Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 11/04/19991� 0 Final AIM Report �1 a T+5 � 1 0 00 � � O0 o o Final Drainage and Erosion Control, O O o Study 1 0 0 McClelland Office Park II, o Fort Collins Colorado o 0 0 _1 1 0 OO 0 (P Hl' 1999 O I 0 0 0 CD o 0 1� I THE 1 SEAR -BROWN GROUP standards in Excellence 1 1 THE SEAR -BROWN GROUP FULL -SERVICE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS 209 SOUTH MELDRUM FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80521-2603 970-482-5922 FAX:970-482-6368 April23, 1999 Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Water Utilities--Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for McClelland Office Park II Dear Basil: We are pleased to resubmit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for McClelland Office Park II. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, The Sear -Brown Group Prepared by: Traci Downs, E.I.T. Design Engineer cc: File 812-004A Dr. Overton �i NEW YORK • PENNSYLVANIA COLORADO • UTAH • WYOMING STANDARDS IN EXCELLENCE Reviewed by: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER t TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 A. Location 1 B. Description of Property 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS 2 A. Major Basin Description 2 B. Sub -basin Description 2 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 2 A. Regulations 2 B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints 2 C. Hydrologic Criteria 3 D. Hydraulic Criteria 3 E. Variances from Criteria 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 3 A. General Concept 3 B. Specific Details 3 V. STORMWATER QUALITY 5 A. General Concept 5 VI. EROSION CONTROL 5 A. General Concept 5 B. Specific Details 5 VII. CONCLUSIONS 6 A. Compliance with Standards 6 B. Drainage Concept 6 C. Stormwater Quality Concept 6 D. Erosion Control Concept 7 VIII. REFERENCES 7 ' ►117i:1 VICINITY MAP 2 HYDROLOGY 4 AREA INLET AND 2 FT CURB CUT 10 DETENTION POND ANALYSIS 13 EROSION CONTROL 18 ORIGINAL OFFICE PARK PUD DRAINAGE REPORT 24 CHARTS, TABLES, AND FIGURES 33 iii I It FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR MCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II FORT COLLINS, COLORADO �w I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. Location McClelland Office Park II is a portion of the original McClelland Office Park PUD. The site is located east of McClelland Drive, north of West Swallow Street, and approximately 500 feet south of West Harvard Street in Fort Collins, Colorado. It is bordered by commercial properties on the north, south, and west. McClelland Office Park II location can also be described as situated in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 26, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M., City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. The site location can be seen on the second page of the Appendix. B. Description of Property Existing Conditions McClelland Office Park II contains approximately 2.4 acres, more or less, and is located north of the original McClelland Office Park PUD. The property is being proposed for commercial development within the City of Fort Collins Zoning District and will be developed consistent with the existing Mcclelland Office Park PUD. Existing asphalt covers the central portion of the site, and the topography generally slopes toward an existing area inlet at approximately 2.5 percent. Native grasses presently cover the north and east portions of the site which, slopes from west to east at approximately 1.5 percent. Proposed Conditions The proposed development consists of two, compartmentalized, commercial buildings and associated parking. The buildings have approximately 7500 square feet each and the rest of the site consists mainly of parking lots and sidewalks with landscape area in the islands of the parking lot and around the perimeter of the I 11' r buildings. The proposed site can be seen on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back of this report. II. DRAINAGE BASINS IA. Major Basin Description As shown on the Fort Collins Stormwater Basin Map, McClelland Office Park II lies within the Foothills Basin. Runoff from the site is routed to the northeast boundary of the site through a series of stormdrain pipes. B. Sub -basin Description ' McClelland Office Park II has been divided into 4 sub -basins. Basin 1 contains the area that drains to the existing area inlet, which includes a majority of the proposed on -site development as well as a portion of the existing building and parking lot. Basin 2 consists of a small portion of the proposed southeast parking. The developed flow from this basin is conveyed east and is intercepted by a proposed area inlet, which will allow the runoff to enter the existing storm drainage system. Basin 3 is primarily a landscaped area behind the Lot 3 building and the runoff simply flows east to the adjacent parking lot. The 100-year developed flows from this basin are minimal and should not impact the adjacent lot. The developed flow from Basin 4, also a landscaped area, will enter the proposed parking lot through a 2 foot curb cut. There are not any off site basins that are contributing flow to the project site. All of the above sub -basins are shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan in the back pocket of this report. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria is being used for the subject site. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The 1984 McClelland Office Park PUD Drainage Report states that the ponding in the parking area is limited to a maximum depth of 1.5 feet, and the outfall pipe from the parking area has been designed and constructed to release at the 2 year historic rate. McClelland Office Park II has been designed to be in conformance with the 1984 McClelland Office Park PUD Drainage Report, which is located in the appendix of this report. 2 i/ C. Hydrologic Criteria The Rational Method for determining surface runoff was used for the project site. The 2-year and 100-year storm event intensities, provided by the City of Fort Collins, were used in calculating runoff values. These calculations and criteria are included in the Appendix of this report. D. Hydraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are also included in the Appendix. E. Variances from Criteria �\ We are requesting to have 1.5 feet of ponding near the existing area inlet in the parking lot. There are 70 proposed parking spaces for the site, of which 11 will have a ponding depth greater than 1 foot. Ten of the existing spaces will also have a ponding depth greater then 1 foot. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept The majority of on -site runoff produced by the McClelland Office Park II development, Basins 1 and 4, will flow towards the center of the site and into an existing area inlet, which was designed and built with original McClelland Office Park PUD. The runoff is then routed off -site towards the northeast via the existing stormdrain system. The existing stormdrain system accepts the developed flow from Basin 2 through the proposed area inlet located southeast of the Lot 3 building. A small portion of the on -site runoff, Basins 3, will drain off -site towards the north and east, as it has historically. Please refer to the drainage and erosion control plan in the back pocket of this report. B. Specific Details McClelland Office Park II has been broken down into four (4) sub -basins. The sub -basin designations correspond to the Basin 2 designation of the 1984 McClelland Office Park PUD Drainage Report. �I 3 Basin 4 is located north of Lot 2 and consists of landscaped area. A small swale will convey the developed flows east towards the proposed parking lot. The flow will enter the parking lot through a 2-foot curb cut. Runoff from Basin 1 will be conveyed by a combination of gutter, trickle pan, and overland flows across the parking lot towards the existing area inlet located south of Lot 3. Several curb chases are utilized to convey the flow towards the existing inlet. In order to minimize off -site flows and remain consistent with the original report, the runoff from the buildings shall drain towards the front and sides of the building to enable the flows to be conveyed into the parking lots. Similar to the original McClelland Office Park PUD design, it is proposed that the parking areas of Basin 1 will provide stormwater detention for the proposed sight as well as a portion of the original McClelland Office Park PUD development. The detention pond will have capacity to contain the 100-year storm event while maintaining the requested 1.5 feet of depth over the existing inlet. An orifice plate will be used to restrict the outflow from the parking lot to the 2-year historic release rate, which is 0.88 cfs and was calculated with the original McClelland Office Park PUD design. In the event that the outlet becomes clogged, the runoff will leave the site through the main entrance and will flow east through the adjacent parking lot and into Harvard Street. All the detention pond calculations for McClelland Office Park PUD and McClelland Office Park II are located in the appendix of this report. An area inlet will be installed in Basin 2 and it will tie into the existing stormdrain system. The runoff from Basin 2 will flow east and enter the existing system through the proposed area inlet located southeast of the Lot 3 building. Stormwater from Basin 3 flows east to an off -site commercial development adjacent to the site, as it has historically. It will remain a landscaped area and will drain east to the off -site, commercially developed sites. It is not anticipated that the flows generated from the above area will exceed the historical amounts previously draining off -site. i� V. STORMWATER QUALITY A. General Concept The water quality of stormwater runoff must be addressed on all final design utility i plans. McClelland Office Park II has sought to find various Best Management Practices for the treatment of stormwater runoff. McClelland Office Park II will be providing an inlet filter around the existing area inlet, and silt fencing along the north and east property lines during construction in order to provide a mechanism for pollutants to settle out of the stormwater runoff before flows are directed off - site. Also, a permanent water quality feature will be installed at the existing area inlet located in Basin 1. VI. EROSION CONTROL A. General Concept This development lies within the moderate Rainfall Erodibility Zone and the Moderate Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. After completion of the McClelland Office Park II, the potential exists for both wind and rainfall erosion because of the time required for the new vegetation to take hold. The Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) during construction for this project was computed to be 8 1. 1 per the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites. The Effectiveness (EFF) of the proposed erosion control plan was calculated to be 85.40. Along with the silt fencing and gravel inlet filter, the proposed erosion control methods should meet the City of Fort Collins' requirements. A copy of the calculations has been included in the Appendix. An erosion control cost estimate is also included in the Erosion Control section of the Appendix. B. Specific Details Before construction is to begin, a gravel inlet filter shall be applied at the existing area inlet located in Basin 1. It shall be filtered with a combination of concrete blocks, 1/2-inch wire screen, and 3/4-inch coarse gravel. Also before construction, a temporary silt fence shall be installed around the north and east boundries of the site. After overlot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas not in a roadway or greenbelt area shall have temporary vegetation seed applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre minimum, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. 5 Those roads that are to be paved as part of the McClelland Office Park II project must have a 1-inch layer of gravel mulch (1/4-11/2" gravel) applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre immediately after overlot grading is completed. The pavement structure shall be applied as soon as possible after the utilities have been installed. If the disturbed areas will not be built on within one growing season, a permanent seed shall be applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a minimum rate of 2 tons/acre, and the mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked or crimped into the soil. In the event a portion of the roadway pavement surface and utilities will not be constructed for an extended period of time after overlot grading, a temporary vegetation seed and mulch shall also be applied to the roadway areas as discussed above. All construction activities must also comply with the State of Colorado permitting process for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. VII. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. B. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provide for the transmission of developed on -site runoff to the �} existing drainage facilities on the subject site. The existing drainage system only has the capacity to convey the 2-year developed flows off of the site; however, in a 100-year event, the parking area has the capacity to contain the 100-year developed flows from Basin 1 while maintaining the 2-year historic release rate. If, at the time of construction for some unforeseen reason, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit would be required. C. Stormwater Quality Concept �) The proposed design has addressed the water quality aspect of stormwater runoff. A temporary inlet filter and silt fencing will be installed during construction, and a permanent water quality feature will be installed at the existing area inlet at the final stages of construction. This will provide an opportunity for stormwater pollutants to filter out of the stormwater runoff before the runoff is conveyed off - site. The inlet with the permanent water quality feature will be regularly cleaned and maintained by the property owners. The cleaning schedule will be determined by the final submittal. D. Erosion Control Concept 1 The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind and rainfall erosion from the McClelland Office Park H. Through the construction of the proposed erosion control concepts, the City of Fort Collins performance standard will be met. The proposed erosion control concepts presented in this report and shown on the erosion control plan are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Criteria. 1 VIII. REFERENCES 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984, interim revision January 1997. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. 3. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the McClelland Office Park PUD, RBD INC., May 4, 1984. r� t r 1, I I I n i Ll APPENDIX I I I VICINITY MAP I i I I MCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK VICINITY..:..-..M,AP UNDERING 3 POND RD. ! u Z DART.:' _vE>. MOUTN a . no SHIRL W o I. GIL8ALA0 W7 'PUTS 2. MIRRORMERE CIR IRS AV. g •,o > DUKE' y 1 ir LL b. BUDDING LEAF DR<> W 3 3% - 1 w o 4. CHETWOOO DR. > rYqL. TA CORNELL pV. Y < m v E 4MBRIDGE . 2 2. J .--+.• Vr OR. p \ B*N P ANDER LT CT OUEENS vi J _ O ; w+. INCE RD. a te. W ¢PRINCE b 6N AT OR DRAKE s RD. w E. a DRAKE' _ JWAGONWHE L DR or E D WIWCHEST R R. uu p I d m W r R. c o H ATHER o' DAV®SON W m O "IPOWDERHOR F Ell ONVI't N LICK- U' I THUNDE RBIR w LL� .CT. E. p N 5T. m 4 N Wu 0 0. y�j I M W P W. IQ 3.IN Q��>' �.. R R OR,zI MOUNTAIN z •t. N >.BU �'o ORS ♦IO :_ j W. EST H 9tap z W. A I� EDIN U4 57 LE%A iDERI -CT WY ARVARD m C. AI RD. OXFORD N N RON- R' S CTml OUTH N. flu JUO p NE2 4 C C% 09RD. Q wy. 5TkPERCE BIN CT u PKWY. u w R AL CT. 17 f0O cE. y .:a7 pi.' A O 9 DR.Gi^ ' C, V CT. Bi,P l �c��P� �� N �-+ JUSTICE DR. p-JF ` BOLT T H r \C P, o �F"O MONROE - DR. ¢ M N F SIOIjEY AWE ¢ARA •�0.i � u �70 , ILL y rl n RD. o 3 i• m Q W w oc io Y SIN.. 3 Sevi 'o II uW 3 iIO ARBOR iVIY.ci g O z ��¢ \AV�OV pP 4N •w DRIFI .:. S IN u SAI V-rS H 2/ RGU D\(}ci FON� Z REGER. 1 R .00 % 6d NOSP"� F DEN- ���Q a 2+a . 3i = 4q�' AV. .' BOWLI l 0 C \ PL. P\ P fAG . p 4iM > ALBION Y. Oq tiiF a RD D �, < p0' + `NU WARREN . ODY m 1 v OARDWA K CPS \ 1' 2000' I I HYDROLOGY 1 1 C] I 11 Cl 4 The Sear -Brown Group McClelland Office Park 812-004 Composite Rational Method Runoff Coefficients (Fort Collins) Designer: tld Surface Impervious I Pervious C 0.95 0.25 Basin Area Percent Impervious Percent Pervious Runoff Coefficient Remarks Total Impervious ac ac C 1 2.19 1.86 84.9% 15.1 % 0.84 Main Basin(w.glty inlet 2 0.07 0.06 85.7% 14.3% 0.85 to prop east area inlet 3 0.08 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.25 flows east off -site 4 0.06 0.00 0.0% 100.0% 0.25 1 on -site thru curbcut I 01-Feb-99 v 0 O N_ O 11 11 1 76 c rn Y O N E CD V OOCO 0 0 N 0 U C � w E � fl- LO 00 N O O O 9 O .J- Loo 6cn co CO N In O N N r r r W 75 > ~ O O f� WO UJ O V CO O a O o co r LO 00 H Q J Q Q IL IL I1 IL U')LO00 L co [t (D J ti N O) 00 W N r L6 C C H Z 0 0 0 0 O OOCO NN LoN O 0o v N i OJ O O N U") QL I()rrN V Z O v J WLn 00 NN o6Oo x co U a VUl) LO Lo CO 00 NN Q U 0 0 0 0 Z U Q rn0aom roo m O V N N 0 0 0 Z) Q U) r N M V c N m m 0 s r O N m I i i- i 11 1 N Q U 0 LL C 0 A c a v N O Y E A = d N e= m U COU c 0 A � A ti = E U u u a Y E� d K _T N N � V C m N drj N o " T n G ^ a m r. U _u a c ^ E - ^ A " d o d"° m "'^ c m N q vU^ O J ¢nL- = UU x � � a W dJ .- W nLL N d _ ^ Nv _ A N m AOO O O N 0 0 0 v ^ LL LL O t N N y m 6 O O N 0 00 O m ^ m m 000 a � o e`icoo C E Q d C M l7 (7 (7 m m N N U >< m o00 0 U =E^ a o o m N m 6 N OS E E N r. J U'�aa = T C C O d ` J m � A < O O m N N N N c N m N E N m N m v a.o ^ oa � e i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 0 0 N N 00 i (6 N E N 0 U x 00019t < to to to to J U •C e- � t II II I� to O O +=w C N C) 0 0 to0O)M w M (0 N to 00 N LU d �> ~ O O Il- to J N to O V co Oo `-Lo00 Q J Q Q CLa- a_a s coIoo n M N J O LL1 f- 0 Z O O O O J y 000(O O o N N N N LU O OON to Qw toN I C= R v Z J ti C oococo 0 C> U U 1 oo X Cl) v o U ON Q 00NN CO Q U c� O O O O (`v o Z a 0) r, Ip (0 is II Q 0 OU y N N NC)o0 U Q 3 O Cp 0 (n c .-NMV 16� O c a° N E (n m >. ca .0. >f6 CD fp N C N O to N Ur` U II U � w O C J O N CDR az w a� a c u Co J sa U t N .. N cha -� O N U > m d CII Q a. 0 U ai 0 Z 6 11r 1 J I I I 1 i 1 I I N c U O LL C m C E D r' � a O N Y m m N a ow € u `u u V O m U y 7 � a � O m10 0 m E U m n E ' m K U y C _ � m m y N ` a nYl^ m U m v O m _ o ems' p c o` V y F'F1 Y J N rynu a nJ4 r � a m fQ ` N N O ` p 0000 0 r 0 n ^m 0=^ Cl0 Nr y` 0000 Q v ^ 0 e O O O O y� p N O O O COON m C ` O O U ool%)n U o 0 o v C N N 0 M E � m � E - w E r O Q j a C � J O O O < C ' 1[I Yl H to E m C n m C m m— N o O m— N t 7 V � C me a N p > oa v C m C O 9 O I i i 1 i 1 1 r 1 I E 1 I AREA INLET 2 FT CURB CUT w 1 The Sear -Brown Group McClelland Office Park II Area Inlet in Sump NSA I z,) (a Grate: (Neenah R-3401) Open length, L = Open width, W = 1.8 ft 0.9 ft Clogging, c = 50% Stage interval, dh = 0.1 ft r Weir equation: Qw=CLcHAl.5 C = 3.0 Lc = 1.8 ft ' H Qw Qo (ft) (cfs) (cfs) 812-004 Orifice equation: Qo = C Ac (2gH)^0.5 C = 0.6 Ac = 0.8 ft2 - ' - ` ------- --- - 0.00 ,`-'0 00 0.00-- 0.00 0.10 0.17E 1.22 0.17 0.20 P 0'48 1.73 0.48 0.30 ` 0 89 2.11 0.89 0.40 ��,1 37 2 44 1.37 Q(100) = 0.7 cfs IQ© 1 0.50 m .:, ' 2 73 2.73 d(100) = 0.25 ft 0.60 ,y 2s99F 2.99 0.70 3 23; 3.23 ' 0.80 ' 3 45 3.45 0.90 - 3 66 3.66 1.00 t ` 386= 3.86 1.10 4.05 6 ...-. __ .. .. . _.. _ .. ... .......... .. _ ....... .. __ .... 4 ... .... _ .. _... .... ...... .. . .... .... . ... .. . �3... MN2 '- 1 1 r,. 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 ' Head (ft) -E - Weir -+ Onfice Controlling I' 02-Feb-99 GUTTER INLET FRAMES AND GRATES H6' R-3397 Gu Inlet Frame and Grate Heavy Duty total Weight 330 Pounds Cot Note opening of rear of frame. �� t Sq� 23 ® Y RR34 121-76--I Rec I — II r.R�3• 2 Z 178. 25� 23' Also available with Type V gr (See R-3157.2 page 108).-E 32g 264 Order as R-3397-1. He 1 R-3401 Single Gutter Inlet Frame and Grate eavy Duty otol Weight 410 Pounds Double Gutter Inlet Frpn�es and Grates R-3401-C riple Gutter Inlet Fr6­m"0sqnd Grates total weight 790 pounds; triple unit, total weight 1160 154 26Z• 26Z- i—�; PLAN VIEW R-3401 PLAN VIEW R-34016 Illustrating R-3401 Illustrating R-3401-B N E E NAH ��- FOUNDRY COMPANY If grates installed with slots in same direction as traffic —not recommended for bicycle traffic. For safety standards see pages 88 to 93. PLAN VIEW R-3401 C Illustrating R-3401-C e L As►� o r df vdop� Pbw = ©. c.�S a � H h426 a z `cab c, � ►�� prop -zed Par 10+ Cp 217t. curb cut WEIR COEF. 3.000 �- See gi,.ve s `xc L 10 vi o� � c�zo� -k t �`�' Vol"0 1� STA ELEV 1.0 1.50 1.0 1.00-- lok z--� 3.0 1.00 _ 3.0 1.50 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) (cfs) ------------------ 1.00 0.0 1.10 0.2 1.20 0.5 1.30 1.0 ' 1.40 1.5 1.50 2.1x 1 DETENTION POND ANALYSIS i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 r� I DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD Developed by Civil Eng. Dept., U. of Colorado Supported by Denver Metro Cities/Counties Pool Fund Study Denver Urban Drainage ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ and Flood Control District, Colorado EXECUTED ON 02-01-1999 AT TIME 12:00:49 PROJECT TITLE: MCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK 11 DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 'tom' BASIN AREA (acre)= 2.25 RUNOFF COEF 1.00 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN DURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 ' INTENSITY 9.0 7.2 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 ***** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = .88 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 1 = CFS .88 ©�{yq�� q1.3 � � AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = `� 1 i i 1q l) MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FAC ,,n .11 _ �„\� I,I�6- COMPUTATION OF POND SIZEkQ-orIi� VY).n G�j^'"--11 7: --------- ---------- -'-'------ ---------- o '--------- ---- RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED 1 ' DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE INCH/MR ACRE -FT ----------------------------------------------------- ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 9.00 0.14 0.01 0.13 10.00 7.20 0.22 0.01 0.21 15.00 6.19 0.29 0.02 0.27 20.00 5.18 0.32 0.02 0.30 25.00 4.68 0.37 0.03 0.33 ' 30.00 4.17 -0.39 0.04 0.35 35.00 3.84 0.42 0.04 0.38 40.00 3.50 0.44 0.05 0.39 45,00 3.25 0.46 0.05 0.40 50.00 3.00 0.47 0.06 0.41 ' 55.00 2.80 0.48 0.07 0.42 60.00 2.61 0.49 0.07 0.42 65.00 2.47 0.50 0.08 0.42 70.00 2.34 0.51 0.08 0.43 ' 75.00 2.20 0.52 0.09 C.42 80.00 2.06 0.51 0.10 0.42 85.00 1.97 0.52 0.10 0.42 90.00 1.88 0.53 95.00 1.79 0.53 0.11 0.12 0.42 0.42 100.00 1.70 0.53 0.12 0.41 ------------------------------------------------ THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = .42 ---- ACRE -FT r� ' THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 0 MINUTES o ' is MCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK II 812-004 Detention Pond Rating Curve Cumulat Elev Area Area Storage Storage (ft) (ft2) (ac) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) 5027.44 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5028 5240 0.12 0.02 0.02 5028.5 17800 0.41 0.12 0.15 5029 31384 0.72 0.28 0.42 Interpolate the water surface elevation for the 100-year storage in detention pond: Enter Required Storage W.S. Elev. (ac-ft) (ft)-� .' �9T Linear: 0.42 5029.00 �- �p Y' W(&r i YA N t (lLY 0 Area -Capacity Curve 0.80 0 0.70 0 ^ v 0.60 o w m 0.50 0 a 0.40 0 �. d 0.30 a y0.20 0 �j 0.10 0 0.00 0 5027.44 5028 5028.5 5029 Stage (ft el) -�-Area —Capacity E, MCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK Orifice Calculation Detention Pond -100 year Event 812-004 KNOWN VALUES: WSEL 5029.00 ft Enter 100 year Water Surface Basic Equation: INVERT 5022.89 FT Enter Invert Elevation Q (100) 0.88 CFS Enter Allowable release rate Q=Cd•A•(2g•(h+k•d/2))0.5 Cd= 0.6 Fort Collins Standard value for the Orifice Coefficient A= 0.07 ft' Calculated from diameter g= 32.2 ft/s2 GravityCoefficient h= 5.95583 ft h = WS-(INV+d/2) k= -1 Vertical Orifice Coefficient ENTER - d= 0.30833 ft d= 3.7 inches Enter Diameter in Inches Check h >= 2.0 • d h= 5.95583 2.0 • d= 0.616666667 Within Limitation Q = 0.87 cfs RESULT: Orifice should be sized to: d = 3.7" Diameter (in) Q (cfs) 3.5 0.78 3.6 0.82 3.7 0.87 3.75 0.89 3.8 0.91 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 1 1 1 EROSION CONTROL 1 11 The Sear -Brown Group I 1 I RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION 812-004 Project: McClelland Office Park STANDARD FORM Calculated B : tld Date: 02/01 DEVELOPED ERODIBILIT Asb Lsb Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN ZONE ac ft jSsb ft 1 moderate 2.19 435 1.5 396.9 1.4 2 moderate 0.07 55 5.0 1.6 0.1 3 moderate 0.08 12 25.0 0.4 0.8 4 moderate 0.06 25 2.6 0.6 0.1 Total 2.40 399.6 2.4 81.1 tAAIVIF'Lt C:ALUULA I IUNS Lb = sum(AiLi)/sum(Ai) = (2.19 x 435 +... + 0.06 x 25)/ 2.40 399.6 ft Sb = sum(AiSi)/sum(Ai) = (2.19 x 1.50 + ... + 0.06 x 2.60)/ 2.40 ' 2.4 % ' PS (during construction) = 81.1 (from Table 8A) PS (after construction) = 81.1/0.85 = 95.4 r 1 19 I' The Sear -Brown Group EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 812-004 Project. McClelland Office Park STANDARD FORM B Calculated By. tld Date: 02/01 Erosion Control C-Facto P-Facto Comment Number Method Value Value 3 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 1 0.9 8 Silt Fence Barrier 1 0.5 38 Gravel Mulch 0.05 1 39 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 0.06 1 SUB PS AREA BASIN % ac Site 81.1 2.40 SUB SUB AREA Practice C * A P * A Remarks BASIN AREA ac DURING CONSTRUCTION 1 PERVIOUS 0.33 3 0.33 0.30 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 1 IMPERVIOUS 1.86 38 0.09 1.86 Gravel Mulch 2 PERVIOUS 0.01 3 0.01 0.01 Bare Soil - Rough Irregular Surface 2 IMPERVIOUS 0.06 38 0.00 0.06 Gravel Mulch 3 PERVIOUS 0.08 39 0.00 0.08 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 3 IMPERVIOUS 0.00 38 0.00 0.00 Gravel Mulch 4 PERVIOUS 0.06 39 0.00 0.06 Hay or Straw Dry Mulch (1-5% slope) 4 IMPERVIOUS 0.00 38 0.00 0.00 Gravel Mulch Cnet = [0.33x1.00+...+0.00x1.00]/0.33 = 0.19 Pnet = 0.8x[0.33x0.90+...+O.00x0.50]/0.33 = 0.79 EFF = (1-C*P)100 = (1 -0. 19*0.79)100 85.40 > 81.1 (PS) zo ('The Sear -Brown Group I, i 1 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS 812-004 Project: McClelland Office Park STANDARD FORM B Calculated By. tld Date: 02/01 Erosion Control C-Facto P-Factoi Comment Number Method Value Value 9 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 0.01 1 16 Established Grass Ground Cover - 70% 0.04 1 18 Established Grass Ground Cover - 90% 0.025 1 20 Sod Grass 0.01 1 SUB PS AREA BASIN % ac Site 95.4 2.40 SUB SUB AREA Practice C * A P * A Remarks BASIN AREA ac AFTER CONSTRUCTION 1 PERVIOUS 0.33 20 0.00 0.33 Sod Grass 1 IMPERVIOUS 1.86 9 0.02 1.86 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 2 PERVIOUS 0.01 20 0.00 0.01 Sod Grass 2 IMPERVIOUS 0.06 9 0.00 0.06 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 3 PERVIOUS 0.08 20 0.00 0.08 Sod Grass 3 IMPERVIOUS 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement 4 PERVIOUS 0.06 20 0.00 0.06 Sod Grass 4 IMPERVIOUS 0.00 9 0.00 0.00 Asphalt/Concrete Pavement Cret = [0.33x0.04+...+0.00x0.01 ]/0.33 = 0.01 Pnet = [0.33x1.00+...+0.00x1.00]/0.33 1.00 EFF = (1-C*P)100 = (1-0.01*1.00)100 = 99.00 > 95.4 (PS) zI (1 The Sear -Brown Group EROSION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Office Park to by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for /al by the City Engineer. YEAR 99 MONTH A M J J A S LOT GRADING ' STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR ' DATE SUBMITTED MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS C z z- 2000 ■ 0 l The Sear -Brown Group 11 1 1 Prepared By. tld Date: 02/01 CITY RESEEDING COST Unit Total Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes Reseed/mulch 2.40 ac $636 $1,526 See Note 1. Subtotal $1,526 Contingency 50% $763 Total $2,290 Notes: 1. A<=5 ac=$636/ac; A>5 ac=$531 /ac. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES Unit Total Number Method Quantity Unit Cost Cost Notes This section is no longer required per Bob Zackley Subtotal $0 Contingency 50% $0 Total $0 ,F- Total Security $2,290 I [1 1 r 1 j 1 1 1 r 1 I 1 1 ORIGINAL MCCLELLAND OFFICE PARK PUD DRAINAGE REPORT MAY 49 1984 1 -A I II L� I TMOIDW Engineering Consultants Drake Terrace Suite 240 343 West Drake Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 303/226-4955 063-001 May 4, 1984 Mr. Jon W. Savignano NDC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 6553 S. Dayton St. Suite #3800 Englewood, CO 80111 RE: McClelland Office Park P.U.D. Dear Jon: This storm drainage letter report and supporting calculations are submitted for the proposed McClelland Office Park P.U.D. located approxi- mately 500 feet south of Harvard Street on the east side of McClelland Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The site is bordered by commercial properties to the north, east and south while facing onto McClelland Drive to the west. The site topography splits the historic flow two directions. One area flows in a southeasterly direction at a 1.2% grade. The other area in a northeasterly direction at a 1.3% grade. The existing ground is covered with native grasses. All historic offsite flow Is intercepted by McClelland Drive. DESIGN CRITERIA --------------- The two year historic flow from the sites two detention areas will be outlet to a 43" x 27" CMP on the east property line of the Executive Car Wash through an outfall pipe. The outfall pipe to this structure is sized for the two year historic flow from both the McClelland Office Park and Solar One. The majority of the procedures, methods and numerical constants were Nobtained from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria revised March 1984. The capacity of the piping was determined by Manning's . Formula which equates a constant, a roughness factor, the area of flow, the hydraulic radius and the slope, to the capacity of the pipe. In order to restrict the outflow from each detention area, an orifice plate will be used. DRAINAGE PLAN The proposed development consists of three, three story office build- ings and associated parking. The following is a breakdown of the proposed ground cover: Buildings 320200 S.F. Parking, Driveways 8 Sidewalk 109,500 S.F. Landscaping 50,100 S.F. This ground cover will produce a composite runoff coefficient of 0.74 for developed conditions. It is proposed to provide stormwater detention in accordance with the guidelines stated under the Design Criteria section of this report. For a 100-year storm event, the volume of storage necessary is 32,400 cubic feet, calculations enclosed. The ponding will occur in parking areas and will be limited to a maximum depth of 1.5 feet. - 2$- 't I C I 7 Detention will be released through area drains with orifice plates for restricting the flow, calculations attached. The flow will then go through a fifteen inch storm sewer piping system to the 43" x 23" CMP storm drain. In order to properly handle the stormwater from the buildings, the following MUST occur. One; the buildings adjacent to the east property line must have downspouts designed to drain to the parking areas to the west. And two; the middle building must split its drainage equally to the north and south. ,�/_ _ .,ir When properly constructed, this drainage plan will satisfy all hydrau- Iic considerations as well as City of Fort Collins current regulations in providing the proposed development with both a safe and economic method of stormwater management. Should you or others have comments or questions concerning this drain- age plan, please contact us. Very truly yours, RBD, 4INC. 1 G. McL au Iin Robert M. Takeda, P.E. LGM/RMr:kac enclosure cc: Phil Waite Eldon Ward �5 pt N �O0 �6ISTEREoV W60 0 a g463 '+,� OF COS HISTORIC RAINFALL INTENSITY: ,HISTORIC OUTFALL: .7587BB4 V/ LATE: (-)4-3C)-S4 PROJECT: McCLELLANDS f 7"F PARK JOB NUMBER: J6 •001 DESIGN ENGINEER: JIM ALLEN ADETERMINE EXISTING 0 FOR 2 HISTORIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENT .25. BASIN SLOPE: 1.47 PERCENT EASIN LENGTH 380 FEET AREA: 1.92 ACRES HIST TC = 1.87*(1.1-( 1 ))*SORROOT- 380 27.25434 MINUTES 1.58C?809 / INCHES/HOUR CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DETERMINATION OF DETENTION FOND VOLUME FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS DEVELOPED STORM: 100 DEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT CCFAC = I * GROSS VOL. CU. FT. 4859. 136 7420.512 9526.46A. 13170.82 15824.16 16687.37 18029. 95 18413.57 19948.>' REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUME IS .3203778 ACRE FEET 1 ,1 .74 1.776 DURATION MIN 5 1C, 15 30 45 60 90 120 18) YEAR STORM .74 1.25 OUTFLOW VOL. CU. FT. 227. 6365 455. 2-7 3 682. 995 1365.819 2048.729 2731.638 4097. 457 5463.276 8194.915 16389.83 1.3955.6b 6K * DETENTION VOL. CU. FT 4631.499 702)5. 239 S843.555 11805 17%775. 43 13955. 66 13932.49 12950.29 11753. 12 5859.899 CU. FT. OR YEAR STORM .25 1.47 1/3 1.92 I 0" IDATE: C)5-01-84 HST 5 PROJECT: McCLELLANDS OFFICE PART. Z JOB NUMBER: 063-oo 1 DESIGN ENGINEER: JIM ALLEN .DETERMINE EXISTING O FOR ^ HISTORIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENT BASIN SLOPE: 1.23 .25 PERCENT BASIN LENGTH 470 FEET AREA: 2.47 ACRES HIST TC = 1.87*(1.1-( 1 ))*SGRROOT 470 ))/ YEAR STORM 32.16408 MINUTES HISTORIC RAINFALL INTENSITY: 1.431146 INCHES/HOUR HISTORIC OUTFALL: .8837324 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DETERMINATION OF DETENTION FOND VOLUME FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS - ------------------ DEVELOPED STORM: 100 YEAR STORM DEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT .74 CCFAC = .74 * 1.25 - 2.28475 DURATION GROSS VOL. OUTFLOW VOL. DETENTION VOL. MIN CU. FT. CU. FT. CU. FT 5 6251.076 265. 119 7 5985.957 10 9623.368 530.2395 9093•.128 15 12255.4 795.3593 11460.04 30 16943.71 1590.719 15352.99 45 20-757.12 2386.078 17971.05 60 21467.51 3181.437 18286.07 90 23194.78 4772.15)6 18422.63 120 180 2368S.29 -25662. 31 63b2.874 9544. 31 1 17325.41 .16118 360 28623. 35 19088. 62 9534. 727 RECUIRED DETENTION VOLUME IS 8422.63 CU. FT. OR .4229253 ACRE FEET 2.47 I . 29 DATE: 04-25-84 Illy McCLELLANDS OFFICE PARK: C3ftS%a Soy-+'Q- ��E �' ' JOB NUMBER: V63-001 DESIGN ENGINEER: JIM ALLEN DETERMINE EXISTING C FOR 2 YEAR STORM HISTORIC RUNOFF COEFFICIENT .25 BASIN SLOPE: 1.25 PERCENT BASIN LENGTH 360 FEET AREA: 1.47 ACRES HIST TC = 1.87*(1.1-( 1 * •25 ))*SQRROOT 360 >)/ 1.25 = 27.99689 MINUTES HISTORIC RAINFALL INTENSITY: 1.548049 INCHES/HOUR HISTORIC OUTFALL: .568908 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND DETERMINATION OF DETENTION POND VOLUME FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS DEVELOPED STORM: lOV YEAR STORM DEVELOPED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT �� CCFAC = I 77 1.414875 DURATION MIN 5 10 15 30 45 60 90 120 1SO 360 * BROSS VOL. CU. FT. 3871.098 5959.454 .7589.39 10492.71 12606. 54 13294.17 14363.81 14669.43 15691.88 17725.55 REQUIRED DETENTION VOLUME IS .2592219 ACRE FEET t 1.25 OUTFLOW VOL. Cif. 'FT. 170.6724 341.3448 512.0172 1024.034 1536.052 2048. 069 3072.103 4096.1�8 6144.207 12288.41 11291.71 oK DETENTION VOL. CU. FT 3700.426 5618.109 7077.373 9468.679 11070.49 11246.1 11291.71 10573.29 9747.67 54=7.14 CU. FT. OR 1/3 1.47 RMINC Engineering Consultants CUENT Na �zx JOB No. PROJECT M, r I..t��..�) O. P. CALCULATIONS FOR `�2A-" ea�v1 G MADEBY 1QA DATE A:2--%A-CHECKED BY DATE SHEET / OF Svr•'�PCDIVT�cr>,o�rJ =���T ins otz�<=�c.� Ct�ti��`(•'�L7w�- Q = C� CL � p' ` j•Z• Z "Y/Sac �5�1_ h=ftS 4 , 14eU c = C4 )< e RMW Engineering Consultants CLIENT `N SDC- V JOB NO. dCc 3'OC�� PROJECT tt-"BUD �• P. CALCULATIONS FOR � ��'•����K MADEBY�DATE' CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET 7- OF W LrzT .Z yu�,y— �Loc,v 2.�c� �• , 88 G'�s Mac l���O � •��i - �4-• s"= �¢ �• � -. Sc�T-AP-Goti��o� ---/- 1Z�-�. .4iZtipc--.; 8�/•S%�' 2�3�.L�¢,Z - = ._-..---.. - tz� ova = ¢�ZGz = S,7.S••vz 347- i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 r CHARTS, TABLES, & FIGURES 33 ' I STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE 803 1 1 I I 7 _J I MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES °.. •, - - - - p�,r, °.�, - - - -�.. p/ PLAN haTC ► Any TypoO/ PLAN of 1•IH. o, h a.•, USE EQUATION 801 SECTION USE EQUATION 805 z °'Vz o..., o,••t k = v :2S SECTION K J- CASE I CASE II INLET ON MAIN LINE or INLET ON MAIN LINE 1C= D Ci /Ylfnj�t� G:1 /Nn;h(inc WITH BRANCH LATERAL \o PLAN awl USE EQUATION 805 1�=,5)5ei: Wl L o .• AN °'--•' USE EQUATION 801 SECTION CA INLET OR MANHOLE AT BEGINNING OF LINE a • SECTION CASE III MANHOLE ON MAIN LINE CASE I I I WITH V .BRANCH LATERAL CASE NO. K . A° KK q I 5 22 1/2 0.75 ' II 0.25 45 0.50 IV 1.25 60 0.35 90 0.25 No Lateral See Case I 1 1 DRev. NOV 1984 I REFERENCE APWA Special Report No. 49, 1981 STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA I TABLE 802C STORM SEWER ENERGY LOSS COEFFICIENT (BENDS AT MANHOLES) 1A 1:3 ;.3 ,.L 12 116 I.I 1.0'b 1.0 e:16 Y 0.8 m L a� V o:7_ 0 co o D69 —r 0.6 Cd(- C:52 0"6 eAt 0.4 o�6 0.1g v89 0.2 J.1L L C C-5 0.c4 00 Y Z I I I I I I I I I I Bend at Manhole, no Special Shaping Deflector Curved I Y I Bend at Manhole, Curved or Deflectorl I I I Manhole I I I I I i I I I I I I 00 200 400 600 800 900 1000 Deflection Angle Y , Degrees NOTE: Head loss applied ai outlei of manhole. DATE: J A N. 1 9 8 6 REFERENCE: -D� REV Modern Sewer Design, AISI, Washington D.C., 1980. O O O C LO W n N 0 0 O O O N O 0 N O N Li O 0 p Q O N 0 0 O O — .- O 0 O 0 0 O Q G O O .- C O CV N N O O N N O t0 Cl O m co 0 .t` n C N N N O Q 0 O N O N O U7 O 17 CR O O: O N IC O O O O O Q nl 17 W N 0: 0 N n O: n rl 0 co l0'! C G N 0 N N Q Q. Q O m O N N 0 0 0 N 0 O n N Q t7 1 C/ N Cj IC N; 0 N n %i n O! Q C? CV N m O r t.. n 'O C O IL 0 = C.) M Q vi Q 0 0 L U N C N U N N C U CC Nu CQCV IL Q _ C O C ¢Co U � m r > >- > O LL N , LL >E LL J> 0 W � W w ac U Q p 0 w Giza Z m a � 'OFo O_ Q &C r W oF,yo F- Z 0 1 J (.3aWq. 0 0 J 0Z3=W U > OU ° crLL:) oa0-1 W 0 2 Z O aNF`n cf) n w U- Q - Q ~ Z H C3-J z i J oaZN J Q �aDW M w Q maw~ mzU.S ih Z v+ Q LL. c h ti O1 co M1 W Lo Q to N (jnOH jad sO Oul ) Jkl.ISN3.LNI -I-lVJNIVU ►1 O' W 0 to 19 0 F- N 0.4 Figure 1. Peak Flow Adjustment Factor For FAA Method U. UO 0.4 0.75 0.2 0.6 Opo/Opi RaVo . DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 50 30 t- 2 0 z Iu U cc w a 10 z W a O 5 in W ¢ 3 O cc U 2 W F Q 1 =■■■MI WN 2wi Affi// MINUM • / r �V"MFAM►A■I.M�—I �uuu■■■■� 51 .1 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 DRCOG I BOULDER COUNTY STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL TABLE 704 WEIR FLOW COEFFICIENTS SHAPE Sharp Crestea— Projection Ratio (H/P = 0.4) Projection Ratio (H/P = 2.0) Broad Crested v/Sharp U/S Corner COEFFICIENT 3.4 4.0 w/Rounded U/S Corner —� Triangular Section A) Vertical U/S Slope 1:1 D/S Slope 4:1 D/S Slope 10:1 D/S Slope B) 1:1 U/S Slope 1:1 D/S Slope 3:1 D/S Slope Trapezoidal Section 1:1 U/S Slope, 2:1 D/S Slope 2:1 U/S Slope, 2:1 D/S Slope Road Crossings Gravel Paved 2.6 3.1 3.8 3.2 2.9 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.1 COMMENTS H _>1.0 H_>1.0 Minimum Value Critical Depth H>0.7 H?0.7 H_>0.7 H>1.0 H >1.0 H>1.0 H>1.0 H>1.0 ■■■.■�mffia NONE. ■M 0.3 O. Ol O.a Oa O• OEO•CE OF Su9MEAGENCE Ma ADJUSTMENT FOR TAILWATER WRC ENG. REFERENCE: King & Brater, Handbook of Hydraulics, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1963 -------""-- MCCLELLAND DRIVE _ -- _ tons________— - - _- --- 6 I s I EAST RIGHT OF (NOT WAY TO LINE SCALE OF MCCLELLAND DRIVE ___---- Joel __-- -_-_.—___- '• ----_ ,ice--------- � .Intel a " L A9F9-- EMSENG CONTOUR n EXISTING SEWER UNE I � - -ss _ —W — EXISTING WATER MA1 `\ _ / �, ; Ulf UNDER GROUND TE-EPHONE - I _ •n�1Y�uY DRAINAGE BARN BOUNDARY _ \ ; I'• CAL E SLING EDGE OFOWRHEAD PAVEMENT/(MAVEL .. A11. LOTiI - - - ��� aA� G B BuaB•p RIGHT-OF-WAY� LOT ONE / T, EIGSTING AREA-� e BARN NUMBER /r I look��._ T IN WATER E' BASIN RN AREA -- _ EXIS7NGIBUILDING i �\ QDESIGN PONT { .__ ... .___... 1 r T O GRAVEL FILTER -- I -- -- —J LOT Y SET FENCE . —ter I DIRECTION OF ROW I f Wftd' tl I ® 100 YR W5. ELEV. I _ .y� T EMSMNG ❑GHT POLES I I1 WRLDW CURB Is GUTTER I I / — INFLOW CURB a OUTTER ----_ ENsnNG WRB/ASPHALr __—_— ENSTING FLOwLNE ` i. __ ._ i _ _ __. ... UIILITT EASEMENTr - __. _-_ , Pt - -�- - _ EXISTING SPRINKLERIFIR HEAD '' e /� __ _, ff lY.<Fl 04 A. Ma HArta AP ./ FIR Hwri _ R HANDICAP RAC_--F I _ b I _ e' sz-- ,' T- All Y9 YF CMFmuCMx I f1 �" •• Y IM M A I M I e. L I t 0 Ae ,Ir ocwur a.0w \ — - "/A'M' �mASH ENGLDwRE W paMw-thew .. _ seu s.M•n -- _______ wx_________ — L R ath.-- - - --------------'--- wnFrAYRM iNAHRM S ol TMyM1 EtlWI Net Vote Zod CmM. Rw,ew _ _ — Wa_es PROPOSED BUILDING LOT a sfmnmc. SCALE L'a2O' I FF = BOSO.W Mw el Need a2 Om � smncnnez wsTwsm Br MMaua _ n _ _ _ _ _ .eaTAnMMAa•c mrinAww _ - _ `_ __ _ oerz su•nTrt0_.enROWP w an or far caws w - - _ - _ - _ . _ _ - - 41,1local ommommoSTANDARD EROSION CONTROL G0 ASTNUCTION PLAN NOTES Am NOTES• _ _ bd ns:ry than be mr Nd It Men T. m 9[5(n nnw. 1 Y'9 FED s dep . e t (AllLLAYIN wX. 4 _ RmmV erq M Centel^'r 9.r1"'n. rn'bp` PROPOSED AREA INLET SHALL T - - - - nnw. qln t oy�supW�" om ANN wMfaf coda rue one RalAN Make efalVw. w-). LIE INTO EXISTING STIXtM DRAIN 1 3 My son '� SEE DETAIL SHEET B 1\ p at the 9 :ta fee ) Ma.e a they m #t col rawl bell be t ee owl p aaro r °emly 6.7 Aaa ( J 0.0&C EMBRNG CURB Se mnmtwro final and wanted, own" Mal 0 w- 6n9F,F• m• m J Vol Ad, on, Th, gyf n. to allorw Mont or becoming FMA Co a.. 'b'� b mmafaa rmnceeo a. polond - mA•w a eM^ rwnA oe ry rn. anwrevr wvel.a perm a U.a On ai une aC� .w9omnm°u AAA rr+ wawq. oe Fr CARRA ey�r rw �p Lim cdrr�eIwo hHe their OR had a a m. eu-an. a °esvE oe muid.e cw E -Me AbleI.uunv anNe n ° laboal . (ntY4a9. r Emb9 AN,, do r1 y tral R�„� hoi•�. ua .en� wu ol: 'w annomle ° eSl r9XAyf w. fo r el erv..nartlY 34S ut. mpy . i . All re born .Ma M meal inket t.Rhtlyana be r� efew "em cal i.V°ab°'imwVal No new �u ameal o° moo melaM ee w°wr w.o»�•° III "-rright, only°WwovEmi r and R°ellt aM M" tw/�Laa. V ,al er open Roe In they mtW d IUNft Vol, ft. mcannall iarw� nmpn I •. R (XI .° t,I !. a (XI oY • pM y a sel wneyev.4o. Rae at* A FMK STIBNtnnM u - I WA"R Mhe"CInprT. ,to) Inamn. anima otnsaw Idea l by the offal Uaev, fall d eymt ew mn III Inet he Rhode Redented' VA be Real add M ul_W_YBFF Ale X "ba pawam ar.n Rod Mal a.tn• a r.anpaWr mm.+r• esb9- DEVELOPED SITE HYDROLOGY•y BARNI AREA(cc RATONLL (cM1 (cfBl 1 2.19 D.BI S.M 20.M 2 0.07 3 0.015 0.23 O.OB 0.2 4 0.09 0.23 0.05 0.2 BARN 1 - OETDlTIONOi VOL REWIRED (AC ff�� w 0.42 ?I VCI. FRONDED (AC FD - O.M2 100 M. HWEL (il) - 5029.W prop y ek 5 RELEASE flAIE (CES) - O.B9 �N phy, one awn,t, na , ,Mu.mwme'u9•" e. RentaF° l ev the CiiY of Fort CAl p day _ won he aw oe a ui to hovel v® wley o ore Erv,wbap CV11"'Lw wn#t tl a�faa om EXISTING BUILDING a •' (eyb .pimak,lul n 1. heq 11 l end el All vv et AN p°e' all. won natal ."I E wow ad ol A°�,qw wtw ban, Al "I Rol I ad Rod . DRAINAf£ NOTES: il Intended ""�w, 61 ball ..emnr wn m w.a r Mm Hm _ p°°•� em mmey T T 3 SHALL HAVE ROOF GRAINS DESIGNED TO TAKE ALL ROOF RUNOFT LO Athamo e emm°e w in a mone wa iwpuo o m not to .a.m uMr my .n, off° '"m - re orw rvna were.tb THE BurLDINcs my and �,'.w�°u�ccd,°.nranrauEmn- alke t ea'0mw...nn,ary m A. cwa. to Towu+Os THE FRONT of Q man to (10) feet is n^ye. " le novel M n• wd „ than nll bwn to MA V wr:o nt R. all ..0 be aI 2 WATER QUALITY INLET STRUCTURE W9LL BE MAINTAINED BY OYMER Ire I eytvWey ey.w.e weM.n ea,wwr by ..Na .m9n•nln9..n w me p.H.r. wr tww. wnm9. o e m - Met o: a.n, n n nMew t wtn d .w `e w,eV ul an �°�;e;m® ha env All A) "wham be haw" and nn,IA" None. 11 they, �.we'Rahn throated no mmn sM"i ha f M � the Goal the a9. daNal y �' a mw a 01" ed. Coal Gm.a Damn 0 CRY �� ny � e;� a��a :r"they 'med ' E.ey o-e M u.•w. coda NOR nb, feet) aMeeyM � W e. w �r Y1E11 MBCLELLAIp DRIVE 'J EXmiMG GUTTER l S 4 LL PNOPoSED DRAINAGE SWALE IIf_J 4Eyov Y / 2- WRBWT FENCE •f �FFT;OcombscRom 534=6 700 M M r�l w\III City of Fork Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: OiBnNr a D9BM N DeN CHECKED BY: ablw a MMraMW %W Goa CHECKED BY. SannBW U� Deb CHECKED BY: P•M a w•BeIMn Dw CHECKED BY: Doa CHECKED BY. r— wdo � E � 40 812-004 MAMG NLL 38