Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDrainage Reports - 02/13/2004No Text 1 1 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROLSTUDY ' SEVEN OAKS ACADEMY AT RIGDEN FARM ' TRACT B, RIGDEN FARM FILING 1 ' Prepared for: ' Larry Neal Seven Oaks Academy 3513 Richmond Drive Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 ' Prepared by: North Star Design 700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550 ' (970)686-6939 ' Revised November 25, 2003 September 30, 2003 ' lob Number 206-01 1 t North Star design, inc. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 November 25, 2003 Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Stormwater 700 Wood Street Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Seven Oaks Academy at Rigden Farm — Tract B, Rigden Farm Filing 1 Dear Basil, I am pleased to submit for your review and approval, this revised Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Seven Oaks Academy at Rigden Farm (Tract B, Rigden Farm Filing 1). I certify that this report for the drainage design was prepared in accordance with the criteria in the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Manual. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this submittal. Please call if you have any questions. 1 Sincerely, 1 1 I 1 1 Michael Oberlander. P.E.. L.S.I. ii 1 700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, Colorado 80550 970-686-6939 Phone . 970-686-1 188 Fax TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLEOF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... iii 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 Location...................................................................................................................1 1.2 Description of Property... ......................................................................................... I 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS 2.1 Major Basin Description..........................................................................................I 2.2 Sub -Basin Description.............................................................................................2 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA 3.1 Regulations..............................................................................................................2 3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints....................................................2 3.3 Hydrologic Criteria ........................................... :...................................................... 3 3.4 Hydraulic Criteria....................................................................................................3 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4.1 General Concept.......................................................................................................4 4.2 Specific Flow Routing.............................................................................................5 4.3 Drainage Summary .... :..................................................................... .............. ........... 5 5. EROSION CONTROL 5.1 General Concept ..................................... :................................................................ 5 5.2 Specific Details........................................................................................................6 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Compliance with Standards ................. :.................................................................. 6 6.2 Drainage Concept.....................................................................................................6 7. REFERENCES ...........:........................................................................................................7 APPENDICES A Vicinity Map B Hydrologic Computations C Hydraulic Calculations D Erosion Control Calculations E Excerpts from Other Reports F Figures and Tables iii 1. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' 1.1 Location ' Seven Oaks Academy at Rigden Farm is located in southeast Fort Collins. The legal description of the site is Tract B of Rigden Farm Filing 1. This project is located in the ' northwest quarter of Section 29, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, in the City of Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. See the location map in Appendix A. ' The project is bounded on the north by Custer Drive on the west by Illinois Drive, on the ' east by Iowa Drive and on the south by the Timberline Church. 1.2 Description of Property The entire project consists of approximately 2.0 acres of land. Existing streets bound three sides of the development and the Timberline Church is located to the south. There is an existing drainage swale in a 30' drainage easement on the south side of the property. ' Two commercial buildings (daycare facilities) along with parking, drives and playgrounds are proposed. The majority of the site will be built now (Phase 1); the west building and northwest playground will be built in the future (Phase 2). The land ' currently slopes from northwest to southeast at 1%. Both Iowa Drive and Illinois Drive slope north to Custer Drive, Custer Drive slopes to the east and the swale on the south ' property line also flows east. There are no mapped floodplains on the property. 2. DRAINAGE BASINS AND SUB -BASINS 2.1 Major Basin Description The proposed development lies within the Foothills Master Drainage Basin and was ' studied and designed with Rigden Farm Filing 1. No detention is required for the site and all of the flows from this site are designed to flow to Water Quality Pond #2 (within ' Rigden Farm PUD) and then to the Foothills Regional Channel. 1 2.2 Sub -basin Description This site was studied with the design of Rigden Farm Filing 1. The site includes Basin ' 108f, and portions of Basins 108bl, 108b and 108c in the Filing 1 Drainage Report. Basin 108f is designed to flow south into the existing open channel; the other 3 basins are ' designed to flow north to Custer Drive and the existing storm sewer on the south side of Custer Drive. Portions of the Filing 1 Drainage Plan and Report are included in ' Appendix E. . 3. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA ' 3.1 Regulations ' This report was prepared to meet or exceed the "City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual' specifications and the requirements of the Rigden Farm Filing 1 ' Drainage Plan and Report. Where applicable, the criteria established in the "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual' (UDFCD), developed by the Denver Regional Council of Governments, has been used. ' 3.2 Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The runoff from this site has been routed to conform to the requirements of the City Stormwater Department. Detention is not required for this site and water quality facilities are provided in a pond adjacent to the Foothills Regional Channel. - ' The Drainage Plan for Rigden Farm Filing 1 specifies that 1.44 acres of this site flow to the south to the existing swale (Basin 108f) and that the remaining 0.54 acres flow north to Custer Drive (parts of Basins 108b I, 108b, and 108c). ' The layout of the site and the requirements for roof drainage do not allow for the exact acreage split specified in the Filing 1 report. The proposed project will have 0.70 acres flowing to Custer Drive and 1.28 acres flowing to the south (the Filing 1 report splits the flows 0.54 acres and 1.44 acres respectively). It appeared by inspection that the design C value for the north basin would be considerably less than the Filing 1 design, so to determine if the design flow spilt to the north and south was acceptable, the C*A value from the Filing 1 Report was compared to the C*A value proposed with this 2 I 1 1 development: For the area flowing to the south (into the existing swale) the Filing 1 report specified 1.44 acres and the C value of 0.67 (Basin 108f). The C*A value from the Filing 1 Report for the flows to the south is 0.96. With the Seven Oaks design, 1.28 acres is flowing to the south (Basins 1 through 4) with a weighted C value of 0.67. The C*A value with the Seven Oaks project for the flows to the south is 0.86. Because the C values are.the same and the acreage flowing to the south is less than that specified in the Filing 1 Report, the modification to the split was determined to be acceptable. For the area flowing to the north (to Custer Drive) the Filing 1 report specified 0.54 acres ' and the weighted C value was determined to be 0.84 - 15% of Basin 108bl (C=0.76), 66% of Basin 108b (C=0.88) and 19% of 108c (C=0.79). The C*A value from the ' Filing 1 Report for the flows to the north is 0.45. 11 1 1 II With the Seven Oaks design, 0.70 acres is flowing to the north (Basins 5 through 8) with a weighted C value of 0.63. The C*A value with the Seven Oaks project for the flows to the north is 0.44. Because the C*A value is less than the Filing I design, the additional acreage was determined to be acceptable. 3.3 Hydrologic Criteria Runoff computations were prepared for the 10-year minor and 100-year major storm frequency utilizing the rational method. All hydrologic calculations associated with the basins are included in Appendix B of this report. Standard Form 8 (SF-8) provides time of concentration calculations for all sub - basins. Standard Form 9 (SF-9) provides a summary of the design flows for all Sub - basins and Design Points associated with this site. 3.4 Hydraulic Criteria All hydraulic calculations within this report have been prepared in accordance with the M ' City of Fort Collins Drainage Criteria and are included in Appendix C of this report. 4. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN 4.1 General Concept The central and southerly portions of the site (Basins 1-4) will flow overland to the existing Swale on the south side of the site. This swale discharges into the storm sewer ' system described below. There will be minor grading in the drainage easement and swale. A 4:1 slope will tie to the existing swale 3' north of the existing pan. This swale was designed in the Filing 1 plans (Swale I-1) to have a 3' bottom and 4:1 side slopes. The grading proposed will not reduce the design capacity of the channel. ' The northerly portion of this site will drain directly to Iowa Drive, Illinois Drive and Custer Drive; the roof drainage from the east building will be piped to an existing inlet in ' Custer Drive. All of these flows eventually will go to the storm sewer system in Custer Drive. This storm sewer ultimately discharges into Water Quality Pond 2 and the Foothills Regional Channel. The storm sewer was designed for the developed 100 year ' flow. ' 4.2 Specific Flow Routing ' A summary of the drainage patterns within each basin is provided in the following paragraphs. ' Basin 1 includes a small portion of the roof of the west (Phase 2) building. This area will be required to flow to the south and into the proposed parking lot (Basin 2). It will ' discharge into the existing swale on the south side of the site. This channel ultimately discharges into the Custer Drive storm sewer system, Rigden Farm Water Quality Pond 2 and the Foothills Regional Channel. ' Basin 2 includes the west portion of the parking lot and a part of the west building. This area will flow to the southeast to a proposed curb cut and into the existing swale. ' Basin 3 includes the majority of the Phase 1 playground. Because a large part of the playground will have pea gravel surfacing (for safety reasons) it is required that the area ' 4 I ' be extremely flat (0.8% to 1.3%). This shallow slope is provided to minimize the migration of the surfacing and was specified by the owner. This basin will drain to the ' east and south to a curb cut draining into the parking lot and ultimately to the existing channel. Basin 4 includes the east portion of the parking lot and will sheet flow to the southeast to a curb cut and into the existing channel. Basin 5 includes the northwest '/4of the Phase 2 building and the landscape area adjacent to Illinois Drive. This area will sheet flow to Illinois Drive. Illinois Drive flows to the ' north to Custer and the stormwater ultimately reaches the Custer Drive storm sewer system. This storm sewer flows to Rigden Farm Water Quality Pond 2 and the Foothills Regional Channel. Basin 6 includes the Phase 2 playground and the northerly portion of the Phase I ' playground. This area will sheet flow to Custer Drive and then to the storm sewer system on the south side of Custer Drive. Basin 7 includes the Phase 1 building's roof. There are four roof drains that will be piped ' in PVC storm sewer to the existing inlet at the southwest corner of Custer Drive and Iowa Drive. The PVC system has been designed to accept the 100-year flow, but in the event of a failure in the downspouts, the storm flows would sheet flow to Custer Drive and ultimately reach the same storm sewer system. This entire system (including the portion in Custer Drive right of way will be maintained by the owner of the site. Basin 8 includes the landscaped area adjacent to Iowa Drive. This area will sheet flow into the street. Iowa Drive drains to the north to Custer Drive where storm flows enter the existing storm sewer system. ' 4.3 Drainage Summary ' All proposed storm flows will ultimately discharge to the existing storm sewer system to Rigden Farm Water Quality Pond 2 and then to the Foothills Regional Channel. The ' flows from this site will be less than the Filing 1 Design flows. Drainage facilities located outside of the right of way (including the existing channel and proposed roof ' 5 1 LJ ' drain piping) will be maintained by the owners of the property. The portion of the roof ' drain system that is within Custer Drive right of way will also be privately owned and maintained by the property owner. ' 5. EROSION CONTROL 5.1 General Concept ' This site lies within the Moderate Rainfall and Wind Erodibility Zone per the City of Fort Collins Zone Maps. The potential exists for silt movement from the site and into the existing swale and streets. Potential also exists -for tracking of mud onto existing streets ' which could then wash into existing storm systems. The required performance standard for the site is 79.1%. During construction and after final paving and building construction, this figure has been exceeded with the use of silt fence, straw bales and by ' using a construction entrance during construction. ' The erosion control escrow amount is $6,279. ' 5.2 Specific Details To limit the amount of silt leaving the site several erosion control measures shall be ' implemented during construction. Straw bales will be used where appropriate, and all boundaries shall have silt fence installed. A vehicle tracking pads shall be installed at the proposed connection to Illinois Drive to control the mud being tracked onto the existing pavement. During overlot grading, disturbed areas are to be kept in a roughened ' condition and watered to reduce wind erosion. The water quality pond will be used as a sediment trap during construction. ' 6. CONCLUSIONS ' 6.1 Compliance with Standards ' All computations that have been completed within this report are in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites and the Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. Requirements placed on the site related to the ' 6 li� ' new rainfall criteria have been followed. No variances are required for the project. 1 I [1 1 II 6.2 Drainage Concept The proposed drainage concepts presented in this report and on the construction plans adequately provide for stormwater discharge to appropriate conveyance and water quality facilities. If, at the time of construction, groundwater is encountered, a Colorado Department of Health Construction Dewatering Permit will be required. 7. REFERENCES 1. City of Fort Collins, "Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", (SDCM), dated March, 1986. 2. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, "Urban Storm Drainage Criteria Manual", Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2001, and Volume 3 dated September 1999. 3. "Drainage and Erosion Control Report for Rigden Farm Filing One P.D.P." by JR Engineering dated September 30, 1999. 4. "Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for Rigden Farm Filing One" by JR Engineering dated September 7, 1999. 0 I 1 I 1 1 APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP A I 1 1 Hclo � H w ,I, Oqa 3 DRAKE ROAD n CUSTER DRIVE b 8 ' in a p 3 Z o F: 1 / Q O C C U 'pm>j CA I HORSET007H ROAD 1 —1 'I t I 1 VICINITY MAP N TS I 1 I 11 H 1 1 APPENDIX B HYDROLOGIC COMPUTATIONS F3 N O 1 U W rn a � O O � C_ o ° N U f 0 W LL = U Ul i U m W � c U e O m U. z E n N 0 O Z E � c 0: O n Q w D E o ? n O � = E C p o °c' o U t o n j E c J O a a p m Z OZ ¢ Co ro F E E G i E E U O E H H O O 0 w x N J O y O m m N O E � N p .0 J IL U N pI N O) 10 m 10 f�l O N U w a 4 0 � NN H Z N O � 4 U Y m O Q m W = O m ❑ LL Q` O O N o LL a a e t e m v m o m m o m o v . iv uNi n E LZ U w Z � U W Q 5 Ja H o o o^ o 0 o m b r ¢ m O W z m o m O o 0 b 0 P 0 0 0 n ❑ y < m P P O lrV O Y Q Z b O O O N O O M O O O m b m O W A N ❑ Q� Q yNj b. N N P CI O tp N N ❑ Q= o 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 x O Q O J Q W b N b m b m r N b O O a z Z O a m N N N W Q m 0 U H O N `m = c Q y a y N — N U p C U 3 m = w u m c m m 3 N U t ImK_ j J p O Q U U O m N C N L m E 2 `m o mQ .mu p U v_ w U II vU U N d C N O J � U J U w V Q W r Q N � NZ 20 O Q z O W U N Z O U LL O cW G J m Q � 2 W 3 Z y O a U N Y m o m � 0 W C J m LL LL O Q � N � j � m O LL d O 0 A N O A O O O N OI A J N 1(f O OJ N 0 N Ip N � 0 0 V LL d O A O 0 i m C N v m U J � Y N O O O O N O N O O U J n iD N N d� M N MIT V J_ d m N p A d N d N Ol A N N m t7 m N N V ♦ V U E O O C O O (V O O N J LL N O O t7 d W m N N N Ct Z ? Q N Ip O� 1421,42 Ip N O m tp o o O O o 0' p'� O O O coo. O 1 coo. O O O O O O O O k 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n o 0 o N o N o o N N 17 p1 V N W O O N O N O O Y] O O J L d In t7 N m NON 0. N N N C A QW J 1- v O C� t7 N N A fy fp N N fh Oj O1 0 'E O IO m f7 O O O O 0 0 0 O Dh N N O N N N N N O O N 0 O N m N m N N N ft ImI WJ 1 � A A YN] fp d m N A fp fO ep J Q W U m O O O O O O O O O O O O F � Z_ F O N N Imp O (h N O M pl N� Z d m Fn Q m N m m D N N 2 Z N mF N O N f7 d N tp A N N d O m N m U O b LL C LL u m K w$ � w 3Nr N Z N O N U m O N LL m LL Z Q N � LLF, O MOM O O P N O m O O O m V N z � E LL 0 = M 2 m Y N O� N r YI O (OV fG d O CNI p01 2 Qm N Z N u J_ O P P N I� m F y + O O P O ONI O� p 0 0 tm�I OEL 0000caioc poi LL W N O O m P O O m N m M Of ^ OI O 0 f0 0 O m m IO m N m O =q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o o l � 2 w C 858 _ V � � 0�8$8$ N v W ' F p V N N Q N N h m O O b L COI N N W O C l F D n o N O tG m m O O O O O m m P q N" gi gi gi mv �2 Ri gea O p OI 0 b 0 n i( S N m p 0 m n rc � 1 CI F z� o lirv�onrvo mmemin y N cooc000c oo.=o y v $G P m N P 17 I� Q m CI P N m h m �m N = z ti m F J a p LL N G IIE U s LL LL LL 0 w W `1 } Q o W a 0 0 F cW G J Q Z 0 Q E T U n o Q o u U q N z d o° 6 �U Z) O � O W `a J m Q O � N W Z N 0 Q U ` m U m � r U U z z O a E m a z . N O Y O N a Q 3 r o W W a K O N N O N pi N m N C'1 N N 1� Q o r O N O U W 1 p > E rn c p m 'o a � U QL 0 0 0 0 0 N t7 3P o nmm _ � 2 mumimorm momm V N h h N N O i� m N O m O O N n N [O I. O CI m U o 0 0 0 0 0 o c d o 0 0 LL C a z m a s n m h♦ m 4 N 0 r V F J N N W O c m c � a 2 U IL cl U O C N � m U m (T1 m m a2 w � II N � II 11 d U U II rn II Q m of Q LL U o U m I I m d a c d Lii z w U LL 0 LU W Z ' LL LL O� Z Q W } Y Q o w a In O 2 . H cw G J a Z 0 R w" v a N T N' n h II r.. U E } Q � h VI z ?` o U Z:) G o U U 0 F U Q Qom 3W0 Z m OQ a V W Y mo � U a W LL Q �O W n m J � I'' a O Q Q f 0 O_ y `u d' Q W O Y � E0 c rc o � "o t Q a U 0 O N m n m W m W W N O t7 m •G O N - N O Q T W N m T m Of m OI iU m V �� ai aim of W of of ai oim mci U C O O V N O m O O O m V 0 E vi �i of �n W!� vi vi virn n U O T m m m m n m n n n N O O N N O m N m y 6I O n V f0 V m n N W m n N m O Q O N.9 N O l7 O) N n 0 0 coo coo LL LL Q V W dm N O th 1` U W h' 0 N 'p - N M V N m n W N< O m Q a APPENDIX C HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS C I I J t 7 OAKS - 6" ROOF DRAINS FROM BUILDING Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File d:\haestad\fmw\culvert.fm2 Worksheet CULVERT Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Channel Deoth T�F>�7 Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.013 Channel Slope 2.0000% A] s Diameter 6.00 in Discharge 0.70 cfs T� Results Depth 4.4 in Flow Area 0.15 ft' Wetted Perimeter 1.02 ft Top Width 0.44 ft Critical Depth 0.42 ft Percent Full 72.95 Critical Slope 0.014818 ft/ft Velocity 4.56 ft/s Velocity Head 0.32 ft Specific Energy 0.69 ft Froude Number 1.37 Maximum Discharge 0.85 cfs Full Flow Capacity 0.79 cfs qge=-- Full Flow Slope 0.015565 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. loo Roo-, = Z s G '09/25/03 FlowMaster v5.15 11:40:50 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I t 1 1 7 OAKS - 12" ROOF DRAIN FROM BUILDING Worksheet for Circular Channel Project Description Project File d:\haestad\fmw\culvert.fm2 Worksheet CULVERT Flow Element Circular Channel Method Manning's Formula . Solve For Channel Depth Input Data Mannings Coefficient .0.013 Channel Slope 1.0000 % Diameter 12.00 in Discharge 2.50 cfs Results Depth 7.4 in Flow Area 0.51 ft' Wetted Perimeter 1.81 ft Top Width 0.97 ft Critical Depth 0.68 ft Percent Full 61.75 Critical Slope 0.007669 ft/ft Velocity 4.91 ft/s Velocity Head 0.37 ft Specific Energy 0.99 ft Froude Number 1.20 Maximum Discharge 3.83 cfs Full Flow Capacity 3.56 cfs 491 Full Flow Slope 0.004924 ft/ft Flow is supercritical. -]::)P -7 � 4�e rt drQ riS C.®►uc t09/25/03 FlowMaster v5.15 11:41,27 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 1 ' MAX FLOW - 1' CURB CUT Worksheet for Rectangular Channel ' Project Description Project File d:\haestad\fmw\culvert.fm2 ' Worksheet Flow Element CURB CUT Rectangular Channel Method - Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge ' Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.016 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft ' Bottom Width 1.00 ft ' Results Discharge 2.61 cfs PtL. Flow Area 0.50 ft' Wetted Perimeter 2.00 ft ' Top Width 1.00 ft Critical Depth 0.60 ft Critical Slope 0.012617 ft/ft ' Velocity 5.21 Ws Velocity Head 0.42 ft Specific Energy 0.92 ft ' Froude Number 1.30 Flow is supercritical. t 1 `pP 1 '09/25/03 - FlowMaster v5.15 11:44:58 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 MAX FLOW - 3' CURB CUT ' Worksheet for Rectangular Channel ' Project Description Project File d:\haestad\fmw\culvert.fm2 ' Worksheet Flow Element CURB CUT Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge ' Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.016 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Depth " 0.50 ft ' Bottom Width 3.00 ft Results Discharge 10.24 cfs Flow Area 1.50 ft' Wetted Perimeter 4.00 ft ' Top Width 3.00 ft Critical Depth 0.71 ft Critical Slope 0.007013 ft/ft ' Velocity 6.83 fUs Velocity Head 0.72 ft Specific Energy 1.22 ft t Froude Number 1.70 Flow is supercritical. I I DP, 2 3,Z cF5 '09/25/03 RowMaster v5.15 11:45:25 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 I t MAX FLOW - 2' CURB CUT Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File d:\haestad\fmw\culvert.fm2 Worksheet CURB CUT Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.016 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Depth b.50 ft Bottom Width 2.00 ft ' Results a'c Discharge cfs 1.3 Flow Area 1. .0 ft0 2 Wetted Perimeter 3.00 ft Top Width 2.00 ft Critical Depth 0.68 ft Critical Slope 0.008464 ft/ft ' Velocity 6.31 ft/s Velocity Head 0.62 ft Specific Energy 1.12 ft Froude Number 1.57 Flow is supercritical. 1 I I 09/25/03 FlowMaster v5.15 11:45:15 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1 LJ I MAX FLOW - 6' CURB CUT -L�p Worksheet for Rectangular Channel Project Description Project File. d:\haestad\fmw\culvert.fm2 Worksheet CURB CUT Flow Element Rectangular Channel Method Manning's Formula Solve For Discharge Input Data Mannings Coefficient 0.0.16 Channel Slope 0.020000 ft/ft Depth 0.50 ft ' Bottom Width 6.00 ft 1 Results Discharge 22.40 cfs Flow Area 3.00 ft' Wetted Perimeter 7.00 ft ' Top Width 6.00 ft Critical Depth 0.76 ft Critical Slope 0.005525 ft/ft ' Velocity 7.47 ft/s Velocity Head 0.87 ft Specific Energy 1.37 ft ' Froude Number 1.86 Flow is supercritical. IJI 1 I J �ioo= 4CAS ©�L 0 '09/25/03 11:45:38 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 FlowMaster v5.15 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX D EROSION CONTROL CALCULATIONS 0 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT: SEVEN .OAKS ACADEMY SEQUENCE FOR 2003-2004 ONLY COMPLETED BY: MPO STANDARD FORM C DATE: 9/03 Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require resubmitting a new schedule for approval by the City Engineer. 2003 2004 MONTH DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV 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 Veaetative: Permanent Seed Planting Mulching/Sealant Temporary Seed Planting Sod Installation Nettings/Mats/Blankets . Other BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY: VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR: DATE SUBMITTED: CONTRACTOR MAINTAINED BY: APPROVED .BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON: North Star Design, Inc. 700 Automation Drive, Unit I Windsor, CO 80550 EROSION CONTROL COST ESTIMATE LOCATION: SEVEN OAKS ACADEMY PROJECT NO: 206-01 COMPUTATIONS BY: MPO SUBMITTED BY: North Star Design, Inc. DATE: 9/25/03 ITEM IQUANTITY JUNIT COST/UNIT ITOTALCOST Silt Fence 1112 LF $3 $3,336 Straw Bale Barrier 2 EA $150 $300 Gravel Inlet Filter 0 EA $150 $0 Construction Entrance 1 EA $550 $550 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total $4,186 $2,093 $6,279 CITY RESEEDING COST Reseed/Mulch 2 ACRE $615 $1,230 Subtotal Contingency (50%) Total $1,230 $615 $1,845 EROSION CONTROL ESCROW AMOUNT $6,279 Page 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 W U ' Z Q ° Z 1LL w ¢ IL :3 1 L¢L W Z Q cr Q . Q V) N W U 1 Q O i LL - W a J J ' LL Z I 1 0 e y N 4 o P n Q O O � o Z F 6 m ? W N Q � N m ^ Q V r N a a ry W a V cw r a O m z ? O W O O q O ^„ � � 5 O ° " a0 C C C > b . E. -r A W N � In U w N � N e � o � � O C � o o y A c 3 a F c 5 c c ° E c 'w U O 7 ro N L b 'y > > > C 0 0 y W m a 1 EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS - DURING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: SEVEN OAKS ACADEMY - STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: MPO DATE: 25-Sep-03 EROSION CONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD VALUE VALUE COMMENT - BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS/BLDG 0.01 1.00 GRAVEL FILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 ALL BASINS SILTFENCE 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH 0.06 1.00 ESTABLISHED GRASS 0.08 1.00 FROM FIGURE 8-A STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 - 0.80 EFF. = (I-C-P)-100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS _ BASIN BASIN (Ac) So�TH-y z8 .. C=C,28�(o.cca a.-7o >Co ALA- �tLJLC+lE�b, 51 L.;r FG. -b 5714AL0 -9ALF-S �— SF �cg l . p I.ZSxo.sxo.5� OO,70x -70 s- O TOTAL AREA = 1 , ` `6A76 TOTAL EFF = 79 / jJ /a REQUIRED PS= � (60 Page 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS - POST CONSTRUCTION (t✓�� �%S I� PROJECT: SEVEN OAKS ACADEMY STANDARDFORM B COMPLETED BY: MPO - DATE: 25-Sep-03 EROSIONCONTROL C-FACTOR P-FACTOR METHOD - VALUE VALUE COMMENT BARE SOIL 1.00 1.00 SMOOTH CONDITION ROUGHENED GROUND 1.00 0.90 ROADS/WALKS/BLDG 0.01 1.00 GRAVELFILTERS 1.00 0.80 PLACED AT INLETS SEDIMENT TRAP 1.00 0.50 ALL BASINS SILT FENCE 1.00 0.50 STRAW MULCH 0.06 1.00 ESTABLISHED GRASS 0.08 1.00 FROM FIGURE 8-A STRAW BARRIERS 1.00 0.80 EFF=(I-C"P)*100 MAJOR SUB BASIN AREA EROSION CONTROL METHODS BASIN BASIN (Ac) Sock/Tl 0,4o A-c- C- 0.8$ (),O -I-In 40'd$ -�l ,za55/mLXcA /,Zs 1,26 AL� 0,88 o3 (o.03A1)31-10c 97c, o. S3 A C= �0,3?�10,01 40,13YDX C72cSs /Muc-r+ -gyp b.?ofic p.3-7 pc/ P= l TOTAL AREA = I , / O 'M L TOTAL EFF = REQUIRED PS = r Page 1 u APPENDIX E EXCERPTS FROM OTHER REPORTS E DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL REPORT FOR RIGDEN FARM FILING ONE, P.D.P... . September 30, 1999 Prepared by JR ENGINEERING 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Suite 190 Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 (970)491-9888 tPrepared for Wheeler Commercial 1027 W. Horsetooth Road, Suite 200 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 (970) 225-9305 Previous revision dates February 23, 1999 June 2, 1999 August 4, 1999 September 7, 1999 - Job Numbc 9164.03 7 7 ------------------------------------------- UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER ------SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ISER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO..... ........................................ �N DATE 07-30-1999 ,AT TIME 16:00:46 ** PROJECT TITLE: RIGDEN FARM *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 7e� INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 : Qfpe, HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 �� INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 27.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.16 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow STREET GEOMETRIES: depth. STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (%) = 0.70 STREET CROSS SLOPE 00 = 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) = 27.06 S s C(Ou7 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) _ . 0.71 > 0 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 4.00 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 7.49 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(;;)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 35.03 Qioa BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 29.80: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 29.80 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 29.80 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 29.80 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 (2)0 DV2r UOu rx apprOYiwd fd. 44 06r flow Q : c.c. N�� • 'h Q " is . to 4s -Pr0�, kx_ 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- SER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO.. �N DATE 07-07-1999 AT TIME 08:58:09 a ** PROJECT TITLE: RIGDEN FARM i CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: ID - INLET ID NUMBER: 7G INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING - (in)= INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= SUMP DEPTH (ft)= Note: The sump depth is additional STREET GEOMETRIES: 15. 00_ 6.00 27.00 2.00 0.16 depth to flow depth. STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE (°s) = 0.70 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 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) = 15.25 < O S GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.47 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.90 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.49 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR 00 = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW 21.48 (cfs) = 7.19=-Q to (cfs)= 7.19 (cfs)= 0.00 (cfs)= 7.19 (cfs)= 7.19. (cfs)= 0.00 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 -----------7-------------------------------------------------------- USER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO.................„...................� ............ ON DATE 07-30-1999 AT TIME 15:48:40 ioo � y . *** PROJECT TITLE: RIGDEN FARM I *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 8 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 1 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 INCLINED THROAT ANGLE' (degree)= 27.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.16 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL .SLOPE (%) = 0.70 STREET CROSS SLOPE STREET MANNING N (%) = 2.00 0.016 ' GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER.WIDTH- (ft) = 2.00 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 22.75 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.62 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.60 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 5.34 . GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR (%)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR('s)= 10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW 32.96 (cfs)= 19.10- Qrop ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cfs)= 19.10 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD•METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 19.10 FLOW INTERCEPTED (Cf8)= 19.10 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 I ----------------- --------------=-----------=------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDAAULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY CIVIL ENG DEPT. U--OF COLORADO AT DENVER SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD - ISER:JR ENGINEERS-DENVER CO ................................................... �N DATE 07-30-1999 AT TIME 15:47:38 ** PROJECT TITLE: RIGDEN FARM *** COMBINATION INLET: GRATE INLET AND CURB OPENING: *** GRATE INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: 8r, LD � INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. 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 3.00 IS THE INLET GRATE NEXT TO A CURB ?-- YES ' Note: Sump is the additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE M = 0.80 STREET CROSS SLOPE (%) = 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) = 21.06 GUTTER FLAW DEPTH .(ft) = 0.59 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 3.68 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 4.60 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR 06)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 15.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: FOR '3 GRATE INLETS: DESIGN DISCHARGE (cfs)= 17.10 IDEAL GRATE INLET CAPACITY (cfs)= 13.56 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 9.02 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 6.78 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: INLET ID NUMBER: Be - INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 12.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 35.82 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLAW .BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW" FLOW INTERCEPTED CARRY-OVER FLOW *** SUMMARY FOR THE COMBINATION INLET: 0.52 0.45 4.21 (cfs) = (cfs) = (cfs).= (cfs) = (cfs) = (cfs) = 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)= 8.0.8 3.66 4.42 10.32 3.57 6.74 17.10 SQop 9.02 3.66 12 . 68-.}G.Pi�oe 4.42-C/O4m-fig 6.78 3.57 10.36 6.74 1 1 t 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U A J en S 1-1 0 M V ►q i a W J m a C� G U) W a a O m N m m P n >in O) m O N lU CI 17 N � P ri o� b� b c6 m V m n m n OI O n O m n O N 0 m m m rn a rn mN m m OcU� 2 vvPPvvvvv n Q Q O P 0 0 0 0 O g m O M m O O N O) m N Q m M Q M m c m" �UW� m m C+ rn rn rn rn a m P Q< v P< O P Q m n N m 0 0 m N m rn Q m m m m n n n C ms N N N N 0> rn a m m o a, rn w m v < < <.: < v v v o N rc m o P o 0 Q m n m in P P n P N N m Q m 0 J N N N N N N N N m O) O1 m O O) W W m S Q a Q Q a Q Q P v O tO T O O Ol m' N O > O) m t7 Q Ol m t7 tG Q N N N N N N N N N O. ^ m rn m a a m m rn m 7U-,� W v Q Q Q P Q Q P v Y m m m O m Q m m m N N N N N N m a >>S a a m a m m rn < P P Q Q Q Q P Q Q O m m N N t7 O m P N m A m O Q Q O1 m U� (7 (7 m N O P C1 t7 ici ro ri of rn n n n O V N N N W m m O O m m N 0 o rn o o rn m o 0 00 0000000 O O O O O O O O O U d U U U U U U U U U N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U m C C C C H L L L L L U U U U U M m m m t7 N �'1 M N Cl t7 P P Q at T m O O m l�f Q O L Q Q O Q m P m 0 m m 0^ N t7 m O C� m m m T m m m 0 J Q ❑ x d 2 m U 2 CI U m 0 U) m m� m m m 0� a0 N p 0 o 0 O O O O O O y O Q Q m 0 0 0 m U 2 2 n n n m m m m a a a a a a a o a o 0 0.0 o ti y n� i i� N 3 C u Water Quality Ponds - Stage/Storage LOCATION: RIGDEN FARM FILING ONE, PDP PROJECT NO: 9164.03 COMPUTATIONS BY: J. ZUNG SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING, LTD. DATE: 7/2W9 Volume equation: V = 1/3 d (A+ B + sgrt(A'B)) where V = volume between contours, ft3 d = depth between contours, It A = surface area of contour pond inv. WQCV level - Spill elevation - TOB- pond inv. WQCV level - Spill elevation TOB- Proposed Water Quality Pond 1 revised Jim Sell & JPZ 7/23199 Pond 219 - small nond next to channel. east Stage (it) Surface Area W) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 4907.9 0 4908 107 0.00 0.00 4909 2229 0.02 0.02 4910 6783 0.10 0.12 4911 10531 020 0.32 4911.7 13338 0.19 0.51 4912 14541 0.29 0.60 4912.7 17851 0.26 0.86 4913 19270 0.39 0.99 4914 20000 0.45 1.44 Proposed Water Quality Pond 2 - revised JS 7/99 Pond 220 - small pond next to channel. west Stage (ft) Surface Area (ft`) Incremental Storage (ac-ft) Total Storage (ac-ft) 4911.92 0 4913 3712 0.03 0.03 4914 7838 0.13 0.16 4915 16304 0.27 0.43 4916 26103 0.48 0.91 4916.3E44674 0.20 1.11 4917 0.801.72 4918 1.58 2.69 PDPpond.xls,WQ PONDS TR Engineering, Ltd. CLIENT JOB NO. ��L �f� 03 PROJECT _ ' �.... BY:ZfZ CHECK BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET SHEET NOOF _o 2 JREngineering, Ltd. CLIENT---.-. JOB NO.. PROJECTBYa?;?- CHECK BY DATE SUBJECT SHEET NO._ OF z P 1� J I JR Engineering. Led. 2620 E Prospect Rd, Sm. 190, Fort Collins. CO 00529 LOCATION: RIGDEN FARM FEdNG ONE, PDP. ITEM: CHECK OF STREET CAPACITY COMPUTATIONS BY: ALR SUBMTTTFD BY: JR ENGINEERING. LTD. r Nob: Design Bows and at" capacities an given for one side of me street unless otherwise Indicated 6/11/99 Drainage Basin Strom Name Street Type Roadway Width (R) Slope (%) ' 2 yr Capacity (cfs) Design Row 0(2) (ds) meets criteria? 100 yr Capaetty (c/s) Design flow 0(100) We) meets Mterla7 102b urnon Drive Connector 42 0.6 9.02 4.09 yes 76.56 19.70 yes 103 Limon Drive Connector 42 0.6 9.02 4.81 yes 7656 28.60 yes ' 104 Limon Drive Connector 42 0.6 9.02 291 yes 7656 15.40 yes 104a Limon Drive Connector 42 0.6 9.02 299 yes 7656 13.00 yes 107 Timberline Drive' Coepcbr 60 0.8 10.41 1203 no, 42.98 49.80 ro 107a Custer Drive Cosector 60 0.8 10.41 5.43 yes 60.91 22.80 yes 1071, Custer Drive Collector 60 0.8 10.41 8.99 yes 60.91 24.40 yes 107c Custer Drive Collector 50 0.8 10.41 192 ryes 32.62 26.90 .yes 107d Custer Dome Collector 50 0.8 10.41 4.81 yes 35.90 34.10 Yes 1070 Custer Drhm' Collector 50 0.8 10.41 3.44 yes 83.90 29.80 yes 108 Custer Dome Collector 50 0.8 10.41 2.19 yea 31.09 19.10 yes lose Custer Drive Collector 60 0.8 10.41 4.38 yes 55.51 19.80 yes 108al Custer Drive -CLOau lic L Collector ate 60 0.8 2.59 259 yes 60.91 11.10 yes .108b Custer Drive - Collector n to 80 0.6 10.41 3.15 yes 8551 18.30 Yes 108bl Custer Drive -CkPCv (G.cl Collector R P 60 0.8 2.59 1.53 yes 60.91 1150 yes 108c Custer Drive Collectoryr i< 50 0.8 MAI - 2.48 yes 35.90 17.10 yes 107at106a Custer Drive (two sides) Collector 60 - 0.8 20.82 9.81 yes 146.42 42.60 Yes 107ba708b Custer Drive (two aides) Co08c1or 60 0.8 20.82 7.14 yes 146A2 42.70 yes 107ot10Sc Custer Drive (two sides) Collector 50 0.0 20.82 6.40 yes 75M 44.00 yes 107ev108 Custer Drive (evo sides)' collector 50 0.8 20.82 5.63 yes 75.32 46.90 yes 106d Timberline Drive Collector 60 0.8 10.41 1.38 yes 42M 5.10 Yes 110at1100 Ripden Parkrray(trvo sides) Collector 60 2.0 16.47 fah yes 139.78 5.00 yes III Rigden Parkway - Collector 50 0.6 1426 7.81 yes 49.16 4150 yet 112 Rigden Parkway Collector 50 0.6 9.02 1.70 yes 31.09 6.30 yes 113 Denver Drive Res. Local 34 6.0 1424 5.95 yes 26.46 26.80 yes 114 Topeka Lan Res. Local 34 2.4 16.64 5.04 yes 3421 2920 yes 1141, Topeka Lan Res. Local 34 2.0 15.96 3.47 yes 32.06 13.70 Yes 114e Topeka Lane Res. Local 36 2.0 15.98 128 yes 32.86 9.10 yes 115 Topeka Lan (two sides) Ras. Loral 34 3.5 34.66 4.06 yes 71.08 3620 yes 116a Chase Dome 6dt Res. Local 30 0.7 6.38 281 yes 57.87 13.40 yes 116 Topeka Lane Res. Local 34 3.5 1728 329 yes 3554 17.10 yes 116a Des Moines Drive Res. Local 34 1.0 11.30 1.45 yes 2324 6.30 yes 116b Des Moines, Drin Res. Local 34 1.0 11.30 3.89 yes 2324 20.70 yes 117 Custer Drive Connector 40 2.0 _ 16.47 9.44 yes 139.78 48.10 yes 117. Custer Drive Connector 40 3.1 18.08 5.49 yea 146.69 23.90 yes 118 Custer Drive Connector. 40 2.0 16.47 4.44 yes 139.78 19.30 yes 119 Dos Molnes Dr" Conneta Loral 34 2.5 16.60 10.04 yes 103.08 4920 yes 120 Chase Drive Connector Loral 42 1.5 1426 156 yes 121.05 6.70 yes NOTE: - Flow Is coming trom both sides of Mlel >t Colkuk»* w/ Media.vl a.vic� orG eiClO Mcdto-., w( el ec. v 1 cz44 9_ 9164sblcap.xds 1 of I i i 1 JR Engineering, l.ld. 2620 E. Prospect Rd., Ste. 190, Fort Collins, CO 80525 LOCATION: RIGDEN FARM HUNG ONE, P.D.P. ITEM: STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS COMPUTATIONS BY: JPZ SUBMITTED BY: JR ENGINEERING, LTD. r 2-year design storm Design in accordance to "Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards' City of Fort Collins, May 1984. Street with 50' Roadway, vertical curb and gutter no curb topping, flow must leave one lane width (12') free of water across entire street calculate for channel slopes from 0.4% to 7% Theoretical Capacity: use revised Mannings eq. Q = 0.56 -Z/n •S "2 y ao where Q = theoretical gutter capacity (cfs) Z = reciprocal of cross slope (ft/ft) n = roughness coeff. S = channel slope (ft/ft) y = depth of flow at face of gutter (ft) 8111/99 Allowable Gutter Flow. Call =F'Q .- F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2) Qall = allowable gutter capacity (cfs) Q=Qa -Qb+Oc Section A Section B Section C Z = 12.0 Wit 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 street S Q. Qb Qo Qtotal F Qall Qsll 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 2329 1.50% 9.97 3.29 11.15 17.83 0.80 1426 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 3124 6.00% 19.94 6.59 22.29 36.72 0.40 14.69 29.38 7.00% 21.54 1 7.11 1 24.08 1 38.51 1 0.34 1 13.09 26.18 9164stnrap.xis FL 20 ft A ¢ B �- 5ft yb=y,= 0.33 ft ys= 0.5 ft toff JR Erghreeriry. Ltd. 2620 E. Prospect Rd.. Ste. 190. Fat Collins. 00 80525 LOCATION: RIGDEN FARM M ING ONE. P.D.P. ITEM: STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS COMPUTATIONS BY: JPZ SIIBMTCI ED BY: JR ENGINEERING, LTD. 100-year design storm Design in accordance to 'Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards' City of Fort Collins, May 1984. Street with 50' 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 Mann' ings eq. Allowable Gutter Flow: Q=1AWn'R2"'Si2'A Oall=F'Q where 0 = theoretical gutter capacity (cfs) F = reduction factor (Fig. 4-2) n = roughness coeff. Call = allowable gutter capacity (cfs) R = A / P Q = Q.+Q. A = cross sectional area (it) P = wetted perimeter (it) S = channel slope Section A Section B A = 9.83 it' A = 1.96 ft2 P = 25.93 1t P = 14.28 1t R = 0.38 it R = 0.14 it n = 0.016 n = 0.035 Both sides of street S 0, Qe Qt„ F Q,u Qat 0.409A 30.33 1.40 31.73 0.50 15.87 31.73 0.5096 33.91 1.57 35.48 0.65 23.06 46.12 0.600/6 37.14 1.72 38.86 0.80 31.09 62.18 0.80% 42.89 1.99 44.87 0.80 35.90 71.80 1.00% 47.95 2.22 50.17 0.80 40.14 80.27 1.50% 58.73 2.72 61.45 0.80 49.16 98.31 2.009% 67.81 3.14 70.95 0.80 56.76 113.52 3.00°/a 83.05 3.85 86.90 0.72 62.57 125.13 4.00% 95.90 4.44 100.34 0.60 60.20 120.41 5.000/6 107.22 4.96 112.18 0.48 53.85 107.70 6.000/6 117.45 5.44 122.89 0.40 49.16 98.31 7.00% 126.86 5.87 132.74 0.34 45.13 90.26 FL CL 15, . 46' 1.1T. Area A = (0.15')(23') + (2'/12)'(2')'(1/2) + (5.52'/12)'(2') + (5.52'/12)'(23')'(1/2) = 9.83 sq. ft. Area B = (14')'(3.36/12)'(1/2) = 1.96 sq. tt. 916461ncapAS loll • v� I-- 1Y111 1\VI MATCH, CONTOURS SHOWN. ul ' PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF I z o � O � Q J a O } " } w m m m V7 p W 2 p U p Z J W � O 0 z ' z _Z O U _J Z O to City of Fort Collins, Colorado ' UTILITY PLAN AfPROVAL � Q O APPROVED: 10-5-94 L-- W City Engineer Date ,Z old LCKED BY: WA 16 L do Water astewat r Utility Date Q ECKED BY: /01 �f -� Stormwater Utility Date _Z Q ' IECKED BY:-� G', f �- -� 147 -R 7i C F'C4 k RecreationQf Date ECKED BY: It CHECKED BY: 1 Traffic Engineer U J SHEET 23 OF $1 Date 1p.4.il JOB NO. REV. Date 9164.03 0 i�I s n rn Y r I n i AI z O F Olm z z m U W J a mC, 38 x F-- _w W ? J W = ' W {--- — — —d383H w s I o� g. I I 0 O W W Of C-4 N = ig co a_w x<� co m 0 z I osa I �I I 0 IF o O Z O _ m0 N- Q I m Ln CL k<�`L)0 Wdz I J a ----- O d, + F'LAIN LIMIIJ (2.b9 NAINh ALL) . • I FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS MAY VARY, BUT THE OVERALL DRAINAGE PATTERNS MUST BE MAINTAINED. : PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECT SUPERVISION OF 6 z � o O J Q it a .— 0') r r w m m m m J � � U O Z J W a- Z J O 0 Z Z 00 J_ l tr Z O City of Fort Collins, Colorado cn LIMITY PLAN PROVAL Q O APPROVED: low lL. w Cie Engineer Date Z CHECKED BY: A IA' -!as Q Water k Wastewater Utility Date Q CHECKED BY: Stormwater Utility Date Q Q' CHECKED BY: Pa s k Recreation Date CHECKED BY: Traffic Engineer CHECKED BY: U J 0 0 rrA SHEET 27 OF 81 Date /o- `•�+ JOB N0. REV. Date 9164.03 0 ' 3 v ' F O O O H M W r7 ' W Q N W Q d N M m W F /.. ' J Fl U Q � J W Q UO \ \ \ Lj � W Z ` C QC J � � L. U W O G to O� � U v LL !� ZW C a ' o(s) W N (n Z a. s. s. n�n 30 0oao J W _ o U ' n 3 4cZ U a F Q o ' a • Q J cr p -O o 0 a. CU CC U 0 J U U U Q x K r M N M O N p N � � p 'JOB NO. R I9164.03I 0 I C - 3 177 1 L I I I I 11 i Lu C� Y CL LI C> L L.{ 4 S 4 (� O ++ N ���ag`�r'c^;m�m��ii�n ooam���„^;zzzzzzz zzz N N N N b n yy n {p 1 Y N N 4 I\ r� M 0 0 m 0 0 1� n m C2 M N O O y-) O N Y O p� y� ap O p N 0 N �l'1 'N � � � :2 �S? N 1G t() h Vf !� O !� �C � K) � T i(j t� N n OD Oi � r 0 ^ S O< N O I� M 00 O M N O O Cst_ O O M vi E V m CO n O � V 8 0 O O O 8 S 8 O T 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 .- U O M O� I� M �!9 �O O� i('1 I� O f� !� �I f� m OI t0 Of 1� n r r n ^ < tG T CD 0p !- 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U N v O 01 O_ t N O O + O L U C W OI O LD O a 0O t _ " o 0 0 .Yi 2 6Mp'xajptg tB\d I 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I APPENDIX F FIGURES AND TABLES II � I 3.1.6 Runoff Coefficients The runoff coefficients to be used with the Rational Method referred to in Section 32 'Analysis Methodology" can be determined based on either zoning classifications or the types of surfaces on the drainage area. Table 3-2 lists the runoff coefficients for the various types of zoning along with the zoning definitions. Table 3-3 lists coefficients for the different �. kinds of surfaces. Since the Land Development Guidance System for Fort Collins allows land development to occur which may vary the zoning requirements and produce runoff coeffi- cients different from those specified in Table 3-2, the runoff coefficients should not be based solely on the zoning classifications. The Composite Runoff Coefficient shall be calculated using the following formula: C = (ZCjA;)/A, Where C = Composite Runoff Coefficient C; = Runoff Coefficient for specific area A; A; = Area of surface with runoff coefficient of C; n = Number of different surfaces to be considered A, = Total area over which C is applicable: the sum of all A;'s is equal to A, Table 3-2 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS Description of Area or Zoning Coeffiaent Business: BP, BL........................................................................................ 0.85 Business: BG, HB, C.................................................................................. 0.95 Industrial: IL, IP.......................................................................................... 0.85 Industrial: IG............................................................................................... 0.95 Residential: RE, RLP.................................................................................. 0.45 Residential: RL, ML, RP............................................................................. 0.50 Residential: FILM, RMP.............................................................................. 0.60 Residential: RM, MM.................................................................................. 0.65 Residential: RH.......................................................................................... 0.70 Parks, Cemeteries...................................................................................... 0.25 Playgrounds............... _.............................................................................. 0.35 RailroadYard Areas ................................................................................... 0.40 UnimprovedA. eas .................................................................................. .0.20 - Zoning Definitions R-E Estate Residential District — a low density residential area primarily in outlying areas with a minimum lot area of 9,000 square feet. R-L Low Density Residential District — low density residential areas located throughout the City with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet R-M Medium Density Residential District — both low and medium density residential areas with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square•..feet for one -family or two-family dwellings and 9,000 square feet for a multiple family dwelling. R-H High Density Residential District— high density residential areas with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-family dwellings, 9,000 square feet for a multiple family dwelling, and 12.000 square feet for other specified uses. R-P Planned Residential District— designation of areas planned as a unit (PUD) to pro- vide a variation in use and building placements with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet R-L-P Low Density Planned Residential District — areas planned as a unit (PUD) to permit variations in use, density and building placements, with a minumum lot areaof 6,000 square feet. MAY 19S4 3-3 DESIGN CRrrERIA R-M-P Medium Density Planned Residential District — designation for medium density areas planned as a unit (PUD) to provide a variation in use and bulkfing placentertta with a minimum lot area of 6.000 square feet R-L-M Low Density Multiple Family District — areas cornaining low density multiple family units or any other use in the R-L District with a minimum jot area of 6,000 square feet for one -family or two-family dwellings and 9,000 square feet for multple-famity dwellings. M-L Low Density Mobile Home District —designation for areas for mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 6 units per acre. M-M Medium Density Mobile Home District — designation for areas of mobile home parks containing independent mobile homes not exceeding 12 units pgr acre. B-G General Business District — district designation for downtown business areas, including a variety of permitted uses. with minimum lot areas equal to 112 of the total floor area of the building. B-P Planned Business District — designates areas planned as unit developments to provide business services while protecting the surrounding residential areas with minumum lot areas the same as R-M. H-B Highway Business District — designates an area of automobile -orientated busi- nesses with a minimum lot area equal to 112 of the total floor area of the building. B-L Limited Business District — designates areas for neighborhood convenience centers, including a variety of community uses with minimum lot areas equal to two times the total floor area of the building. C Commercial District —designates areas of commercial, service and storage areas. I-L Limited Industrial District —designates areas of light industrial uses with a minimum area of lot equal to two times the total floor area of the building not to be less than 20,000 square feet I-P Industrial Park District —designates light industrial park areas containing controlled industrial uses with minimum lot areas equal to two tunes the total floor area of the building not to be less than 20,000 square feet I-G General Industrial District —designates areas of major industrial development T Transition District— designates areas which are in a transitional stage with regard to ultimate development f For current and more explicit definitions of land uses and zoning classifications, refer to the Code of the City of Fort Collins, Chapters 99 and 118. Table 3-3 �1 RATIONAL METHOD RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS FOR COMPOSITE ANALYSIS . Cheracterof Surface Fha+ofrCoef tat Streets. Parking Lots, Drives: I. Asphalt............................................... ......... ........ ..... .......... ......... 0.95 Concrete......... _.-... _... -............... ... .... .......... .............. ................ 0.95 Gravel_..._......._.._--_ ..... -..... ..... ............................................... 0.50 Roofs.......... -..................... -_.-_--....._................--...._..._...._............... 0.95 Lawns, Sandy Soil: Fiat <2% _.- .............. 0.10 Average2 to 7%...._. ................ _....................... _.._.._..—....... -...... 0.15 Steep>7%............ «......... ....... ....... .... ...................... _.................... 020 Lawns, Heavy Soil: Flat <2^k................................. _......................... --_........................... 020 Average2 to 7%...................... _.......................................................... 025 Steep>7%......................................................................................... 0.35 MAY 19W 3- DESIGN CRtiERIA 61 No Text C6 o4 Fort Go Ili n3 Table 8-1 CAssazG►TSCt4 AM GRAD ►TIM or ORDINA ar RXVRAP - • of Total Weight --" -- 8asl.lar than the stone Size dut Class 6tt 50-70 35 35-50 10 6 . 2-10 <1 70-100 440 Class 12 50-70 275 35-50 85 12 2-10 3 1 100 1275 Class 18 50-70 655 35-50 275 ._. 18 2-10 10 100 3500 Class 24 50-70 1700. 35-50 655 24 2-10 3S Table 8-2 FSPRAP RFQUZ %EmEzz 's *-OR csx,* .L Ljm2,Gstt 1.5 to 4.0 Class 6 Ripr 4.1 to 5.8 p Class 12 Riprap 5.9 to 7.1 Class 18 Riprap 7.2 to 8.2 Class 24 Riprap tOse S; 2.5 unless the source of rock and its densities are know at the time of design. ttTable valid only for Froude number of 0.8 or less and side slopes no steeper than 2h:ly. 1 - - _ _ - -- J Al All .x`JJ J ____________________________ _____ ___________ ____________-_______________________ __ ______ CUSTER DRIVE m MNMx IX. uEp.Vp ro AM` ded Ap ________--_��w� Appy MIMtf tY ROOF M x MIro Mop � EtlSTXO THE R MET. - CpE OaLL NEI MNL ANU NSTIIL F1L 36163. �t __ _ _�. - asi'�� IY FN. M011i RFY/YIMO OPpIwF IEaf➢ - _uu" EX, WEFS i0 E% ONCEaEunx s SIDEWALK M1Aw TO REMAIN _ - -_ _ _ a. --_ __ __- _,--_ -_____ ---- } --___ _-_--___ ___-_ __ __ I _ v.o LIFE 1 O r I VPLAYGROUND F/- r � - - - - - - - 1 \\ • R" CR.W NPNOFENCED PLAYGROUND I Arm°E'"" SEVEN OAKS ACADEMY - - - - PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION j I r FF-4830.40 I REWIRED R60F 1 } t t } I I I DRAINAGE PATIENTS 5 FOR THE BUILDING A 0.0) O81 2'WIN aTAw �I SKWALa MH T LITTLE 6ORNS - a PHASE 2 CCNSTRUCTION osaos2 3 • ( �il I FF-4430.80 ' t IF- Any, Its TIC E . unuTr [SMT. I I I I. i o.oa o.Tz i� l I f. \ I I I A EV S To obxnx ; 1 11 I I \ r I I I 4 'E( I NIP USE mvI awe I I SE: I Sir `SID NBC 1 I aw art 2AIR o .71 NO \ M. acv j o I2PEM°ExMowRE T [ AN I x OFD aFMu lI SF mm IIyARA ED P n I_I I I I p N s TV '° -- --- - - -- - -- a - - -- _ -� -- -_ T -_�- -__ ---_ - - e , I Let DRAM ALE ESMi - l < 1. Andidep .1. down Model rx 1 I I -- r awB NT - O W/ 6- OL L ImRI➢ I I I / 6- SFXf 66pC EN. COHCREIE PAN RR SAM ali D SMAIE ro ISYury TIE TO EXISTING AX,DE W/ s- s' l E RAND w I I I �Y _ NM el aovE MAX, 3 6• H cowl AND ry I I I mTx a E%IanxL PAN Be6• TYPE x BFOaHc I [ PaoPER1r eam.ar OF II ________________________1 V I� _ _ ____ __.�_______________________ _J RAM. a J ��_ _________ _ _ _ _ _ _ N a 0 - K N i 1 I I I I I I I I I CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 6 d Map Up bad ACA�� � May MCI deny - Pad, adbi AM My Mv. 29 iRBY¢&MAR III 1MeRLL Aa+YVlFWL4u m raise AM em s _arental ,tee s.""a'0xaa.w ' x+wNu.wxw.. Mp maFile¢ vlPKlfl Wle.an . gYl� AwNAaaa mtaAcm wen lY on r . va W. NOTES, m 1. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTINGS0 THROUGHOUT c m m THE SITE. O v U sNm 2. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SMALL BE SEEDED AND C O o MULCHED. m qq m y A,a m �§aau •iO L LEGEND 0 Q DESIGN POINT BASIN IDENTIFICATION m 0.80 0. RUNOFF COEFFICIENT (C5) AREA IN ACRES May- FLOW DIRECTION sommus NNNNma• BASIN BOUNDARY O 05 _________________ EXISTING PIPES 5 LOU ® PROPOSED STORM PIPE rc STANDARD EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL CONSTRUCTION PLAN NOTES 6 to. =3 m PROPOSED INLET LOCATION anvil •Me tm nan be naedw n at leabW U-RA1 UV aaaro , <xda any cmnw In tea a e _ _ _ _ _ __ - _ EXISTING 5' CONTOUR 2. Map as w na Il aboday, ins Isola WMANAIN&A m the aawaad Pana . - EXISTING A CONTOUR aap land cloydaring Nobody o 2c > ° x At final N w at the btw9wvp PROPOSED 5- CONTOUR an i ae .°andepap time R the cw � W, MamnaMile lMro<I W wopgYan"wa cm Rae, Wd anim am"cal. O -em 4Nos- PROPOSED t' CONTOUR wrFga C AI W tWM ea N d in i SILT FENCE All 3 O O ne exwromce ION It w() era a. INLET PROTECTION II a N,ating q second q 6. a ♦.saw w. de e ( aR A a li v n np m a It,)Intl rVW� w, And, m ♦in �<0�,(St��; O LAyi{:.y CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE d M y P[�e V'. a P cal Shipswe Nelson No sale on whm, Anew so MAR ase M 9 r p�, leca WWI m"m e ro- (]0 M ypN,. xwIn/ O q p .PO o- Y wo♦m <mvu i.P e. > wprry way/a♦WT ` E RM SALES N o 0 >.. o-da b MMW[e at twa ( ) as A Ne aegnr At a ma (ate - M RIPRAP vo w ae na♦eew (o au" ♦ of WWd w F t'l A. R F MAN u Installed w n° do Aw w ;» R.. , : MIN, me .as wWWedagile;°; 'Her," M aw, .In by a w".m <m,ro t wnree A Ma y ml a a.eIn ne Inca N eaw.la sea do W Gins and w. H tl 1 eq Munn♦ Ann a aonPoe Few Who aqw Rank facilities. A y cm,troctw natWae FWww[y do .°me.N .Id.:r♦. III Raxa lent, w dry AN stale . , N,ene and w at the end o,mm 10 an robF,d A Into Ra Wb Map W Ww ww.ay..ya<a N a,W of a ep 0 in~tl data Myl♦ no N ,YW♦e Add any data, At ,..a 11, ANw wIOU An wa (10) Met nt Amwy w MW Wen,aN ,t WIN, ..ev.."I Winston Ma Dmw� by gMA% daaaP We wen to at M1xFpY 10 Itm4MFp often Z I at (SE) wp WN w w Wd naxaW. J set""And HE .e w w aan OOn w waA<t and m�aw.�Fp u•meF�.•a�a fe ciity/lea. y to Affiawhel OIL Ammychady Ont } J ]. My w @� WIn cad 0ea.vy III sal Iwavl.weenna "d'9' 0 ap. acwtw"FwW "ga ea" .m,Ir.< W �aartant tat n .w,warp. �In to w as m as MIN UJ Of atan dV�of AR an W..t.'n .cmda.c W. Mo.O RaManT xwtl Z ,no W wI✓na:. , Q 0 abet a w wdaaIn an MT to .anwM. Muck cal .N at least ME) Met Iffeby ft. by "y 'Q` 9 wng ANwaaoet'm" =t fie Me unca, a vLL c a ww y deR w al End 20 10 0 20 4:1 Q Z 1°. Ta * [not egn"I @ nw m "WX W F dte me W n Z 0 F t/; � tla w FW unit Ia, a ft dWty Man ,W "e Laaaa W leaA" t. a t>t (MMF MyUpaye SCALE, 1• = 20' Y O o A. ew. Whatter �nmdae Q Of w u� av w. MAIM,x"W°'d I CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION O Cc 0 Fn.<may CENTER OF COLORADO Z Z Me aaaPa Na"t".a.tna n-eW a. dManaW an awto by u, Ctyrca.na"` It. DRAINAGE SUMMARY TABLE BASIN oE51c. AREA ACRES RUNOFF Cm . c C CC Tc (10) MINDOES) 0 (10) 0 0DO) crs 1 0.06 O72 0.90 5.0 02 0.6 2 D.31 O.T1 PONT 5Z 1.0 z.T 3 0.24 0.52 0.65 10.7 IS 1.3 4 Ol LJo 0.87 8.5 1.9 SB 5 0.07 0.61 0.77 5.0 0.2 1 0.6 6 OEM 0.45 0.57 1 8.7 0.6 1 1.5 T 0.25 0.95 1.00 1 5.0 1.2 2.5 6 0.08 0.20 0.25 1 SO 0.1 I 0.1 INAIDINNIFILI If a1987 LLI Q Q > w RE L W 0 OR THE SE 1aa MEMBER UTILITIES. Q Z Q City of Fort Collins, Colorodo Of UTILITY PLAN APPROVAL 0 APPROVED' My E ghwar Om♦ SHEET CHECKED BY: Mute HE W°,be"t„ utity, Date CHECKED BY: r stanedta army Data CHECKED B)y Pak. R Recr♦auW Data 5 OE 7 CHECKED BY: Tdrh Dam, Data IWO NO 206-01 CHECKED BY: oat♦