: • Seasonal High Water Table (SHWT) elevation is 4.00 FT (elevation determined by the Geotech Engineer for the Veteran's Memorial Park site) 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis • Mead and Hunt ICPR Existing Conditions ICPR model is an accurate representation of what is existing today • All reported elevations are in the NAVD88 vertical datum. Conversion from NGVD 29 to NAVD88 is -0.96 FT 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Center Street Basin limits are roughly Polk Avenue (North), Ridgewood Avenue (East), Johnson Avenue (South), and A1A (West). The ultimate outfall of the Center Street Basin occurs on Center Street and discharges into the Banana River (Zone AE FEMA Flood Elevation = 4.00 FT NAVD88). Mead and Hunt's existing condition analysis determined that a total of nine (9) subbasins within the Center Street basin are experiencing flooding in both the critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events. Those subbasins are: • Atlantic Avenue / Johnson Avenue • Fillmore Avenue • Fillmore Avenue / Poinsetta Avenue • Fillmore Avenue / Ridgewood Avenue • Johnson Avenue / Ridgewood Avenue • Lincoln Avenue / Orange Avenue • Lincoln Avenue / Ridgewood Avenue • Orange Avenue / Polk Avenue • Poinsetta Avenue / Polk Avenue 5 OVERVIEW OF FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS Kimley-Horn evaluated the below subbasins to determine if it was hydraulically feasible to route flow from the subbasins upstream of the Civic Hub project site to the exfiltration trench proposed as part of the Civic Hub project. Subbasins that are not flooding in the existing condition were evaluated to determine if improvements would alleviate upstream flooding. Those subbasins include: • Poinsetta Avenue / Polk Avenue (Flooding) • Poinsetta Avenue / Taylor Avenue (Not Flooding) • Fillmore Avenue / Poinsetta Avenue (Flooding) • Orange Avenue / Polk Avenue (Flooding) • Orange Avenue / Taylor Avenue (Not Flooding) • Fillmore Avenue / Orange Avenue (Not Flooding) Kimley-Horn previously performed a preliminary stormwater analysis for the Civic Hub site (See Appendix F) to determine the Water Quality Treatment Volume required to treat the stormwater runoff generated by the future Civic Hub redevelopment site, Taylor Avenue (between A1A and Poinsetta Ave), and the tennis court area into the conceptual Civic Hub exfiltration basin. City of 6 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis Cape Canaveral and St. Johns River Water Management (SJRWMD) stormwater treatment criteria was used as the basis of the analysis. These preliminary calculations found that a treatment volume of roughly 0.46 AC -FT (20,000 CF or 149,600 gals) is required to treat the Civic Hub redevelopment project site. Kimley-Horn worked with exfiltration manufacturers (Contech, StormTrap, Belgard) to perform a high-level analysis of how much volume could be provided beneath the future Civic Hub redevelopment. Using the available topographic survey and the assumption that the SHWT elevation is 4 FT (NAVD88) it was determined that roughly 2.30 AC -FT (100,000 CF or 748,000 gals) of treatment volume could potentially be provided in the conceptual exfiltration system beneath the future Civic Hub redevelopment. Therefore, the conceptual Civic Hub exfiltration trench could potentially have approximately 80,000 CF of additional capacity that could be used to treat offsite areas. It should be noted that that per the latest available as-builts dated May 1966 (See Appendix A) for Taylor Ave., an 8-inch Vitrified Clay (VC) pipe runs east/west along Taylor Avenue. Any improvements within Taylor Avenue will need to consider improvements to the sanitary sewer system as VC pipe is very rigid and is known to crack when disturbed. 5.1 ANALYSIS 1 — ALLEVIATE EXISTING POLK/POINSETTA FLOODING With the additional +/- 80,000 CF of storage available within the exfiltration trench, Kimley-Horn analyzed the possibility of rerouting flow from the upstream Polk/Poinsetta and Taylor/Poinsetta basins through the use of a diversion structure at the Southwest corner of the Taylor/Poinsetta intersection in hopes of alleviating the flooding within the Poinsetta/Polk basin. The existing conditions below show that the existing pipes are partially submerged with a seasonal high water table assumption of elevation 4.00 FT. ■ Pipe Invert at Poinsetta/Polk = 3.68 FT ■ Pipe Invert at Poinsetta/Taylor = 1.4 FT ■ SHWT = 4.00 FT SJRWMD requires that a 2 FT separation be provided from the SHWT to the bottom of exfiltration trench. Therefore, the bottom of the exfiltration trench would have to be designed to be at an elevation of approximately 6.00 FT. To allow for positive discharge into the conceptual exfiltration trench, the pipes along this portion of Poinsetta Avenue would be required to be raised so that the invert at the point of connection into the conceptual exfiltration system is at or above 6.00 FT. The minimum as -built pavement elevation reported in the as-builts is 7.89 FT at Polk Ave. The minimum pipe cover required for RCP is the pavement section which we assume to be 2" of asphalt and 10" of base for a total of 12". Therefore, the highest 7 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis invert the 15" RCP pipes along this segment of Poinsetta Ave can be raised to is 5.47 FT [7.89 FT — (1 FT Cover) — (2/12 FT RCP Pipe Thickness) — (15/12 FT Pipe depth to invert)]. Therefore, it is unlikely the existing pipes along Poinsetta Ave. between the Polk and Taylor blocks can be raised sufficiently to discharge into the conceptual exfiltration trench. 5.1.1 ANALYIS 1 — POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO If a geotechnical exploration is performed which determines that the SHWT is lower than the assumed (between an elevation of 1 to 2 FT), it may be possible to raise the upstream pipes to discharge to the conceptual Civic Hub exfiltration system. This could result in the peak stages at the Poinsetta Ave/Polk Ave Basin during the 25YR 24 HR storm event to be lowered approximately 0.14 FT. This scenario would also allow for treatment of the 5.67-acre basin which was previously untreated and would result in a net improvement of stormwater quality for the basin area. Please note that this scenario assumes the pipes can be raised and that there are no conflicts which would limits the ability to raise the existing stormwater collection system. 5.2 ANALYSIS 2 — ALLEVIATE FLOODING AT ORANGE/POLK Kimley-Horn explored the option of removing the existing 15" pipe located along Orange Ave between Polk Ave and Taylor Ave and replacing it with an exfiltration system within the entire length of the street to alleviate the flooding with the Orange/Polk basin. The existing conditions are shown below: ■ Pipe invert at Orange/Polk = 3.68 FT ■ Pipe invert at Orange/Taylor = 3.44 FT ■ Length of 15" Pipe = +/- 236 FT ■ Approximate Available Volume = +/- 300 CF ■ SHWT = 4.00 FT ■ Runoff Generated at Orange/Polk • 17,421 CF (FDOT 1-HR) • 87,793 CF (25YR-24HR) 8 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis As previously discussed, the bottom of the exfiltration trench would have to be at a minimum elevation of 6.00 FT. The following are the design considerations for the exfiltration system: ■ Min. Existing Pavement Elevation = 8.70 FT ■ Min. Top of Exfiltration = 7.60 FT (1 FT Cover Min.) ■ Min. Bottom of Exfiltration = 6.00 FT ■ Raise influent invert at Orange/Polk = 6.00 FT ■ StormTrap Exfiltration System: • 13" Depth Single Trap • Road Area available = 4,400 SF (20 FT Width x 220 FT Length) • Volume of System = +/-4,300 CF (13" x 4,400 SF x 0.90 Void) o A void ratio of 90% shall be assumed for the StormTrap system (the space available to hold water). The remaining 10% is the concrete structure. A typical detail has been provided as part of this submittal. Kimley-Horn revised Mead and Hunt's ICPR model to include an exfiltration basin with the above parameters. The net storage volume being added to the system of 4,000 CF (4,300 CF exfil — 300 CF within pipe) accounts for approximately 5% of the total runoff generated and routed through the system during the 25YR 24HR storm event (approximately 88,000 CF). The ICPR model results show that during the FDOT-1 HR storm event the peak stage of the basin decreased by 0.09 FT and during the 25YR-24HR storm event, the peak stage of the basin decreased by 0.02 FT. 6 SUMMARY OF MEAD AND HUNT INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Mead and Hunt evaluated the existing drainage conditions within the Center Street basin and provided five conceptual design projects to reduce flooding within the project area. Per their report the summary of these five conceptual design projects is: Conceptual Project #1 — Increase pipe capacity along stormwater system primary trunkline from Buchanan/Ridgewood to the Banana River outfall (Center Street, Atlantic Avenue, Buchanan Avenue). Conceptual Project #2 — Increase pipe capacity along the stormwater system primary trunkline from Buchanan/Ridgewood to the Banana River outfall (Conceptual Project #1), increase secondary branch capacity downstream of critical subbasin locations (Poinsetta Avenue, Orange Avenue, Ridgewood Avenue). 9 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis Conceptual Project #3 — Increase pipe capacity along stormwater system primary trunkline and secondary branches (Conceptual Projects #1 & #2), install 16 CFS pump station on Center Street near outfall to Banana River. Conceptual Project #4 — Increase pipe capacity along primary and secondary branches (Conceptual Projects #1 & #2), install 16 CFS pump station (Conceptual Project #3), and construct stormwater pond for treatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharge. Conceptual Project #5 — Reduce all City roadways to single lane only, 50% reduction in total roadway impervious. Construct 12'x2' exfiltration chambers/trenches along extents of roadways for additional storage and treatment. Conceptual projects #1-4 are meant to be phased and built upon one another. Conceptual project #5 is a standalone project. It is our understanding that the City is planning on moving forward with installing a tidal valve within Center Street. The City has reported that the Center Street Pump Station has gone out to bid and has been awarded. A pre -construction meeting for the pump station was held on February 7, 2024. At the time of this analysis being published, the City is waiting to hear back from the contractor for the construction timeline. 7 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS Per the latest as-builts available, vitrified clay sanitary sewer pipes are generally located within all east/west avenues and Magnolia Ave (north/south) rights -of -way within the Center Street Basin. It is known that vitrified clay pipe is likely to fail well before the limit of its service life is reached, negatively impacting ground water and increasing inflow and infiltration (I&I) into the existing sanitary sewer system increasing the operating costs of the wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, Kimley-Horn recommends exploring options to include sanitary sewer improvements, such as replacing existing vitrified clay pipe with other Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) for future sanitary sewer and stormwater collection system improvements. Kimley-Horn could explore the feasibility of improving the sanitary sewer system, the stormwater collection system, and roadway improvements under the scope of a single project to aid in reducing operating costs of the wastewater treatment facility, increase the stormwater runoff being treated, and improve the water quality of Banana River. The improvements can be phased to tackle the basins with the most flooding and/or streets needing sanitary sewer pipes being replaced the most. 10 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis 7.2 STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM Analysis 1 of the Kimley-Horn study determined that it is unlikely that the existing pipes along Poinsetta Avenue between Polk and Taylor blocks can be raised sufficiently to discharge into the conceptual exfiltration trench. Kimley-Horn recommends further geotechnical exploration along this section to accurately determine the SHWT elevation. As previously discussed, the preliminary analysis demonstrates that a lower SHWT may cause flood peak stage elevations to decrease by up to 0.14 FT. The peak flood elevations may decrease even further if future projects within the City propose additional on -site stormwater treatment for off - site runoff. This will result in an increase of treated stormwater runoff that was previously untreated and would be a net improvement to the water quality at Banana River. 7.3 FILLMORE AVENUE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS / REDEVELOPMENT Kimley-Horn recommends that the City improves the stormwater collection system along Fillmore Ave from A1A to Ridgewood Ave. Fillmore Avenue will serve as the representative street for Cape Canaveral. It will service as a direct corridor from the Civic Hub site to Ridgewood Ave. Redevelopment of the Fillmore Avenue corridor will be an opportunity for economic development because it may improve the existing flood stages. Redevelopment of Fillmore Avenue will be to propose exfiltration systems beneath the pavement and connect them to the larger Civic Hub exfiltration system. The City will need to provide additional survey and geotechnical analysis to determine if this is feasible. It was previously discussed that vitrified clay pipes be replaced due to aging and concerns of Inflow and Infiltration. This redevelopment will allow the City to improve the stormwater collection system and replace the sanitary sewer pipes along Fillmore to be PVC. Kimley-Horn recommends that these be done in tandem since the roadway will need to be reconstructed for the exfiltration system installation. 7.4 REDUCE R.O.W. WIDTH TO 20 FT The City of Cape Canaveral is exploring the option of reducing the Presidential Streets to single lane roadways. However, that recommendation is not desired due to fire department access, fire response time, and resident concerns. Kimley-Horn recommends reducing the R.O.W. width to 20 FT and maintain two-way access to on all roads. Per the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a 20 FT unobstructed roadway must be provided for firetruck access. Reduction of the roadway width will decrease stormwater runoff generated, as well as provide options for increased water quality Best Management Practices, including Low -Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment systems and multi -purpose trail along one side. The project could be phased so that roadway, sanitary sewer, and stormwater improvements occur concurrently maximizing the improvements done within each limit of 11 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis improvement. 7.5 `CENTER STREET BASIN IMPROVEMENTS' STUDY PROJECT #1 It is our understanding that as of the publication of this analysis the City of Cape Canaveral is in the process of installing a tidal valve (Project 3) at Center Street. The City has voiced that they would like to wait and analyze the impacts on flood stages within the Center Street Basin once this tidal valve is operation which is expected to be Summer to Fall of 2024. Should the City decide to propose future stormwater improvements within the Center Street Basin to improve flood stages, Kimley-Horn recommends Project 1 of the study to be considered. This project proposes to upsize the stormwater lines along Center Street and Buchanan Ave. Kimley-Horn believes that the upsize of this main trunkline with the tidal valve being installed may lead to a reduction in flood stages. 12 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDICES STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AS-BUILTS / RECORD DRAWINGSAPPENDIX A STORMWATER MAP OF CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL APPENDIX B STORMWATER REPORT FOR CENTER STREET BASIN APPENDIX C VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK GEOTECH EXCERPT APPENDIX D VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY APPENDIX E CIVIC HUB EXFILTRATION ANALYSIS APPENDIX F "EXIST NAVD88" ICPR NODE MAX REPORT APPENDIX G "CIVIC HUB EXFIL" ICPR NODE MAX REPORT APPENDIX H "ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" ICPR NODE MAX REPORT APPENDIX I MAPS APPENDIX J Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 General Location Map Aerial Photograph USGS Quad Map FEMA F.I.R.M. SCS Soil Survey — Project Area 13 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX A Stormwater Collection System As-Builts / Record Drawings s • • r • 'c 4 4 r • i I H Di K T/TLE SHEET N_Q T/TLE SHEET N_Q. T/TLE . SHEET .N_Q' / WASH/NGTON AVE. 36 CROSS SECT/ ONS LOCAT/ON MAP INDEX 2 /NTERSECT/ ON DETAILS - tr KEY MAP 3 , CENTER BLVD. 64-65 TYP/CAL SECT/ONS 8 DETAILS 4 ASTRONAUT BLVD. 37 HOLMAN AVE. 66 PLAN 8 PROF/LE N. ATLANTIC AVE. 37 CHURCH LA . 67 , PO/NSETTA AVE. , 38 LONG PO/NT RD. 68-70 CENTER BLVD. a HOLMAN AVE. 5 ORANGE AVE. 39 PO/NSETTA AVE. • 7/-77 INTERNATIONAL BLVD. 6 MAGNOL/ A AVE. 40 ORANGE AVE. 78-83 CHURCH LA. a LONG PO/NT RD. 7 ROS A L /ND AVE. i 40-41 MAGNOL / A AVE. 84-87 ASTRONAUT BLVD. 8-1/ RIDGE WOO D AVE. ,„ ,,, 4/-4.3 ROSA L/ND AVE. 88 -90 N. ATLANTIC AVE. /2 CHURCH LA. 8 LONG PO/NT RD 43 RIDGEWOOD AVE. 91-97 PO/NSE T TA AVE. 1.3-14 HOLMAN AVE. 8 CENTER BL VD. 44 JOHNSON AVE. 98-100 ORANGE AVE. /5-16 STORM DRA /NAGE SYSTEM L /NCOL N AVE . 101-10.3 . MAGNOL/A AVE. /7 BUCHANAN AVE. /04- /06 ROSA L /ND AVE. /8 OUTFALL CANAL 45-46 PIERCE AVE. 107-109 R/DGEWOOD AVE. /9-2/ MAIN / V MAIN /-B 47-48 F/L L MORE AVE. 1/0-1/2 JOHNSON AVE 2 2 ' MAIN /-A 478 49 TAYLOR AVE. 1/1/43- //5 L/NCOLN AVE. ,?.3 LATERALS I -A -I, /-A-2, /-A-3 50 POLK AVE. 1/6- //8 BUCHANAN AVE. 2 4 MA IN I-C 51 TYLER AVE. //9-12I PIERCE AVE. 25 LATERALS /-C-/, /-C-2 & /-C-3 5/ HARR/SON AVE. /22- /24 F/LLMORE AVE. 26 LATERAL /-C-4 & MAIN /-0 52 JACKSON AVE. /25- /27 TAYLOR' AVE. '27 - LATERALS I -DV, I-D-2 8 I-40-3 53 MONROE AVE. /28-130 28 STORM SEWER DETA/ LS 0 MADISON AVE /3/- /34 POLK AVE. TYLER AVE. 29 ,, JEFFERSON AVE. 135- 1.38 HARR/SON AVE. 30 MANHOLES , 54 ADAMS AVE. .- 1.39- /42 AVE. 3/ HEADWALLS 55 WASHINGTON AVE. 0 14.3- /46 JACKSON MONROE AVE. , 32 CATCH BA S/NS 0 55-59 OUTFALL CANAL I, . /47-15/ MAD/SON AVE. 33 SPEC/AL MANHOLES 60 860A JEFFERSON AVE. 34 MISCELLANEOUS DE TA /LS 6/ ADAMS AVE. 0 35 SAN/TARY SEWER DE TA /LS 62-63 1 • DATE: MAY /966 PROJ. NO. 2 1/Oc5 6-30-6C c-,o "so/ Ore vt/ / /7? REVISED MAIN / OUTFALL 4 kt RM.C. SUBMITTED: DESIGNED REV. NO. DATE VIMMIMIMIE•41 4•4 REIM ft REVISION BY EIRIL Y. WILD & ASSOCIATES DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED: r + • , • • ° _ - , . • /". ..r) r • 3ttiLeg (Wild & oqi,lociat-E1 CONSULTING ENGINEERS DAYTONA BEACH, FLA. CLEARWATER, FLA. PAVING AND DRAINAGE PROJECT INDEX CAPE CANAVERAL0 FLORIDA SCALE: NONE 65/7-.34 SHEET NO. 2 OF/5/ FILE NO. .2/W 30 '- 0 ' t1' • 8" 2„ R •; : 3142: • - • /' 4" CONCRETE VALLEY CURB ..Sco/e : /2 ~ / - O n 2-4'4 Co,fl. 4 t6 %z •s A •• 1.- • 4• °b 6" I, MEIN/AN CURB Sco/e: /N=/=0" G =0 " SECT/O/VS 6" I I I I I I I I /`•Diu. Ho/e. for / " Spike .Dowe/ 2-a- BEACH PA"ex/NG' "1. E.4 14RRA' R CURB .5"c /2:/ a/- 0" . a• 6" /2' Spike d r• • d• d• . , •. a ` • •_ p', Ton o/lii,ished pov i, to be agave /he /ip of /he -wort Conc. Spike Down Cry/b7 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / // / / / / 0° / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Tra/l'/c .SL/7.7P' ,,riss fro pale o/ f�s Cori/i-ac/ /lv BEA Cam,/ PARif/NG 4€' A 27E74/LS Scsa /z : /" = 20 ' 4 '- G" Var. M/n. slope ,4spha/tic Concrete Surface Course - Type 1 / // " Thick S/o,..,e 4/� /fE . Slope .1/4" f'/ . Aspha// Bose COW:Se 6 "Thick 2' o" a" Thick S/abihzzd Subg/-a ' .50 Ps, B. V JO ' PA VE/WEN T RAN. fifer. S/goe 4-6" 4-a" Slope q/f. Vor S/ooe 4%// ` 20'- O " 2 �o" /o f o" 70- Alpha//ic concrete Surface 'ck•� Course - Type! /O'- o " Slope 3/8//f. 2-0 i Asphalt` Ba.s e Course 4" Thick 20' PAVEMENT �8-O" 2/fl' Nffelig Van. /Wa - Slope /f //I. 6" Thick S, obi/fired Subs},ade .50 Psi. Z3. V Slope 4/4.. 2/-9" 2/'- 9" 7_0" „ Wo/k wog • Alpha/iic Concrete Surface Course -Type I /- " Thick Slave k "//E Aspho// Base Course 4" ,4- Slope- p /4/Z//////.// 4> \\\\\/////////I////////// 6" 2„ 6 "Thic,F Slab/Aced Sub Trade 50 Psi. B. I! BEACH PAR/f/NG AREA TYP/CAL. SECT/ONS BASE B/.D Scale:/"a S=o" 4'in.S/opg ,4spha//ic. Concrete Surface Course -Type I /%"Thick S/opa 3/8 //I -- Soi/ Ce,r,arrf ease Caursc 8 "Thick 30� PAVEMENT /2/W 6"Thick Sfcbi/,zed Su6jrade 50Ps! B.V. 4' 6" S/opa -%,Q !/or. 2-0" Min. Slane / %/f 6� 20'-a" /o'-o" Asphaltic Concr¢fe Surface Course -Type/ /;ter" Thick /o '-o" S/o ,e / /f1. 7 2=o' Soi/ Cement' Bose Course 6"Thick 20 ' PAVEMENT 48 / O "R//.' _ eax. Slope /E '111I. C "Thick SEobi//red Subgrade 50 Ps/: .8. V, 4'-a" Slope 4/ff- 4" 2/'- 9 " 2/"-9" %'- o" Walkway 2„ a Asp%a//ic Cor/creie Sur/ac � 2 Course - Type / _Slope go/t". s/a, o a1,ez, 6" 2„ Soil Cement' Bose Course 6"' Thick 6"Thick Stabilized Sub-gr wade 50Ps,; B.Y. BEACl/ PARKING AREA TYP/CAL SECT/ONS - ALTERNATE B/D Scale : / = 5'- 0: N / REY, NO. qfitl DATE , 'ecor.d L7re i REVISION DESIGNED JAI BY DRAWN SUBMITTED; BRI Y, WILD 8 AS OCIATES CHECKED APPROVED: 1" .... / 'A R'u!L'.j,( V al PT CONSULTING ENGINEERS DAYTONA BEACH, FLA. 3.6.ocialE1 CLEARWATER, FLA. /7,4 V/A/6 / D.<24/4/V46 ,40LIE C7- TYp/C,'2L ��C / i�/, � Z i r4 ./2413AC C /V 4 VE"R4 41 A2 .4 /4 A at • DATE: fi'lay ,,,,•9a Ca SCAI„E:') 4,11410 PROD. NO. G/dj -° 'tliteiT NO. 41 OF /"/ E NO. .*7i.sbA roxikkg' aorc - • ... -„;-; DititiG'Net6: n'ik'w+ Y/ 77cn ECK '1* " • ""'".., " 4"4. •Aq"iof ealr'41;',e4. • $U$M 1.111W: et • ;Ao.! • , : • + 7 A *P"`"0-'3?-1111—inwri ::-.:! : .•• , .; ' * 7's ,-s,7 0.••; "..• ' ht " f ' ' ' ' ' f.:74,71r " 44, "",•• 14. ":,.1-A" ' •r." ' 444.7e `7* 7;71' -1-',`•77;4-7 7-rt , ('"1••=' e'.`" „t• „.„, 7,7, • ^ I • 4 "c.; !Z, • . t • ' ,LL 777.,, • .7„ 4, • I, 74. J /J /0 $'cyst t:arya�4e- w._ • 47: /7'68.-/G ' ee't Corrst... C. 8... T,ae ABC'-3 .E/et _ C.25„ coots. 49.1* 'Nw'/5O1V AVE. 0 Sfa:_/9.1.67. -fri `.Lt.._._ _ ..Cartst::C. B' 'pe-A IrrhE/ateoats �. /2 `Iffy Yev;' .8 o Si a: /3 / 6f- /lv ",et. : • -Coast. C 3.:Tyoe A2-3 /2' inv. E/e v. S•. 4o .::._.. . • f @ , 4d1/I5'+ee41` 11,. fi'o,, w/ */vet` , 2/oa1e C Bs= }- Ze?y4r,";:var...- Pc'.lc • ti r os • { 4/oo 5/00 'iyeeavyAlaic?k/ S/a: /4/2/-1724 Car/st. C. Typc : '2 2/'IPIY. E/ev ,2.oa f8'111r E/es= 2. /2'Irrm e/ev;5.35 'cah/s r •Sfa.;/6f58-1T'L�_. .Cor/st. C. B. Type 42 J8' Irrr! E/e.v..,2. /2'" Irnr elev.: 5. 8O. 37=/8"f'f mmoo-1cn*r mXXOO2-m „„�Moz '<7rrmm-A=-'�i < O m m m II 2 II A II N II II II II O NH)��=U)�OmO m m m T h 1 J 2f iSrodr e ' ,-t:,Zv ♦ 3 • LSAT. /f86'Lt. !Coast. Mh' �4'.Dia. 'fa' ,S' lrik. F/e✓. 9` p 111 "_W Inv. e.../a v. 2.95 Iny _E/zv.. 5.95 5/0. 2 71 27 -/7',[ t Cortst. C B ype t42-4 /5 "rrsr..e/tr 2.9 /2'Virg !icy 6.jo sia,1/89-12'L/. .i�►,rst.C.�.Tyae.• /541..imirstetivit 3 /f Sircr: Coosa el/ if'Dia. //'N. lnr. E/sr. 2.49 / /S".� 1rfr,JkE 2a'9 is W IfK E/fb ,'l. r3 t -59 /5" p', /:=. ' --,. 47. 2,'21 -23'/et. Corrsi. C. B. Type AR- 3 /2"Ir/v../er 6. -C40r751. 4 '.D/ 7. ,%calc/ 41// Loy_ :/O.'-.BKC, t. , ‘ Throv, h if/i • C!/.9kGE0 7o,CPA9. /oaf-%01 \ ..S129 -/7 Con tiles •'i/a. 24" IMK .y 2. 05 • lei" . E/ev. 15 "jet,. Elev. ✓r. Z /NCOL AA' WE 7S1a. 5f 23 -- 25'set.. Corrzt: ,C .8: Type AR-� /S"jr!/: E/Qv,' 52o /2 "d"rp. E/dY.'J. 46 - Cons/ 4'.Dia._.Jru7/c, toy. /o'-8."C,I. P. Jr- �Sfa:'-7f62-'415'tee... 41/4 rouih' ,014 WIMP 1111=111111111111s11111 ili■n.= r1111111111111w1111111 1111111111111n 11-1111111 11lw~POI ■�■��� r2r 7AWArargsallrerar%/1111WW1% "AMC muse? ■11111ra rs7A,4% - t� s-.r��J' Sri M !APPROiEC: /714 /a! 21 ., t . Cons`. C B. Type 4 e-_ ".-Zor. E/ev.. 2. 56 `I �,o'Q `�'/5/a'"'frlfrr/v E E//e.v Sa..4lo:3/.:_,. �Ir. 10 r 2 1 T- ONSULTING E G1NE RS • 114 0 0 Co n c . I%/w 0• s/Q .:81_40 -- -40115t. /W11: I'Dia,. � /2.'.I2"r. Elev. 410 .NM;�." a/''_ -km". i olf r'r 2 Al PA_�pnC' •--' :3'ta: 8f4D /g ( Coast. CO. rypel /2"Iryelev. 6.5o , ravef.�%v 450C.1, /VA/1/ AVE 1111111111MA..s'r 111•w.r111111111 --al "irTla fLjJ'Wf14rw e/d7 -eta. 80 - CDrrSI. C..o..- ,Eve ./ c/ay o/k. P/E-,ecE AVE. 111111E111111111 '�®iij ; ! '�" ■�� 1i -114111MMUli rrrr•�r :i mil i.:iiW Hai•�• M r Irr ��•.�..� d C 2/9 -_ 2/".P -' St'a. - //138 - " Consi. C B. Type A /2'//iv.E/ev 620 Nimppi. Promo r�rjr�l�JI2C4117f 1111111 -0 tt1 ♦ N B. Ai -T '.Co/7c. Mon,-N.E. Coy. Pc47se//a Ave. 8 chono,, .441ve. EL E✓. // 2/ IMMO -I a:19;54 /721: irst.C..B. Type.. Iffy. Elev..476.' 12"l ry E/eY r5, 30: /.. "pp,P _ • Grade ta? 1.- • V • gar 1111111141115-w- 4. to P.. /0/00 ea v y -6-row Sta. 20/./3 -./8 L( Cofist. C.8. Type AZ /5"In` E/ev. 90 4./5 Sta.. 20f/7 - coast. C .8. Type.'4h'- /2"fiyv E'/ev..5.25.:; DDi/f D/14' 41. • w//,1oo. 41, I 3- L to • • • 4 SEE SHEET" N= 38 • • .. F0,2 Z/irE/..5 crione 2)ETA(LS • • • • t 0! Sta. /158 - Ca/rsf. C. 8.. Type AR-3 - /2" /or E/er. 493 C ms C 8. Type ASP-9' /5" Inv. Elev. 4..99 ' /_2".frftw. E/e v 1.82 Sta. 4t7/-/7'Li. -. Const.C.B.Typ¢AE4 /8" or. E/ay..5.3G /5"{env. E/ev ..s6. /2 "Ir 1! E/eY 3.76 `1 CONSP. 243.''- /5"P/' E rs _. T -1111sWer4'imr., Y 111M11":401 .1.5 774 N.DIA R22 .4-1H Sta. /183 = .29 Cor's/. C. B. Type AR- 3 /2"ItIY. E/erg 4 82 , ✓O fV40tI ,4 1, 2-44- � 51a. 2 2 /5'.el. - tor/sr' C. B. Type ,4R-4 /5".4rv. Elev. 4. 53 /2"Jrrv. E/ev. 1.73 5/a. -4/8/- Coast. C, .B. Type AR-3 /2 "hrv. Elev. 3. gR r. /73' -Nira: As •h IAsPh O/n, 1, m S/o..S/32-/7'Lf. Coast. C. 8. Type 42- 4__ _.__ /8"Jr/v .e/er. 3. 3/ /2 "lirr. Elev.3. I79 " _ COn!.97.7- 237 - /8►.o/OE -4 :'ozst C.B. Type 1e-4 %B"hr. F/e r. - 3. /P /2".. emExer 4. 40 30' 2 /'VCOL ?V � or w /5 a0 /0 503 ti t. 0�. S'fa. 8/29 -/Y"L/ Corrsf C.,6r. Type.412-5.. 3 "Jnt! Eiev. 2.45 / "lrrr. E/sv. l . a/. CONsr Ste. /Of G4 /P Ll! Cons/. C. 40. Tyoe .4R 5 3o':%r/r. F/dg 2.54_ 235 ' /E '-�' 4 w p•..x 4 . '/ �, .'A�'r+7VI.s ,i`J'� i /"," . '. fi. _.!Li. il•-/gtAll /81' - UNaaa o+e.n..v .5/0. 5/28 -,2 ••E'E. Coast C. o. Ty e AR-3 /2" /rrr. £/er. 3.8a //eavy Brash S/o. 7/162 - /3' Rt. Coast. C.B. Type Al2-3 • - /2"I1rv. Elev. •4:50 __ .84'C/7$ A,J AYE. _ 5 .401d7riO✓L /eQ t-no va Sfo. 8 / 25 - 22',et. Coast. C.B. Type 42-3 /2 "lrry Elev. ,4.67 zp 444 03 s 5 0 -5 • or /2'` r,, ro 4.4 0/00 / 1 00 Va c .2/00. Sfv. /3/62-,/7'Lt. o 71/ Cods/. C. B. Tyne AR-4 _ 29"Prry Elev. 3. /0 /8 "Inv Elev. 3.50 East. /8"hrt! E/ar. 3.9/ No"fb CONST. 62 21" R/PE !IL 4 a ; tab _ '1 • ^ 4( Heavy !rro wit, -) Sta.431 76 -3o 'Rt. Coast" C. B. Type ,4,0- 4 /8"./overt E/ev.354 } .3/0o e/CASL SAN/TARP /N CONc•ez.74. . /4/22-)7.Cf. oo/rst C. B. Tyres A2-4 f8 Jrrr "vd v.-3. 96.; F/LLMO €.2 Avz. CO/VS; Sz wee Q; .Sfv. /6/58-/7'LE:z, Coffst C. B. Type Abe-4 /8"/lry E/ev. 4 /5 /2"Irn! E/ev. 5. 90 6'-%8" P/OE Fr41 1 G•'ic.;i Seca. /6/60 - /7'2'. Cost. C.B. Type AR-I,3 /2 "Irra Elev. 6co /5 /0 Grade 5 T 4.4 0 0 cZf "C Pa_ 0 ti /5/00 • .2I Gs riie2 / a 39 �e /0 e'cP&oo,x- Tr 2 cla 44. • 6f0o ♦ 7t 7O:, 0-- TAYLCIZ AVE. /57100 TC17. REV. NO. DATE REVISION BY DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED: co - Co Comst. C. e Type tA. • & lloataLl CONSULTING ENGINEERS co co CFI tkEL TYLER. Aft/4 4414 It FOR ZNTERSECTION _DETAILS PAV,//\10 DR A /NAGE PR eT, SHEET ND. OF/5/ PROJ. NO. FILE NO. i / 0! Sta. /158 Co/ssf. C. 8.. Type AR-3 - /2" /or Elev. 493 _: _STANDARD /Y1H h1 C ms C 8. Type ASP-4 /5" Inv. E/¢v. 4.19 ' /_2.7 Ime.. E/e v. 1.82 Sfa. 417/-/7'Lf -. Const. C.B. Type 4E 4 /8" or. E/ay..5.3G /5"{env. E/ev. ..56, /2"I1 1!E/eY3.76 `1 CONSP. 245'- /5"P/PE", T 4) 2- vNOE,¢ a.¢ q I N Y 1- �.._�►> Sta. /183_ .29 Cor's/. C. B. Type AR- 3 /2"Itn'. E/erg 4 BZ ✓ON A/ '0tI _4 1/� . 2-4 - 1, 51a. 2 & /5'.et. - tor/sr' c.. B. Type ,4R-4 /5"Jirv. Elev. 4. 53 /2"Jrw. E/ev. 1.73 5/a. -4/8/- Cons/. C, .B. Type AR-3 /2 "Inv. Elev. 3. gR r. /73' - ,char a As -h IAsPh O/n/ 2 /'VCOL A/ � or w /5 a0 /0 1/44 503 ti t. 1, S/o..S/32-/7'ze. COMst. C. B. Type A/e.- 9_ _..__ /8"Ir/v .e/er. 3. 3/ /2 "hrr. E/ay. 3. 79 : _ • 4.0ffst C.B. Type 1e-4 %B"hr. F/e r. - 3. /P ".Tare Eve r 4. 40 30' C01YS4_ /5'-'i' " �%� `���� c. v ., "• l 2-5j /a� = vyae� �► ...a����7�1 �1 mascavaisiougamo �...iC11151 aiSisi [ii k le qM ... 77;/...'y.�7'„r^. pt7V - � • � r ti ��.!'!+-R..'���'�Y,-'�,1� �. .�:bIW , s----- F ..e.-- `__ 0�. -5/a. 8/29 Corrsf. C. , 6r. 4'A' d.€- .?.. 3 "Jnt! E/er. 2.45 / "finE/sr. 1.a/. 5/`er /Of G4 Cons1. C. 40. Tyne' .4•� ✓r 3o':%r/r. E/dr 2.54_ COn!.s7:".237 - -a- /B4e'-v eaaa0RC, 4 5/a.. 5/28 -2 ' RE. Coast C. o. Ty e AR-3 /2" ./mv, lE'/a'y 3 80 //eavy 6r6/sh S/o.7/162-/5'RI. C0)s/. C.B. Type AR-3 /2"Inrv. Elev. 4:50 .. __ CDNsr .8G'C/7 $ ''ArJ AYE _ 5 235 ' /.E .T267r10✓L /ea "no va 51a. 8125 .- 22',e2. Coast. C.B. Type 4R-3 /2 "!r/v Elev. ,4. S7 zp IMMO 03 5 0 -5 or a__ D ro 0/00 h o. es 4 me- / 1 00 Va c ,2/00. Sfv. /3/62-,/7'Lt. o 71/ lofts, C. B. Tyne AR-4 _ 24"Irrv. Elev. 3. /0 /8 "Ink Elev. 3.50 Ease'. /8 "hr v. Zia v. 3.9/ No' f. b CO/V57 62. 24." R/PE • a ; tab _le •--- 4 Heavy !rro wit, -) Sta.431 76 -30 'Rt. Coast:` C. B. Type 4- 4 /8"./overt E/ev.354 } .3100 f>loo /0 cia • Kcy 6 7400 no- ENCAS.e SAN/74RY /N Cewc•zer4- . /4,i22-)7,Lf. o o/rst C. B. Tyre AR-4 Fitt_ MOI€ 2 QvE. CONS; M Se wee /6/58-/7'LE:z, Coast: C. B. Type ,4 e-4 /8"/rra E/ev. 4 /5 /2"Ir.r! E/ev. 5. 90 6'-%8" P/oE .;es 1 G .'ic.;1 L'" S/a. /6/60 - /7:et.11 Co»st.C.r3.Type AR,3 /2 ")a Elev. coG /5 /0 Grade @ 5 T ti Gs1wee /D, _9 �e 0 0 , /5/00 • .2I TC17. ialoo REV. NO. DATE REVISION BY DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED: Eiy) co eonst. C. B. Type .4 42 -4 C50/17as. 1./9C,/ /3". .iypi7;1-4112. -4 /217 7.: Eheri4 05 . N94:57: 2 36 /-- 7.3" P/P 7 - A Corlst. C. B. Type Ale-3 /9/00 & lloataLl CONSULTING ENGINEERS co co 2/700 • .27 TYL Ede Aft/4 It It PROJ. NO. FILE NO. • N C.rrc. S/.y S/lae DA/ ecc • N /4.5TI ON.d4UT • re/ Ai* Sfa�� 59.E M. . oc..S/rv' CITY f/ALL See Shee/ No. 37 For //7 /er-.s e c /ion Det /t SLv . Brash //eavy Ql-a.vff, T•� See Shee / No. 38 For /nfer.section De/oil. • Po/N8-77'4 4v 0 ' 'u W.M n 7 0 M s\ , F— . vrM 4. 01 See Shee/ No .39 • • 1/4 /6.2aaffs.L v.e.z*13/e.TVv.P.er.1-P 1„N • • /5 /0 5 - 1! O 11 1 I I 7I'7 c"7v,tois 4 411 q) Cry c6—c6 al r. stir -61 • 0/00 / / OO Asp,. Ash F'r�rk',ris� -0' -she// •,) gyp• �, Ci --f et? See Shee/ No. 40 For /n 7'e/ s ec%ion Oe/oi/, I-r 41 e 4Q N"4L/.4 rd v-" 3/Oo G "' r' W/1 ,,,.;�,.1._......___. j . Cerro w f% /5 N /s0(iZ74O. /116 t\ r /5 • 11 14) / 51/ •,/ ;Iffy ce:w7 id!! 41; ,1) 971,2 e,,,,f7 /0 EX /:5,. 8-S1446 See Sheet No. 42 /0 5 • // tcl • NOT PRINTED FROM • 0 • IMMO teis 41. • I Ai er REV. NO. DATE • A e7/-o" REVISION BY 49/00 DESIGNED DRAWN \CHECKED i. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: /4900 IS !MILE": WILD ASS CIATIES /5/00 .,StrifEy, (Witcl 11.0a1,C1L5..i CONSULTING ENGINEERS -f • WES eRINT NM MADE MOM PREPARED BY BRILEY Wit 0 kEREBY DISCLAIM. tn PA / e 2:).? A / IV A G PRI 0 44E4' r /0 (71:1 USE by ciTFERS. insmimolot • SHEET NO. Re OF 457 PROJ. NO. FILE NO. 467 B ■ 11 0 a0 0 01 .I ¢,✓ I1/, Th ,s2S20000Q� 1' Sha;✓ o,'w 1 � 9s/P%, ZY/A,, ..4 7 FzONA(/ r B.L. . .4s-1a17. Par-kir) S/9„ /7'eq y y G row f' h t Ash . Wks/ 1 S/q t • r See Sheef No, sr For /r7 fersecfion .Oe/oi/. o✓>r C..;raw fh C I) •� I c g. Q5e ti 7)? A_s ph. ' f31ci�. See Sheef No. se For /n/er-secfion De/ail. Po/ ivs6-rr.4 AVE /5 0 INS — etifs • /0 /5 /5 CN -AO . ,= ' 4 --, 1/40 07400 0° N 2/00 7-As 5/7, Prfcrr, ,4,o/ 8/ i'9. See Sheef No. 40 For /Afer-sec/ ioo .De/oi/. /W 4 QN/CL /,q Ave- 3o'k' 3/40 l h 4 /00 0 Heo v y Grow th ;v Graor/ h. CO /74. to Z3(4:51: 81:S7Lub /ice E/ev. 2.25 57100 See Sbeel No, 4/ D /0 8100 1111111/11 "WNW i I Ti�iGl� a MEIN -s /0 a"m' sommoi IMO maillinsgmem ■ MINN MEIN MEM \MINN MOM MN iiiiitI _011FPZWICII Min 111111 AMMO. / •G ACVri6:acs MEM NMI MIME OMNI Mil- EMI OM INN IN NM MEM PIN 111111111111111 1111111111111 MEMO EMU 111 111111111111111... REV. NO. DATE REVISION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED SUBMITTED: APPROVED: /5/00 t. ill CH: ES, REPR ENTA ONS, QR U BY HERS. 111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 moolosi mormummon 1111111111MIPMEAMMINEWI • Errarmermamommi NI Mil wasounitriosom 111101111111 . HERE 11111111 111111111111111111 • • .rel 0(2 7.1 eq, 20/00 23/00 21/00 IT vti ifd OCIaLl CONSULTING ENGINEEiRS P mv6 DR A /./VAGE PRotiEcr ./.4,\f/Lio,Q 4 VE N'1.1E PROJ. NO. FILE NO. 0 Isph. a/w -4A A.5T.RON.4 CI T BL VD. ,1 Grade el -LOX, 00 ti 30',e SIo,a SipO /4 P ant .,/an ler' 4sph, �bv -7:._.�.• See Shee/ No. $ 7 For /n/er.secfion De/oil. 00 Oro w 74h AsPh. Porkir79 0 0 Bed"c--~. "i4._. l See Shee/ No. 38 For- /ntersec/km Defo:/, PomisETT,4 ,l/E /5 A Grade V. 20 EXPLORE OPTION OF BRINGING IN FLOW FROM EAST TO WEST /1eo vy Grow Co��c. 8/dy, Apt 4 �/; Conc. R�'6bon D/w "s -' 1' t `�%vv�� 4 11 r Bed 1 t� WM . N.M. 0 3. bbon D/w, ` . See Shee/ No. 39 For- /n/ersecfion De/oi/ g Gra�ye e -o.60% �` (Trade' - a,Ro / 0,2i4/V' QE 4VE ,d Grade -/" 76 ' o -Sto. ///25` /i°"L1.. Coast. C. 13. 7kpe A-3. /2'J»v. E//1Y 1. /2 -` /Yea v y rnwfh 72' / qv/sr 7.51-1 00 M A3ph. f'arls/.�,q /PE __. Sta. /// 2.� - /5 "Rt Coast: C. B. Type 4-4 /8 a. ".frElev. 3.62 /2'lrly. Elev. 4.02 G,ndegfa0/o/ • v /0 • t • k • 5-0` v.c. a ct. ti ro ti e1 i�- 116- S 0 IMMO • -5 r o° • • • • • o h • aMP r /5 4. Loirdr • Sort,Zurt( Z`o c ear .Siprrrr Se .,S¢WQr RiQr /0, T /4- 0/00 /mma 2100 3/00 4/00 • Ns cr 8/00 • • 9/00 /2/00 N • Ile • 41/aonfinen 8/dy. Co/YST..2 2'-/8"P..a�1(4 /WAQA/OL A. AVE' Sta. /4/42-/5'Rt. Coast. iYlor'ho/e ¢ '.17io. a /nr. E/ev. 4457 Oracle [ia f O. 40 r. /S ti to os 3. 7417 -4 10 See Shee74 No- 4/ • 3. • • ktk Thq • • • BY OMERS NIS7LfirlitC° a. REV. CIO. //es DATE Frame/n REVISfON rrf r f� BY l0 war- is f _ . onJ/Qr�r SQ r�,•ar .S'47r /C175 a c/am- S'_ arra7 .5¢w,r ree- 1 DRAWN 14401 \ APPROVED; Azr — VI 1 • IMP • CYR122INA TRACING /0 ODUCIBLE • 111 er tte- - FLA. AshOuiAl ES -OR INPOIIMAT N CONTAINED CHANGES, MIS DATE:, Nay PILE, NO. 154) 45 s�di/ Z'/w ow N B/d9 See Sheet No. 37 elfzyn„ for /n tersecfion De/oi/. A.s `7"RONAll Z3z_VD 0 V / 40 WMI WA/ u 4ry toeQ o(k Bldg u � L ►VM .010 Coat. 8/k ' I ''Q .nd 8o»I _ x I —L '• I,) B/d9 M;W�Mf Sfo. 5.25 Consir ✓,nc/ MA 4 22/ a. toy /O'-8"C. /. P. Son. Thr•ou9h. See Sheef No. 38 For' /nfersecfion Oe/a'/ I Pe/A/s -rrA 1/4 VE. r-1 Curb laW.M - y;M OCarpbrl� Cor?c,_Sf�✓ Bidq. it o k. B/of. i- 1 re rat tVol B/d4. B/da. See Sheel No. 39 for /n /e r-sec/ion De/ail ORANQE A /E. C fi C. • /,P. r crr.:}s1 /5 N is 5 Groo4&-/,5 ye 6r-2c7 C' - 0. 36 Vo �I /5 — .o_ !i 0 -04 4 • 0 CI1 007 _-5 07100 //OD 2/00 3/00 -/00 L f N S. 15 ca e See Sheef No. 4,0 d6mr4, Z'OP �o V .a. 4 /¢/00 w �� ' /5/00 Conc. 5 /+W FM- • /8/oo [ 7 r"n dP_ Cam' NJ N "? 2 Gh © 9/00 /3/00 See Sheef For- /rn /er--secAion Oe/c'i/. o av A Os edyph 1 Q 0 11 ; 4=4— -44 0.20 eh -4 11111.11.1 PA RT ON. INFORMATION FURIWSHE9 NOT PR1NTEC FROM ORIGINAL TPAC1NG OF AN ORIGINAL DRAWING AND ASSOCIATE'S, INC. BRILEY, WILD AND ASSOCIATES, 14P RF RV- NV: AIMS ANY ON .11-3 PRINT DUE "-0 REWSIONS, OR USE BY 0-HERS. r c, . 1 DESIGNED i SUBMITTED: 1 i /T/ }' 1/8/a, 4J 15..ociatEl • PAW A/ 1/4 1PROJ. NO. REV. NO. DATE REVISION BY CHECKED APPROVED: , rtLLE L 'I CONSULTING' INGINEERS DAYTONA' BEACH, FLA. .Y VENUE SCALE: /41zo-fel" OF /57 SHEEV NO. ;q9 FILE NO. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX B Stormwater Map of City of Cape Canaveral VI • . ottz , •.t W E MANATEE BAY LONG POINT COLUMBIA URCN 4 ,p + A • NE\ f f � tMAD SON JACKSONd Ih STORMWATER MAP- -' ij of CAPE CANAVERAL Legend ▪ Outfall ▪ Baffle Box Central Basin Canaveral Basin International Basin Center Basin Holman Basin 0 150 3p_ 000 000 1,200 eel KEm SAGO CARVER CARVER RIVERSIDE ARNO HITCHING POST RITCHIE COCOA PALMS RATTAN SAR AL LUNA 2 O GAPE SHORES 1 'L]ipaRn HARBOR COCOA �aV SEAPORT T BEACH PAR CORAL • a 1 • 1 gw • ? T M UVE OAK X T� OCEAN WOOD wVI IAI LANTANA a 1::!: FISH T i>:..A CHANDLER ' CHERIE DOWN z WASHINGTON _ JEFFERSON MONROE ISON TYLER ;. POLK rwr * TAYLOR fI ILLMORE ItIERCE LINGOLN HAYES GARFIELD ARTHUR WI f CLEVELAND 0 KINLEY r MERIDIAN AZURE TAFT WILSON HARDING BARLOW 11 HE Y PULSIPHER LINDSEY 1 'sr a Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX C `Stormwater Report for Center Street Basin' by Mead and Hunt pnrn,RFD BY Mead 611 lunt INAL REP•R STORMWATER REPORT for CENTER STREET BASIN IMPROVEMENTS Andrew M. Giannini, P.E. FL Reg 46601 April 2022 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PArur-sPn(rnir In the summer of 2021, the City of Cape Canaveral, Florida encountered two (2) significant, short -duration rainfall events which produced 2.8 — 3.0 inches of rainfall in one hour. The resulting rainfall runoff from these storm events caused capacity exceedances to the existing stormwater management system within the Center Street basin, and several commercial and residential areas experienced excessive roadway flooding (maximum flood depths of —9 — 12 inches). These high -intensity, short -duration storm events are becoming more frequent and are increasingly a problem for residents. As such, the City of Cape Canaveral (City) is interested in developing improvement projects for proactive flood management within the basin. OBJECTIVES The City contracted Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) in August 2021 to evaluate the existing Center Street basin stormwater management system. The objective of the evaluation is to establish a calibrated hydraulic model representative of actual conditions observed during the storm events encountered in Summer 2021 and develop potential improvement projects to address and mitigate flooding in critical locations identified. Tasks completed during basin review included data collection, existing conditions review, preparation of a calibrated hydraulic model to match existing conditions, existing model analysis, development of conceptual design projects, conceptual design model analysis, and final development of recommendations for conceptual projects based on model results and City feedback. The projects established in this report will provide the City with several improvement project options and includes cost and permitting considerations. Note, it was assumed that information provided by the City and/or obtained via public online databases is representative of actual conditions (i.e. design storms, topography, etc.). ANALYSIS/RESULTS The existing conditions model and conceptual design models were developed using the critical storm conditions from Summer 2021 and modeled using the Florida Department of Transportation 1-hour design storm (FDOT-1) for short -duration storm analysis, and the Florida Modified (FLMOD) design storm for long -duration storm analysis. Three (3) storm events were used for analysis including the critical 1-hour storm event (3.0 inches/1 hour), the mean -annual storm event (5.5 inches/24 hours), and the 10-year storm event (8.0 inches/24 hours). A total of nine (9) subbasin locations were identified within the Center Street basin which exhibited flooding in both the critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events: • Atlantic Avenue/Johnson Avenue • Fillmore Avenue • Fillmore Avenue/Poinsetta Avenue • Fillmore Avenue/Ridgewood Avenue • Johnson Avenue/Ridgewood Avenue • Lincoln Avenue/Orange Avenue • Lincoln Avenue/Ridgewood Avenue • Orange Avenue/Polk Avenue • Poinsetta Avenue/Polk Avenue Note, for the purpose of existing and conceptual model development, subbasin "flooding" was any subbasin with pooling above existing inlets and/or within the roadway. Only a portion of each subbasin location identified will experience flooding along roadways, and flooding does not typically impact buildings (homes or businesses). CHAI,I FAIGFS The existing Center Street basin has several challenges for development of improvements including existing infrastructure, rainfall patterns, receiving water conditions, and general topography. The existing stormwater system for the Center Street basin was constructed in 1966 and includes a series of collection and conveyance storm pipe networks which discharge to a single outfall into the Banana River. The system has had minimal upgrades since construction, and the City has become highly developed with minimal space for additional detention storage. Changes in rainfall patterns within the region have caused an increase in short -duration, high -intensity storm events which cause capacity exceedances within the Center Street stormwater management system. These capacity exceedances result in increased flood risk along local roadways within the basin. The existing outfall has been constructed with an invert pipe elevation at Elevation -3.81 ii feet NAVD while the Banana River tidal elevation fluctuates from Elevation 0.00 — 1.00 feet NAVD. This results in a constant build-up of water within the existing stormwater system, reducing the effective capacity of the system during storm events. The Center Street basin includes highly impervious land cover with very flat, low gradient topography. In several low -point areas, stormwater runoff collects from the surrounding roadways and pools until the downstream piping and outfall are clear of water during heavy rainfall. RECOMMENDATIONS Mead & Hunt has prepared short-term and long-term recommendations based on model analysis and ongoing meetings with City staff. The short-term goal for flood mitigation within the Center Street basin is to construct new, permanent facilities within the existing stormwater system to provide and proactive flood management during heavy rainfall events. It is recommended that the City construct a new stormwater pump station near the system outfall to assist with runoff evacuation. The system will serve to discharge stormwater via a new pump and will provide base flow treatment via retrofitting the existing baffle box with BAM filter media. Estimated Construction Cost =—$760,000 It is also recommended that an outfall backflow prevention valve be constructed at the outfall to Banana River to reduce tidal inflows and maintain capacity within the system. The backflow prevention device will separate tidal flows from the existing stormwater system. Estimated Construction Cost =—$175,000 The long-term goal for flood mitigation within the Center Street basin is to construct new improvements to the existing stormwater system via pipe size upgrades and additional detention storage as funding is available. Based on conceptual modeling, several upstream pipe connections are at capacity and are recommended for upsizing. Pipe improvements include upsizing the primary trunkline of the system (Center Street, Buchanan Avenue) and secondary pipe branch lines which service critical areas of flooding (Poinsetta Avenue, Orange Avenue, Ridgewood Avenue). Construction of pipe upsizing is recommended to be completed in a two (2) phase approach: iii Phase I considers improvements to the existing system achieved via upgrades to the primary trunkline piping only, which serves to convey stormwater runoff from upstream subbasins towards Banana River. Improvement to this trunkline piping will expand capacity and reduce peak flood stages and durations by maintaining downstream tailwater conditions. Estimated Construction Cost = —$1.1 M — $1.3M Phase II considers improvements to secondary pipe branchlines, as -needed, to address flooding at critical upstream locations. Improvements to secondary trunklines will provide location specific pipe upsizing to mitigate peak flood stages in critical flood locations identified via hydraulic modeling and discussions with the City. Estimated Construction Cost = —$3.5M — $4.0M It is recommended that detention areas be established, as possible, to provide additional storage capacity in critical upstream locations. Due to the City's highly developed downtown, there is limited space for this additional storage. As such, it is recommended that detention storage be established via below grade infiltration chambers or trenches. These storage chambers should be constructed along beach access cul-de-sacs and other critical roadside areas to capture and infiltrate runoff, and can be incorporated into short-term and long-term projects Estimated Construction Cost = $1.5M — $3.0M iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Introduction 1 2. Background 1 3. Existing Conditions 2 3.1 Data Collection 2 3.2 Existing Model Calibration 2 3.3 Existing Model Results 4 3.4 Model Validation 5 4. Conceptual Project Development 6 4.1 Model Sensitivity Analysis 6 4.2 Conceptual Design Projects 8 4.2.1 Conceptual Design Project #1 9 4.2.2 Conceptual Design Project #2 12 4.2.3 Conceptual Design Project #3 15 4.2.4 Conceptual Design Project #4 17 4.2.5 Conceptual Design Project #5 19 4.3 Project Comparison 21 4.4 Additional Considerations 23 4.4.1 Pump Station on Center Street 23 b. i-'&Ili'Rung 24 6. Cost Estimate 24 7. Recommendations 25 APPENDICES A. REPORT FIGURES FIGURE Al — CENTER STREET BASIN DRAINAGE MAP FIGURE A2 — EXISTING NODAL DIAGRAM FIGURE A3 — OVERLAND WEIR DIAGRAM FIGURE A4 — EXISTING BASIN FLOODING (CRITICAL 1-HOUR STORM) FIGURE A5 — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #1 FIGURE A6 — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #2 FIGURE A7 — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #3 FIGURE A8 — CONCEPTUAL PROJECT #1 SUBBASIN FLOODING (CRITICAL 1- HOUR STORM) FIGURE A9 — CONCEPTUAL PROJECTS #2-4 SUBBASIN FLOODING (CRITICAL 1- HOUR STORM) FIGURE A10 — CONCEPTUAL PROJECT #5 SUBBASIN FLOODING (CRITCIAL 1- HOt /P STORM) B. EXISTING MODEL C. MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS D. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECTS Introduction This report is provided to evaluate existing drainage conditions within the Center Street basin in Cape Canaveral, Florida, and provide recommendations for improvement projects to reduce flooding within project area. The report summarizes the methodologies used to develop conceptual projects for drainage improvements to the Center Street basin including data collection, existing model development, conceptual project design, proposed model development, construction costs, permitting considerations, and recommendations for project implementation. An overview of the existing project evaluation area is shown in Figure 1 (see Figure Al, Appendix A). Rarkrsrni inr' In the summer of 2021, the City encountered two critical short -duration, intense rainfall events, as summarized in Table 1, which caused excessive flooding within the Center Street basin community. This flooding causes roadways and some properties in flat, low-lying areas of the basin to experience flooding which disrupts traffic flow, though homes are typically unaffected (see Figure 2). FIGURE 1 - CENTER STREET BASIN STORMWATER SYSTEM FIGURE 2 - PHOTOGRAPH OF FLOODING DURING STORM EVENT ON JUNE 13, 2021 In an effort to assess the Center Street basin stormwater system capacities and mitigate excess flooding, the City has contracted Mead & Hunt, Inc. (Mead & Hunt) to provide engineering services for modeling of existing Center Street stormwater infrastructure, and development of recommendations for conceptual improvement projects for the City's consideration. TABLE 1 — CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL PEAK RAINFALL EVENTS (SUMMER 2021)1 Record Date Duration (hours) Rainfall (inches) 2.8 3.0 'Rainfall information was provided by the City of Cape Canaveral and based on local rain gauge data. Rainfall (inches/hour) 12.8 19.2 This report provides a summary of all efforts completed in review of the Center Street basin. A conceptual model has been developed to represent conditions experienced during the peak rainfall events in Summer 2021. This model was used as the basis for development of recommendations for improvements to the existing Center Street basin stormwater system. 1 Existing Conditions The subject basin is highly developed and has a mixture of commercial and residential areas near the coast. Several large sections of the Center Street basin are occupied by multi -story, multi -family residential communities or commercial businesses adjacent to the roadways. This mixture of historical topography with near - capacity development results in some temporary pooling of water within critical subbasin `sink' areas for up to several hours (see Figure 3). An Interconnected Channel and Pond Routing v.4.0 (ICPR4) model has been developed by Mead & Hunt to represent the existing stormwater infrastructure and conditions encountered during the two major storm events described above. This section provides an overview of the methodology and results of the ICPR4 model. Development of the model included data collection and review, model calibration, and preparation of results. FIGURE 3 - POOLING WATER ON FILLMORE AVENUE FOLLOWING A CRITICAL STORM EVENT (SUMMER 2021). 3.1 Data Collection Mead & Hunt completed an initial data collection and review period prior to model development. Data collection included obtaining the following information from the City and/or publicly available online databases (i.e. FDEP, SJRWMD): • As -Built Records • Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs) • GIS Shapefiles • Historical Photos • Property Information On October 1, 2021, a site visit was performed to review the Center Street basin topography and conduct field inspections of existing stormwater infrastructure. During the site visit, two (2) interviews were conducted with residents on Fillmore Avenue which provided additional insights to local flooding. The residents indicated that during rainfall events water pools within the Fillmore area, spending several hours pooled as if in `queue' for conveyance. This information was used in review of the existing and proposed conditions models. 3.2 Existing Model Calibration The stormwater model for the Center Street basin was developed via desktop review of the existing inlet subbasins and confirmed via field inspection. Existing inlets were reviewed for criticality and consolidated to represent major storage areas based on topographic and roadway breakpoints, typically at roadway intersections. A total of 39 subbasin `nodes' were developed in the model to represent these critical storage inlets or structures, as shown in Figure A2 (see Appendix A). An additional 8 `nodes' were included to represent manholes at critical connections and trunklines to evaluate these areas for 2 any major variance in hydraulic grade conditions. A total of 48 `links' were established to represent existing stormwater pipe connections between basins and the outfall to Banana River as shown in Figure A2 (see Appendix A). The links were setup to account for friction losses (n = 0.012) encountered throughout the existing stormwater system, at inlets/outlets, and trunklines where several bends may occur over a short distance resulting in notable changes to hydraulic flow. Weir link connections were also established, as shown in Figure A3 (see Appendix A) between basin segments at roadway breakpoints to represent overland flows that occur between these storage areas during periods of heavier rainfall. Historical photos of rainfall conditions (see Figure 4), along FIGURE 4 - FILLMORE AVENUE DURING A CRITICAL 1-HOUR STORM EVENT (SUMMER 2021). Fillmore Avenue were analyzed and compared to rainfall and topographic data to approximate subbasin peak elevations along this roadway. Based on desktop review and confirmed via modeling, Fillmore Avenue from Orange Avenue to Magnolia Avenue encounters a flood depth of eight to twelve inches (8 to 12 inches) during periods of heavy rainfall. Based on the encountered rainfall depth, adjustments to pipe roughness coefficients were made to account for potential debris build-up or flow restrictions within existing system pipes which may contribute to reduced flows in the system. The completed model was calibrated based on simulation of the two recent rainfall events encountered. Various storm events were assessed using the total rainfalls for each event, including Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), Florida Modified (FLMOD), and standard Soil Conservation Service (SCS) rainfall distribution curves which established a baseline of changes to the hydraulic grade line (HGL) throughout the system for each storm. Note, the FDOT 1-Hour storm event was determined to be the rainfall event which most closely aligned with historical rainfall conditions, and is used as the basis for existing model and proposed conceptual model results. Note, Volusia County 2007 LIDAR was used to establish spatial parameters within the ICPR model for the purpose of conceptual review of existing and proposed basin conditions. The critical (minimum) top elevation of inlets for each subbasin, as determined from as -built records, were used as the basis for warning stages to quantify flooding outside of the existing stormwater system. These inlets are typically located at low -points along the roadway within each subbasin, and roadways will begin to flood outside of the inlet when stormwater runoff exceeds the capacity of the conveyance system. Note, in several subbasins the minimum inlet top elevation exceeds the minimum roadway elevation based on existing as -built records. These subbasins include Atlantic/Johnson, Atlantic/Pierce, Fillmore/Poinsetta, Fillmore/Ridgewood, Johnson/Ridgewood, and Lincoln/Ridgewood. It is likely that some water will pool in these areas regardless of peak stage conditions. A final discharge stage of Elevation 1.0' (NAVD88) for the Banana River outfall was established as the final discharge for the system. This stage is based on recent United States Geologic Survey gauge data for the Haulover Canal (02248380) coincident with the time frame of the major June 13, 2021 rainfall event. 3 3.3 Existing Model Results Peak stage condition results for subbasins which flood above existing drainage inlets are summarized in Table 2 for the critical 1-hour storm event. Figure 5 (see Figure A4, Appendix A) provides a visual representation of subbasins which exhibit some roadway peak stage flooding beyond 1/2 of the minimum roadway elevation. Note, highlighted areas are meant to visualize areas of concern only, and only a portion of the subbasin will flood. Additional peak stage results for the mean -annual (MA- 24HR) and 10-year (10YR-24HR) storm events are provided in Appendix B and summarized in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. FIGURE 5 - EXISTING SUBBASINS WITH FLOODING (1-HOUR STORM) A total of fifteen (16) subbasins have been identified which flood above the minimum inlet elevation during the critical one -hour and/or 24-hour storm events. Eight (8) of these subbasins had peak flood stage elevations that exceeded 1/2 of the roadway in all storm events. These subbasins are considered most critical and include Atlantic/Johnson, Fillmore, Fillmore/Ridgewood, Johnson Ridgewood, Lincoln/Orange, Lincoln/Ridgewood, Orange/Polk, and Poinsetta/Polk. The remaining 8 subbasins experience flooding in at least two (2) storm events and are considered sub -critical. These subbasins do not flood in the critical one -hour and/or MA- 24HR storm events; however, flooding occurs during the 10YR-24HR storm event. Node (Subbasin) ABL _- EXIST' ®,., r -.,.I * _ � . .S. g _ ,. •._ r, Less than Type StageWarnin (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) equal to 1/2r Roadway? jN) - N Atlantic/Johnson Critical 7.60 8.34 - 0.74 Atlantic/Pierce Subcritical 7.80 7.81 0.01 Y Buchanan/Orange N Subcritical 6.99 6.74 0.00 Y Buchanan/Orange S Subcritical 6.99 6.58 0.00 Y Fillmore Critical 6.40 7.17 0.77 N Fillmore/Poinsetta Subcritical 7.80 7.93 0.13 N Fillmore/Ridgewood Critical 7.04 6.95 0.00 N Johnson/Orange Subcritical 7.15 7.06 0.00 Y Johnson/Ridgewood Critical 7.70 7.87 0.17 N Lincoln/Orange Critical 6.15 6.81 0.66 N Lincoln/Ridgewood Critical 7.77 7.35 0.00 N Magnolia/Taylor Subcritical 7.65 7.57 0.00 Y Orange/Polk Critical 6.90 7.07 0.17 N Pierce/Poinsetta Subcritical 8.01 7.92 0.00 Y Poinsetta/Polk Critical 7.75 8.08 0.33 N Poinsetta/Taylor Subcritical 8.22 8.01 0.00 Y 1 Flood durations are expressed to the nearest 0.5 hours and represent approximate time above warning stages for each critical subbasin identified. 4 r ?! '1:1114KE : E.1tr18ICIU a:E:11fiXe141:181dAkM:aLldATZ-61:4.)tr•l ld� Node (Subbasin) Warning Type Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Less than or Flood Depth equal to 1/2 (feet) Roadway? L (Y/N) Atlantic/Johnson Critical _ _ 7.60 8.23 1 0.63 N Atlantic/Pierce Subcritical � 7.80 7.72 0.00 Y Buchanan/Orange N Subcritical 6.99 6.47 0.00 Y Buchanan/Orange S Subcritical 6.99 6.32 0.00 Y Fillmore Critical 6.40 7.18 0.78 N Fillmore/Poinsetta Subcritical 7.80 7.88 0.08 Y Fillmore/Ridgewood Critical 7.04 6.81 0.00 N Johnson/Orange Subcritical 7.15 7.05 0.00 Y Johnson/Ridgewood Critical 7.70 7.86 0.16 N Lincoln/Orange Critical 6.15 6.79 0.64 N Lincoln/Ridgewood Critical 7.77 7.36 0.00 N Magnolia/Taylor Subcritical 7.65 7.58 0.00 Y Orange/Polk Critical 6.90 7.05 0.15 N Pierce/Poinsetta Subcritical 8.01 7.88 0.00 Y Poinsetta/Polk Critical 7.75 8.15 0.40 N Poinsetta/Taylor Subcritical 8.22 8.04 0.00 Y 1Flood durations are expressed to the nearest 0.5 hours and represent approximate time above warning stages for each critical subbasin identified. au TABLE 4 - EXISTING PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (10YR-24H "" STORM) Node (Subbasin) Type Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 1/2 Roadway? (Y/N) Atlantic/Johnson Critical 7.60 8.58 0.98 N Atlantic/Pierce Subcritical 7.80 8.29 0.49 N Buchanan/Orange N Subcritical 6.99 7.26 0.27 N Buchanan/Orange S Subcritical 6.99 7.26 0.27 N Fillmore Critical 6.40 7.81 1.41 N Fillmore/Poinsetta Subcritical 7.80 8.35 0.55 N Fillmore/Ridgewood Critical 7.04 7.58 0.54 N Johnson/Orange Subcritical 7.15 7.30 0.15 Y Johnson/Ridgewood Critical 7.70 8.11 0.41 N Lincoln/Orange Critical 6.15 7.28 1.13 N Lincoln/Ridgewood Critical 7.77 8.01 0.24 N Magnolia/Taylor Subcritical 7.65 7.93 0.28 N Orange/Polk Critical 6.90 7.66 0.76 N Pierce/Poinsetta Subcritical 8.01 8.34 0.33 Y Poinsetta/Polk Critical 7.75 8.39 0.64 N Poinsetta/Taylor Subcritical 8.22 8.38 0.16 N 1Flood durations are expressed to the nearest 0.5 hours and represent approximate time above warning stages for each critical subbasin identified. 3.4 Model Validation In January 2022, Mead & Hunt coordinated a general third -party review of the model by Streamline Technologies, the company which developed the ICPR software, to validate existing model input and identify areas of improvement. A subsequent discussion was conducted between Mead & Hunt and Streamline Technologies staff on January 21, 2022, which identified several best practices for use in conceptual model development and review. 5 4. Conceptual Project Development Conceptual projects were developed for the Center Street basin based on discussions with the City, existing model results, and design analysis. The methodology used for project development are described in this section and include model sensitivity analysis, conceptual design analysis, conceptual model results, and conceptual project comparison. 4.1 Model Sensitivity Analysis To assess the efficiency of the existing stormwater model and prepare for conceptual model development, model sensitivity analysis were established based on potential design improvements. A total of four (4) design scenarios were considered as described in Table 5 including a storm pump station, pipe capacity increases, cross -drain connections between adjacent unconnected streets, and a combination. Conceptual results for model sensitivity analysis are provided in Appendix C. TABLE 5 — MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Scenario Design Type Scenario 1 Pump Station Description Tailwater elevation set to outfall pipe invert; stormwater system starting water elevation set to Banana River max tide elevation (1.0' NAVD88). Scenario 2 Pipe Capacity Tailwater elevation and stormwater system starting water elevation set to Banana River max tide elevation (1.0' NAVD88); double pipe for entire stormwater system. Scenario 3 Cross -Drains Scenario 4 Tailwater elevation and stormwater system starting water elevation set to Banana River max tide elevation (1.0' NAVD88); stormwater system interconnected via cross -drain connections. Combination (All) Tailwater elevation set to outfall pipe invert; stormwater system starting water elevation set to Banana River max tide elevation (1.0' NAVD88); double pipe upstream of outfall and stormwater system cross -drain interconnections. Table 6 provides an overview of improvement via the four (4) design scenarios. Peak stage conditions were evaluated for each scenario, results were compared to existing conditions, and it was determined if the design provided a reduction in flooding. Note, peak stage elevations of flooding less than or equal to one-half (1/2) of the roadway were considered to be improved. Flood depths at or below this elevation will help maintain a portion of the roadway open for vehicular traffic. 6 TABLE 6 — MODEL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY Node (Subbasin) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Atlantic/Johnson V Atlantic/Pierce V V V V Buchanan/Orange N V V V V Buchanan/Orange S V V V V Fillmore Fillmore/Poinsetta V V V V Fillmore/Ridgewood V V Johnson/Orange V V V V Johnson/Ridgewood V V V Lincoln/Orange Lincoln/Ridgewood V V Magnolia/Taylor V V V V Orange/Polk V V V Pierce/Poinsetta V V V V Poinsetta/Polk V V V Poinsetta/Taylor V V V V IIIII (✓) = Peak stage flood elevation less than or equal to one-half (1/2) the roadway. As shown above, a total of fourteen (14) subbasins showed improvement in peak stage flooding from one of the above design considerations. The Fillmore Avenue and Lincoln/Orange subbasins exhibit peak stage flooding above the minimum inlet and 1/2 of the minimum roadway in all scenarios, however, both will have peak flood stages and extent of flooding greatly reduced compared to existing conditions during critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events. The results of the model sensitivity analysis indicate that the model exhibits flexibility when changes are made to the system, and that the selected design options for evaluation can significantly reduce peak stage flooding in all subbasins. The design options established in these analyses were used as the basis for conceptual design project development. 7 4.2 Conceptual Design Projects Conceptual design projects were developed via review of the hydraulic grade line (HGL) throughout the system to identify piping which may be inefficient and causing a back-up of water during heavy rainfall events. Pipe segments with sharp changes to the HGL can be identified as `bottleneck' points within the system and were the basis of conceptual design improvements. A total of five (5) conceptual design projects have been developed based on client feedback and ICPR model analyses: • Conceptual Project #1 — Increase pipe capacity along stormwater system primary trunkline from Buchanan/Ridgewood to the Banana River outfall (Center Street, Atlantic Avenue, Buchanan Avenue). • Conceptual Project #2 — Increase pipe capacity along the stormwater system primary trunkline from Buchanan/Ridgewood to the Banana River outfall (Conceptual Project #1), increase secondary branch capacity downstream of critical subbasin locations (Poinsetta Avenue, Orange Avenue, Ridgewood Avenue). • Conceptual Project #3 — Increase pipe capacity along stormwater system primary trunkline and secondary branches (Conceptual Projects #1 & #2), install 16 CFS pump station on Center Street near outfall to Banana River. • Conceptual Project #4 — Increase pipe capacity along primary and secondary branches (Conceptual Projects #1 & #2), install 16 CFS pump station (Conceptual Project #3), and construct stormwater pond for treatment of stormwater runoff prior to discharge. • Conceptual Project #5 — Reduce all City roadways to single lane only, 50% reduction in total roadway impervious. Construct 12'x2' exfiltration chambers/trenches along extents of roadways for additional storage and treatment. Conceptual Projects #1-4 are intended to build upon one another to show further reduction in peak flood stages as additional improvements are considered. Conceptual Project #5 is a standalone project for review by the City's request. Conceptual project design layouts and subbasin flooding are shown graphically for Conceptual Projects #1-3 in Figure A5 to Figure A7 (see Appendix A). During a rainfall event in August 2021, the City installed a temporary 6-inch pump (-800 gallons per minute) inside of the baffle box on Center Street upstream of the outfall. The City informed Mead & Hunt that with the installation of this pump they had minimal flooding issues. As such, a standalone pump station scenario has been considered for analysis and comparative review. A pump station is likely the most practical short-term solution to reduce peak stage flooding upstream. The ideal location for a permanent master pump station would be along Center Street to reduce the tailwater condition for upstream subbasins. Note, all conceptual design projects include the proposed installation of a duckbill tidal valve at the outfall of the existing Center Street basin stormwater system. Installation of this valve will improve the existing system capacity via the prevention of tidal inflows during heavy rainfall 8 events. Model results for all conceptual design projects under the critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events are provided in Appendix D. 4.2.1 Conceptual Design Project #1 Conceptual Design Project #1 includes increasing the capacity of the existing stormwater system along the major trunkline, as shown in Figure 8, which conveys stormwater runoff west along Buchanan Avenue and across Atlantic Avenue, and discharges toward the Center Street outfall to the Banana River. The HGL is critical within this trunkline and any steep changes between adjacent subbasins of piping may result in back-ups within upstream branches. Based on existing model results for the critical 1-hour storm the HGL for the primary trunkline during peak rainfall conditions, as shown graphically in Figure 7, exhibits a steep increase upstream from the outfall on Center Street to Atlantic/Buchanan N then increases steadily from Atlantic/Buchanan N to Buchanan/Ridgewood. This segment of stormwater piping from the outfall to the Atlantic Avenue/Center Street intersection is primarily tailwater-driven as HGL increases are caused by the Banana River water elevation (1.0' NAVD88). The intersection of Atlantic Avenue, Buchanan Avenue, and Center Street exhibits a steep HGL drop (-1.25 feet) over a short distance (-200 feet), indicating that the system is has a conveyance `bottleneck' in this area. Note, this intersection receives runoff from the entire Center Street basin and has several manhole connections which receive flows from secondary branch lines. These connections cause a sharp directional change in flow for incoming runoff which contributes to energy losses within the system and resulting steep changes to the HGL. FIGURE 8 - STORMWATER SYSTEM PRIMARY TRUNKLINE (HIGHLIGHTED IN RED) FIGURE 7 - EXISTING HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE (HGL) FOR PRIMARY TRUNKLINE. FIGURE 6 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #1 Conceptual design information for two (2) potential improvement scenarios to address trunkline conveyance efficiency are provided in Table 7. Each scenario represents a phase of improvements to the primary trunkline. As shown in Figure 6, Phase `1A' includes pipe capacity 9 increases from the outfall to Atlantic/Buchanan N, and Phase `1 B' includes pipe capacity increases for the primary trunkline along Buchanan Avenue. Note, to represent pipe capacity increases within the ICPR model, existing pipes were adjusted and doubled to review impacts to the system HGL and determine extents of improvements required to reduce peak stages. A proposed pipe diameter equivalent from the `doubling' of pipes is included in Table 7. ABL ' 7 — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #1 CRITERIA Phase From To Diameter, Existing (inches) Equiv. Diameter, Proposed (inches) 1A MH7 Atlantic/Buchanan N 48 72 Atlantic/Buchanan N MH8 48 72 MH8 Atlantic/Center 54 72 Atlantic/Center Center Street 54 72 Center Street Banana River 54 72 1B MH1 MH2 24 36 MH2 MH6 42 60 MH6 Buchanan/Poinsetta S 48 72 Buchanan/Poinsetta S MH7 48 72 Peak stage results for the critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events are provided in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively, for implementation of Phase `1A' and `1B'. Estimated Construction Cost (Conceptual Project #1A) = —$600,000 - $900,000 Estimated Construction Cost (Conceptual Project #1 B) = —$1,300,000 - $1,900,000 10 • ABLE Node (Subbasin) 8 - CONCEPTUAL Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) DESIGN PROJECT Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) #1 PEAK STAGE Flood Depth (feet) SUMMARY (1-HOUR) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? (YIN) Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 8.29 0.69 -0.05 N Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.70 0.00 -0.11 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.31 0.00 -1.43 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.84 0.00 -0.74 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.92 0.52 -0.25 N Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.78 0.00 -0.15 Y Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.48 0.00 -0.47 Y Johnson/Orange 7.15 7.03 0.00 -0.03 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.63 0.00 -0.24 N Lincoln/Orange 6.15 6.53 0.38 -0.28 N Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.86 0.00 -0.49 Y Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.55 0.00 -0.02 Y Orange/Polk 6.90 6.78 0.00 -0.29 Y Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.86 0.00 -0.06 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 8.01 0.26 -0.07 N Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.93 0.00 -0.08 Y TABLE 9 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #1 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (24-HOUR) Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? (YIN) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? (YIN) MA-24HR 10YR 24HR Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 8.12 0.52 -0.11 N 8.52 0.92 -0.06 N Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.58 0.00 -0.14 Y 8.00 0.20 -0.29 N Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 4.97 0.00 -1.50 Y 6.05 0.00 -1.21 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.55 0.00 -0.77 Y 6.45 0.00 -0.81 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.84 0.44 -0.34 N 7.51 1.11 -0.30 N Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.72 0.00 -0.16 Y 8.21 0.41 -0.14 N Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.42 0.00 -0.39 Y 7.13 0.09 -0.45 N Johnson/Orange 7.15 7.02 0.00 -0.03 Y 7.19 0.04 -0.11 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.71 0.01 -0.15 N 8.11 0.41 0.00 N Lincoln/Orange 6.15 6.51 0.36 -0.28 N 6.99 0.84 -0.29 N Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.95 0.00 -0.41 Y 7.63 0.00 -0.38 N Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.53 0.00 -0.05 Y 7.91 0.26 -0.02 N Orange/Polk 6.90 6.67 0.00 -0.38 Y 7.37 0.47 -0.29 N Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.79 0.00 -0.09 Y 8.20 0.19 -0.14 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 8.06 0.31 -0.09 N 8.35 0.60 -0.04 N Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.93 0.00 -0.11 Y 8.32 0.10 -0.06 Y 11 4.2.2 Conceptual Design Project #2 Conceptual Project #2 includes pipe capacity improvements to the stormwater system primary trunkline (Conceptual Design #1) and additional pipe capacity increases to address critical upstream locations in the system including along Poinsetta Avenue (North/South), Orange Avenue (North/South), and Ridgewood Avenue (South). Critical subbasins identified during existing model review are located within secondary branches (see Figure 9) of the stormwater system. To determine areas for further improvement, a review of the HGL was considered from the outfall to the furthest subbasin within each branch line using the model established in Conceptual Design #1. A visual representation of the HGL from the outfall to Magnolia/Taylor is shown in Figure 10. The `bottlenecks' within secondary branches are primarily conveyance -based and located where existing pipe capacities are insufficient. This causes the system to back-up, increasing the peak stage of flooding during heavy rainfall events. Conceptual design information for additional improvements (see Table 7 for Conceptual Project #1 improvements) are summarized in Table 10. FIGURE 9 - STORMWATER SYSTEM SECONDARY BRANCHES (HIGHLIGHTED IN RED) FIGURE 10 - HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE FROM OUTFALL TO MAGNOLIA/TAYLOR (1-HOUR) • „': 1 s — • • I • ' •JECT #2 CRITERIA Street (Branch) From To Diameter, Existing (inches) Equiv. Diameter, Proposed (inches) Orange N Fillmore Fillmore/Orange 21 30 Fillmore/Orange Orange/Pierce 24 36 Orange/Pierce Buchanan/Orange N 30 42 Buchanan/Orange N MH2 30 42 Orange S Lincoln/Orange Buchanan/Orange S 21 30 Buchanan/Orange S MH2 21 30 Poinsetta N MH3 MH5 24 36 MH5 MH6 24 36 Poinsetta S Atlantic/Johnson MH4 18 30 MH4 Johnson/Poinsetta N 21 30 Johnson/Poinsetta N Lincoln/Poinsetta 21 30 Lincoln/Poinsetta MH6 24 36 Ridgewood S Lincoln/Ridgewood MH1 18 30 12 The extents of Conceptual Project #2 are shown in Figure 11 (see Figure A6, Appendix A) including trunkline and branch line improvements. These extents are based on adjustment to existing pipe sizing and `doubling' to review improvements required to further reduce critical basin peak flood stages. Peak stage results for the critical 1-hour and 24- hour storm events are provided in Table 11 and Table 12, respectively, for implementation of Conceptual Projects #1-2. FIGURE 11 - CONCEPTUAL PROJECT #2 Estimated Construction Cost (Conceptual Project #2) = —$2,700,000 - $4,000,000 13 . TABLE 11 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #2 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (1-HOUR) Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to Yz Roadway? (YIN)2 Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.63 0.03 -0.71 Y Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.49 0.00 -0.32 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.96 0.00 -0.78 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.97 0.00 -0.61 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.49 0.09 -0.68 Y Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.47 0.00 -0.46 Y Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.68 0.00 -0.27 Y Johnson/Orange 7.15 7.01 0.00 -0.05 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.48 0.00 -0.39 Y Lincoln/Orange 6.15 6.23 0.08 -0.58 Y Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.71 0.00 -0.64 Y Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.48 0.00 -0.09 Y Orange/Polk 6.90 6.75 0.00 -0.32 Y Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.76 0.00 -0.16 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 7.87 0.12 -0.21 Y Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.75 0.00 -0.26 Y TABLE 12 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #2 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (24-HOUR) Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? (YIN) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? (YIN) MA-24HR 10YR 24HR Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.25 0.00 -0.98 Y 8.02 0.42 -0.56 N Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.29 0.00 -0.43 Y 7.77 0.00 -0.52 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.68 0.00 -0.79 Y 6.58 0.00 -0.68 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.70 0.00 -0.62 Y 6.52 0.00 -0.74 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.30 0.00 -0.88 Y 7.11 0.71 -0.70 N Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.32 0.00 -0.56 Y 7.92 0.12 -0.43 N Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.64 0.00 -0.17 Y 7.33 0.29 -0.25 N Johnson/Orange 7.15 6.98 0.00 -0.07 Y 7.18 0.03 -0.12 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.46 0.00 -0.40 Y 8.09 0.39 -0.02 N Lincoln/Orange 6.15 5.99 0.00 -0.80 Y 6.89 0.73 -0.40 N Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.59 0.00 -0.77 Y 7.49 0.00 -0.52 N Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.41 0.00 -0.17 Y 7.86 0.21 -0.07 N Orange/Polk 6.90 6.62 0.00 -0.43 Y 7.31 0.41 -0.35 N Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.54 0.00 -0.34 Y 7.91 0.00 -0.43 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 7.87 0.12 -0.28 Y 8.31 0.56 -0.08 N Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.68 0.00 -0.36 Y 8.23 0.01 -0.15 Y 14 4.2.3 Conceptual Design Project #3 Conceptual Design Project #3 includes the increased pipe capacity within the primary trunkline and secondary branches for the stormwater system (Conceptual Projects #1-2), and new installation of a permanent emergency pump station along Center Street for discharge to the Banana River. During a meeting the City on November 12, 2021, the City informed Mead & Hunt that a temporary 6-inch sump pump was placed into the baffle box during a moderate rainfall event, and there was an observed reduction in flooding throughout the basin. As such, the City has expressed an interest in pursuing this project. The primary trunkline for the existing stormwater system is constructed with invert elevations ranging from Elevation -4.0 feet to Elevation 1.4 feet. The stormwater system discharges via an 83" x 53" elliptical reinforced concrete pipe (ERCP) to and maintains and open connection with the Banana River. As a result, the stormwater system will always remain partially full to maintain equilibrium with the river as shown in Figure 12 (see Appendix A), reducing FIGURE 12 - EXISTING STORMWATER SYSTEM DESIGN NORMAL WATER LEVEL (NWL) FROM OUTFALL TO BUCHANAN/RIDGWOOD. st FIGURE 13 - CONCEPTUAL PROJECT #3 the effective capacity of system during rainfall events. The new pump station, as shown graphically in Figure 13 (see Appendix A) will be constructed upstream of the outfall along Center Street and for discharge to the river via a new storm force main. The system will be intended to provide clearance of the main discharge trunkline during heavy rainfall events. The additional of a tidal valve will further enhance system capacity via restriction of inflows from Banana River. Components required for the pump station include a pump station manhole, sump pump, electrical, pretreatment (i.e. pond, underground storage, etc.), and force main piping to the system outfall. Conceptual pump design information developed for modeling purposes is provided in Table 13. Peak stage results for the critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events are provided in Table 14 and Table 15, respectively, for implementation of Conceptual Projects #1-3. h. TABLE 13 — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN #3 CRITERIA Location Center Street Pump On Pump Off Design Flow (feet NAVD88) (feet NAVD88) (cfs) -1.0 -2.0 16.0 Estimated Construction Cost (Conceptual Project #3) = —$3,400,000 - $5,100,000 15 . TABLE 14- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #3 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (1-HOUR) Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? (Y/N) Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.61 0.01 -0.73 Y Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.48 0.00 -0.33 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.94 0.00 -0.80 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.96 0.00 -0.62 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.48 0.08 -0.69 Y Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.46 0.00 -0.47 Y Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.67 0.00 -0.28 Y Johnson/Orange 7.15 7.01 0.00 -0.05 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.47 0.00 -0.40 Y Lincoln/Orange 6.15 6.21 0.06 -0.60 Y Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.70 0.00 -0.65 Y Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.47 0.00 -0.10 Y Orange/Polk 6.90 6.74 0.00 -0.33 Y Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.76 0.00 -0.16 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 7.87 0.12 -0.21 Y Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.75 0.00 -0.26 Y TABLE 15 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #3 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (24-HOUR) Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 1/2 Roadway? (YIN) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 1/2 Roadway? (YIN) MA-24HR 10YR 24HR Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.24 0.00 -0.99 Y 8.02 0.42 -0.56 N Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.28 0.00 -0.44 Y 7.77 0.00 -0.52 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.67 0.00 -0.80 Y 6.58 0.00 -0.68 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.69 0.00 -0.63 Y 6.51 0.00 -0.75 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.29 0.00 -0.89 Y 7.11 0.71 -0.70 N Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.32 0.00 -0.56 Y 7.91 0.11 -0.44 N Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.64 0.00 -0.17 Y 7.33 0.29 -0.25 N Johnson/Orange 7.15 6.97 0.00 -0.08 Y 7.18 0.03 -0.12 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.45 0.00 -0.41 Y 8.09 0.39 -0.02 N Lincoln/Orange 6.15 5.98 0.00 -0.81 Y 6.88 0.73 -0.40 N Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.59 0.00 -0.77 Y 7.49 0.00 -0.52 N Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.40 0.00 -0.18 Y 7.86 0.21 -0.07 N Orange/Polk 6.90 6.62 0.00 -0.43 Y 7.31 0.41 -0.35 N Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.54 0.00 -0.34 Y 7.91 0.00 -0.43 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 7.86 0.11 -0.29 Y 8.31 0.56 -0.08 N Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.67 0.00 -0.37 Y 8.23 0.01 -0.15 Y 16 4.2.4 Conceptual Design Project #4 Conceptual Design Project #4 includes the increased pipe capacity within the primary trunkline and secondary branches for the stormwater system (Conceptual Projects #1-2), new installation of a permanent emergency pump station along Center Street for discharge to the Banana River, and additional pollution abatement storage for runoff prior to final discharge. Per regulatory requirements, the inclusion of pretreatment prior to discharge is necessary with new pump station development. This design builds upon Conceptual Project #3 and adds storage intended to capture and treat the first flush of runoff within the system during excess rainfall events. An example of pretreatment storage is shown in Figure 14 located at Memorial Park near the intersection of Orange Avenue and Taylor Avenue. FIGURE 14 - EXISTING TREATMENT (DRY RETENTION) AT MEMORIAL PARK. To represent pretreatment storage within the Center Street Basin model, a static area of 0.75 acres was selected for stage -area input. Conceptual stage -storage design information developed for conceptual modeling is provided in Table 16, and is based on utilizing the pump to draw down the pond prior to or early on in a storm event. TABLE 16 — CONCEPTUAL DESIGN #4 CRITERIA Stage (ft. NAVD88) -3.0 2.0 Area (acres) 0.75 0.75 Volume (acre-feet) 0.00 3.75 As seen above in stage -storage information for Conceptual Project #4, an approximate design storage volume of 3.75 acre-feet was used for the purpose of model development. Peak stage results for the critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events are provided in Table 17 and Table 18, respectively, for implementation of Conceptual Projects #1-4. Estimated Total Cost (Conceptual Project #4) = —$4,000,000 - $6,000,000 17 TABLE 17- CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #4 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (1-HOUR Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? YIN Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.51 0.00 -0.83 Y Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.43 0.00 -0.38 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.78 0.00 -0.96 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.80 0.00 -0.78 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.36 0.00 -0.81 Y Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.43 0.00 -0.50 Y Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.63 0.00 -0.32 Y Johnson/Orange 7.15 6.99 0.00 -0.07 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.43 0.00 -0.44 Y Lincoln/Orange 6.15 6.09 0.00 -0.72 Y Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.60 0.00 -0.75 Y Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.46 0.00 -0.11 Y Orange/Polk 6.90 6.69 0.00 -0.38 Y Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.75 0.00 -0.17 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 7.85 0.10 -0.23 Y Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.73 0.00 -0.28 Y TABLE 18 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #4 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (24-HOUR) ' Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Ro(YIN) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth I (feet) Less than or A Flood equal to 112 Depth (feet) Roadway?(YIN) - MA-24HR 10YR 24HR Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.18 0.00 -1.05 Y 8.00 0.40 -0.58 N Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 7.25 0.00 -0.47 Y 7.75 0.00 -0.54 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.58 0.00 -0.89 Y 6.55 0.00 -0.71 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.62 0.00 -0.70 Y 6.50 0.00 -0.76 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.24 0.00 -0.94 Y 7.09 0.69 -0.72 N Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.29 0.00 -0.59 Y 7.91 0.11 -0.44 N Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 6.62 0.00 -0.19 Y 7.33 0.29 -0.25 N Johnson/Orange 7.15 6.97 0.00 -0.08 Y 7.18 0.03 -0.12 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.43 0.00 -0.43 Y 8.09 0.39 -0.02 N Lincoln/Orange 6.15 5.93 0.00 -0.86 Y 6.88 0.73 -0.40 N Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.54 0.00 -0.82 Y 7.47 0.00 -0.54 N Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 7.39 0.00 -0.19 Y 7.86 0.21 -0.07 N Orange/Polk 6.90 6.59 0.00 -0.46 Y 7.30 0.40 -0.36 N Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 7.54 0.00 -0.34 Y 7.90 0.00 -0.44 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 7.86 0.11 -0.29 Y 8.31 0.56 -0.08 N Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.66 0.00 -0.38 Y 8.23 0.01 -0.15 Y 18 4.2.5 Conceptual Design Project #5 Conceptual Design Project #5 includes replacement of all existing City roads with single -lane roads. The City is interested in determining whether a reduction in roadway imperviousness will provide a net benefit to existing Center Street basin drainage (see Figure 15). The City is highly developed and pervious areas are limited, therefore, this design project is intended to reduce up to fifty percent (50%) of roadway imperviousness and increase available soil storage to encourage peak stage flood reduction. A storm pump station near the outfall on Center Street has been included for critical trunkline relief during major storm events. Conceptual design information developed for modeling purposes is provided in Table 19. Figure 16 provides an overview of the City -owned and residential roadways selected for impervious reduction for modeling purposes. The City is interested in the potential inclusion of exfiltration chambers or trenches beneath the roadways selected for impervious reduction, as well as the eastern roadways adjacent to the beach. As such, each of these areas will include additional storage (12' width x 2' depth) along the extent of subbasin roadways to provide storage and treatment during rainfall events. FIGURE 15 - CENTER STREET BASIN ROADWAY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) AREAS FIGURE 16 - CONCEPTUAL PROJECT #5 ROADWAYS, 50% IMPERVIOUS REDUCTION. Peak stage elevation results for Conceptual Project #5 under the critical 1-hour and 24-hour storm events are summarized in Table 20 and Table 21, respectively. Components required for this conceptual design include reconstruction of -15,000 LF of City roadways including reduction to single one-way roadways and construction of swales and other greenspace features within the previous paved areas. TABLE 19 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN #5 CRITERIA Land Cover Area, Existing (acres) Area, Proposed (acres) Change (acres) Commercial 26.6 26.6 +0.0 Industrial 1.3 1.3 +0.0 Open Space 1.4 11.7 +10.3 Residential 50.4 50.4 +0.0 Transportation 33.0 22.7 -10.3 Estimated Total Cost (Conceptual Project #5B) =-$1,800,000 - $2,600,000 19 . TABLE 20 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #5 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (1-HOUR) Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 112 Roadway? (Y/N) Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.79 0.19 -0.55 N Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 6.35 0.00 -1.46 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 3.45 0.00 -3.29 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 3.76 0.00 -2.82 Y Fillmore 6.40 4.11 0.00 -3.06 Y Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 4.87 0.00 -3.06 Y Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 4.38 0.00 -2.57 Y Johnson/Orange 7.15 5.12 0.00 -1.94 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 5.12 0.00 -2.75 Y Lincoln/Orange 6.15 4.85 0.00 -1.96 Y Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 5.40 0.00 -1.95 Y Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 6.04 0.00 -1.53 Y Orange/Polk 6.90 4.06 0.00 -3.01 Y Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 6.45 0.00 -1.47 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 5.23 0.00 -2.85 Y Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 5.07 0.00 -2.94 Y TABLE 21 - CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROJECT #5 PEAK STAGE SUMMARY (24-HOUR) Node (Subbasin) Warning Stage (feet NAVD88) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 1/2 Roadway? (YIN) Peak Stage (feet NAVD88) Flood Depth (feet) A Flood Depth (feet) Less than or equal to 1/2 Roadway? (YIN) MA-24HR 10YR 24HR Atlantic/Johnson 7.60 7.75 0.15 -0.48 N 8.43 0.83 -0.15 N Atlantic/Pierce 7.80 6.6 0.00 -1.12 Y 7.80 0.00 -0.49 Y Buchanan/Orange N 6.99 5.07 0.00 -1.40 Y 6.92 0.00 -0.34 Y Buchanan/Orange S 6.99 5.3 0.00 -1.02 Y 6.86 0.00 -0.40 Y Fillmore 6.40 6.2 0.00 -0.98 Y 7.49 1.09 -0.32 N Fillmore/Poinsetta 7.80 7.15 0.00 -0.73 Y 8.05 0.25 -0.30 N Fillmore/Ridgewood 7.04 5.61 0.00 -1.20 Y 7.19 0.15 -0.39 N Johnson/Orange 7.15 6.63 0.00 -0.42 Y 7.13 0.00 -0.17 Y Johnson/Ridgewood 7.70 7.2 0.00 -0.66 Y 8.08 0.38 -0.03 N Lincoln/Orange 6.15 6.15 0.00 -0.64 Y 6.95 0.80 -0.33 N Lincoln/Ridgewood 7.77 6.32 0.00 -1.04 Y 7.66 0.00 -0.35 N Magnolia/Taylor 7.65 6.97 0.00 -0.61 Y 7.75 0.10 -0.18 Y Orange/Polk 6.90 6.05 0.00 -1.00 Y 7.36 0.46 -0.30 N Pierce/Poinsetta 8.01 6.69 0.00 -1.19 Y 8.04 0.03 -0.30 Y Poinsetta/Polk 7.75 7.55 0.00 -0.60 Y 8.25 0.50 -0.14 N Poinsetta/Ta for 8.22 7.38 0.00 -0.66 Y 8.18 0.00 -0.20 Y 20 4.3 Project Comparison Table 22, Table 23, and Table 24 provide a comparison of each critical subbasin based on flooding less than or equal to 1/2 of the roadway elevation under the critical 1-hour, MA-24HR, and 10YR-24HR storm events, respectively. A graphical overview of subbasins which are flooded during the critical 1-hour storm event are provided in Figure A8 to Figure Al (see Appendix A) for Conceptual Project #1, Conceptual Projects #2-4, and Conceptual Project #5, respectively. .. —PR• -. ,, ••.ING '°eV-'-. •l B• Node (Subbasin) Existing Project 1A Project 1 B Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Atlantic/Johnson ✓ ✓ ✓ Atlantic/Pierce ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Buchanan/Orange N ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Buchanan/Orange S ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fillmore ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fillmore/Poinsetta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fillmore/Ridgewood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Johnson/Orange ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Johnson/Ridgewood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lincoln/Orange ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lincoln/Ridgewood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Magnolia/Taylor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Orange/Polk ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Pierce/Poinsetta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poinsetta/Polk ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poinsetta/Taylor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (1) = Peak stage flood elevation less than or equal to one-half (1/2) of the minimum roadway elevation. TABLE 23 — PROJECT PEAK FLOODING COMPARISON (MA-10YR) Node (Subbasin) Existing Project 1A Project 1 B Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Atlantic/Johnson ✓ ✓ ✓ Atlantic/Pierce ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Buchanan/Orange N ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Buchanan/Orange S ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fillmore ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fillmore/Poinsetta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fillmore/Ridgewood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Johnson/Orange ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Johnson/Ridgewood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lincoln/Orange ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lincoln/Ridgewood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Magnolia/Taylor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Orange/Polk ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Pierce/Poinsetta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poinsetta/Polk ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poinsetta/Taylor ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) = Peak stage flood elevation less than or equal to one-half (1/2) of the minimum roadway elevation. 21 TABLE 24 — PROJECT PEAK FLOODING COMPARISON (10YR-24H`" ' Node (Subbasin) Existing Project 1A Project 1B Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 _ Atlantic/Johnson Atlantic/Pierce .4 .4 .4 .4 — Buchanan/Orange N ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Buchanan/Orange S ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Fillmore Fillmore/Poinsetta Fillmore/Ridgewood Johnson/Orange ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Johnson/Ridgewood Lincoln/Orange Lincoln/Ridgewood Magnolia/Taylor ✓ Orange/Polk Pierce/Poinsetta ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Poinsetta/Polk Poinsetta/Ta for ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (✓) = Peak stage flood elevation less than or equal to one-half (1/2) of the minimum roadway elevation. As seen in the tables above, each project provides an increased benefit with respect to peak stage flooding and reduction of peak stage elevation below 1/2 of the roadway elevation is possible in all subbasins via Conceptual Projects #2-4. For the critical 1-hour storm, three (3) subbasins were further improved from Conceptual Project #1A (Orange/Polk, Fillmore/Poinsetta, Fillmore/Ridgewood) and a 4th subbasin was improved from Conceptual Project #1 B (Lincoln/Ridgewood). Additional benefits from Conceptual Project #1 B were minimally impactful when only trunkline improvements were considered. Conceptual Projects #2-4 provide reduction of peak flood elevations in all subbasins up the the MA-24HR storm event and addresses several `bottleneck' points within the primary trunkline and critical secondary branches. For the 10YR-24HR storm, three (3) basins were improved via Conceptual Project #1A and 1 B, and four (4) basins were improved via Conceptual Projects #2-4. Conceptual Project #3 and #4 show no significant change compared to Conceptual Project #2; however, reduction of design pipe capacity increases (Conceptual Project #1-2) can likely be optimized with inclusion of a pump station and pretreatment storage. Note, Conceptual Project #5 has comparable subbasin improvements during the critical 1-hour and MA-24HR storm events; however, performs comparatively to existing conditions during the 10YR-24HR event. To further assess the 5 conceptual design projects, subbasin reductions in peak flood elevation comparative to existing conditions were reviewed. Table 25, Table 26, and Table 27 provide summaries of flood depths for the critical 1-hour, MA-24HR, and 10YR-24HR storm events, respectively. Minimum roadway elevations were used for flood depth calculation. Note, only subbasins which had a peak flood stage of greater than 1/2 of the roadway during existing peak stage flood conditions were considered. 22 TABLE 25 - PROJECT FLOOD DEPTH COMPARISON (FDOT-1) Node (Subbasin) Project 1A Project 1B Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 feet feet feet feet feet feet Atlantic/Johnson 0.70 0.69 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.19 Fillmore 0.61 0.52 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.00 Fillmore/Ridgewood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Johnson/Ridgewood 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lincoln/Orange 0.54 0.38 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 Lincoln/Ridgewood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Orange/Polk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poinsetta/Polk 0.28 0.26 0.12 0.12 0.10 0.00 Er TABLE 26 - PROJECT FLOOD DEPTH COMPARISON (MA-24HR) Node (Subbasin) Project 1A Project 1B Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 feet feet feet Feet feet Feet Atlantic/Johnson 0.56 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 Fillmore 0.60 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fillmore/Ridgewood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Johnson/Ridgewood 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lincoln/Orange 0.55 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lincoln/Ridgewood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Orange/Polk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Poinsetta/Polk 0.34 0.31 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.00 TABLE 27 - PROJECT PEAK FLOOD DEPTH COMPARISON (10YR-24HR) Node (Subbasin) Project 1A Project 1B Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 feet feet feet feet feet feet Atlantic/Johnson 0.94 0.92 0.42 0.42 0.40 0.83 Fillmore 0.24 0.20 0.00 0.71 0.69 1.09 Fillmore/Ridgewood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 0.15 Johnson/Ridgewood 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.39 0.38 Lincoln/Orange 1.29 1.11 0.71 0.73 0.73 0.80 Lincoln/Ridgewood 0.45 0.41 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Orange/Polk 0.40 0.09 0.29 0.41 0.40 0.46 Poinsetta/Polk 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.56 0.56 0.50 Note, each table provides the flood depth associated with the peak stage elevation for each design storm compared to the minimum inlet elevation. Based on flood depth results provided for each design storm, Conceptual Projects #2-4 provide the greatest peak stage reduction benefit for the existing stormwater system. 4.4 Additional Considerations 4.4.1 Pump Station on Center Street Based on the City's successful use of a temporary pump to provide additional flood relief during a moderate rainfall event, a standalone pump station scenario was considered for modeling to compare to the five (5) conceptual project scenarios established for Center Street basin improvements. For this scenario, similar to Conceptual Projects #4 and #5, a pump station is 23 proposed for construction along Center Street with a 16 cubic feet per second (16 CFS) capacity. The results for this scenario had peak stage elevations comparable to existing conditions; however, the duration of flooding for critical subbasins was reduced by an average of 30 minutes compared to existing conditions with inclusion of the 16 CFS capacity pump station. A combination of a pump station with any conceptual project will be useful for removal of excess water from the system prior to storm events, as well as reduced tailwater conditions during the storm event, and will be considered in final recommendations. Permitting Implementation of conceptual improvement projects will require permitting. At a minimum, it is expected that a permit with the St. Johns Water Management District will be necessary to ensure there is no detrimental impacts to the receiving water body. Adequate treatment of the increased runoff volumes will be required prior to final discharge to the Banana River. Baseflow treatment systems to treat the baseflow of polluted groundwater that exits the system on a somewhat continuous basis throughout the year is recommended. This can be accomplished with passive in -line or solar powered pumped off-line BAM filters or other similar devices. During conceptual analysis, consideration was given to cross -drain connections and other miscellaneous improvements to Atlantic Avenue (A1A), though this area is permitted under the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) jurisdiction. Additions or modifications to areas within FDOT limits will likely result in additional detailed design and permitting efforts by FDOT to ensure no impacts or reduced level of service (LOS) will be caused to the collection and conveyance along A1A. fnct Fgtimatn A summary of the estimated total construction cost for each conceptual design project is provided in Table 23 and is based on total cost with contingency. Final cost estimation for each project will be further developed following discussions and final comments from the City. TABLE 23 — PRELIMINARY COSTS Project Total Cost ($) Conceptual Project #1A $600,000 - $900,000 Conceptual Project #1 B $1,300,000 - $1,900,000 Conceptual Project #2 $2,700,000 - $4,000,000 Conceptual Project #3 $3,400,000 - $5,100,000 Conceptual Project #4 $4,000,000 - $6,000,000 Conceptual Project #5 $1,800,000 - $2,600,000 24 Recommendations Recommendations for the Center Street basin stormwater system include, at minimum, a tidal valve be installed at the outfall to enhance system capacities. This is a very low-cost improvement which will prevent backflows from the Banana River and providing additional conveyance capacity through the primary trunkline for the system. Based on the City's feedback on successful use of a pump to reduce flooding, implementation of a new permanent storm pump station is recommended along Center Street upstream of the outfall and baffle box. The pump station will be intended to remove existing water in the system prior to or early in the storm event and to lower the 'tailwater' that the system is discharging to thus allowing the gravity conveyance system to operate more effectively. Construction of a pump station is recommended for construction prior to additional improvements based on cost and constructability. It is recommended that a retrofit to the existing baffle box include BAM filter media to treatment of continuous base flows throughout the system. Following implementation of a pump station it is recommended that the City consider future pipe capacity increases to improve the existing system efficiency and reduce peak stage flooding. Increasing the pipe capacity of pipe segments identified in Conceptual Projects #1-2 will provide reduction in peak stages below 1/2 of the roadway for all subbasins up to the MA-24HR storm event. Additional improvements to critical subbasins during the 10R-24HR storm event are also observed via these project improvements. Note, in some cases the 'doubling' of pipe may not be feasible with existing utility conflicts or other space constraints. Design of pipe sizing in these cases are recommended for intent of maximizing pipe capacity with the given pipe alignment and existing system conditions. Improvements along the primary trunkline west of A1A should be prioritized to enhance existing system capacity and provide emergency relief during heavy rainfall events. Improvements in this area include construction of new pump station along Center Street, and pipe capacity increases along the primary trunkline. Additional improvements to existing upstream piping, including pipe capacity increases along the primary trunkline east of A1A and upstream secondary branch lines, are recommended for consideration as funding is available to further improve the existing system. 25 APPENDIX A REPORT FIGURES KAGAIUAUIIOMOIU➢\\MiCel691 OOM1'Tii1T. Legend Center Street Basin Stormwater Inlet Stormwater Pipes e: Eck Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geograp *NES/Airbus DS, USDA, US,GS These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at owner's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure Al - Existing Center Street Basin Stormwater System Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. 'O a Atlantic/Lincoln Lincoln/Poin Atlantic S Lincoln1 • more t more' Fillmore/Orange Fillmore Fillmore/Magno e: E , Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geogra'p ONES/Airbus DS, USDA, Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A2 - Existing Nodal Diagram Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd Legend • Model Node (Subbasin) Model Weirs (Overland) Center Street Basin W CENTER1 Center St Solana on the River Atlantic W Atlantic/Center St w Atlant Atlantic E W_POLK1 a/Polk Memorial Park /Taylor to W_FILLMOREI Fillmore/O ange W [(/ Fillmore/Magnol z ry Fillmore W * 0 113 O zr O 4.g•< w 1 PIERCyt W_PIERCE2 �1I PIERCE. W_PIERCE4 Atlantic/Pierce Pier. -/Poinsetta u et0 Orange/Pierce Pierce 4tlantic/Buchanan N y Z Z O O a 31 Buchanan/Orange N?1 -idgewood Buchanan/Ridgewood W_BUCHANAN3D r W_BUCHANAN3B 2� z ZT Lincoln/Ridgewood Orange/Polk Magnolia/Taylor W TAYLOR2 Buchanan/Poinsetta N W BUCHANAN1A uc anan/Poinsetta is/Buchanan S Lincoln/Poinsetta1 Atla tic/Lincoln W ATnLANTIC6'N L\NCO�N Buchanan/Orange S O Z Ul W_LINCOLN2 LincolnaOrange r � rn W Z_ U al Johnson/Poinsetta N 31 - W_JOHNSON3 Atlantic/Johnson 0 W JOHNSON2 W_JOHNSON1 Johnson/Poinsetta m Johnson/Orange W_FILLMORE3 W_LINCOLN3 Fillmore/Ridgewood Pierce/Ridgewood Johnson/Ridgewood e: E , Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geogra'p SNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USG These documents shah not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A3 - Overland Weir Connections Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. Buchanan/Poinsetta S Atlantic/Buchanan S Atlantic/Johnson Johnson/Poinsetta S e: E Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USG saAwaRID, o--a - f c Eau Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A4 - Existing Center Street Subbasin Flooding (Critical 1-Hour Storm) Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd Legend Conceptual Design Diameter, Equivalent 3.0' 5.0' 6.0' Stormwater Pipes • Stormwater Inlet xar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geogra�phics, ONES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and 4he GIS User Community These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at owner's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A5 - Conceptual Project #1 Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. M:xar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geograiphics, INES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, an 0eGIS User Community Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A6 - Conceptual Project #2 Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead & Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse owner or by others will be at owner's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead & Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, inpart or as a whole, is prohibited. M xar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geograiphics, NES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, ands e GIS User Community Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A7 - Conceptual Project #3 Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd Legend Subbasin Condition L No Flooding Flooding Center St Solana on the River Atlantic W Atlantic E Poinsetta/Polk Poinsetta/Taylor Fillmore/Poinsetta Atlantic/Pierce Atlantic/Buchanan N Atlantic/Center St Pierce/Poinsetta Buchanan/Poinsetta N Memorial Park Fillmore/Orange Orange/Polk Magnolia/Taylor Fillmore Orange/Pierce Pierce Buchanan/Orange N Buchanan/Poinsetta S Buchanan/Orange S Atlantic/Buchanan S Lincoln/Poinsetta Atlantic/Lincoln Atlantic S Atlantic/Johnson Johnson/Poinsetta N Johnson/Poinsetta S Lincoln/Orange Johnson/Orange Fillmore/Magnolia Ridgewood Fillmore/Ridgewood Pierce/Ridgewood Buchanan/Ridgewood Lincoln/Ridgewood Johnson/Ridgewood e: E Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USG"S, AeroGRID, I These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at owner's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A8 - Conceptual Project #1 Subbasin Flooding (Critical 1-Hour Storm) Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. Buchanan/Poinsetta S Atlantic/Buchanan S Atlantic/Johnson Johnson/Poinsetta S Orange/Taylor Fillmore Fillmore/Magnolia e: E "; Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USG saAwaRID, o--a - f c Eau Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A9 - Conceptual Projects #2-4 Subbasin Flooding (Critical 1-Hour Storm) Mead i lunt X:\00000-00\10001 \Tech\G I S\MXD\MAP. mxd These documents shall not be used for any purpose or project for which it is not intended. Mead 8 Hunt shall be indemnified by the client and held harmless from all claims, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees and costs, arising out of such misuse or reuse of the documents. Any other use or reuse by owner or by others will be at sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Mead 8 Hunt. In addition, unauthorized reproduction of these documents, in part or as a whole, is prohibited. Buchanan/Poinsetta S Atlantic/Buchanan S Atlantic/Johnson Johnson/Poinsetta S Fillmore Fillmore/Magnolia e: E "; Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USG saAwaRID, o--a - f c Eau Center Street Basin Drainage Improvements Figure A10 - Conceptual Project #5 Subbasin Flooding (Critical 1-Hour Storm) Mead i lunt Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX D Veteran's Memorial Park Geotech Excerpt Geotechnical Engineering Report Cape Canaveral Veterans Park I Cape Canaveral, Florida July 12, 2023 I Terracon Project No. H1235102 r lerracon Laboratory permeability tests were performed on four remolded samples from boring location S-1 through S-4, about 2 to 4 feet below existing grade, yielding measured permeability rates ranging from 5 to 16 feet/day. The table below summarized results of permeability testing: Measured Boring Depth (ft) Permeability Rate (feet/day) Unified Classificat ion S-1 S-2 2.5 2 12 11 Sand (SP) Sand (SP) S-3 3 5 Sand (SP) S-4 4 16 Sand (SP) We consider this permeability rate to be indicative of a saturated horizontal permeability. Experience and published references have indicated that unsaturated vertical permeability as used in some locally available groundwater models is typically 1/2 the saturated value. Based upon our visual review of the sands, and our local project experience, we recommend that you consider the surficial aquifer (the site sands) to have a fillable porosity (q) of 30 percent. The table below summarizes our recommended stormwater management system design parameters. No factors of safety have been added to the above parameters. Ref. Boring Locatio n Estimated Confining Layer Depth, (feet) 1 Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater Table Depth, (feet) Unsaturated Vertical Infiltration Rate, kV Horizontal Saturated Fillable Hydraulic Porosit Conductivity, kH y, n S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 20 2.5 6 12 20 2 6 11 20 2.5 3 5 20 General Comments 4 8 16 30 30 30 30 Our analysis and opinions are based upon our understanding of the project, the geotechnical conditions in the area, and the data obtained from our site exploration. Facilities I Environmental Geotechnical Materials 5 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX E Veteran's Memorial Park Topographic Survey by Kugelmann Land Surveying, Inc. ABBREVIATIONS MAP OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED FOR AND CERTIFIED TO: THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL U/G OH PP CMP RCP CPP CLF VCP I NV EL TV COMM STA LF C/L PCP PRM P&M D&M ID E OP BFP ETL CBS FFE P. U. &D. P. U. E. UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD POWER POLE CORRUGATED REI NFORCED CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONCRETE PIPE PLASTIC PIPE CHAI N LINK FENCE VI TRI FI ED CLAY PI PE INVERT ELEVATI ON TELEVI SI ON COMMUNI CATI ON STATION LI NEAR FEET CENTERLI NE PERMANENT CONTROL POINT PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT PLAN & MEASURE DEED & MEASURE I DENTI FI CATI ON EDGE OF PAVEMENT BACK FLOW PREVENTER EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE FI NI SH FLOOR ELEVATI ON E. PUBLI C UTI LI TI ES & DRAI NAGE EASEMENT PUBLI C UTI LI TI ES EASEMENT SYMBOL LEGEND DD RI SER POLE --0--POWER POLE AL TRANSFORMER ❑-} CONCRETE LI GHT POLE 6--0- WOOD LI GHT POLE O- METAL LI GHT POLE FIBERGLASS LI GHT POLE CONCRETE UTI LI TY POLE METAL UTI LI TY POLE DECORATIVE LIGHTING GUY WI RE UTI LI TY PANEL ® UTI LI TY RI SER TELEPHONE BOX D TV CABLE BOX CO GAS METER F❑ FIBER OPTI C RI SER TRAFFIC HANDHOLE ELECTRIC HANDHOLE ANTENNA ED, SANI= TARY CLEANOUT Dj VALVE POST INDICATOR 6 i 5 SPOT ELEVATION I UP I 5 E SURVEYOR'S NOTES: S/W M/H H/W AIP AHU A/G SSMH BLDG DIA REC FND TYP SEC ORB PB PG SIDEWALK MANHOLE HEADWALL ABANDONED IN PLACE AIR HANDLER UNIT ABOVE GROUND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE BUILDING DIAMETER RECOVERED FOUND TYPICAL SECTION OFFICIAL RECORDS PLAT BOOK PAGE BOOK NEW ELECTRIC MANHOLE D COMM MANHOLE D ELECTRI C MANHOLE D STORM MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE D UNKNOWN MANHOLE FIRE HYDRANT s0 BLOW OFF SPRINKLER WATER GATE H SEWER GATE REUSE GATE H GAS GATE WATER METER l a l MAILBOX Oa° GUARD POST CONCRETE a SIGN w D OAK TREE SHRUB D UNKNOWN TREE MAPLE PINE TREE PALM TREE n'1 TREE LINE U/G WATER C U/G COMM N PE .. 2 POST SIGN ® BOUNDARY CONTROL PROJECT BENCH MARK ffi ELECTRIC PULLBOX I J BACKFLOW PREVENTER oi1 SPI GOT C ss F OH X -U/G ELECTRIC U/G NON -POTABLE WATER U/G UNKNOWN UTILITY U/G GAS U/G SANITARY SEWER M - U/G FORCE MAI N OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL GAS LINE MARKER COMM LINE MARKER ELECTRIC LINE MARKER SANITARY SEWER LINE MARKER FI BEROPTI C LINE MARKER D SIAMESE CONNECTOR X— FENCE LINE 0 Im 1. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF RECORD. 2. HORIZONTAL COORDINATES ARE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83), 1990 ADJUSTMENT AND ARE BASED ON THE UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC MONUMENT "N 205", HAVING PUBLISHED COORDINATES OF N.1473799.12, E.782908.08. 3. ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 1988) AND ARE BASED ON UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "N 205" HAVING A PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 7.77 FEET. 4. SUNSHINE ONE CALL TICKET NUMBER 169310105. 5. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON ABOVE -GROUND STRUCTURES, MARKINGS PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ASBUILT DRAWINGS PROVIDED TO THE SURVEYOR. LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/STRUCTURES MAY VARY FROM LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON. ADDITIONAL BURIED UTILITIES/STRUCTURES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED. BEFORE BEGINNING EXCAVATIONS, THE FOLLOWING OFFICES SHOULD BE CONTACTED FOR VERIFICATION OF UTILITY TYPE AND FOR FIELD LOCATIONS. SUNSHINE ONE -CALL # 194302039 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS JERROLD KAISER (321) 338-1928 FIBER OPTIC CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL JAMES MOORE (321) 868-1240 x403 SEWER & RECLAIMED CITY OF COCOA UTILITIES KATHERINE ENNIS (321) 433-8797 WATER CITY OF COCOA BEACH BRAD KASLOW (321) 868-3308 SEWER FLORIDA CITY GAS GUSTAVO PENA (305) 835-3624 GAS FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT JOEL BRAY (386) 586-6403 ELECTRIC ATT/DISTRIBUTION DINO FARRUGGIO (561) 683-2729 TELEPHONE RESPONSE: FIBER OPTIC PRESENCE **WARNING TO CALL BEFORE DIG** 6. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CLIENT(S) SHOWN HEREON AND COPIES ARE VALID ONLY WITH THE SIGNATURE AND ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER UNLESS ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND SEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 472.025 AND THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR SURVEYS AS REFERENCED BY CHAPTER 5J-17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODES. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY DEPICTED HEREON IS TRUE AND MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS & MAPPERS IN CHAPTER 5J-17.051, FLORIDA FLORIDA STATUTES. DAVID J. KUGELMANN P.L.S. NO. 5117 STATE OF FLORIDA ```�� J e LIC; NSE 'No _ 0• '�O'. STATE OF FLORIDA 5117 CURB INLET 2'x 3' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 6.57' E INV EL: 3.62' S INV EL: 3.41' BLOCK 4/, F ND 4" x 4" AVON-BY-THE-SEA CONCRETE PLAT BOOK 3, MONUMENT PAGE 7 (NO ID) 2- SMALL ORNAMENTALS -R/W R/W RIM EL: E INV EL: W INV EL: SSMH 7.61' 1.58' 1.71' R/W POLK SAVENUE 48' RIGHT OF WAY -R/W 95 L 7.3 Oct I - EOP (17 STOP & STREET /t..2 DETECTABLE 9°2t WARNING SURFACE (TYP R/WR/W 96L 6� R-/W03 g_ CURB INLET 2'x 3' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 6.76' S N INV EL: 3.37' E INV EL: 3.71' S INV EL: 3.25' F CAPE CANAVERAL - & /5-16, BLOCK 46 'ON -BY -THE -SEA BOOK 3, PAGE 7 ' POLK AVENUE F CAPE CANAVERAL - & /5-16, BLOCK 46 'ON -BY -THE -SEA BOOK 3, PAGE 7 ' POLK AVENUE 2 UTILITY POLE & GUY ANCHORS (TYP) 1 -STORY FRAME BUILDING ,c3EOP 9.59 9�9 BASKET -BALL HOOP 9.34 °J� ti o 0 HANDICAP PARKING ADVISORY SHERIFF PARKING ASPHALT PARKING LOT LOT 15, BLOCK 46 LOT 16, BLOCK 46 CURB INLET 2'x 3' GRATE TOP EL: 7.23' N INV EL: 2.90' E INV EL: 4.76' S INV EL: 1.32' FND N&D (ID: LB 6556) RIM EL:1 E I NV EL :1 20 W INV EL: 6�6 I 8 // 7/ STRIAN SSING AHE APRON SEWER LATERAL ADS S (TYP SSMH 7.93' 3.27' 3.4QZ ./0 R/W FND #5 (ID: EOP HANDICAP PARKING ADVISORY REBAR & CAP ILLEGIBLE) w 0 w NPW—_/D coo z0(2off. 03 ti N t88 EOP - w CONCRETE TRASH CA i 6. w 0_ 0 Li] ' STOP' 7"9 82 CP A2 NPW 10 12" RCP D Q w 0 nz w 0 w w 0 w F c� w 0 F- cc 0 /2K. w 0 w 'STOP' L 12 „ 2 PROJECT BENCH MARK FND N&D TRAVERSE POINT (ID: LB 6556) N: 1472775.44 E: 783449.66 4'S/W EL: 7.32' CURB INLET 2'x 3' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 6.56' INV EL: 3.61' PLANTER 3' WF FND #5 REBAR (NO ID) 30" X X —B-/X 'STOP' SS STOP & STREET ro h 8" LINED VCP DSS �' �S FND N TRAVERSE POINTS (ID: LB 6556) D^') STOP' 8,13 R/ EOP ,,O/ - s- E O P BLOCK 42, AVON-BY-THE-SEA PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 8 " LINED 2' MIAMI CURB (TYP) FND 2" IRON PIPE IN CONCRETE (NO ID) AREA INFO CURB INLET 2'x 3' GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 6.75' S INV EL: 3.92' W INV EL: 3.95' GOLF CART INFO MIAMI CURB (TYP) 13� S 20/ POLK AVENUE CAPE CANAVERAL, FL 32920 LOTS 1-16, BLOCK 47 AVON-BY-THE-SEA PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 3'x 4' PULLBOX CAPE CANAVERAL LIBRARY 1 12" RCP r57 Sy R/W STMH R/W 91 FND 8.50 SPIGOT 3' WF 4°) R / W EOP EOP EOP EOP R/W 21°9 fi— SPEED LIMIT 20 w F z w 0 Do ocLcc a `o° ASPHALT APRON 335 CAPE CANAVERAL LIB co ASPHALT APRON #4 REBAR R/W SHEET FILE 2 GRAPHIC SCALE MMMM 0 20 1 INCH = 20 FEET 40 KUGELMANN LAND SURVEYING, INC. 30 NORTH TROPICAL TRAIL SUITE B MERRITT ISLAND, FLORIDA 32953 (321) 459-0930 SIGNATURES DRAWN: KKW CHECKED: MJF SURVEYOR: DJK DATE 07/13/2023 07/13/2023 07/13/2023 REVISIONS DATE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, FLORIDA RIGHTS-OF-W AY OF POLK AVENUE, BLOCK 4 7, AVON-BY-T HE -SE A, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 FIELD DATE: 07/07/2023 FI ELD BOOK: SEE FI LE ABBREVIATIONS MAP OF TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED FOR AND CERTIFIED TO: THE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL U/G OH PP CMP RCP CPP CLF VCP I NV EL TV COMM STA LF C/L PCP PRM P&M D&M ID EOP BFP ETL CBS FFE P. U. &D. P. U. E. UNDERGROUND OVERHEAD POWER POLE CORRUGATED REINFORCED CORRUGATED CHAIN LINK METAL PIPE CONCRETE PIPE PLASTIC PIPE FENCE VI TRI FI ED CLAY PI PE I NVERT ELEVATI ON TELEVI SI ON COMMUNI CATI ON STATI ON LI NEAR FEET CENTERLINE PERMANENT CONTROL POINT PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT PLAN & MEASURE DEED & MEASURE I DENTI FI CATI ON EDGE OF PAVEMENT BACK FLOW PREVENTER EDGE OF TRAVEL LANE CONCRETE BLOCK STRUCTURE FI NI SH FLOOR ELEVATI ON E. PUBLI C UTI LI TI ES & DRAI NAGE PUBLI C UTI LI TI ES EASEMENT SYMBOL LEGEND RI SER POLE POWER POLE AL TRANSFORMER OHO CONCRETE LI GHT POLE (9-- WOOD LI GHT POLE O- METAL LI GHT POLE FIBERGLASS LI GHT POLE 11 CONCRETE UTI LI TY POLE METAL UTI LI TY POLE DECORATIVE LIGHTING GUY WI RE UTI LI TY PANEL ® UTI LI TY RI SER TELEPHONE BOX TV CABLE BOX GAS METER FIBER OPTIC RISER TRAFFIC HANDHOLE ELECTRIC HANDHOLE ANTENNA ESANFTARY CLEANOUT 05 5 SPOT ELEVATION I UP I 5 F❑ E VALVE POST INDICATOR SURVEYOR'S NOTES: S/W M/H H/W AP AHU A/G SSMH BLDG DIA REC FND TYP SEC ORB PB PG SIDEWALK MANHOLE HEADWALL ABANDONED IN PLACE AIR HANDLER UNIT ABOVE GROUND SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE BUILDING DIAMETER RECOVERED FOUND TYPICAL SECTION OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK PLAT BOOK PAGE EASEMENT NEW ELECTRIC MANHOLE COMM MANHOLE 0 ELECTRI C MANHOLE 0 STORM MANHOLE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 0 UNKNOWN MANHOLE FI RE HYDRANT ea BLOW OFF SPRINKLER WATER GATE H SEWER GATE REUSE GATE H GAS GATE WATER METER l a l MAILBOX O GUARD POST CONCRETE 0 SIGN w C N PE 0 OAK TREE SHRUB ED UNKNOWN TREE MAPLE PINE TREE PALM TREE n'1 TREE LINE U/G WATER 2 POST SIGN ® BOUNDARY CONTROL PROJECT BENCH MARK ELECTRIC PULLBOX Da BACKFLOW PREVENTER URI)SPI GOT c ss FM OH U/G COMM -U/G ELECTRIC U/G NON -POTABLE WATER U/G UNKNOWN UTILITY U/G GAS U/G SANITARY SEWER -U/G FORCE MAI N OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL GAS LINE MARKER COMM LINE MARKER ELECTRIC LINE MARKER SANITARY SEWER LINE MARKER FI BEROPTI C LINE MARKER 0 EiI SIAMESE CONNECTOR cpo x x— FENCE LI NE 1. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY. SUBJECT TO ANY EASEMENTS AND/OR RIGHTS -OF -WAY OF RECORD. 2. HORIZONTAL COORDINATES ARE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83), 1990 ADJUSTMENT AND ARE BASED ON THE UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC MONUMENT "N 205", HAVING PUBLISHED COORDINATES OF N.1473799.12, E.782908.08. 3. ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD 1988) AND ARE BASED ON UNITED STATES COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY MONUMENT "N 205" HAVING A PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 7.77 FEET. 4. SUNSHINE ONE CALL TICKET NUMBER 169310105. 5. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON ABOVE -GROUND STRUCTURES, MARKINGS PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ASBUILT DRAWINGS PROVIDED TO THE SURVEYOR. LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/STRUCTURES MAY VARY FROM LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON. ADDITIONAL BURIED UTILITIES/STRUCTURES MAY BE ENCOUNTERED. BEFORE BEGINNING EXCAVATIONS, THE FOLLOWING OFFICES SHOULD BE CONTACTED FOR VERIFICATION OF UTILITY TYPE AND FOR FIELD LOCATIONS. SUNSHINE ONE -CALL # 194302039 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS JERROLD KAISER (321) 338-1928 FIBER OPTIC CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL JAMES MOORE (321) 868-1240 x403 SEWER & RECLAIMED CITY OF COCOA UTILITIES KATHERINE ENNIS (321 ) 433-8797 WATER CITY OF COCOA BEACH BRAD KASLOW (321) 868-3308 SEWER FLORIDA CITY GAS GUSTAVO PENA (305) 835-3624 GAS FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT JOEL BRAY (386) 586-6403 ELECTRIC ATT/DISTRIBUTION DINO FARRUGGIO (561) 683-2729 TELEPHONE RESPONSE: FIBER OPTIC PRESENCE **WARNING TO CALL BEFORE DIG** 6. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE CLIENT(S) SHOWN HEREON AND COPIES ARE VALID ONLY WITH THE SIGNATURE AND ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER UNLESS ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND SEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 472.025 AND THE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE FOR SURVEYS AS REFERENCED BY CHAPTER 5J-17, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODES. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY DEPICTED HEREON IS TRUE AND MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS & MAPPERS IN CHAPTER 5J-17.051, FLORIDA FLORIDA STATUTES. DAVID J. KUGELMANN P.L.S. NO. 5117 STATE OF FLORIDA °...'\ UcE''''',, :�� ��O N5E No �� 5117 'O'. STATE OF %(`' FLORIDA O .>- z • • v k- BLOCK 42, AVON-BY-THE-SEA PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 SSMH RIM EL: 8.61' E INV EL: 0.46' W INV EL: 0.57' 12" 12" —R/W R/W ® I°8 •. Pti POLK AVENUE SSA - S S - 48' RIGHT OF WAY 9O9 R/W ?ARY ems, CA O� R/W LA R/W SPRINKLER HEAD (TYP) oy R/ S° 8 ‹c8 w 7 w z 0)° cc 6S6 o- z R/N R/W 9.25 LZ°6 R/W EOP S S-= EOP RIGHT OF WAY (TYP) 20/ POLK AVENUE CAPE CANAVERAL, FL 32920 LOTS 1-16, BLOCK 47 AVON-BY-THE-SEA PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 ASPHALT APRON Lo W R/W 6g6 TAYLOR AVENUE % ss ss - 48' R1GHT OF WAY CONCRETE APRON R/W CONCRETE APRON R/W 0 BLOCK 52 AVON-BY-THE-SEA PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 W R/W R/ s• W R �W SSMH RIM EL: 8.61' E INV EL: 1.75' W INV EL: 1.87' S� BOREHOLE S-1 BOREHOLE S-2 0 °g9 R/W —s 2> RiW SMALL ORNAMENTAL h ° 18 ONCRET wAPRON R/ 9/ 9.06; i�� 8" LINED VCP SS R/W cb A� o SS °`9R/W 'STOP' CURB INLET 2'x 3' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 7.71' INV EL: 3.47' LANDSCAPED AREA EOP SS EOP R/W PROJECT BENCH MARK FND NAIL TRAVERSE DISC BM#1 (ID: LSSC PLS 5170 CARLILE) N: 1472772.32 E: 783873.40 CURB INLET 2' x 3'STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 7.77' V ET ERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK GRATE NW GUARD RAIL RIGHT OF WAY (TYP) CURB INLET 3'STORM GRATE INV EL: 2.77' BOREHOLE S-4 CONTROL STRUCTURE 2'x 1' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL:7.48' INV EL: 2.76' BOTTOM EL: 2.28' 69. ' MIAMI CURB (TYP) 8" LINED VCP ' MIAMI CURB (TYP) R/W RIGHT OF WAY (TYP) EOP EOP PARKING INFO S S CURB INLET 2'x 3' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 7.50' N INV EL: 2.89' S INV EL: 2.97' 9.20 CO CO cp CC 7.93 )41 .87 col • 0 cc 50 QD IS S co 0 Ln o o co >- FND RAILROAD SPIKE IN CUT OUT (NO ID) .8.55 4"GUARD POSTS (TYP) AROUND BACKFLOW PREVENTER CURB INLET 2'x 3/STORM GRATE BLOCK 43 GRATE TOP EL: 6.91' AVON-BY-THE-SEA PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 S 03 09 8.20 cb ce 8.5 ce EOP EOP STOP' R/W LANDSCAPED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE (TYP) AREA S SSMH CURB INLET 2'x 3' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 7.26' E INV EL: 3.01' FND N&D (ID: LSSC PLS 5170 CARLILE) RIGHT OF WAY (TYP) LANDSCAPE ROCKS BLOCK 48 PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 CURB INLET 2'x 3' STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 7.55' INV EL: 4.35' FND #5 REBAR IN ASPHALT (NO STOP & STREET cti 00 EOP 7.77 FND #5 REBAR IN ASPHALT (NO ID) RIGHT OF WAY (TYP) SSMH RIM EL: 7.73' E INV EL: 0.58' W INV EL: 0.62' 8" LINED VCP CURB INLET 2'x 3/STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 7.50' BLOCK 53 PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 SHEET FILE GRAPHIC SCALE MMMM 0 20 1 INCH = 20 FEET 40 KUGELMANN LAND SURVEYING, INC. 30 NORTH TROPICAL TRAIL SUITE B MERRITT ISLAND, FLORIDA 32953 (321) 459-0930 SIGNATURES DRAWN: KKW CHECKED: MJF SURVEYOR: DJK DATE 07/13/2023 07/13/2023 07/13/2023 REVISIONS DATE CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL, F LORIDA RIGHT S-OF-W AY OF POLK AVENUE, ORANGE AVENUE, T AY LOR AVENUE & BLOCK 4 7, PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 7 FIELD DATE: 07/07/2023 FI ELD BOOK: SEE FI LE Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX F Civic Hub Exfiltration Analysis Plotted By Gonzalez, Randy Sheet Set Kha Layout:Layout1 October 03, 2023 05 28: 15pm K: \ORL LA\149501004 COCC Civic Hub \CAD\EXHIBITS\202310 03 Drainage Areas Exhibit dwg This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc STORMWATER DETENTION AREA = 0.165 AC MIN EG = SHWT = BOT. EXFIL ELEV = TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 9.00 FT 4.00 FT 5.00 FT 8.00 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.50 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.50 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.351 AC -FT PERVIOUS PAVER AREA = 0.117 AC MIN EG = 8.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 7.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.70 FT STORMWATER DETENTION AREA = 0.102 AC MIN EG = SHWT = BOT. EXFIL ELEV = TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 8.50 FT 4.00 FT 5.00 FT 7.50 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.00 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.00 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.173 AC -FT DRAINAGE AREA P2 SLOT DRAIN TOP EL: 8.35' MHST RIM EL: 8.60' N INV EL: 3.73' S INV EL: 3.66' PERVIOUS PAVER AREA = 0.163 AC MIN EG = 9.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 8.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 3.70 FT STORMWATER DETENTIION AREA = 0.196 AC BOT. TOP. MIN EG = SHWT = XFIL ELEV = XFIL ELEV = 9.00 FT 4.00 FT 5.00 FT 8.00 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.50 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.50 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. = 0.417 AC -FT CATCH BASIN 3'x 4' GRATE TOP OF GRATE EL: 9.21' INV EL: 3.30' CIVIC HUB PREPARED FOR CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL CITY OF CAPE CANAVERAL FLORIDA DRAINAGE AREA P1 DRAINAGE AREA W1 MIN EG = 9.00 FT DRAINAGE AREA P3 DRAINAGE AREA W2 PERVIOUS PAVER AREA = 0.056 AC MIN EG = 7.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 6.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 1.70 FT PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EXHIBIT KHA PROJECT 149501004 DATE 10/3/2023 SCALE AS SHOWN DESIGNED BY RMG DRAWN BY RMG CHECKED BY SM LICENSED PROFESSIONAL LIC PROF 1 STATE LICENSE NUMBER SIC PROF 1 # DATE: MIN EG = 8.50 FT MIN EG = 7.50 FT MIN EG = 8.00 FT 1 DRAINAGE AREA E3 MIN EG = 7.00 FT DRAINAGE AREA El STORMWATER DETENTION 'AREA IN EG = 8.50 FT HWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. 'EXFIL ELEV = 7.50 FT = 0.164 AC ryROVIDED TREATMENT VLy TREATMENT VOLUME ELEy = 7.00 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.0i FT ROVIDED TREATMENT VOi_. =0.279 AC -FT DRAINAGE AREA E2 STORMWATE NTION AREA = 0.213 AC MIN EG = 7.50 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 6.50 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 6.00 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 1.00 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.181 AC -FT STORM WATER ETENTION AREA = 0.579 MIN EG = 8.0m FT SHWT = 4.00 rT BOT. EXFIL ELIV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 7.00 FT TREATMENT V LUME ELEV = 6.50 FT AVAILABLE DE TH = 1.50 FT PROVIDED THE TMENT VOL. =0.738 AC -FT DRAINAGE AREA E4 STORMWATER DETENTION AREA = 0.108 AC I MIN EG=7.0 FT SHWT = 4.001 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 6.00 FT TREATMENT V AVAILABLE DE FLUME ELEV = 5.50 FT PTH = 0.50 FT PROVIDED TREIATMENT VOL. =0.045 AC -FT \\_ CURB INLET 2'x 3'STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 6.66' N INV EL: 0.85' E INV EL: 3.81' S INV EL: 0.72' GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET 0 15 30 60 ASSUMPTIONS: 2. 3. THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER ELEVATION (SHWE) ELEVATION HAS BEEN ASSUMED TO BE 4.00 FT (NAVD 88) WHICH MATCHES THE SHWE OF "VETERAN'S MEMORIAL PARK" ACROSS THE STREET ASSUME 85% VOID RATIO WITHIN UNDERGROUND STORMWATER SYSTEMS ASSUME WEIR 6" BELOW THE TOP OF THE EXFILTRATION SYSTEM PROVIDED TREATMENT VOLUME / WATER QUALITY WEST BASIN = 0.941 AC -FT EAST BASIN = 1.243 AC -FT TOTAL = 2.184 AC -FT KimIey» Horn © 2023 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 189 S. ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 1000, ORLANDO, FL 32801 PHONE: 407-898-1511 WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM REGISTRY No. 35106 No. REVISIONS DATE BY Contech Engineered Solutions Drainage Area Area Description Stormwater System Treatment Volume Provided (CF) Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Rough Order of Magnitude Cost per CY W1 NW Parking Lot 30" CMP Perforated 16,994 $203,928.00 $12.00 W2 Taylor Ave 30" CMP Perforated 8,746 $104,952.00 $12.00 W3 Activity Lawn 36" CMP Perforated 13,897 $166,764.00 $12.00 Sub -total I 39,637 $475,644.00 AVG=$12.00 El NE Parking Lot 30" CMP Perforated 13,296 $159,552.00 $12.00 E2 Taylor Ave 18" CMP Perforated 9,247 $110,964.00 $12.00 E3 Tennis/ Pickleball Courts 24" CMP Perforated 38,695 $464,340.00 $12.00 E4 E. Parking Lot 12" CMP Perforated 3,678 $44,136.00 $12.00 Sub -total I 64,916 $778,992.00 AVG=$12.00 Total: I 104,553 $1,254,636.00 AVG=$12.00 CMP DETENTION INSTALLATION GUIDE IN -SITU TRENCH WALL CMP DETENTION SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE C:\EXPORTS\TEMPLATES\CMP VB.DWG PROPER INSTALLATION OF A FLEXIBLE UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEM WILL ENSURE LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE. THE CONFIGURATION OF THESE SYSTEMS OFTEN REQUIRES SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES THAT DIFFER FROM CONVENTIONAL FLEXIBLE PIPE CONSTRUCTION. CONTECH ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS STRONGLY SUGGESTS SCHEDULING A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH YOUR LOCAL SALES ENGINEER TO DETERMINE IF ADDITIONAL MEASURES, NOT COVERED IN THIS GUIDE, ARE APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR SITE. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCT A FOUNDATION THAT CAN SUPPORT THE DESIGN LOADING APPLIED BY THE PIPE AND ADJACENT BACKFILL WEIGHT AS WELL AS MAINTAIN ITS INTEGRITY DURING CONSTRUCTION. IF SOFT OR UNSUITABLE SOILS ARE ENCOUNTERED, REMOVE THE POOR SOILS DOWN TO A SUITABLE DEPTH AND THEN BUILD UP TO THE APPROPRIATE ELEVATION WITH A COMPETENT BACKFILL MATERIAL. THE STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL GRADATION SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE MIGRATION OF FINES, WHICH CAN CAUSE SETTLEMENT OF THE DETENTION SYSTEM OR PAVEMENT ABOVE. IF THE STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIAL IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE UNDERLYING SOILS AN ENGINEERING FABRIC SHOULD BE USED AS A SEPARATOR. IN SOME CASES, USING A STIFF REINFORCING GEOGRID REDUCES OVER EXCAVATION AND REPLACEMENT FILL QUANTITIES. GEOGRID USED TO REDUCE BACKFILL THE AMOUNT OF UNDERCUT COVER GEOGRID WASN'T USED GEOGRID BEDDING UNDERCUT AND REPLACE UNSUITABLE SOILS GRADE THE FOUNDATION SUBGRADE TO A UNIFORM OR SLIGHTLY SLOPING GRADE. IF THE SUBGRADE IS CLAY OR RELATIVELY NON -POROUS AND THE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE WILL LAST FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, IT IS BEST TO SLOPE THE GRADE TO ONE END OF THE SYSTEM. THIS WILL ALLOW EXCESS WATER TO DRAIN QUICKLY, PREVENTING SATURATION OF THE SUBGRADE. GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER IF EXCAVATION IS REQUIRED, THE TRENCH WALL NEEDS TO BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE LOAD THAT THE PIPE SHEDS AS THE SYSTEM IS LOADED. IF SOILS ARE NOT CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THESE LOADS, THE PIPE CAN DEFLECT. PERFORM A SIMPLE SOIL PRESSURE CHECK USING THE APPLIED LOADS TO DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF EXCAVATION BEYOND THE SPRING LINE OF THE OUTER MOST PIPES. IN MOST CASES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND PROPER BACKFILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION TAKE CARE OF THIS CONCERN. / LIVE LOAD BACKFILL - WELL GRADED Q" GRANULAR AND SMALLER A SITE'S RESISTIVITY MAY CHANGE OVER TIME WHEN VARIOUS TYPES OF SALTING AGENTS ARE USED, SUCH AS ROAD SALTS FOR DEICING AGENTS. IF SALTING AGENTS ARE USED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE, A GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER IS RECOMMENDED WITH THE SYSTEM. THE GEOMEMBRANE LINER IS INTENDED TO HELP PROTECT THE SYSTEM FROM THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE USE OF SUCH AGENTS INCLUDING PREMATURE CORROSION AND REDUCED ACTUAL SERVICE LIFE. THE PROJECT'S ENGINEER OF RECORD IS TO EVALUATE WHETHER SALTING AGENTS WILL BE USED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE, AND USE HIS/HER BEST JUDGEMENT TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES ARE REQUIRED. BELOW IS ATYPICAL DETAIL SHOWING THE PLACEMENT OF A GEOMEMBRANE BARRIER FOR PROJECTS WHERE SALTING AGENTS ARE USED ON OR NEAR THE PROJECT SITE. .29 MIL PE IMPERMEABLE (12" tO s°mil LINER OVER TOP OF PIPE I FOR lot AND>) ////////////////////////////////////////////// ED eD NP I. LIMITS oF NEOUINED PASKFILL \ BEDDING - WELL GRADED GRANULAR AND SMALLER OrWe'm EMBANKMENT vvvvvvvvvvvv BACKFILL PLACEMENT GEOTEXTILE SEPARATION (ABOVE AND BELOW BEDDING) WITH UNIFORMLY GRADED BEDDING LAYER. MATERIAL SHALL BE WORKED INTO THE PIPE HAUNCHES BY MEANS OF SHOVEL -SLICING, RODDING, AIR TAMPER, VIBRATORY ROD, OR OTHER EFFECTIVE METHODS. MAXIMUM UNBALANCE LIMITED TO 2 LIFTS (APPROX. 16") BANKMENT 8 LOOSE LIFTS BEDDING IF AASHTO T99 PROCEDURES ARE DETERMINED INFEASIBLE BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD, COMPACTION IS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE WHEN NO FURTHER YIELDING OF THE MATERIAL IS OBSERVED UNDER THE COMPACTOR, OR UNDER FOOT, AND THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD (OR REPRESENTATIVE THEREOF) IS SATISFIED WITH THE LEVEL OF COMPACTION. FOR LARGE SYSTEMS, CONVEYOR SYSTEMS, BACKHOES WITH LONG REACHES OR DRAGLINES WITH STONE BUCKETS MAY BE USED TO PLACE BACKFILL. ONCE MINIMUM COVER FOR CONSTRUCTION LOADING ACROSS THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE SYSTEM IS REACHED, ADVANCE THE EQUIPMENT TO THE END OF THE RECENTLY PLACED FILL, AND BEGIN THE SEQUENCE AGAIN UNTIL THE SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY BACKFILLED. THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROVIDES ROOM FOR STOCKPILED BACKFILL DIRECTLY BEHIND THE BACKHOE, AS WELL AS THE MOVEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. MATERIAL STOCKPILES ON TOP OF THE BACKFILLED DETENTION SYSTEM SHOULD BE LIMITED TO 8- TO 10-FEET HIGH AND MUST PROVIDE BALANCED LOADING ACROSS ALL BARRELS. TO DETERMINE THE PROPER COVER OVER THE PIPES TO ALLOW THE MOVEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT SEE TABLE 1, OR CONTACT YOUR LOCAL CONTECH SALES ENGINEER. TYPICAL BACKFILL SEQUENCE EMBANKMENT WHEN FLOWABLE FILL IS USED, YOU MUST PREVENT PIPE FLOATATION. TYPICALLY, SMALL LIFTS ARE PLACED BETWEEN THE PIPES AND THEN ALLOWED TO SET-UP PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE NEXT LIFT. THE ALLOWABLE THICKNESS OF THE CLSM LIFT IS A FUNCTION OF A PROPER BALANCE BETWEEN THE UPLIFT FORCE OF THE CLSM, THE OPPOSING WEIGHT OF THE PIPE, AND THE EFFECT OF OTHER RESTRAINING MEASURES. THE PIPE CAN CARRY LIMITED FLUID PRESSURE WITHOUT PIPE DISTORTION OR DISPLACEMENT, WHICH ALSO AFFECTS THE CLSM LIFT THICKNESS. YOUR LOCAL CONTECH SALES ENGINEER CAN HELP DETERMINE THE PROPER LIFT THICKNESS. STAGE POURS AS REQUIRED TO CONTROL FLOATATION AND PIPE DISTORTION/DISPLACEMENT CLSM / /,,,\/ 10 0 0 0 WEIGHTED PIPE WITH MOBILE CONCRETE BARRIERS (OR OTHER REMOVABLE WEIGHTS) CONSTRUCTION LOADING BANKMENT TYPICALLY, THE MINIMUM COVER SPECIFIED FOR A PROJECT ASSUMES H-20 LIVE LOAD. BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION LOADS OFTEN EXCEED DESIGN LIVE LOADS, INCREASED TEMPORARY MINIMUM COVER REQUIREMENTS ARE NECESSARY. SINCE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VARIES FROM JOB TO JOB, IT IS BEST TO ADDRESS EQUIPMENT SPECIFIC MINIMUM COVER REQUIREMENTS WITH YOUR LOCAL CONTECH SALES ENGINEER DURING YOUR PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS BECAUSE MOST SYSTEMS ARE CONSTRUCTED BELOW -GRADE, RAINFALL CAN RAPIDLY FILL THE EXCAVATION; POTENTIALLY CAUSING FLOATATION AND MOVEMENT OF THE PREVIOUSLY PLACED PIPES. TO HELP MITIGATE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, IT IS BEST TO START THE INSTALLATION AT THE DOWNSTREAM END WITH THE OUTLET ALREADY CONSTRUCTED TO ALLOW A ROUTE FOR THE WATER TO ESCAPE. TEMPORARY DIVERSION MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR HIGH FLOWS DUE TO THE RESTRICTED NATURE OF THE OUTLET PIPE. CATCH BASIN INLET WATER \ —_WATER WATER ELEVATION IN DETENTION SYSTEM PAVED PARKING LOT FINISHED FUNCTIONING SYSTEM OUTLET CONTROL UNDERGROUND STORMWATER DETENTION AND INFILTRATION SYSTEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED AT REGULAR INTERVALS FOR PURPOSES OF PERFORMANCE AND LONGEVITY. INSPECTION INSPECTION IS THE KEY TO EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE OF CMP DETENTION SYSTEMS AND IS EASILY PERFORMED. CONTECH RECOMMENDS ONGOING, ANNUAL INSPECTIONS. SITES WITH HIGH TRASH LOAD OR SMALL OUTLET CONTROL ORIFICES MAY NEED MORE FREQUENT INSPECTIONS. THE RATE AT WHICH THE SYSTEM COLLECTS POLLUTANTS WILL DEPEND MORE ON SITE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES RATHER THAN THE SIZE OR CONFIGURATION OF THE SYSTEM. INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE PERFORMED MORE OFTEN IN EQUIPMENT WASHDOWN AREAS, IN CLIMATES WHERE SANDING AND/OR SALTING OPERATIONS TAKE PLACE, AND IN OTHER VARIOUS INSTANCES IN WHICH ONE WOULD EXPECT HIGHER ACCUMULATIONS OF SEDIMENT OR ABRASIVE/ CORROSIVE CONDITIONS. A RECORD OF EACH INSPECTION IS TO BE MAINTAINED FOR THE LIFE OF THE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE CMP DETENTION SYSTEMS SHOULD BE CLEANED WHEN AN INSPECTION REVEALS ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT OR TRASH IS CLOGGING THE DISCHARGE ORIFICE. ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND TRASH CAN TYPICALLY BE EVACUATED THROUGH THE MANHOLE OVER THE OUTLET ORIFICE. IF MAINTENANCE IS NOT PERFORMED AS RECOMMENDED, SEDIMENT AND TRASH MAY ACCUMULATE IN FRONT OF THE OUTLET ORIFICE. MANHOLE COVERS SHOULD BE SECURELY SEATED FOLLOWING CLEANING ACTIVITIES. CONTECH SUGGESTS THAT ALL SYSTEMS BE DESIGNED WITH AN ACCESS/INSPECTION MANHOLE SITUATED AT OR NEAR THE INLET AND THE OUTLET ORIFICE. SHOULD IT BE NECESSARY TO GET INSIDE THE SYSTEM TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, ALL APPROPRIATE PRECAUTIONS REGARDING CONFINED SPACE ENTRY AND OSHA REGULATIONS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. ANNUAL INSPECTIONS ARE BEST PRACTICE FOR ALL UNDERGROUND SYSTEMS. DURING THIS INSPECTION, IF EVIDENCE OF SALTING/DE-ICING AGENTS IS OBSERVED WITHIN THE SYSTEM, IT IS BEST PRACTICE FOR THE SYSTEM TO BE RINSED, INCLUDING ABOVE THE SPRING LINE SOON AFTER THE SPRING THAW AS PART OF THE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR THE SYSTEM. MAINTAINING AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION OR INFILTRATION SYSTEM IS EASIEST WHEN THERE IS NO FLOW ENTERING THE SYSTEM. FOR THIS REASON, IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO SCHEDULE THE CLEANOUT DURING DRY WEATHER. THE FOREGOING INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE EFFORTS HELP ENSURE UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEMS USED FOR STORMWATER STORAGE CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS INTENDED BY IDENTIFYING RECOMMENDED REGULAR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE RELATED TO THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE PIPE OR THE SOUNDNESS OF PIPE JOINT CONNECTIONS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS GUIDE. The design and Information shown on this drawing Is provided as a ce to the projectowner, engineer and contractor by Contech Engineered Solutions LLC ("Contech'_ Neitherthls drawing, nor any pan thereof may be used, reproduced or modified In any manner without the prior written consent of Contech. Failure to comply Is done at the users own risk and Contech expressly disclaims any Ilablllty or responsibility for such use If discrepan es between the supplied Ink:so ation upon which the drawing is based and actual field conditions are encountered ts site work progresses, these discrepancies must be reported o Contech Immediately for re-evaluation of the design. Contech accepts no liability for designs based on missing, Incomplete or Inaccuate information supplied by others DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION BY CONTEC H® ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS LLC www.ContechES.com 9025 Centre Pointe Dr., Suite 400, West Chester, OH 45069 800-338-1122 513-645-7000 513-645-7993 FAX V0E4 `ire CMP DETENTION SYSTEMS CONTECH DYODS DRAWING DY038875 Cape Canaveral Civic Hub North of Pickleball Courts 18" diameter Orlando, FL DETENTION SYSTEM PROJECT No.: 26493 SEQ. No.: 38875 DATE: 10/4/2023 DESIGNED: DYO DRAWN: DYO CHECKED: DYO APPROVED: DYO SHEET NO.: 1 StormTrap Drainage Area Area Description Stormwater System Treatment Volume Provided (CF) Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Rough Order of Magnitude Cost per CF W1 NW Parking Lot 3' Single Trap 16,387 $227,500 $13.88 W2 Taylor Ave 2'-6" Single Trap 8,864 $132,500 $14.95 W3 Activity Lawn 3' Single Trap 19,255 $281,500 $14.62 Sub -total I 44,506 $641,500 AVG=$14.48 El NE Parking Lot 2'-6" Single Trap 13,255 $190,000 $14.33 E2 Taylor Ave 1'-6" Single Trap 11,875 $260,000 $21.89 E3 Tennis/ Pickleball Courts 2'-0" Single Trap 44,286 $697,000 $15.74 E4 E. Parking Lot 1'-1" Single Trap 4,380 $164,500 $37.56 Sub -total I 73,796 $1,311,500 AVG=$22.38 Total: I 118,302 $1,953,000 AVG=$18.43 StormTrap MODULAR CONCRETE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Cape Canaveral Civic Center Cape Canaveral, FL STORMWATER DETENTION AREA = 0.165 AC MIN EG = 9.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 8.00 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.50 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.50 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.351 AC -FT PERVIOUS PAVER AREA = 0.117 AC MIN EG = 8.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 7.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.70 FT STORMWATER DETENTION AREA = 0.102 AC MIN EG = 8.50 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 7.50 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.00 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.00 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.173 AC -FT SLOT DRAIN TOP EL: 8.35' MHST RIM EL: 8.60' N INV EL: 3.73' S INV EL: 3.66' PERVIOUS PAVER AREA = 0.163 AC MIN EG = 9.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 8.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 3.70 FT TOP STORMWATER DETENT BOT. TOP. N AREA = 0.196 AC MIN EG = 9.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT XFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT XFIL ELEV = 8.00 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.50 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.50 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. = 0.417 AC -FT CATCH BASIN 3'x 4' GRATE -\ OF GRATE EL: 9.21' INV EL: 3.30' I = I 1 I L t -I I • / 0# ›/ / */ / # / # / % I I \ -44.0\ 0 i % % # 00 ‘ • 4V.,e• , , - � ► �004 mom .moo .moo.00 L mom mom ----- 1.! y. PERVIOUS PAVER AREA = 0.056 AC MIN EG= 7.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 6.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 1.70 FT R M AKIN IN EG - 8. EMMA mono I Ell IIII mom mom NI I �Ca�CI MI MI MI MI MI MI �1 111111111111111 III �NI1 mom -red EG = 8.00 FT 5 FT MIN EG = 8.50 FT I SHWTi, =74.00 FT -CBOT. (EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. 'EXFIL ELEV = 7.50 FT B!, SIN G VIN 7. EC 00 'T TREATMENT VOLUME ELE = 7.00 FT "" . T E DEPTH = 2.0 FT TREATMENT VOi.. =0.279 AC -FT STORMWATEI{'O 7 9 AREA - 0.213 AC MIN EG = 7 50 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL LEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL LEV = 6.50 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 6.00 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 1.00 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.181 AC -FT STORMWATER ETENTION AREA = 0.579 AC MIN EG = 8.0 FT SHWT = 4.00 BOT. EXFIL ELIIV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 7.00 FT TREATMENT V LUME ELEV = 6.50 FT AVAILABLE DE TH = 1.50 FT PROVIDED THE TMENT VOL. =0.738 AC -FT STORMWATER (DETENTION AREA = 0.108 A MIN EG = 7.010 FT SHWT = 4.001 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELV = 6.00 FT TREATMENT AVAILABLE D LUME ELEV = 5.50 F' 'TH = 0.50 FT PROVIDED TR ATMENT VOL. =0 045 'IL- CURB INLET 2'x 3'STORM GRATE GRATE TOP EL: 6.66' N INV EL: 0.85' E INV EL: 3.81' S INV EL: 0.72' P ZONE CHART ZONES ZONE DESCRIPTIONS REMARKS ZONE 1 A FOUNDATION AGGREGATE ZONE 1 B FOUNDATION AGGREGATE ZONE 2 BACKFILL ZONE 3 FINAL COVER OVERTOP GEOFAB RI C/GEOTEXTI LE OR EQUAL ( SEE NOTE 1) STORMTRAP ZONE I NSTALLATI ON SPECI FI CATI ONS/ PROCEDURES 1. THE FILL PLACED AROUND THE STORMTRAP MODULES MUST DEPOSITED ON BOTH SIDES AT THE SAME TIME AND TO APPROXIMATELY THE SAME ELEVATION. AT NO TIME SHALL THE FILL BEHIND ONE SIDE WALL BE MORE THAN 2'-0" HIGHER THAN THE FILL ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE. BACKFILL SHALL EITHER BE COMPACTED AND/OR VIBRATED TO ENSURE THAT BACKFILL AGGREGATE/STONE MATERIAL IS WELL SEATED AND PROPERLY INTER LOCKED. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT ANY WEDGING ACTION AGAINST THE STRUCTURE, AND ALL SLOPES WITHIN THE AREA TO BE BACKFILLED MUST BE STEPPED OR SERRATED TO PREVENT WEDGING ACTION. CARE SHALL ALSO BE TAKEN AS NOT TO DISRUPT THE JOINT WRAP FROM THE JOINT DURING THE BACKFILL PROCESS. BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR No. 5 (AASHTO M43) AGGREGATE. I F NATIVE EARTH IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO MIGRATION, CONFIRM WITH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AS REQUIRED. 2. DURING PLACEMENT OF MATERIAL OVERTOP THE SYSTEM, AT NO TIME SHALL MACHINERY BE USED OVERTOP THAT EXCEEDS THE DESIGN LIMITATIONS OF THE SYSTEM. WHEN PLACEMENT OF MATERIAL OVERTOP, MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED SUCH THAT THE DIRECTION OF PLACEMENT IS PARALLEL WITH THE OVERALL LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION OF THE SYSTEM WHENEVER POSSIBLE. 3. THE FILL PLACED OVERTOP THE SYSTEM SHALL BE PLACED AT A MINIMUM OF 6" LIFTS. AT NO TIME SHALL MACHINERY OR VEHICLES GREATER THAN THE DESIGN HS-20 LOADING CRITERIA TRAVEL OVERTOP THE SYSTEM WITHOUT THE MINIMUM DESIGN COVERAGE. IF TRAVEL IS NECESSARY OVERTOP THE SYSTEM PRIOR TO ACHIEVING THE MINIMUM DESIGN COVER, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO REDUCE THE ULTIMATE LOAD/BURDEN OF THE OPERATING MACHINERY SO AS TO NOT EXCEED THE DESIGN CAPACITY OF THE SYSTEM. IN SOME CASES, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE REQUIRED COMPACTION, HAND COMPACTION MAYBE NECESSARY IN ORDER NOT TO EXCEED THE ALLOTTED DESIGN LOADING. ZONE 31 STEPPED OR SERRATED AND APPLICABLE OSHA REQUIREMENTS (SEE BACKFILL NOTE 1) 10:.4-.••-i••.•e••••i..••.•••...40.,E•-•••.•01ZONE 1 A •.• ...0.••1.••-•••..••••• 0. .•••..401:••2. BACKFILL DETAI L GEOFABRIC/GEOTEXTI LE OR EQUAL (SEE NOTE 1) StormTrap® PATENTS LISTED AT: [HTP://STOW-MAP.COW PATENT] 1-877-867-6872 ENGI NEER INFORMATION: PROJECT INFORMATION: SINGLETRAP I NFI LTRATI ON CURRENT ISSUE DATE: ISSUED FOR: SAMPLE PROJECT REV. DATE: ISSUED FOR: DWN BY: SCALE: NTS SHEET TITLE: SI NGLETRAP BACKFILL SPECI FI CATIONS SHEET NUMBER: 4.0 Belga rd Drainage Area Area Description Stormwater System Treatment Volume Provided (CF) Rough Order of Magnitude Cost Rough Order of Magnitude Cost per W1 NW Parking Lot PermaCapture 14,688 $433,552 $29.52 W3 Activity Lawn StormCapture 16,320 $408,000 $25.00 Sub -total I 31,008 $841,552 AVG=$27.26 El NE Parking Lot StormCapture 12,153 $303,825 $25.00 E3 Tennis/ Pickleball Courts StormCapture 31,824 $795,600 $25.00 E4 E. Parking Lot Permeable Pavers 2,900 $71,837 $24.77 Sub -total I 46,877 $1,171,262 AVG=$24.92 Taylor Ave Taylor Ave Permeable Pavers 13,000 $238,217 $18.32 City Hall North Ext. Permeable Pavers 5,200 $104,330 $20.06 City Hall South Ext. Permeable Pavers 10,000 $180,961 $18.10 S. Parking Lot S.Parking Lot Permeable Pavers 2,500 $49,586 $19.83 Sub -total I 30,700 $573,094 AVG=$19.08 Total: I 108,585 $2,585,907 AVG=$23.75 BELGARD � COMMERCIAL.. CIVIC HUB DETENTION SUMMARY DETENTION AREA TREATMENT VOL REQ (AC -FT) TREATMENT VOL REQ (CF) TREATMENT VOL PROVIDED (AC -FT)) TREATMENT VOL PROVIDED (CF) UNIT COST (CF) TOTAL COST Food Truck Area - PermeCapture 0.351 15,290 0.119 14,688 $29.52 $433,551.85 NE Parking Lot - StormCapture 0.279 12,153 0.279 12,153 $25.00 $303,825.00 Tennis/Pickleball Courts - StormCapture 0.738 32,147 0.731 31,824 $25.00 $795,600.00 Activity Lawn - StormCapture 0.417 18,165 0.375 16,320 $25.00 $408,000.00 City Hall Plaza Ext (North) - Permeable Pavers - - 0.119 5,200 $20.06 $104,329.94 City Hall Plaza Ext (South) - Permeable Pavers - - 0.230 10,000 $18.10 $180,960.89 W Parking Lot - Permeable Pavers - - 0.067 2,900 $24.77 $71,836.67 S Parking Lot - Permeable Pavers - - 0.057 2,500 $19.83 $49,585.78 Taylor Avenue - Permeable Pavers 0.354 15,420 0.298 13,000 $18.32 $238,217.23 Totals 2.139 93,175 2.275 108,585 $2,585,907.36 PERMECAPTURE DETENTION AREA = 0.165 AC MIN EG = 9.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 8.00 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.50 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.50 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.337 AC -FT PERMEABLE PAVER DETENTION AREA = 0.117 AC MIN EG = 8.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 7.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.70 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.119 AC -FT PERMEABLE PAVER DETENTION AREA = 0.163 AC MIN EG = 9.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV = 8.70 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 3.70 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.230 AC -FT STORMCAPTURE DETENTION ARE IMIN EG = 9.00 FT I. = 0.196 AC MIN = 9.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 8.00 FT TREATMENT VOLUME EL AVAILABLE DEP V = 7.50 FT H = 2.50 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. = 0375 AC -FT `1 PERMEABLE PAVER DETENTION AREA STORMCAPTURE DETENTION AREA - VAULT PERMECAPTURE DETENTION AREA- PERMEABLE PAVERS + VAULT STORMCAPTURE DETENTION AREA = 0.164 AC MIN EG = 8.50 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 7.50 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 7.00 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 2.00 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.279 AC -FT PERMEABLE PAVER DETENTION AREA = 0.056 AC MIN EG = 7.00 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. ELEV =- - VA1rAtr D H = 1.70 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.057 AC -FT MIN EG = 7.50 FT MIN EG = 8.00 FT I I i MIN EG = 7.00 FT DETENTION AREA TREATMENT TREATMENT VOL REQ VOL REQ (AC -FT) (CF) TREATMENT TREATMENT VOL VOL PROVIDED PROVIDED (AC -FT)) (CF) UNIT COST (CF) TOTAL COST Food Truck Area - PermeCapture NE Parking Lot - StormCapture Tennis/Pickleball Courts - StormCapture Activity Lawn - StormCapture City Hall Plaza Ext (North) - Permeable Pavers City Hall Plaza Ext (South) - Permeable Pavers W Parking Lot - Permeable Pavers S Parking Lot - Permeable Pavers Taylor Avenue - Permeable Pavers 0.351 15,290 0.279 12,153 0.738 32,147 0.417 18,165 0.354 15,420 0.119 14,688 $29.52 0.279 12,153 $25.00 0.731 31,824 $25.00 0.375 16,320 $25.00 0.119 5,200 $20.06 0.230 10,000 $18.10 0.067 2,900 $24.77 0.057 2,500 $19.83 0.298 13,000 $18.32 $433,551.85 $303,825.00 $795,600.00 $408,000.00 $104,329.94 $180,960.89 $71,836.67 $49,585.78 $238,217.23 PERMEABLE AVER DETENTION AREA = 0973.i.0 - - MIN EG = 7.50 FT SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEV = 6.50 FT TREATMENT VOLUME ELEV = 6.00 FT AVAILABLE DEPTH = 1.00 FT PROVIDED T�L:-0.218/Trr - - STORMCAPTUR DETENTION AREA = 0.579 AC MIN EG = 8.00 SHWT = 4.00 FT BOT. EXFIL ELEV = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEVI= 7.00 FT TREATMENT V UME ELEV = 6.50 FT AVAILABLE DEP H = 1.50 FT PROVIDED TREATMENT VOL. =0.731 AC -FT PERMEABLE PIVER DETENTION AREA = 0.108 AC MIN EG = 7.00IFT SHWT = 4.00 PF BOT. EXFIL ELE 7 = 5.00 FT TOP. EXFIL ELEJ = 600 FT TREATMENT V JLUME ELEV = 5.50 FT AVAILABLE DE,'TH = 0.50 FT PROVIDED TR TMENT VOL. =0.067 AC -FT Tota Is 2.139 93,175 2.275 108,585 $2,585,907.36 All quantities are conceptual and final quantities should be calculated based upon the final construction documents prepared by the engineer of record. PAVER DESIGN {ONEP? This paver design concept has been prepared by Belgard Commercial for informational purposes only. Belgard Commercial provides design assistance, but in no Sway - - assumes the role of the engineer of record.. The 5nal site design and calculations are the resporlsiblity of the engineer of record_ SITE PLAN NOTES 1. ALL EDGES OF THE PERMEABLE PAVER SYSTEM SHALL BE CONTAINED BY A RIGID EDGE RESTRAINT (E.G. CONCRETE CURB, CONCRETE SIDEWALK, ETC.). 2. CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA RATIO SHOULD BE LESS THAN 5:1 OR SHOULD CONFORM TO LOCAL STANDARDS (THE LESSER OF THE TWO SHOULD GOVERN) GEOTECHNICAL INFO 1. NRCS WEB SOIL SURVEY: Canaveral -Palm Beach - Urban land complex Infiltration Rate: 19.98 to 50.02 in/hr Depth to Water Table: 12 to 36 in. 2. NRCS HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP: A/D SCALE: 1" = 60' 0 30 60 120 Prepared By: Paul C. Cureton, P.E. email: paul.cureton@oldcastle.com phone: 224.762.1942 ■ ■ ■ BELGARD° PAVES THE WAY" Project Name: U Cape Canaveral, Florida Sheet Name: PICP SITE PLAN Geotextile cut flush with top of pavers Cast in place concrete curb per local standards. 6" wide minimum. 2 x #4 Rebar Base Layer, Min. 3" ASTM No. 57 Stone Bedding Layer, 2" ASTM No. 8 Stone Surface VVater Flows through the No. 8, 89 or 9 stone jointing material between the pavers c.i _Sr!rrPA nte_ig_ big�i \,\/\ j \Subbase extends beyond curb to provide working /i j // platform for installation. HIGH WATER TABLE PICP PAVEMENT SECTION Cast in place concrete curb per local standards. 6" wide minimum. Belgard Permeable Pavers 3 1/8"(80mm) thick Base Layer, 4" ASTM No. 57 Stone Subbase Layer, Vairable ASTM No. 4 Stone 2 x #4 Rebar Belgard Permeable Pavers 3 1/8"(80mm) thick Subbase extends beyond curb to provide working platform for installation. Bedding Layer, 2" ASTM No. 8 Stone Base Layer, 4" ASTM No. 57 Stone Subbase Layer, Variable ASTM No. 4 Stone Geotextile Filtration Fabric/Geomembrane on bottom and sides of open graded base if required by the design engineer. Subgrade. Prepare according to recommendations in geotechnical report. Outlet Control Structure I\ 1 I\ CI IV tA1 11111 1111 1 111 1 till. \/ \\� 6 (TYp.) j6 (TYp)•• \ `... 2" (Min.) \/\ • 4" (Min.) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / minimum Geotextile Filtration /� ,' minimum No. 57eaggrrega a surround.%.. Fabric/Geomembrane on ;// (see PICP_2 for section view) bottom and sides of open\\. \\. \\. \\. \\. \\. \\. graded base if required by r//////j/ j\//\//////O�f Orificesizeandelevat elevation • < Frame and grate \ \/\/\/\/\ Concrete flat top /\/ Set rectangular weir to \\/• desired storage /\/ elevation in the subbase the design engineer. , /\ /\ /\ \ i ' . . ` . ,. Subgra e. repare according to recommendations ngeotechnicall report %/\\%%%\ /t i/Ined i/ by i/n /g//e/ %\//•//•//•//�//�//�//�/\\\\// \\)%- Discharge pipe to storm \\i sewer or daylight to surface feature. PICP OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE I. PAVER DESIGN CONCEPT This paver design concept has been prepared by 9elgard Commercial for informational purposes only_ 0elgard Commercial provides design assistance, but in no way assurres the rrIe cf the engineer of record_ The final site design and calculations are the responsiblity of the engineer of record. High VVater Line (Typical) Geotextile Filtration Fabric/Geomembrane on bottom and sides of open graded base if required by the design engineer. SubBase Layer, 6" Min. ASTM No. 2 Stone Design Notes: 1. Depth of subbase subject to site specific hydraulic and structural requirements. Contact Belgard Commercial for design assistance. 2. Paver dimensions subject to aspect and plan ratio requirements based on traffic loading. 3. Geotechnical engineer needs to balance structural stability and soil infiltration when recommending subgrade conditions. 4. Where the filtration geotextile is used, verify with the manufacturer that the material is not subject to clogging and meets requirements of AASHTO M-288. 5. ASTM No. 2 stone may be substituted with No. 3 or No. 4 stone. 6. Strictly pedestrian applications may substitute base/subbase layers with one 6" base layer of ASTM No. 57 stone. Slop TO 5% Belgard Permeable Pavers 3 1/8"(80mm) thick Bedding Layer, 2" ASTM No. 8 Stone Base Layer, 4" ASTM No. 57 Stone Sub base Layer, Variable ASTM No. 4 Stone / / / / / / / / / f"-��' 40 mil HDPE �,\\\;\\,\\ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ /\\\/\\\/\\\/\\\/\\\/\/%,\/\\\/\\\/\\\/\\\/�//\�/i\/\\/\\/\\smooth liner baffle Subgrade (do not compact) PICP W/ GEOMEMBRANE FLOW DAMS Surface VVater Flows through the No. 8, 89 or 9 stone jointing material between the pavers Subgrade. Prepare according to recommendations in geotechnical report. Belgard Permeable Pavers 3 1/8"(80mm) thick minimum Bedding Layer, 2" ASTM No. 8 Stone Base Layer, 4" Min. ASTM No. 57 Stone StormCapture with Hydroports PERMECAPTURE DETENTION SYSTEM Pavement E StormCapture Subgrade. Prepare according to recommendations in geotechnical report. STORMCAPTURE DETENTION SYSTEM 1" VVeep holes (include in partial and full infiltration systems) Prepared By: Paul C. Cureton, P.E. email: paul.cureton@oldcastle.com phone: 224.762.1942 ■ ■ ■ BELGARD° PAVES THE WAY" Project Name: U Cape Canaveral, Florida Sheet Name: PICP DETAILS 0 z CU CU Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX G "EXIST NAVD88" ICPR Node Max Report 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report 1 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Nodelame im Na Warning Max Stage I Stage [ft] [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic E 25Y-24H 8.25 7.33 - 0.0010 10.49 10.49 597 Atlantic E FDOT-1 8.25 6.13 -0.0008 6.95 6.57 651 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name _Ai M._ Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage Min/Max Max Total [ft] Delta StageJInflow [cfs] [ft] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] Atlantic S 25Y-24H 8.90 8.19 0.0011 7.87 7.73 914 Atlantic S FDOT-1 8.90 6.01 -0.0010 5.77 6.06 973 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Atlantic W Atlantic W 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Warning Stage [ft] 8.40 8.40 Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] [ft] 8.81 6.98 - 0.0154 -0.0010 37.18 21.63 30.61 21.68 Max Surface Area [ft2] 32013 147 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] o�F9 c e Name rmm amen a� rn ng Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Buch anan N 25Y-24H 9.90 7.31 - 0.0010 50.60 50.60 485 Atlantic/Buch anan N FDOT-1 9.90 6.11 0.0019 48.69 47.14 485 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Buch anan S 25Y-24H 10.40 7.48 - 0.0008 2.67 2.65 100 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report 2 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Buch FDOT-1 anan S 10.40 6.67 -0.0007 2.04 2.04 100 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Cente r St Atlantic/Cente r St 25Y-24H FDOT-1 9.80 9.80 6.56 5.30 -0.0011 0.0037 78.46 71.46 78.37 71.44 1915 1915 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] Atlantic/Johns 25Y-24H on 7.65 8.68 -0.0027 25.38 3.30 99813 Atlantic/Johns on FDOT-1 7.65 8.27 -0.0037 16.31 4.51 64449 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surfac [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Lincol n Atlantic/Lincol n 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 7.92 7.92 8.17 8.10 0.0010 -0.0021 9.99 6.74 9.31 6.08 19923 18147 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface L � Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage 'Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] V - [ft] Atlantic/Pierc e 25Y-24H 7.80 8.80 -0.0025 17.46 6.04 65087 Atlantic/Pierc FDOT-1 7.80 8.21 0.0020 10.94 7.00 37473 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report 3 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] e Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Banana River 25Y-24H Lagoon 1.00 1.00 0.0000 131.29 0.00 0 Banana River Lagoon FDOT-1 1.00 1.00 0.0000 105.16 0.00 0 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Buchanan/Or ange N Buchanan/Or ange N 25Y-24H FDOT-1 6.99 6.99 Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 8.13 7.19 -0.0010 0.0015 24.56 15.20 19.86 16.90 48628 10964 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Buchanan/Or ange S 25Y-24H 6.99 8.13 -0.0010 41.38 26.41 53407 Buchanan/Or ange S FDOT-1 6.99 7.20 -0.0029 14.07 15.10 16342 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] III Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Buchanan/Poi nsetta N 25Y-24H 8.25 8.36 0.0010 6.34 6.26 3769 Buchanan/Poi nsetta N FDOT-1 8.25 8.26 -0.0010 4.05 3.83 1930 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Delta Stage jrnflow [cfs] [ft] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] Buchanan/Poi nsetta S 25Y-24H 8.25 7.67 0.0010 49.45 49.33 870 Buchanan/Poi nsetta S FDOT-1 8.25 6.77 0.0022 43.87 43.91 870 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning jmiii Stage [ft] Max Stage Min/Max Max Total [ft] [ft] ta Stainflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] Buchanan/Rid 25Y-24H gewood 9.41 8.52 -0.0010 6.47 2.14 31327 Buchanan/Rid gewood FDOT-1 9.41 8.00 -0.0013 2.91 2.49 15974 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] o�cep impampWarning Stage [ft] Center St Center St 25Y-24H FDOT-1 3.91 3.91 Max Stage [ft] 3.07 2.33 Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 0.0010 0.0006 131.29 105.17 131.29 105.16 634 634 • Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage Min/Max Max Total [ft] Delta StageJInflow [cfs] [ft] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surfac Area [ft2] Fillmore 25Y-24H 6.50 8.25 0.0010 19.09 6.89 66341 Fillmore FDOT-1 6.50 7.56 -0.0047 9.66 8.39 36247 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Mag nolia 25Y-24H 7.86 8.26 0.0010 5.57 3.74 27080 Fillmore/Mag nolia FDOT-1 7.86 7.66 0.0022 4.70 4.71 510 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Oran ge 25Y-24H 6.50 8.25 0.0009 15.78 11.94 36857 Fillmore/Oran ge FDOT-1 6.50 7.49 -0.0045 13.40 12.58 22717 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage jmiii Stage [ft] [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] ta Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Fillmore/Poins 25Y-24H etta 7.80 8.81 0.0010 34.10 11.16 108895 Fillmore/Poins etta FDOT-1 7.80 8.31 -0.0055 16.55 9.79 67365 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] o� c e ' imp amp a i g Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Ridg ewood Fillmore/Ridg ewood 25Y-24H FDOT-1 7.04 7.04 8.41 7.82 -0.0049 -0.0050 15.14 5.18 5.60 5.27 138060 74122 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Johnson/Oran ge 25Y-24H 7.16 8.15 -0.0022 38.11 15.79 119405 Johnson/Oran ge FDOT-1 7.16 7.24 -0.0041 17.10 12.26 40739 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 LipStage [ft] Johnson/Poin setta S Johnson/Poin setta S 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.65 8.65 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report 6 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage diinflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Stage [ft] [ft] Johnson/Poin 25Y-24H setta N 8.65 8.68 -0.0010 4.06 3.48 5029 Johnson/Poin setta N FDOT-1 8.65 8.31 0.0010 4.48 3.99 2452 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surfacd Delta Stage nflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] [ft] 8.69 8.35 -0.0010 -0.0010 3.36 1.95 2.26 1.58 7102 4365 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage 1Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Johnson/Ridg ewood 25Y-24H 8.41 8.29 0.0010 18.17 16.21 57470 Johnson/Ridg ewood FDOT-1 8.41 8.12 -0.0030 8.10 6.59 40431 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Nam rnmg _age [ft] Lincoln/Orang e Lincoln/Orang e 25Y-24H FDOT-1 7.23 7.23 Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total [ft] Delta Stageeinflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] [ft] 8.14 7.22 -0.0020 -0.0041 65.01 32.90 20.93 14.07 Max Surface Area [ft2] II 123952 64413 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] o ec ame rm Names arnin Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Lincoln/Poins I 25Y-24H I 7.72 8.13 I -0.0010 I 22.86 I 17.67 I 54495 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] i- [ft] etta Lincoln/Poins FDOT-1 etta 7.72 7.91 0.0015 13.03 13.01 598 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] ih [ft] Lincoln/Ridge wood 25Y-24H 8.74 8.38 -0.0010 17.78 9.02 103395 Lincoln/Ridge wood FDOT-1 8.74 8.07 -0.0034 7.00 4.67 69367 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name MH1 MH1 Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 9.00 9.00 8.29 7.68 -0.0010 0.0048 7.67 8.44 7.78 8.42 299 284 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] I [ft] MH2 25Y-24H 6.00 7.89 0.0010 33.80 33.81 1071 MH2 FDOT-1 6.00 7.06 0.0032 31.79 31.84 1054 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage nflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] MH3 25Y-24H 8.00 8.59 0.0010 11.42 11.43 443 MH3 FDOT-1 8.00 8.08 0.0025 9.88 9.93 444 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report 8 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name MH4 MH4 Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.00 8.00 8.68 8.32 - 0.0010 -0.0010 3.45 4.83 3.40 4.12 217 216 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] li [ft] MH5 25Y-24H 9.00 8.04 0.0007 11.52 11.54 297 MH5 FDOT-1 9.00 7.41 0.0022 10.90 10.24 297 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] off' ec'i acme ism ar MH6 MH6 25Y-24H FDOT-1 ri7 gg Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface ge [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 9.00 9.00 7.72 6.89 0.0010 0.0023 49.04 43.82 49.16 43.87 1132 1147 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH7 25Y-24H 11.00 7.42 - 0.0008 49.43 49.42 932 MH7 FDOT-1 11.00 6.31 0.0023 43.91 43.96 932 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH8 25Y-24H 11.00 7.06 - 0.0013 68.85 68.91 562 MH8 FDOT-1 11.00 5.79 0.0024 62.56 62.12 598 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max [ft] Delta Stage [ft] Stage [ft] Max Total Max Total Max Surface Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Magnolia/Tayl 25Y-24H or 7.65 8.33 0.0010 37.68 2.72 143259 Magnolia/Tayl or FDOT-1 7.65 7.79 -0.0043 19.43 4.69 83104 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage nflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] �.[ft] Memorial Park Memorial Park 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 9.00 9.00 9.10 7.92 0.0006 0.0003 6.52 2.90 3.14 0.00 8276 5659 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Sim Name Warning Max Stage I Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface IIIIIP [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Orange/Pierc e 25Y-24H 7.89 8.14 -0.0010 17.67 14.68 48057 Orange/Pierc e FDOT-1 7.89 7.34 0.0014 12.67 12.93 26136 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Orange/Polk Orange/Polk 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.66 8.66 8.36 7.84 0.0010 -0.0033 16.47 7.79 4.44 3.35 86249 58773 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface �`tage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Orange/Taylo 25Y-24H 8.56 8.33 0.0010 15.99 12.05 17787 Orange/Taylo FDOT-1 8.56 7.81 -0.0018 9.66 9.60 853 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report 10 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] j Delta Stage Inflow [c ow [cfs] Area [ft2] kft] Pierce 25Y-24H 7.57 8.14 - 0.0010 14.16 2.04 50368 Pierce FDOT-1 7.57 7.40 0.0012 3.05 1.91 18124 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Pierce/Poinset ta Pierce/Poinset ta 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 8.48 8.48 [ft] [ lta Sta 1Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] ft 8.81 8.31 0.0010 -0.0028 18.57 8.49 11.89 5.33 Max Surfac Area [ft2] J 28214 17961 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warni Stage [ft] Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] I- [ft] Pierce/Ridge 25Y-24H wood 8.97 8.51 - 0.0012 10.97 5.99 40477 Pierce/Ridge wood FDOT-1 8.97 7.87 0.0017 5.29 5.33 436 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] ode Name4 Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] 4i [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Poinsetta/Pol k Poinsetta/Pol k 25Y-24H FDOT-1 7.75 7.75 8.82 8.30 0.0010 - 0.0057 40.85 15.50 4.68 5.90 129418 93319 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'Existing_NAVD88" Node Max Report 11 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage jrnflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Poinsetta/Tay for 25Y-24H 8.22 8.81 0.0010 22.92 17.58 52871 Poinsetta/Tay for FDOT-1 8.22 8.31 -0.0055 9.43 7.76 32675 Node Max Conditions [Existing_NAVD88] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface 4mik Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Ridgewood 125Y-24H 10.51 8.36 -0.0010 6.01 6.02 272 Ridgewood I FDOT-1 10.51 7.74 0.0011 5.33 5.37 243 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX H "CIVIC HUB EXFIL" ICPR Node Max Report 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 1 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Atlantic E Atlantic E Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.25 8.25 7.33 6.13 -0.0010 -0.0008 10.49 6.95 10.50 6.57 602 650 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic S 25Y-24H 8.90 8.19 0.0011 7.87 7.73 916 Atlantic S FDOT-1 8.90 6.01 -0.0010 5.77 6.06 973 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] mime ame ar ring Max Stage gage [ft] [ft] Atlantic W Atlantic W 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.40 8.40 8.81 6.98 Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] -0.0154 0.0010 37.18 21.63 30.62 21.68 31998 147 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Stage [ft] [ft] Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Max Total Max Surface Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Atlantic/Buch 25Y-24H anan N 9.90 7.30 0.0010 50.32 50.35 485 Atlantic/Buch anan N FDOT-1 9.90 6.11 0.0019 48.69 47.15 485 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Nam 25Y-24H 10.40 rMax Stage ili 7.47 Inn/Max Delta Stage [ft] -0.0008 Max Total Max Total Max Surface inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] 2.67 2.65 100 Atlantic/Buch anan S Atlantic/Buch anan S FDOT-1 10.40 6.67 -0.0007 2.04 2.04 100 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Cente r St 25Y-24H 9.80 6.56 -0.0011 78.44 78.36 1915 Atlantic/Cente r St FDOT-1 9.80 5.30 0.0038 71.46 71.44 1915 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] [ Delta. Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] ft jmiii Stage [ft] Atlantic/Johns 25Y-24H on 7.65 8.68 -0.0028 25.39 3.34 99757 Atlantic/Johns on FDOT-1 7.65 8.27 -0.0041 16.31 4.51 64454 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] oI c e 'imp amp arr g Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Lincol n Atlantic/Lincol n 25Y-24H FDOT-1 7.92 7.92 8.17 8.10 0.0010 -0.0021 9.99 6.74 9.31 6.08 19923 18147 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] [ft] Max Surface Area [ft2] Atlantic/Pierc 25Y-24H e 7.80 8.67 -0.0016 17.46 6.08 58753 Atlantic/Pierc e FDOT-1 7.80 8.20 -0.0053 10.94 6.85 37417 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 L_A Buchanan/Poi nsetta N Buchanan/Poi nsetta N 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 3 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage diinflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Stage [ft] Banana River 25Y-24H Lagoon 1.00 1.00 0.0000 131.27 0.00 0 Banana River Lagoon FDOT-1 1.00 1.00 0.0000 105.16 0.00 0 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage LipStage [ft] Buchanan/Or ange N Buchanan/Or ange N 25Y-24H FDOT-1 6.99 6.99 [ft] 8.13 7.19 Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage nflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] -0.0010 0.0015 24.66 15.21 20.02 16.92 48584 10952 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] li Min/Max Max Total Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] [ft] Max Total Max Surface tflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Buchanan/Or ange S 25Y-24H 6.99 8.13 -0.0010 41.59 26.66 53356 Buchanan/Or ange S FDOT-1 6.99 7.20 -0.0039 14.08 15.11 16331 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Nam ruing Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] [ft] 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.25 8.25 [ft] 8.36 8.26 -0.0010 -0.0010 6.34 4.05 6.26 3.83 Max Surface Area [ft2] 3765 1912 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] o ec ame Sim Names 77r7171, Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] I Buchanan/Poi I 25Y-24H I 8.25 I 7.66 I 0.0010 I 49.39 I 49.26 I 870 I C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 4 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] i- [ft] nsetta S Buchanan/Poi FDOT-1 nsetta S 8.25 6.77 0.0023 43.81 43.86 870 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Stage [ft] EM14INE Buchanan/Rid 25Y-24H gewood 9.41 8.52 -0.0010 6.47 2.15 31310 Buchanan/Rid gewood FDOT-1 9.41 8.00 -0.0013 2.91 2.49 15962 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] CIVIC HUB EXFIL CIVIC HUB EXFIL dim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] - [ftl 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.00 8.00 8.43 7.10 -0.0050 -0.0050 7.05 7.54 4.97 4.97 49964 49964 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ftl Center St 25Y-24H 3.91 3.07 -0.0010 131.28 131.27 634 Center St FDOT-1 3.91 2.33 -0.0010 105.16 105.16 634 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] DV -SW POINTSETTA/ TAYLOR DV -SW 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.00 8.00 8.45 7.63 0.0011 0.0011 7.11 7.61 7.05 7.54 674 678 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 5 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface tage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] POINTSETTA/ TAYLOR Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] 1.1 ame laming Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] [ft] Fillmore Fillmore 25Y-24H FDOT-1 6.50 6.50 8.25 7.56 0.0010 -0.0047 19.09 9.66 6.95 8.44 Max Surface Area [ft2] 1=I 66319 36247 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] [ft] Stageta inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Amik Stage [ft] Fillmore/Mag 25Y-24H nolia 7.86 8.26 0.0010 5.57 3.76 27040 Fillmore/Mag nolia FDOT-1 7.86 7.66 0.0022 4.71 4.72 510 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Pi odeT NameSimirnf\ne Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Oran 25Y-24H ge 6.50 8.25 -0.0010 15.79 12.39 36836 Fillmore/Oran ge FDOT-1 6.50 7.49 -0.0033 13.39 13.57 22717 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Stage [ft] [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Poins 25Y-24H etta 7.80 8.67 -0.0035 34.76 14.21 97385 Fillmore/Poins etta FDOT-1 7.80 8.26 -0.0078 16.73 8.88 62954 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] .. Fillmore/Ridg ewood 25Y-24H 7.04 8.41 -0.0052 15.14 5.87 138021 Fillmore/Ridg ewood FDOT-1 7.04 7.82 -0.0055 5.18 5.80 74091 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning jmiii Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta. Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Johnson/Oran 25Y-24H ge 7.16 8.15 -0.0024 38.11 15.83 119222 Johnson/Oran ge FDOT-1 7.16 7.24 -0.0041 17.10 12.26 40723 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] o� c e 'imp ampWarning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] aft] Johnson/Poin setta N Johnson/Poin setta N 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.65 8.65 8.68 8.31 -0.0010 -0.0011 4.06 4.48 3.57 4.26 5027 2452 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Stage [ft] [ft] 1 Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Johnson/Poin 25Y-24H setta S 8.65 8.69 -0.0010 3.36 2.26 7100 Johnson/Poin setta S FDOT-1 8.65 8.35 -0.0010 1.95 1.58 4366 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max [ft] Delta Stage [ft] Stage [ft] Max Total Max Total Max Surfac Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Johnson/Ridg 25Y-24H ewood 8.41 8.29 0.0010 18.17 16.21 57468 Johnson/Ridg ewood FDOT-1 8.41 8.12 -0.0032 8.10 6.59 40430 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage LipStage [ft] [ft] Lincoln/Orang e Lincoln/Orang e 25Y-24H FDOT-1 7.23 7.23 8.14 7.22 Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] -0.0023 -0.0040 65.36 32.89 20.98 14.08 123832 64399 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] M. Min/Max Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] Lincoln/Poins etta 25Y-24H 7.72 8.12 0.0010 22.86 17.67 54439 Lincoln/Poins etta FDOT-1 7.72 7.91 0.0016 13.03 13.01 595 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Lincoln/Ridge wood Lincoln/Ridge wood 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 8.74 8.74 8.38 8.07 -0.0010 -0.0036 17.79 7.00 9.02 4.86 103381 69362 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] o ec ame Sim Names 77r7171, Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH1 I 25Y-24H I 9.00 I 8.29 I -0.0010 I 7.89 I 8.05 I 300 I C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 8 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] [ft] ta Stage inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] MH1 FDOT-1 9.00 I 7.68 I 0.0048 I 8.83 I 8.91 I 286 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH2 25Y-24H 6.00 7.88 -0.0010 34.03 34.04 1072 MH2 FDOT-1 6.00 7.06 0.0032 34.09 34.16 1058 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name im Name Warning Stage [ft] MH3 MH3 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.00 8.00 Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] [ft] Delta Sta 1lnflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] 8.50 8.06 0.0010 0.0021 9.47 9.33 9.48 8.85 442 444 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH4 MH4 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.00 8.00 8.68 8.32 -0.0010 -0.0012 3.48 4.83 • 3.46 4.19 217 217 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH5 25Y-24H 9.00 8.03 0.0008 9.60 9.62 298 MH5 FDOT-1 9.00 7.41 0.0021 10.84 10.23 300 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 9 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] mil [ft] MH6 25Y-24H 9.00 7.72 -0.0010 48.96 49.08 1133 MH6 FDOT-1 9.00 6.89 0.0023 43.77 43.81 1147 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] MH7 MH7 ame Ilgrcing Stage [ft] 25Y-24H FDOT-1 11.00 11.00 Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] _ W 7.41 6.31 -0.0008 0.0024 49.37 43.86 49.36 43.92 932 932 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface m, Stage [ft] [ft] Delta =Airflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH8 25Y-24H 11.00 7.06 -0.0013 68.82 68.88 562 MH8 FDOT-1 11.00 5.79 0.0024 62.56 62.12 598 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage nflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ftl Magnolia/Tayl or 25Y-24H 7.65 8.33 0.0010 37.66 2.78 143152 Magnolia/Tayl or FDOT-1 7.65 7.79 -0.0043 19.43 4.69 83104 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface itage [ft] [ft] Delta StageelInflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] _ [ft] I Memorial Park Memorial Park 25Y-24H FDOT-1 9.00 9.00 9.10 7.92 0.0005 0.0003 6.52 2.90 3.14 0.00 8276 5659 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 10 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Orange/Pierc e Orange/Pierc e 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 7.89 7.89 8.14 7.34 -0.0009 -0.0019 17.61 13.68 14.78 14.88 48013 26133 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] ode Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface 4mi. Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Sta inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Orange/Polk 125Y-24H 8.66 8.36 0.0010 16.47 4.44 86230 Orange/Polk I FDOT-1 8.66 7.84 -0.0043 7.79 4.34 58780 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Orange/Taylo Orange/Taylo im Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] _[ft] 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.56 8.56 8.32 7.81 0.0010 0.0015 15.99 9.66 12.04 9.60 Max Surface Area [ft2] 17770 853 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Pierce 25Y-24H 7.57 8.14 -0.0010 14.10 2.04 50263 Pierce FDOT-1 7.57 7.40 -0.0014 3.05 1.93 18123 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] * [ftj Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] �Litflow [cfs] a [ft2] [ft] Pierce/Poinset 25Y-24H ta 8.48 8.67 -0.0020 18.36 12.18 25386 Pierce/Poinset ta FDOT-1 8.48 8.26 -0.0031 8.49 5.54 16888 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 'CIVIC HUB EXFIL" Node Max Report 11 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Stage [ft] [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Pierce/Ridge wood 25Y-24H 8.97 8.51 -0.0013 10.97 6.28 40452 Pierce/Ridge wood FDOT-1 8.97 7.87 0.0017 5.83 5.88 437 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name jmiii Stage [ft] Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] [ft] ta Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Poi n setta/Pol 25Y-24H k 7.75 8.68 0.0009 38.93 6.59 119728 Poinsetta/Pol k FDOT-1 7.75 8.13 -0.0024 12.24 3.28 81262 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] o� c e 'imp ampWarning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] aft] Poinsetta/Tay for Poinsetta/Tay for 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.22 8.22 8.67 8.25 -0.0022 0.0025 25.62 11.93 21.49 7.13 47226 30222 Node Max Conditions [CIVIC HUB EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] II Ridgewood 125Y-24H 10.51 8.36 0.0009 6.30 6.31 273 Ridgewood I FDOT-1 10.51 7.74 0.0011 5.88 5.94 243 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:29 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX I "ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" ICPR Node Max Report 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 1 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] oc el ame im a Warning g 1 [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic E 25Y-24H 8.25 7.33 - 0.0010 10.49 10.49 597 Atlantic E FDOT-1 8.25 6.13 -0.0008 6.95 6.57 651 • Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning _Ai M._ Stage [ft] Max Stage Min/Max Max Total [ft] Delta StageJInflow [cfs] [ft] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] Atlantic S 25Y-24H 8.90 8.19 0.0011 7.87 7.73 915 Atlantic S FDOT-1 8.90 6.01 -0.0010 5.77 6.06 973 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Atlantic W Atlantic W 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] [ft] 8.40 8.40 8.81 6.98 - 0.0154 0.0010 37.18 21.63 30.61 21.68 Max Surface Area [ft2] 32006 147 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] o�F9' ec� acme rmm ame W arni� n"g Wax Stage Stage [ft] [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Buch 25Y-24H anan N 9.90 7.31 0.0010 50.58 50.60 485 Atlantic/Buch anan N FDOT-1 9.90 6.10 0.0019 48.67 47.13 485 • Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Buch 25Y-24H anan S 10.40 7.48 -0.0008 2.67 2.65 100 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 2 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Buch FDOT-1 anan S 10.40 6.67 -0.0007 2.04 2.04 100 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Cente r St Atlantic/Cente r St 25Y-24H FDOT-1 9.80 9.80 6.56 5.29 -0.0011 0.0037 78.45 71.43 78.36 71.41 1915 1915 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage [ft] Max Total Inflow [cfs] Max Total Outflow [cfs] Max Surface Area [ft2] Atlantic/Johns 25Y-24H on 7.65 8.68 -0.0027 25.38 3.30 99804 Atlantic/Johns on FDOT-1 7.65 8.27 -0.0037 16.31 4.51 64451 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surfac [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Atlantic/Lincol n Atlantic/Lincol n 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 7.92 7.92 8.17 8.10 0.0010 -0.0021 9.99 6.74 9.31 6.08 19923 18146 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface L � Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage 'Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] V - [ft] Atlantic/Pierc 25Y-24H e Atlantic/Pierc FDOT-1 7.80 8.80 -0.0025 17.46 6.04 65082 7.80 8.21 0.0020 10.94 6.99 37473 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 3 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] e Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage nflow [cfs] ��utflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Banana River 25Y-24H Lagoon 1.00 1.00 0.0000 131.28 0.00 0 Banana River Lagoon FDOT-1 1.00 1.00 0.0000 105.14 0.00 0 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Buchanan/Or ange N Buchanan/Or ange N 25Y-24H FDOT-1 PIXIMPhrg Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] jae [ft] 6.99 6.99 [ft] 8.13 7.19 -0.0010 0.0014 24.40 15.03 19.64 16.74 48585 10768 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Buchanan/Or 25Y-24H ange S 6.99 8.13 -0.0010 41.16 26.08 53358 Buchanan/Or ange S FDOT-1 6.99 7.20 -0.0029 14.00 14.99 16170 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Buchanan/Poi 25Y-24H nsetta N 8.25 8.36 0.0010 6.34 6.26 3769 Buchanan/Poi nsetta N FDOT-1 8.25 8.26 -0.0010 4.05 3.83 1911 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 4 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Buchanan/Poi nsetta S Buchanan/Poi nsetta S Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ftl 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.25 8.25 7.66 6.76 -0.0010 0.0023 49.44 43.80 49.31 43.85 870 870 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface jmiii Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ftl Buchanan/Rid 25Y-24H gewood 9.41 8.52 -0.0010 6.47 2.15 31318 Buchanan/Rid gewood FDOT-1 9.41 8.00 -0.0013 2.91 2.49 15895 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] o� c e ' imp ampWarning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Center St Center St 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] [ft] 3.91 3.91 3.07 2.33 -0.0010 0.0006 131.28 105.14 131.28 105.14 634 634 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ftl EXFIL-ORANG 25Y-24H E POLK/TAYLO R 8.56 8.32 0.0004 4.77 3.86 4405 EXFIL-ORANG E POLK/TAYLO R FDOT-1 8.56 7.63 -0.0008 6.23 2.85 4405 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surfac Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] a [ft2] [ft] Fillmore 25Y-24H 6.50 8.25 0.0010 19.10 7.30 66196 Fillmore FDOT-1 6.50 7.55 -0.0045 9.67 8.12 35505 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Mag nolia Fillmore/Mag nolia 25Y-24H FDOT-1 7.86 7.86 8.25 7.66 0.0010 0.0022 5.54 4.70 3.78 4.71 26811 510 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Oran 25Y-24H ge 6.50 8.24 -0.0010 15.75 12.12 36720 Fillmore/Oran ge FDOT-1 6.50 7.47 -0.0041 12.24 12.40 22448 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surfac [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Fillmore/Poins etta Fillmore/Poins etta 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 7.80 7.80 8.81 8.31 0.0010 -0.0055 34.10 16.55 11.15 9.81 108885 67358 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface ��`tage [ft] [ft] - DeltaiSgege "'Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Fillmore/Ridg 25Y-24H ewood Fillmore/Ridg FDOT-1 7.04 7.04 8.41 -0.0050 7.82 -0.0050 15.14 5.17 5.61 5.27 138046 73992 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 6 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] ewood Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface ge [ft] [ft] [ftelta Stage�inflow [cfs] �utfl �ow [cfs] Area [ft2] Johnson/Oran 25Y-24H ge 7.16 8.15 -0.0022 38.11 15.89 119234 Johnson/Oran ge FDOT-1 7.16 7.23 -0.0041 17.10 12.29 40438 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] o a e ame II Johnson/Poin setta N Johnson/Poin setta N 25Y-24H FDOT-1 PIXIMPhrg Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface jag [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 8.65 8.65 8.68 8.31 -0.0010 0.0010 4.06 4.48 3.48 4.00 5029 2450 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning I Stage [ft] Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Johnson/Poin 25Y-24H setta S 8.65 8.69 -0.0010 3.36 2.26 7101 Johnson/Poin setta S FDOT-1 8.65 8.35 -0.0010 1.95 1.58 4365 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total ax Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] tflow [cfs] a [ft2] [ft] Johnson/Ridg ewood Johnson/Ridg ewood 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.41 8.41 8.29 8.12 0.0010 -0.0030 18.17 8.10 16.21 6.59 57468 40428 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Lincoln/Orang e 25Y-24H 7.23 8.14 - 0.0020 64.89 20.99 123839 Lincoln/Orang e FDOT-1 7.23 7.22 - 0.0041 32.75 14.00 64160 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning jmiii Stage [ft] Max Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] ta Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Lincoln/Poins 25Y-24H etta 7.72 8.12 0.0010 22.86 17.67 54447 Lincoln/Poins etta FDOT-1 7.72 7.91 0.0015 13.03 13.02 598 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] o� c e ' imp amp am ng Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Lincoln/Ridge wood Lincoln/Ridge wood 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] [ft] 8.74 8.74 8.38 8.07 0.0010 -0.0034 17.79 7.00 9.02 4.68 103387 69341 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] L I [ft] MH1 25Y-24H 9.00 8.29 -0.0010 7.65 7.75 300 MH1 FDOT-1 9.00 7.68 0.0048 8.43 8.44 283 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface MH2 MH2 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] [ft] 6.00 6.00 7.89 7.06 [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] 0.0010 0.0033 33.80 31.67 33.81 31.73 1071 1054 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface __ Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage jrnflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH3 MH3 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.00 8.00 8.59 8.08 0.0010 0.0025 11.48 9.90 11.49 9.95 443 444 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] I [ft] MH4 25Y-24H 8.00 8.68 -0.0010 3.44 3.40 217 MH4 FDOT-1 8.00 8.32 -0.0011 4.83 4.12 216 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] o�'OO Namme im a CO" gg ax Stage jage [ft] [ft] MH5 MH5 25Y-24H FDOT-1 9.00 9.00 8.04 7.41 Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 0.0007 0.0022 11.58 10.90 11.60 10.25 297 297 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] MH6 25Y-24H 9.00 7.72 0.0010 49.02 49.14 1132 MH6 FDOT-1 9.00 6.88 0.0024 43.76 43.80 1147 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] ■ MH7 25Y-24H 11.00 7.42 -0.0008 49.42 49.41 932 MH7 FDOT-1 11.00 6.30 0.0023 43.85 43.89 932 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] g won earning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 9 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] mil [ft] MH8 25Y-24H 11.00 7.06 -0.0013 68.85 68.91 562 MH8 FDOT-1 11.00 5.79 0.0024 62.54 62.08 598 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Magnolia/Tayl or Magnolia/Tayl or 25Y-24H FDOT-1 7.65 7.65 8.32 7.79 0.0010 -0.0043 36.59 19.43 2.73 4.69 141905 83089 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 1=I Memorial Park 25Y-24H 9.00 9.10 0.0005 6.52 3.14 8276 Memorial Park FDOT-1 9.00 7.92 0.0003 2.90 0.00 5659 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surfac [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Orange/Pierc e Orange/Pierc e 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 7.89 7.89 8.14 7.32 -0.0010 0.0014 17.63 12.48 14.67 12.83 48009 25828 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface ��`tage [ft] [ft] [ftejta Stage nflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Orange/Polk 125Y-24H 8.66 8.34 0.0003 16.21 3.59 85881 Orange/Polk I FDOT-1 8.66 7.75 -0.0018 7.79 3.33 47142 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 10 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage jrnflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Orange/Taylo 25Y-24H 8.56 8.31 0.0010 16.00 11.70 17563 Orange/Taylo FDOT-1 8.56 7.52 0.0016 9.66 9.60 660 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage jmik Stage [ft] [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta. Stainflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Pierce 25Y-24H 7.57 8.14 -0.0010 14.16 2.04 50252 Pierce FDOT-1 7.57 7.39 -0.0012 3.05 1.90 17796 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Pierce/Poinset ta Pierce/Poinset ta Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] 25Y-24H FDOT-1 Stage [ft] 8.48 8.48 8.81 8.31 0.0010 -0.0028 18.56 8.49 11.88 5.33 28211 17959 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage [ft] Stage [ft] Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Pierce/Ridge 25Y-24H wood 8.97 8.51 -0.0012 10.97 6.00 40463 Pierce/Ridge wood FDOT-1 8.97 7.87 0.0017 5.29 5.33 436 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface u Poinsetta/Pol k 25Y-24H Stage [ft] [ft] 7.75 8.82 [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] 0.0010 40.84 4.68 129410 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 'ORANGE-POLK EXFIL" Node Max Report 11 Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface h114111 Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] Poinsetta/Pol I FDOT-1 k 7.75 8.30 -0.0057 15.50 5.90 93315 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Poinsetta/Tay for Poinsetta/Tay for 25Y-24H FDOT-1 8.22 8.22 8.81 8.31 0.0010 -0.0055 22.91 9.43 17.58 7.81 52866 32672 Node Max Conditions [ORANGE-POLK EXFIL] Node Name Sim Name Warning Max Stage Min/Max Max Total Max Total Max Surface Stage [ft] [ft] Delta Stage Inflow [cfs] Outflow [cfs] Area [ft2] [ft] Ridgewood 125Y-24H 10.51 8.36 -0.0010 6.02 6.04 272 Ridgewood I FDOT-1 10.51 7.74 0.0011 5.33 5.37 243 C:\Users\Randy.Gonzalez\Desktop\149501004 COCC Civic Hub\CC Center Street - ICPR4 Model\Center Street\ 2/19/2024 14:30 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Stormwater Feasibility Analysis APPENDIX J Maps General Location Map Aerial Photograph USGS Quad Map FEMA F.I.R.M. SCS Soil Survey — Project Area VOLUSIA SEMINOLE ORANGE OSCEOLA Subject Property I lamiLial BREVARD Riversto, Etr vs Hit 1 i 'o Post R ,y _Richie-Ave t CenterSt Subject Property LaL mum Tyler Ave itti mon Feet 125 250 Taylor -Ave Fillmore Ave 111111 Pierce BuGhanan-Ave Lincoln Ave I1 LOCATION MAP OCTOBER, 2023 City of Cape Canaveral CAPE CANAVERAL, FL Kimley>» Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Subject Property Aerial Map OCTOBER, 2023 City of Cape Canaveral CAPE CANAVERAL, FL Poinsetta Ave Kimley>>> Horn Expect More. Experience Better. © 2023 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Registry No: CA35106 Columbia Dr Long Point Rd in Kirg Nepttt- (73 To' Church Ln dS� oa International Dr Majestic Bay Ave Carver St N Carver StS> Ju.tamere Rd Riverside Dr V c R Subject Property Arro Ave Hitching Post Rd Rche Ave Center St Cocoa Palms Ave Rattan Ave Sabal Ave g z ti N rc >, V? G i 0 C.)p Cape `Mures Cir Washington Ave Cape Canaveral pe Genever RecreatiDn Comrl.-, Adams Ave Jefferson Avg hRadison Ave Monroe Ave Canaveral _v City Park Q N � ttarrison Ave 0 Veterans Memorial Park 1 yle r Ave Polk Ave Taylor Ave Fil.more Ave Pierce Ave Buchanan Ave a) Lincoln Ave w oa 0 Johnson Ave Gri nt Ave Hayes Ave Garfield Ave Artrt. r Ave Jackson Ave Cocoa Beach Pier Clevehn:) A. (Source: USGS TopoQuad: Cape Canaveral 28080-D5) City of Cape Canaveral CAPE CANAVERAL, FL Kimley>» Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Feet 130 260 ST MERE RD Kiri NG 1POSTIRD a EWE Milks SPECIAL ROOD - HAZARD APBS - Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) With BFE or Depth,. flE, us, Regulatory Roadway mil0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood With average depth less than one Wet or with drainage areas of less than one square mile to:!er Subject Property City of Cape Canaveral CAPE CANAVERAL, FL VD 0 ilf71 5, 01ret 7:1' cc -6 a) _c4 0 2 Kimley*Horn Expect More. Experience Better. MU SYM COMP NAME COMP PCT Feet 50 100 Soils Boundary Subject Property MU NAME DRAINAGE CLASS 25 CANAVERAL 31 CANAVERAL-PALM BEACH -URBAN LAND COMPLEX URBAN LAND 85 URBAN LAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES SOMEWHAT POORLY DRAINED HYDRO GROUP A/D City of Cape Canaveral CAPE CANAVERAL, FL © 2023 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Registry No: CA35106 Kimley))>Horn Expect More. Experience Better.