Loading...
4663 Beacon Hill Rd - Drainage MemoMemorandum To: Russ MATTHYS CHAD DAVISON RE: BEACON HILL ROAD DRAINAGE ISSUE PROJECT: G ENERAL FROM: PHILLIP ELKIN, PE CLIENT: CITY OF EAGAN DATE: 9 -8 -2010 FILE No: 49 -10000 Russ, Here is a follow -up to my initial findings on the Beacon Hill Road drainage memo. I went back to the 2001 improvement projects file and found the XP SWMM model that was constructed after the 2000 rainfall event. This model determined the peak elevations for the 1% storm event: Beacon Hill Beacon Hill Ridge Cliff Prior to 2001 Improvements Backyard Street (est.) intersection 1% Event 932.50 932.13 942.00 10% Event 931.81 931.13 939.04 50% Event 928.07 927.67 935.71 8/13/10 Event 932.52 932.15 942.20 I have updated this model to show the impact of the 2001 drainage improvements using the overflow areas created. I have also included a simulation of the August 2010 storm event. Beacon Hill Beacon Hill Ridge Cliff Post 2001 Improvements Backyard Street intersection 1% Event 932.41 932.09 940.91 10% Event 929.30 928.35 938.50 50% Event 927.47 926.87 934.96 8/13/10 Event 932.36 931.92 940.30 As you can see the model shows little impact to the HWL at the backyard catch basin. The drop in HWL at the Ridge Cliff intersection is attributed to the removal of the Johnny Cake Ridge watershed. Based on this analysis, it appears that the August storm was relatively equivalent to a 1% storm event; however water marks on the fence and house indicate that the water was much higher in the backyard (estimated at 934.40). One explanation could be that the side yard fence prevented the backyard from draining and allowed the water to rise and enter the home at 4663 Beacon Hill Road. To check this we ran the storm model without allowing overland flow from the side yard. While the elevation rose to 933.64, enough to enter the walkout, it did not replicate the 934.40 mark. This could indicate that intensity of the August 13 storm event had a greater intensity than what was modeled and thus was a greater storm than the 1% event. 2010 Survey As part of this analysis the City conducted an area survey to determine the elevations and capacity of the side yard swales. This survey revealed two issues of concern: That there is only a 0.40 foot elevation difference between the low point of the swale and the patio walkout and that the high point of the swale is approximately 0.5 feet higher than previously identified (933.00 in 2010 vs. 932.5 in 2001). (o(o 13e4c0,4 i Rp Bonestroo 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651- 636 -4600 Fax 651- 636 -1311 www.bonestroo.com Beacon Hill Beacon Hill Ridge Cliff Post 2010 Survey Backyard Street intersection 1% Event 933.13 932.09 940.91 10% Event 929.30 928.35 938.5 50% Event 927.47 926.87 934.96 8/13/10 Event 932.36 931.92 940.304 With Blocked EOF 933.96 Based on this information, my opinion of probable flooding causes are: The Fence Based on photographs taken after the storm, the fence on the affected property prevented the drainage swale from working properly. Not only is this fence on the side slope of the swale, but there is also a section of fence which completely blocks the Swale. In addition to its location, the tight construction is such that it allows very little if any runoff to pass through. I was surprised to see the catch basin actually located on the adjacent lot on the west side of the fence. It appears that the overflow from the CB traveled west through back property line fence (which has spaces between the slats) and entered the backyard of 4663 Beacon Hill Road. Based on the water levels inside the fence on this property, it is apparent that very little water was able to move through the drainage easement swale. Not only did the fence block drainage but backed up water contributed to the HWL level. The intensity of the rainfall event Technically speaking, 4.5 inches of rainfall in four hours is classified as a storm event with a 1% chance of recurrence, however after modeling this storm event with a blocked overflow swale, the peak elevation within the back yard was 933.64. While this elevation is above the walkout elevation (933.40), it is still lower than the water marks on the fence and flower pot on the patio. This leads me to believe that while the storm lasted 4 hours, the intensity of the rainfall was much higher dumping most of the rain in 1 or 2 hours. This intensity would classify this storm event as less probable than a 1% event. Recommended Solutions • Remove the fence- It is a difficult enough area to get to drain without an unnecessary obstruction making things worse. If the homeowners object, a fence with openings would be a preferable option. • Build a berm /retaining wall to protect the walk out door- A 1 -2 foot retaining wall around the patio may be the best option to prevent future storms from flooding the structure due to the swale backing up. Intense storm events in Eagan are unpredictable and seem to be occurring with greater frequency and there is very little grade to work with, therefore flood proofing the house is the best defense. • Re -grade the swale —Based on the latest survey there appears to be enough elevation difference to get a 1.4% slope to the street. This option is probably the least cost effective because of the amount of disruption and the relatively little elevation difference ( <1 foot) to work with. Page 2of2 " - - Q 1 r... 1 1 mria 4i 1 v. I`'a IMF I :m dititiatailniir ® EW �. - a M . M El Cyra � pll- 10 -6VON 'NNd ON 711 09201 31Y0 100 '31 'S31V130SSV A )I112130N V'3N 3S0 6 002453 B NOOO �oals.ugq .. wO V�J,. Y salel�ossl a �� /f// ~ 9U8SO, OOIJSBUO: �1N00 .1110 M3S Wa01S '1 7 Kim' JOZ Z0 31Y0 •3B01VNOI3 8596- 9i2- 0ZE:x.J ZSZ9-152-OZE:xe1 L556-9l Z- OZE:auoNd fSSP[SZ -02E :auWd :•oU10.ew1NM :aaiMO Paaq'is 106D- 162- 292:zed 1.1 03AOHddV HVN 031,101S30 S30 9oeuoH I.gry •3N1VN 1N16d 'Y10S3NNIN JO 31ViS 3111 40 SMV1 3H1 B30N11 633NION3 1Y1019534OBd a3SN3711 A1NO Y NV 1 1YH1 ONV NQISIN13<10S /33910 AIN 930N0 BO 3H A6 0321Vd39d SYM 190d39 BQ 'N011V3I973dS 'NV SIM1 1VHL A.111933 AB393H 1 99•i9 9 marn...11111.11111.1 001E282-2O5 :xed [tE1 9E9 I59:xeJ 00iZ :auogd o099 i59:au.gd :•a100.au.400a :ahy0 lned'i5 99H NM NO Oa 7 A3 11S Z l i 1 I ,- ___ - 5 +00 )NS DATE: 4 -03 RECORD PLAN:3218 U -- —_. — A.42- r 4'Z£6 RP • -= see Viiiir \ M 1 �� G J _ _ lAvdt T .; -------- � 6 C� H - EX C 929 EX. 42 925.93 KINSBI • 0 +17.5 933.2 _ M N ,,, o w U' 0 1 — ' r), 1 0 ,. L . ` ° I i C7) 4 .7 v -- J 7` 7 C iw �. IN AND T THE PLA CV :ONLY. INEER WA" nnuPeT 00 SOL ON00NO21 1 3H1 A9f. :111111f1 '. N3d003_ 9 - 22.44 -E I . __1 041 1 1 k — E LOCATII SHOWN ON INFORM ATI LTING EN 406 HW93 :ONO : 11V 3A 01 31: VA 121d: 31V f.:'21013V21 pDE BERM ' 4£6 r5£6 in ! J ! Q 1 M W (n NOTE: T UTILITIES GENERAL OR CONSI INPf1PAA AT THE CON APPROPR RESPONSI DEPTH. 0' a3M3S 210 _ o� %' l �. 1 !i L 5500' xa £6 00 •b PROFILE /PR PIPE i. o 1'1 T J0 0- U U a a U 0 *1 4. Z'.S£6 W .� 8�i I NI1.LVU 1026 CO PITH: !E 100% C aSE COUR` WEAR COU 1.: .I Q m IX 1 — — � I t S m + L — — ITUMINOU 5 b AGGR 311 BIT 'E 41A BI '539 SON38,OV3 • 18V1`. — - - — / L SON38 wow `, Ce _.— _ _ 7 in - d11 - „S't c111 „Z ;EV1D 9 E 3NO1S32 MONO 9 HW: 10 +i L£6 4/ £6 X3 —.. • —e. i — a ' r L7 _ •DO. III I UOODa8 oa 1164r00V38 ZS'0£ HW93: iNnA X3 �r -- �.°+. t `I • ow �` '� — — — —� I— w i 1 ,-_3 t_1 SON38 0 18V1' 4£ 0N38 +L • � � I 9Z+ 1 1 3'20 d3d.9t- • • in I 0) n • 4. I tr KI. l - 0 +00 1 +00 K: \49 \4901114 \Cad \Dwg \RECORD PLANS \4900109C530RP.dwg 1/17/2003 a N 0 o 0, o + + .' N y cii 1 to Q :I 1 1 C 1 l " i �, 0 +0 m,, b£ " ' 1. IIV9ZG 3- 1L'4Z6 926 1 v ■ I I ' � T • ' x vi 9£ • aa m , r , i co al o 194 ZS'0£6 I, N83 X3 HW83a -X — 00+0 V LL 53INVA RADEE0 0932.5 i s • 1 - ! emu L0 99 9 t -•99. Q �' (n wO > CI HW _ LS.f L l'698 • > • \\14k1 \\c't �` � : w 00 +(l ZZ£6 ° o I O 0) O rn O rn O rn 0 0 CD 00'1 ) 0