HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 07/05/1996M.ii ;��.;
0 �� -,A
�.
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
for
MULBERRY GREEN
Lot 4, Block 105, Harrison's Addition)
Fort Collins, Colorado
Prepared for:
B.K. Maxwell Company, Inc.
524 Spring Canyon Court
Fort Collins, Colorado 80525
Prepared by:
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Project No: 1151-24-95
DATE: June, 1996
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 FAX (970) 282-031 1
r 'a
PAGE 1
Project No. 1151-24-95
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
A. Location
1. Mulberry Green is located in the Northeast One Quarter (1/4) of Section 14, UN,
Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., Ft. Collins, Colorado. The site is Lot 4, Block 105,
Harrison's Addition.
2. More specifically, Mulberry Green is located approximately 100 feet west of the
intersection of Mulberry Street and Mason Street on the south side of Mulberry
Street (See Vicinity Map).
3. The site is surrounded by full development. This includes Mulberry Street and
Kings Auto Dealership along with several single family residences.
B. Description of Property
1. There is an existing house on the site that will be renovated as part of this project.
2. The site area is approximately 0.39 acres.
3. Development of the site will consist of 1 duplex and 2 triplex apartment units,
parking for the units and the necessary utilities to service all units.
4. A gravel alley borders the site on the west side. This alley will be paved from
Mulberry to the proposed south entrance to the site in accordance with the
requirements of the City of Fort Collins.
a. The alley will be concrete paved and provided with an inverted crown section to
assist in the conveyance of stormwater to West Mulberry Street.
5. There are no major drainageways located on or within 150' feet the project site. See
Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in stuffer envelope.
H. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS:
A. Major Basin Description
1. The site is situated within the Old Town Drainage Basin as designated on the City
of Fort Collins Stormwater Basin Map.
a. There are no drainage fees associated with the Old Town Basin.
PAGE 2
Project No. 1151-24-95
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
H. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS:
A. Major Basin Description (continued)
2. Stormwater from the site drains to conveyance element 205 as delineated on figure
4.1 of the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan.
a. According to the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan, stormwater flows in
conveyance element 205 are split at the intersection of Mason Street and
Mulberry Street.
b. Some of the flows are conveyed east in the existing storm sewer while others
are conveyed north on Mason when the storm sewer capacity is reached.
B. Sub -Basin Description
1. The site is extremely flat. There is currently no defined flow path for the site. It
appears that the majority of the existing site contributes runoff to West Mulberry
Street.
III. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL DESIGN CRITERIA:
A. Regulations
1. All storm drainage design criteria from the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria
Manual was considered.
2. Recommendations made in the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan prepared by
Resource Consultants & Engineers, Inc. were also considered.
a. Flood elevations noted in the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan were
utilized to establish the minimum Finished Floor Elevations of the proposed
buildings.
3. All erosion control design criteria from the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control
Reference Manual was considered.
B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints
1. All grading design must match the existing elevations at the property line due to
fully developed properties adjacent to the site.
2. The intersection of Mason Street and West Mulberry Street is subject to flooding
due to insufficient capacity of the existing storm sewer.
a. According to the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan, the 100-year flood
elevation on Mulberry Street in the area of Mulberry Green is approximately
4993.5 feet. Refer to figure 5.6 in the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan
attached in Appendix IV.
PAGE 3
Project No. 1151-24-95
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
M. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL DESIGN CRITERIA:
B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints (continued)
3. Minimum finished floor elevations shall be set at an elevation of 4995.0 feet in
order to provided the minimum 1.5 feet separation above the defined 100-year
water surface elevation. A note stating this is provided on the Master Grading,
Drainage and Erosion Control Plan.
4. Detention is required if the imperviousness of the site exceeds seventy percent
(70.0%). This is in accordance with the assumptions of the Stormwater
Management Model (SWMM) for subcatchment 205 in the Old Town Basin.
Impervious area will be less than 70%.
C. Hydrological Criteria
1. The Rational Method (Q = CIA) was used to determine the pre -developed and/or
post development peak flows for the 2, 10 and 100-year storm events at critical
points.
D. Hydraulic Criteria
1. Storm sewer and drainage channel capacities were based on the Mamungs
Equation. The Mannings coefficients are as suggested by the City of Fort Collins
Storm Drainage Criteria Manual.
IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN:
A. General Concept
1. Stormwater is conveyed to to West Mulberry Street by a combination of overland
and gutter flow.
2. The alley will be graded with an inverted crown to facilitate conveyance of
stormwater into Mulberry West Street.
3. Detention is not required because the imperviousness of the developed site does not
exceed 70%.
4. In addition, the Times of concentration for catchment area 205 and the site to the
inlet at the southwest corner of the intersection Mullberry and Mason are
significantly different. They are 60 minutes and less than 10 minutes respectively.
The time of concentration for catchment area was obtained from the Old Town
Master Drainage Report. Refer to exhibit A located in Appendix IV.
PAGE 4
Project No. 1151-24-95
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
W. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN:
B. Specific Details
The following table summarizes the land cover and the appropriate percent
imperviousness on the historic site. The imperviousness percentages are taken from
Table 3-1 in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual - Volume 1. The Runoff
Coefficient is taken from the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria Manual.
Area
Impervious
Runoff Coefficient
(acres)
%
"C"
----------
Lawn 0.36
-------------
0.00
----------------------
0.20
Roof 0.03
100.00
0.95
Concrete 0.00
100.00
0.95
Total 0.39
The percent imperviousness of the historic site is 7.69%.
2. The following table summarizes the land cover and the appropriate imperviousness
on the developed site:
Area
Impervious
Runoff Coefficient
(acres)
%
"C"
----------------------
-----------
Lawn 0.16
---------------
0.00
0.20
Roof 0.10
100.00
0.95
Concrete 0.13
100.00
0.95
Total 0.39
The resultant imperviousness of the developed site is 58.97%.
2. The proposed development results in an increase from 7.69% impervious to 58.97%
impervious. Detention is not required because the site is less than 70% impervious.
3. The alley has a minimum slope of 0.70%. Concrete will be used in the alley and
parking lot. The alley will act as a channel for the runoff from the site.
a. The peak 100-year flow from the site and the portion of the alley that borders
the site is 3.49 cfs. This peak occurs where the alley intersects sidewalk along
Mulberry Street.
b. The capacity of the alley at the minimum slope is 3.35 cfs.
c. Grading constraints do not allow an increase in the minimum slope of the alley
without adversely affecting the adjoining properties.
PAGE 5
Project No. 1151-24-95
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
V. EROSION CONTROL:
A. General Concept
1. Erosion control measures will be as identified on the Final Grading, Drainage and
Erosion Control Plan.
2. An erosion control security deposit is required in accordance with City of Fort
Collins policy (Chapter 7, Section C: SECURITY; page 7.23 of the City of Fort
Collins Development Manual). In no instance shall the amount of the security be
less than $1,000.00.
3. According to current City of Fort Collins policy, the erosion control security deposit
is figured based on the larger amount of 1.5 times the estimated cost of installing
the approved erosion control measures or 1.5 times the cost to re -vegetate the
anticipated area to be disturbed by construction activity.
i The cost to install the proposed erosion control measures is approximately
$ 945.00. Refer to the cost estimate attached in Appendix I. 1.5 times the cost
to install the erosion control measures is $ 1,417.50.
ii. Based on current data provided by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility,
and based on an actual anticipated net affected area which will be disturbed by
construction activity (approximately 0.39 acres), we estimate that the cost to re -
vegetate the disturbed area will be $ 507.00 ($ 1,300.00 per acre x 0.39 acres).
1.5 times the cost to re -vegetate the disturbed area is $ 760.50. The $1,300.00
per acre for re -seeding sites of less than 1 acre was quoted to us by the City of
Fort Collins Stormwater Utility personnel.
iii The erosion control deposit for Mulberry Green will be $1,417.50 This deposit
is refundable.
VI. VARIANCE REQUEST:
A. Variance from City of Fort Collins Requirements
1. There will be no requests for any variances from the City of Fort Collins Storm
Drainage Criteria for Mulberry Green.
VIL CONCLUSIONS:
A. Compliance with Standards
1. All drainage analysis has been performed according to the requirements of the City
of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, the City of Fort Collins policy,
and the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan.
2. All Erosion Control design complies with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control
Reference Manual and generally accepted practices.
PAGE 6
Project No. 1151-24-95
Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report
VII. CONCLUSIONS:
B. Drainage Concept
1. The drainage design for Mulberry Green is in accordance with the City of Fort
Collins requirements and the recommendations of the Master Drainage Basin Plan
for Old Town Basin.
2. There will be no adverse downstream effects due to the development of the site.
VIH. REFERENCES:
1. Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual
2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual
3. Fort Collins Storm Erosion Control Reference Manual
4. Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan; Prepared by Resource Consultants &
Engineers, Inc.; Dated January 7, 1993
APPENDIX I
Storm Drainage Calculations
FLOW SUMMARY
FOR
MULBERRY GREEN
PAGE
1
DESIGN
CONTRIBUTING
AREA
C2
C10
C100
Tc
Tc
I2
I10
I100
Q2
Q10
Q100
DESIGN
POINT
SUB
2,10
100
BASIN(S)
ac.
min.
min
iph
iph
iph
cfe
cfa
cfo
r rrrrrx+++++rrrrrrrrrr+tttttrrrrrrrrrrt
rtrt+ttrrrrrrrr
rrrrttt+rrrrrrrr
rrtt++++r+t++rrrrrtrrtrxxrrr+r++
A
HISTORIC
0.39
0.26
0.26
0.32
11.00
11.00
2.46
4.31
6.92
0.25
0.43
0.87
REFONLY
A
DEVELOPED
0.39
0.64
0.64
0.80
5.00
5.00
3.29
5.64
9.30
0.82
1.41
2.91
REFONLY
B
Ib
0.04
0.39
0.39
0.48
5.00
5.00
3.29
5.64
9.30
0.05
0.09
0.18
OFFSITE
KINGS
Io
0.04
0.39
0.39
0.48
5.00
5.00
3.29
5.64
9.30
0.05
0.09
0.18
OPPSITE
END ALLEYIaa
0.40
0.75
0.75
0.94
5.00
5.00
3.29
5.64
9.30
0.99
1.69
3.49
CHANNEL
A
Iaar
0.53
0.76
0.76
0.95
5.00
5.00
3.29
5.64
9.30
1.32
2.26
4.67
REFONLY
Iaa = Ia & Ialley
Iaar = Ia & Salley & Irow
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
PAGE 2
PROJECT: MULBERRY GREEN DATE 06/13/96
LOCATION:FORT COLLINS BY HBO
PROJ. N0.1151-24-95 FILE: MULRAT
SUBBASIN BREAKDOWN
TOTAL SITE AREA =
0.39
TOTAL BASIN AREA =
0.61
Ia &
SUB BASINS
Ialley
HISTORIC
DEVELOPED
Ia
Ib
Io
Ialley
Irow
Iaa
ASPHALT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
CONCRETE
0.00
0.13
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.08
0.21
GRAVEL
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
ROOFS
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.08
LAWNS,SANDY SOIL
FLAT < 2%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
AVERAGE 2 TO 7%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STEEP > 7%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
LAWNS, HEAVY SOIL:
FLAT < 2%
0.36
0.16
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.10
AVERAGE 2 TO 7%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
STEEP > 7%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
0.39
0.39
0.31
0.04
0.04
0.09
0.13
0.40
RUNOFF COEFFICIENT
SUB BASINS
AND / OR
BASINS
HISTORIC
DEVELOPED
Ia
Ib
Io
Ialley
Irow
Iaa
C2-C10
0.26
0.64
0.71
0.39
0.39
0.90
0.78
0.75
C100 = 1.25-C2
0.32
0.80
0.89
0.48
0.48
1.00
0.97
0.94
C100 IS NEVER GREATER THAN 1.0
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
PAGE 3
PROJECT: MULBERRY GREEN
LOCATION:FORT COLLINS
FILE: MULRAT
AREA (A)= 0.390 ACRES
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FLOW TO WEST MULBERRY STREET
FROM HISTORIC BASIN
DATE 05/22/96
PROD. NO.1151-24-95
BY MHO
RUNOFF COBF. (C)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.26
0.26
0.32
SHE SPREAD SHEET ATTACHED ON PAGE
2
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (TO
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
LENGTH = 200 FEET
SLOPE = 0.50
4
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.20
0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 29.92
29.92
28.26
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60-V)
FLOW
TYPE
L (ft) _? S ($) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S (i) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S (t) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (£t) _? S M =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S (t) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S 00 =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S (t) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME
(min) =
0.00
TOTAL LENGTH = 200
L/180+10= 11.11
<
29.92
CHOOSE LESSER
.
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Tc (min)= 29.92
29.92
28.26
USE Tc = 11
11
11
INTENSITY (I) (iph)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
I = 2.46
4.31
6.92
NOTE: INTENSITIES TAKEN
FROM FIGURE
3-1
RUNOFF (Q= CIA) (cfe)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Q = 0.25
0.43
0.87
CONCLUDE:COMPARE WITH DEVELOPED FLOWS
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
PAGE 4
PROJECT: MULBERRY GREEN
LOCATION:FORT COLLINS
FILE: MULRAT
AREA (A)= 0.390 ACRES
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FLOW TO WEST MULBERRY STREET
FROM DEVELOPEDBASIN
DATE 06/13/96
PROD. N0.1151-24-95
BY . MEG
RUNOFF COBF. (C)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.64
0.64
0.80
SEE SPREAD SHEET ATTACHED ON PAGE
2
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc)
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
NOT APLICABLE
LENGTH = FEET
SLOPE =NA
i
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.20
0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 0.00
0.00
0.00
TRAVEL TIME (It) =L/(60*V)
FLOW TYPE
L (ft) = 200 S (%) =
0.50 GUTTER
V (fps) =
1.50
Tt(min)=
2.22
L (ft) _? S (%) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S (t) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S (%) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _. S (i) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _. S (6) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _. S M =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME
(min) =
2.22
TOTAL LENGTH = 200
L/180+10= 11.11
>
2.22
CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Tc (min)= 2.22
2.22
2.22
USE Tc = 5
5
5
INTENSITY (I) (iph)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
I = 3.29
5.64
9.30
NOTE: INTENSITIES TAKEN
FROM FIGURE
3-1
RUNOFF (Q= CIA) (cfs)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Q = 0.82
1.41
2.91
Qhist, 0.25
0.43
0.87
CONCLUDE:THE INCREASE IS ANTICIPATED BY THE SWMM MODEL FOR CONVEYANCE ELEMENT 205
IN THE SWMM MODEL FOR THE OLD TOWN BASIN
PAGE 5
PROJECT: MULBERRY GREEN
LOCATION:FORT COLLINS
FILE: MULRAT
AREA (A)= 0.040 ACRES
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT B
FROM SUBBASIN Ib
RUNOFF COEF. (C)
2 YEAR 10 YEAR
C = 0.39 0.39
SEE SPREAD SHEET ATTACHED ON PAGE
2
100 YEAR
0.48
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc)
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti) not applicable
LENGTH =na FEET SLOPE =na %
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
C = 0.20 0.20 0.25
Ti (min)= 0.00 0.00 0.00
DATE 06/13/96
PROJ. NO.1151-24-95
BY MEO
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(GO +V) FLOW TYPE
L (f t) = 50 S ($) = 1.00 LAWN V (fps) = 0.70 Tt(min)= 1.19
L (f t) =? S ($) = 1.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (f t) =? S ($) = 1.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 It(min)= 0.00
L (f t) =? S ($),= 1.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (f t) =? S ($) = 1.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (f t) =? S M = 1.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
L (f t) =? S ($) = 1.00 NONE V (fps) = 0.00 Tt(min)= 0.00
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2 TOTAL TRAVEL TIME (min) = 1.19
TOTAL LENGTH = 50 L/180+10= 10.28 > 1.19 CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
TC (min)= 1.19 _1.19 1.19
USE Tc = 5 5 5
INTENSITY (I) (iph)
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
I = 3.29 5.64 9.30
NOTE: INTENSITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-1
RUNOFF (Q= CIA) (cfs)
2 YEAR 10 YEAR 100 YEAR
Q = 0.05 0.09 0.18
CONCLUDB:THESE FLOWS ARE NEGLIGIBLE
PAGE 6
PROJECT: MULBERRY GREEN
LOCATION:FORT COLLINS
FILE: MULRAT
AREA (A)= 0.040 ACRES
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FLOW TO KINGS AUTO PLAZA
FROM SUBBASIN I0
DATE 04/20/96
PROD. NO.1151-24-95
BY MBO
RUNOFF COEF. (C)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.39
0.39
0.48
SEE SPREAD SHEET ATTACHED ON PAGE 2
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc)
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
LENGTH = 2S FEET
SLOPE = 6.00
$
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.20
0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 4.66
4.66
4.40
TRAVEL TIME (It) =L/(60*V)
FLOW TYPE
L (ft) =? S ($) =
0.50 GUTTER
V (fps) =
1.50
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S ($) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S ($) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S ($) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S ($) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S ($) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S ($) =
1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME
(min) =
0.00
TOTAL LENGTH = 25
L/180+10= 10.14
>
4.66
CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Tc (min)= 4.66
4.66
4.40
USE Tc = 5
5
5
INTENSITY (I) (iph)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
I = 3.29
5.64
9.30
NOTE: INTENSITIES TAKEN
FROM FIGURE
3-1
RUNOFF (Q= CIA) (cfs)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Q = 0.05
0.09
0.18
CONCLUDE:THESE FLOWS ARE NEGLIGIBLE
R.
PAGE 7
PROJECT: MULBERRY GREEN
LOCATION:FORT COLLINS
FILE: MULRAT
AREA (A)= 0.400 ACRES
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FLOW TO NORTH END OF ALLEY
FROM SUBBASIN Iaa
DATE 06/13/96
PROJ. NO.1151-24-95
BY MEO
RUNOFF COEF. (C)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.75
0.75
0.94
SEE SPREAD SHEET ATTACHED ON PAGE
2
TIME OF CONCENTRATION (Tc)
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME (Ti)
NOT APPLICABLE
LENGTH =? FEET
SLOPE =?
11
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.20
0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 0.00
0.00
0.00
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60*V)
FLOW TYPE
L (ft) = 200 S M =
0.50 GUTTER
V (fps) =
1.50
Tt(min)=
2.22
L (ft) =? S (%)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S (&)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S (t)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S (t)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S (8)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) =? S (4)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN FROM FIGURE 3-2
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME
(min) =
2.22
TOTAL LENGTH = 200
L/180+10= 11.11
>
2.22
CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Tc (min)= 2.22
2.22
2.22
USE Tc = 5
5
5
INTENSITY (I) (iph)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
I 3.29
5.64
9.30
NOTE: INTENSITIES TAKEN
FROM FIGURE
3-1
RUNOFF (Q= CIA) (cfs)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Q = 0.99
1.69
3.49
CONCLUDE:COMPARE WITH CAPACITY OF ALLEY
SEE PAGE 9
FOR REFERENCE ONLY
PAGE 8
PROJECT: MULBERRY GREEN
LOCATION:FORT COLLINS
FILE: MULRAT
AREA (A)= 0.530 ACRES
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
FLOW TO CONCENTRATION POINT A
FROM SUBBASIN Isar
DATE 04/20/96
PROJ. NO.1151-24-95
BY HBO
RUNOFF CORP. (C)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.76
0.76
0.95
SSE SPREAD SHEET ATTACHED ON PAGE 2
TIME OF CONCENTRATION
(Tc)
OVERLAND TRAVEL TIME
(Ti)
NOT APPLICABLE
LENGTH =? FEET
SLOPE _?
A
2 YEAR
30 YEAR
100 YEAR
C = 0.20
0.20
0.25
Ti (min)= 0.00
0.00
0.00
TRAVEL TIME (Tt)=L/(60-V)
FLOW TYPE
L (ft) = 200 S
(%) =
0.50 GUTTER
V (fps) =
1.50
Tt(min)=
2.22
L (ft) = 1B S
($) =
3.50 GUTTER
V (fps) =
3.67
Tt(min)=
0.08
L (ft) = 100 S
($)
= 0.50 GUTTER
V (fps) =
1.50
Tt(min)=
1.11
L (ft) _? S
($)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S
($)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S
($)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
L (ft) _? S
($)
= 1.00 NONE
V (fps) =
0.00
Tt(min)=
0.00
ALL VELOCITIES TAKEN
FROM FIGURE 3-2
TOTAL TRAVEL
TIME
(min) =
3.42
TOTAL LENGTH =
318
L/180+10= 11.77
>
3.42
CHOOSE LESSER
Tc =Ti+TOTAL TRAVEL TIME
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Tc (min)= 3.42
3.42
3.42
USE Tc = 5
5
5
INTENSITY (I) (iph)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
•100 YEAR
I = 3.29
5.64
9.30
NOTE: INTENSITIES
TAKEN
FROM FIGURE
3-1
RUNOFF (Q= CIA) (cfe)
2 YEAR
10 YEAR
100 YEAR
Q = 1.32
2.26
4.67
CONCLUDE:FOR REFERENCE ONLY
SHEAR ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
PAGE 9
CHANNEL CAPACITY
PROJECT NAME:
MULBERRY GREEN
DATE: 06/13/96
PROJECT NO.
1151-24-96
BY MEO
SWALE DESCRIPTION:
PAVED ALLEY WITH INVERTED CROWN
FILE: MULCHAN
CAPACITY OF TRIANGULAR OR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL
CHANNEL CONFIGURATION: TRIANGULAR Q100 (cfe) =
3.49
CHANNEL LINING: CONCRETE
Da Db
Dc Sc
n W I
(ft) (ft)
-_--
(ft) (%)
____ _---
(ft) (ft)
----- __-- ----
-___
10.00 10.00
0.20 0.703
0.016 0.00 0.05
0.02
= LEFT BANK SLOPE
0.02
= RIGHT BANK SLOPE
'
DEPTH WIDTH
AREA PBRIM
R 2/3 Sc 1/2 Q
V
(ft) (ft)
(s.f.) (ft)
(A/P) (cfe)
_______ _______
(ft/sec)
_______
______________
0.20 20.00
______________
2.00 20.00
_______
0.22 0.08 3.35
1.68
0.15 15.00
1.13 15.00
0.18 0.08 1.56
1.38
0.10 10.00
0.50 10.00
0.14 0.08 0.53
1.06
0.05 5.00
0.13 5.00
0.09 0.08 0.08
0.67
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.08 0.00
0.00
#t#i*tftifif4f)t*fffit#4*t#fftifi
iitk#fk*44#titiifiifffiikf
*4##iiYf
iiifftRt
DEPTH WIDTH
AREA PERIM
R 2/3 Sc 1/2 Q
V
(ft) (ft)
(a.f.) (ft)
(A/P) (cfs)
(ft/sec)
CONCLUDE:ALLEY CAPACITY IS ADEQUATE
BECAUSE THE CROSS SLOPE AND
THE FLOWLINE
INCREASE
TO 3.3% AND 3.2%
RESPECTIVELY AT THE SIDEWALK.
THEREFORE
THE CAPACITY IS
INCREASE AT THIS POINT
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
PAGE 9
CHANNEL CAPACITY
i
PROJECT NAME: MULBERRY GREEN DATE: 06/13/96
PROJECT NO. : 1151-24-96 BY : MHO
SWALE DESCRIPTION: PAVED ALLEY WITH INVERTED CROWN
FILE: MULCHAN
CAPACITY OF TRIANGULAR OR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL
CHANNEL CONFIGURATION: TRIANGULAR Q100 (cfs) = 3.49
CHANNEL LINING: CONCRETE
Da Db Dc Sc n W I
Aft) (ft) (ft) (1k) (ft) (ft)
____ ---_ ---- ____ ----- --_- -_--
10.00 10.00 0.20 0.703 0.016 0.00 0.05
0.02 = LEFT BANK SLOPE
0.02 = RIGHT BANK SLOPE
DEPTH WIDTH AREA PERIM R 2/3 . Sc 1/2 Q V
(ft) (ft) (s.f.) (£t) (A/P) (c£s) (ft/sec)
------- ----------------------------------- --------------
0.20 20.00 2.00 20.00 0.22 0.08 3.35 1.68
0.15 15.00 1.13 15.00 0.18 0.08 1.56 1.38
0.10 10.00 0.50 10.00 0.14 0.08 0.53 1.06
0.05 5.00 0.13 5.00 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.67
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00
r xxttxxx+rrrrr++++txt+++rrrrrtttrtrxtr+rrrrrrr+++++rxrr+r++x+++r+rrrrtrx
DEPTH WIDTH AREA PERIM R 2/3 Sc 1/2 Q V
(ft) (ft) (s.f.) (ft) (A/P) (cfs) (ft/sec)
CONCLUDE:ALLEY CAPACITY IS ADEQUATE BECAUSE THE CROSS SLOPE AND THE PLOWLINE
INCREASE TO 3.3% AND 3.2% RESPECTIVELY AT THE SIDEWALK.
THEREFORE THE CAPACITY IS INCREASED AT THIS POINT
SHEAR ENGINEERING CORPORATION
PAGE 9A
CHANNEL CAPACITY
PROJECT NAME: MULBERRY GREEN DATE: 06/24/96
PROJECT NO. : 1151-24-96 BY : MEO
SWALE DESCRIPTION: CURBED CONCRETE CHANNEL BETWEEN UNITS 2-8
AND EAST PROPERTY LINE. SHE DETAIL ON SHEET 6
FILE: MULCHAN
CAPACITY OF TRIANGULAR OR TRAPEZOIDAL CHANNEL
CHANNEL CONFIGURATION: RECTANGULAR Q100 (cfs) = 0.18
CHANNEL LINING: CONCRETE
Da Db Dc Sc n W I
(ft) (ft) (ft) (%) (ft) (ft)
____ ____ ---- -_-- _____ ____ ____
0.001 0.001 0.56 0.400 0.016 2.00 0.05
560.00 = LEFT BANK SLOPE
560.00 = RIGHT BANK SLOPE
DEPTH WIDTH AREA PERIM R 2/3 Sc 1/2 Q V
(ft) (ft) (s.f.) (ft) (A/P) (cfs) (ft/sec)
_______ ______________ _______ ______________ _______ _______
0.56 2.00 1.12 3.12 0.51 0.06 3.33 2.97
0.51 2.00 1.02 3.02 0.49 0.06 2.91 2.85
0.46 2.00 0.92 2.92 0.46 0.06 2.50 2.72
0.41 2.00 0.82 2.82 0.44 0.06 2.12 2.58
0.36 2.00 0.72 2.72 0.41 0.06 1.74 2.42
++x+++++++++r++rtrxxxxrt+rt+x++++rt++r++++rrrrrrrrrx+xxx+rt++++++r+++rrrtxrx
DEPTH WIDTH AREA PERIM R 2/3 Sc 1/2 Q V
(ft) (ft) (s.f.) (ft) (A/P) (cfs) (ft/sec)
CONCLUDE:THE CURBED CONCRETE CHANNEL AT MINIMUM SLOPE IS ADEQUATE
-WN BASINS #1,02,/3 ..100 YR STORM.. FUTURE CONDITIONS
L.,-.NE/BULL FARM CHANGES..220/90/220 CPS NEW MERCER CAP ... ADD'L IMPERV COLLEGE
... PEAR FLOWS, STAGES AND STORAGES OF GUTTERS AND DETENSION DAMS **•
CONVEYANCE
PEAR
STAGE STORAGE
TIME
ELEMENT
(CFS)
(FT) (AC -FT)
(HR/MIN)
238
125.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
45.
213
156.
1.1
0
50.
233
156.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
50.
235
146.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
50.
234
10.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
50.
210
120.
.9
0
40.
209
99.
.8
0
40..,
212
140.
1.1
0
55.
208
185.
9.1
0
40.
207
249.
9.3
0
45.
132
176.
(DIRECT .FLOW)
1
0.
221
140.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
55.
232
86.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0.
55.
206
581.
3.8 9.1
1
0.
222
99.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
55.
211
122.
9.0
0
45.
205
696.
.0 2.9
1
0.
230
195.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
50.
227
696.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
0.
113
86.
.8
0
40.
117
15.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
0.
231
109.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
50.
228
577.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
0.
127
86.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
40.
107
81.
8.8
0
40.
217
486.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
20.
338
0.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
0.
204
669.
.0 11.1
1
5.
128
43.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
40.
106
160.
9.0
0
40.
344
436.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
25.
342
486.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
20.
314
10.
1.5 2.4
1
35.
307
91.
1.8 2.2
0
40.
223
41.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
55.
224
669.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
5.
126
159.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
50.
105
279.
9.3
0
40.
311
438.
9.6
1
30.
343
50.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
20.
313
41.
8.5
0
40.
306
82.
2.0 5.5
1
15.
225
637.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
5.
115
223.
1.2
0
55.
104
320.
9.3
0
45.
357
438.
(DIRECT FLOW)
1
30.
312
67.
.9
0
40.
305
139.
3.0 4.5
0
55.
203
612.
.0 5.9
1
15.
114
82.
.8
0
40.
- 129
43.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
40.
130
223.
(DIRECT FLOW)
0
55.
RCE ref:90-411 - Sept. 16, 1993
APPENDIX II
Erosion Control Calculations
Erosion Control Sequencing schedule
Erosion Control security deposit estimate
RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION
PROJECT: STANDARD FORM A
COMPLETED BY: DATE: ¢ �b
DEVELOPED
ERODIBILITY
Asb
Lsb
Ssb
Lb
Sb
PS
SUBBAgIN
ZONE
(ac)
(ft)
M
(feet)
M
M
U .31
zoo
0.5
7
0,o�
TD
o.o
2�
Z
SAY
4-7
p,s
U.65
i•U
-A-L
11�Yi L�
g�
161
7ZI
Zoe
MARCH 1991 8-14 DESIGN CRITERIA
o rnrn000
o v4totoIn
in ODOD00Ooo
o mmm0000000
o 4 4 44U;llitntnlntn
v WW000000000oCocOco
0 CDOtrnOnrn(AONDtrnON0C%000
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O 444444444444InU;to
M O000DOCDtpCOOtOCOOlb00Olb
o rc000coo�rnrnrnrno+o+o+o�mo�o+rno�o�rn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N 00 CO O O 00 O W 00 CO CO 00 W O OD O CO 00 O CO O
o OM V 0 0 W W0r,rnrnrnrnrnr000o0000CID 00
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o
❑ H OD000o0000oocotoOwco000000COCO000oowOCID o
0 OoNM-qru)totn%D%D%D%a%D%orrrrnrnnrrCOCIO 00
p
00 � 00 00 O O CO 00 O CO 00 00 00 00 c0 co 00 co 00 00 co CO OD 00 co 00 co co
U
O t0 O N M V' V' 111 to In IL1 t0 t0 tD t0 tD t0 t0 t0 t0 t0 r r n r r n
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cn O c�1V'44; V'44V'V'44 V' V'444444V'V' 4V'V'
z 00 CO 00 00 00 O O 00 O OD O O O CO 00 00 CO 00 00 00 O 00 CO 00 00 O
H
a O V'OtHNMM V' V' V'vtnLnLntnlnLnu)tntnwtDw%Dt0tDn
a
O n cnr�v�rav����r�v�vwvwv�rv���r�sry
U aoo0ooa0000oaowomoo0oa0000000000�o�
E-4 O 0 w w 0 H H N N m m m m V I*--W-' V'lw KrvLLltntnmw 0
x
°, to oMo 0mw owm�m ow o�m ow o oa�oo�o oo�o oo�ow�m�w o
..o 0NIt)nOm00HrgHNNNNNMMMMM w v v CT'%T
1 o de . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
co Cs. ..iln N M M M M M V' V' -0 V q v V' V V' V V' V' -0 V' V'
CO OD CO O OD 00 00 O OD O CO co co O 00 CO 00 CO 00 00 Co 00 CO 00 CO CO
W N W
.a❑ aIn HOOHMvtototDtDtorn000000Co0000mrnrn00000
Q.' R C a d' N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M d' V' d' 4;
Er❑ N OD 00 co Co 00 00 00 00 CO OD CO OD CO CO CO CO OD OD 00 00 OD 00 co co 00 co
0 tDInODOHNMa V'InIntot0tDWtDtDnnrroCoCoOtOl
H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
En V' H N N M M M M M M M M P' ) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
COOCO0000OD000000 W OOOD0000OOD00OD00CDCOCOCD00OD
W
U to HHtonooOHNN MMMsr V'-w V V to to totDt0Wrr
z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M H N N N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M
Co co CO OO oo 00 00 00 Co 00 OD CO 00 OD CO O CO CO CO 00 00 OD OD OD CO 00
p O C7NtD00010HNNen(nm v V w.0 v a7lnM Lnlnt0t0%Dt0
W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
W M O O0 CO O0 O CO O OD O O 00 00 O0 O O OD 00 CO 00 00 00 O CO 00 CO O
a
to InInrnNMvtntDrrrcoo0000,o+rnrnrnrn000000
,a . . . . . . . . . . C.
N r000DOD000000OD00000000ODODCOCO00ODOD0000OD00000000
Ga
Z O V'InOMIf1tDOD0001000HH.-�IHNNNNMMMMMM
H . • . • • . • . . • . . .
N coON0000000H H1-1HHHH.-IHr1HHHHrIHH
n r 00 Co 00 00 00 CO 00 CO OD CO 00 0o CO 00 00 Co 00 00 CD 00 CO 00 00 00
In ON COH V'IA- n n0 M Ot O O H H H H H N N N M M M M M
H tpCOCOO;O�OOo000
nnrnnnnnnnnc0000oco0o00mcocococowooww
O w m 0 V'n01OHNM m-cr -cr m 0 mm%Dt0t0%Drnt0tDt0
H V'10nnnnCtl000OCOCDOCo000000CDOCOCCICOCOCD000DCO
rnnnnrrrnnnnrrnrnrrrrrnrnr
In D,o V tDr W COrtrrtGtotDtn V V mmc%aN %D-w ON %0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
O ONNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNHt- r;1400
rnnrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnrrr
x
00000000000000000000000000
O O H 00000000000000000000000000
azk+ .-INC1dInt0n000tOHNM V IntOrCOHNCNcnmv V U)
W Wes, HHHHH.-IHHHHNNMM V' V'In
a
EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: I�U1.>3�'r��si { 6RC >u STANDARD FORM B
COMPLETED BY: _ 1�EUJ 51}�,� ��(,1�1L�na�� DATE:
Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor
Method Value Value Comment
CQJV f�ICF-` U.U� I.0
iUhlC, ��Oi1 10 U•RO
5;14 �cavL� 1'U 0,0-1
So Apall �i�
MAJOR
PS
SUB
AREA
BASIN
BASIN
(Ac)
CALCULATIONS
�2•gb
1�
U' .31
GiNcokc. U.13�,
Gm-t-Grao0A 6,0Z u.
Sor� O,\o .,
.(,�3t,lu) I,u(,u3�o.35 = 1U
C Cool+ 0.21
0,5'xo:(X� LU�a3t,lU�+ U:,�o•Uaoa3
�Z11oX,3oh1) ►YIUU= �3.��•
l:
o.�7 i
C = C o.ol (I,u) t ,G3� •ul)� I ,U� — �,� �� 5
6 Fr =tl — (-Z�-y'w6d)] x,o 0
MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRITERIA
CONST SEQ
M-client/Maxwell/Erosion/ConstSeq
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
PROJECT: Mulberry Green
STANDARD FORM C
Project No: 1151-24-95
Date: 3/28/96
Revised:04/03/96
SEQUENCE FOR 19 _ONLY COMPLETED BY:MEO/Shear Engineering Corp.
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 196
Month J J A S O N D
OVERLOT GRADING ***
WIND EROSION CONTROL
* Soil Roughening ***
Perimeter Barrier
Additional Barriers
Vegetative Methods
Soil Sealant
Other
RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL
STRUCTURAL:
Sediment Trap/Basin
Inlet Filters
Straw Barriers
Silt Fence Barriers *** *** *** ***
Sand Bags
Bare Soil Preparation
Contour Furrows
Terracing
Asphalt/Concrete Paving *** ***
Other
VEGETATIVE:
Permanent Seed Planting
Mulching/Sealant
Temporary Seed Planting *** ***
Sod Installation
Nettings/Ma ts/B l anke is
Other
97
J F M A M J
STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: OWNER MAINTAINED BY: OWNER
VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: OWNER
DATE PREPAREDA/22/96 DATE SUBMITTED: 4 22 6
APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON:
May 23, 1996
Project No: 1151-24-95
Basil Hamdan
City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility
P.O. Box 580
Ft. Collins, Colorado 80522
Re: Erosion Control Cost Estimate for Mulberry Green
Lot 4, Block 105, Harrison's Addition; Fort Collins, Colorado
Dear Basil,
Attached is the erosion control security deposit estimate for Mulberry Green.
ESTIMATE 1:
315 LF of Silt Fence ® $ 3.00 per LF
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST:
ESTIMATE 2:
re -vegetate the disturbed area of 0.39 acres at $1,300.00 per acre
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST:
$ 945.00
$ 945.00
x 1.50
$ 19417.50
507.00
$ 507.00
x 1.50
S 760.50
In no instance shall the amount of the security be less than $1,000.00. Therefore, the total
required erosion control security deposit for Mulberry Green will be $1,417.50.
If you have any questions, please call at 226-5334.
Brian W. Shear,
Shear Engineering Corporation
BWS / meo
cc: B.K. Maxwell Company, Inc.
Dave Stringer, City of Fort Collins
4836 S. College, Suite 12 Ft. Collins, CO 80525 (970) 226-5334 FAX (970) 282-031 1
May 23, 1996
Project No: 1151-24-95
Re: EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS:
Erosion Control Cost Estimate for Mulberry Green
Lot 4, Block 105, Harrison's Addition; Fort Collins, Colorado
A. An erosion control security deposit is required in accordance with City of Fort Collins
policy (Chapter 7, Section C: SECURITY; page 7.23 of the City of Fort Collins
Development Manual). In no instance shall the amount of the security be less than $
1000.00.
i The cost to install the proposed erosion control measures is approximately $ 945.00.
Refer to the cost estimate attached in Appendix I. 1.5 times the cost to install the
erosion control measures is $,1,417.50.
ii. Based on current data provided by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility, and
based on an actual anticipated net affected area which will be disturbed by
construction activity (approximately 0.39 acres), we estimate that the cost to re -
vegetate the disturbed area will be $ 507.00 ($ 1,300.00 per acre x 0.39 acres). 1.5
times the cost to re -vegetate the disturbed area is $ 760.50. The $1,300.00 per acre
for re -seeding sites of less than 1 acre was quoted to us by the City of Fort Collins
Stormwater Utility personnel.
CONCLUSION:
The erosion control security deposit amount required for Mulberry Green will be
$19417.50.
APPENDIX III
Backup Diagrams and Exhibits
Table 3-3; Rational Method Runoff Coefficients for Composite Analysis
Table 3-4; Rational Method Frequency Adjustment Factors
Figure 3-2; Estimate of Average Flow Velocity for Use with the Rational Formula
Figure 3-1; City of Ft. Collins Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve
R-M-P Medium Density Planned Residential District — designation for medium density
areas planned as a unit (PUD) to provide a variation in use and building placements
with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet.
R-L-M Low Density Multiple Family District — areas containing low density multiple family
units or any other use in the R-L District with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet
for one -family or two-family dwellings and•9,000 square feet for multiple -family
dwellings.
M-L Low Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas for mobile home parks
containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 6 units per acre.
M-M Medium Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas of mobile home
parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 12 units per acre.
B-G General Business District — district designation for downtown business areas,
including a variety of permitted uses, with minimum lot areas equal to 112 of the total
floor area of the building.
B-P Planned Business District — designates areas planned as unit developments to
provide business services while protecting the surrounding residential areas with
minumum lot areas the same as R-M.
H B Highway
witch a minimBusiness umstrict — lot area equal to 1 /2 ofs an the totarea of lfloorta area of the building. busi-
nesses
B-L Limited Business District — designates areas for neighborhood convenience
centers, including a variety of community uses with minimum lot areas equal to two
times the total floor area of the building.
C Commercial District —designates areas of commercial, service and storage areas.
I-L Limited Industrial District — designates areas of light industrial uses with a minimum
area of lot equal to two times the total floor area of the building not to be less than
20,000 square feet.
I-P Industrial Park District —designates light industrial park areas containing controlled
industrial uses with minimum lot areas equal to two times the total floor area of the
building not to be less than 20,000 square feet.
I-G General Industrial District— designates areas of major industrial development.
T Transition District — designates areas which are in a transitional stage with regard
to ultimate development.
For current and more explicit definitions of land uses and zoning classifications, refer to the
Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapters 99 and 118.
Table 3-3
RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS
Runoff Coefficient
Character of Surface
Streets, Parking Lots, Drives:
Asphalt................................................................................................ 0.95
95
Concrete............................................................................................. 0.
Gravel................................................................................................. 0.50
Roofs............................. ............................................................................. 0.95
Lawns, Sandy Soil:
Flat<2%............................................................................................. 0.15
Average2 to 7%.................................................................................. 0.
Steep>7%.......................................................................................... 0.20
Lawns, Heavy Soil:
Flat <2% 0.20
Average 2 to 7% ............... 0.25
0.35
Steep>7%......... :................................................................................
MAY 1984 3-4 DESIGN CRITERIA
3.1.7 Time of Concentration
In order to use the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curve, the time of concentration must be
known. This can be determined either by the following equation or the "Overland Time of
Flow Curves" from the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, included in this report (See
Figure 3-2).
Tc=1.87 1.1CC,) Dtr2
S'3
Where Tc = Time of Concentration, minutes
S = Slope of Basin, %
C = Rational Method Runoff Coefficient
D = Length of Basin, feet
C, = Frequency Adjustment Factor
Time of concentration calculations should reflect channel and storm sewer velocities as well
as overland flow times.
3.1.8 Adjustment for Infrequent Storms
The preceding variables are based on the initial storm, that is, the two to ten year storms. For
storms with higher intensities an adjustment of the runoff coefficient is required because of
the lessening amount of infiltration, depression retention, and other losses that have a
proportionally smaller effect on storm runoff.
These frequency adjustment factors are found in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4
RATIONAL METHOD FREQUENCY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Stone Return Period
Frequency Factor
(years)
C,
2 to 10
1.00
11 to25
1.10
26 to 50
1.20
51 to 100
1.25
Note: The product of C times C, shall not exceed 1.00
3.2 Analysis Methodology
The methods presented in this section will be instituted for use in the determination and/or verification
of runoff at specific design points in the drainage system. These methods are (1), the Rational Method
and (2) the Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure (CUHP). Other computer methods, such as
SWMM, STORM, and HEC-1 are allowable if results are not radically different than these two. Where
applicable, drainage systems proposed for construction should provide the minimum protection as
determined by the methodology so mentioned above.
3.2.1 Rational Method
For drainage basins of 200 acres or less, the runoff may be calculated by the Rational
Method, which is essentially the following equation:
Q = C,CIA
Where Q = Flow Quantity, cis
A = Total Area of Basin, acres
Cf = Storm Frequency Adjustment Factor (See Section 3.1.8)
C = Runoff Coefficient (See Section 3.1.6)
1 = Rainfall Intensity, inches per hour (See Section 3.1.4)
3.2.2 Colorado Urban Hydrograph Procedure
For basins larger than 200 acres, the design storm runoff should be analyzed by deriving
synthetic unit hydrographs. It is recommended that the Colorado Urban Hydrograph
Procedure be used for such analysis. This procedure is detailed in the Urban Storm Drainage
Criteria Manual, Volume 1, Section 4.
MAY 1984 3-5 DESIGN CRITERIA
DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL
RUNOFF
50
30
t— 20
z
Cr
U
w
0. 10
z
w
a
O 5
U
w
cc 3
0
U 2
w
F-
Q
1
=MN111111�
����I�lpffm
'
r
mill
.• I0111110
���
►
•I
Il
mw■mm�
■
Ili
LAN■Ca
.�
=Mw■■■■�■
��►�■M��►%■�ii
�MMMN
NN■�
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
No Text
Appendix IV
Portions of the Old Town Master Drainage Basin Plan
e l
I li[i[iliji IiII111,111
Scale:
1"=1 mi
a to
Figure 1.1:
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
OLD TOWN
MASTER DRAINAGE
BASIN PLAN for the
CITY of FORT COLLINS
1.2
� LLJF
o
m
�I
ce W J m u
LU usO gE
ZU 5
{
\.
rn
LLJ
N ¢OOG b O n
ZKZO—o
rrU
IJ
Jo wap
ii N O:FmU
,
.JLj
JINX
El
co
dT'
I
of
�.lr—Ir
r
,
r
-
ILI
_
r
V
i I I 1
I
Ir Ii i
v
j�j
J
-
—
.��—�
r----�I
Lf
-
H. _+•_�-�'L�u—I�_mx.
II Q.
!II f( l II.Ilnr
3nN
���
r
CaO
- -
li
IRE
0 d E
1
ooz>
> (u j
u <
oO �j Y'CNV
2:C <2.
CO < �= 00 J O)N I Lo
LZ Ln 0 �C<o U
CAI
A F T
L
UN
Storage functions were used at elements 203, 204, 205, and 206 in Subbasin 2 to
simulate the ponding of floodwaters behind the various north -south streets with high
crowns. During the 100-year flood, these ponds filled before the peak runoff. Once filled,
the ponds did little to attenuate flood peaks;.the inflow rate essentially equaled the outflow
rate. However, this was not the case with the less severe storms.
-Snlitter functions wer . is .d at elements 997- B-229 and' 4 5 99to
idistributp ois rom t r oon Ana areas hehind Colle.oe and M con to either the dnwntn�a
area nr Mvrtle Street Splitter functions were used at elements 215-216-217 and 218-
219-220to direct a portion of the runoff near the intersection of Myrtle`and Peterson
Streets into Subbasin 3. Splitter functions were also used at elements 324-325-326 and
327-328-329 to determine the amount of water that would be carried under Riverside
through the storm drains and the amount that would be left flowing down Riverside parallel
to the railroad tracts. A splitter function was used at elements 357-358-359 to account
for surface returns back to Mulberry along Smith Street.
Runoff in Upper'
Part of Subbasin 3. In the upper part of Subbasin 3, most of the
flood runoff, which included spills from the Larimer County Canal No. 2, collected along
Elizabeth Street. The runoff moved across Shields and onto CSU property. Storm drains
diverted some of the runoff to the south and into the Spring Creek drainage, although most
of the runoff flowed across CSU through the intramural field and eventually discharged into
' an open reach of the Arthur Ditch. The Arthur Ditch diverted much of the intercepted
flood runoff into a box culvert that extended under the CSU campus. The culvert, in turn,
carried water out of the Old Town drainage and into the Spring Creek drainage.' The ,
I capacity of the open reach of the ditch was exceeded during the course of the 100-year
flood, resulting in excess waters spilling into the CSU lagoon located immediately
downstream of the ditch near the CSU Student Center.
Routing and storage of floodwaters in the Arthur Ditch and CSU lagoon were
simulated through the use of splitter functions at elements 353-354-355 and 336-337-338
and through the use of the storage function for element 315.- It was assumed that the
Arthur Ditch was carrying 60 cfs of irrigation water for the duration of the flood. It was
estimated that the ditch could carry an additional 35 cfs before water. would overtop the
ditch banks and spill into the CSU lagoon.' Inflows exceeding 35 cfs were routed into the
lagoon using the splitter function for elements 353-354-355. It was further estimated that
releases through the Arthur Ditch box culvert under the CSU campus would increase once
the water elevation in the lagoon reached the top of the open ditch. The dam creating the
CSU lagoon is higher in elevation than the Arthur Ditch. Estimates for the additional
surcharged capacity of the box culvert were incorporated into the release rates for the
storage pond function at element 315. Surface spills, which would result from a complete
filling of the lagoon, were simulated to occur first at the low spot near the intersection of
Pitkin and Center Streets and then over the top of the dam itself near the Student Center.
The splitter function for elements 336-337-338 was used to distribute any surface spills.
Surface spillage did not occur from the lagoon for the future condition runs. The
regional detention pond near Skyline and Elizabeth Streets coupled with improvements to
the Larimer #2 Canal, reduces the current spilling into the Old Town Basin. The future
condition runs assumed those proposed improvements. The simulated spillage from the
lagoon for existing conditions was all to the south, near the intersection of Pitkin and
Center; no spillage occurred over the top of the dam into the lower part of Subbasin 3.
4.18�
Table 4.1.
Design Storms for Old Town Basin.
Time Penod
::.:,x
Rainfall
....... .
. ....... .....
Infenq,ie
.. ...........
.
..........
.. ........ . .
. ....... ...
........... . .
Entlirg
...... ........... ......... ... .
i% �i;::
m
ear
5 Year
Y
25 yia,
b:Year .
5
0.12
0.36
0.48
0.48
0.60
10
0.36
0.60
0.60
0.72
0.96
15
0.48
0.60
0.72
0.96
1.44
20
0.60
0.84
0.06
1.32
1.68
25
0.84
1.56
2.16
2.28
3.00
30
1.80
2.52
3.12
3.72
5.04
35
3.24
4.68
5.64
6.84
9.00
40
1.08
2.04
2.28
2.88
3.72
45
0.84
1.08
1.12
1.56
2.16
50
0.48
0.72
0.84
1.08.
1.56
55
0.36
0.48
0.72
0.84
1.20
60
0.36
0.48
0.60
0.72
0.84
65
0.36
0.48
0.60
0.72
0.60
70
0.24
0.36
0.48
0.48
0.48
75
0.24
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.36
80
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.36
0.36
85
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.36
0.24
90
0.12
0.24
0.12
0.36
0.24
95
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
0.24
100
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
105
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
110
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.24
115
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
120
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
at hand, recognizing that it is always possible to make additional refinements or revisions
to any model.
4.1.2 Basin Subdivision
As can be seen from Figure 4.1, the Old Town Basin below Larimer County Canal
No. 2 was subdivided into three smaller subbasins numbered 1, 2, and 3. Subbasin 1
encompassed the area in the northern part of the drainage; Subbasin 2 encompassed the
central part, including the downtown area; and Subbasin 3 covered the southern part.
Each of the subbasins was drained by a major storm sewer.
4.3
w.
Table 4.3.
Differences in Impervious Area Percentages for
Existing
and Future Conditions.
. ..... .. . ... . ..... . I .... ..
u6catcli m 6 nt
PercentImpervious'
.
R N Urribb
Existing ,.:
:u.:ure: .. . ... ...
6
40
70
102
50
70
108
40
60
109
40
60
201
40
60
203
50
70
204
60
70
205
50
70
206
40
60
211
40
60
304
40
60
305
40
60
312
40
50
360
20
40
361
60
100
M
z
0 <
ow
z
Z <
Q) ...........
LLJ T
CZ
77i < ZQ 0
P w
LLJ 1
M In
Z
LLJ 08. W
<U-
In OW_i
CL
0 F— OW 00
LLJ
R
Off
\Wl �11. d %-
.m 0 1
[D
M
lO
ID
co
00
00
rz
00
co
M
O
Cq
N
M
m
M
a
v
m
00
m
°'
m
m
m
m
m
0)
m
D)
m
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
m
a
m
a
aa)
a
a
0
c
�
u0i
o
u0i
v0i
M
M
M
o
O
o
0
00
0o
CO
co
00
M
00
00
Do
n
M
On
00
0o
M
n
W. .;
M
t0
to
e-
n
00
0o
O
a
(D
N
a
U)
0
Lo
a
0a0
00
M
n
CO
M
00
O
cn
N
N
M
M
M
to
3Y
a
a
v
v
a
v
a
m
0)
m
m
m
m
m
ro
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
It
o
,g
m 3
o
O
o
O
o
O
o
O
0
0
0
O
O
M
M
c
co
(0D
M
O
O
M
•Y
i
'iiQiii`i:ii`?,
N
N
M
M
O
W
co
M
M
(D
IO
ID
00
M
a
M
M
O)
t^
_i '
N
00
co
O
00
N
M
M
M
M
a
V7
0o
00
W
a
a
a
v
v
a
a
N
�
w
)n
0
0
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0a
> w
N
N
N
N
N
in
N
LO
co
o
co
O
coo
co
p
Y
O
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
ED
W ..
O
O
.-
M
M
w
O
�
N
.-
N
N
00
N
N
M
00
co
00
CO
co
0)
N
M
M
M
M
a
)O
3CY)
oI
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Q
lL
0 3CD
O
�'
0
0
0
O
O
p
N
O
003
M
m
ao
M
O`
O
O
LL
W
r.
m
0
n
I
a
U)
r.
r.
n
O
•-
N •� ::
CO
oaD
co
00o
m
Di
ai
.=
N
Cl)
00
of
Cl)
v
_
3
a
a
a
a
O1
°'
a
a
a
a
a
v
O1
a
a
a
co
TD
~
3
0
m
a
a
a
a
O
a
O
a
o
O
N
o
M
0
0
w
a
M
0
0
0
o
m
M
Cl)
6
m
6
M
M
n
LO
o)
a
m
0
n
C
•K
00
a
co
c0
00
O
00
o)
00
00
c0
O)
O
•-
—
—N
M
C`
10
A
M
W
M
a
a)0)
o)
00
D)
o)
m
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
7
C
C
0
C
O
O co
coO
O
O
r,
O
O
O
00
00
O
m
V
tO
00
On-
M
toO
O
O
M
00
M
N
M
1D
r0
0)
O
<D
n
OD
n
O
co
co
W
O
L
U
L
z°
07
a
a
v
a
a
a
a
a
U
m
v
e
in�;
a Ll
5.17
m
(D
o
a
0
a
m
m
00
00
m
O
m
co
(�
(D
m
n
to
n
m
a
m
a
m
m
0
0
°'
°'
(D
D'
n
°'
D(
n
m
m
C00
a
a
m
}
o
u»"
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
o
o
0
0
j Wes,
n
n
n
n
n
f0
a
_o
m
0
(o
(O
N
M
M
M
fD
O
m
CD
vn
M
M
a
m
to
O
M
N
0
M
n
..,
m
m
m
m
0
fD
n
m
a
(D
Cn0
m
m
m
m
p
(O
m
to
m
M
m
n
m
n
m
n
n
a00
000
m
m
m
m
m
o:
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
(O
10
(O
OD
M
co
N
co
M
Cl)
N
m
00
N
N
Cl
N
N
0
O
M
0
C
U
W
n
(D
Cl)
N
N
M
n
M
m
10
M
N
n
U
..
N •�'
m
m
m
m
O
to
n
Cn
M
1q
O
O
O
O
01
m
o
to
m
(D
CD
n
n
n
n
n
00
00
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
r
m
}
LL
y.
O
O
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
m V;
LL ::
N
40
N
00
N
00
N
0
NC)
10
m
m
N
a
M
0
111
0
O
O
Y
Q
N
(`a')
ca
Qi
N
M
O
N
O
wm
n
co
mo
mm
m
(:
n
n
co
ao
mo
0)
a)
m
m
r,
m
m
naa0
m
m
m
v
C3
iy
fmmmo
m
Go
O
O
o
o
o
O
o
0
p
n
>
m
m
M
n
LL
rn
m
CO
m
a--
y •�
(D
n
m
m
O
00
(O
n
D(
n
n
n
in
3
m
m
m
m
0
(D
CD
n
0)
n
000
a
a
a
a
(O
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a>
m:
t0
w
H
O
�,
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
O
Otoo
W
-
-
.-
au
a
a
m
�
m
s
m
O
m
°�
m
a
O
n
°�
m
a
GO
m
m
a
m
°>
m
a
n
m
m
m
a
CD
w
(D
m
a
00
0
(D
m
v
O
a)O
(D
m
a
n
m
a
m
N
n
m
a
m
M
n
m
a
CG
(D
n
m
a
O
n
n
m
a
m
n
m
a
O
OLei
00
m
a
c
U
[f
On
m
O
m
m
m
0
M
O
0
0
O
�
O
m
M
(D
O
O
0
m
m
O
N
0
N
t
U
co
cc
t
U
m
)
fD
0
n
O
00
0
m
0
O
0
00
(ND
0
co
0F
rl
(D
co
(D
mD
(DC)
On
!aC�
APPENDIX V
Stuffer Envelope
Master Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan
S S
let
—
v.
i
tot
J,
It
w
Ztd, X- 3 16, c
It 1-t-3-11-.1" Z. locy
7 ot 441
W,THf:Ir1a:11,Y1�.TI:RB]�RS:fl F.f�, iL13;
LEGEND NOTE: MLVLMIIM ALLOWABLE. FMOHBD FLOOR I r Ill V Rum J.uq mYmmA o d .rmA
ELEVATION L9 MEN MICE INORDER TO PROVIDE Ian Cyly Srxrldypwy.is, .nmyy 61lAFMABYOPLNI'ERVIOL'1MFSSF46
IRE REQUIR 1.5 SEPARATION FROM IMH 100. dmaeYrt rrLmwmrms.y 9.mra.M �G SITE
YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION NOTED M ME OLD Vasw•J 3xdw.nrl P•alP rtl6�•: fa„eI N•+ rr PxvlrvrAw
—•—BASDi BOUNDARY TO" MASTER DRAINAGE BASH PLAN. THE 100- supwit ammry^•^+""b"I"d'r N'n q'°' ICI u�,„%'w.. xm.rt c.:m.bm .�qs As
YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION IR 535 ACCORDING TO _e. _ _ _OFFER v se
BASIN DESIGNATION THE OLD TOWNMASIER DRAINAGE BASIN PLAIN. 2 TYPED aR d Kam oxti. ale m by q...ee a.U^ Ium 9w Iw�w ).10 aaR, w " u..u,r nm:,.Yxws r.11'xu mw.. Pl.vs Isms 9a)
O CONCENTRATION FOUNT FINAL GRADING LY THE ALLET SHALL MATCH ^r �+.• a ID]ro Noll 0
9aIMP'N is
SWUC VIVO' THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS ON THE WEST SIDE 3. a mw.n�m .Al.xb I,x .m:pr .n as, Saw, d T"1 - W. ist— FLOW DIRECTION OF IHEALLEI'. I Colm:bmpwtixrF®Im •Rw�.le, 1M.,Wp Tr..�Y.MWpenb^m. d.WnYle{Wsulbaa. r���r . � �: �I. r.W�x�r.
19az3V EXISTING ELEVATION AVAw1 dla Cr�r AN.Y).• b Nm:w:mSIR
I 2' 9PII�� Cob.0 o., d HSISa .
Q+IKy Cm�a:.J m. w�vMD1Ow Owy C...k SUMMARY OF LaS"VIOU3IN%S FOR. TALIA Irr. rTslvgl�.
.... PROPoSED ELEVATION Dnn Smnx D• PSC mmm MONE I5w N DEVELOPED SR'E D�6� ('
MimeWlelminaa 5aU¢ PaeOOLO 3JSW.r 8 Mn
Am MRa.mm wrcmm.::. NMm""IN3 mom"" rrAvrel
a C Amn•iY u m tr :r m mJl mtiJy,hn •Sus (Soul f
�IInIr QwuW WusrW, VuyE Rmm vREPPE PRO P,,, INS
EROSION CONTROL LEGEND RN Ir K .I-.m„ m W. _ mr,. Val —0;6 -am — am
wend9eu�m.l a Iwro
N.D m 005
SILT
Y. KID
HAYBALNCE I T v SIN. •m ,,.In.l� i�0.`� 'rwr u]v �Ni:.=.I ma,
r F,......,Y.�.+.
W tlAYBA1.E BARR2EB lY.�eY.w y..rxrdlY,Nrtbr•<oeY58nt cam 9:111 AALE^ V.
LIP UTO
INS
III \ __ YYtrll �yta..
LYENGS A P A R K N c RI, as d R ..uL�..•r := .""".' v,a::.. xvro,ua...., ..u..a.x i.
S T N G "EA S I 6 AY 0s6Ra ! Y• 21R1 o.'vM Arl• ram CONCRETE BLOCK AND FRAME
YM,N�N•N3•r I��A8yyEm m I SEMICE GARAGE AND OFFICE tr 2�'Oi
tl \ all
1 M" L a w1wOmNw I FINISH FLOOR 6996.)) I RW 9.n. w I3tr"rU ,a.Rlf.Am
II (: KEDGE OF ASPHALT .N i,rarYl�Nr•iY Va mY•F•Wvf w.�.�lrtry `.��`INArerYYMYim�.A.x,a
I. Y 9 aa� PARKING LOT LIGHT (TYPICAL) P�Nr M..•MKa.A.SKF+iAt
Fn E •pl rlxY,e.avu 4a�rLr„rL.wiI8r11wA V r.jAE.„5^>
wl n
II
ARE F, CRISP IWAY"W
Re
M1 a ''En _
M1al I ° l�P 9J.[9:. � � _ _A 9 ])) .�a Mv. r,v.Y a Fm MwIq.WF..
(93 US . -
ur A�= bN W.. :... fM NJSE�
I ...
�F CE,N...mo+.rw4mw�.:®.mwa
F I I F.F. 98.3 F.F. BILL LF. 96.7 F.F. 65.E lb CONMUCDON SEQUENCE
A I F.F. 9fA jF'FtW89)5 PRIPPRIP
FF. 95.0 0.01AC. 4 .u• Fj v I 6 7 AC• PRW3 : ALAAI Gram II.j rOw C
v1. SE9VLYCe lox isONLYIF Pill „„�D' t� J DO 4
)N9 x.N,
Ir � F.F.9 LO a•1Ell 7 TtJ�5�)�� ' ;LF>
a D,
" <
PER_
la W — C!— �x O.OIAr A� N
a
ONLY)
Frt T� ,:,ry _ ... ......(IIIONLY)u : AnVL (
u .x
I ONE STORY BRICK RESIDENCE
0 i _Pluramm
le I jo � WITH BASEMENT � I N�4aNmfl..m
J NHR 9 f I FRAME r,NLY n OSYn...:::::,. 9FENEH
__ — . I•' r Al la d, OW
GARAGE w .L.rE wTruxai
1 Yo:x, TxNw uwnlw
A 9im cF .,,Y,,.w..,��..:,.wu..A U..,,a.
___j
L Ay as a 9, f A • .. n. r•, „s. m w
is • ` +. I 1 alley A PAT RISE
o� ay,
® �•u I Ed
0.0 SAO je 4 —{p •t r
APHILL
•alkt Pr —I — P—•�CJ ,x VW`T R�W y •~� —P x uP ��L—� munm Ia•�x,mu w�a•W. •.a.
LIP
1 RISER l a LINE
OF
029
4 ... ...
J I P'l „, •,,R'r +,•�. W , . .., .... •.. City of Fart Colonel, Colorado
II 1 < I La JTIII PLAN APPROVAL
EXIST. BERM TO REMAIN ... 'LIP
L -06 L
I „..„m,.x...R.v .... s, n. I. ,. a ... 11" w all 91„ ,Rm .. .. .... PIPE 1. ARNWE' N PLACE DURING CONSTRUCTION DIRECTOR OF munmiwo am
IN PLACE OF SILT FENCE Iw. a... ... II .... I.) m. w. ,•• FEES ,„ n. P. .,. ....... ...... • •n ..• m.... ..„ ..„ .:.... .,.. ..• wrzx • x crosrtx w,m PREY wu, Hun ,v. CHECKED BY
PAR
• •..." •a .m,... e.•. ..r• "1 "1 ..
. .. _ CHECKED BY smwurte ww n¢
• 11 u, @ ILL"1 •." a." ,." •.x ...• ,.w •.n .n ..0 .., SASS ,...0 •.a. ...
• ,a .r Far .n .o •.x . a .... a e. .... .... .:
CHECKED BYE
SECTION A —A .:m.. m. ::..A.. .m :. .. .w.: NO .F..:.), w)
..) SCALE ..a ..,...,...„ S." •.IN ........................ s, �.. ... cxICRE9 Er — w.E
_. CHECKED Rr
eFvlsloxs oa: IRBB o�.N anw. 9M M SHEAR •ENGINEERING CORPORATION TITLE MASTER GRADING rDRAINAGE IF EROSION CONTROL PLAN Panto No. SHEET No, No OF
-- - ---- - OeIE 9E)k Cox I H W C IM EO B.K. MA ELL CO.. INC. 4636 90. COLLEGE AVE, SUITE 12. FORT COLLINS, COLORA00 W525 MULBERRY GREEN 3 La
SwM MNOVN ews PHONE: (9T0) 226-5334 (9T0) 226-4451 FAR: (9]0) 2B2-0311 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1161-24,5 V