No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 05/02/2006)TY OF "RT COLT MS inai Approved Repoo. Date-�-o� DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR 1ST COMMUNTIY BANK PLAZA J J R ENGINEERING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR 1ST COMMUNTIY BANK PLAZA Prepared by JR ENGINEERING 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Suite 190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)491-9888 Prepared for Palmer Properties, LLC PO Box 270094 Ft. Collins, CO 80525. April 12, 2006 Job Number 39468.00 April 12, 2006 Mr. Wes Lamarque City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 J•R ENGINEERING A Westrian Company RE: Drainage and Erosion Control Report for 1s1 Community Bank Plaza Dear Wes, We are pleased to submit to you for your approval, this Drainage and Erosion Control Report for I" Community Bank Plaza. This report address Stormwater review comments dated March 10, 2006. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria dated May 1984, revised April 1997. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this final submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, JR Engineering Prepared by, Erika Schneider Engineer II .attachments Reviewed by, Jo ph C. Sparone, P.E. roject Engineer 2620 Fast Prospect Road, Suite 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 —970491'-9888 • F=9701491-9984 • w ..jrengineeringxom CERTIFICATION ENGINEER I hereby certify than this report for the final drainage design of l" Community Bank Plaza was prepared under my direct supervision in accordance with the provisions of the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS for the owners thereof. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph C. Sparone Colorado Professional Engineer No. 39848. For and On Behalf of JR Engineering TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLEOF CONTENTS ..................................................... ........................................................... i INTRODUCTION..................................................................:........................................... I 1.1 Project Description.............................................................................................. :...... 1 1.2 Master Drainage Basin & Other Drainage Reports ...... ............:...............................:. I 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report ......................................................................................1 1.4 Design Criteria & Methods.....................................................:................................... I 1.5 Vertical Datum ........ :................................................................................................... 2 2. HISTORIC DRAINAGE..........................................................................................................2 3. LOCAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS .........................3 t 3.1 General Flow Routing.................................................................................................3 3.2 Proposed Sub -basin Descriptions...............................................................................3 3.3 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions.........................................5 4. STORM WATER FACILITY DESIGN.................................................................:.............6 4.1 Inlet Sizing..................................................................................................................7 4.2 Storm Sewer System ...................................... 4.3 Water quality..............................................................................................................8 4.4 Pond Description........................................................................................................8 5. EPA SWMM 5.0....................................................:..................................................................9 6. EROSION CONTROL.......................................................................................................10 6.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures .................. :.............................................. 10 6.2 Dust Abatement .............. :......................................................... ................................. 10 6.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets....................................................................................11 6.4 Maintenance................................................................................:.............................11 6.5 Pennanent Stabilization.......................................:....................................................I I 7. REFERENCES....................................................................................................:..............12 APPENDIX A MAPS AND FIGURES APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C INLET CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY, DETENTION POND AND STORM.PIPE CALCUALTIONS APPENDIX E RIPRAP AND EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX F DRAINAGE MAPS APPENDIX G PREVIOUS PLANS APPENDIX H 'EXCERPTS FROM SOILS REPORT Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page i ' V Community Bank Plaza April 2006 1. INTRODUCTION ' 1.1 Project Description V Community Bank Plaza is a 2.9-acre proposed commercial development located on a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 36, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Ft. Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The site is bounded by the Palmer Retail Minor Development to the west, JFK Parkway to the east, Strachan Continental Subdivision, A P.U.D. to the north, and Toys `R' Us/Western Auto P.U.D. to the south. Larimer County Ditch #2 is also located to the north and east of the site. A vicinity map is included in Appendix A. 1.2 Master Drainage Basin & Other Drainage Reports The V Community Bank Plaza is located in the Foothills Master Drainage Basin. The original master plan for this basin was completed in 1981. Fort Collins mapped a new floodplain as part of a comprehensive update of the City's stormwater master plans in early 2003. The revised floodplain map reflects the higher rainfall standard adopted in 1999. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report This report describes the proposed drainage facilities for V Community Bank Plaza and ' includes consideration of all on -site and tributary off -site runoff. Design. calculations are included for all drainage structures including detention facilities required for this project. 1.4 Design Criteria & Methods This report and associated calculations were prepared in order to meet requirements established in the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), dated May 1984 and updated April 1997. The new rainfall criteria as amended by Ordinance 42.199 were used for the 10- and 100-year design storms. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria ' Manual" (UDFCD), developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, were also used. ' On -site drainage facilities, including storm pipes and inlets, were designed to carry peak major storm event flows resulting from the 100-year storm event. The on -site stormwater detention facilities were designed to release the 100-yr design- storm at the 2-yr historical rate. Two ponds have been proposed in series and will discharge via an outlet pipe that ' will connect to an existing stub in the inlet located to the north on the adjacent property as Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 1 ' 1° Community Bank Plaza April 2006 ' depicted on previous designs. This connection was depicted in a preliminary design for the subject site that was included within the utility plans for the Strachan Continental ' Subdivision dated July 3, 1981 and prepared by James H. Stewart and Associates. ' Water quality facilities have also been incorporated into the detention pond design. The proposed on -site ponds will include water quality capture volume that will be utilized in conjunction with extended detention. The design of this water quality measure was based on the design procedure for an Extended Detention Basin as outlined in the UDFCD. LII As previously mentioned, the Larimer County Canal #2 is adjacent to the subject site. Per discussions with the Latimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigation Company, overtopping has not been an issue in the vicinity of the study area. Site grading was designed to maintain the existing "top of ditch" elevations at the lowest point on the bank (northwest corner of the site) to maintain existing ditch capacity and the existing localized overflow path. This path will direct potential ditch overtopping across the parking lot and east onto the R.O.W. of JFK Parkway. ' 1.5 Vertical Datum ' The benchmark used as a basis for all elevations in the design was the City of Fort Collins vertical control benchmark #48-01. The elevation listed by the City of Fort Collins "Black Bolt Survey" reference manual is 5033.57 feet above sea level and is ' described as being located "approximately 1 /2 mile south of Horsetooth Road, West of College Avenue at the entrance to Barnes and Nobel bookstore in the northeast corner of ' their parking lot, on a concrete curb." 2. HISTORIC DRAINAGE The V Community Bank Plaza project site includes approximately 2.9 acres of land. The ' majority of the site is currently covered in native grasses. Generally, the site drains in a northeasterly direction with slopes ranging from 1 to 3%. ' According to the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service's "Soil Survey of Larimer County ' Area, Colorado", dated 1980, the soils found on site include two basic classifications of silty -clay loams. Included in Appendix A is an enlarged copy of sheet :25 of the Fort Collins Quadrangle. The aforementioned survey depicts Heldt Clay Loam on the west ' half of the site and Renohill Clay Loam on the east half. Heldt Clay Loam has medium. runoff potential with a slight hazard for wind erosion and a slight to moderate hazard for ' water erosion. Renohill Clay Loam has rapid runoff potential with a severe hazard for Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 2 ' 7° Community Bank Plaza April 2006 IL J water erosion. Please refer to Appendix A for further information regarding the on -site soils. ' 3. LOCAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 3.1 General Flow Routing ' This report defines the proposed drainage design and erosion control plan for the 1" Community Bank Plaza project site. The drainage design includes consideration of all ' on -site and off -site runoff and addresses the hydrologic ramifications associated with the development of the subject site. ' The study area analyzed in this report includes the project site and a small portion of the Strachan Continental Subdivision that will be improved with this project. Generally, runoff from the southern portion of the site is collected via combination type 13 storm inlets and conveyed via an underground stone sewer to a detention pond (South Pond) ' just west of the proposed building. Stormwater runoff generated by the remainder of the site, including the small offsite area described above, is also collected via combination type 13 stone inlets and conveyed via an underground stone sewer to a detention pond (North Pond) just north of the proposed building. Both ponds will include water quality features and an orifice to control the discharge of the 100-yr design storm. As previously ' mentioned, the ultimate discharge for the stormwater management system will be an existing inlet located north of the subject site. 3.2 Proposed Sub -basin Descriptions Based on the proposed grading, the project site was divided into 9 sub -basins. .A ' summary of the drainage patterns within each sub -basin and at each design point is provided in the following discussion. Details of the drainage facility design are included in Section 4. Sub -basin 101 is located in the southeast portion .of the site just to the west of ' JFK Parkway. Runoff generated from this area will sheet flow through the eastern portion of the parking lot to a combination, type 13 inlet (typical of the remainder ' of the site) located at design point 1. Proposed storm pipe will then direct the flow to design point 2 and eventually into South Pond. This basin includes mostly asphalt paved parking areas, but also includes associated landscape areas and concrete sidewalk and a portion of the proposed building roof. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 3 1° Community Bank Plaza April 2006 Sub -basin 102 is located in the south central portion of the site. The area was graded to direct runoff to a combination type 13 inlet located along the westerly edge of the drive through lanes. This inlet has been designated as design point 2. Flow will then be directed to design point 3, via a concrete storm pipe and eventually into South Pond. The basin includes mostly asphalt paved parking areas, concrete sidewalk and associated landscaping. Sub -basin 103 includes the southwest portion of the subject site and is bounded on the west by the Latimer County Canal #2. The majority of this basin is composed of paved parking areas along with associated concrete sidewalks and landscaping areas. Runoff generated from by this basin is directed to a combination type 13 inlet (design point 3), which spills directly into the proposed South Pond. ' Sub -basin , 104 includes the west half of the proposed building roof and the entire South Pond. A small portion of the parking area and drive through lanes are included in this basin and are directed to South Pond via a 2' curb cut. Please refer to section 4.5 for a description of South Pond. Sub -basin 107A consists of paved parking area and associated concrete sidewalks and landscape areas. The grading design will direct runoff generated within this basin to a combination type .13 inlet (design point 7A). Flows will then be conveyed to South Pond via an underground storm sewer. Sub -basin 105 includes North Pond and the surrounding landscaped area. Please refer to section 4.5 for a description of the pond. Sub -basin 106 consists of the paved parking lot north of the proposed building. The grading design will direct runoff generated within this basin to a combination type 13 inlet (design point 6). Flows will then be conveyed to North Pond via an. underground storm sewer. Sub -basin 107B consists of paved parking area and associated concrete sidewalks and landscape areas. The grading design will direct runoff generated within this basin to a combination type 13 inlet (design point 7B). Flows will then be conveyed to North Pond via an underground stotrn sewer. Sub -basin 108 is the area of the Strachan Continental Subdivision that will be redeveloped as part of the 1" Community Bank Plaza project. Flows generated in Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 4 1° Community Bank Plaza April 2006 this area will be re-routed to a combination type 13 inlet (design point 8) and ultimately to North Pond. 3.3 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions ' The Rational Method was 'used to determine the 10-year historic and 100-year peak runoff values for each sub -basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using Table 3-2 of ' the SDDCCS Manual. The Rational Method is given by: ' Q = CrCIA (1) where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cr ' is the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration. The frequency adjustment factor, Cr, is 1.0 for the initial 10-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100-year storm. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics. ' The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of ' Fort Collins (Figure 3.1 of SDDCCS). In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves, the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to determine the time of concentration tc = ti + t, (2) ' where tc is the time of concentration in minutes, ti is the initial or overland flow time in ' minutes, and t, is the conveyance travel time in minutes. The initial or overland flow time is calculated with the SDDCCS Manual equation: ' ti = [1.87(l.1 - CCr)Los)/(V.3s (3) ' where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cr are as defined previously. In order to compute the peak Q at a junction where a confluence occurs, let QA, TA, IA correspond to the tributary area with the longer time of concentration, and Q13, T,;, 113 ' correspond to the tributary area with the shorter time of concentration and Q,,, Tr, I,, correspond to the peak Q and time of concentration. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 5 7° Community Bank Plaza April 2006 .1 If the tributary areas have the same time of concentration, the tributary Q's are added directly to obtain the combined peak Q. QP=QA+Qu TP=TA=T„ ' If the tributary areas have different times of concentration, the smaller of the tributary Q's ' must be corrected as follows: (1) The usual case is where the tributary area with the longer time of concentration has ' the larger Q. In this case, the smaller Q is corrected by a ratio of the intensities and added to the larger Q to obtain the combined peak Q. The tabling is then continued downstream ' using the longer time of concentration. QP = QA + QH * IA/la TI, = TA (2) In some cases, the tributary area with the shorter time of concentration has the larger ' Q. In this case, the smaller Q is corrected by a ratio of the times of concentration and added to the larger Q to obtain the combined peak Q. The tabling is then continued downstream using the shorter time of concentration. 1 QP = QB + QA * TB/TA T,, = TB ' All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached ' drainage plan are included in Appendix B of this report. 4. STORM WATER FACILITY DESIGN 4.1 Inlet Sizing Inlets were sized using the computer program UD-Inlet Version 2.13 (released February, 2006) that was developed by James C. Y. Guo of the University of Colorado at Denver. Computer output files for the inlet sizing are provided in Appendix C of this report. Because all inlets, except at design point 713, were designed to be in sumps, only the most ' conservative inlet (design point 1) was analyzed for a sump condition. The inlet at design point 7B was analyzed for an on -grade condition. All other inlets were assumed to handle design flow. All inlets were designed to intercept the 100-year peak flows. All ' inlet locations are shown on the utility plans for the construction of this project. Inlet sizing calculations are located in Appendix D. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 6 ' ll 1 Community Bank Plaza April 2006 ' 4.2 Storm Sewer System ' A detailed analysis -of the proposed storm sewer system was performed using the EPA Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) Version 5.0.006a, which is a dynamic rainfall -runoff simulation model, used for single event or long-term (continuous) ' simulation of runoff quantity and quality from primarily urban areas. SWMM utilizes the manning equation to express the relationship between flow rate (Q), cross -sectional area (A), hydraulic radius (R), and slope (S) in open channels and partially full closed conduits. For standard US units, ' 1.49 2'3 Q=—AR �s .. n ' where is the Manning roughness coefficient. For Steady Flow and Kinematic Wave flow routing, S is interpreted as the conduit slope. For Dynamic Wave flow routing it is ' the friction slope (i.e., head loss per unit length). Dynamic Wave flow routing was utilized for this analysis. Dynamic Wave routing solves tthe complete one:dimensional Saint Venant flow equations and therefore produces the most theoretically accurate answers. These equations consist of the continuity and ' momentum equations for conduits and a volume continuity equation for nodes or junctions. With this form of.routing it is possible to represent pressurized flow when a closed conduit becomes full, such that flows can exceed the full -flow Manning equation value. ' Flooding occurs when the water depth at node exceeds the maximum available depth, and the excess flow is either lost from the system or can pond atop the node and re-enter the drainage system. No flooding is predicted in this model. Dynamic wave routing can account for channel storage, backwater, entrance/exit losses, ' flow reversal, and pressurized flow.. Because it couples together the solution for both water levels at nodes and flow in conduits it can be applied to any general network ' layout. It is the method of choice for systems subjected to significant backwater effects due to downstream flow restrictions and with flow regulation via weirs and orifices. Calculations for the stone sewer system are included in Appendix D. (SWMM ' description above is quoted directly from WWW.EPA.�,Yov). ' 4.3 Water Quality Water quality improvements with extended detention water quality will be provided for ' the proposed development. Water quality capture volume was calculated using methods r Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 7 ' 1" Community Bank Plaza April 2006 outlined in the Urban Storrn Drainage Criteria Manual. A drain time of the brim -full capture volume of 40 hours.was used. The 100-yr flood will be detained above the water quality capture volume (WQCV) in both ponds. Calculations for the water quality capture volume are included in Appendix D. ' 4.4 Pond Description ' There are two ponds (North Pond and South Pond) that are being proposed for the 1" Community Bank Plaza site. Both ponds are designed to be detention ponds. All pond design was completed utilizing EPA SWMM 5.0 for final compliance. The South Pond ' requires a water quality capture volume of 0.05 Ac-ft and a 100-yr detention volume of 0.26 Ac-ft for a total detention volume of 0.31 Ac-ft at a water surface elevation of ' 5023.00 and a discharge rate of 1.06 cfs through a 4-1/2" orifice. The North Pond requires a water quality capture volume of 0.03 Ac-ft and a 100-yr detention volume of ' 0.22 Ac-ft for a total detention volume of 0.25 Ac-ft at a water surface elevation of 5019.84 and a discharge rate of 1.48 cfs through a 4-3/4" orifice The discharge rate for the North Pond is less than the historic 2-yr flow rate of 1.5 cfs for the entire site. ■ The shallowest groundwater elevation was estimated by Terracon to be about.9.5' below the surface of the ground. Utilizing this information, the ground water elevation in the vicinity of the North Pond is estimated at 5016.0' and at 5011.0' for the South Pond. The pond inverts are both a minimum of V above the ground water elevation at elevations of 5014.55' and 5017.00' for the North Pond and South Pond, respectively. Please refer to Appendix H for excerpts from the Terracon soils report. 5. EPA SWMM 5.0 The ponds and storm sewers at the 1" Community Bank Plaza site have been designed for the 100-yr storm event. A detailed analysis of the V Community Bank Plaza Detention Pond system was performed using SWMM. The runoff component of SWMM operates on a collection of subcatchment areas that receive precipitation and generate runoff and pollutant loads. The routing portion of SWMM transports this runoff through a system of pipes," channels, storage/treatment devices, pumps, and regulators. SWMM tracks the quantity and quality of runoff generated within each subcatchment, and the flow rate, flow depth,. and quality of water in each pipe and channel during a simulation period comprised of multiple time steps. The current edition, Version 5.0, is a complete re -write of the previous release. Running under Windows, EPA SWMM 5.0 provides an integrated environment for editing study area input data, running hydrologic, hydraulic Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 8 1° Community Bank Plaza April 2006 ' and water quality simulations, and viewing the results in a variety of formats (SWMM description above is quoted directly from WWW.EPA.gov). The SWMM 5.0 parameters generated for this site' are based on the Rational Method ' basins that can be found in Appendix B. A correlation between the rational method basins and the SWMM 5.0 basins can be found in Appendix D. A schematic detailing the SWMM 5.0 basins and conveyance elements can also be found in Appendix D. According to the SWMM 5.0 results, Pond SU1 (South Pond) would have a maximum ' total storage volume of 0.31 Ac-ft (13,700 ft3) and a discharge of 1.06 cfs through a 4- 1/2" orifice. This total storage volume corresponds to a maximum 100-yr water surface elevation of 5023.00'. Pond, SU2 (North Pond) would have a total storage volume of 0.25 Ac-ft (10,848 ft) and a discharge of 1.48 cfs through a 4-3/4" orifice. This total storage volume corresponds to a maximum 100-yr water surface elevation of 5019.84'. 1 Both ponds are designed with a minimum of the required 1' of freeboard. Please refer to Appendix D for Stage/Storage tables and other information regarding pond design. 6. EROSION CONTROL ' 6.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures ' Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on -site by use of inlet filters, sediment traps, silt fences, and gravel construction entrances. These measures are designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort ' Collins. A construction schedule showing the overall period for construction activities, erosion control effectiveness calculations and cost estimates have been included for final compliance. Please refer to Appendix E for riprap calculations and erosion control ' calculations and schedules. The grading operation of V Community Bank Plaza will occur at the beginning of the project following demolition completion. The demolition portion of the project will take place in month one as denoted in the construction sequence bar graph located in Appendix G. Initially, before the grading operation takes place, clear and grub of the ' property shall take place. During this time, silt fencing, soil roughing, vehicle tracking control. and water trucks shall be utilized. The detention ponds shall be utilized as sediment traps by using a gravel filter at the outlet until construction is complete. ' Uponcommencement of rough grading, approved seeding/mulching shall be planted in ' accordance with the approved landscape plan and will occur within 30 days unless Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 9 ' 1" Community Bank Plaza April 2006 i� ' otherwise approved by the City Utility. As curb and gutter is built and inlets and stone structures are constructed, inlet protection and riprap pads shall be constructed as shown ' on the overall erosion control plan. Inlet protection may be removed once all improvements planned for that watershed are complete. Silt fence barriers and vehicle ' tracking devices may only be removed once development is complete. 6.2 Dust Abatement During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of-way provided by the City or elsewhere, the ' contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The .Contractor shall carry out proper efficient.measures wherever and as necessary to reduce ' dust nuisance, and to prevent dust nuisance, which has originated from his operations from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing nuisance to ' persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right-of-way or elsewhere. ' 6.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or otherdebris onto city streets or ' rights -of -way unless so ordered by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be ' made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown in the Erosion Control details, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The ' contractor will be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. ' 6.4 Maintenance Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and ' repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw bales, inlet protection and silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps (behind hay bale barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal about one- half of trap storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. - 6.5 Permanent Stabilization All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, ' stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened condition by ripping or disking along land contours until mulch, vegetation or other permanent erosion control is installed. No soils in areas outside project street rights of way shall remain exposed by Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 10 ' 1" Community Bank Plaza April 2006 land disturbing activity for more than thirty (30) days before required temporary or permanent erosion control (e.g. seed/ mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed, unless otherwise approved by the . Stormwater Utility. Vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature and stable enough to control soil erosion.as specified in paragraph 11.3.10 of the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Construction Standards. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report 'Page 11 1" Community Bank Plaza April 2006 7. REFERENCES 1. "Stonn Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDCCS)", May 1984, City of Fort Collins. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Stonn Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3, dated September 1992. 3. "Updated City of Fort Collins Vertical Control", July 14,2003, City of Fort Collins. 4. "Stonnwater Management Model Users Manual Version 5.0", October 2005, United States Environmental Protection Agency. 0 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 12 1a1 Community Bank Plaza April 2006 I 1 1 P 1 I 1 APPENDIX A MAPS AND FIGURES Drainage and Erosion Control Report Appendix 1" Community Bank Plaza April 2006 i � I LL 7 F k ti E HORSETOOTH RD. I ; GV 71 �y m 2 J LARIMER m COUNTY `rl n DITCH q2 y CRECER DR. PROJECT SITE �fWARD CT O i ❑ BOWLING CT,, O BOCKMAN DR. y 1ST COMMUNITY BANK PLAZA VICINITY MAP JOB NO. 39468.00 NOV. 18, 2005 VICINITY MAP SHEET 1 OF 1 J•R ENGINEERING A Wulnan Company 2620 East Prospw FloaC Site T • Fart G*is, CO 8M 970-491-M • Far 970-49�-9 • vmwrerpre&M=n 91 73 74 3 63 35 r r 74 z 73 3 cA�q< c • rD• . 74 26 2 3 74 25 0 0 0 00 34 W 36 22 00 0 - 74 36 36 75 3 73 � 76 35 37 o 75 74 74 36 - 3 24 35 ^ 76 4 73 3 ~36 �II 40 00 3 73 74 _ 0 1O'> 108 76 Ha a r00r 89 4$ 49 3 7 4 107 . 9 89 36 0 00 V 76 3 t� j�Poz EcT ��' 4$ = 7 49 0 90 1©6 ` 00 Y 0°0 4 Y 90, ' 7 4 35 ° 00 „- 3 89 �00 ? �4 4 0 - 749 0 4 �.� 74 ' .r 74 26 water 000�..—,� �� so k SOIL SURVEY Runoff is slow. The hazard of water erosion is slight, and the hazard of wind erosion is moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, barley, al- falfa, and wheat. Under dryland management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also well suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIe-2, irrigated, and IIIe-8, dryland; Loamy Foothill range site; not assigned to windbreak suitability group. 47—Harlan fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes. This gently sloping to strongly sloping soil is on ter- races, fans, and valleysides. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the combined thickness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 20 to 24 inches. . Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of soils that have a surface layer of loam or sandy clay loam. Also included are a few small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and a few small areas of Otero, Connerton, and Barnum soils. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion is mod- erate to severe. If irrigated, this soil is well suited to pasture and, to a lesser extent wheat, barley, and alfalfa. Under dryland management it is suited to pasture and native grasses and, to a lesser extent, wheat and barley. Capa- bility units IVe-2, irrigated, and IVe-6, dryland; Loamy Foothill range site; not assigned to a wind- break suitability group. Heldt Series The Heldt series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed in alluvium from clay shale. These soils are on alluvial fans and valleysides. Elevation ranges from 4,800 to 5,500 feet. Slopes are 0 to 6 percent. The native vegetation is mainly western wheatgrass, blue grams, fringed sage, and cactus. Mean annual precipi- tation ranges from 13 to 15 inches, mean annual air temperature ranges from 48' to 501 F, and the frost - free season ranges from 135 to 150 days. In a representative profile the surface layer is gray- ish brown clay loam about 4 inches thick. The subsoil is grayish brown heavy clay loam and light brownish gray clay about 16 inches thick. The underlying mate- rial is light brownish gray clay. Permeability is slow, and the available. water ca- pacity is high. Reaction is moderately alkaline above a depth of 6 inches and strongly alkaline below that depth. These soils are mainly used for irrigated and dry - farmed crops and for pasture and native grasses. Representative profile of Heldt clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, in native grass, about 2,500 feet north of the southwest corner of sec. 14, T. 6 N., R. 68 W.: A1-0 to 4 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) heavy clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate fine granu- lar structure; slightly hard, friable; cal- careous; moderately alkaline; clear smooth boundary. 131-4 to 6 inches; grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) heavy clay loam, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) moist; moderate medium subangular blocky . structure; slightly hard, firm; calcareous; moderately alka- line; clear smooth boundary. 132-6 to 20 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) moist; moderate coarse and medium prismatic structure; many slickensides; very hard, very firm; strongly alkaline; clear smooth boundary. Cca-20 to 60 inches; light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) clay, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) moist; massive; very hard, very firm; visible calcium carbonate occurring as spots and seams; calcareous; strongly alkaline. The A horizon is clay loam or silty clay loam 4 to 10 inches thick. A B1 horizon is present in cultivated areas in some places. The B2 horizon is heavy clay loam to silty clay 10 to 35 inches thick. It has cracks up to one-half inch or more in size. The C horizon is clay or silty clay. Substrata of shale occur below a depth of 40 inches in some profiles, and some profiles are faintly mottled below a depth of 40 inches. 48—Heldt clay loam, 0 to 3 percent elopes. This nearly level soil is on fans and valleysides. This soil has the profile described as representative of the series. Included with this soil in mapping are a few areas of soils that are more sloping and a few areas of soils that have a surface layer of clay. Also included are small areas of Renohill and Ulm soils and a few small areas of soils in which shale is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches. Runoff is medium. The hazard of wind erosion is slight, and the hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to wheat, barley, al- falfa, and sugar beets and, to a lesser extent, corn and beans. Under dryland management it is suited to pas- ture and native grasses and, to a lesser extent, wheat and barley. Capability units IIIe-1, irrigated, and IVe-3, dryland; Clayey Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 3. 49—Heldt clay loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes. This gently sloping to strongly sloping soil is on fans and valleysides. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the com- bined thickness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 18 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping, a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer of clay, and a few areas of soils in which shale is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches. Also included are small areas of Renohill and Ulm soils. Runoff is rapid. The hazard of wind erosion is mod- erate, and the hazard of water erosion is severe. If irrigated, this soil is well suited to pasture and, to a lesser extent, wheat, barley, and alfalfa. Under dryland management it is suited to pasture or native grasses. Capability units IVe-1, irrigated, and VIe-1, dryland; Clayey Plains range site; windbreak suit- ability group 3. Keith Series The Keith series consists of deep, well drained soils I�I II 1 SOIL SURVEY moist; weak fine de f 12 inches and moderately alkaline below that brown (10YR 4/2) soft, very friable; de granular structure; ravel and stones; about 15 percent g fa strongly acid; abrupt smooth boundarav- A&B—g eto ny 2 inches; sandy loam, brown darkYR brown (10YR P sandy ular blocky w 4/3) moist; weak fine i ble; patchy W structure; soft, very friable; few rcent clay films on peds ; about 30 percent gravel and stones; strongly acid; wavy boundary. B2t-12 to 17 inches; reddishloam, dbrownark reddish gravelly sandy clay moderate fine brown (5YR 3/4) moist; a fine and medium subangular blocky struc- ture; slightly hard, firm; thin ,patchy, clay films on peds ; about 35 percent gravel and 10 percent cobbles; medium acid ; gradual wavy boundary. R-17 to 24 inches; hard granite bedrock. sandy The Al horizon is sandy loam or gravelly loam 1 inch to 3 inches loam 5 to 10thick, The 2horizon is sandy inches thick. The loam o gravelly sandy gravelly sandy B2t horizon is gravelly or fragments mainly fine granitic loam. Content of rock fragm gravel and cobbles, in the s, s rangesacid to slightly percent. Reaction ranges from strongly ' acid. percent elo es. gg—RedfeashoePing ao steep Sol issonmountainsides This strongly and ridges. in are some small Included with this soil in mapping g areas of shallow soils that have a darker colored sur- face sion Schofield and Nazisoils a d areas ofncluded are a eRock outcropw small s of Runoff is medium to rapid, and the hazard of u�° purposes is moderate to severe. This soil is suited to woodland and forestry p P summer homes. Capability unit VIIs-1, dryland ; wood - and to recreation. Some areas are used as sites. or land suitability group 6d2 assigned to a range site or windbreak suitability group. del Renohill Series well ries consists of moderately deep, The Renohill se drained soils that formed in material weathered andare sandstone ands hale. These oils are of 20 to 40 inches. underlain by to blue tole15tpercenteThe native0vegeta� on is Slopes yare rass and cactus. grama, buffalograssitat on ranges from 13 to 5 inches, Mean annual precip 35 15 to 0 50 mean annual air temperature ranges from to 1 F', and the frost -free season ranges from 135 days. rofile the surface layer is pale In a representative p brown clay loam about loamches abouth4 inches thsubsoil k iand pale brown heavy clis ay y about 12 inches thick. The light yellowish brown cla r al is light yellowish brown clay loam underlying about 10 inches is slow thesavailableewater ca- permeability Reaction is mildly alkaline above a pacity is medium. pth o for irrigated and dry - These soils are )r pasture and native grasses3 to 9 rmed crops and for p loam, Representative profile of Renohill clay ercent slopes, in grass, 200 feet northT 6 N., R. 69 est of the southeast corner of sec. 12, clay Al-0 to 3 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3nioist; loam, dark brown (lOYR e; soft, very weak fine granular structure; sooth friable; mildly alkaline; boundary. ale brown (10YR 6/3) heavy BI-3 to 7 inches; p lOYR 4/3) clay loam, dark brown moist; weak rydiha dubfriable; mildly structure; alkaline ; clear 119htiooth boundary - yellowish brown (2:5Y B2t-7 to612)inches; brwn (2.5Y 4/3) moist; clay, prismatic structure moderate medium parting to moderate medium sfirm ;thin blocky; extremely hard, °films on ped nearly continuous clay clear smooth faces; mildly alkaline; boundary, light yellowish brown B3ca-12(2 5Y 6/g)c 11ght clay, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) moist; weak medium angular subangu1 - blocky structure; clay tremely hard, very firm ;thin patchy films on ped faces; calcareous; visible secondary calcium carbonate IS adual spots; moderately alkaline; 9 smooth boundary. yellowish brown Clca-19 to 29 inches; light Y light olive (2.5Y 6/3) 5a y cmoist . weakmedium brown (2• structure; very hard, subangular blocky friable; calcareous; visible secondary cal - soft spots; cium carbonate as alkaline; gradual smooth bou darmodt' ately C2r-29 to 60 inches; calcareous clay loam 6 to 11 laym or silty clay The A horizon is cloam clay loam, inches thick in cultivated areas. in some,A Bl horizon is present or silty clay. The combined places. The B2t horizon is eavy heavy silty clay loam, clay, thickness of the A and B horizons ranges from 15 to 3() inches, Depth to calcareous material generally ranges from 6 to 20 inches, but some pedoare weakly calcareous throughout. Q .to 3 percent slopes: his 89—Renohill clay ups soilsof the nearly level soil is on uplands. This soil has a profile similar to the one described , representative series, but the combined thickness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 22 inches. in are a few small Included with this soil in mapping areas of areas of soils that are more ils that have. gra%1 onthe surface.Also sand a few loping included are a few small areas of Ulm, Heldt, and Midway soils. Runoff is medium, and the hazard of erosion light to moderate. If irrigated, this soil is well suited to pasture LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO to a lesser extent, wheat, barley, beans, and corn. Under dryland management it is suited to pasture and native grasses and, to a lesser extent, wheat and barley. Capability units IIIe-1, irrigated, and IVe-3, dryland; Clayey Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 3. 90—Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9. percent slopes. This gently sloping to strongly sloping soil is on uplands. This soil has the profile described as representative of the series. Included with this soil in mapping are some small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and some small areas of soils that have a gravelly surface layer. Also included are small areas of Ulm, Heldt, Midway, and Thedalund soils. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is severe. If irrigated, this soil 'is suited to pasture and, to a lesser extent, wheat, barley, and alfalfa. Under dry - land management it is suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IVe-1, irrigated, and VIe-1, dryland;. Clayey Plains range site;. windbreak suit- ability group 3. 91—Renohill-Midway clay loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes. This complex consists of gently sloping to mod- erately steep soils on uplands and ridges. It is about 55 percent Renohill clay loam and about 30 percent Midway clay loam. Renohill clay loam is smoother near the base of the slope, and Midway clay loam is steeper near ridgetops. Included with these soils in mapping are about 15 percent areas of Ulm and Heldt soils, Shale outcrop, and gravel knobs. Runoff is rapid, and the hazard of water erosion is severe. These soils are suited to pasture or native grasses. Capability unit VIe-1, dryland; Renohill soil in Clayey Plains range site and Midway soil in Shaly Plains range site; both soils in windbreak suitability group 3. Riverwash 92—Riverwash. This unit is highly variable, mixed, water -washed sand and gravel deposits, commonly next to stream channels. These areas are flooded each year, generally in spring or summer. In some places willow trees protect the soil against erosion along the stream - banks. Forage production is little and there is little value for grazing. These areas provide some shelter and habitat for wildlife. Capability unit VIIIw-1, dry - land; not assigned to a range site or windbreak suit- ability group. Rock Outcrop 93—Rock outcrop. This mapping unit is bare or nearly bare rock. Included in mapping are areas of shallow and very shallow soils, mainly around the edges of the mapped areas. Runoff is rapid. The hazard of water erosion is severe on the included soils and in adjacent areas that receive runoff. This unit is used mainly for wildlife habitat and esthetic purposes. Capability unit VIIIs-1, dryland; not assigned to a range site or windbreak sui group. Satanta Series The Satanta series consists of deep, well soils that formed in mixed alluvial and wind-dc material. These soils are on uplands and high t, Elevation ranges from 4,800 to 5,600 feet. Slo 0 to 9 percent. The native vegetation is mair grama, buffalograss, western wheatgrass, and Mean annual precipitation ranges from 13 to 15 mean annual air temperature ranges from 48' F, and the frost -free season ranges from 135 days. In a representative profile the surface layer grayish brown loam about 7 inches thick. The is brown clay loam and pale brown loam al inches thick. The underlying material is ve brown loam about 21 inches thick over very pah fine sandy loam. Permeability is moderate, and the available capacity is high. Reaction is mildly alkaline depth of 18 inches and moderately alkaline bei- depth. • These soils are used mainly for irrigated a. farmed crops and for pasture. Representative profile of Satanta loam, 1 tc cent slopes, in cropland, about 50 feet west feet north of the southeast corner of sec. 4, T. 1 69 W.: Ap-0 to 7 inches; dark grayish brown 4/2) loam, very dark grayish (10YR 3/2) moist; weak fine g structure; soft, very friable; mi kaline; clear smooth boundary. B1-7 to 12 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) loam, dark brown (10YR 3/3) weak medium prismatic structur ing to moderate medium sub: blocky; slightly hard, friable; mi kaline; clear smooth boundary. B2t-12 to 18 inches; brown (10YR 5/; loam, brown (10YR 4/3) moist; ate medium prismatic structure to moderate medium subangular slightly hard, firm; thin patchy cl: on peds; mildly alkaline; clear boundary. B3ca-18 to 23 inches; pale brown (10Y loam, brown (10YR 5/3) moist medium prismatic structure par weak medium subangular block, friable; fine thin patchy clay film: vescent; visible secondary carbonate as soft masses and spot erately alkaline; clear smooth bo! Clca-23 to 44 inches; very pale brown 7/3) loam, brown (10YR 5/3) weak medium subangular blocky ture; soft, very friable; violent]; vescent; visible secondary carbonate as spots and seams; ately alkaline; gradual smooth bo t 1 1 1 1 1 LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO 131 TABLE 8. Soil and water features —Continued Soil name and map symbol Hydro- logic Flooding Depth to seasonal high Bedrock Potential frost group Frequency Duration Months water, table ' Depth Hardness action Feet Inches Elbeth: *30: Elbeth part ________ B None ________ _ ------------- -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. Moen part _________ C None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 20-40 Hard _____ Moderate. Farnuf: 31 ------------------- B None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. *32: Farnuf part ________ B None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. Boyle part _________ D None ________ _ ------------- -------------- >6.0 9-20 Rippable __ Moderate. Rock outcrop part. Fluvaquents: 33 ___________________ ________ Frequent ____ Brief -------- April -June ___ 0.5-25 >60 ___________ Low. Fort Collins: 34, 35. 36, 37 ---------- B None ________ ______________ _ >6.0 >60 ___________ Moderate. Foxcreek: 38 ___________________ C Rare ________ Brief April -May ___ 0-0.5 >60 ___________ High. Gapo: 39------------------- D None -------- -------------- -------------- 3.0 >60 ----------- High. Garrett: 40 ___________________ B ' Rare -------- Very .brief ___ _________ >6.0 >60 ___________ Moderate. 41------------------- B None -------- -------------- ----------- >6.0 >60 ---- Moderate. Gravel pits: 42. Haploborolls: *43: Haploborolls part --- -------- None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 ---------- ----------- Rock outcrop part. Haplustolls: 44 ------------------- -------- None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 ---------- ----------- *45: Haplustolls part ---- -------- None -------- =------------- -------------- >6.0 ---------- ----------- Rock outcrop part. Harlan: 46, 47 ------ B None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. 4eldt: 48. 49---------------- C None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. Keith: so --------- B None -------- -------------- -------'------ >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. Cildor: 51------------------- C None -------- ------ -------- -------------- >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ High. *52: Kildor part -------- C None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ High. Shale outcrop part. Cim: 53, 54, 55 _____________ B None ________ -------------- ______________ >6.0 >60 ___________ Moderate. *56: Kim part __________ B None --------- ______________ ______________ >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. Thedalund part _____ C None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ Moderate. lirtley: 57 ___________________ C None ________ ______________ -------------- >6.0 2040 Rippable __ Moderate. LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO TABLE 8. Soil and water features —Continued 133 i E S T T T T Soil name and map symbol Hydro- logic Flooding Depth to seasonal high Bedrock Potential frost group Frequency Duration Months water table Depth Hardness action Feet Inches Pinata: •83: Pinata part.-------- Rock outcrop part. C None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 40-60 Hard ----- Low. Poudre: 84 ___________________ B Common _-__ Very brief ___ April -June ___ 0.5-1.0 >60 ___________ Moderate. Purner: 85------------------- D None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 10-20 Hard ----- Low. *86: Purner part ------- Rock outcrop part. D None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 10-20 Hard _____ Low. Ratake: *87: Ratake part ________ Rock outcrop part. D None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 7-20 Rippable __ Moderate. Redfeather: 88------------------- D None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 10-20 Hard ----- Moderate. Renohill : 89. 90 ________________ C None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ Moderate. *91: Renohill part ------- Midway part C D None ________ None ______________ ______________ >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ Moderate. ------- ________ ______________ -------------- >6.0 10-20 Rippable __ Moderate. tiverwash: 92------------------- -------- Frequent ---- Long -------- January - -------------------- ----------- December. Lock outcrop: 93. aatanta: 94. 95, 96. 97 ---------- B None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 >60 ___________ Moderate. atanta Variant: 98 ___________________ B Rare ________ Very brief ___ April -June.___ 3.5-5.0 >60 ___________ Moderate. chofield: *99: Schofield part ______ Redfeather part B D None ________ ______________ None ______________ >6.0 20-40 Hard ----- Moderate. __-_ Rock outcrop part. ________ ___________ >6.0 10-20 Hard ----- Moderate. toneham: 100, 101. 102, 103 ------- B None ________ ______________ ______________ >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. inshine: 104 ------------------ C None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- High. able Mountain: 105__________________ B Rare ________ Very brief ___ May -June ___ >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. issel: 106------------------ D None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 10-20 Rippable __ Low. tedalund : 107, 108 ______________ C None ________-------------- -------------- >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ Moderate. . iiel : 109------------------ B None -------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 >60 ----------- Moderate. I I 1 I i 1 1 1 i 1 APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS ' Drainage and Erosion Control Report 1" Community Bank Plaza t Appendix April 2006 :ej LO csi N O CD N 0 m .c a� U c 0� N N U) N U)� C. c %U U � � m 0 `m LL r oU _T y U m N _ c O m a Mo Y ) E ts O m m� 3 0 E o � CD2 N E U ICN M c 0 w K M C, O U N M — 7 N O 0 .Z n 0 E co z 'Oa z z¢ v a a a`) v E E ¢ m n E E O 0 O_j i U a N a 0 E U vi w 0 t Q a? U C 'd Co O M U. m U O d U N (0 U 0 U N c 3 C L Cc w N c CC) N N N �.o 00 O O w O y y f6 EE °c2E�° Q2`m=0 o u it u °�QUQ cQ U) a) U W N I I oU U U a N N c m o � U s U w } N Z n N F Z O V Z 0 z U Q LL y0 W F U_ O rn S O m u o o `v � V � ry Y � o � � u Q = � W � � N C Y d f0 � U d V � L a o. N N C O a � J m a J N ry z IL E "' Z � N N u coo E — i W 11 U z Y Q J N m n s N � K > F e N11 L+ c1 M o U ^ a _ _ n N E 3 O o LL J W z N W > Z Q m � u t > � W v W f L N N H J J F O Z Q O o h K �- W o > W N Q v H_ J z � N U � G � V N d fV � z z Co 7 N m al 7 N Z F � Z � O W a lJ V Y 0 0 z 0 N N C z O m W oU z z 00 a U N LL O W F U_ _N S m m .N O N C 0 U 0 LL 0 U O ch Cl) d rn LL 0 N C a N N O U O � L � 3 U O Y LL _ N L lD U O V C _N W m E N a 00 E N 7 N a � E E O a LO u U n U + o J O C .E _ > o U E U E U) 'c O _ E Q ; r ro m Z u cy U Y t9 W N x 0 U 0 N L O O co O V O fh LL LL O Z D E Y r W a p } O N W C O -J U Q Z O O LL o r U V 0 U EE b O 4, ^ C r � $ o 0 c o U 00 M . O cc m O U 0 Q) m a% m � o N o � N C.) N LL N u ._ c C 0 U r O LL O `p U U E O w C p LO Lp N L U N a C N °O U N .0.. 'C (0 O Q LO @ •� C _dam �'�'O II II II ` II a U U .° Q Q U U I I a U. LL O' Z D E Y 0 Q " W N a o } 00 2 � H U LU J O Q U Z t O O t* N ts At U a E $ o E o o O 0 U00 N O } 9 . . z z Z 0 F U ¢ � w a 0 a F o A N m o . _U 0 N co fl 0 U r 0 li O U E 0 N U L N �co N c' Co cc m N 0 C N m Y — O O (0 C co C C (6 O 1 II. II. II CJU.I� Q O �. p W p u � to O N o7 N (O N O I� 07 V D7 Q O w y O D1 V Q1 n O � 0 o c E 0 vi 0 vi 0 ui 0 6 c4 0 0 vi 0 ri 0 ui 0 ui u c � '� M 0 vi 0 vi O ui a0 � 0 0 0 ui 0 ui Sri 0 vi p 0) co ao IT co v n IT v o IT co 0 CDCDrn co U 0 0 o c o � o � o coo CD ccoo LO m m 0 co n V o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d u 10 Q w 0 co 0 co 0 M 0 co 0 V 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 z` y r A a a N M C N (D Q m 00 � y C r Im m a N CO r m co 0 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: Ist Community Bunk Plaza PROJECT NO: 394800.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 312412006 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Streets, parking lots (asphalt) Sidewalks (concrete) Roofs Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil) Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.10 0 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) SIDEWALK AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % Impervious 101 0.64 28,008 3,185 12,000 2,445 10,378 0.64 61 102 0.33 14.161 0 9,761 0 4.400 0.69 69 103 0.34 14,792 0 9,919 0 4874 0.67 67 104 0.35 15,184 5,523 3,266 0 - 6,395 0.59 54 105 0.30 12,905 3,365 0 501 9.038 0.35 27 106 0.47 - 20,563 0 15,052 2,741 2,770 0.84 86 107A 0.21 9,280 0 6,176 73 3,031 0.67 67 107B 0.24 10,510 0 8,261 433 1,817 0.80 83 108 0.20 8.649 0 6,225 0 2.424 0.71 72 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted. C=£,(CiAi) /At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's 39468008ows.xls } O r N � li Z y0 f r 0 LL O F Z a W i U FZ y0 V LL 0, W A � c m 0] T C � O O O N O U v U J y y O O O m 0 0 0 Z•• E „ vi ui vi ro o vi vi vi vi 0 m " u Y N Y � J EZ,o o 0 0 0 0 o LL J W Z in mmn anon �OOm S U rn O c 0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 OC� O m f ~ J ui L � � J m " E tO O N •- m N n Q Q [7 �n o v��n00000 n0m�oo00 vi a J J K W O "U_ n mmmu��nmmmn a _f z � (y anav�or m [7 M th Nl Q N Qo N N N - Z Q< O O O O O O Q O m z Z N a _mot NO Nn Q mm^ mm mY- w N C � LL } 0 Z 0 Q N a/ N z Z a' W �Z 00 a ci O LL CO to W 2 a T C r C C (j CD x N V w U } m N z O zz¢ oO F F h W C c� F OedO� o J O O O O 0 0 0 0 Z •+ E 10 U-i N N O N N N O y_ E- m " C Y N ULU Z J U m Z- O � II + m 10 O O n V N V V Q O -E� O O m 0 U01 0 M J LL o�0000000 J W Z N t0 �O n 10 O n t0 O N Q Urn m S L tO t0 t0 (O t0 tO t0 t0 t0 Q C C j 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O p to O O O O O O O W N— 6 c`i m O O O .- W _ H JLLJ i OI ^ ^ p 11 O h O p^^ O o 10 O O n U0 b U0 0 O h O 0 O 0 O 0 O O L cm J C U O CO R C V O< O nmaonvocao w J U 00000.=ono K W Q a m n O N Q n 0- - Fw o 0 0 o c c o 0 0 _f 2F N �N tpmmmm QNNN N z m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m D to Z Z to mF UO wLL y O LL, O E Z'0 M � N Q } a � N O_ F O ti W * t J U. Z O Q V a Q: Y 0] T :C O E C 0 0 O n r v E 0 h r. n Cf N z O zz¢ O F F W a < Occc0< j a U a a O 0 a a. t t 5 c (n 0 Z c_ c_ a a m m . y Y n G a to U to Q N N rnA N N N N f _y LU n n 3 3'a n n'a c c 9 0 c c c c 0 J w o N t0 n M ci a n vi of Dior o O O 0 U N M Q P r tD Q � fn N +CO m WE me Nt+ Q^ ++ > + O p a : o + + + M N + N +. C N + + L) m Mem rn mn Q tnrnto�rrNn - (O tD fp M n m co n co � aoeeniveo< 000ao 'O oo "10 E N N N N O N N N N U etn nm Ne r o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U e M e N O A O O Q t M M M M Q N N N a 0 0 a 0 a 0 0 0 c ry LL N M e N Q CD LL O 7 m 9 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q a 0 0 Z F � Ix rc u U W K O c to c w N M e N t0 r CIDCD O a 7 ' U UL N • C 0 U 0 O LL Q o U 0 N o r E c U N C 7 "`° 21 p .� (o l0 u f0 to N ... -C T C M tun O C C cm a) cop 0- ccC a)C N C (0 II II II II o 0 J (n C C W V _ ir o. U O LO aLL ui O N 1 1 LL LL O Z O � N Q O 1 a� G y O W U ' 0 J O Q w Z O O y U � c m. y F C o LO V C N u U 0 y 0 O 1 m Cn z o0 zz¢ O F F F U I a ' O c0 O JaU� a D C a C o a L L N c z c a a d d a a a' U U Q Q a N N 2 2 2 2 w � c c 3 3 c c c c 0 Q Q O m � Q m � Q Cam m Ir E rn N + ¢ + o �'o + + + n > ` a .D O o + ° + c 0 Kc a o a Ir Q U 0 O N ui m m m O n m O m U m N N N O t m m m m m m m m m _ m m m m m m m m m m Di tT of I: of Oi Oi m U C O O O O m 0 0 0 0 E ui ui ui uio6 uimn U m n m m a m v n o v 0 o 0 m o o m m � ar�vmon�vo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL d 'y 0 0 0 0 O O p p 0 a Z o U W rc ' 0 Z U ' LL� m' c� .o U O LL 0 _T 0 U cc O C w ` y m N L N E c c`) _ N C 7 vv f0 U t9 N d L D C CO U U p o N C m — l9 Q w c C n ` II II II C'JUU.° 11 Q I 11 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 1" Community Bank Plaza APPENDIX C INLET CALCULATIONS Appendix April 2006 I STREET AND INLET HYDRAULICS Version 2.13 Released February 2006 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Denver, Colorado ' Purpose: This workbook aids in estimating gutter conveyance capacity and assists in sizing inlets. Function: 1. To calculate the peak runoff flow from a catchment at the location of a proposed inlet. 2. To determine the maximum street gutter hydraulic capacity for both the minor and major events. 3. To determine the flow.condition on the street and to size inlets to capture that flow. ' Content: The workbook consists of the following 4 worksheets: Q-Peak Use this sheet to determine the peak discharge at your proposed inlet location. The peak is based on rainfall ' characteristics (return period), imperviousness, overland/gutter lengths and slopes, and existing gutter flows from upstream design points (carry-over flow). If the peak discharge is already known, enter it at the top of this sheet and the rest of the sheet may be ignored. Q-Allow Use this sheet to determine the maximum allowable discharge for one side of the street at your proposed inlet location. ' This is based on the regulated maximum flow spread and gutter flowline depth, the street longitudinal and transverse slopes, the gutter section geometry, the street roughness, and any conveyance capacity behind the curb face (e.g. that area above the sidewalk). If a longitudinal slope of zero is entered on this sheet, the condition will default to a sump, or sag location. If the maximum allowable discharge at this location is smaller than the peak discharge determined on the previous sheet, the proposed inlet location should be moved upstream. Inlet On Grade Use this sheet to select the inlet type and number of inlets best suited for your proposed location on a continuous grade, determining the intercepted flow and the bypassed (carry-over) flow. The carry-over flow will need to be applied to the next downstream inlet in addition to the local runoff determined for that inlet. Inlet In Sump Use this sheet to select the inlet type and number of inlets best suited for your proposed location in a sump, or sag location. The type and number of inlets in a sump is based on the desired maximum flow depth and spread. There will be no bypassed (carry-over) flow from this inlet. ' Acknowledgements: Spreadsheet Development Team: Dr. James C.Y. Guo, P.E. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado at Denver ' Ken A. MacKenzie, P.E. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Denver, Colorado ' Comments? Direct all comments regarding this spreadsheet workbook to: UDFCD_.E-_Mail Revisions? Check for revised versions of this or any other workbook at: Downloads 1 1 UD-Inlet_v2.13.xis, INTRO 2/2/2006, 12:09 PM DESIGN PEAK FLOW FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET BY THE RATIONAL METHOD Palmer DP 1 Design Flow = Gutter Flow + Carry-over Flow I I °V� OWNS J i St�E VERLAVD `I �iI STREET I TLCW y '_ I.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: Minor Storm Major Storm (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchmenls): Q = 2 OOF 5.101 cis 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): Area Percent Imperviousness • Percent Imperviousness = =Acres NRCS Soil Type = A, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Slope Nft Len th (tt Site is Urban: Overland Flow = Site Is Non -Urban: Gutter Flow = - Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ' P, / (Cz + T,) " C3 Minor Storm Major Storm - Design Storm Return Period, T, _ years Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, = inches C,= Cz= 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 = 0.001 0.00 Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Qs -1 cis Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: Minor Storm Major Storm 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, td _ Calculated Time of Concentration, T, _ Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T, _ Recommended T° _ Time of Concentration Selected by User, T° _ Design Rainfall Intensity. I = .Calculated Local Peak Flow, Q° _ Total Design Peak Flow, Q = 11 - N/A N/A . N/A - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A .NIA - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A - ... NIA - - NIA NIA - N/A - N/A NIA 2.00 - 5.10 fps fps minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes inch/hr cfs cis 3946800inlet 100YR Design Point 1 Type 13.xls, Q-Peak 3/24/2006, 12:57 PM t L 17 L I� ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Major & Minor Storm) (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: - Palmer - - InletlD: DP 1 Te.cK- __.____-_-_ TcnowR SeT c � . TMnx I + _- T, grown 'jT Crown �. �Q yl w .� "CURB d I 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 ce from Curb Face to Street Crown Depression Width Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition ng's Roughness for Street Section Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) - MaximumSxutter-Capacity-Based_On.Aftivatfle Watar.Sgrgad Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) ' Water Depth with a Gutter Depression Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W IT - W) ' Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. carried in Section j. ' Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Q - Qx) Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g.. sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread ' Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section d Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth IV* TRACK = 0.0 ft Se.c. = ft. ven. I ft. horiz nBACK = Hcum = 6.00 inches TCRovm = 26.0 ft a = 2.00 inches W = 2.00 ft SK = 0.0200 ft. ven. / ft. horiz . So = 0.0006 ft. van. I ft. horiz nsTREBT = 0.0150 TMAK dMu SW: y' d: Tx: Eo: QA' Qw' ABACK Or: V= V'd = oretical Water Spread I TTR oretical Spread for`Discharge outside the Gutter -Section W (T - W) TX Te ter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) Eo oretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section TTd Qx TK T :al Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance 6RC.) - Qx :harge within the Gutter Section W (Q, - Qx) - _ Q, :harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) OBACK' it Discharge for Major & Minor Storm 0: r Velocity Within the Gutter Section V Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V'd : �e-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor (m 6") Storm R : Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Q, : illant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) d iftant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) dCROWN kA; n mn.m Aha­C.­ 26.01 26.0 6.001 18.00 '. 0,1033 0.1033 6.24 6.24 8.24 8.24 24.0 -24.0 0.236 0.236 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l SUMP SUMP 0.0 "" 0.0 0.0 01.0 16.7 66.7 14.7 64.7 0.378 0.086 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SUMP SUMP SUMP SUMP t nches (= yews C nches nches :fs IS fs as :fs :is fs IS fs os 1s fiches fiches Minor Storm Ma'or Storm Max_AUpwabte.Gunar-CBpacltyBased onblinimumof_Q.or9, OA,Mx, = SUMP SUMP cfs MINOR STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak' MAJOR STORM max. allowable capacity, OK - Greater than flow divert on sheet'O-Peak' ' 3946800inlel 100YR Design Point 1 Type 13.xis, O-Allow 3/24/2006, 12:57 PM Street Section with Flow Depths 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 Section of 1/2 Street (distance in feet) 16.0 18.0 I —Ground elev. 0 Minor d-max Major d-max —X— Minor T-max x Major T-ma — 0,56 Ss,,;S,12T V. — 1 L Eo S. , S 1+ 8; 3 1-Eo C (T;«.-1I 3946800inlet 100YR Design Point 1 Type 13.xis, Q-Allow 3/24/2006, 12:57 PM INLET IN A SUMP OR SAG LOCATION Project= Palmer Inlet ID - DP I i--Lo (C)-- i H-Curb H-Verl Wp -_ W o sigDlntormationilnput) pe of Inlet Type = CDOT/Denver 13 Combination " cal Depression (additional to continuous gutter tleDression'a' from'O-Allow') ae,,,, = 2.00 inches mber of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) [N, No = 7 ate Information ngth of a Unit Grate Lo (G) = 3.00 feel dth of a Unit Grate W. = 1.73 feet ' ea Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.15-0.90) A,,,„o = 0.47 Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50 - 0.70) C, (G) = 0.50 Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3,00) C. (G) = 3.00 Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) Co (G) = 0.67 Curb Opening Information - Length of a Unit Curb Opening L. (C) = 3.00 feet Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H.,, = 6.50 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,,,,„, = 5.25 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 0.0 degrees ' Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W. = 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) C, (C) = 0.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) C. (C) = 130 Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0,67) Co (C) = 0.67 ResuWn0.Gutter-Elow.D"tttfor.Grate-Wet.Capacity. in a Sump . Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.50 Using Curb Opening Only Instead of Grate as a Weir (curb is in weir control) Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (2 cfs grate, 0 cfs curb) d„ = 433 inches Flow Depth (Curb Opening Only) without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 2 cfs curb) d,u, _ = 3.11 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (2 cfs grate, 0 cfs curb) d,,,, = 6.28 inches Flow Depth (Curb Opening Only) with Clogging (0 CIS grate, 2 cfs curb) tl= 3.20 inches ' Grate As an Orifice ' Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (2 cfs grate, 0 cfs curb) do = 2.14 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (1.9 cfs grate. 0.1 cfs curb) - tls, = 3.20 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,z,,,, = 1.20 Inches Resulting GutterBow Depthlior Curb.Qpening lnletf apacity trta Sump -. Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units _ Coef = 1.00 - Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0.10 ' Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice - Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (1.28 cfs grate, 0.72 cfs curb) - d,,, _ 1.59 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (1 cfs grate. 1 cis curb) - d,,, = 2.13 inches Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (2 cfs grate, 0 cfs curb) da = 2.14 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (1.9 cfs grate, 0.1 cfs curb) d„ _. 3.20 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d,.cu,b = 1.20 inches ResuttantStmetCond itions - Total Inlet Lenglh L = 3.0 feet Total Inlet InterceDfion Capacity (Design Discharge from O-Peak) 0„ = 2.0 cfs Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d = 1.20 Inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T = 1.0 feet Resultant Flow Depth at Street Crown OcRrnn= 0.00 Inches 3946800inlet 100YR Design Point 1 Type 13.xis, Inlet In Sump - 312412006, 12:57 PM - 112 OF STREET - a� Design Flow: ONLY if already determined through other methods: _ Minor Storm Major Storm ' (local peak flow for 1/2 of street, plus flow bypassing upstream subcatchments): 'Q = '.::.0.90 cfs • 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): - Sub catchment Area Acres ' Percent Imperviousness NRCS Soil Type JA, B, C, or D Site: (Check One Box Only) Site is Urban X Overland Flow = Slope (ft/ft) Length (ft) Site Is Non -Urban Gutter Flow =[ Rainfall Information: Intensity I (inch/hr) = C, ' P, / (C2 +T,) A C3 Minor Storm Major Storm Design Storm Return Period, Tr= years ... ... ..... .... . - -?- :_ Return Period One -Hour Precipitation, P, _ inches Ci= 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), CS - -� ---` Bypass (Carry -Over) Flow from upstream Subcatchments, Q n =177777iq777777i.00 cfs Analysis of Flow Time (Time of Concentration) for a Catchment: - Minor Storm Major Storm _ Calculated Design Storm Runoff Coefficient, C = ..:::N/A _...... ;:._.;N/A Calculated 5-yr. Runoff Coefficient, C5 = . WA N/A " Overland Flow Velocity, Vo = '! WA :N/A fps" Gutter Flow Velocity, VG = .>I:N/AN/A fps Overland Flow Time, to minutes " ' Gutter Flow Time, tc = .!N/A _. is .NIA minutes " " Calculated Time of Concentration, T, _ N/A N/A minutes " Time of Concentration by Regional Formula, T� _ "WA :',N/A minutes Recommended T. _>. NIA '.N/A minutes Time of Concentration Selected by User, T. WA N/A minutes " Design Rainfall Intensity, I = )'; N/A ^IN/A inch/hr ' .. Calculated Local Peak. Flow, Qp = ". N/A ';N/A cfs Total Design Peak Flow, Q=�.:0:90: 2:40 cfs 3946800iniet 100YR Design Point 7B Type 13.xis, Q-Peak 216/2006, 7:39 AM L ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Major & Minor Storm) ' - (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: Palmer Inlet ID: DP 7B TCROWN T. Tuxx --- L--W -{---- T. --- -� ' 'id ----`- -__ Q. Qr Y iCURR d SY Street Crown Gutter Geometry (Enter data in the blue cells) Maximum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Side Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind Curb) Taxcx ft Sexcx =�ft van / ft honz ' Manning's Roughness Behind Curb nancK = Height of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HcURe = 6.00 inches Distance from Curb Face to Street Crown - TCROWN = 26.6 ft' ' ' Gutter Depression a = 2.00 inches Gutter Width - W = 2.00 ft Street Transverse Slope Sx = 0.0420 ft. van. / ft. hodz Street Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump Condition So = 0,0420 ft. van. / ft. hodz Manning's Roughness for Street Section nsTREET = 0,0150 rx:.,.., Q.,.- x..,:.._ c..,- ' - Max. Allowable Water Spread for Minor 8 Major Slonn Twx = Max. Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor 8 Major Stonn dranx = Ilow Flow Depth at Street Crown (leave blank for no) V 26.0 V 26.0 ft inches X = yes 6.00 6.( ' Gutter Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) SW Water Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) y Water Depth with a Gutter Depression d 'Allowable Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Tx Gutter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) EO ' Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. carded in Section T x Ox Discharge within the Gutter Section W (Or - Qx) QW Discharge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, 8 lawns). QencK Maximum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread Or ' Flow Velocity Within the Gutter Section V 'd Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth - V•d �ore6cel Water Spread -. TTH �oretiral Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Tx TH ter Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) EC oretical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section T x TH Qx TH' cal Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance T CROWN) Qx' :harge within the Gutter Section W (Oe - Qx) OW :harge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, &lawns) Qimcx al Discharge for Major 8 Minor Storm - Q v Velocity Within the Gutter Section V Product: Flow Velocity Times Gutter Flowline Depth V•d w-Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major 8 Minor (d > 6-) Stonn R = Flow Based on Allow. Gutter Depth (Safety Factor Applied) Qa = ultant Flow Depth at Gutter Flowline (Safety Factor Applied) d = ultant Flow Depth at Street Crown (Safety Factor Applied) dCROWN = 0.1253 0.1253 13.10 13.10 15.10 15.10 24.0 24.0 0,213 0.213 186.1 186.1 50.4 50.4 0.0 0.0 236.5 236.5 22.21 22.2 mol 28.0 nn.,... e..,..., u..:..- c....... 7.9 7.9 5.9 5.9 0.644 0.644 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 8.1 8.1 0.0 0.0 12.6 12.6 10.8 10.8 5.4 5.4 0.57 0.57 7.2 Ti 5.05 5.05 0.00 0.00 Wit inches inches ft .fs -is .fs :fs ps t t fs ;is fs fs Is. Ts fs Iches rches Minor Storm Major Sic" lowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of Q or Q Qum _ 7.2 7.2 1 cfs STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than flow given on sheet'Q-Peak' 2 STORM max. allowable capacity OK - greater than Bow given on sheet'Q-Peak' 3946800inlet 100YR Design Point 7B Type 13.xis, Q-Allow, 1 2/6/2006, 7:39 AM ' Street Section with Flow Depths 18 ' 17 16 ' 15 14 13 ' 12 d C„ c 10 S 9 8 01 7 ' 6 5 4 ' 3 2 1 0 - - --�LJ-- -- I 000 ---- 1 I. ' 0.0 2.0 4.0 _ 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 Section of 1/2 Street (distance in feet) t—Ground elev. -0- Minor d-max A- Major d-max -X- Minor T-max X Major T-max 0.56 .513 111 813 - 1 1+. , 8'; EO (Ti"FF�)_1� ' 3946800inlet 100YR Design Point 7B Type 13.xis, Q-Allow 216/2006, 7:39 AM ' INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Project: Palmer Inlet ID: DP 78 - --'.-Lo(C)--- . H-Curb II ., W o - W -Lo (G) Desi n Information llnput) Type of Inlet Type = COOT/Denver 13 Combination Local Depression(additional to continuous gutter depression'a' Irom'Q-Allow) ara,LL = 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L. = 3.00 it Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from C-Allow) W. = 1.73 it Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = , 0.50 Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CrC = 0.10 Street Hydraulics Calculated). Capacity OK - Q is less than maximum allowable from Sheet' .AII w' Design Discharge for Hag of Street (from C-Peak 0.. 0.90 cfs Water Spread Width - T = 1.7 It Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) d = . 2.5 inches Ater Depth at Street Crown (or at Tmx) dcRowN = 0.0 inches . Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow F, = 1 gg0 Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section J O, = 0.00 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W Q„ = 0.91 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face - Q e•cn - 0.00 cfs _ Street Flow Area A. = 0.17 sq 0 Street Flow Velocity V. = S.29 fps Water Depth for Design Condition di_ o = 4.5 inches Grate Analysis Calculated) Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L = 3.00 it Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow - Fbyaxre = 1 012 - Under No -Clogging Condition Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. = 6,17 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr = 00 ' Interception Rate of Side Flow R, = 0.15 Interception Capacity Q,= 0.92 cfs - Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Mulliple-unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = 0,50 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet L. = 1.50 It Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V.= 3.86 fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow R, = 0.87 Interception Rate of Side Flow - R, = - 0.03 Actual Interception Capacity Q.' 0.80 cfs Carry -Over Flow = Q-Q. (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) Qs' .0.11 cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis Calculated) Equivalent Slope S.(based on grate carry-over) S. = 0.2087 Wit Required Length i. to Have 100% Interception • Lr = 2.90 ft Under No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L.14 L = 2.89 it Interception Capacity O, = 0.05 cfs Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple-unil Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0A0 Effective (Unclogged) Length 4= z.7on Actual Interception Capacity Q.= 0.05 cfs Carry -Over Flow = QWic.Ara -01. Qx R 0.05 cfs Summa Total Inlet Interception Capacity O= 0.86 cfs Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Os = 0.04 CIS Capture Percentage = Q/Q. = C%- 95.4 % 3946800intel 100YR Design Point 78, Type 13.x1s, Inlet On Grade 216/2006, 7:39 AM Ilient: 04 4 4— I Job No: rect: By:/ S Chk. y: Date: 4 Subject: (� «. � �5"SZ/ Sheet No: of 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 `V J•R ENGINEERING A Westdim Company IN MEN 0 MEN ME MM MEN" MlMr Mir.! SOMEONE mill EMMINE ON ME MEN MW ME ME MEMO M, 11MEERIVIN, I-FAMMLAVA on- s ME HE lommmmom alromwilrol NONE MEMO MINE ME MEN M MEN 1 0 M- I I El WFA P P. I EN W) IF Ol- A WIN mom Mill MIMI" r EM ME MESOME NJ I IN rr MM 40 NOME NEENNE■III 111�11AIWKAIMEWMM INN EEEElMIMMMIMMMNM MIEN 0 mommommmmmmom NONE MEMS 0 111 MEMEMEMOM MEME ME ME MEMO Basin 104 Curb Cut Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet Basin 104 Curb Cut Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.250000 ,ft/ft Depth 0.23 ft Bottom Width 2.00 It Results Discharge 8.60 cfs Flow Area 0.5 ft' Wetted Perimeter 2.46 ft Top Width 2.00 ft Critical Depth 0.83 ft Critical Slope 0.005868 ft/ft Velocity 18.69 ft/s Velocity Head 5.43 ft Specific Energy 5.66 ft Froude Number 6.87 Flow Type Supercritical Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\3940000.all\3946800\Flowmaster\curb cut.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 02/02/06 02:10:34 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA + 1 -203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section -Basin 104 Curb Cut Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet Basin 104 Curb Cut Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.250000 ft/ft Depth 0.23 ft Bottom Width 2.00 ft Discharge 8.60 cfs 0.23 ft I -- 2.00 ft V:1 HA NTS Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\3940000.a11\3946800\flowmaster\curb cut.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 [7.0005] 02/02/06 02:11:05 PM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I APPENDIX D 1 WATER QUALITY, DETENTION POND AND STORM PIPE I C p,a-2�cc a-c : s c- CALCULATIONS Appendix April 2006 i JR Engineering WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME SUMMARY FOR EXTENDED DETENTION PROJECT NAME: PALMER JFK PLAZA JR PROJECT NO: 39468.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 03/24/06 Guidelines from Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, September 1999 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) Use 40-hour brim -full volume drain time for extended detention basin Water quality Capture Volume, WQCV = 1.0 ' (0.91 - i3 - 1.19 - iZ + 0.78i). Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 ' Area ` 1.2 MAJOR BASIN Trib. area (acres) % Impervious la Impervious Ratio i=Ia1100 WQCV (watershed inches) Design Volume, Vol (ac-ft) POND SOUTH 1.95 63.1 0.631 0.25 0.05 POND NORTH. 1.13 68.6 0.686 0.27 0.03 C 3946800wq and pond volumes.xls,3/24/2006,12:30 PM ' EPA SWMM 5.0 DATA ' LOCATION: PALMER PROJECT NO: 39468.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: ES ' SUBMITTED.BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 3/24/2006 SWMM Basin ID Rational Method Basins To Junction Basin Width (ft) Basin Area (ac) Percent Impervious Basin Slope (ft/ft) S1 101 J1 199.0 0.64 61 0.035 S2 102 J2 55.3 0.33 69 0.057 S3 103 J3 67.9 0.34 67 0.017 S4 104 SU1 151.8 0.35 54 0.009 S5 105 SU2 88.4 0.30 27 0.015 S6 106 J6 117.5 0.47 86 0.05 S7A 107A J7A 61.5 0.21 67 0.05 S7B 107E J7B 65.7 0.24 83 0.05 S8 108 J8 52.1 0:20 72 0.05 First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 03/2412006 00:15:00 'Gager JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Page 1 ' First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 ' [TITLE] First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No, 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 - '(OPTIONS] FLOW_UNITS CFS INFILTRATION HORTON FLOW ROUTING - DYNWAVE - START DATE 03/24/2006 TIME 00:00:00 'START REPORT START DATE 03/24/2006 - REPORT START_TIME 00:00:00 . END 03/25/2006 - - -DATE END TIME SWEEP START 00:00:00 01/01 SWEEP END 12/31 DRY DAYS 0 ' REPORT 00:15:00 -STEP STEP 00:15:00 'WET DRY STEP 01:00:00 ROUTING STEP 0:00:10 ALLOW PONDING NO INERTIAL DAMPING PARTIAL. VARIABLE STEP 0.50 LENGTHENING STEP 0 MIN SURFAREA 0 NORMAL FLOW LIMITED NO STEADY-STATE NO 'SKIP IGNORE_RAINFALL NO (RAINGAGES) . Rain Recd. Snow Data Source Station Rain ' ;;Name----------Type--- ,------ Gagel --Freq. ----------------------------------- INTENSITY 0:05 Catch Source 1.0 TIMESERIES Name . -------ID- ----------- Units FTC100-yr [SUBCATCHMENTS) - ;; - Total Pcnt. Pcnt. Curb Snow ;;Name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raingage Outlet Area Impery Width ' Slope ,Length Pack Sl Gagel J1 .64 - 61 199 3.5 0 S2 Gagel J2 .33 69 55.3 5.7 0 S3 Gagel J3 .34 67 67.9 1.7 0 ' S4 Gagel Sul .35 54 151.8 .9 0 S5 Gagel SU2 .30 27 88.4 1.5 0 S6 Gagel J6 .47 86 117.5 5 0 S7B Gagel - J7B .24 - 83 65.7 5 0 S8 Gagel J8 .2 72 52.1 5 0 ' S7A Gagel SU1 .21 67 61.5 5 . 0 [SUBAREAS) - ;;Subcatchment ----------------------------------------- S1 N-Impery N-Pery .016 0.25 S-Impery ---------------------------- 0.05 S-Pery 0.05 Pct2ero 25 .RouteTo ----------------- OUTLET PctRouted - S2 .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 - OUTLET S3 .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 OUTLET S4 .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 OUTLET S5 .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 OUTLET S6 .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 OUTLET S7B .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 OUTLET _- S8 .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 OUTLET .016 0.25 0.05 0.05 25 OUTLET '[S7A INFILTRATION) ;;Subcatchment MaxRate MinRate Decay DryTime MaxInfil . .---------------------------------------------------------------------- .51 0.5 .0018 7 0 'Sl S2 .51 0.5 .0018 7 0 S3 .51 0.5 .0018 7 0 S4 .51 0.5 .0018 7 0 .51 0.5 .0018 7 0 " S6 .51 0.5 .0018 7 0 'S5 S78 .51 0.5 - .0018 7 0 JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Page 1 - First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 ' S8 .51 0.5 .0018 7 0 S7A .51 0.5 - .0018 7 0 [JUNCTIONS] ' Invert Max. Init. Surcharge Ponded ;;Name ..---------------------------------------- Elev. Depth Depth ------------------------------- Depth - Area J1 5020.85 3.00 - 0 0 0 -- J2 5019.82 3.58 0 0 0 J7B 5016.40 4.75 0 0 0 J6 5015.90 3.95 0. 0 0 J8 5017.60 4.8 0 0 0 ' J4 J3 -5017.0 5018.7 6 0 7.1 0 0 0 0 0 (OUTFALLS) Invert Outfall Stage/Table Tide ;;Name------------------ Elev.- TypeTime Series - Gate ' OUT 5014.55 - FREE NO [STORAGE] . Invert Max. Init. Shape Shape Ponded Evap. ;;Name Depth Curve Frac_ ______-----_Elev_----Depth-_- ,ISul 5017.00 6.0 2.01 TABULAR __Parameters South __ __Area ----- 0 0 'SU2 5014.55 6.45 1.45� TABULAR North 0 0 [CONDUITS] Inlet Outlet Manning Inlet Outlet Init. - ;;Name Node Node Length N - Height Height Flow ' ..------------------------------------------------------ C1 J1 J2 ------------ 146 ------------------------------- .011 0 .31 0 C5 J8 J7B 125 .011 0 0 0 C6 J7B J6 96 .011 0 0 0 C7 J6 - SU2'67 .011 0 .1 0 C4 J4 J7B -131 .011 0 0 0 ' C2 J2 J3 54 .011 0 .19 0 C3 J3 Sul 32 .011 0 .6 0 [ORIFICES) Inlet - Outlet Invert Disch. Flap ;;Name Node -----Height_ Coeff----------Gate- _____ ------------Node- 1 Sul - - ----------Type--_ J4 SIDE _____ 0 0.65 NO 2 SU2 OUT SIDE 0 0.65 NO ' (XSECTIONS) - - ;;Link Type Geoml Geom2 Geom3 -Geom4 Barrels :-----------------------------------------------------------------------------. C1 CIRCULAR 1.50 '0 0 0 1 ..- ' C5 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 C6 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 C7 CIRCULAR 1.25 '0 0 0 1 ' C4 CIRCULAR 1.5 0 0 0 1 C2 C3 CIRCULAR CIRCULAR 1.75 .0 2 0 0 01 0 0 1 1 1 r•= \-�-•j�cri CIRCULAR 375 0 - 0. 0 2 pl, ik4 • t'c r/.i CIRCULAR -7n83 -i'A' 0 0 0 [CURVES] ' ' ;;Name X-Value Y-Value ----------- ------Type ;South Pond SL�1 --------------------------- Storage 0 0 South 1 1300 'South South 2 1750 South 3 2250 South 4 2850 - - 'South South 5 3970 6 4160 South 7 4890 Maximum Flow ---------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Page 2 • First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 1 =!-A'Z ;North Pond North Storage 0 0 North 0.45 441 . ' North 1.45 1785 North 2.45 2164 North 3.45 2483 - North 4.45 North 5.45 2808 3789 ' North 6.45 3445 [TIMESERIES) ;;Name Date Time - ------ Value ' ;City of Fort Collins . FTC100-yr 0:0 0 FTC100-yr 0':5 1 FTC100-yr 0:10 1.14 ' FTC100-yr 0:15 1.33 FTC100-yr 0:20 2.23 . FTC100-yr 0:25 2.84 " FTC100-yr 0:30 5.49 - FTC100-yr 0:35 9.95 ' FTC100-yr 0:40 4.12 FTC100-yr 0:45 2.48 FTC100-yr 0:50 1.46 - - - ' FTC100-yr 0:55 - FTC100-yr 1:0 1.22 1.06 FTC1O0-yr 1:05 1 " FTC100-yr 1:10 .95 FTC100-yr 1:15 .91 FTC100-yr 1:20 .87 ' FTC100-yr 1:25 .84 FTC100-yr 1:30 .81 FTC100-yr 1:35 .78 FTC100-yr 1:40 .75 - FTC1O0-yr 1:45 .73 ' FTC100-yr 1:50 .71 FTC100-yr 1:55 .69 FTC1O0-yr 2:0 .67 - '[REPORT] INPUT YES CONTROLS YES .. '[OPTIONS] TEMPDIR "C:\DOCUME-1 \schneide\LOCALS-1\Temp\" 1 ' JR ENGINEERING, EPA-SWMM 5.0 Page 3 -- r 1 First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 EPA STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL - VERSION 5.0 (Build 5.0.007) ' ------------------------------------------------------- First Community Bank Plaza ________ SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06. Analysis Options ' Flow Units . CFS Infiltration Method ...... HORTON - Flow Routing Method ...... DYNWAVE ' Ending Date . Starting Date ............ MAR-24-2006 00:00:00 MAR-25-2006 00:00:00 Antecedent Dry Days . 0.0 Report Time Step ......... 00:15:00 . Wet Time Step ............. 00:15:00, Dry Time Step ............ 01:00:00 Routing Time Step . 10.00 sec ' Element Count Number of rain gages ...... 1 Number of subcatchments ... 9 Number of nodes ............ Number of links 10 9 ' Number of pollutants . 0 Number of land uses ....... 0 1 +Raingage+++.+++.Su++mm+.++ary+ - Data Interval ' Name Data- Source -----__--Type hours ---------- ---------------------------- Gagel FTC100-yr INTENSITY 0.08 Subcatchment Summary Name Area Width %Impery %Slope Rain Gage. 'S1 -------------- --------------------------------------------------- - .0.64 199.00 61.00 3.5000 Gagel - S2 0.33 55.30 69.00 - 5.7000 Gagel S3 0.34 67.90 67.00 1.7000 Gagel S4 0.35 151.80 54.00 0.9000 Gagel 0.30 88.40 27.00 1.5000 Gagel '.S5 S6 0.47 117.50 86.00 5.0000 Gagel S7B 0.24 65.70 83.00 5.0000 Gagel S8 0.20 52.10 72.00 5.0000 Gagel S7A 0.21 61.50 67.00 5.0000 Gagel Node Summary - Invert Max. Ponded ' Name Area ---------------Type----- J1 __---_--- JUNCTION _Elev_-__--Depth 5020.85 __ __- 3.00 0. J7B JUNCTION JUNCTION 5019.82 5016.40 3.58 4.75 0 0 J6 JUNCTION 5015.90 3.95 0 J8 JUNCTION 5017.60 4.80 0 J4 JUNCTION 5017.00 6.00 0 JUNCTION 5018.70 7.10 0 'J3 OUT OUTFALL 5014.55 0.40 0 SU1 STORAGE 5017.00 6.00 0 0 tJR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Pagel: - First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 ' SU2 STORAGE 5014.55 6.45 0 Link Summary Name From Node To Node - Type Length %Slope N Cl J1 J2 J7B CONDUIT CONDUIT 146 125 0.4933 0.9602 0.0110 0.0110 C5 J8 C6 J7B J6 CONDUIT 96 0.5208 0.0110 C7 J6 SU2 CONDUIT 67 1.8658_ 0.0110 J4 J7B CONDUIT 131 01:4581 0.0110 'C4 C2 J2 J3 CONDUIT 54 1.7215 0.0110 C3 J3 SUl CONDUIT 32 3.4381 0.0110 1 - SU1 J4 ORIFICE - 2 SU2 OUT ORIFICE Cross Section Summary- ....................+ Full Hyd. Max. Full 'Full Conduit Shape ,Depth Area Rad. Width Flow ------------------------------------- C1 CIRCULAR 7---------------------------------------- 1.50 1.77 0.38 1.50 8.72 C5 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.77 0:38 1.50 12.16 C6 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.77 0.38 1.50 8.96 C7 CIRCULAR 1.25 1.23 0.31 1.25 10.43 C4 CIRCULAR 1.50 1.77 0.38 1.50 8.40 C2 CIRCULAR 1.75 2.41 0.44 1.75 24.57 C3 CIRCULAR 2.00 3.14 0.50 2.00 49.57 - Control Actions Taken Volume Depth Quantity Continuity acre- feet inches - 'Runoff ..«....+,w.....,,.. a ... .. Total Precipitation 0.942 - 3.669 .Evaporation Loss ......... . .0.000 0.000 _ Infiltration Loss ........ 0.105 0.409 Surface Runoff ........... 0.844 3.287 ' Final Surface Storage 0.006 0.024 Continuity Error (%) -1.384 ' Flow Routing Continuity Flow outing. Continuity « .acre -feet acre-feet --Mgallons -Volume -------- Dry Weather inflow ....... .0.000 0.000 ' Wet Weather Inflow ....... 0.844 0.275 Groundwater Inflow ....... 0.000 _ 0.000 ' RDII Inflow 0.000 0.000 External Inflow ....... 0.000 '0.000 External Outflow ......... 0.839 0.273 Surface Flooding.... 0.090 0.029 ' Evaporation Loss Initial Stored Volume 0.000- 0.080 0.000 0.026 - Final Stored Volume ...... 0.000 0.000 Continuity Error (%) ..... -0.440 ........................... Subcatchment Runoff Summary ----------------'---=----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---'------ ---------- ---------- Runoff Total Total Total Total Total Peak ' JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 - - _ Page 2- First Community•Bank Plaza SWMM.Analysis, Job No. 39.468.00, ES 03/24/06 Precip Runon Evap Infil Runoff Runoff Coeff Subcatchment in in in in in CFS ------------------------------ - ---------------------------------------------------- ' S1 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.448 3.251, 5.94 0.886 S2 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.359 3.337 3.08 0.909 S3 3.669 0.000 0.0000.395 3.301 3.02 0.900 S4 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.545 3.156 3.03 - 0.860 ' S5 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.895 2.799 2.03 0.763 S6 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.156 3.534 4.65 0.963 S7B 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.189 3-.501 2.37 0.954 S8 3.669 0.000 0.000 .0.317 3.378 1.93 0.921 S7A 3.669 0.000 0.000 0.375 3.322 2.00 - 0.906 Totals 3.669 --------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- -0.000 0.000 0.409 3.287 5.94 0.896 ' Node >Depth >Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Maximum Maximum Time of Max Total Total Depth Depth HGL Occurrence Flooding Minutes Node -Type __ _-_ Feet_ __Feet_ _ Feet- days hr:min---- acre -in Flooded ------- ---------------- --------- J1 JUNCTION 0.46 2.18 5023.03 0 00:51 0 0 J2 JUNCTION 0.77 3.19 5023.01 .0 00:51 0 0 -J7B JUNCTION 1.15 3.46 5019.86 0 01:06 0 0 J6 JUNCTION 1.39 3.95 5019.85 0 01:06 0.39 64.4,- oo J8 JUNCTION 0.60 2.26 5019.86 0 01:06 0 0 J4 JUNCTION 0.87 2.87 5019.87 0 01:06 0 0 J3 JUNCTION 1.21 4.30 5023.00 0 00:51 0 0 ' OUT OUTFALL 0.00 0.00 5014.55 0 00:00 01 0 Sul;jo-^�-�, 1��.- STORAGE 2.04 6.00� 5023.00- 0 00:51 0.68 65 SU2 �ef.�,..� '�J1 ' STORAGE 2.08 5.29 5019.84 0 01:10 0 0 yJ (� L Storage Volume Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Average Avg Maximum Max Time of Max Maximum Volume - Pcnt Volume Pcnt Occurrence Outflow Storage Unit 1000 ft3 Full 1000 ft3 Full days hr:min CFS, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Sul 3.882 28 13.700 100 0 00:51 5.69 SU2 3.689 24 10.848 72 0 01.10 1488 ir'- JK rr Link Flow Summary ' ------------------------------------------------------------------9---------------------- Maximum Time of Max Maximum Length Max/ Total Flow Occurrence Velocity Factor Full Minutes Link Type CFS days hr:min ft/sec Flow. Surcharged --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C1 CONDUIT 5.68 0 00:39- 4.90 1.00 0.65 134 'C5 CONDUIT 1.94 0 00:40 1.88 1.00 0.16 186 . C6 CONDUIT 5.15 0 00:40 3.85 1.00 0.58 313 C7 CONDUIT 9.80 0. 00:40 7.98 1.00 0.94 364 C4 CONDUIT 1.06 0 00:51 3.31 1.00 0.13 251 - 'C2 CONDUIT 8.74 0 .00:39 7.62 1.00 0.36 187 C3 CONDUIT 12.73 0 00:32 4.95 1.00 0.26 244 1 ORIFICE 1.06 0 00:51 2 ORIFICE 1.48 0 01:10 awaa wa+»>ww>+>a w+»>+»»> Flow Classification Summary ' JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Page 3 1 First Community.Bank Plaza SWMM.Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 ---------------------------------------------- --- Fraction of Time 7--------------------------------- in Flow Class ---- Avg.. Avg. Up Down Sub Sup Up Down Froude Flow Conduit Dry Dry Dry Crit Crit Crit Crit. Number Change -------------------------------- C1 0.00 0.00 0.00 -------------------------------------- 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.08 0.0001 C5 0.40 0.10 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.02 0.0001 ' C6 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.58 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.0001 C7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.01 0.00 0.46 0.14 0.0002 - C4 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.0001 C2 0.55 0.02 0.00 0.40 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.0001 ' C3 0.50 0.03 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 .0.0007. Highest Continuity Errors ' Node J2 (-0.688) Node J3 (-0.548) Node SU2 (-0.12%) Node J7B (-0.108) ' Node SU1 (-0.098) ' Time -Step Critical Elements Link C7 (40.11%) Link C3 (7.586) Link C2 (1.874) - ' Link C6 (0.358) ' Routing Time Step Summary _ Minimum Time Step 1.28 sec Average Time Step 7.10 sec Maximum Time Step 10.00 sec Percent in Steady State 0.00 ' Average Iterations per Step 2.04 begun on: Tue Mar 28 09:05:182006 'Analysis Total elapsed time: 00:00:01 .. JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Page 4. First CommunityBank _Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00 ES 03/24/06 Y > ' Node SW Depth zo i 6.0 — I I i I I 5.0 I i i 4.0 - -- --- - - - -' -- - _- O 3A I I I I 1.0 i � I I I I i 00 0 5 10 15 20 25 ' First CommunityBank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00 ES 03/24/06 Y > ' Node SU2 Depth &0 i i _ --_ 5.0 I � I I ... .. i I i n 3.0—--- -- - _ I � i I 2.0... i i I II i 0.0 I I i 0 5 10 15 20 25 Bapsed Tim (houm) JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Page 1 First Community Bank Plaza SWMM Analysis, Job No. 39468.00, ES 03/24/06 ' Node OUT Total Inflow N U 3 c H Bapsed Time (hours) ' JR ENGINEERING, EPA SWMM 5.0 Page 1 Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage LOCATION: PALMER JFK PLAZA PROJECT NO: 39468.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: es DATE: 3/24/2006 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 North Pond SWMM 5 Pond SU2 Pond Invert WQCV 100-yr WSEL FREEBOARD Stage (ft) Surface Area W) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) Detention Storage (ac-ft) 5014.55 0 5015.00 441 0.002 0.00 0.00 5016.00 1785 0.024 0.03 0.00 5017.00 2164 0.045 0.07 0.05 5018.00 2483 0.053 0.12 0.10 5019.00 2808 0.061 0.18 0.16, 5019.84 3632 0.062 0.25 0.22 5020.00 3789 0.014 0.26 0.23 5021.00 3445 0.083 0.34 0.32 WQCV Provided = Total Detention Volume Provided = 106-yr WSEL Required = South Pond SWMM 5 Pond SW Pond Invert WQC.V 100-yr WSEL FREEBOARD 0.03 ac-ft at 5016.00 0.22 ac-ft at. 5019.84 5019.84 Per SWMM 5.0 Stage (ft) Surface Area (ft`) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) Detention Storage (ac-ft) 5017.00 0. . 5018.00 1300 0.010 0.01 0.00 5019.00 1750 0.035 0.04 0.00 5019.01 1755 0.000 0.05 0.00 5020.00 2250 0.045 0.09 0.05 5021.00 2850 0.058 0.15 0.10 5022.00 3470 0.072 0.22 0.18 5023.00 4160 0.087 0.31 0.26 5024.00 4890 0.104 1 0.41 0.37. WQCV Provided = Total Detention Volume Provided = 100-yr WSEL Required = 0.05 ac-ft at 5019.01 0.26 ac-ft at 5023.00 5023.00 Per SWMM 5.0 3946800wq and pond volumes.xls Scenario: DP 7A 100-yr a South Pond Title: Palmer - Project Engineer: JR Engineering I' x:\3940000.ali\3946800\stormcad\dp 7a.stm JR Engineering StormCAD v5.5 [5.5003] 03/27/06 09:17:31 AM © Haestad Methods, Inc. 217 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA + 1 -203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 o O O 3 > C 7 v W N O F O ao U o O w 0 O w m O 'U M m 2V M= Ln m J v ^ o 0 0 m m m ci of ri 0 0 a)- 0 O U? N m m A C > > 30 C O tL of 0 J D s O O O C.�... 6 M <h 9>`C�JO O O 2 vi vi vi m`m 0 m m: v N CIS m v A O W N J L O t0 _ ° m c W o In a W ui in C ._ Ol O ^ N in O m m �, m 0U 223y � � ado TLL N N N 0 .V.. N L O p� O OD m O n? 0 O Lo C fn O O O C _N C C O C m O W a 0 � x d d m io Im 2 O U g C, _ o m ` C O 00 G L t5 N '— O U� m Go V c a a° J n L O (n cL a F c O 0 m N C am m C N m W 6 a m E C Wy U m 0 a` 0 E N m A n v 'v E `O 0 O M co CCD Q O O 0)N fh O N m Eon aao A O g%: c� f x 0 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 WATER QUALITY OUTLET STRUCTURE DESIGN CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Report Appendix 1" Community Bank Plaza April 2006 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility POND SOUTH Project Name: 1st Community Bank Plaza- South Pond . Project Number: 39468.00 Company: JR Engineering Designer: es Date: 3/24/2006 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=`/100) la = 63 % i = 0.63 B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) A = 1.95 acres C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) WQCV = 0.25 watershed inches (WQCV =1.0 - (0.91 -0-1.19-�+0.78i)) D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 ' Area' 1.2 Vol. = 0.05 ac-ft 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) x Orifice Plate B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforations (H) C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) (Figure EDB-3) D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only) i) Circular Perforation DiamterOR ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum) F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (/b) G) Number of Rows (nr) H) Total outlet Area (A J Page 1 Perforated Riser Pipe Other: H 2.01 ft Ao = 0.6 squareinches. D = 718 inches, OR W = inches nc = 1 number Ao = 0.6 square inches nr = 6 number AM = 3.6 square inches I 3. Trash Rack ' A) Needed Open Area: A, = 0.5' (Figure 7 Value)' A, B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) 11 [1 1 1 I 1 I C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a) 1) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (W,nc) from Table 6a-1 ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HrR) = H - 2" for flange of top support iii) Type of Screen Based on Depth H) Describe if "other' iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, Describe if "other' v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.) Type and Size of Support rod (Ref: Table 6a-2) vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening ning (Refer to Figure 6b): 1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc=W+12") A, = 122.4 square inches x <_ 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: Wconc = 6 inches HTR = 22 1/8 inches x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter) Other: x 0.139" (US Filter) Other: 3/4" inches flat bar #156 VEE 3/8" x 1.0" W = inches Wconc = inches iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) Wopening — from Table 6b-1 iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H) (Describe if "other) vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP Grating). Describe if "other' vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio 5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in' 1 D) B) Surface Area C) Connector Pipe Diameter (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides inches inches KlempTm KPP Series Aluminum Other: inches Other: (uW) acre-feet acres - inches yes/no 1 Page 2 1 1 1 1 6. Two -Stage Design A) Top Stage (DWo = 2' minumum) B) Bottom Stage (Dks = DWo + 1.5' min, DWo + 3.0' max. Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV) C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of 0.5'Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet) D) Total Volume: Vok„ = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B Must be?! Design Volume in 1 D 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other") DWo = feet Storage = acre-feet DBs = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Depth = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Volto, = 0 acre-feet Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) x Native Grass Irrigation Turf Grass Other: Page 3 11 Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility POND NORTH Project Name: l st Community Bank Plaza - South Pond Project Number: 39468.00 Company: JR Engineering' Designer: es Date: 3/24/2006 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=`/100) I, = 69 % i = 0.69 B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) A = 1.13 acres C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) WQCV = 0.27 watershed inches (WQCV =1.0`(0.91`0_1.19'i2+0.78i)) D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 ` Area ` 1.2 Vol. = 0.03 ac-ft 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) x Orifice Plate B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforations (H) C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) (Figure E013-3) D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only) i) Circular Perforation DiamterOR ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum) F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (,%) G) Number of Rows (nr) H) Total outlet Area (A,,) Perforated Riser Pipe Other: H = 1.45 ft Ao = 1.0 . square inches D = 1 118 inches, OR W = inches nc = 1 number " Ao = 0.99 square inches nr = 4 number Ao, = 3.96 square inches [I Page 4 .1 11 r 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: A, = 0.5' (Figure 7 Value)Fb, B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a) 1) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (ono) from Table 6a-1 ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) = H - 2" for flange of top support iii) Type of Screen Based on Depth H) Describe if "other" iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, Describe if"'other" v) Spacing of Support Rod (D.C.) Type and Size of Support rod (Ref: Table 6a-2) vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): 1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc=W+12") A, = 134.7 square inches x <2"Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: Wconc = 9 inches HTR = 15 3/8 .inches x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter) Other: x 0.139" (US Filter) Other: #156 3/8" 3/4" inches flat bar VEE x 1.0" TE Wconc = iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) . Wcpening = from Table 6b-1 iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H) (Describe if "other) vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP Grating). Describe if "other' vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio 5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1 D) B) Surface Area C) Connector Pipe Diameter (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides inches inches inches inches KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum Other: inches Other: (UW) acre-feet acres inches yes/no 1 Page 5 6. Two -Stage Design A) Top Stage (DWo = 2' minumum) B) Bottom Stage (DBs = Dwo + 1.5' min, DWo + 3.0' max. Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV) C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of 0.5'Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet) D) Total Volume: Vol;,t = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B Must be> Design Volume in 1 D 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other") DWo = feet Storage = acre-feet DBs = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Depth = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Voltot = 0 acre-feet Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) x_ Native Grass _ Irrigation Turf Grass Other: Page 6 ' DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3) ' 100 6. ' 4. ' 2. 1. ' 0.6 m ' 0.4 E m ma0.2 U O 0.10 ' 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 0 0 0 EXAMPLE: DWO = 4.5 ft 0 WOCV = 2.1 acre-feet SOLUTION: Required Area per 0,4 Row = 1.75'in? 0 EQUATION: WQCV a= K 40 0 in which, K40=0.013D//Y00 WQ+0.22DWQ -0.10 0 /Yo 0� N\e Oe ti r Oe4 J� CIF 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 .60 1.0 2.0 Required Area per R w,a (in.2 )- FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 4.0 6.0 S-43 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 .60 1.0 2.0 Required Area per R w,a (in.2 )- FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 4.0 6.0 S-43 ' DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3) STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .o 0 EXAMPLE: DWQ = 4.5 ft /Z 0 WQCV = 2.1 acre-feet oe SOLUTION: Required Area per Row = 1.75 in?. 0 EQUATION: WQCV a= K 40 in which, K40=0.0130W2 +0.22DWO -0.10 � I 01 Qraell > Oe CIE,t h Qr Oe V7 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 ' Required Area per Row,a (in.2 ) ' FIGURE EDB-3 I I Water Quality Outlet Sizing: Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume ' 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District S-43 Orifice Plate Perforation Sizing Circular Perforation Sizing Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet. Hole Die (in) • Hole Die (in) Min. Se (in) Area per Row (sq in) n=1 n=2 n=3 1 4 0.250 1 0.05 0.10 0.15 5 16 0.313 2 0.08 0.15 0.23 378 0.375 2 0.11 0.22 0.33 7/16 0.438 2 0.15 0.30 0.45 1 /2 0.500 2 0.20 0.39 0.59 9/16 0.563 1 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 5 8 0.625 ; 3 0.31 0.61 0.92 11 16 0.688 3 0.37 0.74 1.11 3 4 0.750 3 0.44 0.88 1.33 13 16 0.813 3 0.52 1.04 1.56 7 8 0.875 3 0. 1.20 1.80 15 16 0.938 3 0.69 1.38 2.07 1 1.000 4 0.79 1.57 2.36 1 1 16 1.063 - 4 0.89 1.77 2.66 1 1 8 1.125 4 F -0.99.L 1.99 2.98 1 3 16 1.188 4 1.11 2.22 3.32 1 1 4 1.250 4 1.23 2.45 3.68 1 5/16 1.313 4 1.35 2.71 4.06 1 3/8 1.375 4 1.48 - 2.97 4.45 1 7 16 1.438 4 1.62 3.25 4.87 1 1 2 1.500 4 1.77 3.53 5.30 1 9 16 1.563 4 1.92 3.83 5.75 1 5 8 1.625 4 2.07 4.15 6.22 1 11 16 1.688 4 2.24 4.47 6.71 1 3 4 1.750 4 2.41 4.81 7.22 1 13 16 1.813 4 2.58 5.16 7.74 1 7 B 1.875 4 2.76 5.52 8.28 1 15/161 1.938 4 1 2.95 5.90 8.84 2 1 2.000 1 4 1 3.14 6.28 9.42 n - Number of columns of perforations Minimum steel plate thickness 1/4 .' 5/16 3/8 • Designer may interpolate to the nearest 32nd inch to better match the required area, if desired. Rectangular Perforation Sizing Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed. Rectangular Height = 2 inches Rectangular Width (inches) Required Area per Row (sq in) _ 2" Rectangular Hole W1'dth Min. Steel Thickness 5" 1 4 6" 1 4 7" 5/32 " 8"1 5/16 ". 9" 1 t 32 10" 3/8 " >10" 1/2 „ Urban Drainage and Figure -5 Flood Control District WOCV Outlet Orifice Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) Perforation Sizing F11c Detols.dwg No Text M L -1- Table 6a-1: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. Minimum Width (W.o ..) of Concrete Opening for a Well -Screen -Type Trash Rack. See Figure 6-a for Explanation of Terms. Maximum Dia. Width of Trash Rack Opening W. ,) Per Column of Holes as a Function of Water Depth H of Circular Opening (inches) H=2.0' H=3.0' H=4.0' H=5.0' H=6.0' Maximum Number of Columns < 0.25 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 14 < 0.50 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 14 < 0.75 3 in. 6 in.. 6 in. 6 in. 6 in. 7 < 1.00 6 i 9 in. 12 in. 9 in. 12 in. 9 in. 12 in. 9 in. 15 in. 4 2 < 1.25 < 1.50 12 in. 15 in. 18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 2 < 1.75 18 in. 21 in. 21 in. 24 in. 24 in. 1 < 2.00 21 in. 24 in. 27 in. 30 in. 30 in. 1 ' Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. US FilterTm Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design Specifications. rW 1 r Max. Width of Opening Screen #93 VEE Wire Slot Opening Support Rod Type Support Rod, On -Center, Spacing Total Screen Thickness Carbon Steel Frame Type 9" 0.139 #156 VEE 3/:' 0.31' V,'k1.0"flat bar 18" 0.139 TE .074"x.50" 1" 0.655, %"x LO angle 24" 0.139 TE.074"05" 1" 1.03" 1.0"x 1%:"an le 27" 0.139 TE.074"x.75" 1" LOY 1.0"x 1%i'angle 30" 0.139 TE .074"x1.0" 1" 1.155" 1 '/; k I'/2"an le 36" 0.139 TE .074"x1.0" 1" 1.155" 1 '/:k 1 %:"an le 42" 0.139 TE .105"x1.0" 1" 1.155" 1 'I."A I'A"an le US Filter, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA DESIGN EXAMPLE: Given: A WQCV outlet with three columns of 5/8 inch (0.625 in) diameter openings. Water Depth H above the lowest opening of 3.5 feet. Find: The dimensions for a well screen trash rack within the mounting frame.. Solution: From Table 6a- I with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e., rounded up from 5/8 inch actual diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The minimum width for each column of openings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is W = 36 = 18 inches. The total height, after adding the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the flange of the top support channel, is 64 inches. Thus, Trash rack dimensions within the mounting frame = 18 inches wide x 64 inches high From Table 6a-2 select the ordering specifications for an 18", or less, wide opening trash rack using US Filter (or equal) stainless steel well -screen with #93 VEE wire, 0. 139" openings between wires, TE .074" x .50" support rods on 1.0" on -center spacing, total rack thickness of 0.655" and %" x 1.0" welded carbon steel frame. J Table 6a I 1 I 1 APPENDIX E ' RIPRAP AND EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS 1 I t I 1 I 1 1 Dr��a;E Co�'o`?eca� Appendix April2006 F U z u u z d V � o E o aac�zt�o m h Q m O F � a u w ca -3FUvDiG 0 cz „E00o mc)o) a N Q em Q C 0 ~ J J J U. CI �L F Q V O N - �+1 V Ln O -I O L6 m m to E M coo o CD Ci rJ 2 m V y 3 0 � CO CO m c c0 a� 3 ooN cc m cd cd ui m °�' m N a 3 u m ao y O �. NNO 3 r m C) C o v yN to� N W Q U y \ y � = a c >y U I m'y N c m N �► Z O c0 U j o c m -� U CO a 0 Ocl)..o b O` 7.W ,- V p C m m m. rL N y LM:: m Qww O' a)yr a)3 3 �w y9 in d Qif aaa il m O D Y> ti cc m m a Ur oa o CO10 :3 0 C6 m� cnoo O cc Q Q ea 2 0 0 0 `°cmi QUaU m C1 mmm J�.2...... ._ J aaa y x d n_ E 0 co v rn i J ' d uo Lo v ' fN ... 7 Ln Ln N C m ,�+ N m ' N V M Q y C N 0) co "T r v Q 11 � J 00 NNI- Q W ' J Q e C C 1 F. C CZ LL' z Q uy. m m o In In In U0 @ Q N ` U x 3 m �oc0 O"ri ui 10 LLcn a . L - Q - 5 y - a - U L) o Z Lnin u O > y y O u zc :o�y J a r a z c�i ° o> m o nNLO ' d y N F y y a C o o CG w A. 0.'.w -e N y.am) C N Co L E fO f0 y y 3 ?: CL L N O« U m 7� y :p - «0 0LO m _ a G� C O O O oD a0 a0 _ O Z MD 11 11 1u ui N p �• .- e- /y alder u u L (Q - C O Q - m� a°O«a Z o �U)oZ y m m� F o o _ v1 coQ � o 3 0 _ Q Mrs.: X O m a p p p a y w m � c p �� o00 a FFa-F =F1+1 ? Ua0 a a co co n c -. 0) .�Fu(A aa'a Table 8-1 CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDIriARY RIPRAP $ of Total Weight Smaller than the Stone Size dsot Riprap Designation Given Size (in pounds) (inches) 70-100 85 Class 6tt 50-70 35 35-50 10 6 2-10 <1 70-100 440 Class 12 50770 275 35-50 85 12 2-10 3 100 1275 Class 18 50-70 655 35-50 275 18 2-10 10 100 3500 Class 24 50-70 1700 35750 655 24 2-10 35 t dso=Mean Particle Size. At least 50 percent of the mass shall be stones equal to or larger than this dimension. ttBury on 4 to 1 side slopes or grout rock if slopes are steeper. . Table 8-2 summarizes riprap requirements for a stable channel lining based on the following relationship: VS0.1' = 5.8 (d so )os (S. -1)o." in which, V = Mean channel velocity in feet per second S = Longitudinal channel slope in feet per foot S. = Specific gravity of rock (minimum S,=2.50) dso = Rock size in feet for which 50 percent of the riprap by weight is smaller. The rock sizing requirements in Table 8-2 are based on the rock having a specific gravity of 2.5 or more. Also, the rock size does not need to be increased for steeper channel side slopes, provided the side slopes are no steeper than 2h:ly. Rock lined side slopes steeper than 2h:ly are not recommended. ' May 1984 Revised January 1997 8-18 Design Criteria i r r Table 8-2 RIPRAP REQUIREMENTS FOR CHANNFL LII92NGStt VS°'17/(S.-1) 0-66t Rock Tyaett r 0 to 1.4 No Riprap Required 1.5 to 4.0 Class 6 Riprap 4.1 to 5.8 Class 12 Riprap 5.9 to 7.1 Class 18 Riprap ' 7.2 to 8.2 Class 24 Riprap tUse 5,=2.5 unless the source of rock and its densities are known at the time of design. ' Mable valid only for Froude number of 0.8 or less and side slopes no steeper than 2h:ly. The thickness of the riprap layer should be at least 1.75 times dso (at least ' 2.0 times dyo in sandy soils) and should extend up the side slopes at least one foot above the design water surface. At the upstream and downstream termination of a riprap lining, the thickness should be increased 50 percent for at least 3 feet to prevent undercutting. Where only the channel sides are r to be lined, the riprap blanket should extend at least three feet below the existing channel bed and the thickness of the riprap layer underneath the channel bed increased to at least three times d5, to prevent under cutting. Riprap should be placed on either filter material (gravel bedding), a plastic filter cloth, or a combination of both to protect channel embankment materials . from washing out through the riprap. Generalized filter material specifications are. listed in Tables 8-3 and 8-4. The Type I filter in Table ' 8-3 is designed to be the lower layer in a two layer filter for protecting fine grained soils and has a gradation identical to Colorado Division of Highways concrete sand specification AASHTO M 6 (Section 703.01). The Type II filter, the upper layer in a two layer filter, is equivalent to Colorado r Division of Highways Class A filter material (Section 703.09) except that it permits a slightly larger maximum rock fraction. For fine grained soils either a two layer filter (Type I topped by Type II), or a single 12-inch layer of Type II filter is required. For coarse sand and gravel (50% or -more -by weight retained on the #40 sieve), only the Type II filter is required. Filter cloth is not a complete substitute for filter material. Recommendations for its use are made in the Urban Storm Drainage ' Criteria Manual.' r r ' May 1989 _ Design,Criteria Revised January 1997 8-19 1 1 ai ' N rna�ico H U c 2 C a. iW N C � co lL 1 Z 0 Q J W G f� Q O Z N W V Z Q ♦Z' 0 LL W a J J Q LL Z . Ill 0 s o Q O a a o c ro <F- o r t r1 N- O R. x x N r x C .0 •n N N= x x C? � r+1 r•i Ni - rl f1 Vi Mf Q Q O O C O C O O O C } F- Lij- f. � < 'm z m = N E 0 0. u Q � M Z W a cn o o o o^ m CD V W w m o o F W OJ. W Q d 0 7 � G N p � � a N A C c O U 4) � d p >. w o O Q R _ y g a `c o C fl U rz 00 .n s p W O O to p y to w Q a s is 0 o C 3 v a II a s 0 O O ca O C ❑ C O n A N V7 [n } A O O II II II ¢ Q ^ W v. � •r. .D p JV) t/I C to 0.. Qt O Pm000 o 4LntnLn In mmmm In z H a O U W In on PCOc E0 E+ N W U a PC G'. z H ' MARCH 1991 zrZ4 W � a 0 0,0+O,O,o99999 o vvvvinlnlnlnlnui v mmmmmmmmmm o IC!1 Oc O,O,O,O,O,rnrn0.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o vvvvvvvvvvvvinlnln � mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm o Irn m m. m. O., O. O., O, O, OO, O, DO, O, O. rn. O0. CA o �vvvvvv�vvavvvvvvavv N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O r, or In ,D ,D ,o ,o n r r lr r r r n n r r r m m m m m m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CO m m CO m m m m CO m m CO m CO m CD CO m CO m OD m CO m CO m m N m p In In In ,o ,D ,D ,D ,o ,o r r r r r r r r r r m co m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmmmmmmmm.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ,00NnvvmInInIn,o,o,orD,o,o,o,oro,orrrrrn c4vvavv.rvvvvvavva�vavvvavvv mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm v O, rl N P, c'f � � V' �' to In to In to tr1 to In In,D 10,D 1D lD 10 n m n v 4 v v v v V* v a*v v v v v v v v v v v v v a CO CO m CO m CO m m m CO CO CO CO CO m m m Co CO m m CO m m m m O ,D . m 0 r1 H N N n n m m v v v v v ow v v In In In In 1D ,D ... ......... .. . r,rv,r 4;4.vvvvvvvvvvvvdvvvvvvv mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm In . . . . 0. . . . r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N m m m mm-Wvv-Tv_avva vvaa�vvva va mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmoo HCDH(,vinulW%onnnmmmmmCOrnDho%00000 N N r 4 r', P, r 4 P, r' 1 9 c 4 m m P 1 P, M P, M me P, r 7 me v v v a v mmmmmmmmcommmmmmmCDcocococoODmmmm ,oInmortNmvvInInIno,o,D,o,onIr:nnmmmma, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 N N r7 A r, r4 r!1 P9 r, P, c4 r4 r, m A P1 m A A f, rn M m M m CD m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m �.+Innmoo.-+c�iNr,nr�v�vvvrnlnln,olo,onn mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm r-,N,D m 01O rrN NC1 r'1 r•1vv V'd'V'V'tn In In In ,D 10 t01D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O rl H H H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m. m m m m m m m m m m m InulO,ryc�vinconrrmmmO,O,O,O,o,rn000000 .......................... O, O O rl .-i H rl 9-4 rl r1 rI H H H 7-1 1-4 rmmmmCID mmmmmmmmmm.mmmmmmmmmCID m C, O O O O O O O rl rl .rt r1 rl H rl r1 r1 He He r1 .-1 r1 r1 He He nnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm �m N m rl v tr1 n n m O, O, O O rl .-I rl rr rr N N N Pf P, n r', e•1 w 0;m0,0,O,D,O,0,0,0,000000000000000 nnrnrrrrnnnmmmmmmmmmmmCommm WM0V,f-M0 HNMnvalntnlnlnl WW%Dr-f 1WW D v,Dl�rnrmmcocommco-we mmmm W mmmcGmmoG rrnrrrrrnnrrrrrrrnnnnrnrrr M0 VW N WW r- r- r- WW W 0v wmCnNNa,10 V rlM%o I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rl rl .-i rl O O rrrrrnrrrrnrrrrnrrrrnrrnrr 00000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000 r,Nnvin,ormo,o.�Nr-,vin,onmo,olnolnolno r♦ rl ri rf rl rl rl rl rl rl N N r'1 M v v to 1 QO II V v i o DESIGN CRITERIA' , � - JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Palmer _ _ _ _ STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: es DATE:' 02-Feb-06 EROSION CONI ROL C-FAC70R P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 L00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENEDCROUND L00 0.90 ROADS WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS L00 0.80 PLACED ATI\LETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 - 0.50 STRAW MULCH IS = 1-5%) 0.06 L00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 - 0.80 EFF=(I-C'PI'100 . MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 101 0.64 ROADS WALKS 0.31 Ac. ROUGHENEDGR. 0.12 Ac. - STRAW MULCH 0.19 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER x. NET C-FACTOR 0.21 NET P-FACTTOR 0,79 EFF = (I-C'I')' 100 = 83.6°6 102 0.33 ROADS WALKS 0.22 Ac. ROUGHENEDGR. 0.05 Ac. ' STRAW -MULCH 0.05 Ac - GRAVEL FILTER x NET C-FACTOR _ 0.17 NET P.FACTOR 0.79 EFF = (1-C'P)' 100 = ' 86.5% 103 0.34 ROADS WALKS 0.23 Ac. - ROUGHENED GR. 0.06 Ac. STRAW MULCH . 0.06 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER x NET C-FACTOR 0.18 - NET P-FACTOR 0.79 F-FF = (I-C-P)' 100 = 85.7% 104 035 ROADS WALKS 0.07 Ac ROUGHENED GR. 0.07 Ac. STRAW:MULC.H 0.20 Ac. SEDIMENTTRAP x NET C-FACTOR 0.25 NET P-FACTOR 0.49 EFF= (I-C-P)-100 = 87.9% 105 0.30 ROADS•WALKS 0,01 Ac. • ROUGHENED GR. 0.10 Ac. - STRAW.MULCH 0,18 Ac. SILT FENCE.. SEDIMENT TRAP x SEI C-FACTOR 0.39 NET P-FACTOR 0.24 FIT=(1-C'P)'100 - 90.7 6 3946800erosion.XLS JR Engineering - 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 , Fort Collins. CO 80525- - PROJEC"r: Palmer SI'ANDARDFORM 13 COMPLETED BV: es DATE: 02-Feb-06 EROSION CONIROL C-FACIOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT' RARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDI'11ON ROUGHENED GROUND L00 0.90 ROADS WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVFL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLA("IT) AT IN'LEI'S SILT FENCE " 1.00 0.50 " SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 - 0.50 ' STRAW MULCH IS = 1-5%) 0.06 1.00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAWBARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF=(I-C'P)'100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONIROL MI`I'HODS BAST\ BASIN (Ac) 106 0.47 ROADS,WALKS 0.41 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.03 Ac. ' STRAW MULCH 0.01 Ac. ' SILT'FENC&GRAVEL FILTER NE r C.FACI OR 0,08 " NET P-FACTOR 0.40 -" - EFF=fI-C'P)'100= 96.8% 107A 02I ROADS -WALKS 0,14 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0,03 Ac. S'I'RAW',MULCH - 0.01 Ac. ' - SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR .. 0.18 NET P-FACTOR 0.98 EFF=(I-C'P)'100= - 82.3% 107B 0_'4 ROADS WALKS - 0_20 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.02 Ac. STRAW MULCH 0.02 Ac. SILTFENCE, GRAVEL FILTER x NET C-FACTOR 0.10 NET P-FACTOR - 0.40 EFF = (I.C'P)•100 = 96.0% 108 0.20 ROADS WALKS 0.14 Ac. ROUGHFNEDGR. 0.03 Ac. STRAW MULCH 0.03 Ac. SILT FENCE. GRAVEL FILTER x NE"r C.FACTOR 0.16 " NET P-FACTOR 0.39 EFF = (I-C'P)' 100 = 93.9% TOTAL AREA = 3.08 ac ' 'TOTAL EFF = 88 9% (1 (basin area • cf0 , total a.ca REQUIRED PS = 83.8% Since 88.9% > 83.8%, the proposed plan is o.k. E ' 3946800erosion.XLS CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Project: Palmer ,All nrrnr nnrl ,.,hen RKAP'c will ho in0=1lPri/rPrnnvPrl in rpintinn to the r.nnOnintinn nhnqp. CONSTRUCTION PHASE (Week/Month) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Grading (include Offsite) Overlot Detention/WQ Ponds Swales, Drainageways, Streams Ditches Pipeline Installation (include Offsite) Water Sanitary Sewer Stormwater Concrete Installation (include Offsite) Area Inlets Curb Inlets Pond Outlet Structures Curb and Gutter Box Culverts, Bridges Steel Installation (include Offsites) Grading/Base Pavement Miscellaneous (include Offsite) Drop Structures Other (List) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Structural— *'lnstal lat ion** Silt Fence Barriers Contour Furrows (Ripping/Disking) Sediment Trap/Filter Vehicle Tracking Pads Flow Barriers (Bales, Wattles, Etc) Inlet Filter Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Terracing Stream Flow Diversion Rip Rap Other (List) *AY BMPs to be removed once construction is complete VEGETATIVE Temporary Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Permanent Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Blankets/Mats L Other (List) ' Palmer ' - EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE JOB NO. 39422.00 COMPLETED BY: ES ' DATE: 6/15/05 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I UNIT COST IQUANTITY I TOTAL COST 1 TEMPORARY SEED & MULCH ACRE $ 775.00 1.0 $ 802.87 2 SILT FENCE LF $ 3.00 873 $ 2,617.80 3 GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH $ 500.00 1 $ 500.00 4 INLET PROTECTION EACH $ 250.00 7 $ 1,750.00 5 STRAW BALES EACH $ 3.25 0 $ - 6 ISEDIMENT TRAP/BASIN EACH $ 500.00 2 $ 1,000.00 COST $ 6,670.67 CITY RESEEDING COST FOR TOTAL SITE AREA ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I UNIT COST IQUANTITY I TOTAL COST ] RESEED/MULCH (ALL disturbed area on and off site) I ACRE IS 775.00 1 3.1 1 $ 2,384.99 ' COST _. $ _ 2,384.99 ' SECURITY DEPOSIT $ 6,670.67 - REOUIRED EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH FACTOR OF 150% $ 10,006.01 I 1 t L t 1 1 1 1 1 1 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 181 Community Bank Plaza APPENDIX F DRAINAGE MAPS Appendix April 2006 t ■ L_ t 1 1 1 Q O DEVELOPED DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE Q.b, T11W., A,•A c ,a, cVON N1101 Npwl g101N1 WN", sus -Pain Pohl IFT Imml Imm) KPNI LT.1 I U I O i♦ \ 1 101 O6. 07B 54 50 20 51 m oram 2 +n Dw oss so sD „ dii _ � � w w 0 IN am 067 074 SC 50 11 I I w w w w w w w � SF C , 1N Dw am 074 10 50 06 f6 +OS 0]C 0)5 Ou t06 106 D,e 1% 047 ON tw 50 5C tB7A tD7A 011 067 ON 50 50 07)B +070 024 ON 100 5, 50 OB,a20 071 on 50 50 O) D � ' w I / / logo ®NSAW F---- <� I _SOO _ C ! " r 07 --�� ♦ / ♦ i ` ' ' OTERO DRAW _ — 2' 4 0 /' " M EQUAL / NY-- IDA2 S SO"ED O 3a YR ROPE / / iCIFAN OUT / ` aaaaaaNNNNNN �� 5/TYPE Y MYLPI"" D"TLET STRCT. / r b I PMC ROOF MAIN / •y / / SEE DFTM SHEET le a % MM SLIIPE I ' 2r.V.16• TYPE L Yrz a EQUAL I I 20 10 0 20 40 BURRED RPRM NV . Is." t WT SCAM 1' - 20' / b LF e• PVC ROOF DRAW / • 21 OSLOPE ' )e V S• as 2% MIN MDROPMIE i ' LEGEND I ', I ® SF 9LT FENCE r 55 I y I ~ I 11 I I O B6ET PROTECTION ® I I r I © CE CON RUCTIT ' \ ' ®O WITH VEHICLE ENTRANCE RCONTROL OC NOW ' RODE WAIN LATI0115 WITH TA ITECNRAL PLANS I \ 6 '1 I ® SEDIMENT TRAP I 1 / ® PROPOSED RNMTAP _ NauN ar EYn1 aa WIN MOPE ` 1 o0E MAN 10 \\ I I DESIGN POINT ce EASEMENT \ ROOF DRAM I Y_ WY - 15-00 RE7' OUT/ / My - 22.50 WALL (TYP)� ` 41111111111111f son ' SO' MIN I LENGTH \ /.E 15 U, B• PTC ' TOO_YR 4'.4'.16' TWE L J WORTH INOND • 2R ON MORE NSEL-5019.6,' WRICD RPRM 12'K12' AREA INLET ® NY M 6• - 22.24 GRATE - 502 W PROP OUTLET ' MY W T . 21L , S7i U:7URE Q I SEE DETAIL 51RET 17 S a� mmmmMMMME === ) ❑ Y = 0 I II MEAT ELEV. 5014.55 WOCY 0" ( - 5016.W - - 0.05 IAC-F 0.03ava M100-YR INNERRCILEV5010.84 5010.61 DERNIION VOI. PTTOADED (M-Fn - 0.22 MORE ELEV. 5017.00 ROCy 8xv. - 5019,01 - . 0.05 WOCY PROREED (AC-M - OL05 100-M RATER SUWAE ElEV. ( 5M7.00 50 AO DmKrm voc PRomm (AC-FO - 0.26 &1' BASIN IOFNIFTCAllp1IOO-Y RRUN01 CCOEFTICIEN 10o- YR RIWOFF COEFiIOENT AREA IN ACRES FLOW DIRECTION I DRANAI SUB BASIN IOD-YR INUNDATION AREA L- — — — — — — — w — — — — { I w w w w w w w -- City of Fort Collins. Cdorodo UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: Dry ERw. Dow Z z Q m Z EVAax, u w% R6 OIIRT aIU'Yal o CHECKED Br: 7 I7r w a w•wl, uLR7 Dam ri'o. T- CHECKED Or. p LT.• c a,wIw01W uaH. OW V aasEa: CHECKED Br: V) �S70NAL ENG CHECKED Br: rsn. • R•-wa.+ Dm. a o OME Z 0 V) Z O Q _J w a 0 J Z O Q LLJ Z Q O Z U Q K 0 CHECKED Bh n.1a< DNA. Da• SHEE7 B OF 20 A)D11 c sARO[ wrz roAND Da R PE. b eND CHECKED BY: FMrAND owr a w 1TNrmNN W. dDB NO. J946B.00 I t t 1 1 t 1 Drainage and Erosion Control Report 1" Community Bank Plaza APPENDIX G PREVIOUS PLANS Appendix April 2006 1 I ' AG+��I� Go�f'fiN��rt�l. SLI�DIVIsIo�l A -vo All Iftelt co"Orr'lotlon 'hAll g"Hfors to thd "at curr*" city of Fort Collins 1. spectlitations. All oshall ewterlto tho vast tartlet Cltv of To" Collins 2. xWrdtky SPicfo1n-i-ttv*5i- 31. All Itrons slat 'oestructtoma Shall 'wfore to the "at cdrdat city of rart Collins 3. S t.,Al.rdo And specific.tteem. 1- &1 All —tedie "tb.tjoa cangtm.ttas %all tarnform to the --t care*[ city of Fort F-.0-1�41 "I""hoodst And.td, AM OP-ciftc-tims- ftlys p1l,,, evat dealm a emoo, by t mt he "to I ad X. I :ow At t1 t '0118 verwe 6-4 INEW proved Y) X ."r at". ID CT aw loo'g, o.ti", cases cable and Jdu- 7 M yc...W� the lummeas M44 04 9pp.21mate lumber of all =d.0 the C:' G. no Taal oil., Ideation sold Con[[Attar 0, to the Arawtngs. It shelf he tb* VO-06n f (Saz-,A,m ',,v. abeft shorn no verify ch. *wt.te-c- and location of all ..d..91.d. itt. 1.1on, the route 0 the i,1 one Construction, the Contr Ut!' shall b a responsible for Wo', --&, "�'m 04 - Coloorre unk,,no, u. , 6..W tl Itiam. /0 All sells draireal, rj I jitles so $it* WA pmftft lfftb Are w be asimalrld by Calls,, z 64 city affaoeL *All not welieve thm dooLms -alitnes, rroo.seporatottirlt for Aln, arroes ead An thes. piano. 9. bosh park is top of Curb at Hol"th and of ""od - "An"Ms "E"o At East "Dres"noth Arad. Unwation - 4997.45- ENGINEERING DEPT. NOTE: THIS REPRESENTS THE BEST DUALITY IMAGE POSSIBLE TAKEN FROM VERY POOR OLIALITY ORIGINALS -P� H'j A _E1-jr- —OV& bU al W100 (P '" -�Xr T"A 2001, Daly v,ll,-44ma--A P LIP', Sy t t. CHn? of FORt MLH� COLDAM UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPIKh'ED] CHECKED By 00 ENGINEERING DEPT. NOTE: T THIS REPRESENTS THE L __j S 0 BEST OUALITY IMAGE POSSIBLE Po OU TAKEN FROM VERY POOR OUALITY ORIGINALS 0 JVSC�TE_ A'&& r It 3 AL .0 ■ f ot r 0 16. r, z 0 lk4 U V) LF----b *,%�j Xv Ell VJr t —%tops •-a- T�LAL aw^*10 �OA I.ECKEI 9 V eA OF V) nl Oam -jW .4,PwlA 2124, C'" 14 1 ltv 41 0 11.11TY 11AN A"Fr.OVAL < I�Gfza—' V) os , at a W-P ---ll C- 21 - %- 3 7— i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX H EXCERPTS FROM SOILS REPORT Drainage and Erosion Control Report 1" Community Bank Plaza Appendix April 2006 ' FEB. 2.2006 10:15AM TERRRCON NO.481 P.1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PALMER DECORATING CENTER III PROJECT WEST OF JFK PARKWAY, EAST OF LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO.2 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ' TERRACON PROJECT NO.20005212 November 2, 2000 Prepared for. PALMER PROPERTIES ' 3700 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80525 ' ATTN: MR. SPIRO PALMER Prepared by: Terraoon ' 301 North Howes Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 . - - - Irerracon 1 ' November 2, 2000 Irereacon ' Consulting Engineers & Scientists 301 North Howes • P.O. Box 503 Palmer Properties Fort Collins, Colorado 80521.0503 Phone 970.484.0359 3700 South College Avenue Fax 970.484.0454 Fort Collins, CO 80525 www.terracon.com ' Attn: Mr. Spiro Palmer ' Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Palmer Decorating Center III Project West of JFK Parkway, East of Larimer County Canal No. 2 ' Fort Collins, Colorado Terracon Project No. 20005212 I 1 I� 1 L_l I I Terracon has completed a geotechnical engineering exploration for the proposed Palmer Decorating Center III Project to be located west of JFK Parkway and east of Larimer County Canal No. 2 and the existing Palmer Decorating Center II Project situated at 3710 Mitchell Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. This study was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. D2000379 dated September 22, 2000. The results of our engineering study, including the boring location diagram, laboratory:test results, test boring records, and the geotechnical recommendations needed to aid.in the design and construction of foundations, pavements, and other earth connected phases of this project are attached. The subsurface soils at the site consisted of either an approximate 6-inch layer of silty topsoil or a 2-1/2 to 8-foot layer of sandy lean clay fill material at the -surface of each test boring. The topsoil and/or fill is underlain by the native sandy lean clay extending 'to the bedrock stratum below. Siltstone/sandstone bedrock was encountered at approximate depths of 3-1/2 to 8 feet below existing site grades. Groundwater was. encountered at approximate depths of 9-1/2 to 17 feet below existing site grades in Test Boring Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 when checked 7 days after drilling., .Groundwater was not encountered in Test Boring No. 2 to maximum depths of exploration. The results of field exploration and laboratory testing completed for this study indicate that the soils and the interbedded sitstone lenses within the bedrock stratum at the site have moderate expansive potential. The soils and/or bedrock at anticipated foundation bearing depth have moderate to high load bearing capabilities. Based on the subsurface conditions, encountered and the type of construction proposed, it is recommended that the proposed slab -on -grade structures be supported.by conventional - Delivering Success for Clients and Employees Since 1965 More Than 60 Offices Nationwide Geotechnical Engineering -Report Palmer Properties - Palmer Decorating Center III Project Fort Collins, Colorado - Terracon Project No. 20005212 type spread footings bearing on the overburden soils and placed a minimum of 3 feet above the bedrock stratum. For buildings proposed with basement construction, or those where bedrock is encountered within 3 feet of foundations, the structures should be supported by a grade beam and straight shaft pier foundation system. If slab movement cannot be tolerated, a structural floor system should be considered for lower level construction. If conventional slab -on -grade construction is utilized in conjunction with the drilled piers, it is recommended that there be a minimum of 3 feet of moisture -conditioned and recompacted on -site overburden soils placed beneath all slabs. Conventional -type slab -on -grade construction is feasible in .conjunction with a footing foundation system. Other design and construction recommendations, based upon geotechnical conditions, are presented in the report. We appreciate being of service to you in the geotechnical engineering phase of this project, and are prepared to assist you during the construction phases as well. If you have any questions concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design and ' consulting services please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, TERRACON Prepared by: Reviewed by: �D�pDO RE�jsl� o.��o � �r.'�•.,9Fc 27712 �: ' Daniel R. Lambert I.T. David A. Richer,o��h`nSniubi ••G�'a�` Geotechnical En neer Geotechnical EngineeNDep and nagei Copies to: (3) Addressee :(1) Mr. Matt Rankin - Vaught Frye Architects Geotechnical Engineering Report ' Palmer Properties - Palmer Decorating Center III Project Fort Collins, Colorado Terracon Project No. 20005212 ' Field and Laboratory'Test Results ' Field and laboratory test results indicate the clay soils are stiff to very stiff in consistency and.' exhibit moderate bearing characteristics and moderate to high swell potential. The bedrock stratum varies from weathered to cemented with increasing depths and exhibits a moderator► to high swell potential and moderate to high end bearing characteristics. Groundwater Conditions 1 Groundwater was encountered at approximate depths of 9-1/2 to 17 feet below existing site grades when checked 7 days after drilling in Test boring Nos..1, 3, 4 and 5. Groundwater ' was not encountered in Test Boring No. 2. These observations represent groundwater . conditions at the time of the field exploration, and may not be indicative of other times, or at ' other locations. Groundwater levels can be expected to fluctuate with varying seasonal and weather conditions. Zones of perched and/or trapped groundwater may occur at times in the subsurface soils overlying bedrock, on top of the bedrock surface or within permeable fractures in the bedrock materials. The location and amount of perched water is dependent upon several factors, including hydrologic conditions, type of site development, irrigation demands on or adjacent to the site, fluctuations in water features, seasonal and weather conditions. ENGINEERING ANALYSES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Geotechnical Considerations ., The site appears suitable for the proposed construction -from a geotechnical engineering point of view. ' The following foundation system was evaluated for use on the site: ' • Conventional -type spread footings bearing on overburden soils, and • Grade beams and straight shaft piers/caisson drilled into the bedrock. ' If floor movement cannot be tolerated, use of a structural floor system should be utilized for ' lower -level basement slabs placed within 3 feet of the bedrock stratum. If slab -on -grade 5 D Z ' Z 0 N ' LEGEND TEST BORINGS A FOR CENEtAL LOCA71ON ONLY. st @MENDED FOR CONSMCMON PURPOSES PROPOSED DETENTION AREA } Q ART GALLERY Y Q IL PROPOSED PARKING le IL 7 HOME .3 ENTERTAINMENT CENTER SCHOOL OF FLORAL DESIGN N0.2 RESTAURANT NO.1 FIGURE I: SITE PLAN uu��11 PROPOSED PDC III WEST OF JFK PARKWAY & EAST OF LARIMER COUNTY CANAL - FORT COLLINS. COLORADO Project Nngr DAR �0 N0-2000521 0e'gned By--ll'orracon •_5f , Chad`cd 13�r DAR 301 N. MOM SIMI Datc 09 29 0 kPraed Sr. DAR FOB Nd' C0 A00 80521 Drmn By: SDI Fl° NOtnw 5212FIG1 Fg" Na , LOG OF BORING NO:,-.:�1 Page 1 of 1 ARCMTECT I ENGI iEE R Pahner Properties West of JFS Parkway, East of Mitchell Drive PROJECT rnrt rMlins. Colorado Palmer J X ' L7 O. O CO ca W HF DESCRIPTION .LL.. � ZLLL � Z m W O 3 (~n O O W a D. U o- U i—O H YLL UD:LL ' ¢ W O M z r ►- W aJ N m o irU o a zrin UM Approx. Surface Elev.: 97.7 ft. ^ ^ ^ 0.5 6" TOPSOIL 97.2 L 1 SS 12" 18 10 : ► n, dark brown, dry to moist, ■®®®®��01ive, moist, poorlY cemented Olive, rust, tan, moist, poorly — cemented to cemented 10 1 — 15 20 24.5 73.2 BOTTOM OF BORING 'THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES MAY BE GRADUAL. BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU, THE TRANSITION WATER LEVEL. OWERVATIONS ' WL s DRY wD B = 10.5' AB- I rerracon wL L ater level Checked on 10-18-2000 IORING STARTED 10-11-00 IORING '0MPISIED 10-11-00 UG CME-55 FORMAAN N1gZ UWOVED DAR rose 20005212 OG OF BORING NO.'.2 L Page i of rcL11ENT ARCHITECT ENGINEER Palmer Properties - Drive SITE West of JFK Parkway, East of Mitchell Drive PROJECT . Fort Collins, Colorado Palmer Decoratn*M Center HI SAMPLE TESTS 0 ca H W Z, 0 _j DESCRIPTION >_ cr W ZLL Qz =3 z W H�_ LL CD U) :C X tn Cn w W to W =P 0 I W :K f__ U) 0 zz ow z <C�_ IL cc (L W U U) E: :3 (L >_ 0 W 1­0 OL_j H 0 >_ LL W 0 L)wLL Z�__(n a- cn LL XWU) W_ 0 Approx. Surface Elev.: 99.9 ft. 0 :3 z ir Cn to 00- :3 Cn a. W�_O_ rERT 1. CL 1 SS 12" 21 ill Sandy Lean Clay I Dark brown, dry to moist, very stiff 2 ST 12" 11 13465 1 SO4= .95 0011 % 31SS 12" 16 10 5 1030 11 117 26680 8.0 91.9 -CL SANDY LEAN CLAY 90.9 51SS112' 22 14 9.0 Dark brown, calcareous, moist, - 89.9 10.0 very stiff 10— VEATHERED S TLTSTONE /S AND -STONE live, moist, poorly cemented SELTSTONEISANDSTONE Olive, rust, tan, moist, Poorly - 61SS112 50 1 13 1 15.0 cemented to cemented 84.9 15— B0170M OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES ... ...... BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS I Derr acon BORING STARTED- 10-11-00 V& DRY VM 13 DRY AB BORING COMPLETED_10-11-00 WL IWW,2t� RIG FOREMAN - MTZ__ _R APPROVED' _I)Akg� B JO 4 20005212 T Avai rhprkpd nn 10-19-2000 ' LOG OF BORING, -NO. ._ Page 1 of -1' CLIENT ARCHITECT / ENGINEER Palmer Properties ' SITE West_ of JF% Parkway, East of Mitchell Drive Fort Collins, Colorado PROJECT Palmer Decorating Center III SAMPLES TESTS W to E O z W O_ r r W � O U W Ir zLL w i N 3 F-O O_J m m W F=- (O H O ►.-- to z 0 rLL O_'L.) o 0- c HI HI zz ow UO:LL ZhCn M (n n. mom JH4 i xs HF-^ O ul t O¢� HJ _1O- X ' ' m H _ O. 0 DESCRIPTION Approx. -Surface Elev.: 100.1 ft. L~` 2 1-- O. W o Jo >. (n to (A U W FILL MATERIAL Sandy Lean Clay CL 1 SS 12" 19 15 Dark brown, dry to moist, very stiff 2 ST 12" 10 106 7420 39/22/54 5 EXPANSI TEST I 3 SS 12' 16 11 1 3' =820 PSF 7.5 92.6 4 ST 12" 11 106 12315 8.5 SANDY LEAN CLAY 91.6 CL 5 SS 12" 21 11 1 9. 5 Dark brown, moist, calcareous, 90.6 very stiff 10 — WEATHERED CTT TSMNF/SANDSTONE live, moist, poorly cemented SILTSTONEISANDSTONIE Olive, rust, tan, moist, Poorly 6 SS 12" 50 12 cemented to cemented _ 15 T• EXPANSI 1 7 SS 12" 50 13 _ 20 TEST ® _ 19' =2150 �-- PSF 24.5 75.6 " BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE -BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 10-11-00 'WL - - - 47 DRY WD = 17.0' AB BORING CMIPIEIM:._ __ 10-11-00 WL irerracon. RIG CME-55 FOREMAN ater Level Checked on 10-1&2000_ - - - APPROVED DAR. - JOB a .. 20005212 yyr- - LOG OF BORING NO. 4 CLIENT ARCIiTI'ECT / ENGINEER - ' Palmer Properties - r: SITE West of TFK PMi arkway, East of tchell Drive PROTECT Fort Collins, Colorado O 0 J U DESCRIPTION . Q CD Approx. Surface Elev.: 90.8 ft. ' ^ ^ ^ 0.5 6" TOPSOIL, SANDY LEAN CLAY Dark brown, dry to moist, very 3.5 stiff ' 4.5 MMA FD nNT;!SAN_DSTONE . T. T SaJI Olive, calcareous, dry, poorly ' cemented = STLTSTO JSANDSTONE Olive, rust, tan, moist, calcareous, ' poorly cemented to cemented = 14.4 BOTTOM OF BORING 90.3 Palmer Decoratmi; Center III 1of1 SAMPLES I TESTS Oco F- O LL s . } r w' (n . _ zx o .. >. a✓ z W o_ z_ HF_ H m of W \ o W W co (n O W Q1_ H (n m W O. 3 N (- U (L U F- O H } u- (..) D: u- d N u- W (n > >. W EL _1 O wD ZF(n >CW(n 0 o z r w. En to 0a o(no- WHa CL 1 -1 1 SS 1 12"'1 23 1 14 1.- 87.3 2 1 ST 12" 81 10, 86.3 3 SS 12". 39 1 8 - 5 41SS1 10' 50/0.11 12 10 'THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES - -- BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU, THE TRANSITION MAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS E FVAL9 DRY wD9 5AB - I erracon Bater Level Checked on 10-18-2000 A. 1020 240 1 @5 G SfARTID 10111-00 a cOMPLEI'ED 10-11-00 CME-55 FOREMAN MTZ _ . _ VED DAR I )os a, 20005212 . LOG OF BORING. NO. 5 CL l,rr ARCHITECT / ENGINEER 'Palmer Pro ernes _ SUE West of M Parkway, East of Mitchell Drive ` PROJECT . Pafee 1 of 1 - Fort Collins Colorado ''- PalmerDeco Center III -_ _ SAMPLES TESTS F O p O J ca ZS O _ LLL > F W DESCRIPTION N z� � w W w U.CCD co ~ UEdU o UWO. ' • Ho LL IL a.. CnlLL o� Q 3 ao2wWa o i g En ►- ►��i�i .'O.FILL MATFRTAT. Sandy Lean Clay 2.5 Brown, dark brown, to moist, very stiff `' ' — Olive, calcareous, moist, poorly cemented 10 15 20 _— `-`• SMMTONEPSANDSTONE Olive, rust, tan, moist, poorly cemented to cemented •=• — — 4 SS 101 BOTTOM OF BORING THE STRATIFICATION LINES REPRESENT THE APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY LINES BETWEEN SOIL AND ROCK TYPES: IN -SITU, THE TRANSITION NAY BE GRADUAL. WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Al Q DRY w� 10.5• %VLIrerracon WL ater Level Checked'on 10-18-2000 210 ME RING STARTED 10-111J0 RING COMPLETED " 10=11-00 CME-55 FOREMAN MTZ-- PROVED DAR -1JOB A•=.20005212 Fax Transmittal Date: January 31, 2006 To: Brooke Tamlin, Bob M. Company: Palmer Properties and Vaught Frye Architects Fax Number. 970 207 - 0081 and 970 224 -1662 From: Dave Richer (Geotechnical Engineer/Department Manager) Company: Terracon 301 North Howes Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (970) 484-0369 Fax Number.., (970) 484-0454 e-mail Address: Daricher a(�.terracori.com Subject: Addendum to our Geotechnical Engineering Report —1" Community Bank Ppject — Fort Collins, Colorado Total No. of Pages: (including this sheet) Comments: Enclosed, please find a copy of our field and laboratory test results for - the on -site stockpiled material. In our opinion the material is not suitable for fill material on -site in structural related areas. These stockpiles are generally waste/reject piles from other parcels. Thank you very much for your consideration of using Terrecon on this project, we look forward to working with you on this project as well as any future projects. Hard copies to follow via regular US mail service. Any questions please call. Thanks.,..... Dave .:. rerracon Delivering Success for Clients and. Employees wwWAerracon�com n 1 i•d ssb•ON NOOMSM wdOt?:E 9002'LE'wHr ., January 30, 2006 Irermacon ' Consulting Engineers 6 Sdantists Torracon consultants, Inc. Palmer Properties 301 Nora, Howes Fowl Collins, Colorado 80521 3636 South College Avenue — Suite 201 Phone 970.484.M9 Fort Collins, Colorado B0525 fax 970.484.0454 W~1erracoh.00m ._ ' Attn: Brooke Tamlin ' Re: Laboratory Analysis of On -Site Stockpiled Material for Fill Proposed I" Community Bank Plaza South of Horsetooth Road, West of JFK Parkway and West of Larimer Canal No. 2 ' Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado Terracon Project No. 20005212 ' Terracon conducted a geotechnical engineering report for the above -referenced project in October of 2000 at that time as part of the Palmer Decorating Center III Project schematic plan, and prepared a report detailing the project related design criteria based on geotechnical ' engineering conditions. For further information and findings thereof, please refer to our 'Geotechnical Engineering Reporr dated November 2, 2000, Terracon Project No. 20005212. The project specific design criteria .presented within the above mentioned geotechnical engineering report are valid for the revised development plan. Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and. specifications. Terracon also should be retained to. provide testing and observation during excavation, grading, foundation and construction phases of the project. We have been _requested by Vaught Frye, the project architect's, as well as Palmer Properties to analyzelevaluate the on -site stockpiled material situated on the property to compare to the Project -specific reconunended import fill material specirrcations and to determine its suitability, as imported fill. It is Palmer Properties' intent to use this stockpiled material as import fill, if the material is within acceptable geotechnical engineerng'reoommendabons. A representative from the Terracon collected representative samples from two (2) stockpiles located on -site on January 23, 2006 for laboratory testing procedures and further evaluation. The following tables provides the results of our recent laboratory analyses for the soil samples collected on- . site and compares these results to those presented in the project -specific geotechnical engineering report 2'd SSh'gN Mn_HA%nl IJ,4TbeF oawa•Tc•uHr I Palmer Properties —1" Community Hank Project Terracon Evaluation of On -Site Stockpiled Material West of Lorimer Canal No. 2, East of JFK Parkway Fort Collins, Colorado Project No. 20006261 Page 2 Sample No. 1 (50) (32) (94) Fat Clay — CH (SaswWopystone bedrock) Sample No. 2 (44 13 B2 Sandy Sul —14L 7tectnrcal ineefl ng (aPpeararoe of ergaNc topsoil noterial) Recommendedons 35—ma>omm 15- mardmum 65—")dmum NrA Note. (43): DarroUas test results &Awe of GeoteMnical Engineering Recommendation limits as shown above. i Based on the laboratory test results and our experience with similar soil conditions/results, it is i our opinion the majority of the stockpiled material on -site and analyzed/tested, is not suitable for use as fill material for the proposed 1°t Community Bank project, unless the owner is willing to assume the risk of potential movement due to either soft compressible soil conditions and/or expansive soiUbedroc k conditions being created with these types of soils. Special precautions, such as hM-time monitoring of moisture, density, and compaction activities, and possibly the use of a fyash treatment for pavement subgrades would be required to allow these soils to be used for this project. Consideration should be given to blending these materials and/or incorporating non to low expansive soils with these soils to reduce the expansive/compressibility characteristics. We appreciate being ofservice to you In the geotechnical engineering phase of this project, I and are prepared to assist you during the construction phases as well. If you have any � questions concerning this report or any of our testing, inspection, design and -consulting l services please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, TERRACON David A Richer, P.E. i Geotechnical Engineer/Department Manager Reviewed by: Mike L. Walker, C.E.T. Manager of Construction Services Copies to: (2) Addressee via mail and (1) via facsimile (1) Vaught Frye Architects _ (1) JVA, Inc.: Mr. Terry Stahr, P.E. ' E'd SSb'ON Mn-*iA)-nf W.41b.r oca1- TC-iur i