dendy st beach pavilion...• jcb architects • site office landscape architects the water...

Melbourne Sydney

Dendy Street Beach

Pavilion

Water Management

Strategy

Report Prepared for:

Bayside City Council

Project No. 1680

Prepared by:

Storm Consulting Pty Ltd

SUSTAINABLE WATER

STORMWATER & RUNOFF

STREAMS & WATERWAYS

CIVIL & INFRASTRUCTURE

Melbourne Office:

Unit 7, 84 Church Street

Richmond VIC 3121

T: (03) 9208 0111

www.stormconsulting.com.au

i

Document Verification Project title Dendy Street Beach Pavilion

ACN 080 852 231

ABN 73 080 852 231

Document title Water management strategy Project number

1680

Description Draft

Client Contact Graham Burrows, JCB Architects

Name Signature Issue: Date

Prepared by RW / MA

C 1/8/17 Checked by Rod Wiese

Issued by Rod Wiese

Filename 1680 Dendy Stormwater Managment VB.docx

Document History

Issue A Issue B Issue C

Issue to: Date No. Copies Date No. Copies Date No. Copies

Stephanie Burton 17/3/17 pdf

Chris Sawyer 17/3/17 pdf 28/7/17 pdf

Simon Beeton 28/7/17 pdf 1/8/17 pdf

Kathleen Kopietz 28/7/17 pdf 1/8/17 pdf

Denise Whitehead 28/7/17 pdf 1/8/17 pdf

Copyright and Confidentiality

All intellectual property rights, including copyright, in designs developed and documents created by Storm Consulting Pty Ltd

remain the property of that company. Other than as permitted by the Copyright Act and as outlined in the Terms of Engagement,

no part of this report and associated drawings may be reproduced or used in any form, copied or transmitted in any current or

future unknown form without the prior written permission of Storm Consulting Pty Ltd. To do so will constitute an infringement

of the rights of that company which reserves all legal rights and remedies in respect of any such infringement.

The information, including the intellectual property, contained in this document is confidential and proprietary to Storm Consulting

Pty Ltd. It may only be used by the person to whom it is provided for the stated purpose for which it is provided, and must not

be imparted to any third person without the prior written approval of Storm Consulting Pty Ltd. Storm Consulting Pty Ltd reserves

all legal rights and remedies in relation to any infringement of its rights in respect of its confidential information.

© 2017 Storm Consulting Pty Ltd

Limitations

This report is prepared by Storm Consulting Pty Ltd for exclusive use by its client only. No responsibility is accepted for the use

of or reliance upon this report in whole or in part by any third party.

The sole purpose of this report and the associated services performed by Storm Consulting Pty Ltd is to display information in

accordance with the scope of services set out in the contract/quotation between Storm Consulting Pty Ltd and its client. The

scope of works and services were defined by the requests of the Client, by the time and budgetary constraints imposed by the

client, and by the availability of access to site/s and information.

This report is prepared with information supplied by the client and possibly others which is presumed to be accurate and

complete. No responsibility is accepted for information that is withheld, incorrect or that is inaccurate, nor for changes to the

conditions over the passage of time or from latent circumstances or conditions. No warranty or guarantee is made in relation to

the data, findings and conclusions expressed in this report.

This report has been compiled at the level of detail specified in the report and no responsibility is accepted for interpretations

made at more detailed levels than so indicated.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................1

1.1. Preamble .........................................................................................1

1.2. Background and Context ..............................................................1

1.3. Objectives .......................................................................................1

1.4. Scope ...............................................................................................1

2.0 DESCRIPTION .................................................................................2

2.1. Overview of Proposed Works .......................................................2

2.2. Water Management Strategy .......................................................3

2.3. Site soils ..........................................................................................4

3.0 WATER SENSITIVE URBAN DESIGN .............................................5

3.1. Stormwater Quality Treatment.....................................................5

3.2. Reuse ...............................................................................................5

3.3. MUSIC Modelling ...........................................................................5

3.4. Summary .........................................................................................9

4.0 PEAK FLOW ASSESSMENT.......................................................... 10

4.1. Strategy ....................................................................................... 10

4.2. Methodology ............................................................................... 10

4.3. Key Hydraulic Features ............................................................... 12

4.4. Results .......................................................................................... 12

4.5. Summary ...................................................................................... 13

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................ 14

5.1. Water Sensitive Urban Design ................................................... 14

5.2. Peak Flow Assessment ................................................................ 14

iii

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Functional Design Drawings

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Preamble STORM_CONSULTING (Storm) has been engaged to design and assess the development of the Dendy

Street Beach Pavilion project for the drainage and water quality infrastructure as well as supporting

civil works. The primary objective is to reduce the impact of the large stormwater pipe draining

directly onto the beach which detracts from the aesthetics. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is to

be utilised as an alternative treatment to mitigate against this ‘eye-sore’.

1.2. Background and Context Dendy Street Beach Pavilion project is located on the southwestern corner of the intersection of

Esplanade and Keith Court, in Brighton, Victoria. The project encompasses a new beach pavilion, major

stormwater drainage modification, water quality treatment, access path, car park and landscape

improvements. Storm is part of a broader team working together to deliver this project. The team

includes:

• JCB Architects

• Site Office Landscape Architects

The water management strategy relies heavily on infiltration and reuse. Detention in the form of both

surface and subsurface is utilised to enhance infiltration.

A summary of our assessment on the water management strategy is detailed in this report.

1.3. Objectives The water management objectives are:

• Reduce the impact of unsightly stormwater outlet from the front of the current pavilion

• Infiltrate stormwater from the upstream catchments into surrounding soil

• Manage pollutant runoff

• Harvest stormwater for toilet flushing

1.4. Scope STORM has been engaged to:

• Prepare a MUSIC model to confirm reduction in pollutant loads

• Undertake a peak flow analysis

• Size the infiltration detention system

• Size rainwater tanks for toilet flushing

• Prepare brief report on proposed treatment system and treatment results.

1680 Dendy Stormwater Managment VC.docx 2

2.0 DESCRIPTION

2.1. Overview of Proposed Works The proposed development site is located at the end of Dendy Street where it connects to the

esplanade. The site development includes:

• Removal and re-construction of the existing carpark and its use

• Removal and replacement of the existing Pavilion with Environmentally Sustainable Design

features (including a rainwater harvesting system).

• Introduction of a new beach access ramp

• Reduction of the existing outfall drain to the beach via a drainage upgrade to incorporate

infiltration and water quality improvement

Table 1 notes the catchment areas.

Table 1: Catchment areas

Location Catchment area (m2)

Upstream Urban Area 410,000

Carpark 1,521

Footpaths 1,623

Forecourt 1,014

Roof 582

TOTAL 414,740

The following sketch highlights the catchment areas graphically:


Figure 1: Site Catchment Plan

2.2. Water Management Strategy Through collaboration amongst the project team including lead consultants and architects Jackson

Clements Burrows and landscape architects from Site Office we developed a treatment train which

included the following assets:

• Diversion

• GPT

• Subsurface leaky retarding basin

• Raingarden

• Subsurface infiltration pipe network

• Rainwater re-use tank

The following schematic highlights the chosen water quality assets and associated catchments:

410,000 sqm


Figure 2: Water Management Strategy Overview

2.3. Site soils Investigations were undertaken on site by HardRock Geotechnical. A total of 4 test holes were drilled

noting that the subsurface soils were primarily sands to the limit of excavation. This is consistent with

the regional geology by the Geological Survey of Victoria as being Quaternary sand ridges and

Quaternary alluvial flats with silt, sandy silt, minor sand and gravel.

Percolation test were attempted to define the saturated hydraulic conductivity rates for design

purposes. The outflow rates of the wells were too great to be reliably calculated with the outflow

being higher than what could be poured into the wells. It was concluded that the saturated hydraulic

conductivity rates were very high which is consistent with sands.

HardRock has noted in other studies that the rates in this region have been 500-1500mm per hour.

They advised to be conservative and suggested a nominal design rate of 200mm per hour. This has

been utilised in the assessment however the rate of 1000mm per hour is also reported on as

potentially a more realistic figure.


3.0 WATER SENSITIVE URBAN

DESIGN

3.1. Stormwater Quality Treatment The main contributing catchment for this site is the external urban catchment that currently connects

410,000m2 of area directly to the beach. The stormwater is delivered via the drainage system and

conveys up to the 1 in 5 year ARI event (typically) to the project site. The following treatment assets

will improve the water quality and disconnect as much of the flow as possible.

Gross Pollutant Trap (GPT)

A GPT is proposed to be located within the carpark for easy maintenance access. The preferred

product is a CDS unit supplied by Rocla. This type of product is already in use by Council and easily

inserted into the maintenance regime and schedule. The product has advanced filtering capability to

capture a lot of sediment as well as gross-pollutants which enables it to stand out amongst its

competitors. Any comparable product would need to confirm it has similar capabilities to ensure it

also reflects the same water quality results.

Raingarden

The minor flows (post GPT treatment) will be directed through an orifice to the raingarden for

treatment and infiltration. Flows in excess of the orifice capacity will flow into the leaky retarding basin

also referred to as detention basin. The overflow from the leaky retarding basin in larger events will

then be directed into the raingarden for some treatment but primarily for further detention. The

raingarden is treating the new path hardstand areas, access ramps and any overflows form the roof of

the new Pavilion. The raingarden is approximately 400m2 and will not contain an under drain to

encourage infiltration rather than filtration. Overflows are directed to the existing outlet.

Leaky Retarding basin

Flows exceeding the capacity of the orifice draining to the raingarden are directed into a leaky

retarding basin located beneath the surface to encourage infiltration into the natural soils. The

storage required for this system has a footprint of around 450m2 and volume of almost 500m3. The

preferred storage to facilitate the infiltration is the StormTech arches by ADS pipe. The natural site

soils facilitate an exfiltration rate of around 200mm/hr which makes it an ideal solution in the bid to

disconnect the upstream catchment from the beach. This is also tested at 1000mm/hr which is

arguably more realistic. The newly upgraded carpark will also report into the treatment train at this

stage adding to the external catchment.

3.2. Reuse Rainwater from the building's roof area will be harvested into a 20KL tank adjacent to the proposed

pavilion. The harvested water will be used for toilet flushing in both the building and public toilets.

The tank was sized using historic rainfall information and estimated toilet usage data that was

calculated from projected visitor numbers provided by the architects. The roof area draining to the

tanks was estimated to be 582m².

3.3. MUSIC Modelling MUSIC was used to size the various water quality treatment components and provide evidence of the

impact the assets would make to the outflows.


Model Layout

The overall model was developed around the main treatment train as described above that focused on

the much larger external urban catchment. The local catchment components including carpark, roof,

paths and forecourt were connected into the treatment train at various points based on their

convenience and practicality. Figure 3 below illustrates the MUSIC model layout.

Figure 3: MUSIC Model Layout

An infiltration rate of 200mm/hr was used as a conservative design figure by HardRock. We also

assessed a rate of 1,000mm/hr to gauge a more realistic result. These are also reported below.

Modelling Results

The MUSIC model was run using the Melbourne City 1966 rainfall data as recommended in the

Melbourne Water MUSIC guidelines for this area. However we also ran the 10 years of data from 1952

to 1961 to remove some of the potential inaccuracies relating to interpreting a single year of data. The

results are based on a time-step of 6 minutes over the 10 year period for infiltration rates of 200 and

1000mm/hr.

It is expected that the rainwater harvesting system off the pavilion roof will meet the consistent toilet

demand nominated for the pavilion and café users. The summer period is expected to draw a higher

demand and therefore the 20KL volume nominated should be the minimum and additional storage

recommended to increase the volumes supplied to the public toilets.

The proposed treatment train uses a series of infiltration based assets to treat and infiltrate the

maximum volume of stormwater into the landscape to minimise drainage and pollution volumes at the

beach. Most of the flows will be infiltrated and never reach the beachfront. This clearly translates to

removal of pollutants from the system which is beyond the Best Management Practice of 80% removal

of Total Suspended Solids, 45% removal of Total Phosphorous and Total Nitrogen. The water quality

results are presented below noting that the data includes the site as well as the upstream catchment.


Table 2: MUSIC modelling results

Parameter Source

Infiltration rate 200mm/hr Infiltration rate 1000mm/hr

Residual Load % reduction Residual Load % reduction

Flow (ML/yr) 130 38 71% 16 88%

Total

Suspended

Solids (kg/yr)

18100 2980 84% 1630 91%

Total

Phosphorus

(kg/yr)

42.6 9.1 79% 4.4 90%

Total

Nitrogen

(kg/yr)

332 95 72% 41 88%

Gross

Pollutants

(kg/yr)

5110 129 98% 129 98%

It may be difficult to appreciate the impact that the system has on improving the condition of the

beach outfall. A series of graphs have been produced to aid the interpretation of these results. Figure

4 shows the peak outflows predicted for the period of record as a daily average. Figure 5 shows the

cumulative impact on beach outflows and Figure 6 shows the cumulative impact on TSS.

Figure 4: Impact on beach outflows (average daily)

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

25/0

8/19

50

7/0

1/19

52

21/0

5/19

53

3/1

0/19

54

15/0

2/19

56

29/0

6/19

57

11/1

1/19

58

25/0

3/19

60

7/0

8/19

61

20/1

2/19

62

m3 /

s

Beach Outflow Existing Outflow

Outflow (200 mm/hr Exfiltration)

Outflow (1000 mm/hr Exfiltration)


Figure 5: Impact on beach outflows cumulative over 10 years

Figure 6: Impact on beach outflows cumulative over 10 years


3.4. Summary Using the proposed system, the modelling results indicate that in an average year the proposed

development of the site will reduce the total flows draining to the beach by 71-88%. The pollution

reduction to the beach is drastically reduced and superior to best practice in an effort to minimise the

unsightly impact that the current stormwater drainage has on the beach. The reduction in TSS is a

good indicator where it is expected that 84-91% will be retained in the treatment system.

The 20kL tank harvesting from the roof will supply most of the nominated toilet demand for the

pavilion and contribute to the supply of toilet flushing to the public toilets. A larger tank will supply

additional water to the public toilets.


4.0 PEAK FLOW ASSESSMENT A peak flow assessment is required to ensure that the system can cope with the larger flow events and

maximise the opportunity for infiltration to occur. This analysis will inform the design of weir

structures, size of pits and pipes as well as the assessment of hazards risks relating to overland flows

down the path.

4.1. Strategy Figure 2 shows the layout of the elements proposed. Diverting the majority of flows to the treatment

system will improve public amenity through water quality improvement and infiltration. Detention is

the key management to maximising the available infiltration of the site. Detention is achieved in the

underground storage referred to as detention or leaky retarding basin as well as the volume above the

raingarden surface.

A bypass is proposed up-stream of the GPT to divert peak flows in excess of about 1m3/s. The bypass

will use the existing drainage system although an upgrade of the existing 675mm diameter pipe and

box culvert is required to manage the hydraulic grade line and life span of the system.

Overflows from the raingarden are directed back to the existing culvert however the outlet is proposed

to be upgraded from the existing 1200mm wide and 600mm high to 3000mm wide and 300mm high.

This reduces the energy levels considerably compared to the existing scenario and allows the invert

level to be lifted by 300mm. This will provide a better amenity and reduce the maintenance burden.

Sizing weir lengths and heights is an iterative process to enable the optimum combination to maximise

the performance for a range of storm events. This assessment has been described below.

4.2. Methodology The hydraulic and hydrologic modelling software called DRAINS was used to model the stormwater

network. DRAINS model was used to simulate what might occur during various rain events. DRAINS

accounts for pipe capacities as well as detention basins and associated weir structures.

The inlet pipe is typically designed for the 5 year ARI however the pipe capacity is expected to be

approximately 3m3/s. Therefore the 1, 2 and 5 year ARI events were assessed for the durations of 0.5,

1, 2 and 3 hours.

We used ARR 1987 rainfall data for our modelling with the upstream catchment area of 41.15 ha with a

46% impervious cover.

The DRAINS model layout is shown in Figure 7 below.


Figure 7: DRAINS model layout (shown for 20 year ARI 2 hour storm)


4.3. Key Hydraulic Features The key hydraulic features are described below. This has been a result of iterative investigations to

minimise the nuisance flows down the pathway.

Highflow bypass

• 1.5m weir at RL 4.25m in junction pit with existing 1200mm line and proposed offtake

• Upgraded 675mm pipe and 1200x300mm box culvert sections to single 2100x300mm box

culvert

Splitter box

• Interior area shall be a minimum 2.7 square meters

• Orifice (150mm diameter) directs low flows to raingarden

• 3m long weir at RL 3.5 to direct overflows to raingarden via 2 x 375mm diameter pipes

Leaky Retarding basin

• A storage volume of 500m3.

• Inflow from the splitter box with 2 x 600mm diameter pipes

• One overflow pit located in leaky retarding with overflow weir of 2 meters at RL 3.5m

• Overflow pipes connecting detention to raingarden via one 450 mm diameter pipes

Raingarden

• Low flow inlet from splitter box via 150mm diameter orifice

• Highflow inlet from splitter box via 2 x 375mm diameter pipes

• Secondary highflow inlet from detention via one 450mm diameter pipes

• All highflow inlets enter raingarden via surcharge pits

• The extended detention storage is approximately 180m3

• One overflow pits in the raingarden with a weir length of 4m

• One overflow 2700mm x 300mm box culvert connecting the raingarden to outlet

• The retaining wall level adjacent the raingarden is RL 2.52m.

4.4. Results The above key hydraulic features were used in the modelling to obtain the output noted in Table 3.

Storms greater than the 5 year ARI were tested to identify the likely maximum flowrate down the

pathway. The 20 year 2 hour storm yield 3.18m3/s which is just above expected pipe capacity.

Table 3: Peak flow modelling results

ARI Duration

(min)

Max Catchment Q

(m3/s)

Max Diverted Q

(m3/s)

Max Bypass Q

(m3/s)

Percentage Detention Used (%)

Raingarden Freeboard

(mm)

Raingarden Max Q out

(m3/s)

1

30 0.830 0.729 0.139 99 180 0.652

60 1.020 0.760 0.289 100 170 0.694

120 0.944 0.764 0.229 99 170 0.678

5

30 1.690 1.030 0.861 100 150 0.800

60 2.120 0.921 1.240 100 140 0.851

120 1.900 0.853 1.040 100 140 0.840

10

30 2.300 1.090 1.410 100 130 0.891

60 2.760 0.940 1.820 100 120 0.924

120 2.430 0.909 1.520 100 130 0.898

20 120 3.200 0.986 2.210 100 10 1.160


4.5. Summary The storages and hydraulic features have been optimised to minimise the outflows onto the beach.

This is achieved by holding as much water as possible in the leaky retarding basin and the raingarden

to allow infiltration. The high percentage detention reported in Table 3 shows that the system is

effective to maximise infiltration even in the smaller events which cumulatively has a significant impact.

The peak flows onto the beach do not change dramatically for the larger storm events. This is mainly

due to the volume of these larger storms fill the detention storages and then spill. It should be noted

that the peak flows reported in Table 3 do not necessarily occur at the same time so the different peak

flows for each stream cannot readily be added together.

The peak flow out of the raingarden is a little higher than the diverted peak flow. This is related to the

timings of the various peaks and the additional catchments draining directly to the system

downstream of the diversion.


5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1. Water Sensitive Urban Design Industry adopted best practice water quality improvement targets is readily achieved. However,

Council desires to exceed this target to minimise the potential of an unsightly outfall. The TSS

reduction is expected to be 84-91% and the flow reduction is 71-88%. The stormwater that bypasses

the treatment system directly influences the water quality performance.

The outfall being raised by approximately 300mm will allow beach sand back onto the bedrock which

should improve the amenity. The reduction in TSS and flow volumes (best shown in Figures 5 and 6

above) is expected to significantly reduce to maintenance burden at the outlet and is.

5.2. Peak Flow Assessment Management of the peak flows is optimised to maximise infiltration. The hydraulic structures are also

configured to pass the expected maximum flowrate of approximately 3.2m3/s without overtopping. If

the upstream drainage network did allow more than the maximum adopted then stormwater may

surcharge at the splitter pit and spill over the wall at the raingarden. The overland flows in this case

would not exceed the velocity to depth ratio of 0.4 and would be considered low hazard.

Although the peak flows are not significantly reduced through the system for larger events, the

frequency of outflows is reduced significantly as described above.

APPENDIX A

Functional Design Drawings

DENDY STREET BEACH IMPROVEMENTSDESIGN DEVELOPMENT

BRIGHTON, VICTORIA

REVISIONDESCRIPTION

SHEET INDEX & REVISION DETAIL

D06

D05

EXISTING CONDITION PLAN

D04

D03

C01

P02

SHEET

OVERALL LAYOUT

COVER SHEET

DETAILED LAYOUT A

D09

D08

D07

COVER SHEET, LOCATION MAP, SHEET INDEX

COVER 01

C

OV

ER

STORM_CONSULTING authorise the use of this drawing only for the purpose described by the status stamp shown above.This drawing should be read in conjunction with all relevant contracts, specifications, reports & drawings.

Advanced Copy - Not for ConstructionDrawing No. Sheet

Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:


BRIGHTON BEACH VIC 3186

1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17

JACKSON CLEMENT BURROWS

ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE

MELBOURNE VIC 3000 PHONE:(03) 9654 6227

1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W


SYDNEY SUITE 12, 130 PACIFIC HWY, GREENWICH, NSW 2065 P 02 9499 4333MELBOURNE UNIT 7, 84 CHURCH ST, RICHMOND VIC 3121 P 03 9208 0111

A AMENDED PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNCIL COMMENTS V.Z 28.07.2017

SPECIFICATION & TYPICAL DETAILS

DETAILED LAYOUT C

DETAILED LAYOUT D

DETAILED LAYOUT E

DETAILED LAYOUT B

D14

D13

RAMP LONG SECTION

D12

D11

D10

CATCHMENTS PLAN

D16

STORM DRAIN LONG SECTIONS A

STORM DRAIN LONG SECTIONS B

DETAILED LAYOUT F

RAINGARDEN AND SPLITTER BOX DETAILS

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




SPECIFICATIONS & TYPICAL DETAILS

S02 02

S0

2

•

•

•

£

£

•

•

•

•

“ ”

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

··

·

·

·

·

EXISTING CONDITION

P03 03

P0

3



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W






Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




OVERALL LAYOUT

P04 04

P0

4

1.1



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DETAILED LAYOUT A

P05 05

P0

5

1.1



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DETAILED LAYOUT B

P06 06

P0

6

1.1



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DETAILED LAYOUT C

P07 07

P0

7

1.1

Δ

Δ



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DETAILED LAYOUT D

P08 08

P0

8

1.1



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DETAILED LAYOUT E

P09 09

P0

9

1.1

Δ

Δ

Δ



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DETAILED LAYOUT F

P10 10

P1

0

1.1

Le

ve

l

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




RAMP LONG SECTION

D11 11

D1

1



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




CATCHMENT PLAN

P12 12

P1

2



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DRAINAGE LONG SECTION A

L13 13

L1

3



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1528.07.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




DRAINAGE LONG SECTION B

L14 14

L1

4



Designed:

Checked:

Authorised:

Approved:

ofDate

CLIENT:

CAD FILE:



1680-DD-

16

80

-DD

-

1501.08.17


ARCHITECTS

1 HARDWOOD PLACE


1680-DD-OP.dwg

O.T / V.Z / K.L

R.W

R.W




RAINGARDEN AND SPLITTER BOX DETAILS

D15 15

D1

5

dendy st beach pavilion...• jcb architects • site office landscape architects the water...

Documents