The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 08/24/2006City of Ft. Coll s Approved Plans Approved By i Date DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR PRESTON CENTER 4TH FILING J J R ENGINEERING A Westrian Company 1� 1 1 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL ' REPORT FOR PRESTON CENTER 4TH FILING 1 1 Prepared by JR ENGINEERING 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Suite 190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)491-9888 Preparedfor Everitt MacMillan Development 3030 South College Ave Ft. Collins, CO 80525 JUNE 20, 2006 Job Number 39494.00 JUNE 20, 2006 Mr. Wes Lamarque City of Fort Collins . Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins. CO 80521 J•R ENGINEERING A Westrian Company RE: Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Preston Center 41h Filing Dear Wes, We are pleased to submit to you for your approval, this Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Preston Center 41h Filing. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria dated May 1984, revised April 1997. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this final submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, JR Engineering Prepared by, John Meyers Jr. Engineer I attachments Reviewed by, Joseph Sparone PE. Project Engineer 2620 East Prospect Road Suae 190, Fort Collins, C0180525 970-491-9888 Fax: 970'491-9984;• wwwlrengineering.mm 4 �•,x CERTIFICATION ENGINEER I hereby certify that this report for the final drainage design of Preston Center 4`" Filing was prepared under my direct supervision in accordance with the provisions of the City of Fort Collins Stonnwater Utility STORM DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS for the owners thereof. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph C. Sparone Colorado Professional Engineer No. 39848 For and on behalf of JR Engineering I 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................i 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ I ' 1.1 Project Description..................................................................................................... I 1.2 Master Drainage Basin & Other Drainage Reports....................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report......................................................................................1 1.4 Design Criteria & Methods.........................................................................................1 1.5 Vertical Datum............................................................................................................2 2. DESCRIPTION OF SOILS..........................................................:............................................2 3. LOCAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ..........................3 ' 3.1 General Flow Routing.................................................................................................3 3.2 Proposed Sub -basin Descriptions...............................................................................3 ' 3.3 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions.......................................5 4. STORM WATER FACILITY DESIGN...............................................................................6 ' 4.1 Inlet Sizing..................................................................................................................6 4.2 Stonn Sewer System...................................................................................................6 4.3 Water Quality..............................................................................................................6 ' 4.4 Pond Description........................................................................................................7 5. EROSION CONTROL.............................................................................................0...........7 ' 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures..........................................4........................7 5.2 Dust Abatement...............................................................................4................4..........7 .5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets.....................................................................................7 ' 5.4 Maintenance................................................................................................................8 5.5 Permanent Stabilization.......................................................................:.......................8 ' 6. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................9 APPENDIX A MAPS AND FIGURES APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C INLET CALCULATIONS APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY AND STORM PIPE CALCUALTIONS ' APPENDIX E RIPRAP AND EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX F DRAINAGE MAPS APPENDIX G PREVIOUS PLANS 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page i PRESTON CENTER 4T" FILING JUNE 2006 11 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Description 1 Preston Center 41h Filing is a 3.14-acre proposed commercial development located on lots 2 and 6 of Preston Center 3rd Filing, in the City of Ft. Collins, Larimer. County, Colorado. The site is bounded by Harmony Road to the north, lots 1 and 7 of Preston Center 3rd 1 Filing to the west, lots 3, 4 and 5 to the east, and Timberwood Drive to the south. A vicinity map is included in Appendix A. 1 1.2 Master Drainage Basin & Other Drainage Reports 1 Preston Center 4`h Filing is located in the McClellands Drainage Basin. The "McClellands Basin Master Drainage Plan" by Greenhorn and O'Mara, Inc., 1986 was 1 used for design calculations in the previously approved report for Preston Center 3rd Filing. Because the project site is part of Preston Center 3rd Filing the "Final Drainage 1 and Erosion Control Plan For Preston Center at Wild Wood Business Park Third Filing" was used as the basis for design calculations. 1 13 Purpose and Scope of Report 1 The purpose of this report is to describe how the proposed drainage facilities for Preston Center 4`' Filing serve to maintain the drainage conditions proposed in the previously approved Preston Center 3rd Filing Design Documents. The report includes consideration 1 of on -site and tributary off -site runoff. Design calculations are included for all drainage structures including water quality facilities required for this project. Drainage facilities 1 proposed in this report were designed to maintain the previously approved stormwater runoff rates, and routing of the same, to the detention facilities proposed and constructed 1 with Preston Center 3Td Filing. ' 1.4 Design Criteria & Methods This report and associated calculations were prepared in order to meet requirements 1 established in the "City of Fort Collins Stonn Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), dated May 1984 and updated April 1997. The new rainfall 1 criteria as amended by Ordinance 42.199 was utilized for the 10 and 100-year design storms. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Stonn Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD), developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, were 1 also used. 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 1 PRESTON CENTER 4Tn FILING JUNE 2006 On -site drainage facilities, including stonn pipes and inlets, were designed to convey peak major storm event flows resulting from the 100-year design storm. The off -site stonnwater detention facilities were designed previously as part of the 3'd Filing. ' Calculations included in Appendix B show that the proposed improvement's imperviousness is less than the previous design for the same lots. Thus, for the purpose ' of this report, the existing detention facilities are assumed adequate. The proposed improvements do, however, include the addition of a water quality outlet structure. Per ' discussions with the City of Fort Collins Stomm Water Department, the water quality volume will be taken as part of the original design volume of the pond. The design of ' this water quality measure was based on the design procedure for a Detention Pond - Sedimentation Facility in The design as outlined the UDFCD. primary constraint is that the proposed drainage design serves to maintain the previously approved stonnwater ' runoff rate resulting from the 100-year design storm. 1.5 Vertical Datum The following Benchmarks were referenced for the survey and design of the project site: Road 1) City of Fort Collins (17-01) located on the west side of Ziegler (C.R. 9) approx 1/2 mile south of Harmony Road and 300 feet north of Rock Creek Drive on the southeast ' corer of a 6 x 6 area inlet. The elevation of which is 4919.47 ft above sea level. 2) City of Fort Collins (12-94) located on the south side of east Harmony Rd. ' approximately 300 feet west of Corbett Dr. on top of a concrete wall of an irrigation drop structure. The elevation of which is 4950.02 feet above sea level. ' 3) City of Fort Collins (13-94) located at the northeast corner of East Hannony Rd. and County Road 9., on. top of a concrete irrigation structure. The elevation of which is ' 4928.96 feet above sea level. 2. DISCRIPTION OF SOILS ' The Preston Center 4`t' Filing project site includes approximately 3.14-acres of land. The majority of the site is currently covered in native grasses. Generally, the site drains in a northeasterly direction with slopes ranging from I to 3%. ' According to the U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service's "Soil Survey of Latimer County Area, Colorado", dated 1980, the soils found on site include two basic classifications of ' silty -clay loams. Included in Appendix A is an enlarged copy of sheet 25 of the Fort ' Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report s Page 2 PRESTON CENTER 4" FILING JUNE 2006 Collins Quadrangle. The aforementioned survey depicts Fort Collins Loam (35) on the south portion of the site and Nunn Clay Loam (73) on the north portion. Fort Collins Loam consists of deep, well -drained soil that has slow runoff characteristics and slight runoff potential and is part of hydrologic group B. The Nunn series consists of deep, ' well -drained soils that formed in the alluvium. The characteristics of the soil include medium runoff, moderate water erosion, and slight wind erosion potential. Nunn Clay ' Loam is part of USDA hydrologic group C. Please refer to Appendix A for further information regarding the on -site soils. 1 3. LOCAL HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ' 3.1 General Flow Routing The proposed. drainage facilities were designed to maintain the flow patterns indicated on the previously approved plans. Stonnwater runoff is generally routed from north to ' south. On site flows, as well as tributary offsite flows will be collected via a series of type 16 combination storm inlets and curb cuts sized to capture the volumetric flow rate resulting from the 100-year design storm. The flows will be conveyed to the existing ' detention pond that was approved and constructed with the previous filing. As previously stated, the impervious coverage for the proposed improvements was maintained at or ' below the coverage of the previously approved design. Therefore, it is anticipated, that the proposed design will maintain the stormwater runoff levels estimated under the ' previous design, and that the existing detention pond is adequate ' 3.2 Proposed Sub -basin Descriptions The study area analyzed in this report includes the project site as well as lots 1, 7 and parts of lot 4 of the Preston Center 3rd Filing. Based on the proposed grading, the project site was divided into 5 sub -basins. Proposed basins within the study area are labeled 201, ' 202, etc and offsite basins are prefixed with the letter "OS". On sight basins are specific to the proposed design and do not follow the basin delineations of the previous report. ' Basin delineations for areas outside of the study area snatch that of the previously approved drainage report. Basins from the previous report are shown along with the ' basins delineated for the proposed design on the "Drainage and Erosion Control Plan" located within Appendix F of this report. A summary of the drainage patterns within 1 ' Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 3 PRESTON CENTER 4TH FILING JUNE 2006 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 each sub -basin and at each design point is provided in the following discussion. Details of the drainage facility design are included in Section 4. Sub -basin 201 is located in the northwest portion of the site bounded on the west by the subject parcel boundary. This basin was formerly part of sub -basin 101 of the previously approved report, which is depicted on this plan as (OS-101). Stormwater runoff from the basin including % of the roof area of the proposed building, as well as the remainder of the flows from OS-101, are collected in a single type 16 inlet just west of the proposed building at design point 1. The inlet and associated storm pipe were sized for the 100-year storm event. Sub -basin 202 is located in the northeast portion of the site and includes %z of the roof area of the proposed building and is other wise mostly asphalt paved parking. Stormwater flows collected in the basin are collected in a single type 16 inlet in the southeast comer of the basin (design point 2) along with flows from off site basins 102 and 103 (formerly 102 and 103 of Preston Center 3" Filing). Sub -basin 203 includes only a small section of parking lot separated from basin 204 by a landscape island. Another type 16 inlet collects flow in the southern corner of the basin (design point 3). Sub -basin 204 includes the west half of the southern parking lot. Flow is collected in another single type 16 inlet at design point 4 along with flow originating on the remaining part of basin 105 of Preston Center 3rd Filing (OS- 105). . Sub -basin 205 includes the eastern portion of the southern parking lot. Stonmwater runoff flows overland to the south edge of the parking lot where it exits into the existing pond via two 4.5' curb openings (design point 5). The two openings have been adequately sized to convey runoff resulting from the 100-year design storm. See Appendix C for inlet and curb cut calculations for sub -basins discussed above. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report PRESTON CENTER 4T" FILING Page 4 JUNE 2006 1t 3.3 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions The Rational Method was used to determine the 10-year and 100-year peak runoff values for each sub -basin. Runoff coefficients were assigned using Table 3-2 of the SDDCCS ' Manual. The Rational Method is given by: ' Q = CICIA (1) where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cl. ' is the storm frequency adjustment factor, C is the runoff coefficient, and I is the rainfall intensity in inches per hour for a storm duration equal to the time of concentration. The ' frequency adjustment factor, Cf, is 1.0 for the initial 2-year and 10-year stone and 1.25 for the major 100-year stone. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics. The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of ' Fort Collins (Figure 3.1 of SDDCCS). In order to utilize the Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves, the time of concentration is required. The following equation is used to ' determine the time of concentration ' tc = ti + tt (2) ' where t,, is the time of concentration in minutes, ti is the initial or overland flow time in minutes, and tt is the conveyance travel time in minutes. The initial or overland flow time is calculated with the SDDCCS Manual equation: 1.87(1.1— CC JJ ( ) ' ti = So.» 3 ' where: L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cf are as defined previously. basis, based flows derived in "The Final Offsite flows were determined on a per acre on Drainage and Erosion Control Report For Preston Center at Wild Wood Business Park ' Third Filing". See Appendix G for a copy of the previously approved drainage and erosion control plan for filing 3. 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 5 ' PRESTON CENTER 4T" FILING JUNE 2006 �J ' All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached drainage plan are included in Appendix B of this report. ' 4. STORM WATER FACILITY DESIGN ' 4.1 Inlet Sizing All inlets were sized using the computer program UDINLET that was developed by ' James C. Y. Guo of the University of Colorado at Denver. Computer output files for the inlet sizing are provided in Appendix C of this report. All inlets were designed to intercept the 100-year peak flows. All inlet locations are shown on the utility plans for ' this project. 4.2 Storm Sewer System A detailed analysis of the proposed stone sewer system was performed using StormCAD ' by Haestad Methods. StornCAD utilizes the manning equation to express the relationship between volumetric flow rate (Q), cross -sectional area (A), hydraulic radius ' (R), and slope (S) in open channels and partially full closed conduits. For standard US units, 1 1 1 11 1.49 2/3Q=AR n Where: n is the Manning roughness coefficient. For Steady Flow and Kinematic Wave flow routing, S is interpreted as the conduit slope. With this form of routing it is possible to represent pressurized flow when a closed conduit becomes full, such that flows can exceed the full -flow Manning equation value. Flooding occurs when the water depth at node exceeds the maximum available depth, and the excess flow is either lost from the system or can pond atop the node and re-enter the drainage system. No flooding is predicted in this model. Calculations are included in Appendix D. 4.3 Water Quality Water quality improvements with extended detention water quality will be provided for the area tributary to the existing detention pond. Per discussions with the City of Fort Collins Storm Water Department, the water quality volume controlled by the proposed ' Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 6 PRESTON CENTER 4T" FILING JUNE 2006 ' outlet structure will be part of the total storage volume of the pond during the 100-year ' design storm. Water quality capture volume was calculated using methods outlined in the Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual. A drain time of the brim -full capture volume of 40 hours was used. Calculations for the water quality capture volume are included in ' Appendix D. ' 4.4 Pond Description The existing detention pond was designed as part of the improvements proposed for ' Preston Center 3rd Filing. Under conditions proposed for the third filing, the maximum water storage elevation was 4925.40 providing 0.5 feet of freeboard. According to survey ' information accepted by the city at the completion of the pond in 2001, the capacity of the pond as built on May 3, 2001 was 96% of the design volume (1.63 ac-ft). However, the ' 100-year water surface elevation designed was 0.17 feet below the lowest spillway elevation. Calculations included in Appendix D show that this additional 0.17 feet of storage is adequate to detain the remaining 4% (0.07 ac-ft) needed to bring the pond to ' 100% of the original design volume. Thus, for the purpose of this report and pursuant to the variance approved for the previous filing, this condition is considered acceptable and ' will be maintained under the proposed design ' 5. EROSION CONTROL 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures Erosion and sedimentation will be controlled on -site by use of inlet filters, silt fences, and gravel construction entrances. These measures are designed to limit the overall sediment ' yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort Collins. A construction schedule showing the overall period for construction activities, erosion control ' effectiveness calculations and cost estimates will be included for final compliance. Please refer to Appendix E for riprap calculations and erosion control calculations and schedules. 1 5.2 Dust Abatement ' During the performance of the work required by these specifications or any operations appurtenant thereto, whether on right-of-way provided by the City or elsewhere, the contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment, materials, and means required. The Contractor shall carry out proper efficient measures wherever and as necessary to reduce ' dust nuisance, and to prevent dust nuisance, which has originated from his operations Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 7 PRESTON CENTER 4T' FILING JUNE 2006 ' from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right-of-way or elsewhere. ' 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets or trights -of -way unless so ordered by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved surface. Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown in the ' Erosion Control details, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. ' 5.4 Maintenance ' Temporary and permanent erosion.and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw bales, inlet protection and silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps ' (behind hay bale barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal about one- half of trap storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. ' 5.5 Permanent Stabilization All soils exposed during land disturbing activity (stripping, grading, utility installations, stockpiling, filling, etc.) shall be kept in a roughened condition by ripping or disking along land contours until mulch, vegetation or other permanent erosion control is ' installed. No soils in areas outside project street rights of way shall remain exposed by land disturbing activity for more than thirty (30) days before required temporary or ' permanent erosion control (e.g. seed/ mulch, landscaping, etc.) is installed, unless otherwise approved by the Stormwater Utility. Vegetation shall not be considered {1 established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature and stable enough to control soil erosion as specified in paragraph 11.3.10 of the City of Fort ' Collins Storm Drainage Construction Standards. 1 ' Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 8 PRESTON CENTER 4" FILING JUNE 2006 7. REFERENCES 1. "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards (SDDCCS)", May 1984, City of Fort Collins. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Stonn Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3, dated September 1992. 3. "Updated City of Fort Collins Vertical Control", July 14,2003, City of Fort Collins. 4. "Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study, Preston Center at Wild Wood Business Park Third Filing" June 12, 2000, JR Engineering LTD, Amber Reed, Robert Almirall. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report PRESTON CENTER 4T" FILING Page 9 JUNE 2006 I 1 APPENDIX A MAPS AND FIGURES C 1 1 1 1 Drainage and Erosion Control Report ' Preston Center Fourth Filing Appendix June 2006 x 1� N m O v PROJECT SITE E. HARMONY ROAD A -n m _ z 7O a v 0 G) TIMBERWOOD DR. C�C G VICINITY MAP HARMONY ONE 39494.00 MARCH 28, 2006 SHEET 1 OF 1 J•R ENGINEERING N TS A Westrian Company 2620 Fast Prospect Road Sidle 190 • Fat Coors, CO 8M No Text [1 1 SOIL SURVEIL 24 on peels; noncalcareous; neutral; films Smooth boundary. heavy inche brown (10YR 4/3) moist; B2--8 toJOatn' ate medium prismatic structure Oder to moderate fine subangular acting very hard, very friable; many bl°r1a; vhy clay films on peds and in thin channels and pores; noncalcareous; oot alkaline; gradual smooth bound - Idly ary' 24 inches; pale brow01 n (JOYR 6/3) in ostructure; Baca-18oI°sio, ubanguar locky med very friable; few thin patchy clay har ' on peds and in some root channels; films visible secondary calcium carbon- ate occurring mostly as concretions; cal- careous �boundarytely alkaline; gradual sm 60 inches; pale brown (lOYR 6/3) as- Cca-24 loam, hard, very0YR fr able; vis visible calcium ,i e; to occurring as concretions and in thin seams and streaks;;gradual smooth smooth mod nary y alkaline; g r Zon is loam or light clay loam 5 to 13 The A ho inches thick. The combined thickness of the A and B horizons is 15 to 30 inches. The B2 horizon is loam to light clay loam. percent s10 es. This 34--Fort Collins loam, 0 to 1 p level soil is on terraces and fans. This soi has the profile described as representative of he sera e . small Included with this soil in mapping are aareas of soils that are more sloping. Also included are loamland small areas ofthat Stonehamsurface layer of clay Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slight. If irrigated (fig. 5), this soil is well suited to corn, sugar beets, alfalfa, barley, and dry beans. Under dry - land management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also well suited to pasture and native grasses. Capa- bility unit 1, irrigated; Loamy Plains windbreak suitability group 1 percent slopes. This 35—Fort Collins loam, 1 to 3 p P nearly level soil is on terraces and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the combined thickness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 22 inches. are a few Included with this soil in mapping small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping. Also included are some small areas of Stoneham and Kim soils and a few small areas of 40 of soils that have a gravelly layer below a depth 1 LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO Runoff is slow, and the hazards of wind and water erosion are slight to moderate. If irrigated, this soil is well suited to corn, sugar beets, alfalfa, barley, and dry beans. Under dryland management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also well suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIe-1, irrigated, and IVe-3, dryland; Loamy Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 1. 36—Fort Collins loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This gently sloping soil is on the edges of terraces and fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the combined thick- ness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 20 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are a few areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping. Also in- cluded are small areas of Stoneham and Kim soils and a few areas of soils that have a gravelly surface layer. Runoff is moderate, and the hazards of wind and water erosion are moderate. If irrigated, this soil is suited to corn, barley, and alfalfa and, to a lesser extent, sugar beets and dry beans. Under dryland management it is suited to wheat and barley. It is also well suited to pasture and native grasses. Capability units IIIe-2, irrigated, and IVe-3, dryland; Loamy Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 1. 37—Fort Collins loam, S to 9 percent slopes. This strongly sloping soil is on terrace edges and the steeper part of fans. This soil has a profile similar to the one described as representative of the series, but the com- bined thickness of the surface layer and subsoil is about 18 inches. Included with this soil in mapping are a few small areas of soils that are more sloping or less sloping and a few small areas of soils that have a gravelly surface layer. Also included are small areas of Larimer, Stoneham and Kim soils. Runoff is rapid, and the hazards of wind and water erosion are severe. If irrigated, this soil is suited to alfalfa and barley and other small grain or pasture. It is suited to pasture or native grasses under dryland management. Capa- bility units IVe-1, irrigated, and VIe-1, dryland; Loamy Plains range site; windbreak suitability group 1. Foxcreek Series The Foxcreek series consists of deep, poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. These soils are on low terraces and bottom lands and are underlain by sand A. '. and gravel at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. Elevation ranges from 7,800 to 8,800 feet. Slopes are 0 to 3 percent. The native vegetation is mainly timothy, red - top, sedges, and other water -tolerant grasses. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 16 inches, mean annual air temperature ranges from 42' to 46' IF, and the frost -free season ranges from 60 to 85 days. In a representative profile a 1-inch-thick layer of i- organic material is on the surface. The surface layer is mottled dark brown loam about 5 inches thick. The subsoil is mottled dark grayish brown or brown silty , claY loam about 17 inches thick. The underlying ma- _, terial is mottled brown sandy clay loam about 14 inches thick over sand and gravel. tt yr n„ Permeability is moderate above a depth of a inches and very rapid below that depth. The a water capacity is medium to high. Reaction is acid above a depth of about 22 inches and below that depth. These soils are mainly used for irrigated ha3 Representative profile of Foxcreek loam, 0 t, cent slopes, in irrigated hayland, 400 feet si Hohnholtz Lake Road, west of the Laramie F sec. 7, T. 11 N., R. 67 W.: 0-1 inch to 0; undecomposed and partly posed organic material. Alg-0 to 5 inches; dark brown (7,5Y] loam, dark brown (7.5YR 3/2) common fine distinct dark reddish (2.5YR 3/4) mottles; weak in, subangular blocky structure; hai able; slightly acid; clear smooth ary. 132g-5 to 17 inches; dark grayish brown 4/2) silty clay loam, very dark f brown (10YR 3/2) moist; comm. dium distinct red (2.5YR 4/6) tr weak medium subangular and a blocky structure; hard, friable; s acid; clear smooth boundary. B3g-17 to 22 inches; brown (10YR 4/3 clay loam, brown (10YR 4/3) common fine distinct yellowish red 4/6) mottles; weak to moderate in subangular blocky structure; very firm; slightly acid; clear smooth I ary. Clg-22 to 36 inches; brown (10YR 5/3) clay loam, brown (10YR 4/3) common medium distinct yellowi: (5YR 4/6) mottles; massive; har Able; neutral; clear smooth bound, IIC2cag-36 to 60 inches; sand and gravel slightly effervescent; calcium car) on underside of pebbles. The A horizon is loam, clay loam, or silty clay 3 to 8 inches thick. It is slightly acid to neutra Bg horizon is loam, light clay loam, or silty clay It is slightly acid to neutral. The C and IIC ho are generally neutral or mildly alkaline: The IIC zon is very slightly effervescent to strongly eff cent and weak accumulations of calcium carbona mainly on the underside of pebbles. 38—Foxcreek loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. nearly level soil is on low terraces and bottom lai Included with this soil in mapping are a few areas of Blackwell and Newfork soils. Also in( are a few small areas of soils that have a cobbl stony surface layer. Runoff is slow, and the hazard of water erns slight. If irrigated, this soil is suited to hay and me It is also suited to pasture or native grasses. Capa unit VIw-1, irrigated; Mountain Meadow range not assigned to a windbreak suitability group. Gapo Series The Gapo series consists of deep, poorly di LI F J 1 I 1] I 1 SOIL SURVEY ravel are below .a depth of 40 30 inches. Sand and gravel Some profiles have substrata in some 4/3) parting to moderate V 1t e a odder hue. ®. to 1 percent elopeB• This moist; Toderate medium and coarse prismatic structure p VeTy hard, 73_Nunn clay loam, medium subangular blVerY'plastic; thin firm, very sticky and films on peds ; level soil is on high terraces and fans. This soil as a nearly continuous clay alkaline; clear profile similar to the one described as representative of. mildly the series, but the combined thickness of the surface nonealcareous; 10YR 6/3) iare small areas smooth boundary. layer and subsoil is about 35 inches. pi 24 to 29 inches; pale brown 5 3 moist; in Also included area few Included with this soil in mapping Baca— clay loam,, brown (10Y11 /) strut of soils that are more sloping. small areas of Satanta, Fort Collins, and Ulm soils an weak medium subanf very plastic; few loam. ture; very hard, firm, ed faces; visible a few small area soils that have a surface layer an thin patchy films. on P as small subsoil of silty sugar beets, calcium carbonate occurring moderately alka- Runoff is slow, and the hazard of erosion is slip land calcareous; Under dry nodules; If irrigated, twheatil and is ialfalfacted torn, It is also gradual smooth boundary. brown beans, barley, units line; g light y grasses Capability oothill are 29 to 47 inches; g dark yellowish manageme asture and nasuited tive e goat es Clayey Clca— (lOYR 6/4) cla4 loam, very suited it iis gated, and IIIc-1, c , group lOYR 4/) massive; , y Its-1, roue 1• slopes. This brown ( sticky and plastic; visible windbreak suitability, g ercent slop hard, firm, as nodules, range site ; loam, I to 3 p calcareous; 74—Nunn clay calciumrnscarbonate streaks; g nearly representative of the gradual smooth lQperofile i des seoil ries as arep es and fans. This soi thin seams, alkaline; g has the P moderately series. in are a few small boundary, light yellowish brown Included with this soil in mapping less sloping and C2ca-47 to 10 inches ; g li It olive brown nd (2.5Y 6/3) clay loam, g very hard, areas of soils that are more sloping (2.5Y 5/3) m nd ; massive; subsoil of silty clay loam. Also included are small areas plastic; some visible a few small areas °f linsoilsandtUlm soils. have 3 Sticky layer a firm, sticky _�*oi� of Satanta, Fort Col __ i, and but less than in the- + ,,,Pdium, the hazard of wmdrerosion e ° ton 1S n, iI c 132 Soil name and map symbol SOIL SURVEY TABLE 8,—Soil and water features —Continued Flooding Depth to Bedrock Potential Hydro- seasonal frost logic high action group water Depth Hardness g Frequency Duration Months table p K irtley—Continued : '58: Kirtley part ________ C Purner part -------- D LaPorte: '59: LaPorte part _______ C Rock outcrop part. Larim: A 60 ------------------- Larimer : B 61 ------------------- '62: Larimer part _______ B Stoneham part _____ B Longmont! 63----=-------------- C Loveland: 64------------------- C Midway: D 65------------------- Minnequa: B 66 ------------------- '67: Minnequa part _____ B LaPorte part_______ C Miracle: 68 ------------------- B Naz: A 69. 70 ---------------- Nelson: 71------------------- B Newfork: 72 ------------------- D Nun7,n,: C 34. 75------------- C 76------------------ Otero: B 77, 78. 79 ------------- '80: Otero part _________ B Nelson part ________ B Paoli: 81 ------------------- B Pendergrass: '82: Pendergrass part ___ D Rock outcrop part. Feet Inches ------------- >6.0 20-40 Rippable __ Moderate. lone _______- -------=------ >6.0 10-20 Hard ---- lone -------- ----------------- -- ow. None -------- I -------------- I -------------- 1 >6.0 I >6.0 None-------- ----- ------------- >6.0 None---------------------- -------------- > 6.0 None-------- --------- ---- -------------- 6.0 None -------- ----------- --- -------------- Common ____ Brief _______ March -July -- 2.0-2.5 Common ____ Very brief --- March- ber. SepteNone-------- 1.5-2.5 >6.0 -------------- -------------- None -------- ------- ------------- >6.0 None -------- ------- ------- --- ----------- >6.0 None None-------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 None -------- - ------------- ------------- - >6.0 None-------- -------------- -------------- >6.0 Occasional __- Brief April -July ___ 0.5-4.0 >2.6 None --------- ------------- -------------- 1.5-2.6 None-------- -------------- -------------- >6,C None-------- -------------- -------------- >6.( None -------- ----- --------- ------ -------- >6.( None-------- -------------- - ------------- Rare ________ Very brief ___ May -June ___ >6.1 j6 None-------- I -------------- -------------- I - 10-20 I Rippable __I Low. >60----------- Low. >60----------- Low. >60 ----------- Low. >60 ----------- Moderate. >60 ----------- High. >60 ----------- High. 10-20 Rippable __ Moderate 20-40 Rippable __ Low. 20-40 Rippable __ Low. 10-20 Rippable __ Low. 20-40 Hard ----- Moderate >60 Hard _____ Moderate 20-40 Rippable __ Low. >60 ----------- Low. >60 ___________ Moderab Moderat( j60 --_-_-____- >60 --- - Low.' >60--------- Low' 20-40 Rippable __ Low. >60 ----------- I Moderati .11 10-20 I Hard -----I Low..;' LARIMER COUNTY AREA, COLORADO TABLE 8. Soil and water eatures- 1 Continued — Soil name and Hydro- Flooding map symbol logic Depth to seasonal Bedrock ' group Frequency Duration high Po n Months _� _-- -- water table Depth Hardness 8 ' Elbeth: —�— Feet —_ 30: Inches Elbeth ,.: part -------- B Moen part C None -------- ---- +: _ ----------------------- None -------- -- Farnuf:------------ -- >6.0 >60 "" 31 ----- ------------------- B >6.0 ----------- M 20-40 Hard ____ ode: - Mode: e. e None-------- '32: ------------------------ ---- F-a-r-n-u-f-part -'-'BNone le part >6.0 >60 ----------- M ode IBo -_-_-_-_ Rock outcroD None------P part. ----------------------------->6.0 >6.0 >60- 9-20 ModerFluvaquents: 33------ '""-- Moder: ' --- Frequent B - --_-' --- rief Fort Collins: ------- April -June 3536,37 __-------- B one 0.5-2b >60 Low. ---------------- Foxcreek: ------ ------ ------- 38 ------------------- C Rare _ >6.0 0 >6----------- odera M ,.. ________ Brief sa _______April -May ; GaPo: --- 0-0.5 None -------- >60 High. Garrett:-------------- - --- - --------- ------------------- B ., 41 Rare 3.0 0 >6 -_---- -- High. ____ ___-____ Very brief --_ ------------ B None ---------------------- - Gravel its: 42 >6.0 >6.0 >60 -------- Moderat >60 _---------- Moderat $aploborolls: '43: Haploborolls part _-_ ' Rock outcrop"'----- None ______ part. ------------ ---- >6.0 ---------- _`, �,HeplustolLs: --------------------------- T1 None -- '45: ---__--- _ ------------- -- Haplustolls '---------- >6.0 --------------- ------------ None ---- Rock outcrop part. p ita------- --------------------- rlan: 46 47-------------'-- B None +iat: v , ` -------- ---- 48 ------------- ., 49---------------- C >6.0>60----------- Moderate. None -------- - ----- -------------------- SO -- --- B------- >6.0 >60 -------- -- Moderate.------- <<,�.:�;, ,.:. None J.. r,MSler ______-_- ----------------- >6.0 >60 v C No12:ne ----------- Moderate. -------------- Hildor part -------- C 20-40 RiPpable __ High. „ ale outcrop part. None -- -------- - ---- -------------- �u ,55__ >6.0 20-40 Ri ppable __ High. .... ; : -------- B --- �... None -------- - ---------- part B -------` None >6.0 -------_-__ Moderate. >. „.edalund ___-- part ----- C None -° ------------------------------------ '--------------- -------- C >6.0 >60 >6.0 20-40 "--------- Moderate. Ri ppable __ Moderate. None ------------ ----------- - ppable __ Moderate. 1, 1, 1 ' APPENDIX B 1 1 1 1 HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Report Preston Center Fourth Filing Appendix June 2006 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 1 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: Preston Center 41h Filing PROJECT NO: 39494.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: jay DATE: 512412006 Recommended Runoff Coefficients from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Streets, parking lots (asphalt) Sidewalks (concrete) Roofs Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil) Runoff % coefficient Impervious C 0.95 100 0.95 96 0.95 90 0.10 0 SUSBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.fl) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) SIDEWALK AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % Impervious 201 0.33 14,303 6,158 - 2,110 1,290 4,745 0.67 62 202 0.63 27,229 6,100 15,950 1,023 4,156 0.82 82 203 0.17 7,493 0 4,826 1070.4 1,596 0.77 78 204 0.37 16,262 0 12,098 1,114 3,050 0.79 81 205 0.93 40, 370 0 23,790 2,914 13,667 0.66 66 Equations Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted 1 C; = runoff coefficient for specific area, A; C = ` (Ct At ) A; = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of C; n = number of different surfaces to consider 0 t A I = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all A;'s OVERALL SITE IMPERVIOUSNESS LOTS28.6 TOTAL TOTAL ROOF PAVED SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE RUNOFF OF PRESTON AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA AREA COEFF. Impervious CENTER: (ac.) (sq.ft) (sq.ft) (sq.ft) (sq.fl) (sq.ft) (C) FILING 3 3.13 . 136,309 20,508 54,040 15,217 46,544 0.66 64 FILING 4 3.13 136,309 12,291 65,125 10,141 48,752 0.65 63 Note: overall imperviousness calculated for the entire area of lots 2&.6 under both filing 3 and filing 4 designed conditions. This calculation is provided for comparison purposes only. 1 'i 39494008ows.xls O LL Z 00 O< K Z o W z U a Z ~ y 0 U U- W 2 f" by fi. V `V d � V O p O O V N O u U W z O O F, ty a. OrO1UQ o J a V ca orov`� z••EO vi ui ui co LL 0 3. rn Ev m U ui Y N U Z = Q fp N N O M N V 7 LQ V+ L E o 0 0 0 LL �- W Z o O co N O M (p Q N N x U rn C L O O O b 0 O c w m 0 o 0 0 0 0 � C=7 w 0o ao In.ho�� W F J W r n > ` U) � V J C ".E1O N T p M Q o e niwpi 0 0 0 0 0 p a N n O O h 0 N N '- N z 2 c O O h 0 J K J W 0 _ J_ U M n o N co n n O n p b Q� W 0 0 0 0 0 F Z F f0 N U N M M M 1p - r M M 01 Q O O O o o z 0 0 0 0 0 co N N N N N co z N N O Y U N L U C fN D .0 N � N N Z C co -o LL 0 C 0 (0 E o^ 0 N E 7 -0 E c� 0 .E E J E v) II 11 Y U co m c z C _ O E y n Qt CO O II w w 1. 1 ' O I O 1 O _Z 1' N U. ~ N Z W O Z op 1 Q U o LL Vo 1 rn W 2 on p c ; w 1 V i c N � UI o 1 F� O V N 0] 1 F W a O O ¢C 1 a 1� I I U IE 0 J LL O p0 C M N N 0p 0 Z N E v o - o o- ro lu 0 Y W w w m o M � u � r 3 �a �� vNinm LL J O N N O M (O Z ;? N N a m U 0, G p c n' - 00000 - - - - m 0 o 0 0 0 0 W w f r W L > C n n J 0 0 0 0 C O o N N O O O U) "" �- Ni Ni '- N 5 C�v Ocn N R N N J U w o m Mm c Z w W 0 J n N n Ol t0' a �• U n W eo n N W W 0 0 0 0 0 r � 2 _ H m N U N M M M tD n M M OI N z` Q o 0 0 0 0 m N N N N N m z Z r rn a � N M Q N ID r N O w a N 0 p (9 c c@ G QI .N m c 0 U 0 0 LL 0 _T _U O (h ri Q) C CD E O N c Y O U O IA r a) U O C v tN Cu � d y O '0 O II N co c � lL C 0 -0 w O O (0 N Q W + _ M w O 0) O O C E c m E c E E E E o p I I T U L) .0 f0 C O C'E>w m U) N O U � U Z v O Q+ m C7 II n n W 0 I JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL. METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 10-Yr Storm) LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY: DATE: Preston Center 4th Filing 39494.00 jmj 5/24/2006 10 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF Design Point Tributary Sub -basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (in/hr) Q (10) (cfs) 1 201 0.33 0.67 5.0 4.78 1.0 2 1 202 0.63 0.82 5.7 4.62 2.4 3 1 203 0.17 0.77 5.0 4.87 0.6 4 204 0.37 0.79 6.4 4.46 1.3 5 1 205 0.93 0.66 10.5 1 3.72 1 2.3 Q=CtCiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient C, = frequency adjustment factor i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) 3949400flows.xls i = 41.440 / (10+ tc)0.7974 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: Preston Center 4th Filing PROJECT NO: 39494.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: jnlj DATE: 5/24/2006 100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25 DIRECT RUNOFF Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) C Cf It: (min) i (in/hr) Q (100) (cfs) 1 201 0.33 0.84 5.0 9.95 2.7 2 202 0.63 1.00 5.0 9.95 6.2 3 203 0.17 1 0.96 5.0 9.95 1.6 4 204 0.37 0.99 5.0 9.95 3.7 5 205 0.93 0.83 7.0 8.84 6.8 Q=CfCiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Cf = frequency adjustment factor i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) 3949400flows.xls i = 84.682 / (10+ tc)o.'9'5 I [l ') DEVELOPED DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE Design Point Tributary Sub -basin Area (ac) c (10) c (100) tc (10) (min) tc (100) (min) Q(10)tot (cfs) Q(100)tot (cfs) 1 201 0.33 0.67 0.84 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.7 2 202 0.63 0.82 1.00 5.7 5.0 2.4 6.2 3 203 0.17 0.77 0.96 5.0 5.0 0.6 1.6 4 204 0.37 0.79 0.99 6.4 5.0 1.3M68 5 205 0.93 0.66 0.83 10.5 . 7.0 2.3 OFFSITE DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE Tributary Sub -basin Original Area (ac) Original Q(100) (cfs) q (csflac) Remaining Area (ac) Q(100)tot (cfs) OS-101 2.26 22.50 9.96 1.46 14.54 OS-102 0.28 2.60 9.29 0.28 2.60 OS-103 0.74 6.00 8.11 0.74 6.00 OS-104 1.16 11.50 9.91 0.17 1.68 OS-105 1.14 9.70 8.51 0.58 4.94 OS-106 1.02 8.80 8.63 1.02 8.80 OS-108 0.48 2.20 4.58 0.48 2.20 OS-110 1.43 2.30 1.61 1.43 2.30 OS-111 1.56 2.60 1.67 1.43 2.38 OS-112 1.14 9.00 7.89 1.14 9.00 1 II II II II 1 APPENDIX C '1 1 1 1 [I 1. i 1 1 INLET AND CURB CUT CALCULATIONS 1 Drainage and Erosion Control Report Preston Center Fourth Filing Appendix June 2006 i ------'----------------------------------------------- ---------------- UDINLET:-INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY - - CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER - SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD -'--- -----------------------------------L------------- ,SER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO ............................................:.... DT DATE 03-29-2006 AT TIME 15:28:04 `** PROJECT TITLE: PRESTON CENTER ' *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: 'I INLET ID NUMBER: 1 l7E$J-67pi YZa�N7 ( 5'.,��c Tj�fOG I6 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: I ' ! INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.87 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 3.25 INLET GRATE TYPE =Type 16 Grate Inlet ' ! NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 SUMP DEPTH ON GRATE (ft)= 0.17 GRATE OPENING AREA RATIO (%) = 0.60 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. ' STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) _ -0.05 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) _ 2.00 'i STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 ,f STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: ' WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 36.25 0.89 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 1.28 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 13.31 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(°%)= 20.00 '1 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR 1 GRATE INLETS: ' DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs) 17.24 = 20.20 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 10.10 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 10.10 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: 'I INLET ID NUMBER: 1 1 '{ INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. i ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 3.33 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. '1 1 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 9.22 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= ***.SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW {cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 7.14 7.14 0.00 7.14 7.14 0.00 17.24 10.10 7.14 17.24 0.00 10.10 7.14 17.24 0.00 ----------------------------------------------------- ' UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ------------ ------ ----------------- ------------- ------------------- ------- ---- - 3ER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO .................................................. ' 1 DATE 03-23-2006 AT TIME 13:32:42 �* PROJECT TITLE: PRESTON CENTER i ' *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 2 pfs24N POINT Z S:^51t Ty pc IL INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.87 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 3.25 INLET GRATE TYPE =Type 16 Grate Inlet NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 SUMP DEPTH ON GRATE (ft)= 0.17 GRATE OPENING AREA RATIO (%) = 0.60 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 14.41 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.45 FLOW. VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= .3.37 FLOW.CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.24 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR I(%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(°%)= 20.00 I INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR 1 GRATE INLETS: ' DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 7.58 1.0.36 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 5.18 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 5.18 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 2 20 2 4- OS 1 o y 1 t INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 3.33 ' HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0..17 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ' IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 7.87 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.40 I FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.40 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.40 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.40 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: 1' 1 THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 7.58 5.18 2.40 7.58 0.00 5.18 2:40 7.58 0.00 ' UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY ` CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD --------------------------------- 7---------------------------------------- 3ER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO .................................................. ,v DATE 03-29-2006 AT TIME 15:41:29 ** PROJECT TITLE: PRESTON CENTER ' *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ' INLET ID NUMBER: 3 DESy4N . PvyM-7 3 s ;,.�1� Ty?c /C ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.87 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 3.25 INLET GRATE TYPE =Type 16 Grate Inlet NUMBER OF GRATES = 1.00 SUMP DEPTH ON GRATE (ft)= 0.17 GRATE OPENING AREA RATIO (%) = 0.60 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. '1 I STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE.(%) = 0.05 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 'I STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 14.13 0.45 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 0.75 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.16 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR 1 GRATE INLETS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs) = 1. 60 ' IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 10.22 �os:� Z fD3 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.60 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.60 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 3 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 3.33 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 j SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. i INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: '+ IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 7.77 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 0.00 i CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 0.00 CARRY -.OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: '! THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= 1.60 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 1.60 ' FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= 0.00 TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.60 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW .INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 1.60 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= 0.00 TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.60 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 t 1 �_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER - SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ----------------------------------------------------- 'SER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO .................................................. ''N DATE 03-29-2006 AT TIME 11:56:06 *** PROJECT TITLE: PRESTON CENTER 1 COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 4 Di SLUM ?o•ZNT L/ 4SLoJ6L_E TYPE 14 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. '1 GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: ' INLET GRATE WIDTH (ft)= 1.87 INLET GRATE LENGTH (ft)= 3.25 INLET GRATE TYPE =Type 16 Grate Inlet NUMBER OF GRATES _ 1.00 SUMP DEPTH ON GRATE (ft)= 0.17 GRATE OPENING AREA RATIO M = 0.60 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES ' Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. ,I STREET GEOMETRIES:. STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 1.00 STREET CROSS SLOPE M 2.00 '! STREET MANNING N = 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 ' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: '- WATER SPREAD ON STREET GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 15.25 (ft) = 0.47 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.46 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.49 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR 1 GRATE INLETS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 4 1 8.64-d' ga5•n Zoy 10.78 i ©5 1o$ 5.39 5.39 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 3.33 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)'= 0.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.17 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 8.19 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 3.25 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.25 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW' (cfs)= 3.25 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.25 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: THE TOTAL DESIGN PEAK FLOW RATE (cfs)= 8.64 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 5.39 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING(cfs)= 3.25 TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 8.64 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED BY GRATE INLET (cfs)= 5.39 FLOW INTERCEPTED BY CURB OPENING (cfs)= 3.25 TOTAL FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 8.64 CARRYOVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 ,r 'I n ,I ' Worksheet Worksheet for Rectangular Channel I Project Description Worksheet South Curb Cuts Flow Element Rectangular Channel { Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Input Data ' Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Bottom Width 4.50 ft Discharge 6.80 cfs 1 ' Results Depth 0.25 ft Flow Area 1.1 ft' Wetted Perimeter 5,00 ft ' Top Width 4.50 ft Critical Depth 0.41 ft Critical Slope 0.004139 ft/ft Velocity 6.00 ft/s ' Velocity Head 0.56 ft Specific Energy 0.81 ft Froude Number 2.11 . Flow Type Supercritical ' I Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\...\3949400\flowmaster\preslon center.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 (7.00051 03/29/06 11:13: 08 AM 0 Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 Cross Section Cross Section for Rectangular Channel Project Description Worksheet South Curb Cuts Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Depth Section Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Depth 0.25 ft Bottom Width 4.50 ft Discharge 6.80 cfs 50 ft 0.25 ft �._ V:1 h H:1 N TS Project Engineer: JR Engineering x:\...\3949400\flowmaster\preston cenler.fm2 JR Engineering FlowMaster v7.0 [7,00051 03/29/06 11:13:16 AM 0 Haeslad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX D WATER QUALITY AND STORM PIPE CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Report Preston Center Fourth Filing Appendix June 2006 r 'i n 0 cos c N C N U! m N 0 W n d m E c a o cN W u v 0 a` E E o` 'm O ID N N n M O N U c 9 O N 3 N N > N N m N m N m F w R R R 1� h N v1 N O O O K O a O O O 0 O v O (D (D (D (D O ,V O O O O O O to N O O 2 01 T M (O m OJ O OM O O O K > W O K N M (O N n (D 7 N (V 7 O O N- N M (D N a ^ (p O v CO 00 N 1� N N N N - O GO 0 (O (D N N N N N N N M M M M M N N N N N S J R R K K K R R R R R R R K K R R R O C m co O (0 N O O N (D Q N Q V) O C >� m N m N m of m N m N m N m 3D—w v Q Q Q Q Q Q O O Q 00 n Q N N_ O h N Q (O (O Q a0 aD r N N 7 N � � O 9 N N M M N m N= O C-- (O co N N m a N N N N N M N M .- — .- M M M O 4 r M N N n N N N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m S K R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R C m O N M m C Q c0 (D lD M N N Q (D N N M = co N C> a_ w m N m N m m N m N m N D? w o o e e Q o Q 7 t m N o] O M (D O 0 O N 0 O h u� M O 0 a Q M Q N Q M Q co M Q j �p in C O O m O M (D N 0 0 O N O K O a0 I� m O O O >— Ul m m O m m m m m OMi m w K K R K K K K K K K >' co N W 0 Z N O n U Q (D m (D N (O '- (D O 1- N n p L) E co co co w co m co K K Q K M M M 0 0 0 (0 N 3 y N CO Q Q Q Q Q N N : W M m m m O N U F LL .... n r (D (D O m O r .- of N n .- N r r m N N .- m m .- L O O O O O O O " (D (D K m M w co Q o (o J N ry y K co co O K N Q O M m I� c0 N D a Z; (O O M Q N O O N M O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O c C O O O O O O O N U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O U U U U U U U c m m (o m m m U N U U V U U U U t N(n U U U U U U U c (D a U U U U U U '0 C C U C C C C C u N N N OM N D N (D N n N N Q M N _ a O a- a o M K a_ d_ a.o O a O E E O 0 11 I 1, t WATER QUALITY OUTLET STRUCTURE DESIGN CALCULATIONS 1 1 i 1� 1 1 1 ' Drainage and Erosion Control Report Preston Center Fourth Filing Appendix June 2006 I 't '1 JR Engineering PROJECT NAME: JR PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY: DATE: WATER QUALITY CAPTURE VOLUME SUMMARY FOR EXTENDED DETENTION Preston Center 4th Filing 39494.00 jmj 03/28/06 Guidelines from Urban Strom Drainage Criterial Manual, September 1999 (Referenced figures are attached at the end of this section) Use 40-hour brim -full volume drain time for extended detention basin Water quality Capture Volume, WQCV = 1.0' (0.91 ' i3 - 1.19' i2 + 0.78i) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 ` Area ` 1.2 MAJOR BASIN Trib. area (acres) % Impervious la Impervious Ratio i=la/100 WQCV (watershed inches) Design Volume, Vol. (ac-ft) Existing Pond 10.48 60.0 0.600 0.24 0.25 3946800wq and pond volumes.xls,6/14/2006,9:42 AM 1 Proposed Detention Pond - Stage/Storage LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY: DATE: Existing Pond Pond Inver) 100-yr WSEL SPILLWAY EL Preston Center 4th Filing 39494.00 3/28/2006 V = 1 /3 d (A + B + sgrt(A'B)) where V = volume between contours, ft3 d = depth between contours, ft A = surface area of contour Stage (ft) Surface Area (ft`) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 4920.30 0 4921.00 3592 0.019 0.02 4922.00 10683 0.157 0.18 4922.28 12207 0.074 0.25 4923.00 16123 0.233 0.48 4924.00 22211 0.438 0.92 4925.00 26319 0.556 1.48 4925.35 28945 0.222 1.70 4925.40 31506 0.035 1.73 4926.00 32884 0.443 1 2.18 WQCV Provided = 0.25 ac-ft at 4922.28 Elevation/storage data from actual field survey by JR Engineering LTD, May 18, 2001 3946800wq and pond volumes.xls Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility EXISTING POND Project Nan,e: Preston Center 4th Filing Project Number: 39494.00 Company: 1R Engineering Designer: jmj Date: 3/28/2006 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=la/100) B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) . (WQCV=1.0-(0.91-i3-1.19-i'+0.78i)) D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 ' Area ' 1.2 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforations (H) C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) (Figure EDB-3) D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only) i) Circular Perforation Diamter OR ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum) F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (AA,) G) Number of Rows (nr) H) Total outlet Area (Ao,) Page 1 la = 60 % i = 0.6011 A = 10.48 acres WQCV = 0.24 watershed inches Vol. = 0.25 ac-ft x Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: H = 1.98 It Ao = 0.6 square inches D = 718 inches, OR W = inches nc = 1 number Ao = 0.6 square inches nr = 6 number Ao,= 3.6 squareinches 'I 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: A, = 0.5 ' (Figure 7 Value) ' A,, B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a) 1) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (W,o ,) from Table 6a-1 ii) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) = H - 2" for flange of top support iii) Type of Screen Based on Depth H) Describe if "other' iv) Screen Opening Slot Dimension, Describe if "other" v) Spacing of Support Rod (O.C.) Type and Size of Support rod (Ref: Table 6a-2) vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) Page 2 A, = 122.4 square inches x < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: Mont = 3 inches HTR = 22 inches x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter) Other: x 0.139" (US Filter) Other: 3/4" inches #156 VEE 3/8" x 1.0" flat bar M 1 � F Table 6a-1: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. Minimum Width (W ,o,,.) of Concrete Opening for a Well -Screen -Type Trash Rack. See Figure 6-a for Explanation of Terms. Maximum Dia. Width of Trash Rack Opening W,Per Column of Holes as a Function of Water Depth H of Circular Opening (inches) H=2.0' H=3.0' H=4.0' H=5.0' H=6.0' Maximum Number of Columns < 0.25 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 14 < 0.50 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 3 in. 14 < 0.75 3 in. 6 in.. 6 in. 6 in. 6 in. 7 < 1.00 6 in. 9 in. 9 in. 9 in. 9 in. 4 < 1.25 9 in. 12 in. 12 in. 12 in. 15 in. 2 < 1.50 12 in. 15 in. 18 in. 18 in. 18 in. 2 < 1.75 18 in. 21 in. 21 in. 24 in. 24 in. 1 < 2.00 21 in. 24 in. 27 in. 30 in. 30 in. I Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. US FilterTM Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design Specifications. Max. Width of Opening Screen #93 VEE Wire Slot Opening Support Rod Type SupportRod, On -Center, Spacing Total Screen Thickness Carbon Steel Frame Type 9" 0.139 # 156 VEE 3/." 0.3 V '/,'k 1.01lat bar 18" 0.139 TE .074"x.50" 1" 0.655 • %"x 1.0 angle 24" 0.139 TE .074"x.75" P, 1.03" 1.0" x 1 %:"angle 27" 0.139 TE.074"05" 1" 1.03" 1.0"x I%:"an le 30" 1 0.139 TE.074"xl.0" 1" 1.155" 1'/,'h I'/2"an le 36" 0.139 TE.074"xl.0" 1" 1.155" 1'/,`A 1%:''angle 42" 0.139.. TE .105"x].O" I" 1.155" 1 '/,'7t I''/2"an le US Filter, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA DESIGN EXAMPLE: Given: A WQCV outlet with three columns of 5/8 inch (0.625 in) diameter openings. Water Depth H above the lowest opening of 3.5 feet. ' Find: The dimensions for a well screen trash rack within the mounting frame. Solution: From Table 6a-I with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e., rounded up from 5/8 inch actual diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The minimum width for each column of openings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is W = 36 = 18 inches. The total height, after adding the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the ' flange of the top support channel, is 64 inches. Thus, ' Trash rack dimensions within the mounting frame = 18 inches wide x 64 inches high From Table 6a-2 select the ordering specifications for an 18", or less, wide opening trash rack using US Filter (or equal) stainless steel well -screen with #93 VEE wire, 0.139"openings between wires, TE 074" x .50"support rods on 1.0" on -center spacing, total rack thickness of 0.655" and'/:' x 1.0" welded carbon steel frame. Table 6a DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3) 1 i I 6 'I 9 4 2 1 i 1. i 0.6 v 0.4 I E 1'' m I 0.2 I U I a 0.1 ' 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.01 STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 0.0 0011 .0 EXAMPLE: DWO = 4.5 ft 0 WQCV = 2.1 acre-feet SOLUTION: Required Area per Row = 1.75 in? .0 EQUATION: WQCV a= K 40 0 in which, K 40=0.013D WQ +0.22DWQ -0.10 0 O ,�_ ` �\ 0 0 ro OJ a\ .0011 tiI 1\ Qr Qe JF c�F ts� � bpi O' 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 .60 1.0 Required Area per Row,a (in.2 ) 2.0 4.0 6.0 FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District S-43 Orifice Plate Perforation Sizing Circular Perforation Sizing Chart may be applied to orifice plate or. vertical pipe outlet. Hole Dia (in) • Hole Diu (in) Min. Sc (in) Area per Raw (sq, in) n=1 n=2 n=3 1 4 0.250 1 0.05 0.10 0.15 5 16 0.313 2 0.08 0.15 0.23 3/8 0.375 2 0.11 0.22 0.33 7/16 0.438 2 0.15 0.30 0.45 1/2 0.500 2 0.20 0.39 0.59 9 16 0.563 3 1 0.25 0.50 0.75 5 8 0.525 / 3 0.31 0.61 0.92 11 16 0.688 3 0.37 0.74 1.11 3 4 0.750 3 0.44 0.88 1.33 13 16 0.813 3 0.52 1.04 1.56 7 8 0.875 3 0.60 1.20 1.80 15 16 0,938 3 0.69 1.38 2.07 1 1.000 4 0.79 1.57 2.36 1 1 16 1.063 4 0.89 1.77 2.66 1 1 8 1.125 4 0.99 1.99 2.98 1 3 16 1.188 4 1.11 2.22 3.32 1 1 4 1.250 4 1.23 2.45 3.68 1 5/16 1.313 4 1.35 2.71 4.a6 1 3/8 1.375 4 1.48 2.97 4.45 1 7 16 1.438 4 1.62 3.25 4.87 1 1/2 1.500 4 1.77 3.53 5.30 1 9 16 1.563 4 1.92 3.83 5.75 1 5 8 1.625 4 2.07 4.15 6.22 1 11 16 1.688 4 2.24 4.47 6.71 1 3 4 1.750 4 2.41 4.81 7.22 1 13 16 1.813 4 2.58 5.16 7.74 1 7 8 1.875 4 2.76 5.52 8.28 1 15 16 1.938 4 2.95 5.90 8.84 2 2.000 4 3.14 1 28 9.42 n e Number of columns of perforations Minimum steel plate thickness 1/4 ' 5/16 ' 3/8 ' • Designer moy.interpolote to the nearest 32nd inch to better match the required area, if desired. Rectangular Perforation Sizing Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed. Rectangular Height = 2 inches Rectangular Width (inches) = Required Area per Row (sq in) 2" Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) File D•tall•..dwq Rectangular Hole Width Min. Steel Thickness 5" 1 4 6" 1 4 7" 5/32 ' 8" 1 5/16 „ 9"1 11 32 " loll 3/8 >10" 1/2 Figure 5 WQCV Outlet Orifice Perforation Sizing No Text 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX E RIPRAP AND EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS Drainage and Erosion Control Report Preston Center Fourth Filing Appendix June 2006 t t � rn W ' � c O @ I a O ` I U c a Q o D U fY. c y 0)p 0 � 3 c k C j «a V V Z U m 'yow)o c _ F U� r o c y U `� Z C � L a 00 to 0C O O .7 U x O U •.- ° a c a� W 0 N cam) � L y U Va y c M a) 0 E 3 3W w U,c c -It O0 '� vie oplr> y�5 W o'o II 1°nui ao a`ae m yCY0 } > 7� L Ur rn `° c f0 � 0 N n O m rn N ma) W U' �oCF E I 'I �FUpv�iG �i� 0 h O O O LL �... an IT IT r N E o �JJJ �OL O rL }1 o C? N y CR � r a O <° I - a) y O .0 W N V �0 Ez O 1 O L U ai \1y � O V• !+ j N oOC O O LO Q N N N ti 3 C c -. '► N .- rn O 4 cC Oi I� Cp o 0 0 `- Lo tr) al ay7 Z O N O aa) it 0) N O p U Q. a: Q: N X n E a a 0 v rn v | I �£|LOWco � }/Eg44 r2 \ k 9 C? . it =Cj . 3\ � § ( 04 ° §Bk27\%\ & . L6OWL ( / d » \ \}k\// } ->» � a. O ® ° \k«�03 ƒ . 27\ LL0. &$ = =A e£EtnwGo t�� }\ § > %j` o CL \� %\\e Coo�f09 c .u�* \2\Eby )/) ■ 2 `®�$\}kk Ems }\\ek-// �4)0 ]71 ( _ " ` o 2 - cE\3\\ „ )/ \f cc z g ( \§ 7770 \ m K% ° $ 7 Zj we AA* { c= v22��[a }}} moo /// DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) TABLE MD-7 Classification and Gradation of Ordinary Riprap MAJOR DRAINAGE Riprap Designation. % Smaller Than Intermediate Rock dso (inches)' Given Size by Weight Dimensions inches Type VL 70-100 12 50-70 9 35-50 6 6"" 2-10 2 Type L 70-100 15 50-70 12 35-50 9 9"" 2-10 3 Type M 70-100 21 50-70 18 35-50 12 12"" 2-10 4 Type H 70-100 30 50-70 24 35-50 18 18 2-10 6 Type VH 70-100 42 50-70 33 35-50 24 24 2-10 9 " d5o = mean particle size (intermediate dimension) by weight. Mix VL and L riprap with 30% (by volume) topsoil and bury it with 6+ inches of topsoil, all vibration compacted, and revegetate. Rock used for riprap should be hard, durable, angular in shape, and free from cracks, overburden, shale, and organic matter. Neither breadth nor thickness of a single stone should be less than one-third its length, and rounded stone should be avoided. The rock should sustain a loss of not more than 40% after 500 revolutions in an abrasion test (Los Angeles machine—ASTM C-535-69) and should sustain a loss of not more than 10% after 12 cycles of freezing and thawing (AASHTO test 103 for ledge rock procedure A). Rock having a minimum specific gravity of 2.65 is preferred; however, in no case should rock have a specific gravity less than 2.50. 4.4.1.2 Grouted Boulders. Table MD-8 provides the classification and size requirements for boulders. When grouted boulders are used, they provide a relatively impervious channel lining which is less subject to vandalism than ordinary riprap. Grouted boulders require less routine maintenance by reducing silt and trash accumulation and are particularly useful for lining low -flow channels and steep banks. The appearance of grouted boulders is enhanced by exposing the tops of individual stones and by cleaning the projecting rocks with a wet broom right after the grouting operation. In addition, it is recommended that grouted boulders on channel banks and outside of frequent flow areas be buried with topsoil and revegetated with native grasses, with or without shrubs depending on the local setting. Boulders used for 06/2001 MD-61 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) MAJOR DRAINAGE 0 o4( 0 2( ENEENEWAmm 0 0 0 E 0 No • 2 .4 Y /D .6 .8 1.0 t Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream . FIGURE MD-21 Riprap Erosion Protection at Circular Conduit Outlet Valid for Q/D2.5 <_ 6.0 06/2001 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District MD-109 I DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V. 1) MAJOR DRAINAGE E 7 G = Expansion Angle �f MENNEN _1 .2 .3 A .5 .6 .7 .6 TAILWATER DEPTH/.CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D 06/2001 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District FIGURE MD-23 Expansion Factor for Circular Conduits MD-111 � § � \ > w g « 2 F- § K ■ § § a. « \ � <ƒ K \ .. jE !( ®§6(§ # § / / ■ §; §§ >� ?x se �E /\q kk\ 2%) 2 § \ d/\ 0 00 7 \ .e .e / \\� <� CL �C( ƒ) } \ \ / ƒ e ( mQg0 G \)() \\\ )/)>i 3§e \z� \j/S@ /)) \ 0 � f 1 I 1 a° U Cn z H a O U a O [%o as Co LL4 C; v v In In Ui U1 m m CD m m o I +0 0/000000 o v v v v 0 0 0 0 0 In V mmmmmmCommm O O M O O N m O1 OI 01 � a� 01 � 01 DI 01 Q1 O O O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m m m m m CO CO m m m CO m m CO m v v V v v V V v v V v v v v v v V v v V m m CO m m m m m m m CO m m m m m m m m m O M V U7 %0 b r r r r r r r r r r r r m m m m co m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vv v v v v v v v V v V v v V V a v V V v v V V v v CO m CD CO co m CO CO 00 m CD CO m m CO m m m CO m m CO m CO Co m Co Ili m IT In In In ID 0 ID ID ID ID r r r r r r r In r r m m m M et vvv QV VV 44;4 4 ; ; 4 4 ; ; 4 V4 ;;4 GO mmmmmmm mmmmmmCOCommmmmmmmmm %00N(nV•vInInU)U)%0W%0%D%DIDID%V%0%Drrrrrr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CO CO CO CD Commmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm v a% rI N M M v v v v U1 U1 U1 In U1 U1 U1 In U1 %0 ID 10 ID ID ID r .I'. .v V V d'vv V•'v V'vv V vvvvvv V vvaTv mmoDmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm O IDmor1r.NNMMMM V . . . .sTV V U1U1U1U1IDI. CO mmmmmmmmmmmmCDCammmmmCID mmmmm In N U1 r m 0100 ri rI H N N N N N M M M M M V V' IT NIP V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N MMMMMvvv V'vvvV vvvvVeT V'V't1'V'V'V' CO CD0DCZ) ODCoCID mmmCOmmm mmmmmmmmmmmm ri m"q V In In ID%0 r r r m m CO m CO mm rnrn 00 o oo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N NMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM V' V' V' V' V• CD W mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmCID 0DmmCIO m ID InmoHNMvvinlnInmlDlo%olDrr.rrmmmmrn N M (4 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M In r1 r4 In r CO O O rl N N M M M VVVVV1 In In � W. %D r. r M rN.N.N.N MM 99 9 M M MM M M M M M M M M M M. (4 M CO CO m m CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO m m CO CO CO CO CO CO m m m CO CO m O MN\Dm 0)0r1NNMMM V V V'V' V IT In In U) n %D %0 %o %D . . . . . . M OrN. N N N N. N N N N N. N. N N N N N N N N NN CO CO CD CD comCOmmmmmmCGmmmmmmmm-mmmm In In InCN0lMVInlDrrrmmmrnrnrnrna,a1000000 ...................... NON O O r1 r! r-I 1-4rI . rl rl H r1 14 H H H rl rI l rl N.N N N N N r CO CO CO m CO CO m CO CO CO CO m m m Co Co m CO Co Co m m m co co O vIn O M In 10 m m 010 0 0 ri.-I ri 11 N N N N M M M M MM ..................... N m Ol O O O O O O O rl rl ri ri .-{ ri 4 rl 4 4 ri r1 4 rl ,1 rf rrCDCommC0c0CID mmmmmmmmm0DmmCID mmmm U1 mNm rl VU7r r m 01 a100r-1 r1 r-I.r-1 r4 NNNMMMMM . . . . . . . . . . . . . r♦ tOmc 0 O10101aI0;0101000000000000000 rrrrrrrrrrrm0DmmmmmCDmmmmmmm oIDMOvrON0r4NMMVVInInInIn%D%0w%0rr%0%0%D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-I V�IDrrrrmmcommmmmmCDmmmmmmmmmm r r r r r r r r lr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r In r In a10 VW IDrCDmrrrIoIoIDIn V V MMNNa1%D V'rla%%o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNC414 -4r 4,C;C; r r r r r r r r r r r lr r r r r r r r r r r r r r r x 3E-- o0000000000000000000000000 O U E 00000000000000000000000000 4ZIL4 rINMVInIDrmrno.aNMVInIDrmrnolnolnolno r-4 r1 .� rl rr rl .� rl r♦ r-I N N M M V V U7 O �O V 'J � r (\ M M � 0 P I 00 T MARCH 1991 O' DESIGN CRITERIA 1 M JR Engineering r 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins. CO 60525 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: Preston Center ath Filing STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: jnq DATE', 02-Feb-06 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1,00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0,80 PLACED AT INLETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP l.eo 0.50 STRAW MULCH IS-1-5/) 0.06 1.00 FROMTABLE8B - STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF =(I-C'P)'I00 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 201 0.32 ROADS/WALKS 0.08 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.05 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.19 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER x NET C-FACTOR 0.19 NET P-FACTOR 0.79 EFF - (LC'P)' 100 = 84.7'%. 202 0.60 ROADS/WALKS 041 Ac. ROUGHENED OR. 0.03 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.16 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER x NET C-FACTOR 0.08 NET P-FACTOR 0,80 EFF = (I-C'P)' 100 = 93.6'% 203 0.17 ROADS/WALKS 014 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.02 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.02 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER x NET C-FACTOR 0.12 NET P-FACTOR 0,79 EFF - (I-C'P)' 100 = 90.4N. 204 0.37 ROADS/WALKS 0.30 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.04 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.04 Ac. SEDIMENTTRAP x NET C-FACTOR 0,11 NET P-FACTOR 0,50 EFF - (I-C'P)' 100 = 947 G 205 0,93 ROADS/WALKS 0.61 Ac. ROUGHENED OR. 0.16 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0,16 Ac. SEDIMENT TRAP x NET C-FACTOR 0.19 NET P-FACTOR 0.25 EFF -(I-C'P)'100= 95.4/ TOTAL AREA = 2.39 ac TOTAL EFF = 93.1 % (L (basin area' eff) / total area REQUIRED PS = 80.7% Since 93.1% > 80.7%, the proposed plan is o.k. 3949400erosion.KLS 11 Preston Center 4th Filing EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE JOB NO. 3949400.00 DATE: 3/28/06 EROSION CONTROL MEASURES COMPLETED BY: ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I UNIT COST IQUANTITY I TOTAL COST 1 TEMPORARY SEED & MULCH ACRE $ 775.00 0.6 $ 457.59 2 SILT FENCE LF $ 3.00 850 $ 2,550.00 3 GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EACH $ 500.00 1 $ 500.00 4 INLET PROTECTION EACH $ 250.00 5 $ 1,250.00 5 STRAW BALES EACH $ 3.25 0 $ G ISEDIMENT TRAP/BASIN EACH $ 500.00 1 $ 500.00 COST 1 'I CITY RF.SF.FOINO COST FOR TOTAL. SITF AREA 7. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS I UNIT COST IQUANTITY I TOTAL COST 1 RESEED/MULCH (ALL disturbed area on and off site) ACRE $ 775.00 3.1 $ 2,425.75 COST $ 2,425.75 SECURITY DEPOSIT $ 5,257.59 REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL SECURITY DEPOSIT WITH FACTOR OF 150% $ 7,886.39 r I 1 1 APPENDIX F 1 DRAINAGE MAPS 1 1 H 1 1 ' Drainage and Erosion Control Report Preston Center Fourth Filing Appendix June 2006 1 I [1 t 1 1 IA TIMBERWOOD DRIVE B 01 2:1910 111MA12 Uvel MR11111uuGu DE9W POINT TRIBUTARY SUB -BASIN AREA (oe) COO) GOOD) tpo) (mVi) te(Loo) (mM) O(IO)TOT Wo) O(100)TOT (cf.) 1 201 0.33 0.67 0.e4 &0 5.0 1.0 27 2 M2 0.63 DB3 1.00 5.7 5.0 L4 6.2 3 203 0.17 0.77 0.96 5.0 5.0 0.6 1.6 4 204 0.37 an 0.99 6.4 5.0 1.3 3.7 5 205 0.93 0.56 0.83 10.5 7.0 2.3 e.a OFFSITE DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE TRIBUTARY SUB -BASIN ORIGINAL AREA (We) RI 'L (.w) R (.w/oe) RELAX G (We) IXI00) (eh) os-ld L25 22.50 9.96 1." 14.54 OS-102 0.28 2.50 9.29 0.28 2.60 OS-1OS 0J4 6.00 8.11 0.74 5.00 OS-104 1.16 11.50 9.91 0.17 1.68 05-105 1.14 9.70 8.51 am 4.94 OS-105 1.02 8.60 1 8.63 1.02 660 OS-lOB220 I.SB 0.N 2.20 OS-110 LZ 2.30 1.61 1.43 230 W-111 1.56 2.60 1.67 1.43 2.]6 05-112 1.14 9.00 7.89 1.0 9.0) NOTES 1. THE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE THE "NW ELEVATIONS REWIRED FOR PROTECTION FROM THE 100-YEAR STORM. MINIMUM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION ABOVE THE SWALES, OR OTHER DRAINAGE FACILITIES AS ILLUSTRATED BY A MASTER GRADING PLAN ARE TO BE SHOWN. 2. ALL CURB AND GUTTER SMALL BE 'WTFALL MRS AND GUTTER' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3 A WIN SLOPE OF 1151 TO BE PROVIDED ALONG THE FLOW LINE O ALL CATCH CURB AND GUTTER AND 1.5% ACROSS ASPHALT PAVEMENT. THE MAX. SLOPE ACROSS ASPHALT TO 5X. 4. EXISTING UNOERGRWND INSTALLATIONS S APRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN ME INDICATED ACCORDING To THE BEST INFORMATION AVAJLABLE TO THE ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF SUCH NFORWTNN. SERVICE LINES (WATER. POWER, GAS, STORM DRAIN, SANITARY SEWER. PHONE M MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT UNES OR AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BEFORE EXCAVATION FOR EXACT LOCATIONS 5 ALL WORK TO BE ACCOIPIUSIIE) IN STRICT ADHERENCE WITH ALL LOCAL ORDINANCES, CITY OR STATE. 6. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ALL WON WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES 7. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED PIPE LINES AND CONDUIT PRIOR TO STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION. 7MBUTARY TRIBUTARY WATER POND WATER AREA AREAS QUALITY INVERT QUALITY E CONTROL VOLUME ��CAPTU ELEVATION 10.18 ac 80.0% M25 ae-K 4920.30 4022.20 HKUI'U9LU WAILK UUALITY GAHIUKL WLUME INCLUDES ALL FILING 3 AND FILING 4 AREAS TRIBUTARY TO DETENTION POND. o©0000000mmm ---_=-__-_-_ LEGEND %;{ FLARED END SECTION - - - - - - EXISTING 5' CONTOUR ...... . ........ -.. _-. _..._. EXISTING V CONTOUR PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR PROPOSED F CONTOUR VERTICAL CURB W/ CATCH GUTTER **+ �+ �+++• DRAINAGE BASINS PER FlUNG-3 ■ •PROPOSED DRAINAGE BASINS FL FLOW LINE PREVIOUS STUDY TC TOP OF CURB BASIN DESIGNATION PER PRESTON CENTER HP HIGH POINT L-� SRD RUNG LP LOW POINT �510 PREWAR S STRAY IOD- EC EDGE OF CONCRETE 1. .9Fy-IEOw PER ACRE PER PRESNTER FF FlNISHED FLOOR 3RD FILING EX EXISTING GRADE BASIN AREA OUTSIDE GRT GRATE ELEVATION OF STUDY UNITS ® FO FINISHED GRADE SF SILT FENCE ZO PROPOSED BASIN OESIOUT ON .32 .BB MINOR RUNOFF IP INLET PROTECTION COEFFICIENT (C1p1 © ®® CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BASIN AREA (AC) WITH VEHICLE TRACKING CONTROL ® SEDIMENT TRAP .10 PROPOSED RIPRAP 10 DESIGN POINT 40 20 0 40 Bo SCALE: 1' . 40' U N GIZj�--P-P• PZ SU'�CWW�zz Mw,w ��OO 04 u� Szwy"�aw' y,Ircgircn�5o Fwnnwa�O� 2 nnUn WJ Do 0 UT Q 0 20Kn n 0 H W Q I � IO 1 7 W W O N 7 0 700U0 a �l� no �>`W'TFZ�rn a �oml- L0i0< Q. am I�I�Io � olCD �l Z O City of Fort Collins. Colorado w W O Z UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL =O p W J a PRFPAMO UNDER R TOWNED, SUPERVISION OF APPROVED: w Z Z J Oty E Iw DR. CHECKED BY: Wo 611mtw LHIMy Daw 0 Q PGO L/[ Z ir W W Z .....• �QP C. So •.. 3F, CHECKED BY: Fj Q O (..) :H' j•G '� 3BB18 Stam w UtNty Z Z ''. '. CHECKED BY: O f/CANAL LION 6 Pow Utility Dow NOf F-YYG�? CHECKED- BY: W Pa44 ! R.a.atbn Dow Q' I CHECKED BY: M` E Ttape.n Dow d SHEET 9 OF 14 JOS L $PARdE DATE CQp1 R App P.E. N0. 3M,, CHECKED BY: JDB NO. 39494.00 r0R AN0 a 1lpUlF ar UR ORBRWEWA11 I 1 1 1 i [1 APPENDIX G PREVIOUS PLANS ' Drainage and Erosion Control Report Appendix Preston Center Fourth Filing June 2006 DklP1 IlFeby WV M1r C(Ip) C(MB kRN (MAN) k(1� (ek) IQRY (a y4p)M (a tlin ]I As IIa IR IN N Sp [ Ion k71 6p u u 1 u 1 Ip1 L 6O SD 41 111 1 I.11 6M Sa !q a AT e Ipl Iq m 6Y AS u SI Y to An To u IA as 1 vu to IT am nJ a To u [ IOU A to aN an 123 111 a 7J IN IIJ aY an 122 ITT 61 u 11l 1 1u IA Lo 1 n] ill kM u 1 25 IS 112 aT u IT as 21 1p rM k Prl 1ao aM n1 114 at Y] Ili M q m fl R91 N21.gY alai D[Il71TW1 MRIRC PROAD[D at AC- 1.7 AI CEIFNIgI W4UME IEglglFa ae AD-FI 1.7 AfifT ACNK IEIEAY M1E A] M III YAK NLOYIIA£ RFIFAY RAZE AS 68 Y.] 65 Dow HAY s 6 11/16• NA axIICL vaea 2r FIFE W/ d l/16• NK wrla ND1Es 1. URINCE PIAN.WI WHET CETAK W SREET 10 2. ALL N ROT 10 MOM PATf[YNT " NSIUnED FOR YCNE MNI 20 GAYS SHALL Z y D AND WALCHED. ]. THE UNNTW PONDS SHALL BE CMSIRIICTEO AS M MST STEP o 01ERL0S GRADING AND SEEDED W"AnLY, 1, ALL TYPE 12 RINAP SHALL BE UICEMAW Dry B• o Y q BIDDING. ++ a"' `am` � The City or Fail Cattle Slermoatw me y, erxk, Iw,YW Fy=lu Whoa be nonrka .1 Imam 2< home Kim to any oww<1ka LEGEI`1Q an Nk /4 As =Ninon pem•tr rt farmers erlau ke neldled prw to any two dlNumna mtlF y do). All (ro<4peF0. etrlpinaD DESIGN POINT v,mg, om� w Hem in cmYd m x N,Y be Ftldltl al 1M DI' mess term F the e r In "ndko op pow yolr mm.1'. • Rm d • me mom report, r BASIN CRITERIA pa-d•rumonc• 'q'batm Whdl a Whetted and retained mer " aver _. or . na "KNon dl Imnr oiry e0 Q RUNOFF COEm CIENT • o In* arm required trimmers et mmere m. roa-atkne and ran the watrt WmtkW period or toe AREA IN ACRES AN role mmi y,lna lab dstmain a<I4ty (•Yipping, a=o�FA usity In•lollothom ffiI=12 RIFg, el<.) •ndl be Ypi F PLOW DIRECTION gamed emdllkn by riming K dl<Ma dmg mane <mtws units mokn, xgmolRn It mhW prmmnt rxim control Is there" No role F mq midds Wa)e<I threat role or my Whim rernaln e•Daxe by lane d•rvebq m My Ham Gem i than rally (ill) eon eewe rued wn:.nmr ■ BASIN BOUNDARY or permmnt .a•lan mkd (•a. eetl/mulm. Imeenemg. ac) le FHmtl, unlw mnrnx Nobel by the Srmnpler UtallY. _�'-'-- EXISTING PIPES Am P rony Mm As nolrtl and maklonr at m tense wFg =antinuclear, wrMlNe ® PROPOSED INLET AND PIPE mIN to Tashi •Fd-owen rwM, µ and dFWAFq mthAt • nd he mm•epwY romtnums man Naples yet Inpmle adjacent paprlh w blwmFed Ny ' MRED END SECTION Fort CmFe a,gFerYrq DTrami Ins Clly or AN temporary ((Saud) eraelm =mad medwrx Whd1 w h"ctod and napdrr r W SIDEWALK CULVERT ecm•w<Im Y after soon �dneim,.eFe� to wlrvm or InW F4re.a ndben . AR ° pc e, b.m .weer �m .P n a mr,now O �� EROSION BALES ,It to inner er p me m ara' w a• i er°=ww a. "I" sane'. PROPOSED INLET LOCATION No &A hallim� e•=•ee an (to) h" F nehE w t In Gel Ynp1 • • aY x man be ono er,no r"gnm ' pl I'a. erbrNg one perennial •Ill _ _ _ EXISTING' 5' CONTOUR IernFa. Mr eon xMpY rmrMF a fear ern me Whm a and m otherlinal Clay aeFmx • me b n eMY X of eon• of sm any other ________ FASTING 1' CONTOUR CRY to w 6c m s W onto l U •Yxle by y Fun my xllda My krw,rtnr aephrtl mfemw y eat a •non W awned urvnrk4y GY the <m4n\n PROPOSED 5' CONTOUR PROPOSED I' CONTOUR CONSM1.113710N SEOUENCE ea... mmervieft my "a om�MwluA.�e All mate swift, �rlial " N� wr0 'man sees ` " •er"'w real aaff,al EMERGENCY OVERFLOW aPILLWAY N.T.S Too OF qNM _ <paw f—x� ¢caroARr 4FLMY. xne PPIIMY oILrAY " I112111.99 WIT _1 Warren Lake Rnkavk Company Dow SILT FENCE OINLET PROTECTION O® CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE OSEDIMENT TRAP AREA OF INUNDATION OPUNT) DE➢TH MARKER NOTE: EROSION CONTROL DETAILS CAN BE FOUND ON SHEETS 16 AND 17. 60 00 0 60 120 SCALE: 1• . 60' CRY of fort CoIllns, Colorado UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: aty G CHECKED BY: Wltr k Ramos. UMny a S �N uN 30 d MFf re.l 4'•� r^1, y UWCoo ~ w O V DO <la•IL'I �i1 ml0 0� Z 0 5 K o a Z ZU U O O N O W N CNEMED BY: W swmwtr unity Dfe. J a CHECKED BY: v.e• A Rwntkn mle CHEO(ED BY: SHEET 10 OF 20 Tram[npFer pone I CHECKED BY: JDB N0. REV. Gets 9177.07 0