Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />' S <br />' Castle Concrete would construct a Qa culvert (Old criteria) at f{R-6 (L~wt = `Z4'~ ~~ <br />(HW';D = 2.3 - 24" CSP ~ 5°6 minimum) and would divert the remaining <br />28.9 CFS as outlined above In Option 1. ko01 <br />' p ,ru <i u ` <br />Cedar Heights would hold Castle Concrete Company harmless for an}1 _ S <br />damage occurring to Cedar Heights Drive for the 400 Poot. re-routing S~tit~ ~ <br />section. 1pP ~vi~- <br />' III. OPTION 3 C~~ L = px~S~-wy W-didw~ ~ ((( _ (rPMA~~r ~ exd~~ ~v~NR-7 v ~Raw~ less <br /> Castle Concrete Company would construct a facility at the HR-6 <br />' location which would pass only- that portion of the Qe flou which the <br /> existing 24" facility can handle. The existing 24" CMP has a capacity of <br /> 25 CFS. Subbaslns I-l.a. and I-l.b. contribute a Qe flow of 6.2 CFS (old <br />rrlteria) <br />The remainin <br />av <br />c <br />il <br />bl <br />it <br />f 18 <br />8 CFS <br />ld b <br />~ <br />2F <br /> . <br />g <br />a <br />a <br />e <br />apac <br />y o <br />wou <br />. <br />e -~ <br />I!~. <br />' contributed by the HR-6 facility. This would require as 2~.P (Hw~D - C~u,,,,v.G~ <br /> available - 2.5) at a minimum grade of 5%. l~Si <br />s <br /> Construction of this option would increase the flow being diverted to ~ <br />, 31 ,6 (Ci <br /> the existing 54"/30" facility to 37.6 CFS or a total of 94.6 CFS reaclting <br /> the facility. This Is still within the facility capacity of 102 CFS. <br />' Cedar Heights would hold Castle Concrete Company harmless for any1 <br /> damage occurring to the 54"/30" facility as a result of this increased flow.// ~ `"~k ~" 5'}~3U <br />' <br /> In the event a fourth option 1s considered by both parties it would he one <br /> of doln nothln at HR-6 or at the existing culvert. locations in Cedar Hei ILts, <br />' This would somewhat perpetuate the exist ng situation which Is one of hay; ing ~ <br /> runoff flow down the road and ditches to the area of the 54"/30" facility near ~ <br />Via/ <br /> the Guard House. Peak flow for Qze has been estimated to be 56.-4 ~;FS. <br />D <br />i <br />l <br />fl <br />h <br />h <br />d <br />d <br />l <br />l <br />h ~ r„u~ <br />~ ~;~^~~ <br /> ng <br />arge storms t <br />ur <br />e <br />ow may cross t <br />e roa <br />way an <br />trave <br />a <br />ong t <br />e <br />' safety berm causing erosion, breach, and uncontrolled flow down the slope to ~.erG S~S <br /> Cedar Heights Drive. Flow volumes would be less than those presently ~ ~ <br />S~ <br /> occurring because of the installation of culverts at HR-5 and HR-4. The CrbS~o-~ ~° <br />' <br />' 64"!30" facility has adequate capacity for this flow if the facility is properly ~ <br /> maintained and if flows are directed to the entrances. Flow that bypasses the IN~vI~ lv1S o <br /> facilities would continue down the roadway causing silt deposition and floo~iing ~, <br />^~ <br />d` ~~ ~ <br /> <br />' at the Guard House intersection as has occurred In the past. In the event it - <br />P ShA <br /> is mutually agreed to this option, the responsibility far acceptance of this ~S~w~ <br /> runoff by Cedar Heights would be consistent with the approved Cedar Heights <br /> Filing No. 1 drainage report and plan as to location. The volume would have . <br />' been reduced somewhat by Castle Concrete Co. by the installation of the other <br /> culverts. <br />' It should be noted that adequate maintenance of both existing and <br />proposed facilities is essential to their proper functioning. Maintenance of <br />the existing 24" Cb1P under Cedar Heights Drive, the existing 54"/30" facility- <br />' at the Guard House location and any- proposed facility at the Culvert A <br />location is the responsibility oC Cedar Heights. Maintenance of any proposed <br />1 <br /> <br />