Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 05/03/2005PROPERTY OF Final Approved Repo • G _ _. FORT � S .- - A uto._s_. o DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT The Human Bean - North College Avenue Prepared for: SS Blue Sky Investments, LLC 4625 Regency Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 Ph. 970.567.2157 Fax 970.223.9371 Prepared by: Interwest Consulting Group 1218 W. Ash, Suite C Windsor, Colorado 80550 Ph. 970.674.3300 Fax 970.674.3303 November 24, 2004 January 12, 2005 March 9, 2005 Revised April 20, 2005 April 20, 2005 Mr. Wes Lamarque City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 RE: Drainage and Erosion Control Report — The Human Bean — North College Ave. Dear Wes: We are pleased to submit to you for your final approval this Drainage and Erosion Control Report for The Human Bean — North College Avenue. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David Holloway Project Engineer Terry odrigue Colorado Professional Engineer No. 30697 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Description..........................................................................................................1 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics...........................................................................................1 ' 1.3 Proposed Site Characteristics..........................................................................................1 1.4 Design Criteria................................................................................................................2 t 1.5 Master Drainage Basin....................................................................................................2 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE t3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN...................................................................3 3.1 Method............................................................................................................................3 I 3.2 3.3 General Flow Routing.....................................................................................................3 Proposed Drainage Plan ..................................................................................................3 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions............................................4 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................5 4.1 Pond Description.............................................................................................................5 5. EROSION CONTROL...........................................................................................................5 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures........................................................................5 5.2 5.3 Dust Abatement...............................................................................................................5 Tracking Mud on City Streets.........................................................................................6 5.4 Maintenance....................................................................................................................6 II 5.5 Permanent Stabilization..................................................................................................6 6. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................7 1 1 Appendix A: Maps and Figures Appendix B: Hydrologic Calculations Appendix C: Water Quality Calculations Appendix D: Detention Pond & Outlet Sizing Calculations Appendix E: Erosion Control Calculations 1 1 Li I u 1 I 11 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description The Human Bean is a proposed drive-thru coffee shop located on North College Avenue in the southeast quarter of Section 2, Township 7 North, Range 69 West, of the 61h Principal Meridian in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The nearest intersection to the north would be Alpine Street and to the south is Vine Drive. A location map is provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics The existing site is currently being used as a temporary storing site for U-Haul trailers and trucks. The soils in the area are reported in the Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado as being predominately Nunn Clay Loams (soil numbers 73). These soils belong to the hydrologic group C and are known to have slight to moderate erosive characteristics and slow to moderate runoff characteristics. The site historically drains at approximately one percent from northeast to southwest into the Josh Ames Ditch. The site is located within Zone AE of the Poudre River Floodplain per the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, Community Panel Number 080102 0004 C, revised March 18, 1996. Base Flood Elevations, (B.F.E.), have been determined and for this site the B.F.E. is estimated at an elevation 4965.50. There is a 1% annual chance that these areas will be flooded. 1.3 Proposed Site Characteristics This report defines the proposed drainage and erosion control plan for The Human Bean — North College Avenue. The plan includes consideration of all on -site and tributary off -site runoff and the design of all drainage facilities required with this development. As stated above, the existing site is located in the FEMA floodplain. Our client is proposing to floodproof the proposed structure per City of Fort Collins Floodproofmg Regulations to 2- feet above the base flood elevation. Therefore, the structure will be floodproofed to an elevation of 4967.50. In accordance with applicable floodplain regulations (Chapter 10 of City Code) dry access has been provided from the proposed entrance off College along the north side of the Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Human Bean - North College Avenue Page 1 April 20, 2005 I 11 1 1 1 [1 t I 1 1 1 proposed structure. Also in accordance with Chapter 10 of the City Code all floatable materials (tables, chairs, trash cans, trash dumpsters, bike racks, etc.) shall be anchored or bolted down. The proposed foundation type will be slab -on -grade. A floodplain use permit will be required for each structure and each site construction element (detention ponds, bike paths, parking lots, utilities, etc.) in the floodplain. Before a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) is issued a floodproofing certificate must be approved. Site frontage is along State Highway 287 (College Avenue) and improvements to College Avenue will be constructed to bring the cross section up to the City of Fort Collins 4-lane Arterial Street Standard. 1.4 Design Criteria This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the City of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), dated May 1984 and revised in January 1997. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD) dated 1984, developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments have been utilized. The rainfall criteria used was the April 1999 amended criteria. This report is also in compliance with Chapter 10 of the City Code — Flood Prevention and Protection. 1.5 Master Drainage Basin. The Human Bean —North College Avenue is locatedwithih the Dry Creek Master Drainage Basin. 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE The historic (existing) flows draining to or through the site consist primarily of on -site flows with some off_ site flows from the adjoining property to the north and the west half of College Avenue. The overall drainage pattern for the entire site is via overland flow in a southwesterly direction at slopes that range from 0.5 to 2 percent to an existing drainage swale that discharges into the Josh Ames Ditch. An existing 18-inch Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) flows south along the College Avenue frontage of the proposed site. This 18-inch CMP discharges into the Josh Ames Ditch and will be the proposed outlet for this site. Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Human Bean - North College Avenue Page 2 April 20, 2005 I 1 1 1 r I 1 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN 3.1 Method The Rational Method was used to determine the 10-year and 100-year flows for the sub - basins indicated in this drainage report. Drainage facilities were designed to convey the 100- year peak flows. The hydrologic calculations are found in Appendix B of this report. 3.2 General Flow Routing The proposed drainage pattern adheres to existing site topography and conveys flows from north to south. The proposed drainage pattern conveys flows towards two (2) sidewalk chases, which discharge into the proposed detention facility at the southeast corner of the site. At this location a water quality structure with an orifice into a proposed 18-inch storm pipe that flows into a proposed manhole that connects to an existing 18-inch CUT storm pipe. The existing 18-inch storm pipe flows south and eventually discharges into the Josh Ames Ditch. 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each sub -basin and at each design point is provided in the following paragraphs. Certain sub -basins are combined for discussion purposes where practicable, and discussed relative to the design point to which the sub -basins drain. Discussions of the detailed design methodologies for the drainage facilities identified in this section are included in the following sections. Please refer to the drainage plan included with this report for basin locations. Runoff from Sub -basin 1 will be conveyed via overland flow, from northwest to southeast, to a 2-foot curb cut and sidewalk chase at Design Point 1. The proposed sidewalk chase releases flows south into the proposed detention facility. Runoff from Sub -basin 2 and OS-1 will be conveyed via overland and gutter flow to Design Point 2 where a 2-foot curb cut and sidewalk chase discharge flows into the proposed -detention facility. Sub -basin 2 and OS-1 encompass the entire western portion of the proposed site. The proposed detention pond is the area referred to as Sub -basin 3. The runoff from this area is detained in the proposed pond. (Refer to Section 4.1 for a description of the pond.) Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Human Bean - North College Avenue Page 3 April 20, 2005 I Runoff from Sub -basin 4 is conveyed across the property directly to the south into an ' existing drainage swale that eventually discharges into the Josh Ames Ditch. ' Runoff from Sub -basin 5 will be conveyed via overland flow along the north property line to the west side of the property and ultimately south, into the existing swale, which discharges ' into the Josh Ames Ditch. ' Runoff from Sub -basin 6 will be conveyed via overland flow along the north property line to the east, onto College Avenue. Flows will ultimately be conveyed south, to the Josh Ames Ditch. 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions ' The Rational Method was used to determine the 10-year and 100-year peak runoff values for each sub -basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using Table 3-2 of the SDDCCS Manual. ' The Rational Method is given by: ' Q = C,CIA (1) where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cf is ' the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration. The frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is 1.0 for the initial 2-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100- year storm. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics. 1 The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort ' .Collins (Figure 3.1 of SDDCCS). In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves, the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to determine the time of concentration ' to = tl + tt (2) ' where to is the time of concentration in minutes, ti is the initial or overland flow time in ' minutes, and tt is the conveyance travel time in minutes. The initial or overland flow time is calculated with the SDDCCS Manual equation: 'IDrainage and Erosion Control Report Page 4 IL The Human Bean - North College Avenue April 20, 2005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ti = [1.87(l.1 - CCf)L0.5]/(S)0.33 (3) where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cf are as defined previously. All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached drainage plan are included in Appendix B of this report. 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 4.1 Pond Description A proposed detention facility providing both, water quality and detention volume has been designed for this site. The proposed outlet structure is a water quality structure per USDFCD criteria. It is designed to release at a 2-year historic rate, which is approximately 0.10 cfs. A 2-inch orifice plate on the outlet pipe regulates this release rate. The 100-year water surface elevation for the proposed pond is 4965.50. A proposed spillway will convey flows in excess of the 100-year onto College Avenue. All water quality calculations can be found in Appendix C of this report. All pond design and outlet sizing calculations can be found in Appendix D of this report. 5. EROSION CONTROL 67 1 5.2 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on -site by use of silt fences, straw bale barriers, gravel construction entrances, and seeding and mulch. The measures are designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort Collins. During overlot and final grading the soil will be roughened and furrowed perpendicular to the prevailing winds. Straw bale dikes will be placed along proposed swales. Erosion control effectiveness, rainfall performance calculations and a construction schedule are provided in Appendix E. Dust Abatement During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of-way provided by the City or elsewhere, the Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Human Bean - North College Avenue Page 5 April 20, 2005 I 1 1 1 1 1 I contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor shall carry out proper efficient measures wherever necessary to reduce dust nuisance. Efficient measures shall be taken to prevent dust nuisance that has originated from the contractor's operations from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right-of-way or elsewhere. 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets or rights -of - way unless so approved by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown on the Erosion Control Plan, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. 5.4 Maintenance All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw bale dikes or silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps (behind straw bale barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal approximately one-half of trap storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. 5.5 Permanent Stabilization A vegetative cover shall be established within one and one-half years on disturbed areas and soil stockpiles not otherwise permanently stabilized. Vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature enough to control soil erosion to the satisfaction of the City Inspector and to survive severe weather conditions. Drainage and Erosion Control Report The Human Bean - North College Avenue Page 6 April 20, 2005 6. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), May 1984. 2. Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1980. 3. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3, dated September 1992. `Flood 4. City of Fort Collins Municipal Code and Charter, Chapter 10, Prevention and Protection". i rf: Iv F^l n , r, „ b Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 7 April! The Human Bean - North College Avenue April! 00 = ..' f �• 1 r i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C? _ IV £ IS PAS E: --.._g �. Q p [+ f 1$ PochtdJ '`- �----- _. Ill 1$ UOP4?. d m Undoan t Dr ailt8 IJ.1 i , i lie � y� U � m COu-ECGE 1 �I 1 x 1 p;ne„SL St IS ukk 1 1 i 1 1 1 0 VIri in w o w F t Sao LJIMi N Mason St 1 o� UI §S, a roc y4 l U,! t: , . V�ood St a N Howus St o c N Shci ood St > 0 4 o N YUnitcomb St a y� A Cn J ahy sn11001 tJ P! Gram Ave Elm Ct ------ - is Park S[ w a N Shields St W 0 T ClY � VVIOSI St o, ca W J a u 0 0 z 1 FLOOD /tIGURANXE RATE /V1RP c ° V W `o a "�iV � E m y y q u ®O m s 6 z C c E t a o E W Y o�=Zo W O 00 5 ° ? gE a8� TE O= a e � O li �"� f Gi C • 4 q O N goy°« 'of Eli O FVF�M b v m o�ELL� m`c�E amIN ma, a a 3'" "� b r�.a 'v vu•` g> Y}i � v. �,... 9a.�� Fi 'x J ti , a 4 x ;YYee, A r I I I . I I �1- I I I e I I I I I p 1 1 1 1 Index to Mapping Units 1—Altvan loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes __________ 2—Altvan loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes __________ 3—Altvan-Satanta loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4—Altvan-Satanta loams, 3 to 9 percent slopes 5—Aquepts, loamy --------------------------- 6—Aquepts, ponded _ 7—Ascalon sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ____ 8—Ascalon sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ____ -9—Bainville-Epping silt loams, 5 to 20 percent slopes---------------------------------- 10—Bainville-Keith complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes---------------------------------- 11—Baller-Carnero complex, 9 to 35 percent slopes _ - 12—Baller-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes---------------------------------- 13—Blackwell clay loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes ____ 14—Boyle gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ---------------------------------- 15—Boyle gravelly sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes ---------------------------------- 16—Boyle-Ratake gravelly sandy loams, 1 to 9 percent slopes ___________________________ 17—Boyle-Ratake gravelly sandy loams, 9 to 25 percent slopes ___________________________ 18—Breece coarse sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes---------------------------------- 19—Breece coarse sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes---------------------------------- 20—Breece coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes---------------------------------- 21—Carnero loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes -______-__ 22—Caruso clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ______ 23—Clergern fine sandy loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes---------------------------------- 24—Connerton-Barnum complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes ---------- -----------=------------ 25—Connerton-Barnum complex, 3 to-,9 percent slopes ---------------------------------- 26—Cushman fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ---------------------------------- 27—Cushman fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes -------------------------- ------ 28—Driggs loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ______ 29—Driggs loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes _________ 30—Elbeth-Moen loams, 5 to 30 percent slopes ____ 31—Farnuf loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes ______-_-_ 32—Farnuf-Boyle-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 25 percent slopes ___________________________ 33—Fluvaquents, nearly 34—Fort Collins loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ______ 35—Fort Collins loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes _____- 36—Fort Collins loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ______ 37—Fort Collins loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ______ 38—Foxcreek loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________ 39—Gapo clay loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes ________ 40—Garrett loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes __________ 41—Garrett loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________-_ 42—Gravel pits __ ___ ________ ____________ 43—Haploborolls-Rock outcrop complex, steep ____ 44—Haplustolls, hilly _________________________ 45—Haplustolls-Rock outcrop complex, steep ____ 46—Harlan fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes- 47—Harlan fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes__ 48—Heldt clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes _______ 49—Heldt clay loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes _______ 50—Keith silty clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes __ 51—Kildor clay loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes ______ 52—Kildor-Shale outcrop complex, 5 to 30 percent slopes ------ ---------------------------- :_m_ loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ____________ 54—Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes _____________ 55—Kim loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ------------ 56—Kim-Thedalund loams, 3 to 15 percent slopes__ 57—Kirtley loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes __________ 58—Kirtley-Purner complex, 5 to 20 percent slopes ---------------------------------- 59—LaPorte-Rock outcrop complex, 3 to 30 percent slopes---------------------------------- Page 1 1 60—Larim gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 40 percent rase 11 slopes ---------------------------------- 35 12 61—Larimer fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent 12 slopes ---------------------------------- 35 12 62—Larimer-Stoneham complex, 3 to 10 percent 12 slopes ----------------------------- 36 13 63—Longmont clay, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________ 36 13 64—Loveland clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes _____ 37 65—Midway clay loam, 5 to 25 percent slopes ___- 38 13 66—Minnequa silt loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ____ 38 67—Minnequa-LaPorte complex, 3 to 15 percent 13 slopes __ _ ____ ___ ________ _______ 38 68—Miracle sandy loam, 5 to 25 percent slopes ___ 39 14 69—Naz sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________ 40 70—Naz sandy loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes _______ 40 14 71—Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes__ 41 15 72—Newfork sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ___ 41 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ________ 42 16 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________ 42 75—Nunn clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ---- —__ 43 16 76—Nunn clay loam, wet, 1 to 3 percent slopes ___ 43 77—Otero sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ______ 43 16 78—Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ______ . 43 79—Otero sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ______ 44 16 80—Otero-Nelson sandy loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes ---------------------------------- 44 17 81—Paoli fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes __ 44 82—Pendergrass-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 25 17 percent slopes _______ ____ _____________ 45 83—Pinata-Rock outcrop complex, 15 to 45 percent 17 slopes ------ - ----------------- ----- 45 17 84—Poudre fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes__ 46 18 85—Purner fine sandy loam, 1 to 9 percent slopes__ 46 86—Purner-Rock outcrop complex, 10 to 50 19 percent slopes __________________________ 47 87—Ratake-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 55 19 percent slopes ___________________________ 47 88—Redfeather sandy loam, 5 to 50 percent 19 slopes - -- ----- --- ------ --------- 48 89—Renohill clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ____• 48 20 90—Renohill clay loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ____ 49 91—Renohill-Midway clay loams, 3 to 15 percent 20 slopes ---------------------------------- 49 21 92—Riverwash ________________________________ 49 21 93—Rock outcrop _____________________________ 49 22 94—Satanta loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ---------- 50 23 95—Satanta loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes __________ 50 96—Satanta loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ---------- 50 23 97—Satanta loam, gullied, 3 to 9 percent slopes ___ 50 23 98—Satanta Variant clay loam, 0 to 3 percent 24 slopes -- ------------------ ----- 51 24 99—Schofield-Redfeather-Rock outcrop complex, 25 5 to 25 percent slopes ----- _------ _------- 51 25 100—Stoneham loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes ________ 52 25 101—Stoneham loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________ 52 26 102—Stoneham loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes -------- 52 27 103—Stoneham loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes ________ 52 27 104—Sunshine stony sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent 27 slopes -------------------------------- 53 27 105—Table Mountain loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes __ 54 27 106—Tassel sandy loam, 3 to 25 percent slopes ____ 54 28 107—Thedalund loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes --------- 55 29 108—Thedalund loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes ________ 55 30 109—Thiel gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 25 percent 30 slopes ---------------------------------- 56 30 110—Tine gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent 31 slopes ---------------------------------- 57 32 ill —Tine cobbly sandy loam, 15 to 40 percent slopes ------- --- ------------------- 57 32 112=Trag-Moen complex, 5 to 30-percent slopes ___ 58 32 113—Ulm clay loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________ 58 32 114—Ulm clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes -------- 58 33 115—Weld silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes ________ 59 33 116—Wetmore-Boyle-Moen complex, 5 to 40 percent 33 slopes -- - ------------- --- ------ 60 117—Wetmore-Boyle-Rock outcrop complex, 5 to 60 33 percent slopes __ ________ ____________ 60 118—Wiley silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes ________ 61 34 119—Wiley silt loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes ________ 61 1 1 1 1 r 42 SOIL SURVEY 4/3) moist; moderate medium and coarse prismatic structure parting to moderate medium subangular blocky; very hard, firm, very sticky and very plastic; thin nearly continuous clay films on peds ; noncalcareous; mildly alkaline; clear smooth boundary::_ Baca-24 to 29 inches; pale brown (10YR 6/3) clay loam, brown (10YR 5/3) moist; weak medium subangular blocky struc- ture; very hard, firm, very plastic; few thin patchy films. on ped faces; visible calcium carbonate occurring as small nodules; calcareous; moderately alka- line; gradual smooth boundary. Clca-29 to 47 inches; light yellowish brown (10YR 6/4) clay loam, dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) moist; massive; very hard, firm, sticky and plastic; visible calcium carbonate occurring as nodules, thin seams, and streaks; calcareous ; moderately alkaline; gradual smooth boundary. C2ca--47 to 60 inches; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3) clay loam, light olive brown (2.5Y 5/3) moist; massive; very hard, firm, sticky and plastic; some visible calcium carbonate but less than in the Clca horizon; calcareous; moderately alkaline. The A horizon is light clay loam or clay loam 10 to 12 inches thick in cultivated areas. The combined thick- ness of the A and B horizons ranges from 16 to 40 inches. The 132t horizon is heavy clay loam or light clay. Depth to calcareous material ranges from 10 to 30 inches. Sand and gravel are below a depth of 40 inches in some profiles. Some profiles have substrata with a redder hue. 73—Nunn clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the combined thickness of the surface I ayer and subsoil is about 35 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of soils that are more sloping. Also included are a few small areas of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils and a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer and subsoil of silty clay loam. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets, beans, barley, wheat, and alfalfa. Under dryland management it is suited to wheat or barley. It is also suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIs-1, irrigated, and IIIc-1, dryland; Clayey Foothill range site; windbreak suitability group 1. 74—Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This nearly level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil has the profile described as representative of the series. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and a few small areas of soils that have a surface layer and subsoil of silty clay loam. Also included are small areas of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils. Runoff is slow to medium, the hazard of wind erosion is slight, and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, sugar beets, beans, barley, alfalfa, and wheat. Under dryland management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also well suited to pasture or native grasses (fig. 10). Figure ID. —Alfalfa hales on Nunn clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS 3.1 General Design Storms SECTION 3. HYDROLOGY STANDARDS ' All drainage systems have to take into consideration two separate and distinct drainage problems. The first is the initial storm which occurs at fairly regular intervals, usually based on the two to ten-year storm, depending on land use. The second is the major storm which is usually based on an infrequent storm, such as the 100-year storm. In some instances the -major storm routing will not be the same as the initial storm._ __ In this case, a complete set of drainage plans shall be submitted for each storm system. 3.1.1 Initial Storm Provisions As stated before, the initial storm shall be based on the two to ten-year storm. The objectives of such drainage system planning are to minimize inconvenience, 1 to protect against recurring minor damage and to reduce maintenance costs in order to create an orderly drainage system at a reasonable cost for the urban resident. The initial storm drainage system may include such facilities as curb and gutter, storm sewer and open drainageways, and detention facilities. 1 3.1.2 Major Storm Provisions The major storm shall be considered the 100-year storm.. The objectives of the major storm planning are to eliminate substantial property damage or loss of ' life. Major drainage systems may include storm sewers, open drainageways, and detention facilities. The correlation between the initial and major storm system shall be analyzed to insure a well coordinated drainage system. ' 3.1.3 Storm Frequency The initial and major storm design frequencies shall not be less than those found in the following table: ' Table 3-1 DESIGN STORM FREQUENCIES Design Storm Return Period Land Use or Zoninat Initial Storm Major Storm 1 Residential: (RE,RL,RLP,RP,ML,RM,RMP, ............................ 2-year 100-year RLM,MM,RH) Business: (BG,BL,BP, C, ,IP,IG)................. W10-year. f100-year Public Buillin eas...................... 10-year 100-year Parks, Greenbelts, etc ...................... 2-year 100-year Open Channels & Drainageways -- 100-year Detention Facilities -- 100-year HSee Table 3-2 for zoning definitions ' 3.1.4 Rainfall Intensities The rainfall intensities to be used in the computation of runoff shall be obtained .from the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort Collins, included in these specifications as Figure 3.1. 3.1.5 Runoff Computations Storm Runoff computations for both the initial and major storm -shall comply with the criteria set forth in Section 3.2 "Analysis Methodology." All runoff calculations made in the design of both initial and major drainage systems shall be included with the storm drainage plans in the form of a Drainage Report. Reports submitted for approval should have a typed narrative with computations and maps in a legible form. May 1984 Design Criteria ' Revised January 1997 3-1 No Text 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City of Fort Collins Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Table for using the Rational Method (5 minutes - 30 minutes) Figure 3-1a Duration (minutes) 2-year Intensity in/hr 10-year Intensity in/hr 100-year Intensity in/hr 5.00 2.85 4.87 9.95 6.00 2.67 4.56 9.31 7.00 2.52 4.31 8.80 8.00 2.40 4.10 8.38 9.00 2.30 3.93 8.03 10.00 2.21 3.78 7.72 11.00 2.13 3.63 7.42 12.00 2.05 3.50 7.16 13.00 1.98 3.39 6.92 14.00 1.92 3.29 6.71 15.00 1.87 3.19 6.52 16.00 1.81 3.08 6.30 17.00 1. 55 2.99 6.10 18.00 1.70 2.90 5.92 19.00 1.65 2.82 5.75 20.00 1.61 2.74 5.60 21.00 1.56 2.67 5.46 22.00 1.53 2.61 5.32 23.00 1.49 2.55 5.20 24.00 1.46 2.49 5.09 25.00 1.43 2.44 4.98 26.00 1.40 2.39 4.87 27.00 1.37 2.34 4.78 28.00 1.34 2.29 4.69 29.00 1.32 2.25 4.60 30.00 1.30 2.21 4.52 1 1 1 1 City of Fort Collins . Rainfall Intensity -Duration -Frequency Table for using the Rational Method (31 minutes - 60 minutes) Figure 3-1 b Duration (minutes) 2-year Intensity in/hr 10-year Intensity in/hr 100-year Intensity in/hr 31.00 1.27 2.16 4.42 32.00 1.24 2.12 4.33 33.00 1.22 2.08 4.24 34.00 1.19 2.04 4.16 35.00 1.17 2.00 4.08 36.00 1.15 1.96 4.01 37.00 1.13 1.93 3.93 38.00 1.11 1.89 3.87 39.00 1.09 1.86 3.80 40.00 1.07 1.83 3.74 41.00 1.05 1.80 3.68 42.00 1.04 1.77 3.62 43.00 1.02 1.74 3.56 44.00 1.01 1.72 3.51 45.00 0.99 1.69 3.46 46.00 0.98 1.67 3.41 47.00 0.96 1.64 3.36 48.00 0.95 1.62 3.31 49.00 0.94 1.60 3.27 50.00 0.92 158......... 3.23 51.00 0.91 1.56 3.18 52.00 0.90 1.54 3.14 . 53.00 0.89 1.52 3.10 54.00 0.88 1.50 3.07 55.00 0.87 1.48 3.03 56.00 0.86 1.47 2.99 57.00 0.85 1.45 2.96 58.00 0.84 1.43 2.92 59.00 - .. 0.83 -1.42.:. ..:::..:.. .: 2.89 - 60.00 0.82 1.40 2.86 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE --- Design Point _: ..Tributary _ _ Sub -basin ..Area (ac) . C (10) C (100) tc (10) (min) tc (100) (min) Q(10)tot (cfs) 0(100)tot (cfs) DRAINAGE STRUCTURE /REMARKS 1 1 0.15 0.81 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.58 1.46 2 2 0.17 0.84 1.00 5.0 5.0 0.69 1.68 3 0.06 0.20 0.25 5.0 5.0 0.06 0.15 OS1 0.03 0.20 0.25 10.7 10.7 0.02 0.05 4 0.03 0.20 0.25 5.0 5.0 0.03 0.06 5 0.01 0.20 0.25 5.0 5.0 0.01 0.03 6 0.01 0.20 0.25 5.0 5.0 0.01 0.01 2-YEAR HISTORIC FLOWS LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH DATE: 1/12/2005 Recommended Runoff Coefficient from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil) Lawns (average, 2-7%, sandy soil) Runoff coefficient Impervious C 0.10 0 0.15 0 DESIGN POINT SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) Length (It) (4) Slope (%) (5) 8 (min) (6) i (in/hr) Q (2) (cfs) from Design Point Q (2) (cfs) Q(2)tot (cfs) 1 101 H 0.43 18.731 150 1.0 20.0 1.83 0.12 0.12 total 0.43 18,731 0.12 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai) /At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's Q=CfCiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) ti = [1.87 (1.1 - CCf) 1-0'5) / S 1/3 C = runoff coefficient Cf = frequency adjustment factor I = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from IDF curve I = 26 / (10+ tif.71 A = drainage area (acres) RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH DATE: 1/12/2005 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Streets, parking lots (asphalt) Sidewalks (concrete) Roofs Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil) Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.20 0 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) SIDEWALK AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) RUNOFF COEFF. (C10) RUNOFF COEFF. (CIM) % Impervious 1 0.15 6,370 216 3,947 1.043 1,164 0.81 1.00 81 2 0.17 7,334 216 5,629 391 1,098 0.84 1.00 85 3 1 0.06 2.642 0 0 0 2,642 0.20 0.25 0 0S1 0.03 1,218 0 0 0 1,218 0.20 0.25 0 Tributary to Pond 0.40 17,564 432 9,576 1,434 6,122 0.69 0.86 65 4 0.03 1,129 0 0 0 1,129 0.20 0.25 0 5 0.01 543 0 0 0 543 0.20 0.25 0 6 0.01 227 0 0 0 227 0.20 0.25 0 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai) /At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's 1 1 1 1 1 d U ,w Y Q W K 0 0 o r o 0 0 J Q �E e N N m 0 N m ifI z .. LL m n a n o m n o O o 0 0 0 0 0 m 5a7 E R lu m GV yN oo mo �n �nm J van r� oln WZ Q Z N i m U cc F u 7 II � •-• t7 l7 fV t7 fill l V 4 O m< O 6 N O o 0 1 O o 0 O LL J O O z m rn Till N N N > Q = rn m m m m OF C W 0 00 0 0 0 O I Q w o O O G G O n o o n n^ o t, 0 2° m 1101 m W o 0 cc 0 0 0 H � o rn oln J C i 7 v Q y J t7 m O N f�I — — O O O O O O O 0^ O n e N N N N m m w h m m n n v � } o 0 0 0 0 wm N N N O N C N C O O C O O Q W F � z_F o 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 coo W N � a° o 0 m m m � N a' - f z_ Z r- m MIT (a oz m 0 w a m G m m J U Y IL 00 m U O C m .E .a- 0 N C -Q m E c N m II 0 E E E c T O O r Z O N Wil F Z � W 0(-) LL Z 00 a U o LL a O a)i cWc L Y Q i W C 0 0 o n o 0 0 J N N N O N N N m as e r o m en 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E mIo o " YN anmr No tU J con uu'i = N Z N u 7 U t mom n oc'i O m N< O m? 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL J r O O N 0 0 0 Z Q 2 U m m m m m m m m It L c c a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O K w '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r o o m o 0 0 :3 d o� (� 0. m N ` w fo 0o a o 0 0o N J L a � J m m N n N ClN C C G V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ,.., N N N N 0 N Oa N N N N N O O m 0 N N N L m N m c r < m " J N O O N N N N O U .-00 000 Q U K W 0 m m N N N Cl! Cl! C 0 0 0 0 0 0 � W z o 0 0 0 0 d� N o000 000 � N Z m- N m O a N m a N Z Z ~ Q O N Q W a 0 N G RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 10-Yr Storm) LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH DATE: 1/12/2005 10 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Design Point Tributary Sub -basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (in/hr) Q (10) (cfs) from Design Point Q (10) (ds) Q(10)tot (cfs) 1 1 0.15 0.81 5.0 4.87 0.58 0.58 0 2 2 0.17 0.84 5.0 4.87 0.69 0.69 0 ' 3 0.06 0.20 5.0 4.87 0.06 0.06 0 OS1 0.03 0.20 10.7 3.70 0.02 0.02 - 0 Tributary to Pond 4 0.03 0.20 5.0 4.87 0.03 0.03 0 5 0.01 0.20 5.0 4.87 0.01 0.01 0 6 0.01 0.20 5.0 4.87 0.01 0.01 0 Q=CfCiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Cf = frequency adjustment factor i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) i = 41.44 / (10+ tc)1.1e74 1 1 1 1 1 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH DATE: 1/12/2005 100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) C Cf to (min) i (in/hr) Q (100) (ofs) from Design Point Q (100) (cfs) Q(1 o0)tot (CIS) 1 1 0.15 1.00 5.0 9.95 1.46 1.46 2 2 0.17 1.00 5.0 9.95 1.68 1.68 3 0.06 0.25 5.0 9.95 0.15 0.15 OS7 0.03 0.25 10.7 7.55 0.05 0.05 Tributary to Pond 4 0.03 0.25 5.0 9.95 0.06 0.06 5 0.01 0.25 5.0 9.95 0.03 0.03 6 0.01 0.25 5.0 9.95 0.01 0.01 Q=CiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) i = 84.682 / (tor tC)0.i9]5 ' Worksheet for 2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase Project Description Flow Element: Box Pipe ' Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Input Data �..,.,°ifwk.'YS ' Roughness Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope: 0.02000 ft/ft Height: 0.50 ft ' Bottom Width: 2.00 It Discharge: 1.70 ft3/s 77 Normal Depth: 0.18 ft Flow Area: 0.37 It, ' Wetted Perimeter: 2.37 It Top Width: 2.00 It Critical Depth: 0.28 It Critical Slope: 0.00523 ft/ft Velocity: 4.65 ft/s ' Velocity Head: 0.34 ft Specific Energy: 0.52 ft Froude Number: 1.92 ' Flow Type: Supercritical GVF Input Data E..' ' N.�;eiF Downstream Depth: ,c 0.00 ft Length: 0.00 ft Number Of Steps: 0,F GVF Output Data ' Upstream Depth: 0.00 It Profile Description: NIA ' Profile Headloss: 0.00 It Average End Depth Over Rise: 0.00 ' Normal Depth Over Rise: 0.00 Downstream Velocity: 0.00 ft/s Upstream Velocity: 0.00 fus ' Normal Depth: 0.18 ft Critical Depth: 0.28 ft 11 11 I ' 2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase Cross Section for Box Pipe - 1 ' z ' - `"3"' Project Description r *fix a Flow Element Box Pipe Friction Method: Manning Formula Solve For: Normal Depth Section Data ' aP v star 'e�� Roughness Coefficient. 0.013 ' Channel Slope: 0.02000 ftift Normal Depth: 0.18 ft Height: 0.50 ft ' Bottom Width: 2.00 ft Discharge: 1.70 ft'!s ' � atoo � l�eyit9n I�otrrr Z 1 1 1 1 ft 11 T OSOtt T D.181t 1 m WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME SUMMARY FOR EXTENDED DETENTION PROJECT NAME: The Human Bean - North College JR PROJECT NO: 1016-0,16-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH DATE: 1/12/2005 Guidelines from Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, September 1999 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) Use 40-hour brim -full volume drain time for extended detention basin Water quality Capture Volume, WQCV = 1.0 * (0.91 * i3 - 1.19 * i2 + 0.78i) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 * Area * 1.2 MAJOR BASIN Trib. area (acres) Impervious Ratio, la % Impervious i = la/100 WQCV (watershed inches) Design Volume, Vol. (ac-ft) POND 0.43 65 0.65 0.25 0.01 I I 1 _J Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility POND Project Name: The Human Bean - North College Project Number: 1016-016-00 Company: - Interwest Consulting Group Designer: DRH Date: 1/12/2005 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=la/l00) B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) (WQCV =1.0"(0.91 "is-1.19"i2+0.78i)) D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 ' Area ' 1.2 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforations (H) C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) (Figure EDB-3) D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only) i) Circular Perforation Diamter OR ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum) ' F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (AJ G) Number of Rows (nr) H) Total outlet Area (Ao,) ' 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: A, = 0.5 " (Figure 7 Value) " Ao, B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) ' C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a) 1) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (Wwnc) from Table 6a-1 ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) = H - 2" for flange of top support iii) Type of Screen Based on Depth H) Describe if "other" iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, Describe if "other" v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.) Type and Size of Support rod (Ref: Table 6a-2) la = 65 % i = 0.65 A = 0.43 acres WQCV = 0.25 watershed inches Vol. = 0.01 ac-ft x Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: H = 1.7 ft Ao = 0.035 square inches D = 114 inches, OR W = inches nc = 1 number Ao = 0.05 square inches nr = 6 number Aat = 0.3 square inches At = 10.2 square inches x < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: Wwnc= 3 inches HTR = 18.4 inches x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter) Other: x 0.139" (US Filter) Other: 3/4 inches #156 VEE f [1 91 f I I I vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) 3/8" x 1.0" flat bar D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): 1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) W = ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc=W+12") Wconc iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) Wopening from Table 6b-1 iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H) (Describe if "other) vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP Grating). Describe if "other" _ vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio 5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1 D) B) Surface Area C) Connector Pipe Diameter (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides 6. Two -Stage Design A) Top Stage (DWo = 2' minumum) DWo = B) Bottom Stage (Des = DWo + 1.5' min, DWo + 3.0' max. Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV) C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of 0.5"Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet) Storage = Des = Storage = Surf. Area = Depth = Storage = Surf. Area = D) Total Volume: Vol,ot = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B volt., = Must be > Design Volume in 1 D ME 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) ' Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other") Z= inches inches inches inches KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum Other: inches Other: (UW ) acre-feet acres inches yes/no feet acre-feet feet acre-feet acres feet acre-feet acres 0 acre-feet (horizontal/vertical) (horizontal/vertical ) x_Native Grass _ Irrigation Turf Grass Other: IL DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3) 100 M 4. 9 1.1 0.61 a� co a 0.4( E m 0.2( U 0.0E 0.02 0.01 0.02 STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES EXAMPLE: DWQ = 4.5 ft D WQCV = 2.1 acre-feet 01 SOLUTION: Required Area per Row = 1.75 in? EQUATION: WQCV a= K 40 in which, K 40=0.013D WQ +0.22DWQ -0.10 OJT eQti bra. 1 O tiI -74 r J�' 0.04 U.06 0.10 1 0.0-3 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Required Area per Row,a (in.2 ) FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District S-43 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 Orifice Plate Perforation Sizing Circular Perforation Sizing_.. Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet. Hole Die • Hole Die (in) Min. Sc (in) Area per Row (sq in) - n=2 n=3 1 4 1 0.250 1 0.05 0.10 0.15 6 0.313 2 0.15 0.23 -3/8- 0.375 2 0.11 0.22 0.33 7/16 0.438 2 0.15 0.30 0.45 1 2 0.500 2 0.20 0.39 0.59 9 16 0.563 3 0.25 0.50 0.75 5 8 0.625 3 0.31 0.61 0.92 11 16 0.688 3 0.37 0.74-. 1.11 3 4 0.750 3 0.44 0.88 1.33 13 16 0.813 3 0.52 1.04 1.56 7 8 0.875 3 0.60 1.20 1.80 15 16 0.938 3 0.69 1.38 2.07 1 1.000 4 0.79 1.57 2.36 1 1 16 1.063 4 0.89 1.77 2.66 1 1 8 1.125 4 0.99 1.99 298 1 3 16 1.188 4 1.11 2.22 3.32 1 1 4 1.250 4 1.23 1 2.45 3.68 1 5 16 1.313 4 1.35 2.71 4.06 1 3/8d2.OGO 4 1.48 297 4.45 1 7 16 4 1.62 3.25 4.87 1 1 2 4 1.77 3.53 5.30 1 9 16 4 1.92 3.83 5.75 1 5 8 4 2.07 4.15 6.22 1 11 16 4 2.24 4.47 6.71 1 3 4 4 2.41 4.81 7.22 1 13 16 4 2.58 5.16 7.74 1 7 8 4 2.76 5.52 8.28 1 15 16 4 2.95 5.90 8.84 2 4 3.14 6.28 1 9.42 n = Number of columns of perforations Minimum steel plate thickness 1/4 ' S/16 ' 3/8 ' • Designer may interpolate to the nearest 32nd inch to better match the required area. If desired. Rectangular Perforation Sizing Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed. Rectangular Height = 2 inches Rectangular Width (inches) = Required Area per Row (sq in) 2" Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) F7¢ Detdsdwg Rectangular Hole Width Min. Steel Thickness 5" 1 4 6" 1 F4 7" 5/32 " 8" 5/16 " 9" 11/32 " ion 3/8 " >1On 1/2 " Figure 5 WQCV Outlet Orifice Perforation Sizing fj Table 6a-1: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. Minimum Width (W ,o..) of Concrete Opening for a Well -Screen -Type Trash Rack. See Figure 6-a for Explanation of Terms. Maximum Dia. Width of Trash Rack Openin .... Per Column of Holes as a Function of Water Depth H of Circular Opening (inches) H=2.0' H=3.0' H= 4.0' H=5.0' H=6.0' Maximum Number of Columns < 0.25 r3 inj 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 14 < 0.50 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 14 < 0.75 3 in. 6 in. 6 in. 6 in. 6 in. 7 < 1.00 6 in. 9 in. 9 in. 9 in. 9 in. 4 < 1.25 9 in. 12 in. 12 in. 12 in. 15 in. 2 < 1.50 12 in-___E 15 in. 18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 2 < 1.75 18 in. 2l in. 21 in. 24 in. 24 in. 1 < 2.00 21 in. 24 in. 27 in. 30 in. 30 in. 1 Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. US Filter'rm Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design Specifications. Max. Width of Opening Screen #93 VEE Wire Slot Opening Support Rod Type Support Rod, On -Center, Spacing Total Screen Thickness Carbon Steel Frame Type 9" 0.139 #156 VEE '/." 0.31' '/a k1.0"flat bar 18" 0.139 TE .074"x.50" 1" 0.655 '/4"x 1.0 angle 24" 0.139 TE.074"x.75" F. 1.03" 1.0"x 1%z"anle 27" 0.139 TE .074"x.75" I" 1.03" 1.0"x 1'/x"an le 30" 0.139 TE .074"x1.0" T 1" 1 1.155" 1 '/.'k lWan le 36" 0.139 TE.074"x1A" 1" 1.155" 1 7, x 1%x"anle 42" 0.139 TE.105"x1.0" I 1" 1.155" I'/.'kl%z"angle US ruier, St. Paul, Mninesota, USA DESIGN EXAMPLE: Given: A WQCV outlet with three columns of 5/8 inch (0.625 in) diameter openings. Water Depth H above the lowest opening of 3.5 feet. Find: The dimensions for a well screen trash rack within the mounting frame. Solution: From Table 6a-1 with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e., rounded up from 5/8 inch actual diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The minimum width for each column of openings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is W = 36 = 18 inches. The total height, after adding the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the flange of the top support channel, is 64 inches. Thus, Trash rack dimensions within the mounting fiame = 18 inches wide x 64 inches high From Table 6a-2 select the ordering specifications for an 18", or less, wide opening trash rack using US Filter (or equal) stainless steel well -screen with #93 VEE wire, 0.139" openings between wires, TE .074" x .50" support rods on 1.0" on -center spacing, total rack thickness of 0.655" and'/s" x 1.0" welded carbon steel frame. Table 6a l No Text APPENDIX D DETENTION POND & OUTLET SIZING CALCULATIONS 1 i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH DATE: 1/12/2005 Equations: Area trib. to pond = 0.40 Developed flow = Qo = CIA C (100) = 0.86 Vol. In = Vi = T C I A = T Qp Developed C A = 0.34 Vol. Out = Vo =K QPo T Release rate, QPo = 0.1 storage = S = Vi - Vo K = 0.9 Rainfall intensity from City of Fort Collins IDF Curve with updated (3.67") rainfall acre acre cfs Storm Duration, T (min) Rainfall Intensity, I (in/hr) Qp (cfs) Vol. In Vi (ft) Vol. Out Vo (ft) Storage S (ft) Storage S (ac-ft) 5 9.95 3.4 1027 33 994 0.02 10 7.77 2.7 1603 66 1537 0.04 20 5.62 1.9 2320 132 2188 1 0.05 30 4.47 1.5 2767 199 2568 0.06 40 3.74 1.3 3088 265 2823 0.06 50 3.23 1.1 3337 331 3006 0.07 60 2.86 1.0 3541 397 3144 0.07 70 2.57 0.9 3714 464 3251 0.07 80 2.34 0.8 3864 530 3334 0.08 90 2.15 0.7 3997 596 3401 0.08 100 1.99 0.7 4116 662 3454 0.08 110 1.86 0.6 4224 729 3496 0.08 120 1.75 0.6 4323 795 3528 0.08 130 1.65 0.6 4415 861 3554 0.08 140 1.56 0.5 4500 927 3572 0.08 150 1.48 0.5 4579 994 3586 0.08 160 1.41 0.5 4654 1060 3594 0.08 �1,7,0.. t�,1,�35..:- 0 5x .', r s;4725 -=1126 y f; ;3599 0U8�s 180 1.29 0.4 4791 1193 3598 0.08 Required Storage Volume: 3599 ft3 0.08 acre-ft LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY: 1 DATE: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 5000 4000 w E 3000 6 2000 1000 0+ 0 DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event The Human Bean - North College 1016-016-00 DRH 1/12/2005 50 100 150 Storm Duration (min) —+— Inflow Volume Outflow Volume 200 f 1 t 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DETENTION VOLUME CALCULATIONS Rational Volumetric (FAA) Method 100-Year Event LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH DATE: 1/12/2005 4000 3500 3000 2500 E 2000 > 1500 1000 500 0 0 50 100 150 200 Storm Duration (min) --*.-Storage Volume 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH SUBMITTED BY: Interwest Consulting Group DATE: 1/12/2005 Pond Inv.- WQCV- 100-yr WSEL- Top of Berm - Detention Pond Sizing.xls V = 1/3 d (A + B + sgrt(A'B)) where V = volume between contours, ft3 d = depth between contours, ft A = surface area of contour Pmmn NAME Stage (ft) Surface Area W) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 4961.3 0 4962 131 0.00 0.00 4963 633 0.01 0.01 4964 1187 0.02 0.03 4965 1852 0.03 0.06 4965.5 003 4966.5 I POND 100-yr Event, Outlet Sizing ' LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH SUBMITTED BY: Interwest Consulting Group DATE: 1/12/2005 ' Submerged Orifice Outlet: release rate is described by the orifice equation, I Qo = CA sgrt( 2g(h-Eo)) where Qa = orifice outflow (cfs) Co = orifice discharge coefficient ' g = gravitational acceleration = 32.20 fus; A, = effective area of the orifice (W) Eo = greater of geometric center elevation of the orifice or d/s HGL (ft) h = water surface elevation (ft) Qo = 0.23 cfs (0.5 cfs/acre) outlet pipe dia = D = 18.0 in Invert elev. = 4961.30 ft (inv. "D" on outlet structure) Eo = 4962.48 ft (downstream HGL for peak 100 yr flow - from FlowMaster) h = 4965.50 ft - 100 yr WSEL Co = 0.65 ' solve for effective area of orifice using the orifice equation Ao = 0.025 ft` I = 3.7 in` orifice dia. = d = 2.16 in ' Check orifice discharge coefficient using Figure 5-21 (Hydraulic Engineering) d/ D = 0.12 kinematic viscosity, v = 1.22E-05 ft 2/s I Reynolds no. = Red = 4Q/(7cdv) = 1.34E+05 Co = (K in figure) = 0.65 check I Use d = 2 in A o = 0.022 ft' = Qmax = 0.20- cfs I I I 3.14 in 2 L i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Detention Pond Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College PROJECT NO: 1016-016-00 COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH SUBMITTED BY: Interwest Consulting Group DATE: 1/12/2005 top of berm Equation for flow over a broad crested weir Q = CLH32 spill elevation where C = weir coefficient = 2.6 f- L H = overflow height L = length of the weir The pond has a spill elevation equal to the maximum water surface elevation in the pond Design spillway with 0.5 ft flow depth, thus H = 0.5 ft Size the spillway assuming that the pond outlet is completely clogged. Pond Q (100) = 4 cfs (peak flow into pond) Spill elev = 4965.50 ft = 100-year WSEL Min top of berm elev.= 4966.50 Weir length required: L= 4 ft Use L = 5 ft v = 0.96 ft/s APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL � N J ILL cm�01 J 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT RIPRAP 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL Yt/H RIPRAP 7 Use Ho instead of H whenever culvert has supercritical flow in the barrel. *-*Use Type L for a distance of 3H downstream. FIGURE 5-8. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT RECTANGULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. I1-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGES FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT LOCATION: The Human Bean - North College Avenue ITEM: Riprap Calculations for Pond Inlets ' COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH SUBMITTED BY: Interwest Consulting Group From Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, March 1969 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) Q = discharge, cfs D = diameter of circular conduit, ft ' W = width of rectangular conduit, ft H = height of rectangular conduit, ft Yt = tailwater depth, ft At= required area of flow at allowable velocity, ft2 V = allowable non -eroding velocity in the downstream channel, ft/s = 7.0 ft/s for erosion resistant soils = 5.5 ft/s for erosive soils DP 1 to Pond 2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase ' Q = 2 cfs H= 6 in = 0.5 ft W= 24 in = 2 It ' Yt = 0.1 ft V = 4.7 ft/s Q/WHo.S= 1.4 1 Yt/ H = 0.2 From Figure 5-8, use Type L for a distance 3H downstream, L = 1.5 ft ' From Table 5-1, d5o = 9 in From Fig. 5-6. Riprap depth from outlet to dist. U2 = 18.0 in Riprap depth from U2 13.5 in Width of riprap (extend to height of culvert) = 3 ft DP 2 to Pond ' 2' Concrete Sidewalk Chase Q = 1.7 cfs H = 6 in = 0.5 ft ' W= 24 in = 2 ft Yt = 0.5 ft V = 3.8 ft/s Q/WHO .5= 1.2 Yt / H = 1.0 ' From Figure 5-8, use Type L for a distance 3H downstream, L = 1.5 ft From Table 5-1, d50 = 9 in From Fig. 5-6. Riprap depth from outlet to dist. U2 = 18.0 in ' Riprap depth from U2 13.5 in Width of riprap (extend to height of culvert) = 3 ft 11 1 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: The Human Bean - North College Avenue STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 12-Jan-05 DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Ai • Li Ai' Si Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN(s) ZONE (ALA (FT) (%) 1 MODERATE 0.15 140 1.0 20.5 0.1 2 0.17 130 1.2 21.9 0.2 3 0.06 78 3.5 4.7 0.2 4 0.03 5 25.0 0.1 0.6 5 0.01 105 2.1 1.3 0.0 6 0.01 55 3.2 0.3 0.0 OS1 0.03 130 1.3 3.6 0.0 Total 0.45 1 1 1 52.45 1 1.29 1 117 1 2.9 1 80.1% Ash = Sub -basin area Lsb = Sub -basin flow path length Ssb = Sub -basin slope Lb = Average flow path length = sum(Ai Li)/sum(Ai) Sb = Average slope = sum(Ai Si)/Sum (Ai) ' PS is taken from Table 8-a (Table 5.1, Erosion Control Reference Manual) by interpolation. An Erosion Control Plan will be developed to contain PS% of the rainfall sedimentation that would normally flow off a bare ground site during a 10-year, or less, precipitation event. 1 I J I 1 1 L 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: The Human Bean - North College Avenue STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 12-Jan-05 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%) 0.06 1.00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (I -C*P)* 100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 1 0.15 ROADS/WALKS 0.11 Ac. ROUGHENED GR- 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.03 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.05 NET P-FACTOR 0.80 EFF = (1-C*P)*100 = 95.8% 2 0.17 ROADS/WALKS 0.14 Ac. ROUGHENED OR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.03 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.05 NET P-FACTOR 0.80 EFF = (1-C*P)*100 = 96.3% 3 0.06 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.06 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.80 EFF = (I-C*P)* 100 = 95.2% 4 0.03 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.03 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.80 EFF = (I-C*P)* 100 = 95.2% [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 i PROJECT: The Human Bean - North College Avenue STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 12-Jan-05 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%) 0.06 1.00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 5 0.01 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.01 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.80 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 = 95.2% 6 0.01 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED OR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.01 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER, SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.40 EFF = (1-C*P)*100 = 97.6% 0S1 0.03 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.03 Ac. SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.50 EFF = (I -C*P)* 100 = 97.0% ' TOTAL AREA = 0.45 ac TOTAL EFF = 95.9% (E (basin area * eft / total area REQUIRED PS = 80.1% Since 95.9% > 79.8%, the proposed plan is o.k. 1 1 1 1 PAGE 23 i o i v mC,-cc ' I i O i tI') 1 CO ' 1 q C CO qCO qCO ' 1 1 O i c c c c IIS to U!* 1r7 Ir: 1r1 ' 1 C 1 qC CJCCCggCC) CD ' 1 1 1 1 C 1 q(�1 G10�0'. C'+C`C31 Cn Cn 01 G1COC 1 ' I C I cccCCCcCc 1'c cLI)tr7 Lfl 1 M I qq q co CC 1 1 I 1 O 1 t�qC . .Q. . . ... C. D. Cn 01 O'•OOI G, CT O 1 1 N I C.. g C q C cc C q q w q q q q q q q w CC = ' ' 1 I C 1 C M C Lo %0 %C t0 .0 n n rr-. n r,co co CO co coq co co co co co r, tt\ r\ r` C 1 1 1 O 1 C c c c C C C C C c c C c C c C c c C c C c C c C C 1 .%% qqq 1 1 I 1 O I qNM . .u'. t.')�0101... kD t0n nf�n nf,l�nnnggq co q cC CCC c Cc C' cc c cc CCCCc c g ccC 1 C I � cc q Go cc co co co q = (".. g q q q q q q q q q 0 q q co O 1 O 1 to ON Cl) cc U7 In LO Ir t0 L1 �0 �0 qO w tD %D t0 t0 n I"r � n r` n I J 1 1 0 1 ccI c•"I 4z, c c c c c c cc c c c C• C-c C c c c c c c c cc l U I I co co co co CC cc g q q q q C c.^ q q q cC w q C:J CO G,• q q 07 w 1 I •1 CD 1 cD1 a-yN M M ccCC11) trf � Ir Ir) IrC IP Ir: lO kC %C)t0 t0 tD f\ N I 1 M M c C c C c c c c c c c c c c c c C c C c C c C c 1 r-.. 1 1 qqqq q CC C CC C g C q q wccw m q G` C g q q q q ' ' J I' J 1 O I C %0 q 0^• -- � N N M M M M C C C C c C C c 1 r• 1 r. . 1. f I 0 C; C 1 1 U 1 tD I CO M M C C C C C c C C C C c C C C C C c c C c C C C t 1 I CO C CO CO C CO q4? C CO q G^. Cf.,^ q OC CO CO q q q CO q q CO C i 1 1 C I �C 1 �[.Nl,f'. I,q CTO . ..--1 •-'� CV . . . . . .MMMCCCCC ' O 1 38 1 . tL 1 v1.17 I N= co cc co co cC C'c C cc CcC' C C'ccCco c CCC 1 1 1 g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q W q C q q q q q; c I w 1 O I CL to 1 •-+qM Clri 1�gCCggCq010l G1CCC00' 1 I J C I N N M M M C�] M M M M M M M M C; C; M F 7 C• 7 C 4 M C C C c C 1 ' (N I N I C COCO = CO CC Co q CC = CO = CO COco coC C: co qqqq coC co C 1 1 C 1 O 1 aO lt'fq Or+NMCcIr)Ir)U'110 tO 10 tO l0 l�ggq0`. Cn ; C I 1 C I c 1 r+NNMMM MM Ih m M C•) co M M M M CM M MMMMMMM 1 Z 1 I CO C CC q q q CO M CC CO CO t'^.. CO q CO CO CO CO q Co q q q CO CO CO ; Q I 1 1 Ull 1 .-�.--I Ln � co CC.-+NNMM M CC' CC Cl.f) t!7 �C1 t010 �01�1- Vi 1 1 1 M 1 C N NNNMMM MM M M M M M cc M coMMMMMMM N) 1 W I 1 g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q co q q q q U I 1 Z 1 O 1 MNtOq CSC r+NNMMMCCCCCCI2'. Ir. 1(•. .tC �0101..1 1 Z 1 M I G N co co N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C g q C Co.q. g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q i CD iv^IrnNMctL'l%0 fr• rr CO qq Cn CnM MM Cn 1=00000 1 C 1 , w 1 N 1 CnC O.-+r-• r+.-• �.-"."'r' "', ^'1 "", ."" r+••".+"'.1 '••' N NNNNN t q co q q q q q co 1 1 1 O I CLf O MUl% 0 g q C n O C O.--1 �+.--1 r• N N N N M M M M M . I 1 1 . 1 N 1 q 0%0000 C O O.-+r+.--, .--, .--, .r .-'.''r' 1 1 n r%l q CO g co q q q q q q q q co q q q q q q q w q q w i 1 1 1 1 g Cp 0; O a; C.\ . C n r. C n C n O O O O O O O O O O C C CD O I 1 1 n n n n n n tn n n g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q; 1 I 1 O 1 % 0 M O C 1� C n O N M M c c ,P L 11.n � % 0 % J k 0 % 0 n n O D 0' 1 I C%D 1%,1%-1`I,- M ggqqq M M w M w M g q co q 1 1 1 r-_n r_1\rl r.- I\ r� f\ r` n n 1\ I\ r-_ n I,, n n r I 1 1 t ll'f 1 CnOC�Dl�ggl,nrtDtO %Dq . . . . . .T�Dcr. . . I 1 1 I O I O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r+ �• � O O I ' 1 1 nn nn nf` fin f\nf\rl f�nnn tit\ f`n nn nnnf\ ; 1 I 13 h2 11 O C 0 0 0 0 C O O O O O C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I O [.7 H I O C O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O G O O O C O C O I I JZI.I_ I NN MC I.'i l0 t\ q O1O raN MC Ir: ID t`q Cn O,j:O m CIflO I ' 1L W v I r� .-� �^ .--� '••1 N •-1 r--, r/ N N M M c c lf'1 1 I 1 J I TABLE 5.1 I CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ' Project: The Human Bean - North College Avenue Date: March 9, 2005 Indicate with bar line when constructions will occurr and when BMP's will be installed/removed in relation to the construction phase �J 1 1 I CONSTRUCTION PHASE(2005) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Grading (Include Offsite) Overlot 7,> �. uta ;r Detention/WQ Ponds Swales, Drainageways, Streams Ditches Pipeline Installation (Include Offsite) Water Sanitary Sewer Stormwater Concrete Installation (Include Offsite) Area Inlets - Curb Inlets Pond Outlet Structures . s2•w; Curb and Gutter Box Culverts, Bridges Street Installation (Include Offsite) Gradiing/Base + - Pavememt Miscellaneous (Include Offsite) Drop Structures Other (List) BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Structural Silt Fence Barriers.�5'ra Contour Furrows (Ripping/Disking) Sediment Trap/Filter }: Vehicle Tracking Pads Flow Barriers (Bales, Wattles, Etc) Inlet Filter 3?�. 4?' •-. Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparationy.,"k+ Terracing Stream Flow Diversion Rip Rap Other (List) Vegetative Temporary Seed Planting - Mulching/Sealant ` Permanent Seed Planting •-,+r�`". Sod Installation Netti ngs/Blankets/Mats Other (List) 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 The Human Bean - North College Avenue Erosion.Control Cost Estimate JOB NO. 1016-016-00 COMPLETED BY: cnnVTnMrnArrnnT T.fRACTroRc ,r ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT COST I QUANTITY TOTAL COST 1 TEMPORARY SEED & MULCH ACRE $ 775.00 0.30 $ 232.50 2 SILT FENCE LF $ 3.00 420 $ 1,260.00 3 GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH $ 500.00 1 $ 500.00 4 INLET PROTECTION EACH $ 250.00 2 $ 500.00 5 STRAW BALES LF $ 3.25 3 $ 9.75 6 SEDIMENT TRAP EACH 1 $ 500.00 0 $ COST $ 2,502.25 �rra� nrc�CL'TITAi!_ nnC'T CnD TnTAT QTTR ADRA v ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I UNIT COST I QUANTITY I TOTAL COST 1 RESEED/MULCH ACRE $ 775.00 1 0.1 1 $ 77.50 COST $ 77.50 SECURITY DEPOSIT $ 2,502.25 REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH FACTOR OF 150% $ 3,753.38 M MAN IN DRUG X AS )I uBOOM s. —ul x—x—x—x—x—x\ �—x—x—xlu- 5 _ — II I 49 � 966 I I I I I \ W1FALL'CMBB 4966 II II\ I (STIR)4I _ 6591 6500 II / \ PRCPOg° LODPONAMxDs) SvoRsYO 65.72 LPLMITECNPAL CONMT50 L BUILDING .150.J9 4986.60T C ao 2 ,H... curRR (m) w J� \. 656 1 I I aSw O.D .82 fi 2 WR6 WTI ENHANCED GOSSw LN 655J l M1I I /METE CUT I FLUSH l I fi5 U II , � END CURB k I � BwO Durtm-- 1 f e6.TOT uTE TI" wao ro J w E'B"6 Di NA 498 6] it PROPOSED 5.05 a PAN eSTa eow ' I 1 / 5 l ` 1 4964 - PBmoA w.w ti> II . $0D0 —4963 A APPRL x x PRZPOSED 0.YIRON (SEE NOT J ell\ I e62o PD e6.00 ED t vmARAT aR 4962 100-YR WSE ` \ \ (s" ET NOTE 8 BE`CW) .05 D.ID 4962; x —ee-w ✓ well _ I — — — _4966 e6.w Ec milli E 4964 \ \ 49 ` 4 -- 4966 ew�° 4985- r .030.t0 4Fell 96 \ 4 6 x i I \ fFMA CRO55-SECTION 1 r r e \ 1 Q \ U\ AY LEGEND 111111111111111 PROPOSED ASPHALT 111�111F11K11�111K1�1 PROPOSED PUBLIC RItiHT<IF.WAY ASPHALT l}�yNyyyl PoRTION OF SIOEWAI A LO BE COMPLETELY DEPRESCI SILT FENCE P v INLET RiOTECTI LSEE DETAIL ON SHEET X CONTECH PrEA PAFFRovE) EQUAL DEC PROPOSED SALES WATER QUALITY OUTLET SUMMARY POND ME PLATE III OF ROSS . 5 YA READ NI OF COLUMNS A 1 SO REQUIRED VOLUME GOT AC -FT AD PROMDED VOLUME 0.01 AC -FT \ PROPOSED UTUET WATERTHWIu x \ FORD ell 12N( (SEE DETAIL CMSMU�Iw* PEDIRIC! T w13a+ fin- 'en Al PNneIRx 0.oApiX 2005 PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DETENTION AREA STORAGE VOLUME CODE B xCA LI AW. MEA WI,) DICTI X. N'LUME cu. tt. WM. KIWE w. N. 961.3 0 66 0.7 6 46 4962k1187 1.0 }82 428 4963 1.0 9ID 1]38 4964 1,0985 0 0.5 1415 4 R 49fi5.5 TOTAL CUMULATIVE VOLUME PROVIDED Ad 4,273 cu. ft. did0.10 Acre ff. TOTAL DETENTION VOLUME REQUIRED - 3,599 cu. ft. 0.08 Acre ft. TOTAL WATER QUALITY VOLUME REQUIRED � 439 cu' R. 1 0.01 Acre tt. TOTAL CUMULATIVE VOLUME REQUIRED - 4.038 cu." 0.09 Acre ft. �C— l unv A � 1x961— --------------- I T I ., --'I all woo Sell All 1PORARY AREA MEET (DISEE DETAIL ON THEFT 12) I� yl / Ili II I I I 10 3 O 10 20 SCALE I"- 10' 11 / / 1 1 Q LU ,I V .I e � III CONTRACTOR SxILL NOT UVAL I � AMENDSNDS NARER NCPN HOURS PER THE OFF OF FORT KUINS. I [ I j I W I I illiliv J ix III NOTES: 1. ALLCURB B GU ER SHALL BE VERTICAL CURB AND BITTER UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. 2. PROPOSED SITE LIES WITHIN ZONE AE OF THE POUDRE RIVER FLOODPLAIN PER FEMA FIRM COMMUNITY PANEL 0501020004 C. REWSED MARCH 15, 19M BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS ARE DETERMINED FOR ZONE AS AND IS ESTIMATED ETO BE LEVATION SXIMATELY 4965.50. THE REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION 4967,50, 3. ALL FLOATABLE MATERIALS (TABLES. CHAIRS, TRASH CANS,TRASH OUMPSTERS, BIKE RACKS, ETC) MUST BEANCHOREDOR BOLTED DOWN. 4. BUILDING WILL BE FLOODPROOFED ACCORDING TO CITY OF FORT COLLINS "FLOODPROOFING GUIDELINES"TO ZFEEr ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. ALL ELECTRIC, HVAO IN MECHANICALEQUIPMENTAND WINDOW OPENINGS WILL BE ELEVATEDYFLOODPROOFED TO 2FEET ABOVE THE BASE FLOODELEVATION, 5. A FLOODPLAIN USE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR STRUCTURE AND FOR $TEE WORK 6. A FEMA FLOOOPLAIN CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (CODE. T. GRAOIN$ TO SHOW ORYLAND ACCESS MUST BE CERTIFIED AS PAW OF GIN OINGCERTIFICATIONOFAS9UILTS. S. CONTECH"PYRAMAT"TO BE INSTALLED PER MANUFAC RER'S SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CONTECH SO THAT ONE OF THEIR REPRESEMATIVES IS ON SITE TO ENSURE PROPER INSTALLATION. IN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS OFF OF ALPINE S EE AS SHOWN ON SHEET 4, t0. SEE SHEET 2OF t2 FOR STANDARD EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES. 11.ALLSPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FLOWLINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. N WN^ F>0N m wL. W �>UNm Ft 00OCq 0 U Ell a JV Z DiZ WZON O e ym0Wm J Onl W J.. a YW U. �Er_ 7 aOd U. J m IL N (0 W Z mW W DO CQ i a = Bell O WV 2= Z O Y O - Z 0 O m a DO w 3 ! U ISN uC U< N M O U CITY OF FORT COLONS. COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CITY ENGINEER DATE CHECKED BY: WATER Y WASTEWAT_R GUILTY DATE CHECKED BY: sTORMwATw Dnun DATE CHECKED BY: PMRS 8 PECREATp1 DATE PROJ.NO.101601"0 CHECKED BY: TRAFUC RIGNEER O" 6 OF 12 CHECKED BY: DATE CLASS A BEDDING CLASS a BEDDING snr xrR�mA� r„ _m .m.,r rMryy , a_ AA ny AN Ad mb'_rn ..� „x / a,��J .wnA, _ SECTOR A -A 1 Aid sr. .um ,arm CLASS C BEDDING RACI EXCAVATION Y✓f � m_d," a enemy R unuw r mw a I"a I amod"y ; `illy a„ �ww u I I G . p' AN e ..° az ... ..« .iv A r_assas-� �II , ru� II, IJ,i11J UNSTABLE WBCRAIDEE SUBDRAIN DETAIL �i PLAN NEW mi r a^ _d"Eviddy, Ad. er _ AFrAd °„mw + papay T SECTOR NEW • CROSS-SECTION VIEW r PROFILE MEW day „sr GENERAL NOTES, .omo _dam mm,u xoas: be _ _ STORMWATER BEDDING REQUIREMENTS m..a� SET FENCE o+o STRAW BALE DIKE GENERAL INSTALLATION w STRAW BALE DIKE CHANNEL APPLICATION a IF 1p4ixs STIAMWAIER � 'LL 0.5rPNrt S1aIWWA1EN astral CrvV rode,p S $ICgYW11FR ����4R��N LEte. STMAAWATER at �''A VaLlTS wNsm mm OETuts p°^".. /�V_ D_1 VISRC mxsTRucmr DETAILS °'2 �rn"4° _2 uv'„ eOlsTlurnax OETNLs np'� dew "-2 �mymI cONsmucnaN DETAILS p4e -27 A� WgAd Al + 6 Inches (minimum) AN Structural Steel Chenna W .. S.i Draw Formed Into Concrete. To .n ..erg ,enµ„ Span All 01 Structure. rae A� �r m,wde_p ae_e R.a� y I" NANNAHAN, di 6 Rows 1 .., ° In� ��� , �� a B (>wl ^'x Nee' s.r wo..o Hale Da _ 1/4fly Mn Yln mum Steel Plale O ..% sl pWwwx�ia�i� u.x mmknw - 1/oy, Meady, III p I `� - --Ad. P= Section B—B Plan View s — - _ - dappi a Te' HDPE Lints for this Standardized Design: i Pond event - A„I d0 aL J f A9sL]a A I All Donal plateopenings are circular Trave s„y, Trash Rack DelalI Pi An 2. Diameter of Open IS = 1 3/8 Inches. 1' Fly md, ucru�ni es'=i °ur Tern a"imi. a Me e, man,f by ey..mmr o-r �ixn l Neon vaM M N.S. Filter, St.Poul, M'nnevola, USA Fly v DAN bids mn .°rn ii be .w.x...rit er r uer r"mxxe .0 nwaw*. v h err �e A m Section A —A ry Award W. A NMI — Y rem N x,+,a,xr Nad ed 1.. Orep add Flow Control Plate Detail A°„:eM bed,-�,,e .e nwe,w..0 P..m° et e' e"^ npac as d WA a eai , III,mm . Navy A Emergency fiPnlwor Tr n III re may .^t Ad mi id. A MxIN NANinvai V A d a d ram deal u of 11s eWiraal 1 Rwno , and Lockable opole EI . - W65.5 1 ed 10'.LVR Woty Surlo„ Div. A96S�' a rY4r�3 _ ,my fWxowr Mu a.1 N' 0.0i0" r V water Surface - W6J.0 = sinlNad Gade e s x�1 °Ai^r' �An Ad "°' ;; "°` 'am aeh".a'r^r Section C—C crs D.ma1 IDD-m GIRae I �D Plab Db. ]-"- • R Value - (net open area)/ Tram Ra s_ Daa9j M Orifice Detail (gro,s rock area) - 0.60 (S_ DOW IV NOPc III hp Oullel Plpe Invvt-A9fil.]0 ?-1Ar —,We QCTON O-D O WINGW� OroD Box Detention Pond Outlet Structure ^ ro was. rm 01~('ww) Pan View - Flared Wnawall sN's NAME TO ,a .rz� xvp eaP x eery „T ra� are r.r_ w es"^aF t� 1111111111111 ���1111111111111 1111111111111 1111111111111 "Imessadmiel Hpaall IPLEW1111F. i�.'WEYE Er Pi ��D �MT All All DEGROMIDED IN An Net 9. mosa CONTROL __Mnw.x¢ 15 �a w MTY m ne comblural CONSTRUCTION ENTRAi I mma PLAN y zero- . •'117K 1 SECTION A A• �Y411. . Ndii GENERAL NDTESA ..amen L'M"o Wor„ ri yA'viiii 'N ePFM LIL'6Yeas's rn'enr a,WE a„ '� O.om ever 8mW1Y um.anppc dew lw wwu wu . rxn Apar a %n'mi¢`y��i Mx'°o rxm,�-i?ern w.oAror.umv 3 Atdew A aw won A xauxsr Y (m y Yamm a_eean�Tscm� _Wima u z,W� Amvwo _ „an. ¢�errmmi„mux AN Arnmw¢ rmm�n on rrxo�a mea ionvn a xn wrtcm1 n spun wnsx row rs SIDEWALK CHASE INLET PROTECTION SICFMWAIER umm I WISTRUCnOx DETAILS IrwuWluTx EGA �" .°... mr�vvm,. Imo' L 1 I5IDRAINBA9A •eeRra.. W7m � i III IM"I" I AN ' I ;I N�- W N _ F >OOD, rc W KDom0) Oil o > Ooi(n 0 =UVI ¢W V WZON a J0)O W NJ.. W e ItOW.. IN 7 U J to 5 m U. to W D W EnZ J_ a W and o A z0 �dW o 0 J a W O U N I'de O Z z i del divided IF o a CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: CiTY mOX DATE CHECKED BY: WATER k WASTE„TOR UIMITY DATE CHECKED BY: STmM„TER UTUTY DATE CHECKED BY: --adi pxxpS aRECREATW PROJ.NO.IOIBOle CHECKED BY: mAmc Exax¢R DATE 12OF 12 CHECKED BY: rnrt