Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 04/14/19931 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE SOUTHEAST JUNIOR,HIGH SCHOOL SITE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO April.9, 1993 Prepared for: Client: The Architects' Studio 117 E. Mountain Avenue Suite 100 Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 330-003 n INC. Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrurn Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX: 303/482-6368 April 9, 1993 Ms. Kate Malers City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235, Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Southeast Junior High School Dear Kate: We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this revised Final-. Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Southeast. Junior High School Site.. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City offort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD inc. Engineering Consultants Roger Curtiss, P.E. e Other Offices: Denver 303/458-5526 -Vail 303/476-6340 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS D SCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1 II. DRAINAGE BASINS, A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 2 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2 C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 2 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 3 E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 3 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 3 V. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 5 VI. CONCLUSIONS A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 6 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 6 C. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 6 REFERENCES 6 APPENDIX SITE HYDROLOGY 2 DETENTION REQUIREMENTS 9 DESIGN OF INLETS AND STORM SEWER 19 RIPRAP DESIGN 38 EROSION CONTROL 42 CHARTS, FIGURES, AND TABLES 48 ' FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR THE SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 1 I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION r A. General Location and Description rThe proposed Southeast Junior High School site is located within the Amended Wild Wood Farm Overall Development Plan which occupies r the northeast quarter of Section 5, Township 6 North, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Larimer County, Colorado, as shown on the Vicinity Map in the Appendix. This report will analyze the entire ' 45 acre parcel shown on the vicinity map, but the Junior. High School project will only develop slightly less than 28 acres. The site is located south of the Charter Hospital, and west of the future Corbett Drive ' extension. Presently, the site is being utilized for agricultural purposes. There are r irrigation ditches surrounding and draining through the site. The site generally slopes from the northwest to the southeast at approximately 1 %, while the irrigation ditches flow primarily from north to south or from west to east. Planned development of the 45 acre site include the Junior High School, and future Elementary School, several athletic fields, access roads, parking, and a future City Park. r 11. DRAINAGE BASINS r A. Major Basin Description rThis site is located within the McClellands Basin and is described in the report entitled McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, prepared by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc. 1986. A SWMM model was developed for the McClellands Basin. In that SWMM model, the majority of the site is located within drainage subarea 215, with the remainder of the site located in ' drainage subarea 216. Subarea 215 is drained by conveyance element 35, 1 1 11 which drains directly to the McClellands drainageway immediately west of County Road 9. Subarea 216 is drained by conveyance element 36, which ' drains to conveyance element 32 at County Road 9. Conveyance Element 32 drains south along County Road 9 to the McClellands drainageway. Detained flows from the entire site are suppose to drain under County Road ' 9 at the McClellands drainageway. The drainage structures which were recently constructed under County Road 9 have been sized to accommodate detained flows for the entire Wild Wood Farm Development ' plan. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations All regulations as established by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility will be used for this Final Drainage Study. B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints ' The McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan criteria and constraints are being utilized in this Final Drainage Study. Drainage criteria not specified in the McClellands Master Drainage Plan will be in accordance with the Ci of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards Manual. 1 The Master Drainage Plan for the McClellands Basin recommends on -site detention using a staged release of 0.2 cfs/acre for the 10 year design storm and 0.5 cfs/acre for the 100 year design storm. IC. Hydrological Criteria The SWMM hydrological model was used in the McClellands Basin Master ' Plan. The SWMM model analyzed the developed flows within the basin with the ultimate developments in place. A copy of the original SWMM computer model was not available, so the original SWMM model has not been updated to include any of the proposed improvements to the Junior High School site. The 10 year and 100 year rainfall criteria, which was obtained from the City, is the Criteria which was used to size the detention pond. The 2 year, 10 year and 100 year rainfall intensity duration curves, developed by the City of Fort Collins, will be used to size drainage structures. 1 1 ' D. Hydraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations accordance with the City included in the appendix. E. Variances from Criteria within this report have been prepared in of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are also 1 No variances are being sought for the proposed project site. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept All on site runoff produced by the proposed development of the Southeast ' Junior High School site will flow southeasterly to a detention pond located at the southeast corner of the site. Also to be detained in the pond_ will be developed flows from the future Elementary School west of this project, and ' from the future City Park, which is southwest of this project. Detained developed staged released flows will be routed east to County Road 9, and then south to the McClellands Drainageway by a combination of open ' channels and pipe flow. Detained flows from the Charter Hospital Site and from the. parcel between the Charter Hospital and the Junior High School site will be bypassed through the project detention pond and released along with the detained developed flows from this site. Detained developed flows from the Charter Hospital and the parcel to the south will be released onto Corbett Drive. From there it will flow south in the curb and gutter to a low point in Corbett Drive, where it will be intercepted by this developments storm sewer system ' and conveyed to the detention pond being built with this project. ' B. Specific Details This project has been broken into 15 sub -basins; Basins A through J, and 0-1 through 0-5. Basins A, C, E, and F represent the roof area of the proposed Junior High ' School. Runoff from the roof will be directed by gutters, downspouts, and underground piping to the proposed inlets and piping system conveying flows to the detention pond. 3 J Basins B, D, G, H, I, and J represent the remainder of the site and are composed of open space, access roads and parking lots, sports fields ' (permeable and impermeable surfaces), concrete sidewalks, and the detention pond. Developed runoff from these basins is conveyed to the Detention Pond by any combination of overland flows, open channels, curb ' and gutter, or storm sewer systems. Offsite Basin 0-1 represents the drainage basin containing the Charter ' Hospital Site and the parcel immediately south of the Charter Hospital and north of Preston Parkway. Detained flows (0.2 cfs/acre for the 10 year storm event and 0.5 cfs/acre for the 100 year event) will be released onto Corbett ' Drive and conveyed south by curb and. gutter to the curb inlets at the southeast corner of the site, and bypassed through the Junior High School Detention Pond, once the property is built out. ' Offsite Basins 0-2 and 0-3 represent the future Elementary School site and the Future City Park. No construction is proposed on these parcels at this ' time. The Detention Pond associated with this project will detain developed flows from these two areas. Runoff from these undisturbed areas will be routed to the Detention Pond. ' Offsite Basin 0-4 and 0-5 represent Corbett Drive and Preston Parkway. Developed runoff from these two public roads will be detained in the I detention pond associated with this project. The detention pond to be built for this project will contain approximately 7.72 ' ac.ft. of storage capacity. Only 4.22 ac.ft. of storage is required for detention; the additional 3.5 ac. ft. of volume is being provided for the future storage of irrigation water for the school. A staged release outlet structure ' will be built in phase 2 construction, possibly in April 1993, with a calculated release rate of 0.2 cfs/acre for the 10 year and 0.5 cfs/acre for the 100 year events. An emergency overflow structure will also be built into the pond. Irrigation water will be provided for by a lateral from Harmony Road that use to supply irrigation water for this area. A pipe and headwall will be built on ' the lateral and the irrigation water will be piped to the swale which runs from the softball fields to the detention pond. A backup water supply tap has been included in the domestic water supply system. Phase 1 construction will consist of overlot grading, the construction of Corbett Drive and Preston Parkway, the installation of the water and sanitary sewer, and the storm sewer and curb inlets at the south end of Corbett Drive. Prior to overlot grading, the detention pond as shown will be constructed to act as a temporary siltation basin. During the overlot grading process, the entire 7.72 ac.ft. of volume will be excavated, and the pond will function as a retention pond, per the City criteria that for a temporary retention pond, approximately twice the calculated detention volume is ' required. No irrigation water will be routed to the pond during phase 1 construction. No outlet pipe or downstream conveyance elements will be constructed with Phase 1 construction. The emergency overflow weir will be ' constructed with phase 1 construction. V. EROSION CONTROL IA. 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. It is anticipated that the initial overlot grading of the site will occur during the first ' part of 1993 (Phase 1 construction). The Erosion Control Performance Standard (PS) for the site was computed to be 79% 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 79%. Therefore, the ' Erosion Control plan as detailed within this report meets the City of Fort Collins' requirements. ' B. Specific Details Before overlot grading, the permanent detention pond shall be initially ' constructed so that it will function as a temporary sediment basin, containing at least 1.72 ac.ft. of storage capacity. After completion of overlot grading, all open spaces and the soccer field should have a temporary vegetative seed applied. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch should be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre minimum., and the mulch should be adequately anchored, tacked, or crimped into the soil. After the ' utilities have been installed within the public right -of ways adjacent to the site, surfaces should receive the pavement structure. The inlets filters and straw bale barriers should be installed in conjunction with the overlot grading process. Excluded from the temporary seed and mulch will be the future building pad, tproposed roads and parking lots not included in phase 1 construction, the future basketball courts, tennis courts, softball fields, and the track and football fields. In no case shall the disturbed areas receiving temporary seed and mulch be less than 16.25 acres. 1 In the event that a portion of the roadways included in Phase 1 construction ' will not be constructed for an extended period of time after overlot grading, the temporary vegetative seed and mulch should also be applied to the roadway areas as discussed above. VI. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards ' All computations that have been completed within this report are in P P P ' compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control. Reference Manual for Construction Sites and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. In addition, all computations are in compliance with the Amended Overall Drainage Study for the Wild Wood Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado prepared ' by RBD, Inc. dated June 26, 1992 B. Drainage Concept The proposed drainage. concepts adequately provide for the transmission of developed on -site runoff to the proposed detention pond and on to the ' proposed downstream improvements, and then on to the McClellands Drainageway. ' C. Erosion Control Concept ' The proposed erosion control concepts adequately provide for the control of wind and rainfall erosion from the proposed Southeast Junior High School Site. Through the construction of the proposed erosion control ' concepts, the City of Fort Collins performance standards 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 1 REFERENCES 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984, Revised January 1991. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. 3. McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan, by Greenhorn and O'Mara„ Inc. 1986. 4. Master Drainage Study for Wild Wood Farm, by RBD, Inc. July, 1988. 5. Amended Overall Drainage Study for the Wild Wood Farm, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., June 26, 1992. FA APPENDIX Ll C I 7 �I -Ll. d fi'l 0, 1,tlE—y CI. wvbms Cl, A It C—ly nd. 40 Rd ft Se JI V` o'. n c• L I c 1 III— Ad. AK 4f— - M Rolm cn, CZ— ox: ct C-. w r ma an =9 um HARMONY ROAD Hw" ............ 0 PROJECT SITE m Q. 0. to- z IN. L..f Q S.- st C,;4y 'Rd. 6 PORTNER RES Ck IL FOSSIL. CREEK MMR C, �I SITE HYDROLOGY F� u 1 1 1 3� CLIENLQI`T�� �IZ�DIo -JOB NO. INC PROJECT Ig= _lam. 1�1 CALCULATIONS FOR n \/ -, t 1 )t= "" Engineering Consultants MADE BY�DATE 9 _CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 119A �c-rz T.ae-It `= 3- i JsT5 1 �11s1t`l 3 3 . Z F=; �, z'>DC..L_ FIELD �L.VtJ1J1�111 T,F-7 n, C US a 1 C3,4.3 An) Z.4b oc tnl,a�l'e= ol��►.� SaocE use o.�> C1 .dZXo.9s� + C Z.4,.xo,z�� I i u>� I �p. i t I -78.. dG _. L�S�'1du .:.c�,.�c_�cr._. C.u.'. 0 95). a i CLIENT ITEM' 1� c�T1� �10 JOBNO.-�3,' INC PROJECT � � JZ_-HIL=-14 CALCULATIONS FOR \_LOL_L Engineering Consultants MADEBY_DATEpp���CHECKEDBY DATE SHEET OF. U L�L\SI T.l c)- Z 11 o S) 1 �1 �N a� v� - r � o Q �1 " 1 L 0 LL cr- 1 � Q 1 cn 0n 1 V Q rfi ' m o _n 4 Q 1 I to lU LL w Tn + W II N ` j iJ z Plol Y Q W O -2 �. z " U OU U W Ill U! w W� 4 �) o 0 0 o LP ,. y LL N -- NiN N N N N N N N N— z ,� r 0 w (� N r J c� r 00 a, a ID,d- � oo O r 0 0 0 0 Q av C Q2 ui tn Z O Q O O O o a 0 Q 0 0Lp 0 O O m Lu a N •D 00 p mod Q WLL U Z z W w z 0 Z W U c[ C� Q 7 T N vi n N �I yJ r T of N � v N U. cc O JUL a cn 0 4 N W LL Y cr- Q w X c 0 0— �` O N O p 0 0 0 Q 0 U-�" N O I CIO U oLQ 0_ 7 Z OC L ' 0 U U uj `w w J > Li-� N— N N N N N N N N N N— a�ooco o a o r3 0�3—� r co zio u. ►� l 0 r m 0 �1 W v n� N r c 0 lei (� LLI— >'� CL Q 1rLO o O10 Z `� 0 Q 0 0 0 o a 0 0 O 0 0 6 (J V) CO W u N ,,r► 05 ,/n� U 1 �` T-: Q 00 „' rU'(1 m o a �" m ro M O �i O m o o �► 0' ¢ w v% Q I 0 0 0 0 Q 1 `.1 N L� W LL c o U z U z a w w z z w U x El • b ^^,, ,v 1 L j- Mll N t 0 m i V• n co ;III i 0 nj so n tp W p uJ ` E N 0 3 r � a" ��v oUJou nJa � � I11 N :2 - Vl — N Q 2 )\0 L 1L !! L 949� lL � l► 01 L a u A 0; sdl N 4110010A N FI o s I D _ _i. _'. U61SO N It f 4 t a t I Tr y; sdl O Q 41loolDA N Slo 0) I U61soQ - Z 0 Slo co (f) A1t0DdDo — W Q 'UI aZ1s — 0 Q odolS - Z SID �110DdD� � 1'n m y olgDMolld % J U W N odor slo lloun,8 ?N1A uo1lDwiuns - m d NN N t` O N 0 -600Nc�c�_ lhc0= W S 13 ,9 � dl S llouna N Q U N r 0- r• ( f) Ja y l 0 }- un8 lI 4) co do l a- d U) 11 l oos� Q _ N N rNll �Lp�0 rY1 ct) vo - W ©J0D tfdif 0 Doi d- Q Z •jy/ •UI '�� i �� Q x l! S t1 l U 1 o, r0 N N N m 110 It co pp V) N N N M m M C� lUa!o!llao� 0 0 0 O 0 O O ()1 1,6 o 6 0 u!w U011DlIU00UOO r- p o M DD to owll O �-- E ulw w Ui ad!d 'u1w `n u. loons �u1w d awll lolul ylbua-j ' su!soe N i t N O p ON a Q Q 0 ll) U fo P o D- o U — O c" J Ln C] J J Imo ��a A $ �Q - po� Q� o m N A � � d UI0'� E N u � � IA d) 2 A�- l Q � ll . t� 1 n1 /j U Q it)S 0 ) Wto _ o �� 2 p 7 a 4 £ 7 a d oSd} N Xll0olon a �.. Sdi O a 0 Q,fl3010A N N N N v ,`- N SpD 0 M Z ublsoQ — — 0 sp Sip dDo co Q ul ~ 0. aZIS — O_ o � Q odolS - z Sla p o Al!oDdDQ to Q olgDMollb — W% .4 \ ° 0 V) odolS — 0 (J ° N S30 llouna M r U) 0 9 m to U01lDUJWr., —q ..Q4 N ��v O N— (J d �► (D di N W S)3 }jouna a JaylO m — SID ram- r N 8 N m �ouna l DoJ 1 Q — l(1 Q` M �} N F _ (�► lli N W OJDD VO l() tll M a -I °� 0 DOJ d m Im map N z r N N N g r 4p N A l I s ua l u l °' to �j r m Q if)-- iQ 0 OM, or0 U1 d lualotll;000 + UOI lDJ JUOOUOQ 10 owll — — 0 ~ E ulw co odld —u loDJI.S M N O awl-L lalul ylbuo-I d" N r SU IS Dg cv l N M d S N N Q -ry- T 11 'o 0 CL 0 .N J a 9/� DETENTION REQUIREMENTS 1 1 1 1 CLIENT--_J �11"=�'i�� v�T-C_71�1a JOB NO. ■WINC PROJECT I � .,1Z . 4-�1 e-t t CALCULATIONS FOR .17 T=w mr�w 1 Engineering Consultants MADE BY Z10 - DATECHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 4U LL/— 7 L 17 L J I7 No Text i 7/L CLIENT APe-1+41T TS �T�]710 JOB NO. PROJECT _1 1:�:)94- JP-- aIL-7-1 CALCULAT10NS FOR _1D ?,,M cN Engineering Consultants MADEBYF-2-CLDATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 11 I' H 1 I, J u l3� - ----------------------------------- DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER ------------ EXECUTED ON 02-16-1993 AT TIME 17:15:02 ROJECT TITLE: SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE (MINOR STORM) *** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION ' BASIN ID NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 49.53 RUNOFF COEF 0.45 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS ' DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 10.00 INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN IURATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 INTENSITY 5.7 4.4 3.2 2.6 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 *** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 9.91 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 9.2163 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. *** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE ---------------------------------------------------- RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED URATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.70 0.88 0.06 0.82 10.00 4.40 1.36 0.13 1.24 15.00 3.80 .1.76 0.19 1.57 20.00 3.20 1.98 0.25 1.73 25.00 2.90 2.24 0.32 1.93 30.00 2.60 2.41 0.38 2.03 35.00 2.40 2.60 0.44 2.16 40.00 2.20 2.72 0.51 2.22 45.00 2.05 2.86 0.57 2.28 '50.00 1.90 2.94 0.63 2.31 55.00 1.75 2.98 0.70 2.28 60.00 1.60 2.97 0.76 2.21 65.00 1.52 3.07 0.83 2.24 70.00 1.45 3.14 0.89 2.25 '75.00 1.38 3.19 0.95 2.24 80.00 1.30 3.22 1.02 2.20 - --------------------------------------------------- E REQUIRED POND SIZE = 2.306112 ACRE -FT v!!iz E RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 50 MINUTES ***** GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND STAGE CONTOUR CONTOUR POND POND (DEPTH) DIAMETER AREA SIDE SLP STORAGE FEET FEET ACRE FT/FT ACRE -FT 0.00 ------------------------------------------- 166.53 0.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 170:53 0.52 4.00 0.26 1.00 174.53 .0.55 4.00 0.52 ' 1.50 2.00 178.53 182.53 0.57 0.60 4.00 4.00 0.81 1.10 2.50 186.53 0.63 4.00 1.41 3.00 190.53 0.65 4.00 1.73 3.50 194.53 0.68 4.00 2.06 4.00 198.53 0.71 4.00 2.41 4.50 202.53 0.74 4.00 2.77 1 0 1 1 DETENTION POND SIZING BY FAA METHOD ' DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO, PHD, P.E. DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER --------=--------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ EXECUTED ON 02-16-1993 AT TIME 17:16:25 PROJECT TITLE: SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITE (MAJOR STORM EVENT) 1** DRAINAGE BASIN DESCRIPTION ' BASIN 1D NUMBER = 1.00 BASIN AREA (acre)= 49.53 RUNOFF COEF 0.56 ***** DESIGN RAINFALL STATISTICS DESIGN RETURN PERIOD (YEARS) = 100.00 INTENSITY(IN/HR)-DURATION(MIN) TABLE IS GIVEN �URATION 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 80 100 120 150 180 NTENSITY 9.0 7.3 5.2 4.2 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 1**** POND OUTFLOW CHARACTERISTICS: MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RELEASE RATE = 24.76 CFS OUTFLOW ADJUSTMENT FACTOR = .92 ' AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = 22.7792 CFS AVERAGE RELEASE RATE = MAXIMUM RELEASE RATE * ADJUSTMENT FACTOR. '`*** COMPUTATION OF POND SIZE RAINFALL RAINFALL INFLOW OUTFLOW REQUIRED DURATION INTENSITY VOLUME VOLUME STORAGE MINUTE INCH/HR ACRE -FT ACRE -FT ACRE -FT . 0.00 -------- 0.00 ------------------------------- 0.00 0.00 0.00 '1.00 10.00 9.00 7.30 1.73 2.81 0.16 0.31 1.58 2.50 15.00 6.25 3.61 0.47 3.14 20.00 5.20 4.01 0.63 3.38 25.00 4.70 4.53 0.78 3.74 4.20 4.85 0.94 3.91 '30.00 35.00 3.85 5.19 1.10 4.09 40.00 3.50 5.39 1.26 4.14 45.00 3.25 5.63 1.41 4.22 50.00 3.00 5.78 1.57 4.21 2.80 5.93 1.73 4.21 '55.00 60.00 2.60 6.01 1.88 4.13 65.00 2.47 6.20 2.04 4.16 70.00 2.35 6.34 2.20 4.14 ' 75.00 2.22 ------------------------------------------- 6.43 2.35 4.08 THE REQUIRED POND SIZE = 4.222104 ACRE -FT 'r THE RAINFALL DURATION FOR THE ABOVE POND STORAGE= 45 MINUTES 1*** GEOMETRIES OF AN EQUIVALENT CIRCULAR POND ----------------------------------------------------- ' STAGE CONTOUR CONTOUR POND POND 11 (DEPTH) DIAMETER AREA SIDE SLP STORAGE :FEET FEET ACRE FT/FT ACRE -FT ----------------------------------------------------- 0.00 166.53 0.50 4.00 0.00 ' 0.50 170.53 0.52 4.00 0.26 1.00 174.53 0.55 4.00 0.52 1.50 178.53 0.57 4.00 0.81 2.00 182.53 0.60 4.00 1.10 ' 2.50 186.53 0.63 4.00 1.41 3.00 190.53 0.65 4.00 1.73 3.50 194.53 0.68 4.00 2.06 4.00 198.53 0.71 4.00 2.41 4.50 202.53 0.74 4.00 2.77 ' 5.00 206.53 0.77 4.00 3.15 5.50 210.53 0.80 4.00 3.54 6.00 214.53 0.83 4.00 3.95 ' 6.50 7.00 218.53 222.53 0.86 0.89 4.00 4.00 4.37 4.81 7.50 226.53 0.93 4.00 5.26 ----------------------------------------------------- i 1 I -7/ CLIENT _L_ _-� t-r ` , Sm 7t*rz> JOB NO. INC PROJECT I�id- �,-1 L-.r-1 CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering Consultants MADE BY-22-1- DATE 10 -8 CHECKEDBY DATE SHEET OF i Ij 1 arrt_�T l z_ e A A.C-1 i= T- -- - IOo(a24+ IS2, 14G0 > i CI t33, 82.3 T I:::; = �5 3(oZCS-3-) cl _rZ> --CSJ- vo�i,r.�t= eE--� I,z.aC> yoL C s� CcF) C� F C� +J Tp V L1 LE ✓ �. \ /O I_JJ N1 E___ 4-9 ! to Za , oco ZZ 337 .. Z4, L,-7S 4-91 e> . Z�, t37v 2-7,Z7z 32sao ZZ33% 49.19 3S, 13a ,. ! 384•� � � � Zo, St �3 i 49Zv _.._ ._. 4t , i=�3 ., ..._ . _ .. _ �E>Zs3Z zla,a74 ,toys. v�s�L 49ZZ ; Sb , l 04 ZE3o,1Cx7� Z_z i ci-9Z7 -7G,91(0 loc, Ye \,VSl=t_- Z3:7o 49z4 , a Alt C a +' L... 18/ RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA DETENTION POND EMERGENCY OVERFLOW WEIR AT CORBETT DRIVE WEIR COEF. 3.000 41r.�4RA9 0.0 24.70 4.0 23.70 36.0 23.70 3Z� 40.0 24.70 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) ......... (cfs) ......... 23.70 0.0 23.80 3.1 23.90 8.7 24.00 16.2 24.10 25.1 24.20 35.4 24.30 47.0 24.40 59.7 24.50 73.5 24.60 88.5 24.70 104.5 3/ Z - -- - ---........... ---- 3 Ig/ DESIGN.OF INLETS AND STORM SEWER 1 L�� 1 F CLIENT JOB NO. ' Isom PROJECT 2--Lj IC-H CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering. Consultants MADE BY DATE�CHECKEDBY DATE SHEET OF ---------- ------ -----_ Q ITS Co��=-r T' �2iv� CJ�PPPd�c. f� 1 �ni SU T.A1 PI u L_1 S L) �,A (S-L-TT r- TS RC >S 1 vl 7Z:) Pof. ! D I Z7 P C>F= i S i + U 1 Grimm -T—y i 1 i ;. DES I C- r]- FTT_ .__ 1 I I 1� 1 I 1 ?I% CLIENTI�Tm 3T'710 JOB NO. 33o—CX�>3 Isom PROJECT JZ- 44)C-ter b �t CALCULATIONSFOR UDS��C� l f�nrc„r� Engineering Consultants MADE BY?--YI�DATE 911c�CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF C� , 1 O Q 1 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 ' DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER ' IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO 1 *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 02-18-1993 AT TIME 07:22:20 *** PROJECT, TITLE STORM SEWER CROSSING CORBETT DRIVE - JR HIGH SCHOOL 'DOnl>.15 E,o5I%aG I *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 10.29 22.50 22.56 NO 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 10.29 24.00 22.86 OK 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 2.86 24.00 23.09 OK 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 2.86 24.00 23.15 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS 1 NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 .............................................................. SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIAlHI611 D1A(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ---------------- 1.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 21.21 24.00 21.00 38.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 13.12 15.00 15.00 38.00 ' 3.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 13.12 15.00 15.00 38.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET 'REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISTING SIZE WAS USED SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS - FEET FPS FPS.. - - ... ---- 1.0 10.3 10.0 1.75 4.28 1.19 5.89 4.28 0.00 V-OK 2.0 2.9 4.1 0.77 3.61 0.68 15.02 2.33 0.79 V-OK 3.0 2.9 4.1 0.77 3.61 0.68 4.17 2.33 0.79 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS 1 Z3j6 IJ SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 0.40 21.04 20.75 1.21 -0.00 NO 2.00 0.40 21.74 21.54 1.01 1.21 NO 3.00 0.40 21.74 21.74 1.01 1.01 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET 1*** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ' ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 1.00 72.00 72.00 22.79 22.50 22.86 22.56 PRSS'ED 2.00 50.00 50.00 22.99 22.79 23.09 22.86 PRSS'ED 3.00 0.10 0.00 22.99 22.99 23.15 23.09 SUBCR PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW I*** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' 1.0 2.00 23.15 0.30 1.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 1.00 22.56 2.0 3.00 23.29 0.12 0.30 . 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.00 23.15 3.0 4.00 23.35 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 3.00 23.29 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD 11 SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. ' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 21/ ' ISO. Engineering Consultants 1 L CLIENT -LEC 11177E;C� c JOB NO. PROJECT S L CALCULATIONS FOR MADE BY_ DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF i. ; � N _ cae,v, :�;�v�.s= Pelt=rLL— .A Ul u _! 0 � ; Poti�Ity J&; Z.o P=r US= C>2,cALCr c�=_ �&;\TZ—h z> (zX3Zz.cD3 C,_)..��-L G Su QL_y m t» p_L 2, 38 ;--T D2c�\lI DES ��- �� �8 : l Q LET @lC--Q : PT to 1 I^ CLIENT-L EE l TS ri»» JOB NO. Z,-,R' ' INC PROJECT Z. 1iL-�+�^' ' CALCULATIONS FOR ,�STo21lSi z-, _s - Engineering Consultants MADEBY_`2_DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH 'URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT -------------------------------DENVER, COLORADO - ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA.03-16-1993 AT TIME 14:02:04 *** PROJECT TITLE : I ONSITE STORM SEWER PROFILE A *** SUMMARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.00 N/A N/A . N/A 18.35 25.00 22.56 OK 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 18.35 25.50 22.90 OK 3.00 N/A N/A N/A 18.35 26.00 22.91 OK ' 4.00 5.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11.77 10.51 29.30 32.40 23.67 24.99 OK OK 6.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.07 29.00 26.24 OK 7.00 N/A N/A N/A 4.07 29.00 26.33 OK I OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION 1S LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION ' *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH N0. ID N0. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) --------------ID - ------------------- 1.00 2.00 1.00 -----(1N)-(FT) ROUND ....---- 27.32 ----- 30.00 - ----------------- 30.00 0.00 ' 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND ROUND 28.96 24.36 30.00 27.00 30.00 24.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 23.35 24.00 24.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 14.98 18.00 15.00 0.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 14.98 18.00 15.00 0.00 'DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET ,REQUIREDDIAMETER WAS DETERMINED SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER BY COMMERCIALLY HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISTING SIZE WAS USED 1] 1 27/ ------------------ SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL 0 DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER- CFS- CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ---- -------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 18.4 23.6 1.66 5.32 1.45 6.22 3.74 0.78 V-OK 2.0 18.4 20.2 1.87 4.67 1.45 6.22 3.74 0.61 V-0K 3.0 11.8 11.3 2.00 3.75 1.23 9.07 .3.75 0.00 V-OK ' 4.0 10.5 11.3 1.52 4.10 1.16 6.23 3.35 0.59 V-OK 5.0 4.1 4.1 1.02 3.80 0.81 12.41 3.32 0.64 V-OK 6.0 4.1 4.1 1.02 3.80 0.81 4.81 3.32 0.64 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM -------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.00 0.33 21.29 21.00 1.71 1.50 OK ' 2.00 0.24 21.91 21.29 1.59 1.71 OK 3.00 0.25 22.96 22.41 4.34 1.59 OK 4.00 0.25 23.46 22.96 6.94 4.34 OK 5.00 0.40 25.12 23.96 2.63 7.19 OK 6.00 0.40 25.12 25.12 2.63 2.63 OK ' OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ---------------------------------------- 1.00 89.00 0.00 23.79 23.50 22.90 22.56 SUBCR ------------------------------------- 2.00 256.00 0.00 24.41 23.79 22.91 22.90 SUBCR- 3.00 220.00 220.00 24.96 24:41 23.67 22.91 PRSS'ED 4.00 200.00 0.00 25.46 24.96 24.99 23.67 SUBCR 5.00 290.00 0.00 26.37 25.21 26.24 24.99 SUBCR 6.00 0.10 0.06 26.37 26.37 26.33 26.24 SUBCR PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID ------FT- -------- --- ----- ------------------- ----- ----------- ----- ---------- 1.0 2.00 23.34 0.56 1.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 1.00 22.56 '2.0 3.00 23.25 0.00 0.75 0.16 0.00 0.00 2.00 23.34 3.0 4.00 23.89 0.59 0.24 0.05 0.00 0.00 3.00 23.25 4.0 5.00 25.25 1.31 0.24 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 23.89 5.0 6.00 26.47 1.12 0.58 0.10 0.00 0.00 5.00 25.25 6.0 7.00 26.55 0.04 0.25 M4 0.00 0.00 6.00 26.47 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. ' FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 No Text No Text ' REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN ' USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER ' 1N COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY.... ........ NLY.................................... ON DATA 04-08-1993 AT TIME 11:23:04 I*** PROJECT TITLE ONSITE STORM SEWER PROFILE B *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION ' INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 1.00 -----MINUTES- N/A N/A N/A 8.59 -- ---------------------- 22.65 22.56 oK 2.00 N/A N/A N/A 8.59 24.00 22.77 OK ' 3.00 4.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.75 3.24 25.00 26.00 22.95 23.44 OK OK 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 3.24 26.00 23.50 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION ' *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS _--_--NOTE--THE-GIVEN-FLOW-DEPTH-TO-SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH --- ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) 1.00 2.00 1.00 ....'--- ROUND ----------------------------------- 22.58 24.00 24.00 0.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 15.22 18.00 18.00 0.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 ROUND ROUND 13.75 13.75 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES ' DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE,IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, ' EXISTING SIZE WAS USED t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAAL CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY. NO. NUMBER- CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS -- 1.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.6 10.1 1.41 3.62 1.06 5.10 2.73 0.56 V-OK 2.0 4.8 7.4 0.87 4.47 0.84 8.45 2.69 0.93 V-OK ' 3.0 3.2 4.1 0.84 3.70 0.72 6.45 2.64 0.76 V-OK 4.0 3.2 4.1 0.84 3.70 0.72 4.40 2.64 0.76 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ' -------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1.00 0.20 20.80 20.65 1.20 0.00 NO 2.00 0.50 21.92 21.30 1.58 1.20 NO 3.00 0.40 23.53 22.17 1.22 1.58 NO 4.00 0.40 23.53 23.53 1.22 1.22 NO OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH 1S GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------- SEWER ------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ' 1.00 2.00 76.00 0.00 22.80 125.00 0.00 23.42 22.65 22.77 22.56 22.80 22.95 22.77 SUBCR SUBCR 3.00 339.00 0.00 24.78 23.42 23.44 22.95 SUBCR 4.00 0.10 0.00 24.78 24.78 23.50 23.44 SUBCR ' PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT 1D FT 1.0 2.00 22.97 0.29 1.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 1.00 22.56 2.0 3.00 23.26 0.26 0.30 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.00 22.97 3.0 4.00 23.65 - 0.36 0.30 0.03 0.00 0.00 3.00 23.26 4.0 5.00 23.72- 0.04 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 4.00 23.65 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD 1N SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. ' A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1-1 n 3� �o CLIENT .C_Wr1 LLIT,—F�7rS. ZZ LSD(O JOB NO. ' Isom PROJECT ,, � a. 1- I G_-=! StZ � CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering Consultants MADEBY—�C- DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEETOF 3 CLIENT cl 11d VT S�I1T1�D10 JOB NO.33o-CX_a INC PROJECT ::5b CALCULATIONS FOR _ E C'z,"7 blSt LF=r 11 [l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 f' 11 H, Rm1w, Engineering Consultants CLIENT / 1 ! 1T� �ii�i�l0 JOB N0. ��� 3 PROJECTS, 4A1 ==,A4 CALCULATIONS FOR 1JD e-')( i=T MADE BY_Zj0__ DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET 3 OF I I I I I 11 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1� 1 i 1 1 .RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION OPEN CHANNEL FROM CORBETT DRIVE TO THE COUNTY ROAD 9 STA ELEV 0.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 22.00 14.67 24.00 15.00 44.00 20.00 'N' VALUE .......... SLOPE ............. (ft/ft) 0.035 0.0027 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE (feet) (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) 15.17 1.5 0.9 1.34 15.67 5.1 1.5 7.50 16.17 10.8 1.9 20.44 16.67 18.5 2.3 41.93 17.17 28.2 2.6 73.61 17.67 39.9 2.9 116.96 18.17 53.5 3.2 173.41 18.67 69.2 3.5 244.30 19.17 86.9 3.8 330.90 19.67 106.6 4.1 434.45 FROUDE NO. 0:31 s���� �z 7s��wcc P11� 0.35 rrMdK. 0.37 _. 0.39 0.40.._...--- 0.41 0.42 Q - �9. ► ��s G@ = z.43� 0.43 0.44 0.45 IS 171 2�T�D 'Z7 "T'Z�=1S GNA�.I NEI� . Q1 r 33/= �1.9oc�s 33 8/ham CLIENT f2C�-bl��� TRIO JOB NO. INC PROJECT 10 1-1I Cep CALCULATIONS FOR rt t— Q! iz; Engineering Consultants MADEBY &• DATE4-- dE5 CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF 93 CID (f,,zsT - t--- e- 16_�C_ I } CLIENT2Gta 1 �GTS �-i �]��?� JOB NO. -;2, m ' INC PROJECTJUIJIoP -LL,L--+4 CALCULATIONSFOR'5;TI>ZM�E=�V���CI.Z9 Engineering Consultants MADEBYZil, DATE13-7.9c) CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN ' USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE ' DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO ----------------------------------------------------------------- *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 02-03-1993 AT TIME 12:43:59 ' *** PROJECT TITLE 1994 JUNIOR HIGH - STORM SEWER IN COUNTY ROAD 9 TO MCCLELLANDS ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ' ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 4.00 6.30 NO 2.00 3.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 69.10 69.10 4.75 7.00 6.39 7.22 NO NO 4.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 17.75 10.03 OK 5.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 18.50 14.40 OK 6.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 18.50 15.85 OK ' 7.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 20.50 17.51 OK 8.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 16.85 18.25 NO 9.00 N/A N/A N/A 69.10 .16.85 18.47 NO ' OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS I NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ' ID NUMBER UPSTREAM ID NO. DNSTREAM ID NO. SHAPE DIA(HIGH) (IN) DIA(HIGH) (IN) (FT) DIA(HIGH) (IN) (FT) WIDTH (FT) ----------------------------- 11.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND -------------------------------- 49.34 54.00 48.00 0.00 12.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 49.34 54.00 48.00 0.00 ' 13.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 33.22 36.00 42.00 0.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 .14.00 15.00 6.00 5.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 16.00 7.00 6.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 17.00 8.00 7.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 ' 18.00 9.00 8.00 ROUND 47.32 48.00 42.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES 'DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISTING SIZE WAS USED 1 '------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW G FULL G DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. NUMBER- CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET -FPS FPS -- 11.0 69.1 64.4 4.00 5.50 2.50 8.35 5.50 0.00 V-OK 12.0 69.1 64.4 4.00 5.50 2.50 8.35 5.50 0.00 V-OK 13.0 69.1 129.6 1.82 13.69 2.61 8.99 7.18 2.01 V-OK 14.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 15.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 16.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 17.0 69.1 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK 18.0 69A 50.4 3.50 7.18 2.61 8.99 7.18 0.00 V-OK ' FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM ' -------------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- 11.00 0.20 -0.86 -0.94 1.61 0.94 NO 12.00 0.20 -0.26 -0.86 3.26 1.61 OK 13.00 1.65 7.42 0.24 6.83 3.26 OK 14.00 0.25 8.61 7.42 6.39 6.83 OK 15.00 0.25 9.36 8.61 5.64 6.39 OK 16.00 0.25 10.22 9.36 6.78 5.64 OK ' 17.00 0.25 10.55 10.23 2.80 6.77 OK 18.00 0.25 10.55 10.55 2.80 2.80 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 1 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION ' FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ---------- ---------------FEET- 11.00 ----- 40.00 -------------- 40.00 ---------- 3.14 ---------- 3.06 ---------- 6.39 6.30 PRSSIED 12.00 300.00 300.00 3.74 3.14 7.22 6.39 PRSSIED 13.00 435.00 65.44 10.92 3.74 10.03 7.22 JUMP ' 14.00 475.00 475.00 12.11 10.92 14.40 10.03 PRSSIED 15.00 300.00 360.00 12.86 12.11 15.85 14.40 PRSSIED 16.00 345.00 345.00 13.72 12.86 17.51 15.85 PRSSIED 17.00 130.00 130.00 14.05 13.73 18.25 17.51 PRSSIED 18.00 0.10 0.00 14.05 14.05 18.47 18.25 PRSSIED PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUSCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY '--ID-NO--ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT 11.0 2.00 6.86 0.09 1.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.30 12.0 3.00 7.69 0.69 0.30 0.14 0.00 0.00 2.00 6.86 '13.0 4.00 12.94 5.20 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 3.00 7.69 14.0 5.00 15.21 2.23 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 4.00 12.94 15.0 6.00 16.65 1.41 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 5.00 15.21 16.0 7.00 18.31 1.62 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.00 6.00 16.65 17.0 8.00 19.05 0.61 0.16 0.13 0.00 0.00 7.00 18.31 18.0 9.00 19.27 0.02 0.25 0.20 0.00 0.00 8.00 19.05 BEND LOSS =BEND K* VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW VHEAD 'FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. c� RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION CHANNEL SECTION SOUTH AND WEST OF SOFTBALL FIELDS TO .DRAIN BASINS 0- ' STA ELEV i0.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 40.00 20.00 ' 'N' VALUE- --------- SLOPE ------------- (ft/ft) 0.035 0.0080 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE ' -(feet)-- (sq ft) --(fps)- (cfs) NO. 15.50 1.0 1.5 1.48 0.52 - ' 16.00 4.0 2.4 9.41 0.59 16.50 9.0 3.1 27.73 0.63 7 12 �� 17.00 16.0 3.7 59.71 0.66-* �- �' 17. 50 25.0 4.3 108.24 0.68 18.00 36.0 4.9 175.98 0.70 77-7 18.50 49.0 5.4 265.43 0.72 ' 19.00 19.50 64.0 81.0 5.9 6.4 378.93 518.72 0.74 0.75 20.00 100.0 6.9 686.95 0.77 ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION ' CHANNEL SECTION SOUTH AND WEST OF SOFTBALL FIELDS TO DRAIN BASINS 0- STA ELEV ' 0.00 20.00 20.00 15.00 40.00 20.00 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) DESIGN OF RIPRAP ma am ORINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT _r �!-1T :7aC STI,D10 JOBNO.33n'Q�>3 PROJECT_VZ --0-IC--iI SLR 4CX.Z'1'I. CALCULATIONS FOR MADE BY (S` DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF �ToeM .S >- TZ— Ca , v ;=.,mot = c� = i 3 . s ► �-�-s SioP� = U. C D) �71D 1�5C TYPE L -P-1PIzG�P T_)G.T_n,hl;jIC>T i 1=L,frc> I_.�r.�c�-�-►� o � n e�srt=csl �., z�c�l � ..�--� = C�/� - 13. S/ G>. t9 G�N.t.JC?T� F5C LESS T+1d1.1 3D �>= t.�idbN: I c I � 4 r� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1-.-, r motmOLUMMOL INC Engineering Consultants CLIENT _LTl li�c: i� �TlJ�IO JOB NO. 33O—��i PROJECT SCI�.L CALCULATIONS FOR MADE BY2"DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF z4. Z9 cfrs _.T-l'Pa o'er aI P 2,nr- 2-4, 2-9 Z, �z . s� F=ZL 1 U >`L T� 1 wa r cl e p44, a U5C L l=t.tC7T1 10F=: P OA,I Z1=CPu1 C_eJ t GQNj .jc ' T'4-4•o t� L- /c) ` (Z>Y-- Tz. G) Li �•!6 Pf-= L e4P = p 4(/ CLIENT QC�' JOB NO. INC PROJECT J ?I- • 14 1 C=L4 [�CzX. CALCULATIONS FOR Engineering. Consultants MADE BY_ DATE CHECKED BY DATE SHEET OF c P1 29 _ P 4 = Z2_ . a} zb -7 S. _1.6 ID� F=2orvM �i�v�� S.-7 o USC l-yPE (_ T I_ C Vz L -1 t . I F 1 1 1 EROSION CONTROL 1 1 1 1 / RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION i PROJECT: STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: 12. 0-oa:nss 2-3D DATE: CC-T. DEVELOPED SUBBA§IN ERODIBILITY ZONE Asb (ac) Lsb (ft) Ssb Lb (feet) Sb (96) PS -7 oc> Z.-c>v I .Cam/ I '� - -- O. � 3 E.DB o .39 0. 21 Z.0 D ------ _ _--- E G J ► Z,S3 l 30o c�.8% -4 �s, c c)s ' l3 s = MARCH 1991 8-14 DESIGN CRITERIA 7 /LA-, / EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS Z PROJECT: _ STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DATE: •z ,9 z Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment PjL�2E CJO1�. CPoG�ED � SMaC?}.� I • 0.� � .Oc:� -_.__-- _----------- ---- m0Lja-i--+ -------.-- 5, Z)Z s -- - I . MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS _19..Z/ . 'T-r?_y_....I.....- L����._.s✓c�.P� _Sc�1L , US�__.S�tM�T --------- C�SSurn�.....ep�r>,S--►J\ar. o-.S) i✓dsi r. �s _ 4_- J.......... Z-7. `IZ...6, , S. 1 u T cx 33_g1 = c:). EFL = - �--�-_ .0 �_P��_ l��J� _ ! � — (1 •�`• ��`� ! �� =— �oT-... wcFE- --- �.�ouT..t7..—.� • P_c?�DS_� .._ B�S.�\r.15._/.--b�- -�i--- ors- .- �,G39- /�.0 _ ���"--P-=-__ _ I.'7zxd_Sxo•S�C�,g . + _ z6.wxp.S�a_ p,8 � S. 33,8 t ; ZZ = Zo/ I�OT OR MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRITERIA / EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: STANDARD FORM B -...19S .9_�. J���o.�._!�-.�l�1=k--G.E��I_.__S1s� .--------- COMPLETED BY: DATE: C�cS I z , 9Z Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment �E Dr�uloUS P�� MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS -- e1�C�1J D . D� 1) J t`J STD Eta M J DES C:�P S I TT VS� Tc rn rnOL A al= S 1-t=-._N.C>-T'.__ -(> _ 86 . 11.-7 ;, - I .-7z >=,--!c�, FISiL s pPe-u sPcca-- 14.3soc_ zcxnc>s SC� CS,99xO.3c��!].S�(� ��rrl.��-�2?2S1o.l�.l--C.�►..)T�l�C�._.PL,LtiN------- -- ' VSE - Ssfl,lm�r., t�S��•� , - L�2�v._II.T�¢S !>J (Z6.IYO.O(,).�.�5.`}71)-- Z7 _1.-,-7.2x0-,.5, MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRITERIA 4/ EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: STANDARD FORM B Ind-.._-��- CG - cam, a e✓- ------ - - COMPLETED BY: . Cy >� ss 2L�D ,1 �c DATE: Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS l.77_ -: De-s I IIZ �SE o T- = o.-74- 41.._.A .....-- - - c.lz C4NTiGrdT�D �/owm� a���ti�19 Yr-.S o � cL'� r�J"t- • 111 d � ��. S+� E � ... I.7Z ,Lc FT MOST- r �- S'c 1- of i u Cam. � 1 ' 1�,� v_E_... P?C1>? !✓ .... S(7J.1�__PA�C-! tilC�- �._6l..DL-.r_F-[�O">�..�l..L_y ..__ ..._. S D+= T7 L L i Zc�dt�S =� L1fL D CL7U r--'T'S US*= St=�iry)e:k TLr�avELf=1�Zs o".l Po S e o ►.1_cL_G' ._:. �b,�.4_YD_06) � ..�I I.Sg�1�_ ���S9�J_ _N.�� u..lo rzeo>3t� i...l MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRITERIA 47/ 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ' PROJECT: d- Jt�rlioE'_Ic�u1}c�pL STANDARD FORM C SEQUENCE FOR 19 93 ONLY COMPLETED BY: 8 . Cs eTSS @ DATE: Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for ' approval by the City Engineer. YEAR 199Z MONTH ID I J IFIMI„IMIJIJI I I ' OVERLOT GRADING WIND EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening Perimeter Barrier ' Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other RAINFALL EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAL: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters ' Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation ' Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other ' VEGETATIVE: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Mate/Blankets Other STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY MAINTAINED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR 'DATE SUBMITTED APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON 1 ' MARCH 1991 8.16 DESIGN CRITERIA CHARTS, FIGURES AND TABLES u r' DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RUNOFF 50 ' 30 F-- 20 z w U w a 10: z w ' a 0 5. W 3 0 ' U 2 w F- • ' 3 1 s MEN1111 FA I ON oil FA ' I ,so I I 1111111110 .MEMO �eeree■e MONOMOMEMee /MEMO HIM /I r. �/�eI/eL■�Ilee' �eeeeeee■/e �I�eI/e►I el.��//�eeeee��� �►��reereer�����eeee■eee��� ��II III ■I,�������������� .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. URBAN DRAINAGE 3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 451A/" ' R-M-P Medium Density Planned Residential District — designation for medium density areas planned as a unit (PUD) to provide a variation in use and building placements with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. R-L-M Low Density Multiple Family District — areas containing low density multiple family units or any other use in the R-L District with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-family dwellings and 9,000 square feet for multiple -family dwellings. ' M-L Low Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas for mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 6 units per acre. M-M Medium Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas of mobile home ' parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 12 units per acre. B-G General Business District — district designation for downtown business areas, including a variety of permitted uses, with minimum lot areas equal to 1 /2 of the total ' floor area of the building. B-P' Planned Business District — designates areas planned as unit developments to provide business services while protecting the surrounding residential areas with ' minumum lot areas the same as R-M. H-B Highway Business District — designates an area of automobile -orientated busi- nesses with a minimum lot area equal to 1 /2 of the total floor area of the building. B-L Limited Business District — designates areas for neighborhood convenience centers, including a variety of community uses with minimum lot areas equal to two times the total floor area of the building. ' C Commercial District —designates areas of commercial, service and storage areas. I-L Limited Industrial District —designates areas of light industrial uses with a minimum area of lot equal to two times the total floor area of the building not to be less than 20,000 square feet. ' I-P Industrial Park District —designates light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses with minimum lot areas equal to two times the total floor area of the building not to be less than 20,000 square feet. ' I-G General Industrial District — designates areas of major industrial development. T Transition District — designates areas which are in a transitional stage with regard to ultimate development. For current and more explicit definitions of land uses and zoning classifications, refer to the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapters 99 and 118. I Table 3-3 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS Character of Surface Runoff Coefficient ' Streets, Parking Lots, Drives: Asphalt................................................................................................ 0.95 Concrete 0.95 ' ............................................................................................... Gravel .... 0.50 Roofs.......................................................................................................... 0.95 ' Lawns, Sandy Soil: Flat <2%.............................................................................................. 0.10 Average2 to 7%.................................................................................. 0.15 Steep>7%.......................................................................................... 0.20 ' Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat<2%............................................................................................. 0.20 Average2 to 7%........................................... ....................................... 0.25 __.....'.. Steep>7%.......................................................................................... 0.35 MAY 1984 3-4 DESIGN CRITERIA No Text 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �— 00 CD Nt N 01) DU LU v Lv w CY) o') CDDO DO 00 00 O O O O O O O O 3-1 - .10-}010d WOT-U-IsnCp-V M-OUJnp 41 (1) Q� d G. ,O w -n � .-, w 4J c7 41 �::5 rd O (1) (D a.) �4 A'' 3 0 w 4J N a CO o O 0 �I/ (do ' 1.0 12 5 II 10 4 .9 8 10 3 .8 6 . . 9 04 0 \ 2 w w _ 3 8 w ���� z 1.5 CL � 2 \ .6 7 �P\eyP r b U �°. '------z -9 1.0 I.0 z 9 5- Ex_ nlp D,.- - ' .8 5.5- t•- .6 w w 5 i z_ o .7 w .4 Z w 4 _ .6 z 4.5 Z. o .3 w L ' UL _ c� 4 L 0 .2 0 .5 z z t- Z - c� o w .3 3.5 w w .4 oa a J I oc o w 0 0 0 .08 ' .25 3 ~o .06 .3 = x 0 2ow z ' _ = cc .04 .25 2.5 w w 2 . 03 a >- 3 ' E- U .02 t, .2 a o CL x 2 a ' U a .15 .01 0 .15 L w ' 0 0 Yo Q ' .10 a = 2h t .I 1.2 Figure 5-2 - ' NOMOG (DNH FOR CAPACITY OF CURB OPENING INLETS IN SUMPS, DEPRESSION DEPTH 2" Adapted from Bureau of Public Roads Nomograph MAY 1984- 5-10 DESIGN CRITERIA I � DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL M. 0.7 �- 0.6 F- w 0.5 Dr - III > 0.4 0 a 0.3 w 0 0 z 0.2 0 z 0 CL 0.1 EXAMPLE STORM INLETS 0.01 t t l l l l l l l l l l t l l l l l l l l Lj I l l l l lilt 11 1 l l Jill if 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 FLOW INTO INLET PER SO. FT. OF OPEN AREA (CFS/FT2) FIGURE 4-I. CAPACITY OF GRATED INLET IN SUMP 10-15-68 Denver Regional Council of Governments 5 M-PrAl OOG 11 11 irk n STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN AND TECHNICAL CRITERIA TABLE 803 MANHOLE AND JUNCTION LOSSES PLAN NOT[ rota•r °1 TAN p� PLAN USE EQUATION 005 ° °H — V`Z K vlZ L-_ — all V �.► S o,, K = 0 •:2� o.h ECTI N SECTION USE EQUATION 801 �- 1��= K CASE I CASE II •Z3 INLET ON MAIN LINE Jr" k= INLET ON MAIN LINE 0!0! �l,tn WITH BRANCH LATERAL 01•"t V PLAN °--�' - --- ----- °""' USE EQUATION 801 PLAN i p.". k=1.ZS USE EQUATION 805 SECTION USE Z MLi�S CA V1 INLET OR MANHOLE AT 41�f L °-��. i . BEGINNING OF LINE o� E�j CTION .SA5F M . CASE I I I MANHOLE M IN LINE WITH 80 BRANCH LATEAAI. ;CASE N0. 8° K. I 0.05 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 Date: NOV 1984 REFERENCE:. APWA Special Report No. 49, 1881 Rev: DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIP.RAP IK Ki �YpE L Z 4 b Yt/D M Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream. � L Z.S M FIGUREw5-7.` RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT i:JC> 1 1 1 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL E. 7 m E c r 2 N F (r � 4 O Z Q a_ L X W A = Expansion Angle 17- i h (V O O O 6' //00/z oe t i I i RIPRAP .l .2 .3 A .5 .6 E .7 .8 TAILWATER DEPTH / CONDUIT HEIGHT,' Y t / D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 9 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT H k n I Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL with drive over curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. 0 is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 2.63 sq.ft. Area = 20.11 sq.ft. Minor Storm . Major Storm Slope Red. . Minor .. 0 V . Major . 0 V M :Factor : X : (cfs) : (fps) . X : (cfs) : (fps) 0.40 : 0.50 : 86.71 : 2.74 : 2.09 : 696.73 : 22.03 : 2.19 : 0.50 : 0.65 : 86.71 : 3.99 : 2.33 : 696.73 : 32.02 : 2.45 : 0.60 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 5.37 : 2.55 : 696.73 : 43.17 : 2.68 : 0.70 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 5.80 : 2.76 : 696.73 : 46.63 : 2.90 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 6.20 : 2.95 : 696.73 : 49.85 : 3.10 : 0.90 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 6.58 : 3.13 : 696.73 : 52.88 : 3.29 : 1.00 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 6.94 : 3.30 : 696.73 : 55.74 : 3.46 : 1.25 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 7.76 : 3.69 : 696.73 : 62.32 : 3.87 : 1.50 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 8.50 : 4.04 : 696.73 : 68.27 : 4.24 : 1.75 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 9.18 : 4.36 : 696.73 : 73.73 : 4.58 : 2.00 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 9.81 : 4.66 : 696.73 : 78.83 : 4.90 : 2.25 : 0.78 : 86.71 : 10.15 : 4.95 : 696.73 : 81.52 : 5.20 : 2.50 : 0.76 : 86.71 : 10.42 : 5.21 : 696.73 : 83.72 : 5.48 : 2.75 : 0.74 : 86.71 : 10.64 : 5.47 : 696.73 : 85.50 : 5.75 : 3.00 : 0.72 : 86.71 : 10.81 : 5.71 : 696.73 : 86.89 : 6.00 : 3.25 : 0.69 : 86.71 : 10.79 : 5.94 : 696.73 : 86.67 : 6.25 : 3.50 : 0.66 : 86.71 : 10.71 : 6.17 : 696.73 : 86.03 : 6.48 : 3.75 : 0.63 : 86.71 : 10.58 : 6.38 : 696.73 : 85.00 : 6.71 : 4.00 : 0.60 : 86.71 : 10.41 : 6.59 : 696.73 : 83.61 : 6.93 : 4.25 : 0.58 : 86.71 : 10.37 : 6.80 : 696.73 : 83.31 : 7.14 : 4.50 : 0.54 : 86.71 : 9.93 : 6.99 : 696.73 : 79.81 : 7.35 : 4.75 : 0.52 : 86.71 : 9.83 : 7.19 : 696.73 : 78.96 : 7.55 : 5.00 : 0.49 : 86.71 : 9.50 : 7.37 : 696.73 : 76.34 : 7.75 : 5.25 :. 0.46 : 86.71 : 9.14 : 7.55 : 696.73 : 73.43 : 7.94 : 5.50 : 0.44 : 86.71 : 8.95 : 7.73 : 696.73 : 71.89 : 8.13 : 5.75 : 0.42 : 86.71 : 8.73 : 7.91 : 696.73 : 70.17 : 8.31 : 6.00 : 0.40 : 86.71 : 8.50 : 8.08 : 696.73.: 68.27 : 8.49 : L NC Engineering Engineering Consultants 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I CLIENT C It'l QE' t-o ( 1rl t 1 JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONSFORC)UTiE?_ R,_0%AJ MADE BY_r �DATE Z_CHECKED BY DATE SHEETOF �_ No Text Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Major and Minor Storms ' per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria COLLECTOR w/ 611 Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. ' C is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area = 28.96 sq.ft. ' Minor Storm Major Storm Slope Red. Minor Q V : Major C V (X) :Factor . X . (cfs) . (fps) . X . (cfs) . (fps) ' 0.40 : 0.50 : 135.32 : 4.28 : 2.41 : 1129.59 : 35.72 : 2.47 : 0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 : 2.70 : 1129.59 : 51.92 : 2.76 : 0.60 0.80 : 135.32 : 8.39 : 2.95 : 1129.59 : 70.00 : 3.02 : ' 0.70 0.80 : 135.32.: 9.06 : 3.19 : 1129.59 : 75.61 : 3.26 : 0.80 0.80 : 135.32 : 9.68 : 3.41 : 1129.59 : 80.83 : 3.49 : 0.90 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 : 3.62 : 1129.59 : 85.73 : 3.70 : 1..00 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.83 : 3.81 : 1129.59 : 90.37 : 3.90 : ' 1.25 0.80 : 135.32 : 12.10 : 4.26 : 1129.59 : 101.03 : 4.36 : 1.50 0.80 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 4.67 : 1129.59 : 110.68 : 4.78 : ' 1.75 2.00 : 0.80 : 0.80 : 135.32 135.32 : 14.32 : : 15.31 : 5.04 : 5.39 : 1129.59 1129.59 : 119.54 : : 127.80 : 5.16 : 5.52 : 2.25 : 0.78 : 135.32 : 15.83 : 5.72 : 1129.59 : 132.16 : 5.85 : 2.50 : 0.76 : 135.32 : 16.26 : 6.03 : 1129.59 : 135.74 : 6.17 : ' 2.75 : 0.74 : 135.32 : 16.61 : 6.32 : 1129.59 : 138.62 : 6.47 : 3.00 : 0.72 : 135.32 : 16.88 : 6.60 : 1129.59 : 140.87 : 6.76 : 3.25 : 0.69 : 135.32 : 16.83 : 6.87 : 1129.59 : 140.51 : 7.03 : 3.50 : 0.66 : 135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 1129.59 : 139.48 : 7.30 : 3.75 : 0.63 : 135.32 : 16.51 : 7.38 : 1129.59 : 137.81 : 7.55 : 4.00 : 0.60 : 135.32 : 16.24 : 7.62 : 1129.59 : 135.55 : 7.80 : 4.25 0.58 : 135.32 : 16.18 : 7.86 : 1129,59 : 135.07 : 8.04 : ' 4:50 : 0.54 : 135.32 : 15.50 : 8.09 : 1129.59 : 129.40 : 8.27 : 4.75 0.52 : 135.32 : 15.34 : 8.31 : 1129.59 : 128.02 : 8.50 : 5.00 0.49 : 135.32 : 14.83 : 8.52 : 1129.59 : 123.77 : 8.72 : ' 5.25 0.46 : 135.32 : 14.26 : 8.73 : 1129.59 : 119.06 : 8.94 ; 5.50 0.44 : 135.32 : 13.96 : 8.94 : 1129.59 : 116.56 : 9.15 5.75 0.42 : 135.32 : 13.63 : 9.14 : 1129.59 : 113.76 : 9.35 ' 6.00 0.40 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 9.34 : 1129.59 : 110.68 : 9.55 E 11 No Text RINC Engineering Consultants 1 1 � ar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CLIENT C '-I 724 DE t-U2T �C 7)1 1 1 1,1 S JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR - nk/ MADE BY B(I DATE_? CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET OF �_ ' Table 813 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor ' BARE SOIL Packed and smooth................................................................ 1.00 1.00 Freshly disked........................................................................ 1.00 0.90 ' Rough irregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN/TRAP................................................................. 1.00 0.5011) ' STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ........................ 1.00 0.80 SILT FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00 0.50 ' ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01 1.00 ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .......................... See Fig. 8-A 1.00 ' SOD GRASS................................................................................. 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.4512, 1.00 ' HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.1013 1.00 SOIL SEALANT.................................................................... 0.01-0.6014) 1.00 EROSION CONTROL MATS/BLANKETS0.10 1.00 ............................................ GRAVEL MULCH ' Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately 1 /4" to 1 1 /2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05 1.00 ' HAY OR STRAW DRY MULCH After olantinsa crass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. ' Slope (%) 1 to 05.............................................................................0.06 1.00 6 to 10............................................................................. 0.06 1.00 11 to 15............................................................................. 0.07 . 1.00 16 to 20.............................................................................0.11 1.00 ' 21 to 25............................................................................. 0.14 1.00 25 to 33.............................................................................0.17 1.00 > 33.......................................................................... 0.20 1.00 ' NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. (1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. ' (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. (3) Hydraulic mulches shall be used only between March .15 and May 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. MARCH 1991 8-6 DESIGN CRITERIA ITable 8-13 C-Factors and P-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values (continued from previous page). Treatment C-Factor P-Factor CONTOUR FURROWED SURFACE Must be maintained throughout the construction period, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. Maximum ' length refers to the down slope length. Basin Maximum Slope Length (°,6) (feet) 1 to 2 400..........................................................................1.00 0.60 3 . to 5 300.......................................................................... 1.00 0.50 6 to 8 200........................................................:.................1.00 0.50 9 to 12 120..........................................................................1.00 0.60 ' 13 to 16 80..........................................................................1.00 0.70 17 to 20 60......................................................a...................1.00 0.80 > 20 50.......................................................................... 1.00 0.90 ' TERRACING Must contain 10-year runoff volumes, without overflowing, as determined by applicable hydrologic methods, otherwise P-Factor = 1.00. ' Basin Slope M 1 to 2.....................................................................................1.00 0.12 3 to 8..................................................................................... 1.00 0.10 9 to 12..................................................................................... 1.00 0.12 13 to 16..................................................................................... 1.00 0.14 17 to 20.....................................................................................1.00 0.16 ' > 20..................................................................................... 1.00 0.18 NOTE: Use of other C-Factor or P-Factor values reported in this table must be substantiated by documentation. P 71 L �J 1- MARCH 1991 8-7 DESIGN CRITERIA ' O 01(71000 O d'd'InU)Ill U) O co g q co Co 01 m O1 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 O wrd d'd'U1totoU)U)In d' co g q q q co co co q q O go10)ONONa\a%a%CA0101rn000 In In U) M g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q ' O t�ggqQ1010101010101010101010101.01010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • N g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q O . OMd'In1DtOtD ":1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�t�t�ggNqqq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . ' O o dv O 0NMd'MInU)0tDtDtDtOtDt-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-t-00 qq O • . • • • a rn M�r�r�rd��rd•�r�rd�csr�r��rd'�d'�r�rd'.d'�d' o ggqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq U 0 tDONMvvInnU)In0tDtDtOt0000tDtDt-t-t-t-ht- tn q Z g co q q q co co q q q q q co q q q q q q'q q q q q q q H a O rO1HNf')M rd'd' wtoU)InUlIntou)InU110tDtDotOtDt- ,a .. . U gggqcoqqqqqqqqqqcoqqqcoqooqqqq H 0 0 W q o ri ri N N M M M M d' v r r v v d' d In In In U) 1D tD x..... .... .. O 10 M M M d' d' d' d' d' d' d' v d v d' d' �!' d' v d' d d' d' d' v d d' ' W gggqqq03wwww0wwmwmqqqqqqwww QRi .�O I1)NU)(�gD100r-�r-1r-1NNNNNMMMMMd'd'd'd'd' 1 O d? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . co Pk In NMMMMMvv10d'vd'vv qrvd'd'd'vvvd'v V v coCIO gqqcocowwqqqqqqwww0qqqqtAqq ' W CO W HWr-IM drm000r-t-t-ggqqco co 01010100000 �A Otn 4 0v NNMMMMMMf')MMMMMMMMMMcl) 4 4vd'd'd' HO CO gggqqcoqqqcoqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq ' az O tDing0r•INMd'd'IntntntDW%D%0%DI,I-I-I-ggg0101 Po . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi v r♦NNc"1MMMMMMMMMMMMMMI")MMMMMMM g q q q q q co co g q q q q q q q co co g q q q co q q q U U) rlr-iU)I-goor4NNMMMd'd'd'd'd'InIntn%DW%01l-t, . M ri N N N M M N M M M M M C'1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M g q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q O O MNog01oHNNMMMvvvvd'd'InInIn. IntDtDtDtD ' (SI . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . Ri M O rl ri rl rl N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W coggmcogqqcowDow 0 wwwwwwwwwwwwq a q q q 01 Ol Q1 01 01 01 O O O O O O a a N 0% 0 0 H H H H H H H r-q H rq HriririHHHNN NNNN I- g q q q q q q q q q q q q q co co g co q q q q q co q LL ' z o vInoMU)IDCIO g01000riHHHNNNNMMMMMM H N g010008c O 444444ri4444444444 In gNqHv nt-t`wm0100HHririHN.N'NMMMMM ri tOgg0101010;01010;01000000000000000 0 J %omod'i-010riNMMd'd'InInInn%D%D%D0r-r-000 . . ri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4%t 9t�991� cggCOgqqqqW,W,W, Oggqqqqq t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` � t` I- t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` t` (` t` In 010v0r-qqt-r.t-tOtD00Nrd'MMNNai%ovHcn%D O • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0NNNNNNNNN,NNNNNNNNNNriririri00 x �r H— 00000000000000000000000000 O O FI 00000000000000000000000000 azw HNMd'm0r-g010HNMd 0 Dr-w01000In0In0 ' w W � ri ri r� ri ri e-� ri ri ri eH N N M M d' sr In a MARCH 1991 8-4 DESIGN CRITERIA CHART 10 18 0 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (1) (2) (3) 156 6,000 D•42 Inches (3.5 fast) 6' 6' 144 5.000 0.120 cis 5. 4,000 Im x Nrtr 6. 5. 132 D feet 4. 3 000 (1) 2.5 8.8 5' 4. 120 (2) 2.1 TA 108 2,000 (3) 2.2 T.T 4' 3. sD in foot 3. 96 1,000 3' 800 84 600 2. Z. 500 / / T2 400 2' = 300 = 1.5 1.5 z Z (n rn Z 60 u 200 / Fw- 1.5 — Z w 0 54 o_ Q Q: w 100 w J 48 0 80 Z u Q = 42 60 (L 1.0 1.0 O ENTYPETRANCE w 11: 40 p SCALE Ix 1.0 w f- 36 30 (I) Square edge with W 19 .9 '9 W 33 headwall E3 9 Q 20 (2) Groove end with Q w headwoll = .8 8 Z (3) Groove and •8 projecting 10 24 8 .T T T- 6 To use scale (2) or (3) project 21 5 horizontally to scale (1),then 4 use straight Inclined line through 0 and 0 scales, or reverse as 6 6 3 illustrated. 6 18 2 15 5 5 .5 1.0 12 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS HEADWATER SCALES 2113 REVISED MAY1964 WITH INLET CONTROL BUREAU OF PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 1963 I81 Preceding page blank ICIn14Np13 >se Ku Tw• IT are Darer raw p.,w a•..a W.IWW 'Alin, 1 mw,w n3.Aw All d/Y MR A, MR)'- •ne in TGAMwr... Lw.IcI n (MI 3e SIG,up 1i we<A... oxwess weaN a .,v. ewrtww �w ova• Mt nMt IMM, ,Y 4 rm, n lism vet nx ;�� q,W=.�m START stirrers" 3.9 VNI IS hint, Awn. wenh s Ya \beµ/ Y wear... us R/r u, w,f[ rrW er. an uwr.r.ur warar rb" u.a wi — - : w., v.,,. n.e 30 Me, wrwar=.. w.is,wm. ,3.e rm, HE wn LE ' -,. ur ya,w Lvipw 6.1 IS SCALE 1'=100' amwMµ, w u,mm erset 19.1 awlw, ex,m Mm a.,^ IJ Air uw AL TAM .M.be se`:ww a,n rr.wwwr.. craws r.Mw mac ea er ass .bww Nµ+ne�neew r.wrwme wwa I� TOPAA - 3z.6e y LOT 0_1 MIN. G �ryTI r TEMP. DRAINAGE Sell (SDPACKAGE I MADE O 1W MOIST. ONLY) SECTION C-C ' I 4941 E r K .awe- • w. 39 �. or e .-.. 4937a.. 9 t3 z... : • w � . . .._ 493- ..._ Quo - anal RIPRAP w/ 12-,CDOT 1 CLASS e 340 A REDOING T eL IS [\\ ' 'Ow = 1251 ch I : Ol 2655 FBI 7EMP. SWALE /- 1 'TO DRAIN -BASIN B CRT (BID PACKAGE 1 CONST. ONLY)-r A BASINS A, C, E. R F ARE DRAINED BY ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM, SEE SHEET 10 FOR ROOF DRAIN LOCATIONS Out be 2.64 Cis O,m= 5.4E clan TEMP. SWALE TO DRAIN BASIN C (BID PACKAGE I CCNST.) e Stu MGM Mwi AMe T, °oi,"I"r l At, , l , l l l . l �nr CAR `0 IS xbe Mti s,w,Mix, ft'n 10 YIv qm Ian om. (r) fw AM, I AT bmp dift, IwI III QAIAX SMAUXUAL r w,r3 as w sa•r An M Ater w AT wt n) A bri ARM v �•'� , w wan runs e1 Is An, MM _ lei �,amMGM A, Mir n.� •'. u wH e um. (.1 wN ANo_A, ARM AT An AM, AIR AT MAR, MMAL rww raw a..w as ,.nbntt... i°" r. MSITE rYn roworu,M�v wern IM, MR, CAM CAR M we E%ISTNG HYDROLOGY •ARID-4r AM in 4 pNA, Total Arw: Includes Future Offeite City Park, _ MR,AWN-sw31 -- IRA rw As rw _ Futwa £Iemwbrr Soni Site At Perimeter Roods 495E ac Rationol "C". 045 (Developed) Total Flows to Detenton Pand Ow 4g.03 ch (Developed) Once- 10540 CIA (Developed) EROSION CONTROL NOTES FEET R ROADWAY AREAS. BUILDING AREA, FOOTBALL !TRACK AREAS, TENNIS COURTS, BASKETBALL COURTS, OR SOFTBALL FIELDS, APPLY TEMPORARY SEED @ MULCH IN ALL OTHER OPEN SPACES AND SOCCER FIELD (AT LEAST 16.25 ACRES, OF TIE TOTAL DISTIRBED AREA.) LEGEND 4932 -- EASTNG CONTOUR �f29� PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEVER BASIN BOUNDARY BASIN NUMBER 1.68 BASIN AREA IN ACRES DIRECTION OF FLOW OCURB/AREA INLET CRAWL FILTER STRAW BALE CHECK DAM Q CONTROL PONT AREA SUBJECT 10 10D YR. / STORM INUNDATI own 4d R. (M I so om • Indicates Flow for 2-year Storm Event DETENTION SUMMARY Basins Bell 0 2 Through 0-5, A Through d Basins Bp seed Through Pond 0 1 Maximum Release Rate 10 Yr. 02 c s/Acre (1384 cis) ` 10 Yr. - 05 ch/Acre (34.50 cfs) _ Required Val TrIxicti �SKe7pl- 10 Yr. 2.31 Ac. Ft 100 Yr. - 422 Ac Ft Provided VMume 7.72 Ac Ft (Initiation a 100 Yr.) io AT 3.82 ch ,m- 9.52 cls DAYLIGHT PRDP D CONTOUR \/ MATCH EAST. ORND EIEV. OIRB MILT sI me emcee ... LIMITS OF LON5IAUCTON eye vim= 135.8) b o= J.43 oh Ras- d LJT e - 1.8' 2230 ch OR= 2.86 ch e.Y WA 2J' MIN. a,r R? 2.8' MIN. Ol HEOD ch SLOPE - 0.8%+ SLOPE SECTION A -A -B BEcnq! BVE CURB INLET I AREA INLET BRAWL 16 Tlg 'R' FILTER 11170'M 50 OFFS! DRAINAGE EASEMENT mi-YE SHEETS B A 9 CANNEL OUTIET- k FOR OFFSET DRAINAGE %, SEE TAIL SET. 8 LB 30' DAREO END ffC10R_ O,o= (OUT O POND) 1J.84 cfs III CLASS CLASS 6 RIPRAP ( POND DETAIL ILET STRUCTURE LOUT BE POND) JJ.6J cfs / POOUTL SHY. 8 02" RCP A CLASS 6 RIPRAP in O DIC PRELIMINARY R- Do NOT use for zs svu iwo 0 1 APR 121993 DETENTION PICNI AREA Il 1 BID PACKAGE I CONSTRUCTION IRRIGATION STORAGE WSEL - W.JO GRAVEL FILTER j POND RETENTION POND w/ OVERFLOW M1lR 10 M. STORM WSEL - 22.W 100 M. STORM OUSEL - 23.70 J Aw/O VOLUME - WIL(NO A 32' WIDE EMERGENCY VOLUME - AO.FT' MILLET STRUCTURE BASIN 04ERROW WEIR SEDIMENT BASIN 1WWIJT�2 AFEi. MIN. INCLUDED IN BID PACKAGE I CONSTRUCTION ) DRAM APPROWD DESCIDED MAR.191993 DATE DIECKID J�3 _—� PROJECT N0. 7iVl.,. Engineering Consultants zm am ww. arm x4® x6W Ave,,.1m, le. xiLwn In MIT. FIAT �a CM,e„ 801 e„ -��1 °I " p,s n;,s, wI / 48x-.mx w /44W MrS s An / An-cIw mx SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL FORT COLLINS, COLORADO DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN sNEE*s SHEET 12 2 NO, BY DAM REVISION DESCRIPTION MH NO. 3 MH NO. 2 18*w 12'a 12'— 9 MH N0. ! Sl p ETA. 27+35 C� 52"fiCLASS INPP "STa II3;25 - - - - - _ A BEDDING + / EXISTING Offer 40IF IRRIGATION PIPE 48' RCP N TO BE REMOVED L m COUNTY ROAD 9 1_ �_ ,� _ _ _ I____ __ ____ r___- 4905 19M y _z :i® Ill1 _ LF EXISTING w EXISTING - .. .. _.. w/ FLARED I TREE IN NO. I TO REMAIN SECTION Z NOTES: NOTE: u < ETA. 30+35 I. All $term Safty ConsWction Shall conam to the City of Fort 6. The debtor of thew lama conform to are City at Iwl Cdllm MRXIJIES LOCATED IN COUNTY ROAD 9 (All NO. 11231415) Cable, Colorado Standard SpecNkalunb runent to the dale Requirements for somincation are MtaM. RIMS TO BE NOT LESS MAN V OR MINE MR B" BELOW 4 ZPi COUNTY ROAD 9 CRAVEI. REPLACEMENT Of Mwmce a Thew puns. FINISHED ROAD GRADE. W 2 yi TO BE CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BAY COURSE I- r. MI madhow IiW be almdad City of !at Coding &(t�, MATERIAL WE (1) INCH GREATER IN DEPTH 2, me type. at". local and number of ai known underground MMnae, a, � CITY APPROVAL utilities are opproalmol oe Shown M the drommid, It wall MARK APPROXMATE MANHOLE LOCATIONS NM TREATED u, L'i li MAN EXISTING BUT NOT LESS 1XAN 5' be the requi llly of the contractor to rally the B MI ape bedGl fa slam wen to be alaaad City of Fort 4 a 4 POST, B' LONG (MIN. 2BURIED) LOCATED rtjt IiH AND SURFACE TREATED WITH MAG. CHLORIDE IN PROCESS nce an d location of all unconywnd Whited along the Caao B b 9. PEWENOIWLAR TO MRNQE ONAPPROXIMATE 6 DUST PALLIATIVE DID GALLON/S.Y. MIN.) mute of wax. Before commencing new cowl uctlor, the EASTERLY R.O.W. LINE. EXISTINGI- cantracla what be ragmstse far Ixal unknown 9. CarMale the defacement M We eeeting grows read wrfaoe GRAVEL USX CROSS underground ulllltlel and bar in Canty Road 9 with the City of Fat Callon ROAD _ SLOPE MIN. Ohxta of Engineering. 3. Ptla to the e to of ahn s smalctim, me conbador what <Ntal all utAllles to cwrdnale aMeaulm. 10. The Contractor .AI be reaponai4le for <alainrg o Lorimer consbuctun the County Utility Fee l for cmebuclim Ar comply with oil ! contPrW to me cammmcamenl of any al part _ requirements of Ire Utility Permil. 10 PROPOSED RCP cur (24) Mfl give IM City EmglnrrFg (apartment twenty a ® (� _ STORM SEWER tort (24) ncub ppwnw notions. 11 A -Traffic Contra Plan 4 crmtrydru mSdwWN will be --- - "' THISIMER C APPROVED BY 5. BmMmarxe: squired Carl be Submitted on IM ion. as Contractor k approved by _ (; LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING Larimo CParen prior to cmabucllm, one po requirement DEPARTMENT Tog Bat m Fin HyErml. 65' N.E. Mountain Unl of UtAIIy PdmiL ftMi D fD 35 A 10 Elawlbn 49S0.18. 12. Prim 10 any road days dy Cmtmctw sas r r Larimo VAN no Bat Few Hybanl. 100' S.F. uwntfn Uaal County 5 working don aawnce notice, q. per t MM. 0 1 2.5 5 SECTION R Elawibn �950.0]. Y . H rpubemen DALE of Utility Permit. 9TA6 N MOT 9 a 8wo w in ^ tZy giX y��a9i Zn ,OUAI �0 __ _____ _ . 1 8 c N i o W E ca __... ......��-de 4 Lit i I �O 4925 LF. 4Y R Di_ID ._ ,._ _ _ 4]5 LF. 42' RCp ID _ _ 435 L 4Y RCP . in 30 LF, On RIP CL Y __ 41 RCP 0 0.25 0.255 - 1.65% - Y 0.20 SS 4920 — CAUSINGWND doI i WY ffi 4915. — 'I^ a e'OT EX _ L --I -- a ` I _ 6vi Z W, EL 0fi 3 4905 4900N �_ +_ _._ I. I — II + � r ,.4 BEDDING N } J ! PoPRAPAS Z _ '.. /L- 1e - - Illy19 w > 19 zowo - 21 z2 2s zl `� m : S ao I 1 an +_ - g= m> 4 25+00 - 28 27 -- 2S 29 30+00 -_-- 31 NAM DES911D OrEcarn :Wlnr. Engineering Consultenta SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OFFSITE DRAINAGE MARA9,199 3l lad S dh uaerme area two 0 xn Aw.. sun. Iwq able R 953 so. Tummy Rd Am, 9 202 No. BY DATE REVIEW DESCRIPTION APpROYFO DTI¢ PROJECT xo. °m ° w'.` ft Mi' a, call RIR52 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PLAN & PROFILE 12 9 W / M2-5922 )y / 45n-5525 1l / 4?l - DETENTION POND 1- W I FLARED END SECTION 5: W1lEi STRUCTURE > ' 1: ; STA. 0+00 6 INV. - 19.I0 a2 OPEN CHANNEL w/ CWC. 191: CH�PNNEI B.BS T BOX 50EASEMENT- iIW - 23.GO O C -RIPRAP - 10' LONG A 8' WE A 12• DEEP TRICRUE PAN O 031E NV - 10.55 U CLASS 6 RIPRAP�x/ 12".CLASS A BEDDNG �T .a -—. 150 LF - -- _ _ _ -le,_ .^. 4 A I • HERCP / 2+00 _ f 00 c 00 _ S W__L 6FW 7t00 _ BtW 1 9t00 tOtpO__ _ R EXIST plNl ACCESS RD (10 REMAIN IN $FNNCE) — — — — -—�.}---- EXISTING JO• SAW YMER_—_--.,�� 11 28' _y 70' It 10' LONG 5 MACE .,12• DEEP N' - 1 - -1 MIN , d���J CLASS 6 PRAP w/ qN MOT ���1 NOTES: 0 60' - k CUSS A BEDDING y I. All amr construction an I t me L\Y Fort CIS " HD12- INV RCP FLARED END SECIT Calms. Cd a & L County Standard Sa 'R \ �p�'' current r to date t O �dpl�d R� JO LF. 12" RCP CL IV O 5.0E Van..-TAsr-aLCLss uu.0 -_ �r�/61 e'y \ins- _ _—FW IM1DAi1W FIRPO5E5-fINLY - z. The is eia lovinno, as number of al Mom undergroundall1 F�" �/�` cWG HEADWAALL �X be the we pwDemof oe ehoxn to the drossy, n Wall K & SUJIE GATE De \he .epmebdn\y of the contractor m narllY the 1 _ 1 90 INV. 12 RCP COED salstmu ma location old underground utilities along the 2' s� era SEE OETAII THIS SHi. route of Nark Before commencing new construction. the :' a'oc • — b 11e"/ I contractor stal be recorded for ocaling Intended if `.i EXISTING 18• CUP IRRIGATION PIPES a -f underground uHIWe. _ - / l IRRIGATION STRICTURES COORDINATE n l- REMOVAL A DISPOSAL WITH OMNER J. Fiw to the condatencel of my crostmctbn, me cantracto, Nall contact all utilities to coordinate srMaulest. a wMtt Prior to the cnmment of my storwinnermw m .er cection the 4" CONCRETE 1RWL vac aontroatar shall give one City Engineering Department. StormwaMr TYPICAL SECTION A Utilities At Lorimer County Engineering D�artmmt Iwerly-lour (BA) hours advance notice. B 5. Benchmarks: Tog Rdt an FFe Hydrant, 65' N.E. Mountain Crnl Elevation 4950.65. al Tag Bdt 49 Fine Hydrml. taDS.E. ManloN Ent Elerotkn e950.03. rN C4 tp m 6. The deNgn of these plane cMlwm to the City of Fair Wine he Larli County Rpubmmte for ysomcatM and Pierid mA s1FPs T' e 12•oc ). All manhdtl Ildl be slandwd City of FM Call b miR FAILz - EACH 9D2 11/ AleI2- (TY SRAP uLVAMzm ANCL6PI BCl1 EYHWFD 6" r1 b Jod RpAp IRASPINE - CONCRETE HEADWALL 's a B mro t C0MmAo1eX1P13lc Tw. - RN� b b b TRAM RAQ I Mmhdes. I . 0- 1 p.1YU11 a I 8. All Papa boda'ng for elwm ender to be Moadow 0"' of Fast S.0 Caere Clan B bedding. I eY R.c v.l 9. Coordinate the rpla mml of the e0stbg Vo•M roadsurface qband 6me an County Rind 9 worth the City of Fart Call ere IDirector of Engineering, and Lalmer County EngbMng Dportment 110. The Conlroctor will be responsible for obtanng a Lalmer f County Utility Perm t tw Construction k comply x lh all I �L regulre outs of the Utilty Permit 'olINSCONOW11, A Traffic Control Plan a Construction Schedule AID be — — — %� (0 S)MIT- rewired to be submitted by Contractor R approved by Mi 0 1D 2S rA Lorimer County Prior to Construction, OR per reguiremmt of PLAx 1/S Sr. Pnf%X BATE s• CLASS 8 / \ OTT qr W/ Utilty Permit. A/ o e CIRCULAR FILTER MAmsM PERT. a 1 2b ELEVATION S 12, Prior to any rood dosuree. Contractor ROTOR give Lorimer acM[ IN MET County 5 small dap adwince notice, as per reVuiremml CHANNEL OUTLET BOA DETAIL of UNITY Permit. Id �k 1by CA GO L M CP CL_ID 900 Ch LE_ WEN ANNEL O O ZJE. 0 0 40 �ry �. - I — __ --- CONCRE TRIM PA - 4925 , 150 L.F. 24'r Jot GRADE 4920 F ATZb 1/Yp' S Tn. - WWI 1. 4L STEEL CITED FOR M CPKIRVCDPI OF ME NApR SMALL Is HOT dP G V4e2N AFTER XELDxC MID FABRICATION. 2, CONTRACTOR SHALL FEED •EREY ALL S)RVCTLRE [ASJRCMENTS PNdr TO FARRICATIPI OF TRA9MAPt. J TRAORACe To BE CONSTRUCTED M ONE SECTOR. • ALL STEEL IN TRASHHACN TO BE A-M, TRASHRACK PLAN GROUND I I� MH NO. 6 STA. 11+80 M. 12 OVY Now Fmu by was er 4vs+a 2vd PLAN VIEW Ovary SECTION A -A SECTION S-B DETENTION POND OUTLET STRUCTURE THIS PLAN APPROVED BY LARIMER COUNTY ENGINEERING ` DEPARTMENT DATE STA. 15+50 ICI 8 P Z =mor p .z� S boo �t 130 L.F.42 RCP CL;;O _ 01I25E 1 l T APPROVAL 08 1 IN PROCESS off=' x E Ii Z �145 L.F 42 II RCP CL IT M o 25% 4925 -_ 4920 �N 4915 1 _-_ 0 00 L--;_.____ —s'� -J. .. 3 —L L. ...-5#p� - -�- g -- -- 7 8 9 10.00 1.=. mi ¢ _ fin. 1=. P A+l 1 12 ---- 13 14 15t00 SHEETS Ell — DRAM DESIGNED_ CHECKED �BDIa,. Engineering Consultants SOUTHEAST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL OFFSITE DRAINAGE NB2 a M,n As.. SURE 1p1, RIy. R Va.15n. Ignge Ra. ant. F IGl _ mnR lgisa3 Iw-ooI or cHv,W„aft g,,,,.. r„„�m21I MA CMAws, M657 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO PLAN & PROFILE 1 NO. BY DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION APMOVED LATE PROJECT NO toy / AV yin ors / •NHTVs n1 / R.s-sdw