The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOV139709 ITEM ! ORO VALLEY PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW BOARD MEETING DATE: March 11, 1997 TO: Development Review Board FROM: Melissa Shaw, Planner I SUBJECT: OV 13-97-09 ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE RESURRECTION LUTHERAN CHURCH EXPANSION BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mr. James Vroman, representing the Resurrection Lutheran Church, requests approval of architectural elevations for an addition to the existing church facility. The church is located in Tangerine Meadows, at the southwest intersection of North First Avenue and Tangelo Drive. On December 10, 1994, the Town annexed Tangerine Meadows, a 46 lot subdivision, and was designated with Oro Valley zoning R1-144. The church and church property was zoned Private Schools and Churches (PS&C). SUMMARY: The additions include a new, separate 2,900 SF administration building, a new 1,020 SF fellowship hall, 610 SF nursery and other rooms totalling 2,480 square feet of space, added to the church. Renovations to the sanctuary are also planned. There will be no increase in the number of fixed seats in the sanctuary, so the amount of parking required, based on the number of fixed seats in the sanctuary (a criteria by which parking for churches is determined), will not change. Building setbacks for the PS&C zone are 50 feet from any residential district. The additions meet the setbacks. Building height is limited to one story and 18 feet. The new administration building will be 18 feet to top of roof; the west side addition will be 13'8" to the top of the parapet. Campaniles are permitted up to 25 feet in height, and the campanile on the administration building is 19 feet. The architectural renderings of this expansion show a design that blends perfectly with the existing church. The same stucco finish and color will be continued on the additions, as will the same fluid, continuous parapet roof lines. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff finds the architectural elevations for the expansion of Resurrection Lutheran Church to be compatible with the existing building, and recommends approval. • SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve OV13-97-09, the architectural elevations for the Resurrection Lutheran Church Expansion. OR I move to approve OV13-97-09, the architectural elevations for the Resurrection Lutheran Church Expansion, and the following added conditions: OR I move to deny OV 13-97-09, the architectural elevations for the Resurrection Lutheran Church Expansion, finding that: Attachments: 1. Architecture Elevations 13-97-9\drbarch.rpt Traffic Impact Analysis Report for Resurrection Lutheran Church Oro Valley, Arizona Prepared for A. C. Tsang Engineering Group, Inc. Tucson, Arizona Prepared by PFS Traffic Engineering, LLC Tucson, Arizona .04 st 11i!E1GArk 7f�\ �. '�" 6753 w : PAUL F. o �\I STEINER,JR. od �\A� fP AA '..ONA,U S P R • July 15, 1997 Table of Contents 1. Introduction And Summary 1 2. Proposed Development 1 3. Study Area Conditions 5 Existing Volumes 5 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions 11 5. Projected Traffic 11 6. Improvement Analyses 15 7. Conclusions 15 8. Recommendations 15 Appendix 16 Ocs it: 6753 ��Q �c ,a PAUL F. STEINER, JR R ONA-u ;: List of Figures Figure 1 - Site Plan 4 2 - Existing Volumes 10 3 - Site Traffic Assignments 13 4 - Resultant Volumes, Peak Season, 10 to 11 a.m. 14 Traffic Impact Analysis Report for Resurrection Lutheran Church Oro Valley, Arizona 1. Introduction and Summary Resurrection Lutheran Church, 11575 North First Avenue, now exists at the southwest corner of First Avenue and Tangelo Drive in Oro Valley, Arizona. The church currently has under construction additions and renovations which will result in adding 78 new seats to its existing capacity of 238 seats. The church is also seeking approval to add a new parking lot, as promised to Oro Valley, which will essentially double its off-street parking capacity. The purpose of this study is to determine whether any off-site improvements are required as a result of the changes at the church. The conclusions are that there will be no significant traffic impact. No off- site improvements are required. Oro Valley should investigate minor restraints to cross-corner sight distance at the intersection and along First Avenue and trim vegetation as they deem appropriate. 2. Proposed Development Resurrection Lutheran Church now has under construction additions and renovations to their existing facilities. The existing church now encompasses 8,725 sq. ft. which is used for worship services, some fellowship area, and administration area. An approximation of the allocation of the use of the existing area is: Use Square Feet Worship 5,125 Fellowship 1,500 Administration 2,100 A 2,480 sq. ft. church addition and a 2,900 sq. ft. new administration area are under construction. The church addition will be used to increase the fellowship area, and the new administration area will provide for the existing administration area to be relocated from the existing church. The existing church seating capacity is 206 worshipers plus a 32-member choir. Remodeling the administration area will provide for 78 new seats, thus total church seating will grow 32.8 percent from the 238 seats to 316 seats. In addition to the building alterations the church is asking for approval to construct at this time a new 80-space parking lot. The site had 88 parking spaces on Lot 31, but 8 were lost when construction began. Oro Valley has allowed on a interim basis a temporary gravel parking lot on part of Lot 31. The building and parking changes are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 1 . Approval of construction of the new parking lot will provide for parking spaces to basically double from 80 to about 160 total. (Several existing spaces on Lot 30 will be lost to provide driveway access to the new parking lot.) Provision of the new parking lot will fulfill a promise the church has made to Oro - 2 - Valley to provide additional off-street parking and will reduce, by provision of an additional driveway connection to First Avenue, the existing turning movements at the current driveway connection to First Avenue. The site plan indicates on Lot 31 a "future Christian Life Center" outline. This is a part of the church's long-range growth plan into the undetermined future 3 to 15 years away. The potential traffic impact of this nebulous use is beyond the scope of this study. - 3 - t___... - --...- • - • - — 1 1 LOT 3 1 ........s..s.„\\ Lcrr 30 1 --- 1 -- i - ... --' 1 1 • 1:LOT 32 4' .."*....... ...•*°-'''' I „.---' . .--. -; VICINITY MAP i • iR J ; .• f.i.,., i --,. A '3 ! . / r-PRO4ECT BITE ,s. 1 ; • - atil•'. ' TA MN R. . 1 , 1 T• - .1 L... if . i S. • - lffilin, E; / 1. ‘ _.y q9 : PPM _ ,,•,,; o/I - .• ••• ' ,,i 4 i : - . . • ' \ -:...... •471 6, •• ,;,....,' . • . . _ - y. .._ , I' i 1 LAMBERT '" ‘CE, , . : . .._ .,,,,9!" .".. "'EP- EON I .--$= C---/4 A. .:1'....1 2.1 I Cr) I - 1 • . -44. ,., -.:. • ,; . ,... --:.-L-1 . ----: . -„ -n .._, -, _______-:::-.. ..;& --. _.. ,.--- __--- co ----'. , , I ,/ I . C --1 ' I i ' ..t 1 ! ///.7 ..........7 ...,,,/,' -- -; ks \ :' ' !!.'D • fr.: MU. tAACH __„/"------* •-""-----------___T--"...........-,_ ..... \....„.......... k) A ________. ••••,....T:---..._.. 1 ! I woqa: pRov,cir. 8'rope. pe- PSSI-/1 .RAI-BBMI.- 1; 4 ,0-7 , . 1,1„ , WAIM. C.•IS....::t 4.43' " e-MARO c•r 7,44...4 .•... Y Si I 1 0 ir g- dF•XM:.•STXFS e p.a+-•••,c,,ors--..... ' '' .9!' • - ,4 f.',-. ,. ' I : 1 i ! 1-7-..--......, '. i ; scrE.:.yr,pp.LE.0 Ji.qcs,;woul-,„fi, 1 -1....,.--.'...=----- --,.------=- 1.--.if \ . r. •-•• • : ....:ILITIreolitfri 19,1.C.I.Nti .:01'OF " il , `1,. :—., 1........i L. t. .; 1---4- E • res.Kocir..st..1 *W.'501V.,5S r II \ / }:' / ... V .'ir,',7, --3-7,;::::,",77.77,: ',,, . .• a) I • ,....,...,„,.0.a e.....y..cs.t.--, tiggen_ 0 1,1 ••. e. '''••••,/ • , fil'...".:%'• • er-•?''`.4•..,.". . •1-.1TV3 S. . .. . . . •• "*.A.,..,ACCreri 4, . fa- , c) 6 t ,E,,,,4 e gt.'7•4 rAg.g. —\1`. ' -- \ ;Fe.sz, 1 ,?....;•,'. --•- • , •,..:1 - "I/ i i -I Al . 2,0 ,5..,l'''-4. ,•:1- . Ii'\Firi•Jr..e C.,,,i,371AN L.ir.1`.cerwol•-.„,.; .-4kt.iyi -u,.4-r, -- 4.• fi554 1; '.:"i`.; '':-•:i• .',•4f:itg.t•C r'•••• II ' '----'1.';', ..,'-'e';:•-e-s: -•-•-•-• Z • — i v. •=n, • ' tv,, ' 1 0'''''' '511-71 .-- .. . . SD 1 . ,.,.... 7: -,.7•V• •-.:.:_ ,--7.:"`i. .:1::4 '',7% • Alit - V4 ,1 414,,*I':-7., s 7.Vf. Jr.' ...1,-..c.777,-' il 4.Y.,,,,s.4-:.L...4' -;01 .151,,.: loi. ,*.xl,,l,''..wW•q••)1 t„,,,,:••• ,..,-?.. 1 ..• • ..0,1 ,m. 1 !ts, • i . , x = ''°:-':::'.1•..el'10-- --t-'''"*-, '14" '. 7. '.. ''At'i'lt,-.., ?,...-.,V.40,, ' ,',A;;,‘Vi.:11 4.,.10,,--,,N,,,...".„. ,-,•,.--, ; \--.• - 4.'il,1•_"!;•,i,r*", . '`•-•a:i'',".•'- •-• ''..-4;' v.' :". '• ' ; '' 0.K"4115Thg,.1'1 t'•t•HO"A,i ,, :- .,.0. it•'6, 1 , .y,... • ,.. --..--......f-..,;:.:.:-'::/),.-.- :3*„,.• .s:. .:..;:,./vs,,,,„......,,......„4...t......,„:,.....404i, ‘,..,,,,,,,',4,1 44.:4,......:41t..0,,,,.. ...,,, „4„,,:l.,..,, ,i... ! ...,... • _.__ v. . 4 --•-•_-..-- •.::i1*-.' '' E.3;.,.?" 4 • ,„1,41,:qek,i'.-: -0..*:"......., tiiiit....1-v,-1‘.:`s...,..?.-r.,.1f..•....,..t.,.:•,......!;-;)..q.1..:::,..,....‘...*.i,,,i,.,._,,,,,,i__ ... .—::.,.---..,,,- -.,-,?.:.•. . •I t. 1..::'.--/. talr- '' -,c!, ....9: 'O''' -'-r. ' '''.''4At'IMW1l$P4i*1106RW.'''''''' "''''''''''' ''TYlli''''''' Ilt4iq' '-74- i4,,...--..,.-v-: ••ti. '.,.,-,-*:.-t4,*. ...'....' - . .•.f.;.>,:..-..:..:•, ./i-- - . "---- f.il..;,:.gy •-ti, ,,, ; ••••-• . v_;.:4 r,....:....•, !VS 01004,, ;. x ' , 4.v!“4k,S: '11';;....7P e ' ', FF1 '110.0 ',:; .';',1 '. ! .. •,.;..;ta F:::'-';,'•' '.'...'' 'c zoi. ;'.';'-'7,' ' '--ite..-- , / _ ,... ..,_ „-,,:.: :,- .-; .-t.)-,.,..-.: ;,-,42.•,,,',41;:k. 1, •2INI O' 1.1 '-' '''T"':4P'.1!": -.:-'-• ..,4:-.k.1:44!;47, -q -,' ' q'r.-- -^-'''`.. --x-,'.:'" '''' ''- 7' :.'' '`...: 7"..., ---/! ?..„',•:; t%.,..: ' 4' -1'1' . 'lfl''' — .'.0.'ct......., 04..1.:, ,,,.....,..L . .1. —,.',"..)---...,,,,,' '... . :. .,,°: . 't - .. , -i i so.-.!. * ,' ,.,,,1, .',..1.,.; .,.. -ros A., ;,:,.. •Ir$:, . „,-; '1 't,Y4 a7.c ',...1i,..!: ,,..-- ':!....r/:',..,*.. '' ' ---- .F4„.., ; '!‘`',,k- ;4.‘•' '-..-Z,". I, 1 i ,I -F...-4-.: ?;... .:-...A isgi...-,7%f,..,. ,q.-1.,:_,.,, ...??;-,,•ti;, ..7•'.1,1 c , :Mg.;.:1 0,,,,P41‘..; :••'.41, 7 T.'2.....' - Li.., ../.•.:..... , .4.. ",.d:. :....... , ----..—, I I-- 4 .... , eta '". g j Iv Le .•.,..,4< ' ;.,, 1.1.61 sq'f...se.o' j_i I 1 og6 f2.G?.....2L1541/4112:t P ...:°:.48•4 -1-5°-°-• ".,-°- 11 l''',.-1- " "' "' -. 4 ../ ; , . ,7',EE,?,,Ip .,b. .1 1, , •_‘ . _ .... „ ,i 78 .,,,... 1,. ,,,. ; t.:4'.;•,,r; ti ' 1 a . Ls (085.0) I '''j'' "" ' " " 4s 5 e• Z''' ,0 ' .._ ,.__ -4- 1- N elf'4 s'a • iiaoa' -- -- SiL.TG 11.t..1. t"SY Ni Amelli+ \.''.'-...)n2. -.•.......?.".,z;:.`,''-i'.'..1ti'.,',t i•...;iO's'',&'i'):0.••,/ ir*-*1i . — .-••••-" ,, , i.s4-r, 'I'1i, ./ - & 0 :'• 'F .4rilTt ,- _ __ _ _ _ _ l). Ii•--._ . . _ . .. ... _.---. _.--- --.-- -----..— . A vo.....pit ----..---...--...----.-- 3. Study Area Conditions Access to the church is from First Avenue and Tangelo Drive. First Avenue is a two-lane strip-paved, asphaltic-concrete roadway with posted speed limit 40 mph. Its profile is generally a northbound upgrade. Centerline striping is a double yellow—prohibiting passing in either direction. Tangelo Drive along the north side of the church is a local 25-mph subdivision street with no striping. The church now has one driveway connection to First Avenue (referred to as Driveway 1 in this study) and two driveway connections to Tangelo Drive (called 2 and 3). The selected study locations are the intersection of First Avenue and Tangelo Drive and Driveway 1 connection to First Avenue. Existing Volumes Discussion with church representatives indicated that site traffic is heavier on Sundays rather than on weekdays because of the Sunday worship services. These services begin at 8, 9:15, and 10:30 a.m., with the 10:30 service ending at 11:15 a.m. In order to obtain existing volume information, traffic counts were made Sunday, July 6, 1997, from 7:30 to 11:45 a.m. (See Appendix.) These counts recorded all the movements at First Avenue and Tangelo Drive, turns into and out of Driveway 1, and in and out of Driveways 2 and 3—without regard to left vs. right turns at Driveways 2 and 3. Additional discussion with church representatives indicated that summer attendance is lower than winter - 5 - attendance (January, for instance). The church provided attendance figures for January vs. July which were used to determine a reasonable factor to adjust the July volume count to the busier winter season. Summer attendance tends to be down about 24 percent from winter. An approximate factor to adjust July volumes to winter is therefore 1.32. The following attendance figures were provided by the church secretary. Church Attendance Services Date 8:00 a.m. 9:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. Total Average July 6, 1997 130 125 140 395 June 22, 1997 143 168 129 440 417.5 January 26, 1997 211 227 123 561 January 19, 1997 176 233 130 539 550 July 7, 1997 116 78 79 273 January 14, 1996 166 183 146 495 January 7, 1996 208 185 170 563 529 550 - 417.5 + .24091; 1 - .24091 = .75909 550 1 .75909 = 1.317, say 1.32. Therefore, multiply July 6, 1997, count by 1 .32 to get "peak time of year" values. The traffic counts are tabulated in the "Counts" spreadsheets. Examination of the data indicates the Sunday morning peak hour at the intersection occurs from 10 to 11 a.m. At Driveway 1 the northbound left turn into the driveway is heavier (40) from 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. than in the hour from 10 to 11 a.m. (31), but the site total outbound volumes are higher 10 to 11 a.m. than from - 6 - 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. Because of greater concern for outbound volumes the selected study hour is therefore 10 to 11 a.m. The spreadsheets also indicate peak season 10 to 11 a.m. volumes which equal July volumes times the adjustment factor 1.32 for movements into/out of the church site. The 1.32 factor does not pertain to north-south through movements on First Avenue. This study assumes those movements are down somewhat from the winter season so the July, 1997, through movements are arbitrarily multiplied by 1 .1 to increase them by 10 percent for the winter season. Existing volumes for the intersection and Driveway 1 for the 10 to 11 a.m. study hour are illustrated in Figure 2. (The turns to/from Palisades Road to the east are ignored in determining north/south through movements at Driveway 1.) - 7 - Counts First Avenue & Tangelo Drive Sunday, July 6, 1997 15 minutes Northbound Southbound Eastbound Row Rolling Hr ending L T T R L R Sum Sum 7:45 a.m. 1 30 41 4 3 4 83 8:00 2 37 26 0 1 7 73 8:15 1 28 18 1 2 3 53 8:30 5 19 28 4 0 0 56 265 8:45 3 21 39 1 1 1 66 248 9:00 9 22 24 3 2 13 73 248 9:15 9 32 27 16 10 23 117 312 9:30 1 27 36 3 2 3 72 328 9:45 1 22 32 1 0 1 57 319 10:00 2 9 24 2 2 9 48 294 10:15 4 31 33 2 3 4 77 254 10:30 0 51 40 10 6 14 121 303 10:45 4 17 50 1 0 6 78 324 11:00 1 31 40 0 5 5 82 358 11:15 0 31 36 2 0 0 69 350 11:30 1 30 33 0 3 6 73 302 11:45 a.m. 1 22 28 0 5 6 62 286 AM peak hour occurs from 10 to 11 a.m. PHF= 0.74 10-11 am, July 9 130 163 13 14 29 358 Peak Season 10 - 11 a.m. 12 143 179 17 18 38 408 Peak turning movements = July* 1.32, through movements = July * 1.1 - 8 - Counts Driveways Sunday, July 6, 1997 Driveway#1 Driveway#2 Driveway#3 15 minutes Northbd Southbd Eastbound In Out In Out ending L R L R Total 8:45 a.m. 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 9:00 10 3 4 0 4 0 0 0 21 9:15 26 19 7 13 13 14 5 5 102 9:30 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 6 1341 8:30 to 9:30 a.m. 40 23 12 13 17 17 5 7 134 PHF= 0.33 10:15 a.m. 12 2 0 1 4 2 1 2 24 10:30 18 9 4 22 6 10 0 15 84 10:45 1 2 1 2 3 6 1 3 19 11:00 0 1 1 2 1 4 0 0 9 1361 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. 31 14 6 27 14 22 2 20 136 PHF= 0.40 Total In Total Out Peak Season 8:30-9:30 a.m. 85 49 In Out 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. 61 75 81 99 Peak Season 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. 41 18 8 36 18 29 3 26 180 - 9 - Existing Volumes N co co .o --) vi, 4----) t Tangelo Drive 14 (18) J 7 29 (38) �' os o co D CO0, 0 :.`. > too Q N. N 1 Driveway 1 6 (8) _1 *- t 27 (36) --4 ,--- ., v xx - July, 1997, 10 - 1 1 a.m. (xx) - Peak Season, 10 - 11 a,m. Figure 2 - 10 - 4. Analysis of Existing Conditions Capacity analyses using HCS software, Release 2.1 c, were made for the existing peak season volumes, 10 to 11 a.m., Sundays. (See Appendix.) Results of the analyses are that both the intersection and Driveway 1 are at level of service (LOS) A. At the intersection the eastbound approach average delay per vehicle is 4.9 seconds—just above LOS B. Delay departing Driveway 1 is slightly less (4.7 seconds). These results are consistent with field observations made Sunday July 6 which indicated essentially no delay (in July). 5. Projected Traffic In order to determine projected traffic trip generation rates of the existing church were first determined for its peak season. For the peak season 10 to 11 a.m. study hour the existing church can expect 81 inbound and 99 outbound trips for a total of 180 trips. At 8.725 ksf these numbers result in 20.63 trips per thousand square feet, 45 percent in, 55 percent out. These numbers compare favorably to the rates set forth in Trip Generation, 5th edition, ITE, 1991 , for churches: range of rates 5.25 to 24.79, 38 percent in, 62 percent out. The church currently has a capacity to seat 238 people and peak season attendance figures indicate 227 to 233 attendance. The additions/renovations now underway add 78 new seats (an increase of 32.8 percent). This study assumes site trips will increase this same 32.8 percent. Therefore with completion of the current construction activities peak season 10 to 11 a.m. site trips are expected to be a total of 239 with 108 in and 131 out. Assignment of - 11 - these trips to the intersection and Driveway No 1 and to the new driveway are illustrated in Figure 3. While some trips to/from the church use Tangelo Drive west of the church and Palisades Road east of First Avenue, to be conservative all site traffic is assigned to First Avenue and is distributed directionally in the same manner as current church trips. The existing peak season volumes were combined with the site traffic assignments to produce the resultant peak season volumes illustrated in Figure 4. In this figure the site traffic assignment turns into/out of the site replace existing volumes, and north-south through movements were determined by subtracting existing site traffic from existing volume and adding site traffic assignments. - 12 - Site Traffic Assignments N q t o co N N Tangelo Drive t 10 i o-N 30 -4 o D c o Lc)co Q rm u) e-L; LT: Driveway 1 t 17 J N� 36 it 00�o ,o New Driveway i 4—) t 7 �r 31 -4 "'co LU o• No 1T Figure 3 - 13 - Resultant Volumes Peak Season, 10 to 11 a.m. N ov N 00 Tangelo Drive 1 10 � o,Lr) 30 a) D c a) o, Q Driveway 1 t 17 N,) 36 -4 coN N N 4 New Driveway 14 31 Figure 4 - 14 - 6. Improvement Analyses Capacity analyses were made of the resultant volumes at the intersection, Driveway 1, and the new driveway. (See Appendix.) At the intersection the LOS will be A with eastbound approach delay at 4.6 seconds per vehicle. At Driveway 1 the exiting vehicles LOS will be B with 5.2 seconds per vehicle delay—just below LOS A. At the new driveway LOS will be A--just above B for exiting vehicles. 7. Conclusions The additions/renovations currently under construction at Resurrection Lutheran Church have no impact upon First Avenue. The requested new parking lot is positive in that it doubles off-street parking capacity. Addition of the new driveway is appropriate and needed to mitigate against potential decline in level of service exiting the site. 8. Recommendations No off-site improvements are required. At the northwest corner of First Avenue and Tangelo Drive scattered desert vegetation slightly restrains cross- corner sight distance. Additionally mesquite trees on the west side of First Avenue south of Driveway 1 slightly restrain the view to the south from the driveway. Because this vegetation is within the right of way of First Avenue, Oro Valley staff should investigate and judiciously trim the vegetation to the extent they deem appropriate. - 15 - Appendix • I e, L 1 \ f\ 4.— v 1 • —C s k 1(46 1 i to/ 71 r , X N. \., 1 • „ el IC\ )06 *'*( 1444 -I, 6,,P ---Z, ' , k.../.3';:',3• . .,----------.-------- i 4 ..*"-• ''`I iN •'' _..--. .------ \ ,....., . • --7- -T-0.,-E-2- , ..e+ 0 •. Ikez,-1 \ al ) r....• A fril). _ al ; '-'''' , .t._ 1 A v•- (45-) It \ ' i c ________L___------ ------------ . 4 \ 5-V iri ,- .1 '''- A'a • 'Pt' 1 \ . /1 L I r 4----- C.,1\L.V.' .-..-- ---'\ ,, I _ I ' ok. ‘ tk< /—° ' -c-- \•. ' oot<( •• • „ . 'FF1(o\cci .--------\ -1 _ i----;/Ct ,7 7 ail(1- _i() 74,0---- 9 7 Turning Movements Table Ti -1114o Sou thboundsthound 1 Wcsthou r .rs.l' _ I'..,z ` `� in t_. 13 R i. d ,IZ z`; LI - �( 1 r co ,) J6, v 7 c"5 / i g r 3 Q3r ✓� / (/5 ! 3E fG? l - / / _9 ' ; 9 o7 767 /a y3 , 3/ 9 0 a ( II di III l D " 9 -<<l 7 J jot L/ ,3i 33a - /7 )0" y/ (// 0 /0`i5' / 7 i6 / o lieu )/ /0 r 5 111-3- 001,,A5 1'f Tol F . cou.h-f S-c.rv►us 7 Turning Movements Table Northbound Southbound Eastbound stboul ri t- if t _ith, L T - ‘ TR LRL ' /‘ 03/ D 0 0 0 , / 7-,0' 73 . ... ‘ c _..) i ---, , c.... ('... C,6 J , I . . 451-- S1 0 ist g ) ii l __ 'I - Cc_ i7 Turnii g Movements Table N �isr ri r<4 p �VQ� orthbound Southbouncl hastbounll Wcstbo ci -- — T nl 1 N ( oJ 3u L '#) $ R I_ R ./T 0 Oc /o ' 1 cD 3' _3 7 0 e) sv5 a 0 / 0 / oG IU 3 't 0 91' db i ? 7 /3 93 r 0 O crn 0 d Cl / 10" 0 Co 0 /0" %3 q I0 f i _._- ---i"5 Si . b f f k c.ogz�_ / 7 - C0-97 Turd ng Movements Table * o Of i clNortl d Southhounc C sthouSid estho aN,_irii Ai Cam /I ' S 0 C c> h " 0 0 / / 11 " 0 0 ,_ — ldao I //) . 11 70Aqigh ,Of 1 iik' u_asi s1- 3 r)-(0- 97 Tunfing Movements Table 2 ,T73 (J .._-.•:4-. -ie j:-../Lski 5-Q-CI i 0,4 Far''`-4.L51-. r/'Y n Ifl.kAt;t1i-ic c 1 - ) 30 TA) CUT, , PO OUr / / 0 r / 0 D 0 ..) /. 2 D _ / / (;) / 5'IS 0 0 6 3 cr, 4.--/ o o 63 9 ' / 3 5. _ 9-3 c., 0 0 C) 'a i 4.; 0 0 C) 0 ioto / o 0 _. ---) I / ) ,,..-.) / 5 / -7 -.....--) ______I142-11____Dil ' • Y _______________ , _ _ Turning Movements 'fable .V. 0 3 C. } _„ 'Sec`f;`, ' ./' S 1-/<,'•Y4 . . .. 1t ME hut" i A) lii- Oil II/ 30 c, / rr. 111■ i `-i') ,e: '.1 6) - ( II- ■ ■ HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) First Ave. (E-W) Tangelo Dr. Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst PFS Date of Analysis 7/10/97 Other Information Existing Peak Season, 10-llam Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 12 143 179 17 18 38 PHF . 74 . 74 . 74 .74 .74 . 74 Grade 2 -2 0 MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's 1. 40 1. 10 1. 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5. 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6. 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6. 50 3 .40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 254 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1030 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1030 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0.95 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 265 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1282 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1282 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 98 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1900 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 462 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 572 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0 . 98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0 . 98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 561 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) EB L 26 561 > 814 4 . 9 0. 3 A 4 . 9 EB R 56 1030 > NB L 22 1282 2 .9 0. 0 A 0. 2 Intersection Delay = 0.8 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) First Ave. (E-W) Driveway #1 Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst PFS Date of Analysis 7/10/97 Other Information Existing Peak Season 10-11am Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 41 147 199 18 8 36 PHF .74 . 74 .74 .74 .74 .74 Grade 2 -2 0 MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's 1. 40 1. 10 1. 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5. 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5. 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6. 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6. 50 3 . 40 3 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 281 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 998 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 998 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 .95 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 293 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1243 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1243 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 94 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1900 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 93 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 535 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 519 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0. 93 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0. 93 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0. 93 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 483 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) EB L 12 483 > 836 4 . 7 0 . 2 A 4 . 7 EB R 54 998 > NB L 77 1243 3 . 1 0. 1 A 0. 7 Intersection Delay = 0. 7 sec/veh 4 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) First Ave. (E-W) Tangelo Dr. Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst PFS Date of Analysis 7/10/97 Other Information Resultant Peak Season 10-11am Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 9 159 184 20 10 30 PHF . 74 . 74 .74 .74 .74 . 74 Grade 2 -2 0 MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's 1. 40 1. 10 1. 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5. 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5. 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6. 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3 . 40 5 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 262 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1020 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1020 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 96 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 276 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1266 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1266 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 99 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1900 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 98 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 490 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 551 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0. 98 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0. 98 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0. 98 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 543 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) EB L 15 543 > 836 4 . 6 0. 1 A 4 . 6 EB R 45 1020 > NB L 17 1266 2 .9 0.0 A 0. 2 Intersection Delay = 0.5 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) First Ave. (E-W) Driveway #1 Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst PFS Date of Analysis 7/10/97 Other Information Resultant Peak Season 10-11am Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 22 151 199 15 17 36 PHF . 74 . 74 .74 .74 .74 .74 Grade 2 -2 0 MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's 1. 40 1. 10 1. 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5. 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5. 50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6. 00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6. 50 3 . 40 7 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 279 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1000 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1000 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 95 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 289 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1248 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1248 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 97 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1900 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 96 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 513 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 534 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0. 96 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0.96 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0.96 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 514 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) EB L 25 514 > 770 5. 2 0. 3 B 5. 2 EB R 54 1000 > NB L 42 1248 3 . 0 0. 0 A 0. 4 Intersection Delay = 0. 8 sec/veh HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 1 Center For Microcomputers In Transportation University of Florida 512 Weil Hall Gainesville, FL 32611-2083 Ph: (904) 392-0378 Streets: (N-S) First Ave. (E-W) New Driveway Major Street Direction NS Length of Time Analyzed 60 (min) Analyst PFS Date of Analysis 7/10/97 Other Information Resultant Peak Season 10-11am Two-way Stop-controlled Intersection Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R L T R L T R ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----No. Lanes 0 > 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 > 0 < 0 0 0 0 Stop/Yield N N Volumes 34 166 227 8 7 31 PHF .74 .74 .74 .74 .74 .74 Grade 2 -2 0 MC's (%) SU/RV's (%) CV's (%) PCE's 1.40 1. 10 1. 10 Adjustment Factors Vehicle Critical Follow-up Maneuver Gap (tg) Time (tf) Left Turn Major Road 5. 00 2 . 10 Right Turn Minor Road 5.50 2 . 60 Through Traffic Minor Road 6.00 3 . 30 Left Turn Minor Road 6.50 3 . 40 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2 . 1c FIRSTTANG.HCO Page 2 Worksheet for TWSC Intersection Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 312 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 962 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 962 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 95 Step 2 : LT from Major Street SB NB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 318 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 1209 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 1209 Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0. 95 TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) 1900 RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl) Major LT Shared Lane Prob. of Queue-Free State: 0 . 94 Step 4 : LT from Minor Street WB EB Conflicting Flows: (vph) 582 Potential Capacity: (pcph) 487 Major LT, Minor TH Impedance Factor: 0. 94 Adjusted Impedance Factor: 0. 94 Capacity Adjustment Factor due to Impeding Movements 0. 94 Movement Capacity: (pcph) 458 Intersection Performance Summary Avg. 95% Flow Move Shared Total Queue Approach Rate Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph) (sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh) EB L 10 458 > 804 4 . 8 0. 1 A 4 . 8 EB R 46 962 > NB L 64 1209 3 . 1 0. 0 A 0. 5 Intersection Delay = 0. 6 sec/veh HYDROLOGIC & HYDRAULIC REPORT FOR RESURRECTION LUTHERAN CHURCH Prepared for: A.C. TSANG ENGINEERING GROUP INC. 4626 E. Fort Lowell, Suite S Tucson, Arizona 85712 (520) 325-0979 Prepared by: ARROYO ENGINEERING, INC. l 290 North Meyer Avenue v4 i P.O. Box 2668 Tucson, Arizona 85702 `ti p IN t (520) 882-0206 a `�� 18683 f A, ROBERTJ. SMOUNSKY ' �'".r 7-18-97 f July 1997 IONA. U R R O IL" O \\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. I TABLE OF CONTENTS Paga I. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Location 1 1.2 Purpose 1 II HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS 5 III FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS 9 IV PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map 4 Figure 2. Aerial Photo/Off-Site Watershed Map 7 Figure 3. On-Site Watershed Map 8 Figure 4. Proposed Drainage Plan 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of Existing Peak Peak Discharges 6 LIST OF APPENDICES At ,A APPENDIX A: Hydrologic Calculations A+ceiov►cAre ;., .\ if 18683 APPENDIX B: Hydraulic Calculations ��ROBERTJ.y� Y SMOUNSKY . /*,,P ?-18-97.: 1 i'ONA. u 5• \\\\ 4kR R O Y O ENGINEERING, INC. I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Location This hydrologic and hydraulic report is being submitted in conjunction with a Development Plan for the expansion of the Resurrection Lutheran Church, located at the southwest corner of First Avenue and Tangelo Drive (11575 North First Avenue), within a portion of Section 1, T12S, R13E. Figure 1 of this report provides a location map of the project site and Figure 2 provides an aerial photograph of the property. The parcel, which is approximately 8 acres in size, is currently developed as a church site . The project includes an expansion of the parking lot, the addition of two new buildings and the site of a future "Christian Life Center" building. 1.2 Purpose This report was prepared in order to satisfy the drainage design requirements of the Town of Oro Valley for the submittal of a Development Plan. This report identifies the existing- conditions drainage characteristics of the subject property. Additionally, the report identifies the proposed drainage plan for the development, and demonstrates how the plan satisfies the Town's drainage requirements for a new development. The major drainage issues and general design approach to these issues are as follows: • The property is not located with a "balanced" or "critical" basin, per the Pima County Balanced and Critical Basin Map. Therefore, stormwater detention measures are not required for the purpose of maintaining or reducing peak discharges from the site. Threshold retention is a requirement of development, per the standards contained within the Pima County/City of Tucson Stormwater Detention/Retention Manual. This item is satisfied through the implementation of a stormwater retention basin, proposed at the south end of the site. R R. CD "Se" O \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. 1 / Page 3 • A natural desert wash bisects the parcel from north to south. A private drainage crossing of this wash exists within the current development. The crossing consists of a 2-cell 36-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culvert. The existing 100-year floodplain for this watercourse was determined and is provided within this Report. The proposed expansion to the Church development does not encroach into the existing 100-year floodplain of this watercourse. However, future plans for the site include a second driveway crossing of the wash, located within the south portion of the site. This future culvert crossing has been analyzed and a proposed culvert crossing is presented herein. &R R O Y O \V ENGINEERING. INC. J I Page 4 • • • . TANGERINE ROAD . :•::::. .VALLEY.I::.. :•::;•:•:;:•:•:•:•;::;;• :: ::: ... :•:: 1,1MIT,S:;•: :: ;' � i :;::' is :.::•. .:::...:.•. .•.. �:.....{:....................:..::..... :�;:;;::::�:::•.:•:::�:�::::: :•:::::::• 70 ACE PL 40 66 AA AA I \- __..-_--._ • • •• • c OPd c —8--iiDd. e I • (A LO g cLS c ` �F, I Aa1 RLa f ~ I 1i.••y —?� z : • OR v / I m Al AA ANTELOPE CREEK WAY AM COPPER CREEK PL • C'') O Q PL O if AB 9RAYTNORN Pt AN EOXEIRE ST d LOW PL I-s B •'/ i AC DRAGOON SPRINGS PL A0 GOLDEN GEM PL '•' ' •!Ll _N AD GRAY EAGLE AVE AP GOLDEN GEM iR LIN A ,RN AE TURNSTONE PL AO LODESTONE Pl 1 S ��P AI WNEATGRASS PL AR GHOST PI. I•` c) .c j__ AG OST DUTCHMAN Pt AS QUICKSILVER TR AM Ili ' A. AN EAGLE LANDING PL AT LONE MOUNTAIN PL\ 1 TY Al ASTLE DOME►L AU INGOT LOOP ,.yam • O Al ONE STAR MINE PL AV GOLD BAR PL __ L „, SWR p a AK TUNGSTEN►l AW BULLION PL Z _ rtW! '`'' AL ROSE QUARTZ Pt AK I DEERCIOVER IN • \ ... Ao‘ ;RE 11.. 6 I 3 . PINE CT _ • (A [JWS - 0 UAWBU = I 11DIY • Se : _..:: :PROJECT LOCATION — _ g ° o :: 1........... : z o z NI. •'ti+ ~ 6 c I Cab TS1.A. ;'�' , = [ 1 N4 AT. •-1 l `y H .�, - .•4 APPAlACH1AN is7.�ST �., 12 ry •.i . +•i ,',. `, , 4 \O O.:: .• s' ANDES ST` 0 YMP1 .r h.•.. • •`;, i O,e, z C. _1 F o EISSHOR,biltOIC ' m �► ,. t).4 !,`� �'9'p i AL TA Mil I ®� .N NAN u i VIUS••I -:SILVER# •, .• %� d LO rC• A.. ) u. L BRcl:•.i "�': 0 � 70'^p MA LO o C.SAW.GRASS PL �•. - �� o. .•.o:'.+S O i /_.D.:SPYGLASS PL.._..-- .• 0 • • '£CROOKED STIC �4 t" • r'. T 2 .4.4- vo !.• • 2� iki :.t., µme.;•.., �" minty �' �� ' ..: d' Q ,!�' .. l 9 rJi.j Z ' C,� y Q EGA • :;'.• .� ��qp ::"~'`' - , :c+;'::•:•>: �Z DE ERTGREENS WY. LANE V z :. '�a S,. }�' jy,r.^•"'J. ;....• fir';^• l i •LL• r`.- .* l' ,k.. C' ',- a`•.-:�/ . AL LEY rt, t.. +1.+ T `� `�`, '' • •5 pall �;.�y'• :•,, Tl 1 �1 1 Id . 4 4 ��` ‘1...‘ •.1 �. t�,a1VV �• ..::�! • • ' y °9. �kENOCK -' I :... j .o. L o. o- . �' !``' �,;:.1/ • r c T-+v,�.` c' VA E... • . .Y ` n/• ;,A er d 4•( 1.. 9 DMA L W •s. ••A::i' •,;I•LO .w �') W '^ „L,.is y':.'� • •••{•j.Ii w ;.•6 f,N;,h}` O for. t...;• • • W M>. •1'.. A. �,• A •- ONGR '� !1'tiYy^ .•�.ieta::` -.f1 '' VTE � r0 eN@ 1 v o A.d , s, SCALE : 3" = 1 MILE FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP ,ZhFL. R CI "I" O \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. Page 5 H. HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS One (1) off-site watershed and three (3) on-site watersheds impact the parcel under existing site conditions. The 100-year peak discharges associated with these watersheds were estimated using the Pima County Hydrology Procedure. The watersheds affecting this project are characterized as semi-arid suburban foothills, with natural desert watercourses (washes) having slopes of approximately 2 percent. The vegetative cover is classified as desert brush, having an average cover density of about 30 percent. The surface soils within the watersheds have been classified within the SCS Soil Survey as "Pinaleno-Nickel-Palos Verde Association". The hydrologic classification for this soil association is "100% Type B", indicating a moderate to low runoff potential. Figure 2 of this Report provides a 1" = 400' scale aerial photograph showing the off-site watershed delineation. The watershed boundaries were determined from aerial photo interpretation, and from field inspection. Figure 3 of this Report provides the site topography for this project, showing the on-site watershed delineations and the concentration points used for the hydrologic analysis. Table 1 of this Report provides a summary of the results of the hydrologic analysis performed for this project. Appendix A contains hydrologic calculations and data which support the summary presented within Table 1. R CDCD� Y �� ENGINEERING, INC. J Page 6 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF EXISTING PEAK DISCHARGES CONCENTRATION POINT DRAINAGE AREA 100-PEAK DISCHARGE (acres) (cfs) A 12.0 53 B 15.7 67 C 2.5 14 D 0.4 2 E 1.5 9 R R O Y Co\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. TANGERINE ROAD - it - - , fli,rj:„ .� , ��, l• i/ y f K ' 1 : b .4;. :,: 6 ,4111. ::.7:. ,4 .4i, • / �-*ram it .r � ��i:76.1 ';, t ,fit H • . • r i*►` '# +t{ �d r Attrt. • • - 4 1r `_ �,•• '.4. °?r.4*. Aft*. 14.11S +r ^•�46 -: • + fir- ' ;'_s 11 _ v fife` ;, �.t ice ' ' fa •••4 is . .11 ee di 10 • d i f ti r "1 `101 . 4'; 44 / t$40 g" 4 • 1`, . •,..ter ° . -1 i sof .46 ilb t - pp 1 S 'y* i i :i, 3 ��' • C.P. "A" . " • �; �• , `' D.A. = 12 AC. • r 11�r '' � "'Q�oo = 53 CFS ' tilt:,,,, • '' =j �' .„,r`1. i• '-' s yk_t♦ �'. s _ . ._-;.,..,,, '. -•'-'.,--:,,•„$• t.i z..4.1'.,:i-4 i q%stomm t-.. E.. lj ,. .e i, . . .55 4t r ' t +"t 4/4 :i+A .. . .Vt, r '":2 - ' i. PROJECT SITE • f 4iiiiiiiiit;:, lk, ,i, . •ip...4%., 6. 1 „,.. _ ..;... ,,,,,, j.„..1,,,,4 A ri-6N:te,f„:"..•ii. .0ity ., .,,,, • SCALE: 1" = 400' . • i :* Pill ....k 44 . ' ! 'PHOTO DATE: JUNE, 1995 '•k • - .. ' • r. I' FIGURE 2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND OFF—SITE WATERSHED MAP R It Y Co\\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. C.P. "Ct' ; / --- ,' D.A. - 2.5 AC. / ,-''' , , ,, , ---4 Q100 = 14 CFS , /%/ / i / ( . � , I Page8 f _ i / r - j , , : 4„,.., / \ ----- , i _` -`-� ./ .� _� mil, li/ ,, / ..! " n i A_ 1 - n C.P. A �`�,� \ G / ' / L D.A. -_ "'`-° 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN A. i 12A _ , � ^ - , / / —, N Q100 = 53 CFS ``� \ ',/ -- T \` \ \ \ \`\ / -`, �./ ---_ ,� it C.P. "B" \ \ \ \ _� J \ _ ! DRAINAGE DIVIDES D.A. = 15.7 AC. \ \\ N. \ . \\ �_ �-/ -. - -`- \\ - 3, Q100 = 67 CFS \ \ .�� - 1 ..1 a, P•S i • �i�/ v : _ �^ �.i �� % . 9 ./ : } Z. .y_ / f / / 6 O. �') \ ( 9 a,. ...-- ..,/ y 4� J `. 'h��/ i / a 6 z\ / ... \ __,„,p, .ve I may' (.\. \\ tip iW -"'�' I - /I �. '� y Q ! Arrs ` <'� l .':✓` j C I �.`-. i 1,: .�,,. _.; `�'� - �[/__= ,-1'' ,.'_ - r�` Z�"�`�'.F' �, ••�`Fi%N ". '' U.1 II 1 < ° ,. I- / f.(', �;, 2'1�4.�4�. .yam^ .i 1 , 'Y � s S• . .°+ l \ • r ' ! , .,' . y �a;, 4 I ,^ ____, 1 1 u,/ /Z/�r. I I, lye. '� .- 11 .y 4. ? 4"�- ' emu... / �,�i"/ -I \\ 6�� t�h jj • h r �,� r '/ �� j / , /- x • „deka R. - co me- co � � i �y 3 '� ¢ ., ° // J //; ENGINEERING, INC. �,'. _�_ bk, : ";" •' -- ♦yN r7 '� ',,,,,'Cs, , y'f:r /Is Water Resources 6 Civil Engineering Consultants ,vr \t t '` :'\ f - {4' w� fi ,F i i. # •• is '1. ,/7 1,irlE. 14/ .:.. . /`� A 'IA'` t v' a i •r• > � lil.Y W.- .:.�,5 1—i'. 5 k' ' PA'N, s° ' .' t .. +Oi•�fi] �,'ai I. fJ%-/.. I 1/,! �\ , k` i. ",`'+ M. i 7,.;• ; �'�._ , k 1,-„, v ,�,� u.,w at';`s'* a ;,i K o+` 1?i _,/,,,... /,, ��"\ �` / • C.P. "D" yl4 $ ate tw a » Y �� b Y +•`. ��. i/i �..\ D.A. = 0.4 AC. �,�i `r' . / k 1� '� ` .`�• I ',,y/ '._.:. 2 CFS �` J I s I: ji $ iypo s.' Y �,� _ . emu, I. . �J \�\ 1 . Q100 = - J . / / 1 n7 rd. a.�` / � n r ' 4 r, 4, '-', .92---— , „0,............. .4„ tv. ii ... ...._ ____ ____ .. , Or T / " n `\ /''''''.. C.P. E �; •l 4 D.A. = 1 .5 ACRES / / ti, `�. 2�� Q100 = 9 CFS / _-, / . z,; mom % �/ % -- '� M�if � `' -- i / FIGURE 3 --.,. -.., , �. , _ - - - _____.___.___ c� _ ,,vY ,�,,' SCALE: 1" = 60' • ON-SITE WATERSHED MAP 4 =Is's-r AV HUe - _ -- — -r_ Page 9 III. FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS A hydraulic analysis of the 100-year peak flow associated with the natural watercourse that bisects the parcel was performed for the purpose of determining the existing floodplain limits impacting the property. The analysis was performed for four(4) hydraulic cross-section, as shown on Figure 3 of this Report. Normal depth calculations were used to determine the 100-year water- surface elevations at cross-section numbers"10","20", and"30". An inlet-control culvert rating was performed at cross-section number "40" to determine the water-surface elevation at a point immediately upstream of the existing 2-36" CMP culvert crossing. 100-year floodplain limits and water-surface elevations for existing conditions is shown on Figure 3 of this Report. Hydraulic calculations which support the floodplain limits shown on Figure 3 are provided within Appendix B of this Report. 4kFt R O Y CoENGINEERING, INC. / 1 Page 10 IV. PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN Figure 4 of this Report provides a schematic of the proposed drainage plan for the church expansion project. The proposed on-site drainage plan includes the implementation of a threshold retention basin that was sized to retain the volumetric difference between the existing and developed 2-year stormwater runoff, per Pima County detention/retention standards. The basin sizing includes consideration for the future development of the Christian Life Center building shown on the development plan. The basin includes an overflow spillway that is designed to convey the 100-year peak flow discharge. The"retained" volume within the basin is proposed to be drained by a 12-inch CPM that will be fitted with an orifice plate to meter the basin outflow to a maximum discharge of 1 cfs, per retention basin standards. The inlet to the 12-inch CMP will have a "trash rack" to minimize clogging of the inlet by debris. Details for the proposed retention basin are provided within Appendix B of this Report. Future expansion of this site also includes a plan for a new driveway and culvert crossing of the natural watercourse near the south portion of the property, as shown on Figure 4. An analysis was performed to determine the required size for the future culvert structure that is planned for this location. The culvert is proposed to consist of a 2-cell, 36" CMP culvert with an inlet concrete headwall, similar to the existing culvert located on the north portion of the parcel. Revised 100-year floodplain limits associated with the proposed culvert headwater have been calculated and are shown on Figure 4 of this report. Because of the outlet velocity associated with the proposed culvert structure, dumped rock riprap should be placed in the channel bottom, immediately downstream of the culvert outlet. The rock should have a median diameter (DO of 6-inches, the thickness of the rock blanket should be a minimum of 1.0 feet, and the rock should extent a minimum of 12-feet downstream of the culvert outlet. Design calculations for the proposed culvert structure are provided within Appendix B of this Report. �\\\ E R R. CD IL' CDNGINEERING, INC. )/ / -/ dam'`' '7 , fiw C.P. "C" / / r;`' /7d D.A. = 2.5 AC. ;� �. ,� l Page 11 Qioo = 14 CFS _ ! 1/_No,'1)11,:f)(_1,111_„- �` r� -`-,, b = /7— \ )) / i ) :.__:\ \\ __-_ _. '___ -'/ `/ / _�..�.`�\- `yJ^ s / '�. / ! _ —' !/� , / / �. .ram1 \ T�"' 'te /7 \\ ---\ / / ...----- . r� 1i\ilimik A'i u ��\`111*6 �s _ J D.A. = 12 AC. �� DRAINAGE DIVIDES C.P. B ��\ --� A - Q 53 CFS D.A. = 16.1 AC. \ -- { cn ioo = = 68 CFS \\ \ \� �� / ii \ if •-� �'�-• ---��' 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN IS A -100 ______,I,, , 2-36 CMP S w ,; I ? 2'36^C \r>/ '� a can , . \ A,'" � / N G rn. a -+ �,�fFUrURE P-S ^� �_-` N --� ;), N — -(EXISTI 1 ,,' d } �� I '' �t t II t�t + Zi \� y� Id I— X ! v a `\-- i iip7",,-„,\ i! 1 1 , ... ` I °, 0 a 10 \ Fu111KE 'Ci tz iA N ;aFE C EK l� "�', LIJ .../ / , / ,., \ 4 , . ,.‘ •,,,....,,,,,,,,, ....--.,,e.A. ) . ° f �fid�lithl X� O W a. N. IRr� ; ;%t l: �� "p21.4%4�. }- -i _tr /. r \ ' /I , ,Ttr V'/ t' ,; _ / 0 ,,..rt /� i 0.,00 = 10 CFS " .t,> . \ ,,,11.0. 1`7 , .k. ' ,1 to _,•�.''`' , . // � `, , „.., .4 .,, - 3 x,„.,...,,, 'IP S y .. sx per Y .s � --. / , 1 • ' �,/ ': `'0, "'.::." a�:em i o * ' �:3"' `4: ',"fix'.'�4 a 't' '. . '"1` 7 at', a, ,,,,,.,,,,.„,a,o..-• r i. V: ., ,r J , c :N _ r.K.:."1 bin / Aell. 111 Adirei, • w �� ENGINEERING, INC� ,Rr r " r' !� P ','irI t ;,' s r . xx ,)$,1111,57 r 'f'' • f/ 'Q� /� ,.._.../ fir 4. .. $..,, 77Q :'`�,,,_ ,ft.,?'r i,yp !' ' 6 `°"1_I? ti"'� t_''' r,l _ r• ... - r°i°• A - ♦+C1 ��_• / /i' , % \ ' Water Resources 3 Civil Engin��rino Conwllonii 11 3j� "4�.• ` � .,..�# :� �` �t � �. �� p��. eQ"S 2 ..-_.. - rOi � • i6 �� , f�f�� / � \M 4 �. C.P. "D" y ti iii� a+: 't'F *" $ yy�i,;.. rA ,' ► tc .t,�f�! ,:/• 7,7 / f, /,////2,, .—�. • 1 AC. ya"F '„r,,+,,. - t ',I..:,-,!'''' Gx . , y . AW ,r� � t ..° �', by . fv_ /, l,,lu• / `. D.A. — 0 ,y' 744,i- a 9 -``+ ' "' �`�4,_. '-.4;� ' ,i. ,,t1 1 .�' .i.',mi "`F• ' \ K • + -"- /• '/` / Q = 1 CFS ' ,-. ,., :' ® n' _ — '� .. '' 1 100 r i" �_ 4 �J / / gin. r F J ) / i 1) 7 e 0. , ..., ___ ....- ev „,. lid,_______ ___ ...__ , ,, , ; i : , ., 0, Ai g .101iiii°.‘,,,f_ —--ff. ' e p ` ........ 'I I C.P. "En ` f __•_.�./'_ ----V' _•—.--'` / / i 01110 �+•_� 21� D.A. = 1.4 AC. i �� ;. -" / 1 V o, Q = 9 CFS A� 1,,� �, `---- ��= ,t\ ,9/ � � goo / / <4„...„.....) /� - a - , J' t , _, FIGURE 4 SCALE: 1" = 60' PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN APPENDIX A HYDROLOGIC CALCULATION SHEETS R R O Y O \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. Client /4.C C . T'S A'Jai ' Job.No. Page Project R E 5 U r2 R L 4 rio�l L Ur ER 4,�/ Date Checked Date 7- 14 - 9 7 Detail /.4 VD R O L 0 L- y Checked By Computed By R • Sh QLIJ L k Latitude 32° 25 i Longitude 11 0 0 58 6 - - - 6 i 5- - - - - 5 211 (-tOUR U Y - — — — `— 4--- = — - - 4 L = - _ Co HOUR 3 _� s— — • - 3 a2 - — _ _ 2 _ _ _ _ 0 = _ - 0 2 5 10 25 50 100 Return Period in Years, Partial - Duration Series Precipitation Depth Versus Return Period For Partial - Duration Series Return Period Precipitation Values (inches) (Years) 6 Hour Duration 24 Hour Duration MAP CORRECTED MAP CORRECTED VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE • 2 1-moo I. S. I .90 I. 90 5 _ 2 . )0 2,15 2. 0o 2.6,0 l0 2 . 5D 2 . 44 5 3. 1D 3 . 10 25 5.00 z .90 dd3.70 3.70 -T 50 3.33 3 ,30 • 3o 4, 2- S . no 3 .7n 3,7o 4.70 4 .So • R R O Y O J \\\\\\ INC. . ENGINEERING, I Client A-c- TSAN C=i Job.No. Page Project R E s U RR ECT'I O^1 LUTN ER A r.l Date Checked Date 7- 14 -9 7 Detail Checked By Computed By '. SMOI-IN .k y ( i ii 321 /2° = 18 ► )i21/10 / - MON`�1 s_____ '/5 1 s ON ,� _ \ S'0 2 J 14 '�= 2 1 N\ 18 1 Th_\ �1 = 22 �� S TUCS • �' C ' = _ 2 T U ON. 14 1,$) _ 2 0.� \1 = 16� 16 16 32 _ 32`( v _ I 20; $ 20 ! /_ 711 N - \ 22 19 18 °- ) \ O — r T 10� r, _ I C(..122\ 0 2-YEAR 6-HOUR = 2-YEAR 24-HOUR IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII / ` _ 20 22 1 ' o I T. 21 — 5 3 2 2 2 4• M N _ ~2 26 C : MM 0 19 = C� 2,8 01 = � ,�� 22 27/-*) 1 ' 2 — 2� \ 2 I = �: • - 23 Tl, CSON . 22 = TUCS 26 � � s Kill: - 22 V 22 .4 32 = 7 \ 2 . 3 kid 26 20 — i 0 — 2 N = o O — t + T = T ` /J/2 r i � 1 \ T r r r r 5-YEAR 6-HOUR = 5-YEAR 24-HOUR �R R 0 'SC CD�� ENGINEERING, INC. Client A -- T S A rL 4 Job.No. Page Project RESuRR . CT/Q..J LUTHERA&J Date Checked Date 7— I y - g+1 Detail Checked By Computed By R 7-5 26 i\421/2°= i / n-tlig' N ,.2 3 E "r�,J24 28• 24 = 10 6 12Th `1 '- 3227 2 = 34 32 I • 27 30t 32 ,/ 22 21 28 26 �3 '. \ \26 2 -C4 \C)— 2c = 3 2° I \ = A...732. 2 32 30 24 �{y o a r _ ' /r. 72286 r 1-=:- T r g4 } f = r I 10-YEAR 6-HOUR - 10-YEAR 24-HOUR IIIIIIIII IIIIII III IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIg IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllllil 30 = T. 321/2P 3 ' Qw, . 321/5�� 32 ,= 1 = 3 ies): .1 ON ,3�- D • _ C 3 r \31� 32 28 26 = 34 T,AO ` \._ \\ ;- ,\ 40 ' ill 1 32 26 = 40 , 38 1 (i. 1 ` F ( , 34 6 3.1 30 31 0 38 2.) 1 _ 2 _ 32 o — ? ° �3 -- 3c 1i-ii/ :' ' 8 1 / \ N = 4 - r r 25-YEAR 6-HOUR - 25-YE AR 2 4 HOUR AR. ROYOENGINEERING, INC. J Client A , e . T S A LJ ' Job.No. Page Project R ES UfQ ii e .T J o&J L(- ) ER A w Date Checked Date 7— 4'9 7 Detail Checked By Computed By R TS 34 321/Za t • ...221/rya `-3 L L O N = a 4n t i •N 0 3 2 2 8 = � 4-e� �35-/ 36 ` = 42 38 \ \ JN_ 4 H s"-N) T 38 / C$ N = 1404,,J 35 ‘ \siv)$1 " qq ls°16 34 (._) — (7 38\36 3 . _ \ \ _ \ 0 32 32 _ 42 a _ 44 4�o 2,,,c- _3 ti ��` = o 3 Or '� --$ / \ 3 / V _ .- q 50-YEAR 6-HOUR = 50-YEAR 2 4-HO R U IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllllllllllllllllllita-- milinillimiiiill iiiillllillmiiiimilmiii / 38 \.,,, 321/ o _ 8 ,�o �� ay., VO � = 321/._ E N 32 . , _480 507 L . 3 3 = 48 40 32 3 = 50 4� 4 TU 7/0 �✓ E 50 T S 46 42 38 0 -)) 2 = , a 32o� If ) 36 _ 42 34 ) 0 = 48 48 Z .7 a _ 100-YEAR /TfS� o = Fi 6-HOUR = 100-YEAR 24-HOUR 4kR R O Y O \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. J % I \ \• d ,� J�IA1 ! I i' • r a .• .. - • ( r ,_ ; % « ,'�30,f''' e•i ��. �y1 i I a• \ r ,r i I 1_ 11 a J MOORE ROAD —r- —� _—z== d ' isa ` \ • ---1 � a er 4 • • I 11 1 H�� ,( Well \i\ , 'nrr ,,, • (' I ' • i 11 II ry o �,� .« 9 r j II rv,II I�1• i ... 11 „ 0 r 11 ii u C_ iN• .. - u a r.d 1'I / I li d ii N lil 1 m ; /., II 0 n I' II Id ..- \ - as > I ,I ., I I C u I/ a 27or 1,' u al Ill a % IIii 11 11 „ \ -o II y u• • 1TI BM . : 4 . 1700 BM • 1 2800 r - 2763 ' I `\y 1 1 .'z 8 ., i ,F` r II u40 II .. r%to . . \, I '.. • • ,'f ,ry ', 1 1 ry \' III g 2 • / h ati 1 • L'. — 1 6 �, I I r, $arrd and arivel a .., 7 • a0 Pit—i'� . I Wall - n ?i 2 a �� '1 =r---•----•_—NARINJ4--------- -------- ,- J, --�D--- — - — `-- ... >BM 2649 �. Hof J1 • It• ( '&4' �1 a z I74r \ r..1 • a i i . „ rt: I `r I • "Steen Pump /nf Ranch $ i f ,. HM 2585K 1 I li H/ 0 y./ �. 11 • Trader_park I (/ : 7 . ,pros. II. s'. 4.•"*.:'•. (S )(-. . , „ ,. . . , y1 `\ r ' c` l NE . I yy• ") t\— IIS \1 fff ' Disposl '` I HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group, Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C. P. "A" : Off-Site Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 12.0 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 40.0 2,200 0.0182 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 2,200 feet Mean Slope: 0.0182 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 1,100 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adi. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C 0. D . . 0. Imp. 20 99. 99. 0.956 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.611 Time of Concentration: 10 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 7.15 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 4.37 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 52.8 cfs AleR R C. Y Co\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. 1 I HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C.P. "B" : On-Site+Off-Site Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 15.7 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 40.0 2,200 0.0182 .035 2 16.0 720 0.0222 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 2,920 feet Mean Slope: 0.0191 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 1,460 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adi. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C 0. D 0. Imp. 20 99. 99. 0.956 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.611 Time of Concentration: 11 min Rainfall Intensity(i) @ Tc: 6.91 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 4.22 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 66.8 cfs ,EkR R CD Y CD\\\\\ ENGINEERING, tNc. I HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C.Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C.P. "C" : On-Site Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 2.5 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 20.0 720 0.0278 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 720 feet Mean Slope: 0.0278 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 360 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C . . 0. D 0. Imp. 20 99. 99. 0.956 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.611 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 9.21 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 5.63 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 14.2 cfs &R R C) Y Co\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. I. HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group, Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C.P. "D" : On-Site Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 0.4 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Sil Basin Factor(Nb) 1 9.0 180 0.0500 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 180 feet Mean Slope: 0.0500 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 90 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C . . 0. D . . 0. Imp. 99. 99. 0. Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.525 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 9.21 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 4.83 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 1.9 cfs R R Co CoJ \\\A N ENGINEERING, IC. / 1 HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C. P. "E" : On-Site Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 1.5 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 8.0 320 0.0250 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 320 feet Mean Slope: 0.0250 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 160 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C . . 0. D . . 0. Imp. 30 99. 99. 0.956 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.654 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 9.21 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 6.03 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 9.1 cfs ASVR O Y C:) ...I\\\\\\ NGINEERING, INC. I HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group, Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C.P. 1D : Developed Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 1.2 ac Watershed Type: Developed Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 9.0 370 0.0243 .030 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 370 feet Mean Slope: 0.0243 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 185 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.030 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 - C 0. D 0. Imp. 90 99. 99. 0.956 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.913 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 9.21 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 8.41 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 10.2 cfs \\\\\\ ENGINEERING,R Co Y CoNGINEERING, INC. J I HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C. P. "B" : On-Site+Off-Site,DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 16.1 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 40.0 2,200 0.0182 .035 2 16.0 720 0.0222 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 2,920 feet Mean Slope: 0.0191 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 1,460 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 °A) RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C . . 0. D . . 0. Imp. 20 99. 99. 0.956 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.611 Time of Concentration: 11 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 6.91 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 4.22 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 68.4 cfs ikR R C:) Y C:)\\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. c HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C.P. "D" : On-Site,DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 0.1 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 2.0 44 0.0455 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 44 feet Mean Slope: 0.0455 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 22 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adi. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C 0. D 0. Imp. 99. 99. 0. Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.525 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 9.21 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 4.83 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 0.6 cfs R R Co Y Co\\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. / 1 HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: C.P. "E" : On-Site,DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 1.4 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 8.0 320 0.0250 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 320 feet Mean Slope: 0.0250 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lea): 160 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 100-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Areal Values(in) 2.65 3.01 3.25 3.70 4.80 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 86.35 0.525 C . . 0. D 0. Imp. 30 99. 99. 0.956 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.654 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 9.21 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 6.03 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 8.5 cfs R R. D Y CI\\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. / APPENDIX B HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS �R Ft.. O Y O \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. T PAZ-ACT-09 T RESURRECTION LUTHERAN - WASH, 100-YEAR DISCHARGE Q 67 N 0.060 0.035 0.060 X 10 3 2 3 0.031 1 G 2734 0 2732 15 2730 75 2730 90 2732 110 2734 140 X 20 2 2 3 0.022 1 G 2736 0 2734 50 2734 65 2736 77 2738 95 X 30 3 2 3 0.017 1 G 2742 0 2740 20 2738 35 2738 45 2740 50 2742 115 AleR It CD Y CD\\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. NORMAL DEPTH CALCULATIONS ***************************** * VERSION 1.1 Oct 1994 * * ARROYO ENGINEERING INC. * * TUCSON, ARIZONA ***************************** Date: 7/14/1997 Time: 13:17:8 PAZ-ACT-09 RESURRECTION LUTHERAN - WASH, 100-YEAR DISCHARGE SEC NO-- 10.00 WSEL= 2730.63 Q= 67.0 DEPTH= 0.63 AREA= 17.2 HYD DEPTH= 0.43 FRIC SLOPE=0.0310000 CRWSEL= 2730.64 TOP WIDTH= 40.0 VEL HEAD= 0.37 FROUDE #= 1.0 MIN ELEV= 2730.00 Main Channel Hyd Radius= 0.63 Critical Slope = 0.0285676 Main Channel Crit Flow Hyd Radius= 0.64 Main Channel Crit Flow Hyd Depth= 0.64 Critical Channel Vel= 5.3 Main Channel Crit Flow Top Wid.= 15.0 Critical n-value=0.0365 NLOB= 0.060 NCH= 0.035 NROB= 0.060 QLOB= 11.8 QCH= 51.3 QROB= 3.9 VLOB= 2.0 VCH= 5.5 VROB= 2.0 ALOB= 5.9 ACH= 9.4 AROB= 2.0 SEC NO-- 20.00 WSEL= 2734.71 Q= 67.0 DEPTH= 0.71 AREA= 18.3 HYD DEPTH= 0.50 FRIC SLOPE=0.0220000 CRWSEL= 2734.67 TOP WIDTH= 36.9 VEL HEAD= 0.32 FROUDE #= 0.9 MIN ELEV= 2734.00 Main Channel Hyd Radius= 0.71 Critical Slope = 0.0267031 Main Channel Crit Flow Hyd Radius= 0.67 Main Channel Crit Flow Hyd Depth= 0.67 Critical Channel Vel= 5.3 Main Channel Crit Flow Top Wid.= 15.0 Critical n-value=0.0318 NLOB= 0.060 NCH= 0.035 NROB= 0.060 QLOB= 11.4 QCH= 52.9 QROB= 2.7 VLOB= 1.8 VCH= 5.0 VROB= 1.8 ALOB= 6.2 ACH= 10.6 AROB= 1.5 SEC NO-- 30.00 WSEL= 2739.01 Q= 67.0 DEPTH= 1.01 AREA= 15.3 HYD DEPTH= 0.76 FRIC SLOPE=0.0170000 CRWSEL= 2738.95 TOP WIDTH= 20.1 VEL HEAD= 0.42 FROUDE #= 0.9 MIN ELEV= 2738.00 Main Channel Hyd Radius= 1.01 Critical Slope = 0.0213943 Main Channel Crit Flow Hyd Radius= 0.95 Main Channel Crit Flow Hyd Depth= 0.95 Critical Channel Vel= 6.0 Main Channel Crit Flow Top Wid.= 10.0 Critical n-value=0.0312 NLOB= 0.060 NCH= 0.035 NROB= 0.060 QLOB= 7.9 QCH= 56.6 QROB= 2.5 VLOB= 2.0 VCH= 5.6 VROB= 2.0 ALOB= 3.9 ACH= .1 AROB= 1.3 R. R O Y O \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. J Client A•C. TS A!V 4 Job.No. Page Project TZ CS u R R t G T J 3 x/ L U T/-1 E R A ti/ Date Checked Date Detail Checked By Computed By F'• 2 - 36, " CMP g C, P. '/A C EXISTIJ w �tb..oA...) 6) \ti Dv L TO STEEr�+.1 CSS 0 P E Cy L-v l?IZT v-) ‘ oPE2At--L t„J GCS LET Cok. r L' rRcrA, kDS> - c1-! Atz'~ Z. HW / = v . 84 D : 3 I-I = 2 . ( 00 - `7' tm L 4 . Z + 2. j = 415.'7 41162§ R. R. O Y O J \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. REsuRREcrIo► j LUTHERAk.1 2 - 3 CMP CULVERT CHART 2 O C Ex( -r-1..344) -180 `10,000 ) - 8,000 �' -168 EXAMPLE 156 `- 6,000 0.36 inches(3.0 feet) _6 (2) — 5,000 0.66 Os _ (3) — 144 —4,000 -5. - 6- « NW — I32 3,000 0 (feet) - — 6. -5. (I) IA 5.4 4.4.3 —(20 W C 2,000 (2) 2.1 6.3 - '— 5• a (3) 2.2 6.6 _ - 108 EL, - 3, e0 In fest - - - — - 96 - 1,000 - 3. - H D .-- 800 C- 3. "- 84 a, ‘-- 600 - 2. - _ - 500 -- - 400 _i--�- - 72 to — 300 / \ —f z La - 3 - 1,5 _ z - - - Z - 60 Z -- 200 *P . ul Cc - — 4 w _ O - 54 0 = �/ w - t- w - 100 - - _ a _ W 1-48 Dec — 80� O - > 4 —, (.1 -42 �N'-50 = - 1.0 —1.0 - w ~a. - - 0 - 40 La - 1.0 ix O " I.- - 30 HW ENTRANCE ¢ - .9 -•9— _ - La .— w - O84 a - 33 - 20 O _ (1) Headwall — 30 7.— (2) Mitered to conform .4 W _ U _ to dope =- t--8— ' - 27 - 10 (3) Projecting — - 8 c _ - 24 - - 6 - - - 5 To use scale(2)or(3) project - - 21 — 4 horizontally to scale (1),then — .6 use straight inclined line through —•6 3 0 and 0 scales, or reverse as — 6 18 - illustrated. - - 2 - - 15 54 . .5 - 1.0 — - 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR Qpe,%., cell = 5'3/a a 2.7 GPL C. M. PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN.1963 182 --e. S"0 lI..,S k 7- 14 -9 7 1n a o. 0 v' (-' t "0 C. o m c., s` t ) Y N c G' c-11 A -11 a C° it C) C z 4- ,\-.Y:_t_ _ C r c1' t Q D Cn C ') t't N Z _ -a -`( p G h N �� c c (n 6Jo Q 0Z t. ita D Q �� N � �1 4- r` ta -, o \o-\\ c) �' �� `� 7` C \\ _ 0 .F} c. U v 7 L n\\\ `S c 5 v x� p r m� --0u 5..\\ m^ 9� V z\J o + i c> 0 4, RE SU REc.T1J+.1 LOTH CRAM 2 . 3 co" CMP CW-V F,IZT 4-44 4E4()LAiAL.`. Q CHART 2 (Fu r-u E) - 180 - - 10,000 `I) - 168 - 8,000 EXAMPLE - I56 _ 6,000 0.36 inches(3.0 fest) —6. (2) - 144 - 4,000 nw • nw -5' - - 132 - 3000 0 (feet) - f , - 5. - 6. _ - 120 - (2) 2.1 6.3 - — 5. - .- - 2,000 - — 4 a = (3) 2.2 6.6 _ - 108 a - - 3. - 4. _ to in test - - a - - 96 '- I,000 - D — 800 _ — 3. 0 _ - 84 in - 600 - 2 - - . - 500 - 400 - 2. - 72 _ - 2. to - 300 \ r - i - - 3 - I.5 _ Z - Z - 60 Z - 200 *' i = 1.5 - I.S W 13 — 54 �/ W - - - I- W - 100 / M - cc (0 - a _ W -48 D_ - 80' Ea - > a —, J =, z v - 42 - ¶ -. so = - 1.0 -1.0 U. ~ o / p - 40 a - .9-s - LO W 30 HW ENTRANCE La cc w _ D SCALE TYPE 1 - ,9 a - 33 - 20 a is (1) Headwall g -8 —.8 - - 30 (2) Mitered to conform a W - to slop. x - — .8_ -_ - 27 - 10 (3) Projecting a - a 0 - 8 a — 24 - - .7 r- - 6 - _ To us.scala(2)or(3) project - - 21 .- 4 horizontally to scale (I),then — .6 use straight inclined line through — .6 3 D and 0 scales, or reverse as — .6 - 18 _ illustrated. - - 2 - 15 - - .5 - .5 - 1.0 - .5 - 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR C. M. PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN.1963 QP?.n. Ge \ l ' 31 CFI 182 PIPE Arroyo Eng. Inc. Circular Cross-Section Hydraulics Pipe Diameter = 36 .0 inches n-value = 0 .0350 discharge = 34 . 0 cfs slope = 0 . 03000 flow depth = 2 . 01 ft velocity = 6 .74 fps critical depth = 1 . 89 ft velocity head = 0 . 70 ft x-sec area = 5 . 05 sq ft wetted perimiter = 5 . 76 ft hydraulic radius = 0 . 88 ft R It O Y CD\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. J Client A • C • Ts ANU Job.No. Page Project R E S U R R Ecr I o i L U T 14 Eft A...1 Date Checked Date 7- -9 7 Detail Checked By Computed By*R•SMoLI N s hs`( r1YRLSHot_ RE -- C J '•- •J 1PRoP- c E .=MPERvioL) ecvER NEW PARKII.IZR Lor : 35 Zoe +Z E kJ A D wi i ki Q L.D U Z,J S o o N Ew ct+URck E ><PA ) 2, (00 o -+1" FvrvR E tRL r, J LIFE CEk ' 1 1 ) Q 0 o rrtz TOTAL PRC i C L E. b Z =►ry1PERvlocam CpvER SI, (oDO "Pt % 1, 1 B 4crv%_ VULU/'1E 12EQUiRE'D : Ur s (Qcci,i — C Lac P A ► z Vr - -Z-( U. 91F - O, 163) ( 1 , 34) (( . 1 $3) fir = D . / O q•(' = 4) "3 c. ,�\\\\\\ R Ft CDY O ENGINEERING, INC. j , 1 — _ --__ -_ .-_.-_ -- + 1 1 i j/ A ,1, 'r`��c- ry y % - IA:,/ t• LCN\ I \ --''', • _ ti , Q600 Is 1.Y )i/. 1, •• J f/.. ,'� ii JO O6RRcow y ( nT i LEv- 3S# ��ei. I • l,RouTEQ I. Aso �.4~/ Rf PRA• G 4� I -_-- -- _ ;' 1U _ - • . i -14/ - p* \ 0 ilmt-sot--1,1=40,','''''.!""4--- :--— j ELEv6 � y i •1 , • -< , t - - t3T. < Ay ,� t 't 4„, j s 1 ' ,, ... 1 . 1 1 \ .....41.7 ......., , . , ,4„.. • . . . • • . • • 9.7".••••-. •• * - ........-;" '• ,- I\111. 1/1! 07+ ' 1 _. .0. ,r t I 1<<, t 04+1 II taw" 4,. ,, 0. , : . : , . _ . ... , . , . . ... .. - ._ A. • . `-• .� .,,•�. , - .s '4a f . - ', p .,. ''h - - •x •l� ' I r- + '\,HG : 1 . +.- • I ` _ )/ ��j i � . ,.: ...'< .f , ri fir; ! • i, Client A • C- T S R fU 4-1 Job.No. Page Project RE S Li R R E -T-1 O N L.U T I-4 E RA►.I Date Checked Dote 7- IS -9 7 Detail Checked By Computed By RSS r R t= 't—E rJ T 1 o'J SELTIoI @ SP1 L1L 0=, yR our Ep RIQRAP TRASH RACK 4R(41-E) OVER St I A 5 • -3 60 / 3 5 0R1r.,1c_ — , 320 PLArt 3. 7S % St-'IL�wA %11 CuRZ O >c .,1� Nc Lei iZ.T‘-4 LIv'1IT DEari- To i/ = O, j ' Q 100 = /C7 GF•S. = CL (.43/2 (C' = 2• Co / 0 = . 5 )3/L _ L = lI I DRAivu Pl PE Mt . biA‘41ETtR IZ.. QCatz) = 3 GFS > LIB IT TO = u / OiZI r- I� (= t. ATa (1.11 It. PLAT L' q 2 , CG= D. ) C12. O.3' DHE�v 1 = c. cc� la't.4,yL AREY4 G = D . 2 -F+Z R Ft Co CDI \\\\\\ ENGINEERING. INC. C PIPE Arroyo Eng. Inc. Circular Cross-Section Hydraulics FuLt.- FLow CAPacIc/ c c IL" C*wP Pipe Diameter = 12 . 0 inches n-value = 0 .0300 discharge = 3 .0 cfs slope = 0 . 03750 flow depth = 1 . 00 ft velocity = 3 . 81 fps critical depth = 0 . 74 ft velocity head = 0 .23 ft x-sec area = 0 .79 sq ft wetted perimiter = 3 .14 ft hydraulic radius = 0 .25 ft DRAIk.$ - Ti i E FOR RETEul+o ..I GAS t ►`.1 Folk t'L" cmp wI ORAFIcE PLATE Q .s 1.. c F s Va L 4354, .r T►»+e. 4- 4356 cF x 1-se` x -�,'., A !h= . 11 G F t.Osee. loOw.-L •2 nOu r S OK. R Ft. Co Y Co\\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. / HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: Threshold Retention Calculation-developed Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 1.2 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 4.0 200 0.0200 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 200 feet Mean Slope: 0.0200 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 100 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 2-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 1.34 1.44 1.52 1.65 1.90 Areal Values(in) 1.34 1.44 1.52 1.65 1.90 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef (C) B 100 82. 80.34 0.163 C 0. D 0. Imp. 100 99. 99. 0.915 Weighted Runoff Coef. (Cw): 0.915 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 4.66 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 4.26 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 5.1 cfs 216§ R R O Y Co\\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. I HYDROLOGIC DATA SHEET FOR PIMA COUNTY FLOOD PEAK PROCEDURE (PC-HYDRO Version 3.0) Arroyo Engineering,Inc. Client: A. C. Tsang Engineering Group,Inc. Prepared by: R. Smolinsky Project Name: Resurrection Lutheran Date: 7/14/97 Concentration Point: Threshold Retention Calculation-existing Job#: PAZ-ACT-09 Watershed Area: 1.2 ac Watershed Type: Suburban-Foothills Watercourse Data By Reach Reach No. Height(Hi) Length(Li) Slope(Si) Basin Factor(Nb) 1 4.0 200 0.0200 .035 Length of Watercourse(Lc): 200 feet Mean Slope: 0.0200 Length to Cen. of Gravity(Lca): 100 feet Weighted Basin Fac.: 0.035 Veg. Cover Type(s): Desert Brush Veg. Cover Density: 30 % RETURN PERIOD: 2-years Rainfall Values 1-hour 2-hour 3-hour 6-hour 24-hour Point Values(in) 1.34 1.44 1.52 1.65 1.90 Areal Values(in) 1.34 1.44 1.52 1.65 1.90 Soils Data Soil Type Percent Curve#(CN) Adj. Curve#(CN*) Runoff Coef. (C) B 100 82. 80.34 0.163 C . . 0. D 0. Imp. 99. 99. 0. Weighted Runoff Coef (Cw): 0.163 Time of Concentration: 5 min Rainfall Intensity(i)@ Tc: 4.66 in/hr Runoff Supply Rate(q)@ Tc: 0.76 in/hr PEAK DISCHARGE: 0.9 cfs R R Co O \\\\\\ ENGINEERING, INC. 1 4100 64.1.121 2140 A17.1 -r L•viatiircot4 - ti die'4410 • . 26.13.•peo -' teams, tb1.1t1 / ( . 1 . \ , \ ‘\T\ '!. ., ., LOT 30 NO... .. . LOT 3R .-- ------- LOT 31 1 ' _ ( 4 / -/---------- -- --,------....-------- : [ , •";',%:, - d 0 - -th -41 . i ..• . •" "'' .t.,, • '.•••_'#).,%Ifs•'1 ----- \3c; ____-•/_ --"Aa• ',I.,-.,.-: ...N. •,.:.• .(1). --1114°/------ '•'\N --iiw - ---—— N.,..................,.....'.. iber‘q• V .. au/0M 4416 __- - 0 .! _ -1;e:'7,-::-.• ----------_____ e,A 100.61. 1.444!"4 ______-------------- -_______ I 4 1 Lo ,- 71%-v•' , (c.)exia 13.140,c.p P'-or orr 511.61.1i6 it'sr..-ce - , , 10 t N____..-/ ' ------- • ./ er 2, 4r9!IQ Q f . .'t."..". :<,-,'/,!;.•;.)•%'‹,:• _ 4. it..443it• - ,..id - 4.•<'•HEW 010414 AvAlcK1 ,z Ir 0 _,_;_c_____:;:--:-.-7-..---........./ ,,...,.::?. / __---___—__:_-__---. . .....:: . ; .• . : :,..".: -,,, '.-I ,i • • ,,,,___ . . -----. . . , . • • • \ !, f , • • . Al a EiiEJ —IY . „ 41 / ,,-,—",.: .-.:-:; _'. :.• :. :i:-..: ' '.. :-.:,-..'•!... c,' • /di , :, ,, . : FIB 1 . 199i . 0 . 7 g ‘,<,.....A . . -------, . . : rot•ci A L011'- . c• ..; •:. :• - , / '-*!!.1).:':::: :.' k44) / /' ,/ •POTIP041‘ ' TO I I Ow V• alle!, \ : ,— .• scr/i,"Gliii.4i" , \•.. ; • ,, ,, ,. ., ; ,, . ,. • : . ... ....,,,... ;;, : A f ,,,,,,,1„;-::,,,,,. /\ , V "1 .4- - —. r.r.• •21480 ,/ / 4 , . i •• • • ,..t. •. . ; . ; •• .. ..• 0,...!..,• ..._1__C__•_!--"-- .. • . ... . .• • ! C. ill\ !‘)1 '•••• •:. - -- 11•1 x . I,'-:.: • - g-..ii IA:lit<.:1' t' ' ;z - ._,• " _..------------_____ ------7 -- gli A:fs;:'/ - / ' ,., • -, %Lel , - /Iv 21g) ------t.I a•-•'---le1!44.0-3-"c e--.2 1------ e574.en, _0, I Ibtri4•0t1'.-p.-11 i ,7-,, cQ*t0 sa.l00w1 n. _,•I . I If 4f1- . . u_1 .td ? e ),•.i.t.../„i. d._i gi-0? I 1 lo-m; !sir-1.44 0 esdaTE*L.s.A e, 'api...q i rAe.K1H6 Ait8A ANAL-Pie VICIHI-r1/ MP ------- _____--- ! CU*der 3 74 COm Motatileetlies0: __ ______ _L ___ - • I ecret•Ohlpf*.ktit451 1114.1 ea WE . - 1-- To•-toepopo fir, _ k a (7,101eAchl lerbiT_N61_ COOL-Ir4i lad aP.PTA 6,- 14/2 j EIMEli ," • Ct. 1°1 W Ave.Hue . - , s (4)es•irteitsos -;.- E .• . Lr,stat... ner;GRIF11141 ts•t•*Paso Fmk) 16 4 1!!!!Eiliii v ./ 4°..<, 111.9412!*7: I . "a .?Vealibrkrlie-fri:444 luvespetas -i / MASTER SITE PLAit4 milk FRANCIS A. SCHULZ • — - = - - • - ' I 6.1.1Horp.m.,9p.u.,85. se, S 4i1 [SCALE: '1" = 30-0- 1 M iii r ARCHITECTS - LTD. I. MR40YRO•MO rrtiklocr (-) b Lomeect _ ___ __ ' ' A.I.A. RIESURRECTION LUTHIERA HtT rerrAtt. 6o / "'I. Lpizopstcr-f 101.1IN 0.1•11-4.1 7I 1 FIRST AVE. SUITE 201 ARI2•11A 9114-07 2 4 TUCBON 15713 NORTH 18T AVE. ARIZONA Mg 1 -thwe/co - 2. , • _ - ME '\ I art. .--- 1 9e1g*INal 1 But .._ Vo• ,}1.`,•,,,it•' -•:::, . • :0 SIMI ILOC1 I I 1 ILI- L.X.114 *--' C4CM ALCoVE I 4..._ 0 0 _. r:-;..• ,i.,, , —• - tr4.-ts sl . --k‘••4';\ti'',4 I I, •• il 1 r II 1 / -11 1 1 II 1 1 L miLaNniqtfir/c,i4o... 1 fl imislik•••1 Bo,4 f.4.iOW 4 17" . ,,' 1 f til.A.J*4aG FEL-L.00,6141P H A.L.L. n 1.,34 - 1.34 iil *Y4° \ ____- i-'• b 4 kl• § 1 i FoNT e -,1 I C11 _6 <\\% 1, ' • ..... _. 3.,..•. ,k, di," 11 coticour4s I I , 1,f ) I- 1 .... .,,.- .1 ...•a, Ifi,,," f 0gt1451M I4 111.11' ow0;T i0t - , I> t . T0p , 2/ —p p* r'_Ib .4 _i , .....,. .4 , : • , 1,, , p„,........_•___.. 4___ _,./....."Q ri - „ rtfcmi" .1, „ 14 . • LJ St1P" ' -a vg.__ 9-crre'r3:Gulin.crtilAz.""mst./ 4 -Si,ez ..... 4A /SO 54 \ _ i islileGt1 -4gllt__ . IN ----\_ 1 .twr 4'ol 21 4' • /.\ ,•••:.:.;;... 1,A, 1 - -1-- 1' • ' .. "-- -. ' ••, 1 4 no i IIIIIR:.9'•-•; Vs. * ' - r '''. ..;:•::?....s. .•.‘..;;:.;,;-IV f:Ifiliv.43: .,..,4,kitlx. .t. . , / . . •:, .... ,* • --..,0 -.; '-- - "...• ORGANS ....4.. -----..'- 17 ''Vil. ' ,g';'f•• 1.41211=.... .,:i'. .Hr..'" .:' .' :1. 1 .::.;11KTPIT I•.07 ..:::, N*CH,Golittl.0 r ,,,I, ...;;;::** \,-- ,.•.:*. *•::!. P ---1 Pr. ' ' .'• .•;•:' ": --. . :: . ...• ,.......;:•• 1 k-i•-': d, i • • • ''...' l'': ;•••• '.1...‘' • el% '' , i , ,, , ,. •. •••,. //At' 4)k *•;;;:, •• •• ,.f••• •4:•. ,,h , .7. ,, • _ .9F " q• • •• :• •.--:, ..i. .• .... I ' '..-.'".- ' . " :.* 4.. * :..;;:** •-..:• ‘...' .::::. - I .'-.siii*I. . .•,e ' .14,11:.• .4 V .4\•V NW- E L———— •..• raitiscH ' • .• , , + \ • , 1 I \:.;".4.. BLOCS. AREA ANALYSIS \s f * L__—__I ''...........I....All!— • ....... ... ttr'lp :04:110.....;- - ..... ,. L., a 2^13s.211, EXIT'1.41 DL-1261 8'25 c/F. • 21. s,.. *•. r•yernti' 11 0 Ntoact:ra- pratca.„......L.,,, '''''' s' 11'I z i tf -11•191-161, strogieN 18100 o,,, / , • - 1 o / / . ,- \Tv,1, 1 9 P wecir vi-.Gi AL.L.cricsH '2,18,77c/r . \ - -'-' 1 i'...- , A r • . \_, ,,/ [I . TOTA L.- 14,11Sed. I -1 w +—I \ I i 4 coptft.ipok. ts,C1 ,V ;- FUTIAE i TOTAL Nei. e..1.frO•HSiON 6,t85:F-= ,/ .:.; 44 COL.11A4F-IJH „aprolut i li lIMMEN191* I • / '"--.4. ' - A I ; IHCFOZADV. / ')/1 e ''°'Ati-IV.L-31.1 i . / V 1)1_,_11. I 410„. i -1 WC& ' A 143/ .C:ILL WALL LEGEND 14x14.r.2/d,, elciA.264. / \' '\ .. p. ofrct 1 1 1 ot .- / s,\ -...=‘• ..p 3 I anii......eed F t I EK Frin6t WALLS TO KEMAIN I a- 1 ti .1,› 1 5.‘r-eii4'',.-5, > — // LI mec.., —_, WALL-9 TO ce.KE1.1c,\; L:, stllikm.mis,1EG, H . i / x r > 71 SCHEME •B• immi I••••IMW WALLV , ..z._ ItAllt. ' .- T._ , I.• ititt, "---.:- -0 4. .,,,... ;. :...)7 ,Pi 1,4 , nr '•' '. '044 NEW GA4C.CIWO FRANCIS A. SCHULZ PROPOSED EXPANSION .AL e 2HE . 1 le WeLP40 s A.I.A. In> FLOOR PLAN 71102 FIRST AVE. ARCHITE cis - LTD. RESURRECTION LUTHERAN SUITE 201 11575 NORTH 1ST AVE. DATE ARIZONA TUCSON ARIZONA 11/1/961, \/ PHONE 111I•-072 4 ScALC 4, .,t-,,' 606r..swrR.1 class a Ex HT cHufal x(oHP & HU GOVERA�. w/✓4 V,4 i fp. , / ,i HHAMM EAST R alp • . ----------______.4‘1., ../cit ' ,t,/....••, 1^o k ❑ I❑ n.—..... .-- 41.1b- ___. . .-., • •. ' t .� ___ _ CXI9TIHG{ GhyRGH l' NEW l4Dc 11cH NORTH ELEVATION It7 s1-ToNeSZ-4 cFv33 Dcaf•cNulce-ti P4.gG1 (►LGryAST[R IN11Tills pc HT) i' I s"�1 u N i II! r1 caorz A, . AP:-\ y,. • ] li -„,.., i _. fame itai.. ..— , • A.4 - - i . I— 1$1' - 9.. , .,,, i _,' _ �, IA ' i ,/ it , WW14, 4.4iiittil'iL.‘ Hai Avunoh+ ----f m1I►a1 afV I EAST ELEVATION TYp SG►Lt I/61.. I O" FRANC I S A. S C H U L Z PROPOSED EXPANSION REVIs1oNs A.I.A.A R C H I T E C T S - L T o. RESURRECTION LUTHERAN 7082 FIRST AVE. SUITE 201 11575 NORTH 1ST AVE. DATE f OTTfDAI[ AR PHONE TUCSON ARIZONA II 'I /9G Oft-070724 / '-it-' , 7.-1,110.1.g.LW.-• t 0 ' '''' -' ' l'o..*:... ,R &v. i t.: '. �vby�^ice _ a:► . utiww'r•� i ��'iQ � �M/V�^IYi {Y J - . , !Ow.. -.( , . , , .. , . ,. , _ . II %y�•`y•I b�l�r`i ..� r • _� L q :"�' •��'.n.- . .-- 1 ti 1.,,1.1 aR14 `414v:•.‘ !u^,ram ..._. --_-- NG W J.O D T O 1.1 I EiIT4. ►/RG�Ok 1, NiW NGv� t•OMi,J. D>'1-ri, _ / \\� 1 WEST EL.EVAT1ON7 "" ,.:- 19VsT TMG.N.II, MOW[O i 111.0 Nor Gan '`V " I 11 eIi 'r,eol -� I �i�C 1��. + �i.0�� _ �.�.-- - P►t-�pc1 vJ 11.L I!T♦ \� ppfi�� I� ---- __ i�:..a. ..n..n.a...\..;......�.e...a^r..,A.:,............i'ii....�.nr.. .r.-..4.. "��T I�I' , ., �.,`,, l�h,' I ilv,...,....:... r^.:...4......^..............n A"." ^I .I� it,•I 11 , ''h ,;: ., .-- ( „ill. , 11 'll , i�. j i�:� . it, '• ,...>„, , rf.... :1 r� ` ' •�` M i �� i' I''\,1I�S F. 'I a 'I�i� I. - . . T �NEW A1101( 1---- ..- _------ - --- NEW AOiN87RAIION WRONG l 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 0 f R A N C I S A. S C H U L Z PROPOSED EXPANSION svlsl�N1 A.I.A.A R C H I T [ C T S - L T D. RESURRECTION LUTHERAN _ 7112 FIRST AVE. SUIT[ 101 1575 NORTH 1ST AVE. PHON[OTTi-AL[ AN ARIZONA 111-0721 TUCSON ARIZONA nIi► f/96