DR8902-SY 890310 GINN, INC. CONSUI,TING ENGINEERS
March 10, 1989
Mr. Russell Doyle, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Coppell
P.O. Box 478
Coppell, Texas 75019
Re: Storm Drainage Evaluation - Bethel School Road
and Falcon Lane Intersection
Project No. 280-241-055
and
Storm Drainage Evaluation - Pelican Lane
Project No. 280-241-056
Dear Mr. Doyle:
Pursuant to your authorization, we have prepared and respectfully
submit herewith our Preliminary Engineering Study and Report on
the above referenced projects.
Discussed in the report are: the existing conditions; engineering
evaluations of the design conditions; preliminary analysis and
evaluation of proposed design considerations; recommendations,
with alternates, to help alleviate the problem; and cost
estimates for proposed construction.
It is our recommendation that the City initiate the necessary
action which will result in the implementation of the report
recommendations at the earliest date.
Sincerely,
H. Wayne Ginn, P.E.
cc: John Karlsruher, P.E.
Kevin Peiffer, P.E.
Gabe Favre
File 89405
17103 Preston Road · Suite 100 · LB 118 · Dallas. Texas 75248 · Phone214/248-4900
EXECUTIVE SUMI~RY
STORM DRAINAGE EVALUATION OF BETHEL SCHOOL ROAD AND FALCON LANE
INTERSECTION AND AT PELICAN LANE IN THE NORTHL~KE WOODLANDS EAST,
PHASE VI SUBDIVISION.
1. Based upon a request and the approval of the city, an
investigation was made, due to the reports of flooding during
and after the July 12, 1988 storm at two locations in the
Northlake Woodlands Bast, Phase VI subdivision. Specifically,
those locations are 721, 725 & 726 E. Bethel School Road at
Falcon Lane intersection and 763, 767 & 771 Pelican Lane.
2. Upon reviewing the development plans, it was found that the
storm drainage system was designed in accordance with the
standards and criteria that were in effect in the City of Coppell
at the time of design.
3. It appears that some of the flooding problem may be
attributable to a combination of unforeseeable circumstances,
such as: inlet capacities, designed for 5-year storms, having to
sustain storms of greater duration; provisions for positive
overflow, between individual homes, being reduced; inadequate
site grading and site drainage; and finished floor elevations of
the homes in question not being high enough with respect to the
street.
4. A recommendation to help alleviate some of the flooding
problems involves a joint effort between the City and the
homeowners. The City would be responsible for construction of the
minimum recommendations in the report, while the homeowner would
be responsible for the improvements to the site grading and
implementation of removal of obstructions along the lot lines
where positive overflow is essential.
5. The report outlines preliminary cost estimates for the
construction of the recommended alternatives. For the above
mentioned minimum recommendations, the following costs will
apply:
Bethel School Road / Falcon Lane
Alternate No. 1 ....................... $ 22,263.00
Pelican Lane
Alternate No. 1 ....................... $ 10,422.00
6. Prior to any City Council action on this matter, a
recommendation is made that the City attorney be consulted.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Wayne Ginn, P.E.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING STUDY AND REPORT
FOR
EVALUATION OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN VICINITY
OF INTERSECTION OF BETHEL SCHOOL ROAD AND FALCON
LANE, NORTHLAKE WOODLANDS EAST, PHASE VI, DUE TO
REPORTS OF FLOODING DURING AND AFTER THE JULY, 12,
1988 STORM AT 721, 725 AND 726 E. BETHEL SCHOOL
ROAD.
AND
EVALUATION OF STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM IN VICINITY OF
PELICAN LANE, EAST OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE, NORTHLAKE
WOODLANDS EAST, PHASE VI, AS A FOLLOW UP TO REPORTS
OF FLOODING DURING AND AFTER THE JULY 12, 1988
STORM AT 763, 767, AND 771 PELICAN LANE.
T&BLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL
II. DATA COLLECTION/FIELD INVESTIGATION
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
IV. OBJECTIVES
V. METHODOLOGY
VI. EVALUATION OF "AS-BUILT" CONDITIONS
VII. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
VIII. COST ESTIMATES
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
X. SUMMARY
XI. CONCLUSIONS
XII. APPENDIX
~ENEI~L
This Preliminary Engineering Study and Report will provide an
evaluation of the storm drainage systems at two different
locations in the Northlake Woodlands East, Phase VI subdivision
of the City of Coppell.
The first area of evaluation will be in the vicinity of the
intersection of Bethel School Road and Falcon Lane (SITE 1),
while the second area of concern is on Pelican Lane, west of
Mockingbird Lane (SITE 2).
During the July 12, 1988 storm, several homes in these two areas
were flooded and damage to property occurred.
These evaluations will report on the existing system's capacity
to handle the storm water run-off, analysis and recommendations
of suggested improvements, along with preliminary cost estimates
for engineering and construction.
II. DATA COLLECTION/FIELD INVESTIGATION
The City of Coppell provided "as-built" development plans, which
included street paving plans and profiles, water, sanitary, and
storm sewer plans and profiles of the areas in question.
Page 1
Individual lot grading or site plans were not available. The
City's floodplain maps were utilized in the evaluations also.
Additionally, a visual field investigation was made to verify the
existing conditions and to attempt to determine possible causes
for the flood damage. No field surveys of actual elevations were
made nor were any measurements taken.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SITE L - BETHEL SCHOOL ROAD / FALCON L~NE
(See Appendix, Plates A, B, D, and F)
Bethel School Road runs east and west from Moore Road to
Mockingbird Lane. Falcon Lane makes a "tee" intersection with
Bethel School Road from the north. From Pelican lane which is
east of the intersection, Bethel School Road slopes at a 5% grade
and as it approaches Falcon Lane, it is reduced to approximately
a 1.07% slope, continuing to the inlets at station 17+00 with a
0.5% slope. Approximately 270' west of the inlets is a break
point in grades with a beginning slope of 1.4%, and as it
approaches the inlets it is reduced to 0.5%. Falcon Lane is
shown to be constructed on a 5% slope.
Page 2
The storm drainage system consists of two 10' standard curb
inlets located along Falcon Lane and two 10' standard curb inlets
located 70' west of the intersection in a sag point of Bethel
School Road. All four inlets are connected to the main line by
18" diameter storm pipes. The storm drainage system consists of
pipes ranging in size from 18" diameter to 30" diameter at the
outfall. (See Plate D). The sag point inlets have a flowline
elevation of 462.93 according to the plans. According to the maps
in use at the time of construction of this project, Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Community Panel Number 480170 0005 C,
dated February 15, 1984, as prepared by Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA),the 100 year water surface elevation at
the outfall is approximate elevation 462.00.
The areas, and their approximate sizes, contributing to the storm
water run-off are shown on Plate F. Area 10A (0.9 acres), Area
13 (3.1 acres), Area 14 (3.2 acres), Area 15 (2.2 acres), Area 16
(3.4 acres). Total area amounts to approximately 12.8 acres.
SITE 2 - PELICAN LANE
(See Appendix, Plates A, C, E and G)
Pelican Lane runs southeasterly from Bethel School Road and
connects to Mockingbird at its east terminus. From its
intersection with Bethel School Road, Pelican Lane begins with a
2.3% slope and eventually flattens out to a 0.5% slope as it
Page 3
approaches the sag inlets. From Mockingbird, Pelican Lane is on
a 5% slope to the curve in the road, then it flattens out to 0.5%
as it approaches the sag inlets. There appears to be a
discrepancy in the as-built plans as to the exact location of the
sag inlets. The paving plans have the sag inlets located at
station 7+48.64, (at approximate centerline of lot 19), while the
storm drainage plans show the inlets to be located at station
7+09.09 (opposite line dividing lots 18 and 19). Also the paving
plan indicates a flowline elevation of 466.79 for the inlets,
while the storm drainage plan shows a flowline elevation of
463.67.
The storm drainage system consists of two 10' standard curb
inlets at the sag point. The east inlet is connected to the main
line by an 18" diameter pipe. A 21" diameter pipe is shown to be
from the inlet on the west. Where both inlets are tied to the
main line, the pipe is 27" diameter, continuing to a 30" diameter
pipe downstream. According to the FEMA map noted above, the 100-
year water surface elevation at the outfall is shown to be at
approximate elevation 460.00.
The areas, and their approximate sizes, contributing to the storm
water run-off is shown on Plate G. Area 17 (1.2 acres), Area 18
(2.7 acres), Area 19 (1.8 acres), Area 20 (1.9 acres), Area 21
(1.0 acres), Area 22 (1.0 acres), Area 23 (1.6 acres), and Area
24 (2.6 acres) for a cumulative area of approximately 13.8 acres.
Page 4
IV. OBJECTIVES OF RESIDENTIAL STORM W~TER MANAGEMENT
~. B~SIC CONCEPTS
Optimum design of storm water collection should strike a balance
among capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, public
convenience, risk of significant storm water-related damages,
environmental protection and enhancement, and other community
objectives. The optimum balance among these factors is dynamic,
changing over time with changing physical conditions and value
perceptions.
A recognition that temporary ponding at various points in the
system, including on the individual lot is a potential design
solution rather than a problem in some situations.
A continuing recognition that there is a balance of
responsibilities and obligations for collection and storage of
storm water to be shared by individual property owners and the
City as a whole.
A growing emphasis on the recognition that every site or
situation presents a unique array of physical resources,
requirements, conditions and environmental values.
Page 5
Responsible solutions for individual developments in the absence
of basin wide plans are more difficult to achieve particularly
where current practices are based on traditional drainage
concepts.
B. DEFINITION OF STORM WATER RUN-OFF SYSTEM
The components of a storm water run-off system consist of both
natural and man-made elements, including not only those which
contain and convey storm water, but also those which absorb,
store and otherwise use storm water rather than dispose of it.
The storm water run-off system is a single system having two
purposes: (1) the control of storm water run-off to prevent or
minimize damage to property and physical injury and loss of life
which may occur during or after a very infrequent or unusual
storm; and (2) the control of storm water to eliminate or
minimize inconvenience or disruption of activity as a result of
run-off from more frequently occurring, less significant storms.
The City of Coppell drainage design criteria embraces this dual
function approach.
With a single system, there are components that are designed
primarily to obtain convenience at the smallest scale of the
system, at the individual site or intersection, during minor or
Page 6
frequent storms. During an infrequent, or major storm, the
capacities of many of the convenience-oriented components will be
exceeded and flow capacity must be provided by other components
designed to provide safety and minimize damage throughout the
system, from the individual site to the discharge point of the
drainage basin. It must be recognized and emphasized that a
total storm water run-off system, subjected to an infrequent
major storm, cannot be expected to prevent inconvenience and
minor property damage. A design that would eliminate all such
stress would be fundamentally unreasonable and almost certainly
infeasible.
C. OBJECTIVES
Storm water run-off systems must fulfill two objectives: (1) they
must prevent significant loss of life and property due to run-off
from any foreseeable rainfall event; and (2) they must provide
an acceptable degree of convenient access to property during and
following frequent rainfall events. Both objectives must be
accommodated in the design process with the understanding that
some components of the system may have to operate only
infrequently. It must also be understood that providing
protection against a given event, e.g., against the worst storm
of record, does not guarantee that a greater run-off event will
not occur during the useful life of the property. Similarly, the
Page 7
enlargement of storm water run-off system components providing
access convenience is generally an infeasible approach to
fulfillment of property protection objectives.
V. METHODOLOGY
The design of storm water systems can utilize various
methodologies to arrive at solutions or alternatives for the
drainage plans. The City of Coppell adheres to the criteria set
forth in the "Design Manual for Storm Drainage Facilities",
published by the City of Dallas. It appears that Technical Paper
No. 25 was used to compute rainfall intensities for the
development in question, since that was the criteria used by City
of Dallas at that time.
Analysis should be made considering the following factors:
rainfall, drainage area characteristics, land use
characteristics, design options, risk analysis and costs. The
design technique currently used by the City of Coppell is based
upon the Rational Method for rainfall run-off computation.
Although the primary purpose of a residential street is to
provide vehicular access to homes and community facilities, a
secondary function is to collect and convey storm water run-off.
In utilizing streets in this manner, careful consideration should
Page 8
be given to the following: street slopes in relation to storm
water capacity and velocity in gutters; location and sizing of
inlets; location and sizing of culverts; the spread of water
across streets; the flow of water across intersections; and
coordination of street grades with lot drainage.
The peak run-off flow contributed to a gutter is computed by the
Rational Method. Inlets are usually sized so that a portion of
the flow is bypassed; the actual flow in the next reach of
gutter includes this by-pass flow. The low point or sag inlet
catches the remaining flow from both directions and must be sized
accordingly.
Locations and required capacities of inlets are established by
computing estimated flow rates, depth and velocity of flow, and
spread across streets. The inlets are located as necessary to
remove storm run-off flow based upon a five-year storm frequency.
Under conditions prevailing during a major storm, the storm
drainage system will be surcharged and the rest of the flow
will be carried by lawns, streets, etc.. Inlet capacity in this
case is hard to ascertain, but is probably somewhat less than the
inlet would handle under sag conditions because of debris
blockage and surcharge back pressures. It is probably safe to
assume that the flow in the street would be the difference
between the total run-off and the capacity of the storm water
surcharged to the level of the gutter.
Page 9
The most critical situation exists at a street intersection.
Inlets should be provided which will intercept virtually all the
flow from a minor storm before it enters the intersection. Full
interception may be impossible for a major storm.
Some ponding of water at sag points in the grade is inevitable,
even during a minor storm; however, due to obvious hazards,
ponding should be minimized. This is done best by intercepting
most of the flow before it gets to the sag point. A curb opening
inlet located at the sag point should be of ample size, and when
in combination with positive overflow, be able to handle
anticipated run-off for a major storm.
The capacity of a curb inlet to intercept water flowing down
a street depends to a large degree on the distribution and
velocity of water in the gutter. On a continuous grade, an inlet
will accept only that flow within its hydraulic reach. The
width, length, and depth of the depressed section of the gutter
in front of the opening is very important.
VI. EVALUATION OF "AS-BUILT" CONDITIONS
Considering the objectives and methodology outlined above, the
following is an evaluation of the two sites under the existing
conditions.
Page 10
SITE 1 - Bethel School Road / Falcon Lane
Upon reviewing the drainage area map, the drainage design data
appears to be for a 100-year storm. Values included were
C=0.45, I=7.52 in/hr., and time of concentration was 15 minutes.
The 100-year intensity used is based upon TP-25. The intensity
used for sizing of inlets is 4.5 in/hr. This correlates to a
five-year storm frequency.
In sizing inlets along Falcon Lane, design requirements dictate a
minimum of 2 foot length of inlet opening for each CFS of gutter
flow for street grades greater than 3.5% slope. Assuming the
flows calculated are to be equally divided on each side of the
street, then the inlet sizes are adequate to handle a five-year
storm. Based upon visual inspection of the flows down Falcon
Lane, the alley immediately north of Bethel School Road
contributes a good portion of the flow, which when a major storm
occurs, sheet flows across the street spreading to the west side
of Falcon Lane, thereby contributing to the inlet downstream.
Assuming the inlets on Falcon Lane can handle only 5 cfs each,
with some flows bypassing to a downstream inlet, and the other
contributing flows to the sag points, it appears the sag inlets
are properly sized. By adding the flow from the east, the bypass
Page 11
from Falcon Lane inlets, the flow from the west, and the bypass
of the alley inlet west of the sag point, a total of 9.2 cfs is
calculated to reach the sag point. Based upon sizing of 0.6 foot
for each CFS of flow, it would require a 5.5' inlet. A 10'
inlet was constructed on each side of the street.
A quick check of the underground pipe system, assuming a 100-year
storm design, indicates the sizes are adequate for the indicated
flows. In the plans that we reviewed there appears to be
adequate provisions for positive overflow should localized
flooding occur.
Looking at the completed construction, it appears that some of
the provisions for positive overflow were reduced. FHA minimum
property standards advises a minimum of 8" from the floor slab
to the ground at the face of the structure and a minimum 2% slope
away from the structure to the curb. For a 30' setback, the
finished floor elevation should be approximately 1.25' higher
than the curb. It appears that the finished floor elevations of
the homes in question may be less than the minimum height above
the curb elevation. An actual field survey would have to be made
to determine the exact finished floor elevations, relative to
curb elevation.
Page 12
SITE 2 -Pelican Lane
This site is similar to Site 1 above, except that the problem
lies mainly with the sag point inlets capacity. Using the flows
calculated, and using 0.6 foot length of inlet opening for each
CFS of gutter flow, it appears the sag inlets are sized correctly
to handle the five-year storm, but provisions for positive
overflow appear to have been neglected during the home building
phase.
Due to the steep slopes of the pipes in this section of the
system, capacities appear to be adequate, even though velocities
are quite high.
Again, adequate provisions for positive overflow should have been
maintained by the developer/home builder. Consideration should
have been given to higher finished floor elevations with respect
to adjacent curb elevations.
VII. PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Using the latest design criteria as determined by the City of
Coppell, (TP-40, 100-year storm frequency, 10-year design on the
inlets), trying to minimize disruption to home owners in the area
and allowing for the most economical solution, we propose the
following alternates to attempt to help alleviate some of the
flooding problems.
Page 13
SITE i - Bethel School Road / Falcon Lane
ALTERNATE NO. 1:
In order to help intercept more of the surface run-off:
1. Add 10' inlets adjacent to existing inlets along Falcon
Lane. One on the east side and one on the west side.
2. Add 2 - 10' inlets along north side of Bethel School Road
adjacent to the exist 10' inlets. One on each side.
3. Add 2 - 5' inlets along south side of Bethel School Road
adjacent to the existing 10' inlets. One each side.
4. Make provisions, as required, along lot lines between houses
for positive over-flow to occur by constructing a more defined
drainage swale to carry the positive overflow run-off.
ALTERNATE NO. 2:
In addition to items listed above in Alternate No. 1, these items
may further reduce the run-off over-topping the curbs:
1. Add 10' inlet north side Bethel School Road just east of
alley. Tie to existing drainage system with 18" pipe.
2. Add 10' inlet north side Bethel School Road east of Falcon
Lane. Tie to existing drainage system with 18" pipe.
Page 14
3. Add 5' inlet east side of Falcon Lane, south of alley, tie
to existing inlet with 18" pipe.
ALTERNATE NO. 3
In addition to construction of all of the Alternate No. 1 and 2
items above, a complete and detailed engineering review of the
storm drainage system, with consideration of possible up-sizing
of the existing pipes utilizing the latest City of Coppell
criteria, to increase the capacity of storm water run-off would
be advisable. This is the most drastic and also the most costly
alternate.
SITE Z -PELICAN LANE
ALTERNATE NO. 1:
In order to intercept more surface run-off:
Add two 10' inlets, one each side of, and adjacent to the
existing inlet on the east of the street at the sag point. On
the west side of the street, add one 10' inlet adjacent to the
existing inlet.
Page 15
~LTERNATE NO. 2:
In addition to Alternate No. 1 above, add one 10' inlet, each
side, in the curve of the street, prior to the sag point, to
intercept gutter flow before it reaches the sag point.
In addition to construction of either or both of these
alternates, we are presuming that positive over-flow, should a
major storm occur, is available. It appears that the
construction of fences between houses interferes, to some degree,
with positive over-flow. This interference could be resolved by
causing removal of the fences which are encroaching a public
drainage easement.
VIII. COST ESTIMATES
Cost estimates provided herein are for construction of alternates
as outlined above. Costs do not include construction inspection
or testing. These are estimates only, based upon information
developed in this study, and the best and latest unit prices
available. They are not to be construed as "bid prices".
Estimates were developed from unit prices of recent projects in
the City of Coppell. Due to nature of the work, prices could
vary by as much as 15%-20% in either direction.
Page 16
Costs include, but are not limited to: inlets; connections to
existing inlets; saw and remove, and replace concrete where
applicable; curbs and gutter; concrete pavement; water meter
relocation; water valve relocation; sprinkler repair; landscape
replacement; storm sewer pipes; water line relocation; and, all
appurtenances for a complete project.
SITE I - BETHEL SCHOOL ROAD / FALCON LANE
ALTERNATE NO. 1
SURVEYING .............................. $ 1,500.00
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..................... $ 15,700.00
CONTINGENCIES (15%) .................... $ 2,355.00
ENGINEERING ............................ $ 2,708.00
TOTAL .................................. $ 22,263.00
ALTERNATE NO. 2
SURVEYING .............................. $ 1,500.00
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..................... $ 28,600.00
CONTINGENCIES (15%) .................... $ 4,290.00
ENGINEERING ............................ $ 4,934.00
TOTAL .................................. $ 39,324.00
ALTERNATE NO. 3
SURVEYING .............................. $ 2,250.00
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..................... $ 59,395.00
CONTINGENCIES (15%) .................... $ 8,909.00
ENGINEERING ............................ $ 10,246.00
TOTAL .................................. $ 80,800.00
Page 17
SITE ~ - PELICAN L~.NE
ALTERNATE NO.1
SURVEYING .............................. $ 900.00
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..................... $ 7,200.00
CONTINGENCIES (15%) .................... $ 1,080.00
ENGINEERING ............................ $ 1,242.00
TOTAL .................................. $ 10,422.00
ALTERNATE NO. 2
SURVEYING .............................. $ 900.00
CONSTRUCTION COSTS ..................... $ 13,600.00
CONTINGENCIES (15%) .................... $ 2,040.00
ENGINEERING ............................ $ 2,346.00
TOTAL .................................. $ 18,886.00
IX. RECOMMENDATIONS
SITE I - Bethel School Road / Falcon Lane
We recommend construction of Alternate No. 1 as a minimum, to
help intercept some of the flow by-passing the existing inlets on
Falcon Lane. Construction of the inlets would intercept some of
the flow running down Falcon Lane prior to its crossing Bethel
School Road and overflowing the south curb. Additionally, by
increasing the sag point capacity on Bethel School Road to accept
more run-off, a possibility exists that the storm water drainage
system may carry more surface run-off during a major storm.
Provisions to allow a more positive over-flow situation, when
run-off exceeds the top of the curb, should also be made.
Page 18
Alternate No. 3, in our opinion, would possibly help alleviate
the majority of the flooding in the area of concern. A further,
more detailed engineering study and analysis would have to be
made to be able to provide a better appraisal of the results of
the suggested improvements.
SITE Z - Pelican Lane
We recommend construction of Alternate No. 2 to help alleviate
the majority of ponding problems in this area. Alternate No. 1
would help somewhat, but not to the extent of Alternate No. 2.
Both of the above minimum recommendations for Site 1 and Site 2
are relatively low cost, short term solutions to the hazard of
flooding during a major storm occurrence, and are not to be
construed as a cure-all. The recommendations are remedial
solutions for the problem. By choosing either of the first two
alternates for Site 1, or the first alternate for Site 2, there
is no assurance that the problem will be alleviated entirely.
Page 19
X. SUMMARY
For Site 1, at this point in time, we feel that Alternate No. 3
would be most logical solution to satisfy current design
standards of City of Coppell, would provide the greatest degree
of safety to property, and would possibly eliminate the majority
of the flooding problem during a major storm. The major drawback,
obviously, is cost and inconvenience to residents in the area
with the construction that would be required.
For Site 2, Alternate No. 2 would provide the best potential
flood mitigation to the site. Without adequate provisions for
positive over-flow, the City would be limited in its solutions in
this area.
XI. CONCLUSIONS
There is considerable potential for storm water damage associated
with unusual siting and drainage practices, which are often
overlooked by the developers and homebuilders and are often a
source of residential flooding.
The potential for residential flooding can be reduced if dwelling
floors and openings into dwellings are higher than potential run-
off overflow elevations.
Page 20
One of the most common, but easily overlooked source of
residential flooding occurs where storm water run-off is blocked
in the drainage swale along the property line between the
dwellings. There is always a potential for water-related damage,
from storm water run-off, to structures improperly sited or
improperly graded. Positive drainage of individual building
sites should be essential.
There are many possible solutions to drainage problems. A
combination of adequate storm water system design, and proper
site design is necessary to achieve proper drainage. It may be
impractical or cost prohibitive to design for the ultimate storm
occurrence.
From an engineering point of view, the City and home owners must
accept the fact that every piece of property involves storm water
run-off in either a major or minor way and as both a contributor
and recipient.
Page 21
·:...~ ......-,._ ..--~_.--,~_~~'- :,.<.~ .;...:..~.~ ,~, :t:~¢ "..~_.~,, ,-.;- .. ~ --~.~-~
": i='-,-::,- F'-. '-.'. -'~ ."'~ 'i.'--':'~ "'.'-:'..
· - . - ....: - ..~..~ ,.; :
(:R~,,~_ C- '".'-~- '- '": '.:'- · ' ''~ ' '
' " " -:~\×/~ .... '"~-~'~' ' .... ' .. ~T~. "'
CIRCLE ' .~ - " ~'
.'.- .;. ~ '.
~,-.: ... ;-:; '~?.' .. ..... -, ,.
, - j
i '.-. '- - ~.,-~,~ ~- ~, . '
~ ~=:.~ ~ ' ~ .- ...'~,, ,; ?.
' o~,.,, ~ ~! "-" .~)L~. ~.
\~- ' .x ,
· ., .., .~_ ~_ ~
·
4
'. .. >~, ._---'; . , :- -'.,- - ~ ~ ~. > ~ s*,=' :- : /'~! '
I
...... '' ~., /- -- %"" (/~ I.;J
· ',., 5_· ~'?~'O' : ..... ~o~,- / :' / ¢~,! ~ ~
\ -:_.e.-~s. · -=.-==.=. ' ! / .--I~ <I: 0 0
... \ / - / .u- ?--_- z_~ Lt..! i.U ~ 0
· . ~ . -~. '.~z_~--_.~. ;. ~-....~, ,.~'
~ ~ '-, / :-., .~.:?;?.~.
"~'~ X ' /"/ ~~.~' "--- CONDUIT PLAN
- ' . ~ I ~ o -' m .^ ~'~.~__,.' : .i: ._'
-.~;.,,~ ! e
il
//'"" ~ ~ '/"~ " Q LANE ' ' SCHO0 SITE
~_ ~ \ ,..
× ..? ', ,' ~,,,,.~ ,,, .
~ ~. ! ,','" ."~ .. ~ ". ' '-"~.-..~-,'3~._ '
- ~ , · \ '"-, '~t '"'.
, .,.'M~~ '... ,.
· ~ '\""., .... $~ ...... ,
'-':-~ "~ ~.-'~'., "...~ .~.~.
..'7"",. '..""~~-"~' i
~...' :
~: I : :~ '''~ ..... ':"~
!
".. t . ~.__.= ~
'... .. ~$ '":
- 14
..... ~ '-.... , , ,/
' ' J l/. ,~, -. ~ "',."~ .....
. .._
lO '"'~'~ '~-~"---'-~ " '"" '"""'
.// ~" '.,. .4/