Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 02/04/1998EXISTING FACILITY DRAINAGE EVALUATION [loin BUCHANAN STREET, BRITTANY KNOLLS FILING 2 Submitted to: CITY OF FORT COLLINS January 29, 1997 l_ L 1 I EXISTING FACILITY DRAINAGE EVALUATION FOR BUCHANAN STREET, BRITTANY KNOLLS FILING 2 Submitted to: CITY OF FORT COLLINS January 29, 1997 January 9, 1998 ' Mr. Basil Hamden City of Fort Collins Stormwater Department 235 Mathews Street Fort Collins, CO 80522 ' RE. Brittany Knolls P. U.D. Filing 2 Project No. 10-739-100 ' Dear Mr. Hamden: We are pleased to resubmit this evaluation of the existing drainage facilities for Buchanan Street, Brittany Knolls P.U.D. Filing 2. This evaluation was prepared using City of Fort Collins criteria to determine the effects of as -built conditions on the designed storm ' drainage facilities. Comments from the Cities previous reviews of the submittals have been addressed and the necessary changes included with this submittal. Il I We hope this evaluation and our recommendations meet with your approval and look forward to your review and comment. Sincerely, TST, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS D,j- David B. Lindsay, P.E. DBL/jts TST, INC. Consulting Engineers 748 Whalers Way — Building D Fort Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-0557 Metro Denver (303) 595-9103 Fax (970) 226-0204 102 Inverness Terrace East Suite 105 Englewood, CO 80112 (303) 792-0557 Fax (303) 792-9489 ' 1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.1 Scope and Purpose............................................................................................... I ' 1.2 Project Location and Description.........................................................................1 1.3 Previous Studies................................................................................................... I Design Conditions 2.0 .......................................................................................................... 3 3.0 Existing Conditions Evaluation...................................................................................... 4 3.1 Evaluation Criteria............................................................................................... 4 3.2 Hydrologic Analysis............................................................................................. 5 3.3 Hydraulic Evaluation............................................................................................ 8 ' 4.0 Summary of Results........................................................................................................ 12 Figures Figure1 - Vicinity Map..................................................................................:............................ 2 ' Tables Table 1 - Hydrologic Calculations Worksheet...........................................................................6-7 ' Table 2 - Summary of Attenuated Runoff............:.....................................................................10. Table 3 - Summary of Inlet Analysis ........ :............................................................ :.................... I I Technical ADDendices ' Appendix A - Rational Method Analysis Appendix B - Inlet Evaluation Appendix C - Split Flow Analysis Sheets ' Existing Conditions Basin Delineation Map................................................................ Sheet 1 of 2 '................................................................................................ Sheet 2 of 2 Proposed Improvements Plan ..................................................................................... Sheet i of 1 1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Scope and Purpose The purpose of this report is to evaluate the existing storm drainage system in Buchanan Street to determine if that system functions within City criteria. Specifically, this report will delineate ' basins, based on existing grading, which contribute runoff to the sump condition in Buchanan Street. Hydrologic calculations will be made to determine peak runoff at design points associated with the location of existing inlets in the street. This information will then be used to determine ' compliance with street runoff criteria and to determine the amount of runoff intercepted and passing each of the inlets. 1.2 Proiect Location and Description ' The Brittany Knolls P.U.D. Filing 2 is an existing single family residential developments located in the southeast quarter of Section 12, Township 6 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado. The site is bounded on the north by open space wetlands, ' on the east by Lemay Avenue, the south by Brittany Street, and on the west by a vacant and unplatted parcel. The open space wetlands are an un-named tributary to Fossil Creek that were platted as open space with this development. The boundaries of the study area are those lots and streets which contribute runoff to the low point in Buchanan Street near Buchanan Court. The single family lots in the study area range from about 8,000 s.f to nearly 12,000 s.f and, with the exception of Lot 12, have homes and landscaping in place. ' 1.3 Previous Studies The "Supplement to the Final Drainage Report for Brittany Knolls P.U.D. Filing 2" (Lidstone & ' Anderson, Inc., April 2, 1992), and a letter to Mr. Basil Hamden regarding existing drainage problems for Lot 53 (TST Inc., December 6, 1996) were reviewed prior to the preparation of this evaluation. Pertinent information from those reports is referenced here. TST, Inc. ] 10-739-100 -RUONy-RD. j Q) it t —Lu j 6 At Lu A IY r4l 01r,�I k BR! f IF, Eli* us F c Ll 49 9 Park I. 8 ITT N KNOLLS. - A. 17 p 113 -,too -18 J 14, AL f; It !,coo VICINITY MAP I I 71. YIWNO�Lfs L NO --2 1 y RD- 49Z3 FIGURE 1 I I I I r I I I I H 0 I I I I Design Conditions In the summer of 1993 a rather severe storm created some problems in the drainage system along Buchanan Street. Lot 9 experienced some flooding caused when the sump inlets on the Lot 8/9 side lot line could not accept all of the runoff and the excess. spilled over the back of the walk and traveled between the houses to the back of the lots. The approved design of the drainage system should have accepted the 100-yr runoff without this occurring so the City, the developer, and TST began an investigation into the cause. That cursory review of the problem did not result in any certain conclusions so the City asked the developer to proceed with a more detailed investigation. This report is submitted to the City to satisfy that request. The report prepared by Lidstone & Anderson, Inc. was a supplement to a Final Drainage Report for this site prepared by Engineering Professionals, Inc. dated July, 1990. The Lidstone & Anderson supplement modified some aspects of the EPI report to account for changes in the street and lot layout and for the final grading plan. The approved design for this subdivision called for a series of on grade inlets to collect runoff from Buchanan Street north of the low point adjacent to Lot 9. The grading plan for the lots on the east and north sides of Buchanan Street was such that the lots drained entirely from front to back and would contribute no runoff to the street. Runoff intercepted by the on grade inlets and by the sump inlets near Lot 9 would be conveyed by storm pipes to the drainageway which adjoins the site on the north and east. This un-named tributary of Fossil Creek is sometimes referred to as Stone Creek and is conveyed under Lemay Avenue by a box culvert which was existing at the time this development was platted. The approved plans show the storm pipes were designed to convey runoff from the inlets then under the street with a flat slope to a grade break with no manhole. The slope of the pipe was then steepened considerably to conform with the walkout aspect of the lots and then flattened out again near the discharge point. The utility plans were approved by the City in May of 1992 and construction of the infrastructure began that same summer. The infrastructure was built in phases beginning at Brittany Street and working north along Buchanan Street. The infrastructure was completed in 1993 and 1994 and by this time home construction on completed phases was under way. The site was graded to match the proposed contours and inlet filters were installed per the approved erosion control plan. TST, Inc. 3 10-739-100 L F� 1 3.0 ' Existing Conditions Evaluation 1 3.1 Evaluation Criteria This evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual (SDDC) dated May 1984 and revised in January 1991. Where applicable, design guidelines and information were also obtained from the Denver Regional Council of Government Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual (USDCM). Developed (existing) condition hydrology was evaluated based on the 2-year and 100-year storm ' frequencies as dictated by Table 3-1 of the SDDC manual. Detention of developed flows from this site is not required. ' Because of the limited size of the subbasins on the site, and to conform with the previous studies, the Rational Method was selected to calculate runoff for street capacity, inlet, and storm sewer analysis. The Rational Method utilizes the SDDC manual equation: ' Q = CCJA ' where Q is the flow in cfs, C is the runoff coefficient, Cf is the storm frequency coefficient, I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour, and A is the total area of the basin in acres. The runoff coefficient, C, was selected from Table 3-2 of the SDDC manual based on the developed ' condition land use. C was determined to be 0.45 for the development. Cf was taken from Table 3-4 of the SDDC manual and was determined to be 1.0 for the 2-year storm and 1.25 for the 100- year storm. The appropriate rainfall intensity was taken from the rainfall intensity duration curve ' in Figure 3-1 of the SDDC manual. To obtain the rainfall intensity, the time of concentration had to be determined. The following equation was utilized to determine the time of concentration: t'=ti+tt where t. is the time of concentration in minutes, t; is the initial or overland flow time in minutes, ' and t, is the travel time in the gutter in minutes. The initial or overland flow time was calculated with the SDDC manual equation: ti = [1.87(l.1 - CCf)LO.s]/(S)0.33 TST, Inc. 4 10-739-100 where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average basin slope in percent, C is the runoff coefficient, and Cf is the storm frequency coefficient. This procedure for computing time of concentration allows for overland flow as well as travel time for runoff collected in streets, gutters, channels, pipes, or ditches. After the peak runoff was calculated, attenuated runoff was calculated. Once the attenuated runoff at each design point was calculated the street capacity was checked to ' determine conformance with the encroachment criteria listed Section 4 of the SDDC. The attenuated flows were also used to evaluate the performance of the existing inlets. as specified in Section 5.4 of the SDDC. ' 3.2 Hydroloeic Analysis One of the primary reasons this evaluation is necessary is that the approved grading plan for the development has not been adhered to by builders and lot owners. The drainage patterns for which the runoff conveyance and collection system was designed has been altered. Because existing ' topography of the development is not available, basins were delineated based on visual inspection of the site as well as some survey information in the area of the sump inlets at Design Point 1. These basins are shown on the Existing Conditions Basin Delineation Map which can be found at ' the end of this report. The topography shown on this map is from the approved grading and drainage plan and does not depict existing grading. When compared to the basin delineation presented in the Lidstone & Anderson report the main difference you will notice is the north and ' east side of. Buchanan Street and the west side of Compton Road. There are some subtle differences in other locations but most of those have little or no impact on the performance of the system. There is also one location on our map which was intentionally delineated incorrectly. No ' home has yet been built on Lot 12. As it is currently graded so that the entire lot will drain from the back of walk to the back of the lot, as it was intended. Because all of the lots around it, and indeed most of the lots on that side of Buchanan, are graded so that the front of the lot drains to ' the street we decided to delineate this lot assuming it too would be graded in that manner when the home is built. The Lot 7/8 and Lot 9/10 side lot lines do drain front to back as planned and are delineated as such because these are finished and landscaped lots. The runoff coefficient for this evaluation was the same as that used in the Lidstone & Anderson ' report (C=0.45). Overland flow lengths and slopes do vary and can be attributed to the difference between proposed grading and existing. ' The results of the Rational Method hydrologic analysis can be found in Table 1 with the methodology of calculations shown in Appendix A. TST, Inc. 5 10-739-100 1 1 1 1 1 0wool loll iNlNl IVY ,pI,pl I�IO,I � 01�101 I�101 I!101 Ili In�IwI 1210 R O 7 O C am. en � V < N T N l� fV CO N O; Q; N 7 CE O O OI IO O OIO q O O O OICI O O O O O O O O O O O O C N vi fV �G N tV N ? N N N cV � mmI m I:2 m I� m ICI�I I2IMI I4 4 vl N v1 Vl V1 Vl V1 Y1 h vl v1 V1 N h O— C^ O^I (O-I C—I IOIOI �� =O 10101 IOIOI 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O o!alolol lolol lolol Ioiol loloi loll 0101"101 IMIOI IOIOI IC-'i Iml.,IOI ^ICI ,x I za U a W zaz F0z F U W Cq L V Z -- J N-.0 N M N M tV M N M N N lV e+i tV N z F F_ z z o E+. W 00 O C Z%; Q w-a -o z _ c r I 3.3 Hydraulic Evaluation ' At each of the design points we compared attenuated flow values to three flow conditions. The 2-yr allowable flow is restricted to a flow depth which does not encroach on the sidewalk portion of the rollover curb and gutter. The second flow condition we wished to check was the flow which would breach the back of walk. If the design point had a flow which exceeded this value we checked to see how the lots in the area on the east side of Buchanan were graded. If the lot(s) ' was graded such that the side lot lines drained from back of walk to the back of lot then we would proceed with calculations to determine how much of the street flow was being diverted. The third flow condition we checked was to determine if the flow on either side of the street exceeded the crown depth. This was evaluated because all of the on grade inlets are only on one side of the street. If the flows did exceed the crown ,and spilled into the other side of the street the appropriate increase/reduction could be calculated for the design flow to the inlet. To attenuate the runoff across the site we began at Design Point 6, combined the total ' contributing area of the two subbasins, and applied the highest time of concentration of the two contributing subbasins. We then calculated approximate flow depths for the 2-yr and 100-yr runoff and calculated the flows intercepted and passing the design point. The intercepted flow ' was then compared to the full pipe capacity of the outlet pipe. At Design Point 5 we used the highest time of concentration of all the contributing subbasins and added to that the gutter travel time between Design Point 6 and Design Point 5. The runoff calculation made at Design Point 5 omitted the area contributing to Design Point 6 but the flow passing Design Point 6 was added to Design Point 5. Intercepted and passing flows were then ' calculated at this design point and the passing flows sent down stream to the next design point. This procedure was followed for each of the design points. At Design Point 3 we determined that ' the flow depth exceeded the back of walk but the lots on the east side of the street were graded such that the front half of the lot drained to the street so the flow would be confined. At this design point we also determined that the allowable capacity of the inlet could not be achieved ' because the discharge pipe from the inlet did not have the capacity. The intercepted and passing flows were then adjusted to accommodate the full pipe capacity. ' At Design Point 2 we found that not only did the attenuated flow exceed the back of walk but that the Lot 9/10 side lot line was graded to drain from the back of walk to the back of lot. We ' performed a weir analysis on the side walk and calculated just over 7 cfs would be diverted from the street and be conveyed down the side lot line. We further analyzed the flow down the side lot line and found that although velocities were not so excessive as to be erosive the flow would not ' be contained within the existing 20 foot easement (the easement was platted for the storm pipe) near the back of the houses. At that point the grading along the side lot line dove tails and the swale disappears. The flow will be directed to the rear of the lots and the wetland area beyond ' but will not be confined within the easement. We subtracted the flow diverted from the street and proceeded with our inlet analysis and found that the outlet pipe here also restricted the inlet TST, Inc. 8 10-739-100 capacity. Again, the intercepted and passing flows from the design point were adjusted to accommodate the full pipe capacity. Design Point 1 is a sump condition with a 10 foot inlet on one side of the street and a 15 foot inlet on the other. Our calculations show that the actual flow line ponding depth in this sump is approximately 0.57 feet. Our field survey of this area indicated the Lot 8/9 side lot line slopes from the mid lot to the street. The high point on the side lot line is approximately 0.84 feet above ' the street flow line so no overflow should occur. The capacity of the pipe connecting these two inlets was checked and was not a restricting factor. It should be noted that the inlet evaluations included the capacity reduction factors called for in Table 5-1 of the SDDC. Table 2 of this report summarizes the attenuation of the runoff on the site. Table 3 is a summary of the conditions and performance of each of the inlets on Buchanan ' Street. Appendix B contains the calculations made at each of the design points to determine flow conditions, inlet performance, and pipe capacity. I H TST, Inc. 9 10-739-100 3 3 N ° Vi LJ z ZNZ p3p cffu t c' m V N O a g t `O C N 'O fl fl `O In Q`O 'O W Q C _Q C _G G C N ry Z Z ry Z Z H N N net n _ `ONR— ORNR O�ON 'OVT <blkl t1r PVOi } ~ E k� V] j p p oop p pp pp pp < ezOOee ...o...... o O (FZ� S _�L �p G �O V� N V. JN N M N ✓N v1 .'\ N N N � ` fS 14 N eV ry ry N N N fV N _ z° V_ o rreeerr N O. mo � O. � ..... N N N N 00 N N oAl �` E"'.3 rvv N ❑ <❑ ❑ O n n n ❑ <❑ �.n v. O O aaaaasa ua E �G .G 'O F F � OF � � •� I"' F P PP F OF —{❑y N N F U F" N N N 'G -' ❑ ❑ ❑❑ ... ❑ q❑q q❑q ❑ 41 q❑q F �❑�jj Ii1 ❑ ry J'a 1-114 _�--0, ----_-_ V �C V U U .. .. 4 .5 5 u' �m u9 �% Im J3 �.°!' 44m „.5 V 5r P~ Q pN p .p pp ppVVV R OS OI^P V rO, �?"H,90 8 0 R N G C ry ry R Q OO N w� u n n u u non n u n o o u u o o n u u u u u n u n u n n n n n n u u u 3zo3Z°F NIOr3zo3zcy 3zVgzv� O O Z O Z - G O gzV3zo� O Z N O O .Z N _1 z w- c .� G S O 3zo3zv� O O Z N j O Z pm� o C O <���� Y Z V $ V Y z N C f1 P O '+� = yi ❑ Z y- Q O .1 - ❑ Z yiN^ y` b vi V' ❑ Z c 6 P< O O O ❑ 6 < O .� �. '7' z L Ci C- O O O Q Y-' g�$❑S� o 58❑� S N Z y = J F a Z ❑ ❑ ❑- O Z Z o: h p 2 C y p Z. C - 0 5 5 o 3 < N ° o ° V z O o r 3 V N a e . n a ❑ a ❑ '< ❑ ❑ C y n. v. d :1 V � < p 'O'O J �I�zj� ei0 m 3 F j wiz N -iz,i✓ ;. _ i❑ u m < A•.T G_.. a < Fq z Q < N y; y oe �c ni ee o0 tG N y W W F :p �/ v fV M t+1 fJ fV M r ri N r r I 3" w z Q a -O e n e g $ M p �1 1V. tom: �i ✓, 00 b � � voi N !� < F a JS� ............. ................... a L • V z Z N N O ~ q 4.0 Summary of Results A comparison of the results of this investigation and the Lidstone & Anderson report shows that the basin delineation is similar with two major differences. The as -built condition shows that almost all of the lots on the north and east side of Buchanan Street are graded such that the front yard drains to the street. At the same time the, as -built conditions show that the lots along the west side of Compton Road are also graded such that only the front yards drain to the street. The net area contributing runoff to the sump inlets is greater but not by much. Further comparison shows that the net flow reaching the sump inlets is more than twice what was reported previously. This seems to be due to a significant difference in the Time of Concentration, a difference of about 10 minutes at the sump inlets. This is not surprising because our intention was to be as conservative as possible so that the system could be tested in it's worst case situation. Even with the built in conservancy and the increased runoff our calculations show that the system does perform adequately. It is ironic that the situation that created the increased flow, that being the lots along north and east side of Buchanan that drain to the street, may also be the reason the system still functions. The grading from the houses down to the street increase the streets capacity and allow the additional runoff to be conveyed. Of course this is not the case at Lot 12 where no home has been built yet. To ensure this systems continued performance it should be required that Lot 12 be graded so that the front yard drains to the street when the home is built. In the mean time this lot will act as an emergency relief during major storm events. Although the existing drainage system does not perform per the approved drainage report and utility plans it does meet City criteria with one exception. The overflow from the street down the Lot 9/10 side lot line was not anticipated in the previous report and thus no swale was designed nor constructed. The inlet at this location is an on grade inlet so the City would not have required any kind of overflow swale be installed because a plugged inlet would only send more runoff to the next inlet down stream. Our field survey included a cross section from the back of the house on Lot 9 to the back of the house on Lot 10. This information shows the ground at the foundation of the Lot 10 house to be less that 0.10 feet higher than the side lot line. This would indicate that flows diverted from the street would inundate at least that corner of the house. The rear of the lots appear to have a slope of approximately 12% from the back of the house out to the back of the lot so it is not likely that any other part of the rear of the house would be affected. The flow would, though, still spread beyond the limits of the easement. To fully comply with City criteria it will be necessary to peel back the existing sod and rock in the easement at the back of the houses and construct a small swale which would convey the flow. This expense is not insignificant because of the existing landscaping which must be disturbed and then replaced. An alternative to this would be a variance granted by the City to allow the runoff to flow outside the limits of the easement. This alternative should only be pursued with the approval of the lot owners and only after we have a chance to confirm the location of doors and window wells at the back of the house on Lot 10. TST, Inc. 12 10-739-100 [_1 We have reviewed the information regarding the previous spill down the Lot 8/9 side lot line which initiated this evaluation. We understand that at the time of the storm all or most of the inlet filters called for by the erosion control plan were in place. It has been reported that all or some of the inlet filters were in need of maintenance or replacement due to previous storms. Although this ' certainly had an adverse impact on the performance of the inlets we believe that clogged or not the inlet filters themselves significantly reduce the performance of an on grade inlet. A clean filter will certainly allow some runoff to reach the inlet but our opinion is that the flow would be less than half of the inlets actual capacity. Combine this with a relatively large storm and the result is that more runoff reaches the sump inlets than was designed for. In our opinion the flooding that occurred was the result of a series of extra ordinary circumstances that perhaps could have been ' anticipated but probably not prevented. 1 TST, Inc. 13 10-739-100 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 0 1 1 1 APPENDIX A RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS 1 DF& I Z V- 1 44 f 4,,-3 I r . 2' DP-i 61 -------------- --T --------- --------------- 2 r -1� Ln 50 6 47 43 qq If . ..... 49 -Ar 54 - - -------- 1p E FE N R- 25-7A , 003 X 56 53 %Zl s10 v DI 55 it Fil ON 59? - �-p 60 \AA 7 2 6 1 7 1 pp/ 73 6 2 0 53 74 I A 9 F i� p C ocoo 00 v o 00 m m 0 m 00 N N 00 v o i�'z �L >s C vi - N .. ? .-• Q� .-. T M O V < �D o0 00 00 M a0 00 vi O 00 0o ec 0 -i c�i 6 GC C - z a U J,,,.a,5 N c� N P N cV c� c� N N oc R Q - ' - Q C. C p e'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N vi N �D N Cl fi N R N N N N gp ci r z a o Uc���� C =- ii h V Vl Y1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 V1 Yl Y� YI Y� - r r r r pyy W V O O O O O O O O O O O O O C - v - M- OHO r - - O r O r O r- O O - O r O .... O ,... O r O r QGs "T O h O O �n O �n vi vi O M O `Z L7 G.c aovoo voo moo v7 voo .tea J p. Q in zz �fz �oz E U W 10 Cl! n- V h Q .. •. L Q� M C �/1 r 7 O M C O M \O 00 — is2 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O c,r rrr rr rr r�o �o� rr ti z t+f vi rf h en h N N O z Moo *6o a� 0 Q� E ., E+ — J Z Or-i M b � V' E+ x� en --i r [,� Q� aq ep O C v O F F M N N 00 N Ip V' en 'n r� j v N N N Cl M fV tV hl vi � N cV R R � �r�rr �. or am oo am �n �n � O O C O t`l G O O 'S Mi 0 0 fV lV Q�,Op �z No Text TST, INC ,-� Consulting Engineers G CLIENT Co I ✓c; L L JOB NO ' PROJECT �2' ✓�n.4� K'VrllJ QVC f!�N.rt�✓ S.nALV CALCULATIONS FOR Ry"Vo F� R�,a/ass MADE BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET__OF '!'lylinU�Otr� �GIC✓CQ�r✓� �6'P !"a!JSL/ ' RA r�E%rju0 - PEAr— Zvi✓c�F = C? = C`� = A WNd2r, GZ = r(v.J �C{JJ c = �w✓oFF cvET�; FrzdM -7Aacr.3 a -fcoC rf2A FA Lc � � I I I I I 1 ft Sv f1 t- •J ,4 W4E11: O Ai/C. 0, c- 7ZLA�O FLEW LC VLiff Cf� S � S = A✓C, O�c.YzL��,.q SLv/Sr �� i GVLtL. Ki 7'24r L I.f. 1 • �1%�i�i y.r C� Jr �S ✓. r �./ l:l , ,L _ l� rr.��H Al Aa l•4a' /•1�' 141 ;1 f 1, 4EG ^ � ,GAG %E = C7vctzA F L� ✓ �. ;ABC /iV (C�v .,, s` .'N oA4r 14,21 A LL:, CCa � col � 4._n ;P� A Li a � -O ."A ✓�''F�.�,'�.r w� l,L r✓,,4 �cr{ �.gLrrc? vsr`� i�� `.{c' G050713 84 TST, INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT PROJECT 1 MADE BY vC DATE �a CHECKED BY JOB NO. (% CALCULATIONS FOR ' `- NG' FF C Fos, C S,CGAr;NJ 74,2, A'-? C.t do 1 r F � 1 ,.r i' 1 E SHEET « OF 3 -CA/t /?/ ;.L. o 7-14 = .30 S .3-C42 L2ivow.F rs (G'�a , a rJ e77 a-Cca a1.7s' /a2- !)U;. ;,G % .5-74cr-7. = _ Ga X 70 2vA /�+P--4v, X D '9s) (MrA ZJw,'v )c D, IS / 14244) I 1 1 I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX B INLET EVALUATION �I 'z x ,W a 7 3 3 S gz -� pj >, ..Pow zaece=_- Nmm o0o rec 66-G - v h NI ry O Crvi [rva N G' CNI N N Z Z N Z Z ry III T n m N e b O pp pp Spp (yl fY Y z 4 N m Gp Cp 0 0 Cp 0 C P G C P P C P P G P C b Cp Cp �O `O C} � Q Gpp f� M (OV ry ry ry ry rOv [OV b � Q pp pp p p O p N M11 A p_ 9_p_ O pp p 2 .p O p. W m -z-- ------ V y_ F C � oe o �Oy zmm R9i 9+ O ���� 2 O rvrvnrvrnry O u U O O V O g O] O O F O yU yOU O V k p H p ry C O O O p V?nl V P O; P Q Q N N [❑(�� Q pO u o F [❑� Q Q P V p _ O_ O V O P P eN ry Npp0[`� fN`I lNV fNV Nn NpO NpOV NpOV NSV NpO Z V r. �PU yymYU VV 4 EpppppmOp V V VMn UPn C rn Q 8 pp0 QVryJ n p8N ppN On rvn On p< ppO pONV Oh p - A A A A tl tl p I tl p tl 1 p II II p II II p p p tl g p II p II II F, tl tl p p g tl G v.sti s�4ozQc_z� 3zV3zV� ���oozo°Cz, 3zo3z�� « I3zo3zoF voozgoz� e�eoozooza 3z�3zo� z $voozo0z� 3za zof « e&Rs V C C C .dy' y< Q Z d+fC<`- C C O y V Ed z F C C C �y, C O 1'i. LG. Z C O C C O C C _ c c oD} O z q � 0 } Q d y} O T z Y d Pi6 -- O O O 57 z '� b N d v O• a O a J Z � p �_Oi tV � e G' 'V :P p d 0 6 v '� V n n V' N V • 1 S ,yG. V J V C 6 V Z b00 F Y L e� 5 � 4 C9 3 F f Nn YY b n P m ry a Y P z � v N a a �2 �1 � W A ^ Q pp y 'S ao V t�i oa ro z d x z a N � 'E N 'V - N M M fV N NI ti z ;z t� C ai N W n m r M 14 n o L O r.d rr O N a.• a r N N .. M C ? row.. H :;EV h o � Q w i6 n n n 3n n N V� O O O x 8 TST, INC. Consulting %Engineers 2 CLIENT vL � CJ^ i r• L L JOB NO. 14) - 73 9 - l V a ' PROJECT 62,•Lt,4.1y 4wUf - f,, Ci'�-44-1 CALCULATIONS FOR66/14 LL"4.. '✓ MADE BY '✓Q L DATE "� I 7 CHECKED BY DATE SHEET / OF 572c;c� CvnJ <wx..Ts ; 3(o " tr" 20 t,,,c:ri Y2 E1')c vAcf4 •,cN7 . n,v CV46 �Pf.'Nrr ti v. t'E r.4a' r.r714.' GtjttL`a CAMcl -r - ,z = D, fSa (r tom. 4 ,t sl)oc ) (�ar4LCo•..4/SLr=(1•n8G 2N� Sa A � U.go I, 48G lip r3A�� U�Lt/,4LIG LAiC/�j�LfrMLn/'1-F{(firJ �KCL`CD N6 Tf(;'.3 VALLLc f•�r[C (Lt3vCY !N VIv.��Fi� 121-vc L.N(. Pow-- S1'?v LiT /N A,%eA t wl4e4r.= :L��s R2E SColy D F2r.., F2,•✓-r ' � l31FGK . sit 44 A T T —AI ' i 43 — — — 4).' J o)(AI+AAA)+A4+A ) a[�(/.4�)t.�f). Ufa./1(r.17)-4-�(14)(,a8)T(.fa)(I5,4a)+ -('.7s)(.Q)] Rh = 4/P = G.dll'�6,34 = o.av Ft *- G✓ttta GA(�>4C�fY Rr'f✓ia-T%..✓ FftC ,E.n, = U. �tSD C �ry , �-.� uC/ C ) i �-�W ALIoW<CcE = f,�r� C.a�`.• _ I,ls (9.ar) C.�'o J ' G0507r3 84 TST, INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT �! PROJECT MADE BY 2'3 1 CHECKED BY JOB No 10 — 7 2 7' CALCULATIONS FOR LG h'(/f; [U r4-7, DATE SHEET c� OF 2 l /C'r:.�/,J EnJ CQ./f. �J.?wncr✓ % . �LU�/ Ek4Zo: Nr /'Firs V,41IJL LvILL SPi LL li,J7o yr-Pt;:- s ,,-c.L•eT. 44) A= A14A, 4A34A4 = a ((.4))G3s)4- " ." (1.1'7)1 _ l.4fb // Qc WLlow��Lc' — Lr/�� lrS (3.-77�i•�U� G05C 7 '- - t ' TST, INC. Consulting Engineers } CLIENT JOB NO. t, PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR �C✓LC-7 C%46u4-rir% A MADE BY ` DATE I CHECKED BYDATE ( SHEET �./ OF� ' J SIyrJ �G rJT �ji prJ [,RMc IS trf 'T4PL "/1 " StlVTr( SiOL OFS7�L ttT _Q� f1LLow,4/3[r S-7.S`6PV .10 CFS Q� ALL,w44cr- _ £f9, as J""47 = l4, 11 cv-S a��� Fa I ►.ao cc-s T -V c1.1,,v ) FGo�j I -T -/r✓l e-7 ; CAIAc;,Ev 2c0✓c r,'vN Fjt c a = r!0 % (` �"�6cr 3 -! Spoe APFavx. 2 -42 -Ft a�� x 74 a: = a..3e C.74) = /, 76 _ems - — �tfF2uk. lUU-�i2 F[--, Oct-N v.34p' Pt 7,'/ �-- Fir P� : so [,. F- / S Rcl @ v. SO 4b17 1-ut t P'Pc C�F�c; t = n = 7. 4l cFs (>4.1 G0507r3 84 No Text No Text TST. INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT PROJECT 77 c MADE BY 04 L DATE CHECKED 7 CHECKED BY 1O0 NO /U -7.34 -/410 CALCULATIONS FOR =, ,t D--7 L;aXL�A , ', -.' r DATE SHEET --li— CF I�GSI,�J f��jjr� pN J:/JC cF S72ttT S-7LEt—�' 5Lot*4; = CU. SS% �' Qa .4LLiiwa/L� = 5-7. s-& Q;nw 4tLnWAetC- = o?2J. 4;0 .00 = 0)a. Ft0 CFs Qc r4LL.P -ASLL $9, aS :o cycJ C2 a NatIW cis Loe ) Ql�v Nr,2-rrf = 15;3ic�s (sp;�cs q:.on c2�w�J) Q, Sa✓-rq = 4.11 c-Fs ( 0 k e--? QiW jw—e W = IS 3-7 CfS ( M,'ru r/VoL �) `c-- %� �•,iCc�� FLUuJ P1,2 4ir.E7c7cS T byLa 7 : COAc; t`r L 9a - 7U % Q4Lr' S'-f 5-0Dc AfP2o'x e?-Y2 l 4va AeF7e O. =S Ft Q,/aa = soar, k .?:7 = 0.7a Ap2pk. /00 -42 FLr..+ ceet3 c2,.+4✓ , USr l $' Fc[✓ 4 -7W . 0;10* = 70?'/sp X , cp = O. (,S 3'T( , (s) = cl', 99 cfs PI Pc, 40e,� le"/tc?@a.fop rut! .0 3 S.II CAS (� 9.9S --,7r�v J f FC �rn?/irLl /NTGgCC��.r ✓ G05071384 No Text No Text TST, INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT PROJECT I' C MADE BY D � L 1/ 7 DATE 6 2 CHECKED BY JOB NO. lV -7.39 -/UO CALCULATIONS FOR :..L 4-7 C DATE -7i ✓ ---� SHEET ✓ OF rE E s/iT ^-, �� /�✓ � � GnJ � �,4r, G l S�Ft i YfL= " 2" r✓a 2 , N S;n, : o,r s ,G 7 , , �, Qa 4(-LvWA6Lt = S7, l%; — mod, 14 «s SCE Q,4.✓ ALLc,.ASLL" a 33, co L, _ 33, 0 8 cis ALLow.t gLr = S. dS o = l,). Ga cc-.s <T 1,vLcS"7 C7r-,5 (SO;LLJ CGVEIL c'2C,w,✓} T LET ' FL✓:.j IPA2,'-,Z-7eALS ', /,-✓Cc'T . CAi.4c,t`t (R:AvCT:�✓ PAZ c =�,?U (AGCES-f sOGe) AR12o X . FL, w 0.'C ; H = O, 33 F"t s0 + !, l $ — , 4 7 = 3, a cT s -�-- AFF?Zox. mg-vz CLow G�Fo7•4 Ekceeos C2✓wnl. Use /*-fit F"Lyw o; = 13. to (.sc 1= G, sS ccs �- QpRe:z = i3./v+ 13.L7 -G.sS = 1 ?,( 5-�— P��� -77 f£s " 2cp e .46/ % ia oss�LL PFCP,E— 03, 749 C{s (> Co. sScFr / ok ) 3csc' No Text No Text TST, INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT JOB NO /0 - 7734-/,00 PROJECT 1 CALCULATIONS FOR ...(. ✓L(�� LL/�L�"�`ll✓^-� MADE BY DO L DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET (99 OF f. /J s 3. G AJ. G t d c s- LL 7 T Sit) I e r r?/t ,-'z T SLo&c 0. 9S Z' Q;L QLLawA.0L45- S77, i, S,004S _ Q.rr..r ALLowOLC a33, 90 V'Vv4� = P,�, 90 CAS Qc. ALLp:-Z,,1LF = 89, a.s' V, vvs.r = 0. -70 t�s Q a EAr = S-, 81 CFs ( c e ) /00 Cr''S'7 = a_?3,1¢ CAS (SPiILS U✓tr C/C-�.t.l I ©� p";s? _ ¢,ea cis (vfc) �" %, />✓�r } Q/io, ✓J6-3? = 4P3. 1'4 cF5 (-SPILLS C'/ c-v-j) !v iNL; Nary FL.w A-7 TN;s Def;o ekca"- t" Tr ALL4,wAALz F4o Tv T/° _eAQ or" G✓4Llr Q,� A-Q-t:vv.4Y�, = )3.144a3,/4 = 46.d8 cfs (>a?a,80G�;7" N 774%J L�C�F7:�✓ 7Ht Ffjp,/�7 /��CF aF �� CrT7 JrJ i fC Cs{1-s S./1v OF" /`h'c 57ntv7 i72A-A ST2L-tT X0 %.NL r �J nIu FLrw tia..N S.OL- LET L;n�J. (TNc FL(w J?2CC"7) FLUvJ Pk2,q.�,[7e'2J a ;,,�LtY CAP.4G�{4 Qt�✓cam%��+ �i1CT 2 �r(U �o (T.4�SL� .� I JF/JC} /dPP2ox. o?-`iZZa� /�Ef?fF = 0. 3St Gar /Qs = $o% K . 9 = p . 7a APPRox. lou-in 1=L✓.✓ ExcE_Fns cAv-�-, . V5c lgFf FLvw w;,9 ri4, Q�IQ,K = (,7% h . 9 = 0. (,o Fr P)'p4; %4VL,F. / a " /ZCp 0 1.004114, �P-t ,,> ivCtj,4erJQ,' F24),,, DP4 = 6,S: j l FULL A'oc CA/AC.'ty = 04e-7 I ,or 3 10,4-7 Grs (<bo,43c,cr R/3 Q; = 10.4? - r ,SS = 3, qa c c-.s No * — I ,_ G050713"84 No Text No Text TST, INC. Consulting Engineers in CLIENT _ PROJECT MADE BY ')& L J013 NO. l(J — 7 3 ` _/GU CALCULATIONS FOR NtL--7 C'✓��"'6 %r� DATE S- I4 - 9 7 CHECKED BY DATE > SHEET / OF j_.__ IDGS PoiwT a , 04 6,44-t /UAL` Typo= `'R wcs� 5'Gc of r��ct-a J s7.s6 v = 4.9s cis N(TOW /'+LltwA�Lr = a33 Ci �/•0075 � o?O.p,(�- CfS .. Qc ALLawkGLr = fJC/.o?s 773 cf'S 53.O6 GFS 1. 4;CP E'kcct ox TFfc JcL.,o CA,'S4c;4-r O.tcLe DF u/4LK . /i y-7'N;,T 4,,cAT;or✓ rNC La7 '?//o SiOc- G:�c` �4CLS �QwA`/ 1-/1o.... -!Nc S'2L- z AT %,NLx, 4GAck OF w� L 1� . T-nI54.,L> 7ffr' i vLe''7s AO� dvAZEI`+ s; Pe D 'T�/v SPL:t F[...,.,� '�c...•✓ ?F .r:ot L�-r >,s tG�✓oa�a . a EA.s-7 (,.43 CFS LGICLG7'OS Qa /}LLI,,. /3v17 17dEs N.> /�P C2v ✓✓ c'2 TDN/) Qa 4.,:�3 c{s (ot '�i ✓C.� 7 / —� 6%., 57 = e)7.(o(p Gps Llj-P;LLs c�r.� ) ^C� /✓ /il �� FLa.,J ?AAAnL?LA--P -y 1,V4p--7 , CA,'Ac;i-r tftrO✓c-?;,✓ Ci4C 7.0. o2- 7/L F-14,.j Pcna7H = 0, 3 S f-f, = s0 d/z, x , fly = O. & is APP2yx. Prr7-4 �kcc�rl G2� ✓�v. U5 1 'FLU✓ ;0-7rq D.sr 0; = c�7. f>(o (.5,1 " I4. / / c,Fs �- r?= /9 "/LcP @ D. (oo .U13 / V/ll CF,f LL �4.1I C�S � �,PC Cra7/1c,LS INzG^�LCc,^��•%cJ ( E-i"_T 4 0; = F, // CF3 -4 IG050713 84 No Text No Text ' TST, INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT PROJECT _ JOB NO. 72 9 CALCULATIONSFOR-✓�L�T+�T L✓F��i "'✓ MADE BY 1�AL DATE S I4-S 7 CHECKED BY DATE SHEET 9 OF 9 /tAx p2 -YR 1 c..�.G.'n (. (%ten TfF= �i. �. �J Ff = 3.0 QFX (< 6, (o A C-Fs A� o > O. & 9 c-cc /aLrz , s 4 . 1AA&'7 '7� 4c Lp7 (,�= 6. ba rfa ��C85�,) �, 73 ` f. /0.4 -FE -•t— MAX /D✓'72 pctio; n c i%ra°7ff = D. $ ¢ Ft /OO-`I/t ALLi -AOl E C:,e1Ac; {4 = Ste: k o)%, 41 cFs , jwee7 iJ tt =tiLL-7 AcccF.0T 07,41 cc-5 /Ccso ,1 CAAAc: IL.`T ip F /S' /,✓L c-7 z 1.S -Ft )c �rJ � K o ), o Crs/Fr = c77, O v cis GP59%3 4 inTST, INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT JOB NO. /U - 73 S - /p ' PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR _ ,/tt= T L 1i14L•rFT si./ MADE BY%/5 L DATE f 14 - CHECKED BY -DATE SHEET OF 9 '}� .iDL:s/�,N Roo,/ � I S;�n.P Con O: ..i'yn// �O� �}PG'�IC'° Cw�S %� SI -7- i a" �L`. 6.57 % i ' 5-7(Z4Ft-7 SLi�PE = U. col % Q,2 X Lrw,dGtc = 57. S(o I .DD .20 .2 = 4, gg ciJ /4`-a.v Au.v,K,4&4r O0 � i4LU,.,.413Lr = 89.a� r ;77,t 7.57 cFs Qa Nw = /.5-& cc-s L,/� ) = 0.9¢ cfs 6p/c Qrr+ r✓c s 7 =oil. �/ cCS �SP,'LLS a✓c t C2r�ir✓ ) ' Q.t A/ cfs (eKecmos- o,t ALLs.✓. G."r AveJ N -'r e2r.vr✓ cA %Z2w) Qi S r-' = 0 . (7 9 cv.5 � oit ) Cf S (SP; LLJ owo\ � WEST iUJ= RL (�ovo.nb �f�s7 � O.J4 �r= s}y f#.P GwJ LvT 8/ 5 S:qc� WE571'/✓LcY D�"//L /rUvu 413L,-F C,f4c.t`/ = ADZE x k 0.7--, (0.38 cis C> 0.59 crf— /hAK /00-`/4 = 0.74Ft. /GU•�(R ALL4,wAj9t!:- Cl,P.A4'E4 C lGf: x �Cj �u x/70C t ' = (<,27.4/ �F,/1i✓%�T rs 9, s.,att� -$— i A,ccco7 Q,r✓ o�%. ll C�S�I(Cpgs)(l.7> C ), = %, q' 1, i FULL CApAc,iy .4�?7 0050713-84 ' (JP 1 a✓� s ? .f �c� 7 . 1.0 12 5 9 I 10 4 8 10 6 3 .8 f 0 ILL 2 .7 9 ILL 0 4 ��ILL 8 a 3 ��z 1.5 7 PpC1� w a, > �ey i z /ou.Yn cer_ 7 Ff I.O 5 y Exomple, Part o 1 0 Z 9 J Z _ _ _ z ..5 a _ _ a 8 � s W 5 2 Z . 6 a- iQ CAP _ 6� 7- O 7 4 = • 78 U .4 z w '4 i z 4.5 z. 0 3 w 6 r ^ ILL. _ 4 L 0 _ •2 z z .3 w 3.5 w w T .4 0 a 0 ► w 0 0 0 .08 � ' .25 3 II- _ = 0 .06 (D .3 0 0 0- z_ _ _ a: .04 ' 2 2.5 aw w 25 .03 a r 3 ' a .02 0 2 a 2 a = U t- a .15 .01 0 .15 L n 0 ' --- -- O 1.5 0=2h .10 1.2 Figure 5-2 ' NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2" Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA G,457 1.0 12 5 ' 9 II 10 4 8 ' 10 6 3 .8 w ILL ' 8 w 3 i' z �o a 1.5 L y 2' \ 6 7 PoC1 b�_i 1�- z/oo-Y2 C"=a.0 f1 �^ r z - 1.0 1 5 Example, Porto I.0 ? 9. _ _ _- J z _ W 5.5 0 --_ o_ 8 -_ ' cam.- W w 5 s z 0 7 u. .4 z z .4 ~ w x z 4.5 Z. o .6 .3 o w L IL = 4 L o o .5 2 z z z .3 - cD W 3.5 W w .4 O a -i I i W 0 0 .20 .08 5 3 o .06 .3 co co oa z FU ' w .04 _ .5 = � .25 a 2 .2 .03 a } 3 ' c .02 0 2 a a .15. .01 0 .15 L tL 4 _ Yo a 1.5 -- a: a=2° h .10 ' .I r 1.2 Figure 5-2 ' NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2" Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA APPENDIX C SPLIT FLOW ANALYSIS TST, INC. Consulting Engineers "�K`I GJ �+ �C :- �- JOB N0, CLIENT I PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR 1 7 MADE BY I%r L DATE 4 CHECKED BY_ DATE SHEET OF A :/! —Piss Ldtk-7i.l iJ: /J-;2 FCv✓ :=kcr:=a3 - '= C�/lcri OF S;Pr1:'. 'IA -.L"✓LC-"r AlvA t YS; J P1z cS: A,7,o A -r -1-71/ S PGin'T U✓MA4 ce Cps �Q nJE� //� /�iv S'7/Le1�'> AA119 ' CllVt1l'V1-W 0 P.;. N ,f--vvlA• INLeT'75 ..:%N''s p; N,6(YJij L✓�LL... 1�C: TG-'ri./r+i A.l Tfl�. /✓1.Q k:n,L,. P0jji3OL6- R�-.vu�F D&. A,, �;. NE Lp i' SI/(� Sitar" CLT i / l r4.55 Nc-'Gt I.;A c= V,:E7Zve t`f /✓ ?Xr S r2 c. r -7 T y `s -Tf/c: li Nn `�'� S; 0 `mot J L QTBw 1.=J's' FLv ✓ l�r/+�Ff �Qwr -�fc "%�lj r✓ CAv �t c=S .»4- c.1 V3in(r /:44.14;iL, ELi✓k7,:,.. i.48� 4�,39Y '13 �'4 7. Y O.aI F-, 4 /✓i c $� - t f' (' F :.vf-" ,l /4 ion-11Z 41/t, rm Fc = 49I6�0� Tot✓ = 9Srly = Cti L A/ 4-T L.AC z /' 1 1 •% = 7, 70 �F1 —4--- �S �.:n '.0 Cal r_� Tr-c: AGi. f,( � :. � �'-tyr✓ pi�ti T Ha r. CA/J r 1 : G050713 84 TST, INC. Consulting Engineers7 C� CLIENT oJOB NO. /V — 7. ( - /✓ PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR MADE BY �� L DATE .> l CHECKED BY_ SHEET OF DATE o2 � t , _ �✓�' USG. /NL. /✓k`c, LJ1��jC l= PLiT �La✓/ AFL . SLoPc' of .SYL F/E'S T 0 -Q-16 c a 3. T �yJ �.•t _ ,r•' ., / SloPv i4 T:;r NA.��jwc , = 3./J 9: (NC'AL F/LF :Nr Her�c`�/ x-Scc. E Fzv.v> aF ,uvvoc-'s La7 9 /-/orSc r0' / % 53 /,4 fl PP2r r . J; E SL„ fG = l a. ,- , I SLvr4 = 3. /3 r C7 = FS. sa cis X-.5cc.Cc> Oltcr %,F /4-woc-s G? _ LO 7 /U 7"0 vl c 173 G050713 84 TST, INC. Consulting Engineers CLIENT PROJECT MADE BY DATE CHECKED BY 'j 4.2 4.1 r{ 4.0 �i 3.9 N 3.8 �{ s 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 L 3.3 ' 3.2 3.1 JOB NO. j�J CALCU::.TIONS FOR SPILLWAY 1V✓l P?, DATE SHEET OF hfI P or 1.5 2.0 0 H=given head. h'=design head 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1 ' H/h' 1 TA 13Lt: Fvq� -t E L Ll I C) M r-_CA4 A1 GS ei9hfh ed ifion, by paugherfy, , Frgnzin►, a i~ i3urn 12.3 ?.3 E 2.0 3 U 1.7 1.2 1.4 Finnert�or� , pay- 43t� G05C%e3-Ee '! Path: C:\UTILS File: 9_10FRON. 663 .a.. 5-15-97 9:36:50 am Page 1 BRITTANY KNOLLS - LOT 9/10 SIDE LOT SWALE (FRONT OF HOUSES) ' INPUT DATA: �� Q'� MAx DISCHARGE = 8.820000 CFS 11 BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT BED SLOPE 3.130000E-02 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = MANNINGS N = 12.500000 3.500000E-02 RESULTS: 1va�. aF 6l NORMAL DEPTH = 4.902360E-01 FT FLOW VELOCITY = 2.935299 FPS,<— HYDR. DEPTH = \WIDTH 2.451721E-01 FT TOP = 12.255900 FT <' FROUDE NUMBER = 1.044694 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 6.240245E-01 FT '., Path: C:\UTILS File: 9_10BACK. 663 .a.. 5-15-97 9:39:44 am Page 1 1� BRITTANY KNOLLS — LOT 9/10 SIDE LOT SWALE (BACK OF HOUSES) i INPUT DATA: DISCHARGE = 8.820000 CFS E� •� �" �'` BOTTOM WIDTH = 0.000000E+00 FT BED SLOPE = 2.370000E-01 FT/FT SIDE SLOPE = 280.000000 MANNINGS N = 3.500000E-02 RESULTS: NORMAL DEPTH = 1.044281E-01 FT F— �Y /O Nvwt :.ViCC /'l.Q✓c 4..a'•M. .ri7 FLOW VELOCITY = 2.885306 FPS Y � F..,,y:... I ,.oA HYDR. DEPTH = 5.227227E-02 FT r cK of 7u�r Ac%�s hY � TOP\WIDTH = 58.479720 FTC .SwaLi A e 2...v.FF rr Fcaw� T l3 AtK FROUDE NUMBER = 2.223966 SPECIFIC ENERGY= 2. 336981E-01 FT 'o 1 0 eivRRv orseNgete --- \ � _, O�Tl.E>'(SEE .voTE gE[OW) /cdVR F/ooJ y � yp CIAO j e 74 1 � � i •v SFWFx � � � $/ Ora[ 06 > B< oebm C� < 3 _ o I /a uo y 2 r Chen S/a O�az x 35 NJ re. 41 f9 bay d'i � 1Fa r� VOWi ®x 1 I J ; 54,,IfCSb 5i3 q IN r LL 4: 4T rod �. o so x 000 V �\ LL Y1 n v 7\ �E - 1 m 1 �-- —1► oz / �� 9 �. ` o t,_ ��� O �,, 0 I 1 A l �� Y o 1� A IS \ vIV Z c� / ss N 82, � H Av. ��\ .IV N A A F x do cc W r co r A Brew //l /// ,lam �� mwld. p4% �ir F V z /VOWv '' / �> o / t� \ 000 f // /� f i�i ? rsr. INC. I /�� 00 ro-vaa r of l 00 oo I� b^uYY rDWI� GENERAL NOTES BRITTANY KNOLLS FILING NO, 2 LOTS 8, 91 AND 10 A n ` i e I I I I I I� P,'.O.IECT - ... SITE - j' p ` QRIT TA JY'K NOL LS I _ V O DLfNO C T: ' COLL[VS II 77t. MIAWYMAP VALf r-2.QW CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SE CTION A - R NTS 4% SLOPE � HP ABOVE Lxmwc URAul 9 5j 0 33, -� - -- pnD: IT tiIJEVALK EXISTING 6Rn_'i II lAa,mAm,,,1 _. Kw 1 fi; Wit I 5 T � - -- T d 1 1 . 1/ _ WWB 1 ..I %-9-4 !Fm �� NOR HHU HU' N If Yr �� TVPE'IY INLET I ILII1 PL,� ,I i Ia�� V C-ly of FL Collin. Colorado n UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL .-w ]Uai .nry on.. CHUKLD BY W.t.. i,y o... CEECKE n�L. E� .,. k „- o 11 ]9l SEE SHEEP 2 FOR Uw Wg Wg Low (11width) (1r width) IO BnpBny Knolls 711l Crooner 7C S LaMar Flu H O-W _ Ix' wide, 1 droth) LACE STRAW BALE AT 100 INTERVALS IN TRICKLE CHANNEL I-.y.,IBrIBenY Knolls PUD Filing No, Noon N.1 We ^ Well DrBln.gGnu Cgnmunh, _ 1. Hot Id. acYa �I %-section of ReconatrucUU s low v upWm WIIaIHa CWnmunlry I:pt Iol 11I"N"""" p9n aw�n'ne 11x)rox Channel _ — INl EGETA7ION SPECIES TO BE RI AMEO BY COMMUNITY TYPE Sea Re,gel Plan Trin For Rate and Varietal Spholfical rV community WP AIMMT facatorn hel Union Rd official. Read connarYl SwIdISESS 8110 o 11 n y Jw Basin Fondly, c aY eas writer, w..1gress TM,CklplkM . nou gr..a LOWW . Four IVY je, 'y I ... N d Z Z J W B2 BASIN DELINEATOR 1 4> DESIGN POINT I BASIN LINE TST, INC. I o-]84Ioo Gool January 7997 2 � Poll