Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 07/27/2001•, ••- Y OF' ECE1 /,Ueqkl1ate244447 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions - Lot 32 Prospect Industrial Park J J R ENGINEERING 1 1 1 1 1 t FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions - Lot 32 Prospect Industrial Park Prepared for: DCB Construction Company, Inc. 909 East 62°d Avenue Denver, Colorado 80216 (303) 287-5525 Prepared by: JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Road, Suite 190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)491-9888 December 22, 2000 Revised April 11, 2001 Revised July 6, 2001 Job Number 9287.00 1 July 6, 2001 1 1 Mr. Basil Harridan City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 ft) J•R ENGINEERING A Subsidiary of Westrian RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions. IDear Basil, 1 1 1 We are pleased to re -submit to you for your final approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions, a zoned I-G, General Industrial, site located in Prospect Industrial Park. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, JR ENGINEERING Preparedly, 4�7�D4 'AQ-M David Holloway Design Engineer I attachments 1 Reviewed by, 0 REGjS�, �••oy�.K10��F9�Q C David W. Klockeman .•'�� Division Manager"''•v� YONALVN t2620 Fast Prospect Road, Suite 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-491-9885 •Fax: 970-491-9984 • www.jrengineering.com TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TRANSMITTAL LETTER............................................................................................................. i ' TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ ii 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................1 ' 1.1 Project Description..........................................................................................................I 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics...........................................................................................I ' 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report ..........................................................................................I 1.4 Design Criteria................................................................................................................1 1.5 Master Drainage Basin....................................................................................................2 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE................................................................................2 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN..:::.::::::.......::::::..::::::..::..............................3 3.1 Method ............................................ 3 3.2 General Flow Routing .......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .........3 ' 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan ..................................................................................................4 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions ...........................................5 ' 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS....................................................................................................6 4.1 Allowable Street Capacity...............................................................................................6 4.2 Storm Sewer System.......................................................................................................7 5. EROSION CONTROL...........................................................................................................7 5.1 Erosion and Sediment Control Measures........................................................................7 5.2 Dust Abatement...............................................................................................................8 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets.........................................................................................8 5.4 Maintenance....................................................................................................................8 ' 5.5 Permanent Stabilization..................................................................................................8 7. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................10 ' Appendix A: Maps and Figures Appendix B: Pond Calculations Appendix C: Street Capacity Calculations t Appendix D: Pipe and Inlet Calculations Appendix E: Erosion Control ' Appendix F: Reports by Others 1] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Description Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions is a proposed storage facility located on Lot 32 in Prospect Industrial Park. The site is located in the Poudre River Drainage Basin and contains approximately 3.23 Acres. The site is zoned I-G, General Industrial. The proposed site is located at the southwest intersection of Midpoint Drive and Sharp Point Drive. The project is a portion of Section 20, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. A location map is provided in Appendix A. 1.2 Existing Site Characteristics According to the "Soil Survey for Larimer County Area, Colorado" (USDA) soils for onsite and off site basins include: Caruso loam (22) & Loveland clay loam (64). The Caruso series consist of deep, poorly drained soils that formed in alluvium. The Loveland series consist of deep somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in material weathered from alluvium. The characteristics of the Caruso clay loam and Loveland clay loam include slow runoff and slight erosion. The site is within the moderate wind erodibility zone according to the Wind Erodibility Map for the City of Fort Collins. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Report This report defines the proposed drainage and erosion control plan for Midpoint Self Storage Solutions. The plan includes consideration of all on -site and tributary off -site runoff and the design of all drainage facilities required for this development. This drainage plan is consistent with the design concepts of the Prospect East Industrial Overall Drainage Plan. (Stewart & Associates, 1978) Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 1 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 1 1 L 1.4 Design Criteria This report was prepared to meet or exceed the submittal requirements established in the City of Fort Collins' "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), dated May 1984. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual" (UDFCD) dated 1984, developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments have been utilized. 1.5 Master Drainage Basin Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions lies in the Poudre River Drainage Basin. There is no City of Fort Collins master plan for the Poudre River Drainage Basin and detention is not required for this basin. However, releases from the site must not cause negative impact to downstream drainage facilities and adequate conveyance must be shown from this site to a major drainage outfall. 2. HISTORIC (EXISTING) DRAINAGE f The historic (existing) flows for Lot 32 consist of the flows from the site and some offsite flows from the northwest. The drainage pattern for the property is via overland flow in a southeasterly and northeasterly direction at approximately 1 percent slope. The site has a very good ground cover of native grasses and weeds. An existing 1' trickle pan conveys ' flows from the back of Lots 24-32 to an existing borrow pond. This trickle pan was designed by James H. Stewart & Associates and approved in June 1978. Lots 24-31 are upgradient ' from Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions (Lot 32). The capacity of the existing trickle pan & swale, at Lot 32, for the 100-yr event is 88.8 cfs as calculated by Stewart & Associates. The ' front drainage of lots 24-31 are directed to release into Midpoint Drive which in turn discharges into the same existing borrow pond via a drainage ditch on the south end of the Midpoint Drive and Sharp Point Drive intersection. Presently, Lot 32 has 7 lots upstream contributing to these calculations. Of these 7 lots, one ' is presently being developed, two remain undeveloped, three have existing development which have provided on -site detention, and two existing developments have provided no 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 2 ' Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 1 I 1 L L 1 L L 1 11 detention. The resultant runoff coefficient for the 17.54 acres of rear lot drainage is C=0.30. The resultant runoff coefficient for the 8.25 acres of front lot drainage is C=0.35. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the area, the site lies out of the 100- YR Floodplain. The site is shown on a portion of the FIRM Map Panel No. 0801020012C in Appendix A. 3. LOCAL DEVELOPED DRAINAGE DESIGN 3.1 Method Since the subbasins are less than 160 acres, the Rational Method was used to determine both the 2-year and 100-year runoff rates for the sub -basins indicated in this drainage report. Drainage facilities were designed to convey the 100-year peak flows. A detailed description of the hydrologic analysis is provided in Section 3.4 and Appendix B of this report. 3.2 General Flow Routing Flows within this site will take the form of overlot, gutter, and pipe flow. The proposed drainage patterns from the Prospect East Industrial Overall Drainage Plan have been maintained as much as possible. Stormwater Detention is not required or provided for Lot 32 because it is in the Poudre River Basin. A storm sewer system will be designed to carry peak 100-yr flows from the front of Lot 32 and proposed Lot 33. This system is being provided because Midpoint Drive does not have capacity to convey the 2-year runoff (see Appendix C).. Water Quality will also be provided. The proposed drainage facilities for this site consist of proposed sump inlets, swales and drainage pipes. The northern portion of the site (front of lot) will sheet flow to a curb cut at the northeast corner of the lot and into a water quality pond. A proposed storm pipe will then carry the storm water from the water quality pond at the southeast corner of the site to an existing borrow pond approximately 350' east of Lot 32. The southern portion of the site Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 3 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 I 7 7 11 1 (back of lot) will sheet flow to a proposed water quality pond which will release into an existing V trickle pan and swale which has a 100 year capacity of 88.8 cfs as designed by James H. Stewart & Associates in June 1978. The rate of runoff at Design Point 4, the southeasterly corner of Lot 32, is 40.1 cfs, which is less than the trickle pan and swale capacity of 88.8 cfs. 3.3 Proposed Drainage Plan A qualitative summary of the drainage patterns within each sub -basin and at each design point is provided in the following paragraphs. Discussions of the detailed design of drainage facilities identified in this section are included in the following sections. Runoff from Subbasin 101 will be conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow to the water quality structure located at Design Point (DP) 1. This storm flow will be conveyed via storm pipe to the existing borrow pond east of the site Runoff from Subbasin 102 will be conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow to a proposed water quality structure located at DP 3. Flow will be conveyed from DP 3 via storm pipe and gutter flow to the existing trickle pan and swale in the rear of the lot. Flow will join that from sub -basin OS-3 and discharge into the existing borrow pond to the east of the site. Subbasin 103 encompasses the front of Lot 33, which is owned by the developer of Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions. Subbasin 103 was delineated and a connection to the storm sewer was provided for future development of Lot 33. Runoff from Subbasin 103 in the future will be conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow to the storm sewer manhole at DP 5. This storm sewer has been sized to carry developed peak flows from subbasin 103. From here, flow will be conveyed via 24" storm sewer pipe to the existing borrow pond east of Lot 33. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 4 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 1 I H 1 [l 1 Runoff from Subbasin 104 is conveyed via sheet and gutter flow to Midpoint Drive where it will then travel down the gutter of Midpoint Drive to the intersection of Sharp Point Drive where a drainage ditch will carry the flows into the existing borrow pond east of the site. The 2-year historic runoff rate for the front portion of Lot 32 is 0.24 cfs. The 2-year release rate for subbasin 104 is 0.20 cfs. Therefore, the flow releasing onto Midpoint Drive from Lot 32 has decreased. Runoff from Subbasin OS-1 is conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow and was calculated to determine the capacity of Midpoint Drive. Runoff from Subbasin OS-2 is conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow to Midpoint Drive, DP 2. The flow at DP 2 was used to check the capacity of Midpoint Drive. Runoff from Subbasin OS-3 is conveyed via sheet flow and gutter flow to the existing trickle pan and swale which Subbasin 102 will combine with at DP 4. The flow at DP 4 was used to check the capacity of the existing trickle and swale in the rear of the lot. 3.4 Hydrologic Analysis of the Proposed Drainage Conditions The Rational Method was used to determine both 2-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 = CrCIA (1) where Q is the maximum rate of runoff in cfs, A is the total area of the basin in acres, Cr 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, C„ is 1.0 for the initial 2-year storm and 1.25 for the major 100- year storm. The runoff coefficient is dependent on land use or surface characteristics. The rainfall intensity is selected from Rainfall Intensity Duration Curves for the City of Fort Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 5 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 1 1 I� 1 7 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 t'=tt+t, (2) where tc is the time of concentration in minutes, t; 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: t, = [1.87(1.1 - CCr)Lo.51/(S)0.33 (3) where L is the length of overland flow in feet (limited to a maximum of 500 feet), S is the average slope of the basin in percent, and C and Cf are as defined previously. All hydrologic calculations associated with the sub -basins shown on the attached drainage plan are included in Appendix B of this report. A summary of these calculations for the basins is included in Table 3.1 below. Table 3.1 Drainage Summary Design Point Tribubry &6-Wsin Area (ac) c(2) c(1q c(10a) tc(2) Orin) te(10) (min) tc(100) (nin) o(z)tot (ds) GOO)tat (ds) g100)tot (ds) DR41NAGE STFWCnRE IRBAARK.S OS-1 7.55 0.47 0.47 0.5B 21.7 21.7 21.7 5.4 925 23.7 2 062 8.25 0.35 0.35 0.44 21.6 21.6 21.6 4.5 7.67 19.6 1 101 1.36 0.88 0.8B 1.00 81 at 5.0 3.2 a43 13.5 Pb ndAV\Q 3 102 1.76 0.80 0.80 1.00 7.3 7.3 5.0 3.5 6.03 17.5 PtndBM OS-3 17.54 0.30 0.30 0.38 24.4 24.4 24A 7.6 13.02 33.2 LWjwn Owe 4 102+OS3 19.30 0.35 0.33 0.41 24.4 24A 24.4 9.2 15.70 40.1 Rear s%de flans 5 103 1.56 0.91 0.94 1.00 11.9 5.0 5.0 3.0 7.14 15.5 Lot 33 dp,%dcped 6 104 0.12 0.74 0.74 0.93 9.8 98 5.0 0.2 0.34 1.1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 6 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 [1 11 1 1 FI 4. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS 4.1 Allowable Street Capacity The theoretical street and gutter capacity was calculated using Manning's equation for open channel flow. Allowable gutter flows and maximum street capacities for both the initial and major storms were estimated and evaluated based on the specifications set forth in the SDDCCS Manual. At the Northeasterly corner of Lot 32 the 2-year peak runoff rate is 11.7 cfs, which is greater than the capacity of the gutters (9.2 cfs). The peak 100-year runoff rate is 51.4 cfs, which is less than the capacity of the street cross section, 72.64 cfs, at 6 inches over crown, which is allowable flow depth in the 100-year storm for a collector street. Because the 2-year street capacity is being exceeded in the existing condition, flows to the front of Lot 32 are conveyed in a storm sewer to the existing borrow pond. See the street capacity calculations in Appendix C for more detailed information. 4.2 Storm Sewer System For the storm. pipe design, the computer program StormCAD, developed by Haestad Methods, Inc. was used. StormCAD considers whether a storm pipe is under inlet or outlet control and if the flow is uniform, varied, or pressurized and applies the appropriate equations (Manning's, Kutter's, Hazen -Williams, etc). StormCAD also takes into account tailwater effects and hydraulic losses that are encountered in the storm structures. It calculates the losses through an inlet or manhole by allowing the user to assign a coefficient for the equation, hL= K*(V2/2g) Where hL = headloss K = headloss coefficient V = average velocity (ft/s) g = gravitational constant (32.2 ft/s') The storm pipe design was performed for two different scenarios, the first being the runoff from the site into the borrow pond to the east of Lot 33 and the second being for the ultimate build -out of Lot 33 just east of our site. This was done to ensure that the system for this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 7 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 11 1 I II� project will carry the peak flows of Lot 33 when it is developed in the future. The pipe design for the future development is included in Appendix D of this report. 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, straw bale barriers, gravel construction entrances, and seeding and mulch. The measures are designed to limit the overall sediment yield increase due to construction as required by the City of Fort Collins. During overlot and final grading the soil will be roughened and furrowed perpendicular to the prevailing winds. Straw bale dikes will be placed along proposed swales. Erosion control effectiveness, rainfall performance calculations and a construction schedule will be provided with the final report. 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 that has originated from his operations from damaging crops, orchards, cultivated fields, and dwellings, or causing nuisance to persons. The Contractor will be held liable for any damage resulting from dust originating from his operations under these specifications on right-of-way or elsewhere. 5.3 Tracking Mud on City Streets It is unlawful to track or cause to be tracked mud or other debris onto city streets or rights -of - way unless so approved by the Director of Engineering in writing. Wherever construction vehicles access routes or intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles. tracking onto the paved surface. Stabilized construction entrances are required per the detail shown on Sheet 7 of the Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 8 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 I 7 improvement plans, with base material consisting of 6" coarse aggregate. The contractor will ' be responsible for clearing mud tracked onto city streets on a daily basis. ' 5.4 Maintenance All temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control practices must be maintained and repaired as needed to assure continued performance of their intended function. Straw bale dikes or silt fences will require periodic replacement. Sediment traps (behind straw bale barriers) shall be cleaned when accumulated sediments equal approximately one-half of trap storage capacity. Maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. 1 5.5 Permanent Stabilization A vegetative cover shall be established within one and one-half years on disturbed areas and soil stockpiles not otherwise permanently stabilized. Vegetation shall not be considered established until a ground cover is achieved which is demonstrated to be mature enough to control soil erosion to the satisfaction of the City Inspector and to survive severe weather ' conditions. 1 1 1 Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 9 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" (SDDCCS), May 1984. 2. "Final Drainage Report for Lot 15, Prospect Industrial Park", March 15, 1999, Stewart & Associates. 3. "Final Drainage Report for Lots 28 & 29, Prospect Industrial Park", June 23, 1988, Stewart & Associates. 4. "Prospect East Industrial Overall Drainage Plan", June 1978, Stewart & Associates. 5. Soil Survey of Larimer County Area, Colorado. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service, 1980. 6. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated March 1969, and Volume 3, dated September 1992. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Report Page 10 Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions December 22, 2000 APPENDIX A MAPS AND FIGURES 1 I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ........ _...... • PROS EN STREET rr� N I N qP � cl: z Z ,,� cr F SITES i o� DRAKE ROAD RivER ,;1 EA SHWOpD _ __ ,.......'..� ORS }} PRN }}1 VICINITY MAP N. T. S. CACHE LA POUDRE RIVER Boxelder Ditch Diversion Dam FLOODING EFFECTS FROM CACHE LA POUDRE pana.l NO. O60102ooiz.0 ZONE A ,;,I 1] 1 1 1 APPENDIX B 1 POND CALCULATIONS 1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 1 1 1 LW r � Q co 1 V Q QNz I.V 1 1 W Q Z F () H K Q m C 3 N c f0 o co) 0 0 Q 0 O O � r ri N (O ai 10 ai 10 n N (n fh_ o -�t 1n vi � «� p ro N 0) n (O h in O 10 O 0 No m p N d O w V LL) N O f0 N O N O C r O o 'q: V O O u N N o N N O 0 C rto ' a N w O N C r f0 �- M v. Q7 co E N N f0 n N N 01 O O m O O m qt O m O n O a0 O O m a a Nt P7 GO 00 VM lh O) n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C r� to w 0 M M m 0 W a C W .00 N 0 m O M N N F3 H o C � m 0 No N rn m a 1 11 1 J JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 2-YEAR HISTORIC FLOWS LOCATION: MIDPOINT MINI -STORAGE PROJECT NO: 9287.00 COMPUTATIONS BY D. Holloway DATE: Date Recommended Runoff Coefficient from Table 3-3 of City of Fort Collins Design Criteria Recommended % Impervious from Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual Runoff % coefficient Impervious C Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil): 0.10 0 Lawns (average, 2-7%, sandy soil): 0.15 0 DESIGN POINT SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA Ise.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) Length (ft) (4) Slope (%) (5) ti (min) (6) i (in/hr) Q (2) tolls) from Design Point Q (2) (ds) 1 101H 1.06 46,230 240 1.0 27.9 1.53 0.24 2 102H 2.17 94,326 430 0.9 38.7 1.26 0.41 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai) /At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's Q=CtCiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Cr = frequency adjustment factor I = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from IDF curve A = drainage area (acres) 1 9287flow.xls ti=[1.87(1.1-CC1)Lo.5)/S1r3 1 = 26 / (10+ ti)o " RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS & % IMPERVIOUS LOCATION: MIDPOINT MINI -STORAGE PROJECT NO: 9287.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. Holloway DATE: Date 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): Roofs: Lawns (flat <2%, sandy soil): Undeveloped Developed w/Detention Developed w/o Detention Runoff coefficient C Impervious 0.95 100 0.95 90 0.10 0 0.20 0 0.20 0 0.80 100 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 8525 SUBBASIN DESIGNATION TOTAL AREA (ac.) TOTAL AREA (sq.ft) ROOF AREA (sq.ft) PAVED AREA (sq.ft) LANDSCAPE AREA (sq.ft) UNDEV. AREA (sq.ft) DEV.DET. AREA (sq.ft) DEV.NO DET. AREA (sq.ft) RUNOFF COEFF. (C) % Impervious OS-1 7.55 328,878 145,926 37,026 145,926 0.47 44 OS-2 8.25 359,370 80,586 187,308 91,476 0.35 25 101 1.36 59,114 27,196 27,196 4,722 0.88 87 102 1.76 76,651 34,005 29,346 13,300 0.80 78 OS-3 17.54 764,200 256,400 379,000 128,800 0.30 17 103 1.56 68,063 31,530 31,530 5,003 0.89 88 104 0.12 5,261 3,950 1,311 0.74 75 Equations - Calculated C coefficients & % Impervious are area weighted C=E(Ci Ai)/At Ci = runoff coefficient for specific area, Ai Ai = areas of surface with runoff coefficient of Ci n = number of different surfaces to consider At = total area over which C is applicable; the sum of all Ai's 9287flow.xls 11 } N Z O N H Z C W w Z 00 Q V LL Q o N WW L_ Z O a o p II U r m O_ 0. O O ¢ .j a. U 0 N Y Q f W C J Z E LL n co m m a a rn o Z S m H � E v m Iti Y � m � o o y Wp cyi vyi u 7 N N M N m m N O 0 � E� N N m m N N fV J LL m m o a a o 0 w .L _ y W IV fV N O Q m U a m m m m m m m m C c c a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N Q O O O O O O O O F� F N � v W Op W N N a J Y• � � n n n T N O m N N lV th OI � E� N T 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 2'� 1'�! F g ��< � J Q n IT m m m m o m O m m m Y m n o 0 0 0 0 0 o c F- W � Z N N N N m m m n V O ci tO y N Oi O Q � N Z m N m y m ooS oQ o j y z w a N G O e rn N J U U Z Q + ro 11 r a U II II {L io 2 U U LL N O U p C _y a .E �° N N .E M � C ' E a in m u � U o E E E C E 11 � B U)� a§ kk k§ § j \ ( � \s/ @®Ia [ S)6R b ( \ d�� r \/\ / ca. ) & ©© ° :§\»; #{/ k§§§22§5 | •k/ § =2m ! k � �7F §2;0000 /;o /yE �w =e-0 ® § A§k9l79! � �00 2a§� I I I \ \ — OD \ } } 11 ; § kLL kE ca \} 0 / \ 1 1 1 1 oa O zzz¢ U j U O N 0 C4 0 d o Y K w K Q o C a N N O O N N N N z E r. m to ro v v m a O � N Z � E Q r O V Oa m b n 00. 0 11OO t7 N W J _ _ N N Y V N N lCh7 fV _ N U LL o- m � W CI m m N A p V ? N C1 m V U y IN N N N CN'f N W c0 � N N C O Z E O N N N O ry N LL J M t+! O V O 0 W b �- tV H N fV < z > Q = U W m so m m m m fo m p t c£ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 FR' F N W 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 O F L IO aD r t0 N V M O O N O N N M V1 J Q J K � O � III o r m r C N m E 0 0 0 0 0 TIT 2` m � r a J v IN y 0 0 W< li O m z U 0 0 c o o � U v n m m c m 00a00a00 Q_'«U F .U, z F 10 IO m m V 0 t0 N In N M r In In � m N r ei r ci ai o N ? N 0 m W 0 0 m 00 o+ m O U) y z_ z H N m Q N Z O W a N O o � N 2 t � 3 U O ,e LL � jp U 0 C O C N W co E N d C N O 'C m N m o 2 m a c e E ' E U) o 'D Lo co O II 0 0 + J a)C_ > O E U E U) c z E + N II cy II II u W U w 1 1 1 1 1 1 JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 2-Yr Storm) LOCATION: MIDPOINT MINI -STORAGE PROJECT NO: 9287.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. Holloway DATE: Date 2 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER ITOTAL REMARKS Design Point Tributary Sub -basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (inthr) Q (2) (CIS) from Design Point Q (2) (cfs) Q(2)lot (CIS) OS-1 7.55 0.47 21.7 1.54 5.43 5.43 2 OS-2 8.25 0.35 21.6 1.54 4.49 4.49 1 101 1.36 0.88 1 6.1 2.65 3.18 3.18 3 102 1.76 0.80 7.3 1 2.50 3.53 1 3.53 OS-3 17.54 0.30 24.4 1.44 7.63 7.63 4 102+OS-3 19.30 0.33 24.4 1.44 9.20 9.20 5 103 1.56 0.94 11.9 2.07 3.04 3.04 6 104 0.12 0.74 9.8 2.24 0.20 0.20 92878ow.zls Q=CfCiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Cf = frequency adjustment factor i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) i = 24.221 f (10+ tc)°" JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 1 0-Yr Storm) LOCATION: MIDPOINT MINI -STORAGE PROJECT NO: 9287.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. Holloway DATE: Date 10 yr storm, Cf = 1.00 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Design Point Tributary Sub -basin A (ac) C Cf tc (min) I (inmr) Q (10) (ds) from Design Point Q (10) (ds) Q(10)tot (cfs) OS-1 7.55 0.47 21.7 2.63 9.26 9.26 2 OS-2 8.25 0.35 21.6 2.64 7.67 7.67 1 101 1.36 0.88 6.1 4.53 5.43 5.43 3 102 1.76 1 0.80 7.3 4.27 6.03 1 6.03 OS-3 17.54 0.30 24.4 2.46 13.02 13.02 4 102+OS-3 19.30 0.33 24.4 2.46 15.70 15.70 5 103 1.56 0.94 11.9 3.54 5.18 5.18 5 104 0.12 0.74 9.8 3.83 0.34 0.34 Q=CfCiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient Ct = frequency adjustment factor i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins OF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) i = 41.44 1 (10+ tc)" 9287now.xls JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190 Fort Collins, CO 80525 RATIONAL METHOD PEAK RUNOFF (City of Fort Collins, 100-Yr Storm) LOCATION: MIDPOINT MINI -STORAGE PROJECT NO: 9287.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. Holloway DATE: Date 100 yr storm, Cf = 1.25 DIRECT RUNOFF CARRY OVER TOTAL REMARKS Des. Point Area Design. A (ac) C Cf tc (min) i (inthr) Q (100) (cfs) from Design Point Q (100) (cfs) Q(100)tot (cfs) OS-1 7.55 0.58 21.7 5.38 23.65 23.7 2 OS-2 8.25 0.44 21.6 5.39 19.60 19.6 1 101 1.36 1.00 5.0 9.95 13.53 1 13.5 3 102 1.76 1.00 5.0 9.95 17.51 17.5 OS-3 17.54 0.38 24.4 5.03 33.24 33.2 4 102+OS-3 19.30 0.41 24.4 5.03 40.09 40.1 5 103 1.56 1.00 5.0 9.95 15.55 15.5 6 104 0.12 0.93 5.0 9.95 1.10 1.1 Q=CiA Q = peak discharge (cfs) C = runoff coefficient i = rainfall intensity (in/hr) from City of Fort Collins IDF curve (4/16/99) A = drainage area (acres) i = 84.682 / (10+ tc)o.�75 92878ow.xls I 1 FJ Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility POND A Project Name: Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions Project Number: 39287 Company: !R Engineering Designer: David Holloway Date: 10/25/00 1. Basin Storage Volume A) Tributary Area's Imperviousness Ratio (i=1,/100) B) Contributing Watershed Area (Area) C) Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) (WQCV = 1.0 ` (0.91 ` i3- 1.19 `i2 +0.78i) ) D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12 Area 1.2 2. Outlet Works A) Outlet Type (Check One) ' B) Depth at Outlet Above Lowest Perforations (H) C) Required Maxiumum Outlet Area per Row, (Ao) (Figure EDB-3) D) Perforation Dimensions (enter one only) ' i) Circular Perforation Diamter OR ii) 2" Height Rectangular Perforation Width E) Number of Columns (nc, See Table 6a-1 for Maximum) ' F) Actual Design Outlet Area per Row (Ae) ' G) Number of Rows (nr) H) Total outlet Area (Aot) ' 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: At = 0.5 . (Figure 7 Value) ` Aot 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. J 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) Page 1 1, = 90 % i = 0.9 A = 1.36 acres WQCV = 0.40 watershed inches Vol. = 0.05 ac-ft x Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: H = 1.7 ft Ao = 0.13 square inches D = 318 inches, OR W = inches nc = 1 number Aa = 0.11 square inches nr = 5 number Aot = 0.55 square inches At = 18.7 square inches x < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: WW., = 3 inches HTR = 18.4 inches x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter) Other: x 0.139" (US Filter) Other: 3/4 inches #156 VEE H vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) 3/8" x 1.0" flat bar D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): 1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) W = inches ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc=W+12") W. � = inches iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) Wepening = inches from Table 6b-1 iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = inches v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H) KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum (Describe if "other) Other: vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP inches Grating). Describe if "other" Other: vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio (WV) 5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1D) acre-feet B) Surface Area acres C) Connector Pipe Diameter inches (Size to drain.this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides yes/no 6. Two -Stage Design A) Top Stage (DvvQ = 2' minumum) Dwo = 2.1 feet B) Bottom Stage (DBs = Dwo + 1.5' min, DWo + 3.0' max. Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV) C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of 0.5*Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet) D) Total Volume: Vol,et = Storage from 5A + 6A + 66 Must be > Design Volume in 1 D 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other") Storage = 0.06 acre-feet DBs = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Depth = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Vole, = 0.06 acre-feet Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) x Native Grass _ Irrigation Turf Grass Other: Page 2 I 1 1 1 Design Procedure Form: Extended Detention Basin (EDB) - Sedimentation Facility POND B Project Name: Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions Project Number: 39287 Company: 1R Engineering Designer: David Holloway Date: 10/25/00 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 ' i2 + 0.78i) ) D) Design Volume: Vol = WQCV/12Area 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 (Ao) ' G) Number of Rows (nr) H) Total outlet Area (A,,) ' 3. Trash Rack A) Needed Open Area: A, = 0.5 " (Figure 7 Value) " Ao, B) Type of Outlet Opening (Check One) ' C) For 2", or Smaller, Round Opening (Ref: Figure 6a) 1) Width of Trash Rack and Concrete Opening (W� c) 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) 1 ' Page 1 1, = 80 % i = 0.8 A = 1.76 acres WQCV = 0.33 watershed inches Vol. = 0.06 ac-ft x Orifice Plate Perforated Riser Pipe Other: H = 2.1 It Ao = 0.12 square inches D = 318 inches, OR W = inches nc= 1 number Ao = 0.11 square inches nr = 6 number Ao, = 0.66 square inches A, = 22.4 square inches x < 2" Diameter Round 2" High Rectangular Other: Wconc = 3 _ inches HTR = 23.2 inches x S.S. #93 VE Wire (US Filter) Other: x 0.139" (US Filter) Other: 3/4 inches #156 VEE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 vi) Type and size of Holding Frame (Ref: Table 6a-2) 3/8" x 1.0" flat bar D) For 2" High Rectangular Opening (Refer to Figure 6b): ' 1) Width of rectangular Opening (W) W = inches ii) Width of Perforated Plate Opening (Wconc=W+12") Ww c = inches iii) Width of Trashrack Opening (Wopening) Wopem,q = inches from Table 6b-1 iv) Height of Trash Rack Screen (HTR) HTR = inches v) Type of Screen (based on Detph H) KlempTM KPP Series Aluminum (Describe if "other) Other: vi) Cross -bar Spacing (Based on Table 6b-1, KlempTM KPP inches Grating). Describe if "other" Other: vii) Minimum Bearing Bar Size (KlempTM Series, Table 6b-2) (Based on depth of WQCV surcharge) 4. Detention Basin length to width ratio 3.66 (LIW) 5. Pre -sedimentation Forebay Basin - Enter design values A) Volume (5 to 10% of the Design Volume in 1 D) 0.005 acre-feet B) Surface Area acres C) Connector Pipe Diameter inches (Size to drain this volume in 5-minutes under inlet control) D) Paved/Hard Bottom and Sides yes/no 6. Two -Stage Design A) Top Stage (Dwo = 2' minumum) Dwo = 1.7 feet B) Bottom Stage (DBs = D,No + 1.5' min, Dwo + 3.0' max. Storage = 5% to 15% of Total WQCV) C) Micro Pool (Minimum Depth = the Larger of 0.5"Top Stage Depth or 2.5 feet) D) Total Volume: Voltot = Storage from 5A + 6A + 6B Must be > Design Volume in 1 D 7. Basin Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit vertical) Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 8. Dam Embankment Side Slopes (Z, horizontal distance per unit ver Minimum Z = 4, flatter preferred 9. Vegetation (Check the method or describe "other") Storage = 0.05 acre-feet Des = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres Depth = feet Storage = acre-feet Surf. Area = acres VOltot = 0.055 acre-feet Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) Z = 4 (horizontal/vertical) x Native Grass —Irrigation Turf Grass Other: Page 2 I LOCATION: PROJECT NO: COMPUTATIONS BY SUBMITTED BY: DATE: WQ Vob WQ Vol- Pond A & B Proposed Water Quality Pond MIDPOINT MIN -STORAGE 39287.00 D. Holloway JR ENGINEERING 10/25/00 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 POND A Stage (ft) Surface Area (ft) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 88.3 404 89 1302 0.01 0.01 90 2054, 0.04 0.05 I I6PU7-3 Stage (ft) Surface Area (ft) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 89.6 75 90 525 0.00 0.00 91 1 1580 1 0.02 1 0.03 „91.7 2320, Oa 03 0.06 9287WQ-VOL.xls DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL (V.3) STRUCTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1 1 1 1 1 1 10.0 A 4.1 2.1 1.( ZCD 0.6( w, m m a� 0.4C E d 0.2( U ca Q 0.1 C W. 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 1 EXAMPLE: DWO = 4.5 ft WQCV = 2.1 acre feet SOLUTION: Required Area per Row = 1.75 in? I EQUATION: WQCV a= K 40 in which, K40=0.013DWQ+0.22DWQ -0.10 11v I Z O� h� A//// Qr Oe ' J� c�F 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.20 0.40 0.60 1.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 Required Area per Row,a (in.2 ) FIGURE EDB-3 Water Quality Outlet Sizing: Dry Extended Detention Basin With a 40-Hour Drain Time of the Capture Volume 9-1-99 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 5-43 Orifice Plate Perforation Sizina Circular Perforation Sizina Chart may be applied to orifice plate or vertical pipe outlet. Hole Dia (in) • Hole Die (in) Min. So (In) Area per Row (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 0.25 0.50 0.75 5 8 0.625 3 0.31 0.61 0.92 11 16 0.688 3 0.37 0.74- 1.11 3 4 0.750 3 0.44 1 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 B 1 1.125 1 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 4.06 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 6.28 9.42 n = Number of columns of perforations Minimum steel plate thickness 1/4 • Designer may interpolate to the nearest 32nd inch to better match the required area. if desired. Rectangular Perforation Sizing Only one column of rectangular perforations allowed Rectangular Height = 2 inches Rectangular Width (inches) = Required Area per Row (sq in) 2" Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Drainage Criteria Manual (V.3) F1w OetaCedwq Rectangular Hole Width Min. Steel Thickness 5" 1 4 6" 1 4 7" 5/32 " g" 5/16 " 9" 11 /32 " 10" 3/8 >10" 1 /2 " Figure 5 WQCV Outlet Orifice Perforation Sizing I 1 1] L 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 O enin W.o.., 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. l < 2.00 21 in. 24 in. 27 in. 30 in. 30 in. 1 Table 6a-2: Standardized WQCV Outlet Design Using 2" Diameter Circular Openings. US Filterrm Stainless Steel Well -Screen' (or equal) Trash Rack Design Specifications. Max. Width of Opening Screen #93 VEE Wire Slot Opening Support Rod Type Support Rod, On -Center, Spacing Total Screen Thickness Carbon Steel Frame Type 9" 0.139 #156 VEE '/," 0.3l' '/,'k1.0"flat bar 18" 0.139 TE .074"x.50" 1" 0.655 '/,"x 1.0 angle 24" 0.139 TE.074"x.75" 1" 1.03" 1.0"x 1%2"angle 27" 0.139 TE .074"x.75" 1" 1.03" 1.0"x 1'/2"angle 30" 0.139 TE .074"x1.0" 1" 1.155" 1 '/,`x 1'/2"anle 36" 0.139 TE .074"xlA" 1" 1.155" 1 '/,`k 1'/2"angle 42" 0.139 TE .105"xl.0" 1" 1.155" 1 '/,`k 1 %2" angle 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-1 with an outlet opening diameter of 0.75 inches (i.e., rounded up from 5/8 inch actual diameter of the opening) and the Water Depth H = 4 feet (i.e., rounded up from 3.5 feet). The minimum width for each column of openings is 6 inches. Thus, the total width is W = 36 = 18 inches. The total height, after adding the 2 feet below the lowest row of openings, and subtracting 2 inches for the flange of the top support channel, is 64 inches. Thus, Trash rack dimensions within the mounting 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'/I' x 1.0" welded carbon steel frame. ' Table 6a No Text Water Quality Pond Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing LOCATION: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS PROJECT NO: 39287 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. Holloway SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 10/25/00 top of berm Equation for flow over a broad crested weir Q = CLH32 'I b where C = weir coefficient = 3 4 spill elevation H = overflow height ♦— —� L = length of the weir The pond has a spill elevation equal to the maximum water surface elevation in the pond Design spillway with 0.5 ft flow depth, thus H = 0.5 ft Size the spillway assuming that the pond outlet is completely clogged. Pond B Q (100) = 12.2 cfs (peak flow into pond) Spill elev = 91.90 ft = WQ Volume Elevation Min top of berm elev.= 92.66 Weir length required: L= 12 ft Use L = 15 ft v = 1.57 ft/s spillway, SPILLWAY-B.As I Water Quality Pond Emergency Overflow Spillway Sizing LOCATION: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS PROJECT NO: 39287.00 COMPUTATIONS BY: D. Holloway SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING DATE: 10/25/00 C top of berm Equation for flow over a broad crested weir Q = CLH�2 where C = weir coefficient = H = overflow height L = length of the weir 3 b 4 ♦ spill elevation ' The pond has a spill elevation equal to the maximum water surface elevation in the pond Design spillway with 0.5 ft flow depth, thus H = 0.5 ft Size the spillway assuming that the pond outlet is completely clogged. Pond A Q (100) = 13.5 cfs (peak flow into pond) Spill elev = 90.50 ft = 100-year WSEL Min top of berm elev.= 91.66 Weir length required: cfs (peak flow into pond) L= 13 ft Use L = 15 ft v = 1.61 ft/s 1 ' spillway, SPILLWAY-A.xls I APPENDIX C STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS 11 [] 1 1 �J E 1 I 1 1 1 ' a ad. d a 1 1 1 1 1 d ll LO 0 m n mi mN m f0 O d N n o m C0 tM N d N fM C>O C ;U 0 E 0) m o d 0i r N J CO m co aD co a0 3 S ' V O a m o m c r LO ) C> GoGo co m W C O W a E cni 0) uNi J M co n = co co co W O CD cD n v v v 7 LO 0) m E mC_ n o O C H o, O O v OD E C O 10 f0 m o co n vi N y GD CD 00 H> >V OD O O n_d vvv W m rn y oni co 0 n NN v U d � U o 21 N N_ v a d 0) O O FS d LO n O N ` nC N M O O O O C (q .... O O O O U O O O _ 6 V d v O J � N .0 o E u Z co C N U V U d U) O N N th d a d N M d d a Z 0 c u cm E O N a 0 3 0 CO U n m 0) o d m w C � 'm � v � c Q V N co O y O r N O d � ova a is o I I I I I I I / 2 I / I I I I I I I 0 � 7/& §2CL L:0 § M E)¥ 4« � § /k« 0 m ■ \ / e )> OD % < 3 ' OD ) E {§« i o a ; 2 E� _ {2 \a£ ju E k �\ f�3 ` 3 17 C.) f CL ) a� k \k 5Ln f §e� 7 0. i ; am ID ;/ E )0) 2$ }\a. #) aaN {J% r00% 0)�;, a. x IL I I 1 APPENDIX D PIPE AND INLET CALCULATIONS 1 �1 t 1 11 JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 10/25/00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LOCATION: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS ITEM: STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS - MIDPOINT DRIVE COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING Note: Design flows and street capacities are given for one side of the street unless otherwise indicated Des. Street Name Roadway Slope 2 yr Design flow meets 100 yr Design flow meets Width (%) Capacity Q(2) criteria? Capacity 0(100) criteria? Point (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) 1 Midpoint Drive 40 0.4 9.20 13.30 no 72.64 57.90 yes 9287STCAP40.xls 4 of JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 10/25/00 LOCATION: Midpoint Self -Storage Solutions ITEM: STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS - Midpoint Drive COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING Minor Storm Design in accordance to "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" City of Fort Collins, May 1984. Street with 40' Roadway, vertical curb and gutter no curb topping, flow may spread to crown of street calculate for channel slopes from 0.4% to 7% Theoretical Capacity. use revised Mannings eq. Allowable Gutter Flow. Q=0.56*Z/n*S112*yam Qall =F*Q where Q = theoretical gutter capacity (cfs) F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2) Z = reciprocal of cross slope (ft/ft) Qall = allowable gutter capacity (cfs) n = roughness coeff. S = channel slope (ft/ft) Q = Qa - Qb + Qc y = depth of flow at face of gutter (ft) Section A Section B Section C Z = 12.0 ft/ft Z = 12.0 ft/ft Z = 50.0 ft/ft n= 0.013 n= 0.013 n= 0.016 y= 0.50 ft y= 0.33 ft y= 0.33 ft Both sides of ctraat S as Qb QC Qtotal F Qall Qall 0.40% 5.15 1.70 5.76 9.20 0.50 4.60 9.20 0.50% 5.76 1.90 6.44 10.29 0.65 6.69 13.38 0.60% 6.31 2.08 7.05 11.27 0.80 9.02 18.04 0.80% 7.28 2.40 8.14 13.02 0.80 10.41 20.83 1.00% 8.14 2.69 9.10 14.55 0.80 11.64 23.29 1.50% 9.97 3.29 11.15 17.83 0.80 14.26 28.52 2.00% 11.51 3.80 12.87 20.58 0.80 16.47 32.93 3.00% 14.10 4.66 15.76 25.21 0.72 18.15 36.30 4.00% 16.28 5.38 18.20 29.11 0.60 17.47 34.93 5.00% 18.20 6.01 20.35 32.54 0.48 15.62 31.24 6.00% 19.94 6.59 22.29 36.72 0.40 14.69 29.38 7.00% 21.54 7.11 24.08 38.51 0.34 13.09 26.18 r CL 9287STCAP40.xls 1 of 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 LOCATION: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS ITEM: STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS - MIDPOINT DRIVE COMPUTATIONS BY: DRH SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING Major Storm (100-yr) Design in accordance to "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards" City of Fort Collins, May 1984. Street with 40' Roadway, vertical curb and gutter - collector street depth of water over crown not to exceed 6", buildings shall not be inundated at the ground line calculate for channel slopes from 0.4% to 7% Theoretical Capacity: use Mannings eq. Allowable Gutter Flow: Q=1.486/n'R'*S12*A Qall =F*Q where Q = theoretical gutter capacity (cfs) F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2) n = roughness coeff. Qall = allowable gutter capacity (cfs) R= A/P A = cross sectional area (ft) Q = Qa + Qb P = wetted perimeter (ft) S = channel slope Section A Section B A = 14.13 ft2 A = 7.02 ft2 P = 20.50 ft P = 27.00 ft R = 0.69 ft R = 0.26 ft n = 0.016 n = 0.035 Both sides of efroof S Q. Qb Qtot F Qall Qall 0.40% 64.94 7.70 72.64 0.50 36.32 72.64 0.50% 72.60 8.61 81.21 0.65 52.79 105.57 0.60% 79.53 9.43 88.96 0.80 71.17 142.34 0.80% 91.84 10.89 102.73 0.80 82.18 164.36 1.00% 102.68 12.17 114.85 0.80 91.88 183.76 1.50% 125.75 14.91 140.66 0.80 112.53 225.06 2.00% 145.21 17.22 162.42 0.80 129.94 259.88 3.00% 177.84 21.09 198.93 0.72 143.23 286.45 4.00% 205.35 24.35 229.70 0.60 137.82 275.64 5.00% 229.59 27.22 256.81 0.48 123.27 246.54 6.00% 251.50 29.82 281.32 0.40 112.53 225.06 7.00% 271.65 32.21 303.86 0.34 103.31 206.63 F C L L I� 26.5' 2 I� 18 � �F 9287STCAP40.xls 2 of 0.5' 0.36' 0.17' 10/25/00 ' JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 10/25/00 • Area A = (6")'(1,/12")(20') + (2"/12)'(2')'(1/2) + (4.32"/12)`(2') + (4.32"/12)'(18')'(1/2) = 14.13 sq. ft. ' Area B = (26.5')"(6.36/12)'(1/2) = 7.02 sq. ft. t 11 [1 [1 ' 9287STCAP40.xls 3 of 4 I APPENDIX E EROSION CONTROL 1 � � § I q CL /ƒ////cu C. ƒƒ£CL ±�%% 7772f)f ]22)§§§ � \\\\}\\ whey\%% \\\}\1 � CL ffffX/rb , wwRw�_@ /\§§§C LO k � 2 a ��2»oe�=oo k - §§§U)§M§ Of / LL LLLL $ LL \ CD ]$%\§§77§ 22 ƒ CL - § CD ° () % >�\§-t'i5oo S \ _ / 0 25 �kks �kW2"2CoO% § /Ef$ »a% � 2 \ / Z, [2 �o E£ aa0 - -_m _ @ 3 ## f)/$f =EES222E22 �j kC § kG §{\`-.}2£2222/22 / / 0 ° y ( - - /k2k \.§ /\1 2\ 66(§§3) 2■0« > co« >(1) \ƒ wl _ \� () * �� zE q8 «K )/ 1 §5 ° F2 > k g r za o \ (�. §$/ 2, � 2�CCC?LO Gn EE G - QwwQm } § � � � ; k§ / ƒ co E § Ch 7 £gam Ira > } } / . ) * \ / \ } \ 2 2 0 Q , 2 ( 2 ± § « 2 /k3{L 2 ■ . = o o §ocm 7 k{Ek .e�,� e % e e a ■ 2� o■ Qm,,, §§oo� // 0 < )}� o o ki it M #? §/9 \ � _ k=ter $ � 9 ] £ Ln m C\i Ito ) ~ a � E� /aw § a 0 -j \ k 1 1 1 1 LU 111 J F O z O U U zg O H U O U Irn^1 � V LL O N z 00 0 C g ,^ V LL W U 0: U) J W z U Z qa �_ a w 0:o -) f c i I fN O y ) C N rn rn 0 C a) � O > N N � w � >oU.) 3 n ui u n OBI O ♦� U t v0, 2N w O 'O cri v c co C U co a) w 4 -0 U a) U r ai ° -o 01 O N N E 3 N y W @ m Q y u u u o ?CEO c v O U E w o C(rD UL w .-. N � Q I « J i+ I 11 .w.. Q C O D OA ° r ccc u '� CL LL N w N CYIO co fs L :). i lL O t6 CL L J a) " a CL ° c i .0) Jv LL fLOa a J v l f a R o $ . DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL n 4C 0 0 K14 RIPRAP ENEENEEMEM MEN VAA 0 FE AVA • • L 4 i /D .b .t3 t Use Do instead of D whenever flow is supercritical in the barrel. **Use Type L for a distance of 3D downstream. FIGURE 5-7. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT CIRCULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT I7 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL X0 RIPRAP 001AFEE ENEE MEN No MAE 0 ONE HIMAN HIEWMEMEMEN 0� .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0 Yt/H Use Ho instead of H whenever culvert has supercritical flow in the barrel "Use Type L for a distance of 3H downstream. FIGURE 5-8. RIPRAP EROSION PROTECTION AT RECTANGULAR CONDUIT OUTLET. 11-15 -82 URBAN DRAINAGE S FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL B = Expansion Angle moldw i .ice .1 .2 .3 A .5 .6 .7 .8 TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt/D RIPRAP FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 7 6 m 0 N5 4 z 3 0 0 z x 2 W rol RI PRAP 0 = Expansion Angle 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0 TAILWATER DEPTH/CONDUIT HEIGHT—Yt/H FIGURE 5-10. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR RECTANGULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE B FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 1 a. 1 RIPRAP Z O H U W I'- O ct a Z O 53 W W J O Z O U c0 IA W C7 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE 5 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE Table 5-1 CLASSIFICATION AND GRADATION OF ORDINARY RIPRAP Riprap Designation % Smaller Than Given Size Intermediate Rock d* 50 Dimension By Weight (Inches) (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 100 30 50-70 P4 35-50 18 18 2-10 6 Type VH 100 42 50-70 33 35-50 24 24 2-10 g *d50 = Mean particle size ** Bury types VL and L with native top soil and revegetate to protect from vandalism. 5.2 Wire Enclosed Rock Wire enclosed rock refers to rocks that are bound together in a wire basket so that they act as a single unit. One of the major advantages of wire enclosed rock is that it provides an alternative in situations where available rock sizes are too small for ordinary riprap. Another advantage is the versatility that results from the regular geometric shapes of wire enclosed rock. The rectangular blocks and mats can be fashioned into almost any shape that can be 11-15-82 PAGE 23 ' 1 0 1 D Ol C c --- o I C Q to Ln Ln , L+'I M g q q q 1 I C I C� 0l Cl Cl C C O 00 C 1 , I I 1 1 C• 1 C' v- C C Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln 1 I C l q Cl Cl Cl Ol CT Dl C1 Cl Cl 1 1 I C T C T C O C 1 ' I C I C' cc co CC Cc C cO , cf c1• to Ln In 1 1 Ih I qqq COq Cl" 0.: CO COCOq CC COCOCD M co 1 1 I I I I C 1 f\ q q q 01 Ol Cl 01 Ol Ol Cl Ol IT Cl 0+ m Cl al Cl Cl I I I 1 I N j M cY co c C ct Q- V' C' � 1' tT V, C C V C I ' CO q M co CO coq cc co co q q q CO cO q COCOq q I 1 , I O 1 CM Ln t0 t0 LO t01� n f� ^nn1\ n f\ I"I, f"q CO CO qqq , 1 . I I O I cC g q N q q� C c c t c t C V C' cl- Q C< c 2. � 1 I 1 M M Coco g q q q m CO co OO q cO OJ OO qqqq I , 1 C I CC M cY In Ln Ln LD to IO LD tD 1, n 1�I�I�f�f 1�1�1�q qq I . C 1 I . O 1 Ol 1 MCct ct ctCCtY �. <C- Q'cf-Q C C'c. '*. C I g M q q q q q q q M q q q q q q q CO q q q CO qqqq I O 1 O 1 tD O N M ct Cf Ln to to Ln t0 t0 t0 t0 IO to t0 t0 UO I g q q q q coHCC CCOO CO co q q q OaC q q CO CO q q q q q q q q cocq i 1 1 O I cY CT .ti N M M C C ct Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LD 4,0 t0 t0 t0 t0 1� I N 1 Z 1 n 1 cn COCO ct qqco CO CC cc cY CY V ctCCCcf�ct ct c}'���. r. cY ci' 1 ' J i COq qqqqqqq q q q CC M M M q co co q q q q I O 1 O LD CO O .-I .-+ N N M M M M ct cf < � � � C. cf In LO LO to LO to 1 U 1 tD 1 MMMG`cY 'ct V ct a'� c}'�C�cCCC V'ct�C'cY�ct ct 1 1 I co MM M CO co co co cc co co co q q qq GJ q q OO q W co M q co 1 F 1 1 CDI C U. CV Lf! f� CO Cl . ..� "..-. N N N N N M M M M M 'ct lL 1 cr . 1 vin 1 N M M M M M C 1 COqqqqqqqqqq co coOc, co CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO q CO COCD t a- LO1 d 1 W 1 U- I C) - t .--I q'"IM C'lii Ln tD t01� 1� 1\ CO CO qq CC q CI m 01C C 000 I OI J 1 N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M CM M M Q � V.. �, I ' i N qco co qq MOO qq co co LC c, CO co CO V,ggq 1 W 1 1 1 O t0 Ln CO 0.-+NM a'C Ln Ln Ln l0 t0 LD to tO I�I�I�t�ggqCl CT I Q I C 1 �' 1.--1NNMMMMMMM M M MMMMMMMMMMMMMM 1 Q 1 qqqqqqqqqq co OO co CO c0 co co CO co CO CO co CO co qq 1 ' f- 1 Ln I .--I.--I Ln I-qO C.-INN MM M �C'��C- Ln Ln Ln to tD to r� V1 1 I I W I M I .--I N N N N M m M M co M M M M M (n M M CO M M M (n M M M 1 U I I co co OC CO co co CC macoOO co co coOD CO cO 00 q OO co co co co co CO CO Q I O ; Cl N t0 CO Cl C .--INNMMM ct ctP � c� Ln Ln Ln Ln tO tO lD to I ' O i M ; OOO M qqqq q co CJ ONO Coco. ON0 OO CO CO CCO ONO COONO ONO COCO qqqq I lL I l2') 1 qLn CINM�Ln t0^^nq O. q .ON CT000000 1 O.' I I . C. ' W 1 N 1 ON C 0 .--1 .-+ .-y .-1 .--1 .--1 �--1 .--1 e-1 r-1 N N N r-..-. p ..--. . . . 1 0' 1 1 I�ggq gJ�gq coNNNNNN I I I g q q q q q q q q q q. q q q q q I 1 O I Mtn OM tOtb Cb ClOC�r"I ""I r'+'-INNNNMMMMMM 1 1 I I N I q Cl O O CD O O O O 1 I�1\gggq,wco MM qqqq qq M qqqqqqqqq I ' 1 I to I Co N q .a C �;I\ r- q Cl Cl O O .--I ry ...I .r '-I N N N m M M M M 1 . I .--I I tO q q Ol Cl C1'CT Cl Ol Cl Cl O O O O O O O O O O C O 0 0 0 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 n I 1� M MOD q q coq q qqqqqqq 1 I 1 O 1 t0 MO ct n Cl C.y NM M ct cY Ln Ln Ln Ln tD t0 b t0!-,n t0 to t0 1 ' 1 I 1 a r L D 1� 1� 0000 q q q CO CO g q q q q q q q q q q 0000 1 1 1 I Ln 1 CTO c7-tD II- gf�f�l� to t0 tO Ln ACM MNN CI LO �.r ON LD 1 1 . 1 1 O I O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N .--I .--I .-I ,--I O O 1 ' f\nf� n n 1 1 3 1— , I O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 Cl CD 0 0 0 0 1 I CD2=LL i OO O � LO kOO CD O^ CoCCON p O C\jO 00 Lon tor^CD O M CD On O Lon O LC O Lon O 1 I J 1 N N M M c t' v t n I TABLE 5.1 ' �I 1 JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 RAINFALL PERFORMANCE STANDARD EVALUATION PROJECT: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS STANDARD FORM A COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 03-Jul-01 DEVELOPED ERODIBILITY Asb 1Ab Ssb At • LI At - Si Lb Sb PS SUBBASIN(s) ZONE (AC) (Fr) (%) (FT) (•/,) (•/,) 101 MODERATE 1.36 465 1.1 632.4 1.5 102 1.76 475 1.0 836.0 1.8 103 1.56 335 1.0 522.6 1.6 104 0.12 255 1.6 30.6 0.2 OS-1 7.55 2110 0.5 15930.5 3.6 OS-2 8.25 2095 0.5 17283.8 3.8 0&3 17.54 2600 0.6 45604.0 10.1 Total 38.14 80839.85 22.51 2120 0.6 73.4% ' Ash = Sub -basin area Lsb = Sub -basin flow path length Ssb = Sub -basin slope Lb = Average flow path length = sum(Ai Li)/sum(Ai) ' Sb = Average slope = sum(Ai Si)/Sum (Ai) PS is taken from Table 8-a (Table 5.1, Erosion Control Reference Manual) by interpolation. An Erosion Control Plan will be developed to contain PS% of the rainfall sedimentation ' that would normally flow off a bare ground site during a 10-year, or less, precipitation event. 1 1 1 l F� Erosion.xls I ' JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 11 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 03-Jul-01 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%) 0.06 1.00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (I-C*P)*100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) 101 1.36 ROADS/WALKS 0.62 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.62 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.11 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.47 NET P-FACTOR 0.76 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 = 64.2% 102 1.76 ROADS/WALKS 0.67 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.78 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.31 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.46 NET P-FACTOR 0.76 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 = 65.0% 103 1.56 ROADS/WALKS 0.72 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.72 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.11 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.47 NET P-FACTOR 0.76 EFF = (1-C*P)*100 = 63.9% 104 0.12 ROADS/WALKS 0.09 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 0.03 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.02 NET P-FACTOR 0.80 EFF = (1-C*P)*100 = 98.2% ' EROSEFFECTIVENESS.xis ' JR Engineering 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 I 11 PROJECT: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 03-Jul I EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH (S = 1-5%) 0.06 1.00 FROM TABLE 8B STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) OS-1 7.55 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 7.55 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.80 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 = 95.2% OS-2 8.25 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 8.25 Ac. GRAVEL FILTER, SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.40 EFF = (1-C*P)*100 = 97.6% OS-3 17.54 ROADS/WALKS 0.00 Ac. ROUGHENED GR. 0.00 Ac. STRAW/MULCH 17.54 Ac. SILT FENCE NET C-FACTOR 0.06 NET P-FACTOR 0.50 EFF = (1-C*P)* 100 = 97.0% TOTAL AREA = 38.14 ac TOTAL EFF = 92.8% ( E (basin area * eI11 / total area ' REQUIRED PS = 73.4% Since 89.5% > 73.4%, the proposed plan is o.k. 1] 1 IEROSEFFECTIVENESS.xls 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE STANDARD FORM C PROJECT: MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS COMPLETED BY: DRH DATE: 03-Jul-01 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. MONTH 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 f 8 9 10 11 12 Demolition Grading Wind Erosion Control: Soil Roughing Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant Other Rainfall Erosion Control Structural: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Straw Barriers Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete Paving Other Vegetative: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/MatsBlankets Other BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: DEVELOPER VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: TO BE DETERMINED BY BID DATE SUBMITTED: APPROVED BY LARIMER COUNTY ON: EROSEF F ECTI V EN ESS.xis, 7/3/01 U ~_ w to J d COD GO D IT M M O LL li O LL w Z O � U 0 N O N O N O N 0 N O N O N 0 w LL LL OQQ U W L) LLJ 0 O O O LO O M G U) c C 0 M O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O C w 00 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 V i. 2 M rn 0 0 0 0 0 w Q LLJ O O O O O O O O O IO O O O • l7L Q O O O O O O O O GD O t+1 V h W O Q Z0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CJ �i M GOD• co (n LL LL LL Z w Do U 001 O 001 O g O T O q O q O q O LL (D O z Q 0 LL J N t0 co I� N f� O O O O O O O O Q m O O O O O C O LL LL Z w D O � U rn O rn O g O q O rn G m G q O JQ LL V LLI 0 N f0 f0 N 1� O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O C G O O a o v ON) m 0 t00 t0 cn t0 �• N LO co co N M o M U) M v O v ((O Q� Q W LL O O H a w O0 U Q co n 0 o � r` N Gd z O QN LL. 0 Q O O O O 000 M O w W 0 (D tO 0 T c 0 to a) 7 (a C C co C O U C Cl) w N •U a) d N a) M N Q O w c N U X W a) c L to OD 0 � � Y N m x co 3 3 CD o LL � a) � L OD 0 Cl) a) E y 0 O. ? E 0 N N T 0 U 7 O o d O � W r� N � a E U. p W co o a v r 0 O Z U O O v M M 0 O O O O O O O K v m o o O W C 04 rn Go Go Z a N v Go Q r N O QQ G W N M o QN coo r M >O C rn m v W co Q 0 to 7 N W a OuK M O M y Q C M IO Z g Y J � _ C Q M N 0 O a Q N N M M O W rn O Cl) C O N O Q N M M J q Q y O O 0 �++ N O f0 O M Q O N O M M h J _ O F z z O H ~ — N C?m Z O O O O 6 0 w m 0 � O O O 7 N W SLOPE & PATH I 1 Basin Area OvedandPath length GutterPath length Path Length Overland slope Gutter slope Avg. slope 101 1.36 45 420 465 1.0 1.1 1.1 102 1.76 45 430 475 1.0 1.0 1.0 103 1.56 10 325 335 1.0 1.0 1.0 104 0.12 205 50 255 1.0 4.0 1.6 OS-1 7.55 260 1850 2110 1.0 0.4 0.5 OS-2 8.25 220 1875 2095 1.0 0.4 0.5 OS-3 17.54 400 2200 2600 1.0 0.5 0.6 SUBBASIN(s) (1) Area (ao) (2) C (3) Length (tt) (4) Slope M (5) ti (min) (6) Length (tt) (7) Slope M (8) 101 1.36 0.88 45 1.0 1.3 420 1.1 102 1.76 0.80 45 1.0 1.3 430 1.0 103 1.56 0.94 10 1.0 0.6 325 1.0 104 0.12 0.74 205 1.0 4.7 50 4.0 OS-1 7.55 0.47 260 1.0 15.6 1850 0.4 OS-2 8.25 0.35 220 1.0 18.3 1875 0.4 OS-3 17.54 0.30 400 1.0 27.1 2200 0.5 Page 5 JR Engineering, Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 MIDPOINT SELF -STORAGE SOLUTIONS EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE JOB NO. 9287.00 COMPLETED BY: EROSION CONTROL MF.ASURFS K ni M DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COST E11 SILT FENCE LF $ 3.00 880 $ 2,640.00 GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANC EACH $ 500.00 2 $ 1,000.00 RESEED/MULCH ACRE $ 650.00 0.3 $ 195.00 COST $ 3,835.00 CTTI RFSF.FDrrgn COST ITEM DESCRIPTION UNITS UNIT COST QUANTITY TOTAL COST 1 RESEEDULCH /M ACRE $ 650.00 3.2 $ 2,080.00 $ 2,080.00 TOTAL COST $ 3,835.00 TOTAL COST WITH FACTOR OF 150% $ 5,752.50 I Erosion.xls [1 APPENDIX F REPORTS BY OTHERS L 1 1 1 J I STEWART&ASSOCATES Consulting Engineers and Surveyors June 23, 1988 Mr. Glen Schlueter ' Drainage Engineer Storm Drainage Utility City of Fort Collins P 0 Box 580 ' Fort Collins, CO 80522 Dear Glen: ' a ' This letter is the revised storm drainage report for Lots 28 and 29, Qrospect Industrial Park, City of Fort Collins, Colorado. The site is located ' on Midpoint Drive approximately 750 feet Southeasterly of the Larimer County .detention Center. It is in the Cache la Poudre River drainage basin. The site .is zoned I—G, General Industrial and is being reviewed as such. 1 1 1 1 The lots will be graded so that they will drain both to the front of the ...lot and to the rear of the lot from the middle of the lot. All the lots on the Southwesterly side of Midpoint Drive will probably be graded in a similar fashion. The fron half of the lot drains Northeasterly to the Midpoint Drive curb and gutter. The rear half of the lot drains Southwesterly to a grass Swale along the drainage and utility easement. Both Midpoint Drive and the grass Swale drain Southeasterly to the existing pond that lies between Lot 34, Prospect Industrial Park and the City of Fort Collins Waste Water Plant No. 2. Because of the close proximity of the Prospect Industrial Park to the Cachle la Poudre River, onsite storm water detention has not been required. However, due to the fact Midpoint Drive will overtop in a ten year storm, onsite detention is being provided for the front half of Lots 28 and 29. Probably, similar detention will be provided on other lots as they develop. The runoff calculations for each basin for the 2 year, 10 year and 100 year storm are enclosed as a part of this report. The rational method was used for these calculations. Also, the calculations for the swale and Midpoint Drive curb and gutter are enclosed. A reduction of the grading plan prepared by Thorp Associates is also attached. It is Sheet A-11 of 16 sheets. If you have any questions regarding the storm drainage plan. for this project, please call. t 1km 1 James H. Stewart and Associates, Inc. 214 N. Howes Street P.O. Box 429 Ft. Collins, CO 80522 303/482-9331 Sincerely, 62,4 "CL a. clav4l� Richard A. Rutherford, P.E. & L President oPR� p. RUTHF9% 5028 ='k• •*z /10IIZH / `\` \`�\ � \%N Oki / i i I ,� II 1 1 1 i � 1 1 1 / I 1 r 1 t t i 1 1 ! I11 1 I n i 11 t { { 11 tl u r AO' W. 0 lO' 80' xnlF, I•. qo� LEGEND IN .' - \TYBASIN CRITERIA ANGFF2BERFIC1ENF-___ AREA IN ACRES 1`\ - - - EEIS9NG 5' CWTWR EXI"NG I' CWTWR x° A-RIF sto,cops than Cxxxei RossiSee. OnWckhr 6- me•Ix ie repo WON Of Sauclux s•e Lnum A -A Wg� NO, w,- a m Min, steel plate Use) Saa O o a la thickness - Ile a 0 O O p B cy 0 0 0 0 ° ws ° o 0 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 Overtopping Protection Emergency 5il1way Removable and Lockable for Larger rPoods -\ OVer6ow Grote I EL-90.50 100-YR or Larger Flood Water Surfaces EL-90.00 wOCV Water Surface ` Finished Grade FIOW Control Plate l5as Detall) DailyPlate Outlet abl) Trash Rk apf Plate te ( (If applicable) (See Detail) — _ EL-88.30 pcmp Outet Pipe L=88,00 WO V OUTLET STRUCTURE POND A Overtopping Protection l Emergency 5rPillway 1 Removable and Lockable for Larger oods -\ Overflow Gate EL=91.90 100-YR or Larger Flood Water Surfaces_ _\ EL-91.70 Al Water Surface ` Rnlehed Grade Flo} Control Plate `See Detail) DAS too m Outlet Orifice Trash ea i Plate (if applicable) (See Detoil EL-89.60 FKD x. Outlet Pipe EL-89.31 WO V OLITILIFT STRUCTURIF POND 8 lAMWMONP .eAy , sw nimrn z BY : Removabe and LMoble By WnbmmlmminWNde Section A —A �. cmta Im FI 4 wee ack Attoave BmJ. boding B11A ed Sect -on 13-6 — Plan View Limits for this Standardized Design: 1. All outlet plate openings are circular. 2. Maximum diameter of opening - 2 inches. .U.S. Filter, St Paul, Mlnnesoto. USA one Stainless sArn Now stimm, W (us Fats. an Fwei) Wren D.vs- owo he Section C—C R Value - (net open o ea)/(glass rock area) 0.60 POND A POND B POND INV. ELEVATION we 4988.3 POND INV. ELEVATION — 4889.6 WOCV WATER SURFACE ELEV. — 5D90.0 WOCV WATER SURFACE ELEV. any 4891.7 DWO an 1.7 FIT DWO — 2.1 FT CIRCULAR PLATE OPENING DIA., D an 3/8- CIRCULAR PLATE OPENING DIA., D we 3/8- NO. COLUMN$-1, NO. ROWS - 5 NO. COLUMNS -I, NO. ROWS we 6 Wconc. - 3' Wconc. — 3' HTR an 18.4' HTR we 23.20 st,ItIall state ens w StaNan Star som SrRaven eocartel,.� �•co'n I �o, ntwm llanl Al N VEARE (US FILTER) SCREEN -p. Bar FILTER)H+r J: I IWWNWWNI& L1.. L. 1 PH LiE avow. Rap 3A.. i(- not 3H- O.c. Ber HI Front WOCV Trash Racks: Elevation 1. Welldso IM, trash rocks soiiN beNSt `mesh treat and Shall be attached by mtamlttant we along edge m n g 2, Bar grate trash racks Shall be aluminum and Shall be binteo using Pdnlep steel hardwors. }, Trash Rack widths ore far epeci0ed trash rack mutation Finer well -Screen or mesh size than specified Is acceptable, however. trash rack dimensions need to be adjusted far materials having a different open area/grossarea/gross area ratio In ailue) 4, Structural design of trash sshr rack Moll be based m fall by olta6c head with zero head Outlet Structure N91e57 1. Two atone Shown a mnia led m show d 41 YAYISPm pachoctlm If BAR, Dan add g aembe If �lncluM mom viva Ilan, imneellan peparotim, concrete York, tineanal w m depart m..... yet dudnq Inkn twoon a1 tM,lml epxihvlMw, oe regmeaLlr o an main,,. E tllmale Anyone an Na typicalBe o..11, and ImN hmutlet structures brown UMa M Idwed Memmle el Ne attarshAre M the umue, ]. meby dole dA See Flgum Ilw areas damen Afmmotkno., on the butleam ontm; himerver. onuplumed mustRhIdiom may Rack IY eihRocks, bn wM .n: -same T. ck may am be uxRo A Ismael aedo . mmn Wo nu a Slcpe r Rowmany o tI,y a It l racvee hnmanded. Sue 6 Iw Ira✓. rod mean Inlmmallm. Reform... are made to 2- a lo-p ylmtkn Down He MCCV: hawser diameter 5 di the not may be SeM bar any stw e L aecwlnp to bad III a Whin Must dowana 41H ham Nose Nam umly: m eaaw areas, that me di height of N• 'MC¢ w lowest aririm mmbd at Y-6's of more mown Ns bottom W the an.a.—pool I) woda. Do ra x"Imm � N � Queen CapturedVB,,m. Iate ry the BAY has mina diamned, a) WI a 9m (nee` IIIeve) s m� r by numm] 11 a by a trash an&s w� ,In peog a minimum m F f N arena: almm.mno Noli be Senator N. m.,an o e) Trash .aeids snail FA d Su yd L o dAsual of uo ma mor a+a ,We angnw b non un er e tured heart ania,.- a e m n 191 J City of Fort Collins, Colorado V~j H Ed UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL I APPROVED: City Engins Dab k CHECKED BY: Z water W waW.wm. umlty Dab b a CHECKED By 0 smm.Dter ninny cal. � CHECKED BY: Banco AS Reoeanan Data CHECKED BY: SHEET 7 OF 7 Tram, Enamor. late CHECKED BY: JOB NO. RE' lab 9287.00 0 5CALE: /"•/OOr a ? z W i L \ s \ w d Ss. I �2" 5P�{gCr B 3AZe : 3.+Pa Fv.+r DR d, MiDP wr OR K(�/) SDFn++c.rr %/E.eT CUPr3 B GUTTER I"Bast: Maecw %'; ,ZrvE,e,o Cr, ('a• ^r. r,/,elnMr �,j, a�� ��4 �1�i� a>°TYP ST.PEcT SECTi+�IJ lj6 LGMf&.2 ,qt 4 iN ✓AL VG \ n� U \ 6 y 12 5`ss rz L W ADJUST /37 Nl H:S A NECc' SARY. /VOTE SEE CLK/CR¢YE ENG65eMAM' nlDY6 o 6Nr6T 6, DF B. a J r+ Gr J Y V $�> R vv o�o4n r,15' 4°� S:P� i 4 / af' SAP � P J r i �c �! I Vi -*ft ,- Z x n / WIC GV F.Fi;Nt i B H/FLo r� To 51KA'� — — SECTN/O CUR& C'L/,ee OL/TLET OIDE2 S/OEWALK SCALE:/•= 3+ i u i 6x'/rse'A�.A/Y cw �➢HY//T. AP. d. wrE. /»/ SWEET WUWEE i ST I r Of- z 0 No Text No Text