Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 11/23/2009,4 City of Ft. Collin pro ed Plans F1�0 OJT Approved By Fm-r 1J � � Date 1l �.z3 -og IES Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report For Inverness Innovation Park First Filing RM12 Fort Collins, Colorado Prepared for: URBAN DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS C/O MICHAEL BELLO 1212 S. COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 Prepared by: ENGINEERING 171 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 970-219-2834 NOVEMBER 20, 2009 Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION I hereby state that this Final Drainage Report for the drainage, erosion control and water quality design of the Inverness Innovation Park First Filing project was prepared by, me or under my direct supervision for the owners thereof and meets or exceeds the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards. Stacy J. Gowing Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No: 34290 Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Engineer's Certification Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 3 II. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION..............................................3 A. Property Location......................................................................................................................3 B. Description of Property............................................................................................................3 III. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB-BASINS......................................................4 A. Major Basin Description...........................................................................................................4 B. Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................4 C. Developed Conditions......................................................... :.................................................... 4 IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA....................................................................5 A. Development Regulations........................................................................................................5 B. Hydrological Criteria.................................................................................................................5 D. Hydraulic Criteria......................................................................................................................5 E. Floodplain Criteria......................................................................................:.............................. 5 V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN.....................................................................6 A. General Concept.......................................................................................................................6 B. Specific Details — Detention....................................................................................................6 C. Specific Details — Swales..........................................................................................................7 D. Specific Details — Inlets and Storm Sewer...........................................................................7 VI. SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL................................................................8 A. General Concept.......................................................................................................................8 B. Fiscal Surety..............................................................................................................................8 VII. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................9 A. Compliance with standards.....................................................................................................9 B. Drainage Concept......................................................................................................................9 VIII.REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 9 IX. APENDICES..................................................................................................... 10 Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative I. INTRODUCTION This report presents the pertinent data, methods, assumptions, and references used in analyzing and preparing the final drainage, erosion control and water quality design for the Inverness Innovation Park (IIP), I st Filing project (project). The project consists of 2 office buildings for the Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative (RM12). The RM12 project can be considered phase I of the overall UP project. This report is prepared in support of the Final Compliance and Final Plat applications for the project. II. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Property Location I. The project site is located along the north side of East Vine Drive. The current address of the parcel is 300 East Vine Drive, Fort Collins, Colorado. • s xe� Matlinc= SITE,. y Andarsw,lle V xe S to W W .' 91 Colorado stele UnIVe(Slty L.uChirlytlenl I.nl 'r gut l'uLfYS qti , E Mu 51 11 Cnsrnm A��9b Pa v.oEe•na�d xev Vicinity Map, NTS B. Description of Property I. The existing site is currently developed as industrial, with several metal buildings and a large gravel storage area. The proposed project is located on the western portion of the overall Inverness Innovation Park project site, in the area currently uses for outdoor storage. Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative 111. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS A. Major Basin Description 1. The project site lies within the Cache La Poudre Basin. 2. Portions of the project site lie within the FEMA 100-year floodplain (Zone AE) of the Cache La Poudre River, as shown on FIRM panel #08069C0977G, dated June 17, 2008. Additional portions of the site lie within the FEMA 500-year floodplain (Zone X). There are no new critical facilities or expansion of existing critical facilities proposed with this project. A Floodplain Use Permit will be required for the work proposed within the 100-year floodplain. B. Existing Conditions I. As previously mentioned, the existing site is currently developed as an industrial development, consisting of several metal buildings and a large gravel storage area. The site is fairly flat with the terrain sloping gently to the south and southeast at approximately 0.33%. 2. Existing vegetation is minimal on the project site, with the exception of the areas along the Lake Canal, which flows west -to -east along the northern boundary of the site. This area is protected by an environmental buffer, and will not be disturbed by the project. 3. Existing soils generally consist of clayey sands and top soil overlying sands and gravels, as expected from the location of the project site near the floodplain of the Cache La Poudre River. The soils report for the project, entitled "Geologic and Preliminary Geotechnical Report, 300-500 East Vine Drive", dated September 15, 2008, was prepared by CTUThompson. 4. There are no off -site flows into the project site. C. Developed Conditions I. The proposed project consists of two office/industrial buildings to house the Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative. The parking areas will be paved with asphalt and internal concrete walks and plaza areas will serve pedestrians. 2. East Vine Drive will be improved to minor arterial standards along the frontage of the project. Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative IV. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Development Regulations Design criteria from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage and Design Criteria and Construction Standards were followed for this drainage report. B. Hydrological Criteria I. Peak flow rates for the with the City of Fort Construction Standards. of the Appendix. D. Hydraulic Criteria 100-year storm have been calculated in accordance Collins Storm Drainage and Design Criteria and Please see these calculations in the Hydrology section 1. The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage and Design Criteria and Construction Standards are used to determine the adequacy of the culverts, storm sewers, inlets and street capacities throughout the project. 2. Analyses are performed using methodologies presented in Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volumes I and 2; Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado, September, 1999. Please see the various computation spreadsheets in the Hydraulics section of Appendix I. E. Floodplain Criteria I. As previously mentioned, a small portion of the site lies within the 100-year floodplain. Discussions with City Stormwater reveal the potential for additional flow and higher floodplain elevations in the area during the 100-year event. This is based on a preliminary analysis, and an actual FIS revision would not happen for some time. Based on that preliminary analysis, staff recommended raising the buildings to a level approximately 4 feet above existing ground elevations. That recommendation has been followed for the project. Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative V. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept 1. Stormwater runoff from the proposed project will be collected by a system of curb/gutter, storm drain inlets and storm drain pipes. 2. Runoff from Vine Drive will be collected by storm drain inlets and conveyed via storm drain piping. Portions of the storm drain piping along Vine Drive is oversized to provide storm drainage conveyance for the future improvements along Vine Drive adjacent to the future phases of Inverness Innovation Park. 3. Stormwater will be managed using an infiltration pond located on the south side of Vine Drive. This pond will provide both water quality and water quantity treatment for the developed flows for the first filing (RM12) and for future projects within IIP. This pond will also provide treatment for future phases IIP, although analysis for those uses will be provided along with future development applications. At the present time, the regional pond will be used for the first filing only. B. Specific Details -Detention Outflow rate from an infiltration pond is generally based on the measured infiltration rate for the area under the pond, however in this case the outflow rate is assumed to be 0.01 CFS. This was requested by City Stormwater staff as an element of conservatism since infiltration is a somewhat new concept in this area. The infiltration rates were measured by CTUThompson using double ring infiltrometer testing. The results of those tests are included in the appendix. 2. Detention volume required for RM12 is 1.047 acre-feet. 3. Water quality volume is not calculated separately since the entire 100-year event is being treated through the process of infiltration. Therefore, the total design volume of the pond is 1.047 acre-feet. 4. Water quality pre-treatment will be provided in the various inlets in the Stormwater collection system. The bottoms of the inlets will be deepened by 2.5 feet to allow for sedimentation and infiltration through a perforated bottom. Additionally, oil interceptor devices (such as the Nyloplast "Snout" or equivalent) will be placed in each inlet to separate oil and other floatable contaminants from the storm water runoff. Details for these will be provided at final design. Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative 5. The required volume of 1.047 acre-feet is achieved at elevation 4956.69 in the pond. The top of berm elevation is 4958.00. The additional storage volume between these elevations is being provided as a buffer for the interim condition. The additional volume provided is 0.69 acre-feet, which represents a reserve volume of 60%. This reserve volume will ultimately be used for future phases of the development, should the infiltration pond function reliably during the interim condition. 5. A dewatering manhole is provide for the temporary installation of a pump should the pond need dewatering for maintenance purposes. This manhole can also be used for pond stage monitoring if desired. 6. Extreme overflow events will generally discharge towards the Gustov-Swanson Natural Area to the south. An easement for this discharge is being been provided by the City. An existing spillway is proposed near an existing break in the dike constructed along the river on the south side of Natural Area. 7. The infiltration pond will be equipped with a monitoring system to record the pond's performance. This will be part of an operating manual to be developed in conjunction with the City. C. Specific Details — Swales I. There is one temporary Swale proposed to carry flow from Inlet El to the infiltration pond. This swale will be replaced with a storm sewer pipe when this portion of UP develops in the future. This Swale is designed to convey the 100-year storm. The design calculations are included in the appendix. D. Specific Details — Inlets and Storm Sewer Runoff from the project site is collected by storm drain inlets and conveyed to the regional infiltration pond. All inlets are proposed as CDOT type R's, with the exception of the nyloplast inlets located along the perimeter drain on the north side of building I. Inlets are provided along East Vine Drive at the ends of the proposed street improvements. These inlets serve to intercept flow from the RM12 improved area for conveyance to the infiltration pond. Inlet sizing calculations are included in the appendix. 2. Each inlet is modified slightly to allow for sedimentation collection prior to discharging into the infiltration pond. The purpose of this modification is to promote sedimentation in the inlets where it will be more easily removed during maintenance operations. The Type R inlets are be extended 2.5 feet below the bottom of the lowest pipe. The bottoms of the inlets are perforated concrete to encourage additional infiltration throughout the site and to help dewater the pipes. Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative 3. Street capacities are more than adequate for the minimal amount of flow collected by each inlet. Street capacity calculations are included in the appendix. 4. All pipes are designed to convey the I00-year flowrate. Pipe sizing calculations are included in the appendix. VI. SEDIMENT/EROSION CONTROL A. General Concept I. Temporary erosion control measures will be installed with this project. These measures will include: a. Silt fence along the property lines. b. Inlet filters at all inlets. c. Water trucks and soil terracing to address construction dust abatement. d. Vehicle tracking pad at the construction entrance. e. The detention pond will act as a sediment basin during construction. 2. Permanent sediment\erosion control measures will include riprap forebays at all storm sewer outfalls. a. All disturbed areas will be paved, landscaped or revegetated to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation. 3. Maintenance of all sediment\erosion control devices will remain the responsibility of the contractor until the project is completed. B. Fiscal Surety I. An Opinion of Probable Cost is being provided to serve as the basis for the required fiscal surety. The Opinion of Probable Cost is included in the appendix. Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative VII. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with standards I. All drainage design will conform to the criteria and requirements of City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage and Design Criteria and Construction Standards. 2. Proposed sediment/erosion control measures will conform to the recommendations of City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage and Design Criteria and Construction Standards and generally accepted erosion control procedures. B. Drainage Concept I. The proposed drainage plan concept for the RM12 project will be effective for the control of stormwater runoff and water quality for the proposed site. Vill. REFERENCES • City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage and Design Criteria and Construction Standards • Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 1. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado, March, 1969. • Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 2; Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado, March, 1969. • Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Volume 3, Best Management Practices; Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, Denver, Colorado, September, 1999. Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative IX. APENDICES Appendix I ■ Hydrologic calculations Appendix II ■ Inlet sizing worksheets ■ Street capacity worksheets ■ Pipe sizing worksheets ■ Detention design worksheets ■ Infiltrometer Test Results ■ Erosion Control Opinion of Cost Appendix III ■ FEMA Firmette ■ Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative Appendix I - Hydrology • 4 " N U oq .—i Y d Q F w d J Z �O O' I� LL O O Lq v o 0 w v W > w F ~ a o o vi o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ul v1 r+f v1 u1 V1 u1 V1 u1 N F J w b Z a a i a a a Q( IL nQ CL 2 F V 2 ~ p w V O N N O — 700 z v V — N M rn � �D M w J W F m CO D V . 7mE o0N O N oO 0 z W o 0000000 0>0 O N N N N N [V — tV cV N Q Z � N'D O N w N M Y01 N z W of — rf eF w cn N () W cq OD n co u1 O O O O O O O O O Q Q Q— m m N N N N _ W m � W LL Q U 0 = Q m Z LL IL Runoff Coefficient Calculation Worksheet Inverness Innovation Park 1st Filing Basin Roof Area (SF) Asphalt Area (SF) Concrete Area (SF) Gravel Area (SF) Lawn Area (SF) Total Area Composite No. "C=0.95" "C=0.95" "C=0.95" "C=0.50" "C=0.25" (SF) ..C.' A 0 8,407 1,600 0 2,010 12,017 0.83 B 0 25,622 1,400 0 4,700 31,722 0.85 C 10,335 0 2,200 0 6,535 19.070 0.71 DI 8,240 3,302 2,920 0 400 14,862 0.93 D2 0 10,245 2,450 0 5,400 18,095 0.74 E 0 8,225 2,200 0 3,070 13,495 0.79 F 0 0 20,950 0 6,617 27,567 0.78 FE (Future east) 158,120 0.85 Total SITE 22,975 79,801 33,720 0 74,308 801,860 0.18 Total Acreage O.S3 1.83 0.77 0.00 1.71 18.41 Land Use or Surface Characteristics Percent Business: Commercial areas 95 Neighborhood areas as Residential: Single-family Multiunit (detached) 60 Multiunit (attached) 75 Half -acre lot or larger a Apartments 80 Industrial: Light areas 80 Heavy areas 90 Parks, cemeteries: 5 Playgrounds: l0 Schools: 50 Railroad yard areas: 15 Undeveloped areas: Historical Flow Analysis 2 Greenbelts. agricultural Off -site flow analysis 45 (when land use not defined) Streets: Paved 100 Gnvel (packed) 40 Driveways end sidewalks: 90 Roofs: 90 Lawns, sandy soil 0 Lawns, clayey soil 0 *Refer to Figures RO-3 through RO-s in Runon t,napEer 2:40 PM APEX ENGINEERING 10/8/2009 0 C N .�OR CO N r" r — N 00 ni r� N I� ^ 00 M Ln O ni �Do — .p fV N L L O C w M rM co_ CO O O O 00 r+i Co O O Cl co O a O O 40 co O u N Lb O C 6 ^ .� Ln N N I� ONO, M M M 0000, M O M o — .O N N C 0 L Q V U O O O O O O %0 O %O M C 4,,, L C N OZ Gs 0Z 00 0Z � 0Z � O; Ln 0% o4 Ln T a� Ln O CO c U U o —- o cq o om — o C 0 0 0— o U M 00 O Ln 00 O — 1% O at O O 0% ^ O 00 ^ 0 Ln 00 0 C N (� O ,f1 N ,.n O Ln- O ,/1 O Ln' O ,n1 O O% a> a s c E o o 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 -. O O O O E � ^ O U. v a ^ N 3 d O ^ d J O N O 0 0 0 0 N N w co �° p m 0 U U N p w U- tyd W Q m LL C C_ H O Ccz O u Q w U _ p p w W oco p O J 6L �0) aC) N co N p I Z W W Z Z W W a Q Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative ADDendix II - Hydraulics and Detentio 0 INLET::ON:A,CONTIN000S GRADE Project: Inlet ID: H-Curb H-Vert Wo WP W Lo(G) Desi n Information In ut - Type = COOT Type R Curb Opening ` Type of Inlet Local Depression (in addition to upstream gutter depression 'a' from'Q-AIIov/) aLOM = 2.0 inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = _ 2 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L, = 5.00 it Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from O-Allow) W. = N/A fl Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) C,G = , NIA Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) C,C = 0.10 Street Hydraulics (Calculated) Capacity OK - Q is less than maximum allowable from shoat'Q-Allow, Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Q-Peak) Q, = , 2.55. cfs Water Spread Width T=' 9.9R Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) d = - '0.0 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at Tam) dcRowx 0.0' inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E, _ "-'? 0.615, Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T. Q. 0.98 cis `' Discharge within the Gutter Section W O. _":''. r 1.57 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face QeACK = 0.60 ds Street Flow Area As -1.15'sq ft Street Flow Velocity V. .2.21. fps Water Depth for Design Condition dip _'?r' '.'6.4 inches Grate Anal sh; Calculated Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L tt Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow Eb. WE = Under No -Clogging Condition _ Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. =�.., ft, a -".fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr-� Interception Rate of Side Flow =.1 RF;_�; Interception Capacity Oi ..- cis Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog Effective (unciogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V. _' fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Interception Rate of Side Flow Rs = Actual Interception Capacity Q,= 1"N/d cfs Carry -Over Flow = Q.-Q. (to be applied to curb opening or nerd d/s inlet) Ob = -:. NIA cfs - Curt or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis ICalculatedl Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carry-over) Ss = 0.1225 fl/ft Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception L, = 7.99 tt Under No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT) L =. _ - 7.918 R Interception Capacity Oi _' 2.55` cis Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = - 1.25 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurtiClog = '" 0.06, �' Effective (Unclogged) Length L. = - 7.98 It Actual Interception Capacity Q. 2.55cfs Carry -Over Flow = Qb GRATE -Q. Ob = -- 0.00 cfs Interception Capacity q = , 2.55 cfs rT,tai'linletCarry -Over Flow (flow bypassing Inlet) Qb = - 0.00-cfs ercentage = CUQb = C%=.. " 100.0 % UD-Inlet Al, Inlet On Grade 101812009, 1:54 PM INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE,, Project: Inlet ID: ,�-Lo (C)-7 H-Curb " H-Vert Wo Wp W \ L. (G) Design Information llneutl Type of Inlet Type = COOT Type R Curb Opening .^. Local Depression (in addition to upstream gutter depression'sfmm'Q-AIIOW) aLocAL = 2.0 Inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = - - .2 Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) L. = -" 5.00 ft Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) W. = N/A ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) C,G = ` t N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) CrC='`'0.10 Street Hydraulics Calculated . Capacity OK - Q is less than maximum allowable from sheet' -Alto Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Q-Peak) Q. _ .. :`2.55, cfs Water Spread Width T= -' 1"• :`-,1. ,;"10.2,ft Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) it = -' : 4.4 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at T dcxowu 'r0.., + ; °0,0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E. _ y _ ^' 0.604': Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. carriedQ, ed in Section T. . .."'. ', :'; ='-'4 1.01 cfs Discharge within the Gutter Section W Q„. _ .- :"1.54'. cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face OeecK= , -O.00 Cis Street Flow Area A.=';' ,,-�,-,-,1.201sgft Street Flow Velocity V. .':. ',_"2.13fps Water Depth for Design Condition dLocAL = 4 _y. ` ?"(` z .:`16.4'-inches Grate Analysis Calculated Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L-'�fl Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E cw,re A; I(' Under No -Clogging Condition Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins _ V. fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rt Interception Rate of Side Flow R•= `_'- Interception Capacity QIcis -� Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = _ Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog - Effective (unclogged) Length of Mulgple-unit Grate Inlet L. _'.:.' - _ ft Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V, _' -' ;;, fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow R, Interception Rate of Side Flow R - Actual Interception Capacity Q, =" ,;' ', N/A cfs Carry -Over Flow = Q.-C. (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) Qb =. NIA cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis Calculated Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carry-over) S. = 0.1207 ft/ft Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT = ''.7.85 ft Under No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT) L = ' 7.84 It Interception Capacity QI = " 2.55 cfs Under Clogging Condition , Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef= 1.25 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog =:. _�' " '_. 0,06; Effective (Unclogged) Length L. _ ;, 7.84 ft ctual Interception Capacity Q.= - - 2.55'efs Carry -Over Flow =Q csaTe-0. Q. _ 0.00 cfs Summary Total Inlet Interception Capacity Q = 2.55 cfs Total Inlet Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) Qb =. - 0.00 cfs Capture Percentage =Q./Q.= C%=:"` I"'.100:0% UD-Inlet A2, Inlet On Grade 10/8/2009, 1:54 PM INLET IN A SUMP. OR SAG LOCATION Project = Inlet I Lc (C) 71 H-Curb H-Vert w W WP Lc (Gl Design Information In ut Type = COOT Type R Curb Opening Type of Inlet Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression'a' from'Q-AIIoW) a.i = 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = 1 Grate Information L. (G) = N/A feel Length of a Unit Grate Width of a Unit Grate W. _ -- N/A feet me Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.16-0.90) Awe = , N/A� Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50) C, (G) = _ N/A _ Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C. (G) = NlA Grate Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (G) = N/A. Curb Opening Information L. (C) _ , 5.00 feet Length of a Unit Curb Opening Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,.a = 5.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches H,i.,,, _ 4.95 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = 63.4 degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) W. = 2.00 feet Clogging Factor for a Single Cum Opening (typical value 0.10) C, (C) = 0.10 Cum Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2,30-3.00) C. (C) = - ` 2.30 -::_-.,. Cum Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) _ [...' 0.67 Resultin Gutter Flow De th for Grate Inlet Ca aci in a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = N/A: Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog t' TI/A1 As a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis curb) Qw inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis cum) d.. N/A Inches As an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis cum) du=c',„�.'- - i"".N/A inches 'N/A- Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis curb) d,. inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d.-0,,,, �,': "-^ $•;". NIA Inches n Gutter Flow De g Coefcient for Multiple Units Cost = `., <' 1.00 g Factor for Multiple Units Clog ='- 0.10 s a Weir, Grate as an Orifice pth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis curb) dv = ' - 6.2 inches pth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis curb) F d.. = ' 6.4 inches s an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice -epth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis curb) da = ,... 7.3 inches epth al Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 7.25 cis curb) d,. _ 6.6 inches ng Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression d.c.. - 6.6 Inches Street Conditions ength L=� - 5.0. feet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q. = - -" 7.3 cis ResultantGutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) EGutter d-- • 6.6 inches Street Flow Spread (based on sheet G-Allow geometry) T - 12.6 feet Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread dsmeao' - 0.0 Inches 10/6/2009, 1:54 PM UD-Inlet B1 B2 B3, Inlet In Sump INLET IN A;SUMP .O,RSAG:LOCATION. Project1ST - " INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK FILING (RMI2) is +,Y x -' ;I •. Y a.=" INLETS D1'(BASIN D1)'f"< ` Inlet ID = ,rLo (C)—�' H-Curb - H-Vert W Wp W Lo (G) Design Information (Input) Type of Inlet Type = CDOTI Type R Curb Opening Local Depression (in addition to gutter depression 'a' fmm'Q-AIIoW) am = 2.00 inches Number of Unit Inlets (Grate or Curb Opening) No = T Grate Information Length of a Unit Grate L. (G) = N/A feet Width of a Unit Grate W. = • .. N/A feet Area Opening Ratio for a Grate (typical values 0.1".90) A„w = NIA' Clogging Factor for a Single Grate (typical value 0.50) Cr (G) = N/A Grate Weir Coefficient (typical value 3.00) C., (G) = . N/A! Grate Office Coefficient (typical value 0,67) C. (G) = 'N/A' Curb Opening Information Length of a Unit Cum Opening L. (C) = ;' 5.00 feel Height of Vertical Curb Opening in Inches H,,.,r = 5.00 inches Height of Curb Orifice Throat in Inches Ha = - 4.95 inches Angle of Throat (see USDCM Figure ST-5) Theta = '`-- ..'63.4' degrees Side Width for Depression Pan (typically the gutter width of 2 feet) Wp = 2.00 feet Clogging Factor fora Single Curb Opening (typical value 0.10) Cr (C) = ,. 6.10 Curb Opening Weir Coefficient (typical value 2.30-3.00) C..(C)='.--.,, _.". 2.30, Curb Opening Orifice Coefficient (typical value 0.67) C. (C) _ ' `. 0.67. Resulting Gutter Flow Depth for Grate Inlet Capacity In a Sum Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Ccef N/A - '' Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog ' As a Weir Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.39 cfs curb) d„, _'. (. �;`.;;'. -=' �', N/A° inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.39 cis curb) d.. N/A- inches As an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.39 cis curb) da = ;s: :;.:.^ '' _'N/Ainches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.39 cis curb) d.. = .' - f:` N/A inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression dWm. _ ' _. N/AInches Resultina Gutter Flow Depth for Curb Ooenlnit Inlet Capacity in a Sumo Clogging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = ; - '. 1.00' Clogging Factor for Multiple Units Clog =..% Curb as a Weir, Grate as an Orifice _. Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.39 cfs curb) d,. 7'inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.39 cis curb) d,„ _ 3.9' inches Curb as an Orifice, Grate as an Orifice Flow Depth at Local Depression without Clogging (0 cfs grate, 3.39 cfs curb) dw = - 3.3 inches Flow Depth at Local Depression with Clogging (0 cis grate, 3.39 cis curb) d„ _.''- "'., 3.6 inches Resulting Gutter Flow Depth Outside of Local Depression data, _ 1.9 Inches Resultant Street Conditions Total Inlet Length L = 5.0 feet Total Inlet Interception Capacity (Design Discharge from Q-Peak) Q. = _ 3.4 cfs Resultant Gutter Flow Depth (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) d - - 1.9 Inches Resultant Street Flow Spread (based on sheet Q-Allow geometry) T- 1.4.feet Resultant Flow Depth at Maximum Allowable Spread darse,. - 0.0 Inches UD-Inlet Dt, Inlet In Sump 10/8/2009, 1:55 PM INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE: Project 3 ' INVERNESS INNOVATIONPARK 1STFILING (RMI2) ` - r ,. D.,. �,'r :.�.,, _ INLETD2 (BASIN D2)-'_ t Inlet I ,�—Lo (C) H-Curb H-Vert Wo \ W\ L (G) Desi n Information (Input) Type of Inlet Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening _ Local Depression (In addition to upstream gutter depression'a' from'QAllow) aLoow = ' 2.0 Inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) 4 = ,.'s' ; ' 1. 5:00. it Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) W. _ ' - N/A ft Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) C,G = N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1 l C,C = ' "". ,.'. � 0.10 Street Hydraulics 1Calculatedl Capacity OK - Q is less than maximum allowable from sheet'Q-Allow Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Q-Peak) Q, =('t" [; ;7{.'> 5.57 cfs -`,12.5 Water Spread Width T = '= ft Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) d = 5.0 inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at Ta") dcaowe = - 0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E. _ ; i', ` •'-':"-6.505' Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, tarred in Section T. Q. _ -• �- • •,1.92 cfs -.1.95 Discharge within the Gutter Section W Q. _ :.': cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face QaAcx=':.";,. 0.00 ds Street Flow Area •1.71sgft Street Flow Velocity V 226, fps Water Depth for Design Condition 4ou� _". - `1'-7.0 inches Grate Analysis Calculated r'* _ e, ft Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E..caAT. Under No -Clogging Condition _ Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V ""fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr Interception Rate of Side Flow R Interception Capacity Qi ' "," ,., ` cis Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet Gratecoef = ` Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GraleClog Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet L. = j+ '�� ft dips Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr Interception Rate of Side Flow R. Actual Interception Capacity Q. _ ' WA' cfs Carry -Over Flow = Q..% (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s inlet) Q. = . NIA` cis Curb or Slotted Inlet Opening Analysis Calculated Equivalent Slope S. (based on grate carry-over) S. = . ; - 0.1041,ft/h Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT = 10.10 it Under No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT) L = "' 5.00 ft Interception Capacity Qi = 214-cis Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient 1.00 Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet Clogging CurbClog = - :0.10 Length L. ="; r 4.50. it erception Capacity Q.= 2.53 cfs r Flow=QeoanTe-Qa e1.34 eftt LEffectiveUnclogged) Interception Capacity Q2.53 cfs t Carry -Over Flow(flow bypassing inlet) Qn=•°4.34' cfs ercentage = Q./Q. UD-Inlet D2, Inlet On Grade 10/8/2009, 1:55 PM 'INLET ON A CONTINUOUS GRADE Project INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK 7ST FILING (RMI2) Inlet ID. ` "INLET El (BASIN E) ,1=---Lo (C)—�' H-Curb H-Vert Wo WP W Lo (G) Design Information llnout) Type of Inlet • Type = CDOT Type R Curb Opening -2.0 Local Depression (in addition to upstream gutter depression 'a' frum'Q-AIIoW) aLocAL _ - inches Total Number of Units in the Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) No = . 1. Length of a Single Unit Inlet (Grate or Curb Opening) 4 = 5.00 it Width of a Unit Grate (cannot be greater than W from Q-Allow) W, = ` N/A fl Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Grate (typical min. value = 0.5) CrG = - -- N/A Clogging Factor for a Single Unit Curb Opening (typical min. value = 0.1) C'C = 0.10 Street Hydraulics (Calculated). Ca aci OK - Q Is less than maximum allowable from sheet' -Allow' Design Discharge for Half of Street (from Q-Peak) Q r; '3:08' cfs Water Spread Width T=-. Water Depth at Flowline (outside of local depression) d = .:'.'.' ,r. ,: -,,?,0 j•'4:Y inches Water Depth at Street Crown (or at Tw,) dcaowN = . .0.0 inches Ratio of Gutter Flow to Design Flow E, = r '•�d,`:, I,''0.561; Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section T. Q, _ 1.34ds Discharge within the Gutter Sectional Qe= "•�'- '''1.71 cfs Discharge Behind the Curb Face QeACK = 0.00 cis Street Flow Area As = _11.39, sq fl Street Flow Velocity Vs = .. "„',C' ? 2.20'fps Water Depth for Design Condition dLocAL=,.`V:- ". ;.:,..,16.7, inches Grate Anal sis Calculated Total Length of Inlet Grate Opening L=''G�.:'+:,.';��r; g'r it Ratio of Grate Flow to Design Flow E, WE - Under No -Clogging Condition Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V fps Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr Interception Rate of Side Flow R - Interception Capacity Q� _ ,`1 �•`:'�l' �� �_ cfs Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateCoef = : - Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Grate Inlet GrateClog = , {7 Effective (unclogged) Length of Multiple -unit Grate Inlet Le = ' it Minimum Velocity Where Grate Spash-Over Begins V Interception Rate of Frontal Flow Rr=-.�`.�--i Interception Rate of Side Flow Actual Interception Capacity Q.= _ ,,,.N/A cis Carry -Over Flow = Q,-Qs (to be applied to curb opening or next d/s Inlet) Qe =.' " _ ': N/A`cfs Curb or Slotted Inlet opening Analysis (Calculated) Equivalent Slope Ss (based on grate carry-over) S. _ ;,%- 0:1136. fl/ft Required Length LT to Have 100% Interception LT = 8.78 fl Under No -Clogging Condition Effective Length of Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet (minimum of L, LT) L = 5.00 it Interception Capacity Q; = , -, .'.2.38; cis Under Clogging Condition Clogging Coefficient CurbCoef = - 1.00 �- Clogging Factor for Multiple -unit Curb Opening or Slotted Inlet CurbClog = 0.10 Effective (Unclogged) Length Ls = .: 4.50 fl Actual Interception Capacity Q. = 2.22 cfs Carry -Over Flow = Qe GmT -Q. Qb = 0.84 cfs Interception Capacity 4 = 2.22oh Carry -Over Flow (flow bypassing inlet) r Ob0.83 cfs ercentage = QdQ, = C%- -' 72.7. % LID -Inlet El, Inlet On Grade 10/8/2009, 1:55 PM Project: Inlet ID: �TeACK TcaowR SBAcK T'TMA% W T` Street \ _ Crown �Qw Q.� HCURB d y �\ /// S x-- a � y% mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) zing's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ce from Curb Face to Street Crown Depression Width Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition ng's Roughness for Street Section Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W R - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) rge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx rge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Qx) rge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) wm Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread elical Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) r Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) 'elical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section Tx rH I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W. (limited by distance Tom) arge within the Gutter Section W A - Qx) Discharge for Major & Minor Storm -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storm arge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) num Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth TRACK = ., . 0.0 ft SBACK = 0.0200 ft. van. / ft. horiz ri A K = 0.0400 11 HcuRB =J,,0.0058ft.vert.1ft.horiz inches TCROWN =fta =inches W=ft Sx =ft. vert. I ft. horiz So = vert. Ift. horiz nSTREET =L Minor Storm Major Storm d 6.00 12.00 inches Sw y= d= Tx = E. = Qx= Qw = ABACK' Or= 0.1033 0:1033 5.12 '8.24 . 0.484 ;20i236 t- 2.4 _'. .- 18.8 2.2 4.61 TTe = Tx TR = E. = Qx TH = Qx = Ow = Q= R= ABACK = Od = Minor Storm Major Storm Wft inches inches ft cis cfs ds cfs 14.7 ': 39.7 0.378 `.:'-::';, 0.142 1-9 ="51 "765.8 •' 81 ':'.. 77.7 -.1.00 0.0 cis cfs cis CIS cfs cfs Minor Storm Major Storm Max Allowable Gutter Capacity Based on Minimum of QT or 0. Q.11. = cfs Capacity OK: These maximum allowable flows are greater than the flow given on sheet'Q-Peak' UD-Inlet Al, Q-Allow 10/8/2009, 11:20 AM 11 . ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF,STREET (Major:&,Minor Storm _ (Based on Kegulatea cnreria Tor maximum Nnowa. Project. °.:.. •1„r'� )NVERNESS INNOVATION PARK, 1ST' Inlet ID : `' _ -;H ^.INLETA1 (BASINA),'._ TRACK TCftOWB T, TMAA $BACK —W-- Tx Street _ raven Y �Qw ✓% HCURB tl S x e num Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no Conveyance credit behind curb) iing's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line :e from Curb Face to Street Crown Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition 1g's Roughness for Street Section Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) irge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section Tx irge within the Gutter Section W (Or - Ox) irge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) mm Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread etice Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) etical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section Tx TH I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance Tnvx) arge within the Gutter Section W (Qa - Ox) Discharge for Major & Minor Storm -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storm arge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) num Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth allowable T,A,K= O.O ft SBACK = 0.0200 ft. vert. / ft. horiz nBACK = 0.0400 HCORB = 6.00 inches TCRCWN= ..-26.0 ft 2.00 inches W = 2.00 ft Sx = 0.0200 ft. van. / It. horiz So = 0.0058 ft. vert. / ft. horiz nSTREET = 0.0160 the flow Minor StonMaoM d.z: 00 inches Tw= ft Sw = y= d= Tx = E. = Qx = Qw = ABACK = Or = TTM Tx TH Eo QxT QK Qw Q R ABACK Qd Q.Bov Minor Storm ,-.0.1033 )'0.1033 t-7.6.24 0.484 °` + :, ; 0.236 '�''22 5.8 ft/ft inches inches ft cis ds cis cfs Minor Storm Major Storm 147 .`39.7ft 0.378 - 0.142 5.1 ,r ' 71.9 ds _ 3.1 11.9ds _Jj, 8.1 ! . 7T7 cfs = 8.1. 77.7 cfs Storm LID -Inlet Al, Q-Allow 10/8/2009, 11:21 AM Project: Inlet ID: 'I Ta ACII TCHOWN T, TMA Sancrc W T � Tx Strewn _ Crown \Q.,, Q.� "CURB d y \'� S'�� a num Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Te = 0.0 ft Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) SBAcx = 0.0200 ft. van. I ft. horiz ring's Roughness Behind Curb nBACx = 0.0400 of Curb at Gutter Flow Line Hcuae = 6.00 inches :e from Curb Face to Street Crown TCRowR = :: 26.0 ft Depression a='. `:� -:-,2.00 inches Width W = 2.00 ft Transverse Slope SA = - .0.0200 ft. van. I ft. horiz Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition So = '-:.' 0.0053 - ft. ven. I ft. horiz ig's Roughness for Street Section nBTREET = ` 0.0160 Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W IT - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) irge outside the Gutter Section W, carded in Section Tx irge within the Gutter Section W A - DO irge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) ium Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread etical Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W IT - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) etical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx T„ I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance Tex) arge within the Gutter Section W A - DO Discharge for Major & Minor Storm -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storm arge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) num Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth maximum than Minor Storm Major Storm d.= 12.00 inches T.= .- 13.0 '23,0ft Sw = y= d= Tx = E. Qx= Qw = QBACx = Or = Major Storm 10.1033 S' -° 0.1033 11:0 `"'24.0 '.. 0.484 -'- 0.236 " 2.2 " 18.0 2.1 r' 5.6 0.0 _'0.0 i•4.4 Fr. -23.6 TT„ = Tx TR = E. = Qx rR Q. Qw = Q= R= QBACx = Q. = Minor Storm Major Storm ft/ft inches inches ft cts cis cis cfs '.:. 16.7 41.7 4.8 :. 4.8 62.9 2.9 -11.4 :-7 8 :. 1.00 '1.00 7.8 74.3 Q•B=..' =[ iven on cfs cfs cfs cts CIS cfs UD-Inlet A2, Q-Allow 10/8/2009, 11:21 AM ALLOWABLE (Based on Project: Inlet 0: - _ - - OF STRE TB ACK TCROWN T, TMAx `CBACK , W �- - TK g treet H y S CURB d \ / x a y; num Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) iing's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line :e from Curb Face to Street Crown Depression Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Tg's Roughness for Street Section Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) irge outside the Gutter Section W. Caried in Section Tx vge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Ox) vge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) rum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread etical Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) ' Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) etical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TH I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TMAx) arge within the Gutter Section W (Qa - DO Discharge for Major & Minor Storm -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storn arge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) num Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth OK: These are TRACK = - 0.0 ft SBACK = 0.0200 ft. vert. I ft. horiz nBACK = 0.0400 HCuae = - 6.00 inches TCRCWN = 26.0 ft a = ^` 2.00 inches W = 2.00 ft Sx = . , 0.0300 ft. vert. / ft. horiz So = 0.0050 ft. vert. / ft. horiz nSTREET = 0.0160 Minor Storm Major Storm d. = 12.00 12.00 inches T. 713.0 26.0 ft Sw = Y= d= Tx E. = Qx Qw = QBACCK = w<T Storm 0.1133 ^ti c.},01133 '*:.11.0; 24.0 J 0.445 34.4 7.71 44.1 TTR = Tx TH = Eo = QxT = Qx= Qw = Q= R= QBACK = Qa = Minor Storm Major Storm tuft inches inches ft ..:„", 25.8 •. ,. 25.8 41.6 .:' 41.6 41:5 `. =. 41.5 10.8 '10.8 s`152.4 52.4 0.0 52.4 Q.U.W=)' . .. 7 iven on sheet'Q Crs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs Ms cfs LID -Inlet 131 B2 B3, Q-Allow 10/8/2009, 11:22 AM Project: Inlet ID: -TBAOK 'CROWN S` ACK T. TMA% eACK wTx Street Crown Xo 0 x y Hcuae Of a num Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) zing's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line :e from Curb Face to Street Crown Depression Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition Tg's Roughness for Street Section Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) uge outside the Gutter Section W, canted in Section Tx uge within the Gutter Section W (QT - OX) uge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) rum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread etical Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) "Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) etical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TH I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TMAX) arge within the Gutter Section W A - QX) Discharge for Major & Minor Storm -Based Depth Safely Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storm arge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) num Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth TRACK = 0.0 ft Se K = 0.0200 ft. van. / ft. horiz nBACK = 0.0400 HcoRB = - 6.00 inches TcROWN - . 26.0 ft a= -' `� 2.00 inches W = • : 2.00 ft Sx = 0.0300 ft. van. / ft. horiz So = 0.0050 ft. van. / ft. horiz m allowable flows are greater than the flow nBTREET = Minor Storm Major Storm d.= - 12.00 , '12.00 inches Tu = 13.01 26.0 ft Sw = y= d= Tx = E. = Qx= Qw = ABACK = Or = linor '4� 0.1133 0.1133 4.68 9.36 x N. s` 6.68 r P'. 1136 ..V-0.445 :'_ :'.0.221 43 - 3.4 •���9.8 0.0 7,171 '0.0 -44.11 TTN = TXTH - EO = QXTH = Qx= Qw = 0= R= ABACK = Qa = Minor Storm Major Storm Wit inches inches ft ds ds cfs cfs - . 27.8 .' 27.8 x .25.8 °:'25.8 4 0.207 0.207 ,.415 "',41.5 10.8 '', ::' 10.8 0.0-: 0.0 52.41 52.4 ds ds CIS CIS cfs cfs Minor Storm Major Storm 7.73 _ 44.13 cfs UD-Inlet D1, Q-Allow 10/8/2009, 11:22 AM IF -ALLOWABLE CAPACITY FOR ONE-HALF OF STREET (Major & Minor Storm) . (Based on Regulated Criteria for Maximum Allowable Flow Depth and Spread) Project: )- .INVERNESS INNOVATION PARK,,IST FILING (RMI2)`? Inlet ID: INLET D2 (BASIN 132) TRACK TCHOwN T. TMAx SLACK i w Tx S Creel Crown H y CURB d a 53 mum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) zing's Roughness Behind Curb TRACK - _ ... , ' 0.0 ft SBACK = 0.02170 ft. ven. / ft. horiz nBACK = 0.0400 of Curb at Gutter Flow Line HCURB = 6.00 inches ce from Curb Face to Street Crown TCROWN = 26.0 ft Depression a=:•.!. .2.00 inches Width W = '2.00 ft Transverse Slope Sx = -, ,..- 0.0200 ft. vert. / ft. horiz Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition So = "' 0.0051 ft. vent. / ft. horiz ng's Roughness for Street Section nsTREET = 0.0160 Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) vge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx vge within the Gutter Section W (QT - Qx) vge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) Cum Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread etical Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) etical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, tarred in Section Tx TH I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance TMAx) arge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - Ox) Discharge for Major & Minor Storm -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storm arge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) num Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth maximum allowable Minor Storm Major Storm Cimm = t 6.00.12.00 Inches Tw,x-13.0 26.0 ft Sw = y= d= Tx E. = Qx= Qw = OBACK = QT = Major t-' 0.1033 < ., 0.1033 1-5.12 "--8.24 24.0 'T.0.484 ':'0.236 3.1 TTN = Tx TH = E. = Qx rH Qx= Qw = Q= R= ABACK - Od = Minor Storm Maior Storm Rift inches inches ft 39.7 0.378 ..-� '..-0.142 4.7 '.:67.4 .,. 4.7 z...... 61Q 1.00 1.00 " 7.6 .` 72.9 cfs cts CIS cfs cfs CIS cfs cfs cfs cfs Q,,,..,=I - 4.271 23.11cfs the flow given on sheet'Q-Peak' UD-Inlet D2, Q-Allow 1018/2009, 11:22 AM Project: Inlet ID: TBALK TLROWN T. Tr Ax BeACK� W -- T. Street Crown y HcuRB d a 5f rum Allowable Width for Spread Behind Curb Slope Behind Curb (leave blank for no conveyance credit behind curb) zing's Roughness Behind Curb of Curb at Gutter Flow Line ce from Curb Face to Street Crown Depression Width Transverse Slope Longitudinal Slope - Enter 0 for sump condition ng's Roughness for Street Section Allowable Depth at Gutter Flow Line for Minor & Major Storm Allowable Water Spread for Minor & Major Storm Cross Slope (Eq. ST-8) Depth without Gutter Depression (Eq. ST-2) Depth with a Gutter Depression ble Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) irge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx irge within the Gutter Section W (CT - Qx) Bge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) ium Flow Based On Allowable Water Spread etical Water Spread etical Spread for Discharge outside the Gutter Section W (T - W) Flow to Design Flow Ratio by FHWA HEC-22 method (Eq. ST-7) etical Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, carried in Section Tx TH I Discharge outside the Gutter Section W, (limited by distance Tex) arge within the Gutter Section W (Qd - Qx) Discharge for Major & Minor Storm -Based Depth Safety Reduction Factor for Major & Minor Storrs arge Behind the Curb (e.g., sidewalk, driveways, & lawns) num Flow Based on Allowable Gutter Depth TeACK = _ 0.0 ft S= = 0.0200 ft. ven. I ft. horiz n9ACK = 0.0400 HcuaB = . 6.00 inches TCRowN - - 26.0 ft a = ' 2.00 inches W = '•. 2.00 ft Sx = ': 0.0200 ft. vent. I ft. horiz So = -. '„ 0.0053 ft. van. / ft. horiz nSTREET = Minor Storm Major Storm d. = . `•. 6.00 : 1200 inches TM = 13.0 26.0 ft Sw = y= d= Tx = Eo = Qx= Qw = ABACK' Or= Storm ., 0.1033 ". 0.1033 3.12 J,16.24 0.484 . - 0.236 '. 2.1.`-.5.6 TTH = Tx TH = Eo Ox TH = Qx= Qw = Q= R= ABACK = ad = Minor Storm Major Storm f h't inches inches ft cis cis cis cfs ' 16.7 "' - 41.7, ' 14.7 ..39.7 '7777'- -4.8 '-' 68.7 '4:8 `"- 62.9 2.9 11.4 -;r7 8 '• 74.3 1:00 1.00 10,01, 0.0 7.8 -74.3 Minor Qeumv = cfs cts CIS cfs cfs cfs Ca acity OK These maximum allowable flows are greater than the flow given on sheet'Q-peak' I� UD-Inlet Et, Q-Allow 10/812009, 11:23 AM I� Circular Pipe Flow Project: Inverness 1st Filing (RMI2) Pipe ID: Storm A (Basins A,B,C,D1,D2,FE) USE 3-24" RC Warning ly Invert Slope So = 0.0054 ft/ft Manning's n-value n = 0.0130 Diameter D = 24.00 inches gn discharge Q = 50.1 ells low area low wetted perimeter Central Angle flow capacity Af = 3,14 sq ft Pf = 6.28 It Theta = 3.14 rad Qf = 16.7 ells `>> t Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 8.60 rad area An = 9.09 sq It :ed perimeter Pn = 17.19 ft depth Yn = 1.68 ft velocity Vn = 5.51 fps ;harge Qn = - 50.1 cfs Central Angle (0-Theta-c<3.14) :al flow area :al top width ;al flow depth ;al flow velocity ide number Theta-c = 2.94 rad Ac = 3.14 sq ft Tc = 0.39 ft Yc= 1.98 ft Vc = 15.97 fps Fr= 1.00 Warning 01: Design discharge (Q) exceeds full -flow capacity (Qf) of the pipe. U'D-Culvert vl .01 culvert A, Pipe 10/8/2009, 11:14 AM lar Pipe Flow Project: Pipe ID: 1st Invert Slope So = 0.0066 ft/ft Manning's n-value n = 0.0130 Diameter D = 24.00 inches gn discharge Q = 18.3 cfs Flow area Af = 3.14 sq ft flow wetted perimeter Pf = 6.28 ft Central Angle Theta = 3.14 red -flow capacity Qf = 18.4 cfs :ulation of Normal Flow Condition Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 2.25 red r area An = 2.74 sq ft led perimeter Pn = 4.50 ft i depth Yn = 1.63 ft velocity Vn = 6.69 fps :har9e Qn = 18.3 cfs Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 2.14 rad :al flow area Ac = 2.60 sq ft al top width Tc = 1.68 ft ;at flow depth Yc = 1.54 ft :al flow velocity Vc = 7.05 fps ide number Fr = 1.00 UD-Culvert vl.01 culvert B2, Pipe 10/8/2009, 11:15 AM Circular Pipe Flow Project: Inverness, 1st Pipe ID: Storm B3 (Bas Invert Slope So = 0.0120 ft/ft Manning's n-value n = 0.0130 Diameter D = 18.00 inches 3n discharge Q = 11.1 cfs now area Af = 1.77 sq ft now wetted perimeter Pf = 4.71 ft Central Angle Theta = 3.14 rad flow capacity Qf = 11.5 cfs Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 2.18 rad area An = 1.49 sq It ted perimeter Pn = 3.27 ft f depth Yn = 1.18 It r velocity Vn = 7.43 fps :harge Qn = 11.1 cfs Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 2.34 rad :at flow area Ac = 1.60 sq ft :al top width Tc = 1.07 It ,at flow depth Yc = 1.27 ft ml flow velocity Vc = 6.92 fps rdenumber Fr= 1.00 UD-Culvert vl.01 culvert B3, Pipe 10/8/2009, 11:15 AM Circular Pipe Flow Project: Inverness, 1st Filing (RMI2) Pipe ID: Storm C r Tc ' Ytaw ffangte n Invert Slope So = 0.0120 ft/ft. Manning's n-value n = 0.0130 Diameter D = 12.00 inches 3n discharge Q = 3.8 cfs Flow area Af = 0.79 sq ft Dow wetted perimeter Pf = 3.14 ft Central Angle Theta = 3.14 rad flow capacity Qf = 3.9 cfs Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 2.21 rad area An = 0.67 sq ft ted perimeter Pn = 2.21 ft r depth Yn = 0.80 ft f velocity Vn = 5.68 fps -h�rne Qn = 3.8 cfs Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 2.30 rad cal flow area Ac = 0.70 sq ft :;at top width Tc = 0.75 ft cal flow depth Yc = 0.83 ft cal flow velocity VC = 5.47 fps ide number Fr = 1.00 UD-Culvert v1.01 culvert C, Pipe 10/8/2009, 11:15 AM Circular Pipe Flow Project: Inverness, 1st Pipe ID: Storm D1 (Ba! V ly Invert Slope So = 0.0050 f ift Manning's n-value n = 0.0130 Diameter D = 18.00 inches gn discharge Q = 7.3 cfs Flow area Af = 1.77 sq ft flow wetted perimeter Pf = 4.71 ft Central Angle Theta = 3.14 rad -flow capacity Qf = 7.5 cfs Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 2.21 rad An = 1.51 sq ft area ,ad perimeter Pn = 3.32 ft depth Yn = 1.20 ft i velocity Vn = 4.80 fps :harge Qn=-` `7.3'cfs ntral Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 1.97 rad flow area Ac = 1.31 sq ft top width r Tc = 1.38 ft flow depth Yc = 1.04 ft flow velocity Vc = 5.54 fps number Fr = 1.00 UD-Culvert v1 01 culvert D1, Pipe 10/8/2009, 11:19 AM Project: Inve PipeID: §tor Circular Pipe Flow 1st Filing (RMI2) Basin D2) ly V Invert Slope So = 0.0050 Wit Manning's n-value n = 0.0130 Diameter D = 15.00 inches 3n discharge Q = 3.9 cfs now area Af = 1.23 sq It now wetted perimeter Pf = 3.93 It Central Angle Theta = 3.14 rad flow capacity Qf = 4.6 cfs Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 1.99 rad area An = 0.93 sq fit ed perimeter Pn = 2.49 It depth Yn = 0.88 ft velocity Vn = 4.18 fps harge Qn = 3.9 cfs Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 1.85 rad ,at flow area Ac = 0.82 sq. It ;al top width Tc = 1.20 It gal flow depth Yc = 0.80 fit -al flow velocity Vc = 4.70 fps ide number Fr= 1.00 UD-Culvert v1.01 culvert D2, Pipe 10/8/2009, 11:15 AM Circular Pipe Flow Project: Inverness, 1st Filing (RMI2) Pipe ID: Storm E Tc J e Y ti_ i:'1A11V �yJ anglQ Y t) Invert Slope So = 0.0050 Wit Manning's n-value n = 0.0130 Diameter D = 15.00 inches gn discharge Q = 3.1 cfs now area Af = 1.23 sq It now wetted perimeter Pf = 3.93 ft Central Angle Theta = 3.14 rad flow capacity Qf = 4.6 cfs Central angle (0<Theta<3.14) Theta = 1.77 rad area An = 0.76 sq ft :ed perimeter Pn = 2.21 ft depth Yn = 0.75 It velocity Vn = 3.99 fps .harge Qn = 3.1 cfs Central Angle (0<Theta-c<3.14) Theta-c = 1.70 rad :al flow area Ac = 0.71 sq ft ,at top width To = 1.24 It :al flow depth Yc = 0.70 ft ;at flow velocity VC = 4.29 fps ide number Fr= 1.00 UD-Culvert v1.01 culvert E, Pipe 10/8/2009, 11:16 AM Detention Pond Sizing Worksheet RMI2 at Inverness Innovation Park This re to convert % imp. to a C +due (muss I.., %Imp end C pervious). 'C wlue 0.81 in 0.81 Area 3.22 goes R.I.. Rase 0.01' DETENTION FOND SIZING Required desenuon it, ,re-ft. 45625.5 1 I.M14" Modified Modified M. FATER D. JUDISH C. LI 5195 Nov-92 Nov-98 TIME (mine) TIME cum". (eats) INTENSnY IN year (irvnr3 GIN (eR) Runoff Volume (&^3) Release Cumm. mol W3) Required Detention WJ) Required Detention (.ert) 0 0 0 0N, 0 0.0 0.0 0.OW0 5 300 9.950 26.35 3906.3695 3.0 2903.4 0.1814 10 e00 1.720 20.45 12268.n" 6.0 122618 0.2815 IS %0 6.520 17.22 15542.5916 9.0 15533.6 0.3566 20 12M 5.SW 1483 17799.264 12.0 12767.3 O.W93 25 1500 4.99) 13.19 19785.7* 15.0 19n0.8 OAS39 30 1800 4.520 11.97 21549.8232 18.0 2 153 1.8 0.4943 35 2100 4.080 10.81 226M.0616 21.0 n673.1 0.5205 W 2400 3J40 9.91 23224.7312 24.0 232503 0.5452 45 27M 3.460 9.16 242M.1554 22.0 24717.2 0.5624 50 30M 3.230 &56 25665.903 30.0 25635.9 0.5885 55 33M 3.030 8,03 2M84.3513 33.0 26451.4 0.6022 60 36W 2.860 9.58 27271.0152 36.0 2n35B 0.6252 65 3900 2.n0 7.20 28097.4096 39.0 2W5&4 0.6M1 70 42M 25% 6.86 28812.5586 42.0 20770.6 0.6605 25 4500 2.4% 6.53 29559A92 4.0 29514.5 0.6716 80 4800 13W 6.30 302587488 48.0 30210.7 0.6935 85 Sim 12% 6.09 30934.1673 51.0 30883.2 0J090 % 5400 2.210 5.85 31609.5858 54.0 31555.6 0.22M 95 5200 2.130 5.64 32157.8667 52.0 32100.9 0.7369 100 6000 2.060 5.46 32732.932 60.0 32622.9 0.7502 105 63W 2.000 5.30 33373.62 63.0 33310.6 0]647 He 6600 1.9W 5.14 339119548 66.0 33848.0 0.9])0 115 690 I B% 5.01 34541.6962 69.0 3M723 0.291 ♦ 120 7200 LIAO 4.82 350899276 ne 35018.0 O.W39 125 2%D 1 ]% 4.24 35558.7975 25.0 354a3.8 0.8146 130 7800 1350 464 36154J55 2&0 16076.8 0.8282 135 Sim IJ10 4.53 36682.1432 81.0 366".1 O.BW4 IW 8Wo 1.670 4.42 37155.9636 84.0 32072.0 0.8511 145 8300 1.630 4.32 32561.2147 82.0 32474.2 0.8603 150 9000 1Aw 4.24 38141.29 90.0 36051.3 0.8235 ISS 93M 1.520 4.16 38623.6687 910 385W.2 0.8057 160 9600 1.540 4.08 39150.3808 96.0 390614 0.0962 165 99W 1.510 4.00 39595,4163 99.0 394%.4 0.9067 170 102W 1.480 3.92 39984.7752 102.0 39802.8 0.9156 125 10500 LAO 3.M W326.4515 105.0 WllLS 01234 180 10" 1.420 3.76 40 X4632 10&0 40SI3.5 0.9300 185 HIM 1.400 3.21 411 W.298 111.0 41049.8 0.%24 I% 11,1W 1.39) 3.66 41669.3484 114.0 41555.3 0.95W 195 117M 1.360 3.60 41 W.I I 112.0 42029.1 0.9649 200 12" 1.3W 3.55 42591.096 120.0 42471.1 0.9250 205 123W 1.320 3.50 43004.2932 1210 42881.3 0.98M 2110 12M Lm 3.M 43385J06 126.0 43259.7 0."31 215 12M 1.280 3.39 43735.33M 129.0 43iS 6.3 IN11 220 13200 1.260 3.34 44O53.1284 132.0 43921.2 1.0083 225 135M 1.2W 128 M339338 135.0 M204.2 1.01" 230 13M 1.220 3.23 M593.5132 138.0 4MSs.s 1.02% 235 14100 1.210 3.20 45'189.4207 141.0 45040.5 1.0342 20 1M 1.200 3.18 45769.536 IM.0 45625.5 1.0494 Apex Engineering Confidential 1002009 Page 1 Pond Stage -Storage Worksheet Inverness Innovation Park Pond ID: Infiltration Pond I Input: Detention Volume Required = 1.047 acre-ft WQCV Required = 0.000 acre-ft Total Pond Volume Required = 1.047 acre-ft Where: Volume = 1/3(d)(A+B+AB^0.5) d = elevation - elevation„_i A = area of elevationn.1 contour B = area of elevation contour Results: I00-year WSEL = 56.69 WQ WSEL = n/a Calculations: Elev. (feet) Area (SF) Area (acre) Storage (acre-ft) Cumulative Storage (acre-feet) 53.50 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 53.51 6,658 0.153 0.001 0.001 54.00 8,757 0.201 0.086 0.087 55.00 14,495 0.333 0.264 0.351 56.00 18,350 0.421 0.376 0.727 57.00 22,059 0.506 0.463 1.190 58.00 25,910 0.595 0.550 1.740 _ • • aIIII 1'N C 8 YJP 0 2- A t D.: August 4, 2008 Fort Collins Real Estate 1220 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Attention: Mr. Mike Jensen and Mr. Mike Bello Subject: Depth to Ground Water and Results of Double Ring Infiltrometer Tests 300-500 East Vine Drive Fort Collins, Colorado Project No. FC04631-115 CTLIThompson, Inc. has performed a geologic and preliminary geotechnical investigation and double ring infiltrometer testing at the site referenced above. You requested we provide you with a letter describing the subsurface conditions, depths of ground water encountered in our borings, and the results of the four double ring infiltrometer tests. Our finalized geologic and preliminary geotechnical report for the site will follow this letter The attached Figure 1 indicates the approximate locations of our exploratory borings and test pits. The double ring infiltrometer tests were conducted in the areas listed as Test Pits. Figure 2 presents the depth to ground water at the time of drilling. The depth to ground water at the site ranges from 2 feet to 7 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water levels are expected to fluctuate with precipitation and season. Piezometers were installed in all of the borings after the drilling was complete to facilitate future groundwater measurements. Figures 3 and 4 show the subsurface conditions encountered in our borings. These figures are presented as a draft as the properties of the materials are still to be confirmed by our laboratory testing program. Double ring infiltrometer tests were conducted at each of the test pit locations. The depths of the tests on the portion of the site south of East Vine Drive were selected based on the depth to ground water. The depths of the tests on the portion of the site north of East . Vine Drive were selected by excavating to what appeared to be relatively undisturbed native soil. Table I below presents the locations and results of our double ring infiltrometer tests. TABLE Test Number Test Depth (inches) Below Existin Ground Surface Infiltration Rate inches/hour DR-1 24 0.37 DR-2 16 0.50 DR-3 18 0.16 DR-4 30 2.16 351 Linden Street 1 Suite 140 1 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Telephone:970-206-9455 Fax:970-206-9441 r We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the information provided in this letter, please contact the undersigned. CTLITHOMPSON, INC. Robin ornfest, PG Project Manager .190 R.B. "Chip" Leadbetter, Geotechnical Departme FORT COLLINS REAL ESTATE 300-500 EAST VINE DRIVE CTL I T PROJECT NO. FC04631-115 C APPROX. S ALF: 1'-100 0 1. IN LEGEND: TH-1 INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING. TP-5 INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT. DR-1 INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DOUBLE RING INFILTROMETER TEST. Locations of Exploratory Borings swrtcau�axwesun assess us.vxuwVs FIGURE 1 MIT siwser xo. sm�oe� � e APPROX. SCALE: I-- IW 0 `A OP ki LEGEND: TH-1 INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING. TP-6 INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT DR-1 INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DOUBLE RING INFILTROMETER TEST, (10.6) INDICATES APPROXIMATE DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (8I100). 0 Measured Depth to Ground Water m o FwaTNxEon FIGURE 2 CR I T MaECi IVO. f cMQI-n5 TH-1 0 5 s 10 15 rt w LL H w 0 30 i a s J r v i (7 35 - J Z 0 O t 3 L40 s s J J Z 0 .. FORT COLLINS REAL ESTATE 300-500 EAST VINE DRIVE CTLIT PROJECT NO, FC04631-115 TH-2 TH-3 TH-4 Op 9/12 26/12 2 G: d• 0;, 46/12 d• ca 23/12 50/3 17/12 30/12 10 15 in w LL 20 w w jo 25 30 35 - 40 _ SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 LEGEND: TH-5 TH-6 TH-7 TH-S TIP-5 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE AND BASE COURSE 0 p 0 A: op Of A. ®FILL GRAVEL. SANDY y Ool 10D olO- CLAY, SILTY TO SANDY, MOIST, SOFT TO STIFF, BROWN (CL) oa A. 9112 -0 29112 40 4/12 ° © 5 C • "� O' a. 5 SAND, CLAYEY, MOIST, LOOSE, BROWN (SC) R •� a: -o A: o GRAVEL. SANDY. TO SAND, GRAVELLY, MOIST TO WET, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, a. 40/12 b- .p 10112 D- BROWN TO REDDISH BROWN (GP) 10 b• p•• CLAY5TONE, SANDY TO SANDSTONE, CLAYEY, MOIST, HARD TO VERY HARD, GRAY BROWN TO OLIVE BROWN a: .. -O -0 1T-L DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL INDICATES BLOWS OFA 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 Sole b: 25112 I I INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.54NCH O.O. SAMPLER INCHES. 15 O, -0 75 r DRIVE SAMPLE. THE SYMBOL INDICATES BLOWS OF A 140�FOUND HAMMER FALLING W -- r■ INCHES WERE REQUIRED TO DRIVE A 2.04NCH O.D. SAMPLER INCHES. ru D. Iw u BULK SAMPLE FROM AUGER CUTTINGS. LL 20 ® p O 20 i E M1 o p ® W c R WATER LEVEL MEASURED AT TIME OF DRILLING. 25 15011 502 25 TT * PRACTICAL DRILL REFUSAL. 30 30 NOTES: ' 1. THE BORINGS WERE DRILLED ON AUGUST 1, 2008 USING 44NCH DIAMETER CONTINUOUS -FLIGHT AUGERS AND A TRUCK -MOUNTED DRILL RIG. 2. APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATIONS WERE SURVEYED BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR 35 35 _ FIRM. 3. THESE LOGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE EXPLANATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THIS REPORT. nO 40 SUMMARY LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FORT COLLMS RF ESTATE xOsooE TVWO FIGURE 4 CnlTFROACTNO. FC l.115 ANIIIII-Me] M9191Il9 NIIIII1111101ib9i*91I"e\" Project: RMII 14-104 Prepared By: JRG Date: 1011312009 CITY RESEEDING COST Unit Total Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes Reseed/mulch 3.15 ac $723 $2,277.45 Subtotal $2,277 Contingency 50% $1,139 Total $3,416 Notes: 1. A4=5 ac=$655/ac; A>5 ae=$615/ae. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Unit Total Number Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes Wattle 8 ea $300 $2,400 5 Straw Bale Barrier 5 ea $150 $750 8 Sift Fence Barrier 1411 LF $3 $4,233 39 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 3.15 ac $500 $1,575 38 Gravel Mulch 3.15 ac $1,350 $4,253 Subtotal $13,211 Contingency 50% $6,605 Total $19,816 i Final Drainage, Erosion Control and Water Quality Report Rocky Mountain Innovation Initiative Appendix III - Mapping and Plans H1000N COURT CIRCLE �w �^ilj l�fAII INTO °a/yE N�m� Z MAP SCALE 7" IF 500' ZONE X i 50 ppp ti� 500 y ona svc+t;C eq H i FEET — MET MI CWRi SRKq T i !1 1511 TOP m CITY OF FORT COLLINS NE X 080102 MH Oyi W� e m HICKORY STREET ��EEZ 2ZONE X CCIMPER sTFELT LONIFF of vRMI PANEL 0977G MfML K SigEEi =111 4 ,,NE OgIVE FIRM o rsRga«cIRCLe a FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 6FURGELRCL H ZONE X E+ ® LARIMER COUNTY, COLORADO AND INCORPONATILD AREAS .. FINON ( 4961 o_ sTgEEr m LIMIT OF oy2 PANEL On OF IM ALPTW DEralED sruov 4964 m o- F. p.Ne + l6E .w Ilan noq rwu r..e. uYu,q STREET y e f6Y1Ftlf64: OpFP GOW' Pall <AOBFfl PIML SIRf Ill a w.w,m.s sw m o P�Y°Fq j I;vm Flga Gsplµ er 0�' a ZONE AE ZON I ZONE O PROFILE ti 1 `F 0 4960 ' X il Lnk HESISHE RTR MA P NUMBER o CiNlnlx b b ___ ZONE DryCr¢ek a ® OIOOICOWiq River (SOMth Of CMN4() �,��Lj��!,�je i�.r YAP REVIBED �, MSLL10Ti ••' JUNE 17, E FORT COLLINS LL101e 080IO2 a° ZONE AE Nb. . FNm.IE A �eryeeYM.nNm..INnMy -_ - cANG SNALutoaD ZONE AE f' TCITY OF FORT COLL 11 ELMsrgGer ZONEX G ZONE AE 080102 12 N U ZONE ZONE X 4957 ZONE X LL0478 X 1p 496 ZONE X O u U 4957 JOINS PANEL 0979 CMcke LM ZONE 4d60 ZONE X e�wmE TcoMe REST SETREEOD .93""E bm� Poudre X LAWMEN COUNT'Y 1. M. ",a�...e... �..,.,K.,inom mw.• iKry R!V¢! UNINCORPORATED AREAS �"mmm, 4n.ry� .M....... ns •a �M .Ian pI.FIM0,R—mAN.. neW I�ww. (Wgigl NATURAL FEATURE BUFFER ZONE LINE LOT 2 0.422 ACRES BLDG 2 FIFE = 4962.5 INLET D2 INLET EI \�OO II E � \ .31 .79 ` 42 .74 \----- -- AO­ E CRAIN AG- E ESMT MSIRUMENT - ---- L - - --�- EXIST TOP OF J BANK BASIN 5DPI14ARY TABLE Daea other tar Delf Pont 8u4u th C C'Cr N19WNIC' Ara RueeW RumB Runholl Lan6on Ilnn) (ry ) (MC) (CIS) NET%', Ids) A AAC.D I,D2 0.25 0.87 1.00 9.26 0.28 2S5 18.33 40,813 8 B,CDI,D2 5110 ORSe1.00 9.95 e0.73 7.25 CI IN 111133 C C 513 1 C0.89 9.82 'OM 3.82 OtOO p.82 DI EULQ ISM "1 e1.00 9.95 C0.34 3.39 e3.87 �,27 D2 D2 5-0U 0.74 CO.W 9.95 0.42 3.87 0.00 07 E E S110 0.79 C0.99 9.95 031 3.05 OJOID SOS F F SDO 0.78 T0.98 9.95 "1 616 o.00 6.16 Future Eut Future Evit 91131e1 On 11.05 e363 N31 END JKL21 ! DRAINAGE BOUNDARY _ Cl LAKE CANAL RM12 (TYP) - INLET CI r EASEMENT La he 1 \ EXIST TOP OF C •`h BANK LOT 1 RAIII1 663 ACRES M 71 BI DIG 73 8$ . FIFE = 4962.5 I FE I INLET 83 O I STORM 8 3 • INLET B2 .aeo STORM 82 iORM p1 • \ INLET BI _ • STORM BI II INLET A2 Al ` I - .28 .83 ` •�;a� . _ INLET Al tscls tL TRACT A 0.962 ACRES LEGEND OF SYMBOLS -PROPOSED MANXOIF LOWUNE o STORM bef O FLARED END YCIION FLOW AMOW CONTOUR fie 5W T.11.W SPOT ELF/ BASIN LABS- &ANN SOUNDARY BASINBOUNDARY-FUILWE -.-.- MOP SILT FENCE ® MOP STRAW RALE aM ® MOP GRAVEL INLET HLTER MOP VEHICLE TMWNG CONTROLPAD v NATURAL FEATURE BUFFER ZONE LINE INKRT ELEV . 491 WSE MAX . 4958.00 WSE FOR PHASE I he 49%.59 SPILLWAY ELEV . 49M 00 TOP OF BERM ELEV . 4958.00 DETAIL DETAIL n NO. SILT FENCE EROSION BARRIER EC I ENGINEERING N 40 0 q SCALE I -i0' gHH`e o H CµD I-1/2 fAu4EU PYNy p' RQA't Of LARGER b � \ NLTE6 I TO ME USED TO SHALL HE . PLACE onERNK RATE My COASERU ncTIA ROADS ch ar. 3 STAGAS PAoERAGS SHALL W MA NIH MED MXW GW MMd T ME LEE OF ME CSUCT ® DETAIL DETAIL NO VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL EC3 ENGINEERING 1. PORTIONS OF THE SITE ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOt1DPLAIN. A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT WIV_ BE REWIRED FOR ANY WORK INSIDE THE iW-YEAR FLOODPLAIN. 2. ALL INLETS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED 25' DEEPER THAN STANDARD, AND SHALL BE FITTED SMITH OIL/SAND INTERCEPTOR. SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 3, SEE DETAILS SHEETS FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS. male ven, hale been.anev ea by me Car al Fa.a Calera, lolc,m" eY The.e„ev. aanmummy 111Panvduorhraertmm,of aaznmeno, me car Eaonee,.ar me Ory of Pon Collin, k, II af,n .,aa Funherm .aha,m.6oe,aa, mply chic me you of me ,e P......meraw yua000 ,ecep M.The wflallho,��mmylh, a,Iore.memlha",y htey,bere nCollor,/or aaENaul9uanunea of me „ho thatma be rryNrM eunnB an City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN Approval APPROVED: DATE: CHECKED BY: DATE:_ Wola/Wast"Mer UTAIIY CHECKED BY - DAM. �wer r CHECKED BY: DALE: o 9 CHECKED BY: DALE: Enmrmmmtal Planner 0 C o_ 0 f tF$ T m O V w w D U E aD z z_ Q' W W CO om� O NVP rh V c.. 00 ON u u o c.i Z Z J LL d J N O YZ o aO z u o O O O n Z O O ZV Z z ZIW O LP) hill Z Z alf SHEET: C6 DF C 17 ® PROP GRAVEL INLET Al 1 n1lT1w r