The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 09/25/2006PROPERTY ' OF cRy of Ft. Collin w9d Plans Approved By Date_ - 0 6 PENNY FLATS FORT-COLLINS, COLORADO V Prepared. for: . 0. DANIEL R. ROTNER COBURN DEVELOPMENT 1811 PEARL STREET BOULDER, CO 80302 (303)442-3351 Project #2396 August 18, 2006 Prepared by: 153 West Mountain Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 FAX 970.484.2443 970.484.1921 n PENNY FLATS SURETY COST ESTIMATE FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Date: NOTE: Quantities based on the Construction and Erosion Project Number: Control Phase Plan Sheets C4-C7, dated 6121/06 DESCRIPTION QTY UNIT UNIT PRICE 8/1812006 2396 TOTAL METHOD 1 - COST TO INSTALL 20'x50'x8" Vehicle Tracking Pad 4 EA $900.00 $3,600 Inlet Protection 15 EA $80.00 $1,200 Silt Fence 1,055 LF $1.50 $1,583 Subtotal Erosion Control Method 1: $6,383 50%Multiplier: $3,191 Total Erosion Control Method 1: $9,574 METHOD 2 - RE-ESTABLISH DENUDED AREA Disturbed Acerage 3.20 AC. $750.00 $2,400 Subtotal Erosion Control Method 2: $2,400 50% Multiplier: $1,200 Total Erosion Control Method 2: $3,600 USE THE GREATER AMOUNT) THEREFORE, USE METHOD 1 CALCULATION: $9,574 August 18, 2006 0 6 Mr. Glen Schlueter Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street PO Box 586 Fort Collins, CO 80522 RE: . Penny Flats Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report JSD Project No. 2396 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING ENGINEERING GRAPHIC DESIGN Dear Glen: Please refer to our enclosed resubmittal for "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the Penny lats." This report has been prepared in accordance with the drainage guidelines presented in the City of Fort Collins .Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, and has addressed comments received from our previous submittal.. More specifically, for this submittal we have included a phased erosion and sediment control plan. In addition; we have expanded our discussion on the modification on the existing inlet banks on Maple Street and Cherry Street. We are proposing to replace the,.'existing frame and slot/grate combination'tops with a frame and grate specifically designed to fit, on the standard City of FortCollins FC35 single curb inlet box and, therefore, requires no modification to, these existing box structures. Please feel free to contact our office at (970).484-1921 at your convenience if you have any questions regarding this report. We thank'you for your time and.consideration in reviewing this drainage report submittal. Sincerely, t JIM SELL DESIGN, .INC. Steven G. Smith,,P.E..' Senior Project Engineer Enclosure cc:, Dan Rotner,0CDI File 153 WEST MOUNTAIN AVENUE FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80524 P970.484.1921 F970.484.2443 INFOPJIMSELLDESIGN.COM 11MSELLDESIGN.COM ' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1 1 1 L t I Tableof Contents............................................................................................................................ 1 Engineer's Certification Block........................................................................................................ 2 General Description and Location.................................................................................................. 3 ExistingConditions..................................................................................................................... 3 Drainage Basins and Historic Runoff............................................................................................. 3 StormDrainage Criteria.................................................................................................................. 4 Figure1 — Vicinity Map........................................................................................................... 5 DrainageFacility Design................................................................................................................ 6 RunoffCalculations..................................................................................................................... 6 Description Of The Drainage Plan .............................................................................................. 6 Figure 2 — Proposed Drainage Plan.......................................................................................... 9 Cherry Street and Maple Street Inlet Analysis..............................................................................10 HEC-RAS Analysis of Maple Street Floodplain.......................................................................... 12 Background. ................................................................................:.....................1........................ 12 Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 12 Results........... ...............................................................:..............................................................13 WaterQuality ................................................................................................................................14 ErosionControl............................................................................................................................. 14 Wetland Determination And Review............................................................. :.............................. 15 Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 15 References..................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX A: RUNOFF AND DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS ........................................... 18 APPENDIX B: HYDRAULIC & EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS ........................ 19 APPENDIX C: REFERENCED INFORMATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS...... 20 APPENDIX D: HEC-RAS ANALYSIS OF MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN ..................... 21 APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: ORIGINAL MODEL .............................. 22 APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: DUPLICATE EFFECTIVE MODEL..... 23 APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: CORRECTED EFFECTIVE MODEL... 24 APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: PROPOSED MODEL ............................ 25 APPENDIX E: APPENDIX OF DRAWINGS.......................................................................... 26 EAPROIECT PB.ES�396. BLOCK 33\DOCS\2396 MP DRAINAGE REPORT CDRRENT.DOC 2006 - Page 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 1 ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATION BLOCK I hereby certify that this Drainage and Erosion Control Report for the drainage design for the Penny Flats Site was prepared by me (or under my direct supervision) for the owners thereof and meets or exceeds the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. �p 0 REO�Sr �0 �N G F Cj E.TROJECT FILES\ AND\2396 - BLOCK 3300CS\2396 FDP DRAINAGE REPORT CDEUNT.DOC Smith Registered Professional Engineer State of Colorado No. 29739 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 - Page 2 11 GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION ' The Penny Flats project in Old Town Fort Collins is bound on the north, south, east and west by Cherry, Maple, Mason, and Howes Streets, respectively. The project is approximately 2.6 acres in size and contains lots 1 through 8 and 13 through 16 of Block 33. Penny Flats is located in the ' northeast quarter of section 11, Township 7 North, Range 69 West of the Sixth P.M., Larimer County, Colorado. ' The project is mixed -use and proposes approximately 147 residential units and approximately 30,000 square feet of commercial and retail space. Two parking garages are also proposed with ' the project. Existing Conditions ' Lots 9, 10, and 11 of Block 33 are not part of the project and include the historic trolley barn. An existing house and small building exist on lot 15 and will be removed with the proposed ' project. Similarly, an existing building on lot 16 (southwest corner of the site) will also be removed. The remainder of the site is vacant land with an existing railroad spur on the northeast corner. ' A 16-foot x 5-foot box culvert, part of the Howes Street Outfall Project, roughly splits the site from north to south and is located in the existing public alley. It is anticipated that the alley ' right-of-way will be vacated as part of this project. Existing elevations on the property range from approximately 4984 near the southwest corner of ' the site to 4978 along the railroad spur on the northeast corner of the site. No surface irrigation infrastructure is present on the Penny Flats site. 11 1 According to the Geotechnical Engineering Report for Proposed Penny Flats Mixed Use Development Project by Terracon, the top 1 to 4 feet of the site consists of "slightly cohesive to cohesive, clayey sand/sandy lean (clay) with gravel fill material" underlain with layers of native silty sand with gravel and sandy lean clay. A siltstone/claystone bedrock was encountered at approximate depths ranging from 9 feet to 16 feet below existing grades. Borings 12 and 13 on the west side of the site encountered groundwater at depths of 15 to 20 feet. DRAINAGE BASINS AND HISTORIC RUNOFF The Penny Flats site lies within the Old Town Drainage Basin. Historically the site has ultimately drained north to the Poudre River through a series of inlets, culverts, and surface flow. Ultimate drainage patterns are not expected to change with the proposed project. Because the Penny Flats site is located so close to it's ultimate outfall, developed peak flows from the site will reach the river in significantly less time than the peak discharge in the Howes E:TROJECr FR.ES\ ANDVJ96. BWCK 3300CS2396 MP DRAINAGE REPORT CURRENT.DOC 2006 - Page 3 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 1 ' Street Outfall. As a result, onsite water quantity detention will not be necessary for the site, and therefore historic drainage quantities from the site have not been calculated as part of this report. The box culvert is the primary means of conveying storm runoff from the site to the Poudre River. Existing inlet banks on the north side of Maple Street and on the south side of Cherry ' Street have been modified to accommodate site design and have been analyzed to ensure interception of 100-year flows without increasing ponding depths at the inlets. ' Offsite flows enter the site from the existing trolley barn property. Additionally, significant offsite flows from the south and west enter existing inlet banks on Maple and Cherry Streets. STORM DRAINAGE CRITERIA ' Storm drainage design criteria were referenced from the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. Additional reports and manuals referenced in this report include Howes Street ' Outfall Project As -Built Hydraulic Evaluation prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers (January 2001), Geotechnic4il Engineering Report for Proposed Penny Flats Mixed -Use Development Project prepared by Terracon (July 2005), and Urban Drainage and Flood Control ' District's "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manuals, Volumes 1, 2, and 3, " The City of Fort Collins Old Town Master Drainage Plan, revised by Anderson Consulting Engineers in 2004, and "Guidelines for submitting Floodplain Modeling Reports to the City of Fort Collins, " ' prepared by the City of Fort Collins, Updated July 26, 2005. Initial (minor) and Major storm return periods for the project are the 2-year and 100-year events, respectively. Design storms were based on 2-hour rainfall events. The Rational Method, appropriate for calculating runoff for basins less than 200 acres, was used to estimate peak runoff values for various basins on this site. The Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual presents ' runoff coefficients increased in 1999. Storm sewers will be required to effectively convey runoff on the Penny Flats site. Eleven inlets, including modification of two existing inlet banks, are proposed to convey minor and major event discharge. Vertical curb gutters, cross -pans, and swales will be the primary means of transporting minor and major event storm discharges to the inlets and water quality landscaped ' areas. 100-year discharges were referenced from the Old Town Basin SWMM Model (Anderson) for Cherry Street and Maple Street inlet bank analyses. ' Erosion control measures shall be implemented to maintain compliance with City of Fort Collins erosion control criteria as presented within this report. Erosion control elements required for the site include silt fencing, vehicle -tracking control and inlet protection. ' Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats EAPROIECT =SVANM2396. BLOCK 33NOCS\2396 MP DRAINAGE REPORT CORREMDOC August 18, 2006 - Page 4 FIGURE I - VICINITY MAP ,� LT,IaYd•,.. PlmmbY ! rtfaul Yw u WILLOX LANE �a J I«• = m� '_ 0 W to y ` O s %O _ U U k w"'.'ry.,„ ^/�v�iir�I;i.H HiN �iH1HklHi lxH v 777 Ch ryt PROJECT SITE y --;�;,,.,, I St � �..., „ ,W1 L n Y QI Q. h� U BE y p c L a 0 c.T nq amc FIGURE 1: V=NITYMAP LNa a ^.'!%. P Drawn �— Deeyned °Aeoked tea_ Date .0&b2Q9 V V Rn+ieed — NumOr w NTS ismee EAFROIECT FfLESV AND 396 - BLOCK 33\DOCSf27%FDP DRAINAGE REPORT CORRENP.DOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 1006 - Page 5 DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN ' Runoff Calculations ' Storm runoff calculations for the Penny Flats Development are presented in Appendix A. Table A.1 presents composite runoff coefficients. Runoff coefficients were referenced from the City of ' Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual and Volume 1 of the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. ' The time of concentration calculations are presented in Table A.2 for the proposed condition 2- year event. The travel time velocities were referenced from Figure 3-3 of the Fort Collins manual. Table A.3 presents time of concentration calculations for the proposed condition 100- ' year event. Rainfall intensity -duration data is presented in Table A.4. Rainfall intensity -duration data was calculated from linear interpolation of time -intensity data presented in Figure 3A of the Fort Collins manual. Time of concentration values for each basin are assumed to be equal to the ' storm duration (a standard assumption, as discussed in the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual). Rational Method discharge calculations for the 2-year and 100-year events are presented in Tables A5 and A6, respectively. These tables ' include routed discharges and discharges for each drainage sub -basin. The "comments" column on each of the Rational Method tables indicates the basins from which storm runoff was routed. Inlet analyses and erosion control effectiveness and performance standards are presented in ' Appendix B. Selected referenced information is presented in Appendix C. Proposed cross -pans, swales, and curb cuts have been analyzed for the required freeboard to ' ensure conveyance elements have been properly sized. The freeboard condition is defined as the 100-year discharge plus an additional 33% (1.33*100-year discharge.) Storm sewers, which were also designed to convey the 100-year discharge, have been evaluated to establish their ' hydraulic grade lines (HGL). Per City of Fort Collins criteria, all swales and sidewalk chases have been designed for the 100-year event. Standard CDOT Type C inlets (and modified Type D inlets with a single grate) have been specified for several of the Drainage Basins. Type C inlets at sump have a capacity of 25.8 cfs at a ponding depth of 12 inches. Applying a 50 percent ' clogging factor results in a capacity of 12.9 cfs. All Type C inlets, and modified Type D inlets for single grate, have the capacity to intercept all 100-year Basin drainage at ponding depths less than 12 inches. A standard Type D inlet at sump has a capacity of 17.95 cfs (with 50% reduction ' for clogging) at 12 inch ponding depth has been specified when the 100-year discharge exceeds 12.9 cfs, which occurs at Inlet 8 in the pedestrian spine. Type C and Type D inlet capacity calculations can be found in Appendix B. ' Description Of The Drainage Plan The proposed drainage plan for the Penny Flats site is illustrated in Figure 2. Drainage Basin 1 is essentially a historic basin in that very little modification is proposed within the basin. Other than approximately 3000 square feet of the Townhome structure, the basin will remain relatively unchanged after development, as it comprises most of the west side of the old Trolley Barn lot. ' Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats EAPROJECP MES. DU396- BLOCK 3MOCM396 FDP DRAWAGE REPORT CURREW. August 18, 2006-Page 6 t 1 11 Drainage from Basin 1 will flow through the existing flowline on the east side of Howes Street to two existing inlets on the northwest corner of Howes and Cherry Streets. Basin 1 will generate a peak discharge of 7.25 cfs for the 100-year event. Basin 2 flows to the existing bank of inlets on the south side of Cherry Street. The inlet bank will be modified to alter 12 combination inlets with East Jordan Iron Work's V-5665 frame and grate to remove the curb section on all 12 inlets and add 3 combination inlets (standard City of Fort Collins FC35 single curb inlet) to the west side of the existing inlet bank. The East Jordan Iron Work's frame and grate specification will not require modification to the existing inlet box. Most of the storm discharge from Basin 2, which originates from the roof of the Trolley Barn, will flow as it did historically through the three trolley barn roof drains and sheet flow to the north into the south flowline of Cherry Street. Basin 2 will generate a peak discharge of 5.15 cfs for the 100-year event. A detailed analysis of the modified inlets based on the as -built analyses from Anderson (January 2001) is presented in Appendix B. The inlets were analyzed considering orifice and weir flow conditions of the grated inlets. Inlets were analyzed with a 0.8 clogging factor referenced from City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. A 100-year discharge of 261.2 cfs for Cherry Street was referenced from conveyance element 548 of the Old Town Basin SWMM model. Basin 3 is comprised of sub -basins 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d. The predominant feature of Basin 3 is the existing low point along the railroad tracks that will remain after development as no disturbance to the tracks is proposed with this project. According to survey information, water will pond at the tracks until it begins to spill into Mason Street and Cherry Street to the west when water overtops 78.27 (sub -basin 3b). The south curb on Cherry Street between the railroad spur and the inlet bank can be lowered to minimize ponding depth at the tracks. Sub -basin 3a will be conveyed to Cherry Street via a sidewalk chase and, subsequently, to the existing inlet bank (designated Inlet 7). Sub -basin 3b is a very limited drainage area (0.04 acres or 1,884 square feet) with a sump conditions. After discussions with City personnel, and the fact that the ponding will occur along the railroad in an area of extensive ballast that cannot be disturbed, no convey or inlet is proposed for this area. Sub -basin 3c is an area that exists pre -project and no modifications are proposed with this project. Sub -basin 3d is also a very limited drainage area (0.007 acres or approximately 300 square feet) with a sump condition created by the proposed construction. Directives from the City of Fort Collins dictated that a curb inlet (5 foot type R) be placed to pick up the relatively small amount of runoff anticipated in sub -basin 3d (100-year peak runoff of 0.08 cfs). Basin 3 will generate a total peak discharge of 4.76 cfs for the 100-year event. Basin 4 is comprised of the south portion of the trolley barn and the parking lot on the south side. Runoff flows from the trolley barn roof area via three roof drains. This runoff will join with runoff from the remainder of the basin and flows into the swale in the pedestrian spine in Basins 5 and 7. Basin 4 will not be modified from existing condition and is considered an offsite basin in this analysis. Basin 4 contributes 2.76 cfs in the 100-year event. The drainage swale in Basins 5 and 7 is part of a water feature complex in the pedestrian spine. The swale cross-section will be comprised of a cobbled channel bottom, three feet in width, resembling a dry streambed for nuisance flows. Swale side slopes will be three to one and will E.TROMCT PMESUANM396 - BLOCK 3MOCS096 FOP DR WAGE REPORT CURKEWDOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report forPenny Flats August 18, 2006 -Page 7 be armored with heavier cobbles. The 100-year flow was calculated to be 10.43 cfs with the resulting design flow being 13.88 cfs (1.33x).. The design swale depth is 1.00 feet (inclusive of freeboard) with a resulting total width of the swale being 9.0 feet (refer to Appendix B for the pedestrian spine swale sizing calculations). The pedestrian spine swale will also incorporate water quality treatment capability (refer to the Water Quality section for further details on the proposed PLD's or Porous Landscape Detention facility description). The channel will drain to ' the north and into Inlet 8. Inlet 8 will tie into the Howes Street Outfall box culvert through a 14- foot section of 24-inch RCP at 0.5%. Basins 4, 6, and 12 will contribute storm runoff to the swale in the pedestrian corridor. Total routed runoff to Inlet 8 for the 100-year event is 10.43 cfs. Inlet 8 is specified as a Type D inlet with twin close mesh grates. At 1-foot of ponding depth, this inlet has a capacity of approximately 18 cfs when applying a 50% clogging restriction. Basin 10 will drain to proposed Inlet 1 on Howes Street. Inlet 1 will tie into the existing 24-inch RCP storm sewer on the west side of Howes Street. The inlet, a single curb inlet per City of Fort ' Collins detail (FC35-Single Inlet.dwg) will tie into an existing 24-inch Storm Sewer in Howes with an 18-inch RCP pipe at 0.5%. A standard CDOT Type R inlet is not feasible at this location because of a "backbone" encased electric and communications line approximately 2-3 feet east of the back of curb. The outside of a single curb inlet box extends only 6-inches from the back of curb. Please refer to Appendix C for the City of Fort Collins detail drawing. Basin 10 will contribute 2.60 cfs during the 100-year event. ' Basin 11 will drain into proposed Inlet 2, a modified type D inlet (modified for one grate), on the north side of Maple Street. The inlet collects storm runoff at a low point in the north side of Maple Street through a flowline at the rear of parking spaces. Per City of Fort Collins comment, the parking spaces will be paved in concrete from the north curb to the south edge of the drain pan. Basin 11 will contribute 1.45 cfs in the 100-year event. Basin 13 will drain to the existing bank of inlets (Inlet 3) on the north side of Maple Street and will contribute 4.96 cfs to the inlets during the 100-year event. The following section describes analysis of the inlets in greater detail. Basin 14 and 15 are associated with the building located at the southeast corner of the site and the associated alleyway located north of the building. Runoff from Basins 14 and 15 produce a ' routed peak 100-year flow of 3.42 cfs that is captured by inlet 4, a type C inlet. Basin 16 is the drainage area located at the southwesterly limits of the project and includes ' drainage from Howes Street and Maple Street. Inlet.' 10 collects this runoff at a low point in the north side of Maple Street through a flowline at the rear of parking spaces, similar to inlet 2. This basin contributes 2.25 cfs to inlet 10, which is a modified type D inlet. ' There are a total of seven storm sewer pipe runs proposed with the storm drainage improvements. These storm sewer lines, designated 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10, are numbered to correspond to the associated inlet numbers, whenever feasible. Although all of these storm ' sewer lines were designed to flow the 100-year peak runoff in a non -pressure condition, a hydraulic grade line (HGL) analysis was performed to ensure that the inlets would not be surcharged. Following the procedure as outline in the UDFCD Volume 1 criteria manual ' (Streets/Inlets, Storm Sewer Section), the HGL was computed based on tailwater conditions in Final Drainage and Erosion Control Reportfor Penny Flats E.TROJECT PaESL W2396 - BLOCK 3300C U396 FDP DRAMAGE REPORT CURRENT.DOC August 18, 2006 - Page 8 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 JIM SELL DESIGN rr �� V �JV:.: 91 IA ` j1�.� \ mil_'❑� LL IM��; �-- x m WIN � 1 ' -`� ■ u p �Il1 � —,''11,P i 0, /� � \� Il, gy 1 �� bl•. lon- ��OiwarreIi:./�11a a70i�amsiii� _. - In-, m Arame 2396 Checked SGS Date "O-M Revised 4-2-06 Prp 23-• 11 1 1 i 1 1 1 [1 1 1 1 U 11 1 1 the existing storm system and associated head losses through the system (friction, plunge, etc.). The HGL calculations can be found in Appendix B and the storm sewer profiles with the HGL profiles can be found in the map pocket as plan and profile sheets C22 and C23. CHERRY STREET AND MAPLE STREET INLET ANALYSIS The inlets banks constructed as part of the Howes Street Outfall project on Maple and Cherry Streets will be modified with the Penny Flats project. All twelve existing single curb inlets (Fort Collins Detail SF35) at Cherry Street (designated inlet 7 per the Anderson Report) will be modified to become grated inlets without the curb opening section to allow for driveway access (reference East Jordan Iron Work's type V-5665 frame and V-5665 grate, refer to appendix for details). As a result, three additional single curb inlets will be required to compensate for lost capacity of the 12-removed curb inlet opening sections (standard City of Fort Collins FC35 specification, refer to appendix for details). The Anderson 2001 analysis was referenced in the analysis of the inlets. An average difference of 0.24 feet between survey data presented in the Anderson report and survey obtained for this project was subtracted from elevations in the Anderson report to adjust elevations to current survey data. Hydraulic capacity sizing calculations for the revised inlet back is presented in the appendix of this report. The results of the hydraulic calculations indicate that the modification of the inlets at the south side of Cherry Street will reduce the ponding depth from 0.68 feet to 0.5 feet. This is due to the greater capacity of the grates at lower head elevations (0.4 feet to 0.5 feet) as compared to curb slot capacity. Since the pre -project inlet capacity has been increased, and the proposed project will not increase runoff in Cherry Street, it can be concluded that there is no adverse impact on historic overland drainage on Cherry Street. The two easterly inlets within the north inlet bank at Maple Street will be modified to become grated inlets without the curb opening section (East Jordan Iron Works type 7034 Z frame and type 7034 M grate, refer to appendix for details) to allow for driveway access. In addition, along Maple Street, the addition of Inlet 2 and Inlet 10 (modified type D inlets)'further west will intercept discharge that would otherwise go to the bank of inlets (to be modified) on the north side of Maple. Analysis of storm flows overtopping the high point in the flowline east of Inlet 2 results in a water surface elevation of 4983.65 over Inlet 2. The flowline elevation of Inlet 2 is 4982.84. Approximately 16.8 cfs will be intercepted by the inlet at a ponding depth of approximately 1.2 foot, assuming a 50 percent clogging factor. The crest elevation for the west parking garage entrance is 4984.60, resulting in approximately 0.95 feet of freeboard. Because of the intercepted discharge from Inlets 2 and Inlet 10, the 100-year WSEL at the existing bank of inlets (designated inlet 3 per the Anderson Report) on the north side of Maple Street will have a lower water surface elevation than the elevation presented in the Anderson report (4982.54, adjusted to 4982.30 due to survey datum discrepancies). The average flowline elevation the bank of inlets on the north side of Maple (Inlet 3) is 4982.0. As a result, significant freeboard (1.15 feet) is provided to the crest of the east parking garage entrance (4983.45). Since the pre -project inlet capacity has been increased, and the proposed project will not increase 1 1 E.TROJECf RJLEBW ND096. BLOCK MOCS12396 EDP DRARJAGE REPORT CURRENT.DOC 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 -Page 10 runoff in Maple Street, it can be concluded that there is no adverse impact on historic overland drainage on Maple Street. E:WROMCT FR.EBLLANDUM- BLOCK 77\DOCS2)96 FOP DRAINAGE REPORT CIIR WDOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 -Page 11 HEC-RAS ANALYSIS OF MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN ' Background ' The southwest boundary of the project site is adjacent to the Old Town Basin 100-year floodplain and floodway in Maple Street (See Appendix D for map from the December 2004 ' update of the City of Fort Collins Old Town Master Drainage Plan prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers). According to the Anderson analysis, the floodway adjacent to the site is confined to Maple Street and it's perimeter to the existing inlet banks on the north and south ' sides of the street. The inlets were constructed as part of the Howes Street Outfall project to intercept eastbound floodwaters on Maple Street. The floodplain adjacent to the site follows roughly the same delineation. It does, however, extend south of Maple Street into the City ' parking lot with ponding depths less than 1 foot. The Anderson model shows a 100-year discharge of 54 cfs heading north on Howes Street from the floodway in Maple. ' The floodplain in Maple Street is a City stormwater basin and is not under FEMA jurisdiction and therefore does not have an FIS panel number associated with it. ' The Maple Street corridor is typical of many downtown streets with on -street parking, some parkway trees, and detached walks. The existing section of the Maple Street floodway adjacent to the site has no trees, a detached walk, and an asphalt sidewalk ramp. There does not appear to ' be any instability of soils within the floodway because of flooding events. The Old Town Basin had first experienced development in the 1800's when storm water design was not given the priority seen in modern development. As a result, many flooding events have occurred within this basin. The Howes Street Outfall project, in conjunction with others, have recently been constructed to alleviate much of the flooding potential in the basin, however some ' areas upstream of recent improvements still experience some risk of flood. A brief narrative of flooding history in the Old Town Basin downloaded from the City of Fort Collins Website is provided in Appendix D for reference. ' Previous studies pertaining to the flooding adjacent to the site include the design and as -built drawings and documentation for the Howes Street Outfall project and the 2004 Update to the ' City of Fort Collins Old Town Master Drainage Plan by Anderson Consulting Engineers. Analysis ' The purpose of the study is to ensure that proposed improvements at Block 33 do not result in any rise (rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot) of the 100-year water surface elevation. Tasks ' associated with the analysis include analysis of survey data to prepare additional cross -sections for analysis in Maple Street and acquisition of the 2004 Update HEC-RAS model from the City of Fort Collins for review and modification. ' Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats EVROIECf PILES\ ANVM96. BLOCK 333DOCSU396 FDP DRAINAGE REPORT CURRENT.DOC August 18, 2006 -Page 12 I ' Four models are summarized in the table below: The existing condition (original) model, the duplicate effective model, the corrected effective model, and the proposed model. The 100-year ' water surface elevation from the existing model is simply a summary of results from the 2004 update analysis for comparison. The duplicate effective model presents output from a new HEC- RAS analysis of the unchanged input file from the original model. There should be no ' differences between output from the original model and the duplicate effective model. Cross- section 1373 had a 0.17-foot rise in water surface elevation when comparing the duplicate effective model to the original model. This was not seen as a concern as it was not adjacent to ' the subject property, but will be resolved with the City of Fort Collins prior to submittal of the Final Drainage analysis. ' The corrected effective model has incorporated new cross -sections (sections 691, 897, and 981) and modified cross -sections 783 and 938 to provide a comparison model for the proposed condition with greater resolution for analysis of impacts of the proposed project. Cross-section ' 1018 is located at the intersection of Howes Street and Maple Street and will remain unchanged with the proposed project. A three-dimensional surface of the., area was created in AutoCAD from survey data to interpolate existing elevations along the additional cross -sections. Minor ' manipulation of interpolated data was required to closely match results of the duplicate effective model. Stationing of the cross -sections was consistent with those used in the 2004 update. The survey was based on the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System, North Zone, North American ' Datum 1983/92. The proposed model includes proposed elevations along all cross -sections from the corrected effective model adjacent to the project site. HEC-RAS (river analysis system) version 3.1.3 (May 2005) was used for analysis of the Maple Street floodplain in the Old Town Basin. The software was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center. Hydrology, channel and overbank roughness ' coefficients, and contraction/expansion coefficients were not modified from the 2004 Update model. Cross -sections adjacent to the site are presented in the drainage drawing in the back of this report. The proposed model included the entire section from the 2004 Update model, and ' used the same flow data and flow change locations. Results ' Results for the four models are presented in Appendix D and are summarized in Table 1. An analysis of comparison between the proposed model and the corrected effective model indicate ' that there will be a decrease in water surface elevation for the 100-year event of 0.06 feet and 0.07 feet for cross -sections 981 and 938, respectively. Cross -sections 897, 783, and 691 result in ' an increase of 0.03 feet each for a net "zero rise" when rounded to the nearest tenth of a foot. A detailed summary of 10, 50, 100, and 500-year models will be provided at final submittal. 1 E TROJECT nlES NDI2196 - BLOCK IIOOCSW96 FDP DRAINAGE REPORT CURRERLDOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 -Page 13 I L II 11 TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF MAPLE STREET HEC-RAS MODELS FOR OLD TOWN BASIN Cross Section Original COFC 100yr Model WSEL ft Duplicate Effective 100yr Model WSEL ft Difference btwn Dup. Effective and Original ft Corrected Effective 100yr Model WSEL ft Difference btwn Cor. Effective and Dup. Effective ft Proposed 100yr Model WSEL ft Difference btwn Proposed and Corrected Effective ft 2458 4992.28_ 4992.28 0 4992.28 0 4992.28 0 2250- ---4991.2-- ----4991.2---- ------------------- --- ---499------ -------------------- ---------0-------- --------------- ------------------- 2103 4990.74 4990.74 0 4990.74 0 ---4991.2---- 4990.74 ------------------- 0 1977 -- ----- 4990.14 -------------- 4990.14 ---------------- 0 --------------- --- 4990.14 -------------- 0 ------------------- --- 4990.14 ------------------- 0 1791 4989.42 ---4989.42-- --- 4989.42--- ---------0--------- -- 4989.42--- ---------0--------- --------------- -- 4989.42--- ------------------- ------------------- --1-598-- --------- - 4988.77 --------------- 4988.77 ---------------- 0 -------------------- 4988.77 --------------- 0 4988.77 0 0 --------- 4987.43 -------------------------------- 4987.43 -________0--------- _ 4987.43___ -------------------- --------------- 4987.43___ --------- 0__-_--___ 1373 - -- 4986.55 -------------------------------- 4986.72 017_ - 4986.72 _________0_________ 0 _ 4986.72 --------- 0 1281 --------- 4986.31 ---------------------- 4986.31 ---------- 0 -------------------- 4986.31 --------------- 0 -------------------- 4986.31 --------------- 0 1113 4985.38 4985.38 0 4985.38 --- 0 -------------------- 4985.38 ------- -- ------------------- 0 1018__ __-498482--- --4984.82___ __ _____0--_-_-__ __498482__ 0--------- ---- -------------- ---- 981 --- ------------ n/a ------------ n/a ------------- - ------- n/a------------ 4983.92___ --------- -------- n/a-------- __- _ 4983.86___ -------_0_-_______ _0.06------- 938-- --- 4983.52-------- 4983.52--- ---------0-------- ---4983.5---- --4983.43--- ------ 007------- -- - -- n/a -------------- n/a --- ----------- -- -------- n/a------- -- 4983.38---- ------- -0=02------- --------n/a-------- --4983--- ------ 0.03------- 783 --------- 4983.16 --------------- 4983.16 ---------------- 0 -------------------- 4983.18 --------------- 0.02 -------------------- •-- 4983.21 --------------- ------ 0.03 691 ---------- n/a ---- ----- n/a------ --------n/a------- - 4982.67 ------------ n/a------- ---4982.7--- ------------------- ----- 0.03 WATER QUALITY Water quality for the Penny Flats project has been waived by the City of Fort Collins through a "payment in lieu" agreement that will help fund other water quality improvement projects within the basin. However, as discussed with City of Fort Collins staff, Basin 8 will drain into an oil and sand interceptor similar in concept to the Stormsceptor (see Appendix C) at Inlet 6. Similarly, Basin 15 will drain into a similar structure (Inlet 4) to provide water quality and ensure that discharges from the alley for the minor event do not exceed 0.5 cfs. EROSION CONTROL The development is to be constructed in four phases. Erosion control plans will be implemented for the site on a phase -by -phase basis. Throughout the various construction phases vehicle tracking control (VTC) pads, inlet protection (IP) and silt fence (SF) will be placed where designated in order to dissipate energy, intercept and detain sediment, and ultimately keep the project in continual compliance with City of Fort Collins erosion control standards and the State of Colorado throughout the construction phasing progress. Vehicle tracking control will be incorporated at site entrances as illustrated in the enclosed Construction and Erosion Control Phasing Plan Sheets (refer to plan sheet C4 through C7). Other erosion control elements will be 1 E.TROIECF Fn.ESUANIA2396 - BLOCK 33\DOCSV396 FDP DRAINAGE REPORT CURREW DOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 - Page 14 I 1 incorporated as construction progresses to control non -point pollution discharge. No water quality (aka "siltation") basin is proposed for the site due to the limited denuded acreage and the lack of a permanent water quality pond (water quality and detention having been waived by the City of Fort Collins for agreement to "payment in lieu"). With respect to developed conditions of the site, the erosion control performance standard was calculated to be 76.5 percent. Due to the large amount of impervious surface due to the proposed building coverage, related hardscape and landscaping, the effectiveness calculation for the proposed erosion control measures was calculated to be 84.8 percent (refer to appendix for performance and effectiveness calculations). WETLAND DETERMINATION AND REVIEW ' No wetlands are present on the Penny Flats site. ' CONCLUSIONS 1 1 The Penny Flats Drainage Report has been prepared to comply with the present City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual and the USDCM. The drainage plan presented in this report is intended to effectively and safely convey storm runoff through the proposed site. No drainage -related variances are anticipated with the proposed Penny Flats project. E: PROJECT RLML4ND�2396, BLOCK 310DCSM% FDP DRAINAGE REPORT OU NT.DOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats August 18, 2006 - Page 15 I REFERENCES .City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Department of Public Works and Water ' Utilities Storm Drainage Division, May 1984 Howes Street Outfall Project As -Built Hydraulic Evaluation, Anderson Consulting Engineers ' January 2001 ' Geotechnical Engineering Report for Proposed Penny Flats Mixed -Use Development Project Terracon (July 2005) ' Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Denver Regional Council of Governments, dated 1969, Volumes 1, & 2 ' Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3 — Best management Practices, Denver Regional Council of Governments, Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, September 1999 I EVRO=FILESL \2396-BLOC%33DOCSV.396 FDP DRAINAGE REPORT CLIRRENT.DGC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report jorPenny Flats August 18, 2006 - Page 16 11 APPENDIX A: RUNOFF AND DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS 1 11 1 1 E.VROJECI M ES NDM16, ELOCR MOCS7396 FDP n DRAWAGE REPORP.DOC 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats March 30, 2005 - Appendices I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L1 Penny Flats Jim Sell Design, Inc. 2396 5-9-06 EMS/SGS Table A.1: Runoff CoafficlaMa lennf_1 Sub -Basin ID Surface Description Area (sq ft Area ac Total Area ac Area % Runoff Coefficient C Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 7a Pavement 5,688 0.13 100.00 0.95 0.95 Roof 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 5688.00 0.13 100.00 0.95 7b Pavement 5,773 0.13 31.75 0.95 0.30 Roof 9,771 0.22 53.74 1 0.95 0.51 Landscape 2,637 0.06 14.50 0.35 0.05 18181.00 0.42 100.00 0.86 8 Pavement 7,750 0.18 92.48 0.95 0.88 Roof 630 0.01 7.52 0.95 0.07 Landscape0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 8380.00 0.19 100.00 0.95 9 Pavement 13.990 0.32 45.13 0.95 0.43 Roof 11711 0.27 37.78 0.95 0.36 Landscape 5,299 0.12 17.09 0.20 0.03 31 000.00 0.71 100.00 0.82 10 Pavement 6 505 0.15 59.35 0.95 0.56 Roof 2,727 0.06 24.88 0.95 0.24 Landscape 1,728 0.04 15.77 1 0.20 0.03 10960.00 0.25 100.00 0.83 11 Pavement 3,300 0.08 61.72 0.95 0.59 Roof 2,047 0.05 38.28 0.95 0.36 Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 5347.00 0.12 100.00 0.95 12 Pavement 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 Roof 6,863 0.16 100.00 0.95 0.95 Landscape - 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 6863.00 0.16 100.00 0.95 13 Pavement 12,182 0.28 62.82 0.95 0.60 Roof 5,797 0.13 29.89 0.95 0.28 Landscape 1,413 0.03 7.29 0.20 0.01 19392.00 0.45 100.00 0.90 14 Pavement - 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 Roof 5,817 0.13 100.00 0.95 0.95 Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 5817.00 0.13 1 100.00 0.95 15 Pavement 5,901 0.14 84.91 0.95 0.81 Roof 830 0.02 11.94 0.95 0.11 Landscape 219 0.01 3.15 0.20 0.01 6950.00 0.16 100.00 0.93 16 Pavement 6.534 0.15 164ol 0.95 1 0.75 Roof 1747 0.04 21.10 0.95 0.20 Landscape0 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 8281.00 0.19 1 100.00 1 1 0.95 I 1 1 0 H Penny Flats JIM Sell Design, Inc. 2396 5-9-06 EMS/SGS Table A.1: Runoff Coefficlents Sub -Basin ID Surface Description Area (sq ft Area ac Total Area ac Area % Runoff Coefficient C Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 1 Pavement 25177 0.58 91.37 0.95 0.87 Roof 1332 0.03 4.83 0.95 0.05 Landscape 1,047 0.02 3.80 0.20 0.01 Gravel Surface 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 27556.00 0.63 100.00 0.92 2 Pavement 18,436 0.42 87.26 0.95 0.83 Roof 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 Landscape 2,692 0.06 12.74 0.20 0.03 21128.00 1 0.49 100.00 1 0.85 3a Pavement 2,929 0.07 32.04 0.95 0.30 Roof 6,082 0.14 66.52 0.95 0.63 Landscape 132 0.00 1.44 . 0.20 0.00 9143.00 0.21 100.00 0.94 3b Pavement 1 0.00 1 0.00 0.95 0.00 Roof 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 Gravel Surface 1,875 0.04 100.00 0.40 0.40 Landscape 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1875.00 0.04 100.00 0.40 3c Pavement 7,679 0.18 100.00 0.95 0.95 Roof - 0.00 1 0.00 0.95 0.00 Landscape 0.00 1 0.00 0.20 0.00 7679.00 0.18 100.00 0.95 3d Pavement 311 0.01 100.00 0.95 0.95 Roof 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 Landscape - 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 311.00 0.01 100.00 0.95 4 Pavement 610 0.01 3.15 0.95 0.03 Roof 6,450 0.15 33.29 0.95 0.32 Landscape 320 0.01 1.65 0.20 0.00 Gravel Surface 11,995 0.28 61.91 0.40 0.25 19376.00 0.44 100.00 0.60 5a Pavement 3,467 0.08 1 22.89 0.95 0.22 Roof 6,865 0.16 45.33 0.95 0.43 Landscape 4,814 0.11 31.78 0.20 0.06 15146.00 0.35 100.00 0.71 5b Pavement 1,756 0.04 35.73 0.95 0.34 Roof 2,928 0.07 59.58 0.95 0.57 Landscape 230 0.01 4.68 1 0.20 0.01 4914.00 0.11 100.00 1 0.91 6 Pavement 3,052 0.07 27.98 0.95 0.27 Roof 4,202 0.10 38.52 0.95 0.37 Landscape 3,654 0.08 33.50 0.35 0.12 10908.00 0.25 100.00 0.75 11 I 11 u C y ' a 7 N LL H N N y C 'E cG N M IA rl� O O •e � o � � o 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 � o 0 U C ~ o t0 M r• W O c0 OD 1� N t0 M 1� � O N aD cD M t0 uI E N O O O O O O O N N O O O O V N O O O N O O O O O O O d' O co O t0 O y O O h O O O N O 10 `7 o aD O 1A O 7 O V O O O N N fV cV N N cV cV N N f0 O cV N H O N _ d it an a n a Oa d o 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 N o O in c0 N c0 N t0 O c0 0 Oo O O N O M O M O O O N 6 O C O O O) M r M M co J N N C O O ep O i0 N M V N V N ^ N cq W y a M pp GD 7 In M c0 M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c U O O O O O O O O O O z w O d E o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •C c u O O h O O VI O O O O O O O O O M O N O t N � N N O dc00 m ^ N V V < O c00 U M t0 M O N 7 O of O y O' N M i0 M N M ^ M N ' c0 M �— Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c O] N U C� W M C) 10 � N N M M 0 O O O O O O O G O O O O O O O O O O O G G co 1011- 1 �I N O O Diu C U C vi N O h n N M M N 1f1 7 N O M N t0 O i V' M N O O o0 h N M N N M M N M N N N H .y Y C 'E tD M O 6 n a O M N O O I W Ol t` p o � M 0 o 0 0 o O O O 110:1 O c c U 1 C O t0 M O O O O N W t0 mt0O F G O (V (V C p p OV N O I*:N O O I*:O O O O O I: O co O O O O O O O N O O O O O O N N N < N 7 N N r O N O N t? O (V LQ a e- t0 O nj E E o d yn a a a a a a a a aa d F �a O. o o in o 0 0 o an o O e v? M O O O M O O N M O O t0 N M O O N N n O vi O G lV C C O 0 O fV G G O O L C O O a O O W M y w t0 °D t0 N M N N O W O w V N N co N vOi A O J C .E t0 7 to M N O 0!t` N t0 N N O M T t0 O M tD f` O N •t O 01 M N O t0 N F a O O N n th M O O O N r O M 01 O th V O O O O O O N p O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O N O O r W 'O C t NIA O lfI M h O N tf1 N N N N LL9 N N N h D NE N N N w r A H C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O G e O O O N O O to O O O O O O O O O O O O N O V5 O N O N N tV fV ah [\j V N N N N eq V coV K a 7 O d w tc0 cor N V N LD V tM0 N O O O t+Mf N a n N y fD W C 'N N N Ek N h < O �l1 N O N O fD M N M h 4'1 O h M h to W tD ll� to O tD r O n O N q t0 N W p 00 O O) 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cn a Ol N M M th M N t0 r .0 O m O N M O h rl 1 Penny Flats Jim Sell Design, Inc. 23966-21-06 EMS/SGS Table A.4: Intensity-Durallon Interpolations City of Fort Collins OF Table Duration min 2 Year Intensity in/hr 10 Year Intensity in/hr 100 Year Intensity INhr 2.85 4.87 9.95 6 2.67 4.56 9.31 7 2.52 4.31 8.80 8 2.40 4.10 8.38 9 2.30 3.93 8.03 10 2.21 3.78 7.72 11 2.13 3.63 7.42 12 2.05 3.50 7.16 13 1.98 3.39 6.92 14 1.92 3.29 6.71 15 1.87 3.19 6.52 16 1.81 3.08 6.30 17 1.75 2.99 6.10 18 1.70 2.90 5.92 19 1.65 2.82 6.75 20 1.61 2.74 5.60 21 1.56 2.67 5.46 22 1.53 2.61 5.32 23 1.49 2.55 5.20 24 1.46 2.49 5.09 25 1,43 2.44 4.98 26 1.40 2.39 4.87 27 1.37 2.34 4.78 28 1.34 229 4.69 29 1.32 2.25 4.60 30 1.30 2.21 4.52 31 127 2A6 4.42 32 1.24 2.12 4.33 33 1.22 2.08 4.24 34 1.19 2.04 4.16 35 1.17 2.00 4.08 36 1.15 1.96 4.01 37 1.13 1.93 3.93 38 1.11 1.89 3.87 39 1.09 1.86 3.80 40 1.07 1.83 3.74 41 1.05 1.80 3.68 42 1.04 1.77 3.62 1.02 1.74 3.56 1.01 1.72 3,51 P481 0.99 1.69 3.46 0.98 1.67 3.41 0.96 1.64 3.36 0.95 1.62 3.31 49 0.94 1.60 327 50 0.92 1.58 3.23 51 0.91 1.56 1 3.18 52 0.90 1.54 3.14 53 0.89 1.52 3.10 54 0.88 1.50 3.07 55 0.87 1.48 3.03 56 0.86 1.47 2.99 57 0.85 1.45 2.96 58 0.84 1.43 2.92 59 0.83 1.42 2.89 60 0.82 1.40 2.86 Deslen Point Flows Deslgn Point Area fact uno Coefficient CC 2yr tc min n ens 2yr iNhr yr. to min Intensity 100yr INhr 1 0.63 0.92 5.2 2.81 4.10 9.95 2 0.49 0.85 5.3 2.80 3.11 9.95 3a 021 0.94 3.4 2.85 2.54 9.95 4 0.44 1 0.60 11.0 2.13 8.18 8.31 5a 0.35 0.71 8.2 2.38 5.27 9.78 5b 0.11 0.91 3.3 2.85 2.09 9.95 6 025 0.75 4.6 2.85 3.05 9.95 7a 0.13 0.95 �2.7 2.85 2.32 9.95 7b 0.42 0.86 4.0 2.85 2.24 9.95 8 0.19 0.95 3.8 2.85 3.47 9.95 9 0.71 0.82 4.9 2.85 3.14 9.95 10 025 0.83 4.8 2.88 2.43 9.95 11 0.12 0.95 1.6 2.85 1.15 9.95 12 0.16 0.95 1 3.6 1 2.85 1 2.98 9.95 13 0.45 0.90 3.1 2.85 2.32 9.95 14 0.13 0.95 1 2.8 2.85 2.20 9.95 15 0.16 0.93 3.3 2.85 2.61 9.95 16 0.19 0.95 2.5 2.85 1.86 9.95 Routed Basins - Design Point Area (actCC Runoff Coefficient 2yr tc min tntensi 2yr in/hr 100yr tc min Intensi 100yr in/hr R2 0.60 0.87 3.8 2.85 2.61 9.95 R5a 1.75 0.61 9.46 2.26 8.50 7.87 We 029 0.95 3.83 2.85 321 9.95 R76 1 0.67 0.82 0.00 1 3.57 0.00 13.15 R15 1 0.29 1 0.94 1 2.94 1 2.85 2.29 9.95 *Note: all intensities for design basins, routed basins, and historic basins calculated by linear interpolation of Duration and Intensity values from City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria Manual. In the rational method, setting the duration equal to the final Tc is a standard assumption. If tc values are less than 5 minutes, Intensity values are used for a 5-minute duration. I 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 i i 1 u 11 1 1 1 � I�I�III�I�I�I�I�I�III�I�I�N1�1�19181�I�N1�1�1�19111� ■n��oei�i��umWmu�ui�iOu�u i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N L. N ZW ^� w _ 9 �IRII�IIIIIIIIII�IIR�I�I�IIINIaII�IaINl011 � NIII€IIYII�II�IIIIIII�NIIIIIIIIIIIeII111N11�11 � IIfl101N1111RI1N�1111111NI1B111NI11Bl11111111�11 � NII�IIIIIINIIIII�IIIII�IIIIIIIINIII�111111111�11 � IIIII�IIIIIIMYY�IIIIIII�IIN�IIIIIIBIIIIIINI�11 - �Illll�llllllfllllll�iimii�unniiiu��unuu�ll �IIIII�IIIIHIIIIIII�II�II�IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIN�11 1 11 1 1 1 T 1 y F Q Z J U. LL O ' Z o Z W ~ uui a z 1 1 1 1 LLI c F U W w U U U U Z U U U w LL w w w< w a w w U) 3 L a O U) L U f O Z��t-aa O O O LL U p F� O O LLJ LL �U U U �U a U U U N W 3 W W W U) w W W Iw- Z LL M LL lL LL 0 N U LL LL LL p O Cl) 7 O� i}�� 0 0 0~ m_ U — 00 22 Q Q J 0 w w w C7 N 0 (� C7 w w O (Dw 2 2 2 x— l! Q 2 V i s i voigrwncwna igv<wnr�wnvwi N N U LLw'UUUK�UUUU PIP Z LLI LLI � ~�uj Q d w 0W 0 O o > Y U a� otS Y w O m H W w U- w w W w U m w w w w Z °U LL LL F zw Q~ S na J N M 2 n<n J 2 J 2 n� J h cif w H 2 nm J 2 J 2 ntn J 2 J V H W w w W H H H H LL N 0 d w Q O❑ w p N W O W O W w W U _ U 2 O� 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 wW L F-W Y f I-F- Yam F- - -F- U)ia �- D w w X O w w w w w w p 2 w w w w w w w w g Y w S R 2 K K C7 O O O O 3 of !� 3 a z a 0 O 0 00 0 N U) Lo Lo a w ww w x Q 2� (O M N Z Q D Z M U 0 U w 0 U LL LL �- w w U U W W w U �a 0Lu wa w}} Z U W J W }w??j m 0] W W LL co F LL F F �O LL F- ZOrn O w W 2 J Z J Z z O 1- N U U H U H U» F- 1- F CO W D U U z Q W J J U p R 0' to IL V1 UO �O J = Q Q a a 2 U 2 U S U W¢¢ a g 2 W a w Zg N w w V In t0 w W r LD C Z M n 0 0 N co APPENDIX B: HYDRAULIC & EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS EAPROIECf FBESIANDV3%- BLOCK 33DOCStl396 FDP 2ND DRAINAGE REPORTDOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats March 30, 2005 -Appendices I 11 �1 N Z O Q J ' V J Q U ' J ■ W O F- U) x mY L 0 Y 0 Y Y 0 O Y Y O O Y O O _U �vm a m mrnorn m o - rn v o m O m N N N m m m $mvvv avvv°' mrn Nmrnrn J C 2 -rnmm rnrnrnrn m v v v a v v v c m E m o y _ —d N NN s n C O N NNIN o O o 0 V(") 0 m' a = m O N O O O O O O J o mo 0000 r; a N N NNE V 0 0 0 O O O O ' O a m fOOTr17 ' J O N m N r i m rn r rn n n rn w r r rn rn n m v a v v a v v C � lLl O Nm h m ra N N N rm E ,r U`rn rnrn mrnrnrnrn m m v a v v a v v '^ n Nm orn n n L-lf 0 44 6 N O 1N In n r r r n r r v vv vv a0' Vm0 Lnr rnnCi i� N N 10 N O O O f h "' O 00 00 00 m m vNonr (7 oui cd neNm 2 m r n r r r r r mrnm v v mrnrnm v v v v v v E � Nominmmvr m O O n m N + m r n n n r n r c v vv vova°i + o lU m m N a N o n n W O O V LL i0 w N N V N V m t0 U--m rvav rrn v mm vv °' aO' D m a NON r W 7 o n 6" v r m r m n r m m rr mm v va vvv ^ m O f V f V O r r C) N In N � a m m O O N r v N m mo mnrnr S v vvvvvvv Mn �rmv n m in LQ N o oo oo' N n r m 0 n IA In 1 N o 000 6 .-�' vra �� m n N m N Nn V.N th N'- Na— 1� c„ 00 m NNO m oa �fV � N 0 m N j n � u o c E 2 c y 9 3 c m 6 m c � co o N C v 3: o a o �+ O m L u� E o o a O c c m M c �c Oo m .0 c w 3 .00 m w m y a o v ❑33 a m m p5 m t 0 0 CO d T C N C a c m m E � 0 N u C t.. L m G.m c C m 3_m rn+ zi oa U ❑ o u mac W��Un�cc E c E vi Wc mCgm°c4.- n^o� II W oU EO: I-� m m Y8> v t a e t o A 3 c 3 ow co m W m 0 a E-"" ' m a c es w C c N d 0 0 6 0 C o m CO m c g 0 m m m m= d c c c c m m oo 0 0 0 0 ` O m U U J U m d N m- p p p C N v V 0 0 1�~ E=tSUUCY P d O C 0 C - C 11 mm R LL N i(f IQS O 8 OD N S S O S O AS $ S M S m Lq m ovi m i Pn' ro ro m m m �i m LL 9 ry p O pq� Of O S S p O p S S p 8 S m CO p pp�� Q p p E [� 3 LL d c o 0 0 o c c w 3 0 0 0 c 0 c o 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 c 0 0 0 o w 3 LL o 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c U m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 9 a; o U N C C O LL N rn m a rn rn m m m m m m m m m m rn m m m m 9 A U Z N 3 N p aO { �O O 8 p S fp �O O O O O F O O N p 8 5 m t� 17 N O O � S o d o S od 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U o 0 0 0 N w na z � o O 'o 0 o 0 'o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 c o 0 > F $ U U c LL E ^Q O tD t0 O O O p < p o W N W y S aA0 O Oi O O O M �Nmp N S S O NN OD S aND oO 8 O ON! S COi V w O N S - O - N - 7 cl N N V 7 E 5 E U B 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 N � AA N N O T O G C �- e- e- �- yy �6 N tpO0�1 0m N<N n u? O W I aN� N O pm f�0 N N mN tp00 OD N LLO N N h M r r N T M r S N O d> 0 0 0 0 0 o c 0 0 O O O O O N S < N pp O O aa{{ < NN tg N V d N = O O O O O C 0 0 2.2 yy Q G C G G C O C O O C O 0 O O C G O O o 0 LL — fl W y �p C � m N N q C'f M M F y O c as 11 m O 2mp o _ ac 3E i.52 � a� n W o U 0,5 d a w N E 8 m3 �22 d c y LLU m`nm m MF2 W mM0 Z Penny Flats Jim Sell Design, Inc. 2396 6-21-06 EMS/SGS Maple Inlets (Inlet 3) Q100 80 cfs ICON avg FL elev: 4982.15 feet KING avg FL elev: 4982 feet From Anderson 2001 Report: Grate Flow: Weir flow: flow depth less than 0.65 feet Qw=19.2 * (W S E L-4982.0 )^ 1.5 Flow Depth Flow WSEL Q Orifice Flow: Curb Flow: 0.4 4982.4 4.857258 0.5 4982.5 6.788225 0.6 4982.6 8.923354 0.65 4982.65 10.0617 flow depth greater than 0.65 feet Qo=12.53*(W SEL-4982.0)^0.5 Flow Depth Flow WSEL Q 0.65 4982.65 10.10201 0.7 4982.7 10.48335 0.8 4982.8 11.20717 0.9 4982.9 11.887 1 4983 12.53 Qc=3*(Q/L)*(0.80) w/ Q/L from criteria manual figure 5-2 Yo=WSEL-Flelev-0.21 = WSEL-4982.21 Flow Depth Flow WSEL Yo Yo/h Q/L Q (fig 5-2) 0.4 4982.4 0.19 0.38 0.25 0.6 0.5 4982.5 0.29 0.58 0.5 1.2 0.6 4982.6 0.39 0.78 0.75 1.8 0.65 4982.65 0.44 0.88 0.93 2.232 Penny Flats Jim Sell Design, Inc. 2396 6-21-06 EMS/SGS Chevy Inlets (Inlet 7) Q100 261.2 cfs ICON avg FL elev: 4977.62 feet KING avg FL elev: 4977.38 feet From Anderson 2001 Report: Grate Flow: Weir flow: flow depth less than 0.65 feet Qw=19.2*(WSEL-4977.38 )^ 1.5 Flow Depth Flow WSEL Q 0.35 4977.73 3.975606 0.4 4977.78 4.857258 0.5 4977.88 6.788225 0.6 4977.98 8.923354 0.65 4978.03 10.0617 Orifice Flow: flow depth greater than 0.65 feet Qo=12.53*(WSEL-4977.38)110.5 Flow Depth Flow WSEL Q 0.65 4978.03 10.10201 0.7 4978.08 10.48335 0.8 4978.18 11.20717 0.9 4978.28 11.887 1 4978.38 12.53 Curb Flow: Qc=3*(Q/L)*(0.80) w/ Q/L from criteria manual figure 5-2 Yo=WSEL-Flelev-0.21 = WSEL-4977.59 Flow Depth Flow WSEL Yo Yo/h Q/L Q (fig 5-2) 0.35 4977.73 0.14 - 0.28 0.17 0.408 0.4 4977.78 0.19 0.38 0.25 0.6 0.5 4977.88 0.29 0.58 0.5 1.2 0.6 4977.98 0.39 0.78 0.75 1.8 0.65 4978.03 0.44 0.88 0.93 2.232 depth 0.4 0.5 3 Curb Inlets: 1.8 3.6 15 Grated Inlets: 72.85888 101.8234 total (south): 74.65888 105.4234 total (north)*: 147.7 164.8 TOTAL CHERRY: 222.3589 270.2234 *North discharges referenced from 2001 Anderson Report ' Ped. Spine Swale Worksheet for Trapezoidal Channel Project Description Worksheet Ped. Spine Swal ' Flow Element Trapezoidal Cha Method Manning's Formi Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coeffic 0.035 Slope 005400 ft/ft Left Side Slope 3.00 H : V Right Side Slope 3.00 H : V Bottom Width 3.00 ft ' Discharge 13.88 cfs Results ' Depth 1.00 It Flow Area 6.0 ft' ' Wetted Perimi 9.31 ft Top Width 8.98 ft Critical Depth 0.69 ft Critical Slope 0.023597 Wit Velocity 2.32 ft/s Velocity Head 0.08 It Specific Enerc 1.08 ft Froude Numb, 0.50 Flow Type Subcritical 1 c:\program files\haestad\fmw\2396 fcp 2.fm2 Jim Sell Design Inc FlowMaster v6.1 [614k] ' 06/20/06 02:29:51 PM ®Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Project = Inlet ID = W= wo GRATE INLET IN,A SUMP < Le Le Clogged 19 Le L Cuxb Gutter F— Flow 3n Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q. = 25.8 cfs Ih of a Unit Grate L° = 3.35 ft i of a Unit Grate W. _ 2.63 ft Opening Ratio for a Grate A = 8.79 ling Factor for a Single Inlet C. = 0.50 )er of Grates No = 1 e Coefficient Cd = 0.67 Coefficient Cv, = 3.00 r Depth for Design Condition Yd = 12.00 inches igth of Grate Inlet L = ... ., 3.35 ft ith of Grate Inlet W = .. 2.63 ft a Weir pacity as a Weir without Clogging QW = 25.8 cfs ,gging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef =.. 0.00 gging Factor for Multiple Units Clog =., 0.00 pacity as a Weir with Clogging Q. = _: 25.8; cfs an Orifice :)acity as an Orifice without Clogging Q°i = 415.8 cfs 3acity as an Orifice with Clogging Q°° = 415.8 cfs 3acity for Desiun with Clogging Qa :' ;w'..„r;,, 25.8 cfs 3ture Percentage for this Inlet = Qa / Q° = C% t '.100 00 % Note: Unless additional ponding depth or spilling over the curb is acceptable, a capture percentage of less than 100% in a sump may indicate the need for additional inlet units. 2396 Grate Inlet rating.xls, Grate-S 6/21 /2006, 9:09 AM 0 [J [] 1 11 11 F— L GRATE INLET IN A SUMP Project = Penny Flats Inlet ID = Inlet 8 (Type D with double grate) @ sump condition W= wo �> Clogged Le Le L Curb Gutter F— Flow sign Discharge on the Street (from Street Hy) Q, = 10.4 cfs igth of a Unit Grate L. _ '3.35 ft dth of a Unit Grate W° = 2:63 It :a Opening Ratio for a Grate A = 9.79 egging Factor for a Single Inlet Co = .0.50 tuber of Grates No = 2 Lice Coefficient Cd = 0.67 :ir Coefficient Cw = 8.00 der Depth for Design Condition Yd = 12.00 inches pacity of Grate Inlet in a Sump (Calculated) igth of Grate Inlet L = 6.70, ft ith of Grate Inlet W = 2.63 It a Weir :)acity as a Weir without Clogging QW = 35.9 cfs gging Coefficient for Multiple Units Coef = 6.60 gging Factor for Multiple Units Clog = 0:0.0 :)acity as a Weir with Clogging QWe = 35 9 cfs an Orifice 3acity as an Orifice without Clogging Q°; _ .831.6 cfs :)acity as an Orifice with Clogging Q°° = 831_:6 cfs racity for Design with Clogging Q°g_X „? ; t 35, 9: cfs Aure Percentage for this Inlet = Qe / 0, = C% ,100 00 % Note: Unless additional ponding depth or spilling overthe curb is acceptable, a capture percentage of less than 100% in a sump may indicate the need for additional inlet units. ' 2396 Grate Inlet rating type Dxls, Grate-S 6/20/2006, 2:05 PM r�r �1 APPENDIX C: REFERENCED INFORMATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS BAPR03ECP PnESVAND\2396 - BLOCK 33V>OCSV3%FDP DRAA'AGE REPORTAOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats March 30, 1005 - Appendices HONES STREET OUTFALL PROJECT AS-BULT HYDRO ULICEkALU4TION PREPARED FOR: City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80321 PREPARED BY. Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. 2900 South College Avenue, Suite 3B Fort Collins, CO 80525 (4 CE Project No. COFC04.3) Jan uury 1 ?, 3001 ' A.NdERSON CONSU[TiNq ENGiNEERS, INC Ci1,il • ]122;er hesources E17I11-t M177 CI I 1 lanuary 12. 2001 ' Mr. ,lav Rose City of Fort Collins Utilities 700 Wood Street ' Fort Collins, CO 505"1 RE: Howes Street Outfall Project: As -Built Hydraulic Evaluation ' (ACE Project No. COFC04.3) Dear Tay: Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. is pleased to inform you that we have completed the as -built hydraulic evaluation of the Howes Street Outfall Project which has been revised pursuant to review continents provided by Mr. Matt Fater, City of Fort Collins Master Planning Engineer. This evaluation included the hydraulic modeling of the outfall culvert from Laporte Avenue to the water ' quality pond near the Poudre River, and the hydraulic analysis of the combination curb and grate inlets at Laporte Avenue, Maple Street and Cherry Street. All analyses were conducted for the 100- year event assuming fully developed conditions (which in the Old Town Basin is equivalent to existing conditions) with existing drainage facilities, using the recently updated hydrologic model for the Old Town Basin. The following letter report and appendices document these analyses. ' Hydroloay The hydrology utilized for the as -built analyses was based on the hydrologic modeling completed as part of the draft report, "Old Town Basin Master Drainage Plan Update (Partial Baseline Analyses)," by Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated September 1,2000. The I00-year return period Old Town North SW7vfM model presented its the draft report, based on fully developed conditions with existing drainage facilities, was revised slighlly in the vicinity of the Howes Street Outfall pursuant to the review of record drawings prepared by ICON Engineering, Inc. The revised ' portion of the subbasin/conveyance element map and SW"\41\4 model schematic are provided in Appendix A. Output for the revised.] 00-year S ",-.MM model is also included in Appendix A. The ' 100-vear discharges defined for the analysis of the culvert and inlets are sump tarized in Table 1. The outfall culveri discharges were used to analyze the pipe hydraulics associated with the Howes Street Outfall, while the inlet discharges were used to analyze the operational characteristics of the ' combination inlets. Further documentation concernins the deflnitioan of these discharges and the detailed discharge profile along the outfall is provided in .yppendiN B. [1 L1 ' _9'i Soath Colle-_ A Cnue. Scite _ n For. Coili.._. CC 80: 1(,.W '0 - F=).:!Q70i "A-01-1 _ r..ci!I- ace�,lte...^on �J I 1 1 I �J 7 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 NIr..1zy Rose ,lanuary 121. 21001 Table 1. Sumniary of 100-Year Discharges Lised for the As -Built .��alyses. Location. -Reach SWMIV1 Element NO. Discharge (cfs) Pipe Flows in the Outfall Culvert Between Laporte Avenue and CheM- Street 457 710 Between Maple Street and Cherry Street 468 733 North of Cherry Street 459 1.049 Inflow from 48" RCP in Chem Street' 633 1_7 Surface Runoff to the Combination Inlets Laporte Avenue 446 711 Maple Street 447 s0 Cherry Street 6,48 261 ' This inflow is included in the 1.049 cfs discharge north of Cherry Street. Culvert Hydraulics Pate T,,vo The Howes Street Outfall culvert was analyzed using StonnCAD$ [Haestad Methods, Inc.], a storm sewer analysis and design computer program which is based on the'. Federal Highway Administration's Urban Drainage Design Manual, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 22, November 1996. The culvert was modeled using 12 distinct pipe elements with endpoints (nodes) defined by either inlets, bends, grade breaks, or transition sections. Parameters associated with each pipe element were established based on record drawings prepared by ICON Engineering. Inc. Loss coefficients were defined based on specific bend, junction, inlet, and transition configurations at each node. The schematic diagram for the culvert system is provided in Appendix B. along with all pertinent hydraulic parameters. Complete results. including hydraulic and energy &lade lines. from the hydraulic analysis of the culvert are also provided in Appendix B in the form of both a "Node Report" and a "Pipe Report' generated by StormCAD. The hydraulic and energy grade lines along the Howes Street Outfall are summarized in Table 2, 1 7: OPEN COFCOpl .4Nd ERSON CoNSuhlNq ENCNEERS, INC. I\Ir. Jai Rose ' .lanuary 12. 2001 1 Pace Three Table 2. Surnman of Hydraulic and Energy Grade Lines for the 10\Ves Street Outfall. ?`ode Description Ston�CAD ID Hydraulic GL (ft. NGVD) Enerey GL (ft. NGVD) Out In Out In Culvert Outlet to Water Quality Pond 0-1 4969.0 4969.0 4969.0 4971.7 28' Bend South of Culvert Outlet J-1 4969.3 .' 4969.4 4971.9 4972.1 450 Bend North of Cherry _Street J-2 4971.9 ! 4972.1 4974.6 I 4974.S North Inlets in Cherry Street I-1 4972.2 4975.2 4974.9 4976.8 South Inlets in Cherry Street I-2 4975.4 4975.7 4977.1 ' 4977.1 North Inlets in Maple Street 1-3 4976.7 I 4976.8 4978.7 i i 4978.7 Culvert Grade Change in Maple Street J-3 4977.0 i 4977.0 4979.0 I 4979.0 South Inlets in Maple Street I-4 4977.1 4977.2 4979.1 I 4979.1 First 45' Bend South of Maple Street J-4 4978.0 1 4978.2 4980.0 I 4980.0 Second 45' Bend South of Maple Street J-5 4978.2 I 4978.4 4980.2 4980.2 D/S End of Transition North of Laporte Avenue I-5 4978.8 I 4978.9 4980.8 4980.8 North Inlets in Laporte Avenue 1-6 4979.1 I 4979.6 49-80.8' 4980.8' South Inlets in Laporte Avenue I-7 4979.7 4979.8 4980.8' 4980.8' 'The energy grade was assumed equal to that reported at ?Mode 1-5; the computed energy was lower due to discharge changes and the culvert transition configuration. Inlet Hydraulics The combination curb and grate inlets were analyzed manually with each component of the inlets (curb and orate) considered separately. The effects oftallwater due to surcharging of the culvert ' system were included in the calculations. -where applicable. v ' Energy grade line elevations and inlet flog• line elevations Wer; compared at all three cross streets. The comparison indicated that the 100-yea, ener_,,y grades at Chem Street and Maple Street WOUld be below the inlet floe% lines, consequently. tailtvater :gas not consider_d at those two locations. rA,vdersoN COI'SLIH;\c, E-,giNEEr,S, NC. Mr. Jay Rose Page Four ' January 12. 2001 However. the 100-vear energy grade at Laporte Avenue would be approxinlatcly 1.: feet above the inlet flo\\ line; as a result, the energy elevation was used as the tailwater elevation for the inlet ' calculations on Laporte Avenue. The curb -portion of the inlets were analyzed using the City ofFort Collins nomograph for computing ' the capacity of curb inlets in a sump. The grated -portion of the inlets were analyzed using the orifice equation �yith the average elevation of the top of the grates as a datum. Effective capacities of the ' inlets were estimated to be SO percent of the theoretical capacities, in accordance with the City of Fort Collins StormNyater Criteria Manual. ' Chem, Street The inlets on Cherry Street are located in a relatively shallow sump which allows for approximately 0.5 feet of ponding prior to overtopping to the north (through a curb cut which accotnmodates the ' railroad tracks) and to the east (over a local high point in Cherry Street). The inlet analysis determined that the maximum discharge which can be intercepted by the inlets prior to overtopping is 177 efs. Since this is less than the 100-year surface runoff at that location of?61 cfs, a stage- ' discharge rating curve was developed which considered overflows to the north over the sidewalk and through the railroad curb cut, and to the east along Cherry Street. Computations used to develop the ' rating curve are given in Appendix B. The stage -discharge rating curve was converted to two diversion rating curves which were included in the SVI'MM model provided in Appendix A. ' Due to the relatively inefficiency of the two overtopping sections at low water surface elevations, the stage -discharge rating curve and the results of the S Vv MM modeling shows that of the peak 100- year surface flow at that location, the inlets will intercept 259 cfs with less than 3 cfs overtopping to the north and less than 1 cfs overtopping to the east. The 10.0-yearponded water surface elevation at the inlets on Cherry Street will be 4975.39 ft, NGVD. Since the inlets intercept over 99 percent of the total 100-year discharge, the full 100-year floe. \k•as used to analyze the culvert hydraulics of the Howes Street Outfall. ' 31aple Street The inlets on Maple Street were designed to intercept the 100-year discharge at that location without ponding water on the sidewalks. Based on the record dra vings, the lowest sidewalk elevation on ' Maple Street is—^.982.65 ft. NGVD-, the inlet analysis detenmined that at the minimum sidewalk elevation the inlets can pass 123 cfs. compared to the 100-year discharge of 50 cfs. Fur Cher analysis indicated that the 100-year ponded water surface elevation at the inlets will be 9C?,j� ft. \G `'D on Maple Street. rOP! \'EvcjixeErs. lvc. 1 1_J l,lr. Rose .1anLi2:-, 1'_. 200 i Laporte .4 renue PaL,e Five The inlets on Laporte Avenue are located in a relatively deep sump •,yhich allows for approximately 2.5 ieet of ponding prior to overtopping to the east (over the railroad tracks in 'Mason Street). However, approximately 1.3 feet of the head available to push runoff tlu'ouRh the inlets is taken up by the energy required to drive water through the outfall culvert. As cited above, the energy grade line in Laporte Avenue computed for the culvert hydraulic analysis is approximately 498O.S ft. NGVD; this elevation was used as the datum for both the curb and ;rate inlet analyses. As documented in Appendix B, the capacity of the Laporte Avenue inlets is SOS cfs priorto overtopping Mason Street, which exceeds the 100-year floe of 710 cfs. Further analysis indicated that the 100- year ponded water surface elevation at the inlets will be 4981.75 ft. NGVD on Laporte Avenue. Table 3 is provided as summary of the ponded water surface elevations at all three Howes Street Outfall inlet installations. Table 3. Ponded Water Surface Elevations (IDO-Year)at the Howes Street Outfall Inlets. It -Jet Location 100-fear Water Surface Elevation (ft, NGVD) Laporte Avenue 4981.75 Maple Street 4982.54 Cherry Street 4978.29 It has been a pleasure working with you in bringing this final part of the Howes Street Outfall project to conclusion. If you have any questions orcomments concerning any ofthe enclosed information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ANDERSON tLTING NGENIEERS.INC. Gre e., I. 'och. P.E. P4'eet Manager Attacltments • c\ CUF;D':!-nr;( rA,\,i]ERSUn CU%SL,TING EV(11NEER5, Inc. 11 :,7 •lJov :Coe, I I 11 I 'I I I 7 F I Ll I I I I I I I FLOWS. s-;,:;-s -5 5 ;,1- nr Z::-: :AMS ... P-A Z A ? 4c- Z- A I . S 405 56.5 A 0 4C. 41 -E- .� F--Zlw 0 G 4- 4-2 77.8 -Low' 0 -. 4 .3 -,42 .9 !n:Rr-cT F--DW 35. 434 FL3W, G 46 4i5 i:):RECT 7L0W' 0 42 4 : 6 BE .5 (z:F.z= 7--Owt 0 43 41- :4 (D.P.E= Firov, ; 0 44 RE -- F--Dwi 0 40. 4 :9 :4 P. 4 D: ?.S- FLOW) 420 19e.3 .7 421 733.5 ;r;,P.EC- FLOW) 4:2 776.6 :D:Rz= r-OW) 4:3 293.9 :DIPXCT FLOW) 0 51. 424 309.5 MR= FLOW) 0 si . 425 328.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 51. 426 39B.9 :DIRECT, FLOW 1 0 45. 429 92B.9 :BmEc- FLOW) 0 52. 43o 104: . a (Z!PEC- FLAW; D 55. 421 145.2 (DIFLEC- FiZM) D 51 432 5-2.8 (clpa= r--OW) c 5 432 -10.5 D : U. 0 53. 434 532.9 (DIRE- F-,OWI 0 53. 435 454.2 .D:RE= ;--Cw! 0 54. 436 524.1,DIRECT -�..OW' 0 55. 1 4 3 -, 296.0 iD:REC- FLOW' 0 55. 436 236.1 1 R E C-7 F-XW) 0 ss . 429 302.6 ;D-.p.sc- FLOW) 0 57. 440 85.7 ;D-REC- :LOW) 0 57. 44 216.9 !e-.?EC77 F-_OW i 0 57. 4 4 92 :D-.Rz- FLOW! 0 59. 443 44. (DIRE-' FLOW: 0 59. 44; 445 4 6 . 431. DIR , rC- FLOW) (D:P.E= FLIOWI 0 S.. I 1. - (-r L,.;� 446 10 . rD!RE-- F:,OW) 0 55. 447 OC.0 :r:Rz= Mow) 0 ;D. 448 .1 .6 i 449 913.5 (D:RE= FLOW 1 0 511. ;so 5.2 (D:Rzc- "Low) 0 5 : . 45I 143.4 .8 0 36. 452 776.6 1.5 1 453 625.5 i .4 i 454 i.e z-FEc- 0 40. 55. 1 ISE -0.7 1 0 4Ei 6E.5 .6 0 41. -- 458 7377.7 3.4 0 55.- 459 '049.' 0 50. ------- \ 460 1. z:::,REc- F"-- W 0 27. rr46: 107.0 :NREc- FL -OW) 0 37. 46: 64.9 ;DnEc- FLOW) 0 18. 463 246.2 ;ZMEC, 7C.0wi 0 35. 464 :54. 6 (Cl?.E= FLOW) 0 .0. 465 396.0 !:)!P.zL- FLAW` a 51. 466 7.1-1.5 :OTRE=- FLOW! 0 54. 167 I51.7 [!):P.EC- -LOW 0 36. 468 :03.: !D!REC- F--DW 0 35. 469 -:2 fD:RScT 7-.Dw 0 3 IDTPE= FLOW 0 31. 4 :46. C, D 41. 4 95 F-E= Zlpzc'- :--Ow 4-5 2 -Jw 0 35. 4-7 4 0 i . -:"-Wi 0 4 C . 4-,9 64 7-1Ow 0 2 . 4.1 -o. 48 -16.3 ;B5 46EZIE.- 745.0 364 .9 'EB 642.2 :7 7--Dw 450 7C.6 49- sol c 5 .CZ e P;;nR 11 mf 17 I I 11 I I I I I I I I I 11 I I 11 I C. SCIE -C2.6 IDS.- 4 4c: . F I 6:.: . i c 3 i S-E l x u 5-0 0 45. 0 5L. 41 7 .4 c E 5 2?5 . 21i . 0 0 4 E . 0 45. z:s 99 . c 3E. S,z 457.2 1 D 45. 53' 309.0 1.0 0 52. si3 0 St , 524 918.5 0 13.E 0 52. E36 124.2 i.2 SBI, 429.0 :.5 528 43.8 .5 0. 539 84.9 6 o 59. 540 81.3 .8 o 2?. 54.1 353.4 1.1 0 4e. 543 637.0 :):RE= 2 544 ' BO .7 .8 0 4 5.7 I13 .1 .6 0 36. =48 261.2 (DMZ= F'OW) 0 4i. 549 182.8 .8 0 40. 550 ioi.s .8 0 37. 551 66.1 .9 0 42. 552 41.: .2 3 ;6. 553 72.0 i 0 119. 554 2.6 .: 0 46, SEE 365.3 1.3 0 4i. 556 51.: .6 o 46. 557 19.7 .5 0 52. 558 68.0 .7 0 43. 559 409.0 1.3 0 44. 560 369.5 (DIRECT FLOW; 0 59. 561 367.55 1.0 562 408.0 112 0 52. BEE 2e9.4 .9 0 42. 570 383 .: kD!PE= F-CW. 0 48. 5-11 4-8 .9 D:P.E-- -OW; 0 49. 572 430.7 DIRECT FLOW' 0 -2. 573 413.6 D!?.E= FLOW' 0 51. 575 390.E fn:px= Mow 0 40. =76 2:3 .3 ;DIREc- FI-^W , 0 35. Z7- 696.3 .]IRE'..'_' FLOW, c $1. 576 66.0 .7 C 4::. 579 :15 .: 1 .0 . 0 44. sic 155.7 .9 0 38. sai 506.0 0 41. -8: 901's 1.9 0 S4. E82 E96 .6 .3 t Ell. E94 2.5.6 i.. 0 .7. SEE S10.9 1.4 0 54. 86 -191.1 1.4 0 3. .87 49LO .6 0 56. 586 294.9 .5 0 5-1. sa? :26.8 8 0 Z7. 590 49.8 i .0 0 42. E9; 98.7 0 43- 592 lo-- .0 o 4-- Es'. o 42. 594 0 54. E9F .96 4 c 38. =?- 0 4z. 60- 418.9 1. 0 26. E01 :62 6;.4 "E.- .0 E 0 59. Ell= 10EE-7 .0 Ea. :8 E. 40. 41. c ;C. A C. c =A. Pace ',�of 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I j I j I I I I its 4-. t !::Fz= 0 4-1 640 Z4- .6 c Is. i4: !::r=77 7t� c 4- a--r z� avg- _--VzF-q- :F 7'_ �W L ,,r I ESS 5 E i iZ:;:E=- FLOW 0 45. 657 C. 0 .2. 65E I5.0 .a 559 480.5 _REC7 KIDW 0 53. 960 5.0 M : -Z __ F'_3W i 0 ZE . iii s;.o : :8. ii. :s'.= fD:REC7 5`L,3wi 0 " " se, :29.E (D_REC_ FLOW 0 4. 664 22.0 (XREC7 FLOW, 0 ::. 66- 1.4 0 So. 66i 296.0 MMECT MOW) 0 51. 667 366.0 fr_Ow 0 51 . 66E 30.0 (D:REC- 0 Is. 669 106.0 3.6 2 !1. 67'. 439.0 1.2 0 44, 67- 109.4 .6 0 44. 1 1- 16.6.1 M-PSC- Mow, 0 376 68C (r):RE7. rIoW 0 48. gal. 416.1 (DZF.Ec- FLOW) 0 59. ia. 244.4 (DIFXC7 FLOWI 0 59. 6e3 (DIRECT FLOW 0 59. 694 171.7 :DiRECT FlAw 0 S9. ass 172.7 MIRECT MOWI 0 59. 686 .0 (D:R=,- FLOW) 0 0. 667 509.2 2.0 i 0. 688 1055.7 (D:P.FC7 FLOW 0 58. 689 699.9 (D:PXC- Fi,014) 0 58. 690 35S.8 (D:P.EC- F'-OWI 0 69, 699.9 MnEc_ FLOW 0 58. 69, 5IZ.6 (DIRECT MOW; 0 586 693 IBI.3 (D-.PZC- F'�OWI D 58. 694 353.5 1.4 0 59. 696 167.5 1 1. -Do 4B.5 (1):REC- -:low) a 25. 701 139.5 .7 0 36. 702 B3.5 (D:Fzc- FLOW 0 35. -03 23:.i PXC_ SOW: c 35. 104 158.1 (DZP.E- 7-lowi 0 25. 705 136.8 _OW: 0 35. ,Do 64.9 .6 0 . 7" 709 254.5 i.0 0 4i. 110 86.7 Mips= FI7W: .6 0 36. .06.: 1.1 0 41. 72; 307.3 IDZP.F= 0 41. �25 :0.0 (DIRECT 0 :0. 726 287.31 D : RE- -.Low* 0 4:. .:7 4:5.5 (DiRE7. 41. ,26 1-08.0 (D.R2c- MOW 0 31. 129 327.5 MIPS= F_.Ow! 0 ;2. 730 365.3 MiRECT , r OW 1 0 Al. 73 280.5 MIPS- r1low! 0 41. 7 84.7 (DI FLEC_ 71,0W D 41 733 290.0 f r I P. E 21-8.2 (DIRE 1= _Ijow: 0 4_ -35 -I.i MMECT r-ow: 0 At -26 225.11 i I I RE cl:w! c .4. 737 17a.0 i0:RE _OW' 0 44 . ,,a1.1 (:;:RE= F:low; _19 ;D;7.E_= FLW; 0 ;4. ;40 122.7 'D:P.E= F-Ow! 44. 50.2 nipz= F`_3W 45. -22.Z iD:F.E= '25le 3i . 79 .2 i_.5 0 4:. c 74E -4- 69.- ,9 c 0 'W c n ' CW 7'- RE- :R2 Page 15 of 17 I I I I I I I I H I I I I I I I Fz D t4 0 42 acm -W 64 C. 4 E44 0 ;3 e4E D RE 0 44 95: 5c9.: it:r z nw, .. 0. 116.E :::R-7:7 Est 190.Z •z:,-x7. as 4 ass izo.D .? Esc 56.2 .6 .5- IBE.? ess I's .? iz:Rz- MOW I 859 63.0 D:Rt= -:,:)W: 860 324 (DIRE(DIRECT. -Low: i.36-- 198.4 (DIRECT F--OW) a 6: 125.1 (DIF.Ec- FLOW) 1. 863 635.5 MIRECT Flow) 3. 864 6-'6.5 [DIRECT FLOW) 1 3. ass 1940 (DIRECT F--0W! I i. sea 37.5 !DIRE-- F-,OW) 0 25. 903 25-7 4.5 2 39. 904 25-.8 iDlpr= FLOW) 3 40. 905 325.8 i r. I REE = FLOW: 0 35. 906 760.7 ;DZRE= FLOW) 0 27. 907 1178.3 DIRE= F--OW 1 0 40. 908 914.5 10.E 0 41. 909 925.5 (DIRE= MOW) 0 36. 910 733.4 (DZREC- FLOW) 0 26. 91: 726.5 8.0 0 27. 755.� !DZRE^' FLOW) 0 42. 9i4 755.7 9.4 0 42. 91-5 74Z47 9.3 0 44. 91-5 1-39.5 (Z)!RE= FIDW) 0 36. 91-9 56.0 !DIRECT FLOW) 0 30. 920 63." :DZFLEC- FLOW) 0 37. 9-1 56.0 :.o 0 56. 92: 925.0 (DIRECT FLOW) 0 40. 923 92s.4 6.9 D 41. 524 92s- ; D I RE IT F--DW) 0 4-1. 925 93E.i 5.6 0 4'. 926 1102.7 .1 16.9 0 50. 9--1 si.0 1.3 0 si. 528 703.7 ;r:RE= FI-0W) 0 50. 929 6c.6 ;:Z?.EC- FLODW i D so. 930 99.- :V:RZC-' FLOW- 0 36. 9.13 66.-' ::Rsc- 7-.DW : 0 36. 9t: 33.0 =xEc- FLOW: 0 :a. P2 i 66.0 2.9 42. 924 68.3 :.9 42. 939 66.0 21.s 4-- . 940 88.0 1,2 1 43. 94: 244.4 :D:F.-vc- 0 s?. 942 43.0 t :11 1. xc -I FLDw I D 22. 943 201.4 (DIRT-- FLOW: 1 0. 944 I:1.0 .1.3 43. 945 -Il1.0 3.3 43. 946 i'ilo 1.9 43 . 94- *.--. a 1.? 1 43. 948 464.2 FWW* 0 41. 949 :Z:?Z= F-'W D 1 -1 . 950 14-.2 :D:=-C- FL:W: D 4. 95: 2.3 i 9.3 7E-,.4 0 40. 954 726. S 1C.0 0 40. 9!5 2t-.l S.: ^. 27. 956 189". 6.E 927 4.4 41. qk- -.9. ?4c stx.! t4- =:tz77 �64 RE:: =:w e--77 r:. W 7 ANdERSON CONSU[TlNq ENGENEERS, INC T C'rvi' ii'.�iPr Resources r.n•:irormen:al PrG°eCL la v-It5 Prz;,ec; NUmDer BY `S Pace Of 1 Case 111� (ia cLtS '�c� i U:,. 1( wbs r?.e n"(7 l ni-.•a.'cd i �"-'- [ •'IY �o �(rn: (r Girj bN Ir i'• ? rllt:>: �'.. ��t 1'�^ � I a:Y JL.'w� 1, -,C y �'tG./ lc � o. •.. � r 1+4GG r �..npc• i� �tr¢e i-. Lvt[/r:,y rYr'ZGt jl. ',N/ C'n�l .•.r/I_+i lnti� Oio. v'IC+� }�E WI%I.•. c, ;�i Cr a:,. i•r.IT [76 CL Ass .tSi/✓✓' V✓f �(� F��. �. cl: �J{y+..'1 C^rrnr.r v �t•: .r. [CO/✓ .. Cr✓:y Ce/rw...) 1•' (.-�c+5 c(..:l:�. C.L �I,.wi .1Gi >'�n .'7.�+7 �:nr+i. l��Irmw_Jf. >_ ' 4J'(fY2YL l� rJ, r•t •W �_ :rnN yS' Nf✓��;4 'Jt �-�Ji r. llt 4"'f•�•r 1, �I.YI� Li.'. it Prl -�i1 �li'V i.�i'01iT{J•^.] i'W^1 II'�/L� •�. 1 1 _ L:H �f p_ncu.•';'r .rn �rL ;t:� f- �:e.._Cy::c, ' ��E �Ud r�ctk.l r�5 'r �Hl Sc .•+E� $4c :. rv: .,:/: R:n O.(,•IZEa%L In' C/M �. fiU. I 1/ �ij. ✓+ cl�r. / ,. .l j•r• 'r-":r ,n:_•i'.4 I.r lq ie �c ().hYj,. „Pot {F ��`CJ=".r7el.w.�� T✓l 00...�5rl r•w..-.� ...:,r (o,�.[wLe .. ..{L ...JFv. yR,�•_ t•n;: rIjTCwTin^ 1 ��•1 �r`�r6M•tY r1 FI /i V, :,1 'h +�•; C.1 .�. :{^l �:. ^f�LLir'=r/. 'T C.. G..,i( V I � { '� fit 7. � .... �.•.! I.� �IC� cr.c�"� rw �r LG✓"� [+ Ir ! � <•: %its r � c+�!!�"r+ c r� ✓.` �ti Fo F Tr.'s i +0,1�. — c'�v"'F+°�•- NJr —mac.: zo'r+- inA•i. E�1- M-�^.:y= ar= "Z+6 �W-'1 � i?„%�/�• �� Q'�PCti�Ti ~'r�'i aF �%5.O �T, ndri. � !-{ I�t.;it�( -Vie'--,�.i e=�Pz ;•*=� �r.:x. IL `�iL�.S �, tisY�• I a��r-•o <•� �.1�'aZ �vicFtaf=-a�/r-, � t?,�.� �a �v=. ^ :a2L/P '.1 4 r!t61� AF: r; rz't-1 (.S Fr f-hn�-- A"D 15 •�v --1....rah-� :: iJ1-Y. 'Z 6 �.� _' �,-o �--=� �^r^ri i [� i rSG �:1�-t•-t . 1 1_1 � r�NdETWN CONSU[TiNCj ENGiN££Rs, INC I '- }ec: Yumof page or C:vi! :%'ater Resources Er.. iro rnen:al V `^ = ` ` ' ? q `� i BV I �a.0 Pro; ec: /i✓I— iOhscked By IDa.e ICoN: Fri ��i�— F�Z �rr_.� vr= I..iFa2fn.E'nDw� nznvl�.-� o.=, '}� • �.3 / 9 WS-7-- 07e,.--v - D O C {fo C/1�1Q1—i i T Ih l S AT ?J1 �� - Tj }.", ",!&,h1 {_- 3� cJVT-7 6�T"� y.� Io.2o 4=1-m.(�Z� i .8IS CL a s ANdEi N CONSUITINq ENGiNEErzS, INC �rb;eb: Number I Page Civil Yaternesow-ces Environmental Ca;: ?roje=t By 1Dr.-.e -c-4 /Jor---}I Cy V G�2> : o7^a.lL-'1�i"'7.`I(. = O• Z^ F 1 D.ZC cn. ago o.4,n eFj w�- -• C7ri- ¢—u co— T° riavtzTa ica . 4�78. K-) /11ii=-r r-1 1� rT� -�� ir- i aF CVC:Z—� : +1- tNC n L rfLe�2�; ...T- T� '�"•'�) So J"rl S s ��--J4 e V c �! 5.:� - 49T7, i` E (C ANdERSON CONSULTiNC{ BgiNEEPS, IINC ("ivii . W17,or Rv_crrn-Tres ErvironmentaII Pro, e:' 1 , Prn;ec. NL;moer (Pace 0` g� Daze v;nec Kec oy 1 "' �l� �,� ��--� ✓�Iw !�r .,I -max` ` _ 1�.. lJ�r�•1 Cv�: vo cto ;S.ZI-li9�—i.qt, > o.:� Pr2-5 �dLO�-'f (5.99�a•9I) (12) I Q-� jest = -C c e - cT 10'.t-� _ '...n a., �A cnr-�' iJk—r Cr ^re-� =r hf '� �r� �9_,g,3 '�i"7a-5^,aGZ `o viTl ES ✓ fEC a'Zj h 4< I — (49 l S 3 - 49�z �? V • s'i ?/ 1 1 1 1 g ANdE1 ON CONSIATiNq ENgi NE-iZS, INC c)ec= Humeer Page Of Civil F ater Aesources En '-ormen:cl Cam- � cam. � Ic 1 By De:e ?r^;ec - I MecKed BY i Da-ze it ti-o--. L�.UR-G �.• 61 - 4 '' I'1f' f � I r r • .i afs' -8 .rn4 G,7�-: ��>= Iz.ss(4v-/3=- .rzi` rl•=�ct�iar� a,., P.�—L LA .44nsA-cq-1.71 s? V _ _ srzo-ma 1Corti, = !z•c�!d%g�_ Lam- �c� Io, l� Cr—. � r.-� 0 � J = 4< <�fi.a = 1 ;o. c.== 1 I 1 1 (�� ANdERSON VUNsuLTINC; v tec: yumeer ENgiNEEPS, INC I �' ?aye �� Ciril TTeier Resources on,rertcl --_ -?ro)ec. By iDe.e By ILnecKed I7;a7e Az 11.-75 d4 47A 'tom 0 i�'1�•=' _ �11''sy 3.cw)ln-;_Q �->;.c - IS7.oeF= r}a'--T} S7P':'G �� l0 12. 5� `'!�=r+�. � — �;—'+ �-•-5 //� = l c. � �� (�J.--- . I ti7(ti� CV Rom,• r _4r_•.-• 41•� 1 J • a• C� o,6t7 , �1G•85i-Z6�Ciili) -�-1.��ss = 1�--1-8er ;� _ _ I 1 r 1 I 11 I C I S� ANCEfLON CCRSULTINC Civil Hater ?esources ENGtiE_RIhIC ^'4ronmenial i?^CJeC: Numoer (Pag=eQ` — De-e Pro:ec: Igy TC Checeed By De-e • �yr '•r rr "/ Irl•t� - [� f za3.3 F• i frES y�..-/Jr•cly./-y J d' r5e ' ✓r.. .,.t ta ,:'f L.r','I :r'•-[c. (✓�" Gf:. L v�,-_,-Epp-r, '.� i (l ii.Z , OA1 lei 'J yd. i, P•..- . - , -mil ('�/�- 54. JIvQYS;:� lei., `.I, CAS \5:-CHIN Hw.r-/-lam-IJ.r - b'•— zL zi rt�r Jt/fin?E" b'J4c�> L�—•:< tii-`V� ■ • ANGc—RSiN. CONSULTING ENGiNEERS, INC — --- I arcter numt,er averecouraes Environmenial IBy ?N - - , k.( _ IC�ecreC By Imo.-P.L1L aF f%r_-,yt wZ Dc�� a.✓"� �.. 2� —• I � IDS-- I � ,. -- , .- 17 �� 1: - I � �. - I � - I .' � ' : 1 I 3 -c ' "� isle.= —�+ � b•' . R_*Ca'�-r-e.! FT.¢ e7V�ea�>�.�7� �"� 'T-as e7`rr I «_ A- �rrlZaazy ��+r l'n TI-FG ��T ZIP �Z ' �To'C-TCraan „1c=�.D'NG rcl -14 LG, US2„ mJSr Can ycr✓k}'� or � Elegy• ?age Dace Da;e I� I z'•'/17� ' -etc lJ v� I .sf✓y C 1 pro:ec, ' TtNp� ANdER50N CONSU�G ENC�INEEf:S, INC Numeer Page � Civil 3'ater Resources Erl ircnmertal By cnecxec By uece J 111 �al Dace 497JZ. r,illr� �n P`— �, T �1lft_ c- _V i ;Sz. 5=a• = _ ` 9s-z S ' ' �.`� o r L`l b- �Z Fr � �� X,�� T -.-'¢Y� �S.• i--..' � r� kJC�rr'3 G IS i IN, 1 = - �a : C— 5 = I -z-.675 = C:) . - S Fr ' =�, ��Z� _ ```�=Z.Ils+a•b5 > '.i�z.ol .,r:av;: 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 1 ANCiERSON CANSL'L71NC; E4C{i�IEERS, INC i Pralec= Number Pape 0- Civil iTarerResources Environmenral By Oa-e ro�ec: CnecKed By IDe.e V � 2 T-�ca �..� S-z r•L�r�n6.�;.H '= 4ST II.IL�.� hT ^i'�. !dti \.._'r-- c'�{= Z.•�o''��ff.111 GLC.L� u;--P-'^a �?R+t„L+ K '•s. � ^�.i�, �i. ..r = ��i.��'t'S:.fn5- '�-9gZ.16> N '7 lit � dam, CJ. 'rL7 Tr3 a-.?% = ✓.ZSj 1.� r / Q-IBzLs = 1Z3_ooF _. p,L. 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ r Proj ec : Numeer Pape cr." ANCjERSON Cr�n!sulrilvG EhGih1=>`res, INC civil • Water Resources Ervirormentat Pro,ec. jBy De-e I I ^ � I ICnecKeC By jDs_e 4I �• SOP" I.11^� ` _ �%� _ F17rrn Ncr� VI tick D l J V C ✓'�. o I/ZT Z•u../�.�s ��r` _ %C,� C�"ra 4^ti! 1 rv2 �•1.SE2 � �r^Z �� . = Sz-ISS - SZ•3-I a �.15 r-- � / - y.tg � c• �L =� ��= c. � a� �Pr -�� il-.;,:-(Sz•s6—�z.tt�.'�Z_ z�-(9.z��'SibZ �-4-.o au , ct,cN 4c+o2.s1- i—i Gl L 5=.3'7 i \ ANdERSON CONSULTfNC{ ENGINEERS, INC IProject Humber (Pape o-r $ Civil WaZerResourCes Ervirormertai )ro.- ec:1 By J IDe_e I^heCKed By (Date / -7IG c�. �a:5tnt c =S.S Lbn-;-e+f ill �Y✓�Q✓ �'r `,. 4C',30, L- rt71 C^✓ TrI - ir:c r'l pn %/0 � 2 q :� j�tm � 1. �• L i II l ru�6 orfa,..� (.Zz G,4S cfs I pP«ti,_ _ i o.b'7 � l 2 , `1 /7 �+`) 'l, 64.�r''t':' . I,ZZ .f* , C = c. L'�l psre- Frh.lA ►-F2-zz ar' ac>5 mps i �ylcz -o ov�2Tc?4,.�G �'ihcr ST. �-ro t ry nr: 7 Vk �-?"T 4� �!• + �� -i'C.. � �i� (i.S� (1.:=�_ � "'l a-+,�i p� � + 3�1 � i..'T ` �(.} 1 � rl I O{< 4s1 9 r ,-715 =. :.3J,_/P-. 4 cao kl, G'3��51,�-�a..o •'7 ^��5 r =l �2 `: �Z, _�? � il�.-' n!� � �Ilr� .. \�±.`s=�. l:.ec .y��'"�j "...rol.'� 1i2.- 1 ANCiERSON CONSULTING ENC{INEERS, lNC I Project numoer gape of Cil-il • Fs7aier Resources • Envirormeniu:' I .P^o;ec: I By Dote It > JII u.-� I�loj�l -; i Checked By I De:e fit' - -.L� 1 a F-= ( „m-= `k) �.�.—�, T-•-'^V1 r=o1'crya Iti(.^—:, = ��i. i5 � ICo..� F= �J1�; `: r'.J�'�2.f•y_ � c I.u'� 1 Sb.Ti'i I PNLE : � 'r�1Tl , (.i. � 1 C7n- F ��.ar�\L i v /^ Qar-rGrlF.-na.J t.`_L�r_ ar4 �".�Tr-I r.la�+-1 ? GD�S+ Id �I��•:. c�F .^�Z' Z �I�1 ?r t L'srJ cam, �4 o F Q •.: �'3 i .! �.`- : _ P; l• .o 7 ' �_ c : Ik.�Z _ f•'C RFC/ 4U C-;- l_h :�._ r-I In1G ?�.c C1�/'•4= o: ZD s �2..0 CtT( Ci71Ti':'ru may, /� 111Z �� j��n.n. I A i'C -.� I r� i P-cjeat HU@Der (rape yr ANdERSON CONSU[TINq ENCjiNEERS, INC Civil Pater Resources - Environmental . I By I Da.e zro7ecc r I �r=VL I 1 lo/Jl ICnecxed By I os—.e �I t-i ec nor-% ram- 6.zr-;... i r-e'� �•1�JA !-+C"_-Z"\ I I_ z a 5,D (Z.91 1 Pr�j : z • 33 r.— C4'e �� SQL 1'T v1GV ,f ,1/� _ - � ?'7.7751 i �� n-�� Ir1r.c , tT-v ' �"i• �c QUID - 1 =Z_ \l� F&a- $-�J'r74 I�iIL-T I��v' `�,•LZ IZ.53 C4.1 :�e1_- �i �"7. IiZ-) law^ = 1,a,.tsmb,j Frac,l� z FiaS Te oiu new �'� f q.2D �JSELa- cis--7'7. i��l/� _ !�•�3 �w5—i-�j `�'I'T: r5 )/� (ZS3 r , ti..C', 1 1 1 1 MAPLE STREET INLET MODIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS L, --.J FRAME SECTION 13 IV 7 [102mm] 6' [132mm] ( 31" ,a• [787mm] 1 7/8' a- [732mm] FRAME SECTION EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS, INC. P.O. BOX 439 EAST JORDAN, MI. 49727 1-800-874-4100 FAX 231-536-4458 DRAWN DATE SBB 1 05/14/03 APPROVED I DATE 7034 Z FRAME PRODUCT NO. 00703410 CATALOG NO. 7034Z REF. PRODUCT DRAWING 703410 EST. WT. FRAME: 235 LBS 107kg OPEN AREA N/A MAT'L SPEC. FRAME - GRAY IRON ASTM A48 CL35 LOAD RATING HEAVY DUTY 1 1 1 1 1 1 DUMP N0 WASTEI O 35 1/2" GRATE SECTION 6 3/4" [171 mm] 3 3/4" [95mm] 17 3/4" [451 mm] 1 /6" L 23 3/4" [291mmr [603mm] 2" [51 mm 6" [152n 1 7/8" [48mm] GRATE SECTION EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS, INC. P.O. BOX 439 EAST JORDAN, MI. 49727 1-800-874-4100 FAX 231-536-4458 DRAWN DATE SBB 03/14/06 7034 M GRATE PRODUCT NO. 00703430 CATALOG NO. 7034M REF. PRODUCT DRAWING 703430 EST. WT. GRATE: 210 LBS 95kg 380 SQ. INCHES 2452 SO. CM MAT'L SPEC. GRATE - GRAY IRON ASTM A48 HEAVY DUTY CHERRY STREET INLET MODIFICATIONS SPECIFICATIONS vsn Ni 3DVN moo % wAva/ON 0 0 > O p N m c c L11 V-5665 45665010 TOP VIEW SECTION zz E E E E E 8 CO u 0 , 00 N L(1) 1" (25mm) DIA SECTION HANDLING HOLE NOTE:FRAME REVERSIBLE FOR TOP FLANGE ORDER CATALOG NO. V-5865 FOR BOTTOM FLANGE ORDER CATALOG NO. V-5665 EASTJORDAN IRON WORKS, INC. P.O. BOX 439 EAST JORDAN, MI. 49727 1-800-874-4100 FAX 231-536-4458 DRAWN DATE DEW 1 05/04/04 APPROVED I DATE CATCH BASIN FRAME PRODUCT NO. 45665010 UNDIPPED CATALOG NO. V-5665 REF. PRODUCT DRAWING 45665010 EST. WT. FRAME: 165 LBS 75kg OPEN AREA N/A FRAME — GRAY IRON ASTM A48 CL35B LOAD RATING HEAVY DUTY 1 �/e• [2Dmm] UUUUUUU DDDDDDD [� 0000000 - - -D000000 283/42mm [;1/4' D D D D [854mm] 7f ] 7 1/4' [M z) lb sm TROVT 1/2• RAZED LMERMO SECTION [DSDmm 1 1/8• [2Dmm] y 1 1/4• y 7/8• 1 1/2' 132, ] r_ Lzsmm) [38mm] 2 3/4' SECTION BOTTOM VIEW EAST JORDAN IRON WORKS, INC. P.O. BOX 439 EAST JORDAN, MI. 49727 1-800-874-4100 FAX 231-536-4458 DRAWN DATE JIJ 1 04/04/06 APPROVED I DATE V-5665 GRATE PRODUCT NO. V-5665 REF. PRODUCT DRAWING 45665030 EST. WT. GRATE: 220 LBS 100kg OPEN AREA 463 SQ. INCHES 2987 SQ. CM MAT'L SPEC. GRATE — GRAY IRON ASTM A48 CL35B LOAD RATING HEAVY DUTY I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 • The Inlet Stormceptor System was developed for small drainage areas. It is designed to allow stormwater to enter the unR through a grated inlet and/or through a storm sewer pipe. I The Inlet Stormceptor also incorporates the patented internal high flow bypass,; making it unique when compared to other stormwater technologies. Model • Taking the place of traditional inlet structures, the Inlet Stormceptor is ideal for such small drainage areas as truck loading bayedocks, electrical transformer stations and fuel storage pads. It is also well suited for those sites which pressure wash their pave- ment areas frequently. Can be modified for submerged sewer applications. Inlet Stormcepter Specifications Mudd j Sediment Capacity (Cu Ft,I Oil CapadP/ (US GaQ Total Capacity (US Gal.i STC 450i j 45 i15 470 i Stormceptor Tried & Tesfed Inside Colorado, USA 800 285 2902 Ouside Colorado, USA 888 220 9190 L 4 TON P-52 SL ANCHORS FOR SETTING PLAN VIEW N.T.S. FRAME & GRATING NOT SHOWN ISOMETRIC VIEW N.T.S. GRATING (SEE DETAIL, THIS DRAWING) >ER IS REQUIRED THE IS POURED WITH A -LAP" JOINT. a • LOCATIONIZEVAR ES SHAPE AND SECTION A -A N. T. S. 4 TON P52 SL ANCHORS NOTES: 1. EAST JORDON IRON WORKS CURB INLET 7030 (OR EQUAL) TYPE M2 GRATE AND T1 BACK COMBINATION. OPEN AREA: 260 SO. IN. WEIGHT: 560 LBS 2. DESIGNED FOR AASHTO HS-20 LOADING 3. DESIGNED ACCORDING TO ASTM C857-87 AND ASTM C858-83 GRATING DETAIL N.T.S. LEGEND A A, SECTION LINE A -A (ARROWS POINT IN J DIRECTION SECTION IS VIEWED) xz roo � in GRATING (SEE DETAIL, THIS DRAWING) M.A. STEPS 012" O.C. (NUMBER REQ'D VARIES WITH HEIGHT) SECTION B-B N.T.S. LIFTING NOTES: 1) 4 TON P-52 SL ANCHORS (8 REQ'D) DESIGN NOTES: 1) DESIGN LOADINGS: A. AASHTO HS-20-44, W/ IMPACT B. SOIL WEIGHT = 120 PSF C. EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE = 45 PCF D. 80 PSF LATERAL LIVE LOAD SURCHARGE 2) CONCRETE 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE 4500 PSI (MIN.) 3) STEEL REINFORCEMENT: A. REBAR, ASTM A-615 GRADE 60, MIN. OF 2" CLR. B. MESH, ASTM A-497 GRADE 80 4) CEMENT: ASTM C-150 SPECIFICATIONS SINGLE CURB INLET CITY OF FORT COLLINS UTILITIES I STORMWATER UTILITY t P.O. BOX 580, FORT COLLINS, CO. 80522 1 DRAWN BY: T. COX (970) 221-6700 DATE DRAWN: 3/3/05 CAD FILE NAME: FC35—SINGLE INLETA SHEET NO. 1 OF 1 t yyP. [1 t APPENDIX D: HEC-RAS ANALYSIS OF MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN 1 EAYRO]ECP Pa.ES)LANDM96- BLOCK 3ADOCS2396 FDP DRAINAGE REPORT.DOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Fiats March 30, 1005 - Appendices H 1 1 1] [1 11 1 APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: ORIGINAL MODEL J E TROIECT FELBSU AND12]96 - BWCR 73000\2396 PDP DRAINAGE REPORTAOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats March 30, 2005 -Appendices I 1 I I 1 1 I 1 1 a U S .. O r N N O Y m O q M amD OO, rO O O O OOi OA O770 O O fJ V O lL h mM N b t0 M O b�nm nN mO mA! Yy d N O 8 N N Obi " bNNNN Nm N0n yy C Of d m Q n N N N m 0 h O N m (O r OdD N d 0 V Of < Yno, d N m n 0 b n w O n g �' an w d C; O b M m N •� g � N d N d � N m � N m � {7 m � N b N N l7 (7 W Oi 4nD C S A m Ol r N C) N W bb m ?4- N N b m< b r N d N N [7 lq f7 b N N Cl O f0 N d N d 0 M b fV Yf N N M O a- vi U 0 , m� o N m r oo �� 0ci� S$S 0�o,0 25�q 6SH N 2500 EKS c c o c o o 0 o c o o o 0 o c o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 D o d d7:. m rrt a MR e m Lq �i, m �i a m m uni, m oi, m m N m Yn (q8im nYmo,mmc09 o YS of of m ao Yll m h n m YYi m u}+ ,�Q{+, U � m m pp m ��pp Ctl m d �y m O N O [V m m d r d b b' n N m llVV O N d �YOO N pp d� OO�� 1� � �rl < YYOO m ry(y N b b �y d m M O� n m m mm W � m m m m �v * 8p� rn m 9 am� m C) S'i Oi m m QQ bi m m OI m Oi m m YG m m m m ami I� m n m o� m tC YN m h m m m m N c V d 8 d d d 4 d d d d d O d d d d d d d d d d a d d d d OOII YI NN (O fD fD Ol f0`l < d N YOn� Cl! N N W .6 fig? o gam+ O ® m m r L* n Lam+ n n m m f0 m /�� `m O� mgt d Qp .gt 8 8 8 8 S 8 8 � 8, 8 8 8 S S 8 o S 8 8 8 S � 8 8 8 8 8 J, N m n N p8p YO N p$p� N pSp m` (V Ol C8 m8 q q N m Yv m N m 0 77 r N I N IF a FT 7 o 0 o r,nmn ¢ I b b b uo m m �i m of 'T. m o N I ,,J rw E N LL goO $, :k'1 �" y Oy c Lit .. _ 3..' .,b 0 0 0 0 0! 0 S S S S,S Mi., S 2 S S F m .4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ml q III C4 V? q IN q pmp o C; cs 6 c, mmm e e e m m w 0 0 q ¢ ID co CV)cc \ �• � ;\ t: �1, 4�ii t 0 m co \ NA � •• pp ' •t;1 0 N jll 0 OD m 0 a a a v v v 2c (8) (OAJN'8) uoileneS d Id J I I C7 cm � C N N rn .� 7� � J t cA •� i W ! rn Im la: la: CO � i� I N N N p. m p C J Iw ��W m cc cc CC cc co mlgsig�aal}a�� r. I N N N L`Y ' �W 3 Iv iw Q m 0 O 0 a v i 3 o i i 8 i O O r co C O f0 O C O ! � ' fn N O A N N Q _ U i to [o i � 5 cc a i S � tu m 2 m 2 U) a) N r O Q� G� O f� O OD OD V Q (4) (CAJN `8) uopaneS ?' c v� Of ip O Oj� �Nid N N J ;w ' Old town basin: drainage basins: stormwater: utilities: departments: City of Fort Collins Page 1 ow City Services A-Z I Departments I e-Services I Jobs I News I Public Records. home > departments > utilities > stormwater > drainage basins > old town basin Old Town Flooding History ' Overview I Flooding History I Soblem I entification NlaSolution Map ' In the heart of Fort Collins, the Old Town basin encompasses the Old Town business district and surrounding neighborhoods. Some areas of Old Town were established in the 1800s when little thought was given ' to storm drainage. As a result, the basin has experienced many floods throughout Its history. ' In recent years, several capital projects, such as the Howes Street, Locust Street and Oak Street Outfall projects, have vastly improved storm drainage in Old Town. However, many areas remain upstream of those projects where storm sewer pipes can handle only a minor ' storm. When a larger storm occurs, the streets become stream channels and homes and businesses are flooded. J 11 I1 Local newspapers have documented numerous floods In Old Town. In 1904, plugged storm sewer inlets caused a lake to form on Walnut Street. Again in 1951, storm sewers were overwhelmed when six inches of rain fell in 27 hours. A small river formed that flowed east along Locust and Plum Streets and flooded basements and first floors of many homes. In 1961, the local paper noted that a lake formed at College Avenue and Mulberry Street during a typical rainstorm. This continues to be a problem today. Additional noteworthy storms occurred in 1983, 1988, 1992 and 1997. The 1992 flood was centered in Old Town and, according to the CSU rain gauge, two and a half inches fell in only 30 minutes. Damage to homes and businesses totaled $438,000 in 1992 dollars and nearly 50 property owners reported flooded basements. The 1997 and in Old Town occurred the same day as the notable Spring Creek flood. Most attention was focused on Spring Creek, but there also was severe flooding and extensive damage in many parts of Old Town. Significant progress has been made In recent years to help minimize damages. Still, it does not take much rain to cause significant flooding in the Old Town basin, especially in basements. The key to the future Is learning from the past —be prepared and learn ways to protect your property and family from the effects of flooding. Prolects & Services I ■ Floodplaln Regulation Revisions ■ Flood Warning System ■ Master Plan Update General Information ■ Drainage Basins ■ Floodplain Management ■ Floodplain Maps ■ Stormwater._ ualit ■ Rates and Fees ■ Programs & Services ■ Youth Education Programs ■ Resource Links. ■ Our Four Utilities ■ Utilities News ■ Contact Us APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: PROPOSED MODEL a , E:NPROJECr FDM\LANDW96. U DOC 33V=SW96 PDP DRAINAGE PMRT.DOC Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Reportfor Penny Flats October 12, 2005 - Appendices I 1 1 1 w cmm gi m m m b' rrn9 vmi, v�i_ n m n m m a r N vmi m a K . C'l N , Y01 h N m N N 1� m r013 O r m Q (O rn t0 m S' O f7 W 3r _N _N Y r pp Vp� Ur pp�� N N N Nn 0 n O N m pp N y GD O [00, O y N y V n m A n A lrn0 m fD m 0 N tNt�� N R YOl O r ry t9 m O r� �O of 9i of N N O) S W O O INS, N xD O m S A Cl N m N o r M p N N V N N N m In b N N Q N N O N O N (V of N N l7 C f7 �1 g S fl i^. "t(' t(pp11 N VppmV rn rD S 4� m 4��$ r[f tlp�OJ r0 N O 1A N n OVppVi n O N aD N O N m Omt V M rn m m OD f00 O m n Iz N 0 N A tpf O Ip. N rpprm9 m IA o OOi m M 8 S O O S S pOb O 8 0 0 0 S S O 8 S S < S $A O OO O O O 6 06 C O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O C N O N m 0< tOrl N rnQ frn9 W V 00 S S url. S m m m �' Pn' in m S'i' Di di iK m rn m m m 19�i m �i 3i ww 9a m a r ' �i, rn m trno m m p� m <`fo, u�, n m m N N Yt„. �'rn S op� OJS p' Ol rnmffi OOi Qg m mrndi m Q e� �fm�i' m rn m wmui m 0 m mmrn m pp m rn jg i m°�p a a a e e e v v a v v a o v v a 6 a a a a a< trn9 O! N N rn N N tOrl n N r N N sF Cd .; �fl! pp pp N Lq S m po b pQ rn pp rn N S Q S p N << p V r09. N pp IA r F N N N Q� m�p2 O9989 ��pm mrrnm mR m�p�mO � p2 m J eta S S O Sp O OO S O pS O OSN S �O O S S S S O S S O O O O N 9 N O r S 2 2 y O a+ 3T ' t ES S4 dry s LLt LGL it �+;, L�JY�G`S¢ .S 'Y L�LL ,L.L L' LS �r13 LL c t LI'L ;333 •33� ry°33 �33 •3�a3 313s 3f3 : Z S Z • S� Z Z i 2 S 2. $. 2 T= 2 S S ZZ ,x 2 S ,2 2 I =d_�I�_. 1 I I I I I I I I 11 I I 6 07 cs Ilk A, �2 Sik It CR C4 l7 N m < 0 C6 6 ci N TLU In m w 2 v - za 2 2 2 C4 65 C4 Ui 1% m Lq ag ci Ui a 9 9 cj 0 5 16 ............ ............ 0: Oil, W AM]:9 I " c Im la: Cl) LLJ � 'd iON�.N d 7 iw�LL' �O O 01r �r N N N �Y � '- iW coI r ici'W CO C7 3 �� iw CO •c c 3 S i I I i ! � I o co N I • r J � I O � T ! Q ' O coo 0 EL cq o C m 0 to . _ U _ Cl) N N , 'D = I a m { I G I cu r O t:r i I I 1 O O (O a N O co a)N O m co N fV N N CD m w OD co (4) (GAE)N `8) uopenel3 cm I r O c co iL m o a� N N U 2 N 2 V N N .r N a ro 1 11 m 0 it O } I} i O% O? 6 I N 6 N I N 7O J (n I.c 6 LUiW 3 jW (8) (4AJN '8) Uogenel3 0 co .o to 9 0 O N 1 .. ® 2 ] § i #'A�\ [\�u { k�§�c �.IE k $IS �`� I % / !(�( 2 ) 00 - iE !# k �\;E #I& 2;m la!& 2 �k�3 ,a ) 2 !cc cc did Id ,d O�NN I i !w'U 31� �o `« �w O M i N I h I p T I � O T � i o N _ O i I fb ODCL C tp (0 a Eno co o I i r i � G. o co co m m �i n m o a c o� oco � (14) (GADN U UORPM 3 O O.�r IN i r, N N r pY W ' APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: CORRECTED EFFECTIVE MODEL 1 [1 I E:IPROMCf FBESLA 1396- BLOCK 33DOCSV396 PDP DRAINAGE REPORTMOC Preliminary Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Penny Flats October 12, 2005 -Appendices I 1 1 11 1 3 c 1 Z p m � Q t 2 u 8 a^i o r m m m m `� pi m o umi tm0 n Oml m m uNi, uQi, n (NO n m CI s 0 lm'! Q g m r tm0 Q N Q N N N N (Q O r O N m m(� pJ Vm fOD Q W Q r 0 W n N N R N O N N rn(1 rp N m ^N O r •- m m G n 1� O to l0 m N 'Q tp N N N N Q t9 Y J; mm ��OO V yy ��yy p mm yy Cyy GD � 1� qq pp�� OO �Ny mm tp t'� t��a IpIp�� O tpD m Ir� Op�� mm pp Vy W OS q O O G O G G j 0 G C O G O 6G O O O p p p Q •. t• r: m 0� m 0< o h m b A O ® a m fmq, � O� lN+l c0 m� Ol N n O ro 7p�; g � N g ppJi O '� N A. � 1ppQ��, N .ppd- aND O N � O (y Y to N pOp�� pry�pyyff pp��. pN� p@pN pmr� pOm� 1<Q m� (rp Imp mn l7 Im. t�J O Q Y Q O Q Y Q Y Y Y Y Y Y Y a `ef' OOQJI QYl O� � � m� a� Qm mmY pQ�j pYmj .y p p pp p po pp pp ry N N ��p8�o5p8 88 S88 8So 888 858 p8�QQ88 p8� p8�$$ m880 p8�88 P �5 "t` tiwzli F �I 333 '333 333 3�� 333 333 3��I3 3I33� 333 A o 00 Q g _0 0 Q�01` 0 � 0 0,0 � o Q .o ',p gyp, ,�3'3'3 Q'o 0 0 O o� `ol b�o �iS�i ��a11 �i'35 30 N'M 2mN bNN MN N.�� NV'_m QWpoy��I'gplNo sI�S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I m cs A, C4 -q )w Jill d w (6 cj x;qg Q C5 0 q C4 rz. 88 g S 8 54 az It I e j} d jIr o > I> I� Y l> a 0 �O?� b N 7 J i I O Jd N I N _ J i Lu iw Lu � �U iw N c w � IU ; � U 7 A (4) (OADN'8) UOABA913 [l 1 1 Io 1 IN a 0 T a y 0 c 3 0 LL 2 8 bb� i 1 d g d b d }}} c w �O O i, i N � N on J Iw 3 IU iW IU !W (4) WAON V aORRM13 0 0 0 i 0 m m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 LL } 6 0 T C n CO C c O a r � 1� N N Q � U c M c m d CD �O Id wa)iIO J O IcIW6 sd IN N �N Q...�ON iw 3 i iw 3 (� �"' 3 IU -' m N (b O co (4) (OAON U UOgene13 0 T O co 0 0 O C V O co N O O N 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; OF; c 0 a ji > d>d O } Ii } 1 } Iy;c o W O i0 0 4 N �� N i N ! � *Y Q IW 3 �� IW W �, 3 i� I" c m c N cocc CC2 m m a) l ) (OAE)N 'u) uopene13 0 0 m 0 v 0 N F7 F c a m m .Q H O C 0 0 LL cc O O T a� c o N c c O y T cr N N Q U a m c m a 1>>�� i}=-c5 loci) T�W i�fWco (4) WAON U UOpene13 0 LO r O 0 T LO O O N Lo 0 0 a" O r C �� I, 16 O o �' o �ir 1� } 6i0 } C !n Ora J I10 O�� N co N co N SPY a IW W 3 3 i� L) co (4)(OADN U UOAUAO13 0 m N N e 1 ' APPENDIX D: MAPLE STREET FLOODPLAIN: DUPLICATE EFFECTIVE MODEL 1 1 1 ' EIPROIECP FRESUANIM96-BLOCK 33VOCSV396FDPDRAMAGE REPORT.DOC Final Drainage and Erosion Control Reportfor Penny Flats March 30, 2005 - Appendices I [1 Ln Z 0 A o. N WI2 O Ogi a �„ I pp N N N O m y m yy b N yy a m V aa W n m pe N rr m n m I •' O O A N< Oi N a r v] O� O N ' m O r m r m fD O r n Ov to Oi N . V N IV O� N f Cl t�J n l�l tO Q N fV fV a lV [l O (O z S m m � V OC V tVpD� m N � N I� tp o r pmb ypm Vpm VpO IOpOVi VpW VpWr tpOV 8W tpNV 8r pO N IpmO S1 O_Si pm C O O G G O O C C O c G O G C O G OO C C O �' '�•.: m 5O[�1 t0 pO�� pO� pQ� �Qj �Qj pDm�! pO�i pO� Omf �p lG n h Y) fD pmNS py�� vmOj' lg�t oaa'o i a�v�' R m ,q�t+ 10 WW n n b fC f0 1q N (O sj y t W 05 Ol N S tO N Oi m 10q QqO5 mypO pO� pmN1 pNJ m� mq E Y k' S S 8 S Op S S O S S S S O S S S S S mm qS pS fp IN tp n A 0 l4 cNV S S W N N S t7 N m m N CG O [V m N N m d .�5 c lV ti. if, 11111 ,� r` } �21 t G Y s Wyy • A 4 � LLL ALL LLx �tl �.,�t .C'SL 3 3 333I 333 333 3,33 333 LLL 333 333 33 o b b@ O $yp O b N O O N N O N 0 p$p$� b O ,30 N¢; N N O N'.N N N N ¢ N O O i 2..5 2 gg S i 2 2 L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 ...... .... t2j� lqo od m w w 9! 4 \\ §§§ (§� §§$ Nil If 2 I d 10 a j a:r } > I} tm J ♦ O O O 3 IW N () v;w C4 3 N .c V Q J L iW Ici O O D 7 V (8) (On°JN 'u) uopeneS LO o t N T T 1 a (a ' O 3 0 U- 6 0 T c Co C 0 0 T CV Q o � U fl O � 1 tQ a 1 � ro t m .. u) a) �n T 0 m Id FO S IN N IN >CO O Y _O; W 3 IU I W coi r iw IU co 3 U ca m i (4) (OAEJN '4) U01IMS 0 O m i F- C c aiO �b dIN =-6 CO J IW 3 I� ?W 3,W LO O LO O ' N O T a y 0 c ' 3 0 LL ' } O r O m o o T � ' N U � a m ' c m a ' U R1 N � C N ca Tf1T O O 01 a (4) (aAE)N 4) u04enel3 0 N 7 u I Maple Street Hydraulics Plan: Maple - 2-, 10-, and 100-YR Flows (no splits) 10/11/2005 Cross Section 1018 .016 Legend EG 100-YR Crlt 100•YR 1/VS Y001 R EG 10•YR EG 2-YR 4985.1 Crit 10-YR Crit 2-YR WS 2-YR WS R Ground Is 4985.0- Bank Sta O Z 4984.9 ------------- m m w 4984.8 4984.7 4984.6 0 50 160 150 200 250 300 Station (ft) \(M� I � A PROTECT fi]-0�a�� + ■ ll l� 777 ,�O CF PROVIDE g� ,^ De WILDII — ■$ ' GO # DUSTING INLET BANK ON C RW / STREET an[ e.D, _ C UP W O W M M M� MO'd 11 — 0 ❑ a --�\ W — ol F' �MIf At E W �� ,/iINT WILL FLOW TOWARD IM DRAINAGE FPHASEROM EXISTINGNUET BANK ON CHERRY STREET ASINSTALL TEMPORAM TO CREATE A MINIMUM 6' WIDE WHERE NEEDED EU PEDESTRAN WAY AT ODE OF RR TRACNSROVEMEMS NORTH TO THE RR TRACKS JOINT ENCH FOR FUTURE PHASE I pw o EWE OF DISDNG / �\ I $FDAt SIDEWALK 1 — I CW FOR FUTURE PHASE I.e"_ 1 STUB OUT CAS FOR I O,OF PHASE I SIDEWALK 1 NNRE PHASE ED SIDEWALK EL STUBI G 61DEWALK ELEV-4980.5 N STUB OUT GAS MR FUTURE PHASE 7LD TO EXISTING X A SLOPE TELEPHONE FOR FUTURE PNA6E O it STUB OUT 6- SAN. LINE EATER NNI SS e (A AA SF FOR FUTURE PHASE SF J - PROPERIT LINE STUB OUT ELECTRIC FOR �,RE � i j I A II` I {� 1 ♦ � I o 9 STUB OUT GAS FOR m m 4 FUTURE PHASE _ • �� I V CAP STORM PIPE -EXTEND • 1 • Z. f - WON MURE'PRASE -- —,— M I I' LII'.i ' SN O ELECTRIC FOR FUTURE PHASE I IPII �• ,� STUB 6- FIRE `D FUTURE NNSi • • 1 L-� -- - w - - - + -. _ I > WATER SUP LT UNES FOR RE RASE TO CURB STOPS I _ \ END PROPOSED SIDEWGlIf pp BLEND TO EXIST. OUNATION -1, ♦ BUILDING s I r. STUB OUT SAN SERNCE- _ I IN . TOBWL WITH FUTURE PHASE EX G ARd/, `mac �t--.maw eaaa �mc mm-�wwmr — 4 . 1' 5Z. - i , • II �— G,u - - • ll BEE D PROPOSED FLOWUNE INTO IFXISFNG PAN T� Iry RI DTA E GH JYE1T TAR M A\M N,' M # • I° PHASE 1 C(+— S 1 --2 GP STORM PIPE-E%iEND z / I " �' •I $AM'�Uf _ \ �: \ \ \ \ - S- .rr...T'1 - 1— 1 PARKING E,,, 5_i \SKI PROPO • ' I NRH EGHRT—S 5EXZ _ el c\ PROPOSE nc PHASE I SAWCUT -,v__- 1.,. *.. cry—cW—cn'�, ' I I I , I Ov - ON ON 16 b 8P PROPERTY LINE — ST E%ST STORM LINE PROP STORM OWJN LINE m# OIRECTIONOFFLGW PROP STORM DRNN MVMIX£ 13 PROPAFEAINIET SILT FENCE $F INTERIMMEHIME TRACKING tOxmal PAD VEHME TRACKING NG O CONTROL ONTRO INLET PROTECTION IP NOTES: 1, SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION FLAN SHEET, NIS SET. FOR ADDRIONAL INFORMATION. 2. SEE COBURN DEVELOPMENT, NOS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PIAN SET DATED DUNE 21 IRKS FOR AODITKC PHASING INFORMATION S. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STRUCTURES ANdpt DEVICES SHO MI City oT FM COIIII Colonitlo UIIUTY PLAN AppA l Am 0 c ECKEDn. 101111 cH[ci¢oer..r— Aw, CKCKEDW. NF . s O CALL urLm NOTOCA➢IN CENTER OF COLORADO IMC-822.1087 W 53t8700 ,�„• U � J ova C9 yWZ� yW Q = CO C F�a= V J a a�Z Z O c Od V 0 O N a 0 0 U 2396 CONT. PHASING Reejpned JFS Checked JFE Rate 3-30-06 Rev6ton I Project / 2396 C4 of C34 �1 Apo .�' • 1�� n � II•p3 P+l�F».., ��_; f a■R■� ,e •.6- IfflM R //�}arL� VF�o.L iila •� iIENIeY A �,lN :, nemn m, I LIP uiii'LIP0-2 ■■�• I. .IY11 Ngellh IIMd ttCJ ." l;l �I tinge III ■�d��'ly!:ii igloo III ■ill /n alnge ■ OrFEEd:.. ■ I, @�'L.l �tam a :: 9 1 AND 2,MI�;i `11 ]nnl:n i s s _r.rrsFsr _ill l yam,■.RO.ji rli JE r ■� 11 nlitall am .. jGIL'SpII _ .NI, eir L a% 1�T el■ eemimle� �) �� N el■1 �Nel�l (�� 4: Bit _ ■ © \'± i MWHO AN willing af4 Ta7mmN�.mmm■ R•MB°a• p1NlmUmm �`+�:, _ '... �e--1 MM M AA IV Li'_ _ • its �e \7 ■ e • ■ T 'Am M AIR SAM LEGEND — — — PROPERIY LINE 8f — UISTSTORALINE PROP STORM DRAWN LINE PROP STORM piNN MANHOLE 0 PROPAREAINEr —<1 M-T FENCE YF INTERIM VEHICLE CONTROL PAID VEHICLE TRACKINGCONTROLPAD O INLET PROTECTION LF NOTES: 1. sEE E%ISTMG coNOOIONSNID OEMOLmoN PUN sNFET, TNIs sET, FCR AminowM NFORMATIOn, I. SEE COBURN DEVELOPMENT, NC S FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET DATED JUNE 21. 2CC6 FOR PODIRONU L RISING INFORMATION. D. ALL EROSION AND SFOIMENT CONTROL MUCTURES ARdgt DEVICES SHOWN ON THIS PHASE PUN SHALL BE INSTALLED AND IAIMAINED, OR IF INSTALLED IN A PREVIOUS PHASE, S A-L BE MAINTAINED CBy o1 FM Collins, Cnicrmic UI FLAN Appnani •eevlm wtir• r clacesow. oaclanm �rin• r cccFW R f✓ray� r n...I.� r ciacmm LeMaR ., r CALL UTOTY N09RCATOR CENTER OF CCIORADO 1.800-9224987 or 534-6700 Zo 0Z UL a �a W� 2 a� y N a, 0W X It a�Aaja Lit 6 V o CAD A& 2396 CONT. PHASNG DemIgned JFS Checked LIS Bate B-30-16 /3aject { 2396 C5 OF C34 �K -2-24-M IN call ! �® � ■ T u .«� 1« .. K ■■our■rr �■irrr'�Op��'�a•�+`� 4t cr ■ GLErn PROPOSED DRAINAGE FLO�- IN ANN EAST TO INLETIAf Xd- � 1111�..■A, ,.,•, MI ' :La::MYH n 1 ■ �'a a' , I■■�. 1�1 fL1l TI•SAN 35 �Lnll ��@ei'11 END SIDENALK ADD BARRICADE y - -- I It hsnwr■IM•�I��Iw��li��l ii ■q^f[ui �DiFP��+� i � _ 1 I.i ufi :.i _ i.1f�Yi�ii ��Ilr�ll pp WE ■ OWN on Omni II m ■ IraI' I ■�II■■■'■ nM ■ra: I::ui.e:..aa LnnNcnpe .ImA1lechm. 0 16' 0p 90 Enpmmn9. It PxtI m ou Tw I70I1I 14f LEGEND — — — PROPERTY LINE ST EXIST STORM LINE PROP STORM GRAIN LINE DIRECTION OF FLOW PROP STORM DRAIN MANHOLE O PRw AREA II`!Er SILT RUM 8F ® VEMILLE TRAV CONTR CWTROLPAD WHICUETMCKINO O CONTFO CCNTROLPPD INLET PROTECTION IP F: N • I�FAr ■n■ ■ �, �� 1 EI ■urnner •. .. MI IF i:0 ME IN on! r]�IA�111''' ■■ . �� N •� :: 11■■■P.ni n■ I 1■■np 1 A P«■■■■I■■■■■ •■■ Ill o I NOTES: 0 BUILDING rJ 1. SEE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMOLITION PLAN SHEET, THIS SET. FOR O _ ADDITIONAL, INFORMATION. 1] — O o 2 SEE COBURN DEVELOPMENT, NAGS FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLOP SET DATED V TUNE 21.2 FOR ADDITIONAL PHASING INFORMATION. Pna blpuuM.INI O 0 DO• w. o- - L 3.ALL ION AND CONTROL STRUCTURES VINSTALED PHAEPLAIN HALL ANORESAINED OR ON THIS PHASE PLAN SHPLL BE INSTALLED ANO M1UINTAINED, OR IF INSTALLED THIS IN A PREVIOUS PN«6E, BXALL BE MAINTAINED. M M — 5 O _—"— C 7 E G c nc+r .)•� _ _� -etc _ -- _E �C J CN —cry — CN CN- 1 II w«r N CID 2396 COAT. PHASING OwrI IFS Ckeaknt .IFS Daft 3-30-06 RPHefoN I C6 OF C34 1 -� �- I _ I I __ D 0 D— x r I 4 I PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION AT -- EXISTING INLET BLINK ON CHERRY II STREET - G ' � _ - W 0 WP=_-- M �' C M W- i IN W ,A. w -. lI w IP PROPOSED DRMNM:E ROWS L IF l nl �\ EAST TO INUEEfNK II P • I. I I • e I I — \ I M DRA NAGE WS NORTH Iwa BLEND FLDwuNE OF VERTNK CURB i INTO ExIrnNB EO a_a Ew INSTALL CURE CATCH HONE: mm THIS P ROWLINE HIE START SAWOLR MIN.90E, - 18' INTO PHASE S SAWCBIT UNI —i uol ■w p• Iwww ■a uaplia A Oil �11f11I,,11,.Ilipi'II i,;ilww •I'nlliln Bi i liiii n I�i IILG��I'� i� rr�■■\li 0 16' k 6p' SG® LEGEND PROPERTY LINE ST EXIST STIXiM LINE PROP STORM BRAIN LINE DIRECTION OF FLOW PROP STORM SOWN MANHO E O PROP AREA IN£T K7 G SILTFENCE JNTESRITRACKI VEHCLE ONFROD CpITROI PAp CONTROL PAD INLET PROTECTION O Iiah-I a �I n rrll !�, � ee•��M7i:.,.wC�rwCil _ . 4�y r G:r:n r1= re. dam IIwN ■:I:a . lLtil511_:: El I 1 ra51 Ell I' p II =Cal Nil :IN aw �■ E wll7\� ^,mow �a� i •.F sr 1 e _ ;� -�ifm�•C �w_ : um MwH■REM !_ •.�_o... Yrwlwwrw 21I Rwrl! nr Po��p000�.rw�r ni We F 4 MA M 5-5--S—S • O 4 I !1 S S IS S=tS S SS —fiQ --- -. PROPOSED PARKING STRIPE X1 H OOY ( __- lry � - Llv CTV CW I 1 I i NOTES: 1. WE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DELICUTICN PLAN SHEET. THIS SET FOR ADDITIONAL INFORNURTOR 2 SEE CORSI DEVELOPMENTIHG.S FINK DEVELOPMENT PLAN SET DATED NNE V. M! FOR ADDRIO Iµ RINSING INFgOMTKM S.ON HIS PHASE SH MCpITROL STRDDMAINAI ED. OR IF ON THIS PPAGE PLAN SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED. 0111E INGTP11E0 IN A RiEWIX13 PHNgE. 31ULL SE MgINTAINED. Clry of Fort Collins, CrsreMo UTRRY PLAN Aproesf AMAOM:D: clacx3Dev. �A`—� ` cxscKEDry `r.� r � ..i .. CHECKED.. CHECKED E..�� N. s u CALL UTILITY NOTICATON CENTER Of COLORADO 7400-9224987 CID ^It 2396 COAL PHA9NC Oeeigned LES Checked IRS Bale 3-30-06 Rwfefon I f4eieCf A 239C C7 OFC34 ��' I'I I11 �� •� NI ADD 3 FC35 SINGLE CURB IN MINIM STM LINE 14'-24' RCPis sr IP mini ' 1 I I 0.20 075 At Oil —E 77 .SS18� 1- LINE, ,P s ' o.1J .95 2 UI 2 -I r i' 0 83 I I 1 '0 G / 10o I T 1-CITY OF INGLe CUR ME 16 ST sr ---sr NEC-RAS X- — ST X-SEC A X-SEC B / (STA 10+16) (STA MI hl n ! II FLOODWAY ROOF DRAIN (TYP) 10 EXIST BOX CULVERT \ QQF� DRAIN TYP). 14 �A 0.13 0.95 INLET mA a X-SEC F MAPLE STREET I(6TA 6+91) ,DO -YEAR RO LAIN lJ I I I L_— 4;1 'LI u z k0 II �a I 1 � 14'-19' RCP r. S - M% STLIN� 4 INLL ET {j 0 LEGEND — — — — PROPERTY LINE ST EXIST STORM UNE PROP STORM DRAIN LINE PROP BUILDING OUTLINE mmm mmm SUB -BASIN DFLNEATION NOTE: REPLACE 2 EASTERLY INLETS WITH NEW FRAMES AND GRATES (EAST JORDI IRON WORKS 7034 Z FRAME AND 70M M GRATE, '^ REFER TO SHEET C33 FOR DETAII I 4 DIRECTION OF FLOW -�. 0 PROP STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 1rr) 13 PROP AREA INLET DRAINAGE BASIN ID 0.45 0° 1OE YEAR RUNOFF COEFFlgENT — 5i BASIN AREA (ACRES) I0 15, 30, 60' DRAINAGE DESIGN POINT SCALE — To III 3cr ❑ WOCV PLANTING AREA ®a,we�ImmFa�el��a�a� _ =�n�m_�Ilna�maam_MINE NEW _�®_aae Eeaa=lo_ ENTIRE mm--- ENRON a CL�' e ae��==see �+aAMR aa= _ _— NINE NEW MITI MEN ENRON III =_�—_� tiarD®aaeggCCmea-®mom =- - INVENTORY OF INLETS - SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES INLET i LOCATION INLET TYPE ROF RATES GRATE SPECIFICATION NOTES NOTES 1 HOWES ST. SINGLE CURB IMLEIT IW ENST JORDAN IRON WORKS TYPE ML GRATE S Tt BACK OR EQ. STD CITY OF FL COLLINS FOS SPEC. E MAPLE ST. MODIFIED ME 1 REFER TO MAIL SHEET CSI CLOSE MESH ORATE AMODIFIEDCCOT SPEC.) S DIST. WIPLE ST. 6UWLECDRBILU E E TJORDAM IRON WORKS TYPE TWi FRAME S ML Y G RATE REFLACE S EASTERLY S TOPS WITH NEW FALSE S ORATE J MAEOMST. ME 1 AUER TO DETAIL SKEET I CLOSE MESH GRATE MODIFIED COPY SPEC.( S MASON ST. ME 1 REFER TO MAIL SHEET Q4 CLOSE MESH ORATE MODIFIED CDOT SPE01 F CHERRYST. ME 1 REFER TO MAILSHM DID 'WORKS CLOSE MESH GRATEIMOOIFIEDCDOTSPEO) 7 MIST. CHERRYST. SIMLECURBIMLUS(F ) It FA6i lOROAX (RCN TYPE VSW3 FRAMES VS GRATE RN'LACE EXISTING COMBO TOPSWI NEW FRAME AND GRATE I CHERRY ST. SINGLE CIXIB IMLETA(PON) t FKI JORMM IRON WORKS TYPEEASI JORDAN IRON WORAS TYPE M2 GRATES TI BACK OR EO. WAR INT1 LSHERU% STO a" OF R. COLLINS FOS SM. A PED. SPINE TYPED t CLOSEYESMOMTEIMODIFIFDCODTSPEC.) E YASOM 3T. 3'MER IIM pfi91 TO DEAAIL SHER CSL COOT gpEG 11 WVLE Si. MODIFIEDMED 1 RETENTION EM' SHFUM CLOSE MUM GRATE (MODIFIED CDOT 3PlO 11 Pm. SPINE ME 1 REFER TO PETAL 6MER OS 0.03E YFSNORATE NOOIFIFO CDOT tPEO) L SILT FENCE O I� VEHICLE MAIMING 'IL CONTROL PAD O —II INLET PROTECTION IP City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPTcYRI APPROYiR Mrrr r CHIECKEE W�L—_rVNY RY wECRoR R: ram.— r CHEC(EDRn T—Be�I r cIECKI Nwrw—. r CHEONLOBY. Ln,�. ErMinnnnt,W Plonnn9 1221 :: CALL UnuTY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF MORADO ,.Bo�498, a�� Mwm � o U 1 LL 0 _o co O 1� uj W � W C Q C Z a a o > O U aua ww.w<� an CAD JTYte 3]B6 DRAN Designed Checked C23 F cs4 XITT STORM MH B010] < I RI5 49.6 INV (36"RCP)-497086 M= I I _ INV (36' P)=49]0.5] M1 6F. I I INV (15' RCP)=49TS.D6 `I If L , 1 -� - • • • • • •-�. I UN ERDMN I _ I_. 0 10' 10i 40 F3g fAn. 1 APPROX. IN 4WBA 10WS"TNIN I� _y_ I- aaIEf 1 �'• __""F - _ t_ mc•a. N 11 I -ap .•� ",� WINI- - ONNECT TO EXIST RT °- W 4 •- CULVERT- F a { -3� 3 < SE NOTE OlE 3;M-- O.l ! •— —W W W F �.- . . W. �.-JJ! siM LIME 1 • • L. _ I I STM LINE 10 - • ICI • ��• ' I I1 II t I! Ib III 0'50 JI' I - CIR EXISTING LINE CUT EXISTING urvE INLET 11 _ - - I I 'Ij D ADD -i"TD. LLLME MD 4' L0. 1 K t1 II c l,.a 0 1 I TORM MARHOLE 0 STORM NMHOLE �. _ E • I � I T �I r EXIST 16X5' ! S1M LIN4 BOx .,L¢1c 0- - 0 O O a e e III I I i i i i t 1. 2 1 _ E% NG 'INLET 3 • Y G.LLL UTILITY COLORAD Ory I FRO MMRSON FORT FOR CENIFA Of L0.0R400 71 HO T STREET W FALL PROJECT -t 7AOOiu�YBT _ I b JM RY 12, 200t l rt Of 574f700 ® Z 1 t ..,_ - •mm vw e I --- — o -- -- - _ L Luj 46 INV S=4 ]2 601 II �. I -. RIM=a9n r,...-� .�. .-. ` _ _'�..I � � 1 �' • • -• NLEIS .DON ONWO •-• _•_• .�• •_• • ... U NV E IIIVan _- NV 9g9q •-J+-•-•-•-•- „j - z DEMO E ITTMIG CURB BEH T= W-b `/5 ap z 2 F/ST RNMOST I O LL _ _ _ _ _ _ 7 - _ _ _ y REMMO0YYEj�E%ISIINC GRI I CONNECT i0 Ex15i WPM WUH EAST JOR RNS INLET 1 INLET 2 BOX CULVERT I (GT. / ]034 Z FRMIE ARE /. STY LINE 2 - SEE NOTE 3 NOD 4 (GT. / T034 M GRATE ML - = i - SEE OR4INAGE DETAIL SHEET RIM= 982.61 f 0 1.S 3p 6' INV W ( X % 39 N RCP)= 9]36]_, T ♦L 901.98 ® Z T s INV E (ae'W % 361N RCP) 19 .H/ _ RIMS S8T20 MIT 102 VERT - 1 - 3 O` `_ - _ _ _ RILb49 INJ W (Mv x 3fi RCP)=49]2 95 `y - � 3 _ _INJ E (a8"1L' % }6"H RCP)=49]5.0+/- � Z ILII 1� JII Q INV S (36 RCP) 4982.54 HORN® J I EXIST STORM MH 105 I 32 IW s 16 REP)44978.66 L YL INV E (15 RCP)=49ib.154/- •i Uj 1 - STTM LINE 2 - _ _ $TM LINE 4 TM 1NE 0 1. A PROPOSED PIPE LENGTHS ME MEASURED FROM MMHOLE CENTER W INLET INLETS 10 & 2 - =# INL T 4 INLET 1 2. ALL STORM TONERS i0 BE INSPECTED B THE CRY. 4989 3. CM INSPECTOR TO BE ON SITE DURING CONNECTIONS TO ILL EXISTING •F! _ _ - __ 4969 STORM INPR0.5TRUCTURE. C d w� - i 4. ILL STORM PIPE CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING BOX CULVERT MD �. - - q- - -- �- - - -- - EXISTING INLET BOXES SW BE CORE DRILLED MD GROURED. /y E --- •�& _ -. _3 - - _- _ - _ WL 0 l - - g g asp - =-e9=_ ! 4986 4986 - - _ - _ - _ p Oi __ -W3 Rm xi�Ji APPRox 49T6]4 • :^ #.• g 11 a a _ a APPROk.. TCP-960. - _.--I e l - I' '� " ^ U 4983 _ __- ----. _ - - x�a� �� i - 4983 - N.e..a exsNn. m. m= la®p , a • II® �atu.0 If Eli Mum !�MINE )I KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE CM/ WT Fart wIlae, CaIWTWOa UTILITY PLAN AppOvtl mm u 4Wr� r cx[cx•o Nr. Wr4rre11qr ` cxeuaoer: r We r ~r_ cxccvn•,, •M,.,Wr CAD File IrsTW 2396 ENG SW PRJHLE OeefgWed JFS CMeked EMS/S45 Pao 3-30-06 Rep•siml I Ra)eel ! 2396 C25 F cs4 ----- -- --- DF40 EXISTING -REM CURB BEHIND STIINLET T _ ES AMID FRAM ALL II EXISTING CONNFROM AN i0 EXISTING REPORT Ff ➢' EXIST S1 RIM 4WIN9 113 - iT LOND FRAMES -REPLACE RKS WITH HOME STREET REPoRI FOR RIM-49M.35 F665 FRI D (CAT 0 (CAT. () JANUA STREET WTHNL PROJECT I w 1NV W 36 RCP -{96835 --- �� V-5665 FR.WE AND (Gi. d) V-5665 'VNLL.Rv I] 2001 - - J ORATE SEE OPAMGE DELVL SHEET. ExIST"STORM M III ( ) 96690 RIM CENTER6, H E RIu 76 )} C0� NECi TO EXISTING S10NN INLET 90% _ - _ _.. 1 - f-�* - �_ " INVW (46Y1 X 'H P)= 6654 EX15T STORM INLET XOLE J AND 4 ( PES NAN ANDBS. BOTH 36 MCP) ®' YY INN E (36 RCP) { T,✓ :. ___ V. ��p f -- A A. ___.. M N - A� -- 8 __ _ _ a _ d1�.. ___ F __ '•.J -._ -. _ JxN E (+9`N x H PUP)-- 69.] u+A 36_ 8! O.) - n I I � (< ^s % II4 fl.A EXIST SiDIt4 NH 0 IN D 10 i(Y 40' L'n9 eNy A,, P/nun.nq f _ P 4 INPUT U�u�Miu�m RIM 49T&I6 ��%M' INV N (M7 RC) 96953 _ ..' 1". Eby r P)<46B n01M Lu a 1 I •- .A .0 L .. .. ~ r r 1 - ,I STORM IN 116 C n-4903.6T EXIST STO MIT 119 I .a L�- T .4 BMX CULVE 1 ACCESS) YE W LIN i0 SEE NPE) 9693t (981IN e\ 4 RI _4961 59 F 5 S(1 (" PIPE 52E .SVAIIABIE) 4969d2 }} ' _ INv BMTTo =4 ] I I INLET 6 \ I -. . SW (13 P)97494 B6 J ^ p x bz' POP)-{s7Asb p a �\ Iw (I2- RCP)-4977.44 INLET 8 ADD 3 COMBO INLETS WITX R-356 I NEENW \ PROP S D EXJSINLET BO INLET HANK -A rCX PROPOSED INLET BOX i0 EXISTING MUCT BOX \\ ilf UNDERDRUNMINTiO PI EST E A OF EXISTING 10.5' OFF ,\ Wv DttT - 5i END OF EXIG 4INLETS "H RCP \, \ I --- - i � F o AC ING INN E COMMLD0.07 EMAINING JXI IT INLET CONNE i0 EAST yGRT'INLET 1 O 8 X CULERi �(GRAif UYiNG ON OLD NO) SEE NM 3 AND 4 TO BE REMOVED \ BOX CWENT EWIST 0 PVC _ TWO STORM I L-49I6.} Z a' I i II DBE 9FMDvw I iIv x� (e- sT L)-wel�so.j IICALL UTILITY MITIGATOR CENTER-_--.L _� J 00-OFC0.0RA�0 1 1-000-0I1-09E7 INLET 9 Or 534-6700 ,..� WI .vff �� APPROX. IW-49755 � £ • EXIST STORM MH 1M I I EXIST. 36" STLI oNE O RM 4979.N K SONLINE 9 U 0 O O N (36- PCP)-4970.3+/ I B0 INV 5 (ILL L ZE UNKNDIYN)=497C.4+/- W y C I INV W.PIPE ZE UNKN INV W97970.4; e ' Ilry wx-a9>M.aM J o 1 I iI U K 0 Y I I - O el:Xisr SON WINE 4' LL TO OE RENEC _ 4' VNOERORNN , I •I LLT 5 /1 CLEANOUR � 0 1.53' 6' Ir I I _TA _ �_____ ��____��_ • . WIRT- 1" J' ----- ---- - L 3 ----- a KE -- - o is Da' so' Z Q,IGAP . 1 ' 9 ® Q II. y M —m5 ._._t ',I HORIZ - 1• - 30' IN a �'L J a = I I I I p i I d I li I I I 'I I r a I I I � - W M L NEW -- t NOALLLEPROPOSED PIPE LENGTHS ARE MEASURED FROM MANHOLE CENTER. STM LINE 6 - ST LIN $ _ - W L, ALL STORM SEWERS TO BE INSPECTED BY THE CITY _ INLETS, N C LII G _ J. Cltt INSPECTOR i0 BE ON SITE DURING CONNECTIONS N A11 EXISTING S -- - _ ETS, J - STORM INFRASTRUCTURE. 4986 INLET 6 - -I LET - _ - _--- _ _ [ - - - 4966 4, ALL STORM PIPE CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING BOX CULVERT AND C E EXISTING INLET BOXES SHI BE CORE DRILLED AND GROUTED. C - z G� .ry _ - pn -- 4C..6 a Cnw 4983 _ --- - 4 983 _ y NIS O 6XITNiiG Box Tc ------- .. 99m -- —'- -- 4980 4980 _.._: _._._._ ♦ - - _- too -TEAR N L _PLACE _. aR noRlx I soE9 OE mLn eD% --- 4977�s 4977 Ico-rE4R L --_ - —. --_ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -REMOVE 1 PoRIgH OF - -61i :.re.-1tCP O .SS TIN ORM VAULT STA- - -- — -- sTARnnc T uRRGx. 491378 - - -_: I NOT TO SCALE -- J-. UNOERTwIN CON _ - NEW TYPE ATTAGN C ET 0 TO EKTOING WILL - - 4974 _ _ - _ AaPRn r v +s74 so __ - _ __ CnsTlw RLTMR u IN G.XMpOT I$ iS 4974 _ - _ - _ - M Cu PIT p R E _._ _ - - - 4YWi 6KIgWX. _-_.. Y _ _ EXISTING 8. 9TM ORE- -_ _ _ - �. 4977 CRANKS T THE NORTH_ -- 4977 -'1- 4968 4965 --- --- 0 1+50 0+60 0+90 1 20 1+50 _. 0+90 1+20 1+50 090 1 + + + O I► o 8 0 U IRdaH s •M vM+.' Wh MINIMAL M CAD FYIe 1396 END SEA PROFILE Designed ITS CAeeked EMS SIS Oab 3-30-06 Rision evI R'ojecl IF 2396 C26 F c34