—_————_ NLAND DESIGN Civil Engineers, Surveyors & Land Development Consultants Project Narrative and Post Construction Stormwater Management Calculations For Malin Road Development East Whiteland Township, Chester County January 30, 2015 Revised June 4, 2015 Prepared on Behalf of: 9 Malin Road Development, LLC 110 North Phoenixville Pike Suite 100 Malvern, PA 19355 Prepared By: Inland Design, LLC Inland Design Project No. 10383 16 Hagerty Blvd., West Chester, PA 19382 + Ph, (484) 947-2928 / Fax (484) 947-2946 www.lnLandDesign.netINLAND DESIGN Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction Existing Conditions Narrative Proposed Development Narrative Water Supply Facilities Narrative Sanitary Sewer Facilities Narrative Soils Geology Streams Wetlands PNDI Search Narrative Tentative Project Schedule Section 2 Stormwater Mangement Narrative Pre-Developed Stormwater Analysis Narrative Summary of Pre-Developed Flows “Westem Drainage Area Eastern Drainage Area ost Developed Stormwater Analysis Narrative ~ Western Drainage Area = Western DA Bypass Arca Analysis and Sammary - Weston DA Recharge Bed Analysis and Summary - Westem DA Pre Developed vs. Post Developed Summary Faster Drainage Area = Eastern DA Bypass Area Analysis and Summary - Eastem DA Discharge Point #1 Analysis and Summary ~ Faster DA Discharge Point #2 Analysis and Summary ~ Eastern DA Discharge Point #3 Analysis and Summary - Easter DA Discharge Point #4 Analysis and Summary - Eastern DA Discharge Poin #5 Analysis and Summary - Bastem DA Discharge Point #6 Analysis and Summary - Easter DA Pre-Developed vs. Post Developed Summary Infitrtion Testing Required Infiltration Volume Erosion Conwol Narrative Post Consinction Stormuater Management Narrative Section 3 USGS Location MapINLAND DESIGN Section 4 NOAA Atlas 14 Precipitation Estimates for Malvern, PA Section 5 Wester DA Model Schematic Wester DA Hydrograph Retum Period Recap Wester DA Rainfall Report Western DA CN Calculations ‘Westem DA Te calculations Section 6 Westem DA Pre-Developed Hydrographs Section 7 ‘Wester DA Post-Developed Bypass Hydrographs Section 8 Westem DA Post_Developed Hydrographs = RB #20 Inflow - RB #20 Routing w/ Pond Report - RB #21 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (RB #20 Routing + RB #21 Inflow) - RB #21 Routing w! Pond Report -RB #2 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (RB #21 Routing + RB #22 Inflow) ~ RB #22 Routing w/ Pond Report = RB #23 Inflow + Hydrograph Combination (RB #22 Routing + RB #23 Inflow) RB #23 Routing w/ Pond Repost - RB #24 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (RB #23 Routing + RB #24 Inflow) - RB #24 Routing w/ Pond Report Section 9 Easiem DA Model Schematic astern DA Hydrograph Return Period Recap Eastem DA Rainfall Report Eastem DA CN calculations Eastem DA Te calculations Section 10 Eastern DA Pre-Developed Hydrographs Section 11 Eastem DA Post-Developed Bypass HydrographsINLAND DESIGN Section 12 Easier DA Post-Developed Hydrographs — Discharge Point #1 -RB # Inflow - RB # Routing w/ Pond Report - RB #2 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (RB #1 Routing + RB #2 Inflow) ~ RB #2 Routing w/ Pond Report = RB #3 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (RB #2 Routing + RB #3 Inflow) - RB #3 Routing w/ Pond Report -RB #4 Inflow ~ RB #4 Routing w/ Pond Report = RB #5 Inflow ~ Hydrograph Combination (RB #4 Routing + RB #5 Inflow) - RB #5 Routing w/ Pond Report - RB #6 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (RB #5 Routing + RB 49 Routing + RB #6 Inflow) - RB #6 Routing w/ Pond Report Section 13 Eastem DA Post-Developed Hydrographs ~ Discharge Point #2 -RB #7 Inflow - RB #7 Routing w/ Pond Report - RB #8 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (RB #7 Routing + RB #8 Inflow) RB #8 Routing w/ Pond Report - RB #9 Inflow + Hydropraph Combination (RB #8 Routing + RB #9 Inflow) - RB #9 Routing w/ Pond Report -RB #10 Inflow ~ Hydrograph Combination (RB #9 Routing + RB #10 Inflow) RB #10 Routing w/ Pond Report -RB#II Inflow RB #11 Routing w/ Pond Report -RB #12 Inflow Hyérograph Combination (RB #11 Routing + RB #12 Inflow) - RB #12 Routing w/ Pond Report - SSB #13 Inflow ~ Hydrograph Combination (RB #10 Routing + RB #12 Routing + RB #13 Inflow) ~ SSB #13 Routing w/ Pond Report ~ SSB #14 Inflow ~ SSB #14 Routing w/ Pond Report ~ SSB #15 Inflow Hydrograph Combination (SSB #14 Routing + SSB #15 Inflow) ~ SSB #15 Routing w! Pond Report - SSB #16 Inflow ~ Hydrograph Combination (RB #13 Routing + SSB #15 Routing + SSB #16 Inflow) ~ SSB #16 Routing w/ Pond ReportINLAND DESIGN Section 14 Easter DA Post-Developed Hydrographs — Discharge Point #3 - SSB #17 Inflow - SSB #17 Routing w/ Pond Report Section 15 Eastem DA Post-Developed Hydrographs ~ Discharge Point #4 ~ SSB #19 Inflow - SSB #19 Routing w/ Pond Report - SSB #18 Inflow - Hydrograph Combination (SSB #19 Routing + SSB #18 Inflow) - SSB #18 Routing w/ Pond Report Section 16 2-YR Volume Calculations Section 17 Infiltration Testing Report Section 18 PNDI Search Form and Receipt Section 19 Correspondence to AQUA PA for Public Water Service VerificationINLAND DESIGN SECTION 1INLAND DESIGN Introduction 9 Malin Road Development, LLC and Constitution Drive Partners, LP are proposing to develop a 23.17 acre property located on Malin Road in East Whiteland Township into a 264 unit townhouse development. The purpose of this project narrative is to describe the proposed development ofthe property and to detail how the additional stormwater runoff resulting from the proposed impervious surfaces will be managed. Existing Conditions The project site is 23.17 acres and is located within the RD ~ Residential Revitalization District located at the end of Malin Road just south of the Penn Central/Conrail Railroad line that runs adjacent to Lancaster Avenue (Route 30), 9 Malin Road Development, LLC is the equitable owner of two tax parcels (UPI 42-4-321 and UPI 42-4-321.1) that cover approximately 9.5 neres, UPI Parcel 42-4-321 is the westemmost parcel and contains a one story commercial building, a few small accessory buildings and paved parking areas. The upper portion of this parcel is covered with woodland. UPI Parcel 42-4-321.1 is undeveloped and covered with woodland. Constitution Drive Partners, LP is the owner of tax parcel UPI 42-4-321.2 which contains the former Bishop Tube industrial complex. The complex includes a large former industrial facility, a few accessory buildings and paved parking facilities. The Little Valley Creek runs along the entire eastern property line and includes wetland areas that surround the stream. ‘The site i¢ surrounded by residential use to the east, a petroleum storage and distribution facility to the west and active railroad lines to the north and south. The former Bishop Tube Property (UPI 42-4. 321.2) has been identified as a contaminated property resulting from the former industrial use on the property. Constitution Drive Partners is currently working with PADEP to remediate the contamination such that the site will be suitable for residential uses. Access to the site is taken solely from Malin Road. The property is gently sloping on the northem portions and increases to steeply sloping toward the south of the property. Proposed Development The applicants are proposing to develop the property into a townhouse community of 264 residential units. The proposed townhouse units will vary in width from 22 feet wide to 24 feet wide, An intemal road network will be constructed and will include 55 guest parking spaces, Sidewalks will be provided along several of the roadways and will be available as a future link to the Chester Valley Trail. Although the site will be serviced by a single main entrance located. under the Penn Central/Conrail Railroad underpass, an emergency access road is proposed that will connect the site to the existing residential development to the east ofthe site. ThisINLAND DESIGN emergency access will require a joint permit from PADEP and the Amy Corps of Engineers. A Pedestrian aecess will be provided along Malin Road under the existing railroad bridge Water Supply Facilities The site is located within a designated public water suy be served by public water. Sanitary Sewer Facilities ipply area. As such the entire project will The property is located within a designated public sewer service area and all uses will be connected to the public sewer system, Soils ‘The site is comprised of a single soil type as follows: SOILS ] SOILS SLOPE | DEPTH TO SEASONAL | DEPTH TO] DRAINAGE | TYPE _| DESCRIPTION HIGHWATER TABLE _| BEDROCK | CLASS/GROUP GIA _| Conestoga Silt Loam More than 80 inches | 60-99 inches | Well Drained’B CiB_ | Conestoga Sil Loam ‘More tan 80 inches | “60-99 inches "| Well Drained’B MaB ‘Manor Loar More than 80 inches |" 72-99 inches | Well Drained’B MaD_[ Manor Loam 15%-25% |" More than 80 inches | 72.99 inches | Well Drained/B Mak ‘Manor Loam 25%-35% [More than 80 inches | 72-99 inches | Well Drained’B igh [eee eteete 0%-8% More than 80 inches | 60-99 inches | Well Drained’B Conestoga Complex UD ‘a 8%-25% More than 80 inches | 60-09 inches | Well Drained’B Uugd ee ‘aomptee | 2%25% | Morethan 80inches | 60-09 imenes | wail brameam ‘The hydrologic soils group for all soil series is “B”. developed stormwater analysis has been completed assuming these soils, AS such, all of the pre-developed and post- aINLAND DESIGN Geology The geology of the site is underlain by one geologic formation which is described by the DCNR as: 1, Xo- Lower Paleozoic. Main rock type — Albite-Chlorite Schist, This formation is described as a phyllite that contains some schist, horneblende gneiss and granitized members. Streams The Little Valley Creek runs along the eastem portion of the property. The stream enters the property from a culvert that runs below the SEPTA commuter line locate at the south end of the property. The stream continues along the eastern property line until it enters another culvert located below the Penn Central/Conrail Railroad Line located along the northem side of the Property. According to EMAP PA the Little Valley Creek is classified as an exceptional value (EV) stream ‘Wetlands There are wetlands located along the banks of the Little Valley Creek. The limits of the wetlands are shown on the conservation plans Sheets 3 and 4 of the plan set. These wetlands have been delineated in accordance with the wetland report by Great Valley Environmental dated October 29, 2014. A copy of the wetland report is included with this submission, PNDI Environmental Review As required a PNDI search for the site was completed, This search showed no potential conflicts. A copy of the PNDI search receipt is attached as part of this narrative. Tentative Project Schedule The actual schedule of the improvements within the development is dependent on market conditions. However based on the assumption that the Final Plan is approved by the end of 2015, itis estimated that final buildout of the proposed improvements will take approximately 8 years to complete. erINLAND DESIGN SECTION 2INLAND DESIGN Stormwater Management Stormwater drainage analysis was completed using Hydraflow Stormwater Analysis Software. Due to the size ofthe project TR-55 Methodology was used to determine the pre-developed and post-developed runoff rates from the site. Since the project is considered a redevelopment project the requirements of Table 308.1 of the East Whiteland Township Stormwater Management Ordinance were applied. In accordance with Table 308.1 post developed flows must be reduced at no more than 90% of the pre-developed flows as shown on the table below: Design Storm educed 0 Pre- developed Design Storm 2-year 90% of 2-year S-year 90% of 5-year 10-year 90% of 10-year [ 25-year 90% of 25-year 50-year 90% of 50-year 100-year 90% of 100-year The drainage areas were analyzed using 24 hour rainfall depths consistent with NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall for Malvern, PA., as follows: Design Storm | 24 Hour Rainfall Depth per NOAA Atlas 14 Dyear 3.24 inches S-year 4.06 inches 10-year 4.75 inches 25-year 5.74 inches 50-year 6.57 inches. 100-year 7.47 inches A copy of the NOAA Rainfall depths is included in this narrative for reference, In addition to analyzing the peak runoff from the site after the development is completed, the additional volume generated by the proposed impervious will be infiltrated into the ground via a series of recharge beds located within the roadways. In order to evaluate the volume of runoff from the site, the SCS TR-55 methodology was used to compare the difference in volume of runoff from the 2 year post-developed storm and the 2 year pre-developed storm for each pointINLAND DESIGN ofinterest. The soils on the site are classified ad hydrologic soil group BB and the land cover coefficients used were as follows: ‘Land Cover Hydrologic Group B Soils Meadow (pre-dev) CN=58 Lawn (post-dev) CN=61 Woods (pre & post) CN=55 Impervious (pre & post)_| CN=98INLAND DESIGN Pre-Developed Stormwater Analysis Based on the configuration and topography of the site, the entire site was modeled as two Separate watersheds, each flowing to a separate point of interest; the western drainage area and the exstern drainage area, Each pre-developed watershed (westem and easter) was evaluated based on existing topography and ground cover. The time of concentration (Te) for each watershed was also calculated based on existing topography and ground cover, The characteristics of cach pre-developed drainage area are as follows: Wester Drainage Area Total Pre-Developed Area = 3.77 acres Calculated Te = 14.3 mins Composite CN value = 70 Easter Drainage Area Total Pre-Developed Area = 17.42 acres Calculated Te = 14.1 mins ‘Composite CN value= 70 Summary of Pre-Developed Flows Storm Event PreDev. Pre-Dev. Eastern WestemDA | DA 2 Year 3.73 CFS 16.60 CFS 5 Year 6.28 CFS 27.91 CFS 10 Year 8.64 CFS 38.43 CFS 25 Year 12.30 CFS 34.72 CFS 50 Year 15.51 CFS (69.01 CFS 100 Year 19.10 CFS 84.96 CFS Complete hydrographs forall pre-developed storms are contained within this reportINLAND DESIGN Post Developed Stormwater Analysis Im order to accurately compare the post-developed flows to the pre-developed flows, the same Points of interest for both the western and easter drainage areas were used. It is noted that due to the nature and design of the proposed improvements, there is some exchange of areas between the two watersheds. However the post developed peak rates for each point of interest were compared to the pre-developed rates regardless ofthe exchange in area. Since this project isa re-development project, all of the post developed flows have been reduced to be no more than 90% of the pre-developed flows. Western Drainage Arca Runoff from the Westem Drainage area will be managed through the use of 5 subsurface recharge beds. Alll of the recharge beds in the westem drainage area are connected such that the outflow from an upper recharge bed is combined with the overland tributary area for the lower recharge bed. These hydrographs are combined into a single composite hydrograph which is in tum routed through the next bed. This hyrograph combination continues until the lowest bed discharges the collected stormwater into the existing drainage system in Malin Road, This single discharge when combined with the bypass flow will be compared to the pre-developed flow rate to demonstrate that the rate of runoff has been reduced as required by ordinance, Because of the reduced rate of runoft from the site, the connection of the new stormwater management system is not considered to have an adverse impact on the existing storm sewers, The need to enlarge the existing storm sewers in Malin Road will be further examined in consultation with the East Whiteland Township Engineer and PA DEP. Due tothe limited size of the drainage area for cach recharge bed, @ time of concentration (Tc) of 5.0 minutes was generally assumed forall post developed flows, Bypass Area - The bypass area consists of the portions of the site that bypass the proposed recharge beds. The characteristics of the bypass drainage area are as follows: Total Bypass Area = 0,68 acres Te= 5.0 mins Composite CN value = 75INLAND DESIGN Summary of Bypass Flows [ Storm Event Post-Developed Bypass Flow 2 Year 130 CFS 5 Year 1.98 CFS 10 Year 2.58 CFS 25 Year 3.50 CFS. 50 Year 4.29 CFS: 100 Year 5.17 CFS Recharge Beds — As stated above, the post-developed runoff will be managed through the use of 5 recharge beds. Because the beds are connected in series and routed through one another, there is a single point of discharge from Recharge Bed #24. A summary of the post-developed discharges from Recharge Bed #24 is provided below. Summary of Recharge Bed #24 Routed Flows ‘Storm Event Recharge Bed #24 Routed Flows 2 Year 0.00 CFS 5 Year 0.00 CFS 10 Year 0.41 CFS 25 Year 181 CFS 50 Year 2.84 CFS 100 Year 3.76 CFS ofINLAND DESIGN Summary of Pre-Developed vs. Post Developed Flows for the Western Drainage Area Storm | Pre- Post: Routed | Total Post- [% of Event | Developed | Developed | Flow from | Developed | Predeveloped Flow By-Pass Recharge | Flow Runoff (90% Flow Bed Maximum Allowed 3.73 CFS |1.30 CFS [0.00 CFS_[1.30CES [34.9% 6.28 CFS__| 1.98 CFS [0.00 CFS_| 1.98 CFS} 315% 8.64 CFS | 2.58CFS__ [0.41 CFS [3.00CPS 134.7% 25 Year _|12.30CFS_[3.50CFS__[1.81CFS_|531CFS 143.2% 50 Year | 15.51 CFS [4.29CFS__|2.84CFS [7.13CFS | 460% 100 Year [19.10 CFS_| 5.17 CFS_[3.76CFS | 8.93 CFS |468% "cis noted that he oud outlows do ot nctade any extltaton tha occas wii ack rckage edINLAND DESIGN stern Drainage Area Runoff from the Eastern Drainage area will be managed through the use of 12 recharge beds and 7 subsurface storage beds. The recharge beds are located on upper portions of the site where soil testing has indicated that infiltration of stormwater is feasible. On the lower potions ofthe site where the existing building is located infiltration testing has not been completed, Based on 8vailable information of the soils in this area taken from dozens of monitoring wells, there is likely a high groundwater table in this area which would make infiltration of stormwater infeasible, Therefore all SWM facilities inthis area have been designed to be subsurface storage beds. Upon demolition ofthe existing structure, test pits will be excavated to evaluate the potential of the soils to infiltrate stormwater. Similar to the western drainage area, the recharge beds and subsurface storage beds are connected in series. Due to the number of beds, connection of al ofthe beds in series was not feasible. Therefore smaller groups of beds were connected and a total of 4 discharge points were created. The flows at these four discharge points were added to the bypass flow and compared ta the predevelopment runoff to determine compliance, Due to the limited size of the drainage area for each recharge bed, a time of concentration (Te) of 5.0 minutes was generally assumed forall Post developed flows with the exception of those capturing a large off-site area, All of the discharge points are shown on the enclosed drainage maps. A summary of the bypass flow and discharge points flow is provided below. Bypass Area - The bypass area consists ofthe portions ofthe site that bypass the proposed recharge and storage beds. The characteristics of the bypass drainage area are as follows: Total Bypass Area = 1.89 acres Te=5.0 mins Composite CN value = 65 Summary of Bypass Flows Storm Event Post-Developed Bypass Flow 2 Year 2.18 CFS 5 Year 3.77 CFS 10 Year 5.24 CFS 25 Year 7.50 CFS 50 Year 9.48 CFS 100 Year 11.74 CESINLAND DESIGN Past Developed Discharge Point #1 ~ Discharge Point #1 isthe upper most discharge point and it flows into the existing wooded riparian area located behind unit 134. Recharge Beds #1 through #6 were all connected in series such that the outflow from Recharge Bed #6 is considered discharge point #1. A summary of the post developed flows at Discharge Point #1 is as follows: Summary of Flows from Discharge Point #1 | Storm Event Post-Developed Bypass Flow 2 Year 2.28 CES 5 Year 4.73 CFS 10 Year 6.10 CFS 25 Year 8.28 CFS 50 Year 10.48 CFS 100 Year 14.56 CFS ba Post Developed Discharge Point #2 ~ The flow to this point is made up of the outflows from Several sets of beds connected in series, Recharge Bed #7 through Subsurface Storage Bed #16 \were all connected in series such that the outflow fiom Bed #16 is considered discharge point #2 This discharge is located near the existing stream and wetlands on the eastem side of Unit 76. It is noted that discharge point #2 is situated where improvements curently exist. A summary of the post developed flows at Discharge Point #2 is as follows: Summary of Flows from Discharge Point #2 Storm Event Post-Developed Bypass Flow 2 Year 6.71 CFS 5 Year 10.05CFS__| 10 Year 12.33 CFS 25 Year 15.20 CFS 50 Year 18.70 CFS 100 Year 22.27 CFSINLAND DESIGN Post Developed Discharge Point #3 ~ Subsurface Storage Bed #17 is considered discharge point #3. This discharge is intended to flow into a large reservoir that will be used to collect stormwater runoff and irigate it throughout the site. ‘This reservoir is located along the northern Property line next tothe railroad line. However for the purpose ofthis report, this discharge is assumed to flow into the creek, A summary of the post developed flows at Discharge Point #3 is as follows: Summary of Flows from Discharge Point #3 [ Storm Event Post-Developed Bypass Flow 2 Year 2.07 CFS | 5 Year 2.60 CFS 10 Year 2.98 CFS 25 Year 3.48 CFS 50 Year 3.90 CFS 100 Year 452 CFS ] Post Developed Discharge Point #4 ~ Subsurface Storage Beds #18 through #19 were connected in series such that the outflow from Bed #18 is considered discharge point #4. This discharge is intended to flow into a large reservoir that will be used to collect stormwater runoff and imrigate it throughout the site, This reservoir is located along the northem property line next to the railroad line. However for the purpose of this report, this discharge is assumed to flow into the creek. A summary of the post developed flows at Discharge Point #4 is as follows: Summary of Flows from Discharge Point #4 ‘Storm Event Post-Developed Bypass Flow 2 Year 1.55 CFS ‘5 Year 1.91 CES 10 Year 2.14 CFS [ 25 Year 2.41 CFS. 50 Year 2.62 CFS [100 Year 2.83 CFS aeINLAND DESIGN Summary of Pre-Developed vs, Post Developed Flows for the Eastern Drainage Area Storm Event [Pre] “PostDev. | Discharge Pe | Discharge Pt | Discharge Pr] Discharge Fr | Toa Pose Developed | By-Pass a 2 ® #4 | Developed Flow Flow Flow 2ve | Weeoors | aiscrs | a8 | arcs _| AWS] a Sve | visiers | amcrs | ~a7scrs_| ious crs | 20ers | orcs + es ove [seers | seers | 610s |iasscrs_|_a9ncrS—] agers} sees aye | semces | 7s0crs | ~sascrs_|isavcrs | sascrs | arcs fs SOyr | 6301 CRS | 948 FS | 10aB CRS | 1e70CrS | ~390cFS—] sar} et love | s4secrs | iisaces_|rasecrs_|227crs | ase crs | asses} es Tis noted that the routed outflows do not include an; Reduction of Flows as required by Table 308.1 for the Eastern Drainage Area | % ot Predeveloped Runoff (00% Pro-Developed | — Total Post- Maximom Storm Event Flow Developed Flow | Allowed 2 Year 16.60 CFS 1479 CFS | 89.1% SYear 27.91 CFS 23.06 CS 82.6% 10 Year 38.43 CS 28.79 CFS 749% 25 Year 34.72 CFS 36.87 OS 74% 50 Year 8.01 CFS, 45.18 CFS 5% 100 Year 34.96 CFS S592 CFS 58% iy exfiltration that occurs within each recharge bedINLAND DESIGN Infiltration Tes A total of eight (8) test pits were excavated on site to evaluate the suitability of the soils to infiltrate stormwater. Based on the soils encountered, infiltration rates varying fom 24 in/hr to 0.25 in/hr were obtained. The infiltration tests were completed using a double ring infiltrometer as mandated by the PADEP BMP Manual. Based on the examination ofthe sol profiles in the test pits, it was concluded there is no limiting zone including solid rock or high groundwater forall test pits except for test pit #1. In this test Pit a limiting zone of fractured bedrock was encountered at a depth of 11 feet, While it may be Possible to infiltrate in this area, the use of an amended soil above this fractured hedrock inay be required. All recharge beds were assumed to have a conservative infiltration rate of 5 im/hr. Required Infiltration Volume As required the increase in the volume of runof that ocours in the post developed condition will be infiltrated into the site soils. This analysis is completed assuming only 80% of the existing impervious on the site, While itis understood that the epplicant will have to eomply with this requirement, addtional soils testing, especially within the existing building area will be required to verify that this can be accomplishedINLAND DESIGN Erosion Control As part of the earth moving activities erosion control measures will be taken to mitigate the discharge of sediment from the site. Standard erosion control measures including compost filter socks, silt fence (for topsoil stockpile protection), stabilized constructions entrances, erosion control matting, seeding and mulching and a detailed sequence of construction will be used as part ofthe site development. An NPDES permit will also be applied for and obtained from the PADEP as required. A copy ofthis permit will be provided to the Township when itis receivedINLAND DESIGN Post Construction Stormwater Management As part ofthe stom water management plan, certain elements have been incorporated into the Plan to reduce the rate of runoff, reduce the volume of runoff, and improve the quality of the discharged storm water. These measures are as follows: Rate Control ~In order to compensate forthe increased impervious area on the site, a recharge bbed was designed to ensure that post-construction runoff wall be less than the rate of ranoff that currently leaves the site in accordance with Table 408.1 of the Radnor Township Stormwater Management Ordinance, A summary table of the reduction in stormwater runoffis contained in this report Volume Control ~ As stated, infiltration tests have been completed on the site in the areas of the recharge bed. At a minimum, these infiltration measures must capture and infiltrate the increased volume of water that is expected from the site in the post-developed condition. Steam Channel Protection - Once the infiltration testing is completed, the compliance with the stream channel protection requirements of section 307 will be demonstrated, At aminimum the stormwater controls must reduce the rate of runoff from the post construction 2-year 24 hour storm to the rate of the pre-construction 1-yr 24 hour storm.INLAND DESIGN SECTION 3= 9 MALIN ROAD Gaal 10/14/2 InLand Desi USGS Location Map tae et ages uray © Land DeslopentConai 1"= 2000" UP: 8.7 ACROSS: 5.8 Project No. ee Malvern Quad ‘i trvlandDesen cet a East Whiteland Twp * Chester Co+Pa || 10383INLAND DESIGN SECTION 4NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 2, Version 3 Location name: Malvorn, Pennsylvania, US" Latitude: 40.0967", Longitude: 75.5082" Elevation POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES. {GM Bonnin, 0, Wart, 8 Ln, 7. Parybok Mek, and Riny NOAA, Naonal Vesiner See, Sher Sp, Vaid ‘PE tabular | PE araphical | Maps & aevils PF tabular [__PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)" L ‘Average recurrence Interval years) pe a ee 0] =] loot a948 0380 oat |/—oa88 | 07 0632 08700702 | arat | —.res Samia _os27-0381) (03360485) (0447-0537)|0492.058 (0.370687 |(0604-0720) (0.620.079) |0855-0807 0674-0808} 0588 | 0468 || 0781 | 33 at 406 at aay aa0 Ont foseesfeereeren or oxsnorazs) aaee09] oot 100 [oxo | eow 20] vain | oe ey in eae al oom | 08 | 0 tar tae a ee Bait fosseorenfar7-enre| oo on foones so | waoian | wsstan | vari | vaten | ad en | aden 0588 1.16 7140 187 178 192 2.06 7218 233 (|| aaa] Semin iosre0n | norsay | artsy | cattzn || seam || azezon | caeeze | ak oy 200-220 || tease) 420 Ds ttto| atte 2 te”, 12 | 2m | ae) ss So oco-t29 | vatran | ese | oseaz9 || atezon | 20209 | eaooen | atten [adit | atm 1 ele lott | 2, | 22 | 8 3a ap Ph | osnren | cst | seas | eaezrm | eeoam | aos | evens | eaten | atm | ude eae ass a0 | aa [a8 380 a 2 sse.179 | oze2en || erezsn || eas.2eo | amen | cerry || eaoazn | aon | wisa5 | wn 132 232 2.88 333 3.96 446 499 | 6sa 6.30 eat oN | azsarg | ara2to | ez jl aceon | esraap | sown || aareen | aasten | estoy | wer ae | oe | | oe | eas a0] es as BM [aac | esosin| wrosey | eros | area | sor | sore | eats | aeran | oan 208 TT ott |e, 8 [oer | tat lam sas HY | awezes | eset | rsa asesz9 | 20427 | 620710 | om | cava | acter | ween 30 el at | 2.2 | |e ae a 267 fomaen | azarn | wanes | aseeny | oer2n | ereacn | caznen | asian | eatin | antag 3a [385 40s [areas rar a eas | ans] tar S87 | coeseo | eorasn | wezsen | e2saan | ears | osraen | amar | amon | corey | areen ams [ats sia | 608 | 7a BY 3% | oats az “47 | ereaan | sna | rear | 20000 | erro esoeoy | erron | eatin | aot [aren aoa | see | eae eas | ans fase | 08 [ta ss ee 707 [araan | waesan | wacesy | se7sn | seam | aso | weer | peoiee | iatisn | usin aa7 [sas] eas 7a sy oo | a | as | ae] aa] Bee [azron | oesen | eser2n || coven | aacom | o2rien | conten] aren | caren | watty 657 Team | eee ay toot |. | 28 | 287 | ae es ae | rsa | exe7e7 | 19209 | ere | coma | meen | aaean] cota | astm | aera 7: 305 ee ttt | | | 88 | er a Sa | cane [asrasn | over | oreree | reaian | qasies | cases | cstirn | astky | aren ars tia tat tee tet ana tea | aa) a Se | oxz100 | ronan | veers | mersy | csaira | csoies | ores | getns | uot [atten v7 [tar | ise [ia] a wor | Ba | as | asa |e i227 | 22525.) || aas2ey Sodey | istza | rs0ta4 | 4084 || c81-179 || rates | waoz.a | ones) numbers ementec ae 7 eta lov opt bounds fe 90% center lava Th Rly tl recpaon naquenc ete ore res at and average acura il wi eater ane wo hud (bss ane laa) v Sh Stas ae ame hed agans! probable maximum pecan [PMP estates and nay be hgh than curt vase ae | Precptton reavancy (Pr) eetrate in stable ate based on feasercy analysis of paral eurton sre PDS) a [lense otro NOMA Ata 14 document er ore formation ‘Backte Tep PF grap!ackto Top Maps & aerials