Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Drainage Reports - 05/10/2007
City of Ft. Collins Approved ns Approved By PR®PERft OF Date_ S l l0 It 9 l�+p�,T C®lL�d s Ckm ( IF% ssociates DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT For: RIGDEN FARM, 12TH FILING • BROOKLYN PARK ROW HOUSES PHASE 2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: LONGMEADOW HOLDINGS, LLC itz QED ASSOCIATES 204 WALNUT STREET, SUITE C FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARCH 28, 2007 204 walnut street, suite c, fort collins, co 80524 a office: 970.416.0600 a fax: 970.416-0601 CCa Associates DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT For: RIGDEN FARM, 12TH FILING BROOKLYN PARK ROW HOUSES PHASE 2 CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: LONGMEADOW HOLDINGS, LLC m QED ASSOCIATES 204 WALNUT STREET, SUITE C FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 MARCH 28, 2007 204 walnut street, suite c, fort'collins, co 80524 • office: 970.416.0600 • fax: 970.416-0601 TABLE OF CONTENTS DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT.................................................................................................. 1 Tableof Contents.......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Engineer Certification of Drainage Report ................................................................................................................... 3 Overall Drainage Considerations.............................................................................................................................. 4 ProjectDescription............................................................................................................................................... 4 MajorBasin.......................................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Hydraulic Facilities and Flood Hazard Areas...............................................................................:......... 4 Existing Topography, Soils and Vegetation......................................................................................................... 4 DrainageAnalysis..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Rainfall................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Runoff................................................................................................................................................................... 6 DrainagePlan/Hydraulic Report ............................................................................................................................... 7 Detentionand Water Quality................................................................................................................................ 7 OpenChannels...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Inlet........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Pipes...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Erosion and Sedimentation Control.......................................................................................................................... 8 Appendix................................................................................................................................:................................... 10 Page 2 312812007 0 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION OF DRAINAGE REPORT I hereby certify that this report and attached plans for the drainage design of the Rigden Farm 12a' Filing (Brooklyn Park Row Houses Phase 2) was prepared by me or under my direct supervision for the owners thereof and meets or exceeds the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. )0 REG/S; 1111�,��, ,00ee,,o Fq o FO O• O• 26325 p Date State of >ional Engineer No. 26325 Page 3 312812007 OVERALL DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Rigden Farm 12t' Filing (Brooklyn Park Row Houses Phase 2) is a proposed 2.6-acre multi- family development to be located in Rigden Farm on the north side of Custer Drive, between Iowa and Kansas Drives. Figure 1 is a vicinity map for the project. The property, which is roughly rectangular in shape, is situated just south of an existing neighborhood detention pond. The proposed project will include 63 apartment units in four buildings, each of which will be oriented along an east -west axis. Figure 2 is a reduced version of the site plan. The project will be built out in one construction phase. MAJOR BASIN Rigden Farm is located within Fort Collins' Foothills Basin. The Foothills Basin discharges into the Fossil Creek Reservoir Inlet Ditch, but would otherwise be tributary to the Cache La Poudre River. The outlet from Rigden Farm's northeast pond is directed via a siphon to the Poudre. EXISTING HYDRAULIC FACILITIES AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS The site is not located within a flood hazard area. The nearest mapped flood hazard area is for the Poudre River as depicted on FIRM Panel 0801020012C for the portion of the Poudre River in the City of Fort Collins. The site is located well above this flood hazard area. No existing irrigation facility is located on or immediately adjacent to the project. The site is located immediately south of one of the Rigden Farm neighborhood detention ponds, defined by JR Engineering in its ODP Drainage Report as Pond 212, slightly revised in the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report, Rigden Farm Filing Six. This pond is to have a 100-year detention volume of 0.84 ac-ft, with a 100-year water surface elevation of 4925.3 feet. Plans currently in process for the New Dawn Assisted Living project, to be located north of Pond 212, call for recontouring of this pond. The owner of New Dawn proposes to construct retaining walls on both the north and south banks of the pond, but outside the property limits of the Brooklyn Park project. • EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS AND VEGETATION The site currently has a broad east -west divide for storm water runoff, located such that the northern 115 of the property flows northward toward the existing Detention Pond 212 just north • of the site. South of this line, runoff is directed southward toward Custer Drive. An existing storm inlet in Custer Drive adjacent to the property is part of the Rigden Farm storm drainage system, directing storm water toward detention ponds to the east. No off -site runoff flows to the property. • Page 4 . 312812007 • o g A PROSPECT 5 ET CI6� RO Cm d o. / rma CI Ri CI Conlon d 4 CI di Q 0 / Y�Y re w Q J Q' / 15 Sopo m T,o;l%ai� d 2 H B j Eml.ao0 f d Wg DRAKE OAD a • cl a fi a. d i w ^a a SITE "" 6 �tne.o � w 0 t R � LAKE 'y¢R•gpp �• a a s 5 0 a j g s CwDo 1 ? CI w 41 RN 4 1 4 i oo� Cr aR wDr Ilsean C �� % a i p �11wkN Ir E cWoo 1T 1 CI o: aw Q 4 •lon L ROrt3T00 N.T.S. NORTH FIGURE BROOKLYN PARK PHASE 2 ` DATE: 11106 QEDPROJECT NO.: 49.101 VICINITY MAP Associates DRAWN BY: KB lJ DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY PER JR ENGINEERING ODP DRAINAGE REPORT w c Q 3 0 CUSTER DRIVE EXISTING STORM INLET 29 NORTH 100' 0 100' SCALE: I " = 100' FIGURE BROOKLYN PARK PHASE 2 ` DATE 11/06 CC) PROJECT NO.: 49-101 2 SITE PLAN Associates DRAWN BY: KB According to the Soil Survey of Larimer County, prepared by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, now the Natural Resources Conservation Service or NRCS), the Nunn clay loam underlies the proposed project. The Hydrologic Soil Group for the Nunn clay loam is Group C, corresponding to relatively rapid runoff or relatively slow percolation rates. Existing vegetation is sparse grass, while the site awaits development. DRAINAGE ANALYSIS The site was analyzed to determine the depth of rainfall for storms of varying frequency and the predicted rate of discharge associated with these storm events, both under historic and proposed or developed conditions. The methods used are detailed below, and all calculations are included in the Appendix to this report. RAINFALL Rainfall depths for various storm frequencies and durations were calculated using City of Fort Collins rainfall design criteria and the intensity -duration -frequency relationships that correspond to these criteria. A set of IDF curves is included in the Appendix materials. These IDF relationships can be approximated mathematically with an equation of the form: I=KI(10+t,)s Where: I = intensity in inches/hour K = a constant which is a function of the specific IDF curve tc = time of concentration in minutes, and x = anexponent which is a function of the specific IDF curve The variables K and x can be determined for any set of known IDF curves, and were calculated for the 2,-year, 5-year, 10-year and 100-year storms. The IDF equation for the 2-year storm in Fort Collins, for example, is determined to be: I = 23.7 /(10 + tv)0.791 The corresponding IDF equation for each of these four storm events is summarized in the following table: Storm Event K x 2-year 23.7 0.791 5-year 30.1 0.766 10- ear 40.6 0.793 100- ear 82.9 0.793 These relationships allow the easy determination of rainfall intensity for these four storm events for any basin's calculated time of concentration. Page 5 312812007 RUNOFF Methodolgy. Runoff at the project was evaluated for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year and 100-year storm events using the rational method. The rational method relates discharge to the product of three terms: A runoff coefficient appropriate for site conditions and the design storm, rainfall intensity at the time of concentration, and basin area. Topography at the site was based on 1-foot contour intervals generated from site survey. Specific guidance provided by the City's Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards was followed in the estimation of the time of concentration. Intensity was determined from the equations summarized above. Runoff Coefficients. Runoff coefficients for application in the rational method were determined for the site using tables provided in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (May 1984, rev. April 1999). These coefficients are a function of the soil type and corresponding hydrologic soil.group for the site and the percent of site imperviousness due to the expected presence of parking and drive areas, sidewalks, and rooftops. Runoff coefficients for frequent storms used for this analysis for landscaped 'areas, roofs, and paved areas were 0.25, 0.95, and 0.95, respectively. The proposed site will be an aggregate of 74 percent impervious; the remaining 26 percent will be landscaped. It should be noted that JR Engineering had assumed 90 percent imperviousness in its hydrologic modeling and hydraulic design of this portion of Rigden Farm. Composite runoff calculations were performed for the project site to determine the percent imperviousness for each basin and for the site as a whole, as depicted in the Appendix. The table below summarizes the developed runoff coefficients for the aggregate site for the 2-year, 5-year, 10-year, and 100-year storms. Site Runoff Coefficients Impervious 2-year 5-year 10- ear 1 00-ear Site, weighted 1 74 0.80 0.80 0.80 1.00 In the ODP Drainage Report for Rigden Farm, JR Engineering modeled the site as a portion of Basin 48. Thus, the predicted runoff for the site alone was not determined explicitly, but can be inferred from the. percent imperviousness for the basin assumed by JR. As stated above, JR assumed a 90 percent imperviousness, which corresponds to a 2-year, 5-year, and 10-year runoff coefficient of 0.88 (see calculations in the Appendix), and a 100-year runoff coefficient of 1.00. Using the site's basin area and geometric properties, and calculating the time of concentration and rainfall intensity, the corresponding discharge for the site as inferred based on JR's percent imperviousness would be as listed in the table below. For comparison, site runoff as predicted by QED Associates based on the actual design imperviousness of 74 percent is also presented in the table. As can be seen, predicted runoff from the site is less than or equal to that predicted from the percent imperviousness used in the JR Engineering ODP Drainage Report model. Design Storm Predicted Runoff Based on JR Engineering's ODP-Modeled Percent Imperviousness, cfs Predicted Runoff Based on Actual Design Percent Imperviousness, cfs 2-year 5.7 5.2 5-year 7.8 7.1 10- ear 9.8 8.9 100- ear 22.8 22.8 Page 6 3IM12007 Basins and Design Points.The The project site, for analysis of development hydrology, was divided into five drainage basins encompassing 2.35 acres of the 2.6-acre site. The remaining portion of the site drains in very small proportions toward either Iowa or Kansas Drives. The table below summarizes the basin locations and areas. Basin ED Area (acres) Location A 0.55 North building, adjacentto Detention Pond 212 B 0.32 North drive aisle C 0.71 Middle two buildings and courtyard D 0.28 South drive aisle E 0.49 South building, adjacent to Custer Drive Four design points were used in the hydraulic design below. These design points and the basins that contribute to the points are summarized in the following table. Design Point Hydraulic Feature Contributing Basin(s) 1 Concrete Pan B 2 Type 13 Area Inlet C 3 Reinforced Concrete Pie(RCP) B + C 4 Concrete Pan and RCP B + C + D DRAINAGE PLAN/HYDRAULIC REPORT The drainage plan for the proposed project is attached as a full-size drawing in the map pocket. The plan includes construction of concrete pans and reinforced concrete pipes to convey most of the site storm water runoff to an existing storm inlet in Custer Drive. An inlet in the center courtyard will drain this area to one of the concrete pipes. Drainage for the lot was designed in the JR Engineering Overall Development Plan(ODP) drainage report. In this plan, the northern 20% or so of the lot was to drain as sheet flow to Detention Pond 212, and the remainder of the site was to drain southward, ultimately to Custer Drive and the inlet on the north side of the street, adjacent to the project property. Figure 2 depicts the approximate location of the drainage divide on the property as assumed by JR Engineering, and that the proposed grading and drainage plan is consistent with the plan assumed by JR. Each type of hydraulic structure to be installed for site drainage is discussed below. DETENTION AND WATER QUALITY Detention and water quality were designed for the Rigden Farm community by JR Engineering (the ODP Drainage Report and the Drainage Report for Filing Six are relevant to the project site). Therefore, additional on -site planning for either water quality or water quantity detention is not required. Storm water runoff will. exit the developed property either northward to Detention Pond 212 (Basin A), or southward toward Custer Drive (Basins B through E) and to water quality pond and detention pond located in the northeast corner of the Rigden Farm community. Page 7 312812007 OPEN CHANNELS Concrete pans are to be installed to convey water from the two drive aisles through on -site reinforced concrete pipes and off the site. The pans were designed using Mannings' equation, assuming normal flow conditions, with a conservative n-value of 0.020. Both pans were assumed to have 5% cross slopes (20:1), and will be at least 1% in longitudinal slope. A spreadsheet presenting these calculations is attached in the Appendix. INLET A CDOT Type 13 area inlet is proposed to be located in the courtyard between the two center buildings. The inlet was designed using the Urban Storm Drainage spreadsheet UD-Inlet. Two grates are required to allow 100-year storm water runoff to flow into the inlet with a typical clogging factor of 0.50. This spreadsheet is also attached in the Appendix. PIPES Two circular HDPE culverts will be installed to pass storm water runoff from the two drive aisles toward the south. Each pipe will have capacity to convey more than 200% of the 100-year developed site discharge. The pipes were sized under non -pressure flow (as open channels) using the UD-Culvert spreadsheets created by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. These spreadsheets are attached in the Appendix, and the results are summarized in the table below. Each pipe will have an oversized trash rack placed at its upstream end to provide redundancy against clogging. A 30" wide x 30" high trash rack (dimensions equivalent to the diameter of the pipes) would have an area perpendicular to the flow of 900 in2. The oversized trash racks to be provided at the site will have an area perpendicular to the flow of 2,688 in2 (64" x 42"), an oversizing ratio of 3.0. Pipe ID Location Size, Circular Design Pipe Capacity, HDPE Discharge, cfs cfs Pipe-1 Conveys flow from the north to 30" 10.0 29.1 the south drive aisles Pipe-2 Conveys flow to the existing 30" 12.7 29.1 storm inlet in Custer Drive EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL Temporary erosion control during site construction will be provided by straw bale barriers, a sediment trap to be located at the southern edge of the property, and a silt fence as depicted in the attached Erosion Control Plan. Performance Standards for the property and Effectiveness calculations for the proposed erosion control measures are included in the Appendix. Construction access to the site will be limited to one point along Iowa Drive and one along Kansas Drive, both points along the north drive aisle, and vehicle tracking control will be provided at those locations. Any disturbed soil to remain bare for more than 30 days will be seeded with a temporary seed mix of either warm season or cool season grass, depending on the month of the year. Two acceptable alternative seed types for this temporary vegetation are: Page 8 312812007 Seedine Season Jan -Feb Do not seed Mar — May 15 Annual ryegrass, drilled at 20 lbs seed per acre May 16 — July Hybrid sudan grass, drilled at 15 lbs seed per acre Aug — Sep Annual ryegrass, drilled at 20 lbs seed per acre Oct — Dec Do not seed The contractor will be required to install and maintain all erosion control features on the site and replace any damaged elements during the construction period. An engineer's opinion of probable cost for erosion control is provided in the Appendix, which can be used in escrow calculations. Permanent erosion control will be achieved via the existing community detention and water quality ponds. Landscaped areas will either be seeded with a permanent grass seed mix or covered with turf sod. The property owner will be responsible for maintaining all the permanent drainage and landscape features of the site. Page 9 312812007 APPENDIX • SITE HYDROLOGY • OPEN CHANNELS • INLETS • PIPES • EROSION CONTROL COST OPINION AND EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS • REFERENCE MATERIAL 67 a SITE HYDROLOGY i s m i L r OO f0 I� O V N 0)" l0 r N O N M R O w O r O O N M L M 'a (O O Ir Co L U -C- An y —� aowwwwww �� coconcocona�o�a^o. L Lo C N C N N N N N N N C C ' C M M M M M M M 'co N m U7 C 0)N I-_Owowww M l0 r l0 (0 l0 w C �� V M hOco0(0 l0 r, l0 t0 lC) ww w 0OO0000 tL0- OOOOOOO 0 U N O U ow �wCD` rnrnORC c U �O' 061tO o 00 CU o000000 o000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Lti cri ui ui ui ui «i E E Y U N, N r N N N Y F C N r N r N N N aur C 6666600 E 66 O O r O r O r O r •C C E r r r r r r r L cu r r r U U CO n V n l(7 l0 r C (O � V f� In l0 r F C fv (0 E 0 ~ N 0 r-r- 5 N E. C 0 oeoc�coocoM Fr-I-0MM > Eo o wr�w0lcoM > E O O r O O r N (`6 IF E O O r O I C; r N F~ >`� 001� O 00 0 N OIL N 0000 N N N N N NINI N NIN N N N > O oU U UU cow0w00w F C cgcg9O � ao F c E ro,o =oo m E 7FU —y aD m Oo O ccLno C C M M M co- O E d= 0 2 C M 0 M 0 M 0 C r 00 r E c tU 0 0 0 0 0 C ccN 0 0 0 O O 0 L O C) C) C) O y U N C) N N ` N G) C C w 0 OCD OD C TT CO C C co O aO0 C CD 'Zr 0 Co N T C 01 C r r r N N A C c O N N lC L N La) Lh c0 L N J ao U s U y L r N L OLL�O0 OOO 16�� ����M�M +� M r M r M ry .-_ 01 O C C N 2 � T O O ++ —Co O Y" M N M N t0 10 V) C O ' r N O N N N O C0 N N N l0 N a+ m 'C a O r -0 O N O N N N •C o . O O O O O O O Y O O O O O O IL c c wV• p> U') N r w CD C I Nl Ln Cl) I� N R C)r c) Y y p 10 00oO CO 1-N 0 T OM Q O O O O O ca up O ca d p C, 0 p p+ rn Q m U W+ U Q m U 0 U + L N u m mm c ca m m m IU-i IL co O N N r J Q7 V I- co IO N 'o I �� r D1 Q1 O Ofw T TNT T l0 O a Cl) (DIN M O N T U O T N QI I � r r (�clw L JCD CO (O O O (wwww0ww 0 (O O C C L C R V d• � � C V I = O) D1 0) O) a1 Q) O) M O) (c Q 0) � C C C O M T 07 0 tt) co r+ N 0)O O O O O O Cl) 00 O O O O N T U I- 0 a1 0 00 0 W 0 co 0 co00 0 -V T Ol O U N O U I o �rnmrnm`oo°oD ° cU rnco 0 0 ao 0 cU o000000 o 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 F c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ITc c •E 0 Sri «i ui ui ai ui m LO LO LO (ci ui lC U N T N T N N N Y F C N T N T N N N V C O O O 00 O O N E O O O T O T O T O T O T c E T T T T T T T L @ T r U co h 7 C C N M E N .- N M �E 0 0 r. 0 F y m olI,nr-oMM a� c loOODCf)OD0((DCl) c E 0 0 T N co F E O O I T O O I N m F O o T F I H N r N N N N N N N N N N N N N U > 0 O U O 0F CD co CD aoLoq Q c (ocooaoLo0) cxi E T o o T o o m E r o o o 0 m - 'c c � C p- � M M � °� O- c_0MM c�� E c O C M 000 COO G OO w E(n yL C (n O O O O O (n L 000 00 U U (a C C ` O O c0 c V 00 "' C 00 O co C V CD >+ O C c (M C C T T T N N cm T T T N N T Co L N J Co T L C) J U wN w 10 0 LO007 000 O,O(0000 Cl) T M, M M M O ._. MIT MIT M CO M y- .0 •C J N R N J CMIC O +' N cl M TONONNN N in N (n In N 'C � TONONNN ,�, 'C O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (n C O C C 'y — _ (6 u l0 N M T h CO N CD 'V M O r M !�9 N UC M I� N 7 M OI `7 Q O CD O O O T T 7 m ¢ IO O O O O T T V m U N ca l0 A C1 � (0 = T W U+ U L '� QmU0 W +�U L C) Co m m N 0] m to O [n co O O N O N N a) O 'U O (n Q 0 W d i41 31t)1 i �u�1aFF GpGF�. O•$� 0•�8 p.8`b I.00 �c \ w I i C lao I I 0•02 —. �{•2 v'A use vw w '��rlo�� CA.�C, `3a5E� o� AC'iuA� "'14-°r. I�PE�Vi�vstiSES � I �u�loFF CDEFF• C)•$o 0.`30 0.3o I,00 I kL� z, ��� 4.� S q•6� I Z '3SCA Z.3S 5.2 `l�f $.9 ZZ•b ---'--POND 212 b64 19.7 P ;-)83 b J), U-S Tc- ON[ 5 "., 4N ( J ....... 88 . . . . . . _.1. vf� 4.0 A t"N 7W 681 . ..... 6.0 r1 u r� u OPEN CHANNELS T A 7 H INLETS r DESIGN PEAK OEHOFOR;ONAF MW HDFLO nuses Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow OVERLAND ySIDE I �OVFLOWND y STREET I ® F GUTTER FLOW PLUS CARRY-OVER FLOW � ® F— GUTTER FLOW INLET INLET 1/2 OF STREET Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: (local peak flow for 112 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): ' If you entered a value here, skip the rest of this sheet and proceed to sheet Q-Allow) Geographic Information: (Enter data in the blue cells): Subcatchrrient Area =qa Acres Percent Imperviousness = % NRCS Soil Type = " A, B, C, or D .Site: (Check One Box Only) Site is Urban Overland Flow Site Is Non -Urban Gutter Flow 01--- /WON 1 .nMh M iformation: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C1 ' P1 / ( G2 + I c) " L3 Design Storm Return Period, Tr = Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P1= C1= C2 = C3 = __ User -Defined Storm Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C = `' User -Defined 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient (leave this blank to accept a calculated value), C5 = Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, 4 = =0.01 Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = Overland Flow Time, to = Gutter Flow Time, to = Calculated Time of Concentration, Tc _ Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T. = Recommended T, = Time of Concentration Selected by User, T, _ Design Rainfall Intensity, I = Calculated Local Peak Flow, OP=' Total Design Peak Flow, Q = "'NIA fps fps minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minute! inch/hr cfs cfs N/A ,' ": N/A ',N/A N/A ,' : -' , O N/A NIA 'N/A ;;, :. -NIA '' NIA f N/A :r• <-< -., rC90 NOTE: Calculated values for Tc & Qp are based on overide values entered for C and/or UD-Inlet BROOKLYN#2-Typel3.xls, Q-Peak 11/20/2006, 6:12 PM Project: Inlet ID: Warning CROWN �TBxt T. TMFM SBncK yy Tx ' SOeal Crown y � D w\ I�Q./ �� SA Hcune d � mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) ring's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line :e from Curb Face to Street Crown Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition ng's Roughness for Street Section Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) uge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx uge within the Gutter Section W (QT - DO erge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Turn Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread etical Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W R - W) r Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) etical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section Tx TH I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TM") arge within the Gutter Section W A - Qx) Discharge for Major & Minor Storm Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storm urge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, ddveways, & lawns) mum Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth TBACK x 15.0 ft SBACK 0.0300 ft. vert. / ft. horiz neACK0.0300 Hcune ='^"'`^ "�'� 1.50 inches TCRown = :¢xs,• " 15.0 ft a = !+3;:1:50 inches Sx ==%`k' 0:0300 ft. vert. / ft. hertz So = - _'. `.-0.0300 ft. vert. / ft. hertz nBTREET Minor Storm Major Storrs 5.40 inches JT Minor Storm Major Storm SW,= z;^ `..;'0'0925 ` ' 0.0925 ft/ft y = `_ n A5:40 ';,:5:40 inches 4' xi&g0 ' 16.90 inches T'K= r_.• r.:.-.13.0 .:; 13.0 ft Ec=,,. v0.371 .0.371 Qx= j,iea,8 8.8 cfs Qw = 18.0 - : ` 18.0 cis cis 12.8 ....12.8 QT_=92fi.7 .7 cfs TTH Tx TH Eo Qx TH Qx QW Q R QBAC Q Major Storm a -8 rr-'a8.8 ft 2'"^0:5021 - "; -3.1 cfs 1 ffl;5.4' "-.'3.1 cfs 1 3:1 cfs 3 -'"6:3 cfs 4 0.60K4 .:.=5.4 cfs = _ 8;7 -..7.0 cfs I�Capacity OK These maximum allowable flows are greater than the flow given on sheet i( Warning 01: Manning's n-value does not meet the USDCM recommended design range 11/20/2006, 6:12 PM LID -Inlet BROOKLYNW-Typel3.xls, Q-Allow 0 Project = Inlet ID = INLET NA SUMP: 0 SAG:LOCATJON ,tm-Lo (C) H-Curb . H-Vert IN W P X_, IG) Type =.CDOVDenvwis�ValiWdr;67 Type of Inlet Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression'a'from'Q-AIIOYV) a� k 1�50 inches No 2 Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) Grate Information L, (G) Length of a Unit Grate W. = 1.73 feet WidthPit Grate of:,U A.. = 1�7� 1.0 .47 Ar,aOp Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0-90) lClogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50) value 100) C. IG'::'oirC0OffZ:(typical ' C. (G) 0.67� nfic.Cmi.rt(typicaI value 0.67) Curb Opening information = MR— N/A! feet L�(C)l Length of a Unit Curb Opening H. = N/A! inches Height of Vertical Curb Opening in inches. , —inches H.� = 17 Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches 77 ' '----'W1Al Theta = z. !7,�NIA degrees gle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) NIAJeet ide Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Side W. = C Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) l, N/A Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (tyrPicat value 2.30 -3.00) Curb C� (C) NIA I Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C C. (C) c ,��!NIA Res"111130 Gutter Flow De th for GnIta latfil _CARAcIbLbLitaurnip N� Coef = .50' Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units CIO, = 0.38 gging Factor for Multiple Units Clogging As a Weir Rov, Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 6.9 cfs curb) :w D 71 d. w inches Row Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs grate. 6.9 cis curb) d— 6.9 inches As an Orifice Local Depression withClogging (0 cfs grate, 6.9 cis curb) d, 2.5-mches Flow Depth at Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 6.9 cis curb) d- = f3.8 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression inches Resulting Gutter Flow 129 Ah for Curb Opening Inlet C ... CHY 10 a 511111111 Coef -N/A Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units an effi to r Mu"' Clog NIA Multiple ' Clogging Factor for Multiple Units a. an Curb as a Weir. Grate as an OrIficO Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate. 6.9 cis curb) Depression 0" inches cl� I•i�NIA'inches Flow, Depth at Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 6.9 cis curb) Depth Depression k inches d_ WA'. inches a, Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice ri I Grate h A inches d.=V' inc as Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 6.9 cis curb) I r ss Rov, Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cfs gram, 6.9 cis curb) I D dm=T NIA inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d"urb t NIA inches L= 6.0 feet owl Inlet Length 'a' Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q. 6.9 cis Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) E7FIow d= z.�5A Inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet 0-Allow geometry) T 10.7 feet DepthCat Maximum Allowable Spread Resultant Depth at M. UD-Inlet—BROOKLYN#2-Type13.xIS, Inlet In Sump 1112012006. 6:12 PM PIPES Project: Pipe ID: r006,w ouses a ly D 3n miurmaLluu wows p So = io fuft Invert Slope . i Manning's n-value n = OW'_XV 30; Diameter D = 3 0 4. Ow 0- inches = - cfs cin discharge Q ig.1;sqft ill -flow area ill -flow wetted perimeter pf 85! ft alf Central Angle Theta rad Qf efs uil-flow capacity aiculation of Normal Flow Condition alf Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta rad An=.. 41 '.W sq ft low area Ph 3;45:ft Vetted perimeter low depth Yn = ��,"�.J �O 1;� ft low velocity Vn = 5.371 fps lice-harne QnN n,g1UUlcfs U1a1lSH1_W1_%LLLLLUa� Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c 1, �g L..:� L , �.,J2rad .4 Ac V�sqft 1. ,al flow area ;al top width Tc 2.47 It -al flow depth Yc ��,.1:06:ft ;a[ flow velocity VC ide number Fr LL_ "COO 11/20/2006,1:32 PM UD-Culvert—Pipe-1 xls, Pipe 0 Project: �BrookiynParK I Pipe ID:,Pipe=2 '�'. z -,. - Invert Slope Manning's n-value Diameter gn discharge II -flow area II -flow wetted perimeter If Central Angle II -flow capacity Central angle (0-cTheta<3.14) area �ed perimeter r depth f velocity Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) ;al flow area ;al top width -at flow depth -al flow velocity ide number I Y So=!-5. n 0 0130 D = 7.11=r,-,-1,30.00 inches Q 12.7 cfs Af sq ft Pf Theta = ".314 rad Qf = : ."2911qq,cfs Theta rad An ",,12.22, sq ft Pn Yn s 1.16,ft Vn 5.721fps an 12.7;, cfs Theta 53' rad :2:32!sqft Tc 2; 50 ft Yc VC fps F r 0 01 UD-Culvert—Pipe-2.xls, Pipe 11/20/2006,1:35 PM EROSION CONTROL COST OPINION AND EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS Project: Rigden Farm,12th Filing Client: Longmeadow Holdings Engineers Opinion of Probable Cost Unit Total Quantity Units Cost Cost Cost Erosion Control Items On -Site Erosion Control Vehicle Tracking Control Silt Fence Straw Bale Barriers Sediment Trap Concrete Washout 41 1060 41 1 1 ea LF ea LS LS 800 2.00 1501 250 1,000 3,200 2,120 600 250 1,000 Subtotal $7,170 Total, Erosion Control Contingency (50%) $, 170 85 $3,585 Total $10,755 Compare to Revegetation Costs Project Area Contingency (50%) 2.6 acres 715 1,859 929.5 Total 1 I $1,859 QED Associates 2/20/2007 Erosion Control Costs.xls RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION - -----------------------------------I -------------------------------- - I PROJEC i :-eac=tLYkj tmu NA-T; 2 STANDARD FORM A 1 COMPLETED BY: CAD I KJ - ------DATE_----------- 6 I ------------------- IDEVELOPEDIERODIBILITYI Asb i Lsb I Ssb I Lb i Sb I PS ISUBBASIN I ZONE I (ac) I (Tt) I () .I(feet) ---------I-----------i-------I-------I-------i------- i-------------- SITE 1 LOW' 1 2.6 1 26 c 1 0-03 I I i I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I DI/SF-A:1939 • I � EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS ---� ------------------------------------------------------STANDARD PROJECT: $RooK.1.`(�1 Qp��6L ILD�•� U'o�SES'QLIE FORM B I 2, i DATE: COMPLETED. BY: Erosion Control C-Factor Value P-Factor . Value Method ----Comment ----- _ �AQ� .Soil - --=--------------- 1•C)n I:uo.. SNtoo'fN Ir- SOIL 64E 1p 1►.YS TEMP. VF 6F'fa.��a,J 0.45 -(.00 S-C�.w l.00 0.80 1 I . _(jk� 1.00 o.Su i _ .... i �MAJORI IBASINI --------------------------------------- AREA I I CALCULATIONS ALCULATIONS' I _ ---------------------- --------------------------- 2.6 1 WI 7EM? VZ 4e TA.'[ Lo EFF ` < 1- ct l x tors � - 0.�5 x o.6o..x o.So � x ► o0 82 J o w �'[(,4 SED: TiL Alej TEWA? VE&ETATWO'J. .� ST�d�1 dp.lES . r j of SW MEAT IW : T: 0.1 y x Le 6 �R : Z,q�. I.t1 fitT p 1`; Y. .9 x 2,L yds3 I I I _ - ----- ------------------------------------ - [DI/SF-B 1989------- ----- - R: I.O sF t +75 Gt u CONSTRUC:TON. SEQUENCE 16"My-L-AJ PA.". r P F 2 STANDARD FORM C PROJECT: FOR J192007 ONLY COMPLETED BY: (1iED� DATE: SEQUENCE. Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control. measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved.schetule may require submtting a new schedule for,, approval by the City Engineer. YEAR 12�a7 MONTH MA IJ' Ili - IS.I I� I� ---------------- II _----------1------------------------------------------ OVERLOT GRADING I I WIND EROSION CONTROL I j Soil Roughing I Perimeter Barrier I•• ••' Additional Barriers Veoetative Methods L•.�• •'' • " Soil Sealant Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting) Mulching/Sealant I. I Temporary Seed Planting) -- • - Sod Installation (Zo s I Nettings/Mats/Blankets Other I I •---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I • STRUCTURES:. INSTALLED BY _ ,01JTQaCZfl4 MAINTAINED BY C6AJTk•A•C.TPA2 VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR tIz'r ►.Aljn�P_ UCS AATC . • DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON �HOI/SF-C:1989 u REFERENCE MATERIAL INM- IN Ll 17- -A� to I ga-1, A -s ZZI 7 Table 3-3 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS Character Of Surface Runoff Coefficient Streets, Parking Lots, Drives: Asphalt ................................. 0.95 95 Concrete. .................................... 0. Gravel....................................... 0_50 Roofs........................................ .. 0.95 Lawns, Sandy Soil: 0.10 ' Flat<2%.'.................................... Average 2 to 7%.............................. 0.15 Steep>7%.................................... 0.20 Lawns, Heavy Soil: 0.20 Flat<2%..................................... Average 2 to 7% ............................... 0.25 Steep>7%.............................. 0.35 3.1'.'7 Time of Concentration In order to use the, Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve, the time* of concentration must be known. The time of concentration, Tom, represents .the time for water to flow from the most -remote part of the drainage basin under consideration to the design .point under consideration. The time of . concentration can be represented by the following equation. T�=toy+tt Where: T� = Time of Concentration, minutes t,,, = overland flow time, minutes t�= travel time in the gutter, Swale, or storm sewer, minutes The overland.flow time, t,,,,,can be determined either by the following equation or the "Overland Time of Flow Curves" from the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, included in this report (See Figure 3-2). 1.87(1.1-CCf)D112 Tov= Sl/3 Where: T, = Overland Flow Time of Concentration, minutes S = Slope, C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient _ D = Length of Overland Flow, feet'(500' maximum) C2 = Frequency Adjustment Factor The travel time, t" in the gutter, Swale, or storm sewer can be estimated with the help of Figure 3-3.. 3.1.8 Adjustment.for Infrequent Storms The preceding variables are based on the initial storm, that is, the two to ten year storms. For storms with higher intensities an adjustment of the runoff coefficient is required because of the lessening amount of infiltration, depression retention, and other losses that have a proportionally smaller effect on storm runoff. These frequency adjustment factors are found in Table 3-4. May 1989 Design Criteria Revised January 1997 3-5 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) Table RO-5— Runoff Coefficients, C RUNOFF RO-11 06/2002 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District - 42 4' 92, 53 . w w 53 ..;: 94 54 64 ... 22 ri 42 101- 0,2; 101 105 1+ �y I _6 `yri a. . _96 :73 , ---a .62 OZ :',b ' 81 _. , wQ�• �264 tl "22.6.4 4� 6� 76 '� - . 62. 74 -92 2 63 10510 64 927 w 22 101 1, ' � r 22 73 n Urfa a '. F si tJ t � 4 4' ,a �r}I b 495 ,.:.r - .. �r i ' qr? 3 i, 101 '�, Fy r.a2 .'.- •M IX t q J *�ik RESE V6/F� .ui z~-r ' tis'"Z3 c �C�a�, r fr 92" �• f6�;- y o. `F ��r . y:.Ji _� 3535iiQ i' t2( L,_i�22. _ v f JS 74 165 7 Ty - 73 96 -� 62 ' 75 36 62102 Y F� ,ki 73 74 f 74 29 53 25 s�_ 7a" s i 35 75 36 .- .. 74 36.. wn a H�•^wsb }�„1�+ :Z �7°t oA ': ( 'r. . 36. 74 35 35...i�3'+�_ _ 22 y $.. `.,� � .,� �A, x� M `ta• i rL` �at�aS.F:� � , x t� ) th °xaV .c c ,rs 34 - 303' AK�r i.. 45�, f` ,�a.,,y � - .:£ tr,.,an. ,,.s: ac.F. -.. -ti = •� r�rl .. i �, �� but"° t ...qq t o neT •� a '73.r;, tx w n a s i3s-i a,.rat'FraFrew.a.—. TY- 74 2 Wafa4... r 4 , , �i Sri a r , �.gx>in.R• -. % 4'g�."� J - {aa'S�'•+1t}�'�' r � TS .kd_ � �, f : " 73 J- 36 ,rF•-'ac: r57J •76ai.Sf 74' }vz-ra_�. 73 42 SOIL SURVEY 4/3) moist; moderate medium and coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate 30 inches. Sand and gravel are below a depth of 40 inches in some profiles. Some profiles have substrata medium subangular blocky; very hard, firm, very thin* with a redder hue. 73=Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent elopes. This very sticky and plastic; nearly continuous clay films on peds; level —soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil has a similar to the one described as representative of noncaleareous; mildly alkaline; clear smooth boundary. profile the series, but the combined thickness of the surface B3ca-24 to 29 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) loam, brown 5/3) moist; layer and subsoil is about 35 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas clay (10YR weak medium subangular blocky strut- of soils that are more sloping. Also included are a few ture; very hard, firm, very plastic; few small areas of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils and few soils that have a surface layer and thin patchy films. on ped faces; visible calcium carbonate occurring as small a small areas of subsoil of silty clay loam. nodules; calcareous; moderately alka- Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets, line; gradual smooth boundary. Clca-29 to 47 inches; light yellowish brown beans, barley, wheat, and alfalfa. Under dryland (10YR 6/4) clay loam, dark yellowish management it is suited to wheat or barley. It is also brown (10YR 4/4) moist; massive; very* visible suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units Its-1, irrigated, and Ille-1, dryland; Clayey Foothill hard, firm, sticky and plastic; calcium carbonate occurring as nodules, range site; windbreak suitability group 1. thin seams, and streaks; calcareous; moderately alkaline; gradual smooth 74—Nunn clay loam, I to 3 percent slopes. This nearly level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil boundary. has the profile described as representative of the C2ca-47 to. 60 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) clay loam, light olive brown series. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small (2.5Y 5/3) moist; massive; very hard, areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and firm, sticky and plastic; some visible a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer and calcium carbonate but less than in the subsoil of silty clay loam. Also included are small areas Clca horizon; calcareous; moderately of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils. alkaline. Runoff is slow to medium, the hazard of wind erosion The A horizon is light clay loam or clay loam 10 to is slight, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. 12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The combined thick- ness of the A and B horizons ranges from 16 to 40 If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets, beans, barley, alfalfa, and wheat. Under dryland inches. The B2t horizon is heavy clay loam or light management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also clay. Depth to calcareous material ranges from 10 to well suited to pasture or native grasses (fig. 10). Figure 10.—Alfalfa bales on Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. 132 SOIL SURVEY TABLE 8.-Soil and water f eat2tres—Continued . Soil name and map symbol Hydro- logic Flooding Depth to seasonal high water Bedrock Potential frost action Months Depth Hardness group Frequency Duration table - Feet Inches Kirtley—Continued : *58: >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ Moderate. Kirtley part -------- C None -------- -------------- - ___________ >6.0 10-20_ Hard ----- Low, Purner part -------- D None -------- -------------- -------------- LaPorte: *59: None >6.0 10-20 Rippable __ Low. LaPorte part ------- C -------- -------------- ______________ Rock outcrop part. Larim: A None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- Low. 60 ---- Larimer: B None ------ -- -- >6.0 >60 _ Low. -------- -=------------ *62: Larimer part ------- B None -------- ------------- - -------------- >6.0 >6.0 >60 >60 ----------- ___________ Low. Moderate. Stoneham part ----- B None -------- -------------- -------------- Longmont: C. Common --__ Brief ------- March -July __ 2.0-2.5 >60 ----------- High. 63 ------------------- Loveland: C Common __-- Very brief ___ March- 1.5-2.5 >60 ----------- High. 64 ___________________ September. Midway: D None--------- -------------- - _________ >6.0 10-20 Rippable __ Moderate. Minnequa: ----------- ___ > 6.0 20-40 Rippable __ Low. BNone -------- -------------- *67: Minnequa part ----- B None -------- -------------- ----------- ___ > 6.0 >6.0 20-40 10-20 Rippable __ Rippable __ Low. Low. LaPorte part ------- C None -------- -------------- -------------- Miracle: ____ >g,p .20-40 Hard _____ Moderate. BNone -------- -------------- - Naz: None __ >g,p >60 Hard _____ Moderate. 69, 70---------------- A -------- -------------- --------- Nelson: None =------------- --------- _____ >6.0 20-40 Rippable -_ Low. 71 ------- B -------- Newfork: 72 ------------------- D Occasional -__ Brief ------- April -July _-_ 0.5-4.0 >60 ----------- Low. N}31Ln (Z)74, 75C None -------- -------------- ------------ -- >60 60 ---------- Moderate. Moderate. ------------- C None ---------------------- -------------- -. 1.52.5 > - - 76------------------- Otero: B None -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- Low. 77, 78, 79------------- -------- -------------- *80: Otero part --------- B None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 >6.0 > 60 20-40 _- Ripp__ able - Rippable Low. Low. Nelson part -------- B None -------- -------------- -------------- Paoli: B Rare Very brief ___ May -June _-- >6.0 >60 ___________ Moderate. -------- Pendergrass:' *82: Pendergrass part _-_ D None -------- -------------- - >6.0 10-20. Hard ----- Low. Rock outcrop part. cap T T N (S N N CiN �I G J SoL.,vE ; Faeti1 ��ihlN� J -Ye 3,03 l,l6 lAo V?Z 2.006 7C �051� = lo� - l0� 0� . , 134s1 x = 03491} + Xlo�2o+ 0,�2 1.345� x = o. 4306 + 13oIbX - 25 1 23.1 I'll - \x (lo+{c J k LS D 1� k 0. - 103 l.lb I•gQ�l x = 6,�g14 x1o32o - O,ob45 I,$451X � b,'l�6`i t (•3otoK 30 ,1 � u'166 ►43iL 1`►z 0 U) f!; www U)U)U) 000 CS!� r•rr- C NC4 & 0:".C14 w, 3. 18 = 2Dx 3.� o �2�Xi AI.So k � - b 1,4o lob K 103 [3.18(ZO I051 05-M + x luo Zo - 0.1461 0.4314+ 1.3olox 40. G I ' �r ang3 K \ %,7Z (20",1 AL50' IC IL 70 r°Z 2 g6 /o5 2.86 1.u45I x 0.4312 + f•3oiox `Q2,9 `o, 7193 G y A c 0 O � N O 0 G1 ?• C) Li . a C O u rn LL (J 7 y t.. 0 U. O T c u. = O O T a) c W V _ a c � O U r O LL O C7 T Ul N Ul cO t0 I , O O O O O O O O v O O O O O O O O O O O O r O O O ti CD l!i d' C7 C� r O r r (jq/UI) Apsuelul O O r�• O CD i` FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT Rigden Farm - Filing Six Prepared for: Rigden Farm LLC c/o Wheeler Commercial 1027 W. Horsetooth Road, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (970)225-9305 Prepared by: . JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)491-9888 Revised February 8, 2002 Revised December 5, 2001 Revised July 25, 2001 Revised March 28, 2001 December 13, 2000 Job Number 9164.12 POND 212 US 7rc 10 ----- slop- /10 10 4.1 .1 N 584 .: ;r. 19.7 I p POND 583 2.5 `BOND Zl& -"A 58 41.1 00,; , Q 010 Foxo-1 MW 681 6.0 A ("% m m y m U 'a m m CD � CV W O N 11 II c L m CY)3 � (D V L W m 3 = m c V O U > C= .3 0 m - pt II t`nC3U2-i 11' II it. L U N a m 3 'n. a a W y � � z O > > z F F� U c o J !W- c U O m Q Q Co W W W 0 ca M Q ca 7 d'C a z a is \ 0 + > N \ y N a M GGLL ti�f m II II 11CIA N r O� 0�0 +>'O¢ n Ic ¢ N c a a v D CL 7cr 11 T m .> m 3 p 7 �. E Li O W E > CD 0 aw�coA w m � pCCw 0 n T O co N M In O O H' 0 .U.. r �M., N M s{ T 0 A m O 3 m w L = 'd U v O Co 0 O ,t 2 O O � o rn� Q m 'a L 11 co cr) co 2 L U O ^ CO N LC? COO COO Ch CO ^ O O owy N O of IV O 2 a m _ _ j lb Old co OOCO�rCO 11Y CD fO��MCA O)P V OOOOrNN�1nhGDOONCO O m O O O O O O O O O O O O r r rQ m m 0) tE° O OM 1PNNr0 MC'7 CO to OO E b O 9000T0N0rr0rNCO m 0 Co O CTD00000000000C; U rn v c m �� T rin COr1�C0�I�N�In COrll� ` OOOOrrTNNCq C^i C7 C7�sf �¢-- oc0000c00000cco mU co CCI N �' O O N T _ O M r 0 r CO CD CO to T O N 'cf M to M M O O� CD n0T 7¢`' vI ONN7nn icl OrIm tW T COO T r r L d ^ O CO CO CO CO 000 CO O E; C5 C; r CV E li to wCM CCl Q m M O r N NN m 0 N Na 1- N O 0 to NO^ 'IT CAN C3 NTNNC� 6 uj fn rCn O� NONCnNOONCnNNO)NN O�D1�01��CA�Q1O��'0V m ��5 O �1 ■ ENGINEERS z SURVEYORS C7 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR NEW DAWN ASSISTED LIVING FT. COLLINS , COLORADO PREPARED FOR: NEW DAWN ASSISTED LIVING CORP. 13415 CONNECTICUT AVE. SILVER SPRING, MD 20906 ERIC.BOE (201) 529-4660 PREPARED BY: R $ R ENGINEERS - S.URVEYQ.RS; INC. 710W. CouAx AVE, DENVER; CQ 8.42Q.4 C.ONTACr. COLE HABERER (3Q3� 7S�-673Q JOB # ND0404.6 SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 / ' DETENTION POND 212 ________ ____—_______��—_ % I 1 I Ill iir _____________� ___________ _ ___________________ _____ \ d \\________________________- \y\�________ _- ___ ___ Room— B1��11�1�1_-1�1— 9_ R _I _E _�_I-Efr— —a3— — — CONTROL(M.) OF OR Is /— I \ I I 1 CCNCREIEPN11YLdJC $V)PBSY OlOE9fYE EIMIMISE wMMNRY SARNO RaTr D.da I DRAINSTO D(5<RIP3KN A 4.9 MMD 212 E%SSFMG NM B 11 DESIGNPSI CONCJIFTEPNI C &9 DESIGN PT2 TYPE I3 MFAIFLFT j[QATfS) D v DEi1C4NPS+ CORLROE PAN E 19 LUSTER OR Torasmin GSIRfES B+C R& DFSIC.NPII 3P HCPE B.C.D Iv DfSKNPTA 30•HpPF. THEN TO E%nINGNET Names, u" moo©o©00000©o �lL7�Bl•�Bl•�Bl•����Bl• E3-f�T4:T!��� ��� ���Bl•Bl•Bl•Bl•Bl• IB1 MINES �QF'1•��B�����Bl•��� � � Bl• Bl• Bl• � Bl• Bl• Bl• � Bl• Bl• K:�mmmm mmmmm 1 �I ["'i 1Bl•Bl•mm mN©� Bl♦B���BI•���B�� mmmmmmm Q==�����B�BI♦�Bl•B��BI♦ �' ���Bl•�����mmBl•Bl•m mmmm m r�i-�-B�©���Bl•���Bl•�� Bl• rI----s-�-�I+n9n� �Bl•m�B�BI•���� PROJECT NOTES: I. THISRANIS? T NDEDTOFIIONDECCWlRUC31ONDATA FWTHETEMPORARYSMIMEWMROSIONCpNTRML Y.." ALL OTHER CONSTRUCTION DATA SEE APPROPRIATE R.W SHEET. 2 MR GENERAL EROSION CONTROL NOTES. SEE SHEET 3. ARW OF SOIL TO REMAIN RARE FOR MORE THAN W DAYSME TORERESEMEDWRHAnMP YMOMI%.ASOFACTE3 KLOW. ANNUAL RYEGMSS IS TO BE DRILLED AT W UPS SEED RS ACRE AND HYRND SUDAN GRASS a TO K DMUED AT IS SIBS SEMPERACRE mwm SF.AtON MAR-M OO NOT SEED MAR -MIS ANRIDSUDNCR MAT IF�MAT II HYBRID SUDAN GRASS TUNE-IRT HYBRID ANNUASODAN GRASS RASES AW-YP ANNUALSEEGPASS OCT-DEC DD NOT SEED e. NO OMSUE RUNOFF ENTERS THE SITE. S. lS PROPOSEDSR KC TOTSEP "ENEWDAWN TKE E EO IW DE IS EXRCTEO TO xOP05FA P[CONTODUNGCI THE EXISTINGDON THIS NAWNG, THESE C[W3WRf ME NOT DEPICTED ON THISORAMANG A DR.UNAGE ROUNDMY FROM ODB DRNNAGEREORT DEPICTED FOR INFORMATION MIRMW BASIN A DRAINS TO POND 212 AS MODELED IN THE ODPORNNAGE RID ORT. I WNXR WATER SURI EEETATION AT UPSTREAM END OF 90UTIFTW MK=19ll.T1: AT URiRFAM END OF NORTHERN MK -ml.x LEGEND OF SYMBOLS -PROPOSED PROP PROPERTY UNE ---- AW PASMENT O PROPMANHOU --- MOP FLDWLNE O MM STORM INUM - O PROP iLA0.ED ENDSfC}KKd PROP FLOW MROW MOP COMIXA 65 E RIOPSPOT ELEV BASIN t.ABB- ease MAJOR BASIN BOLWNH DESIGN POINT —�— PROPSILTPENOE ® PROP STRAW BASE BARKER MOP VEMKLE TMCKNIG COMRp. These plate he" Late rcNevnE 4<M OW d Fore C 1115 he Cohorts only. The msvi dn. nm Imply ns sembles byes m,mq dewnmene, the cry GRwe., o. the CRrd Fort C,116, ya<yn<y and <o.re<eletedme 0i<.twn.. F.Cdwnva< d. te.Ir.aete tee Implyata The he vunelu shall W hot Rate commodes o a phraan MRw vumiav rea=pmrs TFe.Aea dullnmbill" ,, Ouam�nas aeyum Nfigrcnl dews stated them Gry Nfort Cdllm M add.JululananYdudFeme aMwn the mar be <ye.ea eu<Irgthe c .... ructucanPAQW& City of Fon Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN Approval AMRDMED: DATE aty CHEMED BY. DAM.__ vmlr/WoeReamr oonr CHEam ST: DATE: � r WEIXED BY: DALE: �rvl1�F gnea WEO(ED BT: — DALE: HUW CIIECHED BY. DATE_ 6 i U rn M_ 0 U @¢p to /0 I^ V Z_ J LL = ° F 8 = 3 0 o EV d Z o 0 C z O LL W U Z } 0 Lij he al: 2 0 O W d' m QZ N SNf£l 5 OpF