Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
WPO201600024 Plan - Stormwater WPO VSMP 2016-03-25
STORMWATER REPORT PREPARED FOR TEXAS ROADHOUSE • \RoApiousE r PROJECT LOCATION 455 ALBEMARLE QUARE ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA PREPARED BY ANDRE PIMENTEL •ip••••• REVIEWED BY ,yamUj•% JOHN NOURZAD,P.E. • ter, • . ` • GreenbergFarrow • • r .( IR l: I • r.lc. ti 014) • GREENBERGFARROW IV,J ,�� • 153 CORDAVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210 • l • SOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772 *••••• 1 to GF PROJECT#20140710.0 0 03/25/2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Project Description 3 Existing Conditions 3 Erosion &Sediment Control Measures 3 Stormwater Management 4 Water Quality 4 Channel Protection 4 Flood Protection 5 Pipe Capacity Calculations 6 Appendix Table of Contents 7 RECEIVED MAR 2 9 1016 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2 Proiect Description This report was prepared to accompany the application for the redevelopment of a portion of land within the Albemarle Square Mall with a 7,163 SF Texas Roadhouse restaurant, associated parking and utilities. The site for the proposed restaurant is a 0.68-acre area to be leased from the land owner.The site is located at 455 Albemarle Square and identified as a portion of Parcel 123, in tax map 61. The site is in the Planned Development Shopping District(PD-SC)zoning district. Existing Conditions The site is currently occupied by a bank building and associated parking, and is currently undergoing construction for the installation of a DOT stormwater storage facility. The building will be demolished to allow for the construction of the proposed restaurant. Most of the site drains to the north into the DOT system. Site soils consist of Glenelg Loam (34 C) and Elioak Loam (27B) in Hydrologic Soil Group B, (HSG-B). Onsite soil borings performed by Terracon found that site was filled and that the fill materials extend from a depth of 5'feet to 17'feet deep. Material encountered rang from lean clay and silty sand. Site soils may not be suited for infiltration because of the fill placed over the native soils. Groundwater was found between 10'to 15' below existing ground surface. Refer to the appendix section o for additional information of the site soils. The site is shown on FEMA flood panel 51003CO278D effective 2/4/2005 in zone X,outside the 100-year floodplain. Erosion and sediment Control Measures Erosion and sedimentation control measures for the site are limited in scope. The sites existing topography directs most of its runoff the north. The initial erosion control phase consists in construction two channels to intersect runoff flowing and route it into a sediment trap. This approach will be effective in taking advantage to existing site topography and runoff patterns.The anticipated disturbed area,tributary to the trap,was calculated to determine the minimum storage required to provide 134 CY per acre. Additional erosion control measures include the construction exit, inlet protection, silt fence on north and west perimeter of the site and silt sock on the paved east side of the disturbed area.An erosion control blanket will be used on the northwest limits of disturbance to stabilize a 3:1.The items above are shown on the Phase I and Phase II erosion control plans shown on plan sheets C6.0 to C6.1, respectively and detailed on plan sheets C6.2 and C6.3. The Sediment trap will be phased out was the parking area is completed and the proposed storm inlets are installed and protected. Final site stabilization is best seen on the proposed landscape plan, Plan sheet L-1.0. It will rely on the use of mulch and grass/plant material to cover all non-paved disturbed areas. Offsite land disturbance activities will like include permitted construction material supply yards. The local waste disposal facility will be used to dispose of unsuitable material and site waste. 3 Stormwater Management This project disturbs an area of 0.85 Acres. While the state threshold for stormwater management and water quality permit is 1 acre,the county enforces stricter threshold requirement of 10,000 square feet of land disturbance. This projects disturbed area is under the State's threshold but within the County's. The proposed development results in an increase in impervious area of 0.069 Ac, requiring mitigation to prevent increasing runoff into the adjacent VDOT stormwater storage and conveyance system. The following sections will address the stormwater management aspect of this project. Water Quality The project improvements are tributary the South Fork Rivanna River JR08 watershed.The proposed land disturbance activity associated with this project was evaluated using the technical criteria from Part IIB of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Regulations. The Virginia Runoff Reduction Method for Redevelopment projects was used to determine the necessary phosphorous removal rate associated with the total area of the redevelopment project site. The results indicate that 0.21 pound per year of phosphorous removal is required. To meet this requirement,Texas Roadhouse will peruse offsite alternatives pursuant to section 4VAC50-60-69.A, as the project meets the threshold requirements outlined 4VAC50-60-69.B. Please refer to the water quality section in the appendix of this report for redevelopment nutrient reduction calculations and a letter from the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust(CBNLT)indicating availability at the wildwood Farm Facility of authorized Nutrient Credits sufficient to meet project requirements.This project will meet its water quality requirement by purchasing offsite nutrient reduction credits from CBNLT. Channel Protection The site outfall is a manmade conveyance system within JR08 HUC. Channel protection is met by peak runoff reduction and using the energy balance method (EBM)for the 1 year—24 hour storm duration to determine the allowed postdevelopment peak runoff rate,or developed discharge. Once we determined the allowed postdevelopment peak runoff rate we used HydroCAD software to determine peak runoffs and mitigation storage volume required to reduce the postdevelopment runoff rate to the runoff rate allowed by EBM. The HydroCad model computations are included in the HydroCad calculations appendix. Site coverage, curve number and rainfall data used for the calculations are shown in tables 1 and 2.The results are listed on table 3. Table 1:Site coverage Pre Post CN Cover Change development development (HSG-B) Impervious (Acres) 0.393 0.461 +0.069 98 Grass (Acres) 0.289 0.221 -0.069 61 Total Site Area (Acres) 0.682 0.682 0 - 4 Table 2:Type II 24 Hour Duration Rainfall for Albemarle County Zone 2 Rainfall Event Rainfall Depth (Inch) 1-Year Storm 3.00 2-Year Storm 3.63 4.63 5-Year Storm 3.63 10-Year Storm 5.48 Using the site data tabulated above and the EBM,we calculated the allowed maximum channel protection discharge rate and minimum required storage volume for channel protection. The results indicate that the pre development discharge rate of 1.31 CFS should not be exceeded and a storage volume of 966 CF is required to reduce the unmitigated postdevelopment runoff rate from 2.08 CFS to the EBM allowed 1.31 CFS.As we intend to also reduce peak runoff rates for flood control the storage provided was increased to 1,285 CF. Table 3 shows that the channel protection requirement for this project is met by the storage provided by reducing the postdevelopment runoff rate to 1.26 CFS. Table 3: Chanel Protection Computation Summary Pre Post development development Runoff Curve Number 82 86 Runoff Volume(RV) (inch) 1.38 1.66 Runoff Volume (CF) 3,414 4,110 Q i-year(CFS) 1.75 2.08 Storage Volume Required (CF) 966 Storage Volume Provided (CF) 1,285 Qpost(allowed)=IF x Qpre x R pre/RVpost(CFS) 1.31 Qpost(mitigated) (CFS) 1.26 Flood Protection The project area is 0.68 acres and represents less than 1%of the watershed area. To meet flood protection and avoid downstream analysis this project provides storage to reduce the post development peak runoff rates from the 10-year 24-hour storm event to less than the predevelopment peak rate. As previously indicated,the project provides a subsurface storage system with capacity in excess of the required to meet channel protection.The additional storage is provided for flood control. Refer to the HydroCad computations in the appendix for details and table 4 below,for a summary of the analysis. 5 The computation summary provided on table 4 indicates that post development runoff rates are reduced, as indicated. No additional flood control measures are required. Table 4: Flood Protection Summary Predevelopment Postdevelopment Runoff Rate 24-hour Storm event Peak Discharge Rate Peak Discharge Rate Reduction (CFS) (CFS) (%) 2-Yr storm 2.38 1.70 29% 5-Yr storm 3.81 3.25 15% 10-Yr storm 4.32 3.74 13% Pipe Capacity Pipe capacity computations were performed using the rational method. The rainfall intensity for the analysis is based on a time of concentration of 5 minutes.Table 5 below, list rainfall intensity and table 6 lists the correction factors for larger storm events for the determine peak runoff rates for the tributary area to each pipe run. The analysis was performed for 10-Yr and 25-Yr storms.The results indicate that the pipe sizes selected are adequate. Refer to the appendix for pipe size calculations and subcatchment map. Table 5:Albemarle County Rainfall Intensity BDE values Rainfall Depth Rainfall Event B D E (In/Hr) 2-Year Storm 49.02 10.50 0.82 5.18 10-Year Storm 46.95 9.50 0.73 6.67 25-Year Storm 40.11 7.75 0.66 7.48 50-Year Storm 35.68 6.50 0.61 8.04 100-Year Storm 31.09 5.00 0.55 8.76 Table X: Rational Method Correction Factors Rainfall Event Cf 25-Year Storm 1.10 50-Year Storm 1.20 100-Year Storm 1.25 6 GreenbergFarrow PIPE CAPACITY COMPUTATION SHEET 10YR STORM 153 Cordaville Road,Suite 210 Southborough,MA 01772 Tel 508 229 0032 Computed: Date: 3/25/2016 Project: Texas Roadhouse,Charlottsville Route: Checked: AMP Date: 3/25/2016 Station: N/A County: Albemarle,VA Node ID Flow Time(mim) A x C 8 9 Pipe 17 Velocity(fps) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 K E 10 11 12 13 Invert Elevation(ft) 16 c 18 19 ^ \ n E 14 15 v° m o m �m^_^_ o ao 011 I ? 3 3 x T CB-1 DMH-1 5 - 5.00 0.05 0.05 6.67 0.36 12 HDPE 0.013 31 480.85 480.55 0.010 3.50 4.46 0.46 DMH-1 DMH-3 5 - 5.00 0.04 0.10 6.67 0.65 12 HDPE 0.013 96 480.55 479.55 0.010 3.64 4.63 0.82 CB-3• EXMH-1 5 - 5.00 0.19 0.19 6.67 1.27 12 HDPE 0.013 12 482.50 482.25 0.021 5.14 6,55 1.61 EXMH-1 DMH-3 5 - 5.00 0.90 1.09 6.67 8.54 18 HOPE 0.013 145 481.75 479.30 0.017 13.65 7.73 4.83 DMH-3 DOT 6-10 5 - 5.00 0.05 1.23 6.67 8.23 18 HDPE 0.013 7 479.20 479.10 0.014 12.56 7.10 4.66 DOT-610 DOT-6-12 5 - 5.00 0.04 1.28 6.67 8.52 24 HDPE 0.013- 33 479.10 472.40 0.203 101.93 32.45 2.71 10-Yr Storm CxA includes Cr factor of 1.0 DOT pipe information from DOT design Plans GreenbergFarrow PIPE CAPACITY COMPUTATION SHEET 25-YR STORM 153 Cordaville Road,Suite 210 Southborough,MA 01772 Tel 508 229 0032 Computed: GGF Date: 3/25/2016 Project: Texas Roadhouse,Charlottsville Route: Checked: AMP Date: 3/25/2016 Station: N/A County: Albemarle,VA • Node ID Flow Time(mim) A x C 8 9 Pipe 17 Velocity(fps) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 < a 10 11 12 13 Invert Elevation(ft) 16 (=� 18 19 F n Tv, it .g, ' gg 1 y 14 15 o - m 3 0 52 o C 3 E m $ ut .. ' J °g « 'p' w °3 ,'P. A d A,.. 3 n N = E 8 7e. 3 3 d r < 3 x CB-1 DMH-1 5 - 5.00 0.06 0.06 7.48 0.44 12 HDPE 0.013 31 480.85 480.55 0.010 3.50 4.46 0.56 DMH-1 DMH-3 5 - 5.00 0.05 0.11 7.48 0.80 12 HDPE 0.013 96 480.55 479.55 0.010 3.64 4.63 1.02 CB-3 EXMH-1 5 - 5.00 0.21 0.24 748 1.81 12 HDPE 0.013 12 482.50 482.25 0.021 5.14 6.55 230 EXMH-1 DMH-3 5 - 5.00 0.99 1.23 748 11.03 18 HDPE 0:013 145 48175 479.30 0.017 13.65 7.73 6.24 DMH•3 DOT 6-10 5 - 5.00 0.05 1.39 7.48 10.40 18 HDPE 0.013 7 479.20 479.10 0.014 12.56 7.10 5.88 DOT-6-10 DOT-6-12 5 - 5.00 0.05 1.44 7.48 10.75 24 HDPE 0.013 33 479.10 472.40 0.203 101.93 32.45 3.42 25-Yr Storm CxA includes Cr factor of 1.10 DOT pipe information from DOT design Plans Appendix Table of Contents Water Quality Appendix A Water Quality VRRM Redevelopment Compliance Spreadsheet Offsite Nutrient Credit Availability Letter from CBNLT Channel Protection Appendix B Channel Protection Calculations Data Table Channel Protection HydroCad Calculation—Predevelopment 1 Yr. Storm Channel Protection HydroCad Calculation—Postdevelopment 1 Yr. Storm (Unmitigated) Channel Protection HydroCad Calculation—Postdevelopment 1 Yr.Storm (Mitigated) Flood Protection Appendix C Flood Protection HydroCad Calculation—Predevelopment 2,5 and 10 Yr.Storms Flood Protection HydroCad Calculation—Postdevelopment 2, 5 and 10 Yr. Storms Subcatchment Map D Predevelopment Subcatchment Map Postdevelopment Subcatchment Map Pipe Capacity Subcatchment Map Flood Map E Soil Data F NRCS Soil Report Geotechnical Soil report 9 Appendix-A WATER QUALITY Virginia Runoff Reduction Method ReDevelopment Worksheet-v2.8-June 2014 To be used w/2011 BMP Standards and Specifications Site Data I Project Name:Texas Roadhouse Charllotsville Date:2/24/16 data input cells calculation cells constant values Post-ReDevelopment Project&Land Cover Information Total Disturbed Acreage Constants Annual Rainfall(inches) 43 1111 Target Rainfall Event(inches) 1.00 Phosphorus EMC(mg/L) 0.26 Nitrogen EMC(mglt.) 1.86 Target Phosphorus Target Load(Nacre/yr) 0.41 Pj 0.90 Pre-ReDevelopment Land Cover(acres) - -- A soils B Soils C Soils D Solis Totals ForesVOpen Space(acres)--undisturbed. -Er protected foresVopen space or reforested land 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Managed Turf(acres)--disturbed.graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.29 Impervious Cover(acres) 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.39 Total I 0.68 Post-ReDevelopment Land Cover(acres) _ A soils B Soils C Soils _D Soils Totals Forest/Open Space(acres)--undisturbed, protected forest/open space or reforested land 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ Managed Turf(acres)--disturbed,graded for yards or other turf to be mowed/managed 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.22 Impervious Cover(acres) _ 0.00 . s. 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.46 Total 0.68 Area Check Okay Check Areas Okay Okay Rv Coefficients I A soils B Soils C Soils D Solis - - Forest/Open Space 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Managed Turf 0.15 0.20 0.22 0.25 _ Impervious Cover 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11. - - - Land Cover Summary Listed Adjusted' Land Cover Summary Land Deer Slaun.y Pre-ReDevelopment Post-ReDevelopment Psstfts0evslopm n t Now Yg.rvlewe Forest/Open Space Forest/Open Space Cover(acres) 0.00 0.00 Cover(acres) 0.00 Composite - - Composite Rv(forest) 0.00 0.00 _Ry(forest) 0.00 -s- 0% 0% %Forest 0% I Managed Turf Managed Turf Cover(acres) 0.29 0.22 Cover(acres) 0.22 Composite Rv(turf) 0.20 0.20 _ Composite Rv(turf) 0.20 %Managed Turf 42% 36% %Managed Turf 36% , ReDev.Impervious Impervious Cover(acres) 0.39 0.39 Cover(acres) 0.39 New Impervious Cover(acres) 0.07 Rv(impervious) 0.95 0.95 Rv(impervious) 0.95 Rv(impervious) 0.95 Impervious 58% 64% %Impervious 64% %Impervious 100% Total ReDev.Site Total Site Area(acres) 0.68 0.61 Area(acres) 0.61 r Total New Dev.Site Area(acres) 0.07 Site Rv 0.63 0.68 ReDev.Site Rv 0.68 New Dee.Site Rv 0.95 Post- ReDevelopment Treatment Volume Post-Development Treatment Volum- Pre-Development Treatment Volume(acre-11) 0.0359 0.0348 (acre-ft) 0.0348 (acre-ft) 0.0054 Post- ReDevelopment Treatment Volume Post-Development Treatment Volum: Pre-Development Treatment Volume(cubic feet) 1,565 1,516 (cubic feet) 1,515 (cubic feet) 234 Post- ReDevelopment Pre-Development Load(TP)(Ib/yr) 0.98 0.95 Load(TP)(Ib/yr) 0.95 Post-Development Load(TP)(lb/yr) 0.15 'Adjusted Land Cover Summary reflects the pre redevelopment land Maximum%Reduction Required Below cover minus the pervious land cover(forest/open space or managed Pre-ReDevelopment Load 10% turf)acreage proposed for new impervious cover. The adjusted total -- -- --_-- acreage is consistent with the Post Redevelopment acreage(minus TP Load Reduction Required for TP Load Reduction Required for the acreage of new impervious cover). The load reduction requriement for the new impervious cover to meet the new Redeveloped Area(Ib/yr) 0.09 New Impervious Area(Ib/yr) 0.12 development load limit is computed in Column I. , i Total Load Reduction Required(lb/yr) 0.21 Pre-Development Load(TN)(Ib/yr) li 7.031 Post-Development Load(TN)(Ib/yr)_ n"I - _- CEBEN•la "Tomorrow's Natural Resources Today" Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust, LLC. February 17, 2016 Mr. Andre Pimentel Greenberg Farrow 153 Cordaville Road, Suite 210 Southborough, MA 01772 RE: CBNLT/Wildwood Farm—Nutrient Credit Availability Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust, LLC Project Reference: Texas Roadhouse -Albemarle Square Shopping Center Attention: Mr. Pimentel: This letter is to confirm the availability of authorized Nutrient Credits sufficient to meet your project requirements at our Wildwood Farm facility, which is registered with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). These Nutrient Credits are generated and managed under the terms of the Wildwood Farm Nutrient Reduction Implementation Plan dated May 16, 2008 which was authorized by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation(DCR) on August 25, 2008. The Wildwood Farm project has been authorized to provide Nutrient Credits for use in the James River watershed. These Credits are transferable to those entities regulated under DEQ's Stormwater Management Program in accordance with VA Code § 62.1-44.15:35. Currently our Wildwood Farm facility has 40.19 pounds of Phosphorus Credits available. If we can provide further assistance please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust, LLC By Its Manager EarthSource Solutions, Inc. Scott-A. Reed Scott A. Reed Vice President Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust, LLC. • 5735 S. Laburnum Avenue • Richmond,VA 23231 • P. 804.222.5114 • www.cbnit.com PREDEVELOPMENT-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment PRE: Runoff Area=0.682 ac 57.62% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.38" Tc=5.0 min CN=82 Runoff=1.75 cfs 0.078 of Total Runoff Area = 0.682 ac Runoff Volume = 0.078 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.38" 42.38% Pervious = 0.289 ac 57.62% Impervious =0.393 ac • Reach 0 Link Drainage Diagram for TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC PREDEVELOPMENT-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall--.3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 sin 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment PRE: Runoff = 1.75 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.078 af, Depth> 1.38" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.393 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.289 61 >75%Grass cover, Good,HSG B 0.682 82 Weighted Average 0.289 42.38% Pervious Area 0.393 57.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment PRE: Hydrograph / ■Runoff Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfa11=3.00" Runoff Area=0.682 ac Runoff Volume=0.078 af Runoff Depth>1.38" Tc=5.0 min CN=82 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Roach -on. Link, Drainage Diagram for TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC POSTDEVELOPMENT-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 sin 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment POST: Runoff Area=0.682 ac 67.60% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.66" Tc=5.0 min CN=86 Runoff=2.08 cfs 0.094 of Total Runoff Area = 0.682 ac Runoff Volume =0.094 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.66" 32.40% Pervious = 0.221 ac 67.60% Impervious =0.461 ac POSTDEVELOPMENT-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment POST: Runoff = 2.08 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.094 af, Depth> 1.66" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Area(ac) CN Description 0.461 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.221 61 >75%Grass cover,Good, HSG B 0.682 86 Weighted Average 0.221 32.40% Pervious Area 0.461 67.60% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment POST: Hydrograph / ■Runoff 2Type H i 24-h r 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Runoff Area=0.682 ac Runoff Voiume=0.094 of Runoff'Depth>1.66" Tc=50 min CN=86 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Existing Proposed PAV (ac) 0.393 0.46 GRASS (ac) 0.289 0.22 Total Area (ac) 0.68 0.68 CN 82 86 S 2.20 1.63 la 0.44 0.33 RV (inch) 1.38 1.66 RV (CF) 3,414 4,110 Ql (CFS) 1.75 2.08 la/P 0.146 Qo allowed 1.306 qo/qi 0.628 Vs/Vr 0.235 vol 966 Appendix-B CHANNEL PROTECTION • SP 4 POND POST SITE TOTAL STORMTRAP Reach A Link Drainage Diagram for TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC MITIGATED-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type II 24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1P: Runoff Area=0.461 ac 55.31% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.31" Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=1.13 cfs 0.050 of Subcatchment 2P: Runoff Area=0.221 ac 93.21% Impervious Runoff Depth>2.45" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=0.91 cfs 0.045 af Pond POND:STORMTRAP Peak EIev=484.79' Storage=735 cf Inflow=0.91 cfs 0.045 of Outflow=0.16 cfs 0.045 of Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Inflow=1.26 cfs 0.095 af Primary=1.26 cfs 0.095 af Total Runoff Area = 0.682 ac Runoff Volume = 0.095 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.68" 32.40% Pervious =0.221 ac 67.60% Impervious = 0.461 ac MITIGATED-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HvdroCAD®9.10 sin 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 1P: Runoff = 1.13 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.050 af, Depth> 1.31" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.255 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.206 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.461 81 Weighted Average 0.206 44.69% Pervious Area 0.255 55.31% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1P: Hydrograph LI Runoff Type II'24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Runoff Area=0.461 ac Runoff Volume=0.050 of Runoff.Depth>1.31" LL Tc=5.0 min CN=81 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) MITIGATED-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 2P: Runoff = 0.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Depth> 2.45" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS,Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01hrs Type II 24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.206 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.015 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.221 95 Weighted Average 0.015 6.79% Pervious Area 0.206 93.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2P: Hydrograph 1- ■Runoff Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" 'Runoff Area=0.221 ac Runoff Volume=0.045 af Runoff Depth>2.45" LL Tc=5.0 min CN=95 .., 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) MITIGATED-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Pond POND: STORMTRAP Inflow Area = 0.221 ac, 93.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.45" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.91 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af Outflow = 0.16 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af, Atten= 83%, Lag= 9.8 min Primary = 0.16 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.045 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 484.79' @ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 735 cf Flood Elev= 486.50' Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 1,285 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 52.2 min calculated for 0.045 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 45.3 min ( 823.4 - 778.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 482.50' 1,285 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 1,512 cf Overall x 85.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 482.50 378 0 0 486.50 378 1,512 1,512 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 482.50' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 12.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 482.50'/482.20' S= 0.0250 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #2 Device 1 482.50' 2.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #3 Device 1 485.00' 6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 rimary OutFlow Max=0.16 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=484.79' (Free Discharge) Culvert (Passes 0.16 cfs of 5.06 cfs potential flow) 2_Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.16 cfs @ 7.15 fps) 3_Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MITIGATED-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type II 24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Pond POND: STORMTRAP Hydrograph / ®Inflow I 1 0.91 cfs i7 Primary Inflow Area=0.221 ac Peak Elev=484.79' Storage=735 cf ) 3 O LL L 0.1 6 cfs r/// 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) MITIGATED-CHANNEL PROTECTION TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type II 24-hr 1-Year Rainfall=3.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Inflow Area = 0.682 ac, 67.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.67" for 1-Year event Inflow = 1.26 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af Primary = 1.26 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.095 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Hydrograph El Inflow I 1 9A rfI - Primary 1.26rorz cfs Inflow Area=0.682 ac 4'. N 0 LL ', t 0- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Appendix-C FLOOD PROTECTION • A Link Drainage Diagram for TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC PREDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentPRE: Runoff Area=0.682 ac 57.62% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.89" Tc=5.0 min CN=82 Runoff=2.38 cfs 0.107 af Total Runoff Area =0.682 ac Runoff Volume =0.107 af Average Runoff Depth = 1.89" 42.38% Pervious = 0.289 ac 57.62% Impervious = 0.393 ac PREDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment PRE: Runoff = 2.38 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.107 af, Depth> 1.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Area (ac) CN Description 0.393 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.289 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.682 82 Weighted Average 0.289 42.38% Pervious Area 0.393 57.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment PRE: Hydrograph ■Runoff - Type II 24-hr 2-Year -Rainfall=3.63" 2- Runoff Area=0.682 ac Runoff Volume=0.107 of Runoff.Depth>1.89" ° Tc=5.0 min LL 1- CN=82 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) PREDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method SubcatchmentPRE: Runoff Area=0.682 ac 57.62% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.08" Tc=5.0 min CN=82 Runoff=3.81 cfs 0.175 af Total Runoff Area = 0.682 ac Runoff Volume =0.175 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.08" 42.38%Pervious = 0.289 ac 57.62% Impervious =0.393 ac PREDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 sin 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment PRE: Runoff = 3.81 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.175 af, Depth> 3.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.393 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.289 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.682 82 Weighted Average 0.289 42.38% Pervious Area 0.393 57.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment PRE: Hydrograph -/ ■Runoff 4- " Type II 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" 3- Runoff Area=0.682 ac Runoff Volume=0.175 af Runoff!Depth>3.08" 2 Tc=5.0 min CN=82 1- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) PREDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment PRE: Runoff Area=0.682 ac 57.62% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.51" Tc=5.0 min CN=82 Runoff=4.32 cfs 0.199 of Total Runoff Area =0.682 ac Runoff Volume =0.199 of Average Runoff Depth = 3.51" 42.38%Pervious = 0.289 ac 57.62% Impervious = 0.393 ac PREDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment PRE: Runoff = 4.32 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.199 af, Depth> 3.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.393 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.289 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.682 82 Weighted Average 0.289 42.38% Pervious Area 0.393 57.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment PRE: Hydrograph _/ ■Runoff - Type II 24-hr 10-Year 4- Rainfall=5.48" Runoff Area=0.682 ac 3- Runoff Volume=0.199 af Runoff Depth>3.51" LL 2- Tc=5.0 min CN=82 0 :... . ........ ..... . 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) • /4; v1 POND POST SITE TOTAL STORMTRAP • WA A Link Drainage Diagram for TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1P: Runoff Area=0.461 ac 55.31% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.81" Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=1.55 cfs 0.070 of Subcatchment 2P: Runoff Area=0.221 ac 93.21% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.06" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=1.13 cfs 0.056 af Pond POND:STORMTRAP Peak EIev=485.27' Storage=891 cf Inflow=1.13 cfs 0.056 af Outflow=0.37 cfs 0.056 af Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Inflow=1.70 cfs 0.125 af Primary=1.70 cfs 0.125 af Total Runoff Area =0.682 ac Runoff Volume =0.126 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.22" 32.40% Pervious = 0.221 ac 67.60% Impervious =0.461 ac POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Summary for Subcatchment 1 P: Runoff = 1.55 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.070 af, Depth> 1.81" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Area (ac) CN Description 0.255 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.206 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.461 81 Weighted Average 0.206 44.69% Pervious Area 0.255 55.31% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1P: Hydrograph ■Runoff Type I124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Runoff Area=0.461 ac Runoff Volume=0.070 af 1-Runoff Depth>1.81" LL Tc=5.0 min CN=81 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 2P: Runoff = 1.13 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, Depth> 3.06" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Area (ac) CN Description 0.206 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.015 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.221 95 Weighted Average 0.015 6.79% Pervious Area 0.206 93.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2P: Hydrograph ■Runoff Type II! - 2-Year Rai24nfallhr =3.63" Runoff Area=0.221 ac Runoff Volume=0.056 af Runoff Depth>3.06" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Pond POND: STORMTRAP Inflow Area= 0.221 ac, 93.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.06" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.13 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.056 of Outflow = 0.37 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.056 af, Atten= 67%, Lag= 6.6 min Primary = 0.37 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 0.056 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev=485.27' @ 12.07 hrs Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 891 cf Flood Elev= 486.50' Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 1,285 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 52.1 min calculated for 0.056 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 45.8 min ( 817.9 - 772.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 482.50' 1,285 cf Custom Stage Data(Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 1,512 cf Overall x 85.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sg-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 482.50 378 0 0 486.50 378 1,512 1,512 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 482.50' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 12.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 482.50'/482.20' S= 0.0250 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #2 Device 1 482.50' 2.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C=0.600 #3 Device 1 485.00' 6.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C=0.600 rimary OutFlow Max=0.37 cfs @ 12.07 hrs HW=485.27' (Free Discharge) =Culvert (Passes 0.37 cfs of 5.70 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.17 cfs @ 7.90 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.19 cfs @ 1.78 fps) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Pond POND: STORMTRAP Hydr=a , • J Inflow 1.13 cfs ❑Primary Inflow Area=0.221 ac 1 Peak EIev=485.27' Storage=891 cf 0 a LL 0.37 cfs Q Z:0-AA :124trl///./y���///t/�// J�� 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 2-Year Rainfall=3.63" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Inflow Area = 0.682 ac, 67.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 2.21" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.70 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.125 af Primary = 1.70 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.125 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Hydrograph III Inflow I 1 711 rf I 0 Primary 1.70 cfs �' F- Inflow Area=0.682 ac y r 1 r . 3 �re. O 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1P: Runoff Area=0.461 ac 55.31% Impervious Runoff Depth>2.98" Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=2.51 cfs 0.115 of Subcatchment 2P: Runoff Area=0.221 ac 93.21% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.42" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=1.58 cfs 0.081 af Pond POND:STORMTRAP Peak Elev=485.89' Storage=1,088 cf Inflow=1.58 cfs 0.081 af Outflow=0.95 cfs 0.081 af Pond SPP:POST SITE TOTAL Inflow=3.25 cfs 0.195 of Primary=3.25 cfs 0.195 af Total Runoff Area = 0.682 ac Runoff Volume =0.196 af Average Runoff Depth = 3.45" 32.40% Pervious = 0.221 ac 67.60%Impervious = 0.461 ac POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Subcatchment 1 P: Runoff = 2.51 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af, Depth> 2.98" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method,UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type 1I 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Area (ac) CN Description rc' 0.255 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.206 61 >75%Grass cover,Good, HSG B 0.461 81 Weighted Average 0.206 44.69% Pervious Area 0.255 55.31% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1P: Hydrograph / ■Runoff Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" 2- Runoff Area=0.461 ac Runoff Volume=0.115 of Runoff,Depth>2.88" IL - Tc=5.0 min 1- CN=81 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year RainfalI=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 sin 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment 2P: Runoff = 1.58 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.081 af, Depth> 4.42" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Area (ac) CN Description 0.206 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.015 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.221 95 Weighted Average 0.015 6.79% Pervious Area 0.206 93.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2P: Hydrograph ■Runoff Type II!24-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Runoff Area=0.221ac Runoff Volume=0.081 af Runoff Depth>4.42" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Pond POND: STORMTRAP Inflow Area= 0.221 ac, 93.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.42" for 5-Year event Inflow = 1.58 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.081 af Outflow = 0.95 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.081 af, Atten= 40%, Lag= 4.4 min Primary = 0.95 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.081 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 485.89' © 12.03 hrs Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 1,088 cf Flood Elev= 486.50' Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 1,285 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 45.1 min calculated for 0.081 of (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 39.7 min ( 802.8 - 763.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 482.50' 1,285 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 1,512 cf Overall x 85.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 482.50 378 0 0 486.50 378 1,512 1,512 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 482.50' 12.0" Round Culvert L. 12.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 482.50'/482.20' S= 0.0250 '1 Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #2 Device 1 482.50' 2.0" Veil. Orifice/Grate C=0.600 #3 Device 1 485.00' 6.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 primary OutFlow Max=0.95 cfs @ 12.03 hrs HW=485.89' (Free Discharge) t =Culvert (Passes 0.95 cfs of 6.43 cfs potential flow) 2_Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.19 cfs @ 8.75 fps) 3_Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.75 cfs @ 3.84 fps) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Pond POND: STORMTRAP / El Inflow 1.58 cfs 0 Primary Inflow Area=0.221 ac Peak Elev=485.89' Storage=1 ,088 cf y 1 0.95 cfs a /, LL 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 5-Year Rainfall=5.00" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Inflow Area = 0.682 ac, 67.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.43" for 5-Year event Inflow = 3.25 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.195 of Primary = 3.25 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.195 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Hydrograph / rf�9c ®Inflow I S ' ❑Primary 3.25 cfs Inflow Area=0.682 ac 3- v 2 riA 1- '`�'i/i T //JJ // 0 0/1",/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 2401 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS Reach routing by Stor-Ind method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1P: Runoff Area=0.461 ac 55.31% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.41" Tc=5.0 min CN=81 Runoff=2.85 cfs 0.131 af Subcatchment 2P: Runoff Area=0.221 ac 93.21% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.89" Tc=5.0 min CN=95 Runoff=1.74 cfs 0.090 of Pond POND:STORMTRAP Peak Elev=486.11' Storage=1,160 cf Inflow=1.74 cfs 0.090 of Outflow=1.07 cfs 0.089 af Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Inflow=3.74 cfs 0.220 af Primary=3.74 cfs 0.220 of Total Runoff Area = 0.682 ac Runoff Volume = 0.221 of Average Runoff Depth = 3.89" 32.40% Pervious = 0.221 ac 67.60% Impervious = 0.461 ac POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Subcatchment 1 P: Runoff = 2.85 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.131 af, Depth> 3.41" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.255 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.206 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.461 81 Weighted Average 0.206 44.69% Pervious Area 0.255 55.31% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1P: Hydrograph IIRunoff 3- Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Runoff Area=0.461 ac 2- Runoff Volume=0.131 af Runoff Depth>3.41" LLTc=5.0 min CN=81 1- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD©9.10 sin 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Subcatchment 2P: Runoff = 1.74 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.090 af, Depth> 4.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.206 98 Paved parking, HSG B 0.015 61 >75%Grass cover, Good, HSG B 0.221 95 Weighted Average 0.015 6.79% Pervious Area 0.206 93.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 5.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2P: Hydrograph ■Runoff Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Runoff Area=0.221 ac - Runoff Volume=0.090 af Runoff!Depth>4.99" u. Tc=5.0 min CN=95 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Pond POND: STORMTRAP Inflow Area= 0.221 ac, 93.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.89" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.74 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.090 af Outflow = 1.07 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af, Atten= 38%, Lag= 4.2 min Primary = 1.07 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 0.089 af Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 486.11' @ 12.03 hrs Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 1,160 cf Flood Elev= 486.50' Surf.Area= 378 sf Storage= 1,285 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 43.5 min calculated for 0.089 af (99% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 38.4 min ( 799.0 - 760.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storaqe Storaqe Description #1 482.50' 1,285 cf Custom Stage Data(Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) 1,512 cf Overall x 85.0% Voids Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 482.50 378 0 0 486.50 378 1,512 1,512 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 482.50' 12.0" Round Culvert L= 12.0' RCP, square edge headwall, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 482.50' /482.20' S= 0.0250 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Concrete pipe, bends & connections #2 Device 1 482.50' 2.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C=0.600 #3 Device 1 485.00' 6.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C=0.600 primary OutFlow Max=1.07 cfs @ 12.03 hrs HW=486.11' (Free Discharge) t =Culvert (Passes 1.07 cfs of 6.67 cfs potential flow) 2_Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.20 cfs @ 9.04 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.88 cfs @ 4.46 fps) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type 1124-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Pond POND: STORMTRAP Hydrograph ®Inflow 1.74 cfs I 0 Primary Inflow Area=0.221 ac Peak Elev=486.11 ' Storage=1 ,160 cf 1.07 1 / I O lL A 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) POSTDEVELOPMENT- FLOOD CONTROL TRH CHARLOTTESVILLE Type II 24-hr 10-Year Rainfall=5.48" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 3/24/2016 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 05272 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Summary for Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Inflow Area = 0.682 ac, 67.60% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 3.88" for 10-Year event Inflow = 3.74 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.220 af Primary = 3.74 cfs @ 11.97 hrs, Volume= 0.220 af, Allen= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Pond SPP: POST SITE TOTAL Hydrograph 0 Inflow I q 7d rfs 0 Primary 4 3.74 cfs Inflow Area=0.682 ac 3- LL2- es 1 at Arie71)0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Appendix-D SUBCATCHMENT MAPS I � _ i .,er 24kumboihno t MAMMA mmoymmEme RED 'A*INERT PRSITE Lam': S � --•---°' - I Lf I • i 67 486 JO i i L / iii S. �°'.w W T DCfE', // AREA SUMMARY: / I ". _„'46 �� FOREST: 0.000 AC "+6a _.._14484.64 464.of MANAGED TURF: 0.289 AC. ' I �/• IMPERVIOUS: 0. 393 AC. ..ez6e TC=5.0 MIN / M C ,.9T II - �1F5[ // ff M33t j // / mffoom nar.un.0 w �\ .. - :..4:�6T 66.6 9p6T 160• 42 0 \ i iC% jii/ — — - ./ I / \ / /------------ :.86.55 / /I �rcMb.0 \ =muff TO: / s / . \ NM NOM �� HUC (6) JR08 SOUTH M �' / B...... L : f `*o,/0'/ o,;/ �a}��a ✓///////////Ic,46�4 % � / .' / ,�`�e``g,�c� ' ROADHOUSE ' _ : Sn 616 / / do _ it I c Mss . — __— //// ti CHARLOTTESVILLE I' 1 I \ ic,eeoo ,74sa / .+9r11 x.9366 VIRGINIA E 1 rc.e4oE — er90 MSss / /—_____—— 455544EM6NLE 43055E CI\'' \_ CM5.9i/ MBEMMLE COUNTY 4 ice`\ 1 .zy._._ -a...26 _ IG MS 5 / ��" .a� _�� / REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE + -;- --milikzmoi'`-- -,5./ - I - Z. .....,.... " 201401^0`0 I , ' � .YE SEMINOLE TRAIL PRE DEVELOPMENT M AREA MAP ..A i 'd I L inch= zo ft I, / '''' I GRAPHIC SCALE WS"1 Imeirihnis t6I wenn@ baa.91.210 e � _ � REDEVELOPMENT "OJECT SIT• e6.0%�. �' " 52% maw /0.84 s;�4' ' ? � 4` t•I4 1, `�.��©I! ` 9 5:7% ,�% � ( 1P ) ( 2P ) of 0 AREA SUMMARY: I / I A 4 MANAGED TURF: 0.206 AC. AREA SUMMARY: I ' I I '.IMPERVIOUS: 0.255 AC. MANAGED TURF: 0.015 AC. //./ .MM..��a..... 1 ..TC=5.0 MIN. IMPERVIOUS: 0.206 AC. ! i 1 �STC=5.0 MIN 2S% 2.7% '+ `?R,, TEXAS 1 {�5.0% ROADHOUSE ;=l,� -� ..—�--- - — 7 163 sf _ ��:: MONO I% F.F. ELV.=488. 0 I '„ i .m ._ ..„ L _ A i TE1G5.. �— 2% i RDADHOUSE ItlIE y, OE �" 0 0 CHARLOTTESVILLE ' 9 ,�, r19c.- ,�, ,�1Y9, b0 v 'Sss VIRGINIA MMM �� • M M MI MN MI_ 455 111.55515111.5 SOME L- 3.3% I 486 •.. 1 _ _ .- .-_-T. 1uENluE COUNTY - 484-_ • 485 -) _ 1 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT SITE : 413PI ia 1 - _ 1 . ' (4...„, SEMINOLE TRAIL PoSTOEYELOPMER 6 , N o Eo m b MFA MAP fA. 1 men20 Lt�� �/ �• GRAPHIC SCALE WS-2 1 . d• /\ / 1r - -_i -...../ i _ j 0 . . 1 sA ' - . s / I_I,,s..,r...m.....o........iIt.m...i, rt„.i0F,Si,ur. r9i0s ri ----I .1 ..... tillriefig rfoirio-lia Mr Ira Ai. l', /••-le, - ;7410.1.,. ..........2=4........ .1 0" %,„, , • „____ .„•,,...„..,..__ .... __ 1 . .• r / ie-,,„ . ._ _ ........ 1 F e LEGEND: --- LE/SE UNE ',AV =mammon mown go, .wwww, ( I p i I% ,I• •• ./ I \ 4 A . 1 ' ____ COWER CURB CURB 1126619 f'IA-1\ 1 (% 011 1 1 '-...' i I iR-1% PROPOSED STORY SEVIER PPE ! I 1 , I b MN, " . ,26 PROPC6ED COMM(7.0 .../ DI a in nn.// I '6. I P i % 0:7 ; El SiCial SEWER 111117 I \ 5, STORY SOU CLENCW 4111..3) , X ® I\ i • 5701111 SEVER 68111011 4 ......... -)J ....I Is'N A 7 \\. I II ',, ii / : , I I i /)/ I 1 ' 1 / .1 8-2 /A 161 R-2 R-3 1E1115 / , / IMP AREA(0.1.9) 006 002 on 059 aos ao, 1 r ,, [_,, ( 1 \ , PER,AREA(CY1 2) DEO 0.01 0.01 0 00 0 00 0.00 i. III ' 1 tt I tt I / 10.011.AMA 0.06 DOS 0231 0 05 0.5 0.9 1 I ii ' ,'1;\ :• I / \ \ ; Welihted C 0.90 OM 0.63 0000 a90 a90 ••••••••••••nos %‘',. 4 A, .42.1 ,1 / .•___•' z."114r. , , .••■••• •••• 'I5•,i‘ •••rifir I ' noD 6.67 6.67 6.67 6 67 60 6.67 0.05/ 0.043 0.107 6043 0.047 0.083 ' .... I'.EN. ...._ \ \ On 0.36 0.29 0.71 039 0.31 049 _. r I••••10116........ • ''''=21110,/Sr/ .°i/ In 7.48 7.48 7.48 7 48 7.48 7.48 g ,, Cs 110 1.10 1.10 1 10 1.10 1 10 _ OH GA.s. DOSS 0.00 0.118 0.048 0.051 0,091 0.44 0.3S 0.88 626 0.39 0_68 no enors Pr.'" _ . ,......-- .., _ ......, a 1_u- , , ,a a OM 101111Lil . .. „ .. ..... , DOT 5-10 - . . =1 ...T TEXAS CB-2 ,....• SEMINOLE TRAIL ROADHOUSE DOT 0-12 CHARLOTTESVILLE VIRGINIA BresubsirgFerrew ---....0,„,‘..„,....... Bressierufarrew ewe ta.r.n cornrnam war lantnor 4153341544U$00386 PABEIVASE GMT, _ oat we on. unrrow ......., .- ow... wt. on. ss_orre =I ton.r• on w w•noni w wow.. 11 I ... lildbilli i , . I . . . . . I • 1 •. ,, w I ,, ........... w i n w , 1 . , 111 i . It li i 1 , } i ' liSH ' 111 , i ; ! . , !, 5 , 6ii • , t , : ! ! _ a...._ I 011 or., s, ,VD ODS on. {al 0. II non 091) II OM 0, 0010 DM atm Q Aa cal 0,1 ) sm Roa 5.05 , on u non MD n Aim 45015 8015 , .1 an own own. s .soo o w o w co ns u mon 0013 n no ss Ann 0010 v. An at, ow“ OM. 5 303 mos o a la on 0 own non I “ 455.33 An 16 MA VA •55 101 I ; I :,,,,r,,COM; 3 ,3 03 .1, 013 557 a7 I/ Hen eau Is wan nws, owl s w ”s , 1 n I - ,•ca an so• 4.5, 5s• a WM aell In ••1 n •noo 0.011 1, 7 n i 4.53 404004064.046 ', an 120 0.6/ 833. a Non 8005 I 4/010 4n IA 0015 a n 110 404 ,4.1 0.0.11 3 3 05 .a a 14 , , a NM 02131 a 0,2 45, Lan su ass 1.10 arn-1 MN 5 3 3 03 0 n ,a .2 11.06 n non any In .n n 419.30 11011 an 7.73 41./a PIM MUM . t ,t r=' : 000: ;.: r1 =!;I: 46464 00000 t0r111INIMV 004.1 5 003 pin 145 461 552 04 0.13 33 An0 417/ 0n 10113 5, toa ;: :: 4 s 1 , it : : .. ,rLI4, -..............- . lila ........ MOT 001•N• 1 OF 1 1_ ...........___ . ot9..te*mon 91n,pet ingr nwt. 1 Appendix-E FLOOD MAP y'q ki.,..,;,,,, ' �►. # # �-. . 4 it . Y .., v, ,,... \\ . . . ..,. ,_ ..... .. s... , , ,, ... , ., - - 14'—'ti.....' -,410/1" — ' . r" ?'°« .?.0. "' wa fes, ♦1 4 ql a " ,. t. ! l+ t . 4„„ 4*.- • ,. .1*,. ...,,Ifr") , 4111r. , , , , eiT • ., a SITE ({ i i , ,r ; . :44," .... . ... . • • • =' r _ = ::,,,._ . it ift.,, • ,....,_ ; • i , , , .., .. • ',-, .• ,., ..„ !$ � - *)v),. dam 1 a - ir ' e uma` .. U 4 Appendix-F SOIL DATA 3 Soil Map—Albemarle County,Virginia (THR CHARLOTSVILLE VA) '2:57, '2159() 721610 721630 721650 721670 721690 721710 721730 721751 '21770 721790 1 I srN sr h ` e r g�-� n iii j/f' 'Sky. • ' .. i w� H tib err' ``` """"""NNNRRR"lRR«• D, ! f• 1 •s• , • •1 ` `� il n r k. ' ''''‘ ''. , ' '..''.*. i.1 4. '''ll' " 0. ;.4 '1= ifir, 9 0 Gi� y 9 ` £1 Ne .. w •, 34C •;,' y - .... : *tc,,* ' '0 . —i tell 'ty fl ; , ', 4 k. s 44 4 4 ,, 4 ! -444, -4\ 1 A iits-ft , . ' d :*'/,'* ii 24 1--:4 x r /i 4. , •, .' 4. II, 'A $ 9- tri s r _ 38.4.57N av ,).. �' ::a 4.' .'^1. ... .I I I � 1 t p � i � 38°4'57.N 721570 721990 721610 721630 >1.65C, 721670 721690 721710 721730 721750 721770 721790 e 3 3 Map Sale:1:1,080If printed on A landscape(11"x&S')sheet N Metas k � N 0 15 30 60 90 AFeet 0 50 100 200 300 Map Drt emon:Web Mer Cana raorairlates:WG584 Edge ia:JIM Zane 17N WGS84 U Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/4/2016 �i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Albemarle County,Virginia (THR CHARLOTSVILLE VA) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:15,800. Area of Interest(AOI) Stony Spot soils Warning:Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Very Stony Spot Soil Map Unit Polygons Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause Wet Spot misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line • • Soil Map Unit Lines placement.The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting Other soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. 0 Soil Map Unit Points Special Line Features Special Point Features Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map (cr Blowout Water Features measurements. Streams and Canals Borrow Pit Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Transportation Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Clay Spot Rails Coordinate System: Web Mercator(EPSG:3857) Closed Depression Interstate Highways Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator Gravel Pit US Routes projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the Gravelly Spot Major Roads Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more accurate Landfill Local Roads calculations of distance or area are required. Lava Flow Background This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s)listed below. Marsh or swamp IIII Aerial Photography Mine or Quarry Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County,Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 10,Dec 11,2013 Miscellaneous Water Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 1:50,000 Perennial Water or larger. Nei Rock Outcrop Date(s)aerial images were photographed: May 9,2011—Jun 4, .+ Saline Spot 2011 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were Sandy Spot compiled and digitized probably differs from the background • Severely Eroded Spot imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. 40 Sinkhole Slide or Slip 0 Sodic Spot Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/4/2016 .r Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Soil Map—Albemarle County,Virginia THR CHARLOTSVILLE VA Map Unit Legend Albemarle County,Virginia(VA003) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AO1 27B Elioak loam,2 to 7 percent 1.8 33.7% slopes 34C Glenelg loam,7 to 15 percent 3.3 63.7% slopes 34D Glenelg loam, 15 to 25 percent 0.1 2.6% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 5.2 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/4/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Map Unit Description:Elioak loam,2 to 7 percent slopes—Albemarle County,Virginia THR CHARLOTSVILLE VA Albemarle County, Virginia 27B—Elioak loam,2 to 7 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: kb8y Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F Frost-free period: 195 to 231 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Elioak and similar soils: 80 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions,and transects of the mapunit. Description of Elioak Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfiuve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist Typical profile H1 -0 to 8 inches: loam H2-8 to 39 inches: silty clay H3-39 to 79 inches: silt loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 7 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high(0.20 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 6.6 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification(irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e � Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/4/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:Elioak loam,2 to 7 percent slopes---Albemarle County,Virginia THR CHARLOTSVILLE VA Hydrologic Soil Group: B Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 10, Dec 11, 2013 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/4/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Map Unit Description:Glenelg loam,7 to 15 percent slopes—Albemarle County,Virginia THR CHARLOTSVILLE VA Albemarle County, Virginia 34C—Glenelg loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: kb9l Mean annual precipitation: 25 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 54 to 59 degrees F Frost-free period: 195 to 231 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Glenelg and similar soils: 85 percent Estimates are based on observations,descriptions,and transects of the mapunit. Description of Glenelg Setting Landform: Hillslopes Landform position(two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex Parent material: Residuum weathered from mica schist Typical profile H1 -0 to 8 inches: loam H2-8 to 28 inches: silty clay loam H3-28 to 80 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 7 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Well drained Runoff class: Medium Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.7 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e M Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/4/2016 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 2 Map Unit Description:Glenelg loam,7 to 15 percent slopes—Albemarle County,Virginia THR CHARLOTSVILLE VA Hydrologic Soil Group: B Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Area Data: Version 10, Dec 11, 2013 gwNatural Resources Web Soil Survey 2/4/2016 i Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Texas Roadhouse Restaurant Seminole Trail / Rio Road East Charlottesville, Virginia May 29, 2015 Project No. 70155076 Prepared for: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC Louisville, Kentucky Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina iierracon 11 - 1 1 1 tl • 1 I I I I 11 . . • May 28, 2015 Ilerracon Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC 6040 Dutchmans Lane, Suite 400 Louisville, Kentucky 40205 Attention: Ms. Caitlin Kincaid Caitlin.Kincaid@texasroadhouse.com Regarding: Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Texas Roadhouse Restaurant Seminole Trail / Rio Road East Charlottesville, Virginia Terracon Project No. 70155076 Dear Ms. Kincaid, Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project in accordance with your request dated April 7, 2015. This report presents the findings of the subsurface exploration and provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design of foundations for the proposed restaurant. Field work on the project was initially delayed due to changes in facility layout. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. LYN O 5'0-7 4krt 17* 4°‘4/ Barneye, P.E. 'biz Thomas R. Bartlett, El Senior Geotechnicalr1r rpEy C.HALE • Staff Professional Registered, VA 31948 tic.Ko.031 ,e 1 • O�g'ts1O�iAl+SSG Terracon Consultants, Inc. 2401 Brentwood Road, Suite 107 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 P 1919]8732211 F [919]873 9555 Terracon.corn NC Reg. F-0869 • 1 • - , 1 . 1 it . . . • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 1 2.1 Project Description 1 2.2 Site Location and Description 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 3.1 Typical Profile 2 3.2 Groundwater 3 3.3 Site Geology 3 4.0 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations 4 4.2 Earthwork 4 4.2.1 Compaction Requirements 6 4.2.2 Grading and Drainage 6 4.2.3 Construction Considerations 6 4.2.4 Excavations 7 4.3 Foundation Recommendations 7 4.4 Floor Slabs 8 4.5 Seismic Considerations 9 4.6 Pavements 9 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 11 APPENDIX A— FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site Location Plan Exhibit A-2 Boring Location Plan Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration/ Laboratory Description Exhibits A-4 to A-10 Boring Logs APPENDIX B—SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit B-1 General Notes Exhibit B-2 Unified Soil Classification System Responsive ■ Reliable ■ Resourceful Geotechnical Engineering Report lierracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant■Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015 ■Terracon Project No. 70155076 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical exploration has been performed for Texas Roadhouse Restaurant to be located near the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road East in Charlottesville, Virginia. Seven soil test borings were performed to approximate depths of 10 to 25 feet below existing site grades. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: ■ The site was previously developed with a branch bank. The structure and associated pavement areas remain in place, but are not currently in use. Site preparation work will include demolition and removal of the existing structure, foundations, and surface asphalt layers. With redevelopment sites, there is always the potential that buried structures not discovered during the geotechnical exploration may exist at the site. These structures such as septic tanks or other vaults, if encountered,can be addressed during construction. Abandoned utilities from the previous development should be removed or filled with grout. ■ Fill materials were encountered at the site and extended to depths ranging from approximately an approximate depth of 5 feet to 17 feet. The deeper fill appears to have been placed in a former drainage feature. The fill appears to be relatively firm and free of debris. In our opinion, the existing fill materials at the site are suitable to support the proposed structure on shallow foundations provided the subgrade is tested and prepared as outlined in this report. Even with the recommended site improvement and construction testing services there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill. These risks can be reduced by performing adequate testing and evaluation during construction. • We recommend the proposed Texas Roadhouse be supported on shallow foundations sized for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. • We recommend seismic site class D for the site based on the 2012 International Building Code. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive• Reliable• Resourceful GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED TEXAS ROADHOUSE RESTAURANT SEMINOLE TRAIL/ RIO ROAD EAST CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Terracon Project No. 70155076 May 29, 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION We have completed the geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Texas Roadhouse restaurant to be located in Charlottesville, Virginia. Seven soil test borings were performed to depths of approximately 10 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface at the approximate locations indicated on the boring location diagram. Logs of the borings along with a site location plan and a boring location diagram are included in Appendix A of this report. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: ▪ subsurface soil conditions • foundation design and construction • groundwater conditions • seismic considerations • earthwork • floor slab design and construction • pavements 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description nitx i B�':>, 'a Structure Approximately 7,420 square foot, single-story, wood frame structure,with slab-on-grade floor system. Maximum loads 1 to 3 kips per linear foot for continuous walls and 30 to 50 kips for isolated columns (assumed) Grading Site has been developed. Grading is assumed to be limited to cut and fill depths of less than 1 foot. New asphalt pavement will be constructed on the north and south Pavements sides of the proposed building. The majority of the customer parking will be developed by sharing an existing retail parking area east of the new building. Responsive• Reliable• Resourceful 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�con Texas Roadhouse Restaurant •Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015 •Terracon Project No. 70155076 2.2 Site Location and Description The site located within an existing shopping center development Location located at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Rio Road East. For further details regarding site location, reference Exhibit A-1, Site Location Plan. Existing improvements Site was previously developed with a branch bank. The structure and associated pavements remain in place. Current ground cover Asphalt in paved areas, grass and topsoil with ornamental trees in landscaping areas. Existing topography The site is relatively flat. 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Typical Profile Based on the results of the borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: a ' � � / 4 Grass/Topsoil 4 to 5 inches (Landscaped Areas) Surface 1.5 to 3 inches Asphalt N/A 7 to 12 inches 5 to 9 inches Stone Base { (Pavements) Medium Stiff to Stiff Fill Materials:Consisting (Clay) Stratum 1 5.5 feet to 17 feet ( of Lean Clay and Silty Sand Loose to Medium Dense (Sand) Encountered from 17 to 21 Stratum 2 Alluvial: Lean Clay Soft feet deep in Boring B-1 Residual Materials:Lean Stratum 3 To Boring Termination Stiff to Hard/ Clay, Silty Sand,Clayey Depths of 10 feet to 25 feet Sand' Medium Dense to Dense , 1. Residual materials in Borings B-1, B-2 and B-3 were sufficiently hard to classify as Partially Weathered Rock(PWR). In Boring B-3, PWR was encountered at a relatively shallow depth of 8 feet. Responsive• Reliable • Resourceful 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant•Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015•Terracon Project No. 70155076 Conditions encountered at the boring locations are indicated on the boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with the enclosed General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. A brief description of this classification system is attached to this report. All classification was by visual/ manual procedures. Further details of the borings can be found on the boring logs in Appendix A of this report. 3.2 Groundwater The boreholes were observed for the presence and level of groundwater while drilling and near the conclusion of the short period they were allowed to remain open. Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths ranging from 10 of 15 feet below the present ground surface. We do not expect groundwater to impact the development of this site; however, groundwater level fluctuations can occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs and the possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. 3.3 Site Geology The subject site is located within the Blue Ridge physiographic province of Virginia. According to the Geologic Map of Virginia, dated 1993, as published by the Virginia Geological Survey, the site is mapped within the Lynchburg Group, which consists of partially metamorphosed sedimentary rock overlying igneous rock. The overburden soils of the Blue Ridge province typically consist of residual materials derived from the in-place weathering of the parent rock. Recent alluvial sands, silts, and clays are typically present near rivers and creeks. In the residual soil profile, the degree of weathering decreases with increasing depth. Clay and silt are typically present near the ground surface. The residual soils transition into sand/silt mixtures with increasing depth as the degree of weathering decreases. The transition from soil to rock occurs gradually, with the transition zone ranging from a few feet to 10's of feet thick. This transition zone is often termed "partially weathered rock" and is defined as residual materials that can be drilled with soil drilling methods and exhibit Standard Penetration Test values exceeding 100 blows per foot. Responsive■ Reliable a Resourceful 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant■Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015 ■Terracon Project No. 70155076 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations Fill materials were encountered at the site to depths ranging from 5 feet to 17 feet. The fill appears to be relatively firm and free of debris. In our opinion, the existing fill materials at the site are suitable to support the proposed structure on shallow foundations provided the subgrade is tested and prepared as outlined in this report. Even with the recommended site improvement and construction testing services there is an inherent risk for the owner that compressible fill or unsuitable material within or buried by the fill will not be discovered. This risk of unforeseen conditions cannot be eliminated without completely removing the existing fill. These risks can be reduced by performing adequate testing and evaluation during construction. The near surface soils at the site are moisture sensitive and will lose strength and stiffness as their moisture contents increase. Earthwork should be performed during summer and early fall to the extent practical due to the improved drying conditions and shorter time periods of rainfall associated with these seasons. This does not preclude earthwork during other periods of the year. Rather, performing site earthwork during late fall, winter and spring increases the potential for needing to perform remedial subgrade work. Partially weathered rock was encountered at a depth of 8 feet in the vicinity of boring B-3. This depth is generally expected to be below the depth of excavation for the project. Trench excavations that extend into the partially weathered rock will potentially need the use of pneumatic hammers. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; proof-rolling; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of excavations into the completed subgrade, and just prior to construction of foundations. A more complete discussion of these points and additional information is included in the following sections. 4.2 Earthwork Site preparation work should begin with the demolition of the existing building, foundation, concrete curbs/sidewalks and the surface layer of asphalt. The stone base layer of the existing pavement can remain in place. Demolition debris should be disposed off-site. With redevelopment sites, there is always the potential that buried structures not discovered during the geotechnical exploration may exist at the site. These structures, such as septic tanks or Responsive• Reliable• Resourceful 4 Geotechnical Engineering Report lierracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant•Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015•Terracon Project No. 70155076 other vaults, if encountered, can be addressed during construction. Abandoned utilities from previous development should be removed or filled with grout. Topsoil and vegetation should be stripped from the landscaped areas of the site. Based on the borings, we anticipate a topsoil stripping depth of approximately 4 to 6 inches, however, topsoil depths may vary and should be evaluated at the time of construction by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. After site stripping, the exposed soil should be proofrolled in areas to receive fill or at the subgrade elevation in cut areas and generally evaluated for plasticity. Proofrolling should be performed with a loaded, tandem-axle dump truck with a minimum gross weight of 20,000 pounds or similar rubber-tired construction equipment. Subgrade soils that exhibit excessive rutting or deflection during proofrolling should be over-excavated to a depth directed by the geotechnical engineer. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted for stabilization options which may include replacement with washed, crushed stone or properly compacted soil fill. Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements i eir , CUCH, ML/MH,SC or SM Low-to Moderate- and All locations and elevations Plasticity Soil (LL<60& PI<30) VDOT 21 A (crushed aggregate base course) beneath pavements or as a replacement material in over- Sand/Gravel with excavated areas. less than 20% "Clean" sand (less than 20%silt and clay) should not fines GW/GP, SW/SP be used as general site fill in building and pavement areas to reduce risk of perched water developing in the (silt and clay) surface fill as water infiltrating the surface zone becomes trapped above the less permeable sandy clay and clayey sand zone. On-site soils SM, ML,CL Generally suitable when placed at depths greater than two feet below final design grades. 1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free of organic matter and debris. A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation. Responsive • Reliable• Resourceful 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant•Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015•Terracon Project No. 70155076 4.2.1 Compaction Requirements Fill Lift Thickness 9-inches or less in loose thickness(4"to 6"lifts when hand- operated equipment is used) Compaction Requirements 1 95% of the materials standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D698) Within the range of-3%to +3%of optimum moisture content Moisture Content j as determined by the standard Proctor test at the time of placement and compaction 1. Engineered fill should be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. If in- place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the tests should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved. 4.2.2 Grading and Drainage During construction, grades should be sloped to promote runoff away from the construction area. Final grades should be sloped away from the structure on all sides to prevent ponding of water. If gutters / downspouts do not discharge directly onto pavement, they should not discharge directly adjacent to the building in landscaped areas. This can be accomplished through the use of splash-blocks, downspout extensions, and flexible pipes that are designed to attach to the end of the downspout if necessary. Flexible pipe should only be used if it is day-lighted in such a manner that it gravity-drains collected water. Splash-blocks should also be considered below hose bibs and water spigots. Paved surfaces which adjoin the building should be sealed with caulking or other sealant to prevent moisture infiltration at the building envelope; maintenance should be performed as necessary to maintain the seal. 4.2.3 Construction Considerations The near surface soil at the site is moisture-sensitive. The site should be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become frozen, desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected material should be removed or these materials should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and recompacted. Should unstable subgrade conditions develop, stabilization measures should be employed. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perform necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; to monitor proof-rolling, placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills, backfilling of excavations to the completed subgrade; and to observe prior to placing reinforcing steel in the footing excavations. Responsive• Reliable • Resourceful 6 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant•Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015•Terracon Project No.70155076 4.2.4 Excavations Partially weathered rock was encountered at a depth of 8 feet below the current site grades in the vicinity of Boring B-3. This is generally expected to be below the maximum depth of excavation for the project. Trench excavations that extend into partially weathered rock will likely require the use of pneumatic hammers. All temporary excavations that may be required during construction should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards to provide stability and safe working conditions. 4.3 Foundation Recommendations We believe that the proposed restaurant structure can be supported on a shallow foundation system consisting of continuous wall footings and isolated column footings. Design recommendations for the building foundation are summarized in the following table and paragraphs: " a Maximum net allowable bearing pressure 1 2,000 psf Minimum embedment below lowest adjacent finished grade for frost protection and protective embedment 2 18 inches Minimum width for continuous wall footings 16 inches Minimum width for isolated column footings 24 inches Approximate total settlement 3 Up to 1 inch Estimated differential settlement 3 ! Up to 1/2 inch between adjacent columns 1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. 2. For perimeter footings and footings beneath unheated areas. 3. The actual magnitude of settlement that will occur beneath the foundations would depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions and the quality of the foundation excavation. The estimated total and differential settlements listed assume that the foundation related earthwork and the foundation design are completed in accordance with our recommendations. The foundation bearing materials should be evaluated at the time of the foundation excavation. A representative of the geotechnical engineer should use a combination of hand auger borings and dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) testing to determine the suitability of the bearing materials for the design bearing pressure. Excessively soft, loose or wet bearing soils should be overexcavated to a depth recommended by the geotechnical engineer. The footings could then bear directly on these soils at the lower level or the excavated soils could be replaced with compacted soil fill, lean concrete, or washed, crushed stone (NCDOT No 57). The soft soil Responsive• Reliable a Resourceful 7 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant■Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015 ■Terracon Project No. 70155076 encountered in the vicinity of Boring No. B-1 represents a condition where additional remedial effort may be required. The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed as soon as practical after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively disturbed or saturated, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. The geotechnical engineer should be retained to observe and test the soil foundation bearing materials. 4.4 Floor Slabs Recommendations for design and construction of floor slabs are summarized in the following table and paragraphs. Floor slab support 1 Approved site soils or newly placed engineered fill meeting the specifications outlined in this report. Modulus of subgrade reaction 100 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in3) for point loading conditions Aggregate base course/capillary break 4 inches of free draining granular material (NCDOT No. 57 or 67) Saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Joints or any cracks that develop should be sealed with a water-proof, non-extruding compressible compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments. The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs on grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings. The slab designer should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. If such disturbance occurs, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of the capillary break layer and concrete and corrective action will be required. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill. All floor slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to placement of the aggregate base and concrete. Responsive• Reliable • Resourceful 8 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerr-acon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant•Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015•Terracon Project No. 70155076 4.5 Seismic Considerations mak` ,sa W! 2012 International Building Code 1 Seismic site class D 2 Mapped Acceleration parameters,SS and Si (Site Class B) S$=0.203g and S1 =0.068g Adjusted Acceleration Parameters,Sins and Sm1 SMS=0.325g and SM1 =0.163g (Site Class D) SDS=0.2179 and SD1=0.108g 1. In general accordance with the 2012 International Building Code 2. The IBC site seismic classification is based on a site soil profile determination extending a depth of 100 feet. The scope of work authorized did not include a boring to a depth of 100 feet. The recommended seismic site classification is based on the assumption that the residual soils encountered in the borings maintain their density or increase in stiffness/density with depth and transition into rock. This is a reasonable assumption based on our experience in the region and the geology of the area. A geophysical exploration to develop the shear wave velocity profile to a depth of 100 feet could be utilized to verify the seismic site class or as an attempt to justify a higher seismic site class. 4.6 Pavements The soils encountered in the borings appear to be suitable for support of the planned pavement sections provided the subgrade is prepared as outlined in this report. Prior to parking lot construction, the pavement subgrade should be proofrolled as outlined in section 4.2 Earthwork of this report. Soft or excessively wet soils delineated by the proofrolling operations should be undercut and backfilled as directed by the geotechnical engineer. Upon completion of any necessary undercutting and fill placement, the subgrade should be adequate for support of the pavement sections recommended below. Pavement thickness design is dependent upon: • the anticipated traffic conditions during the life of the pavement; • subgrade and paving material characteristics; • climatic conditions of the region. Two pavement section alternatives have been provided. The light-duty pavement sections are for car parking areas only. Heavy-duty pavement sections should be used for concentrated car traffic (drive lanes/entrance drives) and truck traffic areas. Responsive• Reliable• Resourceful 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report lrerracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant ■Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015 ■Terracon Project No. 70155076 • n i � � '� t�, � :say` ` ;� sy t K ¢` y .- R L 1 + a rs / 5 4?k� e a .--. F- •- x z . " } ` 'r " ,� �b4�' �.n ? t � ` day .4 -s x' S f rwi s > ` ,� '� 7 h ly l�Y !�] S.�aJ r ) a 9 i',�!j! a 1 ..� Portland Cement Concrete (4,000 psi) 5 6 Rigid Crushed Stone 4 4 (VDOT 21A) Flexible 1 Asphalt Surface(VDOT SM-9.0A) I 3* 3* (Superpave) Crushed Stone (VDOT 21A) 6 8 * Place in two lifts of 1.5 inches For areas subject to concentrated and repetitive loading conditions, i.e. dumpster pads and ingress/egress aprons, or in areas where vehicles will turn at low speeds, we recommend using a Portland cement concrete pavement with a thickness of at least 7 inches underlain by at least 4 inches of crushed stone. For dumpster pads, the concrete pavement area should be large enough to support the container and tipping axle of the refuse truck. Recommendations for pavement construction presented depend upon compliance with recommended material specifications. To assess compliance, observation and testing should be performed under the direction of the geotechnical engineer. The placement of a partial pavement thickness for use during construction is not suggested without a detailed pavement analysis incorporating construction traffic. Asphalt concrete aggregates and base course materials should conform to the applicable Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) "Road and Bridge Specifications". Concrete pavement should be air-entrained and have a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi after 28 days of laboratory curing (ASTM C-31). Future performance of pavements constructed on the soils at this site will be dependent upon several factors, including: • maintaining stable moisture content of the subgrade soils; • providing for a planned program of preventative maintenance. The performance of all pavements can be enhanced by minimizing excess moisture which can reach the subgrade soils. The following recommendations should be considered a minimum: • site grading at a minimum 2 percent grade away from the pavements; Responsive• Reliable • Resourceful 10 Geotechnical Engineering Report lierracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant•Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015•Terracon Project No.70155076 • the subgrade and the pavement surface have a minimum 1/4 inch per foot slope to promote proper surface drainage; • install joint sealant and seal cracks immediately; Prevention of infiltration of water into the subgrade is essential for the successful performance of any pavement. Both the subgrade and the pavement surface should be sloped to promote surface drainage away from the pavement structure. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur across the site, or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Responsive• Reliable• Resourceful 11 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION •. (.., ,.... v fp E A... 4 (z, ..., a 0 0 I 4e. „.._... i t la of H'It cent,. 4 1.4 '0 0 I-n t 4 2 ct MYers D, 1 eibro._ ce a IP i ,,,„,... 4.,.. ;,:evi. 4' cr Al' .- p" •„, , . .130'pri. e 7 a. ,s, i44" , SITE ‘ 4r, ... 6. a 1/4 fl, -5. a t E •,:, . s? 171;" ?4. 4/ 1.4:4' T 3 Illr .5 iii it• 4 ,.., .. , .. 4* 4.. c‘ 3ttesInlle Fashion in 3 't) rl Square ad 0 .s. 00 o,.. . #b 42, 7 0 , •<' — .) LI' cy o b N 8rook Rd 113 n ,k,e tiortb 1 ""N 444,rhe .1 .4,k,r, 44)6, 2000 feet . .----, 0 2015 Microso`t Corporation g 2015 HERE PkIrort64ir. r4..:. DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY.AND IS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS Project Manager Project No BCH 70155076 ir SITE LOCATION PLAN Exhibit Drawn by. Scale. AS SHQWN erracon ' Checked by - File Name Texas Roadhouse Charlottesville, VA _ 2401 Brentwood Rd. Suite 107 Rio Road and Seminole Trail A-1 Approved by Date /29/15 Raleigh.NC 27604 Charlottesville,VA 5 * ...,,,, , * )1 ' t ", , ,: , 111, ::.' . .441t4n . t 4 4k ' . ' ICP . - '', . '4•A' 4 f c....?4,t ' • 41 ,. ,......... , . ., .00 If if , r / 1 1' ..... , . ... ....„ / / , 40. / . ... B-I .‘t 1414 . ... _...... 0 .. ". . ..., ., ' t I 41X * 4111 . ., • . , ,.-44,, ,.. .... . . ., ....,.... , .. , . .., i , A s 41'44. a4, 41y .',' .a., . ' ' ; " i, i ..., 4, NAP 1.6., Jk ii ,,,,,....i.,, . 44. 4 ' birt i DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY.AND IS AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PROVIDED NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES BY MICROSOFT BING MAPS Project Manager: Project No. BORING LOCATION PLAN Exhibit BCH 70155076 ir Drawn by: Scale:_ _ AS SHOWN erracon Checked byFile NameTexas Roadhouse Charlottesville, VA A-2a : : 7 2401 Brentwood Rd. Suite 107 Rio Road and Seminole Trail Approved by: Date: 4/15 Raleigh,NC 27604 Charlottesville,VA t • / ,B-1 •• / •, / •, / B_$ / PROPOSED / PARKING LOT B-3Ak/ / 7 T : 1/" ' '/ 1B.6 44, co / ii B-44- /XAROADHOUSE / / i / 220 SHARED PARKING SPACE "44%, PROPOSED B- ' PARKINGLOT` /�� / UTURE//, • , . . . . .• ELOPMENT / . . . . . . cdit - 4 ' T • 1,::Adlettill 1r LEGEND 0 50 SITE ••j $ APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION Approximate Scale (Feet) THIS DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY.AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES Project 'a Mg' BCH Prised N� 70155076 BORING LOCATION PLAN EXHIBIT Drawn By Scab' IC� GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT TLY AS SHOWN Checked Br. Fib No. Consulting Engineers and Scientists TEXAS ROADHOUSE BCH/MRF GE070155076.2 Approved By' DateSEMINOLE TRAIL AND RIO ROAD EAST BCH MAY 2015 2401 Brentwood Road,Suite 107 Raleigh,NC 27604 q-2 g (919)873-2211 (919)873-9555 CHARLOTTESVILLE,VA Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 rerracon Texas Roadhouse Restaurant r Charlottesville, VA May 29, 2015 Terracon Project No. 70155076 • Field Exploration / Laboratory Description The boring locations were located by measuring with tape from existing site features and estimating right angles. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. The borings were drilled with a truck mounted CME-750 drill rig using hollow stem auger drilling techniques to advance the boreholes. Samples of the soil encountered in the borings were obtained using the split barrel sampling procedures. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler the last 12 inches of the typical total 18-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound C.M.E. auto-hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (SPT-N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and consistency of cohesive soils. An automatic SPT hammer was used to advance the split-barrel sampler in the borings performed on this site. A greater efficiency is typically achieved with the automatic hammer compared to the conventional safety hammer operated with a cathead and rope. Published correlations between the SPT values and soil properties are based on the lower efficiency cathead and rope method. This higher efficiency affects the standard penetration resistance blow count (N) value by increasing the penetration per hammer blow over what would be • obtained using the cathead and rope method. The effect of the automatic hammer's efficiency has been considered in the interpretation and analysis of the subsurface information for this report. The samples were tagged for identification, sealed to reduce moisture loss, and taken to our laboratory for further examination, testing, and classification. Information provided on the boring logs attached to this report includes soil descriptions, consistency evaluations, boring depths, sampling intervals, and groundwater conditions. The borings were backfilled with auger cuttings prior to the drill crew leaving the site. A field log of each boring was prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. Final boring logs included with this report represent the engineer's interpretation of the field logs and visual classification. Descriptive classifications of the soils indicated on the boring logs are in accordance with our General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System. Also shown are estimated Unified Soil Classification Symbols. Exhibit A-3 BORING LOG NO. B-1 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Texas Roadhouse CLIENT: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC SITE: Seminole Trail/Rio Road East Charlottesville,VA O LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 w o }}w I— U w F-- Win —1‹ ¢ F J I I w� a in_Iw W ~W M wK o 0 �m < LL DEPTH •"�I • GRASS/TOPSOIL •••4: FILL:CONSISTING OF LEAN CLAY, brown to dark brown,medium stiff to stiff,with sand, note: — X••�•�� concrete fragments from 8 feet to 15 feet. 2 4-3 •�•�•• — N=7 •••••• Low sampler penetration at 9.5ft. Attributed to concrete fragment — •••••• — 2-3-5 ••••• N=8 • ••• 5-6-7 ••• — x N=13 iii• — •%• — x 3-6-50/1" ,JJ 10— N ••••• o ••••• — 4-4-5 e, ••• 0 •0A•A N=9 ° ••• 15— p •iii 17.0 _ --j j LEAN CLAY(CL), gray, soft. possible alluvium _ o _ _ ° — 1-1-1 o . N=2 I 20— 2 /21.0 En — o ♦ PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK — 0 o ♦ — 15 X a 11-50/6" z 25.0 EE Boring Terminated at 25 Feet 25 0 0 0 u I LL , w Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic Q w w w Advancement Method: See Exhibit Al- for description of field Notes: Hollow Stem Auger o procedures J a H See Appendix B for explanation of z Abandonment Method: symbols and abbreviations 0 Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. 0 O WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Boring Started:5/13/2015 Boring Completed:5/13/2015 c, Ground water encountered at 13' lierracon m Drill Rig:CME-750 Driller:Turnage 2401 Brentwood Road,Suite 107 1- Raleigh.North Carolina Project No.:70155076 Exhibit A-4 BORING LOG NO. B-2 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Texas Roadhouse CLIENT: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC SITE: Seminole Trail/ Rio Road East Charlottesville,VA c7 LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 J Z W w� coLU QJ a_ a wcc 0 uj Q W �0 u LL DEPTH ••• GRASS/TOPSOIL i :•• FILL:CONSISTING OF LEAN CLAY, brown,medium stiff to stiff — •••••• 2-3-3 iii••• N=6 • i BORING LOG NO. B-3 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Texas Roadhouse CLIENT: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC SITE: Seminole Trail/Rio Road East Charlottesville,VA OO LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 w Z wa r J v 1 T (n(n W H F W F U J‹ a a w� J O((0 0W Q m Q DEPTH O 3"ASPHALT!9"STONE BASE 1.0 ••• FILL:FILL:CONSISTING OF SILTY SAND, brown, loose to medium dense 3-3-5 :•:•:• — N=8 iii• •••••• — 3-5-8 •••••• N=13 ••••5.5 5 •••••• FILL:CONSISTING OF LEAN CLAY, brown,stiff• 3-4-5 ••••• ♦ PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK \/ 19-44-50/5" 10.0 / \ Boring Terminated at 10 Feet N to 0- 9,O J 0 v; (7 O J tD J J w 3 0 z ccch 0 J cc 0) N 0 w 0 cc K 0 a w e: 0 O LL 0 w Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic a w N Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: Hollow Stem Auger 0 procedures > L- See Appendix B for explanation of z Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. symbols and abbreviations 0 J WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 0 Boring Started:5/13/2015 Boring Completed:5/13/2015 Boring dry at time of boring lierracon m Drill Rig:CME-750 Driller:Turnage 2401 Brentwood Road,Suite 107 Raleigh,North Carolina Project No.:70155076 Exhibit: A-6 BORING LOG NO. B-4 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Texas Roadhouse CLIENT: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC SITE: Seminole Trail/ Rio Road East Charlottesville,VA O LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 w v >o a ~ wF LL I- T w JQ I--1 I- T a w> c CC wN w� 4m Q u_ DEPTH 0.6 2"ASPHALT/8"STONE BASE ••�•�• FILL:CONSISTING OF SILTY SAND,brown,loose to medium dense — x�.... 2 3 6 �•�•�• — N=9 000 ,.s. — ♦•• iii• vi BORING LOG NO. B-5 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Texas Roadhouse CLIENT: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC SITE: Seminole Trail/ Rio Road East Charlottesville,VA c7 LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 w Z a F LL W _ Q J J 111 W 11/ d W <m LL DEPTH 1.5"ASPHALT/8.5"STONE BASE 0.9 :•:•:� FILL:CONSISTING OF LEAN CLAY,brown to dark gray,medium stiff• v 2-3-3 •••4 �•ii� N=6 •ii.4 .•ii•• ••• — 1-3-3 •••••• N=6 .••�•�• • ••••••• 2-3-4 •••••• N=7 — •❖:•e 0 • CLAYEY SAND(SC),brown,medium dense \ / 6-9-10 N=19 N 10- 12.0 — PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK CD o — J o — X 25-50/3" 00 ° 15- 0 N 17.0 _ SILTY SAND(SM),dark gray,dense w 0 z °o — 20-29-20 20.0 N=49 Boring Terminated at 20 Feet 20 Co 0 w 0 cc 0 0 a cc w z Z O ❑ U- U- 0 w Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic a w 0 Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: LI Hollow Stem Auger ❑ procedures See Appendix B for explanation of o Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. symbols and abbreviations cn 0 O WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS c7Boring Started:5/13/2015 Boring Completed:5/13/2015 Boring dry at time of boring lierracon ODrill Rig:CME-750 Driller Turnage m 2401 Brentwood Road,Suite 107 Raleigh,North Carolina Project No.:70155076 Exhibit: A-8 BORING LOG NO. B-6 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Texas Roadhouse CLIENT: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC SITE: Seminole Trail/ Rio Road East Charlottesville, VA LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 w'Z w Ja FI- I' I- wa w qj o am ¢ � DEPTH O LL •�•�•w I GRASS/TOPSOIL � %•• i FILL:CONSISTING OF LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, brown,medium stiff to stiff - •OO• 3-5-5 •••• - N=10 •i •ii• ••• iii• � •�•�• - �/ 2-2-5 � •�•�• /� N=7 ••• 5 •••5.5 LEAN CLAY(Cu, brown,stiff2-5-5 = N=10 4-5-5N=1100 N N • 412.O ui• • SILT(MLI,dark gray, hard o - J \ J a. — 12-30147 15_0 , \ N=77 n Boring Terminated at 15 Feet 1 r' 0 U U 0 n J J W 0 z th F U) 0 W 0 H L 0 a W • L z Z LU 0 0 rr U- 0 W Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic a N Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: o Hollow Stem Auger procedures F' See Appendix B for explanation of o Abandonment Method: • Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. symbols and abbreviations 0 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS O Boring Started:5/13/2015 Boring Completed:5/13/2015 • Boring dry at time of boring lierracon m Drill Rig:CME-750 Driller:Turnage rn 2401 Brentwood Road,Suite 107 = Raleigh,North Carolina Project No.:70155076 Exhibit A-9 BORING LOG NO. B-7 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Texas Roadhouse CLIENT: Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC SITE: Seminole Trail/ Rio Road East Charlottesville,VA c7 LOCATION See Exhibit A-2 w Z w w- UJ- U J~ r F J I Q O. ww a Ww a o <o CC DEPTH 0.6 2"ASPHALT/5"STONE BASE *. FILL:CONSISTING OF SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown,stiff — • 2-4-5 ••�•�• N=9 iii• iii • � •��•• — V 2-5-6 N=11 j!_!•5.5 5— SANDY LEAN CLAY(CO,brown,stiff N— V 2-5-5 2-5-7 �y10 o N=12 10 Boring Terminated at 10 Feet N a 0 Cii r7 0 J a. 0 ai 0 0 J CO 0 0 O -J J W 0 z 0 0 J F- Q 0 W 0 F 0 a. a L11 Z Ui 0 0 U- w 0 Stratification lines are approximate.In-situ,the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Automatic rn Advancement Method: See Exhibit A-3 for description of field Notes: Hollow Stem Auger o procedures See Appendix B for explanation of o Abandonment Method: Borings backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. symbols and abbreviations 0 0 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS o Boring Started:5/13/2015 Boring Completed:5/13/2015 Boring dry at time of boring lierracon m Drill Rig:CME-750 Driller:Tumage 2401 Brentwood Road,Suite 107 Raleigh,North Carolina Project No.:70155076 Exhibit A-10 APPENDIX B SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS nv Water Initially (HP) Hand Penetrometer Encountered Auger Split Spoon T-, Water Level After a (T) Torvane Specified Period of Time J V Water Level After N W a Specified Period of Time (b/f) Standard Penetration C7 y Test(blows per foot) Z Shelby Tube Macro Core W W n _ _i Water levels indicated on the soil boring I— (PID) Photo-lonization Detector 0- 1:1Ie logs are the levels measured in the 0 W borehole at the times indicated. fa Q Groundwater level variations will occur LL (OVA) Organic Vapor Analyzer Ring Sampler Rock Core over time. In low permeability soils, accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term • ' water level observations. Grab Sample No Recovery DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/-indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (More than 50%retained on No.200 sieve.) (50%or more passing the No.200 sieve.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing,field Includes gravels,sands and silts. visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance Descriptive Term Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler Descriptive Term Unconfined Compressive Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler (Density) N-Value Blows/Ft. (Consistency) Strength,Qu,psf N-Value Blows/Ft. WBlows/Ft. Blows/Ft. I— Very Loose 0-3 0-6 Very Soft less than 500 0-1 <3 2 ~ Loose 4-9 7-18 Soft 500 to 1,000 2-4 3-4 Z W Medium Dense 10-29 19-58 Medium-Stiff 1,000 to 2,000 4-8 5-9 re I— — Dense 30-50 59-98 Stiff 2,000 to 4,000 8-15 10-18 Very Dense >50 >99 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8,000 15-30 19-42 Hard >8,000 >30 >42 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(si Percent of Major Component of other constituents Dor Weight of Sample Particle Size Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in.(300 mm) With 15-29 Cobbles 12 in.to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) Modifier >30 Gravel 3 in.to#4 sieve(75mm to 4.75 mm) Sand #4 to#200 sieve(4.75mm to 0.075mm Silt or Clay Passing#200 sieve(0.075mm) RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Descriptive Term(sl Percent of Term Plasticity Index of other constituents Dry Weight Non-plastic 0 Trace <5 Low 1 -10 With 5-12 Medium 11 -30 Modifier > 12 High >30 lrerracon Exhibit B-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests A Group Group Name Symbol Gravels: Clean Gravels: Cu-4 and 1 <Cc<_3 E GW Well-graded gravel F More than 50%of Less than 5%fines G Cu<4 and/or 1 >Cc>3 E GP Poorly graded gravel F coarse fraction retainedGravels with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravel E." Coarse Grained Soils: on No.4 sieve More than 12%fines C Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravel F,G." More than 50%retained on No.200 sieve Sands: Clean Sands: Cu>_6 and 1 <Cc<_3 E SW Well-graded sand' 50%or more of coarse Less than 5%fines° Cu<6 and/or 1 >Cc>3 E SP Poorly graded sand' fraction passes No.4 Sands with Fines: Fines classify as ML or MH • SM Silty sand G.B. sieve More than 12%fines° Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sand 0,".' A PI>7 and plots on or above"A"lined CL' Lean clay K.L.M Inorganic: K M Silts and Clays: PI<4 or plots below"A"lined • ML Silt Liquid limit less than 50 Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clay".`." Fine-Grained Soils: Organic: <0.75 OL KI-d"")50%or more passes the Liquid limit not dried Organic sLlt� No. 200 sieve PI plots on or above"A"line CH Fat clay Inorganic: K.�,M Silts and Clays: PI plots below"A"line MH Elastic Silt Liquid limit 50 or more Liquid limit-oven dried Organic clay"`'M P Organic: <0.75 OH "3"Liquid limit-not dried Organic silt Highly organic soils: Primarily organic matter,dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat A Based on the material passing the 3-inch(75-mm)sieve " If fines are organic,add"with organic fines"to group name. B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders,or both,add"with cobbles ' If soil contains- 15%gravel, add"with gravel"to group name. or boulders,or both"to group name. d If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area,soil is a CL-ML,silty clay. C Gravels with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded K If soil contains 15 to 29%plus No.200,add"with sand"or"with gravel," gravel with silt,GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay,GP-GM poorly whichever is predominant. graded gravel with silt,GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. ` If soil contains>30%plus No.200 predominantly sand,add"sandy"to °Sands with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded group name. sand with silt,SW-SC well-graded sand with clay,SP-SM poorly graded M If soil contains>_30%plus No.200, predominantly gravel, add sand with silt,SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay "gravelly"to group name. z " PI >4 and plots on or above"A"line. E Cu=D60/D10 Cc= (Dao) o PI<4 or plots below"A"line. D10 x D60 P PI plots on or above"A"line. F If soil contains_>15%sand,add"with sand"to group name. °PI plots below"A"line. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM,or SC-SM. 60 For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction 50 of coarse-grained soils \fie,• V Equation of"A"-line .J ,*P EL- Horizontal at P1=4 to LL=25.5. X 40 then PI=0.73(LL-20) • �o . Lu Equation of"U" line mot Z Vertical at LL=16 to PI=7 Cr >- 30 then PI=0.9(LL-8) U �d" Q 20 C� o MH or OH a. 10 7 CL -ML 4 ML or OL 0 0 10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LU lierracon Exhibit B-2