The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDrainage Reports - 07/12/1995 (5)PROD PF'.RTy' OO F'i• ,mil'/=� _ FORT CDI AIIIINS LugTGIJT1�kS FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR RIDGE P.U.D. FOURTH FILING, PHASE 1 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO W FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR STONE RIDGE P.U.D. FOURTH FILING, PHASE 1 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO March 3, 1995 Prepared for: Client: The Kaplan Company 1060 Sailors Reef Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 Prepared by: RBD, Inc. Engineering Consultants 209 South Meldrum Street Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (303) 482-5922 RBD Job No. 503-006 I 1 F RMINC.' Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX:303/482-6368 March 3, 1995 Mr. Glen Schlueter Mr. Basil Hamdan City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 RE: Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Stone Ridge P.U.D. Fourth Filing, Phase 1 Dear Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for the Stone Ridge P.U.D. Fourth Filing, Phase 1. All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this 'submittal. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants Prepared by: Tel. McEnany Project Engineer L Reviewed by: ?tea Kevin W. Gingery, P.E. Water Resources Project Manager Denver303/458-5526 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE I. GENERAL LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION A. LOCATION 1 B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY • 1 H. DRAINAGE BASINS A. MAJOR BASIN DESCRIPTION 1 III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. REGULATIONS 1 B. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA REFERENCE AND CONSTRAINTS 2 C. HYDROLOGICAL CRITERIA 2 D. HYDRAULIC CRITERIA 2 ' E. VARIANCES FROM CRITERIA 2 IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. GENERAL CONCEPT 3 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 4 V. STORM WATER QUALITY ' A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 B. SPECIFIC DETAILS 5 ' VI. EROSION CONTROL A. GENERAL CONCEPT 5 VII. CONCLUSIONS ' A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 6 B. DRAINAGE CONCEPT 6 C. STORM WATER QUALITY 6 D. EROSION CONTROL CONCEPT 6 REFERENCES 7 ' APPENDIX VICINITY MAP 1 HYDROLOGY 2 HYDROLOGY OF PREVIOUS FILINGS OF STONERIDGE P.U.D. 8 STREET HYDRAULIC CAPACITY 24 INLET DESIGN & STORM DRAIN DESIGN SWALE & CHANNEL DESIGN 34 49 EXCERPTS FROM REPORT FOR OVERALL SITE DETENTION POND 56 EROSION CONTROL 66 CHARTS, TABLES, & FIGURES 76 FINAL DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL STUDY FOR ' STONE RIDGE P.U.D. FOURTH FILING, PHASE 1 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO ' I. GENERAL. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ' A. Lotion The Stone Ridge P.U.D. development is located immediately northwest of the ' intersection of Horsetooth Road and County Road 9. The site is bounded on the north by Pinecone P.U.D., on the west by the previous filings of Stone Ridge P.U.D., and on the south by Horsetooth Road. More specifically, the site is ' situated in the South 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 29, Township 7 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado. The site is shown on ' the Vicinity Map in the appendix. B. Description of Property The Stone Ridge P.U.D. Fourth Filing, Phase 1 contains approximately 19 acres, more or less. This area is currently undeveloped, and consists of cultivated farmland. The existing topography is generally sloping from the west to east:at approximately 0.5 percent. II. DRAINAGE BASINS A. Major Basin Description The site is located within the Foothills Basin. The drainage area is specifically described in the report entitled "Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan" prepared by Resource Consultants, Inc., dated February 1981.. III. DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA A. Regulations The City of Fort Collins Drainage Design Criteria was used for the subject site. 1 u' I ' B. Development Criteria Reference and Constraints The Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan criteria and constraints indicate that the Stone Ridge P.U.D. site is to contain a permanent on -site ' detention facility in the northeast corner of the site. The permanent detention pond is under construction at this time. It is to release no more than 33 cfs of storm water runoff during the 100-year storm event. ' C. Hydrological Criteria The rational method was used to determine peak runoff rates from the site and from the adjacent off -site tributary areas, specifically from the First, Second and Third Filings. The minor and major storm events utilize 2-year and 100-year City ' of Fort Collins rainfall criteria, respectively. The criteria is included in the appendix. D. i4draulic Criteria ' All calculations within this study have been prepared in accordance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual. E. Variances from Criteria A variance request is being sought for the temporary Swale (Swale #34) that is sloped at less than 2 % grade. Criteria indicates that a pan or underdrain is required. Due to the temporary nature of this swale, a variance is requested to ' allow Temporary Swale #34 to remain without a pan or underdrain. IV. DRAINAGE FACILITY DESIGN A. General Concept The Stone Ridge Fourth Filing, Phase 1 is planned as a single family residential housing development for Sub -Phase A. Sub -Phase B is planned for duplex ' housing. The Fourth Filing, Phase 1 will include 20 lots with Sub -Phase A, and 7 lots in Sub -Phase B. Storm water flows will generally be routed along historic drainage patterns, i.e., from the southwest toward the northeast. The Drainage and ' Erosion Control Plan is included in the back pocket of this report. 1 2 11 F n I V=04 i Subbasins Subbasins 31 through 39 consist of the residential lots and the adjacent streets. Runoff is conveyed from the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Filings to the Fieldstone Drive Storm Drain or to the channel along the north boundary or the channel along the east boundary to the Detention Pond at the northeast corner of the site. In general, runoff from the remaining areas of Stoneridge P.U.D. are considered to be developed conditions unless otherwise stated. Flows will be split so that approximately two-thirds of the site will drain north-northwest to the north channel. The southeast portion of the remaining site will drain east to a drainage swale along the west side of County Road 9. From a point 300 feet east of Swanstone Drive, rain falling in Horsetooth Road and the adjacent land to the north will collect in roadside swale #33. The improvements to Horsetooth Road allow runoff to flow in the street to County Road 9, then flow north. A portion of that flow will be diverted by a curb chase to Swale #33. Flows bypassing the curb chase will flow to the Fossil Creek Inlet Ditch undetained. The area north of. the Pond will not be disturbed during construction, therefore drainage patterns will remain as the historic conditions. Sub -basins 31 and 32 flow west from the southwest portion of the site and enter the Fieldstone Drive Storm Drain. The runoff from sub -basin 43- (Horsetooth Road east of the high point, 300 feet east of Swanstone Drive) will flow in curb and gutter east to County Road 9, then north, where the curb chase will be constructed to divert flows to Swale #33 that runs north along the east side of the site. Sub - basins 34 and 35 drain to temporary Swale #34 and permanent Swale #35, which flows north to the Detention Pond. Sub -basin 36 runoff will enter the storm sewer system underneath Waterstone Court and enter swale #38. Flows from sub -basin 36 and 37 will meet at Design Point 37 where minor storm flows will flow in the storm sewer system underneath waterstone Court and outlet into swale #38. Runoff from sub -basins 36, 37, and 38 are channeled into Swale #38 which joins Channel 'B' of the Third Filing bordering the Fourth Filing at the northwest corner of the site. Sub -basins 39 and 40 flow directly into the north channel or the Detention Pond. Sub -basin 41 is north and east of the Detention Pond. Sub -basin 42 is the west half of County Road 9 between the pond overflow and the curb chase; runoff from both will continue offsite undetained. 7 1 ' Storm Drain System The Fieldstone Drive Storm Drain has been designed to incorporate final developed conditions of the entire Stoneridge P.U.D. The design was approved in the Third ' Filing Utility Plans and Drainage and Erosion Control Study and is currently under construction. ' The street hydraulic capacity is adequate for the 100-year storm event. The calculations. in ,the appendix include capacity calculations for the three different street sections used in this development, i.e., 36', 50' and 70' flowline to flowline. ' A storm sewer system is planned for Waterstone Court between design points 36 and 37. Two curb inlets are to be constructed on each side of Waterstone Court to intercept street flows and direct them to swale #38. Detention With the construction of the Third Filing, the permanent detention pond is also to ' be improved. This pond has been designed to accept flows from all of the developed subbasins, existing and future, within the Stone Ridge P.U.D. From ' the Rational Method, the peak inflow from Stone Ridge P.U.D. is 162.8 cfs for the 100-year storm event. The maximum release rate from the pond is 26 cfs although the Foothills Master Drainage Plan allows 33 cfs to release. Peak inflow ' during a 100-year storm from the entire Stone Ridge P.U.D. was determined using SWMM and is listed as 297 cfs in the report "Hydraulic Calculations for Stone Ridge P.U.D. Overall Site Detention Pond". The 100-year and 2-year water ' surface elevations are 4889.5 feet and 4885.7 feet respectively. The temporary detention pond will be done away with during overlot grading of the remainder of the site which includes the Third, and Fourth Filings. The improvements to the permanent pond are explained in the previously mentioned report by RBD Engineering Consultants, which was approved in May, 1994. The detention pond is currently under construction. Off -site Flows Off -site flows from the First and Second Filings are incorporated into the design for the remaining filings.. These are the only off -site flows, as the adjacent ' developments, Dakota Ridge and Pinecone, will not contribute any flows to the Third or Fourth Filings, nor to the Stone Ridge detention pond. Channels & Swales Many of the lots will send part of their runoff toward the greenbelts behind the lots. Some of the grass swales through the greenbelts will transport the collected runoff toward the permanent channel on the north side of the site or the other channel on the east side of the site. 4 Along the north property line, the permanent channel (Channel 'A') constructed with the First, Second and Third Filings will have been completed. The peak flow conveyed by Channel 'A' is 146.8 cfs. Swales #33,#35,#36, and #44 as shown on the Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, will be constructed as permanent channels, along with Swale #34, which will be a temporary channel at the completion of the Fourth Filing. The future' development of the remainder of the site (Stoneridge 4th Filing, Phase 2) calls for private 28' wide streets to replace Swale #34 as a conveyance element within sub -basin #34. A. General Concept Beginning in October of 1992, the water quality of storm water runoff was required to be addressed on all final design plans. Therefore, for this study, we have sought to find various Best Management Practices for the treatment of storm water runoff at this final design phase. B. Specific Detail The concept of storm water quality should address the treatment of the initial first flush runoff in a water quality pond and how the pollutants can be filtered out of the stormwater runoff. The Stone Ridge Detention Pond will collect nearly all the runoff from the site. A forebay area is planned for the northwest and southeast corner of the pond where the runoff will be entering from Channel 'A' along the north boundary of the site and Swale #44 at the southeast corner of the pond. This area is to have a normal water depth of one foot such that submerged and partially submerged plants can grow and act as a natural filter. The pond will also be used for irrigation purposes which will circulate water and keep it from becoming stagnant. A. .. General Concept The Stone Ridge P.U.D. Fourth Filing lies within the Moderate Rainfall and Wind Erodibility Zones per the City of Fort Collins zone maps. The potential exists for erosion problems during construction of the Fourth Filing and overlot grading of the remaining site until the disturbed ground is revegetated. According to the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, erosion control performance standards were calculated. Temporary seeding with mulch will be used for areas that are overlot graded. il I ' Permanent seeding with mulch will be installed after completion of swales/channels for the greenbelt areas. Straw bales are to be placed in all swales and channels immediately after construction until permenant measures are installed. ' VII. CONCLUSIONS A. Compliance with Standards ' All computations within this report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Criteria. B. Drainage Concert ' The 2 year runoff generated within the site will be conveyed to the detention pond by a series of storm drain pipes, streets, swales, and channels, both temporary and permanent. The 100 year runoff generated within the site will be conveyed to the ' detention pond by a series of streets, pipes, swales and channels. Detention will be provided as construction of the detention pond at the northeast corner of the ' Stone Ridge parcel is completed. C.. Storm Water Quality Since storm water quality has become a requirement, the site will contain features that address this storm water aspect. The Stone Ridge Overall Site Detention Pond ' currently under construction will provide natural processes of aeration, filtration and settling to provide for cleaner water leaving the site. D. Erosion Control Concept The erosion control performance standard was calculated, and appropriate measures ' have been taken to control erosion from the site according to the performance standard as shown in the appendix. Overlot grading was completed in 1993, therefore, temporary seed and mulch was placed in the disturbed areas. Straw bale ' check dams are to be placed in all swales until permanent measures are installed. The pavement structure has not been placed since overlot grading was done, so gravel mulch is required in disturbed areas that will be paved. These erosion control measures are consistent with the City of Fort Collins Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites. C 1. Storm Drainage Design Criteria and Construction Standards, by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, May 1984, revised January 1992. 2. Erosion Control Reference Manual for Construction Sites, by the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, January 1991. 3. Foothills Basin (Basin G) Drainage Master Plan, Fort Collins, Colorado, by Resource Consultants, Inc., February 1981. 4. Overall Drainage Study for Stone Ridge P.U.D., Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., July 1992. 5. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Stone Ridge P.U.D. First Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., September 1992. 6. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Stone Ridge P.U.D. Second Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., June 1993. 7. Stone Ridge P.U.D. Overall Site Detention Pond, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD Inc., March, 1994. 8. Final Drainage and Erosion Control Study for Stone Ridge P.U.D. Third Filing, Fort Collins, Colorado, by RBD, Inc., July 1994. 7 r, I] VICINITY MAP z cn z V) m cn OJ~ %� W F— r J � 1_' O SS OU O _ L = w •;"i z a (D $ w; W J x -Z Q Qo 0 O W m j � �... Q = w �... o Z N 01. LI_. _.� %� aN 'Pa 'oo — V o li O Q,,,:.: L 1. Q O= 6aN 'Pa 'o: F O ,>e N P \ sy Z LL Ld / / G d rGe: w v J rr ua ri s � dan^i,j �t� F'I ��k I`ypsi ah ..,. ��„.�..Z"1�� „yRa 4 a ii.".a¢ X x�F�Y�. ;• * +"�R.'�;�,� a� � n • }7 ��"r� % i �' if ae hi- rr� ¢c to CL 4M O Lc,, �.�,,,`�� —Lb � H.ik N'r� r� s' ikJ^# o�g� t•.s e3°Scsd °�Yg �'�'.'��"1's`y,'4r 4'.iK xX, rri'->�, vw EO _ ti>w y+ 3'b�3 �^ Egrka'E,, ¢".4��a✓ st �i�,�.GfYd. r.Cy `eis. a.waiq xt .M �z '�<�Sfr��l3a Yp a• .f iY r A yea b 'W S� 4 � 'T.N IY ✓i /• _ �� T��,rM�i � 'S��hsa SPqrs"� zr ✓. 7,,,� $ z,u r x r t) s n a � O ¢ a� Arm qu k0. s`Ekczi � ^s f'^ r s4P'`Rsu C O ..>Af. ,Sr+ <.ri'�?•<� ryz��i'?ac'a>�`).s O, c LSv; �i. s.P23311lH r4191a:r1¢�.a.�:.. tu z Al J1 Puoljanp HYDROLOGY CLIENT )Af"� 60 JOBNO. NC PROJECT -CALCULATIONS FOR -TIP- L,::rr_Ft_A,_Ns Engineering Consultants MADEBYIpt DATE -SLISAfCHECKED BY -DATE -SHEET 56t OF "41 71 t - L 1 -7- L L + j --- LL ... .. 1 ov, �7 j__ + T 7 7 t-d- 71 VJA 1, Ay, ..... . ..... ------- ..... .. . 7 - ---- --- rr al J. .... ..... . . T 7- T ------ ---------- + T, ------------- - j_ -4a.- A AL 7-- 4 + j- ------- ----------- _j 11 10i I -T- --- - ------ -4- 11 L------ 4 4 f I L--- - ---- J .�,J� 7- � NO slob W L�5 � i � J J 1 3A� Stoneridge PUD, Fourth Filing TPM Kaplan Co. 4-28-94 rev'd 2-28-95 This sheet calculates the composite "C" values for the Rational Method. Design Area Imperviou licit Perviou licit A,total A,imp Percent Im erv. Percent Perviou Comp. "C" 31 0.95 0.2 1.108 0.736 66.4 33.6 0.70 32 0.95 0.2 1.243 0.4 32.2 67.81 0.44 331 0.95 0.2 2.563 0.835 32.6 67.4 0.44 34 0.95 0.2 4.099 2.42 59.0 41.0 0.64 35 0.95 0.2 1.945 0.334 17.2 82.8 0.33 36 0.95 0.2 1.340 0.27 20.1 79.9 0.35 37 0.95 0.2 4.750 2.19 46.1 53.9 0.55 38 0.95 0.2 1.715 0.101 5.9 94.1 0.24 39 0.95 0.2 1.379 0.179 13.0 87.0 0.30 40 0.95 0.25 6.109 2.539 41.6 58.4 0.54 41 0.95 0.25 0.990 0.155 15.7 84.3 0.36 42 0.95 0.2 0.350 0.186 53.1 46.9 0.60 43 0.95 0.2 1.1931 0.955 80.1 19.9 0.80 44 0.95 0.21 0.9001 0.101 11.2 88.8 0.28 s c�a 3 O 0) N O N O > E •O O C .• O O) O N 1, O In � O CO D) + c 0> M O O ti CO LO 00 c' ti T (D CO c0 T FU- C T N T T T T T T T T T T LL � C 1� (D T O to 0 O co 00 O 1� 1- co 1- Cf •C M O b y (O O 1-: , C6 O C6 ': O Lo T C T T Id: sf• T LO T N CO mt 00 O M 00 <O N M CO75 T T T T T T N N O T N T T + 4-. (D w IQ lO (n (O 1- WO M V) to co 1- (D d o O O O O O CDO N O O M O O 1= CDOOOCDO 0LO(o0a0000 w T (O CM T M 1- N Nt 00 O) N T qt CD 0)CM d d• co N (D (D N O It N > N` N cM 00 co T N T C� (D 0) C) 0o 1� N CD C O CV O CD T CD 00 (Do 1, N tt N T O T T T T T T T N N N N Cl LO N N M N u7 N N N (O C O V) o N N `- N CM 0) P O O 0000U) 0000't00000 lqt C 00 r- O 00 O O N P- T O CM N 00 T C T T T M T T T M T 10 P C J C O �t M to �n O� (D CD CD coo0 U 1� lqt d• co M co gO N C7 (O co co co N N 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 f3 T (D O ui �t (oP 00 T CD LO (M T O 0 C (j T N (o T O M 1oQm e- N T T T CO O O T T N M t (o O� 00 O O T N M "Cf "Cf M M M M M M M M M d M st m m p S� IL I � T� 1 1 1 1 1 1 W N � • �111111111111111111111111111111A11111 . 01111 1111111111111111111111111111111 �111111111111111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIII �11��1111" 1111� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIL1111811161111111111111 ®111111111111111111I111iL�i11111111111 �111111IIIi111111118111II111111111111 �111A1161 "C�IIAIIIIIi1111I111111111111 � , a. �0191IIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAl111I �1111111111111��1111111111�11�1111 ' 11 11110 111110111111111111111111111111111111 �� • "��1��1111 11� �II�I�III � cc ®11111111�11�. EOM 11111 1H81�1ii1�i11 cc ®0911AIIIIIIAIl111A1�1��1111I11 �0 1I�I11 �1 111011/1 I11111111111�11 .MAY 1984 5-3 Q 0 z W 0 zC7) �a) J ' C a. w �W� LL Z cJi Q cm c� OE N o cl: LL O LL 2 Q O U (L r DESIGN CRITERIA �j h I71 i 1" LL O (O CM CO J L co O c N O EL o c tm c N Y U 0 c _ > O M Ln O I-- 00 ti O O O + 0 cow LOcococc MMt.- oMC0 ti�CO I` co CO CC') O O 'Ct (P 110 O t` ti CO � cl .0 W M O � 4 CO O � CO 'M O M O_ LO �- tt d �• CO CO Nt C70 M Cl C q (O N M d jNj CO t0 Cn <n Cn Cn � I" � M Lq CO ti CO d• o O O O O CDO O O N O O CM O O O O O O O O CA Cn to O O O CD CDO Cn CO r- M ti .- Nqt CO (A N it CM mt qt CO CO N O CO N O It N C aD J O CO N O O O ti N O d It CM 00 M I� .0 M O 00 'd' O to co CO Cn CA O N 6 0 6 6 E O N N N M Cn N N N M N Cn N N N Cn o IN N I N N M O > O6 O O O O O N N O M st N O. = ~ C J O st `t It CM CC•) Ln Cn Cn O O co O O CO CO U I-� st t CO M co Cn Cn N M N M CO co , N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CC e- tt 0O Cn to n N O r- O to CD O O C CD V e- N to e- O M I` O 1` M M M CA Q CC N d• r- 4 N r CO 0 0 t O N m--t Cn CO t` co CD O e N y N M M M M M M M M m � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Ui K] ff C ®�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllllllllll, . 811111111111111111 a 11111111111111111 MCIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111�i1111 �11111��1611111�111111111111111111111 l�111111111111111111 �1111111111111111.� ®011111111111111111111111111111111111 �911111111111111111111111111111111111; �1111101811111111111111111111118l1111 �61: IIIIIIIIIIIQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �IIIIIIIIPIIIIII�1111111111111�111111 �91111111�IIIIII�IIIIIIIIle111��1�111 1110 80 :111�1®11111111111 �f��i�ll ®O�IIf1 1110� 1 1� 11111�11BRA111 IN . �01111�1111 1��1�1�16�111�1�11�11111111�� „ ®I 1 MAY 1984 5-3 DESIGN CRITERIA 0 HYDROLOGY OF PREVIOUS FILINGS OF STONE RIDGE P.U.D. 0 e v1 • i + N \ n '.n -Z ' JI1 % N . h It u. a` Z N: O LL w CC Z: Q 1 m LL. `' 3 (/� rG • m 1-- z o Cl " a O o U • O J h Q U STONE zIP6,E,:. 1 Fi u NG� 9 :. tii 4J N N N N N N N o- 2�u u — ri N •N "M M .� � � N v o a y� a m U o p C O Z o. M L' I Vl N VI �J�j ¢to to I In v U C. rn UU o to N N � N _ � '= -- s �i r r l� �o IYi °� ; ro rz N- . CU F- J N j tai: °.' = ti _J O n N O -Z o N -Z. W J 0 e o .N ;� �� .� y y :,J1 Q1 11 }— N o 0 0 o eo Qo 0 o p o p c o 0N O O O p lit o O C J W�--�� ?gym r v� ��' J o .9 �9 a- o N OcLLJ w > �v0 CL ^ C O O O O O O 0 OI'll O O O O � p N 00 N fV N a� z F- f' u - ^ J i Ll M off" x r L7 7� T �!1 m c I N z 0 o O 1 m� 0 W u N m o \ Nm c 1 0 0 �- � N w N °x` m wr coo n1 -• N .-z (» N N M T N o. W I i STbt� E Iz I D(� F, /0 1 1-�L1f4 a \^� t` t4 0o :...0. , 1• 1 i 1 II 1 L 1 w CC- Z.• LL!-: Z: �• O W o� � < J ' p � J • j co Q - U v J qW 0 w.. e N o �o�$o NZb u� J fj N M a a O . In U z O L4 y uO 4 U C. U U 1 .° o m m N CU a. `� . � ( r (� L� a w > - '�+ W .._ ;m Zc CL o o o h I y s m � }--• N � O O o 0 O O O z U. o +ram J rz M tl a M m N N O o� cA (' m N (V N N o o O o o O W Q� x !- F Z -- ^ J M J. o (,1 N N O N N N o UI 0 V) W Ll �. m!a u'� N .9 6 N o m o do- a ry) 2a-2N _ N i h l „�, o _ m �� o o , 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1. 1. 1 1 6-rO KE el D�E 15t Fi L, i Ncl I011111111111111111111111111111111111 wo 1111111111111111111111111111111 1 ��0�1�111�111�1�11111�1�1116111�1�1111 �B�I�III�III�I�IIIIIL�1�111�111�1�1111 mm ��9�1�111�11191�III�I�I�III�III�I�IIIA' �9�1�11191��1�11191�1@III�111�1�1119 CBI IIIII II IIIIIIIilllllllllllllllllll'' 011111111111111111111111111111111111 �861�1�161�1�1616191�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1� �9�1�1�1�1�1@1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�19 �E�1�191�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�l91�1�1� �091�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�191A1��1�1�1� P 0 Z W 0 } cc z; J � W Vj Q CL U i C LLJ CM W. w a3 � QJ LL Z� c� o� c� oLL 2 f N 0 LL 2' cc LL. J U a A z 601 5 3 . DESIGN CRITERIA 1 .. 8 •' 1 I 1 1ToNrl R�pGE !2 it, Fit, I U(I ��BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�l11�1�A1�11111119 . ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA�I�It3�1�111111111� BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��1��1�111111� ��611111�IIIIIIIIIII��IOI�IA�I�IIIIIIA!4 �81�11��1�11�116111��1�1�111�01�1�1�11� �BIIIII�IIIDIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIYIIIIIIIfiI �81�11��1�11�111��1�11111�1�1�11 �01�11�G��11�1�9111��1�1�11111�1�1@II �01�11��1� ��1��111�1�1�611 4 0 z C) u 0 } zC J r ^ U L u0) D c NW N N� wCY) G7 Q J . u- Z tj . 1C- O0) Q� OE co o IZ O U. c O U— J U n. i cw o 5-3 DEESIGNCRfTERIA i �. . _ .. rJ �' ... .. r 4 < 9 e1 n �- 7 1 • � STvNE t2i �E J' J O h ` OU 1-4 Lq a� u u u UU N W d a P• - � w a. 1 > w -. •..' �t- W 010 coOda � �, pp dJ q 9 q .9 p t� Q (� 0 4 �p O p p -0 p 0 ° zz Q 'nLO Q Q Q Q Z �� '' N r Q' q) 0 a� >, o� ; a o 4 4 o 0 0 0 0 0 N N N nj N t c 0 0 g o Q o l0 o. M N d r 4 N z v o 0 060 1 6 00 .ND 10 Qo 1 u c N LJ N D 8 ' Q Q c L o _ 07 N d 111 c r' _ G .4 cj-(op� EIDCJF✓ •.-I . �— GIIJA/� 14- � Z n N � w 1 Z IL N: � LL 1 cc o w IL V 0 C] 0 CJ ' LL 7 z °� tQ- w V1 F' o W 1 N Q p 0 c0 U P) Q U 1 Q � r C 1 Q w 9$ 8 8 8 88 8$ 8 8 r O ZO �- �a� a a4 Jai �9 U U co cd w J w n. m Qp j N ppq N 9 i e do 0 0 Qp 0 0 toLLI fl '$ J cr-I-� o� a$ o •to 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a w Nb u- zLU to - N d V D lR I z M U+ coo N Z w w Z V Z W U x S 9 i � �> t ' ° s'•o` g'�/C£61�-`�•a- t-- � � . 2rs. F1 t:� N� /S •�• � N � - � Norco d � a�� n a JI N9 r LL rO�P m d a k- Z °id P nL ] % N pj :1 Il 07 N - S p jJ 'U Na? N 0 �m' p zb r' A. n 4 f 11 0.3 a0°' �� °3 �� Ld JO sdJ N '1 Y e �Jlaolo� N o -- o. a UB;l N sdl p J y ! r, o In In Q _ RJ nolo� N N N N N N N N N V) sJo m Z UO!too - nl _ p m m 0 2 sJo m fn KllaodD: - 0 - D! s. D=!S - % u Q odolg - Z Jillaodaaj n e olgDmolly Jt d1 11 tl m m '/. e 3 N p LU /J odolg - p Q 0 0 0 p o 0 Q. t1D 1JounN m ° f, P, 4 i1 r A r� 0 R 1°- f) C U01 OWYIn J S - in 0 W t1D �— ;Iouna N - Vi JDWO �-• t 1 D ° r, I(I .� d N a1 " N o .(1 p W e1 m r f (n ilounEl JaoJtp _ 0 nl N .D -mp Iri m m m O W Ma ilv o $ G J G � J 8 T d! A a $qq 0 ooly - -- ra N m O •d N 9 V rf� 0, a Z' g r r SI $ Jt O rA d) 0 M m 9p 0 (' s rJ .Q dltslmJul N - N Nm - Nrr�� N n Oilo Juola!)Joo� 0 v 0 0 0 d 0 c 0 0 d O .NO •d 0 Ci d O d! O N O N o R 0 o 3 O Q O 'u1W N d1 a N d OI N- mNNr di C. N- m d1 10 owl I ��ry a 0 ~ UILU d E od!d F- C TTnK'7 UIW lou IS is in vIW . tWll Jolul • SUIt DQ NCC i Q 1 O N J� V a '` V' I N a• T M-- N Q' J � - O U1 R ): ■ • c,� moo.•. �. •'. ; ,. ' •i 'i • r l'1��,N�I�'1'L s i ��III�IBIIII�I�I�III�I��I�IIIIIWIII ��8111�IIIIII�IIIII�I�B1�111111111� oil 1 BIBIIIIBIBIBIII�1�@IBIIIIIIIII� • 11M91� 111 �ONE IIIall II111111111111 �61�1�@��11��1��1�1 @19111�111�111 �OI�I��B�II��I�L�f 18111�111�111 �I�i��ll�lll�lull�lll � �ii1111n�Hill 11 liiiiiallill 17 Stoneridge PUD, Third Filing TPM Kaplan Co. revised 6-16-94 This sheet calculates the composite "C" values for the Rational Method. Design Area Impervious "C Pervious "C" A,total (ac.) A,imp (ac.) Percent Imperv. Percent Pervious Comp. "C" 16 0.95 0.2 1.466 0.092 6.3 93.7 0.25 17 0.95 0.2 1.468 0.181 12.3 87.7 0.29 18 0.95 0.2 2.332 0.981 42.1 57.9 0.52 19 0.95 0.2 1.784 0.616 34.5 65.5 0.46 20 0.95 0.2 2.206 0.275 12.5 87.5 0.29 21 0.95 0.2 2.166 0.933 43.1 56.9 0.52 22 1 0.95 0.2 1.105 0.527 47.7 52.3 0.56 23 0.95 0.2 3.105 0.698 22.5 77.5 0.37 24 0.95 0.2 1.795 0.459 25.6 74.4 0.39 25 0.95 0.2 0.402 0.094 23.4 76.6 0.38 26 0.95 0.2 1.324 0.708 53.5 46.5 0.60 27 0.95 0.2 1.975 0.066 3.3 96.7 0.23 28 0.95 0.2 0.889 0.653 73.5 26.5 0.75 29 1 0.95 0.2 0.237 0.197 83.1 16.9 0.82 30 0.95 0.2 0.511 0.023 4.5 .95.5 0.23 Total 0.95 0.2 22.8 6.503 28.6 71.4 0.41 31-4 0.95 0.2 2.960 1.558 52.6 47.4 0.59 32-4 0.95 0.2 1.801 0.57 31.6 68.4 0.44 36-4 0.95 0.2 1.291 0.203 15.7 84.3 0.32 37-4 0.95 0.2 4.352 2.03 46.6 53.4 0.55 38-4 0.95 0.2 1.596 0.101 6.3 93.7 0.25 39-4 0.95 0.2 1.379 0.179 13.0 87.0 0.30 Note: Basins 31, 32, 36-39 are from the Fourth Filing. STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION STONERIDGE P.U.D. THIRD FILING 2-YEAR DESIGN RUNOFF by: TPA'I March 13, 1994 revised June, 1994 Sub -Basin Data Initial/Overland Time, Ti Travel Time, Tt Final Ti+Tt Design Basin Area so. C Length ft. S % Ti min. Length ft. S % Vel fps Tt min. To min. Remarks 16 1.47 0.25 0 2 0.0 348 1 1.1 5.3 5.3 To is added for total contrib. area. 17 1.47 0.29 0 2 0.0 427 1 1.8 4.0 4.0 To is added for total contrib. area. 18 2.33 0.52 170 2 11.2 270 0.4 1.3 3.5 14.7 19 1.78 0.46 128 2 10.7 430 0.6 1.3 5.5 16.3 20 2.21 0.29 --- 2 0.0 410 0.8 1.2 5.7 5.7 To is added for total contrib. area. 21 2.17 0.52 175 2 11.4 310 0.5 1.3 4.0 15.4 Flows in N gutter, E Blackstone Dr. 22 1.11 0.56 85 2 7.4 312 0.4 1.3 4.0 11.4 23 3.11 0.37 280 2 18.1 304 0.6 1.4 3.6 21.7 24 1.80 0.39 300 1 2 1 18.3 120 0.5 1.3 1.5 19.8 25 0.40 0.38 '" 2 13.8 130 0.5 1.3 1.7 15.5 Flows in N gutter, W Blackstone Dr. 26 1.32 0.60 60 2 5.7 585 0.5 1.3 7.5 13.2 W gutter flows to S inlet, Blackstone D 27 1.98 0.23 ' 16.1 600 1 1.4 7.1 23.2 Perm. Pond (combine w/Pond in 30) 28 0.89 0.75 *** 16.1 870 0.5 1.3 11.2 27.3 E gutter flows to S inlet, Blackstone Dr 29 0.24 0.82 35 2 2.5 110 0.4 1.3 1.4 3.9 Flow to curb chase --use Tc=S min. 30 0.51 0.23 1 -- Perm. Pond (combine w/Pond in 27) 31-4 2.96 0.59 180 1 2 10.2 310 0.6 1.4 3.7 13.8 Offsite flows to Swanstone Dr. 32-4 1.8 0.44 170 2 12.8 50 0.6 1.4 0.6 13.4 Offsite flows to Swanstone Dr. 36-4 1.29 0.32 307 2.5 18.8 0 0.5 2 0.0 18.8 Offsite flows @ Waterstone Ct.-4th filin 37-4 4.35 0.55 100 2 8.2 690 0.7 1.6 7.2 15.4 jOffsite flows @ Waterstone Ct: 4th filin 38-4 1.60 0.25 170 2 16.4 225 2.5 2.4 1.6 18.0 jOffsite flows to Channel 'B' 39-4 1.38 0.30 110 3 10.9 645 3 2.8 3.8 14.7 Offsite flows to Channel 'A' Note: Travel time velocities were taken from UDFCD's Figure 3-2 "Estimate of Average Flow Velocity for use with the Rational Formula". . ' To for subbasin 5-1 is 16.1 minutes. ".Tc for subbasin 4-1 is 13.8 minutes. "" Tc for subbasin 6-1 is 16.1 minutes. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 �1 1 1 i I F �9AI�IIII�III�ill�lllllllllll�llli�611 �BIIIIII011111�111��1�1�111�1�1��l11' �0�1�1�1�1�1�1�1�161�1�151�1�1�1�1�16 �1 �0 �1 �III�I� IEIII�I�I�I�III�I �I�I�I�I� MAY 1984 5-3 v 0 a 0 Z C) Lo u 0 } zrn �Lo 0 J LU y a� w F-w � NL 7 ui 7 I=^ Z Qt rn m a� OE W� ¢LL O LL Q O U. Q U CL r DESIGN CRITERIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u �91111�11�11�111111111111111111111111 �D��IIIJ�11�1��661111111111111111111 ��8��111�1�11��1111111111111111111 �91�116�1�11��111�11111111111111111 �91�i1�+�1011�111 11111111111111111 ��I�II��i�ll��llllllllllllllllllllll �MINIMUM 11111111111111111111111 �e �e .MAY 1984 5-3 . 2D a 0 Z 0 to w O } Q Z� Lo J " wy c� aQ U LLJ t-- a �w c � �L W � LL Z ¢cm c� 0 LL 2 0 a U} r DESIGN CRITERIA STANDARD FORM SF-2 TIME OF CONCENTRATION STONERIDGE P.U.D. THIRD FILING 100-YEAR DESIGN RUNOFF by: TPM May 12, 1994 Sub -Basin Data Initial/Overland Time, TI Travel Time, Tt Final Ti+Tt Design Basin Area ac. C Length ft. S % Tl min. Length ft. S % Val fps Tt min. To min. Remarks 16 1.47 0.25 0 2 0.0 348 0.6 1.1 5.3 5.3 To is added for total contrib, area. 17 1.47 0.29 0 2 0.0 427 1.5 1.8 4.0 4.0 To Is added for total contrib. area. 18 2.33 0.52 170 1 2 8.7 270 0.4 1.3 3.5 12.2 19 1.78 0.46 128 2 8.8 430 0.6 1.3 5.5 14.3 20 2.21 0.29 2 0.0 410 0.8 1.2 5.7 5.7 Tc is added for total contrib. area. 21 2.17 0.52 175 2 8.8 310 0.5 1.3 4.0 12.8 Flows in N. 1/2 Blackstone Dr. 22 1.11 0.56 85 2 5.5 312 0.4 1.3 4.0 9.5 23 3.11 0.37 280 2 15.8 304 0.6 1.4 3.6 19.5 24 1.80 0.39 300 2 15.7 120 0.5 1.3 1.5 17.3 25 0.40 0.38 ** 2 12.4 130 0.5 1.3 1.7 14.1 Flows in N. 112 Blackstone Dr. 26 1.32 0.60 60 2 4.0 585 0.5 1.3 7.5 11.5 Flows in S. 1/2 Blackstone Dr. 27 1.98 0.23 * 15 600 1 1.4 7.1 22.1 Flows to Pond 27 28 0.89 0.75 *** 2 15.8 870 0.5 1.3 11.2 27.0 Flows in S. 1/2 Blackstone Dr. 29 0.24 0.82 35 2 0.7 110 0.4 1.3 1.4 2.1 Use To = 5 min. 30 0.51 0.23 Perm. Pond (combine w/Pond in 27) 31-4 2.96 0.59 180 2 7.2 310 0.6 1.4 3.7 10.9 Off site flows to Swanstone Dr. 32-4 1.80 0.44 170 .2 10.6 50 0.6 1.4 0.6 11.2 ONsite flows to Swanstone Dr. 36-4 1.29 0.32 307 2.5 16.9 0 0.5 0 0.0 16.9 Offsite Flows @Waterstone Ct-4th filin 37-4 4.35 0.55 100 2 6.1 690 0.7 1.6 7.2 13.3 Oftsite Flows @Waterstone Ct-4th filin 38.4 1.60 0.25 170 2 15.2 225 2.5 2.4 1.6 16.8 ONsite Flows to Channel'B' 39-4 1.38 0.30 110 3 9.9 645 3 3.8 2.8 12.7 Oftsite flows to Channel'A' Note: Travel time velocities were taken from UDFCD's Figure 3-2 "Estimate of Average Flow Velocity for use with the Rational Formula". ' Tc for subbasin 5-1 is 15.0 minutes. *• Tc for subbasin 4-1 is 12.4 minutes. *** Tc for subbasin 6-1 is 15.8 minutes. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 a Hill � • ��9��1��9111�I�I�I�I�IG1�6610�11111� �BIIIIIIIIIIIII�1111111111111��11111� � Bum �e CIO MAY 1984 5-3 2Z m J o aLj W �o o� J � 0 W N a V ,a a N� W N � L W rn LL Z � Q L S c o u W o T LL p LL a � d p LL � U DESIGN CRITERIA Q a �911�� ...��1�1�111111111111111111 . �9�1��11�1�1�1�1�111111111111111111 �9�1��1�11�1� 1�111111111111111111 �0�16�I�II�I�I�I�I�i11111111111111111 �E�16�1�11�� 111111111111111111 �O�I��IE 1 �1�1� 111111111 11111111 Bye �o �o Z3 1Q- Q O Z u cc } ZM �Lo J r' Q a� tLil 1-- w to N NL CC)lll o) LL ZJ a:? o a� o N � IZ LL O LL Q 0 Q U a r 1 . MAY 1984 5-3 DESIGN CRITERIA ul STREET HYDRAULIC CAPACITY I z5 ' CLIENT T=cn;_S 0ty IIJOB NO. INC PROJECT CALCULAMONSFOR(5u- i _z F LOL, l Engineering Consultants N.ADEBY_a9LDAiE2-)Z CHECKED BY DATE SHEETS —OF -Z.�_ � _ _.J_ -- ---�1- '- - - ---� - —.— :. - - -- . 8t t=-_.ST'e�ET_-��.fP'JUTIES:,_:._.�..1._:__:____._i - - •.- - - -a ' � - •-�--.--- I ---•-•---- _-1.�..i--�_,L%I1 VCJ2�_ �-'I--D Jal_- ___ — 1._..----•-=-- - --- -- - 7 —I----._.._ .�.Z.•Z._'(�.T.Y_.1F;_.s'=•oZ_r_. Cr�LUuv_`t.t .e:�tludt...-----.1 =,_7744 C-�L.>"17"77F_�e-_Cd�cc� :_.._.:�..:...:::_.._.--._._.{,,�>1s7C.P•7-}�,Cr._:_�C1�1_�_FL�.G.=,.OF G-<.77"T'E�_ i...fi:)..--y_-_ .. .l .••� IL.JJWi"1Q S5:_W�T.(�U M-Q r. �_� .VS�_c>.•QI 1.. 1._ .DuyL>LL»aL.E: Raly.'ro_.`rar..o>=;.._cue.,___.. �=•o:3g ; � t it -1 t - r ....... . � _ "SJ/z: — : J i- _/ . TAT'-�t_...r.�z� ' _ �_:� C...'_•7 : t :-.°-...__�__.:---_.,! ..._._._..___ _ 77 77 1' 1 a_-!i?rLl�=��e_—•Io:�o—_._3`?.aA;\_� _��7�'.3o_�J:z:..'�I�;". .._.•; . 7{! i.=.D.S(�_ -I o moo__ o Z8 s i =,.� .2:•4S- � ` ----�--�-__ I! ______- .. •�,b�� ;.-I-t� Lji.t t 11- ' _ i 70.':34 ! ' U -,- -87�:7�j-J-L: - .Z6 1 FI I 1 1 I!JC Engineering Consultants CLIENT ` '�-,-4 IBC t--GTT C rnj 1 )os JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR(-//•• 1l P' MADE EYy DATEJZ-57- CHECKED BY DATE SHEET Z OF Z _ 1 �---------'sJz/I-_L-t.'•_.�LLUAI=.---Ja'�,=IJJJlLl1.J�__�-=----=-- o i.... - _ .._..... ._..._......------._ ...... - -'-- 1 � • : 'C._ouinJ 0 . _..._.._.:__.._. _: I_.:... ..:_. A(LEA = !42 (20.00',0.40') = 4- 00 -- - -f- %z (0.401. + 0.41') (5.759 = I. &5 + i2 (0.4-v' + 0.0,7"') (1.4..') = o. qG + i2 (0. b7" + 0.7(a') (►. 17') = 0.95 - -..._:._ {{ �y�2.oUiuG=.?�*�.u5 -----/3q.1_J._'_.i__=�'•-_a4�D ____.�.__. 1 _ nJ�'_s_..EQu��r,oi - ---=-= --------1 : I 1 • 1 .1 L. Tr : 1 1 I I : 1 1 .J 1 ! : • ��i; T � iJ r==-- 231 :alculetions for Curb Capacities and 1'elocitleg ' Yajor and Yinor Storrs per City of Fort Collins Storm Drairece Design Criteria RESIDENTIAL with drive over curb and gutter Prepared by: RSD, Inc. C is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 2.63 sq.ft. Area = 20.11 sq.ft. 'V Yinor Storm . Yajor Storm Slope Red. . Minor . . G V . Major . a V (%) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) . X : (cfs) ; (fps) ' 0.40 : 0.50 : 55.71 : 2.74 : 2.09 : 696.73 : 22.03 : 2.19 : 0.50 : 0.6S : 56.71 : 3.99.: 2.33 : 696.73 : 32.02 : .2.45 : 0.60 : 0.60 : . 66.71 : 5.37 : 2.5S : 696.73 : 43.17 : 2.68 : ' 0.70 : 0.80 : 86.71 : 5.60 : 2.76 : 696.73 : 46.63 2.90 0.60 : 0.60 : 66.71 6.20 : 2.95 : 696.73 : 49.ES : 3.10 0.90 : 1.DO : 0.80.: 0.80 : 56.71 66.71 6.58 : 6.94 : 3.13 :. 3.10 : 696.73 : 696.73 : 52.58 : 55.74 3.29 3.46 1.2S : 0.60 : S5.71 : 7.76 : 3.69 : 696.73 : .62.32 : LET 1.50 : 0.80 : 66.71 : 8.50 : 4.04 : 696.73 : 63.27 : 4.24 ' 1.75 q 0.60 : 66.71 : 9.18 : 4.36 : 696.73 : 73.73 : 4.58 2.00 : 0.60 : 56.71 : 9.81 : 4.66 : 696.73 : 78.E3 : 4.90 2.2S 0.78 : 66.71 : 10.1S : 4.95 : 696.73 : 51.52 : 5.20 2.50 : 0.76 : 66.71 : 1D.42 : 5.21 : 696.73 : E3.72 : 5.48 ' 2.75 : 0.74 : 66.71 : 10.64 : 5.47 : 696.73 : E5.50 : 5.75 3.00 : 0.72 : U.71 ; 10.61.: 5.71 : 696.13 : ME? : 6.00 3.25 : 0.69 : 66.71 . 10.79 : 5.74 : 696.73 : $6.67 : 6.25 3.50 : 0.66 : 56.71 . 10.71 : 6.17 : 696.73 : E5.03 6.48 3.75 : 0.63 : 86.71 : 10.58 : 6.38 : 696.73 : E5.00 : 6.71 4.00 : 0.60 : 66.71 : 10.41 : 6.57 : 676.73 : E3.61 : 6.93 4.25 : 0.58 : 66.71 : 10.37 : 6.E0 : 676.73 : E3.31 . , 7.14 4.50 : 0.54 : $6.71.: 9.93 : 6.99 : 696.73 : M 81 : 7.35 4.75 : 0.52 : 66.71 : 9.E3 : 7.19 : 696.73 : 78.96 : 7.55 5.OD : 0.49 : 56.71 : 9.50 : 7.37 : 696.73 76.34 : 7.75 ' 5.25 : 0.46 : $6.71 : 9.14 : 7.55 : 696.73 73.43 7.94 5.50 : 0.44 : S6.71 . 8.95 : 7.73 ;, 696.73 71.89 : 8.13 5.75 : 0.42 : 56.71 . 8.73 : 7.91 696.73 70.17 : 1131 ' 6.00 : 0.40 : S6.71 . 8.50 : 8.08 : 696.73 ,68.27 : 8.49 11 1 1 I I 1. Ll �INC Engineering Consultants WENT r ZS ,>r PROJECT CALCVLATIONBFOR IIN M"XII MADE BY-W% OATE7-,'V. CHECKED BY - DATE BHEET—i—OF —Z- j c • ^t,..I�EGT01' . , w/ , 6 . v e.�Tlc��.. G'Ue•FS �. Csl•�T'T'>=f� } --..._. . eis C ? &C , i '—.=--_�-+-per jaE::-►b..ou.eu�.i� e.t: MINGI✓: 51��7=M I '' � i.' .l... �N}', f.... PE1z S�To►J ..�}-.2.a.7, C-lrl. or- FczT-�•-: , ,►Js '�FSIC=1J J4 !_ . .. .. , , _ 1 v'•O : SCo:: ��,.: v �z : (,I aka ..: �. 'G.2iTee 1 r` _ .._.:_ _ . . .Q- i ^ t G.L1.�CC-.IiY C=�3, :.. wW.F—= eF.s ' :. Q. ITi•��E=CbP—GMc ,faL.7T'T;E>;✓ . ! .. _ 1:: Ftow. C� i F.nc� o� GIUTTE�. FT. ri v: QoiX+rJESs Gf�S�F{GJ6r.1T, - �j_ USES. c,o(b� ._. ....... -- -...�.: ---- :. V-a4=j P? ryA `.. Gr C P 6SS aL_C?E PT-/�T '.:c..;.�. � •�; ,' �'. � fit' 's o"1Tercl. 1 i � .�.ZN v,;. I.33/. '' «-('�iXt33x16•.5� . LEr MiTJce: is .=��;5�� :\(4i Z- .�a'.'se� IZ.00 Cc.S Sisk; '.1S •Z.'� , : O . �Slt>•;> _ .1 2: Oo ,_ /_ p•. 33 $/� { _ 2 ( 8�t' , ,.. b.:a O SCE SCE?_ I O: 33 s�a� 91 :.� ..�:.._...1'. _ ?. �. ..� 1•�.� '�•ii"��i. �.,,.i .i._} .1. �.i' i '' i � .i i. .t L -i -,.: t. _ _' .i i i • i � 1 {:.+ ..}..T 1. .1. _i i � �.. � i i � � • �'..3 'S.'.32 .. � 1 �!-'; `i. j! t •. 1 I ' i r f j � :. j �. S •• 1� i i i ..: .. i j. i J i . i : t I I. I ; � .i , ;.� .t ! �. � 1 . 1 : �•.1 1 . t 1 . � 1 i. .• � ; _'•.�. 11 I I I I I I I I I I RwItc Engineering Consultants CLIENT C1724 DE E1>ZX (5-4!N 1 IIIAG JOBNO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR.6,1 WTPr, ;=q nul MADE BY P.A DATE 7 -S? CHECKED BY- DATE -$MEET 7- OF T, r UVJ —77 7. 7 01 1 i� I I J I -rr4j=,H _7* '71 7 T_E_:A_ C>.14*= 6&::C:? ES-S O.Y. I co3 c1c>. Sk j c>. c) BS- ZJS Z4 U in. cu. F 4 T T, 7; .L; L T, T 17 !f f T-- 7: _T t 1 30 Cslculatfons for Curb Capacities and Velocities ' Aajor and Minor Storms per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria ' COLLECTOR w/ 6" Vertical curb and gutter Prepared by: RBD, Inc. C is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities ' Area a 3.55'sq.ft. Area ■ 28.96 sq.ft: Minor Storm : Major Storm s Slope t Red. : Minor , G V : Major . o s V ' (X) :Factor : X. : (cfs) (fps) i X : (cfs) :.(fps) : s s 0.40 : 0.50 : 135.32 : 4.28 : 2.41 1129.59 : 35.72 : 2.47 ' 0.50 : 0.65 : 135.32 : 6.22 : 2.70 : 1129.59 : 51.92 : 2.76 0.60 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 8.39 : 2.95 1129.59 : 70.00 : 3.02 0.70 : 0.80 : 135.32 2 9.06 3.19 : 1129.59 : 75.61 3.26 0.80 : 0.80 : 135.32 :. 9.68 3.41 : 1129.59 : 80.83 3.49 ' 0.90 : 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 : 3.62 : 1129.59 : 85.73 3.70 1.00': 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.83 : 3.81 : 1129.59 : 90.37.: 3.90 s ' 1.25 1.50 : 0.80 0.80 : 135.32 135.32 : 12.10 : : 13.26 : 4.26 : 4.67 : 1129.59 1129.59 : 101.03 : : 110.68 : 4.36 4.78 1.75 : 0.80.: 135.32 : 14.32 : 5.04 : 1129.59 : 119.54 : 5.16 2.00 0.80 : 135.32 : 15.31 : 5.39 : 1129.59 : 127.80 : 5.52 ' 2.25 0.78 : 135.32 : 15.83 : 5.72 : 1129.59 : 132.16 : 5.85 2.53 : 0.76 : 135.32 : 16.26 : 6.03 : 1129.59 : 135.74 : 6.17 : 2.75 : 0.74 : 135.32 : 16.61 : 6.32 : 1129.59 : 138.62 : 6.47 : 3.06 : 0.72 : 135.32 a 16.88 : 6.60 : 1129.59 : 140.87 : 6.76 : ' 3.25 : 0.69 : 135.32 : 16.83 : 6.87 : 1129.59 : 140.51 : 7.03 : 3.50 : 0.66 : 135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 1129.59 : 139.48 : 7.30 : 3.75 : 0.63 : 135.32 : 16.51 : 7.38 : 1129.59 : 137.81 : 7.55 : ' 4.00 : 0.60 : 135.32 : 16.24 : 7.62 : 1129.59 : 135.55 : 7.80 : 4.25 0.58 : 135.32 : 16.18 : 7.BS : 1129.59 : 135.07 : 8.04 : 4.50 : 0.54 : 135.32 : 15.50 : 8.09 : 1129.59 : 129.40 : 8.27 : 4.75 0.52 : 135.32 : 15.34 : 8.31 : 1129.59 : 128.02 : 8.50 : '. 5.00 : 0.49 : 135.32 : 14.83 : 8.52 : 1129.59 : 123.77 : 8.72 : 5.25 0.46 : 135.32 : 14.26 : 8.73 : 1129.59 : 119.06 : 8.94 : 5.50 : 0.44 : 135.32 : 13.96 : 8.94 : 1129.59 : 116.56 : 9.15 : ' 5.75 : 0.42 : 135.32 : 13.63 : 9.14 : 1129.59 : 113.76 : 9.35 : 6.00 : 0.40 : 135.32 : 13.26 : 9.34 : 1129.59 : 110.68 : 9.55 : 0 [1 1 0 the Engineering Consultants CLIENT e—Ij pm>42d= I IVG JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR WADE SY-BQ, DATE Z'S2 CMECKEDBY—DATE SHEETOF j 77 -- - ----- J... KA T076'2ET-71 !S .7i A 17 L5 -7 .......... ...... 71' 7 ---- ------- :7 7 ... .. ...... S A. 7, -7 L: *>C 77 . ..... ml --f- 7- 8�0 T -1-7 770: -N. I=N 77 Lj 7 -T j- -77 I l iF— -7— i;5L : L L r7 --77 L.L —1 17 :7— I 11 I I I I I k I I I 11 I I INC Engineering Consultants jz,/ -C:- z7r 0,-iist t -1 V, IV, CLIENT r7p JOB NO. PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR eN I 7TT1=,e MADE 5Y—Z91—,OA-.EZ-fiZ CHECKED BY— DATE —SHEET Z OF Z T7 7 , I : ; ; 1 i I , I I : i I ; 1 1 -77 LLI is— <2 ^�?'A C2 I'M -7C�).' i I j r-7 7 777 �7- V�j � L 4 If) 7 I --7 -E- "7-. 7+ + 7 L-z L-- —4 7 t t A,J --LK� 7 'c u:le 13 --r-H .4,7 7 -,'T'T-;"I T- 'lli I lj:; Z; 15! MCI: i7 .71 7-, T" j7 ...... ...... 7 7 L" LI i I I I i L I 'i I /z: Ll -77 —i T f 7- ;17*-476 i 4 ? L! LLL 11 33/ Calculations for Curb Capacities and Velocities Aajor and Minor Storms ' per City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria ARTERIAL w/ 611 Vertical curb and cutter Pretared by: RSD, Inc. G is for one side of the road only February 28, 1992 V is based on theoretical capacities Area = 3.55 sq.ft. Area a 47.52 sq.ft. ' Minor Storm : Major Storm : Slope Red. Minor G V Major a V ( ) :Factor : X : (cfs) (fps) : X : (cfs) (fps) . ' 0.40 : 0.50 135.32 : 4.28 2.41 : 2031.62 : 64.25 2.70 : 0.50 0.65 • 135.32 : 6.22 2.70 : 2031.62 : 93.38 : 3.02 0.60 0.80 : 135.32 : 8.39 2.95 : 2031.62 : 125.E9 3.31 : 0.70 O.SO : 135.32 : 9.06 3.19 : 2031.62 : 135.98 3.58 : 0.80 0.80 : 135.32 9.63 : 3.41 : 2031.62 : 145.37 : 3.E2 : 6.90 0.80 : 135.32 : 10.27 : 3.62 : 2031.62 : 154.i9 : 4.06 : ' 1.00 0.80 135.32 : 10.83 : 3.61 : 2031'62 : 162.53 : 4.28 : 1.25 '0.80 135.32 : 12.10 : 4.26 : 2031.62 : iS1.71 : 4.78 : 1.50 0.60 135.32 : 13.26 : 4.67 : 2031.62 : 199.06 : 5.24 : 1.75 0.80 135.32 : 14.32 : 5.04 : 2031.62 : 215.01 : 5.66 : ' 2.00 0.80 135.32 : 15.31 : 5.39 : 2031.62 : 229.ES : 6.05 : 2.25 0.78 135.32 : 15.23 : 5.72 : 2031.62 : 237.70 : 6.41 : 2.50 0.76 135.32 : 16.26 : 6.03 : 2031.62 : 244.13 : 6.76 : ' 2.75 0.74 135.32 : 16.61 : 6.32 : 2031.62 : 249.31 : 7.09 : 3.00 : 0.72 135.32 : 16.68 : 6.60 : 2031.62 : 253.36 : 7.41 : 3.25 0.69 135.32 : 16.53 : 6.E7 : 2031.62 : 252.72 : 7.71 : 3.50 0.66 '135.32 : 16.71 : 7.13 : 2031.62 : 250.ES : 8.00 : ' 3.75 0.63 135.32 : 16.51 : 7:38 : 2031.62 : 247.E6 : 8.28 : 4.03 0.60 : 135.32 : 16.24 : 7.62 : 2031.62 : 243.79 : 8.55 : 4.25 . 0.58 135.32 : 16.18 . 7.S6 : 2031.62 : 242.92 : 8.61 . 4.50 : 0.54 135.32 : 15.50 : 8.09 : 2031.62 : 232.72 : 9.07 : ' 4.75 : 0.52 135.32 : 15.34 : 8.31 : 2031.62 : 230.25 : 9.32 : 5.00 : 0.49 135.32 : 14.83 : 8.52 : 2031.62 : 222.60 : 9.56 : ' 5.25 : 0.46 135.32 14.26 : 8.73 : 2031.62 : 214.13 9.83 : 5.50 : 0.44 135.32 13.96 : 8.54 : 2031.62 : 209.64 10.03 : 5.75 : 0.42 135.32 13.63 : 9.14 : 2031.62 : 204.61 10.25 : 6.00 : 0.40 135.32 13.26 : 9.34 : 2031.62 : 199.06 10.47 : r INLET DESIGN STORM DRAIN DESIGN 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER ---SUPPORTED-BY-METRO-DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD -------- ---------------------------------------- USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO................................ ON DATE 04-19-1994 AT TIME 13:31:57 �'*** PROJECT TITLE: Stoneridge III D 1. �5) ' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: SrOfZAA INLET ID,NUMBER: 31 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. ' GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 15.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 13.98 ' IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 1.00 . ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 1.00 ' STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) _ 10.40 ' STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) _ STREET MANNING N 2.00 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.38 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.17 STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 14.22 ' GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.40 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.04 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.13 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR($)= J10.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 4.35 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW _(cfs)= 4.35 2 _ FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 4.34 QP-P.2 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.01 L2 ,r5T_ BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 4.35 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.91 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.44 --- ---- -------- ----------------- ------- ---------------- -------- --- ---- ------ -- ' UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U.OF COLORADO AT DENVER -SUPPORTED-BY METRO DENVER-CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD-- ----------- USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO .............................. ON DATE 12-07-1994 AT TIME 15:23:33 ' *** PROJECT TITLE: Stoneridge IV Inlet 36 ' *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: AA,-Jo/L Srve_,,4 INLET ID NUMBER: 36 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 4.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 ' INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 ' Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.78 STREET CROSS SLOPE M = 2.00 STREET MANNING N = 0.016 ' GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 2.00 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 2.00 ' STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 9.13 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.35 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.49 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.00 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ' IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW 3.61 (cfs)= 2.48 Q ZLD_P 3 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.48 oj�� CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.48 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 2.48 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER --SUPPORTED-BY METRO DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD 'USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. ON DATE 12-07-1994 AT TIME 15:24:24 '*** PROJECT TITLE: Stoneridge IV *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: M.In102 JTO�LW ' INLET ID NUMBER: 37 INLET HYDRAULICS: IN A SUMP. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 4.00 HEIGHT OF CURB OPENING (in)= 6.00 ' INCLINED THROAT ANGLE (degree)= 45.00 LATERAL WIDTH OF DEPRESSION (ft)= 2.00 SUMP DEPTH (ft)= 0.00 Note: The sump depth is additional depth to flow depth. STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.78 STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) = 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) = 10.66 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.38 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.62 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 1.30 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR ($)= 50.00 ' CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR($)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 4.09 \ ' BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= Q-e '3_.) 3.39 L FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)'= _ 3.39 p� CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.00 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 3.39 ' FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.27 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.12 1 1� 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLOW DATA Curb overflow @ D.P. 37 WEIR COEF. 3.000 STA ELEV 0.0 4914.65 100.0 4913.90 200.0 4914.72 ELEVATION DISCHARGE (feet) (cfs) 4913.90 0.0 4914.00 0.9 4914.10 4.9 4914.20 13.4 Qtoo 21 4914.30 27.5 IS: � --� vyD>• 4914.40 48.0 4414- Z1,' 4914.50 75.7 4914.60 111.3 r4So-'v75o Q /JIaaL u a.gJ� 1N-�;r4 4,914 • 2(a Mi-j- Fr FJ c:;;,i is In14113•.4- M�� .DEPr� AT LAG 4-114.Z( -4g13, 4 - O; 8O/ 1 3g, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT.DENVER -------SUPPORTED BY METRO-DENVER CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ---------------------------------------- USER:KEVIN ON DATE 01-06-1995 AT TIME 11:00:51 '*** PROJECT TITLE: INLET DESIGN- *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: M/A)OK STO,�NJ INLET ID NUMBER: 10 ' INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 8.00 REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= 10.44 IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.93 ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = 0.82 ' STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE ($) = 0.70 STREET CROSS SLOPE ($) 2.00 ' STREET MANNING N 0.016 GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= 1.38 GUTTER WIDTH (ft) = 1.17. STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: WATER SPREAD ON STREET (ft) = 9.31 GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = 0.30 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.20 FLOW CROSS ,SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 0.97 ' GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 2.00 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 2.16 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.77 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.39 BY DENVER UDFCD-METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=e2, = 2.16 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 1.60 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 0.56 3 3 9/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' UDINLET: INLET HYDARULICS AND SIZING DEVELOPED BY DR. JAMES GUO, CIVIL ENG DEPT. U OF COLORADO AT DENVER ---SUPPORTED BY METRO DENVER.CITIES/COUNTIES AND UD&FCD ---------------------------------------------------------------- USER:KEVIN GINGERY-RDB INC FT. COLLINS COLORADO.............................. ON DATE 01-06-1995 AT TIME 11:01:30 ' *** PROJECT TITLE: INLET DESIGN 1 *** CURB OPENING INLET HYDRAULICS AND SIZING: MAJJK 57z5r M INLET ID NUMBER: 10 INLET HYDRAULICS: ON A GRADE. GIVEN INLET DESIGN INFORMATION: GIVEN CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= REQUIRED CURB OPENING LENGTH (ft)= IDEAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = ACTURAL CURB OPENNING EFFICIENCY = STREET GEOMETRIES: STREET LONGITUDINAL SLOPE STREET CROSS SLOPE STREET MANNING N = GUTTER DEPRESSION (inch)= GUTTER WIDTH (ft) _ STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS: 8.00 22.73 0.54 0.45 0.70 2.00 0.016 1.38 1.17 ' WATER SPREAD ON STREET GUTTER FLOW DEPTH (ft) = (ft) = 16.38 0.44 FLOW VELOCITY ON STREET (fps)= 2.92 FLOW CROSS SECTION AREA (sq ft)= 2.79 GRATE CLOGGING FACTOR M = 50.00 CURB OPENNING CLOGGING FACTOR(%)= 20.00 INLET INTERCEPTION CAPACITY: ' IDEAL INTERCEPTION CAPACITY (cfs)= 4.43 BY FAA HEC-12 METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)= 8.18 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.67 ' CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 4.51 BY DENVER UDFCD METHOD: DESIGN FLOW (cfs)=a,og, = 8.18 FLOW INTERCEPTED (cfs)= 3.55 CARRY-OVER FLOW (cfs)= 4.63 r 1 t 1 1 1. 1 1 1 ;1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION z SIDEWALK CULVERT STA ELEV . ZA 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.02 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.02 2.00 0.40 IN' VALUE. SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.013 0.0200 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) - (sq ft) (fps)- (cfs) NO. -------- ------- - - 0.10 0.2 3.1 0.56 1.82 0.20 0.4 4.8 1.83 1.94 0.30 0.6 6.0 3.50 1.97 /�qq 0.40 0.8 7.0 5.45 1.97 (.t = L 83 S c4s 1, VN+e-c-ao-ek I a I I I I 11 I I I I I 11 I I I I ■AINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT g'4I-L_A-j c-0 JOB NO. 503 _C0 _r -le - PROJECT 5 1V CALCULATIONSFOR ;:�We S7 -67,,�--e_ MADE BY VA\ DATE CHECKEDBY-DATE -SHEET / OF _7 Ij F-1 77 -4--4 rr 4- 74 loll ON ---------- — - ------- 7 7-- —T. 7 oll, F 0 7— 7`17-t-T" 6e; I j : 1 T 17 1 At + --r- R - ------ I i L4_ L.. _7 L.. 5, 4 1 o 4-- --1 -1 7-1 r_ k I T L_ i 1 1 1 —111_1 1 1 i I �11 Y 4-- _ —4 1--- _ I i 1 I �77 —4 7, ----- ----- 0. _V J. L_ -1 -1. J.. _1 1, 1 7 7,11f o LA JS I? -------- _60� T- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 RMINC Engineering Consultants CLIENT � � �• JOB NO. 5-03-co PROJECT//STDA1FJeIP�E /r' CALCULATIONSFOR 17✓012 St;(Lke+•u/� MADEBY P DATE ,&HECKED BY- DATE SHEET v OF I 1 it `- It J 77__ r J -F 1 { i -r 1 Zk r r f 1. II 1�T-T � 1 1 i •. L rJ-- � I 7 (f 1 4 1 iJ t' 1 = { _ - It rI � 33 s 1 - - 1 + 7- 11 (\ � bc�6s —I ni A - I - 1 1.�.>. �+ 1 } }- �- i �`�� 7P 3.:. '8 r IsF..F _ ' { Y 1 I , it _ V'!-. 125 i_ r + _}..I i.. I 1 , t �G�Pi n' r> `J Gv �G�i Ij�GztJ T a L y - I . _... 1. I y. ' !.J 1 I 4 z/ 1 REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY ' JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO=====____==____________________ ' *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 01-06-1995 AT TIME 07:52:18 *** PROJECT TITLE ' Stoneridge IV Drop Inlet Pipe Outlet *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 100 YEARS ' *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES - --- MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL ---------------------------------- DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.50 4884.00 4889.50 NO 2.00 0.00 10.26 0.00 37.50 4902.10 4890.70 OK 3.00 10.00 10.26 3.75 37.50 4902.10 4891.26 OK OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION 1. *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS ' NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MANHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ' NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) ' (FT) --------------ID -----------. 1.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND ------------------------------------ 29.01 30.00 24.00 0.00 ' 2.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 29.01 30.00 24.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW Q FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. ' NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS I I 4/ 1 1 Li 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i u 1 1 1 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.0 37.5 22.7 2.00 11.94 1.91 12.15 11.94 0.00 V-OK 2.0 37.5 22.7 2.00 11.94 1.91 12.15 11.94 0.00 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM % (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 1.00 4885.25 4884.00 14.85 -2.00 NO 2.00 1.00 4885.25 4885.25 14.85 14.85 OK OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW 1D NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.00 125.00 125.00 4887.25 4886.00 4890.70 4889.50 PRSSIED 2.00 0.10 0.10 4887.25 4887.25 4891.26 4890.70 PRSSIED PRSSIED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------`------------------------ UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL MANHOLE ENERGY ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT ID FT 1.0 2.00 4892.91' 3.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4889.50 2.0 3.00 4893.47 0.00 0.25 0.55 0.00 0.00 2.00 4892.91 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 CLIENT f'��L-.�."', JOB NO.� C7 ■r�INC PROJECT-�9ToJfG2lDG IV CALCULATIONSFOR Wnr s �Gr, SroerA Engineering Consultants MADEBY-rPM DATE I 7 CHECKED BY DATE $MEET_OF _ N T` b , --o C - - NIA° - tia - .� + - e 1 j 1 - - = t �: 7 -_ + - -- - t - o'1Po?: 7:1i i-,-, A i I T--S�-' I 1 I r y f — - -� zsi a _ 1 — ; ^�------------ ' - r y _ —T I - - - - 1 -- I I i — -- _ -- — — — ' �+ _ 43131 11 I LJ 1 r 1 t caceaaecce_-ccaea___a__a_.-ccccacc__caeaccaaccccccc___a_a_o__vaaaea__e___vaaaa REPORT OF STORM SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN USING UDSEWER-MODEL VERSION 4 DEVELOPED BY -JAMES C.Y. GUO ,PHD, PE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER IN COOPERATION WITH URBAN DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT DENVER, COLORADO *** EXECUTED BY DENVER CITY/COUNTY USE ONLY ............................................. ON DATA 03-01-1995 AT TIME 14:44:31 *** PROJECT TITLE : Stoneridge - Fourth Filing Waterstone Ct. Storm Drain *** RETURN PERIOD OF FLOOD IS 2 YEARS *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULICS AT MANHOLES ------------------------------------------------------ ---- - ----- -- - MANHOLE CNTRBTING RAINFALL RAINFALL DESIGN GROUND WATER COMMENTS ID NUMBER AREA * C DURATION INTENSITY PEAK FLOW ELEVATION ELEVATION MINUTES INCH/HR CFS FEET FEET ---_ 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.03 10.97 12.20 FES 2.00 0.00 10.30 0.00 6.03 13.40 12.11 OK 3.00 0.00 10.09 0.00 2.98 13.70 12.21 OK 4.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.91 11.40 12.21 FES 5.00 0.01 5.00 91.00 0.91 11.40 12.26 FES OK MEANS WATER ELEVATION IS LOWER THAN GROUND ELEVATION *** SUMMARY OF SEWER HYDRAULICS NOTE: THE GIVEN FLOW DEPTH -TO -SEWER SIZE RATIO= .8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER MAMHOLE NUMBER SEWER REQUIRED SUGGESTED EXISTING ID NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM SHAPE DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) DIA(HIGH) WIDTH ID NO. ID NO. (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (IN) (FT) (FT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21.00 2.00 1.00 ROUND 14.62 18.00 18.00 0.00 32.00 3.00 2.00 ROUND 12.78 18.00 15.00 0.00 43.00 4.00 3.00 ROUND 8.19 18.00 15.00 0.00 54.00 5.00 4.00 ROUND 8.19 18.00 15.00 0.00 DIMENSION UNITS FOR ROUND AND ARCH SEWER ARE IN INCHES ' DIMENSION UNITS FOR BOX SEWER ARE IN FEET REQUIRED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY SEWER HYDRAULIC CAPACITY. SUGGESTED DIAMETER WAS DETERMINED BY COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE SIZE. FOR A NEW SEWER, FLOW WAS ANALYZED.BY THE SUGGESTED SEWER SIZE; OTHERWISE, EXISITNG SIZE WAS USED q-3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER DESIGN FLOW NORMAL NORAML CRITIC CRITIC FULL FROUDE COMMENT ID FLOW 0 FULL Q DEPTH VLCITY DEPTH VLCITY VLCITY NO. ' NUMBER CFS CFS FEET FPS FEET FPS FPS ...............-----------------------------------.....___------------ 21.0 6.0 10.5 0.81 6.16 0.95 5.14 3.41 1.34 V-OK 32.0 3.0 4.6 0.73 3.97 0.71 8.60 2.43 0.90 V-OK ' 43.0 0.9 4.6 0.38 2.91 0.39 9.24 0.74 0.98 V-OK 54.0 0.9 4.6 0.38 2.91 0.39 2.82 0.74 0.98 V-OK FROUDE NUMBER=O INDICATES THAT A PRESSURED FLOW OCCURS -_-------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SLOPE INVERT ELEVATION BURIED DEPTH COMMENTS ' 10 NUMBER UPSTREAM DNSTREAM X (FT) (FT) UPSTREAM DNSTREAM (FT) (FT) ---------------- ------------- 21.00 1.00 11.10 "'--------------------------------- 10.95 0.80 -1.48 NO 32.00 0.50 11.40 11.14 1.05 1.01 NO 43.00 0.50 11.49 11.42 -1.34 11.03 NO 54.00 0.50 11.49 11.49 -1.34 -1.34 No OK MEANS BURIED DEPTH IS GREATER THAN REQUIRED SOIL COVER OF 2 FEET *** SUMMARY OF HYDRAULIC GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEWER SEWER SURCHARGED CROWN ELEVATION WATER ELEVATION FLOW ID NUMBER LENGTH LENGTH UPSTREAM DNSTREAM UPSTREAM DNSTREAM CONDITION t FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET ----------- ---------------------------------------------------------- ----FEET-- 21.00 15.00 0.00 12.60 12.45 12.11 12.20 JUMP 32.00 51.30 0.00 12.65 12.39 12.21 12.11 SUBCR 43.00 15.00 0.00 12.74 12.67 12.21 12.21 SUBCR ' 54.00 0.10 0.00 12.74 12.74 12.26 12.21 SUBCR PRSS'ED=PRESSURED FLOW; JUMP=POSSIBLE HYDRAULIC JUMP; SUBCR=SUBCRITICAL FLOW *** SUMMARY OF ENERGY GRADIENT LINE ALONG SEWERS 1 -----------------------------------------------'_._.._------..__--------------- UPST MANHOLE SEWER JUNCTURE LOSSES DOWNST MANHOLE SEWER MANHOLE ENERGY FRCTION BEND BEND LATERAL LATERAL,MANHOLE ENERGY ' ID NO ID NO. ELEV FT FT K COEF LOSS FT K COEF LOSS FT 1D - -.._.._.........'- FT -- --- ---- -. -- 21.0 2.00 12.29 0.00 - ---- 0.50 ---- -- ----'---- 0.09 0.00 0.00 1.00 12.20 32.0 3.00 12.30 0.00 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 2.00 12.29 ' 43.0 4.011 12.22 0.00 54.0 5.00 12.27 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 12.30 12.22 BEND LOSS =BEND K* FLOWING FULL VHEAD IN SEWER. LATERAL LOSS= OUTFLOW FULL VHEAD-JCT LOSS K*INFLOW FULL VHEAD FRICTION LOSS=O MEANS IT IS NEGLIGIBLE OR POSSIBLE ERROR DUE TO JUMP. ' FRICTION LOSS INCLUDES SEWER INVERT DROP AT MANHOLE NOTICE: VHEAD DENOTES THE VELOCITY HEAD OF FULL FLOW CONDITION. A MINIMUM JUCTION LOSS OF 0.05 FT WOULD BE INTRODUCED UNLESS LATERAL K=O. ' FRICTION LOSS WAS ESTIMATED BY BACKWATER CURVE COMPUTATIONS. 1 , 1 �1 1 1 1 1 1 i / a• CLIENT JOB NO. �E2 -ceG TiDNC PROJECT ��OJEeJ DGE" J� CALCULATIONSFOR Fit -RAP SI Zr/JC� Engineering Consultants MADEBY IrM DATE CHECKED By— DATE SHEET / OF I + f 1 I li 7-1 r I _ :.. .. E — L 9 G I 1 _ -I — —" '- ' t - 77 �T ' ; J '�4 1 s. ��. I-t- 1-+ , is — 1 I L - i J. f ''-.�5'/.rt�Z ZC. , , ' �.- ! '.._ .: i fl' .t.0 -I .. \ • •�-!'W � u`7>✓ u�'GD Cori-�-2rlr.� — � i—� —�--1 � _ i i r _ --- ._ L _ - - - i 1 D.� r _.. use Guess `rz{' _ i i F02 T71`�TII►lC L' 3 ►✓L D 1�iS: ._� "i 1 . - � 415 � 41. sx.4-s�`�>� - +. f { t r i r O F I I I r f r. I 1. f J_ - T�nar' i G -_• -1 11 I i : ua� �, � Tv Pe ]L1 .. ..._ _•... - 1 1". a I I74F, � � I I I I a i _ I j. WRI1111111 I 1/(2, 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 NC Engineering Consultants CLIENT �.4P(1i,.� W JOB NO. 7)3 09'6 PROJECTSTd��-L�JLY��gC /Y_ CALCULATIONS FOR e" eAP �J'Z� ^J es MADEBYy E", DATE.1116- CHECKED BY DATE -SHEET OF 4- i t I cGf + '' T-LLL L i J I t- it _.L �I I _ Abp ' ' �'�- SI �YN t � - 1 - � 7�� »� � 1 � . 6t� /DO'- �L' �Y_'o �r� ', ✓��t� ..Lim. j T ; I_TG' zoff.i-_=„ r �J 1 }��ii �/- '; F 6-- ; I j fY� Or 1.�' "_'.- y� I 1 Y .._ r L : �P o 1' r�„1 . y �Fc r e� y. { { + 1 + i , I�{ 4 - -,rff l — I r . i J } I i ✓ � �'PI� M(/-K ��i��-- t.. { �/' ��I � 4 i I- ..� _�.. `' r � i''�. _ /.� � I ; I.. � i ' L I � _ , � Imo' Tort J - I I - I, P -. L 1 _ i I J L_ L. 1 11 - I 1 - 1 _ _ DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE �l 11 n 5.6.2 Required Rock Size The required rock size may be selected from Figure 5-7.for circu- lar conduits and from Figure 5-8 for rectangular conduits. Figure 5-7 is valid for Q/D2.5 of 6.0 or less and Figure 5-8 is.valid.for Q/WH1.5 of 8.0 or less. The parameters in these two figures are: a. Q / D1'S or Q/WH0'S in which Q is the design discharge in cubic feet per second and D is a circular conduit diameter in feet and W and H are the width and height of a rectangular conduit in feet. b. Yt/D or Yt / H in which Yt is the tailwater depth in feet, D is the diameter of a circular conduit and H is the height of a rectangular conduit in feet. In cases where Yt is unknown or a hydraulic jump is suspected downstream of the outlet, use Yt / D = Yt / H = 0.40 when using Figures 5-7 and 5-8. c. The riprap size requirements in Figures 5-7 and 5-8 are based on the non -dimensional parametric equations 5-5 and 5-6 (11)(25). Circular Culvert: (d50/D)(Yt/D)1.2 / (Q/D2.5) = 0.023 (Equation 5-5) Rectangular Culvert: (d50/D)(Yt/H)`/ (Q/WH1.5) = 0.014 (Equation 5-6) The rock size requirements were determined assuming that the flow in the culvert barrel is not supercritical. It is possible to use Equations 5-5 and 5-6 when the flow in the culvert is less than pipe full and is supercritical if the value of D or H is modified for use in Figures 5-7 and 5-8. Whenever the flow is. supercritical in the culvert, substitute Da for D and Ha for H, in which Da is defined as Da = I(D + Y n ) (Equation 5-7) in which maximum Da shall not exceed D, and Ha = J(H + Yn) (Equation 5-8) in which maximum Ha shall not exceed H, and Da = A parameter to be used in Figure 5-7 11-15-82 I dV 1 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL MAJOR DRAINAGE 1 whenever the culvert flow is supercritical., D = Diameter of a circular culvert in feet. Ha = A parameter to be used in Figure 5-8 whenever 1 the culvert flow is supercritical 1 H = Height- of a rectangular culvert in feet. Yn = Normal depth of supercritical flow in 1 the culvert. 1 5.6.3 Extent of Protection The length of the riprap protection downstream from the outlet 1 depends on the degree of protection desired. If,it .is to prevent all erosion, the riprap must be continued until the velocity has been 1 reduced to an acceptable value. For purposes of outlet protection-.. during floods the is 5,5 major acceptable velocity set at fps for very erosive soils and at 7.7 fps for erosion resistant soils. The rate at 1 which the velocity of a jet from a conduit outlet decreases is not well known. For the procedure recommended here it is assumed to be 1 related to the angle of lateral expansions, 9, of the jet. The velo- city is related to the expansion factor, (1/(2tan e)), which may be 1. determined directly using Figure 5-9 or 5-10. Assuming that the expanding jet has a rectangular shape: 1 L = (1/(2 tan e))(At/Yt - W) (Equation 5-9) 1 in which: 1 1 1 1 1 L = length of protection in feet, W = width of the conduit in feet (use diameter for circular conduits), At 11-15-82 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP N W K0 M FAJ i ENAW—M90-�� _PIZ S' 06 2 .4 Yt /D .6 .8 D15 1.0 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 DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL RIPRAP E 9. = Expansion Angle ENAWAVAJ V1 r FA W--w� MEN qv. WAMWE EA VA*AOOO POEMENE PUMMOS .l .2 .3 A .5 .6 .7 .8 TAILWATER DEPTH/ CONDUIT HEIGHT, Yt / D FIGURE 5-9. EXPANSION FACTOR FOR. CIRCULAR CONDUITS 11-15-82 URBAN DRAINAGE a FLOOD CONTROL. DISTRICT i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. i 1 1 1 SWALE & CHANNEL DESIGN 411 1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION 1 Swale #44 Section A -A 1 STA ELEV ----- ------ 1 0.00 102.00 8.00 100.00 1 16.00 102.00 Q = 37.5 {� IN' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 1----------------------- 0.060 0.0420 1 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE 1 -(feet)-- (sq ft) --(fps)- (cfs) NO. ---------------- ------ 1 100.20 0.2 1.1 0.17 0.60 100.40 0.6 1.7 1.09 0.67 100.60 1.4 2.2 3.22 0.72' 100.80 2.6 2.7 6.94 0.75 1 101.00 4.0 3.1 12.57 0.78 101.20 5.8 3.5 V,20.44 0.81 101.40 ',3 5! 7.8 3.9 30.83 0.83 1 101.60 10.2 4.3 44._02 0.85 101.80 13.0 4.6 60.26 0.86 102.00 16.0 5.0 79.80 0.88 1 roV. IZ��t� Of #3; W/ 42L-oPE, = 4,7-7, , u-,e 1 Nor4L A+"�jLg, . &re-p,w �i��S/G 2vo5On Ct�w��of r B✓ice-( 1 1 1 1 ***************************************** ***** CHANNEL LINING ANALYSIS ***** ***** North American Green ***** ***************************************** DESIGNER: TJB PROJECT: STONERIDGE 4 STATION: DRAINAGE AREA: 0.0 Acres CHANNEL DESCRIPTION: Bottom Width: 0.00 ft Left Side Slope: 4.0 Right Side Slope: 4.0 DATE: 03-08-1995 PROJECT NO.: 503-006 TO STATION: DESIGN FREQUENCY: 0 Years CHANNEL SLOPE: 0.042 ft/ft 1 Min. Lining Permissible Discharge Hydraulic Manning Recommended ----------- Shear (lb/sf) ------------- (cfs) --------- Radius (ft) ----------- Coefficient ----------- C125/C 2.15 28.2 0.38 0.014 Normal Area Velocity Calculated Remarks Depth (ft) ---------- (sf) -------- (ft/sec) -------- Shear (lb/sf) ------------------------- 0.78 2.47 11.42 2.05 Stable ' RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Swale #44 Section B-B ELEVATION (feet) ' 100.20 100.40 100.60 10.0 101.00 101.20 101.40 101.0 � 101.80 R•o y 102.00 02.20 102.40 1 STA ..... ELEV ------ 7/ 0.00 102.50 10.00 100.00 .20.00 102.50 IN' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.060 0.0050 AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (sq ft) (fps) (cfs) NO. 0.2 0.4 0.06 0.21 0.6 0.6 0.38 0.23 1.4 0.8 1.11 0.25 2.6 0.9 2.39 0.26 4.0 1.1 4.34 0.27 5.8 1.2 7.05 0.28 7.8 1.4 10.64 0.29 10.2 1.5 15.19 0.29 13.0 1.6 20.79 0.30 16.0 1.7 Q e 2a19 27.53 ��35.50 0.30 19.4 1.8 0.31 23.0 1.9 44.77 0.31 S� q/ RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Swale #35 Section G-G; STA ELEV 0.00 102.00 8.00 100.00 4 h 16.00 102.00 i . •t 'N' VALUE SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.060 0.0100 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) --------- (sq ft) ------- (fps) (cfs) -------- --------- NO. ------ 100.20 0.2 0.5 0.08 0.29 100.40 0.6 0.8 0.53 0.33 100.60 1.4 1.1 1.57 0.35 100.80 2.6 1.3 3.38 0.37 101.00 4.0 1.5 6.14 0.38 101.20 5.8 1.7. 9.98 0.39 101.40 7.8 1.9 15.05 0.40 101.60-adioo= 10.2 2.1 Qgo &L 21._48 0.41 101.80 I.(ol ' 13.0 2.3 29.40 0.42 102.00 16.0 2.4 38.94 0.43 Go.lyZi..G'� Tie. (.F�"fN v� �j�.Jti�r� rt 35 NaV��J(� StoPE OF %7v dtJ + TE 6P 5i0A) Gon1T�2oL F�PJG n/o,ZrN AMEr1acNNi1% CTzoi-&) 5 � oEst,oP� �, � �• Av, LA•-de4ra;&-., tis -}-o beloL at)y�V1, ®oc� v-a..r, k5G5 jV(k w n, Q i 4 S 6 z/a U y� 9 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Temp. Swale #34 Section eTRON G -G ELEVATION (feet) STA ELEV 0.00 10200 v r 8.00 100..00 16.00 102.00 4 I N I VALUE AREA (sq ft) 100.20 0.2 100.40 0.6 100.60 1.4 100.80 2.6 101.00 4.0 101.2�d,�,=1.20� 5.8 101.40 7.8 101.60 10.2 101.80 13.0 102.00 16.0 SLOPE (ft/ft) ------------- 0.0060 VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (fps) (cf s) NO. 0.4 0.07 0.23 0.6 0.41 0.25 0.8 1.22 0.27 1.0 2.62 0.29 1.2 _ _ , 4.75 0.30 1.3 7,7(�cNN3 7.73 0.31 1.5 11.65 0.31 1.6 16,64 0.32 1.8 22.77 0.33 1.9 30:16 0.33 i. 4786 �z/3 57 Vx A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 s� RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Stoneridge IV Swale 138 cross section D-D STA ELEV 0.00 101.50 15.00 .100.00 30.00 101.50 Qw cc�+a 4/3/ Q lam oo 'NVALUE ---------- SLOPE ------------- (ft/ft) 0.060 0.0060 ELEVATION AREA VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (feet) (sq ft) --------- ------- (fps) -------- (cfs) --------- NO. ------ 100.10 0.1 0.3 0.03 0.21 100.20 0.4 0.4 0.17 0.23 100.30 0.9 0.5 0.49 0.25 100.40 1.6 0.7 1.05 0.26 100.50 2.5 0.8 1.90 0.27 100.60 3.6 0.9 3.10 0.28 100.70 -O. 4.9 1.0 4.67 0:=b.o8 0.28 100.80 6.4 1.0 6.67 cs 0.29 100.90 8.1 1.1 9.12 0.30 101.00 10.0 1.2 12.08 0.30 101.10 12.1 1.3 15.58 0.31 101. 2 0 AILV- /. 2% 1 14.4 1.4 19.65 � (, a _ 22.E7� 0.31 4 101.30 16.9 1.4 2TT2' 031 101.40 19.6 1.5 29.63 0..32 101.50 22.5 1.6 35.61 0.32 (�arlhT2uc7' �7�a�E ,JfT.t EizoStOn) 600 T�oL. FA$5 16.: �10 rH AMrCe64-n1 G0,1,11c.T A4 1,QD92012--k,0 A�-Pn1e> T"H IS yb�a►JZT/�GAM �ITif IVJ �H[G C)Q E _F OF �jtJ7�(�z`�jg pro 48(, R z/35'/ZA ***************************************** ***** CHANNEL LINING ANALYSIS ***** ***** North American Green ***** ***************************************** DESIGNER: TPM PROJECT: STONERIDGE IV STATION: DRAINAGE AREA: 0.0 Acres CHANNEL DESCRIPTION: Bottom Width: 0.00 ft Left Side Slope: 10.0 Right Side Slope: 10.0 DATE: 12-07-1994 PROJECT NO.: 503-006 TO STATION: DESIGN FREQUENCY: %100 Years CHANNEL SLOPE: 0.006 ft/ft Icy to SELT1o�.1 D - D Min. Lining Permissible Discharge Hydraulic Manning Recommended ----------- Shear (lb/sf) ------------- (cfs) --------- Radius (ft) ----------- Coefficient ----------- C125/C a-' 2.15 22.8 0.36 0.014 Normal Area Velocity Calculated Remarks Depth (ft) ---------- (sf) -------- (ft/sec) -------- Shear (lb/sf) ------------------------- 0.73 5.41 4.20 0.27 Stable y�� RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Swale #38 Section E-E ELEVATION (feet) STA 0.00 15.00 30.00 'NI VALUE 0.060 AREA (sq ft) 99.10 0.1 99.20 0.6 99.30 1.3 99.40 2.4 99.50 3.7 99.60 5.4 9970 . 1I7.3 99.90 12.1 100.00 15.0 ELEV 100.00 99.00 100.00 SLOPE (ft/ft) 0.0200 VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE (fps) -------- (cfs) --------- NO. ------ 0.5 0.07 0.38 0.8 0.45 0.42 1.0 1.34 0.45 1.2 2.88 0.47 1.4 5.22 0.49 1.6 8.49 0.51 1.7 12.81 0..52 1.9 C2i00= 22. 77a-s 18.29 0.53 2.1 -25.03 0.54 2.2 33.15 0.55 (,o,�Sr12NGr ��4�� J6TH EJZoS�o,J CoJTr�oL ��B�IC, /J02TN A fcoo u5-e5 44114nin& Z:, flz/1 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Swale #33 Section F-F ELEVATION - (feet) -- STA 0.00 8.00 16.00 W VALUE 0.060 AREA (sq-ft) - 100.20 0.2 100.40 0.6 100.60 1.4 100.80 2.6 101.00_ . = ;•I'-� 4.0 _., 101.20�,_1,3� 5.8 101.40 7.8 101.60 10.2 101.80 13.0 102.00 16.0 ELEV 102.00 100.00 102.00 yY Q.•=13,.3��s SLOPE (ft/ft) ------------- 0.0050 VELOCITY DISCHARGE FROUDE --(fps)_--(cfs)-- NO. 0.4 0.06 0.21 0.6 0.38 0.23 0.8 1.11 0.25 0.9 2.39 0.26, 1.1 4.34 0.27 1.2_7.05 0.28 1.4 10.64 0.29 1.5 15.19 0.29 1.6 20.79 0.30 1.7 27.53 0.30 RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS CHANNEL RATING INFORMATION Swale #36 Section H-H STA 0.00 8.00 16.00 FNI VALUE 0.060 ELEVATION AREA (feet) (sq ft) 100.20 0.2 100.40 0.6 100.60 1A61.4 10 2.6 101 .00 4.0 101.20 5.8 101.40 7.8 101.60 10.2 101.80 13.0 102.00 16.0 ELEV 102.00 100.00 102.00 SLOPE (ft/ft) ------------- 0.0200 VELOCITY DISCHARGE (fps) (cfs) -------- --------- 0.7 0.12 1.2 0.75 1.5 Q,e,; 7Z 2.22 1.9 4.79 2.2 8.68 2.4 14.11 2.7 21.28 3.0 30.38 3.2 41.58 3.4 55.07 FROUDE NO. 0.41 0.46 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.57 0.58 0.60 0.61 , z' "s 775 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Excerpts from: Hydraulic Calculations for Stone Ridge P.U.D. Overall Site Detention Pond I,/ 511 ' B. Specific Details ' Detention Pond . ' Based on the Overall Drainage Study for the Stone Ridge PUD it was known that the overall site detention pond could release no more than 33 cfs. In addition, this pond was to provide irrigation water for the overall site which meant a large portion of the volume could not be used for detention. Based on a report by Resource Consultants titled Groundwater Investigation ion at ' Stone Ridge Detention Pond, some of their recommendations were incorporated into the design of the overall detention pond. Those recommendations included in the overall detention pond design are: ' 1. Over excavating all permeable soil layers encountered below the maximum pool elevation to a depth of three feet and replacing with compacted clay. ' The upper lean clay soils found on the site can be used for this purpose. ' 2. Permeable. soil material encountered during excavation will be salvaged and stored for later use as a granular drainage layer. This drainage layer willbe placed in an 8-inch thick layer along the southern and western ' perimeter of the pond. This layer will extend from the elevation 4883.00 to an elevation high enough to cover any exposed permeable subsoils above the shoreline. 3. The granular drainage layer will be topsoiled'and vegetated to prevent rill and shoreline erosion. A geotextile filter fabric will be incorporated between the topsoil and the drainage material. 4. Two small shallow forebay areas will be constructed at the ultimate inflow points to the pond. Wetland vegetation will be planted in these areas. 5. The inflow points to the forebay areas will be rip -rapped in the future as ' development warrants to prevent erosion of the forebay areas. The Stone Ridge Third Filing Final Design is in process at the time of this report. Along with the Third Filing Final Design, the ultimate riprap rundown into the northwest corner of the detention pond will be designed and included for construction with the Third Filing Utility Plans. This riprap rundown will serve the Stone Ridge 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Filing. At the ' time of development of the Stone Ridge 5th Filing, the riprap rundown into the southeast comer of the detention pond will be design and included ' in the Utility Plans associated with the Fifth Filing. 4 ' 6. Approximately 20 to 30 percent of the open water area of the pond will ' have a depth greater than 8 feet at minimum pool elevation. At least 75 percent of the pond will have depths of 3 - 6 feet, and at least 50 percent of the pond will meet a 3 foot minimum depth requirement at minimum ' pool elevation. 7. Three submerged rock cairns and 2 submerged logs will be provided for habitat variety for future fish. 8. Informative signs will be placed, in the future, next to the pond, to inform the residents of the tributary watershed water quality issues. The invert of the outlet pipe is set at 4879.50, and the invert of the overflow ' spillway is at 4889.50 which falls within the State of Colorado 10 foot maximum height, in order to avoid review by the State Engineers Office. ' The maximum release rate from the detention pond is 26 efs'which is under the required 33 cfs. This difference is due to the restrictions placed on the design by the existing downstream hydraulics. The outlet pipe from the detention pond will ' tie into an existing 18" RCP from the Fox Meadows Development (see reference material in Appendix).There is an existing 8" cmp pipe which presently ties into the 18" pipe, which will need to be removed. Because the hydraulics of the — downstream system were missing from the project files during our research at the City of Fort Collins Engineering and Stormwater Departments, a conservative assumption was made that the downstream water surface elevation was at the top of the existing 18" pipe. This assumption forced our maximum release rate to only reach 26 cfs instead of the desired 33 cfs. The outlet box has been provided with a 15" x 15" slide gate which will enable the pond to be drained as needed. At the northwest corner of the Detention Pond, an existing underdrain enters the site and the outflow passes through an existing measuring weir. Due to the limits of pond grading required in this area, the measuring weir will need to be ' relocated out of the pond improvement area. ' Based on the report by Empire Labs titled Stone Ridge P.U.D. Detention Pond Larimer County Road 9 the existing pond embankment is stable. According to Empire Labs report, tests were run on selected undisturbed and composite ' samples in the test borings to determine the physical properties of the embankment and foundation materials at the existing dam. A factor of safety of the upstream 3:1 slope was determined to be 8.6, and the factor of safety of the downstream 2:1 slope was found to be 3.5. Based on their analyses, it was determined that the existing dam embankment is stable, and modifications to the ' structure to further stabilize the dam were not required. 5 5V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i SWMM Modeling In order to analyze the ultimate permanent detention pond, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District's SWMM computer model was required to be used by the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility. The hydrology for this study was updated from the SWMM Model developed for the Overall Drainage Study for Stone Ridge PUD, dated July 15, 1992 by RBD Engineers, and the Overall Lot Plan for the Stone Ridge PUD development. The SWMM model was updated to reflect the revised storage and release rates for the overall site detention pond, the basin percent impervious at ultimate buildout, and the basin tributary width. Through extensive coordination with the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility, the City has requested that the physical meaning be used for the tributary width parameter in the SWMM Model. This parameter is currently under review by the City. By using the physical meaning value of the tributary width parameter instead of using, -it as a calibration parameter, the Stone Ridge detention pond has been sized conservatively. Water Balance Model Due to the fact that the pond requires a certain amount of depth to help prevent algae growth, the pond level should not be allowed to go below 4883.00. A Water Balance Model was done in order to determine approximately how much additional inflow will be needed to maintain the water surface between elevation 4883.00 and 4885.00. This model is not a dynamic model due to the problems in predicting such things as exactly when rainfall will occur, the variations in the temperature which will cause the evaporation to fluctuate, and just when the underdrain will be flowing. The Water Balance Model also assumes that the average monthly precipitation falls in a single event (monthly event) and therefore counts abstractions such as infiltration, surface retention, etc. once. This method does not account for storm frequency and type do to the level of the design intent of this analysis. In affect, the Water Balance Model adds together the total approximate inflow to the pond and subtracts out the total approximate outflow from the pond during a one month period. Based on this methodology, the approximate amount of additional inflow to the pond from an outside source has been estimated. This amount is based on maintaining the pond level at or near elevation 4885.00. The following table gives the approximate amount of additional irrigation water required and which months it is anticipated to be required, in acre-ft, to maintain'the pond surface at 4885.00. Weather patterns change from day to day, month to month, and year to year. Therefore the added inflow amounts below will vary from month to month and year to year. 0 I (b1 A_DDMONAL IRRIGATION SOURCE REOU[REMENTS MONTH : ADDED INFLOW (ACRE-FEET) June 1.35 July 7.26 August 5.57 Sept. 0.58 The design of the irrigation facility and the additional source of irrigation water, other than the detention pond, are outside the scope of this project and will be done by others at a later date. The detention pond will ultimately need the following features: 1) Irrigation pumping station 2) Float control mechanism with additional irrigation water inflow source such that the pond is prevented from dropping below elevation 4883.00. Once the pond begins to drop below elevation. 4883.00, the additional irrigation water inflow source kicks in to provide necessary water to maintain elevation 4883.00 in the detention pond. V. EROSION CONTROL r A. General Concept All disturbed areas will be revegetated in accordance with the seeding specifications shown on the overall site grading plan. In addition, an erosion bale check dam will need to be constructed along the entire Southern perimeter of the proposed detention pond in order to keep incoming runoff from eroding the pond sides, until the new grass has been established. After the oveilot grading has been completed, all disturbed areas, shall have a vegetation seed applied per the specification on the construction drawings. After seeding, a hay or straw mulch shall be applied over the seed at a rate of 2 tons/acre (min.). The mulch shall be adequately anchored, tacked, or.crimped into the soil per the methods shown on the construction drawings. Erosion bale check dams shall be installed immediately after the improvements they protect have been constructed. I 7 C CLIENT NC PROJECT Engineering Consultants MADEBY*-DATE 1 1 11 (_ CALCULATIONS FOR�uSJ BY DATE SHEET I(o OF _`!'.f/Yiiv/:? ...r_.�._T--y... 17, {{ Z5_A..,_ `d. `ice 1 2--'t - JL'S" _ _ W '+-'".00V. SID ohs;I-i $i� I t 77 o. 8 G3 .y. �_��.l.�.. i.�j. .�.J.. L- �..�.}..,•1�- i. __.-..r_.1�.1-�.. ^ .._._�_ .�.r� '_ _•...+�. �. 4-1 I�y •*- _i•-�� __j.1.'•? 7""-j- ° - i!-�--�.5..:.. -i _ I ' -_' -<' � � ' +-{-_}. �"J_=- -�- j 1.1��'`r' I t � Y I. ....L_F-lt. .t5. ''.•4y1_�.}�-+. 1._i .{. �._i... �._+.?._i.j..! .i.l.: - �-J -y_.:. i t � -F L..;. �..«._. a..�. � . ��_,_ i �_.t_� J• �--�_r t�'1 I I ; _ .�l_•i._.—....:._ y..Ya-1_i_1..;.:: ._�._r-iy..}_... _ ..T.- ._._.:..ice-.1.. _}.S..y.-lt-}•-{-._.j ._}__ � -•t- -1_I_, _�.�.{_� _ J. �.�.1..�. i I 1 1 I I r .� �.l. .J._. :-.~ -i : _ �. 1. : ! ram;• _�_�,,L`.}1"T:-� - - 3..�.i. I ...... t... t• .. L..y..:..P._ I �1 11 _7. a I CLIENT INC PROJECT CALCULATIONS FOR-VCkL"W- 176 AW Engineering Consultants MADEBY-&---DATE CHECKEDBY-DATE SHEET OF voluft-p- I . .. ... . . . ... 4" .. . . . . .... .. : L d - ----- dd A 4- . ....... I _Thl T7T � 4—: —i TT 4 _ .. . .. ...... ------- -- .......... 7 7 • 4 . 7 ........... 1-7- 7_77 77 7- ............ i+ �A .. ...... .... .. .... T, 7 ....... 4 L... 2- .. ........ 14- 7'— . 4_1 -73 f 4._L1 .:.4 ..... ... t 1,7 T., 7 NC Engineering Consultants CLIENT Ka f 19k -3 JOBNO. -003-00V PROJECT 5`6re Ridle POP CALCULATIONS FOR&mbea-bg7 Curve- MADEBYKV)(- DATEAz6w-CHECKED BY- DATE -SHEET- OF C; We IA=� Mi 43) 4 4- R 4W PA.; MA 7zY 7' 4- L 07 U z 57, 4 - d ..i�_3 7 T AAX F A it 'T7 7` 7. sa 7 .7 7 T L31 _pF 722 '.iai za.(6 MIA ZV1. IT 7 1 28.7 L , 7 IT, Y. 7- t-t-7-- 7 4� ZT: _44 AL J. -d I p T' + TE -4 L 1 n- i. V_-U4- i-L 0. 17 �t . i �-4 ..1.! 4 .4- 4 T 133 ------ L. _nj J �v 19 =23 'e-f Ii /MLI-Ov'r 'm Z 9� 5Lope 3,yold. RBD INC. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS WEIR SECTION FLAW DATA STONE RIDGE PUD WEIR RATING CURVE FOR POND (301 WIDE). WEIR COEF. . 3.000 STA ELEV 0.0 90.50 4.0 89.50 34.0 89.50 38.0 90.50 ELEVATION DISCHARGE ( feet) --------- --------- (cfs) 89.50 0.0 89.60 2.9 89.70 8.2 89.80 15.2 89.90 23.6 90.00 33.3 90.10 44.2 90.20 56.2 , 90.30 69.3 90.40 83.4 90.50 98.5 E�aa flay 0 CHART.. 1.0 18 0 10, 000 168 0,000. EXAMPLE (I) (2) (3) 136• 0.42 inch" (3.5 f"t) 6' 6, 000 144 5,000 00120 cfs- G. 4,000 xt * NM 6• . 5. 132 0 teat i 3,000 5. 120 4• I 111 i.s es 108 2,000 (3) 2.2 7.7 4. 3. e0 In feet 3, i. 96 1,000 �% 3• 800 84 600 2. 2 500 72 400 M _ 300 1.5 Z N Z 60 U. 200 �� j H L5 ^ Z / o S4 � •�' v a 48 �� 800 z u 42 u 60 0. 1.0 1.0 CU. c 5 / S LE ENTYPECE LC 1.0 l W 9 W 36 I 9 (1) Square edge with 3 .9 W 33 A"d.oll a a G 0 ( Groeve and with yt i 30 h.aa..11 x s .6 (3) Gras.. snd' .6 27 yreJ"tleg ' 7 7 24 8 .7 6 To use scale (2) or (3) Project _ - 2 5 horkontail7 to scale (11 IM 4 use stral h ae through scale., or reverse as 6 3 itlustraud. 6 IS .5 1.0 .5 s Liz HEADWATER DEPTH FOR HEADWATER SCALES 293 CONCRETE PIPE CULVERTS BUREAU Of PUS tG Al AK IgN REVISED MAY *64 WITH INLET CONTROL 181 Preceding page blank i 1 i 1. 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i EROSION CONTROL �j 1 TmiDINC. ' Engineering Consultants 209 S. Meldrum Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 303/482-5922 FAX: 303/482-6368 [J May 10, 1994 Mr. Basil Hamdan 1 City of Fort Collins Utility Services Stormwater 235 Mathews Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 1 RE: Erosion Control Report, Calculations, Cost Estimate and Schedule for the Stoneridge P.U.D. Third and Fourth Filing and Area Detention Pond 1 Dear Basil: We are pleased to submit to you, for your review and approval, this Erosion Control Plan for 1 the Stone Ridge P.U.D. Third and Fourth Filing and Detention Pond. All computations for erosion control efficiency and performance within this.report have been completed in compliance with the City of Fort Collins Storm Drainage Design Criteria. 1 The erosion control cost estimate was determined on a unit cost per acre basis for the total area of 50.2 acres. The total estimate is $37,650. 1 The measures to be most widely used for controlling erosion during the overlot grading of the Third and Fourth Filings will be temporary and permanent seeding of plant species approved by 1 the Fort Collins Stormwater Utility Department for such use. The development to be completed during the summer and fall of 1994 will be the Third Filing, final submittal of the Fourth Filing, and the Detention Pond. Horsetooth Road and County Road 9 east of the Third Filing will not 1 be improved at this time, therefore existing pavement will remain in place. It is expected that the paving of residential streets and private drives proposed with these filings will be in place within six weeks of the overlot grading, otherwise, gravel mulch will be required in the 1 proposed roadways according to the City's design criteria. Straw bale barriers will be placed in all swales spaced every 200 feet, both permanent and temporary. Gravel inlet filters are required at all inlets as soon as they are constructed. 1 ' Denver 303/458-5526 ' The construction sequence for these measures are shown in Standard Form C of the attachments to this letter. The performance and efficiency calculations are also attached. We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this report. Please call if you have any questions. Respectfully, RBD Inc. Engineering Consultants � 1 Terry P. McEnany.. ,.. ' Project Engineer \��.� a� �b v: Kevin W. Gingery, P.E. 1 I No Text RAINFALL PERFOR*'-SCE STANDARD rVALUATION ga PROJECT: p" t7 - r=:•}l. F I„`5 STPSIDA-RD, FORK A COY-PLEiED 3Y: -T-PtA r:2�r> DATE: 4 -tR¢ I O DEVELOPED ERODI3ILITY Asb Lsb Ssb Lb Sb PS SL33ASIN I ZONE (ac) I (ft) ($) (feet) ( ) M 31 ' ^'` o p Z. 9 to 4j o I. I 0 2-2v 1.7 4.7(� 33 nti�b • . I• �1 820 o,S 2,7 3� MorD 1.2`) 307 Z.S . 37 4.35 790 0.9 38 co '3q5 2.3 1.39 7 SS 3. o 4-o Mom &, I l 300 .1117 3co .12. llP nl�or� I.4-7 N& 1 I j 1.47 1-7 1.47 4-Z7 1 &zs 1.4-1 Z,o 2,21. 41 o D, B Cj 0(0 1 . I 7.48 41.0 j� Mop 1.75 SS8 1.0 -- ZZ I. 1 1 3 9 7 0.74- Z3 -3. 1 I 2� I, eo 4-Zo f. 21 I. 19D • -5 p Z5 1 %9 3z4- I.o 2� 1 3z b45 1. o 27 8' 0,91 670 o,S 012 . 333 1.5 30 0,4s 1 zo s� 17w� �Nsrcr fDESIGNCRITERIA �T iC� C oit 5'�rtsLf O�'7 =i l8•'� - Cj Z . Z ti2.Z O m m 0 0 0 ' O «L9t4L7 L'� coaacoa O 01 C1 p1 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CCQ<L; L' L7 Ln L7 L7 ' C a a a a co 0 a a a co o ac�cic,clnnc��c�c,c�000 . ............... O CC V CCC<CQ CQ vOLn L7 ' n a a a aocoaraaaaoaaa O ro coC1OfC1C1mC1ClC',nnnnmClC)n O Q< N co co a o 0 o a a co co o a a a a co a a a O Ong o%o%D oorr-rrrrrl-rraa0 cocoa O O c< < C C C c Q Q< C C « C Q Q c c C C Q Q C C ri coco cJcocoaaacococococoaacocococococococoaa ' O co C, <tALlLlQ)%D akz%D r-r-r-hhhhr-r.coco a o • . • . . . 4Cl n< cc<<cc<<«cccQCQCQccc« Ucoq cococcocoacocococococococococococoaacoaaco O %M0 r, n<CL7L7L7ln%D Vcoko) o%D0%o00rrrrrr f� a n < Ic 444444 < < < < < C < < Q < < < Q 4444 Hco co r a a co a a co a a o a co a co a a co coa co a co co a a O CC1 Nnn Q<C Q n Li 0 L7 L'�tn v)l11� 191�OLO V' l7r . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O r n n « C C Q C Q C C « Q Q C Q C C Q Q Q< C< U coa aacoaaaa000acococoococaaaacoco O ODD O ri r{ N N n n n n C«C Q Q<< Ll V) 0 LP) a L9 • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 1J nn r, Q< IV Cr C Q'G' C C C< C Q< Q Q< Q Q Q<C P4 co co caooaoaacaocoaaacoc000cocoacoco � O Ln N tr r co C% 0 0 ri ri ri cV N N N N n n n n n Q C Q Q C �j 0 a{ • . . . . . . . . . . ' cqf14 ` Ln Nn r, nnnc<<Q«CQQQCC<cQQCCQC a coa co co a co co co a co a co a co a a a a a co a co co a L•7 rA. L'a pyCOQ7raa a 0 OCrtn rnL7L0%0r,r�co cococoC%C%C%0000 a NN nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnQcc ,v as r a a 0 co a a a a a co a co co a a a a a a a a as O %D Ln a O ri(14 n C Q L'1 L'1 L7%D 17 t717 0hr�hhaa a C%C1 H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cn < riN nr)nnnnr)nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn ' coo aaoaaoocoocoaacocaaaaacocoaa U N r4 r4 v ra00.iNNnnnC<QQCL'1NL71917%Drr ,. NNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn r{N Laa cocoocococoCD 0CDcocococo=cococococoaa 0 O nN a m 0 ri N N nnn< Q< Q QQ Ll n 0 in0 L700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . n C;4 r{r; N N N N NNN N N N N N N N N N N N NN f3 co co aacoca coc0000acococacoaaaaaa ' In L7N C, N nC L') L7 rr r cocoa Cl CI CI CI Cl Cl000000 13 N ClO c r{riHrir{r♦rir{ririr{.ir{riririr{NNN N N N . haa a Q co as co co a cocoa a a a co co cocoa ' 7r O <cnc n L7 L0 co col 0000 ri r4 r4 r{ NNNNnnnnnn N a Cl C O O •0 O iO1 O ri ri H ri H ri H ri ri H H ri 4 414 4 ri h h a a C;Co=1a• co co a a O a co co a a a co co co a co a s ' L7 co N p Ll It. co Cl Cl O O r� r-i rii rN rf N N n n n n n ri V' co C1 Cl C1 �C1I Cl Cl. n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r r h:-r-�:h r r o o a a a co a co co a a co a a a O l0 n C r Cl O r{� N n n P < in Ln Ln Ll l7 l7 .0 L7 r r V' ID .. .11.1. ................. ri C 1_J ,I h h r; co co a a o o co a a a a co a co a Cp a a a � GIj� rah h r r h r h r h h h r h h r h h r rn Cl 0 kD hll0 to Ir r h V V' l7 In C C n n N N n %M Q rim 0 . N .�I . O O N N N � IN N N N N N N N N N N N N ri ri ri ri O O rr hrJ�r �rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :R:E4 00 0010Lloloo000a000000000000 ' Ot�Et o0 ooi0olo,000000aoo00oc00000 r4 4zrq L71 a C%oriNnrrn�racl00000Llo F'ra� riririririririririrtNNnn C CL7 ► ........... - S�- EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS STANDARD FORM 8 COMPLETED BY: - - M jam, DATE: 30 q Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value. Value Comment trdr..tfc..Jr' ?V O. cI 5 D. 0c0 (o_o�_ �jZgvEL GufZPS L pt G F I . to PJf�cZECjK l- .D-Rcvro{ O, MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN (t) BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS 70.4 31, 3Z 4.7� T� W...� nbT flrivE �.4rEi.T�icT G� 6��cv„J(� .. PADg, rah✓in/[7 GJieL r,?E �EQrcie?,� 6tJiTj�i.J - � w�tic.S of bVE'h'Lor G,egD,.✓6, orEew�sE G24VEL Mw W IS T Be- A%1�/EA �4Ndia• - /" i'/+%e�c z4rE4 NAf-v = 2•o•c, a = � W+d- C, o•� o c = [ I (y.o� + o.oL(z.-ram)]= ¢•7(, Q 1 I, o cc �7o i'Tg.�- 799 33, S.`j� Po,2rtc�s ot= jr46 t7AV Er>. ej.7T- 6.0V2 LJico' �� rcSFJ� fG� �/?c/�5:� 5 r�•J FjfkLES Wed-G' `o. q (o..4'y�> •r o.c� (�d.54>, c g. 5� = o • 058 4 t✓FF l-v.css Co.8'%rGo 07o > �`�•`� O�\ / > 1G 94. o o K P4viJG 904551AA 0--',Z WjrR,�j !p �5 OF oviceLcr 6eADftiu,, 3/4" 601AVeL /5 To Ce /1661waaP T 42EA5 T F64e ?ve0 T /" 7N�cr CAy�tie• MARCH1991 DESIGN CRITERIA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: P. 4 } �- r l :.� STANDARD FORM B COMPLETED BY: -,-PiA DATE: 5 ¢ Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment aZCPV u.�;l 1.0 [3 A L F e, t' S F5-- Ca N D- Ro BASIN ($) BASIN (Ac) 7 50,0 1 '%' -3i S, &2 ��m CALCULATIONS S Ef j/MuL./-H 4Q6 -ro F3r,—, LA-scP IQ ASAS 1wAT 1,c .for dAve� J>4Vr1.jC-aT o2 '3LC6 -4:4ve"Fn17— WILL +4AVQ T-a gE P crD ,.a. I T„ „j Ee ks Vim: o ea.L.0'r J3AAa u� s ) A-" rr Tv 6� AA PLA-c r Y ,,j 5�jA-- zs. Z..;, ' Z Z !t G (a-o4-0.L) 1- O.OG C'P•ZZ4Ll� o'�z=O.G+C�o �.%1LCC'l. ��JJ > 9�•. I � otL •5FF = C - �o.OfGko.g,) l00 .- % to �> `it),D O� -'7EV-ED/r,&u-LZA{ w«L 5G, "5r=9 poll- k-U Q. — 0.07 I..o F =(l - 0. 0-7) too % �' �4,5) °V_ *SF Pave vb i5 Naf DBE W�rK„v � wKs of ovArzL -C- DAI 614V& Mu.LeN /5 To 8C ,csc_n ,AJSTrF}D. (9�4#d,� L. 1/' PeEf,) MARCH1991 8-1 s llcelry �errr n.. 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: G%�1�r2/LYa� �u� -wrcD �u/u 1 FuiJ:�J STPNDA.RD FORM B COMPLETED BY: Pj0 TAG DATE: Erosion Control' C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment KoaC�N�D �c.�cl: CaRrour�0 (�) I.00 o.�o RA-J oo- E5 fl MLI-L- CS�� 00 G�2Av�t- ��ul�.r1.T �•o'� ' oo ----- - -- MAJOR -PS SUB P-REA BASIN (€) BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS 7e,.4 Ilo, 748 V--P /,AL.L4K wlLj- aO- LOED i 2o�N0�T- 171 TE G-q,�r�rL , S�a�S, A-10 f'jq/J+CS� ETC, l g, �Tr2Av� i3Ac Es v✓ ,LL- f3E- pL-4ceD AT VA2,otLS Locp;TlcnYo gco.X� TN.E, -pi.oLiPi4T1-1-s. L-i5, � = �, oo `� A 17:51 = 4-.$ L- . h�trX-P�� pK��co.lS�rkc�on) J - 794 i9, �s.2`� �� . jA,L/--, w«L ItA AzeA6 2!-33Dn/cr r��co5F0 �or2 �/fv2r�CrJ%' OO 6RAVEL- /AuLLff A 7;��AO-J4; A'J0 G�v�Z ;idsT'. f�T�/�5 AT -AL L. 1N LeT-S 14- AA- Ac.1A = 2, o & A = 3.1 W'��-G: `D.o(� (io.l4) :- rJ.0s�2•o� � 3.15�� is.?� = 0.25 > 78.4% . (I/kYlr�q CDNS�fK(i�wn MARCH IS 9 1 2.15 DESIGN CRITERIA oL 1 EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS PROJECT: STANDARD FORM B 1 COMPLETED BY: T3IA © DATE: 24 c� 1 Erosion Control C-Factor P-Factor Method Value Value Comment Gt3 /�C rsS' — PrnnT O. C 1 •Gal . c7o�1'y —02 NAY S RAC.) jk,L � tizSSM da (.Op 1 1 MAJOR PS SUB AREA BASIN ($) BASIN (Ac) CALCULATIONS • r'�yZ / Fi�75 T.4A47�c�e a�rr/T Ca/�3Drl'. 1 y �_2vFJ✓tJ:TGi E�%/iJ[= J/ 1Ar cLL}J LJILL �GL tJ J/✓$TSCl1 � er s-�� ..�,.J��s ,¢rJr, ��✓a.��GNkJ-J��S Fc2 vrLcTrc 25 A46 T 66 Lac i' FF fALt_ To es 1 i 1 1 ' MARCH 1991 8-15 DESIGN CRrTERIA 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 Table 83 C-Factors and ?-Factors for Evaluating EFF Values. Treatment C-Factor P-Factor BARE SOIL Packedand smooth.....:.......................................................... 1.00 1.00 Freshlydisked........................................................................ 1.00 0.90 Roughirregular surface........................................................... 1.00 0.90 SEDIMENT BASIN TRAP................................................................. 1.00 0.50113 STRAW BALE BARRIER, GRAVEL FILTER, SAND BAG ...:.................... 1.00 0.80 SILT FENCE BARRIER..................................................................... 1.00 0.50 ASPHALT/CONCRETE PAVEMENT ................................................... 0.01 1.00 ESTABLISHED DRY LAND (NATIVE) GRASS .................. ......... See Fig. 8-A 1.00 SODGRASS................................................................................. 0.01 1.00 TEMPORARY VEGETATION/COVER CROPS .................................... 0.451=1 1.00 HYDRAULIC MULCH @ 2 TONS/ACRE........................................... 0.10131 1.00 SOIL SEALANT ........................... :........................................ 0.01-0.60"' 1.00 EROSION CONTROL 1.1,ATS/BLANKETS............................................ 0.10 1.00 GRAVEL MULCH Mulch shall consist of gravel having a diameter of approximately 1/4" to 1 1/2" and applied at a rate of at least 135 tons/acre.............. 0.05 1.00 14AY OR STRAW DRY IJULCH After Planting orass seed, apply mulch at a rate of 2 tons/acre (minimum) and adequately anchor, tack or crimp material into the soil. Slone M 1 to 05... .............:............................:........................:...... 0.06 .1.00 6 to 10 ....................................................................... 0.06 1.00 ITto 15............................................................................ 0.07 1.00 16 to 20................................................... ........................ . 0.11 1.00 21 to 25..... ..... ..................... ........................................... .. 0.14 -1.00 25 to 33 ......................................................................... 0.17 1.00 > 33.......................................................................... 0.20 .1.00 NOTE. Use of odr_r C-factor or P-Factor,.alues repo:,ed in this -�Ue must bea substr tia-,ed by documenta-5on. (1) Must be constructed as the first step in overlot grading. (2) Assumes planting by dates identified in Table 11-4, thus dry or hydraulic mulches are not required. 13) ' Hydraulic mulches shall be used only betv:een March 15 and May 15 unless irrigated. (4) Value used must be substantiated by documentation. MARCH IS91 8.6 DESIGN CRITERIA 1A ' ' ' 7� CONSTRDCTZON' S'.QLiNC'.-3 -RO✓:-CT: `To J E CK E P u. O. - 4A F.1, STANTARD FORT C i SEQTNCS FGR 19. 4� ONLY. COYiLET_� BY: TP�I Q ��?rJ DATE: - Z - e1 4 Indicate by use cf a bar line cr s}—.-bols w1en erosion control measures will be installed. Y.ajer modifications to an approved sched•--le Way require sub.::itting a new schedule for : approval by the Cy Engineer. YEAR 19Int 4 1 el el 5 MONTH NiAJ I ZU I --i- 1 a 47 1 0 1 f— I M I Ar I OVE.R_LOT ' H1TD EROSION CONTROL Soil Roughening --.— perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods Soil Sealant ' Other EROSION CONTROL STRUCTURAI: Sediment Trap/Basin Inlet Filters Silt Fence Barriers Sand Bags Bare Soil Preparation ' Contour Furrows Terracing Asphalt/Concrete. Paving ' Other - G PAve-L IAVL�,A V'GETATIV : . Perr„anert Seed Planting' _._.-------�------------- Y.ulchino/Sealant . ' Teaporary_ Seed Planting. - Sod Installation :lettings/Hats/Blankets ' Other IRuCTLRF,S: INSTX L--D BY HAINTAZh=D BY V'G=TATZON/Y.ULCHING CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED A2PsOV-7D By CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON MARCH 1551 2.16 DESIGN CRITERIA t t t 1 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE PROJECT: 5fr�r C�i 4 Q"e— sEQuExcE. FOR 19 ONLY COMPLETED BY:. TSl� STANDARD FORM C DATE: Indicate by use of a bar line or symbols when erosion control measures will be installed. Major modifications to an approved schedule may require submitting a new schedule for approval by the City. Engineer. YEAR MONTH- t4 I! (� I A< I. S -' a I N I I I ------------------------------------;---------------------------------------------_-I OVERLOT GRADING I WIND EROSION CONTROL I Soil Roughing Perimeter Barrier Additional Barriers Vegetative Methods. Soil Sealant Other-,. i- 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/Mats/Blankets Other --------------------------- STRUCTURES: INSTALLED BY VEGETATION/MULCHING CONTRACTOR DATE SUBMITTED HDI/SF-C:1989 MAINTAINED BY APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT COLLINS ON I I I I r ' JAVIA3Y 1991 8-20 DESIGN CRITERIA 76/ C CHARTS, TABLES, & FIGURES DRAINAGE CRITERIA MANUAL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 30 F- 20 w a O0 5 N w 3 cc 3 O= 2.' U 2 cc . Iw— 1.5 3 RUNOFF -771 �mnnnmin ArvNIres Mnnnn1111WA ASSIS MM' ®inn ii- �/ �' . ' i •" I �nn1111� �ME■�� 1• �i =%MEnE,■1' ti' �I��►I III �%��/mill ��l ��l•■■�� I/�II �I.■III ■►III■nl�nn��■�� /�IIn%�%/1I �/nll�nl�nn��■�� 1 .2 .3 5 1 �'��L;'Z2i' 5 10 . 20 VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND FIGURE 3-2. ESTIMATE OF AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY FOR USE WITH THE RATIONAL FORMULA. *MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURRING"UNDEVELOPED" LAND SURFACES IN THE DENVER REGION. REFERENCE: -Urban Hydrology For Small Watersheds" Technical Release, No. 55, USDA, SCS Jan. 1975. 5-1-84 URBAN DRAINAGE 5 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT No Text BLACKSTONE DRIVE - - - y-- CL'X SWEWAI.K WLN£PT _ _ �- l Age ' STONE RIDGE IUD. THIRD FILING j IYPROWMENT 1 \�WN. SCALE 1'=50- LEGEND Sam EXISTING CONTOUR / IA PROPOSED FINISHED CONTOUR B.O.W. BACK OF WALK HP. HIGH POINT A LP. LOW POINT TY, TOP OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL SPOT ELEVATION (PRtPCSLCI ABC }Y� SPOT ELEVATION (EXISTING) O FLOW DIRESTON - ORM PROPOSEDSEE STORY DRAIN Y F _ - EXISTING STORY DRAIN Z A or 0 FHA GRADING DESIGNATOR 0 SUB —PHASE LINE f-UIUHL 41tl t-ILINI9 ry ,, I PHAf2E.2 :6A __ JI NOTES TO w o.rvNsPINNACE.wuL BE AWED B Ta. `5IN a oW WA NNWW ;0 ^ Nl MW 16 ,I R3 THE WHILLAA Cover EA TNDATIO AAOE ESTw LOWESTNALLREEM�Tppry OF FOUNDATION ALL ♦. THE MW[ 1 AWE MCENO TIE UXAFA GO OF N N 51EEi STOm WAY BE CHOPPED 1 UNION TEE 4IX4 DOWN TO PROTECTK TUNES AS LONG AS ]B' MINNN COVER IS MAINTAINED + y 7 M I S mE WMUUU iMNAOON EM09ME ABOVE Amsom RACE SHALL BE C, B. SLOPES OF 3:1 ON GREATER SMALL BE YCMD TO UNION CROWN T. THE A`FWAY SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED ON NO wA WE OF NE LOT N ALL CASES UNLESS LOT G IS CH (1 ALLON ACM111 YACq STNJSTICN OIUAWTY. OBE&BEB BOB. �l ATE BE NST-11ID u1A WNYWL SLOPE AM E6 WE 10 NE SANITARY SEWER MAN 0. >M JAMOIN peY CENrtY1XE MAPS 4 10i UNIONS SEPARATE 90EWNN TO WAKEN DEANAY CER1EA1AOE Yl g ➢C AA BE HAS 11 THE AQUINO g51M¢ TRY RW4 nmN mEq ELEVATION 10 SMTMY SEYq WAN NAT Srl 1 BE 13 VERTICALLY, Ix M�Ew KIDATION PINAMESREDi YOU NA SCAIED B"NG SETBACK 9W1 Firm10 PROPERTY LANE AND M ASSUMED NW3 ENKILVE OF AS 9gNN. MY VYMTIA A SETBACK( A MMLMG SEE ENMQYNT MAY REWIRE ME MSED GRACE AM MAEO M OF FWI9AMW ELEVATIONS To AMQ. City of Fort Collins, Colorado UTIIATY PLAN APPROVAL APPROVED: Duector 01 gOBlueering Dele CHECKED BY. writer A BRBbNtler DutyOe4 CHECKED BY SIormealn DWIy Dale CHECKED BY: Pw1m A Reeneuae NO CHECKED BY: Date CHECKED BY: YKP,Y tPY, �� Engmeenng Consultants STONE RIDGE P.U.D. FINAL GRADING PLAN SOUTH 5 MARCH 1995 sca-DDe - FOURTH FILING, PHASE 1 NO BY DATE RENSHON DE _ SCRP➢ON '" (2)-M' ADS PIPE THIRD FILING PLANS / O 0, \ 6 969- 4 rj Og' \ t. s+.l O t 09 6 eEo s e194,+ct�A PcF,�a P �Y'o�J p `e OTC 4 0 �909,6220 J M \ 4 t6 6 a) Kayo 49D7.53 \ 4 N j 1 l 49 04W� I D 10 \ \ 4 e) 9q\ \ k / L'9 2 AJ d \ VIA 'N, \ 491d N0. BO tlB \ BOMAR / SWALE 3B PROTECT I t4. )p ZQ a 9 / LP / / \ G Te, 'Cj 13l W IB ��O Mi+w iLk Tea G �rj�Pst � \KKK i FIELDSTONE STORM -_i Y -� / Cfy` 4' TYPE'R' CURB INLFTS , `. S DRAIN, (SEE THIRD 1K RUNG PLARL) L"" FUTURE FOURTH FILING v F URE FIFTH FILING SCALE 1'=50' � �' EEEI YW TPM 0C4n - LP, ., . Engineering Consultants MARCH 1995 SC.t N0. BY DAIS RENSION DESCRIPTION PROPOSED POND INTAKE LINE BE U AND PUMP STATION ti 52m EXISTING CONTOUR OTHERS SEE PLANS By OTHERS , p 14 PROPOSED FINISHED CONTOUR ED J R.O.W. BACK OF WALK Z I Y I H.P. HIGH PUNT _ - f •__ , L.P. LOW PUNT Tf_ TOP OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL 41/ J 0 SPOT ELEVATION (PROPOSED) to O � � e� SPOT ELEVATON (E%511NG) LL ROW DIRECTION I PROPOSED STORM °RAIN STONE RIDGE OVERALL SSTE / A or B MA GRADING DESIGNATION DETENTION POND - REFER To ■ • SUIT LINE PLAN AND REPORT BY RED. MARCH 1994. / GARDEN DEN07S POTENTAL GARDEN t00-YR WEEL-4689.5- - / LEVEL BASEMENT WALKOUT DENOTES POTENDAL WALKOUT ASEMENT TRACT A PROPOSED HOU E. TOP OF 'Y / � PUMP HOUSE. TOP OF -_ I , �% SEEP ELEV. s 0THER /N SEE PLANS BY OTHERS NOTES 1. ML mmmu Osu . 9 R WIC(D D. NSTTMv MXEX Y lMO E OLL Y T X YNYW 46E RA ]i n YM[Am R.R4 V A N AIL LOTS`E I6 SKI BE PRO 1D AMAY FROM THE yM TMY SEaEY YnM \\ TKI LS W. TIE W➢NWR M,EM.Y mITEIWI( WALE SALL Er UME35 SEAM SCHWAB TO ILA\ 5 ^ y.111ED AT 10% w MYtx CASE \\ O I s� a E EXTREMITY TREMMITYDY E FOGIiIWOATIOiw� m MA➢Yw MUE ml➢RAME w•u SHAU. 6 `r N / 9uu HE x'. 0J THE E MBKm GRADE MOUND THE LDAER DID �- Don 01V. nmT m SANITARY SPAER SE MAN ` OF KV4SD H unne mTurs WAY ME .LXT SMALL x 12 DROMMED N TYESAS LP1c�ASM DOWN x. TE"WHED wµF AND TTWHAD TOP OF B• \ NS FOUNDATION OPYATONS ARE Wnsn ON A 5 M YWMN gMl'AMI EW4FE ABOK SCALED PROPERTY UNE AND A GRM� ANSI EXW SN[D GRACE LL RE BE 0141AN1DNE T M MNYVARIA" �f •l �' a. 516[S - OI lEP SMALL BE 5[CMD EXMICK N AS NG 9 TAM R SETBACK ON 11MS ED MADE AND ENDED m YwWn POISON 1E IF EaMATM ELEVATORS TO CNwQ. J C 1. T4 M>E OF THE H SHALL 6E C I-L CAMS U LE THE�J. 41 LOTS M)JACE47 10MUL HAW POND HEAHOT RAT R EONG IS SOTN LL CAMS UNLESS (LOTS 4 TwdAON t5TH THAT MALE A ALLOW OMWWAY CLMSPVCTCNEOMPMSE THAN AEp 5OPENING vnTM n 5 NO SEA MINIMUM B e TO ON MOAil OWRLLOTER SR� eEGRADINNG ALL$ OF ACCORDANCE DATA SHUT TDO IMAj" 125 E.F. OF 24' SMOOTH MEINIERIOR HOPE PIPE p INSTALLED PER SPEC. ON :4'/L OJ T, SHEET 13 OR RCP CL M AT I.OZ SLOPE SEE PROFILE THIS SHEET � d 6J0 .2 tl = �nl Tz5 La m E suw abgiI. 4910 OEEirtam al-.� 4910 $ x 1 09 iV11 I�� COSTING \ � �,�� 4900 10 4CA` sr I' vnovo0 GRADE 4890 ��6 I D 4880 wT"1 4880 d ].i0 12v8 WRAP FApLM PROTECTION K \ RD I1 - " o RPRAP roRLATER au . R css o A1. ^ OKTHY TYPE n BEDDING 12 —m ��/ 4870 gi qz 4870 0,00 �.q0 eY / NMz D ±D zs w City of Fort Collins, Colorado ��^ UT11M PLAN APPROVAL qyi0 ] S IO APPROVED: ` 7- AT SCALE N FEET Artalor DI 6o11nerciN Ale CHECKED BY'. Baler A ➢a4eWater DWI Ale CHECKED BY 91DrmMaly DULY AG CHECKED BY: Pob At Recreation Ate 1;T 9 P D �c CHECKED BY. - 5' CONCRETE Date SIDEWALK CHECKED BY: Dale rEr STONE RIDGE P.U.D. FOURTH FILING, PHASE 1 FINAL GRADING PLAN NORTH 18 6