HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 09/09/1992Final Approved Report
Date Xlf-Y�2—
FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT
f or.
KINGSTON WOODS P.U.D_
Fort Collins, Colorado
August, 1992
prepared by
NORTiMRN ENG= VEER 2NG SERVICES , =NC
420 South Howes, Suite 106
Fort Collins, Colorado 80521
(303) 221-4158
Northern Engineering Services, Inc.
1
'
August 17, 1992
Mr. Glen Schlueter
'
Stormwater Utility
City of Fort Collins
235 Mathews
P.O. Box 580
E1
I
Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580
re: Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
Project No. 9123.00
Dear Glen:
Northern Engineering is pleased to submit this Drainage Study
for your review. It represents a study of the existing and
developed runoff characteristics of the proposed Kingston Woods
P.U.D.. Study of soil erosion at the site is also included in this
report.
In addition, an extensive review of drainage improvements
downstream from the project in the Horsetooth Commons, Casa Grande,
Chaparral and Wagon Wheel developments has been included. This
review was made necessary by existing drainage problems which came
up as this report was being finalized.
Northern Engineering would like to express gratitude for the
help of Mr. Brian Shear of Shear Engineering for his assistance in
the off -site analysis. We would particularly like to thank you for
the many hours of review and valuable input provided during the
preparation of this report.
If you should have any questions or comments as you review
this report, please feel free to contact this office at your
earliest convenience.
' Sincerely,
NORTHERN EN NEERING S VICES,
Michael F. Jone ,K P.E.
``�111111111t lllll/lryp1Z
GF EL
,
INC. a;;°'r �r .
�� a;�fr+'
=-0I 25033 N o
��o . ® e e
e
;4%�°Oo
At
1
420 S. Howes • Suite 106 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 • (303) 221-4158 • Fax (303) 221-4159
r i
13
s
D
i
J
r'-
.r
ishi
d W ALINIDIA
a
VY WW
38C WW 4mYrJ ....9 s.l.Is
ie
I i ..,n .WIItYM a
o
Q o -
W\ E
9
� r
V N
1 e
1 r q
C o..aib o
I n'
1 �
w
1
101
I
r
I
r
I
Final Drainage Report
for
KINGSTON WOODS P.U.D.
Forth Collins, Colorado
August, 1992
I. GENERAL
This report summarizes the results of a stormwater and erosion
study conducted for the proposed development of Kingston Woods
P.U.D., located in the Southeast quarter of Section 27, Township
7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, in Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Methods outlined in the City of Fort Collins' Storm Drainage
Design Criteria and Construction Standards were used in the
calculations for the stormwater runoff portion of this study, while
the City's Erosion Control Criteria was used as a guide in
preparing the erosion control plan. Additional references were
made to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's Urban
Storm Drainage Criteria Manual as needed. Summary calculations and
other supporting material is contained in an appendix to this
report.
The Rational Method was used to calculate stormwater runoff
from the site, while calculations based on the Modified Universal
Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) were used in the erosion study.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site occupies approximately sixteen acres of open
ground bounded on the south by Horsetooth Road and on the west by
the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. To the north, the site is
bounded by Wagon Wheel and Casa Grande residential developments.
The eastern portion of the site is bounded by, a platted
residential/commercial P.U.D., Horsetooth Commons, which has not
been developed. Preliminary plans have been submitted for Kingston
Woods Second Filing, which would include 5.47 acres in the
northwest corner of Horsetooth Commons.
Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
' page 2
'
II. SITE
DESCRIPTION (Continued)
The
land is mostly covered with
short grass and slopes
downward
to the northeast corner of the
site at approximately 1.6
'
percent.
Near the ditch bank and along
the southern border stand
several
mature trees of various types.
A small frame home and
several out -buildings occupy the south central
The site lies in the Foothills Master
portion of the site.
Drainage Basin,
Basin G,
Reach 4.
1 III. HISTORIC DRAINAGE
Approximately 0.88 acres of the western portion of the site
is occupied by banks of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal and
drains into the canal. Approximately 2.30 acres in Historic sub -
basin H 6 flows off to Horsetooth Commons to the east, while about
0.49 acres flows off from the site into Wagon Wheel. Stormwater
runoff from Horsetooth Road west of the irrigation canal flows into
the canal. Runoff from Horsetooth east of the canal flows east
into Horsetooth commons or into the improved curb at the eastern
end of the site. These flows are tabulated in Table A.
The majority of the site, approximately 11.69 acres, drains
to the northeast corner. This study found the 2- and 100-year
historic runoff flows from this portion of the site to be 5.01 cfs
and 14.76 cfs, respectively. Previous drainage design work in the
' area for Horsetooth Commons, Casa Grande and Chaparral PUDs has
allowed for a 100-year release flow from the site of 9.5 cfs. This
flow was to be conveyed through a storm sewer on the north boundary
of Horsetooth Commons to daylight into a reverse -crown drive in
Casa Grande. From there it was to flow into a 24-inch storm drain
which will convey it to the southeast pond, basin 5, of the
Chaparral PUD. Pertinent sections of the drainage reports for
these improvements are contained in the appendix to this report.
Some revisions to this approved plan have become necessary and are
described in a following section of this report. (See OFF -SITE
' IMPROVEMENTS.)
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
The proposed development of the site will place 52 new single-
family lots on 16.09 acres. A street system will tie Seneca Street
from Wagon Wheel to Horsetooth Road and will stub out Patterson
Drive to the east for future connection.
' Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
' page 3
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
The existing Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal will be realigned
along the south border of the site to allow for widening of
Horsetooth Road. An extension to the existing box culvert in
Horsetooth is proposed as part of this project. At the
recommendation of the soils engineer for the project, ditch walls
will be limited to a maximum slope of 2:1, which is less steep than
those of the existing ditch section. At the request of the
irrigation company, the bottom width is to be narrowed from eight
feet to six in order to maintain the flow velocity. Bends for the
realigned section will have increased radii for better flow.
Contact with the irrigation company has indicated that they
will rarely run more that about twenty cfs in the ditch, with an
estimated high flow of 25 cfs. For hydraulic design purposes,
however, a figure of 55 cfs was used. This is based on the
improvements immediately upstream in Rossborough Subdivision.
Improvements for Rossborough included canal importation and a side -
flow weir which is designed to divert flows in excess of 55 cfs
into their drainage improvements. This implies that stormwater
flows could increase the ditch flow to 55 cfs before it will be
diverted out of the ditch.
A backwater curve for the water surface in the ditch at 55 cfs
' was produced using the Standard method as shown by Liggert and
Morris. (See Appendix.) These calculations show that the maximum
water surface for the ditch, at 55 cfs, will be 104.68 feet. The
ditch banks were, therefore, set at an elevation of 106.0 feet to
allow for a one -foot freeboard. It should be pointed out that the
banks on the west side of the existing channel, which are not a
part of this project, are lower than this and it is recommended
that these banks be raised to 106 feet when that property develops.
Hydraulic analysis of the channel and flows indicates that rip
rap bank protection will not be required, based on the velocity of
flows. At the request of the irrigation company, however, the
existing rip rap is to be reclaimed and used at the box culvert.
The majority of the site will be graded so as to allow runoff
to be conveyed in the street gutters into a proposed detention pond
at the northeast corner of the site. The largest concentration of
street flows occurs to the west of Design Point 2. (See Drainage
Plan, attached.) Calculations show that the developed flows at
this point will be within City standards for gutter flow and street
encroachment. Other gutters will have a combination of lesser
flows and steeper slopes and will be adequate for runoff flows.
tKingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
page 4
7
LJ
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
Table A summarizes runoff calculations for the Historic and
Developed Basins and the Design Points shown on the Drainage Plan.
From Design Point 2, runoff will be routed through Storm Sewer
Line A into the detention pond. An overflow area on top of Line
A will convey any spill -over from Design Point 2 into the pond
should the storm sewer inlet become blocked.
Release from the pond has been limited to a maximum of 9.5
cfs, as provided for in other downstream projects. With the
proposed detention pond design, however, a maximum of only 2.6 cfs
are to be released. Storm Sewer Line B is designed to carry the
pond release through an existing drainage easement across the north
of Horsetooth Commons, as described earlier. Release from the pond
will be controlled at the entrance into the 15-inch Line B by an
oricice plate. Should the entrance to this pipe become blocked,
' an over -flow structure has been provided which flows into the
proposed 15-inch storm sewer.
Required pond volume was calculated by the mass diagram
method. (See appendix.) Maximum required volume for a 100-year
storm was found to be 51,283 cubic feet. A volume of 51,364 cubic
feet has been provided at a pond elevation of 90.50. An
impoundment level of 91.50 feet would allow for a freeboard of 1.00
foot and a reserve capacity of approximately 18,414 cubic feet.
By grading the site to convey runoff inward, 100-year release
flows from developed Sub -Basins 3 and 6 have been kept near or
below historic 2-year levels.
Flows from Horsetooth Road west of the irrigation ditch have
increased due to the widening to arterial standards, but the
irrigation company has allowed for these flows to continue to be
1 conveyed into the canal. Street flows east of the Seneca Street
intersection, however, will increase from an historic 2-year flow
of 0.79 cfs to a developed 100-year of 3.03. This flow will be
conveyed east in the Horsetooth gutter to Richmond Drive, where it
will be conveyed into the Horsetooth Commons detention pond and
released into the 36-inch storm drain in Shields Street.
I
11
' Kingston Woods P.U..D.
Final Drainage Report
page 5
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
i
Since the majority of this increased flow is due to the City -
mandated widening of Horsetooth Road, the flows involved are minor
and since conveying the excess flows to the Kingston detention pond
would pose a hardship for the developer, it is requested that a
variance be granted to allow the developed runoff to remain as
shown. 9�u48J
A
V. EROSION CONTROL
It is anticipated that the improvements for Kingston Woods
' will be completed by the fall of 1992. Construction of homes on
the project will begin as soon as possible and will likely continue
into spring of 1993.
During construction of the improvements and houses on the
lots, the detention pond will be modified to be used as a
sedimentation pond. During this time, maintenance may be required
to prevent sediment from reducing the pond's detention capacity.
Once construction has been completed, the pond can be final graded
and landscaped.
Other structural erosion controls during construction include
a gravel barrier at the inlet to storm sewer Line A and gravel
gutter dikes in the streets, including off -site on Horsetooth and
Seneca. These improvements will need to be monitored during
construction and maintained as necessary.
Once over -lot grading has been completed, it is recommended
that any lots which are to stand longer than thirty days prior to
house construction shall be seeded and mulched to prevent wind and
rainfall erosion. It is also recommended that gravel curb dikes
be placed in the street gutters immediately downstream of any
construction areas and that the condition and effectiveness be
monitored.
' Recommended seed mixture would consist of 55% Fairway
Wheatgrass at 7.2 drilled pounds per acre and 45% Smooth Brome at
16.1 drilled pounds per acre. This planting may be revised by the
developer based on seasonal or other conditions with the approval
of the City.
I
11
Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
page 6
VII. OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS
Drainage improvements in the Wagon Wheel, Horsetooth Commons,
Casa Grande and Chaparral subdivisions have been designed, approved
and constructed to allow for runoff from Kingston Woods. The
Horsetooth Commons Drainage Plan (1987) calls for a maximum release
of 9.5 cfs to be conveyed in an 18-inch storm sewer along the
northern boundary of Horsetooth Commons. This storm sewer was to
empty into the Casa Grande P.U.D.. The Chaparral P.U.D. (1987)
Drainage Plan accommodates this flow in a reverse -crown drive,
which routs it through the detention pond for sub -basin VI.
Unfortunately, the discovery of unforseen downstream drainage
problems has brought about the necessity for revising the method
of releasing runoff through Horsetooth Commons and Casa Grande.
With considerable input and cooperation from staff at the Storm
Drainage Utility, an alternative method of drainage from the
Kingston Woods site has been formulated, based on a study of
downstream conditions in the Wagon Wheel, Casa Grande and Chaparral
developments.
In brief, it is proposed that a storm sewer line carry release
flows from the Kingston Woods detention pond to the existing storm
sewer in Laredo Lane. This flow is to be conveyed to the existing
Chaparral detention pond.
Additionally, runoff from a 5 4 aac_re portion of the
Horsetooth Commons site is to be allowe�'to flow undetained to the
proposed storm sewer and will be detained in e C aparral pond.
This will involve a cross -basin transfer from the Foothills master
drainage basin to the Spring Creek master drainage basin. In order
to allow for these additional flows, the Kingston Woods detention
release will be limited to 2.6 cfs, rather than the 9.5 cfs which
had been approved previously.
An analysis has been made of the existing off -site drainage
improvements to determine the capacities of the existing storm
drainage system. A plan of the off -site drainage areas has been
included in the appendix to this report. An attempt has been made
to retain the basin and design point designations from previous
studies. Earlier works which were referenced for this analysis
are listed below:
1. WAGON WHEEL FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY, prepared
Construction in 1979. This study divided the
by
Wagon
Melody
Wheel
subdivision into north and south basins. Each of
these
basins
had its own detention pond. The north detention pond
was to
release its flows into the Spring Creek master
basin,
while
the south basin released into the Foothills master
basin.
I
Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
page 7
IVII. OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
2.
WAGON WHEEL FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY, revised in 1981. The south
basin was revised so as not to flow into the Foothills master
basin. An 18-inch storm sewer was constructed to convey
release flows from the south pond into the north pond. An
additional pond was added on the site that would later become
the Casa Grande basin III pond. Of note is the fact that this
study called for a runoff flow of 14.77 cfs from the proposed
Kingston Woods site. Part of this was to come through the
Casa Grande drive area and part on Seneca Street.
3.
CASA GRANDE P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE STUDY, prepared in 1985 by
Shear Engineering. This study changed the Wagon Wheel basins
slightly and added detention for sub -basins III and IV. The
storm sewer in Laredo was to outlet into a swale that conveyed
flows to the 18-inch storm sewer which emptied into the Wagon
Wheel North Pond.
4.
HORSETOOTH COMMONS DRAINAGE STUDY, prepared by Redpeak
Engineering in January of 1987. This project provided for an
18-inch storm sewer to convey runoff flows from the northeast
corner of Kingston Woods to the Casa Grande drainage swale /
drive. Maximum release rate from Kingston Woods was
calculated to be 9.5 cfs.
5.
CHAPARRAL P.U.D. FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT, prepared in December
of 1987 by Shear engineering. A large detention pond was
provided adjacent to Shields Street. This plan accommodated
'
the storm sewer from Horsetooth Commons into the Casa Grande
swale/drive and also allowed for 11.57 cfs to be released from
Kingston Woods north in Seneca Street.
Much of the information used in this study, such as areas,
runoff
coefficients, etc., was taken from the reports listed above.
In to keep
order this off -site drainage analysis compatible
with
the preceding work, the rational method was used to estimate
the
effects of stormwater runoff on the proposed and existing
improvements.
Since the rational method is not time -
differentiated, it's application to a complex basin such as this
will
lead to some inaccuracies in estimating converging flows which
will
peak at different times.
I
Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
page 8
LJ
VII. OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
' The rational method, when used to determine surface runoff
from a basin, attenuates the flows from individual sub -basins such
that the peak runoff from the over-all basin is lower than the sum
of the individual peak flows from it's sub -basins. In analyzing
flows in a storm sewer, however, inlet flows are often summed
through the length of the sewer and attenuation is not taken into
account. In order to address this problem, a procedure for
f attenuating flows in storm sewers, based on the rational method,
has been developed.
A description of the procedure for estimating storm sewer
attenuation is given in Appendix B, page 4. It was found that the
attenuation factor calculated by this method reduces the simply
totaled flows by amounts ranging from four to fourteen percent.
Detention storage was analyzed by the mass diagram method,
modified to account for other flows which will reach the Chaparral
detention pond. In addition to normal overland runoff flows
reaching the pond, additional flows from outside the contributing
basin and from other detention ponds are also conveyed into the
pond. These were added in to the inflow of the mass diagram. An
account of these flows is shown in Appendix B, page 13.
The areas contributing flows to the Chaparral detention pond
are shown on the attached drawing "Off -Site Drainage". The major
contributing areas are the south basin of Wagon Wheel and Kingston
Woods First and Second Filings.
The northwest portion of the Wagon Wheel south basin does not
contribute runoff directly to the Chaparral pond. The amount of
flow reaching the pond from this area is limited by the capacities
of Casa Grande Boulevard and the storm sewer inlets in that street.
Once the half -street capacity of Casa Grande Boulevard is reached,
runoff will spill over to the north half of the street, where there
is very little flow, and will be accommodated in the Wagon Wheel
north basin. Therefore, even though the 100-year peak flow at
design point S8 is calculated to be 38.24 cfs, only the 12.69 cfs
half -street capacity, along with the inlet flows from S4 and S8,
will be conveyed to the Chaparral pond. The remainder will flow
into the Wagon Wheel north basin. It should be noted here, as it
was in the final drainage report for the Chaparral P.U.D., that it
will be important to maintain the existing street cross-section on
Casa Grande Boulevard from design point S4 to the intersection with
South Shields Street.
I
11
I
I
I
i
I
I
Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
page 9
VII. OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
A 24-inch storm sewer in Casa Grande Drive will convey inlet
flows to the 18-inch storm sewer which flows north to the Wagon
Wheel north detention pond. the confluence of these two storm
sewers is also the release point of the 15-inch outlet pipe from
the Chaparral pond. Gutter flows on the south side of Casa Grande
Boulevard will turn south at Laredo Lane and be conveyed to the
sump inlet at design point 2. Due to the limited capacity of the
south gutter on Casa Grande Boulevard, only gutter flows in excess
of those from sub -basins I, II, 1 and part of 2 and less than the
half -street gutter capacity will reach the Chaparral pond from the
northwest portion of Wagon Wheel.
The small amount of runoff not intercepted by the inlet at
design point 6 will be conveyed in the gutter to an eight foot sump
inlet on South Shields Street. This inlet also collects any
overflow from the Chaparral pond spillway. These flows are
conveyed east into the Foothills basin.
The southwest portion of Wagon Wheel, sub -basins SA10 through
SA12, are included in the -contributing area for the Chaparral pond.
Some flow is lost, however, when the half -street capacity of Hickok
is exceeded and gutter flow over -tops the crown and reaches the
north gutter of Hickok, between design points S6 and S7. Since the
Casa Grande Boulevard gutter is already at capacity at design point
S8, these excess flows are considered to pass into the Wagon Wheel
north basin.
Sub -basins III and IV of the Casa Grande P.U.D. are excluded
from the contributing area of the Chaparral pond. These areas are
already detained with outflows to the storm sewer in Laredo Lane
at design points C and D. These flows are attenuated and added
into the total inflow for the capacity calculations for the
' Chaparral pond. The remainder of the Casa Grande and Chaparral
P.U.D.s contribute directly to the Chaparral pond.
Kingston Woods First Filing has on -site detention which is
released at a maximum of 2.6 cfs into a storm sewer which conveys
the runoff to the storm sewer in Laredo Lane at design point KNG1.
This flow is also attenuated and added into the inflow calculations
for the Chaparral pond.
I
I
I
I
C
Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
page 10
VII. OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
The proposed Kingston Wand filing will flow undetained
into the Chaparral pond. This area is, therefore, included in the
contributory area of the pond.
The following is a summary of the areas which contribute
runoff flows to the Chaparral pond:
1. Areas which contribute runoff directly through gutters and
storm sewers to the pond. These areas are included in the
total contributing area for the mass diagram calculations.
(See Table C, Appendix B.):
2.
3.
a. Wagon Wheel sub -basins SA10 through SA12.
b. Casa Grande sub -basins I and II.
C. Chaparral sub -basins 1 through 5.
d. Kingston Woods Second Filing.
The total area of these contributing sub -basins is 29.43
acres.
Areas which contribute controlled release from detention
ponds. These flows are attenuated and added into the total
inflow for the mass diagram. (See Appendix B, page 14):
a. Casa Grande P.U.D. sub -basins III and IV.
b. Kingston Woods First Filing.
The total attenuated flows from these ponds is 8.23 cfs for
the 100-year storm event.
Runoff from the northwest portion of the Wagon Wheel south
basin. This includes sub -basins SA1 through SA9 and SA14.:
a. Gutter flow which does not spill over the crown of Casa
Grande Boulevard to the Wagon Wheel north basin.
b. Storm sewer flows from inlets at design points S4 and S8.
Flows from inlets at design points 1 and S9 are included
in the contributing area for direct runoff into the pond.
Kingston Woods P.U.D.
Final Drainage Report
tpage 11
VII. OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS (Continued)
3. (Continued)
The total attenuated flows for these areas is 7.70 cfs.
4. Inlet flow from design point 6, calculated to be 0.42 cfs.
5. Flows which spill over the street crown on Hickok Drive and
are conveyed into the Wagon Wheel north basin between design
points S6 and S7. This is a deduct from the flows reaching
the Chaparral pond and is calculated to be 10.98 cfs.
The Chaparral detention pond was designed to reach a maximum
depth, during a 100-year storm event, of 78.45 feet. A spillway
was designed at 78.50 feet to allow volumes greater than the 100-
year design to flow into Shields Street, where they will enter the
eight -foot sump inlet and be conveyed to the Foothills master
drainage basin. The pond -full volume is 153,070 cubic feet. (See
Table D, Appendix B.)
With the proposed changes to the storm drainage system, the
required pond volume would be 157,169 cubic feet. This would imply
that approximately 4,099 cubic feet would spill from the pond into
the Foothills master drainage basin. Since the flow from the
Kingston Woods Second Filing was to have been accommodated in the
Foothills basin, this situation should not be objectionable.
As a further analysis, Table C-1 of Appendix B calculates what
pond release flow would keep the Chaparral pond from spilling
during a 100-year storm. This was found to be 9.47 cfs, as
compared to the calculated 8.71 release rate for the pond at full
conditions. This implies that a peak flow of approximately 0.76
cfs would spill to the Foothills basin.
Table D of Appendix B also shows that the entire 100-year
event could be contained in the Chaparral detention pond if the
spillway elevation were raised 0.10 foot to an elevation of 78.60.
u
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
n
TABLE A
STORMWATER RUNOFF
KINGSTON WOODS PUD
I I OVERLAND I GUTTER/PIPE I SWALE I I I I
D.P.I AREA I C L S tc1 tc100 I L S V tc I L S V tc I Tc2 Tc100 I i2 i100 I C I 01 0100
I (ac) I (ft) (i) (min) (min) 1(ft) (t1 (f/s(minll(ft) (tl (f/s)(min)I(min) (min) Ili/h)(i/h) I I(cfs) (cfs)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I I I I I I I I
H 1 1 0.88 10.30 25 1.0 1.5 6.8 1 0.0 1 920 0.01 0.68 22.5 1 30.0 29.3 11.48 4.20 10.30 1 0.39 1.39
H 2 1 0.14 10.30 15 10.0 1.7 2.4 1 0.0 1 360 0.50 1.1 5.5 1 B.1 1.9 13.30 7.00 10.71 1 0.56 1.49
H 3 1 0.49 10.30 120 1.4 14.7 13.3 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 14.1 13.3 12.12 6.10 10.30 1 0.31 1 . I I
H 4 1 11.69 10.30 500 1.8 27.5 24.9 1 0.0 1 680 1.90 1.5 7.6 1 35.1 32.5 11.35 3.98 10.31 1 4.89 18.03
H 5 1 0.49 10.30 18 10.0 1.9 2.1 1 0.0 1 710 1.40 1.2 9.9 1 12.8 12.5 12.30 6.50 10.70 1 0.79 1.79
H 6 1 1.30 10.30 520 1.6 29.2 16.4 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 29.2 26.4 11.51 4.60 10.35 1 1.22 4.63
D 1 1 0.74 10.25 25 1.0 7.9 7.4 1 0.0 1 920 0.01 0.68 22.5 1 30.5 29.9 11.48 4.18 10.25 1 0.27 0.97
D 2 1 0.41 10.10 10 1.0 7.5 7.1 1 350 0.4 1.5 3.9 1 0.0 1 11.4 11.0 12.40 6.90 10.77 1 0.76 2.72
D 3 1 0.15 (..........Runoff calculated by proportional area method. See calculations ....................... 10.08 0.30
D 4 1 13.64 10.15 180 2.5 17.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 140 0.50 1 4.0 1 29.9 29.2 11.49 4.19 10.38 1 7.72 27.15
D 5 1 0.86 10.15 25 1.0 8.9 8.5 1 720 0.4 1.5 8.0 1 0.0 1 16.9 16.5 12.00 5.60 10.76 1 1.31 4.58
0 6 1 0.29 (..........Runoff calculated by proportional area method. See calculations ....................... 1 0.16 0.58
1 1 13.64 10.15 180 1.5 17.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 240 0.50 1 4.0 1 29.9 29.2 11.49 4.19 10.38 1 7.72 27.15
1a 1 7.44 10.15 180 2.5 17.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 0.0 1 25.9 25.2 11.60 4.60 10.38 1 4.52 16.26
2b 1 11.59 10.15 180 2.5 11.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 0.0 1 25.9 25.2 11.60 4.60 10.38 1 1.65 27.51
3a 1 3.62 10.15 190 2.5 18.0 17.3 1 540 1.1 1 4.5 1 0.0 1 12.5 21.8 12.30 6.50 10.38 1 3.16 11.18
3b 1 4.75 10.15 190 2.5 18.0 11.3 1 540 1.1 2 4.5 1 0.0 1 22.5 21.8 12.30 6.50 10.38 1 4.15 14.67
4 1 0.29 (..........Runoff calculated by proportional area method. See calculations ....................... 1 0.16 0.58
5 1 0.15 (..........Runoff calculated by proportional area method. See calculations ....................... 10.08 0.30
6 1 0.86 10.15 15 1.0 8.9 8.5 1 720 0.4 1.5 8.0 1 0.0 1 16.9 16.5 12.00 5.60 10.76 1 1.31 4.58
7 1 0.41 10.20 10 1.0 1.5 7.1 1 350 0.4 1.5 3.9 1 0.0 1 11.4 11.0 12.40 6.90 10.77 1 0.76 2.72
8 1 0.74 10.25 15 1.0 7.9 7.4 1 0.0 1 920 0.01 0.68 22.5 1 30.5 29.9 11.48 4.18 10.15 1 0.27 0.97
NOTES:
1. DP 1a: Flow from west gutter only
2. OP 2b: All flow into inlet
3. OP 3a: Flows from east gutter only
4. DP 3b: All flows reaching this point
5. OP 4: Sum of all flows leaving site from Sub -Basin D 6
6. OP 5: Sum of all flows leaving site from Sub -Basin D 3
I
APPEND I X A
1.
Runoff Calculations .... .............................
1
2.
Detention Pond ........................................
4
3.
Box Culvert and Irrigation Canal ......................
6
4.
Gutter Capacities .....................................
8
S.
Storm Sewer Lines A & B ...............................
9
6.
Erosion Calculations ..................................
10
7.
References
14
............................................
8.
Wagon Wheel Drainage Excerpt ..........................
16
9.
Horsetooth Commons Drainage Excerpt ...................
17
10.
Chaparral Drainage Excerpt ............................
19
11.
Rossborough Drainage Excerpt ..........................
22
12.
Morris and Wigert Backwater ............................
24
13.
Nomographs, Tables Used ...............................
27
N
_ .
rT
z
A�
3
0-7
,�• �v-Ta� �i.c6f 1
3
_ l
•a',3
i�
Pv�^1 7_
° 70
A a'-b5
A �. 17 a• ��
z
_ _
A S}� 1. ,9`l c - �.3o
z
D
0,15 A`
G = o,CIS
+, SJ a • b "+4oN Z - 4
Z. Z o G = Q..C(S
r�ijrl�l—
Q Co
�1in
�a7,wL
F
T!, l,jc�
:...�L�yJ j � G+:t.s �L'-L} ». „ C��..LV �.q7 1 Drj I.-
p.l�. 1�z�►5N pot,-� , c,�� as rij,Az.rt-
is�S�� raw Lei, 4-A
�01 n9 l F,.,c�J
S J W- 13
1-+ f t 5 12.pN 9
F V {
viz
�-, 4;a7 E-R/?)Pe + SwALcS Fc.o�S
Ad-&-m G ►-va ►J n 1 �V �A ��..'� W s�.-= N S ► a
c 1 Tri Ci u7 zru-5 , I p` 5 o Z t w 4 LZ S
S l.i Ab.(.i.,y Hal 6UNALFiI 4e0 ZZ.sl -
G�Ji'aKr H1e-H
u L) 5 645 iN 3 V e-
1 .0%13 o
b Fo aJ vzc.fl c 1T `f Fero M rJoM ot�ru,,�N
7
1V
L T, M� ola GordGErJ �t.n.i la r.9 nn {
L 4 (
\
-C 71 w. L v 4;ra—
1 7` 0%"(tOn7
(, Ivy T2,41NL�
f
-Ft ri.JfJ D
I
0
I
It
i
[1
I
D,P.I AREA I C
I (ac) I
TABLE A
STORMWATER RUNOFF
KINGSTON WOODS PUD
OVERLAND I GUTTER/PIPE I SWALE I I I I
L S tc2 tc100 I L S V tc I L S V tc I Tc1 Tc100 I i2 i100 I C I A2 9100
(ft) (t) (min) (min) 1(ft) M (f/s(min)I(ft) M (f/s)(min)I(min) (min) Ili/h)(i/h) I I(cfs) (cfs)
I I I I I 1 1
0.88 10.30 25 1.0 7.5 6.8 1 0.0 1 920 0.01 0.68 22.5 1 30.0 29.3 11.48 4.20 10.30 1 0.39 1.39
0.24 10.30 15 10.0 2.7 2.4 1 0.0 1 360 0.50 1.1 5.5 1 8.1 7.9 13.30 7.00 10.71 1 0.56 1.49
0.49 10.30 120 1.4 14.7 13.3 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 14.7 13.3 12.12 6,10 10.30 1 0.31 1.12
11.96 10.30 500 1.8 27.5 24.9 1 0.0 1 680 1.90 1.5 7.6 1 35.1 32.5 11.35 3.98 10.31 1 5.01 18.45
0.49 10.30 18 10.0 2.9 2.1 1 0.0 1 710 1.40 1.2 9.9 1 12.8 12.5 12.30 6.50 10.70 1 0,79 2.79
2.30 10.30 520 1.6 29.2 26.4 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 29.2 26.4 11.51 4.60 10.35 1 1.22 4.63
0.74 10.25 25 1.0 7.9 7.4 1 0.0 1 920 0.01 0.68 22.5 1 30.5 29.9 11.48 4.18 10.25 1 0.27 0.97
0.41 10.20 20 1.0 7.5 1.1 1 350 0.4 1.5 3.9 1 0.0 1 11.4 11.0 12.40 6.90 10.77 1 0.76 2.72
0.15 1...,..,.,.Runoff calculated by proportional area method, See calculations ....................... 1 0.08 0.30
13.94 10.15 180 2.5 17.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 240 0.50 1 4.0 1 29.9 29.2 11.49 4.19 10.38 1 7.89 27.74
0.57 10,15 25 1.0 8.9 8.5 1 120 0.4 1.5 8,0 1 0.0 1 16.9 16.5 11.00 5.60 10.76 1 0.87 3.03
0.29 1 . . . . . . . . . . Runoff calculated by proportional area method. See calculations ....................I.. 1 0.16 0.58
13.64 10.15 180 2.5 17.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 240 0.50 1 4.0 1 29.9 29.2 11.49 4.19 10.38 1 7,72 27.15
7.44 10.15 180 2.5 17.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 0.0 1 25.9 25.1 11.60 4.60 10.38 1 4.52 16.26
12.59 10.15 180 2.5 17.6 16.9 1 900 1 1.8 8.3 1 0.0 1 25.9 25.2 11.60 4.60 10.38 1 7.65 27.51
3.62 10.15 190 2.5 18.0 17.3 1 540 1.1 2 4.5 1 0.0 1 22.5 21.8 12.30 6.50 10.38 1 3.16 11.18
4.75 10,15 190 2.5 18.0 17.3 1 540 1.1 1 4,5 1 0.0 1 22.5 21.8 12.30 6.50 10.38 1 4.15 14.67
0.29 1........,,Runoff calculated by proportional area method. See calculations ...........I.......I... 1 0.16 0.58
0.15 1.......,,,Runoff calculated by proportional area method. See calculations ....................... 1 0.08 0.30
0.86 10.15 25 1.0 8.9 8.5 1 720 0.4 1.5 8.0 1 0.0 1 16.9 16.5 12.00 5.60 10.16 1 1.31 4.58
0.41 10.20 20 1.0 7.5 7.1 1 350 0.4 1.5 3.9 1 0.0 1 11.4 11.0 12.40 6.90 10.77 1 0.16 2.72
0.74 10.25 15 1.0 7.9 7.4 1 0.0 1 920 0.01 0.68 22.5 1 30.5 29.9 11.48 4. IS 10.25 1 0.27 0.97
NOTES:
I. OP 2a: Flow from west gutter only
2. OP 2b: All flow into inlet
3. OP 3a: Flows from east gutter only
4. OP 3b: All flows reaching this point
5. DP 4: Sum of all flows leaving site from Sub -Basin 0 6
6. OP 5: Sum of all flows leaving site from Sub -Basin 0 3
L
1
1
TABLE A CALCULATIONS
Table A is based on City of Fort Collins' criteria for
calculating stormwater runoff using the Rational Method. Notes on
each column contained in the table appear below:
1. DP: Design Point. May be either a total contributing basin
flow (e.g. H1 or D2) or point flow at a Design Point
(e.g. DP1).
2. Area: Area contributing flow to the Design Point, in acres.
3. Overland Flow:
a. C: This is the runoff coefficient for the overland
portion of the flow only.
b. L: Length, in feet, of flow path. Lmax = 500 feet.
C. S: Average flow path slope, in percent.
d. tc: Time of Concentration of the overland portion of the
flow, in minutes. t,=[1.878(1.1-CfC)L1/2]/Si/3
Where: Cf2=1.00 and Cfl00=1.25.
4. Gutter/Pipe and Swale flows: Channelled flow paths in either
gutters, pipes or swales. May be undefined watercourses which
occur naturally.
a. L,S: As in 3.b and 3.c, above.
b. V: Flow velocity from nomograph, attached.
C. tc: Time of concentration, in minutes. tc=(L/V)(1/60).
5. Tc2, Tcloo: Total time of concentration, in minutes.
6. i29 iioo: Rainfall intensity, in inches per hour.
7. Q21 Qioo: Peak runoff, in cubic feet per second. Q=CCfiA.
I
Detention
Pond
V=1/3d( A+-B+sgrt( A*B) )
Volume
Depth
Contour
Between
Sum
Elevation
Area
Contours
Volume
Volume
'
--(ft)
---------------------------------------------------
(sq ft)
(ft)
(cu ft)
(cu. ft)
84.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
85.00
2,305.00
1.00
768.33
768.33
86.00
5,216.00
1.00
3,662.80
4,431.13
87.00
7,143.00
1.00
6,154.31
10,585.44
88.00
9,516.00
1.00
8,301.19
18,886.63
89.00
12,116.00
1.00
10,789.86
29,676.49
90.00
15,140.00
1.00
13,599.95
43,276.45
Q
90.5
17,232.00
0.50
8,087.36
51,363.81
91.00
18,564.00
0.50
8,946.93
60,310.74
91.50
19,305.00
0.50
9,466.65
69,777.39
Kingston
Woods Rational
Method
Mass D
25-Jun-92 11:26:29
AM
Q=( .38 )( 1
.25)*i*(13.64ac ) Release
Flow
2.6
Q=
6.479 i
Volume
Storage
Time
i
Q
Volume
Outflow
Volume
(min)
(in/hr)
(cfs)
(cu ft)
(cu ft)
(cu ft)
-
---------------------------------------------------------------
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
7.00
45.35
16,327.08
936.00
15,391.08
12.00
6.70
43.41
31,254.70
1,872.00
29,382.70
18.00
5.50
35.63
38,485.26
2,808.00
35,677.26
24.00
4.70
30.45
43,849.87
3,744.00
40,105.87
30.00
4.17
27.02
48,631.37
4,680.00
43,951.37
36.00
3.72
24.10
52,060.06
5,616.00
46,444.06
42.00
3.40
22.03
55,512.07
6,552.00
48,960.07
48.00
3.10
20.08
57,844.51
7,488.00
50,356.51
54.00
2.82
18.27
59,197.33
8,424.00
50,773.33
60.00
2.60
16.85
60,643.44
9,360.00
51,283.444
66.00
2.40
15.55
61,576.42
10,296.00
51,280.42
72.00
2.22
14.38
62,136.20
11,232.00
50,904.20
78.00
2.10
13.61
63,675.61
12,168.00
51,507.61
84.00
1.97
12.76
64,328.70
13,104.00
51,224.70
90.00
1.88
12.18
65,774.81
14,040.00
51,734.81
96.00
1.75
11.34
65,308.32
14,976.00
50,332.32
102.00
1.68
10.88
66,614.49
15,912.00
50,702.49
108.00
1.60
10.37
67,174.27
16,848.00
50,326.27
114.00
1.56
9.72
66,474.54
17,784.00
48,690.54
120.00
1.43
9.26
66,707.78
18,720.00
47,987.78
126.00
1.38
8.94
67,594.11
19,656.00
47,938.11
132.00
1.30
8.42
66,707.78
201592.00
46,115.78
138.00
1.26
8.16
67,594.11
21,528.00
46,066.11
144.00
1.21
7.84
67,734.06
22,464.00
45,270.06
150.00
156.00
1.19
1.15
7.71
7.45
69,390.09
69,.739.96
23,400.00
24,336.00
45,990.09
45,403.96
162.00
1.12
7.26
70,532.99
25,272.00
45,260.99
168.00
1.10
7.13
71,839.15
26,208.00
45,631.15
174.00
1.08
7.00
73,052.02
27,144.00
45,908.02
r
i
_ 1T r
c
3 s y.-
ti �
i-
17
17
A 11.� 1=J IJC--T 1 0-)4 U. S
YN = 1, oz'
1
r
it
I
14
IZ
'
Kingston
Woods
PUD
Stepwise
Backwater
Calculations
(Morris
&
Wiggert)
Pleasant
Valley
and
Lake
Canal
Sta
19+00
= N. end
box culvert
'
Sta
---------------------------------------------------------------------
D1
D2
Q
n
b
z
Ib
SUM L
WSE
0.00
104.51
19+00
3.70
3.71
55.0
0.030
6
2.00
0.0001
138.28
104.53
17+62
3.71
3.72
55.0
0.030
6
2.00
0.0001
280.42
104.56
16+20
3.72
3.73
55.0
0.030
6
2.00
0.0001
367.64
104.57
'15+32
3.73
3.75
55.0
0.030
8
1.00
0.0001
604.08
104.62
12+96
3.75
3.78
55.0
0.030
8
1.00
0..0001
915.89
104.68
9+84
3.78
1
i
7
,17
s
SINE o, li i � 1 17
Ala Zip ;L.n.p
0:�"rt>
ion of TS4ak
f— too.9
KN�
r•,
'
2zlz
Na
_. _......._.............. _.._..:_......
CIL
I ,
S I D
Yi/�
r..•.�o ;,: `o. 3 � ) _ �. a Cf y
7 4, sZ
o 4-
v J�i7'
`
�4 _ , I � /•`mil '= ` � i
r - Q•
_n
b oo
3 a Gas
TLz p. Fwc. t a ,
Z i
= ��gaJ C�3a� = �o `� cfs i
�46r.0
13,o�
ok-
w
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
-Z: 5-y-da-v,." 5ew" Line. 4
A. Norfk zrLt-o,P .
QZ_ 7. 5-6 eA oo = Z7. ZI a l:�
Qz = 3• I � �-�s
QtPo= I I. ZBe,Fs
,00 ec -) YD = o. 5-7
Koh
(O/Z Z/9z
8u
r,r, 00
7.
yam„►,)
1 r
)s TYPErrR `10% Ytd.ce,, �Acfo,�
(27.ZI �t5)
vt 5C : I $ � iY IBC Q. . �►� � T �a �i%-�� � � --
1
1
1
i
1
1
vz06 8b
6/a z/q Z
G, S l Cf S '' f cc�� �..�
fry
0
990 l o
6), 5—, 4�IL e--Alo - 0e) 711
(Z-7r) 0, 4- r G o s [azj
100- r vo/j, f
(a
t'y 10' Ty
�/ lt.z,
.too-yr, !L z o,8(ia') ' (• ¢I
�i � -2 � �L � �-�j ' G roSS � r•� PcLTT�vresn �'},
1+= 91.49-<jS.68'= a.91,
Qlg= 13•0&�g > 1r.z8�fs
uSe. 13 RIC-P
LN4
rzzr
r_
Z- ',
+ S7-
11-3
- . -
4-
rpI.
V) -- 4 .; 17-
77
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
45117pe - o•ol 67o)
1. �u- � �io .,J �r,�1^�, ti� �.-�, �.-•. �,Q {fie ('�. o dt
A✓� _ �z(Z510 ��O /zLZto
/i�28axgo) F '/,(Z5-c, '( •)' 16,3yo s. -C.
0• �>'1Sc.c .
7
CU
G, 375
loovr l
T%"> n rk, ; 170 sloe 1. 8 ip s
lc, = Zoo, �-z : Zo%
L� )
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
F '/Z
AF
-
I . '(:, g 4'5
Qloa ( 1133) -I. 32 <. I. � 6g c.f,
CL _
!TM
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
-------------------
PROJECT:
-----------------------------------
1[, � N� S--�o tab I�oo7
`,
STA--
NDARD FORM A
COMPLETED
-------------------------------------------i--------------i---o---
BY: = 1
DATE:
DEVELOPEDIERODIBILITYI
Asb
I
Lsb
Ssb Lb
Sb PS
SUBBASIN
I ZONE
I (ac)
1
(ft) 1
(%) .1(feet)
I (%)
1 (;)
---------
----------
I -------
I
1
Imo.
I o.)4I
+7I
Z
j
4 I
I' 13, (o 4
1
13 z, I
1, 33
I
I
I
174
I
l.zs
j
I
I
),37
-------------------------------
DI/SF-A:1989
0
I
I
[1
r
I
I
1
I
I
I
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJECT:,U:�; ,, �,a 1,� ��, STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: j� DATE:
Erosion Control
C-Factor
P-Factor
Method
Value
Value Comment
------------
S EtJ B `l.S '- N
--- --------
I
----------------------
- -
T2ZC;-7 L4taf
0.01
I, a*
e )%I S.
j O S
1, M'
Z>JSNZ 7U) 7�ioJN,�
I O�
.
O.�I O
?a-y
S,tuVc� �..,�''v•i
�','.�o
a,80
MAJORI PS
BASIN (;)
75,G j
SUB
BASIN
D.
4.
AREA
(0 74
041
o, Is-1
13,(-4
CALCULATIONS
-
i_U,.3$C �t c�,'i 3/F +-�---
I
Pa.-� �•�a c1n.�v F,�-1 I
GNP: `o.05 i5 t 0.)0 F- = J,15 I
�4)C,S)
Ga,a z 13,9z C3+ �'j,7ze (.4
[C3.9z)Z)%D(.)'] "13.64 _ ! �S
09 = q, �Ip
J',Z-<JGl1-=,'3(e �O.OL II
I----------------------------------------------------------------------�
HOI/SF-B:1989
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
i
1
-------EFFECTIVENESS-CALCULATIONS
------------ ` ' ------------------------------------
PROJECT: )Ltiy STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: >= j DATE:
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor I
Method Value Value Comment
----------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR
BASIN
PS
SUB
AREA
I
(%)
IBASIN�
(Ac)
I CALCULATIONS
I
I
I ►'N�-� 0. 50
Ci -(-O �g,,,))]'xI��=
------------------
HDI/SF-B:1989
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
PROJECT:_STANDARD FORM C
sEQUE.rCE. FOR 19 9 t ONLY COMPLETED BY: I ! DATE: - ,— -9 Z
Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed.
Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for
approval by the City Engineer.
YEAR
______MONTH- A I Nl I .� I .1 I A i l l N I D I I I I
----------------►-----------------------------------=-----------------------I
OVERLOT GRADING
WIND EROSION CONTROL
Soil Roughing
Perimeter Barrier i I
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods I
Soil Sealant
Other
I
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin I I
Inlet Filters
I� Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows I I
Terracing I I
Asphalt/Concrete Paving) I
Other
i
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Seed Planting
Sod Installation
Nettings/Mats/Blankets
Other
----------------------------I-----------------------------------------------------------I
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR
DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON
SDI/SF-C:1989
. lei
4,
'p,3-)
tZ
CI-f -f
G-TYf,c,J�c.c.
3
n Q (oP �' � �� �•� DTZ.Pw� c.., c.. 5 1 N l_ N 51 hl t.�. 21 1.54 �
- M � rL.TL1 S
� � 1� c: t�-I• — c� C = ra, � -� ,a �+-1 � `;
1
(�o
0.5
to
G�-=Y
-z
�' ���
F� 5• 4. l
4.4 4.
Z L4I 7 A o,
qD-
C�02
'S -
FS. rL. ZAa?
L444,aN W F Eal ,.
Fri 4k- vrzN S,
IV. SUMMARY
Offsite
water tributary to the site has been route: souta and west
of the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal. On the east side of the canal
there is a portion of land south of the subject provrty and north of
Horsetooth Road which has been routed through the Scuth Basin system.
The storm water generated by the proposed development in the North Basin.
(Spring Creek) has been routed over the surface to the Northeast corner
where it historically left the property. At this point, there will be a
detention pond with a capacity of 17.22 Ac, ft. which is required by the
present city specifications.
l . •
The storm water generated by the proposed development in a ou isin
(tributary to Fossil Creek) has been routed over the surface to the
Southeast corner where it historically left the property. A detention
having a capacity of 7.96 Ac. ft. will be required to detain
Lfacility
the developed flow to the 2 year historic rate.
The flow in
both basins has been routed through the streets and meets
the requirements set by the City of Fort Collins for street inundation
for both the 2 year frequency storm and the 100 year frequency storm.
Prepared By:
Mike Garfield, Civil Engineer
Under the superv'_ston-4:
Malcolm R. Meurer
Professional Engineer,,
ISTEjIt
�Y
r0 ✓
7
* "333
at
7l NEER ► R04
ti Of CO�Oi
��WWOO
I
wat- Da4 IN 4q F Rep -j
kiaz6�. j �Y(li GoK,w-�ow�
� 17
The Foothills Drainage Basin Master Drainage Plan identifies a 36"
' storm sewer along the east edge of this project. A section of this
line has been built under Horsetooth. It is intended that this line
be continued 1,200 feet to the North where it will drain into a 42"
line recently constructed under Shields Street.
IV. Offsite Flows
1. As mentioned, a small part of the Foothills Basin flows
through the Northwest corner of the site. A 15" storm sewer
will be provided through this area in the proposed easements
where it will outlet into a channel through the Casa Grande
development to the North.
2. Approximately 2.8 cfs of water develops from Horsetooth
Avenue in the 100 Year Storm. The area west of Richmond
Drive runs through Richmond Drive and is diverted into the
36" storm sewer at inlet RN at the east edge of this site.
3. A portion of the flows from the west side of Horsetooth run
to an inlet at the NW corner of Horsetooth and Shields.
This will be connected to the 36" storm sewer as identified
in the Foothills Basin Master Plan. This is approximately
6.0 cfs in the 100 Year Storm.
4. Flows from
the west side of Shields Street between
Horsetooth and
the proposed
Richmond Drive are routed
through inlet RS at the east
edge of the site. This is
approximately
8.0 cfs in the 100 Year Storm.
V. On -Site Flows
The Horsetooth Commons
PUD consists of
15.54 acres of drainage area
(including rights-of-way)divided
into
five subbasins. (See Figure
I.) A summary of these
basins follows:
Area
Concentration
Subbasin (Acres)
Poidt
Proposed Use
A 1.90
A-1
Existing duplexes S some
proposed commercial.
B 3•29
B-1
6 Single Family and
12 duplexes
C 3.05
C-1
Multi -Family
D 4.58
D-1
Commercial Retail Center
E 2.72
E-1
Convenience store and
Restaurant
Total 15.54 Acres
2
r
11
47.
�44is
t
50
IV
i'
Fi NMI . Cor"i WAC14f Ip. ut> q
jzepc Z-r Dnc. , 3 3 t
1.
I
u
1
1
GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Chaparral P.U.D. is a 10.04 acre tract located in the Southeast
Quarter of Section 27, T 7 N, R 69 W of the 6th P.M., in the City
of Fort Collins, Colorado.
More specifically, Chaparral P.U.D. is located at the Southwest corner
of the intersection of Shields Street and Casa Grande Boulevard. It
is the last portion of the original Wagon Wheel subdivision to be developed.
This property was originally a part of the 3rd Filing of Wagon Wheel
Subdivision. Wagon Wheel Subdivision, 3rd Filing was replatted as Casa
Grande P.U.D. Chaparral P.U.D. is now a replat of Tracts 3 and 4
of Casa Grande P.U.D.
Please refer to the grading/drainage plan attached for actual Chaparral
boundaries.
Chaparral P.U.D. will consist of 55 single family lots.
DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS
Chaparral P.U.D. is contained within, and is a part of the Wagon
Wheel Subdivision Master Drainage Plan. Wagon Wheel Subdivision
and Chaparral P.U.D. is contained within, and is a part of, the City
of Fort Collins Spring Creek Basin.
A detention pond will be provided on the Chaparral P.U.D. site to
satisfy the detention requirements for approximately 31 acres of up-
stream development which includes Wagon Wheel Subdivision Filing 2,
Casa Grande P.U.D. and Chaparral P.U.D. The pond location is con-
sistent with the proposed pond location in the Wagon Wheel Subdivision
Master Drainage Plan.
An 18" RCP storm sewer, which is located in Lymen Street, directly
north of Chaparral P.U.D., and which directs storm flows to a larger
detention facility in the Northeast corner of Wagon Wheel Subdivision,
dictates the Chaparral P.U.D. detention pond release rate and in turn,
the size of the detention pond for the contributing area to the pond.
The existing 18" RCP storm sewer and end section currently located
on the Chaparral P.U.D. site, will be utilized as the pond outlet.
(Seegrr ng'and drainage plan.)
^;
There' : � '' 4!"' CP storm sewer in Casa Grande Boulevard which
direct " n ;flows' to the same inlet which accepts storm flows from
the' exi:1"8" RCP on the Chaparral P.U.D. site. All flows which
enter this' inlet; release into the previously discussed 18" RCP storm
sewer in Lymen Street.
It is evident that during less frequent rainfall events, as the 181,
RCP in Lymen Street reaches its capacity, the 24" RCP will begin
to back up at the same rate as the detention pond. The 24" RCP
is therefore considered to contribute to the detention pond.
r.
DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA
The rational method for determining peak flows to various design points
was used for establishing inlet sizes, storm sewer flows and required
'
sizes and street flows. Rational method analysis begins upstream of
Chaparral P.U.D., utilizing existing drainage reports for Wagon Wheel
Subdivision. The cumulative runoff method for determining detention
requirements was used. The maximum capacity of the existing 181,
RCP storm sewer in Lymen Street is 6.6 cfs. This will be used as
the detention pond release rate. Figures from the Storm Drainage
Design Criteria used with this report are included for reference.
DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN
'
All storm drainage facilities which are not currently constructed, have
been designed according to City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design
Criteria. Figures from the Storm Drainage Criteria used with this
report are included for reference. Figure 5-1 for storm sewer design
data summarizes storm sewer design.
I
1.1
I
11
CONCLUSIONS
A storm sewer system for the remaining contributing area to the deten-
tion pond area is provided. The detention pond will detain storm
flows for 2 year storms as well as less frequent storms, because the
18" storm sewer in Lymen Street has a capacity of 6.6 cfs which is
less than 2 year design flows to Concentration Point 5 (detention pond
outlet) . This includes those flows in Casa Grande Boulevard and
the existing 24" RCP in Casa Grande Boulevard, installed with the
development of Wagon Wheel Subdivision.
The available storage in the detention pond is approximately 3.5 acre
feet. An overflow will'be provided along the Shields Street berm,
with an elevation of 78.50. Storm flows from smaller frequency storms,
once the detention pond capacity has been reached, will spill over
into Shields Street and Foothills Drainage Basin. These flows enter
the Cunningham Corners drainage system and continue within the Foothills
Basin drainage system.
The Chaparral storm sewer
chargftoccurs within the
is r " Refer to storm
info
.i.i •a.N..
system has been designed so that no- sur-
system once the detention pond capacity
sewer construction drawings for additional
1
Fla cj4riP4Tvzzap. F-UL,)
uty jt.o 4% 11 s S
Swrdco-l.
I
I
'7 W
I n.n. 8 p�c s1 S -Yv A Y
Mr. Victor H. Weidmann
Mr. Bob Smith
January 6, 1981
Page 4
would pass the 230 cfs out of the canal over the calculated weir length of
225-feet, 5-feet longer than proposed, considering a weir coefficient of
4.1.
The calculated canal profile does not submerge the control weir at the
end of the drainage channel, permitting the channel to freely drain into
' t
This facility will create a backwater effectLthecanal
onto properties
upstream or north of the subdivision. The ibackwater con- 9.0
dition has not been estimated in this reviewl possesses thehydraulic capacities offsite, as reported andhave within thesubdivision.no problem should exist with this
d
Summary
The hydraulic conditions tabulated below have been calculated at each
spill structure considering the following assumptions:
.. 1. Base canal flow: 55 cfs at 4-foot depth
' 2. Canal slope: 0.0004 feet per foot
�1 3. Canal roughness: .04
4. Side slopes: 3:1, canal reach along spillway; 1.5:1, existing canal
Spillway
Location Inflow cfs Range of H_ Length calc Length (proposed) Backwater
C= .1
Birmingham St. 43 .3' to .4' 50' 50' 1000'
yDevonshire Av. 34 .3 5035' 750'
North Property Line 230 .3' to .5' 225' 220' 1250'
Recommendations
1. As designed and owner or operator, the Engineer and City should
agree on an acceptable weir coefficient for use in the design.
2. The proposed weir length at the Devonshire crossing should be
rechecked.
3. Canal capacities on the properties north of Rossborough should
be verified.
................ .
:3
Mr. Victor H. Weidmann
Mr. Bob Smith
January 6, 1981
Page 3
Assuming the canal is flowing at capacity (Q = 55 cfs and d = 41) when the
inflow occurs, our calculations show the canal profile will rise to a
height of 0.3- to 0.4-feet above the spillway crest, with the additional
43 cfs inflow. With the canal cross sections properly constructed as
mentioned above, this profile would be maintained across the side -spill
weir, passing the 43 cfs within the proposed 50-foot weir length, using a
coefficient of 4.1. The depth will not submerge the tributary, channel
I from Birmingham Street.
The backwater in the canal, caused .by the side inflow and canal cross
section changes, would extend upstream a distance of approximately
1000-feet, under steady flow conditions. The backwater would not extend
to the Dunbar Avenue crossing.
Dunbar Avenue Box Culvert
The culvert was analyzed for the canal capacity condition (Q = 55 cfs).
Because of the tranquil nature of the canal flow, the headloss across the
structure is negligible, causing little if. any impact to the flow profile
upstream of the culvert.
Devonshire Street
At this location, approximately 34 cfs is to be tributary to the canal
during the 100-year storm event. The inflow channel is at a slight
angle to the canal however, the component of momentum provided by this
inflow is negligible. Depths over the spillway for this situation were
computed to be 0.3-feet. With the fixed channel section and the computed
canal profile for the 34 cfs inflow, we estimate a 50-foot spillway length
required to. spill the total flow. The proposed spillway length is 35-feet.
The canal profile caused by the inflow and the canal sections will not
submerge the inflow channel from Devonshire Avenue, during the 100-year
event, under the conditions assumed in the calculations.
The backwater in the canal would extend approximately 750-feet upstream,
to a point downstream of the north property line spill structure.
North Property Line
At this crossing, a 36-inch concrete pipe with an 8-foot inlet, passes
the initial storm runoff under the canal. Higher flows, ranging to 230 cfs
for the 100-year event, would be tributary to the canal. With the base
flow in the canal of 55 cfs, we estimate flow depths in the canal would
increase to 4.3- to 4.5-feet, or 0.3- to 0.5 feet above the spillway.
This flow profile, sustained by the cross sections and the flow conditions,
s
r
y
J
•N
Z
N
IL
�
'N
=, •N
._
Z
L;
•N
.M
it
b
II
II
i
J
�
ro
r
i
u
_
r�
I
aC
a)
O
W
co
N
W
Z
a0 M
N
W
y
�
Z
CD
u
u
Z
II cq
�
F
II II
Q
N� NN
x
y
.ro
+
U
CL
cq
U
~
CDe
II
A
m
J
U W 7
a~I�
�'•�
`��
C'
O C 0 C O
q A
0>o
v
y
d
y
p O
O
q b O C°
_ems
'
x �
9 1 0
00
000
" a
C Y
C.. a) v
O
O>
Q)
Pr W
ca O
C D
E
..� 1Oi
d C' •00 a C
_
qq m
3
O
"orog
E
w = 7
�—�
'C
O>
N
q Cca
t. s a
0
W
C
?
a> 00 O
O
'�
N
p I
a) a)
3 C
.a E" o
r.
CO)d
LLcm
.>
Ilu
a'�
u
Q
°—r a
a�aL„
04 4)
a
ya
4
a 0
v ti
0
II
c
�° d o
o
��
cs
c
Z
ca
Cs
L id g
q ''
i
°= A
91.
o
N
co
cs 0 'oqo
'� Q' g
O y
y 'b
b
.� m
•0 L bo
es
^
4 m
P' 0
cam°. ca
a°i
cC. y
d
ce
a O
W o ca
ci
.0
aH o
oa o
d v W m P.. m e0 d d ^O ° m °� v d L C
.0q LC O H E" 'w L° m
O F
a w l ce ti y L I'd'° O . •E
• ° N ^ d C O b y °° 'C vi ii= m —,aca
0 0 c0. - d +� +> O cd O a .q G O g a C A
a) •b U a� U w L a CD
a g:w3 a° z c'o ° H 4w, d� L .a
> o
co 0
a d q aD . cs q w .�..� m .0 a"i O a
os
o P. a q .5
goa"i O L a m F d r~ p-
E a a 00
'm f>L C P, OO—m° ca ca O
C oX-00 da � .N
u 0-4 a> -q .2-Y aaic
•p O a' q '�'' F°. q w O 'c O 0 C ca a> •�.
a .? A P• C a vi ° FL cs .0 q C
y ^ L o q > .Sa • ° m
p O F '>> L q° a ..°. G4 c°. O d p A y d C
d
ro> o P+ d 0° 0 P, ° 0, to 0 0 '� o C
u " car o a c .0 ca. °a
J O ° 0 vl aCi C •� `" w °' 7 aai a"i CD 'C cGV
q °
O m 00 J m OCO �O y ,.� C S b ca c,
c " °°' o q ra a
CP4 m
o a a U y. CDm 0
O
•� .ID
C '°' x tl p Ira 0
co
b c 0 o
a •0 o ° q q
x ro
Cd
a) C 'L c V d
bs��awg°0 cs
E Z C Z O 0 � .c
o E, ca a° 0 GL 0 o II
C °i —'' m"" td 7 ti I ci'ca
U. y� ai q L m c0. a „ .0
Ey c c e�ob c e +
0 A .0 w
C q ca vL d m pa " �> Q .c
o E E �.>B,L,o; n N s
Z° E CC)�, °
oa C 0 0
r
I
09 N c N N
�o o q m y•� a 0 0 0
a p m o x an dGO
'bp do
ga
dtoo 0 q a. �' mx 0 •'� w o .5 o S Cc,
o
.q •� " b ti •' m o w w
ca
ro d DO C p �.
a 'o a .� a d •° c A c �° .5 �
o
w q `� > m m �y ... o
o
z a A o d g q q a o c� too e m m w .c —
'Z y co m 0.1 A c, m Pti O cd .0 C❑ +' m
< �� m o Q e� F w o -0 � q a y c' d
U^ `ce' `aUi :g3 o A. d ca+d :zi .Cd �q Z CD
L7 •� O C.) UO°p0q9 ai .O yG "poY yAp'OS w
CL eo Oo y� m o c C ow q �mQ0�j s ac0pa
Z C c am
ceU pY O q�C°
II
O
Q
cc
A 8
FO AID
J p•��o�°:ga0s~0pia
C'�o y y cd C..nr :0 •n i. cwi Y a�i eo I d
A oD N c) A ¢N, a a 04
ca ca
.m o +� 3 v II p
ca .p ° O1 cd q Y °i c, Op Y
GL °' a o m .� Y a c d II 5
0 8 ca o o ° w o •".' `q = w N w m a me d y m a >
A
.g c'a°' w.p m a.�• p.,� �a a chi ,�'y rn
ti x
aiw W W �F
o go v� 30 q .; 0 m aD o o�� a t 0.
u c0, G p 3 T.' y .� y Fy 00 k y d
N N v .d •q V ,a U ° iV N 'b O o P. to •"
> C q
c Wcaq[ F wLl ce a'6b 5 O E b a 5
q iV U +°' iO ro: y cd ce v C K
CO w° �. bo 0 C ed (� > d
w >�-• o �' m I >' a o •° o
acoo` .-
dov �
,q
q
o. A
c0. O '�^� 7 0 O c. E
4) 0 ca 0 x q -- Z ai .O1 m o" c°. C.
a ro .� m PA m l7 roa E y°OmA'p�3A
O P. ;g O C c
ti a90 woW m5 a
,o a a
lz q q .p b 7 "1°a`6 � a L
amw .n o°..
Aq N
0 ° O
$ d caa o° x ro m. o oca o
ti O m 'O ° O E tl �i y c°� m
aC 3 ° ro ° o a a m .q. .� iw .a>i o �� '" o, a.
t q q cd A .+ ca � O •S �.. 2 'm i Z d ko d
W n O o w c o +� r O A� N
C'�, a s .� d q cd Y c. ou 'd A q c°i +'r;.' cam. S x •� d m O' 0
q .� ° q p �� ao o y N g y a
i ow"p�>' � y 2�A 1ro 0O N 7 CC W � > W •�I aO
a.:o roq W
p ° o w V G ~ °
.•;.a :b 8 a d o aai c •o ° a' U °J o
O o c ti^lu
Y p N
d'�' ^" d ro •� '� c •m c m A °1 d O GL 7 'ca
W
Ln
4 I
I a
a
II
4
la
E
e
If
C.
�
one
E
IIE
�I
Im
_ 4
I
4
Is
N
>IA
e
d
a
0
c
S
cilQ
eo
`s- II
II
0
10
Z
0
0
2
'W
J
LL
g W
o
C°
C
� w
W
m m
Ti m b
o
w
'o Z E
a
w
E .,°`,
m
,p yyo
n
o'� cc
co
v
"!
eo
3 o cW
°
cCi
V U
W
N
o
N q
a
a
W
b WO
^v1
0
d
C^^I
2
A AA zo
0
V W
W
m
y
w�
.5
t
E
vlril�n
Fw6�
ro 7 c� m b o o go,
y y cd V C C at ?;
ce
C G1. A
O.q o. U m C m L cd x O w
to C O as V i V O w °: U A ro C O a'
0. y
^y � ,a � u c.� ya W of as
q W W
€as d
oa° W o cro o.4 > 3 my -03
F O .� V W b0 N .� Cq7
b d ° m a � v F� a o 3« ro a F w C
m two 3 ca
ca
° d w 1W ti o C v°o. 'o 0
c E , W W
p 3x qo �o+ o 0
o o W pm v
c ? •� N >, c S .0 Cetl [ O rd acy °r. o � W.
ce 0 Cc, L. cD• °° q°' �VE W yo
roogo —0FbW-toa8 a mll " E"aVow
o. "a 00
`aW
WtUO �U �Z v,
�+ q d>
mbo � O C O cd 3. y V V as W as W C3 0
LL co.?: W C "•' y .'�-, .0 .0 V W m W W W W m ro O O
c w W °° e v W .� N O C E .0 c p d
° W o W :c W y W a .; C a o d ro
�d°y� �ba�Ndw'a 8a q'8Eo a,yy^ddao
p m .si
q CL p W
J 9 dW d�cl'oW W
.n WYo. 'b0 NcC ccW1:6 4.4.0 o o
m o cc
a 0 O Vl 93
,DC O W O " O
F G .0 C' C .w b
m O W a d O W O cs a! W O.
p Q o d ce ro q �' W
ebomk '"a.�°� T ca
w L c°i C o.ow�4^° W
cn W C —0 A .� � P.
e'er ° 241 cam' c 8 >,o
O n CO q cc cc q W W .G p q
G Is C Da O V W ii O :. O A04
aaa [+
a f' �' cp C R' td a°� W W w g C •S
a o o �' W .
3 a
o "oW 8 W ° and N
m e Y p e°a p p" Cmi A m
�. M N C .w ... a C, j ro W as i •y� Oo q q ..
^"IAlQ " I I II k�W.�mti dteamyz�IQ
o
do 0 b .c 8 a d d +
`o' g o q m a
b Q a a '� W$ a co O cd W as �
E .. q .�
I C atOi o 3 a W o a Wp p m .,
a c ID b W cc aWp 4p < y eo � c'
so III o o •� `° c b .jq.. ? 'E
^' O Oq F ro
Icy m II EW� m c a �° W m
U ° q F. q ai q
F Wro ��,
W g co40,
�
F E-4 C ti p A g W� C m n1 m p y
b •8 C O W E oWi F+ t C
No Text
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
30
F- 20
z
W
U
cc
a 10
z
W
a
0 5
w
cc 3
O
Uamc
2
W
F—
Q
1
5
.1
RUNOFF
Ong
• � r
����II�I■■Ili
������■■�
�I�MMM■■I/■MoI
����■■■■�
—W
_FAMINI/■■F—__MWN■N■■—
.2 .3 .5 1 2 3 5 10 20
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR
USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA.
*MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING "UNDEVELOPED"
LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION.
REFERENCE: "Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical
Release No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975.
5-1-84
URBAN DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1.0 12
' 5
.9 11 10 4
8
' 10 6 3
.8
9 2
' 7 04 '/�_w
8 W 3 �/� z 1.5
CL -
.6 N 2 / \
/ w O
7
-r
i U
t
z 1.0 .
.5 6 __ Example, Part a - J 1-0 z .9
w
5.5 a — — — ao .8
E- U) .. . 6
w 5 i z o .7
.4 z z .4 ►-
? 4.5 z a- 3 w 6
w
- U- =
4 O .2 O .5
z z =
w .3 3.5 w z '4
a_
O p J 1 0'
LL w
O .25 3 O o .08
_ = o .06 .3
c�
w W LOL z
= 2 = w •04
5
25
.2 a- .03 a
fr-• 3
' a .02 0 .2
2 aa.
x
U t-
w
15 .01 .15
L w
O
0
1.5 --- -- - -- -- yo a
Cr
' a = 2h .10
Figure 5-2
'NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2"
Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph
�Y 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA
I
2.0
, ,
r
EQUATION: 0 • 0.56 (A) !ry J
10000
TO 19 ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT
IN MANNING
10
9000
FORMULA APPROPRIATE TO MATERIAL IN
8000
BOTTOM Or CHANNEL
7000
E IS RECIPROCAL OF CROSS SLOPE
.08
1.0
6000
RICIPfNCE H A B PROCEEOIMOS 1946.
07
5000
PAGE ISO• EQUATION 11A)
n�
.90
4000
-
EXAMPLE ISE[ GASHED LINES)
05
.70
3000
GIVEN, f . 0.03
00
��
.60
E . E.1
n of
[/n . "aso
N
LL
TO
.04
30
.50
2000
IL
D: G to Cr!
z0
/�lL
-.03
7.40
—
_--
—
to
.
_
Z
y' r
1000
\ --
3
- .30
900
i
\
--
2`__
_Z
.02Soo
T
C
700
-60
I
500
v
s
.20
s
2
400
W
z
Z
INSTRUCTIONS
J
Q300
\�
.01
Sb
I. CONNECT E/n RATIO WITH SLOPE ISO
/P
T
D,J
/L�
fL.
ANO CONN[GT OISCNAROE 10) HOT•
=l
GS
.006
200
DEPTH IJI THESE TWO LINES MUST
U
INTER N OZ
•007
IA
10
"E CT AT TURNING LINE FOR
GOYPLC T[ SOlUt10M Q .01
♦\
.006
2. FOR SNALLOW I` T
,V.WIe
W
.08
to
V-SHAPED CHANNEL
tL
.005
W
.07
O
80
160
AS SHOWN USE NOMOGRAPH
70
w[TH : ' v
.004
.06
W
Cr
0-
O
05
50
S To 01:::MINE R r'
O
.003
/
03
40
DISCHARGE 0, IM
J
04
/
PORTION OF CHANNEL I-1=)
30
--L�
HAVING WIDTH R'
O[T[RYIN( pLPTM J FOR TOTAL DISCHARGE IN
002
ENTIRE SfCt10M G. THEN USE HOMOGRAPH TO
r
•O3
20
OLTERYINE OR IN SECTION M CO. DLPTN
l
Z
A TO O(TERYIN[ 01"CHARGE J
Campos., CCPOS., BE TIOM �- N _ ••
FOLLOW INSTRUCTION )
�, ��
/�
NL.
.02
10
_0
Q
TO OBTAIN DISCHARGE IN
.001
9Ectlom G AT ASSUMED
DEPTH J OBTAIN ON FOR
From
BPR SLOPE RATIO t, AND DEPTH l THEN 0, • 00.0A
Figure 4-1
.01
NONOGRAPH FOR FLOW IN TRIANGULAR GUTTERS
(From U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads,
1965)
MAY 1984
4-3
DESIGN CRITERIA
IL
Kei
.9
.7
.3
2
Ex
s=06%
F- 0.8
F-
s -0.4%
F=0.5
I
I BELOW MINIMUM
ALLOWABLE
I STREET GRADE
LJ
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
SLOPE OF GUTTER (%)
Figure 4-2
REDUCTION FACTOR FOR ALLOWABLE GUTTER CAPACITY
Apply reduction factor for applicable slope to the theoretical gutter capacity to obtain
allowable gutter capacity.
(From: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, 1965)
MAY 1984
4-4
DESIGN CRITERIA
570
DESIGN SMALL DAMS
5000
4000
3000
2000
12Xt2
1000
I
eoo
10X10
100W
9 X9
80 U-
i
600
F,
I
500
U-
8X8
60 Q
400
z
7X7
50
v�
40
LL
300
X
00
6X6
Z/%
v
w
30 p
z
200
Cr
j
5X5
O
p
Cr
/ 20 J
W
0
w
O
/
4X-4
0
fL
Z
Q
=
100
Z
O
.5X3.5
Q
I 0 cc
C
8 0`z
/
3X3
LL
0
O
8
50
2SX2.5
6 ¢
40--
5 %*
e
2 X 2
�4
30
20
W
E
z
z
z
F
PRESSURE LINE
HT
0. 9 D —i_1 -'-
HT
—i
HIGH TAILWATER
4
j
5
.8
�yc
1.0
w
``
iy
s .
tL
Z
0, rypo
�
2
�O
ap0
Q
3
rypp
=
p
hOp
ep / t
4
�• A°p
5
�p0
+
P`�
6
/
boo
EXAMPLE
H. 77.3
8
10
EQUATION FOR
SQUARE BOX:
H
1.555 (1•Kx) + 287.64 n2 L
r0 l2
20
HT w
Head in feet
Ke -
Entrance lose coefficient
0 -
Height, also span, of box in feet
10 I n w Manning•s roughness coefficient
L w Length of culvert in feet
8 0 a Design discharge rate in cfs
6
5
Figure B-13. Head for concrete box culverts flowing full, n=0.013. (U.S. Bureau of Public Roods.) 288—D-2913.
Hydraulic Computations 565
To use scale (2) or(3), project horizontally to scale (1) , then use straight inclined
line through D and Q scales, or reverse Fs illustrated.
ISO 10,000
168 8,000 E' AMPLE (2) (3)
156 6,000 D =42 inches (3.5 ft) 6. - 6.
144 5,000 Q = 120 cfs - 5. -
4,000 -6. 5.
132 H H -
AMA 3,000 D feet 5. 4. 4.
120 (1) 2.5 8.8
2.000 (2) 2.1 7.4 m-4.-
108 3.
(3) 2.2 7.7
3.
96 1,000 OD in feet 3.
Soo
84
600
500
T
72 400 2.
LLA
-300
1.5 1.5
Z
60 200 -1.5
Z Aum-i
W
e 54 Z
100
LLJ 48
>
m 80
-J
UJ 1.0
42 60 CL 1.0
U) -4Q .-D SCALE,," 50 /ENTRANCE
TYPE -1.0
36 .9
-'3 'SOuare edge with headwall OX
U.1 OV '(V
I X,
33 1 /1
.(2) Groove end with headwall
(31 Groove end projecting W�
Z 20 /1 m -.8
-30
-27
-.7-
24
6 .7
5
-4
6
Zl
-.6
15
.5 -.5
1.0 .5
L 12
Figure Headwater depth for concrete pipe culverts with entrance. control. 1U.S. Bureau of Public RoodB.)I. 210-0-2908.,
9l*LBL "TRAPP"
51 ENTERt
02 "b
52 3
93 PROMPT
53 i
94 STO 89
54 RCL 06
'
05 •Z ?-
55 WY
06 PROMPT
56 YtX
'
87 STO 81
08 -N ?•
57 ENTER1
58 RCL 84
89 PROMPT
59 SORT
18 STO 82
69
11 •S r
61 1.486
12 PROMPT
62
13 STO 84
63 RCL 02
14*LBL 01
54
15 -Y ?-
65 RCL 05
16 PROMPT
66 *
;TO @?
67 STO 97
19 RC,,- Ol
69 ARCL 00
0 ,
70 XEQ 83
21 RCL 9y
+
71 •c
72 ARCL 01
7 RC,_ @7
73 XE9 03
4 ;
74 'H: '
:`5 STO 85
75 ARCL 02
6 RCL 03
76 XE9 03
7 RCL 81
77 -S: -
L0 *
78 ARCL 04
'
29 RCL 5'
79 XE9 03
38 +
89 'Y:
31 RCL 83
81 ARCL 93
32 *
82 XE9 03
33 STO 86
83 -Q' -
34 RCL 81
84 ARCL 07
35 Xt2
85 XEQ 03
'
36 1
86 RCL 07
s7 +
87 RCL 05
38 SORT
88 i
39 RCL 83
89 .Y. I
49 *
99 ARCL X
` .
41 2
91 XEQ 03
42 *
92 P,PY
43 RCL 00
93 GTi 01
44 +
45 ENTERt
46 RCL 06
47 X0Y
97 ""P
48;4:.
98 RTII
r49
STO.,26
99 END
N = movoN lads n
S = 5 L.opa
G4N v5E aV�2w�a'.:
lF 'JOT 3Y,.N
/AAtJ►�a1M��S
� IiLJL'c S
btz�'7�ItB°
Oa
c� 5
h�,
Hydraulic Computations 567
r 2000
1000
800
120
600
108
500
96
400
84
300
72
66
200
60
to
U
54
z
In
p.,
W
4 8
CY
x
100 z
q2
w
i —
K
Rio
80%�
xdr
36
In
60
33
c
5O F
w
30
40 M
9
c
27
30
24
20
21
/ PRESSURE LINE
u / .4
2 2 HT (HT
0.850�
LOW TAILWATER HIGH TAILWATER 6
�t
E*% / <FZ
/ L•110 b
— --- - Ke.o.s )O �Z
r
500 �` a
IL,r 0
0, 0 'i
o N
.tp
000
EQUATION: Hr. /2.320D. (I. Ke) 466018 n2 LJ o�x
15 L
Mr. Head in feet
8 Ke. Entrance loss coefficient
D . Diameter of pipe in feet
6 1 2 a . Manning's roughness coefficient
L . Length of culvert in feet
5 O . Design discharge role in cfs
4
Figure 8-10. Head for concrete pipe culverts flowing full, n=0.012. (U.S. Bureau of Public Roads.( 288—D-2910.
8
1.0
5
6
8
10
20
APPEND I X B
1. Laredo Storm Sewer .................................... 1
2. Table A ............................................... 2-a
3. Attenuation ........................................... 4
4. Table B ( Pressure Flows ) ............................ 6
5. Street capacity ....................................... 9
6. Casa Grande Boulevard Storm Sewer ..................... 11
7. Detention ............................................. 13
8. Table C............................................... 16
9. Table C-1............................................. 17
10. Table D............................................... 18
11. Rossborough Drainage Excerpt .......................... 22
12. Morris and Wigert Backwater ........................... 24
13. Nomographs, Tables Used ............................... 27
14. References ............................................ 19
15. Charts, Nomographs.................................... 20
I j
V-- tit c.,
i.2--n < 11,
6-�
i
CVIf-'j rj7 l rj
2c. r2C.. O, '".�.p�oCY
2,.151 7 y
TO j"N tiZ(,i-o
S iort.trl SLR �z
kf��f 74
'Z. G Z
Zo.So ok
'U" ) �;7 $ a M P
4z= I�,aS
Q_14. < 7--Z. 3 a k
VZo
G, 5-TvrL j-,�
J 5 7rL z1 �� w s : -D. P 54
, n„ �� x ,a - (
0'(, ^�. 51 �.r s-T 4zz'j , 'lam t_rs eta. !` l=�zw
} ;; >
I
TABLE A
Off -Site Runoff Flows STORMWATER RUNOFF
KINGSTON WOODS PUD
OVERLAND GUTTER/PIPE ; ; ; ; REMARKS
D.P.; AREA C L S tc2 tc100 L S V tc ; Tc2 Tc100 ; i2 i100 ; C ; Q2 QI00
(at) (ft) (%) (min) (min) �(ft) (%) (f/s(min):(min) (min) ;(i/h)(i/h) ;(cfs) (cfs)
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------
I 1 ; 3.58 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 ; 770 0.6 1.5 8.6 33.7 32.7 ;1.35 3.91 :0.45 ; 2.11 7.87
1 2 ; 4.36 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 ;1020 0.6 1.5 11.3 ; 36.5 35.5 :1.29 3.75 ;0.45 2.53 9.20
13 ; 5.57 ;0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 ;1410 0.6 1.5 15.7 40.8 39.8 :1.20 3.51 :0.45 ; 3.01 11.00
14 6.29 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 ;1640 0.6 1.5 18.2 43.3 42.4 :1.16 3.37 :0.45 ; 3.28 11.92
S 4a; 16.01 ;0.15 200 1.0 .25.1 24.1 ;1860 0.6 1.5 20.7 ; 45.8 44.8 ;1.10 3.25 :0.45 ; 7.92 29.27
S 4b; 18.46 ;0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 ;1860 0.6 1.5 20.7 45.8 44.8 ;1.10 3.25 :0.45 ; 9.14 33.75
S 8 ; 21.86 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 :2110 0.6 1.5 23.4 ; 48.6 47.6 ;1.07 3.11 :0.45 ;10.53 38.24
S 14: 24.00 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 :2340 0.6 1.5 26.0 51.1 50.1 :1.10 3.00 :0.45 ;11.88 40.50
r1 ; 24.58 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 :2500 0.6 1.5 27.8 ; 52.9 51.9 :1.00 2.90 :0.45 :11.06 40.10
S 9 ; 24.58 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 :2600 0.6 1.5 29.9 ; 54.0 53.0 :0.98 2.87 :0.45 ;10.84 39.68
6 ; 0.42 ;0.15 80 1.0 15.9 15.3 ; 240 0.6 1.5 2.7 18.6 17.9 :1.92 5.51 ;0.45 0.36 1.30
SEXISTING CONDITIONS
S 6 ; 11.22 :0.15 160 1.0 22.5 21.6 :1350 0.6 1.5 iS.0 ; 37.5 36.6 :1.27 3.64 ;0.45 ; 6.41 22.97
S 7 13.04 ;0.15 160 1.0 22.5 21.6 :1660 0.6 1.5 18.4 ; 40.9 40.0 ;1.19 3.50 :0.46 ; 7.14 26.24
2 ; 5.72 ;0.15 80 1.0 15.9 15.3 ;1830 0.6 1.5 20.3 ; 36.2 35.6 ;1.30 3.74 ;0.46 ; 3.42 12.30
3 20.26 ;0.15 160 1.0 22.5 21.6 ;2910 0.6 1.5 32.3 54.8 53.9 :1.09 3.25 :0.46 :10.16 37.86
4 ; 22.21 :0.15 160 1.0 22.5 21.6 ;3150 0.6 1.5 35.0 ; 57.5 56.6 ;1.08 3.11 :0.46 :11.03 39.72
5 23.96 :0.15 160 1.0 22.5 21.6 :3380 0.6 1.5 37.6 60.0 59.1 :1.03 3.00 :0.46 :11.35 41.33
6 ; 24.63 :0.15 200 1.0 25.1 24.1 ;2840 0.6 1.5 31.6 ; 56.7 5S.7 :0.95 2.78 :0.45 ;10.53 38.52 ;For attenuation only
S 9 3.72 :0.15 30 1.0 9.7 9.3 ; 820 0.6 1.5 9.1 ; 18.8 18.5 :1.92 5.43 :0.45 ; 3.21 11.36 ;For Basins I1, 1 ✓1 2
DEVELOPED CONDITIONS
S 6 ;
11.22 :0.15
160
S 7
13.04
:0.15
160
2 i
5.72
:0.15
80
3 )
4 ;
25.73
27.68
i0.15
;0.15
160
160
5 ;
29.43
:0.15
160
KNG1; S.0 :0.15 150
KNG2; 7 :0.15 150
i W/ L.):.455-faN
1.0
22.5
21.6
:1350
1.0
22.5
21.6
;1660
1.0
15.9
15.3
;1830
1.0
22.5
21.6
:2910
1.0
22.5
21.6
:3I50
1.0
22.5
21.6
:3380
r�
0.6 1.5 15.0 37.5
0.6 1.5 18.4 ; 40.9
0.6 1.5 20.3 36.2
0.6 1.5 32.3 i 54.8
0.6 1.5 35.0 57.5
0.6 1.5 37.6 ; 60.0
36.6 ;1.27
40.0 :1.19
35.6 ;1.30
53.9 :1.09
56.6 ;1.08
59.1 :1.03
1.0 21.8 20.9 :1120 0.6 1.5 12.4 ; 34.2 33.3 :1.32
1.0 21.8 20.9 ; 820 0.6 1.5 9.1 ; 30.9 30.0 ;1.42
3.64 10.45 ; 6.41 22.97 ;
3.50 :0.46 ; 7.14 26.24
3.74 :0.46 i 3.42 12.30 i l
3.25 ;0.47 :13.18 49.13
3.11 ;0.47 :14.05 50.57
3.00 :0.47 :14.25 51.87 \
3.90 :0.50 ; 3.61
4.15 :0.50 ; 3.8
I
-y.
1-7 .I r
•mot ._. ..��.�„�
a) )w�-L -�
u) 5 Fk �1+=�s
zol`
rztS
F4rL
V _
'Z4 W
Fa— M t-3 3`
1�(-c 7 kV
0 j;_:tzcz, '-t
a• TI La J
L-j 1 J lei ra c -1 o ;Z
C4
h : o
.J
INN '-4D
n,j
Ile
cj-n G I,» 7 1
D
or--
p
P�
tz A v so po&
>
Mal
Q- A, 7 Allvt4
A4
rMN
Cl)
rL z
_ bl: A (
1144
r `r =7, �r83 d•9!7 Goo r r+l 4
.. i/,
4(+)J ),14 CJ.,I +7a aini
-J 2•�S
—
s5r4-�
by soul �o*L�$oa -ro Re,OL-T3� Ar3ay
Fo rp o r,3 P o i a -T s,
1 � yl c t.oz94
e) � oo _ � z-w,z F...� r�ls , N 3'-row►-•� ,S r.kl2rt. `, -
�) Ls LN C, !
16J Le- e S C
2,5�
!i �2.51)>< �I-�12oor,000isz�-7 = 2,01 r,�y
�) ratoM knl�s-(oN t4oDD3 17
i�.Go>X II- (890?c.o�o13z.)� _ 2.1i
/ t 72, 30) x rt - �3 5b ?�.o�l 3L� = 2z
' c`) Fn.o rat klr c�s70� ��oocs 2 N° �7.,v�- !+c ' 13.3
�S,zI
TABLE B
Kingston Woods Off -Site Storm Sewer
Pipe Pressure Flaw
Reach E1 d d L n f No. NH hl hf HI V A Q E2
(ft) (in) (ft) (ft) (fps► (sq ft) (cfs) (ft)
A 86.70 24 2.00 310 0.010 0.013 3.00 1.50 2.03 3.53 5.40 3.14 (0 85.10
B 85.10 24 2.00 340 0.013 0.022 2.00 1.00 3.76 4.76 8.06 3.14 25.31 80.30
C 80.30 24 2.00 200 0.013 0.022 1.00 0.50 2.21 2.71 4.36 3.14 13.69 79.50
D 79.50 24 2.00 170 0.013 0.022 1.00 0.50 1.88 2.38 5.20 3.14 16.34 78.50
MIN
HH
MH
- -.
31c 4m, 3
jZ. �.e. y 4 iRE's.e.. k
R2.4L�-i G R�h�G.l.j D
-_!Z
,'eNo
-r in.
ViarzieJ K4 36' 0,50
A ir r z7 Tr
C Ay
�n• �'+ 1."'= 1� :+ f•}o I,�j j G�P`4c i -r
I
-79,
Z C $ 7? 40 Y t b4 1 w) IZZ o pq
>K DS 1Z.Gq e-4s (s s+y i3�
Ai CJ9�oa G�Z�NDt tJVhl
wwf-*,c_ILD�
57
W 1_:: i S G = 2 57
57, cra p,c 7 y 1 t. G
3. ��►��-i� �, Woes
5, D i S.ZxCI-�swr ,ogc18Z), —
�•-73
�7.31
5> trL-01�I 7 4 r- L L- B)
1
TO Ti
G) FL-':'v-1 1N s 7•z c'C� C �aS
�
3 3 . b Z-
-eJ j
�az�4-
3 5 e-4s
u i P-t a
•I
1 Id
peN� -;
,A) 1 0� - i P- Part TL.J -0 p (= ft
1, 71cr�L-e Al- s0.5-7
z, 7m N; e 57 lo.ga'>
3, c; z,sxG-(ytox.caa)3Q1 Z.33
j 5.L X�(- %00K,0=I$2) 1 $`}
S, le-, W. Pow )l _
1
c 4,F e-I --r�I I j 1 (� . 3 + 4)
G) 5-`2zjs"j WILL- 5��Lr- -.0 f�o N1 e
79.s r
3-7
3 Z.03 po a b
I
u
I
rzEV rs lov-
;� tires- a n R 2 rA
F,-oa 5ov-1u 5 1 D 4
o!= n 5 =�w o f 13 u-7 Lt i -TLye
`^'J �= -
JLA) 14
v N L j= T3 y) f ►-+ l- u 1ai v ^j S,v v -T I-�
I S C 0 L. c u Lr'1 7 eA d N s f-}-1 3 AS 1 z, C. 9 c 4s
'LL-j
w 11 Z' � � _ G�aS.a ctit ON7`— l✓��/ I �!`�
=a, 24„ �5" rLcs
o RGD
[Jµ� `
CQ •mil 1J
'�v `eI7)
1 1
a�s1<,.
Co -r, Iri
Z.S7 45
5, 14 c 1s
G
Z4.:3
30 5z
1 6
S3
21,3C
3�.2�
1•]S 39
11
r
• Z. c. P C o, Co I � •� h� +� 1 3
Ll
�) FL D. co
ilo
O,n1
1-3
}
Fnor 4-3
I N-> gL%cep-
zo r-,.Pa (4- -
.�)
= I,
�c cD . Co G
')L. -
Fsa<- 1 o 2 = o. -) 5
lz 4tv � Z
l=rr.BM
2Lo.t-Rew
7m 2�"
IZS,M��aa�-�SFSJE�07
1.3o —0,`f Z = o, 68 c4t
s4 5, Id ,85
4.3�
s s 7,57 ,jay
2.2I
1 z,57 11-7
2 41
6 o,4z 1,00
D,42
,51
C1,41Cc- 0m)
S� G A130V�
1,—,N
z.
3
rt-4 5
1
7
1
A
,1
1
1
1
t
1
1
LN 4
Z. a
I. �Z
3,oD
),so
l .1i S
1.75
S, +^7
'z 1.43
c�
A, _ o. 47
-•,
G� GON �n.rr•��
!aS /�*zz�y �
IN�rn_2.c.—f Z� Nor=F
e:.1
ZJN •hJ rYJS ;=v c.l.•
GpvJ—j�z, .
t
Sr ,
ctioM W i=5 j g�3 �N 1, 3 3
r
0
3.z3
r,.(zs—�
z, 5�-r
►,�
, ,
S
q3
s
4-
37_
aF-
Bi INA)rttc
ZF
TL 4-e44., al
C� 5�azw., S��o2n Fn,.o, 4Jc55"( )?AS.N
4
To
CpL v )t�j
tw Gqs� �r��u4
Lt,l 4 s
C�
G t f
i
TABLE C
Kingston
Woods
Rational
Method Mass D
30-Jul-92
04:35:57 PM
Q=(.47)(1.25)*i*(29.43)
Release Flow
8.71
Run L
Q=
17.29012
i
Volume
Storage
Time
i
Q
Volume
Outflow
Volume
--(min)-
(in/hr)
---------
(cfs)
-------- -------
(cu ft)
---- --------
(cu ft)
---- --------
(cu ft)
----
( +5.31
)
---
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
7.00
126.34
45,482.72
31135.60
42,347.12
12.00
6.70
121.15
87,230.76
6,271.20
809959.56
18.00
5.50
100.41
108,438.14
9,406.80
999031.34
24.00
4.70
86.57
124,665.97
129542.40
112,123.57
30.00
4.17
77.41
139,337.68
159678.00
123,659.68
36.00
3.72
69.63
150,399.21
189813.60
1319585.61
42.00
3.40
64.10
161,522.99
219949.20
1399573.79
48.00
3.10
58.91
169,659.04
259084.80
144,574.24
54.00
2.82
54.07
175,180.81
289220.40
1469960.41
60.00
2.60
50.26
180,951.57
319356.00
149,595.57
66.00
2.40
46.81
1859352.95
34,491.60
1509861.35
72.00
2.22
43.69
1889758.41
379627.20
1519131.21
78.00
84.00
2.10
1.97
41.62
39.37
194,778.15
198,432.59
40,762.80
439898.40
154,015.35
1549534.19
90.00
1.88
37.82
204,203.35
479034.00
157,169.35
96.00
1.75
35.57
204,870.06
509169.60
1549700.46
102.00
1.68
34.36
210,267.35
539305.20
156,962.15
108.00
1.60
32.97
213,672.82
569440.80
1579232.02
114.00
1.50
31.25
213,717.08
59,576.40
1549140.68
120.00
1.43
30.03
216,251.13
629712.00
153,539.13
126.00
1.38
29.17
220,528.02
659847.60
1549680.42
132.00
1.30
27.79
220,074.33
689983.20
151,091.13
138.00
1.26
27.10
224,351.22
72,118.80
1529232.42
144.00
1.21
26.23
226,636.28
75,254.40
1519381.88
150.00
1.19
25.89
2329967.24
789390.00
154,577.24
156.00
1.15
25.19
235,812.51
819525.60
1549286.91
162.00
1.12
24.67
239,840.42
84,661.20
155,179.22
168.00
1.10
24.33
2459237.71
879796.80
157,440.91
174.00
1.08
23.98
2509386.02
909932.40
159,453.62
n
i
I
I�
1
TABLE C - 1
Kingston
Woods
Rational
Method Mass D
30-Jul-92
04:49:11 PM
Q=(.47)(1.25)*i*(29.43)
Release.Flow
9.47
Run L
Q=
17.29012
i
Volume
Storage
Time
i
Q
Volume
Outflow
Volume
--(min)-
(in/hr)
-------------------------------------------------------
(cfs)
(cu ft)
(cu ft)
(cu ft)
( +5.31
)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
7.00
126.34
45,482.72
31409.20
42,073.52
12.00
6.70
121.15
87,230.76
61818.40
80,412.36
18.00
24.00
5.50
4.70
100.41
86.57
108,438.14
124,665.97
10,227.60
139636.80
989210.54
111,029.17
30.00
4.17
77.41
139,337.68
179046.00
122,291.68
36.00
3.72
69.63
150,399.21
20,455.20
129,944.01
42.00
3.40
64.10
1619522.99
239864.40
137,658.59
48.00
3.10
58.91
1699659.04
27,273.60
142,385.44
54.00
2.82
54.07
175,180.81
30,682.80
144,498.01
60.00
2.60
50.26
180,951.57
34,092.00
146,859.57
66.00
2.40
46.81
185,352.95
379501.20
147,851.75
72.00
2.22
43.69
1889758.41
409910.40
147,848.01
78.00
84.00
2.10
1.97
41.62
39.37
194,778.15
1989432.59
44,319.60
479728.80
1509458.55
150,703.79
90.00
1.88
37.82
204,203.35
51,138.00
1539065.35 a
96.00
1.75
35.57
204,870.06
549547.20
150,322.86
102.00
1.68
34.36
2109267.35
57,956.40
1529310.95
108.00
1.60
32.97
213,672.82
61,365.60
152,307.22
114.00
1.50
31.25
2139717.08
64,774.80
148,942.28
120.00
1.43
30.03
216,251.13
689184.00
148,067.13
126.00
1.38
29.17
220,528.02
71,593.20
148,934.82
132.00
1.30
27.79
220,074.33
75,002.40
1459071.93
138.00
1.26
27.10
224,351.22
78,411.60
145,939.62
144.00
1.21
26.23
2269636.28
81,820.80
144,815.48
150.00
1.19
25.89
232,967.24
859230.00
147,737.24
156.00
1.15
25.19
235,812.51
88,639.20
147,173.31
162.00
1.12
24.67
2399840.42
92,048.40
1479792.02
168.00
1.10
24.33
2459237.71
95,457.60
149,780.11
174.00
1.08
'23.98
250,386.02
98,866.80
1519519.22
I(
I
Ll
'I
TABLE D
cHbPh t-3�
Detention
Pond
V=1/3d(A+B+sgrt(A*B))
Volume
Depth
Contour
Between
Sum
Elevation
Area
Contours
Volume
Volume
--(ft)
-------------------------------------------------
(sq ft)
(ft)
(cu ft)
(cu ft)
0.00
72.20
0.00
72.20
0.00
0.00
73.00
79760.00
0.80
2,069.33
21069.33
74.00
149880.00
1.00
117128.55
139197.88
75.00
259840.00
1.00
20,109.55
339307.43
76.00
30t200.00
1.00
27,991.69
61,299.12
77.00
359320.00
1.00
32,726.61
94,025.73
78.00
40,760.00
1.00
389007.54
132,033.27
78.50
439400.00
0.50
219036.55
153,069.82
78.60
439904.00
0.10
49365.18
1579435.00
79.00
469000.00
0.40
17,979.17
175,414.17
-S - '�+r 0' 'Dec-, J '� 37
�Ih1-!N !NC Jc.� � , �h_j (.=.�-� Ov.�...� C.%}•�.n.�rJZ.C..
h
FWl^l ! vJ T2 ra-
I
r
%, �NlraSo� Intl-4c.tL- i7•rL.a,u-+tir�z R��o.�.--T F;J"i
19
I � ,U 2Y.a�L,+-» i-' G...,,.,� 1 1 t1 �1.7D j -r.✓�_ 9�� , �". 7�c✓ �
i tom;
T-
10000
EQUATION: 0 • 0.56 in� fti J iF
n IS POYGHNESf 000rrICIENT IN MANMIMO
8000
FORMULA APPROPRIATE TO MATERIAL IM
.10
8000
BOTTOM Of CHANNEL
7000
[ IS RECIPROCAL Or CROSS SLOP[
•09
1.0
6000
REIERENCE% H A, 0 PROCEEDING! ISAS,
.07
'
5000
not 150. [OUATNIN II41
.80
.06
4000
.70
EXAMPLE (![E DAf"[o LINES).05
'
3000
clvcNl f 0.03 IOo
to
\
.60
\
[ [A
� 50
n . .0E +/n . 1[00
.04
.50
2000
a • D,[t '1 30
U
LL
xo
FIND: 0 • E.0 CIS ----_----
!/U-
,40
— — 10
Z
-3
1000
900
-500
v
.20
400
.3
2
\
~
W
n0VrRUUCT3oes �w
Z
1'j cJ
Q
300
�
J
.01
T�
1�
.I
1. CONNECT f/n RATIO IITN SLOPE. ISI Q 03
W
/0/�
BL
NoCONNECT DISCHARGE (0) MIT" -„'_` J
.008
2W
O[PTM IJI, T"C!C TWO LINES YUITy --0
INTERSECT AT TURNING LINE 10R N ��
COMPLETE SOLUTION. Q .01 /1
.007
.006
W
.10
V
005
,a.
oa
100
V-SHAPED CHANNEL >
Ski
.07
90
60
160
AS SHOWN USE NOMOGRAPH
O
'
70
w[T" + ' v
.004
.06
W
Cr
n.
O
.05
50
3, TO DETERMINE .G. !__>
DISCHARGE Q, IM T.D
0
.003
m
40
> ... ..............
Vi
Cr_
.04
I
___
PORTION 0I CHANNEL . (,)
30
HAVING wmrN A:
:[rto" INE O[rTH > TOP TOTAL OISC"AAOE IN
["TIRE SECTION P THEM USE NOMOGRAPH To
.002
,03
20
DETERMINE\ OP IN SECTION b TOR OEPT"
Q
>
A 10 DETERMINE OISCNAAO[
I—
1 '
R
IMCOMPOSTT[ IECTION �- P 11
FOILOM 1MSTRUCTION 3 I ff
[`.
02
10
+
TO OBTAIN DISCHARGE IN IAA—. tri
.001
Q
SECTION G AT ASSUMED
:CPT„ > ; OBTAIN O 100
From BPR SLOPE RATIO iA AND DEPTH i THEN 0,. OP Q.
Figure 4-1
.01
NONOGRAPH FOR FLOW IN TRIANGULAR GUTTERS
(From U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public
Roads,
1965)
1
'
MAY 1984
4-3
DESIGN CRITERIA
' I.0 12 5
II 10 4
9 8
' 10 6 3
.8
9 U- 2
.0 4
7 ' �
8 w 3 z` 1.5
a -
6 vi 2' -�
7
xam%�Qy � U V
' z 1.0
.5 _ mple, Part a_ � 1-0 z 9
-.8- _ _ w
5.5 v - - - - - o .8
� N .6
w w c� a
5 x z o .7
w _
' a .4 z z .4 t-
z 4.5 z o 3 (D .6
W
-- w x
4 0 2 0 .5
z 0 = ~
z �-
w .3 3.5 W w
a '4
'
0 0 -j
U- ILL W
.25 3 0 0 .08
ix o .06 .3
W W W z
= 2.5 x w .04 Ix .25
.2 a- .03 a
Q .02 0 2
2 a x
U I--
a
.15 .01 0 .15
L 4,
o
0
1.5 --- -- - -- - - Yo a
x
' a=2h .10
' .I r 1.2
Figure 5-2
' NOMOGRPAH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2"
Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph
MAY 1984 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA
No Text
TLr, U L
1
1
1
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
b) y>r ;
Pry
I - �
P -VLeD
S'T o
o5
oG
0 7
bg
O$
oe.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
��Ill�i����lIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIU�illlli�il��!!L111181HIINNi��l�NaP'
1111111111���1;I!.!IlJIIIIIII11111111111111111111iiillY,��Ip�
=11111111111111��11�1��1��1:����111111�1��������l��!!l�n►,i��r
i�l�lNlIIIIllillllllllli�il
illllllllllliiiiii�liii�l��i!IAi�i�-'
IIII�IIiiiC•��illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllliN/��M
11�0�����lllllllllllllliii�iill!lIIIIIIIIIIUUIIINIIIIII��A►'
�
��
i
tlNi`3\■■t{'t�It111tllltll
`■e■■:enu
oaunu1iii
■
■
i
tlt�lC�111tl1111Y1t11■WAMMM
t
uauatounnunr�r�r
1.
�i
.
�
■tl■■■■■Gr
liuuuwli■■■i■�
tiuUmmiil9uuu�r►I�
IiNNE
IM11111
�rnu�
1u1
M41111
iiiii�iii°iuiiuiiiva�e
1
111101111
1
1i1=�IIIIIIII�1'If
1111111111111111
=a
i
f1111%N�
��
�
i�r11
iII
II
IIIIII
oo
III�I�IIIIIIIIU3111111�;G!
��Illllili'�IIIIII��
.lIIIIII�II��1
!
11
IIIIIIIIIWill
1
II
1111MIUVA1111
• .
I�1��n1,
IIIIIII�
I
I�r
I!
• -
,�i�I,,�iI
• � •
1
1
11
li
�!
!!
IIII
III
II,�IIW�ID�'.
�
IINIII
Illllllllllllfiii�i�l!!!I�'IIII,;iIP''
�
- .
N M IT to w �
CSTO) 398VHOSIO
w U CV M wr j C V
m
c U
O
U
C
Z
C
t�
a
c
a .is
U
m o
a In
U C
0
Q a
O
W
c
D
(D m
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
STORM INLETS
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
80
70
60
50
kEf
30
;
20
i
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
�■■■■■■�I ice/■■■■■■■■■■■■�
022
P'.9
M00,01 • ■■■■■■■■■.■■■■■.■■■■1
FLOW IN GUTTER •,
COMBINATIONFIGURE 4-3. CAPACITY CHARTs LONGITUDINAL BAR
Above dashed line, carryover occurs across surface of grate.
10 -15 -68
Denver Regional Council of Government.
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
6
9Ec,F.1.ts�t..19 87
, T&V, E-STorc-4 �-.c c.ueVE
g0,o00
80,occ
1&o Cvo 16:0,0vo &o,oc:,u
szc�zA-�-E c t QF51C. C4-:F-T)
ca rcyr-
AWA
V&J-?Ke
cuMu�Tnwe
Vo o
c >mu Anve
VouJµx--
C FT a)
AuzE- FFarT
72.2v
0.00
2crd3
azO
'13.oc
-moo
113Zo
13.389
o,3cr� pFT.
?03(00
33,'fy'5
0-77SAr•FT
7S.00
?S,84c
28D20
101,7(09
1.418 Ac.. CT
-L.oc,
3olzoo
32 i�oo
94,529
217o Ac-• Fr
IT&O
35,320
33, Oho
132, 5�9
3. o43 Ac Fr.
�8•a''
�o.T6 0
�3.3 SCE
175, �So
4. c-7n
79.ob
�ilo,ocb
No Text
No Text
WAGON WHEEL NORTH BASIN
1 +�
J 0.18
I 1 I \ 00OS'/0000'I
4INLET
/
000
IN
BASIN
MAP70
NORTH
EETENT DN PDwHUL
SEE NOTE
/ 1 1
\ \ �3 INLET
i�
/ o
/ U
BI
H €I I
�58 /
L III �
2.13 POND 1
INLET
ILETr
R INLET �A{ 1 .82 ( /
1
4.34 y Js]geP a �r_er
_ 1 POND
---
F 15 p 9
KINGSTON WOODS FIRST FILING
�Y NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES
-- - 420 SOUTH HOWES SUITE 106. ET. COLLINS. COLORADO 80521
+1 (303) d21-4158
DEVELOPED RUNOFS 0 FROM
n GSTEN NODES SECOND NU
q. B .r.
q. L9 a.
PROPOSED KINGSTON
WOODS STORM SEWER
HORSETOOTH COMMONS I
( KINGSTON WOODS SECOND FILING )
I ec T P Int Date ( .
D .54
-100 _
esigTer tprT uhe k b by;MFJ
POND
It
I
N
A
SCALE: 1" = 100'
o® o
NOTE:
STREET CROSS-SECTION SLOPE IS
CRITICAL TO DRAINAGE ON CNSN
MARTS BOULEVARD FROM DESIGN
POINT N TO SHIELDS STREET.
NO CHANGES N GRADWS ALLOWED
FOR STREET. OVERLAY OF STREET
PEONES DESIGNS PREPARATHM TO
MATCH EXISTING PAVEIENT.
R�DODD SPILLWAY
t
IN.ET LEGEND
- - BASIN BOUNDRY
--------- STORM SEWER
--Q--- STORM MANHOLE
---f--- STORM INLET
IV BASIN NUMBER
5. 13 BASIN AREA. AC
0 ® DESIGN POINT
FLOW DIRECTION
KINGSTON
WOODS
P.U.D.
0=F-SITE
DRIANAGE
Sheet
1 1
REMOV
--��-� -� GATES EXISTING IRRIGATION
III 11 FINISHED GRADE EVEV. BANK WITH CLAY PER SOILS D3
TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV. REPORT --_-_ Y Ai
MIN 0.5' ABOVE FINISH GRADE 8.15 p 0.
rj
�q 100.0 99,6 }� mi°p, A H3 / ✓ y �r ��/'�,r�- -- _LINE'B'(SEEMSHEETR131
I
e�c-------
�_ /.. o _ cs 0.4 \V�-.�f�V _ EDPENT TPn 9 ✓AnTEO IA
wa- - - . NG9^10'A-0 - - L- .a' -INET 5 OF & 1 _______
20' BLDG. SET BACK - _
p WE SLOPE X __
/DRIVE -OVER CURB. GUTTER AND SIDEWAL J o eau Esn , \` \�' I ADD
1 r
TYPICAL. LOT IWIAOHO __ /\
LOTS b. BLOCK 6 / _ v sLEEv \, r , _ __, ___9 - ' O4-.. -hex. ___ J
( E�r, - _ I __ a eH
LOTS S B. BLOCK 2 ce055wU uAOEn� `. DO % -�J-----7} S / 4 I I I 6 %/�O.fO'� LOT, i
PAN ,PwD nW a' // /'
` 11MABrc r/STATO r C ,
BLocrc ]. Lois a 012 F G 100 5 F G. ' ' 9a 6 F G. 9i A F G. ' - J INSET U
\Yee. CONC. PAN DETAIL I 99]F.G. 9fia FG. 96o FG. o' 9alF --
q a OF
FOR pq M$$
k
92e 93 a erBcN NID cac.
FINISHED GRADE EVEV.8 - , - _ • 91/pTOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV. i--- ---G L )T 2
yMIN 0.5' ABOVE FINISH GRADE01.2 F G -- PAT RBON- Lgp>BLDG. SET BACK- - -- ~ PLAC L -- 0 2 °j - Ir eL F Ilex LOAN 'A' Scale I" Sa
0.6 $ Ag 1 . NON; NIT u FM rarciel
REGERADE io n
u _.998 F.G. _ r 9q OEG.r
.aaA Ioo.a FG, 12 1 s _ - 93.3E _ �aT
�_ EXISTING IRRIOP OF EASTATION BANKie 9 I I` I 1 93 g \ `� - -
pRIVE OVER CURB. GUTTER AND SIDEWALK , F.G. ' 9fi.2 FG
NO MODIFICATION 101.2 F.G 98 9 F G. 96I F G -
, 9> 2 L
`� 4 I , ,2 EG CUR INLET FL
AllIoLotr . cept ar abor. 3 II I Y , r 5 FG DE h ON aM 5q t ,a ,r x _ -, 4 '
�lo\I OCK' w a E;�W:
, r
,
a z I H4 I / G 0- ..� D6
US -
DI - r 1 W I 1.69 BLO A2 '939 F.G
veL cnxnL @ -j `x� r c2 PA
2--
F- I
P m eE PnR GET SDErnLN CULVERT
a \
WALK 04 U ' -
1 01 I W ' SEE oETnz-sNT
�IollINS
20 w I 18 6 5 °• = r yi 93.4
M/ } B r ,�e 10 FG_ ' t q�P, -pa --I I 0
SECTION B-B. B -b RO 2, IO2, F, I ' Im i°cc Ioo.a FG Ioo.a F - , r a FG o / 9 FG.
TYPICAL LOT CROSS-SECTION ALONG DIED
GI I C , D25 FG A IOIb F =--- _ _. 98.9 F' 989 RC ry r Q o 2
THE PLEASANT VALLEY AND LAKE CANAL BEGIN SECFlo
qqONE NANBTRU I, r / 0--- _ _ - - - - - _ 8- c 9r9 =W'
EO
gTCN RB i0 pR N Ekg - - '
sin) C /BEN) NN GTrom _ _ ORD.��� �, - I DRIVE J. :'� 9 e c �.-
L E G E N D rdr �RANslryNc G _. �► _ _.... _ o - 9s.b F s W 16 3
OP /N
ll
m- EXIST CONTOURS - �fE- .Ia FOR cu 'o'•n i Io3 FG Ioi'_..IOL�F.G _I e1" 9 'B, 94.0\• I
-m- PROPOSED CONTOURS ECT/ AI 2J , ' It I 1013 F,G. 11109^.OG. 1 ' P 99.3 F. ' FGrI -G / F
S REv GV '
---- PROPERTY LINE �/ -Bilq
r b•ru cownuns r w Arw=x xxau oar O / 102A FG 02.2 f G 'Z C�- 9 EXIST CURB. GUTTER A WALK wLaT•wxe,vnwN reW
NA _
CENTERLINE OF ROAD L r _ � n< 5 7 _ '7 6 �94 I
" _ I , _
`26-. 0 I 8 1 0,
lux E 2 g
---------- HISTORIC BASIN BOUNDARY moo, ® rr"„�x`,'�I,Ta'a`e ^ '�U a , 2`; , I D4 1
B.'x`r.ATln Naexr aaxNaL "•®" x r c,WYE _ I D4 I H6
xn ru
DEVELOPED BASIN BOUNDARY <.nr,m ".. Lan .xar xR�T'a�,r°x"NR o' ,, g
w1T x.r XmA .= xw amnw,rax r 1
4.Art rAR,wa r. xw,aAWxrL n',:.' 9' l02 _.._ - $
assellRUNOFF SLOW DIRECTION "Not "E°"""` I -- - 23
uvi c�Wnov.0 ev cm wA - L xA1 L MINX Dn ... �
Q RELOC iE0 NRNAixN Gn - _ _ •. �•... 1
® DESIGN POINT - _ S --_ - n I- - - - -� CK 3`\ GRAVEL GUTTER DIKE
moo �_:- GREENP=. "' - GREEVBEIT o _- (TYPICAL)
-- _
APPROVED BY PLEASANT VALLEY A LAKE CANAL -- - - -
DI BASIN DESIGNATOR rIll,
-_-- - - - - _ ___ ___ _____ _ =n ___-
0.21 BASIN AREA: AC WILLIS SIBTH 1992 _________ __________ _ r _-______ _ _ ______ ________r_ -Y -
�H s �_ is --'--- -
THIS AY OF �Ad _
l�.e�. G D FLOW, 0.41 '
STORM SEWER y R - OIL - _ ' "` - B.4 - - 0.57 - - - - -
NOTES: RCAF_--J4.06"
EXIB,NON NEE SPIT NO� -♦
REMOVE EXISTING IRRIGATION GAT V e �`t. "
I. MAINTENANCE OF THE DETENTION POND A OPEN TRACTS SHALL BE THE NO, II]. - 7-
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE KINGSTON WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION d " .He XISTNG ea',Ol'ROD CULVERT Or ?' Ids a x x e PRO.ECT BENCHMARK:
2. EXISTING RIP RAP IN THE PLEASANT VALLEY A LAKE CANAL IS TO BE -----"-"---- ---- ----- -- -- - CENTER OF TON FHDREES T
a e 1
RELOCATED TO THE NORTHERLY BANK OF THE RELOCATED CANAL FROM STA .`T' •4-,r,�` 5rU v- p------- -- '--- I c DD H
_____ __ ____ ai SF[. aanm
8•40 TO THE BOX CULVERT. AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. I - F.L ,, r. JC uiL.1. rS'JC : .1..�)� I I ovIRLAN I WTI[IIrIN I UAL I I I I k� ROAD A SNELDS STREET, D
~ I All AREA I t I 1 He win I , S 1 is i , 5 I tc 1 lol NIN 1 II In I [ I W AIR ' ELEV: 5042.00
J. THE SEDIMENT POW 6NALL BE CONWM1Cii0 WITH THE FIRST F11MN ••wxrr,e _ I 1 414 lit) WWI N41 hill IBM Iglllxlllill IBM lil B IAL$III&) IBut HUMIIAI I IINJ bNl �x're�r' r"e' A" "�'�-z Noie. eExctxnRH Is LSz NareR Trvnry clTv
rerwe •�l.R•f .+�i�► wmmw"morwr 4. s::'�,,,� - -- ... -_ -_.. _. _. _ _ µ :Iw.� '3'i^L.'.T.S^.:: �.... 1AACK MIT
OF DEVELOPMENT. DISTURBED AREAS OF THE SITE WILL RIP SPEDED AS- R- -WWI
1
DESCRIBED IN THE DRAINAGE REPORT. SIMM 11Y1 I IIIN ILIS IM LS ILf I{.11111 ILI ldllll l.fl 1.1111.1 11.111.I11.I111.R 11,1111.15 ex r
4. LOTS IN THE AREA OF THE PLEASANT VALLEY A LAKE CANAL RAY BE SUBJECT N I LII MAS NI 1.5 ILf 1{.f I IN 11.1 Bf 1 1.11 As is.? ILfI 4.4111.N 1 4.5111.1f City of Fort Collins. Colorado
TO SHALLOW GROUNDWATER, IT IS E MADE NDED
THAT A DETERMINATION OF 1 I 111NIN I NSIIEIIIN s I R I list 11.15 NI i.i IIA ILf IfN 11.1 1.11 1.11 N.I 15.1 ILN LN II.N1 Ms 21.51 r rr r' , 1 PROTECTIVE MEASURES, IF ANT. BE MADE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF A .LI KA I L L i N] Ie1Nl t s 1 t< 1 S 1 tc let IUNI O. MINI [ N NM 1a I Lei Ifl l.S 11.1 11.11 NI 1.1 1 4.51 1.11163 lilt 11.11 LSI Nd111.1611.G '1.r".•';"`...,. I UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER. I lot I IMl III bill Will lilt) Ol (fist 11111 (1) N IK9111Ib111 (Bit) liewum l heist (its) N I LN 11.15 IN LS Il.l 11.1 I SM 1.1 1 1.51 1.1 I Ills N.I 11.11 IN 11.111 4.15 Intl x"-1ei•".........._...__........__-........_.____.__......._.......... .._.__........... ..... .-.___....-_ 1 11.10 1.......... IwN "tests[" N xalarllxal xN xlW. W xlvell ............... .... .... 11.16 1.51 _
S. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF $0RADIAL SWNG GATE. ITS DESIGN MUST BE APPROVED I I 1 I I I I S 1 1.15 1.......... x f NIu1NN N Prxlirll wr rtW, but xluleLirs ................. ._...I LM IJI �= _ I APPROVED, BY PLEASANT VALLEY AND LAKE CANAL COMPANY. I,M Il.11 tf I.1 L5 1.2 1 1.1 I In tee Lee 11.5 1 O r IL111.11 Ltl ON 11.11 I.I1 { 1 1.1f ILIS 1f 1.1 1.1 Ili I III LI 1.5 elf 1 1.11 16.1 lilt OR f.N 11.111 1.31 Also
_- 11 IN 14.11 IS 11.1 Ll LI 1 4.1 I IN LN 1.1 f.f 1 1.1 I.113.11 1.11 II.111 6.541 1.49 1 1 1.61 4.11 11 1.0 1.5 Ill I IN 1.4 Lf 1.11 1.11 KA 11.111.11 I'll IIII 1 I'm I.N Ll Fit.',`
I 1 I.N IIII we 1.4 11.1 I1.11 1.1 1.11 14.1 IL5 11.ls LII II.11 1 0.11 1.N 1 1 1.A IL15 15 1.1 1A LI 1 1.11 AN $.11 LII 11.5 1 it's 11.911.41 1.11 ILlS 1 I'll 1.f1 �r'"'C-x.. CHECKED BY:
OETENTIOII wa/l9 1 11 II.0 II.31 NI 1.1 11.f 24.1 1 1.1 I in In IT Lf 1 pill 11.512.31 6.5114.11 11.1111.N iw rYr �,� rx rill r .... null, ....
� it LM 11.11 II 11.1 l.f 1.11 1.1 1111 L11 LI 1.1 I pill IL511d1 LSI IL11 11.11 LIf '
9.1
REQUIRED VOLUME .......................49.77 au. h. 1I 9.11410.15 N Id 11.5 11.411H 1.1 LS 1.f 11111.11 I.f111151 ll 11.1 IL11 f 11 ILD 1I.If L11 NFL mon, ;oyes, 1 CRICKIO OY: I. N lu Alr Irx nil est rlr ` ,at nw m:r "Iu„
AVAILABLE VOLUMEON....................fi9Fl] cu. ft.11 21 1. N U: 111 ft bea t bet �e: il vrr..:
100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEV... 9O.SO ft. �I' FREEBOARD 1 LIS L.........IwM u1NNIM N Mwrllgl ux rlW. W nIMNIRn ... me,
. 11............... 1 I.11 1.15 1, N W all I hx ux ue better xA
POND -FULL ELEVATION .......................91.6 I,. I. 1 1 ILf1 11.1f IN I.1 11.1 If.5 1 IN 1 I.1 1.1 1 111 Lfl 1 Is 1 11.1 1f.5 I1.11 1.11 11.11 1 1.11 lIJS 1. N N: all INrs rr[Ny M, wilt r rvr
IMPOUNDED AREA U 9150 !11 19.305 r6. ft. 5 1 1 N Il.lf .. 1N 11 1 S 1111 Lr S tar 11 1 ILI ILS 11.11 5 N ILI{ I Lll LN r rre zN•cr Eo BV .ue, r nuur s urr
PEAK DISCHARGE ........ .. ........_2.G eft C N 1 Sr et all Ilxi lu•lel Out Ox SA Ill o 1 - -. _ -- -_
` \ 1 { 1111 I ......NxN [NxNIN h erexrlixAl me xME. Ha [ I Itllae. ........... ....... 11.1{ 1.f1 f. N 5: So al all Ilxr bnh9 Slb free NhNib 11 ww:r.,.
le Project Pr lnl Date: Sheet
92 NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES - 9123.04 auBflK1992 KINGSTON WOODS P.U.D. X16
G
420 SOUTH HONES SUITE 106. PT. COLLINS. GOLORADO 80521 Scale: 1-=50'
E 10 zz1-415R Designer NVR Checked bV^NF., GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
a
NOTESIf
Sol 1.11,
2 1 cold pow Flows Order idech land
�:
Adimi IN be GE1,14A 0 No we,
Flannery To a Al Sam 11 In,,
d and all when be Innedwo
AIR
r1 "
t mm. m
Era.l �l Schedule
�n 1992
off M v== aFillmo v. a I .. life, dike
NaITw.T c�I
%I "a
Ve
SECTION B—B
SECTION A -A
Z
80 `
75-
STANDARD FII 609 -IA A
X'
I
L
Nowel
r
•••
L
y-
IF
yy
axeu=
SEC TUMN A 4
REGOLAN DOLEi
VY
_
r'L' Few ...
SECTION
BEW
TYPCALEND
T
R
i.
_ �r_j
�
all
1
�.
`a Y'
iJ W' �'[J
R {
_
No
SECTION A A
PRINT MM DTV BW-H-V
SECTIONS L-L E e.e
TABLE
ONE BAR
LIST
FOR CURB MUTS
E R
oJjf
metuo
t
IF
iJ
S
w
d
aw
TNo
P.
No
P
rT
-�
ITS
1—a
4
No
OR
If �r
MA0 Eu'i�BERI
GENERAL NOTES
TABLE TWO BARS AND 0. TnES W l4 E M H N �
" ^ `__ As ni
(T
a _ I •� xNOLE RIN4 x r MwMTo
own coo=ewcooii"de" we
���IT
we No IT
Now
to
Fo` or
all I Now
Tn. 9w M1 is w
.1 will T No Fee al
IN No
TIFY
IN I 1j�N�y I _T/I _ I N
CC.J IRJ LJ `l`j I w TLJ ILLJi lattill
CURB SWEET
BAR BENDING DIAGRAMS PL:w.Ym—, ON WI-N-w a So I �— —T V PC
PROJECT BENCHMARK:
4' STEEL DISC D SE COR. OF SEC. 27-7-60
(CENTER OF INTERSECTION OF HORSETOOTH
ROAD A SHIELDS STREET)
ELEV; 50MILOO
NOTE: BENCHMARK IS IllHIGHER THAN CITY
BLACK BOLT
mjF•
IS5-00
k
..
,
STORM
SEWER
LINE
B
SCALE: HORIZ
I-•50' VERT
I'l
M MMIN, For
MIT � AM Mail Man N
_..a
CURB INLET FIRER
GRAVEL
CITY OF FOIIT CBGO COIO"Do
STORMWATFR UTILITY
,.. co
n".p 25
-i U51>-
-9IW U.]FIX
i
90
—
.
�
i85
r rt wraE R
- '—
E=STW :f Aa:
24'. N�3 ADs srORS SEWER
. i
29'N}I2 AI sT_ SE
-80
-75
6:00 : ..._ .� 7:00 8,00
0 50 100
10' B 4 1 VARES B I at HO PITCH.
110 _ BAR OF WALK l'ln V( sLUMEr - ACCESS
RDAD
ExrsT. EnnDE
DITCH RELOCATION SECTION A
�N' Iw ws RE � sC.LLE
Rill, �,. S,Es Pyre
/ IY
S CM Clri�
Sri AF N91T
A0.L BO l3 CONS PAN TRANSITION FROM
I 4' VIDE GUTTER TO MATCH
FLARED ORIFICE PLATE DETAIL o Ec xw
WITS
10' UTILTY A
DRAINAGE ESHT
4" CONC. PAN\ ----
All
Rea
30 21 TC�� ! S
TSNI
to OF cvM �'M :u FLortL1FAE4 0.o..ve
m Cry off
•rFORT COLLIN Sm. D T
PAD
LF OF O BCP 12ft
ROTE: SENT MONO 51 s ET A OF a FATsnwx
�E� FOR for Ron
DROP INLET CONNECTION TO BOX CULVERT
NO
T ;
95: + --- . 99
ELOva
BIFWIM
O
90- — IED 90
or CON CPAY
uI
85- °EvzFgmacH '85 _1{
J
STORM SEWER LINE A
SCALE: FOREST P•5D' VERT I-•5'
MY
^`
ADAua
_T_w __ OF ,�/ RANG ----- LAREDO LANE '` 04Ye
R FVATIW MM � m
NOTE \ _ EYW.—..
SEE: SINCURPLEM cal —
RFFLRr FOR Drrw mN- MOcaiw(
STRUETIOJ fa=U1BRE1'ENTs. LEON lr� ____ _
m , i SE„EA FM\ uvT
TIP ACCESS. UTILITY. A DRAINAGE
EASEMENT CASA GRIM P.U.C.
---------------------------------------
MH B I IOVERFLOW
Yf�4T-n f]tAwTmm..
p F CR>ET i0 Tj
H6G4u9R
M' "AD sTOM E9�
tlr S F8 M6lE NR!E1 \
_
Fq /'[ 1 FNIII
r x4ID: sTAI SE19 `�
1.'
SRL UFM
-
xn raS Waal sFT.� I
A'
5' ADS
STORM SEWER
�r
LINE O--SEE
PROFILE
GYP.
THIS SHEET
�w
x
PLAN VIEW —STORM
SEWER
LINE B
SCALE Y 50'
City of Part Colllo• ColorBAO
PL
015 TOP OF
' -24 WIDE
EXISTING
UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL
fl
DETENTION
INVERTED
STREET
oRANAGEl
POND
'll
'
EASEMEN➢
APPROV IC'
'
O' S' i0P OF HATER
' ^ie' °. MM ^"', "Is
91.5 TOP OF
M/ A M �
II
DETENTION POND
�N jT
Tx MIN.
To WTI' MY .w. n 1 n MTN
4' CONL GUTTER ��
6-
�-
-
E
C„EC[IO IT:
_
m.w. nuux man un
PONDSECTION
C„EC[ID IT:
_ _
F u•
'
Project Print Date: ShB
NORTHERN ENGINEERING SERVICES 9113.04 ;� "251z KINGSTON WOODS P.U.D.
SOUTH HOWES SUITE 106, FT. COLLINS. COLORADO 80521
Deslener: TPIA Checketl 6 :IAEJ STORM :EWER G DRAINAGE DETAILS
c,I3W
221-415B
DrOfirnan: CAD Pra Gred:AUG. leer
0
B
'ae
Ar
Revl rlOns
-- -
w
! .:420