Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 04/04/2003� � l I 1 1 FORT COLLINS 1 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY THE LOFTS AT PARK CENTRAL FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROLSTUDY THE LOFTS AT PARK CENTRAL Prepared for: Park Central, LLC 2642 Midpoint Drive, Unit A Fort Collins, CO 80525 Prepared by: North Star Design 700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550 (970)686-6939 Revised February 1, 2003 Revised December 17, 2002 Revised October 1, 2002 July 30, 2002 Job Number 174-01 North Star �eAmw design, inc. February 1, 2003 ' Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Stormwater ' 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 ' RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for The Lofts at Park Central Dear Basil, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval, this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for The Lofts at Park Central, a multi -family residential project. I certify that this report for the drainage design was prepared in accordance with the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael Oberlander, P.E., L.S ii 700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550 ' 970-686-6939 Phone 970-686-1188 Fax I 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iii 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 Location................................................................:..................................................1 1.2 Description of Property ............................................................................................1 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS 2.1 Major Basin Description..........................................................................................3 2.2 Sub -Basin Description.............................................................................................3 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 Regulations..............................................................................................................3 3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints .......... :.......................................... 3 3.3 Hydrologic Criteria..................................................................................................4 3.4 Hydraulic Criteria....................................................................................................5 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4.1 General Concept........................................................... :........................................... 5 4.2 Specific Flow Routing.............................................................................................5 4.3 Drainage Summary ...................................................................................................6 5. EROSION CONTROL 5.1 General Concept......................................................................................................6 5.2 Specific Details........................................................................................................6 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Compliance with Standards.................................................................................... 7 6.2 Drainage Concept.....................................................................................................7 7. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................8 ' APPENDICES A Vicinity Map B C Hydrologic Computations Hydraulic Calculations D Water Quality Pond Sizing ' E F Erosion Control Calculations Floodplain Information G Figures and Tables iii ' 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' 1.1 Location The Lofts at Park Central Subdivision is located in east central Fort Collins. This project is located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. See• the location map in Appendix A. ' The project is located southeast of Prospect Road and Lemay Avenue. The project is bounded on the north by Prospect Road, on the east by the Fort Collins Health Club and its parking lots, on the south by Spring Creek and on the west by a private drive accessing this site and the commercial area to the west. ' 1.2 Description of Property The entire project consists of approximately 6 acres of land in two separate parcels. The ' property includes all of Spring Creek from Lemay to the west side of the Fort Collins Club building as well as the majority of the Fort Collins Club's parking. Only 1.5 acres are proposed for the four new buildings, the existing parking lots will be slightly reconfigured with the project. There is an existing storm sewer system through this site for parking lot drainage. This storm sewer system will not be changed with this project. The reconfiguration of the parking will reduce the amount of area drainage to the system, ' but the existing flow patterns and overflows of the existing system will remain. The land currently slopes to the south at a range of approximately 1% to 4%. Spring Creek is located on the southerly portion of the site. Spring Creek has a floodplain and floodway mapped by both the City and FEMA. The City mapping has recently been ' completed and is documented in the "Hydraulic Modeling of the Spring Creek Basin" by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated February 15, 2002; and in the "Spring Creek Basin Hydrologic Model Update" by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. revised December 8, 1999. Excerpts of these reports are in Appendix F. The City floodplain is ' considerably higher than the current FEMA floodplain. The present FEMA Floodplain and Floodway is mapped on the FIRM Map, Community Panel Number 080102 0012 C revised March 18, 1996. Portions of this map are located in Appendix F. The City Spring Creek Floodplain encroaches into approximately the southern half of the ' 1 ' proposed development. The Floodway is on the site, but south of most of the proposed improvements. The only improvement in the Floodway that is proposed is the water ' quality pond for the new residential area. All of this work will "cut" within the floodway. No fill of any kind is proposed in the floodway. No buildings are proposed in the floodway. ' The FEMA Floodplain is located south of the City Floodplain. It lies in the vicinity of the existing Spring Creek Trail. The only improvement in the FEMA Floodplain is the proposed water quality pond. The FEMA Floodway is located within the City Floodway. ' No fill will take place in either floodway. ' Three of the proposed multi -family buildings are in the City floodplain. All of these buildings will be elevated so that the lowest floor (front of the garage) is at least 1.5' ' above the floodplain elevation. Building foundations will be slab on grade. See the "Grading Plan", "Drainage and Erosion Control Plan", and "Floodplain Map and Site Data" for specific information related to the building elevations.. These buildings will ' require a Floodplain Use Permit at time of Building Permit application. They will also require a FEMA Elevation Certificate prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. None of the buildings are within the FEMA floodplain. See Appendix F in this report for information related to the Floodplain. The following table lists the elevations requirements for these 3 buildings: BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4- City 100 Year Base Flood Elevation 4939.6 4940.2 4939.8 City Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation 4941.1 4941.7 4941.3 Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation (Garage Door) 4941.3 4941.9 4941.5 Proposed HVAC Elevation 4941.3 4941.9 4941.5 FEMA 100 Year Base Flood Elevation NA NA NA FEMA Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation NA NA NA EA ' 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS ' 2.1 Major Basin Description The proposed development lies within the Spring Creek Master Drainage Basin. The Updated Master Drainage Plan for this Basin has been completed by Anderson Engineering Consultants, Inc. Portions of this report are in Appendix F. The 100-year floodplain and the floodway from the updated report are reflected in the plans for this project. 2.2 Sub -basin Description This site drains to Spring Creek independent of any of the surrounding land. No drainage from the existing parking lots or drives enters the portion of the site that will be ' improved. The existing parking and drives surrounding the site drain to an existing storm sewer system. This system will remain unchanged and existing overflow patterns will be ' maintained. None of the overflow patterns enter the residential area ' In the Spring Creek Master Plan, this site is in basin 219. Conveyance element 520 represents Spring Creek through the site. ' 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ' 3.1 Regulations This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage ' Design Criteria Manual" specifications. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD), 1984, developed by the Denver ' Regional Council of Governments, has been used. This project complies with the requirements of Chapter 10 of the City Code. '. 3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' The runoff from this site has been routed to conform to the requirements of the City Stormwater Department. Detention is not proposed for this site. The peak flow from the ' Master Plan is 48 minutes at Conveyance Element 520 in the SWMM Model. Runoff from this site peaks at 5 to 6 minutes and will be off of the site prior to the Creek's peak. ' 3 I 0 0 1 1 This is shown in the hydrologic calculations in Appendix B and the SWMM Model in Appendix F. Water quality facilities are required for the new construction proposed on the site. This requirement is only for the area that will have new buildings constructed. The area that will be improved will be routed to a new storm sewer system and water quality pond. The existing parking lot will continue to drain to the existing storm sewer system and to Spring Creek without water quality facilities. This project will reduce the amount of area that drains to the existing system by approximately 0.7 acres and reduces the pavement area that presently drains without water quality by 0.25 acres. The water quality pond will be in the floodway, but will be completely below existing ground in the area. The water quality pond and storm sewer system proposed with the project have been oversized considerably. In the future, if the Fort Collins Club expands or improves its parking lot, these facilities would be available to meet City Stormwater's requirements. This project complies with the requirements of Chapter 10 of the City Code. Constraints on the site include the "no fill" requirement for the floodway and that all proposed buildings in the floodplain will be elevated 1.5' minimum above the 100 year City Base Flood Elevation. 3.3 Hydrologic Criteria Runoff computations were prepared for the 10-year minor and 100-year major storm frequency utilizing the rational method. All hydrologic calculations associated with the basins are included in Appendix B of this report. Standard Form 8 (SF-8) provides time of concentration calculations for all sub - basins. Standard Form 9 (SF-9) provides a summary of the design flows for all Sub - basins and Design Points associated with this site. Water quality volume was calculated using the method recommended in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual". 4 3.4 Hydraulic Criteria ' All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are included in Appendix C of this report. The existing stone sewer system was not analyzed with this report. Existing topography was reviewed and shows that all of the existing inlets have overflow areas that prevent storm flows from entering the residential portion of the site. These overflow locations are shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan. All of the storm sewers (existing and proposed) will surcharged with the 100-year base flood in Spring Creek. All buildings are elevated 1.5' above this elevation to protect the structures. Because of this, the storm sewer system was designed based on a free outfall. All of the sumps (existing and proposed) have areas that can overflow if necessary without damage to structures. 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4.1 General Concept All of the runoff from this site and the adjacent areas drains south to Spring Creek via ' gutters, storm pipes, and overland flow. The improved portions of the site will be routed to the water quality pond. This pond will be incised into the bank of Spring Creek and ' will have a water quality outlet structure mounted in a headwall. There will be no pipe outlet for the pond. The wall will overtop in larger storms and will drain overland to the creek. Approximately the southern half of the site is in the City floodplain. All structures are elevated to be protected in the 100 year flood. 1 4.2 Specific Flow Routing ' A summary of the drainage patterns within each basin is provided in the following paragraphs. I ' Basin 1 includes the majority of the improvements to the site. Four multi -family buildings and associated parking are proposed within this basin. This basin drains south ' to a proposed inlet and storm sewer that conveys the flows to the water quality pond. This storm sewer system has more capacity than required. In the future, if the parking lot to the north (adjacent to Prospect Road) is improved, a portion of that pavement could be routed overland to the inlet and water quality pond. No calculations were completed to ' determine how future improvements would be made; there are no plans presently for changing this northwest parking lot. Basin 2 includes portions of the south two buildings and the water quality pond. Drainage in this area sheet flows to the south and into the pond. The outlet of the pond is ' directly to the south and into Spring Creek. ' 4.3 Drainage Summary Drainage facilities located outside of the right of way (including the water quality pond, ' existing and proposed stone drain system and the pond outlet) will be maintained by the owners of the property. ' 5. EROSION CONTROL 5.1 General -.Concept ' This site lies within the Moderate Rainfall and Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins Zone Maps. The potential exists for silt movement from the site and into Spring Creek. Potential also exists for tracking of mud onto existing streets which could then wash into existing storm systems. The required performance standard for the site is 77.4%. During construction and after paving, this figure has been exceeded with the use of silt fence, inlet filters, straw bales and by using the water quality pond and a sediment trap during construction. The erosion control escrow amount is $5,550. ' 5.2 Specific Details ' To limit the amount of silt leaving the site several erosion control measures shall be ' 6 7 J ' implemented during construction. All inlets (existing and proposed) shall be protected with gravel filters, straw bales will be used where appropriate, and the south and west ' boundaries shall have silt fence installed. Vehicle tracking pads shall be installed at the connection to the existing private drive to control the mud being tracked onto the existing pavement. During overlot grading, disturbed areas are to be kept in a roughened condition and watered to reduce wind erosion. The water quality pond will be used as a sediment trap during construction. ' 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Compliance with Standards ' All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the ' Chapter 10 of the City of Fort Collins Code, City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. Requirements placed on the site related to the Master Plan Update have been ' followed. ' No variances are required for the project. It should be noted that the northeast inlet on the existing storm sewer system will pond to a depth of 1.3' prior to overtopping to the south. ' This is an existing condition that exceeds the City requirement of 1.0' maximum ponding in parking areas. 6.2 Drainage Concept ' The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provide for stormwater quality treatment of proposed impervious areas and ' reduces the .area of pavement that presently does not have water quality treatment. Conveyance elements have been designed to pass required flows, to minimize future maintenance, and to provide options to the Fort Collins Club if they choose to improve the existing parking lots in the future. If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. ' 7 0 1 1 1 1 1 7. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", (SDCM), dated March, 1986. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated March, 1969, and Volume 3 dated September, 1992. 3. "Hydraulic Modeling of the Spring Creek Basin"' by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated February 15, 2002. 4. "Spring Creek Basin Hydrologic Model Update" by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. revised December 8, 1999. 8 n tl APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP A n 1� 11 PROJ si 14�0 PR SPECTIRQAD. 0 a 0 z z J K W m i F z a 'a J DRAKE ROAD VICINITY MAP NTS 1' 1� 11 APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS 10 a ,I I �1 'I 'I 11 O W a ca z z W LL LL W O U LL LL O z m .p d U c m N N � c � c 0 f0 U t:.2- C LL . Q oU F rn U O c_ o L° N C-)p C 9 0Z) U c O �O .N m p o a p U Z o c E z lz _O Z F Z, ��� c c EE U p F U U a OU ir w N J O o 0000j 0 n E E 0.5 dU0000 m O LO O0i " U Y I W K 0 0 Ee S m N E LL LL LL 0 W U m j 0 C C G d' W O N V Q y ^ N M W W P m m N a ¢ 0 w c V m O Cn O c a' Q m Ld N J W Fa- Q a L vNi a O c m $ o �Q_ z z 0 55 a Z N 4 ICD L Z m w 0 N a co O U M O Q N y N _p ma�pp N '00 U U m 2 a E i,.-. N m C U N O7 n2 CU 3 ` y N U ° 3 c L y E 2 3 N MO a N O U O N N N .r m 0 . O d 0 U p Co .Z o�am am c m E n 2 N M o EQunru U Q c Q as Q c U �w U n U d o `-0 V � U W U W N � a`i Z K O G C H c Z Z lll rn Z O U LL O W � a rz F W r^*Q K a W U N c p O u U W z o° OF ¢ 0. pa0¢n o Y LU W C o M 4 q� H n Z « E LL on � E v m U .. O W fYl � J 00 = is N N m F v f7 K F U � � Oci � E� ci o LL J W N e- S y t o 0 O c c a W 0 0 y W f F N N W c s n C 0 N 0 t� e o O N h .2 i� In p o �n 0 o c � � J v W M m < o p J « f U c� 0 0 t zF �m n v z m � N m to N Z � qZ Q mm 1 N C O O N Z t , 3 U Y lL 0 N d U O C N U a .E C � � •C N � � m •e C e c � •E U c Ln m u _ � � w •E > o U U z � E 0 co m II j a II d U 11 II m w G 0 U O � � � Of §§ �& §z k§ �0 b LU wq ) ) . / \ §\(\ / \ \ 2($ [ /[/.. t jek4 » 0 ) � �k\ x @ § 1% 7 !!¥ . § =m 2 ! / 0 §§ § k£�� :; }(g ®« \¥2 0 �3 k�o z §k � mr to §«\ § `~ §ks� ) ! ! W U LL C W Z LL LL R' W Y � a� w a G O cW G _.1 a Z O p .0 IIIIIYIvn I�IYIIII I,i�AIIYII 0 0 11 I i N Iiiiiiiiiiiii I A 0 0 a APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS A v L-d I G�1 to co r N o 0 U ti Mc c N 16 g3 yo L O Z Y m r co O 11 11 1 d � 1N 10 Q' m E v co co O N fV �J M c) 3=v O 0 E `M' Uo O M fM) C C O � QUv O E ro o0 m dr m M C C 03 — 0 N O O J n N d CD M Cl) CL D E voi Cii 0 3 rw) � M M o� jU E o ccq 0 C f0 M m j v M Cl) CC 7 n O N O1.—co co � O j Q % v 0 Cl Cl U O O LL d V N U 00 �t C N 0. O O > L v O n O C, It 0 o 0 L o 0 0 0 J c O m L L y fn C C W Go co a o E O u z an a n 9 cL a ��04 N0 � v m ri,(L m� ao �U c O W (p t5 C) O a` (D CD tto O N O ro 0 m 0 t- U u � c £ rn a) {N O 0 � a)Z O CI n M i0 1� 1� 1� L ~M -Lo 0) 1 • • �"� a 0 -E 1� •3�(n 1� N 1 m m C C C d 1' v, O 0� O M -� Oj M M a °' ' 1 E J11_C/J W O O O O O O O O O M M M M d0' M M M O Ct-! O I i i i I i -- ...- -- MON du,al M co 1 I I J�fn r O co co cM U O ~ at + � � O NOOpd' C CC),NO —O N Q.Co NO En N e, �O + O OO O Or^ cM/Ma)1 V MM W L L O O O NOOOd > >O�N O d N Q.C~ NO N O - §;F - �a o ` N � CD CD U 0 N t U O E 8< m9 co va ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ '`� UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING i DEVELOPED BY CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER ----- SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD --------------------------------- SER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO.----.--..---.-- .................................. ON DATE 12-05-2002 AT TIME 10:25:03 PROJECT TITLE: INLET DESIGN [� /j *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: �J i �.L GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: I e INLET ID NUMBER: 1 1- '1 �3 Cab INLET HYDRAULICS. IN A SUMP. M � 0 GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 2.00 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= INLET GRATE TYPE =Curved 3.00 Vane Grate NUMBER OF GRATES 2.00 SUMP DEPTH ON GRATE (ft)= 0.17 GRATE OPENING AREA RATIO M = 0.33 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 1 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.50 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 ,} STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 16.75 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH ' FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.56 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.93 ,i GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: 'I FOR 2 GRATE INLETS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 10.40 <-- IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 15.00 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 7.50 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= 7.50 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 1 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: 11 11 9�lvriV 9.:U2CB VY&NInli "Bliwn (it)= 6.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SU14P DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 12.80 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.90 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW. (cfs)= 2.90 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.90 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 10.40 7.50 2.90 10.40 0.00 7.50 2.90 10.40 0.00 �l APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS 6 0 I -) 1 1 i i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 'F�w-e- Csr i-mAL-- North Star �• design NIMMIMMEM ENO IN MOM MO IN MEN MEMO! IN, 0 0 IN I MOSIME IN MEMO OMNI DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 3) . STORMWATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 0. 0 N m S . 0.: m L C7,z 1 _ m 0 0., 0) v m Cr m c: 9-1-1992 UDFCD IE i I I:xtenc 0-Ho ed De r Drai entio time Basi (Dry) .. -100 D 1 Hentic -Hour n Pon Drain Is (Wet) Time 0 10 20 30 40 s0 60 70 80 90 100 Percent Impervious Area in Tributary Watershed Source: Urbanos, Guo, Tucker(1989) Note: Watershed inches of runoff shall aW to the entire watershed tributary to the 8 df�Facility. FIGURE 5-1. WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME (WQCV) DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3) STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 10.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.6C ca U G 0.40 E m CcL 0.2C U Pq 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 Required Area per Row,a (in.2 ) FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 114 EXAMPLE: DWO = 4.5 ft WQCV = 2.1 acre-feet SOLUTION: Required Area per F/0 Row =1.75in2 EQUATION: WQCV a= K 40 in which, K40=0.013DWQ+0.22DWo -0.10 o� or 17 OJ\0 a Qr b� �� Qr e c� 4.0 6.0 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District S-43 Proposed Water Quality Pond - Stage/Storage LOCATION: PARK CENTRAL PROJECT NO: 174-01 COMPUTATIONS BY: MVO SUBMITTED BY: NORTH STAR DESIGN DATE: 12/5/02 WQ WSEL TOP OF PONE V = 1 /3 d (A + B + sgrt(A•B)) where V = volume between contours, ft3 d = depth between contours, ft A = surface area of contour Water Quality Volume Required 2000 CF Stage (ft) Surface Area (ft) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 4931.5 0 4932.0 1550 258 258 4932.6 4760 1805 2064 4933.0 6900 2319 4382 4933.2 7800 1469 5851 4933.5 9150 2540 8391 detpond.xls GROUND=42.4 1 NATURA\ l RES BURCES FFER �\ \ STEPS � a 1 leh. 1 dy' FLOODWAY \ \ WATER QUALITY POND \ \COMPLETELY `\ \ INIISED IN BANK) \ \ \ BLOCK 1 TRACT II \ \\ UTILITY, DRAINAGE AND ACCESS \ \\ EASEMENT STRUCATER TURE NUALITY WALL 1`\ \\ (SEE DETAIL\$HEET 12) , \\ \ \ 18"x10'x15' TY-PE-1. BURIED RIPRAP\ WITH 6" SOIL \ \\i COVER AND 6" TYPE II BEDDING \, / e ►1 t. p i t T—ZO 1 � � I PROPERTY \BOUNDARY (�YP.) 1 LL No Text I i i i A APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS E 7/29/02 Riprap Calculations for Pipe Outlets LOCATION: PARK CENTRAL PROJECT NO: 174-01 COMPUTATIONS BY: MPO SUBMITTED BY: North Star Design, Inc. DATE: 7/29/02 From Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, March 1969 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) Q = discharge, cfs D = diameter of circular conduit, ft W = width of rectangular conduit, ft H = height of rectangular conduit, ft Yt = tailwater depth, ft A, = required area of flow at allowable velocity, ft2 V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel, ft/s = 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils = 5.5 ft/s for erosive soils Storm 1 Outlet 18" RCP Q = 17.8 cfs D = 18 in = 1.5 ft Yt = 1.45 ft V = 5.5 ft/s Q/D1.5 = 9.7 Yt/D= 1.0 From Figure 5-7, use Type L for a distance 3D downstream, L = 4.5 ft From Table 5-1, d50 = 9 in From Fig. 5-6. Riprap depth from outlet to dist. U2 = 18.0 in Riprap depth from U2 13.5 in Width of riprap (extend to height of culvert) = 4.5 ft Q/D2.5 = 6.5 From Fig. 5-9, Expansion factor, 1/(2 tan 0) = 4 At = QN = 3.24 ft2 L = (1/(2 tan 0))'(At/Yt - W) = 2.93 ft Use L = 6 ft Use W = 3D = 6 ft Riprap.xls Page 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT. PARK CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 2003-2004 ONLY COMPLETED BY: MPO DATE: 12/02 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will ' be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require resubmitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. MONTH FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN Demolition Grading Wind Erosion Control: Soil Roughing Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other Rainfall Erosion Control Structural: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terrocin AsphaltConcrete Paving Other Vegetative: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Mats/Blankets Other BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY. VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: DATE SUBMITTED: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: TO BE DETERMINED BY BID APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON: North Star Design, Inc. 700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, CO 80550 EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY: SUBMITTED BY: DATE: PARK CENTRAL 174-01 MPO North Star Design, Inc. 12/5/02 ITEM IQUANTITY JUNIT COST/UNIT IT7TAL COST Silt Fence 800 LF $3 $2,400 Straw Bale Barrier 1 EA $150 $150 Gravel Inlet Filter 4 EA $150 $600 Construction Entrance 1 EA $550 $550 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total $3,700 $1,850 $5,550 CITY RESEEDING COST Reseed/Mulch 2 ACRE 1 $615 $1,230 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total $1,230 $615 $1,845 EROSION CONTROL ESCROW AMOUNT $5,550 Page 1 w U Z Q O LL w w a _1 J LL Z Io R 4 A o �e a a, 0 o z c o a � rn in 'a ao • 06 a e o a" a c W � N Q a a>4 OTC W A � a � a F 9 9 O co ul a U .� 0 p O Y � U W O w o Pi N ^. n O a o•�. U � Qp ¢ W o Q a c d m t W Vf 0 app oo00 O �yU p p p, II II II II II •� LV 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS - DURING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: PARK CENTRAL STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: MPO DATE: 30-Jan-03 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKSBLDG 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 ALL BASINS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH 0.06' 1.00 ESTABLISHED GRASS 0.08 1.00 FROM FIGURE 8-A STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (1-C'P)* 100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 1+2 1.83 .. JJ n ,`7JLGt1 T"� C�— _-� 1 s s Fe- =, ?rfA lu. Ti7�r Lei: b C-r b83 GeA\)e l 4:;urrOt 1,= 493 tdSED l—r/.o��.yyloo *7o D TOTAL AREA = TOTAL EFF = REQUIRED PS = 1.83 ac 77.4% Page 1 J 0.00 EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS CALCUL ATIONS fTE�- P�Y1/jG /oco� ca,-v:�-.-revcr r-A PROJECT: PARK CENTRAL STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: MPO DATE: 05-Dec-02 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS/BLDG 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 ALL BASINS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH 0.06 1.00 ESTABLISHED GRASS 0.08 1.00 FROM FIGURE 8-A STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (I-C•P)' 100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 1+2 1.83 �7 D gam, I� AC, �C-IDALss JM�u++ 0.7o A (1,13Xo,oI)+C0.77)Co,CS) .83 �= o,aq ALL -('o 5E A-k . To 3A 0 1 A.Lc+ TOTAL AREA = 1.83 ac 15 r ~ =25 J '7o TOTAL EFF = (ED REQUIRED PS = 77.4% Tr:,ctP �S 0.00 0.00 Page 1 No Text 280 5 Closed Conduit Flow 0� 1 � �1J1r Rey _ V2-gGh v° r _ 4Q Re,, 4dv a Figure 5-21 Flow coefficient K and RcA/K versus the Reynolds number for orifices, nozzles, and venturi meters (20, 23) top scale with the slanted lines to determine K for given values of d, D, Oh and v. With K, we can then solve for Q from Eq. (5-31). The literature on orifice flow contains many discussions concerning the optimum placement of pressure taps on both the upstream and -downstream side of the orifice. The data given in Fig. 5-21 are for 'comer taps" That is, on the upstream side, the pressure readings were taken immediately upstream of the plate orifice (at the corner of the orifice plate and the pipe wall), u° data d the downstream tap was at a similar downstream location. However, press from flange taps (l in. upstream and 1 in. downstream) and from the taps shown in Fig. 5-19 all yield virtually the same values for K—the differences are no greater than the deviations involved in reading Fig. 5-21.' For more praise values of K with specific types of taps, see the ASME report on fluid meters (20). C;44 ei Fort Co II; n3 ITable 1 8-1 , CZASSZBZCATZCN AND GRADATION or CMIMRZ RIPRAP 1� • of Total weight RiPraP Ssaller than the Stone Size dsot Designation Given Size (i.n Pounds) (inches) 70-100 @5 Class 6tt 50-70 35 35-50 10 6 'I 2-10 <1 70-100 440 Class 12 50770 275 l ' 35-50 85 2-10 3 12 Class 18 100 1275 50-70 655 35-50 275 2-10 18 10 Class 24 100 50-7-70 1700 35-50 655 24 2-10 35 Table 8-2 FSPI2AP FMVM RMTS FOR C MWNEL Ln,-n;Gstj' wa.17/(S 1)0-"t Ronk TYPej i 0 to 1.4 No,Riprap Required 1.5 to 4.0 Class 6 Riprap .1 to . Class 12 Riprap 57 .9 to .1 Class 18 Riprap 7.2 to 8.2 Class 24 Riprap t'Use S,-2.5 unless the source of rock and its densities are known at the time of design. tj'Table valid only steeper than 2h:ly. for Froude number of 0.8 or less and side slopes no DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE Table 5-1 _ CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP 'i l Riprap % Smaller Than Intermediate Rock Designation d50* Given Size Dimension II , �_ By Weight (Inches) Inches Type VL 70-100 12 50-70 g 35-50 6 6** 2-10 2 Type L 70-100 15 50- lg 35-50 50 g** 2-10 3 Type M 70-100 21 50-70 18 35-50 12 12 2-10 4 Type H 100 30 50-70 24 35-50 18 18 ' 2-10 6 Type VH 100 42 50-70 33 35-50 24 24 2-10 g ' *d50 = Mean particle size ** Bury types VL and L with native top soil and revegetate to protect from vandalism. i ' 5.2 Wire Enclosed Rock Wire enclosed rock refers to rocks that are bound together in a wire basket so that they act as a single unit. One of the major advantages of wire enclosed rock is that it provides an alternative in situations where available rock sizes are too small for ordinary riprap. Another advantage is the versatility that results from the regular geometric shapes of wire enclosed rock. The rectangular blocks and mats can be fashioned into almost any shape that can be 11-15-82 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP r� M Z J a 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT p,Q a O 8 Q O m H 9 I] c W __ 1 fie, • 1 l . DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP � o i L. I MEMEMEMPA100 NONE MEME MEMO PAM NoMENWEEMMIME 00 .2 .4 Y /D .6 .8 lA t Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel **Use Type L for a distance of 31) downstream . FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE B FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP E wt4C 0 3 0 No 00 MENNEN 0 m Or 0 PA M AGA N. N .2 .4 .6 .8 LO Yt/H Use Ho instead of H whenever culvert has supercritical flow in the barrel. '*''*'Use Type L for a distance of 3H downstream. FIGURE 5-8. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT RECTANGULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGE B FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL E G = Expansion Angle 0 0 rAd SAW VAJ FA PAP .ir is ENMENEWE Emmummum mummmomm mommmomm or .1 .2 3 .4 .5 .6 J AS TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D RIPRAP 9 FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE s FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT I DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP 7 �6 0 cu 5 4 I z 3 0 rn z a x 2 W L1 6 = Expansion Angle RAN - ra 2 S. po- 5 1 2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 ID TAILWATER DEPTH / CONDUIT HEIGHT-Yt/H FIGURE 5-10. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR RECTANGULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 9 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIMAP M .vva vl .05 .10 .50 1.0 5 SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES FIGURE 5-2. GRADATION CURVES FOR GRANULAR BEDDING 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 6 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT I DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE Table 5-4 -� THICKNESS REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANULAR BEDDING Minimum Bedding Thickness (Inches) Riprap Fine Grained Soils* Course Grained Soils** Designation TypeI Type II Type II L, G, SM, 4 4 6 'l M 4 4 6 . II H 4 6 8 VH 4 6 8 *May substitute one 12 inch layer of Type II bedding. Substitution of one layer of Type II bedding shall not be permitted at drop structures. Use of a combination of filter fabric and Type II bedding at drop structures is acceptable, see Section 5.3.2 for use of filter fabric at drop structures. **Fifty percent or more by weight retained on the #40 sieve. 5.3.2 Filter Fabric Filter fabric is not a complete substitute for granular bedding. Filter fabric provides filtering action only perpendicular to the fabric and has only a single equivalent pore opening between the channel bed and the riprap. Filter fabric has a relatively smooth surface which provides less resistance to stone movement. As a result, it is recommended the use of filter fabric be restricted to slopes no steeper than 2.5h to 1v. Tears in the fabric greatly reduce its effectiveness so that direct dumping of riprap on the filter fabric is not allowed and due care must be exercised during construction. None- theless, filter fabric has proven to be an adequate replacement for granular bedding in many instances. Filter fabric provides an ade- quate bedding for channel linings along uniform mild sloping channels where leaching forces are primarily perpendicular to the fabric. At drop structures and sloped channel drops, where seepage forces may run parallel with the fabric and cause piping along the bottom surface of the fabric, special care is required in the use of filter 11-15-82 APPENDIX F FLOODPLAIN INFORMATION F Updated 2-4-02 ' City of Fort Collins Floodplain Review Checklist Development Review Submittals Instructions: Complete this checklist by marking all boxes that have been adequately completed. Put an "NA" next to any items that are not applicable to this particular ' submittal. Any boxes that are left blank and do not have an "NA" marked next to them are considered incomplete. 'I Date of Review: Reviewer's Name: Plat Mau �aZ�D ►-�ozr�lSTA?� 1 ❑ The following required items are on the plat: V-16 100-year floodplain boundary ✓❑ City t-?f FEMA v11 Floodway boundary vi� City L-� FEMA 'I I41A ❑ Poudre River Product Corridor II 1-16 The benchmark number and elevation of benchmark D �-) ' q!r/ These items match the FIRM. VolThese items match the Master Plan. %--1 The benchmark number and elevation match with those published in the City of Fort Collins benchmark system. 11 Drainage and/or Grading Plan (or a separate Floodplain Sheet if it is too cluttered on J Drainage and Grading Plan) The following required items are on the drainage and/or grading plan: 'I ✓n 100-year floodplain boundary- FEMA and City /•. C 500-year floodplain boundary (if proposed structure is a "critical facility" and a 500-year floodplain is mapped) '( Floodway boundary M4 ❑ Poudre River Product Corridor NAD Erosion buffer limits L.-�ff Cross-section locations t6 BFE lines vE`� Lowest floor elevation of structures (bottom of basement or crawl space is considered the lowest floor) iUpdated 24-02 Z The floodplain, floodway, and product corridor boundaries are in the correct location and labeled properly. 'OKThe cross-section and BFE lines are in the correct location and labeled properly. Er"Floodway regulations have been met. QKNo fill in the floodway unless a hydraulic analysis shows "no -rise". ❑ No manufactured homes, except in an existing park, can be placed in the floodway. ' O P ❑ No changing a nonconforming non-residential or mixed use structure to a residential structure. 1 �E<No critical facilities within the 100- or 500-year floodplain. 0 ❑ Any pedestrian bridges in the floodway that are not able to pass the 100-year flow are designed to be "break -away". ,I N ❑ Fences in the floodway will not block conveyance. Example: split -rail fence cabled together to not float, flap at bottom of privacy fence to allow water through (flap at BFE or above). ' WTO Any items in the floodway that can float (Example: picnic tables, bike racks, etc.) are 'I noted as being anchored. O k ❑ Any construction in the erosion buffer zone shows that it will not impact the channel stability. ■ Special Poudre River Regulations ' ❑ Poudre River Floodway Regulations have been met. ❑ ❑ No construction of new residential, non-residential or mixed -use structures. No redevelopment of residential, non-residential or mixed -use structures. ❑ No additions to residential, non-residential or mixed -use structures. ' i ❑ No fill except for public infrastructure or recreational facilities and then only if hydraulic analysis shows "no -rise". ❑ No floodway modifications except for public infrastructure or recreational facilities or mining. ❑ If floodway is modified on property being mined, no structures can be constructed on removed floodway area. ❑ Poudre River Product Corridor regulations have been met. ❑ No construction of new residential, non-residential or mixed -use structures. ❑ No redevelopment of residential, non-residential or mixed -use structures. ❑ No additions to residential, non-residential or mixed -use structures. 2 Updated 2-4-02 ❑ No fill except for public infrastructure or recreational facilities and then only if hydraulic analysis shows "no -rise". ❑ No floodway (product corridor) modifications except for public infrastructure or recreational facilities. ❑ Poudre River floodplain regulations have been met ❑ No construction of new residential or mixed -use structures ❑ No additions to residential structures ❑ No additions to mixed -use structures if there is an expansion in the residential - use area of the structure. ❑ No floatable materials on non-residential sites ❑ Dryland access is provided. Information Related to Structures in the Floodplain �❑ For s!tpictures in the floodplain, a table is shown that lists the following: City BFE at upstream end of structure IJOO FEMA BFE at upstream end of structure (if different than City BFE) %o-5 regulatory flood protection elevation. v'ri lowest floor elevation (bottom of basement or crawl space is considered lowest floor) N� floodproofing elevation for non-residential structures (if applicable) IJAO garage slab elevation 6,f1' HVAC elevation 'The BFE at upstream end of structures are correct based on interpolation between the cross -sections. The regulatory flood protection elevation is correct. 7< The lowest floor and HVAC are at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. PJk If a basement or crawl space is proposed, a drawing detail is included showing the elevation of the bottom of the basement or crawl space relative to the BFE. 1l%JQ❑ If garage is not elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation, then a drawing detail is included showing vent placement, size, and number. ❑ There is 1 square inch of venting for every 1 square foot of enclosed area. ❑ The bottom of the venting is not higher than 1 foot above grade. ❑ The venting is on at least two sides, preferably on upstream and downsream sides. (Does not have to be divided equally). 3 Updated 24-02 ,1 gk If a non-residential structure is to be floodproofed, one of these conditions is met: 0 All requirements on separate sheet titled "Floodproofing Guidelines" have '1 been met. II 0 If floodproofing information is not submitted as part of the plans, then a note is on the plans stating that floodproofing information will be submitted at the time of the building permit application. iJ t*n For manufactured homes, all submittal requirements on separate sheet titled ' I "Installation of a Mobile Home Located in a Floodplain: Submittal Requirements" / have been met. ' I V❑ If the floodplain use permit is not going to be submitted until the building permit is applied for, then a note is on the plans stating that the floodplain use permit will be submitted at the time of building permit application. 'VO A note is on the plans stating that a FEMA elevation or floodproofing certificate will I be completed and approved before the CO is issued. This is required even if property ' is only in a City floodplain. Drainage Resort l `-CJ The site is described as being in the floodplain. Floodplain name and if the floodplain J is a FEMA or City -designated is described. Any floodway, product corridor or erosion buffer limits on the site are described. '0 The FEMA FIRM panel # and date and/or the Master Plan information is cited. A copy of the FIRM panel with the site location marked is included in the report. 1 L?1""If a floodplain modeling report has been submitted, that report is referenced. The reason for the floodplain modeling report is described. N14D If a FEMA CLOMR or LOMR has been approved for the site, the case number is ' referenced. The reason for the CLOMR or LOMR is described. f^ If a FEMA LOMR is required after construction, this is stated in the report. ' LeThe location of the structures relative to the floodplain is described. If there is both a .i FEMA and a City floodplain on the site, the location of the structures relative to both is described. The use of the structures is described. This is to determine if the structure is ' residential, non-residential, or mixed -use. Also, structures in the 100- or 500-year floodplains cannot be used as a critical facility. (See Chapter 10 of City Code for ' I definitions.) Updated 2-4-02 7 The report describes how the development is in compliance with the applicable floodplain regulations (Chapter 10 of City Code). Examples: elevation of lowest floor above regulatory flood protection elevation, floodproofing, floodway regulations, product corridor regulations, no -rise, etc.) ❑ he type of foundation construction for the structures (i.e. slab -on -grade, crawl space, basement, etc.) is discussed in the report. The type of foundation matches with the lowest floor elevations and grading plan. 016,-0 If any of the garages are not going to be elevated above the regulatory flood protection elevation, the hydraulic venting requirements are discussed. For structures in the floodplain, a table is included (same table as on the Drainage/Grading Plan) that lists the following: ❑ City BFE at upstream end of structure ❑ FEMA BFE at upstream end of structure (if different than City BFE) ❑ regulatory flood protection elevation ❑ lowest floor elevation (bottom of basement or crawl space is considered lowest floor) ❑ floodproofing elevation for non-residential structures (if applicable) ❑ garage slab elevation ❑ HVAC elevation L-fl' If the floodplain use permit is not going to be submitted until the building permit is applied for, then a note must be included in the report that states the permit will be submitted at the time of building permit application. 1JP ❑ If floodproofing information is not submitted as part of the plans, then a note must be in the report stating that floodproofing information will be submitted at the time of the building permit application. �❑ A note is in the report stating that a FEMA elevation or floodproofing certificate will be completed and approved before the CO is issued. In the compliance section, Chapter 10 of City Code is listed. F000dalain Use Permit oz Tr+� S I T� C"Floodplain Use Permit has been submitted for each structure. ' �C,}-I B`r\C ❑ Permit fee has been submitted -6 S OPJE . E Updated 24-02 ❑ All information on permit matches the plans ❑ All information on permit meets floodplain regulations Additional Comments: 6 Updated 2-4-02 Terms to Note Lowest Floor Elevation — Elevation of the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including bottom of basement or crawlspace). This is not the same as finished floor. The lowest floor should be distinguished from finished floor on plans and reports. Re ug latory Flood Protection Elevation — For all floodplains except the Poudre River, the ' 1 regulatory flood protection elevation is eighteen (18) inches above the base flood elevation. For the Poudre River floodplain, the regulatory flood protection elevation is twenty-four (24) inches above the base flood elevation. If there is both a FEMA and a City BFE, the higher BFE should be used to determine the regulatory flood protection 1 1 elevation. Additional floodplain terminology is defined in Chapter 10 of City Code. NOTE: Issues specific to individual sites may arise that result in additional II requirements. These will be discussed during initial meetings with the applicant. i� 1� 1� 1� 11 1� 11 11 1 Floodnlain Use Permit (City of Fort Collins Code, Section 10-37 0toch apP/katlon fM of S2J.00. IfJloodplain anaiyris requirltdfu Js $323.00) PETITIONER NAME: r4r-4- //JJ ADDRESS: ZCD4 Z M oL7„ L���E 1N �? PHONE: 7'•QO^ IBSS' OWNER NAME � � �F.,.1�-tr�,+ i 1 [, (� � q ADDRESS: 2(D H Z M I w=0I rJ-r— 1 \)$ )t 1 tT A PHONE: y f 8 s7 Folr6- CITY: ,- LL.I o_)s STATE: Co ZIP:_ (9 LEGAL ADDRESS AND/OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:_ 44,_::41CD s k-r- DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT (CIRCLE ONE): new residential, new commercial, accessory structure, fill, excavation, remodel commercial, remodel -residential, other _ V 7�1 L 1 T I ES .{ '{�\j N IS STRUCTURE: ELEVATED FLOODPROOFED IF FLOODPROOFED DESCRIBE METHOD USED: ►`�T TYPE OF FOUNDATION (CIRCLE ONE): slab -on -grade, basement, crawl space, enclosed area not ssuubbggrrade, pilings, other BENCHMARK USED: UD ZQ ELEV OF BENCHMARK: '7 77 yi 9SQ M.S.L. LOWEST EXISTING GROUND ELEV: 7�f QZ9p M.S.L. HIGHEST EXISTING GROUND ELEV: '�/7 �Z M.S.L. t ' q LOWEST FINISHED GROUND ELEV: '7 `2 / M.S.L. HIGHEST FINISHED GROUND ELEV: tN /^� LOWEST FLOOR ELEV (INCLUDING BASEMENT OR CRAWL SPACE): M.S.L. /UPt ELEVATION OF GARAGE SLAB: M.S.L. LOWEST ELEVATION OF HVAC EQUIP: M.S.L. A J tt'*" ENCLOSED AREA (not elevated or floodproofed): NUMBER OF VENTS: AREA OF VENTING: FLOODPLAINDESIGNATION: Y_FEMA_X_CTTY F_LOODPLAINNAME: -.-- P'4:J AJ67 �t � FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE)` 7 /3% Tb 1?39 ZONE (CIRCLE ONE): A, H, AO, X-500, X MASTER PLAN BFE: ! 2 / 7 �: /io /// L ONEE'(/CIRCLE ONE): q 00-YR Shallow Flaodmg REGULATORY FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE+1.5-) 7 / 7D. S TO �`7 � . A FLOODWAY (Y/I�: "VARIANCE FROM CITY CODE: (YiN): - /-?/_ (if yes, attach variance application with additional $300 variance fee) COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THIS PROJECT: (Submit an itemized cost list of the improvements) VALUE OF STRUCTURE: (Submit an assessors or appraisers valuation of the structure) CUMULATIVE VALUE OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS: SIGNATURE OF PETITIONER: -DATE.- SIGNATURE OF OWNER: DATE: O FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT: APPROVED: DENS. a SIGNATURE OF FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR: DATE COMMENTS: eIr 4D •If property is located m a floodway include teclaacah excaaation that demonstrates "rto-me" Cfry Cade 10-SS. 0 "Variance application can be obtained fkm Utilium Variance request rcqutra eermdendon by Water Board. �LdpDr,,� A-� - htskr ' Ftoodo>ain Use permit (City of Fort Collins, Coder Section 10.37 1 rryJJwaaa�� oa � � v slu.00� ' PETITIONER NAME: �� i`�Ti=A L. L-t. ADDREss:_ Z(o Z Wi �Po, aT- Lie OJ IT PHONE y 9a — I S se OWNERNAME: 'PAZ-e- ADDRESS: 7ty Vt.3 r a PHONE _ p4910 - /Rs-6- CITY: STATE: Co ZIP: _ C� C)S Z .- LEGAL ADDRESS AND/OR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1 fi - F.'r a- �1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT CIRCLE ON E): NE): new residential, new commercial, accessory structttre fill, excavationremodel-commercial, remodel-tesidettual, other Po Nn N A' IS STRUCTURE: ELEVATED FLOODPROOFED N4 IF FLOODPROOFED DESCRIBE METHOD USED: NA -TYPE OF FOUNDATION (CIRCLE ONE): slabcn-gade, basement, crawl space, enclosed area not subgade, pilings, other BENCHMARK USED: ////p— ELEV OF BENCHMARK: LOWEST EXISTING GROUNDELEV:`�7Q30 M.S.L. HIGHEST EXISTING GROUND ELEV: % 93� M.S.L. /� LOWEST FINISHED GROUND ELEV:'_ -! � M.S.L. HIGHEST FINISHED GROUND ELEV: -35 M.S.L. A�14 LOWEST FLOOR ELEV (INCLUDING BASEMENT OR CRAWL SPACE): MS1- hI A ELEVATION OF GARAGE SLAB: M.S.L. LOWEST ELEVATION OF HVAC EQUIP: M,Sl_ d�! A ENCLOSED AREA (not elevated or tloodproofoo: NUMBER OF VENTS: AREA OF VENTING: FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION: � FEMA x CT'f/Y FLOODPLAIN NAME: _ SPP-I �� ���� FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE): y''l3`l 4e '�9 39 ZONE (CIRCLE ONE): A.g AH, AO, X-500, X MASTER PLAN BFE: _# 9 9 -T"O - /91% � ON/E' (CIRCLE ONE) 500-YR, Shallow Flooding / C REGULATORY FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE+1.5') �l Q�0, 5 7 / 7Z'eg,I •FLOODWAY (YM V I **VARIANCE FROM CITY CODE: (Y": [(ifya, attach variaaee application with additional S300 variance fee) I ' COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THIS PROJECT: (Submit an itemized cost list of the improvements) VALUE OF STRUCTURE: (Submit an assessors or appraisers valuation of the swctum) CUMULATIVE VALUE OF SUBSTANTIAL DeROVEMENRS: SIGNATURE OF PETM0NER DATE SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE >+ OFLOODPLAIId USE PERMlT: APPROVED: DENIED: aO SIGNATURE OF FLOODPLAIN ADMIMSTRATOR: DATE O COMMEM; Y •If prsparty is bated in a iloodsnay ianlode "Chm l mindoe Wan dam=1110es'ltar a Qq Cob 1045. O aaVariaaa sppiialim an be obeaieert doaa LtdNda Vatianea it , M*U aoddaat -- by Warr Board dgCllr Or Gdll OIC INallVllal r10VO inwrancc r,vwam at ICOO) 63"620. 0 '1 i 4 KS 'TION OF LOCATION n, of Prospect Road and Timberline Road. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET_ 600 0 600 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO LARIMER COUNTY (SEE MAP INDEX FOR. PANELS NOT PRINTED) COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER 080102.0012 C MAP REVISED: MARCH 18, 1996 Federal Emergency Management Agency I ZONE AE v� A L) A p QC AP U) lop Structure r` CHEYENNE DRIVE w I > 0 0 `AR' COURT o a n � PARKWOOD LAKE U C: Spring Creek L- T ZONE AE A tD y?� A .� U u AP CyFRO y KEE pRl op Structure CHEYENNE CNEyENNE DR L DRIVE W 1 > O F m = N 3 O = N �U DAR TMOUTH TI - U I LANE W 3Ij 40 =U � ISO QU w oe�j �— i r N AVE CAMBRIDGE OR 1 W DRIVE > Ni VANDVAND�ILT C= O —M AVE N ki OUEENS COURT F D pl I U 2 � O PARKWOOD LAKE 11 FINAL REPORT SPRING CREEK BASIN HYDROLOGIC MODEL UPDATE PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 PREPARED BY. Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2900 South College Avenue, Suite 3B Fort Collins, CO 80525 (ACE Project No. COFC98.12) September 23, 1999 (Revised December 8, 1999) 7710PE,V1C0F"C981roJr9812 ln'drologp rpl rev. upd December S. JMi, • .;. , TIMBERLINE L 40-9 ,218 a. " 1 h07It 7p! 1 i.0n 1 i 2V / 2�. 20Tt •° ot. �� v✓ ,� L� r .0 I.11: % i �,_.� 72p 20_, SPRING CREEK . 1521. IS . l� �1 221 � I 4 2% 1a21 W Z P40 _.... _...J 241 W �— ..._ ...= ... _ ... m 6.: Ir...tar � ~ ARN 2 i PARKWOOD LAVE DRAKE ROAD 1� 11 222 2 230 3 730 930 ----®2 -- 2 2 830 z 209 — -L a 217 218 ' } PVH POND 3 224 2 W 1 208 � 2 i ' (229) I 225 220 �`�j 1 1 3 2 729 r SPRING EEI CREEK-----,�aJ-- . 3 2 - 219 214 % L52J 227 } 215 , , 32 228.)-�A2fS� -L728 PARKW( 1_J 221 421 EAST A: STONEHENGI POW POND Elz 216 1 213 (246 MISSION HILLS POND J 253 _ 241 441 641 240 4 244 11 0 SPRING CREEK BASIN MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN - ACE PROJECT NO. COFC17 MODSWMM OUTPUT FILENAME: SC01.100.OUT FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITIONS W/ EXISTING FACILITIES 100-YEAR EVENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY - STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION PC.1 DEVELOPED BY METCALF . EDDY, INC. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WATER RESOURCES ENGINEEERS, INC. (SEPTEMBER 1970) UPDATED BY UNIVERSITY OF FL40RIDA (.NNE 1973) HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER, CORPS OF ENGINEERS MISSOURI RIVER DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEPTEMBER 19741 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION (MARCH 1985, JULY 1985) TAPE OR DISK ASSIGNMENTS JIN(1) JIN(2) JIN(3) JIN(4) JIN(5) JIN(6) JIN(7) JIN(8) JIN(9) JIN(1O) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JOUT(1) JOUT(2) JOUT(3) JOUT(4) JOUT(5) JOUT(6) JOUT(7) JOUT(8) JOUT(9) JOUI(10) 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 NSCRAT(1) NSCRAT(2) NSCRAT(3) NSCRAT(4) NSCRAT(S) 3 4 0 0 0 WATERSHED PROGRAM CALLED -- ENTRY MADE TO RUNOFF MODEL •-- SPRING CREEK BASIN MASTER PLAN HYDROLOGIC MODEL 100-YEAR 3.67-IN (DEVELOPED) FILE: SCO1-100 NOV 2002 ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PROJECT NO. COFC17) NUMBER OF TIME STEPS 720 INTEGRATION TIME INTERVAL (MINUTES; 1.00 1.0 PERCENT OF -IMPERVIOUS AREA HAS ZERO DETENTION DEPTH FOR 24 RAINFALL STEPS, THE TIME INTERVAL IS 5.00 MINUTES FOR RAINGAGE NUMBER 1 RAINFALL HISTORY IN INCHES PER HOUR 1.00 1.14 1.33 2.23 2.84 5.4S 9.95 4.12 2.9E 1. 2; 1.06 1.00 .55 .91 .e7 .84 .81 .78 .72 .71 .69 .67 SPRING CREEK BASIN MASTER FLAN HYDROLOGIC MODEL 100-YEAR 3.67-IN (DEVELOPED) FILE: SCO1-100 NOV 2001 ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PROJECT NO. COFC17) SUBAREA GETTER WIDTH AREA PERCENT SLOPE NUMBER OR MANHOLE (FT; (AC! IMPERV. (IT/FT - C .0 .0 .0 .030C 142 240 7000.0 72.: 12.0 .0620 170 2E7 4500.0 37.3 45.0 .0140 180 964 4900.0 51.7 11.0 .0300 le: 260 3400.0 20.5 4D.0 .015E 184 16: 1400.0 4.0 25.0 .014E 14E '-5e 1900.0 51.4 10.0 .075C 167 247 3450.0 50.9 28.0 .0780 16e 25S 3700.0 25.9 45.0 .013C 169 356 2800.0 19.E 45.0 .0090 171 35E 2800.0 14.7 45.0 .0100 144 244 5300.0 76.3 30.0 .0130 145 962 2200.0 69.3 10.0 .090C 147 962 4100.0 125.6 10.0 .0800 14e 340 17350.0 402.7 24.0 .2190 149 345 8000.0 56.1 45.0 .0300 150 241 6000.0 99.5 20.0 .0700 L: 242 4800.0 81.7 13.0 .14SO 153 953 8000.0 205.2 15.0 .12BC 154 243 10000.0 139.5 18.0 .0830 1 23E 3900.0 27.E 40.0 .016C 100 31E 5500.0 43.5 40.0 .016C 2 102 5000.0 32.1 40.0 .010C 102 550.0 10.7 10.0 .0160 4 104 2400.0 19.3 40.0 .010E ICE 5100.0 39.6 40.0 .020E E 106 6500.0 47.2 40.0 .0100 30" 3600.0 27.E 30.E .013C e ICE 7700.0 50.4 45.0 .OIOC 9 109 1100.0 6.4 50.0 .010C RESISTANCE FACTOR SURFACE STORAGEIINI IMPERV. PERV. IMPERV. DERV. .01E .250 .100 .300 .DIE .250 .100 .300 .016 .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .30E .CIE .250 .100 .30E .01E .250 .100 .30C .01E .250 .100 .30E .01E .250 .100 .30E .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .30C .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .30G .01E .250 .100 .30C .01E .250 .100 .30C .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .30C .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 .016 .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .30C .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .30C .01E .250 .100 .300 .01E .250 .100 .300 1.46 .75 INFILTRATION RATE(IN/HR) GAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM DECAY RATE NO .51 .50 .0018C .52 .50 .00180 1 .52 .50 .00180 1 .52 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .52 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .52 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00leo I .51 .50 .00160 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00280 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .52 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00280 1 .51 .50 .00280 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 3 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 1 .51 .50 .00180 I .51 .50 .00180 1 .52 .50 .00IBO 1 Page 1 of 15 '1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1472.1 941 961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 582.0 945 245 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.4 947 247 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.9 949 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 952 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205.2 955 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 960 242 953 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 426.4 961 241 349 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 582.0 962 941 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 145 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 776.9 963 238 357 360 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1472.1 . 964 938 361 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ._. 180 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1604.1 965 235 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2202.9 996 328 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2588.0 ' 967 414 515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4611.1 968 237 925 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1604.1 969 419 517 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4468.7 SPRING CREEK BASIN MASTER PLAN HYDROLOGIC MODEL 100-YEAR 3.67-IN _(DEVELOPED) FILE: SC01-100 NOV 2001 ANDERSON CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PROJECT NO. COFC17) *** PEAK FLOWS, ST1 *** NOTE :S IMPLIEI CONVEYANCE PEA1 ELEMENT:TYPE (CFI 7:3 110.1 8:3 148.: 27:3 3893.: 29:3 469., 34:3 20.: 38:3 23.' 43:3 593.! 50:2 512., 51:2 536.' 52:3 408.: 101:4 563.! 102:5 108.1 103:2 50.! 104:5 461.1 105:5 149.! 106:5 279.1 107:5 106.1 108:2 88.1 109:2 1.' 110:5 118.1 111:4 405.! . 112:2 21.! 114:1 211.1 118:1 565.! 119:1 560.! 120:1 539.1 123:1 441.1 AGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENTION DAMS *** i A SURCHARGED ELEMENT AND :D IMPLIES A SURCHARGED DETENTION FACILITY STAGE STORAGE TIME i) (FT) (AC -FT) (HR/MIN) i (DIRECT FLOW) 0 46. (DIRECT FLOW) 1 16. ! (DIRECT FLOW) 1 28. V (DIRECT FLOW) 1 18. ! (DIRECT FLAW) 0 43. 1 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 46. i (DIRECT FLAW) 2 10. 1 .0 21.O:D 1 18. 1 .0 16.0:D 0 56. 1 (DIRECT FLAW) 1 21. 1 4.4 0 51. i 2.7 0 41. i .1 23.6:D 2 9. 1 5.5 0 42. 1 3.0 0 40. 1 4.4 0 37. i 2.8 0 36. I .1 6.6:D 0 53. .1 1.3:D 2 S. 2.9 0 35. 5.8 0 37. i .1 3.O:D 1 6. 3.4 0 38. 3.6 0 50. 3.9 0 49. 3.7 0 47. 4.0 0 47. 1 124:1 377.9 4.0 0 44. 126:1 379.9 4.0 0 42. 127:5 407.5 4.2 0 37. 12:1 16.1. 1 . 129:1 20505.0 3.7 0 40. 40 130:1 453.0 2.6 0 37. 131:5 116.4 3.2 0 36. 153:4 303.9 1.6 0 35. 156:3 303.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 160:1 510.0 4.3 1 23. 161:1 551.3 2.9 1 23. 170:5 16.6 1.6 1 6. -� 171:5 173:5 21.3 164.5 1.6 2.7 1 0 15. 36. 174:1 4.1 .2 2 3. 175:5 193.6 3.2 0 47. 177:5 263.8 4.2 0 48. 178:5 870.7 6.7 0 37. } 179:5 223.2 3.7 0 36. 180:5 15.3 1.8 1 16. 181:5 530.4 5.8 1 0. 187:5 101.5 2.9 0 35. 189:5 100.0 1.9 0 36. 218:4 3001.1 7.4 3 12. 221:5 513.7 4.8 0 38. 222:4 3001.9 7.9 3 13. 226:4 3591.7 7.0 1 28. 227:1 3498.9 4.2 1 24. ' 228:1 2958.9 5.7 1 21. 229:1 2920.9 6.0 1 19. 230:4 2902.6 8.3 1 16. -� 231:4 2406.3 6.1 1 12. 232:4 1866.2 7.1 1 9. ' 233:2 402.5 4.5 0 35. 234:4 1729.7 4.6 1 4. 235:4 1438.5 7.1 1 40. 236:4 2644.4 5.5 1 2. 237:4 2348.8 6.0 0 59. ' 238:4 1862.1 5.0 0 57. 239:4 1571.9 4.8 0 57. 240:1 222.5 2.3 0 47. 241:4 1390.9 4.3 0 47. 242:4 695.0 3.0 0 43. 243:4 453.5 3.1 0 41. 244:1 199.9 2.2 0 41. •� 245:1 247:1 176.1 191.9 2.1 2.0 0 0 36. 37. ' 260:3 552.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 21. 261:3 570.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 22. 271:3 106.3 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 47. 272:3 21.4 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 45. 273:3 84.9 .._ (DIRECT FLAW) 0 47. 274:3 72.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 55. 275:3 37.3 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 55. 276:3 35.4 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 56. 277:3 289.0 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 36. 278:1 23.7 1.2 1 11. 279:4 174.2 .9 0 36. 282:2 72.7 .0 S.O:D 0 55. 287:2 45.6 .1 11.5:D 1 21. 288:2 2.7 .1 4.6:D 2 11. ') 289:2 4.5 .1 6.6:D 2 13. 295:3 372.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 2 38. 296:3 17.8 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 41. 297:3 298:3 46.0 115.0 (DIRECT FLAW) (DIRECT FLAW) 0 0 19. 31. 299:3 57.0 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 28. 303:2 3001.5 .1 428.O:D 3 11. 304:2 1319.2 .1 81.2:D 1 48. 3:2 11.4 .1 B.S:D 2 6. 32121:3 300202.1 (DIRECT FLAW) 3 12. 327:3 3611.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 22. 328:3 2975.0 (DIRECT FLAW) 1 21. 330:3 2962.4 (DIRECT FLAW) 1 18. 331:3 2826.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 13. 332:3 2344.7 (DIRECT FLAW) 1 9. 1� ' 333:2 6.4 .1 S.O:D 2 334:2 6.1 .1 4.9:D 2 335:3 1818.5 (DIRECT PLOW) 1 336:2 151.E .1 4.4:D 0 337:3 409.3 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 338:3 1870.7 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 340:2 109.7 .1 72.O:D 2 349:2 355:3 55.E 372.5 .1 8.2:D 1 (DIRECT PLOW) 0 356:3 117.3 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 357:2 266.3 .1 8.7:D 0 358:2 126.0 .1 3.5:D 0 360:2 29.0 .1 2.5:D 0 361:2 2.3 .1 .7:D 1 362:2 t 1.5 .0 1.4:D 2 363:2 4.8 .0 4.4:D 2 364:2 7.5 .0 3.5:D 2 370:2 27.7 .0 1.7:D 0 1 371:2 106.3 .0 4.4:D 0 372:2 77.9 .0 13.8:D 1 373:2 100.0 .0 5.3:D 0 374:2 4.2 .0 1.7:D 2 380:2 18.6 .0 1.3:D 0 395:3 372.5 (DIRECT FLAW) 2 396:3 185.0 (DIRECT FLAW) 2 402:4 2878.4 5.0 3 406:4 407:1 154.2 230.1 .8 0 1.9 0 ' 408:4 231.9 .8 0 409:4 341.4 1.4 0 410:3 4199.2 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 411:4 192.1 .9 0 412:4 4068.4 8.0 0 ' 414:4 3765.1 7.8 0 415:4 287.6 .9 0 • 417:4 318.4 .9 0 4:4 3.5 0 42020:4 3182182:5 5.5 3 421:4 167.1 1.2 0 422:4 265.7 1.1 0 423:4 454.0 1.2 0 424:4 199.E 1.1 0 425:4 3184.7 6 .3 3 427:4 357.3 .9 0 428:4 104.9 .6 0 4:4 3180.E 7.0 3 43030:4 524.5 1.4 0 432:4 3114.6 7.0 3 433:4 3113.0 8.0 3 434:4 152.3 .7 0 435:2 119.3 3.2 0 436:5 187.0 ... 4.8 2 -441:4 292.7 1.1 0 443:4 413.9 1.2 0 445:1 134.8 .9 0 446:4 182.6 .9 0 44 7: 5 845.9 6.8 0 ' 44 9: 5 211.9 3.3 0 450:4 277.2 1.0 0 45:4 .7 1.0 452:4 154 154 .7 1.3 0 4 53: 5 541.0 5.2 0 455:4 265.2 1.3 0 508:1 542.8 3.5 0 51:4 28.. 1 513:5 40 40.6 2.3 1 514:4 3943.0 7.9 0 515:4 262.2 .8 0 517:5 307.1 4.0 0 51:2 9.0 .9 2 519:4 3681.7 7.6 0 520:4 3483.2 7.5 0 521:4 164.7 .8 0 522:4 894.9 1.3 0 52:4 . 1.0 524:4 1046046.1 1.7 0 3. 2. 3. 47. 35. 55. S. 13. 41. 35. 55. 49. 58. 30. 6. 6. 2. 51. 47. 32. 46. 0. 49. 38. --- 38. 50. 36. 37. 36. 38. 53. 36. 54. 52. 36. 36. 49. 25. 37. 38. 41. 37. 21. 36. 37. 16. 37. 16. 13. 36. 33. 42. 37. 43. 36. 37. 44. 36. 39. 37. 36. 37. 38. 39. 12. 22. 53. 41. 37. G� 5Zo S. 50. G T 39. 43. 42. 43. L-OC.A%. w� h . 1� '1 525:4 3183.6 5.5 3 23. 528:4 96.0 .6 0 41. 529:4 3186.6 6.3 3 18. 53:2 5.8 .8 3 1. 533:4 3113.E 7.0 3 14. 534:4 139.1 .6 0 38. 535:4 81.3 .6 0 44. 53: 537:2 18. 3.3 4.8 .8 2 2 19. 19. 540:2 4.8 .9 10 26. 543:4 401.7 1.1 0 45. 548:4 307.5 1.0 0 41. 549:4 182.8 1.2 0 40. 552:2 14.2 .9 1 44. ' 553:5 751.3 6.6 0 42. 554:5 178.3 3.7 0 36. 555:5 41.0 1.8 1 7. -� 595:1 187.0 1.0 2 39. 603:2 100.2 .1 22.1:D 3 26. ' 604:2 114.6 .1 37.6:D 2 3. 605:2 .0 .1 11.9:D 4 46. 61:2 32.4 .1 62.9:D 1 7, 613:2 37 37.E .1 2.9:D 0 54. 616:2 96.5 .1 3.8:D 0 45. 618:2 9.1 .1 3.9:D 2 1. 637:2 3.3 .1 6.2:D 2 13. 64:2 641:2 4. 108.5 .1 12.9:D 7 .1 .S:D 10 0 10. 57. 642:2 5.8 .1 1.9:D 2 0. 646:2 59.9 .1 4.9:D 1 S. 652:4 120.9 1.0 -0 39. 695:4 0 695:3 187.5 187.5 (DIRECT FLOW) (DI 2 38. 38. 702:3 2878.4 (DIRECT FLAW) 3 50. 703:3 4544.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 26. 706:3 918.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 38. 707:3 771.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 38. 708:3 562.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 37. 710:3 3289.4 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 7. 720:3 3504.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 47. 726:3 670.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 727:3 3790.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 28. ' 72 9: 3 3189.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 3 16. ' 730:3 524.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 37. 735:3 270.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 736:3 740:3 151.6 1585.6 (DIRECT FLOW) (DIRECT FLOW) 0 0 47. 42. 749:3 211.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 36. 752:3 154.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 36. 755:3 265.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 38. 810:3 2872.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 7. 830:3 5.8 .._ (DIRECT FLOW) 0 28. 835:3 111.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 28. 836:3 64.9 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 47. 849:3 14.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 29. 852:3 14.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 38. 855:3 41.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 24. 910:3 417.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 7. 925:3 148.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 16. 930:3 518.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 37, 931:4 2838.3 8.2 1 16. 934:4 1410.0 7.1 1 41. 935:3 159.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 35. 936:3 86.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 '48. 93:4 2. 5. 1 1. 938:4 2149149.7 5.6 0 58. 941:4 1349.8 4.3 0 52. 945:1 157.3 1.7 0 41. 947:1 187.9 2.0 0 40. 949:3 197.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 37. 952:3 140.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 37. 953:1 490.5 2.4 0 45. 955:3 224.2 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 39. 960:3 1179.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 44. 961:3 1411.6 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 47. 962:3 1679.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 51. j,S-ANAllh,-y l 963:3 2155.7 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 56. 964:3 2374.1 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 57. 965:3 1733.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 3. 966:3 3510.5 (DIRECT FLOW) 1 20. 967:3 3962.5 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 51. 968:3 2483.0 (DIRECT FLAW) 1 0. 969:3 3701.3 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 49. 974:3 84.9 (DIRECT FLAW) 0 47, ENDPROGRAM PROGRAM CALLED i f TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION for the HYDRA ULI C MODELING OF THE SPRING CREEK BASIN PREPARED FOR: Cite of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 PREPARED BY. Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2900 South College Avenue, Suite 3B Fort Collins, CO 80525 (ACE.Project No. C0FC17) FEBRUARY 15, 2002 T:\OPEN\Cofcl7\cofc17 hydraulics text.doc, ANdERSON CONSUITIN4 ENC{INEERS, INC. 11 11 Table J.3 Summary of Results for the Spring Creek Half -Foot Rise Floodway Analyses. Cross Section Number 100-Year WSEL ft NGVD Rise* (ft) FloodwayData Without Encroachment With Encroachment Top Width (ft) Cross SC Area na Mean Velocity (fps) W 4899.8 4900.1 0.- 575 113: 2 128 4900.3 4900.6 0.3 l04] 157" L8 704 4901.9 4902? 0.3 856 219- 1.3 133.5 4903.5 4903.E 0.: 471 106i 2.- 182t 4905.t 4905.€ 0.: 190 lib 2055 4905.9 4906.i 0: 179 941 3.1 2330 4906.: 49Wb 0.4 84 433 6.6 2434 49074 4907.7 0.3 87 471 6.1 2743 4908.4 4908.5 0. i 87 501 5.7 3114 4910.1 4910.3 0.0 89 489 5.9 3215 4910." 4910.7 0.0 107 398 7.- 3391 491 Lt 4911.6 0.0 93 426 6.7 3509 491 L. 4911.8 0.0 95 365 7.9 ,571 4916.8 4916.b 0.0 1020 2929 1.1 380- 4916.8 4916.8 0.0 829 1997 2.1 4150 1 4916.9 4916.9 0.0 1 551 840 4.8 4373 4917.: 4917.^ 0.1 74 39: 10.4 464- 4920.t 4920.6 0.0 230 988 4.1 514" 49214 4921 � 0.0 333 11 76 3 521€ 4924.0 4924.0 0.0 45: 1939 2.(' 5438 4924.: 4924.3 0.0 550 1741 2.3 5689 4924.: 4924.2 0.0 473 81€ 4.8 593" 4926.t 4926.8 0.: 467 554 7.2 634E 4928.: 4928.t 0.-, 572 1193 3:2 6803 4928.1 4928.0 0.0 13- 456 8.3 7234 4930.€ 4931.0 0.; 166 750 4.9 149: 4931.3 49314 0.: 107 529 7.0 766: 4931.- 4931.2 0.0 61 235 5." 7744 4937.€ 4938.2 04 174 1087 3.4 7763 4938.: 4938.6 0.-. 165 1127 1 3.1 7944 4938.4 4938.7 0.3 9: 826 4.3 8140 4938.7 4939.1 0.3 113 862 4.1 8474 4939.4 4939.8 0.-.1 121 783 4.5 887- 4940.8 4941.1 0.; 123 62-1 5.t 9188 4942.: 4942.4 0.3 98 41: 8.5 9278 4944.8 4944.8 0.0 87 504 7.0 9465 4945.E 4945.6 0.1 120 394 8.1 977' 4948.1 4948.1 0.0 339 1490 1 2.1 10253 4950.E 4950.6 0.0 323 675 I 4.7 10535 49524 4952.4 0.0 303 1 1067 3.0 11059 4953.5 49535 0.1 350 754 4.2 11375 4955.: 4955.2 0.0 316 838 3.8 1189E 4957:: 4957.2 0.0 262 1056 3.0 12330 4959.E 4959.5 0.0 320 710 1 4.5 12793 4962.0 4962.0 0.1 60 422 1 7.5 12860 4964 4 4964.8 0.4 80 556 I 5.7 • Value computed by HEC-RAS prior to rounding water surface elevations. iTf-0PENlCofc l7cofcl7 Tablet-3final.do, J.1.3-5 ANdERSON CONSUIIIN4 EN41NEERS, INC. I- s 7QC' CONTWR INTfRVAI w Z fT .a�n woo COFC17SCALE wr A"m�mkw CM! - •usAe - FJ1wwr+rO7 1�Tw LaVf1`Plwstt PHOT06ASC.DwG BLv J11 1� 2002/ / ' APPENDIX G FIGURES AND TABLES G 1 1 I R-M-P Medium Density Planned Residential District — designation for medium density areas planned as a unit (PUD) to provide a variation in use and building placements ` 'I with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. R-L--M Low Density Multiple Fan* District — areas containing low density multiple family units or any other use in the R-L District with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-famiy dwellings and 9,000 square feet for multiple -family dwellings. M-L Low Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas for mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 6 units per acre. M-M Medium Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas of mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 12 units per acre. B-G General Business District — district designation for downtown business areas, including a variety of permitted uses, with minimum lot areas equal to 1 /2 of the total floor area of the building. ' B-P Planned Business District — designates areas planned as unit developments to provide business services while protecting the surrounding residential areas with minumum lot areas the same as R-M. H-B Highway Business District — designates an area of automobile -orientated busi- nesses with a minimum lot area equal to 1/2 of the total floor area of the building. B-L limited Business District — designates areas for neighborhood convenience centers, including a variety of community uses with minimum lot area equal to two times the total floor area of the building. C Commercial District —designates areas of commercial, service and storage areas. I-L Limited Industrial District —designates areas of light industrial uses with a minimum area of lot equal to two times the total floor area of the building not to be less than 20,000 square feet I-P Industrial Park District —designates light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses with minimum lot areas equal to two tunes the total floor area of the building not to be less than 20,000 square feet I-G General Industrial District —designates areas of major industrial development. T Transition District — designates areas which are in a transitional stage with regard to ultimate development For current and more explicit definitions of land uses and zoning classifications, refer to the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapters 99 and 118. Table 3-3 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS r RunoffCoeffdent Streets. Parking Lots, Drives: Asphalt.............................................._.............._.._....._..................... 0.95 Concrete ............................................ ..._......................._...... .... ..... .. 0.95 Gravel................................................................................................. 0.50 Roofs...................................................._.................._........._..................... 0.95 Lawns. Sandy Soil: Flat<2%............... .._........ ..... _.................................. ... ................... 0.10 Average2 to 7%..... .......................................... ...... _...._................ 0.15 Steep>7"/6.......................................................................................... 0.20 Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat<2°k........--•......................_.......................................................... 020 Average2 to 7%.................................................................................. 0.25 Steep>7'/a.......................................................................................... 0.35 i MAY /9ei 3-4 DESIGN CarTERLA City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: EN�IFIO 4' (fMB�IFi I� \ ED ppE __J fM aW%L0w It L\ m sau1N r J a — COB _ I / 11 i/ LLL"'rrr a �.00Pu low � L 1 W III \ L III\ EWTW PrAWWT ROAD ROW it glasswNle i0 - R N _�L 11 BY J 1 EX O u ow / M ) To EAST k i If 0.6' PMpNG EXISTINGAlJ P EXISTING Win INLET To PARK LO D/ mj / I I U / of f� �RMERIY M.) BE1D110 1 V 1 I IL _ I L r _ — prim ND fN.ftf BULDND Q . SB c -�c�� •• ! Fi / , .78 0 / POAD ELEV. .44 X 6 , t \ a J d / / Z CURB SURF To REMAIN' 0IP / ! I 10, 1k� .41 r Ex TOERROw , D zwlN / IDS aP Nc ) T TO � MNMIAMNa11 Ni i.. Ab�Y I PROPERTY y / 1 kITJ FXISTND 111 / Tr _ I .+r I I YANA AI to At, X �ts / I yy `NATURAL I ✓ we iiii Hi d.. 'REYJMCES I r AllBUFFER/ / / SAP"" / / Hill WATER (MIIII SIR L IN WALL $ CETAK SHEET IE) WATER awry P To BE DMAEXUVAM AND USED AS A S Mf T TRAP pM1G WISAULIIpI. POND SN BE CIFANEp OF SEaRyIT AND BRpNN T TO MSNED GRADE PINFq TD SITE CERTNCAM . / CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1=800-922-1987 fRLL 2-PUSU(SS ARTS IN AYVMKE TEFW THEµ M V•, a1EXCAVATE MDDKAaMD WWR YTLLITI S. 40 20 0 40 SCALE- V = 40' CRY EngFxr CHECKED BY: All Is wasu.der unity 80 CHECKED BO Stmm.atr unity CHECKED BY: Panels ! R.nMkn CHECKED BY: Treble Dgd CHECKED BY: DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE DeryM PANT AREA OESwATM AREA (AOIES) CID ON To (10) (MIN) it (IN) D (10) CF5 a (1M) LR I I IN ae3 1.00 Lo 5.0 2 L Q ang L LT 62 15 �D L CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1 ' r yr,perr'xMwall e. so 'A W way AMR Jim I All Aw ..—�.As,— All- v�ry ea t. xm (i linens pi All Mill seeing tell seeing NAN, rinyh�.� x. ' ♦ 1pP� slumsw e.. M]4RC I.Iwh+os tollluclwrs m .et . on a. iP'IT E= Ad min BIBS 0mg 8 C () r o CF 5 `m vi.y < om RAZ ngS u I NOTES: 1, A FEMA ELEVATION CERTIFICATE MUST BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR BUILDING F. 3, AND 4. LOWEST FLOOR AND ANY HVAC EQUIPMENT MUST BE ABOVE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION. O N 2. THERE SHALL NO FILL PLACED INSIDE THE CITY OF FEMA S RWDWAT LINE AT ANY TIME. y 3 NO IMPROVEMENTS TO PROSPECT ROAD OR THE PRIVATE DRIVE WEST OF THE SITE ARE PROPOSED. 4 ME LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTINGS TH D THROUGHOUT THE SITE E L 0BUFFER AND IN NE NATURAL RESOURCES BUFFER AREA. NATURAL 5 SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TREE REMOVAL, RELOCATION AND NEW PLANTINGS Z 6 A ROOOPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR BUILDINGS 2. 3, AND 4 PRIM TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING OR FOUNDATION PERMIT. o ). FOUNDATIONS FOR PROPOSED BUILDINGS SHALL BE SLAB ON e c- £ OL GRADE. P� n n f B. CITY FLOOOPLAIN, FLOODWAY, AND CROSS SECTION INFORMATION ry - X) ARE PER SPRING CREEK MASTER PLAN. DIGITAL INFORMATION FDA of ALL ROODUNES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. w o P Is 9 ALL IAND OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE UTILITY, O x p ' A I nCCESS AN9 EMERGENCY 4CCE55 EASEMENTS. 10. SEE SHEET 4 FOR FLOODPLAIN AND FLOOOWAY DETAILS. 11, ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF EARN MOVING ACTIVITY TO PROVIDE SOIL STABALIZATION UNTIL PERMANENT LANDSCAPING, PAYING OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OCCURS. 12. THE ARIA WTHIN THE CITY AND FEMA FLOOOWAY LIMITS CANNOT BE USED FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE. MATERIAL STORAGE, OR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF FILL DIRT. FAILURE TO COMPLY WIN THIS CONDITION SHALL RESULT IN THE STOPPAGE OF WORK ON NF Re city hours 5 Mty erusm alhill 1 1 Alto All My 4�a�MR I.�e pvyn.t. �rtm1.,� w�A Apwlr'rwltip .alwy wno-d w °LI l All EIiWP tl 9Y•MIEOIILYF Y FRB wMwusl w Malca ap.wre PaM RdndllA em4MaewA pbN w WMMen walla r.p Ple-didletwes, w tl Poll b ornectied and lithalwal showing, powl Romiati rmmA ,tan - t q wq d M tly, corwations and for the sommosext Practical PRIM Of ATO AN soils espossieda q twodisturbing iii ( Wading, utility PiRbloOl Monitoring. filing.1 III �tati� Or othey J a t _t 9two well .by Slowed No W96 in Wallis oudde aActial str"t rightsAny fill by d witwitting ohe mi than fell ll, blow, "of Poopy"ry Or P"I'll William m, ( 9 / (b)PM.Rod ) 19 iRtalseed,t P e st�wotw Utility my ms 1 termer Will be licered and maintained Mt .da ere eco M anataeluA g al III a.Na1. alwmtiw WIN fill Poet 'mpotla aepfml pw.rla a "N p the City Of Fart CollinsoEngxaxxq opvlmml. IY tmmr (((aboye�) wWM canlyd mw wd M nerye final Or avu[IM m after earn nuiny" wl n weer to oawr. cony M parlunmra of Nµ Mergeµ o"ba,. i aMY "tc P ttbdvIY Nall m pea royal wrmaa. I be ramw.e aaa aKP or 1, a . na loccomon IN as 1 to wusl they MI No MY baha y NP lag It=4of dwl wa..a Im (10) Best W negnl. At wr 11mAppx Wd w po<Mµ Mani xeinnl t mpt by wnNrer rw hg w4Fq mera pw MI fenaTq. Y sas slorLpSl rw,M Ing after SO a A l W s W and m,A# city m P'WNts Me Ir Ma Grovel Or esp t" d sags w MY DOW w mto CitynµµM by a Awn my Nn N. Any NUR mt c ,Wtl matMY Wall Do blow"mseblNY by the rmouctur LEGEND Q a ¢ a 1 Q DESIGN POINT 1-1-Z J BASIN IDENTIFICATION W O 0.80 O. RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (CS Z AREA IN ACRES Y f PLOW DIRECTION Cc U ■ m m m mIII BASIN BOUNDARY Q Z a EXISTING PIPES N ® PROPOSED STORM PIPE Q C_ W 0 PROPOSED INLET LOCATC: C z EXISTING 5CONTOUR - --- - ---- EXSTNG 1 CONTOUR IL oC) PROPOSED 5 CONTOUR J Q �4ga5 PROPOSED V CONTOUR Z_ © WW a -)(—R- SALT FENCE 1 F INIEi PROTECTION OCONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE O ^� EROSION BALES RICRAC 37 174—C CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF COLORADO 1.800.922.1987 DIAL Y-NAIROSS MYS IN ADVMK4 K6 VPJ DGA WAGE. OF EXCAVATE W M IYR M Or UNDEP0.0ND RENEW UTILITIES. _ J\ ,---_�L J \♦�—.�_—���. �i I -� IPI(WOYU PpON[CT IIOAD - _ - ROM RaM pp 4N r - SO I, Up 00 Ir I i 0" LOG° FYEAR I p l l l• Ensnxc .I ASPHALT ( Qj PARKING LOT I Y f / I / I __ Fri LN.c`oPE / � - Etta ' � I II —3 ---_ - P II r h I — Rsrowry VJMIAMY Ow3 I. I mo_ ._ � RE aoaoPu N--- t} I r ' '_� m' T; 11- I '� / rar Iw SEAR III I Y' I - I _ • / I I III, It 4__Olin IIFf _I_ I ✓ mow, it Hill PA Willi { I WFCES 7;0" / , to All Ail G _ Oil it 11 A' Ol Wool Al ♦ I MTy FLOCONLAN \ NATURALRE S � e �HLI} ' i 0 / �0'RK �7 ft Al At, _/L\\Q / / CITY IOU �YEAq // _� ♦ ``I ��ww�_'l i. �w i� ilPxW ax _ / y YYYY T' Caws PER ury / ♦ l _ ;;ROK SPRING CREEK CYOGS °f,^�WAr _ _ �� MASTER PLAN oTP.t AN,—i �� � 4.-MARA RRRR- ARM ARRA Al 51E� City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: - City E'Rl Date '� p CHECKED BY: o m Wo1w A Ma.1wa<s, QtIRY ONLY mot m 60 20 0 40 00 CHECKED BY: skinnI uxmy DNLY O .4AD 0W C_ m Om $CAIE, 1' = 60' CHECKED BY: PotY s R«,«,Im Date 'E~Y E q d V c g CHECKED BY: �.y g g N imMe En9nw DNIY CHECKED BY: mIY `lam r 3 =a c z� ,r SPRING CK. IM YR CITY FLOOOPL N INFORMATION G. BOG. 4 CITY 100 OR BASE FLOOD ELEVATI HEAD d939.B CITY REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECII N ELEVATION ELEV+1.5 1.7 494T3- PROPOSED LOWEST FLOOR ELEVAP 1.9 M4941,34941 494'PROPOSED HVAC ELEVATION .9 494FEMA 100 YR BASE FLOOD ELEVATI N NA FEMA REGULATORY FLOOD PROTEC ELEVATION ELEVH.S NA N07E5 1. A FEMA ELEVATION CERPRUTE MUST BE COI AND APPROVED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CEP9FICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR BUILDING 3 3 AND 4 LOWEST FLOOR AND ANY HVAC EQUIPMENT MUST BE ABOVE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION. 2. THERE SHALL BE NO FILL PLACED INSIDE THE CITY OR FEMA FLOODWAY LINE AT ANY ➢ME. 3. NO IMPROVEMENTS TO PROSPECT ROAD OR THE PRIVATE DRIVE WEST OF THE SITE ARE PROPOSED. 4. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTINGS TWAUGHOUT THE SITE AND IN THE NATURAL RESOURCES BUFFER AREA. 5. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR TREE REMOVAL, RELOCATION AND NEW PLANTINGS. 6. A r OODPLAIN USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR BdILO NGS AND d PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING OR =11%DATICN PERMIT. Y. Fg111DAn0 MR�PRGPOSED BUILDINGS SHALL BE SLAB ON GRADE. B. CITY FLOODPLAIN, FLOODWAY, AND CROSS SECTION INFORMATION ARE PER SPRING CREEK MASTER PLAN. FEMA FLOODPLAIN, FLOODWAY, AND CROSS SECTIONS PER FEMA FIRM MAP - PANEL NUMBER 060102 0012 C DATED MARCH 18, 1996. DIGITAL INFORMATION FOR ALL FLOODUNES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS. 9. ALL LAND OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE UTLITY. DRAINAGE, ACCESS AND EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS. 10. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF EARTH MOVING ACTIVITY TO PROVIDE SOL STABALIZATION UNTIL PERMANENT LANDSCAPING, PAVING OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OCCURS. 11. THE AREA WITHIN THE CITY AND FEMA FLOODWAY LIMITS CANNOT BE USED FOR EQUIPMENT STORAGE, MATERIAL STORAGE, OR TEMPORARY STORAGE OF FILL OIRT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS CONDITON SHALL RESULT IN THE STOPPAGE OF WORK ON TIME STE. WITHHOLDING OF BUILDING PERMITS ANO/OR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. LEGEND __-- -_-= EXISTING PIPES ® PROPOSED STORM PIPE PROPOSED INLET LOCATION - - -- - EXISTING 5' CONTOUR EXISTING 1CONTOUR PROPOSED S' CONTOUR 4905 � PROPOSED 1' CONTOUR FiPRAP CITY 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN ------ - - - - - - CITY FLOODWAY CITY am CITY CROSS SECTION Ali RRR RR, AM RRM FEMA 10 YEAR FLOODPLAII. u «w.. �..... �. FEMA FLOODWAY FEMA BEE - - - - -- - FEMA CROSS SECTION 0 6 R it>I J Q Z LU U Y Q a H Q F- LL O J SHEET 4 4 OF 12 174-01